Globalization might seem to be crumbling due to the COVID-19 pandemic as borders close and travel is restricted, but it would be premature to declare the “death of globalization” in light of temporary seal-offs while ignoring the unprecedented growth and benefits it has brought over the past three decades.
The scaling-down of globalization is clear. One example is the manufacturing sector, a key pillar of many economies, which has been hit hard by the effects of COVID-19. Manufacturers are rethinking how to cope with the pandemic and potential future outbreaks as they face acute challenges to restore production amid supply chain disruptions. They are adjusting operating models and re-evaluating the feasibility of building production sites in new areas.
At a minimum, the long-standing model of “taking orders in Taiwan and manufacturing elsewhere” is no longer applicable.
Reducing reliance on China is the first step, which would prevent businesses from halting entirely due to disease-induced lockdowns, as happened in Wuhan, China, where COVID-19 emerged. Over the past 30 years, Taiwanese manufacturers have been moving factories out of Taiwan, mostly to China, and using cheap labor and land to slash manufacturing costs and support affordable electronics. The strategy proved successful, but corporate executives are at a crossroads — keep operations going, or increase costs by moving production out of the comfort zone.
With constrained component supplies, a labor shortage and logistics problems due to lockdowns in China, Taiwanese manufacturers redirected production back home. They reduced overseas production last month by 8 percentage points from a year earlier to 40.7 percent of orders received, the lowest in 15 years, Ministry of Economic Affairs data showed.
Flat-panel maker AU Optronics Corp (AUO), which has LCD module assembly lines in China, said that it is pondering a fundamental shift in its supply chain by diversifying production sites, given that the impact of the pandemic is expected to be broader and longer-lasting than the SARS outbreak in 2003.
Such changes would reverse the long-term slide in consumer electronics prices, as production efficiency would no longer be as good, AUO said, adding that it would cooperate with customers to decide on manufacturing locations.
Before the COVID-19 outbreak, manufacturers benefited from globalization and passed on the savings to vendors, which led to lower shelf prices. They leveraged large-scale production and industrial clustering. This production mode might be broken, as the clustering effect is fading along with a rising diversity in production locations to smaller developing countries, rather than concentrating on China.
Building or raising inventory should be the second step to minimize operating risks as supply chains become relatively vulnerable and not completely reliable amid the pandemic.
Some manufacturers, automakers especially, have been keeping optimal fund allocations and their operations as agile as possible since the 1980s. With many countries shutting their borders to contain the spread of COVID-19, firms are facing acute challenges to manage the supply of components. Inventory building is the simplest solution.
No matter how the pandemic upends the world, it looks like the globalization trend is here to stay. It is impossible for any country or company to shut the world out.
Agility is becoming the norm for companies to get along in a changing world.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS