One of the main reasons the controversy over the service trade pact and the students’ robust response to it remain intractable is that the government and those opposed to the pact are approaching the issue from differing perspectives. While the government views the issue purely in terms of economics, opponents emphasize the importance of recognizing a political dimension. The two sides have very different ideas, and never the twain shall meet.
The government’s contention is that the signing of the cross-strait pact will enable Taiwan’s service sector to be more competitive internationally. Opponents to the pact say it will tie the nation and its economic future more closely to China and have significant political ramifications, such as creeping political change through increased economic engagement.
The government claims China has made generous concessions. Opponents say China’s “generosity” is, in itself, disconcerting, and are suspicious that Beijing is offering a poisoned chalice.
The government holds that the agreement will have a positive effect on the development of the nation’s service sector as a whole. Opponents emphasize the need to consider the potential negative effects it will have on individual industries and businesses.
The government warns that Taiwan risks being marginalized if the pact is not signed. The opponents counter that if it is ratified, Taiwan’s international status will increasingly be relegated to that of an outpost of China.
The differences in the above arguments can succinctly be categorized as “economics” versus the “political economy.”
The former says that signing agreements with China is an economic issue and consequently needs evaluation only from an that perspective. The latter argues that there is no way signing such an agreement with a country that has more than 1,000 missiles pointed at the nation’s shores can possibly be regarded as purely economic.
Rather, it is a political economic issue that needs to be handled with extreme caution.
Neoliberal economics, the prevailing economic theory, derives from the liberal economics of Adam Smith. International free-trade is implicit in the theory. This paradigm keeps economics and politics in their respective corners, to the extent of favoring complete withdrawal of government oversight and removal of any obstacles to trade.
“Liberal economics” is little more than an ideology of the privileged class in the modern capitalist system, because truly fair competition and a perfect market cannot exist. Further, the notion that either politics or the economic preferences of governments can be divorced from economics is simply an attempt to remove the dog-eat-dog element of reality to concentrate on purely economic thought.
Former Control Yuan president Wang Tso-jung (王作榮) once criticized Taiwanese economists fond of repeating the “market deregulation and free competition” mantra of parroting each other.
The political economy argument says that economic phenomena and events cannot be seen in isolation from the sociopolitical context in which they occur. In fact, economics was not considered a separate academic discipline in the West until the middle of the 19th century: Prior to that, the study of the economic behavior of states was known as political economy. Only by the Herculean efforts of neoclassical economists did economics become a field of study in its own right. The title of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital was appended with the clarification “A Critique of Political Economy,” and was aimed primarily at neoclassical economists of the day.
So, is it possible to evaluate a cross-strait service trade agreement from a purely economic perspective? Of course not.
Indeed, this is the main reason over half the public oppose the pact in its present form. Any agreement on economic relations and trade between two nations has to be seen as a political economic issue. Any such agreement necessarily involves the specific sociocultural circumstances of nations involved and the political impact it is to have on the respective societies and economies.
Previous protests have been the same: The demonstrations against the deregulation of agricultural products and the opposition to lifting the ban on US beef imports are but two instances.
Even trade, which has the potential to be good for the nation — or, at the very least, not entail hostile intent — still evokes this level of reaction and harm in society.
It is therefore impossible to speak of approaching it from a purely economic perspective — especially when dealing with a hostile country like China, which claims Taiwan as an “inalienable part” of its territory and continuously pressures the nation on the international stage.
Therefore the debate should not be framed as service trade economics, but as service trade political economy.
Chi Chun-chieh is a professor in the Department of Ethnic Relations and Cultures at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
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