Must a city be large to be competitive? An annual report entitled the Global Urban Competitiveness Report prepared by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a group of international academics is very helpful in answering this question. While the report focuses on different aspects each year, it is clear that the size of a city is not in direct correlation to competitiveness. Some very small cities lead others in terms of competitiveness.
While the 2006 study was headed up by metropolises such as New York, London, Paris and Los Angeles — all several times bigger than Taipei in terms of population — the top 20 also included Copenhagen, Philadelphia and Santiago, which are much smaller than Taipei. Last year, there were slight changes in the makeup of the top 20 cities. New York, London and Paris were still in the lead, but the number of cities with populations smaller than Taipei increased to 10.
In 2006, Taipei ranked No. 48, and last year, 112, while cities that ranked in the top 20 such as Copenhagen, Stockholm, Washington, Boston and Helsinki only had populations of 500,000 to 600,000, a mere fifth of Taipei’s population. Megalopolises such as Mexico City, Chongqing and even Shanghai often lagged behind Taipei in terms of competitiveness. The rankings of cities around the world clearly show that it is not true that cities must be large to be competitive.
If it is true that cities must be large to drive a nation’s development, like the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been saying, smaller nations such as Sweden with a population of only 9 million, Switzerland with about 7 million, Denmark and Finland with 5 million each and Norway with only 4 million would never have developed at all.
Their populations are not even half the size of Shanghai or Mexico City and even if their populations were combined, they would still be smaller than Chongqing’s. However, these countries always rank high in national competitiveness, way ahead of China with its population of more than 1 billion people. In addition, while the population of their capital cities may only be several hundred thousand, they rank far ahead of metropolises like Beijing, Shanghai and even Tokyo and Hong Kong in competitiveness.
Less developed or newly industrialized countries need to make a conscious effort to concentrate their resources in large cities and using the countryside as a base for providing markets and cheap labor to support urban development. However, this strategy is not necessarily applicable to a developed nation, and totally unsuitable for a small nation like Taiwan.
Taiwan did use rural areas as a base from which to gather and send resources to cities to aid urban development.
Before its economy took off, Taiwan adopted a strategy of using agriculture to support industry that involved exploiting villages to support the development of Taipei, which at the time had a population of only 200,000.
The combined population of Taipei and Kaohsiung is now more than 6 million and when the population of the combined metropolises of Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung surpasses 10 million, it will be impossible to keep Taiwan’s main economic base within Taiwan. By that time, Taiwan’s base must be located outside of Taiwan itself.
Taiwan was already a developed nation when it joined the WTO.
We must learn how the smaller nations in Europe and even Singapore enhanced their competitiveness.
Instead, the government is looking backward to emulate the regional development strategies of large developing countries.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS