The government is promoting an economic cooperative framework agreement (ECFA) with China, and many worry that this might pose a threat to workers in traditional industries.
But this is not necessarily the case. More than 80 percent of workers in the manufacturing sector are employed in traditional industries. An economic pact with China is only likely to harm those traditional industries that are uncompetitive. Leading Taiwanese bicycle makers Giant Inc and Merida Industry Co are good examples of competitive traditional industries.
The theory of comparative advantage says that trade liberalization pushes countries to further specialize in areas of expertise within the global division of labor.
Regional trade agreements (RTAs) are conducive to market expansion and advancement of competition, which help competitive industries increase profits and further innovation through expanding economies of scale.
While uncompetitive industries will be driven out of business by augmented competition, the entire industrial structure will adjust and upgrade automatically courtesy of the market mechanism. The nation’s competitiveness will increase in turn. This may sound cruel, but it is the only way that countries can succeed in a free market.
One important function of the government is to provide assistance to disadvantaged social groups. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are to ink an economic agreement, the government should try its best to stem losses for affected industries.
In addition to a timetable that has competitive industries liberalizing faster than less competitive ones within a 10-year transitional period, an ECFA should make use of WTO remedial instruments that offer relief to industries injured by increased imports. These instruments include anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties and safeguard mechanisms.
In particular, a safeguard mechanism should be adopted that protects domestic industries from serious injury resulting from an increase in Chinese imports.
Signing an ECFA with China will only partly solve the problem of Taiwanese companies not competing on an equal footing in China with companies from other countries. But it cannot solve the problem of declining Taiwanese competitiveness.
Although it is each company’s responsibility to improve competitiveness, the government has the responsibility for setting up the regulatory and operational environment.
Therefore, the government should make every effort to improve administrative efficiency and enhance the investment environment.
Besides establishing an adjustment fund that provides disadvantaged industries with financing, technical support and worker training, the government needs to establish a structural fund to help upgrade the nation’s industries and improve worker skills. Only then can Taiwan survive amid fierce global competition.
To prevent Taiwan from falling into the “one China” trap, an ECFA can be signed between the “Mainland” and the “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu,” including a clause stating that the parties may sign separate RTAs with other WTO members.
When an economic agreement is reached, it will be submitted to the legislature for approval. It is most important that notification of such an agreement is sent to the WTO so that obstacles preventing Taiwan from signing RTAs are removed.
Cho Hui-wan is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US