According to statistics released by the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS,
With economic growth and unemployment at their best level in the last three years, some might wonder why the number of low-income households has reached this peak. I believe there are two reasons for this. First, the constant hike of commodity prices nudged up the poverty line, increasing the number living beneath the poverty line. Second, an "all-or-nothing" system of government relief makes people living beneath the poverty line reluctant to rise above it, and encourages those close to the poverty line to fall below it, to gain the benefits of low-income households.
In Taiwan, the poverty line is currently defined as 60 percent of the average national monthly expenditure over the previous year, with some restrictions relating to ownership of personal assets and real estate. As this definition is based on consumer expenditures it naturally has a close relationship to commodity prices. Since the beginning of 2004, skyrocketing oil prices have caused land, sea and air freight costs to rise, which have in turn pushed up domestic commodity prices. In July this year, the annual rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 3.32 percent, the highest in six years.
In addition, the Wholesale Price Index (WPI), which is a lead indicator for increase in consumer prices, registered double-digit growth for the first time in 23 years in August, with an increase for the year at 12.2 percent as of October. This caused the "misery index," a combination of the unemployment rate and the consumer price index on an annual basis, to reach a 22-year high.
According to the Social Service and Rescue Law (
Even those who subsist just above the poverty line hope to reduce their income so that they also can be classified as low-income households.
According to the survey conducted by the Taiwan Fund for Children and Families (
In theory, Taiwan is now a liberal and democratic society, and social mobility should be the norm. Regrettably, according to a study of disposable income in Taiwan by the DGBAS, households with the highest disposable incomes number 2.6 persons on average, while families with the lowest disposable income number 4.7 persons. With rising commodity prices and the pluralization and privatization of the education market, economically disadvantaged families will find themselves in an increasingly weak position to take care of and educate their children.
To halt the increasing number of low-income households and to prevent poverty from passing on to the next generation, the following measures should be taken.
First, upwardly adjust the poverty line. If we take the US for example, the ratio of people below the poverty line reached its highest point in 1959, at 22.4 percent and reached its lowest level at 11.1 percent in 1973. In Taiwan, only 0.89 percent live below the poverty line (if calculated on a household basis, the ratio is 1.14 percent.) The proportion is very different from that in the US. With the passage of the Social Service and Rescue Law (
Second, vocational training and career guidance should be provided by the government for those who are financially disadvantaged, with specific incentives to find employment.
In the government's drive to reform education, more educational resources should be given to financially disadvantaged families in the form of scholarships and subsidies, so that poor students do not find themselves at a disadvantage The government should also work with civic groups and make use of their resources (encouraging business, religious groups and foundations to establish scholarships for disadvantaged students), and assist social work departments of universities and service organizations to set up free study counseling.
Education is, after all, the best way to shake off poverty. One good example is that of Chen Shui-bian (
Wang Yun-tung is an assistant professor in the Social Work Department of National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
RSS