Taiwan elected its first female president — Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — in a landmark election on Jan. 16, with her Democratic Progressive Party also securing a majority in the legislature for the first time. The new legislature takes office on Monday, which offers the new Cabinet opportunities to reconsider the long-awaited Free Economic Pilot Zone project and many other significant domestic bills.
The draft special act for Free Economic Pilot Zones mainly focuses on economic liberalization and regulatory loosening, which has faced hurdles as political parties and the public hold different perspectives. The draft also claims its mid-term goal is to create favorable conditions for Taiwan’s entry to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, so the act’s period of effectiveness has been set at only 10 years.
Special economic zones have been a powerful instrument for attracting foreign investments and boosting economic growth, as evidence in the growth of such the zones in East Asia, Africa and Latin America since the 1970s. However, there are also many examples of failures, where firms have taken advantage of tax breaks and natural resources. Some zones have even been criticized as “pollution havens” for failing to meet international environmental standards.
A World Bank study said that zones that are the most successful in contributing to long-term development go beyond the traditional models of attracting investment and generating employment. This means that successful projects will ultimately deliver structural transformation of the economy. Critical to this process is the degree of integration of economic efficiency with other social and environmental considerations in the domestic economy.
Established in 2012, Enterprise Zones are at the center of the UK government’s long-term economic plan, which adopts a “local enterprise partnerships” approach to create entrepreneurial cultures in local communities and deliver sustainable growth.
As climate change becomes a development challenge, exploring a new paradigm that decouples economic growth from further increases in greenhouse gas emissions is a main task.
The role of special economic zones in promoting climate-friendly development has become critical in policy discussions. The zones can provide an ideal platform for both social and environmental policy innovations, not only because of their enclave nature, but also because they own built-in compliance and implementation mechanisms.
The concept of developing low-carbon “green” economic zones is already being adopted worldwide. Northern European nations have successfully developed eco-industrial parks since the 1960s, such as the Kalundborg Symbiosis in Denmark.
It is expected that greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations will surpass those from developed countries. China, India and South Korea have realized that special economic zones will play a catalytic role in pursuing “green” growth. For instance, South Korea’s Incheon Free Economic Zone sets a clear low-carbon master plan and harnesses foreign investment to fund climate mitigation strategies.
Taiwan published its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions report before the Paris climate negotiations last year. Now it is necessary to consider incorporating this reduction commitment into the next wave of development. Synergising low-carbon and investment policies, the new generation of “green” Free Economic Pilot Zones would provide an ambitious path for long-term sustainable economic development.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate researching international environmental law at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Taipei Bar Association.
As the incursions by China into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone intensify, the international community’s anxiety has risen over the question of whether the US military would become directly involved in the case of an attack on Taiwan. Washington’s long-held policy of “strategic ambiguity” does little to ease the trepidation. The rationale universally espoused on “strategic ambiguity” is that an announced commitment from Washington to directly defend Taiwan would encourage Taiwanese independence and consequently bring forth a Chinese military attack and a possible nuclear confrontation between two superpowers. However, this line of argument could soon lose steam if the subject is viewed from
Having deceived the world about its nuclear capabilities while preparing for an arms race, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now using its increasing nuclear forces for virtual nuclear coercion. This new threat will continue until the United States, Japan, and Taiwan can restore the CCP’s sense of fear. This dynamic is a familiar one for Taiwan. As the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capabilities have grown, its inhibitions about conducting larger and more frequent coercive military demonstrations have shrunk. The PLA now more openly practices for the destruction of Taiwan’s democracy and the murder of its citizens. In the nuclear realm,
In an unprecedented move, a group of democratic nations led by the US, UK and EU in a joint statement on Tuesday accused the Chinese Ministry of State Security of having carried out a major cyberattack earlier this year and stealing data from at least 30,000 organizations worldwide, including governments, universities and firms in key industries. Western officials were reportedly perplexed by the attack’s brazen execution and unparalleled scale. In an article on the attack, BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera wrote: “Western spies are still struggling to understand why Chinese behavior has changed.” The attack raises the fear “that they [China]
At the conclusion of the G7 Leaders’ Summit on June 13, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who participated virtually, called for the reform of multilateral institutions as the best signal of commitment to the cause of open societies. His comments are significant in light of China’s ongoing and successful efforts to control international organizations, and, in particular, to keep Taiwan out of critical health agencies amid the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s influence over the WHO is well known. It has used this control to deny Taiwan a place at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decisionmaking body of the WHO. Taiwan’s absence