For more than three decades, the global economy was defined by unbridled integration and unprecedented interdependence. Neither political spats nor localized wars could slow the globalization train. Markets were markets, business was business and multinational firms became more multinational. Not anymore.
In this new era of strategic competition between China and the West, disengagement is the order of the day. While this trend is likely to impede economic growth, increase business costs (via supply-chain restructuring) and raise prices for everyone, the economy that loses the most might well be China’s.
The People’s Republic would not be where it is today without globalization. International trade, investment and capital-market access drove economic growth, while knowledge transfer — aided by engagement among students, scientists and academics — enabled technological leveling-up.
Ties with the outside world also forced China to introduce a legal system capable of establishing and enforcing contract and intellectual-property law — and the expansion of China’s economic might enabled the country increasingly to project power abroad.
However, in recent years, the openness that underpinned globalization — the “rising tide that lifted all boats” — has given way to a geopolitically focused, zero-sum mindset. International commerce and finance have increasingly been shaped by national security considerations. Export controls, the blacklisting of companies and restrictions on market access in sensitive sectors — such as certain cutting-edge technologies — have become commonplace.
The Sino-American rivalry has reflected and accelerated this shift. The US has targeted China with a variety of measures — including restrictions on imports, exports and investment — and added dozens of Chinese companies to its so-called Entity List.
Other countries have also increased their scrutiny of Chinese investment and restricted certain types of commercial exchanges with China. Sanctions over China’s human-rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong have been introduced as well.
China might not have initiated the disengagement process, but it seems committed to seeing it through. In refusing to condemn Russia’s war on Ukraine, its leaders made clear that, in their view, the US — and the West more broadly — is in terminal decline, and now is the time to challenge the existing world order.
Beyond retaliatory sanctions and tariffs, China has been ramping up its efforts to become self-reliant in advanced technology and science, through highly state-centric and protectionist industrial policies. Its goal is to “sanction proof” its economy, especially by de-Americanizing its supply chains.
The extent to which this is possible is impossible to know precisely, but China’s efforts to achieve self-reliance certainly cannot succeed across the board. As The Economist reported in February, China is struggling the most in areas where supply chains are longer and more complex, such as mRNA vaccines, agrochemicals, computer operating systems and payment systems.
In semiconductors, China remains dependent on foreign suppliers, despite government investment worth tens of billions of dollars. China has similarly failed to break its foreign dependency in aerospace and automobiles, and its efforts to develop a yuan-based alternative to US-dollar-based finance and payment systems have yet to gain traction.
However, China’s bid for self-reliance might not only fail — it could backfire. As The Economist report also pointed out, when Chinese companies are cut off from foreign competition and expertise, their capabilities are stunted.
Despite the unfavorable economic consequences, we should expect geopolitics-driven disengagement to continue. China is certain to try to build an alternative financial infrastructure, and the US would delist Chinese firms from its stock exchanges.
The US Congress is reportedly considering legislation to restrict or prohibit US foreign direct investment abroad in several sensitive sectors, much as it does to Chinese investment in the US. Trade measures aimed at diversifying supply chains and ensuring supplies of critical inputs, such as rare earth elements, are also to be expected.
As disengagement progresses, many critical sectors — such as the Internet — are likely to split into two distinct blocs, each with its own rules and standards. The divide in digital standards, data management and usage provisions, and network equipment and telecommunications services would grow. Market-access restrictions and new approval and licensing requirements would proliferate.
These changes would come when China is already grappling with several serious challenges, including unfavorable demographics, a weak property market, an over-extended banking sector, stalled productivity, politicized governance, and the consequences of its “zero COVID” policy. China’s economic “miracle” seems to be well past its peak. Annual economic growth could well drop to 2-3 percent in the coming years, meaning that the official goal of doubling per capita income and GDP between 2020 and 2035 cannot be realized.
This slowdown could have far-reaching consequences. For starters, China’s ability to compete with the US would be compromised. China’s economy might never overtake the US’, especially if the yuan’s value falls by 20-25 percent over the next few years.
Moreover, prices for commodities — especially those that are key to China’s housing and construction sector — would decline. While the higher costs of newer, more regional supply chains should generate inflationary pressures, weaker Chinese demand and a cheaper yuan could reduce them.
Foreign investment flows into China would decline, with funding increasingly allocated to other Asian countries or emerging markets.
While China would not become “uninvestable” (as long as military conflict does not break out), international investors are likely to keep their China portfolios underweight. Although the yuan is likely to enjoy a status on par with the Japanese yen, the British pound and the Canadian dollar, it cannot come close to displacing the US dollar.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has staked his government’s legitimacy on China’s continued prosperity, but that is becoming increasingly difficult to deliver — and disengagement is an important reason.
George Magnus is a research associate at the University of Oxford’s China Centre and SOAS University of London.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
No matter what indicator you use, Russian President Vladimir Putin is winning in the energy markets. Moscow is milking its oil cash cow, earning hundreds of millions of US dollars every day to bankroll the invasion of Ukraine and buy domestic support for the war. Once European sanctions against Russian crude exports kick in from November, the region’s governments will face some tough choices as the energy crisis starts to bite consumers and companies. Electricity costs for homes and businesses are set to soar from October, as the surge in oil income allows Putin to sacrifice gas revenue and squeeze supplies to
In an August 12 Wall Street Journal report, Chinese sources contend that in their July 28 phone call, United States President Joe Biden was told by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) that “he had no intention of going to war with the US” over House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s then upcoming visit to Taiwan. However, there should be global alarm that Xi did use that visit to begin the CCP’s active war against democracy in Taiwan and globally, and that the Biden Administration’s response has been insufficient. To hear CCP officials, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) spokesmen, and a
Much of the foreign policy conversation in the US over the past two weeks has centered on whether US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to have visited Taiwan. Her backers pointed out that there was precedent for such a visit — a previous House speaker and US Cabinet members had visited Taiwan — and that it is important for officials to underscore the US’ commitment to Taiwan in the face of increasing Chinese pressure. Critics argued that the trip was ill-timed, because Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would likely feel a need to respond, lest he appear weak
United Microelectronics Corp (UMC) founder and former chairman Robert Tsao (曹興誠) on Friday last week pledged to donate NT$3 billion (US$100 million) to help Taiwan protect itself from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) aggression. While still UMC chairman, Tsao gained a reputation for supporting unification with China and backing parties such as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the New Party and the People First Party, which have similar leanings. During a TV show on Monday, host Clara Chou (周玉蔻) asked Tsao which politicians he now supported. Tsao said he had supported the New Party when it formed, had become disappointed by People First
RSS