|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: El ascenso de China es una tendencia a largo plazo a la que Occidente debe adaptarse

At the beginning of this century, the West, particularly the United States, began to exaggerate the so-called «Chinese shock,» and with the shifting power dynamics between East and West in recent years, a new phenomenon termed «Chinese shock 2.0» has emerged.

On May 1, David Dodwell, executive director of the U.S. trade policy consultancy Strategic Access, published an op-ed in the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, where he cited Columbia University professor Adam Tooze, who noted that while early in the century others viewed China as merely catching up economically, today China is redefining the boundaries of economic potential across multiple manufacturing sectors.

In response to numerous complaints from the U.S. and the West claiming that China’s industrial and trade policies have accelerated its rise in various sectors—including aviation, aerospace, artificial intelligence, telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, nuclear and fusion energy, quantum computing, materials science, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, solar energy, and batteries—Tooze issued a stark warning: «China’s rise is a long-term trend, and the West must adapt accordingly.»

Furthermore, Dodwell’s article emphasizes that the growth of China’s manufacturing industry is unstoppable and that the West needs to reassess its strategies. He argues that these changes are structural in nature, and relying on trade protectionism will only weaken long-term economic growth.

A report titled «The New Global Imbalances,» published by the British think tank Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), is similarly straightforward: «Failing to recognize the structural nature of these changes and overemphasizing trade protection will inevitably harm long-term economic growth for all parties involved.»

Regarding the exaggeration of the «Chinese shock» which has now reached its 2.0 version, Tooze pointed out that it is crucial to pay attention to four driving forces: the «chaos in trade policy» caused by U.S. President Trump, U.S. fiscal policy that is «unprecedented and extremely uncontrolled,» the rise of artificial intelligence, and the «acceleration and shifting» of China’s economic policies.

The narrative of the «Chinese shock» emerged after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The U.S. and the West exaggerated claims that China’s export growth negatively impacted manufacturing jobs in the United States and Europe; that China’s trade effects reduced U.S. manufacturing employment; and that regions in the U.S. competing with Chinese industries experienced «higher unemployment rates, lower labor force participation rates, and lower wages in the local job market.»

Dodwell noted that as various arguments regarding the «Chinese shock» have been brewing for nearly three decades, both Tooze and CEPR have raised three fundamental questions: Why should we pay attention? Why now? And what path should we take moving forward?

As Chinese companies export increasingly high-quality products at incredibly low prices, arbitrary biases are beginning to surface.

Many companies have unfoundedly accused China of a range of «unfair practices,» focusing primarily on tariffs, intellectual property rights, subsidies, and large-scale dumping. However, the author counters by asking whether European or American companies are even more affected in these areas.

Dodwell asserted that evidence over the past few decades suggests that China’s industrial policies are more effective and successful than those of most countries, unique for their persistence, long-term character, and strategic focus rather than short-term interventions, as well as their concentration on specific key industries.

Using hydrogen energy development as an example, China is working to reduce costs, scale up, and modernize the hydrogen energy ecosystem. It is creating five urban clusters for hydrogen energy development and eliminating weaker players through a detailed selection mechanism.

Why now? Dodwell believes this is largely due to what Tooze describes as the «apparent rupture of coherence in U.S. political decision-making.» This has not only generated chaos and competitive pressure for global companies but has also led a significant portion of China’s trade to shift away from the U.S.

These companies are also redirecting their sales to the «global south,» particularly Southeast Asia, which has become China’s largest export market.

So, how should we respond? The article bluntly states that any attempt to appease the U.S. in finding a solution that satisfies the world is futile.

Globally, economists from Harvard University’s Kennedy School have proposed four countermeasures for the West: coordinated action among nations, strategic investment in new key areas, selecting sectors where Western economies have a viable chance of success and cannot afford to fail, and job protection.

Notably, some Western media are adept at creating new terminologies and generating controversy. The so-called «Chinese shock theory» is merely a variant of the «China threat narrative.» Its true purpose is to distort and discredit the economic relationship between China and the world, incite other countries to «de-Sinify,» slow down China’s modernization and industrial development, and maintain the monopolistic position of certain Western countries in global supply and industrial chains.

This is not the first time that the U.S. and the West have manufactured the so-called «Chinese shock theory.» Whether paving the way for high tariff policies in the past or now promoting the «decoupling from China,» the reckless exaggeration by the U.S. of the «Chinese shock» and the amplification of the «China threat» serve only as an excuse to undermine the principles of fair market practices and justify their protectionist economic policies.

As noted by Gary Clyde Hofbauer, senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. ignores the economic costs. Whether using the terms «decoupling» or «risk reduction,» this indicates that the U.S. is veering onto the wrong path of «neomercantilism» and deepening protectionism. Ultimately, it will be U.S. businesses and citizens who will bear the consequences.

Xiong Chao, Guancha

La entrada China’s Rise: A Long-Term Trend That Western Nations Must Adapt To se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.