Former minister of economic affairs Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘) touted the potential benefits of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China and went to great lengths to conceal the potential negative impact.
By contrast, Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥) has conceded that an ECFA could have a negative impact and has shown openness in allowing a more objective debate. This is a big improvement.
PROS AND CONS
Academically, there may not seem to be anything wrong with saying that substituting a free-trade agreement (FTA) with an ECFA is a matter of “trade liberalization.” Yet economic liberalization always comes with pros and cons, as Taiwan experienced when it joined the WTO. If we want the pros to outweigh the cons, liberalization must be handled carefully. Financial liberalization that Taiwan carried out under pressure from the US went smoothly because the government took great care.
Because of the government’s determined promotion of an ECFA, some people believe it would help Taiwan sign FTAs with Southeast Asian countries. Yet China has said that FTAs can only be signed between two countries.
The idea that Beijing would stand by and allow Taiwan to sign FTAs with other countries is wishful thinking.
CONDITIONS
From the perspective of economic and trade liberalization, I am not completely opposed to an ECFA. However, to reap the benefits of economic liberalization, an ECFA should be signed only after Taiwan has signed FTAs with the US, Japan and European countries.
If Taiwan cannot achieve this goal, it must demand that China not block it from signing FTAs with other countries once Taipei and Beijing have inked an ECFA.
Under the economic principle called the Theory of the Second Best, if Taiwan can only sign an FTA with one or a limited number of countries, the results may actually be worse than not signing an FTA with any country.
An ECFA should therefore only be signed if Beijing promises not to interfere with Taiwan signing FTAs with countries other than Singapore (Singapore being the only country that China would likely allow to ink an FTA with Taiwan).
The biggest con of an ECFA would be its impact on the survival of Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees.
COMPENSATORY FUND
The government has proposed a compensatory fund of NT$30 billion to deal with the negative impacts of an ECFA, which is its responsibility. Yet NT$30 billion would not be enough to cover the losses these businesses would incur, nor would monetary subsidies alone be able to prevent structural unemployment, the undermining of industries and other long-term effects of an ECFA.
Although there is not space to offer a detailed analysis of possible solutions here, a first question to ask is why taxpayers should foot the bill for the damage caused by an ECFA. Would the public share in the benefits that certain industries would reap from an ECFA at the expense of others?
If the government intends to proceed with an ECFA, it should increase taxes on businesses that stand to gain from it (such as Formosa Plastics Group) to raise money for a compensatory fund.
The public should not have to foot the bill.
Chiou Jiunn-rong is a professor of economics at National Central University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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.