Since taking office, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has claimed to stand for grassroots economics. We want to ask Wu this: If an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China were to cause more harm to the grassroots economy, would he still advocate signing one?
At a press conference naming the new Cabinet last month, Wu said the signing of any cross-strait agreement should observe the principles of national need, public support and legislative oversight.
Now that the government has refused to hold a referendum on an ECFA, how can it claim to have obtained public support or to have reached a broad public consensus on the matter?
Rushing to sign an economic pact with China, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has aggressively promoted the necessity of an ECFA with Beijing and cited an assessment report by the semi-official Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research that endorses the view that an ECFA would be favorable to the Taiwanese macro economy.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs made “expert adjustments” in line with the report to minimize or eliminate any negative impact on certain industries before coming to the conclusion that signing an ECFA with China would have substantial and positive economic results.
In fact, several of the hypotheses in the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model on which the report is based defy reality.
First, the assumption of full employment excludes the possibility of unemployment.
Second, it is assumed that after signing an ECFA, tariffs on most Taiwanese industrial exports to China would be removed.
As a result, Taiwanese petrochemical products would replace petrochemical products from South Korea and Japan, which accounted for 38 percent — US$38 billion — of the Chinese market in 2007, while Taiwanese mechanical products would replace corresponding products from South Korea and ASEAN countries, which accounted for 23 percent — US$27 billion — of the Chinese market.
These assumptions are entirely unrealistic. Tariffs are not the only factor affecting product competitiveness, and petrochemical and mechanical products are not identical from country to country. Thus, it is out of the question that Taiwanese products would replace other products.
In addition, production capacity of the Taiwanese petrochemical and mechanical industries is not sufficient to replace products manufactured by Japan, South Korea and the ASEAN countries.
Worse, the GTAP model uses market overlap to estimate replacement levels, but it only considers the possibility that Chinese products may replace products from Japan, South Korea and ASEAN countries in the Taiwanese market, failing to mention the possibility that they may also replace Taiwanese products. This is the most significant problem, and the one that will most affect Taiwan’s market.
Since labor costs and rent in China are far lower than in Taiwan, cheap and inferior Chinese products and agricultural produce will likely enter the nation on a large scale under zero-tariff preferential treatment. The influx of Chinese products will cause domestic agriculture and industry to collapse — especially small and medium-sized enterprises manufacturing towels, ready-made garments, shoes, bedding and ceramics — and raise unemployment levels even higher.
The result of increasing unemployment in Taiwan will be depressed wages and increased income inequality.
Wang To-far is a part-time professor of economics at National Taipei University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS