The recent uproar over the cross-strait service trade pact was born not only of public anger over the non-transparent way in which it was negotiated, nor simply of the way it went counter to accepted procedure in modern democratic politics: It was also exacerbated by the fears of those in individual sectors of the economy. This was because of the complex nature of the economic impact that the agreement may have, far more complicated than current economic theoretical models would be able to predict.
The government commissioned the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research to compile a report using economic model projections for this impact. The science behind the report was full of holes, but, interestingly, that has not meant that the general public, the opposition parties or economists have started thinking harder about the theoretical basis of free trade.
Instead, it has even caused opposition-ruled local governments to give strong support to the free economic pilot zones policy, which is based on the same theoretical foundations as the service trade pact and whose impact may be just as far-reaching.
Fundamentally, this emphasis on free trade is due to the concept having become part of the intellectual hegemony — what the elite defines as legitimate knowledge — in society and in academia in this country, and this has ossified the debate and blinded economists to where theory and reality deviate. It reminds us of the fascinating economic exchanges in the press between former Academia Sinica researcher Chiang Shuo-chieh (蔣碩傑) and former Control Yuan president Wang Tso-jung (王作榮) in 1981. Their debate was about how to deal with contemporary — to them — issues such as the oil crisis, inflation and the slowdown in economic growth, and at the very least showed that economists in Taiwan at the time were engaged in the debate over whether national economic policy should be interventionist or deregulatory.
The intellectual hegemony on free trade comes mainly from comparative advantage theory. As the opportunity costs of producing a given good differ for each country, comparative advantage theory contends that each country should focus on producing goods for which its production costs are relatively low, and then exchange these, via trade, with a second country for another product which that country can produce relatively cheaply, so that each participant in the trade can increase its economic efficiency. Comparative advantage theory is one of the core theories of economics, and has historically proven to be successful many times over in real-world application.
However, times have changed. In addressing the fierce competition in today’s globalized world, it fails to account for the crucial impact of differing technological capabilities on the distribution of benefits within global value chains. Many countries have fallen foul of trade liberalization because of how they have proceeded with deregulation, and how they have forgone their technological autonomy as a result.
Free trade in the world today involves not only goods, but also personnel and finance, and their free movement across national borders, increasing the magnetic pull of large economies. It is especially important for relatively small economies, such as Taiwan’s, to possess technological advantages, as well as economic and trade independence, if they are to resist this magnetic pull. It is not just a case of simply ratcheting up trade liberalization.
Therefore, comparative advantage and free trade are merely starting points from which to approach the needs of complex economies, and they are just a couple of individual economic tools among many. Their effectiveness depends on the specific political and social conditions of a given country, and its stage of economic development.
Unfortunately, free trade is all too often simply a weapon that politicians and bureaucrats routinely brandish against the public. The politicians and the suits spout this type of superficially intellectual academic bunkum because it is in their interests to do so, but such ideas are also responsible for consigning manufacturing in Taiwan to long-term decline in which it has to resort to mass producing low-cost goods, unable to return to an economic policy promoting innovation.
In point of fact, the harm dealt to human society by narrow economic theories is not unrelated to the intellectual hegemonies consolidated by the natural sciences’ narrow intellectual arrogance and formidable technological might in the 20th century.
Now that the world of the natural sciences has already started to seriously question the fallacy of its own intellectual hegemony, we hope that mainstream economists can re-evaluate the limits of applying an instrumental rationalist approach to validating free-market theories.
In his book The Road to Serfdom, Austrian economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek, a proponent of free trade, wrote of the positive values of capitalism, in reference to the suppression of political freedoms under socialism. Indeed, the rejection of socialism in the Eastern Bloc lent credence to his ideas.
However, if Hayek were to see the wealth disparity and social injustice, as well as the suppression of personal freedoms and individual values, that exist in the world today as a result of the economic policies being used, with the excessive deregulation and liberalization of trade, he might change his view. He might write that the free market, controlled by capitalist monopoly groups, is, in fact, the “road to serfdom.”
Excessive economic liberalization not only veers away from the original spirit of the capitalism of which Hayek wrote, it is also detrimental to one of the highest values of modern democracies, that the citizen is free.
Lin Minn-tsong is a professor of physics at National Taiwan University. Wu Chi-jen is a postdoctoral research fellow at the university’s Center for Public Policy and Law.
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
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