Innovators seldom have an easy time. Developing a new technology, business model and product is hard enough. Then they often face opposition from disrupted firms that must either adapt to new competition or whither. However, some incumbent firms latch onto a third option: turning to the government to enact rules that tilt the playing field back in their favor.
An example of this is playing out in Taiwan, where legislators are in the process of enacting regulations that would essentially force ride-sharing platforms such as Uber to leave — something the taxi industry has sought since Uber entered the market.
Few would question that ride-sharing firms have disrupted the taxi industry. The merits of their services are demonstrated by the more than 75 million riders (and 3 million drivers) around the world who use Uber rather than traditional taxi services.
However, rather than adopt a better model, Taiwanese taxi firms are pushing for regulation that would force Uber to charge riders by the hour or day rather than by the ride. The government appears to have acquiesced, placing the interests of taxi drivers over those of Uber riders and drivers.
Charging by the minute might make sense, but if riders preferred it, ride-share companies probably would already be using it. However, the Taiwanese rule is worse. Unlike elsewhere, in Taiwan Uber partners with local rental car agencies rather than individual drivers. Under the new rule, Uber would be prohibited from renting cars for less than an hour and all cars would have to return to their place of business before being rented out again. To add insult to injury, riders would be prohibited from hailing an Uber on the street. This clearly gives a leg up to taxi drivers, but will hurt Taiwanese riders.
Part of the reason the rule turned out so badly is that the process was opaque. Although the government held four stakeholder sessions before issuing the rule, Uber was not allowed to participate. When lions write the rules, tigers starve.
The motivation for the regulation seems to be a desire to keep the car rental and taxi markets separate, and to hamper Uber’s innovations in the transportation market. The government recommends that Uber license its cars as taxis, but as local taxis apparently do not use dynamic up-front pricing, a flexible business model, or even apps to conveniently order a cab, Uber would have to leave its technology behind.
Uber is not a taxi service. It has never wanted to be a taxi service. It is a technology company that is now in danger of having its technology not just regulated, but outlawed.
The government might see the rationale for preventing unused rental cars from being put to use, but most riders probably do not. Taxi riders rightly complain that the current regulatory system puts them at a disadvantage.
Rather than handicapping Uber, the correct response would be to eliminate the unnecessary regulations that gave Uber a market opportunity in the first place. Allow cabs to switch to dynamic pricing, so that riders do not have to wait as long on busy days. Use up-front pricing so riders know what the cost will be before they step in a cab. Let riders order and pay for a cab by phone and give drivers more flexibility in their schedule.
The preferences of Uber’s 3 million registered users and 10,000 drivers in Taiwan cannot all be wrong.
Uber says that the new regulations would force it to leave Taiwan, which it did for two months over an earlier issue — this after investing large sums on the understanding that previous issues had been settled.
The government also has something to lose by introducing these regulations. Uber runs an exchange program with the Ministry of Science and Technology in which local engineers travel to Uber’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, California, to study its artificial intelligence technology.
Uber’s cooperation in helping to plan for smart cities could also end. Moreover, as an up-and-coming global technology leader, by taking this action Taiwan sends a clear signal to entrepreneurs and tech companies around the world: The government does not support innovation.
The ultimate losers will be Taiwanese.
The American Institute in Taiwan has also opposed the proposed regulations, pointing to its likely effect on innovation and business confidence.
According to a recent article, several international technology companies, including PayPal, have exited the nation over frustrations with an inflexible regulatory process and a conservative business environment. Part of their fear is that the government might suddenly change the rules to favor local competitors or old technology.
With China becoming more assertive, Taiwan should feel the need to increase productivity and innovation, including by working more closely with US companies. Apparently not.
Joe Kennedy is a senior fellow for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based think tank for science and technology policy, where he focuses on tax and regulatory policy. The views expressed here are his own.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS