I have been attempting to gauge the potential impact on farmers of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. The results of my study indicate that if the government lifts bans on 830 Chinese agricultural products, about 280,000 Taiwanese farmers who grow rice, vegetables and other crops could lose their jobs.
In my calculations, I assumed that, on the premise of a perfect competition market, Chinese agricultural products and those from other countries were able to replace Taiwanese items completely. For price comparison between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, farm prices were used for Taiwanese products; cost, insurance and freight (CIF) prices were used for Chinese products that are already allowed to be imported; and free on board (FOB) prices listed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization were used for Chinese products that are today banned from import.
I used both the percentage of supply reduction of individual items in the total domestic production volume and the percentage of planting area of individual items in the total domestic planting area to estimate the percentage of the population that would face unemployment in each agricultural sub-sector.
I used asparagus and five other vegetables to assess the impact on vegetable growers, grapes and seven other fruits to assess the toll on orchard farmers, peanuts to assess the grains and legumes sub-sector, and tea to assess the “special crops” sub-sector.
I found that if Taiwan lifts the ban on 830 Chinese agricultural products, the production value of 17 agricultural sub-sectors is likely to decline by NT$10.17 billion (US$319.8 million) — including rice, peanuts, tea, asparagus, cauliflowers and cabbage and other crops.
A financial loss of NT$10 billion in agriculture might seem insignificant compared with the high-tech sector. However, in the five agricultural sub-sectors I investigated, at least 280,000 farmers would lose their jobs. What would they do? How do we calculate the social costs of such a significant surge in unemployment? What measures does the government propose to respond to this? These are questions that must be contemplated before signing an ECFA.
In my study, I only projected the effects on five sub-sectors. My results do not include mushrooms, sugar, flowers, fisheries and forestry, for example. Thus, the total production loss and unemployment in the agricultural sector would be much greater than my calculations.
The purpose of my study was to put these concerns on the table and hopefully prompt a wider debate. Hopefully, the pan-blue and pan-green camps alike care about the health of the agricultural industry and the welfare of farmers enough to face the potential impact of an ECFA on a relatively uncompetitive sector.
If Taiwan must sign an ECFA, it is the responsibility of the ruling and opposition camps to propose complementary measures that would be feasible and effective. Absent such measures, the signing of an ECFA should be decided by the public through a referendum.
Wu Ming-ming is a policy adviser to Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS