Abstract
Abstract The puzzle of my research is as follows: comparing the same vehicle model in Europe and the United States, where 6 to 8 airbags and Electronic Stability Control (ESC) were set as standard equipment, why were there only 2 airbags in Taiwan? How to explain the meaning of the gap between 8 to 2, or 7 to 2,or 6 to 2? In other words, why the basic safety standard of vehicle was so different in Europe, the United States and Taiwan? From the perspective of market, what do those numbers imply? Second, consumers in Taiwan have to pay extra for more airbags or buy the top-class vehicle if they want to get the same safety standard as in Europe or America. Why is the safety technology used to protect lives, presented as individual appeal and preference, a specific economic rationality, and the logic of the market to solve the moral problem of life safety? This study focuses on the airbag industry, the vehicle safety regulations and the culture of car purifying (jing che in Taiwanese) in Taiwan to answer the questions above. In CH3, I use the concept of “the Politics of outsourcing” to explain why domestic car firms don’t purchase airbags designed and made in Taiwan, even though Taiwan owns a complete airbag industry chain. In CH4, taking” Vehicle Safety Regime”(VSR) as an analytical framework, I describe that from selecting the juridical sources to adopting the vehicle safety regulation, the hidden intention of Taiwan government is try to support and develop domestic automotive industry while simultaneously balance the control from foreign automotive firms. Then, comparing the VSR in Europe, America and Taiwan, my study points out that due to the lack of NCAP, which is closely related to the subcontracting industry in Taiwan, a market of collective demand model of vehicle safety technology could not be built. In Ch5, continuing the framework of VSR, there are three topics figuring out the characteristic of VSR in Taiwan. First, I survey the concept of vehicle safety in Taiwan; second, the process of legislation of seat belt, including the interpretation of the spirit of vehicle safety regulation by transportation officials and auto firms; and third, comparing them with the principle of “Division of labor between humans and God”, and “Fair Exchange” in the car purification culture. All of them present similar concepts: each one should take responsibility for himself, price mechanism, and the model of supply and demand. In sum, from CH3 to CH5, I argue that whatever in Europe, the Unite States, or Taiwan, automotive safety technology, which designed to protect lives, is to face the supply and demand issue by market mechanism. In different Vehicle Safety Regime, however, different market model was applied and thus resulted differently: equal and collective demands and supply, or personal needs, with the former aiming at creating a market for safety by offering transparent information for consumers, while the latter showing commodity and profit orientation by making a market of safety, emphasizing additional price paid for a relatively comprehensive automotive safety technology.