Recently, there have been commentaries in Taiwan's media comparing Taiwan-China economic integration with that of the US and Mexico, and expressing worries that further economic integration between the two sides across the Strait will profoundly influence society in Taiwan (as has happened in Mexico). Accord-ing to those commentaries, establishment of direct links and the easing of the "no haste, be pa-tient" (戒急用忍) policy will create new social discord.
A big problem with this analogy is that it ignores the fact that Taiwan is a nation with a net outflow of resources, a far cry from Mexico's situation, which has a net inflow of resources. The direction of the resource net outflow is positive and active, mean-ing that resource allocators (the government, firms and individuals) readjust production factors such as physical capital, human capital and technology, and distribute resources across geographical regions so that each factor can generate maximum economic return.
Judged from this perspective, Taiwan should be like the US, instead of Mexico; Taiwan should demand, not resist, further regional economic integration, like the US has done.
Hong Kong's experience serves as a good example. The territory has benefited from resource outflows and reorganization. Beginning in 1980, almost all of Hong Kong's manufacturing industry relocated northward to the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, resulting in surging unemployment. But the aggressive development over the past 20-plus years have demonstrated that, by transferring labor-intensive manufacturing industry to China, Hong Kong has gradually trans-formed from a manufacturing-based, export-oriented economy into a service-based economy.
Hong Kong has become an international financial center, and a communications and transportation hub in southern China.
During the same period, Shenzhen has miraculously changed from a small town to an important city in China. Shenzhen has surpassed Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou in terms of the gross local product per capita and average annual income. It has its own international airport, local bourse and high-tech industrial park.
Shenzhen has become a city capable of competing with Hong Kong on its own, not a hinterland for the territory's economic development.
The cooperative and competitive development between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is worth anticipating -- amid the talk about cross-strait economic integration -- as a positive by-product of closer cross-strait ties.
From a long-term point of view, cross-strait economic links are not only inevitable, but also mutually beneficial. The establishment of direct links and easing of the "no haste, be patient" policy are merely a question of time in a longer historical context.
Although for the time being, society is still skeptical about further economic integration and its potential problems, such as unemployment, investment outflows and slumps in the stock and housing markets.
In the short term, due to cost differences and the movement of resources, living standards on the two sides of the Strait will gradually draw together, justifying the above worries. If Taiwan can make good use of its advantages, characteristics and competitive strategies, and strengthen its capability of information R&D and financial innovation, the long-term interests brought by an integrated regional economy will also help Taiwan maintain high living standards.
From another angle, with China's institutions and living standards swiftly catching up with Taiwan, restrictions on cross-strait exchange -- travel, capital movements and mutual technological complementation -- will definitely decrease daily in step with economic development.
Two opposite attitudes toward cross-strait exchanges now prevail in Taiwan. Some hold that direct links are omnipotent, while others think that direct links are an absolute no-no. The former regards direct links as a panacea for economic development and wants the government to completely lift the "no haste, be patient" policy -- it is as if only the links issue is worth discussing in the current Economic Development Advisory Conference.
Meanwhile, the latter dreads direct links, plays up the catastrophic effects they might cause and opposes the inclusion of the direct links in the agenda. These two viewpoints do not help us recognize the true nature of Taiwan's economy or develop effective strategies for international competition.
Taiwan is not Mexico. Nor is China the US. We do not expect cross-strait economic integration to generate the same outcome as US-Mexico integration.
However, we might learn from the Hong Kong-Shenzhen economic integration. The two sides across the Strait should complement each other, cooperate to seek win-win, mutually beneficial opportunities.
The worries about social discord are undoubtedly part of the chain of problems brought about by economic globalization.
Anti-globalization advocates around the world, including disadvantaged groups and environmentalists, have staged violent protests outside the conferences of international economic organizations. The hidden social issues of a globalized knowledge-based economy -- such as the gap between rich and poor and social discord -- seem to be universal problems. Such problems are not necessarily related to the establishment of direct cross-strait links and the easing of the "no haste, be patient" policy.
Jason Yeh is an assistant professor in the department of finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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