Praised as “a prophet of risks,” US economist Paul Krugman gained a great deal of attention during his recent trip to China and Taiwan. Krugman predicted the 1997 to 1998 Asian financial crisis and the current global recession and won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics last year. On his trip to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong and Taipei, Krugman was treated as a celebrity, with his speeches attracting large crowds that caused a lot of discussion and “Krugman frenzy.”
Krugman, a self-described liberal, has always assumed a harsh and critical attitude toward neo-conservatism. He has been open about his political affiliations in the US and he often lashes out at Republican policies. Krugman has been referred to as a reincarnated Keynesian, an advocate of socialist state projects and agendas and a controversial champion of the extreme left-wing with liberal political and economic views for his state-market ideology.
With viewpoints like these, one can become baffled by the prevailing Krugman worship in Taiwan.
In Taiwanese politics, the economic beliefs and policies of the major political parties have never had anything to do with Keynesianism. Instead, they are based on neo-conservatism, something Krugman denounces.
Furthermore, Taiwan’s traditional economic education places heavy emphasis on neo-conservative principles, which has influenced the nation’s economic values. As a result, students, the public, media outlets and technocrats call for “respect for market mechanisms” and criticize government interference in the market because of this education. This is the reason there is no room for Keynesianism and left-wing politics in Taiwanese society.
However, that may be changing now that former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Luo Wen-chia (羅文嘉) has proposed the “second Dangwai,” or “outside the party,” movement to add center-left elements to the ideology of “pro-localization.”
British economist John Keynes developed a theory about respect for market mechanisms, government intervention and the distinction between “market” and “state.” Krugman says that US Democratic politicians should follow the New Deal policies initiated by late US president Franklin D. Roosevelt to carry out social justice by setting fairness as the foundation of freedom.
Krugman’s theory can be explained in terms of the spirit of the New Deal: When the unequal distribution of economic growth leads to high levels of social injustice, the government should correct the situation through tax reform and social security to build a competitive society with equal opportunities.
This government correction flies in the face of the neo-conservative economic values prevalent in Taiwan.
Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) said that amid the global financial crisis, Taiwan increased demand and raised economic figures by adopting economic stimulus measures, adding that Taiwan was a good example of Keynesianism. However, if we examine the way the government handled the financial crisis in light of Keynesian theories of building a social security through tax reforms, the government just cited one part of the theories to prove the effectiveness of their policies. It does not really believe in Keynesianism at all.
Just 2 percent of Taiwan’s population holds 70 percent of the nation’s wealth and the gap between the rich and poor has increased by 58 percent. The problem of economic inequality has become very serious and needs to be solved. The financial crisis stems from the collapse of the global financial system, which became possible after neo-conservatives lifted financial constraints. Now that our entire nation is crazy about Krugman, the government should take all of his concerns into consideration instead of just part of them.
I truly hope that the “Krugman frenzy” is not just a belief bubble created by the media, banks and the government. I also hope that the frenzy will not be like the egg tart craze that swept through Taiwan a few years ago, when swarms of people started up egg tart stores, most of which went bust.
If the government believes in Krugman’s theories, obviously it needs to do much more. Just reading the economist’s book and listening to his speeches are not enough.
Jeff Wu is a doctoral candidate in economics.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS