US President Donald Trump has announced sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” on US trading partners, ranging from 10 percent to 49 percent, covering industrial products and agricultural products — including a 32 percent tax on agricultural goods from Taiwan that is set to take effect on Wednesday.
The White House said the tariffs aim to address “the injustices of global trade, reshore manufacturing and drive economic growth for the American people.”
However, the policy resembles a machine gun indiscriminately firing.
The method used to calculate the “reciprocal tariffs” involves dividing the US trade deficit by the total value of imports, then halving the figure. Yet in the case of Taiwan, the US has a trade surplus in agricultural products, making the imposition of a 32 percent tariff unjustifiable.
The government should urge the US to treat agricultural products separately from industrial goods in trade calculations. At the very least, it should negotiate a baseline tariff of no more than 10 percent.
The government should also consider imposing 38 percent “reciprocal tariffs” on agricultural products from the US. This rate is derived by taking half of Taiwan’s US$2.89 billion trade deficit with the US and expressing it as a percentage of the US$3.78 billion in total agricultural imports from the US.
The government should also conduct a thorough analysis of Taiwan’s agricultural competitors in the US market — including the tariff rates imposed on their goods, the resulting post-tariff prices and how those compare with Taiwanese products. This would help assess Taiwan’s relative competitiveness and identify areas of potential disadvantage.
The government should also evaluate the demand for Taiwanese agricultural products in the US to determine the price elasticity of market demands and the possibility of transferring the cost of the tariffs to consumers by raising the prices.
If price elasticity is high, there is limited room for price increases. This would have a greater impact on homogenous goods — such as fishery products like tilapia, squid, tuna, dolphinfish and bass — resulting in lower profit margins and export volumes.
In contrast, heterogeneous products tend to have lower price elasticity, allowing for greater flexibility in pricing. As a result, the impact of newly imposed tariffs on these products would be relatively limited.
Consumers are generally willing to pay higher prices for differentiated products such as butterfly orchids and specialty tea leaves, due to their unique and superior qualities. This aligns with the strategy adopted by many Taiwanese businesses — emphasizing value and distinction over price competition.
The new tariffs are likely to have a smaller effect on such differentiated agricultural goods. For example, butterfly orchids are considered secondary goods: their sprouts are cultivated in Taiwan and then exported to greenhouses in the US, where they are grown to full maturity.
In the short term, Taiwan could face a mismatch between domestic production and sales. Therefore, it is essential to closely monitor the proportion of exports relative to total production for affected goods to ensure appropriate countermeasures.
Facing the US’ tariff turmoil, the government and the private sector should conduct proper market research and analysis of their competitors, while engaging in market development.
Taiwan should also leverage its advantages in non-price competitions, such as species, quality, brands and traceability of goods, to bolster its competitiveness in the international market.
Yang Ming-hsien is a professor in the Department of International Business at Feng Chia University.
Translated by Fion Khan
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS