Yet another item has been added to the long list of economic promises that have fallen through during President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) tenure. On May 24, the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) cut its GDP growth forecast for Taiwan this year to 2.4 percent, down from its February estimate of 3.59 percent.
This is an official declaration of the government’s failure to keep annual growth above 3 percent. After pledging last year that the economy would grow by at least 4 percent, the government revised its forecast downward no fewer than nine times, to a promise of just 1 percent in the end.
Instead of taking time to reflect, the Ma administration did the same thing again by announcing a GDP growth target of 3.59 percent at the start of this year. Then Minister of the Council for Economic Planning and Development Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) pushed the target even higher with his talk of achieving a “golden crossover” by raising growth above 4 percent while getting unemployment below 4 percent.
Who would have thought that, with Kuan’s words still ringing in the public’s ears, the forecast for first-quarter growth would tumble well below those figures, with no hope of achieving 3 percent growth for the whole year?
“It’s the economy, stupid” is a very apt commentary on Ma’s performance. After The Economist branded Ma a “bumbler” in November, it was not long before the word was on everyone’s lips. Economics is the weakest link in Ma’s governance, and the economy presents the biggest stumbling block for Taiwan’s development. The catchphrase: “It’s the economy, stupid” is an accurate description of this government’s incompetence and a strong hint about what, or who, is primarily responsible.
Nonetheless, Ma thinks he is doing a good job and prefers to blame others for the nation’s problems. Confronted with how unpopular he is, instead of looking in the mirror, he chastises the public for resisting reforms, and blames the nation’s dismal economy on the mess supposedly bequeathed to him by the previous administration.
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of Ma’s predecessor, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), in the second quarter of 2008, which is when Chen passed the baton to Ma, Taiwan’s annual growth rate stood at 5.66 percent, whereas the average growth rate since Ma came to power has stood at a mere 2.68 percent. Clearly, Taiwan’s economy has gone downhill under Ma’s tenure.
Nonetheless, Ma said in a recent interview that he has not given up on his “6-3-3” pledge to achieve 6 percent annual GDP growth, US$30,000 average per capita income and less than 3 percent unemployment by the end of his second term in 2016, and that he is still trying hard to achieve those targets.
However, considering that the average annual growth rate for Ma’s years in office so far stands below 3 percent, it seems unlikely that he can score above 9 percent growth for each of the next three years, which is what it would take to get an average of 6 percent. It seems that Ma and his government just cannot shake the habit of telling tall tales without so much as a blush.
The Ma administration’s biggest mistake has been leaning too heavily toward China and thinking of China as a panacea that can cure all ills. It is true that for a while China played the role of workshop of the world and many multinational corporations chose to locate their production bases there. However, with the rise of emerging and frontier markets over the last few years, many companies from advanced countries have moved their production bases elsewhere.
For example Samsung, which holds the biggest share of the global smartphone market, has moved its production center to Vietnam, and it has been outperforming Apple, most of whose products are made in China. China’s deteriorating investment climate is now driving a trend to get out of China. Global manufacturing is gradually shifting over to the Mekong Basin in Southeast Asia, and Samsung has done well by following this trend.
While others are exiting China, Taiwan’s manufacturing industry has been embracing it. More seriously, most Taiwanese manufacturers lack their own brands and lack innovation. This makes them incapable of developing high-added-value business segments, so all they can do is maintain the status quo in the areas of assembly and subcontracting for other companies’ brands. This leads to two major problems.
First, profits from subcontracting keep falling, but the costs of manufacturing in China are rising fast. It is hardly viable any more to base manufacturing in China.
The second problem is that more than half of Taiwan’s manufacturing for export markets is done outside Taiwan, and that means that however good their export trade might be, it will not help to reduce unemployment or to raise wage levels in Taiwan.
People in a country where unemployment does not fall and salaries do not rise are likely to be worried about their futures and afraid to spend their money on non-essential goods and services. That keeps domestic demand down, so how is our GDP supposed to grow?
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is seeking to boost Japan’s economy with what he has called his “three arrows.” The first arrow is monetary policy, the second is fiscal policy and the third is structural reform. The first and second arrows are traditional remedies that have been used in the past as first-aid measures to deal with economic depression.
Like a cardiac stimulant, they can save the patient’s life, but they cannot cure a serious disease. Even though the eased monetary policies adopted by European countries and the US have maintained liquidity in financial markets, they have not brought about an overall economic recovery. Structural reform is what is needed to get to the root of the problem and return the economy to a stable, healthy state.
Although Abe’s first two arrows have been effective so far, the third arrow is the key factor that will decide whether his policies can rejuvenate the Japanese economy.
As in Japan, the task of revitalizing Taiwan’s economy will require a thorough round of structural reform in both policy and business. However, it takes vision and effective implementation to get structural reform under way, otherwise, no matter how good a blueprint the government may have, it will be no more than empty talk. Looking back over the past five years of the Ma administration, it cannot be said that it has offered no blueprints for construction, but most of its plans have been just words and no action.
For example, when will construction of the Taoyuan Aerotropolis ever be finished? It is not likely to happen before Ma’s government leaves office. Taiwan’s public construction projects are not just slower than in other countries, they are also of poor quality and plagued by corruption and wrongdoing.
Ma has another three years to go before he steps down. Whether that is too short to reach his goals depends on what he makes of it. He still has time to renew his efforts, if he does not want to go down in history as a failure. If he can use his final three years in office to push through structural reforms, he may yet go down in history as having made a positive contribution to the nation’s economy.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
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
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US