The government has divided Taiwan’s local government framework into six special municipalities and 16 counties and county-level cities. This model, which puts great emphasis on the six special municipalities, does not work very well. The resulting inequality in resource allocation, as well as the differences between urban and rural areas, are obvious and have far-reaching effects.
The government is set to allocate 65 percent of the centrally funded tax revenues to the six special municipalities, while the 16 counties and county-level cities have to share the remaining 35 percent.
Among the six special municipalities, Taipei takes the largest share with NT$39.64 billion (US$1.2 billion), exceeding New Taipei City, Kaohsiung and Taichung — which all have larger populations than Taipei — by NT$10.5 billion, NT$11.6 billion and NT$15.4 billion respectively. In Taipei, this amounts to a budget of NT$14,600 per resident, at least twice the amount that other cities receive.
For Lienchiang County, which has a little more than 10,000 residents, the budget amounts to about NT$30,000 per capita; for Penghu County, with about 100,000 residents, the budget is NT$17,900 per capita; and Taitung County is to receive NT$15,200 per capita. Taipei with its NT$14,600 per capita comes in at fourth place.
The outlying islands, with their lower populations and lower level of development, receive higher amounts per resident, but counties like Changhua, Yilan and Hsinchu, which are all experiencing fiscal difficulties, only receive about NT$6,000 per capita.
Allocating higher budgets to the six special municipalities becomes the icing on the cake, as these municipalities have larger populations and more funds at their disposal, while the cities and counties that experience fiscal difficulties get less money than they need. This contradicts the original purpose of allocating centrally funded tax revenues to cities and counties.
To allocate these funds more effectively, the government must pay more attention to the distribution of planned subsidies, and let counties and cities submit subsidy plans. The central government should then allocate subsidies based on national and local needs, environmental requirements, and cultural and social development, so that cities and counties that need it the most can receive more money.
Former Miaoli County commissioner Liu Cheng-hung’s (劉政鴻) wasteful finances put the county in such a difficult situation that it was unable to pay salaries and teetered on the brink of default. The central government’s distribution of tax revenues must emphasize the obligation to avoid a “Liu Cheng-hung effect” and promote sound local fiscal discipline. This is necessary to stop government heads from using the revenues as their private funds or to prevent them ignoring their local budgetary responsibilities, and to assure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. They must strive to increase local government revenues and refrain from asking the central government for funds.
The central government’s allocation of tax revenues is an important tool to redistribute resources among local governments. For the six special municipalities and the local county and county-level city systems to take shape, the central government must take a long-term approach and use the funds to guide local development.
The funds should not be used to ensure that the special municipalities remain large. The government should focus on the “small is beautiful” concept and use these funds to encourage the development of well-managed cities, each focusing on creating its own unique features. These are the considerations that should be on the government’s mind when distributing tax revenues and amending the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法).
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of
RSS