Search results

This study examined Taiwan's fiscal policy responses for sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery. The costs and benefits, aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), of fiscal policy responses were identified and valued. Although it may be too early to conclude whether the benefits outweigh the costs, the performance and outcome of fiscal measures were evaluated.

The study relied on secondary data, including governmental official data, legislative reviews, audit reports and public opinion polls to understand objective and subjective benefits and costs in economic, social and environmental dimensions. However, while the costs were measured in monetary terms, some of the benefits (i.e. satisfaction) could not be monetized; therefore, this study focused on identifying and valuing benefits from fiscal measures but set aside the issues of monetizing and discounting.

With respect to the costs, a special budget of NT$840 billion was approved, of which 66.83% was allocated for economic development, 33.12% for social welfare and 0.05% for environmental protection. In terms of the benefits, the economic growth rate was forecasted to be 5.88% in 2021 and 3.69% in 2022, while the average economic growth rate was 2.77% during the period from 2012 to 2019. Social equity was emphasized as various and customized bailout packages were provided to impacted individuals and industries. Moreover, most citizens were confident in the government's efforts to combat the pandemic and stimulate recovery in Taiwan.

This paper comprehensively details Taiwan's experience of fiscal policy responses for sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery. The cost-benefit approach was conceptually adopted. Bearing the value of “build back better” and “rebuild better,” the benefits of fiscal measures are promising, although there are indebted costs of the special budget.

My interest in doing research on corruption in Asian countries can be traced to my participation in the “Bureaucratic Behavior in Asia” project initiated by the late Dr Raul P. de Guzman, Dean of the College of Public Administration of the University of the Philippines, in 1977 with funding from the International Development Research Center of Canada. I am grateful to Raul for inviting me and my former colleague, the late Dr David Seah Chee Meow, to be the two members of the Singapore research team in the seven country comparative study, which included also scholars from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand (Carino, 1986b).

This article attempts to capture and extend the lessons rendered in the previous articles in this book. In overview we may observe that over the past three decades, criticisms about government performance have surfaced across the world from all points of the political spectrum. Critics have alleged that governments are inefficient, ineffective, too large, too costly, overly bureaucratic, overburdened by unnecessary rules, unresponsive to public wants and needs, secretive, undemocratic, invasive into the private rights of citizens, self-serving, and failing in the provision of either the quantity or quality of services deserved by the taxpaying public (See, for example, Barzelay & Armajani, 1992; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Jones & Thompson, 1999). Fiscal stress has also plagued many governments and has increased the cry for less costly or less expansive government, for greater efficiency, and for increased responsiveness. High profile members of the business community, financial institutions, the media, management consultants, academic scholars and the general public all have pressured politicians and public managers to reform. So, too have many supranational organizations, including OECD, the World Bank, and the European Commission. Accompanying the demand and many of the recommendations for change has been support for the application of market-based logic and private sector management methods to government (see, for example, Moe, 1984; Olson, Guthrie, & Humphrey, 1998; Harr & Godfrey, 1991; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Jones & Thompson, 1999). Application of market-driven solutions and business techniques to the public sector has undoubtedly been encouraged by the growing ranks of public sector managers and analysts educated in business schools and public management programs (Pusey, 1991).

This concluding chapter attempts to capture and extend the lessons rendered in the previous chapters in this book. In overview we may observe that over the past three decades, criticisms about government performance have surfaced across the world from all points of the political spectrum. Critics have alleged that governments are inefficient, ineffective, too large, too costly, overly bureaucratic, overburdened by unnecessary rules, unresponsive to public wants and needs, secretive, undemocratic, invasive into the private rights of citizens, self-serving, and failing in the provision of either the quantity or quality of services deserved by the taxpaying public (see, for example, Barzelay & Armajani, 1992; Jones & Thompson, 1999; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). Fiscal stress has also plagued many governments and has increased the cry for less costly or less expansive government, for greater efficiency, and for increased responsiveness. High profile members of the business community, financial institutions, the media, management consultants, academic scholars and the general public all have pressured politicians and public managers to reform. So, too have many supranational organizations, including OECD, the World Bank, the European Commission. Accompanying the demand and many of the recommendations for change has been support for the application of market-based logic and private sector management methods to government (see, for example, Harr & Godfrey, 1991; Jones & Thompson, 1999; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Moe, 1984; Olson et al., 1998). Application of market-driven solutions and business techniques to the public sector has undoubtedly been encouraged by the growing ranks of public sector managers and analysts educated in business schools and public management programs (Pusey, 1991).