Innovators seldom have an easy time. Developing a new technology, business model and product is hard enough. Then they often face opposition from disrupted firms that must either adapt to new competition or whither. However, some incumbent firms latch onto a third option: turning to the government to enact rules that tilt the playing field back in their favor.
An example of this is playing out in Taiwan, where legislators are in the process of enacting regulations that would essentially force ride-sharing platforms such as Uber to leave — something the taxi industry has sought since Uber entered the market.
Few would question that ride-sharing firms have disrupted the taxi industry. The merits of their services are demonstrated by the more than 75 million riders (and 3 million drivers) around the world who use Uber rather than traditional taxi services.
However, rather than adopt a better model, Taiwanese taxi firms are pushing for regulation that would force Uber to charge riders by the hour or day rather than by the ride. The government appears to have acquiesced, placing the interests of taxi drivers over those of Uber riders and drivers.
Charging by the minute might make sense, but if riders preferred it, ride-share companies probably would already be using it. However, the Taiwanese rule is worse. Unlike elsewhere, in Taiwan Uber partners with local rental car agencies rather than individual drivers. Under the new rule, Uber would be prohibited from renting cars for less than an hour and all cars would have to return to their place of business before being rented out again. To add insult to injury, riders would be prohibited from hailing an Uber on the street. This clearly gives a leg up to taxi drivers, but will hurt Taiwanese riders.
Part of the reason the rule turned out so badly is that the process was opaque. Although the government held four stakeholder sessions before issuing the rule, Uber was not allowed to participate. When lions write the rules, tigers starve.
The motivation for the regulation seems to be a desire to keep the car rental and taxi markets separate, and to hamper Uber’s innovations in the transportation market. The government recommends that Uber license its cars as taxis, but as local taxis apparently do not use dynamic up-front pricing, a flexible business model, or even apps to conveniently order a cab, Uber would have to leave its technology behind.
Uber is not a taxi service. It has never wanted to be a taxi service. It is a technology company that is now in danger of having its technology not just regulated, but outlawed.
The government might see the rationale for preventing unused rental cars from being put to use, but most riders probably do not. Taxi riders rightly complain that the current regulatory system puts them at a disadvantage.
Rather than handicapping Uber, the correct response would be to eliminate the unnecessary regulations that gave Uber a market opportunity in the first place. Allow cabs to switch to dynamic pricing, so that riders do not have to wait as long on busy days. Use up-front pricing so riders know what the cost will be before they step in a cab. Let riders order and pay for a cab by phone and give drivers more flexibility in their schedule.
The preferences of Uber’s 3 million registered users and 10,000 drivers in Taiwan cannot all be wrong.
Uber says that the new regulations would force it to leave Taiwan, which it did for two months over an earlier issue — this after investing large sums on the understanding that previous issues had been settled.
The government also has something to lose by introducing these regulations. Uber runs an exchange program with the Ministry of Science and Technology in which local engineers travel to Uber’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, California, to study its artificial intelligence technology.
Uber’s cooperation in helping to plan for smart cities could also end. Moreover, as an up-and-coming global technology leader, by taking this action Taiwan sends a clear signal to entrepreneurs and tech companies around the world: The government does not support innovation.
The ultimate losers will be Taiwanese.
The American Institute in Taiwan has also opposed the proposed regulations, pointing to its likely effect on innovation and business confidence.
According to a recent article, several international technology companies, including PayPal, have exited the nation over frustrations with an inflexible regulatory process and a conservative business environment. Part of their fear is that the government might suddenly change the rules to favor local competitors or old technology.
With China becoming more assertive, Taiwan should feel the need to increase productivity and innovation, including by working more closely with US companies. Apparently not.
Joe Kennedy is a senior fellow for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based think tank for science and technology policy, where he focuses on tax and regulatory policy. The views expressed here are his own.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS