Politicians may talk tough about rival nations, but business peopleâs actions may be a better barometer of international relations.
Thatâs one conclusion of Steve Chan, a political science professor at the University of Colorado who says conventional political theories donât explain why China has become Taiwanâs most important trading partner, edging out both the United States and Japan.
In 2005, China accounted for 40 percent of Taiwanâs exports and 70 percent of its foreign direct investment, according to PBSâs Nightly Business Report. Official sources give lower estimates of trade, but even those numbers are significant:
Mainland China reported that trade between China and Taiwan reached $108 billion in U.S. dollars in 2006, an 18-percent jump from 2005. These trends are continuing, Chan says, and they show that Taiwanâs commercial ties with China are âboth highly salient and asymmetrically important to its economy.â
What the numbers donât explain, however, is why this burst of commerce is occurring between these longtime rivals. Mainland China claims Taiwan as its own territory, but Taiwan has been living as a de facto separate state for five decades.
Whatâs more, the government of Taiwan has been officially opposed to expanded trade with China. Taiwanâs Democratic Progressive Party, which held power until March 2008, espoused official Taiwanese independence and discouraged trade with China.
Last year, Taiwan voters replaced the DPP with the Kuomintangâalso called the KMT or Nationalist Partyâwhich also has historically discouraged trade with China.
Given this political landscape and that history, Chan notes, the rapid rise in cross-Strait trade is âbaffling.â
In the September issue of International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, a scholarly journal, Chan argues that the political theories of realism and liberalism cannot easily account for this phenomenon.
Realism, a political theory that contends that states protect their interests by pursuing a balance of power with rivals, would not have predicted thriving commerce between Taiwan and China, Chan notes. Thatâs because Taiwan lacks Chinaâs power, and trading with China could leave Taiwan vulnerable to Chinese pressure.
The theory of liberalism fares no better, Chan suggests. Classical liberalism emphasizes the role of property rights and contract enforcement, systems that ensure that the free market wonât become hostage to government fiat. Such systems donât buttress cross-Strait trade.
So why is Taiwan trading so much with China when the same cannot be said of other longtime rivalsâincluding North and South Korea, Syria and Israel, Cuba and the United States?
A key difference, Chan argues, is that business leaders have a good sense of the safety of their investments abroad. Further, they can distinguish between politiciansâ âcheap talkâ and their governmentsâ real commitments.
âThe actions of the business community are more credible because unlike government officials, entrepreneurs are unlikely to sacrifice profit for the sake of political posturing or âcheap talk,ââ Chan writes.
A Taiwanese president may âspeak to the galleryâ about his intention to pursue formal independence from China, thereby jeopardizing trade. But business people will know whether that tough talk is accompanied by equally restrictive action.
Chan asks, âWhat would a president who is seriously determined for independence do?â He would not overlook cross-Strait commerce, Chan contends.
In that sense, the nationâs public messages differ from information known to private institutions. Stock markets pay close attention to political events, Chan notes. As health-care reform is debated on Capitol Hill, insurance companiesâ stocks are probably re-assessed hourly.
In June 2007, Taiwanâs DPP government announced its intention to conduct a referendum on whether Taiwan should apply for U.N. membership under the name âTaiwanâ rather than âRepublic of China,â Chan observes.
The referendum was defeated along with the DPP in March 2008. If Taiwanâs business community had been seriously worried about the referendumâs passage (and Chinese reprisals) the stock market should have reflected this concern.
It didnât.
Chan compares the price of the Taiwan Greater China Fund with Fidelityâs Spartan 500 index fund between June and October of 2007. The Taiwan Greater China Fund did not fall with the news of the referendum. Instead, it rose until mid-July, when concerns about the U.S. financial sector prompted a sell-off.
Meanwhile, the Taiwan Greater China Fund tracked closely with the Fidelity fund. If investors were worried about rising cross-Strait tension, this would have been a time to show it. Chan sees this as evidence that the stock market found the politiciansâ rhetoric to be phony.
âThese are objective indicators, because they are not partisan.â
The extent of cross-Strait trade is more than a reliable indicator of the state of Taiwan-China relations he adds; the rising level of commerce is also encouraging.
âPeacefully inclined people get into trading relations in the first place,â Chan says. âThis is where the rubber meets the road.â
But the fact that cross-Strait trade is a positive sign does not imply that the international community should necessarily encourage trade between rivals, which in other cases might not be peacefully inclined.