Under pressure from street protests by members of farmers' and fishermen's associations, the government announced a week ago that it is suspending implementation of the three-tiered risk-control mechanism for the associations' credit units. This move is truly and deeply regrettable because it distorts many aspects of economic incentives and doesn't bode well for Taiwan's future economic development.
The problem has been blamed on the shortcomings of the three-tiered risk-control mechanism, such as sloppy decisions, bad communication and insufficient incentives. These shortcomings, however, are not sufficient reason for the policy change.
The credit units in many of the farmers' and fishermen's associations are sitting on a disproportionate amount of non-performing loans (NPLs) and would already have folded were it not for their dependence on the government's insurance and bail-out mechanisms. Although these mechanisms have the positive effect of preventing bank runs, they also amply reward pernicious behavior and work against incentives. The more problems an institution has, the more likely that institution will rely on these two mechanisms.
The Ministry of Finance is planning to restrict the operation of credit units with excessive amounts of NPLs. This would be the same as punishing harmful behavior and could offset the anti-incentive effects of the two mechanisms, which would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not clear on what the ideal reform would be in the minds of the critics, or what their superior strategy would be, but it cannot be claimed that the second-best option -- the three-tiered risk-control mechanism -- is inferior to the superior strategy and then use that as a reason for going with an inferior option, which would be to maintain the status quo. Deferring policies will cause existing distortions to gobble up economic resources, which in itself is a frightening result.
It is unavoidable that many commendable policies will affect income distribution. Even though the positive effects of a policy by far exceed the cost, these effects are difficult to assess because they are widely distributed among the public, while the cost is concentrated in a minority of victims. The voices of the victims will be louder than those of the beneficiaries and this is what distorts perception of the policies.
Income distribution resulting from these policies clearly diminishes the benefits to specific groups, which will be fuming with rage. Anything but the toughest policies will be insufficient to stop these groups. Blind belief in communication as the solution to all problems will be the same as underestimating their intelligence or overestimating their moral posture. That the government has abruptly applied the brakes under pressure by threats from special interest groups tells the demonstrators that their demonstrations are effective, and leaves the groups that do not demonstrate to continue to suffer in silence. This is a distortion of behavioral incentives and will obstruct the implementation of future reforms.
This unplanned halt to the government's financial reform policy will not only fail to amend existing distortions, but the pressure created by demands from vested interests will lead to new ones in other areas. In the eyes of those hopeful for reform, reforms have stopped progressing and even retreated. This is a heartless blow. Investors used to have a bullish faith in the economic situation. Vain attempts at using language and pretty words to cover up this mistake will be the same as shrinking the beef on the plate and replacing it with sculpted vegetables. It will only be met with scorn by the affected parties.
Lai Ping-yan is associate professor in the Department of Economics at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS