IT seems that every time I hear Chinese-language media reports about the economy, I get nothing but how Taiwan's competitiveness is declining, how the income gap is continuing to grow and how the misery index is now at an all-time high. These reports also contend that the standard of living has been at a virtual standstill for the past decade, and now trails behind Asia's three other Little Dragons -- Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea.
However, when I read statistics released by international research organizations comparing Taiwan's performance with other countries, I notice that they come to a completely different conclusion. When I see these conflicting reports, it makes me wonder whether they are talking about the same country.
In the 2005 World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland, Taiwan ranked higher than ever before, coming in at 18th place, ahead of South Korea. South Korea, in fact, ranked at the bottom among the Four Little Dragons.
Taiwan was also the best performing Asian country in the World Economic Forum's The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006. In addition, Taiwan was ranked number one in Asia for combined transformation and governing competence by Germany's Bertelsmann Transformation Index, a global ranking that analyzes and evaluates development and transformation processes in 119 countries.
International institutions measure a nation's income gap in terms of the Gini index. Taiwan's Gini index, according to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (主計處), peaked in 2001 at 0.35, and has fallen steadily over the past four years.
From 1996 to last year, Taiwan's misery index has been one of the lowest compared with the other three Little Dragons, with only that of Singapore being lower at an average 0.5 percent. For three years during this period, Taiwan also had the lowest misery index among the four, with two of those years -- 2003 and 2004 -- occurring under the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) rule.
The standard of living is generally expressed in terms of GDP per capita to measure purchasing power parity. According to the CIA's World Factbook, Taiwan's GDP per capita last year was US$26,700, not far behind Singapore's US$29,700. Total GDP growth per capita from 1999 to last year -- basically since the DPP took over -- was 66 percent. This was not only the highest among the Four Little Dragons, but it also outpaced the 63 percent per capita income growth in China during the same period.
There is more. Since 2003, China has been the largest single destination for South Korean exports. And in 2004, South Korea jumped up the rankings to become China's third-largest foreign investor. As South Korea's reliance on China increases, local investment in South Korea itself has suffered. During the same period, Taiwan's GDP grew at a faster pace than South Korea's owing to the government's "no haste, be patient" policy.
The US publication Business-Week produces an annual list of the world's top 100 high-tech companies, one of the main criteria being the rate of stock price increase, which is seen as an indicator of companies' future earnings power. Last year's list included 12 Taiwanese companies, a figure second only to the US', and twice as much as the combined number of firms from the other three Little Dragons.
The difference between how international institutions interpret statistics on Taiwan and how the Chinese-language media paint the economy has never ceased to confound me. Simply put, the Chinese-language media tend to sensationalize differences in domestic performance over time (vertical analysis), whereas the international institutions I have mentioned compare the performance of different countries within a specific time frame (horizontal analysis).
Sad to say, the Chinese-language media lack the international outlook of other institutions. One other crucial factor is the pro-China, or should I say, pro-Communist, mentality of the press in Taiwan. After all, it is not as if the Taiwanese media and the international institutions are looking at two different countries.
David Su is a doctoral student of economics at the University of Rhode Island.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,