A report published by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER) showed that the effects of trade diversion and trade creation from signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China would not be beneficial to Taiwan’s overall economic development.
After the signing of an ECFA, China’s exports to Taiwan would increase. Taiwan’s exports to China would increase, too, but this would have the effect of crowding out Taiwan’s exports to the US, Japan, Southeast Asia and Europe. This trade diversion would result in Taiwanese manufacturers losing market share to Chinese firms, which have lower production costs.
At the same time, it would make Taiwanese industries that enjoy comparative advantages heavily reliant on the Chinese market. The overall effect would be to make Taiwan’s economy even more dependent on China than it already is.
Besides, under the impact of zero tariffs under an ECFA, Taiwan’s electrical, electronics, medical equipment and other industries would be certain to shift their production to China to take advantage of the cluster effect, leading to a decline in production in these sectors in Taiwan. China would be the one to benefit from the trade diversion in these fields. Taiwan wants to develop its biotechnology sector, in which medical equipment is the field with the most potential. Unfortunately, as the institution’s report showed, the medical equipment sector is one of those that would suffer from the impact of an ECFA.
Electronics forms the foundation of modern technology, as well as the information and networking sectors, and is the cornerstone of a modern defense industry. These are the industries that attract Taiwan’s technical and scientific elite. They cause relatively little pollution but offer high profit potential. They are also areas in which Taiwan competes well with Europe, the US and Japan. It is hard to understand, therefore, why the Taiwanese government is willing to give up these industries in favor of high polluters like chemicals, plastics, machinery, upstream textiles, petrochemicals, catalysts and steel.
The CIER report does say that Taiwan’s chemicals, plastics, machinery, upstream textiles, petrochemicals, catalysts and steel industries would benefit from the trade creation effect of the proposed ECFA, but these are all relatively high-pollution industries with high external costs.
Besides, Taiwan does not have advantages in these industries compared with other countries. Over the past 50 years, these sectors have not been the focus of Taiwan’s development or professional training. So, while developing these sectors may gain Taiwan a share of the Chinese market, it would also make Taiwan a concentrated location for high-polluting industries within the greater China economic sphere.
One of the main reasons put forward by the government for signing an ECFA with China is that it would benefit the textiles sector. However, industries listed in a report published by the Ministry of Economic Affairs on July 27 as likely to suffer from the impact of an ECFA include many textile products such as stockings, shoes, underwear, towels, knitwear, bedding and swimwear, and these findings were confirmed by the CIER report.
Taiwan’s home appliance makers use Japanese technology, import components from China and assemble their products in Taiwan. With no tariff protection under an ECFA, this model would break down under competition from cheap equipment made in China.
Hsu Chung-hsin is an associate professor of law at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
“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
RSS