| dc.description.abstract | After 1930, Japan had been starting the 15-years war period. Taiwan’’s monopoly business had always been an important financial support for the Taiwanese governor-general’’s office. This study explores what the specific features of the Monopoly Bureau chief and section chief level officials in the public discussion on monopoly business during the war period, and use the relevant files and documents of Monopoly Bureau and Taiwanese governor-general’’s office. In addition, this study also tries to comprehend the decision-making process on major policies, the way on formation of policy, and the ban Implementation of the Monopoly Bureau during the war period. By research and analysis, the study found that after 1930, the majority of the monopoly bureau chief and section chief level officials had graduated from Tokyo Empire University. And by passing the higher civil service examination and primary experience for many years in Taiwan, they had planned or enforced a variety of policies to increase income and decrease expenditure
In decision-making, the Monopoly Bureau chief and the section chief had been listened to the grassroots views through meetings, and to study or to be as one of the criteria of Monopoly Bureau in the decision-making process. Moreover, it internally been the tyrant on the Taiwanese governor-general’’s office, but it still been supervised by Ministry of Colonial Affairs. Therefore, the decision-making which had been referred by the Monopoly Bureau, in addition to submit to the Taiwanese governor-general’’s office ,but also to upward communication with the Ministry of Colonial Affairs , the Ministry of Finance ,and other Sectors. Now it seems that the real decision-making power had been the central ministries and even been in the Cabinet, but in fact, the Monopoly Bureau of Taiwanese governor-general’’s office had been extremely limited display. View from the effects of the monopoly after 1930, monopoly business had been mainly to increased income for Taiwanese governor-general’’s office, but it had been discriminatory treatment.
| en_US |