The recently released Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005 published by the World Economic Forum ranks Taiwan fourth, making it the only country outside Europe and the US in the top five. This is something that Taiwan should be proud of. But there is another feature of the report that is worthy of note and which can inspire Taiwan in its future development.
The top-ranked country in this report is Finland, followed by the US and Sweden, with Denmark and Norway in fifth and sixth place.
Except for the US, these are all northern Europeancountries, with high taxation and generous social welfare programs. This is a clear indication that a democratic welfare state can maintain a high level of competitiveness.
This observation is not particularly remarkable, for the annual report Doing Business published by The World Bank Group also places northern European countries at the top of its rankings.
"Competitiveness" is regarded by economists as being a very vague concept, but as this report is based on a survey of 9,000 companies, it can be regarded as a good indication of how these firms regard the potential for economic growth in various countries. The question is, how can we explain the competitiveness of these welfare states with heavy tax levies?
The concept of the welfare state developed at the end of the 19th century as a way of balancing the conflicting demands of capitalism and democracy. By the involvement of a democratic government in the operation of the market, the welfare state sought to correct the huge social inequalities created by the capitalist system. But in this era of globalization, a common argument is that the welfare state system is in danger of collapse.
This theory argues that globalization will deprive governments of the tools, such as tax rates and exchange rates by which they can influence the market and that it will force a convergence of the economic and social policies of different countries and blur the divide between the right and left of the political spectrum to create a market-driven society that is "neo liberalism."
But this isn't what has hap-pened. After World War II, Western political and economic policy began to consolidate on the basis of a system of free trade, while at the same time the growing maturity of Keynesian welfare thinking sought to mitigate some of the social inequalities created by free trade.
The countries with the most liberal trade policies often also had the largest bureaucracies; these were mostly the countries of northwestern Europe. In the 1980s, although these welfare states faced numerous challenges, reforms were limited. It is important to note that despite reforms to specific aspects of the welfare system, the social systems of these democratic welfare states remained quite different from that of the UK and the US, which tended toward economic liberalism.
This was because the new wave of economic liberalization brought on by globalization also brought with it greater economic instability and social inequality. Increasing numbers of white-collar and blue-collar workers in both developed and developing nations became victims of globalization, thereby increasing the need for government to bolster its involvement in the market.
These recent reports make it even clearer that a comprehensive social welfare system will not hinder the competitiveness of a country, but can serve as a support in promoting its economic growth and opening up to the world.
A comprehensive social security net can limit the social risks of innovation and liberalization and ease the difficulties of the transitional period. In fact the reason why these countries can rank so highly in competitiveness, is because they have a sound economic environment, an effective legal system and an outstanding ability in technological innovation. It is these that are the key to competitiveness.
The first of the above elements might surprise some people who expect that because these countries have such comprehensive social systems, they necessarily have huge government debt. But because they all have highly advanced tax systems, they have abundant revenues to ensure the soundness of the economic environment so that they even are able to have a surplus.
So we can see that a country's competitiveness can be built on this basis and does not necessarily rely on low taxes to attract foreign investment.
In addition, and not mentioned in the reports, is that these countries also have trade unions that are part of a corpor-atist structure that make them an important player in resolving disputes between labor and management, and key participants in the government's policy-making. Such a system gives investors an even greater sense of security.
Taiwan is also looking for a new relationship between the government, the market and society. We have put a lot of effort into upgrading industry and creating a structure for a knowledge economy, and Taiwan's ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report is a vindication of our efforts over the last few years.
But if there were a similar report about social justice around the world, would Taiwan be able to make it into the top 10? Neither the government nor the opposition parties have been able to establish a national pension system, nor have they been able to reform the tax system to conform more closely with the principles of social justice, all for fear of offending the capitalists. But clearly, based on the experience of the northern European countries, we can see that economic competitiveness can coexist with a just social system.
Chang Tieh-chih is a doctoral student in the department of political science at Columbia University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath