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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations