Recent news of disagreement within society over the cross-strait service pact often involves a discussion of the widening gap in economic growth between Taiwan and its chief rival, South Korea. Notwithstanding envy and a resulting sense of discontent, Taiwan can compete and even surpass South Korea if bold strategies are implemented in lockstep with some structural reforms.
South Korea’s experience with free-trade agreements (FTAs) — first with Chile and subsequently with the US, the European Free Trade Association, Australia, Canada and soon with China — has largely proved successful, boosting exports of its automobiles, auto parts, petrochemicals, steel and consumer electronics industries. As for imports, clever negotiations created non-tariff barriers that have protected domestic sectors in agriculture, processed food, financial services, education and healthcare. One US trade negotiator privately told me that the South Korean trade negotiators and the North Koreans shared one characteristic: tenacious brinksmanship.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) emphasis on following south Korea’s lead in FTAs would open up new opportunities for Taiwanese industries and businesses: For example, joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would usher in a slew of new opportunities to expand the tradeable sector of the economy. Firing up the existing set of growth engines would likely fail to generate the marginal growth spurt that would permanently push Taiwan’s growth curve up one or two notches above the current path.
To lift the growth curve from the current 1 or 2 percent GDP growth to 4 or 5 percent, Taiwan needs bold strategies and willpower to build the country’s future in targeted areas.
According to the IMF’s January report, the world economy between now and 2030 will rely on “smart” infrastructure investment to boost sluggish growth. More than half of this projected investment will fund an upgrade in infrastructure in the developed countries of North America and Europe in the name of higher energy efficiency. Large companies such as Siemens, GE, ABB and IBM are already coming up with proprietary solutions that combine designing solutions, providing services and selling equipment and components. For example, IBM’s Smart City and the eMobility by Siemens are setting the new standards in anticipation of the trillions of dollars to be generated in energy and infrastructure upgrades in advanced economies. What could be the opportunity for Taiwan, Inc? Taiwanese industries should build relationships with the solution providers and supply components, such as industrial sensors, communicative devices embedded in the Internet of Things as an integral part of the new ecosystems. The government should also help businesses to build partnerships with international funding organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF for infrastructure projects. In the new future of smart infrastructure, proprietary technology matters little, while the capacity to create partnerships and ecosystems matter.
China’s mainland and Hong Kong together account for more than half of Taiwan’s external trade and investment. It follows that China’s huge underdevelopment in healthcare would present new opportunities for companies in the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries. Samsung is harboring huge ambitions to overtake big pharma companies and take market share in MRI scanners from GE Health Care, Siemens and Philips. There is an opportunity for Taiwan to start a new race for affordable drugs and portable medical devices.
I am always struck by Taiwanese businesses having friendly relationships with their Japanese counterparts; similarly friendly relationships once tied South Korean companies to Japanese companies, but more recently, the relationships have turned cut-throat competitive. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend,” and Taiwanese and Japanese companies can create formidable challenges to some of South Korea’s national champions. For example, why did Taiwan and Japan choose Line, owned by a South Korean company, instead of developing an app of their own. HTC, though heralded as the superior Android device maker, has lost out repeatedly in marketing and sales battles against Samsung and LG. The technical prowess of Japanese companies is irrelevant in the face of the relentless attack of the South Koreans. What are the opportunities for HTC, Toshiba, Sharp and Sony? I should like to see an alliance of HTC, Japanese companies and Nokia-Microsoft emerge to combat Samsung.
Finally, growth should be in prosperous high-value services, such as medicine, education and insurance. These sectors create high-income jobs that are not easily tradeable and contribute to a higher quality of life for all, including international talent. Look to Singapore, where attracting immigration of university professors, designers, computer engineers, asset managers and commodity traders has boosted growth every year. Taiwan is not as cosmopolitan as Singapore, but within northeast Asia, it is more open and hospitable than China, South Korea or Japan. Taiwan’s national brand should be tied up with a higher quality of life compared with neighboring countries.
Taiwan and South Korea are the only two gold medalists in the world economy with a track record of more than 50 years of sustained growth above 5 percent annually. The path forward for Taiwan hinges on breaking new ground in a departure from the tried and worn-out path. This is Taiwan’s moment of truth.
John Shin is an independent economist based in South Korea, and from 2007 to 2012 was the managing editor of Financial Week and was also economics commentator for CNBC-TV.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath