Taiwan External Trade Development Council chairman Wang Chih-kang (王志剛) said on July 1 that during the first five months this year, South Korean products captured a 9.2 percent share of China’s market, while Taiwanese products’ market share fell to 7.5 percent from 8.6 percent last year. He added that once Taiwan’s market share dropped below 5 percent, there would be no possibility of a comeback.
A year ago, senior government officials said that after the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed, Taiwanese exports to China would receive tariff incentives and become more competitive than South Korean products. Why, then, is Taiwan’s market share in China lower than South Korea’s, and why is it dropping?
Before answering this question, Wang deserves thanks for pointing out these facts and exposing the government’s lies. Otherwise, the public would still think that the ECFA was beneficial to Taiwanese exports and has profited the nation.
South Korea’s market share in China rose from 9.6 percent in 2001 to 9.9 percent last year. It is not a significant change, but the small rise shows that South Korea’s market share has approximated the growth in its trade with China during the past decade. On the other hand, Taiwan’s market share fell from 11.2 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2007 and 8.6 percent last year. The main drop occurred after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power and embarked on improving relations with China. The largest drop occurred after the ECFA took effect, from 8.6 percent last year to 7.5 percent in the first five months of this year.
So why is this happening?
The answer is simple: It is happening because Taiwan signed the ECFA. After liberalizing trade, the manufacture of products for the Chinese market has been moved to China, meaning that those goods are no longer imported from Taiwan. This trend has been accelerated by the recent ECFA-related relaxation of restrictions on Taiwan’s core high-tech industries.
If the ECFA, a framework supposed to connect Taiwan with China, is carried out in its entirety, a “center-periphery effect” — the attraction of a smaller market to a much larger market — will occur and production of semi-finished products and other Taiwanese products will move to the “center” — China — and Taiwanese businesses will grow roots there. Taiwanese exports to China would stagnate, before beginning to decrease. This implies that the items on the ECFA early-harvest list would be the only ones to have benefited from the agreement, while the harm caused by the ECFA on the overall economy would greatly outweigh the benefits.
While I can sympathize with Wang’s comments, made out of concern for the nation’s economy, he failed to see the real source of the problem. What he should be worried about is a second large migration of Taiwanese industries to China caused by the ECFA. Instead, Wang suggested that the government increase the number of council staffers in China. However, if the council does what it is supposed to do, it would help Taiwanese businesspeople establish themselves in China even faster, thus achieving the opposite effect.
Taiwanese hotels, property developers, healthcare providers, night markets, restaurants, retail stores and so on have lately been going mad over a few hundred individual Chinese tourists with limited spending power. China-leaning media outlets are falling over each other to report these visits and the “economic benefits” these tourists supposedly bring. This distorted kind of China fever proves one thing only: Under Ma, Taiwan has been economically marginalized, with all industries except for tourism slowing down.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS