If we look at the content of the “early harvest” list of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), it becomes apparent that Taiwan did extremely well for itself, with many industries expected to benefit greatly from the inking of the trade pact. Despite this, the early harvest list has still been heavily criticized, largely based on the public’s unrealistic hopes and excessive fears over the agreement.
To be precise, the early harvest list is not a complete, all-encompassing list for tariff reductions on goods and products. It is mainly intended to provide assistance to Taiwanese businesses as soon as possible because they face competition from countries that have already received tariff reductions as a result of signing freetrade agreements (FTAs) with China.
The products that eventually made it onto the list were chosen based on four criteria: necessity, low volume, less contentious and the speed with which they could be deregulated with minimum administrative hassle.
Taiwan’s early harvest list will allow 539 export items, with an estimated export volume of US$13.8 billion per year, to receive zero tariff treatment in China. This is already far more than we have achieved by signing FTAs with other nations. However, if we look at the more than 8,000 products Taiwan exports, we can see that only 6 percent of these were included on the early harvest list and it is therefore no wonder that manufacturers of items not on the list have been complaining.
A review of this 6 percent of products shows that half of them are items produced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and traditional industries, such as automobile components, bicycle components, tires, water heaters, filters, household appliances, hand tools, clothing and accessories, underwear, shoes, socks, bags, boxes, orchids and bananas. This shows the high level of importance the government places on SMEs, traditional industries and agriculture.
In the past, SMEs like these faced several problems. Because they were small in scale, as production prices increased they were unable to reduce costs through economies of scale. In addition, as the Chinese market had many tariff barriers, they were unable to take advantage of business opportunities in China. They were therefore forced to move their manufacturing base or follow their customers.
As various industries developed, only the more competitive companies were able to stay in Taiwan. They focused more on diversified, small volume production and concentrated on quality, innovative designs and technological improvements.
The early harvest list will mean that products currently subject to tariffs of more than 10 percent or even 15 percent in China will now have those duties significantly reduced. This will provide an excellent opportunity for Taiwanese SMEs to open up markets for themselves in China and elsewhere.
For Taiwan to reap the benefits of the early harvest list, not only will businesses have to capitalize on market opportunities at the right time, the government will also have to provide assistance to SMEs, including advice on markets, funds and legal matters. I am hopeful that such moves will increase the scale of Taiwan’s traditional industries, improve the overall quality of business, promote industrial development, create employment opportunities and take Taiwan to a completely new level of economic growth.
Shih Hui-tzu is a research fellow at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS