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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS