Under pressure from street protests by members of farmers' and fishermen's associations, the government announced a week ago that it is suspending implementation of the three-tiered risk-control mechanism for the associations' credit units. This move is truly and deeply regrettable because it distorts many aspects of economic incentives and doesn't bode well for Taiwan's future economic development.
The problem has been blamed on the shortcomings of the three-tiered risk-control mechanism, such as sloppy decisions, bad communication and insufficient incentives. These shortcomings, however, are not sufficient reason for the policy change.
The credit units in many of the farmers' and fishermen's associations are sitting on a disproportionate amount of non-performing loans (NPLs) and would already have folded were it not for their dependence on the government's insurance and bail-out mechanisms. Although these mechanisms have the positive effect of preventing bank runs, they also amply reward pernicious behavior and work against incentives. The more problems an institution has, the more likely that institution will rely on these two mechanisms.
The Ministry of Finance is planning to restrict the operation of credit units with excessive amounts of NPLs. This would be the same as punishing harmful behavior and could offset the anti-incentive effects of the two mechanisms, which would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not clear on what the ideal reform would be in the minds of the critics, or what their superior strategy would be, but it cannot be claimed that the second-best option -- the three-tiered risk-control mechanism -- is inferior to the superior strategy and then use that as a reason for going with an inferior option, which would be to maintain the status quo. Deferring policies will cause existing distortions to gobble up economic resources, which in itself is a frightening result.
It is unavoidable that many commendable policies will affect income distribution. Even though the positive effects of a policy by far exceed the cost, these effects are difficult to assess because they are widely distributed among the public, while the cost is concentrated in a minority of victims. The voices of the victims will be louder than those of the beneficiaries and this is what distorts perception of the policies.
Income distribution resulting from these policies clearly diminishes the benefits to specific groups, which will be fuming with rage. Anything but the toughest policies will be insufficient to stop these groups. Blind belief in communication as the solution to all problems will be the same as underestimating their intelligence or overestimating their moral posture. That the government has abruptly applied the brakes under pressure by threats from special interest groups tells the demonstrators that their demonstrations are effective, and leaves the groups that do not demonstrate to continue to suffer in silence. This is a distortion of behavioral incentives and will obstruct the implementation of future reforms.
This unplanned halt to the government's financial reform policy will not only fail to amend existing distortions, but the pressure created by demands from vested interests will lead to new ones in other areas. In the eyes of those hopeful for reform, reforms have stopped progressing and even retreated. This is a heartless blow. Investors used to have a bullish faith in the economic situation. Vain attempts at using language and pretty words to cover up this mistake will be the same as shrinking the beef on the plate and replacing it with sculpted vegetables. It will only be met with scorn by the affected parties.
Lai Ping-yan is associate professor in the Department of Economics at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS