Despite a flourishing of research and debate about the possible effects of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, the potential relocation of Taiwanese businesses has been largely ignored. This is partly because relocations are a form of dynamic investment that is hard to predict with trade models. However, it is also clear that ECFA proponents are steering clear of the subject.
The most negative effects of trade between Taiwan and China have not been any toll on Taiwan’s imports or exports, but rather the relocation of Taiwanese businesses to China. This has undermined Taiwanese industries.
Therefore, as we consider the potential effects of an ECFA, it is senseless to project the impact on trade alone, while ignoring the threat of further relocations.
The government has repeatedly said that an ECFA will help Taiwan avoid marginalization. However, relocation of businesses is a key indication that a country is being marginalized.
Without evaluating the risk of business relocations, it is therefore impossible to analyze how the ECFA would affect Taiwan’s marginalization.
When businesses move abroad, they take their value-added production with them. If that trend intensifies after an ECFA is in place, it will exacerbate unemployment, cause output value to drop and eat into exports. These effects would diminish the business opportunities that the government says an ECFA would create. They are also classic signs of marginalization.
For an economic agreement to prevent Taiwan’s marginalization, it must be able to decrease the amount of Taiwanese businesses moving to China. The ECFA alone will not be enough to do that.
Because of Chinese pressure on other governments, Taiwan has been unable to sign free trade agreements (FTA) with other countries, which has contributed to its international marginalization.
There is no reason to believe China will change its stance. Regardless of whether Taiwan and Beijing ink an ECFA, China is likely to continue pressuring other governments not to sign an FTA with Taiwan.
That would leave Taiwan with only an ECFA with China to rely on, while China continues to sign deals with important trading partners such as the ASEAN Plus Three countries. Taiwanese businesses will leave Taiwan even faster than before.
The following business types would be at especially high risk of leaving Taiwan:
The first to leave if an ECFA is inked would be those involved in exports. Because tariffs are levied on Taiwanese exports to China and other countries, while China enjoys tariff-free exports, Taiwanese exporters would move to China and export their products from there. The rules of origin stipulated in FTAs would force Taiwanese businesses to set up their factory production in China, too.
The more countries China has FTAs with, the greater the export profits. This would strengthen the incentive for Taiwanese businesses to relocate across the Strait.
The second type of companies to leave Taiwan would be those that need to import raw materials from a third country. For raw materials that are imported from countries other than China, any company reliant on materials that are subject to import tariffs in Taiwan but not China could be expected to move their operations across the Strait to lower costs.
Both businesses that sell locally and those that export most of their products rely on imported raw materials.
Because imports and exports between Taiwan and China would be tariff free, even Taiwanese businesses that focus on the domestic market would consider moving their production to China to gain access to tariff-free raw materials.
Third to leave Taiwan would be businesses affected by imports from China.
Some Taiwanese companies affected by an influx of Chinese imports would struggle to survive. These companies may look for opportunities in the Chinese market rather than attempting to stick it out in Taiwan. They could transfer all operations to China and focus on the Chinese market.
If an ECFA is signed and China, but not Taiwan, signs more FTAs with other countries, relocations are a grave risk.
The ECFA could, in these circumstances, do more harm than good. But things would be different if the ECFA were a springboard to FTAs with other governments.
An ECFA with China has two possible outcomes. What happens is up to the government’s ability and determination to salvage Taiwan’s future.
Unless signing an ECFA would allow Taiwan to ink FTAs with other countries, an ECFA would only be harmful.
Chao Wen-heng is an associate research fellow at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase