There were several important takeaways from the International Institute for Management Development’s (IMD) global talent rankings for this year. At first glance, Taiwan fared pretty well: not only was it ranked 23rd in the report, that number remained unchanged from the past two years.
Taiwan ranked better than Japan, South Korea and China, which placed 31st, 39th and 42nd respectively. With the exception of Hong Kong (12th) and Singapore (13th), Taiwan was top in Asia in a list dominated by European nations. The report only examined 63 nations, putting Taiwan’s overall ranking in the top half.
The report considered three factors, each of which was further divided into several items. The three factors were investment and development, the resources committed to cultivating homegrown talent; appeal, the ability to attract and retain talent; and readiness, which quantifies available skills in the talent pool.
It is only after breaking the rankings down item by item and looking at them in the context of the trends exhibited by individual rankings that the story becomes a little more concerning. Of the three factors, the success story appears to be in investment and development: Taiwan ranked 25th, up three notches from last year and 10 places from 2013.
A quick glance at appeal initially seems encouraging, as Taiwan maintained last year’s No. 26 ranking, but slipped two places from 2013. The story for readiness is less positive, as the nation climbed five places from last year to 22nd, which was still far from 16th in 2013.
IMD World Competitiveness Center director Arturo Bris said there are certain factors common to the economies that ranked highest on the list. They are all relatively small economies. For example, Switzerland was first, followed by Denmark. In Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore fit that description, as does Taiwan.
They also invest significantly in education, have outstanding educational systems and provide a superior quality of life. In this area, Bris specifically highlighted China, which he said improved its position by upgrading public education.
In investment and development, Taiwan ranked 46th, well into the bottom half of the list, in terms of total public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP. A close look at the itemized factors in this section shows that the nation’s primary education student-to-teacher ratio ranked 17th, but was 45th in the ratio for secondary education. Taiwan also lagged behind in language skills under readiness, ranking 36th.
However, it is appeal that merits the most attention. Taiwan ranked 47th in the cost of living index, 47th in brain drain and 44th in foreign highly skilled personnel. According to the National Development Council, the nation in 2011 ranked 27th in cost of living, 35th in terms of brain drain and 26th in terms of being able to attract highly skilled foreign personnel. In attracting and retaining talent, the nation ranked 38th this year.
The government has extolled significantly on the importance of increasing immigration, and attracting and retaining foreign professionals to Taiwan, as well as on the brain drain, especially within the long-term context of the nation’s low birth rate and aging population.
The rankings demonstrate two things: The government has its work cut out for it, and the concerns raised in the report are part of long-term trends and will therefore require long-term solutions.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS