The Cabinet recently issued a new policy. Starting this year, the prices for planned purchasing, guided purchasing and surplus purchasing for paddy (unhusked rice) will each be raised by NT$2.
Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (
As researchers in agricultural economy, we find the policy difficult to accept.
We find reasons to oppose this hike in purchasing prices from the vantage of international standards -- WTO support for decreasing domestic subsidies, for example -- the income of rice farmers and attempts to increase competitiveness in the rice industry.
First, let us model the possible increases in the quantity of rice production and area of cultivated land once the policy is implemented.
Because planned, guided and surplus purchasing will each be raised by NT$2 per kilogram, the new prices will be NT$23, NT$20 and NT$18.60 respectively.
The harvest will be an estimated 1,920kg, 1,200kg and 3,000kg per hectare in the first season, while last year's average harvest for the first crop was 6,138kg.
In the previous eight years, the price for the first crop of paddy never rose above NT$18.60, remaining between NT$15.62 and NT$18.04. If the rise in purchasing price leads farmers to increase the area of cultivated land when the future domestic market price is below NT$18.6, then they will sell their total output to the government. The government will have purchased more than 1 million kilograms of paddy from the first crop.
But does it have adequate storage capacity? Will this develop into full-scale purchasing that was last witnessed in 1973? How will this policy be funded if it continues year after year?
If this scenario eventuates, government purchasing expenditure will rise from between NT$7 billion (US$216 million) and NT$8 billion to NT$29.2 billion annually, an increase of at least NT$20 billion, not including storage and management costs.
As price-guaranteed purchasing of paddy is an intervention in rice production and price formation, it is considered by the WTO to be a domestic subsidy that must be reduced. The government's new policy is therefore going against international agricultural trends.
How might Taiwan respond to enquiries from other countries during the next round of the WTO's Doha negotiations?
Finally, and most importantly: the income of rice farmers. In the short term, this policy appears to increase their income. However, in the long run, it is a policy with no benefit that will reduce revenues and decrease competitiveness in the rice industry.
For example, the government's paddy purchase policy has been in place for 40 years. As the Cabinet said, the purchasing price has not changed in 14 years. In terms of planned purchase prices, the bar for the past 14 years was set at NT$21 per kilogram -- and quantities were limited.
Because of this policy the price of rice will not go up even if the cost of rice production increases in the form of more expensive fertilizers, fuel and rising wages.
Internationally, wheat, corn and rice -- priced in 1998 at US$130, US$95 and US$240 respectively -- rose to US$200, US$160 and US$330 last year. Thus the hikes in international grain prices have been as high as 54 percent, 68 percent and 37 percent respectively.
Why is it that the domestic price of rice has always remained at between NT$17 and NT$18 instead of rising with international prices?
The main reason is the government's purchasing and fallow policies. They prevent domestic prices from returning to the level they would be at under normal market conditions. Therefore, while the purchasing policy appears to increase the revenue of rice farmers, it has in fact had the opposite effect.
There are many alternatives in looking after farmers and encouraging sustainable agricultural development, such as offering direct subsidies -- which is, according to Huang Kun-pin (黃昆濱), the 75-year-old rice-farming protagonist in the documentary Let It Be (無米樂), the better option.
On the other hand, raising the purchasing price of paddy is the worst, and most unacceptable, solution. The government should carefully reconsider its position.
Chang Ching-cheng is a research fellow at the Academia Sinica's Institute of Economics. Chen Chi-chung is a professor at the Department of Applied Economics at National Chung-Hsing University.
Translated by Angela Hong
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
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
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
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.