Taiwan’s economy is affected by the overall global economic climate and this is something that cannot be turned around overnight. Taiwanese have gotten used to living in comfort and do not like the prospect of having to tighten their belts. The press, too, has been fanning the flames, lambasting the government for being “unfeeling” and “indifferent” when it is trying to do its best. Mid to long-term projects are unlikely to set the public’s mind at ease and short-term measures have all but been exhausted, so the situation is not going to improve any time soon.
One possible option is to concentrate on international tourist traffic. This kind of transnational traffic tends to have deep pockets and is happy to splash the cash. All that is needed is to offer the incentives to get them to do so. Therefore, companies and the government could look into ways to get these international arrivals and transit passengers to part with their cash.
In the past, we have concentrated on the number of foreign tourists coming to the country and the press have reported new trends and records set in this regard. Further examination reveals, however, that it is the “quality” of international arrivals that is more important. This is because consumption levels are more directly related to an individual traveler’s economic means than anything else.
Statistics bear this out. In 2010, France had the highest number of international arrivals, at 77.15 million, followed by the US with just under 59.8 million. However, revenue from international arrivals in the US was, at US$165.8 billion, considerably higher than the US$56.7 billion spent in France. That is to say, the average foreign tourist in France spends US$735, compared with an average of US$2,773 spent in the US. There are many factors that account for the higher average expenditure in the US by foreign tourists, including longer stays, a higher number of items purchased and the amount of money spent at tourist attractions.
If you look at the amount of international traffic Taiwan receives, you can see that we fall well behind our neighbors. In 2010, for example, we had a total of just under 5.6 million visitors from overseas, compared with just under 24.6 million for Malaysia; over 20 million for Hong Kong; a little under 16 million for Thailand; just over 9 million for Singapore; 8.8 million for South Korea; somewhat over 8.6 million for Japan and 7 million for Indonesia.
In terms of revenue for that year, Taiwan did better than Indonesia, earning US$9.2 billion compared with Indonesia’s US$7.6 billion, but there is still a way to go before we are up to the level of earnings of Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Japan, which generated US$18.3 billion; US$27 billion; US$23.4 billion; US$14.2 billion; US$13.8 billion; and US$15.4 billion, respectively.
Foreign tourists spend, on average, US$1,600 here. This is second only to the average spent by foreign tourists in Japan, whose average expenditure is NT$1,790. It is consistently higher than the figures for our neighboring countries. If we want to take this up a level, we can do two things: First, improve the existing facilities to attract more tourists and secondly, make it so the average expenditure of visiting tourists continues to rise. The figure of US$9.2 billion represents 2 percent of Taiwan’s GDP. If we can get this to double, it would mean a 1 percentage point increase in our economic growth rate. Of course, this assumes that all of the money is spent on domestically produced goods and services, but even if half of them are made here, that still means a 0.5 percentage point increase.
We could set up high-class boutiques selling Taiwanese products, gifts, cosmetics and jewelry in the transit hall so that transit passengers can spend all their money before leaving the country — smiling and laden with goods.
We could hand out discount vouchers, especially for more expensive tourist attractions, to international arrivals waiting to go through passport checks to stimulate their consumerist impulses and provide Internet or mobile shopping services, with collection points in the airports for them to pick up their purchases before they leave the country, as well as courier services. Finally, we could differentiate services, depending on their quality, so that consumers are more assured of a reliable environment in which to spend their money.
The only trouble is, many of these measures require competence and interdepartmental coordination to work. Is this government up to the job?
Tu Jenn-hwa is director of the Business Development and Policy Research Department of the Commerce Development Research Institute.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past