The seriousness of business-politician conspiracies is not the only thing to come to light with the recent row over legislators pressuring banks to invest in certain venture capital companies. The incident also shows the unwholesome side-effects of undue government intervention in economic activities.
For this kind of pressure to succeed, there has to be at least two factors closely related to inappropriate government intervention in economic activities. One is the government's management style over state-owned banks, or banks where the government holds a large portion of shares. The other factor is the intervention of government authorities in bank operations.
For historical reasons, Taiwan has a large number of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Even though Taiwan has been following the global privatization trend, there are still a large number of SOEs and the government remains the biggest shareholder in several companies that are nominally privatized.
The government has yet to establish a reasonable system to manage these businesses. As a result, many enterprises seem to be private and therefore not subject to government intervention and the supervision of elected officials. In reality, these companies still have to follow the orders of government authorities and lawmakers.
It is quite possible that this situation can lead to even more political intervention and consequent irregularities than in the past, when the companies were plain SOEs and thus everything followed government rules.
Under the current circum-stances, government authorities hold important personnel appointment powers at these companies and so have influence over policymaking. This kind of influence is not defined by law. It is wielded and peddled in private. The influence also makes it easier for lawmakers to pressure these businesses indirectly through interpellations, budget reviews and the government authorities concerned.
Therefore, if the government cannot effect genuine privatization soon, then it should quickly set up regulations to free companies in which it has a controlling stake from political influences. The current "let's pretend privatization" approach no longer works.
Another key lies in the rule authorizing government agencies to review banks' investments. While the original purpose may have been to prevent banks from making bad investments, the rule could become an excuse for banks to shirk responsibility. In state-owned banks and banks in which government shares account for the majority of the stock, government authorities are the big boss. For projects conducted under pressure from -- and reviewed by -- the big boss, it is easy for those following orders to shirk their responsibilities. As a result, it is easier for them to succumb to pressure from government agencies or elected representatives.
Much remains to be debated over whether or not the government should intervene in economic activities. Many scholars believe that the government should intervene in situations where market mechanisms have failed and that the government should set up and maintain various systems to safeguard economic competition.
But most scholars do not support direct government intervention in business because it will lead to inefficiency and irregularities. The uproar over legislators pressuring banks is just the latest incentive for the government to speed up improvements in the privatization of SOEs and the liberalization of financial management.
Otherwise, not only will economic efficiency be low, but the political milieu -- nurtured by illegal interests -- will also become more corrupt.
Chen Po-chih is a professor of economics at National Taiwan University.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers