The government has divided Taiwan’s local government framework into six special municipalities and 16 counties and county-level cities. This model, which puts great emphasis on the six special municipalities, does not work very well. The resulting inequality in resource allocation, as well as the differences between urban and rural areas, are obvious and have far-reaching effects.
The government is set to allocate 65 percent of the centrally funded tax revenues to the six special municipalities, while the 16 counties and county-level cities have to share the remaining 35 percent.
Among the six special municipalities, Taipei takes the largest share with NT$39.64 billion (US$1.2 billion), exceeding New Taipei City, Kaohsiung and Taichung — which all have larger populations than Taipei — by NT$10.5 billion, NT$11.6 billion and NT$15.4 billion respectively. In Taipei, this amounts to a budget of NT$14,600 per resident, at least twice the amount that other cities receive.
For Lienchiang County, which has a little more than 10,000 residents, the budget amounts to about NT$30,000 per capita; for Penghu County, with about 100,000 residents, the budget is NT$17,900 per capita; and Taitung County is to receive NT$15,200 per capita. Taipei with its NT$14,600 per capita comes in at fourth place.
The outlying islands, with their lower populations and lower level of development, receive higher amounts per resident, but counties like Changhua, Yilan and Hsinchu, which are all experiencing fiscal difficulties, only receive about NT$6,000 per capita.
Allocating higher budgets to the six special municipalities becomes the icing on the cake, as these municipalities have larger populations and more funds at their disposal, while the cities and counties that experience fiscal difficulties get less money than they need. This contradicts the original purpose of allocating centrally funded tax revenues to cities and counties.
To allocate these funds more effectively, the government must pay more attention to the distribution of planned subsidies, and let counties and cities submit subsidy plans. The central government should then allocate subsidies based on national and local needs, environmental requirements, and cultural and social development, so that cities and counties that need it the most can receive more money.
Former Miaoli County commissioner Liu Cheng-hung’s (劉政鴻) wasteful finances put the county in such a difficult situation that it was unable to pay salaries and teetered on the brink of default. The central government’s distribution of tax revenues must emphasize the obligation to avoid a “Liu Cheng-hung effect” and promote sound local fiscal discipline. This is necessary to stop government heads from using the revenues as their private funds or to prevent them ignoring their local budgetary responsibilities, and to assure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. They must strive to increase local government revenues and refrain from asking the central government for funds.
The central government’s allocation of tax revenues is an important tool to redistribute resources among local governments. For the six special municipalities and the local county and county-level city systems to take shape, the central government must take a long-term approach and use the funds to guide local development.
The funds should not be used to ensure that the special municipalities remain large. The government should focus on the “small is beautiful” concept and use these funds to encourage the development of well-managed cities, each focusing on creating its own unique features. These are the considerations that should be on the government’s mind when distributing tax revenues and amending the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法).
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS