Taiwan
Innovation for the Masses: How to Share the Benefits of the High-Tech Economy – review
In Innovation for the Masses: How to Share the Benefits of the High-Tech Economy, Neil Lee proposes abandoning the Silicon Valley-style innovation hub, which concentrates its wealth, for alternative, more equitable models. Emphasising the role of the state and the need for adaptive approaches, Lee makes a nuanced and convincing case for reimagining how we “do” innovation to benefit the masses, writes Yulu Pi.
Professor Neil Lee will be speaking at an LSE panel event, How can we tackle inequalities through British public policy? on Tuesday 5 March at 6.30pm. Find details on how to attend here.
While everyone is talking about AI innovations, Innovation for the Masses: How to Share the Benefits of the High-Tech Economy arrives as a timely and critical examination of innovation itself. Challenging the conventional view of Silicon Valley as the paradigm for innovation, the book seeks answers on how the benefits of innovations can be broadly shared across society.
When we talk about innovation, we often picture genius scientists from prestigious universities or tech giants creating radical technologies in million-dollar labs. But in his book, Neil Lee, Professor of Economic Geography at The London School of Economics and Political Science, tells us there is more to it. He suggests that our obsession with cutting-edge innovations and idolisation of superstar hubs like Silicon Valley and Oxbridge hinders better ways to link innovation with shared prosperity.
Lee stresses that innovation doesn’t make a difference if it stays locked up in labs; it needs to be shared, learned, improved and used to make real impacts.
Innovation goes beyond the invention of disruptive new technologies. It also involves improving existing technologies or merging them to generate new innovations. In this book, Lee illustrates this idea using mobile payment technologies as an example, showcasing how the combination of existing technologies – mobile phone and payment terminals – can spawn new innovations. He argues that “technologies evolve through incremental innovations in regular and occasionally larger leaps” (23). Moreover, Lee stresses that innovation doesn’t make a difference if it stays locked up in labs; it needs to be shared, learned, improved and used to make real impacts. It is important to think beyond the notion of a single radical invention and recognise the contributions not only of major inventors but of “tweakers” who make incremental improvements and implementers who operate and maintain innovative products (25).
In challenging the conventional narratives of innovation, this book guides us to expand our understanding of innovation and paves the way for a discussion on combining innovation with equity. When we pose the question “How do we foster innovations?”, we miss out on asking a crucial follow-up: “How do we foster innovations that translate into increased living standards for everyone?”. Lee argues that the incomplete line of questioning inevitably steers us towards flawed solutions – countries all over the world building their own Silicon-something.
While the San Francisco Bay Area is home to many successful start-up founders who have made billions, it simultaneously struggles with issues like severe homelessness.
While the San Francisco Bay Area is home to many successful start-up founders who have made billions, it simultaneously struggles with issues like severe homelessness. The staggering wealth gap is evident, with the top 1 per cent of households holding 48 times more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent. Other centres of innovation like Oxbridge and Shanghai are also highly unequal, with the benefits of innovations going to a small few.
The book introduces four alternative models of innovation – Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Taiwan – that suggest innovation doesn’t inevitably coincide with high-level inequality.
The book introduces four alternative models of innovation – Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Taiwan – that suggest innovation doesn’t inevitably coincide with high-level inequality. Through these examples, Lee highlights the significance of often-neglected aspects of innovation: adoption, diffusion and incremental improvements. Take Austria, for instance, which might not immediately come to mind as a global hub of disruptive innovation. Its strategic commitment to continuous innovation – particularly in its traditional, industrial sectors like steel and paper – sheds light on the more nuanced, yet equally impactful, facets of innovation. (92) Taiwan, on the other hand, gained its growth from technological development facilitated by its advanced research institutions such as the Industrial Technology Research Institute and state-led industrial policy. Foxconn stands as the world’s fourth-largest technology company, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) accounts for half of the world’s chip production (116).
In all four examples, the state played a critical role in creating frameworks to ensure that benefits are broadly shared, showing that policies on innovation and mutual prosperity reinforce each other.
Building on these examples, the book highlights the vital role of the state in both spurring innovations and distributing the benefits of innovation. In all four examples, the state played a critical role in creating frameworks to ensure that benefits are broadly shared, showing that policies on innovation and mutual prosperity reinforce each other. Taking another look at Austria, ranked 17th in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s Global Innovation Index (99), its strength on innovation is accompanied by the state’s heavy investment on welfare to build a strong social safety net.
As the book draws to a close, it advocates for the development of a set of specific institutions. The first type, generative institutions, foster the development of radical innovations. These are heavily funded in the US, resulting, as British economist David Soskice claims, in the US dominance in cutting-edge technologies (169). The book shows a wide array of generative institutions through its four examples. For instance, in Taiwan, research laboratories play a crucial role in the success of its cutting-edge chip manufacturing, while the government directs financial resources towards facilitating job creation. On the other hand, Austria has concentrated its fast-growing R&D spending on the upgrading and specialisation of its low-tech industries of the past.
The second and third types, diffusive and redistributive institutions, aim to address issues of inequality, such as labour market polarisation and wealth concentration that might come with innovation. These two types of institutions offer people the opportunity to participate in the delivery, adoption and improvement of innovation. Switzerland’s mature vocational education system is a prime example of such institutions, “facilitating innovation and the diffusion of technology from elsewhere and ensuring that workers benefit.” (172)
Discussions about ‘good inequality’ where innovators are rewarded, and “bad inequality,” where wealth becomes too concentrated demonstrate the book’s strong willingness to call out inequality and tackle complex issues head-on.
Discussions about “good inequality” where innovators are rewarded, and “bad inequality,” where wealth becomes too concentrated demonstrate the book’s strong willingness to call out inequality and tackle complex issues head-on. (8) This integrity extends to Lee’s candid examination of the examples. Despite presenting them as models of how innovation can be paired with equity, he does not gloss over their imperfections. By recognising the persistent disparities in gender, race, and immigration status in all four of these examples, the book presents a balanced narrative that urges readers to think critically. Although these countries have made strides in sharing the benefits of innovation, they are far from perfect and still have a significant journey ahead to reduce these disparities. Take Switzerland, for example. Though it consistently tops the WIPO’s Global Innovation Index, maintaining its position for the 13th consecutive year in 2023, it grapples with one of the largest gender pay gaps in Europe. This gender inequality has deep roots, as it wasn’t until 1971 that women gained the right to vote in Swiss federal elections (71).
Lee warns against the naive replication of these success stories elsewhere without adapting them to the specific context. This frank and thorough approach enriches the conversation about innovation and inequality, making it a compelling and credible contribution to the discourse and a convincing argument for changing what we consider to be the purpose of innovation.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image Credit: vic josh on Shutterstock.
台灣代表團學習美國波士頓的基本收入計劃
台灣無條件基本收入協會的青年領導委員會近日完成了對美國馬薩諸塞州波士頓的考察訪問，期間展示了他們在推進基本收入領域的先進項目。該代表團由來自台灣的高中生組成，與當地的領袖及組織進行了深入交流，旨在學習波士頓實施全民基本收入計畫的經驗與策略。 台灣代表團會見了以「Rise Up」保障收入計畫而聞名的劍橋前市長 Sumbul Siddiqui； Camp Harbor View 和 United South End Settlements (USES) 都開展了基本收入實驗項目，將計畫重點置於有孩子的家庭。 與這些組織的討論顯示了基本收入如何提高弱勢兒童的就學率，且如何穩定生活條件。 UBI 台灣創辦人 Tyler Prochazka （羅泰） 表示學生在設計UBI企劃的第一要素是「熱情」。 羅泰說：「此次考察對我們的學生而言，是一次視野大開的學習經驗。 他們看到非營利組織如何走在美國無條件基本收入的最前線，以及他們可以吸取的經驗，使自己的項目在台灣獲得成功。」 波士頓的組織向委員會分享了寶貴的實踐經驗，有助於台灣在支援單親家庭方面進行實驗計畫。 UBI Taiwan 每月向單親家庭提供 10,000 NTD，並透過紀錄片追蹤他們的生活起居。 單親家庭基本收入計畫主任魏嘉佑強調了該計畫對幫助了單親媽媽找尋更好的工作機會，同時也能給予自身的健康好的照護。這部紀錄片計劃於 2025 年上映，為了解基本收入如何影響這些人的生活提供一個窗口。 台灣領導未來協會 Lead For Taiwan 創始人陳孝彥表示：「我們訪問的目標是以創新的方式，將教育與社會問題結合。我們希望通過這次經歷，引導學生找到解決問題的方法。他們關心的社會問題並將解決這個問題作為他們的人生目標。」 訪問期間，其中一個重要議題探討了全民基本收入能否永續發展。 青年領導委員會在和USES的會面中學習到，重新構建對話，強調支持護理工作者，而非僅提供無條件現金支援，可能有助於緩解公眾的擔憂。 會議的另一個見解是，非營利組織可能會彌合接受者和政府實體之間的信任差距。 這引發了關於公私夥伴關係在管理 UBI 補充項目方面潛力的討論，例如 USES 為處理其基本收入受益者的財務問題提供的指導服務。 該委員會的參與範圍擴大到了政府，並得到了波士頓市議會的認可，並與馬薩諸塞州政府亞洲核心小組就國家政策進行了討論。 後者的會議強調了台灣和美國在為基本收入計劃提供資金方面面臨的共同挑戰以及來自稅收擔憂的阻力。 羅泰表示，見劍橋前市長、現任市議員對學生們來說特別有意義。 Siddiqui 強調了劍橋低收入家庭基本收入計畫的管理挑戰和影響，該計畫類似於UBI Taiwan的單親家庭基本收入計畫。 西迪基議員緩解劍橋貧富差距的經驗為學生提供了政策實施的現實視角。 在與政府官員會面之前，學生們在哈佛大學完成了領導力培訓。 研討會活動由哈佛本科生全球教育運動主辦，導師對學生的專案和演講技巧提供回饋。 […]
Taiwan delegation learns from Boston UBI initiatives
The Youth Leadership Council of UBI Taiwan concluded a visit to Boston, Massachusetts, showcasing their projects promoting basic income. The delegation, composed of high school students from Taiwan, engaged in a series of meetings with local leaders and organizations to gain insights about Boston’s UBI initiatives. The Taiwanese delegation met with former Cambridge Mayor Sumbul […]
Sexuality and the Rise of China – review
In Sexuality and the Rise of China, sociologist Travis Kong examines the experiences of post-1990s gay men in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Through interviews and historical analysis, Kong explores the societal values, familial pressures and political influences shaping LGBTQ+ identity in modern China, making a unique contribution to Asian queer studies. writes Linqiu Li .
Travis Kong’s latest book, Sexuality and the Rise of China continues his longstanding research focus on “generational sexualities.” Unlike his previous works that shed light on the life experience of East Asian elderly gay men (Chinese Male Homosexualities, 2012 and Oral Histories of Older Gay Men in Hong Kong, 2019), this book examines the post-90s generation of gay men within three distinct Chinese societies: mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Since 2017, Kong has interviewed 90 young gay men in Shanghai (mainland China), Hong Kong and Taipei (Taiwan). The book begins by providing a brief characterisation of this demographic in the three regions, in the context of The People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s political and economic rise in mainland China, young gay men exhibit confidence and pragmatism, yet “still struggle with their sexual identity.” In Hong Kong, most post-90s gay men express a collective desire to distance themselves to varying degrees from the influence of the Beijing government and “are generally comfortable with their sexual identity,” whereas the participants in Taiwan “are strongly Taiwanese nationalistic and “are generally accepting of their sexual identity and engage with gay communities and gay activism to different degrees” (3).
In Hong Kong’s case, British colonisation influenced the progression of its tongzhi culture.
In the first chapter, Kong adopts a historical perspective, elucidating how factors such as the decriminalisation of homosexual relations in 1991, the pink economy (which refers to the consumer economy of the LGBTQ+ community), the impact of colonisation, religious influence, and government surveillance have shaped the formation of tongzhi (a local parlance for LGBTQ+, which translates as “people who share the common will”) identity in the three regions to varying degrees. In Hong Kong’s case, British colonisation influenced the progression of its tongzhi culture. The rise of LGBTQ+ social groups and the boom of the pink economy have characterised homosexuality in Hong Kong with inclusive and diverse features. In Taiwan, as a consequence of Japanese colonisation and support from the US, the government has skilfully presented Taiwanese society as an open and pro-LGBTQ+ community (in contrast to the PRC government’s perceived human rights abuses) and aimed at gaining international recognition for its independence from China. Mainland China, on the other hand, experienced a void in gay culture from the Maoist era to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. Trailing its two counterparts, the tongzhi identity began to develop gradually in the 1990s, but under Xi Jinping’s regime, regulations and restrictions have intensified, leading to the constant constriction of tongzhi population in recent years.
Kong further highlights the differences between Asian LGBTQ+ communities and Western gay societies […] underscoring the imperative for de-Westernisation in Asian queer studies.
Kong further highlights the differences between Asian LGBTQ+ communities and Western gay societies in Chapter Two, underscoring the imperative for de-Westernisation in Asian queer studies. The application of neoliberalism differs across the three regions: Mainland China promotes the idea that families should support the elderly to alleviate economic burdens for the government, Hong Kong advocates intra-familial assistance over government aid, and Taiwan emphasises familial responsibility for the elderly to address its ageing population. However, these diverse approaches have collectively resulted in the family unit becoming a central regulator for individuals’ private lives in all three places. Thus, in addressing the matters of tongzhi identity and coming out, Kong highlights the perpetual existence of a “double closet” in Chinese tongzhi identity (65). That is to say, in addition to the societal aspect of coming out, unlike in Western societies, gay men in PRC also confront the challenge of being either a good (filial) or bad (unfilial) child within the family.
Kong applies Berlant’s discussion of ‘cruel optimism’ to each of the three societies, pointing out that while one-on-one exclusivity remains the aspiration in gay men’s intimate relationships, most respondents failed to achieve this.
Following the exploration of tongzhi identity, Kong delves into the dynamics of engagement within the tongzhi community in Chapter Three. Here, Kong elaborates on the emergence of a new masculinity hierarchy among young gay men across the three locales. Kong argues the Chinese tongzhi community is characterised by a combination of homonormativity and hegemonic masculinity (91). Gay men who are young and have athletic bodies, practice exclusive one-on-one intimacy, and enjoy a consumerist urban lifestyle are admired within the community. Kong continues the discussion of homonormative masculinity in the Chapter Four, offering insights from the perspective of love and sex. Kong applies Berlant’s discussion of “cruel optimism” to each of the three societies, pointing out that while one-on-one exclusivity remains the aspiration in gay men’s intimate relationships, most respondents failed to achieve this. The possible reasons for this varied across the three societies. The high cost of private space presented a hurdle in Hong Kong, the immense pressure to marry in mainland China, and the flexible gay environment and easy access to online dating in Taiwan all contributed to the difficulty of maintaining monogamous relationships.
The varying degrees of presentation of homonationalism in the three regions is what Kong focuses on in the final chapter. Based on the definition of homonationalism by Puar (2007), that homonationalism is a political ploy by the government to gain support and co-opt LGBTQ+ people. Kong argues that the Taiwanese government exhibit an incorporative form of homonationalism, but with the premise to only recognise gay men who conform to the archetype of the “good citizen”(133). The situation differs in Hong Kong, whose government has a closer relationship with the PRC government compared to Taiwan. Due to the avoidance of addressing homosexuality as a prominent social issue, coupled with an emphasis on traditional Chinese family values, Kong sees Hong Kong’s homonationalism as deficient (141). In the context of mainland China, Kong proposes that PRC’s homonationalism exhibits “Chinese characteristics” or a “pragmatic homonationalism,” which accrued through negotiations with LGBTQ+ nongovernmental organisations, leveraging them as a platform to underscore public health concerns, or emphasising Confucian values such as parental love, and downplaying the sexual aspect in the topic of homosexuality (150).
Kong’s book is a significant contribution as the first study that discusses all three societies together and presents the lives of gay men from a variety of perspectives, including historical, cultural and political contexts.
Although there has been, and continues to be, a growing body of research literature addressing the life experience of LGBTQ+ (or Tongzhi) in the three locales, many of them have concentrated on either one single society or two. Kong’s book is a significant contribution as the first study that discusses all three societies together and presents the lives of gay men from a variety of perspectives, including historical, cultural and political contexts. In addition, acknowledging the intricate historical and political interrelations among the three societies, Kong proposes a new theoretical approach: a transnational queer sociology. This approach allows for a cross-national comparison of LGBTQ+ issues and discourse, combining sociology and cultural studies, and contributes to the de-Westernisation of queer studies in the Asian context. Whether for a general reader who wants to learn more about queer life in Asia or an academic scholar with a research interest in Asian queer studies, this book is definitely worth reading.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image Credit: Q Wang on Shutterstock.
Taiwan Elections: Democratic Progressive Party Wins, But What Next?
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Taiwan’s democracy remains stronger than ever following its presidential elections on Saturday, but with a new leader voted in it could see tensions with China increase.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won more than 40% of the vote in the 13 January 2024 elections, its third term in power after Dr William Lai Ching-te, beat his opposite number at the Kuomintang (KMT) Party by 900,000 votes to become Taiwan’s new President.
“I want to thank the Taiwanese people for writing a new chapter in our democracy,” Lai told his supporters, adding that his DPP party will “continue to walk the right path forward.”
Election Day
Taiwan is the only Chinese-speaking democracy in the world, home to 23 million people, roughly 100 miles from the southeast coast of China.
The suspense of these elections had been building for months because of the increasing political relevance Taiwan has.
The island is facing the wrath of China, which insists Taiwan is part of its territory. Taiwan dismisses this and says it is a sovereign state but has stopped short of declaring any sort of independence. With US and China relations at a low in recent years over Hong Kong, trade, and technology, and Washington’s unofficial ties with Taiwan’s capital Taipei, Taiwan is seen as a flashpoint in a political and economic battle with the two superpowers.
During the election campaigns, the democratic party pledged economic development, and to keep the status quo with China. KMT, the Chinese nationalist party, wants Taipei and Beijing relations to improve. Taiwan's People Party (TPP), a political newcomer, pledged to be the peacekeepers with cross-Strait tensions simmering.
Each party’s campaign rallies were packed with supporters prior to election day, leaving analysts still unsure who would win the vote. But as election day unfolded, the DPP took an early lead, and it was clear it was on the path to victory.
Outside the party’s headquarters, supporters waited for news on the polls, as party members made rousing speeches on stage. As the day turned to night, thousands enthusiastically waved flags, and loudly cheered as more votes went Lai’s way.
“Dear President, Dear President”, the supporters chanted as Lai eventually declared victory after receiving 5.58 million votes.
Lai added he was thankful to the Taiwanese people who “resisted efforts from external forces to influence our elections” after he and his running partner Hsiao Bi-khim were targeted by Chinese disinformation campaigns, and Beijing had urged voters to refrain from electing him. But Lai insists he wants to maintain peace and stability and “safeguard Taiwan from continuing threats and intimidation”.
EXCLUSIVE
‘The Darkest Time Is To Come’: Veteran Activist Sees Bleak Future Ahead for Hong Kong
In an exclusive interview with Byline Times, Lee-Cheuk Yan discusses comparisons between the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 and recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and its future under Beijing’s National Security Law
Tommy Walker
Pragmatism and Domestic Issues
Sarah Liu, a political scientist at the University of Edinburgh, told Byline Times, that Lai will likely be pragmatic in his role as leader.
“The re-election of the DPP shows that 40% of the Taiwanese who turned up to vote approve of Lai taking over the leadership from [predecessor] Tsai [Ing-wen] as he’s likely to continue the pragmatic approach that Tsai has set out, including seeking support and allyship from other democracies and establishing relationships with other international entities, such as the EU,” she said.
The elections were not only about Taiwan’s international relations, but the island’s key domestic issues, Liu added.
“Research shows that the DPP has downplayed their messaging on the cross-strait relations and de-centring their campaign from China this time around, which was different from the 2020 election when the implementation of the National Security Law and the anti-extradition movement in Hong Kong was in the backdrop,” she said. “People in Taiwan cared about the cross-strait tension and the preservation of democracy and freedom, but they didn’t consider them as the most salient issue. Many prioritised other domestic needs, such as long-term ageing care, reasonable housing/energy prices, increased minimum wages, etc”.
No party won a majority in Taiwan’s legislature, meaning all parties are going to have to work together moving forward.
Beijing claims Lai’s failure to win a majority in presidential and legislative votes means his party’s victory does not represent the mainstream opinion of the island. It also condemned foreign governments for their congratulations to Lai’s party, including British Foreign Minister David Cameron, who praised the elections as a “testament to Taiwan’s vibrant democracy”.
‘Nothing But a Ruse’: The Cambodian Elections are Another Assault on Democracy
The appointment of the current leader’s son is another example of how oligarchy and autocracy is turning the tide against democracy
Lindsey Kennedy and Nathan Paul Southern
The Task for Lai
Lai, a doctor turned politician, will be sworn in on 20 May 2024. But already he will have his work cut out for him. He came through the political sphere as the leader of the New Tide faction, a now-dissolved wing of the DPP party, that once called for Taiwan’s independence. It is one of the reasons Beijing loathes Lai, viewing him as a “dangerous separatist”.
He will have to navigate Taiwan’s role on the international stage, which will likely remain as a flashpoint between the US and China in the future. The US adheres to the “One-China Policy”, diplomatically recognising China, but has pledged to help Taiwan defend itself in case of an invasion.
“Lai will try to assure the US and others that his policies will be in line with his predecessor’s, while China will attempt to further squeeze Taiwan's international space,” Timothy S. Rich, Professor of Political Science at the Western Kentucky University, told Byline Times.
And that space has already gotten smaller for Taiwan.
Nauru, a small Pacific Island nation, announced on Monday it was cutting formal diplomatic ties with Taipei in favour of Beijing. It means Taiwan will only be diplomatically recognised by 12 countries worldwide. Taiwan accused Beijing of planning the ploy following the elections.
But Rich believes the effects are minimal.
“It's not a surprise that China convinced a country to break relations and likely did not close to the election for fear it would help Lai,” Rich said. “The loss of Nauru will aid China's plan of diverting attention away from a Lai victory, but substantively the effects are minimal for Taiwan other than the symbolic importance of recognition. Nauru isn't crucial to Taiwan's security or economy. Relations, even unofficial ones, with major powers is what matters,” he added.