Connect with us
Wise usd campaign
ADVERTISEMENT

China

Industrial policy the wrong treatment for COVID-19 woes

Published

on

US President Donald Trump walks past Vice President Mike Pence, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, and Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin at the White House in Washington DC, 9 March 2020 (Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst).

Author: Editorial Board, ANU

Governments are terrible at picking winners, but losers are great at picking governments’. It’s an old gag, but the observation remains truer today than ever. COVID-19 has seen governments unleash a fresh wave of industry policy as politicians abandon markets to boost their preferred industries. This is a mistake. Markets have performed well during COVID-19 and there is no evidence that governments have got any better at picking winners. Industry policy is a recipe for lower living standards, slower post-pandemic recovery and increased corruption.

 

There are no free lunches when it comes to economics. Countries have limited resources to produce goods and services. Trade allows countries to specialise. It allows countries to focus limited resources — workers, capital, energy, materials — on producing the things that they’re good at producing compared to the rest of the world, earn money on international markets and then use some of that money to import the things they’re relatively worse at making. The reason we trade is the same reason you don’t cut your own hair, build your own car or perform your own dentistry: specialisation makes us better off, trying to do everything yourself makes you poor.

This is the problem with industry policy. When governments use tariffs, quotas and subsidies to boost one industry, those resources come from other industries. As production increases in Industry A, it takes workers, capital, energy and materials from Industry B. ‘Buy local’ campaigns might sound intuitively attractive, but it means reallocating resources away from a country’s most productive and profitable industries and giving them to less productive and profitable industries.

Industrial policy, where governments intervene to support domestic manufacturing and other favoured industries, used to be Asia’s economic tiger balm, a widely used cure-all for catching up with the advanced economic powers. Japan was its exemplar, in practice and in theory. Never mind that when you took a careful look at the structure of tariffs, trade controls and industrial subsidies that went to favoured sectors in Japan in the heyday of industrial policy, as did the late Ben Miller from the ANU, they were overwhelmingly lavished on declining industries, not highly productive sectors of the economy. That’s just in manufacturing, not to mention the sinkhole of funding and support that went into agriculture and the old Liberal Democratic Party’s favourites in construction.

Asia, including China, learned the lesson that it was governments getting out of markets that boosted economic performance. The past 40 years of economic reform have seen steady Chinese government retreat from markets. In the rush of blood at the sudden realisation in Washington and like-minded capitals that the Chinese Communist Party still runs China, it’s somehow been forgotten that it’s the retreat from government intervention in markets that’s driven China’s remarkable economic success thus far.

Yet China’s embrace of Made in China 2025 to boost domestic growth of 10 high-technology sectors including electric cars, other new energy vehicles, aerospace, next-generation information technology and telecommunications, advanced robotics and artificial intelligence heralded a new age industrial policy, which itself is said to be inspired by Germany’s Industrial 4.0 development plan. To US policymakers it threatened to make China into a competitor technological superpower, although there’s still a question about how much Chinese state funding will go into the program compared with the R&D funding that the United States pours directly and indirectly into its high-tech sector.

If this context weren’t enough to inflame big power psychological anxieties, come COVID-19 and a host of other woes — the threat to national security, supply chain failure, health standards, employment protection, future growth potential — and the industrial policy tiger balm is once more all the rage.

In this week’s lead essay, Gary Hufbauer and Euijin Jung point out that before the Trump era, ‘industrial policy … was regarded as a hangover from the Soviet Union, to be embraced only by misguided developing countries’. Now President Trump has appealed to the disruption of international supply chains in justification of big government spending on domestic manufacturing — US$765 million to Kodak, for example, to produce generic drug ingredients in the United States, an entirely new line for the old photography…

Read the rest of this article on East Asia Forum

Continue Reading

China

China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges

Published

on

In November 2024, China’s economy exhibited mixed results: industrial production rose by 5.4%, while retail sales grew only 3%, below forecasts. Fixed asset investment also faltered. Policymakers are anticipated to introduce measures to stimulate domestic demand and combat deflation.


China’s economy showed mixed performance in November 2024, with industrial production and exports showing resilience, while retail sales and fixed asset investment underperformed, amid ongoing challenges in the property sector. Policymakers are expected to implement targeted fiscal and monetary measures to boost domestic demand and address deflationary pressures.

The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has released China’s economy data for November 2024, revealing a mixed performance across key indicators. Retail sales grew by 3 percent year-on-year, a significant slowdown from October’s 4.8 percent growth and well below the 4.6 percent forecast. Industrial production, however, showed resilience, rising by 5.4 percent and exceeding expectations of 5.3 percent growth.

The property sector continued to drag on the broader economy, with real estate investment contracting by 10.4 percent for the January-to-November period, further highlighting the challenges in stabilizing the sector. Fixed asset investment also fell short of expectations, growing by 3.3 percent year-to-date, down from 3.4 percent in October.

In November, China’s industrial value added (IVA) grew by 5.4 percent year-on-year (YoY), slightly accelerating from the 5.3 percent recorded in October. This modest improvement reflects continued recovery in key industries, supported by recent stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing the economy.

The manufacturing sector led the growth, expanding by 6.0 percent YoY, while the power, heat, gas, and water production and supply sector grew by 1.6 percent. The mining industry posted a 4.2 percent YoY increase. Notably, advanced industries outpaced overall growth, with equipment manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing rising by 7.6 percent and 7.8 percent YoY, respectively, underscoring the resilience of China’s innovation-driven sectors.

Key product categories showed robust output gains in November:

From January to November, IVA increased by 5.8 percent YoY, maintaining steady growth over the year despite headwinds from a slowing property market and external uncertainties.


This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in ChinaHong KongVietnamSingapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support.

Read the rest of the original article.

Continue Reading

China

Ukraine war: 10% of Chinese people are willing to boycott Russian goods over invasion – new study

Published

on

Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, some Chinese citizens express dissent through potential boycotts of Russian goods, reflecting a complex relationship despite government support for Russia.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Chinese government has been criticised for its refusal to condemn the war. In 2024, the economic and diplomatic relationship between the two nations appears stronger than ever.

Because of strict censorship and repression imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is difficult to know the extent to which the general public shares their government’s support of Putin’s regime. But a newly published study I carried out with colleagues found that more than 10% of Chinese people surveyed were willing to boycott Russian goods over the war in Ukraine.

This is a surprisingly large figure, especially since existing surveys indicate that Chinese people hold a broadly positive view of their neighbour. We used a representative sample of 3,029 Chinese citizens for this research, to dig into public attitudes to Russia. The survey was done in 2022 after the Ukraine invasion.

We were aware that due to widespread censorship, our participants might not be willing to give honest answers to questions about Russia’s actions in Ukraine. They might also not feel safe to do that in a regime where disagreement with the CCP’s position is often met with harsh punishment. This is why we asked them to tell us if they would be willing to boycott Russian products currently sold in China.

We felt this question was a good indicator of how much the participants disapproved of Russian foreign policy in Ukraine. More importantly, we were also curious to find out whether Chinese citizens would be willing to take direct political action to punish Russia economically for its aggressive behaviour.

In our study, we split respondents into the three different ideological groups in China: “liberals”, who support the free market and oppose authoritarianism; “the new left”, who sympathise with the policies pursued in China under Mao Zedong; and “neo-authoritarians”, who believe the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is an extension of the rivalry between authoritarian China and the liberal United States. These groups were based on the main political beliefs in China.

We found that liberals were most likely to say they were willing to boycott Russian products. Liberals believe that China should work with, rather than against, western democracies. They also place a high value on human rights and democratic freedoms. Because of their beliefs, they are likely to think that Russia’s actions against Ukraine were unprovoked, aggressive and disproportional.

Chinese and Russian economic and diplomatic relations seem closer than ever in 2024.
American Photo Archive/Alamy

The new left and neo-authoritarians we surveyed were more supportive of Russian products. The new left see Russia as a close ally and believe that Nato’s expansion in eastern Europe was a form of aggression. Neo-authoritarians, on the other hand, believe that supporting Russia, an allied autocracy, is in China’s best interest.

Boycotting Russian goods

Asking Chinese participants if they are willing to boycott Russian products might seem like a simple matter of consumer preferences. However, our study reveals a great deal about the way in which regular citizens can express controversial political beliefs in a repressive authoritarian regime.

Boycotting products of certain companies has long been studied in the west as a form of unconventional political action that helps people express their beliefs. However, in the west, boycotting certain products is simply one of many ways people are able to take political action. In a country such as China, boycotting a Russian product might often be the only safe way to express disagreement with the country’s actions.

This is because citizens do not have to tell others they chose not to buy a product, and their actions are unlikely to attract the attention of the authorities.

Since Russian goods are readily available to Chinese consumers and China is encouraging more Russian exports to reach its market, the Russian economy could be significantly affected by an organised boycott campaign in China. The considerable level of support for a boycott expressed by some of our participants, as well as previous acts of solidarity with Ukraine in China, suggest that such a campaign could already be taking place in the country.

This could harm Russia because it regularly exports a number of different products such as meat, chocolate, tea and wine to China. These goods made up 5.1% of China’s total imports in 2023 – and this figure is likely to increase if Russia becomes more isolated from the west, and therefore more dependent on China for its trade.

While 5.1% of the Chinese market might seem like a low figure, China is home to over 1.4 billion people. In this context, even a small boycott could result in a serious loss to Russian companies.

Our research shows that Chinese citizens don’t always support the official position of the communist party. It also shows that many people there will express even the most unpopular political opinions – if they can find a safe way to do it.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

China

Australia Can Enhance China’s Credibility in the CPTPP

Published

on

In early 2024, China sought to join the CPTPP, potentially offering modest economic benefits to Australia. Key reforms include limiting state-owned enterprise subsidies, enhancing data flows, and banning forced labor.


China’s Interest in the CPTPP

In early 2024, China expressed a keen interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a trade agreement involving eleven Pacific Rim economies and the United Kingdom. This move is anticipated to yield modest economic benefits for Australia. However, it also opens the door for vital reforms in areas such as the control of subsidies for state-owned enterprises, allowing free cross-border data flows, and prohibiting forced labor practices.

Economic Implications for Australia

A May 2024 report from the Australian Productivity Commission indicated that China’s accession to the CPTPP might raise Australia’s GDP by only 0.01%. This modest gain isn’t surprising, given Australia’s existing preferential trade arrangement with China through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Nonetheless, the CPTPP encompasses more than just tariff reductions, focusing on broader trade principles and standards.

Reform Commitments Required from China

For China to become a CPTPP member, it must demonstrate adherence to high-standard rules initially developed with the country in mind. This commitment will help alleviate concerns among member nations like Japan and Canada, particularly regarding China’s economic practices and geopolitical tensions, such as those with Taiwan. Membership would necessitate reforms, including limiting SOE subsidies, enabling freer data flows, and banning forced labor, with significant penalties for non-compliance.

Source : Australia can encourage China’s credibility in the CPTPP

Source link

Continue Reading