Taiwan seems prone to a foolish phenomenon in which complex political problems are reduced to mere matters of numbers and decimal places. Last week, the opposition and ruling parties reached a rare consensus, passing amendments to the fourth and seventh articles of the Local Government Act (地方制度法). This allowed Taipei County, with a population of more than 2 million people, to be elevated to special municipality status. Prior to the official change, the county government will implement many of the regulations applying to the other special municipalities, such as the county council's session periods, personnel numbers and distribution of taxes, income and expenditure.
Looking at population figures in the nation's counties and cities, the only locally governed entities with populations exceeding 2 million are Taipei, with 2.6 million people, and Taipei County, with a population of 3.7 million. The next largest is Taoyuan County with 1.9 million people, followed by Taichung County with 1.53 million and Kaohsiung City with 1.51 million.
It's not difficult to see that the threshold of 2 million people was set specifically for Taipei County. In one move, it met the needs of local pan-blue and pan-green legislators seeking re-election in the year-end legislative elections and made the next four years much easier for incumbent Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (
The extent of urbanization is often seen as a measure of civic progress, but many formerly colonized countries that have become developing nations often bear the consequences of urban primacy.
Urban primacy refers to a country or an area in which the size difference between the largest city and the other cities is too great. The measure is usually expressed as the ratio between the first and second-largest cities. Urban primacy results in most of the population and economic development opportunities being concentrated in a primary city, leading to severe regional unbalance.
The primary city itself is negatively affected by overstretched public services, failing urban functionality, mass immigration from rural towns, weakening regional identity, cultural problems and deteriorating quality of life. This model, in which the rest of the country relies on the main city to pull it along, is detrimental to national development in the long run. Moreover, a collapse of the main city can produce a domino effect among the smaller ones.
There is a common explanation that confuses cause with effect. According to this explanation, Taipei County has always served as a satellite and commuter community for Taipei City. This is often simplified into a simple matter of equality and resource distribution and the belief that the county should be given more resources to avoid a situation where the city gets the meat while Taipei County is left to gnaw on the bone. But it is precisely this flawed development model, in which Taipei is the primary city, that has created such large discrepancies.
This is not unique to Taipei. The cities and counties of Kaohsiung, Tainan and Taichung have similar structures. But if we look at this issue based on the thinking behind the amendment to the Local Government Act, increasing the size of the local government administration and financial distribution based merely on population size while ignoring the overall national structure, Taipei City and Taipei County together with Keelung City and Taoyuan County could become a giant metropolis with more than 8.6 million people.
This would mean that more than one-third of Taiwan's population would be concentrated in the north. This calculation exposes with abundant clarity the regional imbalance threatening Taiwan.
Let's consider the issue from a global perspective based on concerns about global warming and sustainable development. Taiwan's carbon dioxide emissions are the 22nd-highest in the world, contributing about 1 percent of global emissions. This amounts to an average of 12.4 tonnes per person per year, putting the nation third in the world and first by population density.
Over the past decade, Taiwan's carbon dioxide emissions have risen 8 percent each year, but GDP has only risen 4 percent. Figures show that at the end of last year, Taiwan's population density was 632 people per square kilometer, second only to Bangladesh among countries with more than 10 million people.
In Taipei and Kaohsiung cities, there are almost 10,000 people per square kilometer. Excessive urbanization mass vehicle use, air conditioners, the urban heat-island effect (in which urban areas are significantly warmer than their surroundings) and garbage pollution are all major causes of environmental disaster in Taiwan.
Meanwhile, concepts related to environmental sustainability, such as dispersal, decentralization and "small is beautiful," seek to shrink urban space to an appropriate level and reduce its population to cut back energy use.
Just as when Kaohsiung City gained special municipality status in 1979 primarily to achieve "regional balance," Taiwan is today faced with the same kind of problem. The nation must reform its national land planning system by passing the proposed national land planning and town and country planning acts which have been stalled for more than a decade. It must implement effective policy tools for city planning management, development licenses and land use, and it must also restructure the local administration system.
In Taichung, for example, the city should be merged with the county to become a special municipality. Not only would this encourage regional balance, but it could have an overall economic impact by being integrated with the transportation network created by the Taiwan High Speed Rail.
Moreover, Taiwan should fully consider the sustainable use of national land resources, balanced regional and urban-rural development, improving quality of life, economic development and public welfare. Such expert legislation would be far superior to the numbers game being played by both camps to override the Cabinet's efforts to adjust the administrative organizations countrywide. These issues really deserve our attention.
Norman Yin is a professor of financial studies at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Marc Langer
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
On Wednesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) drew parallels between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under President William Lai (賴清德) now and the fascism of Germany under Adolf Hitler. The German Institute Taipei, Berlin’s de facto embassy in Taiwan, expressed on social media its “deep disappointment and concern” over the comments. “We must state unequivocally: Taiwan today is in no way comparable to the tyranny of National Socialism,” it said, referring to the Nazi Party. “We are disappointed and concerned to learn about the inappropriate comparison between the atrocities of the Nazi regime and the current political context