Globalization might seem to be crumbling due to the COVID-19 pandemic as borders close and travel is restricted, but it would be premature to declare the “death of globalization” in light of temporary seal-offs while ignoring the unprecedented growth and benefits it has brought over the past three decades.
The scaling-down of globalization is clear. One example is the manufacturing sector, a key pillar of many economies, which has been hit hard by the effects of COVID-19. Manufacturers are rethinking how to cope with the pandemic and potential future outbreaks as they face acute challenges to restore production amid supply chain disruptions. They are adjusting operating models and re-evaluating the feasibility of building production sites in new areas.
At a minimum, the long-standing model of “taking orders in Taiwan and manufacturing elsewhere” is no longer applicable.
Reducing reliance on China is the first step, which would prevent businesses from halting entirely due to disease-induced lockdowns, as happened in Wuhan, China, where COVID-19 emerged. Over the past 30 years, Taiwanese manufacturers have been moving factories out of Taiwan, mostly to China, and using cheap labor and land to slash manufacturing costs and support affordable electronics. The strategy proved successful, but corporate executives are at a crossroads — keep operations going, or increase costs by moving production out of the comfort zone.
With constrained component supplies, a labor shortage and logistics problems due to lockdowns in China, Taiwanese manufacturers redirected production back home. They reduced overseas production last month by 8 percentage points from a year earlier to 40.7 percent of orders received, the lowest in 15 years, Ministry of Economic Affairs data showed.
Flat-panel maker AU Optronics Corp (AUO), which has LCD module assembly lines in China, said that it is pondering a fundamental shift in its supply chain by diversifying production sites, given that the impact of the pandemic is expected to be broader and longer-lasting than the SARS outbreak in 2003.
Such changes would reverse the long-term slide in consumer electronics prices, as production efficiency would no longer be as good, AUO said, adding that it would cooperate with customers to decide on manufacturing locations.
Before the COVID-19 outbreak, manufacturers benefited from globalization and passed on the savings to vendors, which led to lower shelf prices. They leveraged large-scale production and industrial clustering. This production mode might be broken, as the clustering effect is fading along with a rising diversity in production locations to smaller developing countries, rather than concentrating on China.
Building or raising inventory should be the second step to minimize operating risks as supply chains become relatively vulnerable and not completely reliable amid the pandemic.
Some manufacturers, automakers especially, have been keeping optimal fund allocations and their operations as agile as possible since the 1980s. With many countries shutting their borders to contain the spread of COVID-19, firms are facing acute challenges to manage the supply of components. Inventory building is the simplest solution.
No matter how the pandemic upends the world, it looks like the globalization trend is here to stay. It is impossible for any country or company to shut the world out.
Agility is becoming the norm for companies to get along in a changing world.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)