Introduction and Context
I composed this piece during breaks at the Civic Dialogue for the Youth Policy White Paper on March 29, 2025. It serves as an extension of, and supplement to, some of the ideas and discussions raised during the event. In truth, the subjects of youth development and youth policy have long been carried forward by successive hands, each with distinct perspectives and methodologies. A thorough examination of these issues necessarily spans public administration, law, education, politics, economics, and finance.
The following ideas, however, is fragmentary—offering snippets from on-site conversation or insights that flashed before me. Please excuse any oversights or gaps in my reasoning, and I ask you to be generous in your interpretation (and criticism) of this text.
All references to “today” or “this day” indicate the date of the event itself, March 29, 2025.
My remarks today focused on youth development because I believe the Youth Policy White Paper first needs to clarify Who, What, and How—namely, who are the youth, what is youth policy, and how to advance and implement it. My statements addressed mainly the What and touched briefly on the How, which is why I chose youth development as my central theme.
Given the limited time for today’s discussion, my comments were necessarily fragmented. But this subject warrants a sustained, in-depth conversation. Accordingly, I use my own contributions as a starting point—from defining youth, to delineating what youth policy is, to exploring how we might implement it, and touching on topics like dedicated youth agencies, civic engagement, and youth employment/entrepreneurship. My hope is to spark broader input—especially within the constrained timeframe available for feedback via the Join platform. While this piece records some of the ideas that came to me today (including a few that I or my organization have shared previously), it doesn’t represent everything that emerged from the group discussions, nor does it constitute any official conclusion. It remains purely a personal set of reflections and inspirations.
Who Are Youth? A Question of Intergenerational Justice
Why do we focus on “youth,” and who exactly are they? This fundamental question must be resolved before talking about youth policy, while it has historically resisted consensus.
From the angle of intergenerational justice, does “youth” refer exclusively to a demographically defined age group—such as adolescents and young adults? Or should we, alternatively, focus on so-called “collapsed generations”¹ born after 1978, and consider the ensuing economic and social inequalities they face? The answer affects how a government conceptualizes youth issues and determines where youth fit into its priorities. Approached from a developmental or preventative standpoint, there is merit in providing pro-active support to younger cohorts—justifying the need for youth-oriented measures and policies. Yet, from a remedial perspective, once a serious, potentially irreversible challenge arises, it may be “the further into the future, the harder the hurdles.” We must likewise consider how to assist those beyond a defined age threshold who might still experience relevant difficulties.
Currently, official definitions of “youth” sometimes expand the age bracket, possibly as a stopgap for remedial efforts, though one might wonder if this approach indicates sound policy logic or mere inconsistency. Balancing flexibility to fulfill intergenerational justice, ensuring that local agencies’ explicit or de facto expansions align with genuine remedial intentions, and preventing the inadvertent curtailment of youth rights remain crucial tasks. Ideally, many of these concepts—which are mentioned in the Youth Basic Act—could be systematically outlined in the White Paper, complete with a clear rationale for the expansions and a unified policy stance.
Our group today did not delve deeply into how to define youth. In my remarks, I referred to “intergeneration mainstreaming” as a lens for youth development, although I could not fully articulate the legal underpinnings of “development rights” or how mainstreaming might be implemented in practice. In simple terms, my strategy was to affirm that adolescents and young adults require greater attention to their right to develop—and to do so without fixating on chronological age (some definitions, after all, include 15–18-year-olds as minors). Back in 2020, a colleague in my organization wrote a blog post sketching out the youth law framework and some early thoughts on intergenerational mainstreaming.
Over the years, I have compiled examples of how localities define youth in Taiwan—along with relevant life expectancy data—and shared a preliminary analysis in 2020. However, several years have passed, and many counties and cities have since established dedicated youth agencies or youth advisory committees, updating their respective programs. That means the earlier charts are no longer directly applicable. Furthermore, such visualizations, being constrained by data availability and definitional disparities (for instance, individuals’ registered residence may not match their actual place of living), only underscore the variations in how people “feel” or perceive youth issues across different locales.
What Is Youth Policy? Beginning With Youth Development
One might interpret youth policy as any set of measures intended to foster youth development. In short, all young people have the right to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political progress—where fundamental human rights and freedoms are fully realized. Specific elements are largely aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
If we adopt a development-oriented policy logic, “opportunity” becomes a pivotal concept. In this context, “opportunity” signifies ensuring that young people have chances to discover personal roles and values, under decent and dignified conditions that allow them to build their lives and become active citizens shaping society. Essentially, it’s about engaging and empowering.
That explains why recent youth policies often emphasize mental health, housing justice, employment and entrepreneurship, and civic participation—each domain reflecting how youth’s fundamental rights, economic or political contexts, and stages of development intersect.
Whether or not mentioned in today’s briefing materials, the scope of youth policy is undeniably vast, spanning multiple agencies and departments. This underlines the urgency of figuring out how to implement youth policy effectively.
In 2020, I wrote another brief piece on what youth policy entails, posted on my organization’s blog.
How to Implement Youth Policy
The “How” of youth policy can be parsed into proactive or reactive measures, each involving a blend of legal, policy, and organizational approaches—ranging from “soft”/capacity-building elements to “hard”/infrastructure investments. I won’t delve into the minutiae here. Instead, let’s address a few points briefly.
Who Should Do It? Structure and Practice
Take, for instance, the heightened awareness of mental health in recent years. The responsible ministries and agencies already operate long-term plans, or even issue their own white papers. How might youth policy—covering similar ground—coordinate or integrate these existing efforts to avoid redundancy? Meanwhile, once integrated, how do we maintain the youth dimension’s original intent? Even if stated objectives on paper coincide, how can we ensure that, in actual implementation, measures are accessible to and well-received by youth, fulfilling the stated objectives? That’s the question.
In addition, implementation implicates the division of authority, budgets, and manpower between central and local governments. If, for argument’s sake, we sidestep practicalities and focus instead on structural or institutional aspects: the government’s organization currently leans toward specialization. While stable, such a setup can be less agile in adapting to a rapidly changing world, plus inter-agency collaboration becomes more complex. Cross-agency initiatives exist, often coordinated by ministers-without-portfolio or designated councils—for instance, the Executive Yuan’s boards on innovation or local revitalization, or ongoing permanent task forces like the Food Safety Office. But in my experience and observations, execution typically relies on the “lead agency” to craft policy proposals, with the other agencies pitching in or producing related plans. That can be rational when responsibilities are clearly defined, but broad, forward-thinking strategies risk being overshadowed by a single body’s lens. And if central-level coordination already proves difficult, the subsequent handover to local authorities can further exacerbate the mismatch between overarching policy goals and on-the-ground realities. Hence the persistent critiques of the government’s horizontal coordination—everyone recognizes certain mechanisms exist; doubts remain about their effectiveness.
Previously, a peer in the Executive Yuan Youth Advisory Committee proposed that each ministry articulate a youth-related agenda in its net-zero transition initiatives—an idea I supported with my “signature”. This points to one way to address “who does it?”: youth policy could be embedded into each department’s thematic objectives, highlighting specific youth needs and pathways for participation.
On a practical level, persuading every agency (including those less familiar with youth issues) to engage with young people or, at the very least, listen to them is no easy feat. Even if such interactions become standard, the environment may feel too “official,” limiting candid dialogue and diminishing youth’s sense of efficacy—factors that can erode mutual trust. While more agencies these days experiment with World Café models or hold open dialogues, there’s still a question of whether these truly facilitate communication and promote meaningful participation.
Given not all agencies fully “know” or “understand” youth, nor do they offer “one-stop” services or single-window solutions, many have advocated for a dedicated youth agency at a robust enough level to handle oversight and strategic planning. Such an entity could offer symbolic or top-down support. Deciding the scope, tier, and statutory basis for such an office is no small task. Whatever approach is chosen, the key is clarifying how responsibilities are distributed and resources channeled.
Who Oversees It? Implementation and Evaluation
Another critical component, beyond who crafts and executes the policy, is oversight. While agile frameworks like Scrum advocate rapid feedback loops, governmental organizations typically proceed more cautiously, given the high costs of failure. So, the cycles and methods of evaluation matter greatly. Who establishes the metrics, and do those metrics genuinely address young people’s needs?
Of course, the government already has relevant oversight frameworks. Youth policy isn’t the first multi-agency issue with diverse targets. Ideally, a matter of such scope would elevate to the Executive Yuan, ensuring none of the agencies remains at equal rank while evaluating one another’s progress. The Executive Yuan has various departments, offices, and committees that scrutinize bills, coordinate cross-cutting initiatives, or supervise tasks; local governments, in turn, may have research and evaluation departments with related mandates. Determining which issues can be assessed internally versus which need escalation to the central or county/city level is an ongoing conversation.
Are current systems sufficient, or does youth policy highlight a need for a modified approach to oversight? This is an avenue ripe for further study.
The Inevitable Challenge of Inequality
As we implement policy, disparities remain a persistent hurdle—often manifesting regionally. Redressing such injustices typically requires time and added resources. Preventive strategies offer greater impact than post-hoc fixes, so robust ex-ante evaluations are vital.
Even exploring policy impacts on youth can reveal inequalities. In today’s group discussion, for example, participants raised issues of regional development, urban planning, and transportation accessibility. While these are not traditionally labeled “youth policy,” structural imbalances in infrastructure can significantly affect youth experiences—similarly for cultural engagement, which shapes identity and personal development. From the standpoint of ensuring young people’s diverse potential, we can also view youth cultural policies through a lens of equity and power distribution.
Youth Civic Participation
For over a year—dating back to the “Invest in the Next Generation” forum in April—multiple gatherings have covered topics like diverse pathways for youth engagement, transparency, and genuine efficacy. We’ve often discussed these points in depth, so I’ll merely note a few bullet points here:
Youth Advisory Committee
- The logic behind their formation (via selection, election, or nomination)
- Continuum from corporatism to pluralism.
- Political vs. administrative roles, plus capacity-building.
- Their positioning and mandate
- Accountability: If we are to assume ownership, on what basis do we claim it, and how do we fulfill that responsibility? Conversely, if not, how should we interpret our own proposals? (In practice, partial remedies include publishing relevant records, tracking, and publicly accessible data.)
- Bridge-building: Does the gap between government and civil society stem from an information mismatch? Or have we accumulated a “technical debt” in youth affairs, incrementally solving only problems that are easy to address, while deeper structural or conceptual gaps remain unaltered?
Deliberative Democracy Event
- The more one tries to “do it all” in a single session, the more one risks losing depth.
- Format is merely format—whether a World Café, workshop, or forum—what truly matters is the purpose.
- Beware of “false consensus” that may arise when overstressing agreement.
- How do we determine priorities between educating more citizens on deliberative democracy and training enough facilitators to guide substantial dialogues?
- Use of AI: On a slightly note, I’ve observed over the past two years that in many deliberation sessions, participants frequently pose questions—or even offer suggestions—about whether AI could handle note-taking or generate mind maps. This trend is not just a reflection of technological progress or popularity; in part, it also conveys participants’ sense that the task of record-keeping could be assumed by AI-driven tools. Although from a strictly human perspective, we often perceive gaps in how AI structures and synthesizes information, the question remains whether that gap has genuinely narrowed—or whether participants simply fail to register any difference. If indeed the disparity has lessened, then might a scaled-up application of AI serve as a practical route to broaden public engagement?
Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship
Our group’s discussion touched on three thematic pillars, which I can only briefly outline with added personal reflections:
Adaptive Education and Exploration
- Certain industries move so quickly that formal education inevitably lags. So, schooling needs to equip students with the skills to navigate changing landscapes and continue learning throughout life.
- Career imagination should not be confined to rigid “occupations.” Even within a single profession, the changing realities and future trends need to be understood.
- If one frames career solely in terms of existing positions, one risks missing the fact that these occupations might need transformation, or that future roles may not be codified yet. This perspective of possibility should inform career exploration.
- Although Taiwan’s new curriculum guidelines (108 Curriculum) already champion competency-based learning and self-directed exploration, the gap between theory and practice remains a concern.
Diverse Industry Planning and Guideline
- In an evolving global context, how do industries prepare for unavoidable transformations and respond to emerging shocks?
- Expand beyond the more visible semiconductor and ICT sectors toward broader industrial ecosystems.
- Address externalities resulting from economic and industrial development.
Decent Working Environments
Brief Note: Youth Vision and Imagination?
From the arrangement of four regional forums (North, Central, South, East), the composition of participants, and the facilitation setup, one can see how the organizers aim to collect youth visions and expectations for youth policy. They strive to allocate enough time for discussion, but a single day has limits. People thus opt either to delve into a few key themes or to survey a wider range of topics broadly. Later on, the drafting group must reconcile these varied outputs while preserving logical cohesiveness—a tall order requiring professional insight.
Even with efforts to ensure diversity among participants, it remains true that hearing about the event and then deciding to attend forms a kind of selection filter. That does not inherently invalidate the findings, but it does pose interpretive challenges.
In practice, even engaged participants aren’t necessarily poised to articulate a fully formed vision for “youth policy.” The facilitators helped structure the conversation, but time constraints meant that some vital issues were only briefly touched upon (though certain clarifications were addressed in the plenary sessions). In past forums I’ve helped organize, we sometimes used asynchronous digital tools (like POLIS) to gather community sentiments and statements in advance, so that in-person sessions could build on a baseline of participant feedback. Of course, digital tools pose questions around selection biases, data security, and anonymity vs. participants’ psychological safety. Such trade-offs, too, must be weighed against the event’s overarching goals. Ultimately, any approach may leave out some voices. It’s all but impossible to capture everyone’s perspective in a single format.
Collective visioning is seldom an easy undertaking. Trade-offs are unavoidable. Much as in academic research, even the most rigorous methodology has limitations, and stating them clarifies how to interpret or qualify the results rather than dismissing the entire study. Deliberative activities are likewise. The process itself and participants’ assumptions can implicitly narrow or filter perspectives, but the dialogue still has intrinsic value. The key lies in ensuring that people comprehend the significance of these dialogues and in guiding them to interpret the outcomes in ways that foster shared vision and imagination.