IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i4p608-d207322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Ju Lin

    (Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei 10341, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Chang Hsu

    (Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei 10341, Taiwan)

  • Andrew E. Scharlach

    (School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-7400, USA)

  • Hsien-Wen Kuo

    (Alliance of Healthy Cities in Taiwan, Taipei 11221, Taiwan
    Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, National Yang Ming University, Taipei 11221, Taiwan
    School of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei 1141, Taiwan)

Abstract

Since Taiwan’s age-friendly city (AFC) program was launched in 2012, the central government has provided various resources to the country’s 22 local authorities, including budgetary support, policy advocacy, and consultation from a team of experts. This study examines stakeholder perspectives on the process, performance, and outcome of the AFC program. A 53-item questionnaire was developed based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline, including mechanisms and processes (20 items), outcome evaluations (23 items), and resource integration (10 items). There was a “great difference” found among scores between facilitators and experts for “inter-exchange experience with local and international cities” (40%) and “monitor and revise indicators” (37%) in mechanisms and processes, “evaluate performance of indicators and action plans” (37%) in outcome evaluations, and “interaction between government and community” (46%) and “interaction between civil organization and senior society” (39%) in resource integration. Clearly, facilitators showed overly optimistic assessments in AFC mechanisms and processes, outcome evaluation, and resource integration. The results showed disconnect between experts’ expectations versus actual practice conducted by facilitators. Implications of these findings are to integrate top down expectations with the realities of bottom up practice to design more realistic evaluations; continue to educate stakeholders about design, implementation and evaluation; and further integrate resources from government, civil organizations, and community.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Ju Lin & Yu-Chang Hsu & Andrew E. Scharlach & Hsien-Wen Kuo, 2019. "Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:608-:d:207322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/4/608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/4/608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tun-Jen Cheng & Stephan Haggard & David Kang, 1998. "Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: The bureaucracy," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(6), pages 87-111.
    2. Julian, David A., 1997. "The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-257, August.
    3. Li-Chuan Liu & Hsien-Wen Kuo & Chiu-Chu Lin, 2018. "Current Status and Policy Planning for Promoting Age-Friendly Cities in Taitung County: Dialogue Between Older Adults and Service Providers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiawen Chen & Linlin Liu, 2020. "Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Hui-Chuan Hsu, 2020. "Associations of City-Level Active Aging and Age Friendliness with Well-Being among Older Adults Aged 55 and Over in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Jo-Ying Huang & Hui-Chuan Hsu & Yu-Ling Hsiao & Feng-Yin Chen & Shu-Ying Lo & Tzu-Yun Chou & Megan F. Liu, 2022. "Developing Indicators of Age-Friendliness in Taiwanese Communities through a Modified Delphi Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jo-Ying Huang & Hui-Chuan Hsu & Yu-Ling Hsiao & Feng-Yin Chen & Shu-Ying Lo & Tzu-Yun Chou & Megan F. Liu, 2022. "Developing Indicators of Age-Friendliness in Taiwanese Communities through a Modified Delphi Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Tianbiao Zhu, 2006. "Rethinking Import-substituting Industrialization: Development Strategies and Institutions in Taiwan and China," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2006-76, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Julian, David A. & Clapp, John, 2000. "Planning, investment and evaluation procedures to support coordination and outcomes based funding in a local United Way system," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 231-240, May.
    4. Karo , Erkki & Kattel , Rainer, 2015. "Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/38, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    5. Philipp Barteska & Jay Euijung Lee, 2024. "Bureaucrats and the Korean export miracle," Discussion Papers 2024-11, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    6. Yu-Hsien Tseng & Yu-Ling Li & Shyuemeng Luu & Dih-Ling Luh, 2022. "Respect in the Eyes of Non-Urban Elders: Using Qualitative Interviews to Distinguish Community Elders’ Perspective of Respect in General and Healthcare Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Keefer, Philip, 2004. "A review of the political economy of governance : from property rights to voice," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3315, The World Bank.
    8. William Brown, 2017. "Classification of Program Activities: How Nonprofits Create Social Value," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-7, May.
    9. Hsu-Chih Tai & I-Shiang Tzeng & Yen-Ching Liang & Hsiu-Hui Liao & Chun-Hsien Su & Woon-Man Kung, 2019. "Interventional Effects of Weight-Loss Policy in a Healthy City among Participants with Metabolic Syndrome," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-10, January.
    10. Ha-Joon Chang & Ali Cheema & L. Mises, 2002. "Conditions For Successful Technology Policy In Developing Countries—Learning Rents, State Structures, And Institutions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4-5), pages 369-398.
    11. Tomasz Legiędź, 2016. "Transformacja ekonomiczna i polityczna na Tajwanie," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 6, pages 115-135.
    12. Sanjaya Lall, 2013. "Reinventing Industrial Strategy: The Role Of Government Policy In Building Industrial Competitiveness," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 14(2), pages 785-829, November.
    13. Resnick, Danielle, 2019. "Strong democracy, weak state: The political economy of Ghana’s stalled structural transformation," IFPRI book chapters, in: Ghana’s economic and agricultural transformation: Past performance and future prospects, chapter 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Gans-Morse, Jordan & Borges, Mariana & Makarin, Alexey & Mannah-Blankson, Theresa & Nickow, Andre & Zhang, Dong, 2018. "Reducing bureaucratic corruption: Interdisciplinary perspectives on what works," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 171-188.
    15. Haggard Stephan & Zheng Yu, 2013. "Institutional innovation and investment in Taiwan: the micro-foundations of the developmental state," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 435-466, December.
    16. Sabir, Myra & Johnson, Margaret A., 2018. "Inside the black box: Modeling “Life Writing” for lifelong health and well being," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 108-116.
    17. Stark, Manuel & Ahrens, Joachim, 2012. "Economic reform and institutional change in Central Asia: Towards a new model of the developmental state?," PFH Forschungspapiere/Research Papers 2012/05, PFH Private University of Applied Sciences, Göttingen.
    18. Kates, Jennifer & Marconi, Katherine & Mannle, Thomas E., 2001. "Developing a performance management system for a Federal public health program: the Ryan White CARE ACT Titles I and II," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 145-155, May.
    19. Lenihan, Helena, 2011. "Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a 'new' way of doing it?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 323-332, November.
    20. Nesman, Teresa M. & Batsche, Catherine & Hernandez, Mario, 2007. "Theory-based evaluation of a comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 267-281, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:608-:d:207322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.