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
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did