A special draft bill for implementing the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program is under review in the Legislative Yuan. This ambitious development plan aims to enhance the nation’s global competitiveness and economic growth for the next 30 years.
The government’s strategy is to harness both public and private investment for infrastructure construction and low-carbon transition. Public investment under the program would be about NT$882.49 billion (US$29.2 billion) and would raise an extra NT$1.78 trillion in private investments over the next seven years.
The program is expected to raise the nation’s real GDP by NT$975.90 billion while creating 40,000 to 50,000 new jobs.
However, in terms of both form and substance, the draft bill, which contains only 11 relatively short provisions, is seemingly not solid enough to support such a large-scale program.
Commentaries also raise concerns about the program’s provisions to spur industrial innovation, its negative environmental and social effects, and public participation in decisionmaking.
Since the Green Economy Report published by the UN Environment Programme in 2011, governments and analysts have been exploring why and how state intervention could be beneficial to both the economy and the environment.
International lessons have demonstrated that, to achieve a “green” paradigm shift, nations should see environment, investment and innovation as one issue.
It is well-known that Denmark has a first-mover advantage in wind turbine technologies, though it is not a world leader in the availability of wind resources.
Denmark managed to accurately forecast the patterns of wind technologies and global markets at least one decade before its competitors and successfully pursued world technological leadership in the field.
Since the 1980s, Danish environmental regulations drove its industries to develop frontier-level technologies and channeled the investments not only in infrastructure and production, but in natural, human and knowledge-based capital.
This case illustrates that environmental policies can also be vigorous economic policies if the government is able to see further than others and competently allocate scarce resources.
Adequate regulatory safeguards are crucial to keep investment activities within acceptable boundaries.
Though Premier Lin Chuan (林全) promised that all projects in the program would be scrutinized by the existing legal frameworks, fierce public discontent toward nationwide land expropriations and onshore wind turbines have challenged the legitimacy and transparency of the “top-down” and expertise-dominated planning systems.
Undemocratic and unfair development decisions will provoke further social inequalities and threaten the effects of low-carbon investments.
Now is a good time for the nation to trace the new international trends regarding public participatory mechanisms, such as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the EU’s Aarhus Convention and the UK’s new National Infrastructure Assessment, which would be helpful to clarify the opportunities and limitations in Taiwan’s domestic legal frameworks.
The decision to invest in pro-environmental innovation is not a bad bet, but all too often, discussion of infrastructure development is limited to economics and engineering.
The authorities should take some time to rethink both the synergistic and safeguarding aspects of the environment-economy nexus, and consolidate the program with the nation’s broader environmental, technological and industrial policies.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Taipei Bar Association.
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