Willful Blindness in the ECFA Debate

Willful Blindness in the ECFA Debate
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 4, 2011

Taipei and Beijing signed ECFA, the cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement, a full year ago. ECFA is recognized as the most important cross-Strait economic and trade agreement ever reached. Yet the opposition DPP insists that "ECFA is a myth that has been shattered." The ruling KMT on the other hand, underscores the fact that ECFA is an agreement that has showered benefits upon Taiwan. As we can see, not just politics is Blue and Green on Taiwan. Even economic effectiveness must be viewed through Blue or Green filters. When debating politics, both sides may claim they are in the right. But economic is rooted in objective data and analysis. It is not subject to arbitrary interpretation.

The Democratic Progressive Party and some academics have criticized ECFA. They have blamed it for widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor, for falling salary levels, for reduced foreign direct investment, and for a 61% drop in the growth rate of first quarter exports to the Chinese mainland. DPP spokesman Chen Chi-mai says that numbers do not lie, and that ECFA is a myth that has been shattered. Some of these criticisms appear persuasive, as if backed by the numbers. But closer understanding and professional analysis reveal a problem not with the numbers, but with the way they have been interpreted.

Consider so-called wage level regression. What are they talking about? The DPP claims that salaries have "returned to where they were 12 years ago." But the DPP knows perfectly well that eight of the past 12 years were under DPP rule. Did a financial crisis erupt during those years? The DPP claims that ECFA has had a negative impact. If so, it should compare this year to last year, i.e., before ECFA and after ECFA. It should not drag in irrelevancies about the state of the economy over a decade ago. In April, according to the DGBAS Employee Earnings Survey, the average salary increased 1.2% over the same period a year ago. This year, between January and April, the average salary increased 4.08% over the same period last year. Frankly, how the DPP arrived at its conclusions about "salary level regression," based on the survey and numbers cited, is a mystery.

Consider the widening gap between rich and poor. The DPP cites national statistics for low-income households. It compares the first quarter to the second quarter. But the increased number of low-income households in recent years is mainly attributable to a more inclusive definition of "low-income households," as well as adjustments to minimum cost of living standards. The numbers for the domestic gap between rich and poor are announced in August each year, Income is classified according to five levels. The numbers are not published until August of the next year. The DPP used changing standards for low-income households as its basis for comparison. The result was hardly convincing.

Besides, ECFA was not officially signed unitl June 29, 2010. The early harvest list took effect on January 1. Was ECFA truly so "infinitely powerful?" Did it really cause such a huge surge in low income household on Taiwan in only three months? The growing gap between rich and poor is a serious matter than must be addressed. But it is part of a decade long trend. To misuse data in order to claim that "ECFA had a negative effect," is irrational in the extreme.

The DPP claims that the growth rate for exports to the Chinese mainland during the first quarter of this year was much lower than during the same period last year. This is a textbook example of how to misuse data. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the financial tsunami struck. Nations the world over found themselves in an economic slump. Exports plummeted. During the first quarter of the following year, the financial tsunami bottomed out. First quarter exports from Taiwan to foreign nations fell 30%. Exports from Taiwan to the Mainland region and Hong Kong fared even worse, falling 40%. But during the first quarter of 2010, exports from Taiwan to the Mainland region and Hong Kong lept 75.6%. Some academics have pointed to exports from Taiwan to the Mainland region and Hong Kong this year. They say it grew only 14%, far less than last year. They say "this proves ECFA has been ineffective." They are guilty of either honest ignorance or delibate deception. Actually, products on the early harvest list exported to the Mainland region grew far faster than exports overall. Whether ECFA has been effective can be verified at a glance.

ECFA is actually an FTA (free trade agreement) reached between the two economies. FTAs have different impacts on different industries. But the overall benefit to the economies of signatories is indisputable. Otherwise, why have governments the world over signed 270 FTAs of all sorts over the past decade? The Republic of China did not have to sign FTAs with South Korea, Europe, or the United States. But we felt pressure and anxiety from within. Therefore we signed. If ECFA truly offered no benefits, why does the DPP constantly argue that the ruling KMT must aggressively negotiate and sign FTAs with Europe, the US, and other nations? Therefore, the overall effectiveness of ECFA has been proven. The DPP has used faulty numbers and arguments to poormouth ECFA. Why? Because the DPP's approach merely reveals its lack of financial expertise, and its deep seated ideological bias.

On the other hand, certain domestic industries and workers have indeed been hurt by ECFA. Under the circumstances, the government should provide counseling and compensation. ECFA calls for bilateral market opening and tariff reduction. Non-competitive industries will inevitably suffer. The two sides signed ECFA. Because Beijing made concessions, the full impact on industry and labor on Taiwan remains unclear. But sooner or later that impact will be felt. The government must focus on these potential victims. The debate over whether ECFA is effective and beneficial, must become a more constructive one.

ECFA效益論戰中的「理盲」
2011-07-04 中國時報

兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ（兩岸經濟合作架構協議）滿一年；不過，對這個被稱為兩岸經貿最重要的協議，在野黨認為「ＥＣＦＡ神話破滅」，執政黨則強調其效益宏大。顯然台灣不僅政治要分藍綠，連對經濟效益的解讀，都要分藍綠。不過，政治可以各說各話皆成理，但經濟有客觀數據與分析依據，可不能胡亂解讀。

民進黨與部分學者對ＥＣＦＡ的批評，包括：台灣貧富差距擴大、薪資水準倒退、外人直接投資減少、台灣首季對大陸出口成長率大幅下降六十一個百分點等，民進黨發言人陳其邁並說，數字會說話，ＥＣＦＡ神話已經破滅。這些批評，有些似乎有數字佐證而顯得「有力」，有些則缺乏數字支撐。但深入了解、加上專業解析，則可發現這些批評不是錯用數字，就是錯誤詮釋了數字。

例如，所謂薪資水準倒退，實在不知所指為何。民進黨說薪資「倒退至十二年前的水準」，但民進黨可知這十二年中有八年是民進黨執政，其中又有一年碰上金融海嘯？而且，民進黨要批評ＥＣＦＡ的負面影響，該聚焦在去年與今年的比較（ＥＣＦＡ生效前後），而非直如瞎扯的與十多年前比。事實上根據行政院主計處的受雇員工薪資調查，今年四月的平均薪資較去年同月增加一．二％；今年一到四月的平均薪資較去年同期成長四．○八％。坦白說，實在不知民進黨引用哪個調查、哪個數據，如何得出ＥＣＦＡ導致「薪資水準倒退」的結論。

至於貧富差距擴大，民進黨引用全國低收入戶數與人數，今年第一季較去年第二季增加做為依據。不過，近兩年低收入戶數字的增加，主要原因在對低收入戶的認定標準放寬，及最低生活費的調整等因素。國內觀察貧富差距的主要數據在每年八月公布、以五等分所得比的差距為標準，這個數字要到明年八月才公布，民進黨以隨著政策的標準會改變的低收入戶數做為依據，說服力就差。

更何況，ＥＣＦＡ雖然是在二○一○年六月廿九日正式簽訂，但其早收清單生效日是今年一月一日，難道ＥＣＦＡ如此「威力無窮」，三個月就讓台灣的低收入戶大增嗎？台灣的貧富差距不斷擴大，的確是一個必須重視的課題，但把這一個十多年來持續的趨勢，用一個錯誤的數據，然後冠在「ＥＣＦＡ的負面效益」中，不通之極。

而有關今年首季對大陸出口成長率較去年同期大減一事，更是錯用數據的一個「典範」。二○○八年第四季全球金融海嘯，各國經濟重挫、出口銳減；隔年第一季是海嘯的谷底，台灣首季對外出口大減三成，其中對大陸與香港更衰退達四成；但二○一○年首季對大陸與香港的出口成長率暴增高達七五．六％。部分學者引用今年對大陸與香港出口成長僅十四％，比去年成長率大減，來「驗證」ＥＣＦＡ沒有效益，不是無知，就是蓄意誤導大眾。事實上列入早收清單產品對大陸的出口成長率，遠高於平均成長率，ＥＣＦＡ是否有效，一目瞭然。

ＥＣＦＡ其實就是兩個經濟體之間的ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定），ＦＴＡ雖然對不同產業間的利弊不同，但對簽署國整體經濟帶來的效益，是毋庸質疑。否則，全球就不會在十多年內，簽訂超過二七○個各式各樣的ＦＴＡ；台灣也不必為南韓與歐、美簽下ＦＴＡ，感到壓力與不安。而且，如果ＥＣＦＡ沒有效益，民進黨更不必整天把政府該積極爭取與歐、美等其它國家簽ＦＴＡ，掛在嘴上。因此，對ＥＣＦＡ的整體效益，實在不必爭論，民進黨更甭用錯誤的數據與論證唱衰ＥＣＦＡ，因為，這種做法只是暴露本身財經專業的缺乏，及政治意識形態的濃厚而已。

較值得關注者，反而是國內因ＥＣＦＡ受害的產業與勞工情況如何，政府該提出哪些政策對其輔導、補償。ＥＣＦＡ是雙方互相開放市場、降低關稅，競爭力差的產業必然因此受損。兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ時，因為大陸的「讓利」，讓台灣受害之產業與勞工尚不明顯，但未來遲早會顯現。朝野加強關注這些潛在受害者，比口水爭論ＥＣＦＡ是否有效益、效益到底多大，將更有建設性。