Taiwan's economic growth rate of about 5.9 percent for last year was the best performance in seven years. At the same time, the unemployment rate improved to just over 4 percent, its lowest level since May 2001.
Despite these improvements, policy makers insist that they have the means to make it better. It is expected that they will use public spending on the "10 New Major Construction Projects" plan to raise the nation's economic growth rate to 5 percent.
However, there are several flaws in their reasoning on policy responses to economic down-turns. In general, the aim is to manipulate overall demand. The methods used to achieve this goal are increased public-sector spending -- most often relying upon budget deficits -- and/or monetary expansions to cut interest rates.
In the first instance, government spending is not the driver behind economic growth. As such, public-sector deficits cannot bring a permanent improvement in economic trends.
Sustained economic growth requires more investment from the private sector, not more spending by the public sector. The false expectations of higher growth from more government spending are supported by the notion of demand-led growth that has deep roots in GDP calculations.
Calculations of GDP focus on the demand for final goods and services that implies that goods emerge simply because people desire them. If all that matters is the demand for goods, then the supply of goods can be taken for granted.
Thus, the various stages of production preceding the provision of final goods would be irrelevant. However, intermediate goods must be produced and used to produce tools and machinery until the final stage of production is reached. These stages of production must involve capital formation that depends upon the real stock of savings in an economy. Contrary to the GDP-mindset, it is savings and not consumption that drives an economy. And the best way to encourage private investment is to lower the tax and regulatory burdens imposed by government policies.
So, the first step in abandoning the assumption that the demand for final goods and services is at the heart of economic growth requires rethinking about GDP.
The exclusive focus upon final goods and services of GDP estimations implies that the availability of goods arises out of the desires of consumers. Yet these desires can only be accommodated if they are preceded by an act of production that provides their supply and income to labor as the means to satisfy demand.
By taking the supply of goods for granted, the GDP framework ignores the various stages of production that lead to the arrival of a final good. For example, interme-diate goods required in the produc-tion of final goods are not readily available and must precede the demand for the eventual output.
Ignoring these crucial aspects of commercial activity contributes to a misunderstanding of how an economy works. In particular, developments in the earlier stages of production are important determinants of business cycles, since they are especially responsive to changes in interest rates and technological innovations.
In the first instance, focusing on final output leads to the mistaken belief that consumer spending is more important than capital investment in an economy. This false conclusion is drawn from the fact that consumption expenditures account for around two-thirds of measured GDP.
But such a conclusion reverses the direction of causation. It is private business investment that drives economic growth while consumer spending is a consequence, rather than a cause, of economic growth. And so it is that entrepreneurs who innovate and use accumulated capital, along with technological change, that create new jobs and wealth.
The most essential flaw with GDP data is that it suggests that government spending can provide an autonomous addition to na-tional output. Under this misleading conclusion, new government spending can stimulate economic growth, even if deficits are the source of the funds.
Despite so many problems, there is a continued reliance upon GDP measures as an indicator of economic strength. This view supports the conventional wisdom that recessions result from sudden declines in household consumption. Unfortunately, it also provides governments and central banks with justifications for interfering in the economy through active monetary and fiscal policy.
Tampering with monetary and fiscal policies induces wealth producers to redirect their activities towards unsustainable activities once the so-called stimulus inevitably disappears. In fact, these expenditures on current consumption spending do not reflect a change in a household's long-term real earnings patterns and can't support sustained growth. So, it is not surprising that even ultra-loose monetary policy has failed to end Japan's economic drought.
Changing our thinking about GDP can have important consequences. It might lead to abandonment by governments of their dependence upon deficit spending. Similarly, central banks might not pursue their ruinous policies of credit expansions in response to economic downturns.
Christopher Lingle is a visiting professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroque in Guatemala and global strategist for eConoLytics.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
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