World Bank statistics show that after 1978, when then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) announced China’s opening up and economic reforms, GDP per capita in China increased by a significant amount, from US$190 in 1978 to US$930 in 2000.
However, just before the 2000s, Taiwan started to make considerable contributions to China’s economic growth and statistics show that, as of 2012, per capita GDP in China reached US$5,720.
The differences in growth for these two periods are a direct result of the nation providing China with the three most important factors for economic growth it needed: capital, technology and skilled workers.
The large increase in population that China experienced after the Cultural Revolution was predominantly derived from an increase in the number of peasant workers. Given that context, economic development policies were not geared toward high-technology industries, but rather labor-intensive ones.
Taiwan, with its many labor-intensive industries, is naturally one of China’s most useful means for increasing economic growth. The nation has a detailed division of labor within its technological industries and has production processes based on the ideas of scientific management, otherwise known as “Taylorism” as proposed by US engineer Frederick Taylor. Under such a system, the tasks of each person are carefully allocated; everyone can be matched with a job somewhere, doing something, even if they are illiterate, as long as they are able-bodied.
When China needed to improve its economy, where better to look than across the strait, especially as tens of thousands of people in China were looking for work in factories, where they did not require an education and where they speak the same language?
In Taiwan, for the past decade, industries have been moving offshore, mostly to China, and human resources and capital have been lost as a result.
Information from the National Development Council shows that in the past 10 years, Taiwanese investment in China each year has been more than US$60 billion, which makes Taipei the second-largest foreign investor for Beijing.
The industries that moved to China were the backbone of the nation’s competitiveness and were developed through a series of measures starting with the Statute for Prizes, Awards and Investments (獎勵投資條例) that was rolled out in 1960, as well as the Statute for Upgrading Industries (促進產業升級條例) that was scrapped in 1991.
Now, these industries that provided such strong growth have, for the most part, become major contributors to China’s economic growth.
Looking back over the past decade, the opening up of trade between the two nations has been good for China for the short and long term, while for Taiwan, things have been good in the short term, but miserable in the long term.
If the nation had not opened up so much all those years ago, it would not have become a country with a closed-door economic policy, because beyond China, the entire world could have been its market.
If, all those years ago, the nation had not entered China, industries here would have been forced to upgrade their technologies and create more added value to ensure their survival.
If, back then, the nation had not cooperated with China so much, the economy would not have been totally stripped of its potential for growth.
In short, for Taiwan, China has tasted as sweet as honey, but has turned out to be a bitter pill to swallow.
Chang Hung-yi is an assistant research fellow at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry