Bradsher's first paragraph is very revealing in terms of how differently China and the US are approaching the issue of alternative energy vehicles
Senior Chinese officials outlined on Friday how they aimed to turn their country into the world’s largest producer of electric cars, including a focus on consumer choice rather than corporate subsidies.A comparison of money outlay:
China is supporting its 100+ auto assemblers (and thousands of parts suppliers) with $1.46 billion while the US is supporting the Big Three with $25 billion. Of course, the US also offers some tax deductions for alternative energy vehicles, as does China. Bradsher quotes a Vice Minister:China also has a 10 billion yuan ($1.46 billion) program to help the industry with automotive innovation.
In the United States, the government is providing $25 billion to help cover Detroit’s research costs in the coming years.
It seems that, with all the anti-market sentiment brought on by the global financial crisis, China's leaders still see the value in letting the market make some decisions. This is not to say that they have become free-market champions overnight. (As long as China's economic planner, the NDRC exists, that would be difficult to prove.)Zhang Shaochun, a vice minister of finance, said that the government wanted to let the market determine which electric vehicle models would become popular. So while the government is providing some research subsidies, the main step will be to provide very large subsidies for buyers of electric cars — already up to 60,000 yuan, ($8,800), for purchases by taxi fleets and local government agencies.
“The fiscal subsidy gives voting rights to the consumer,” he said.
Furthermore, this NYT article only discusses the Central Government. There are a host of local governments in China that are far less eager to allow the market to decide whether their local auto manufacturers live or die, and they are going all out to support them with subsidies, local tax breaks and local government purchases.
So how is electric vehicle strategy being plotted differently at top levels in the US?
Let's look at some of the key players. The NYT article points out that China's Minister of Science and Technology is a former Audi engineer who used to work in Germany. (Incidentally, he's also not a Communist Party member. h/t @darnoc.) In fact, a look at China's Communist Party Politburo and the State Council reveals an overwhelming majority of scientists and engineers with a mere handful of lawyers and MBAs sprinkled among them.
Who in the US government is in charge of auto strategy? Steve Rattner, a former journalist and investment banker, is leading President Obama's Auto Task Force. While Mr. Rattner (and his boss) are undoubtedly smart individuals, it seems clear that the focus is very different from China's.
China's leaders are looking at auto strategy as an engineering question while the US government sees it as more of a finance question.
I don't want to over-generalize this observation. Certainly China must also deal with issues of finance, and the US industry must also continue its impressive record of innovative engineering. However, while China is focused on dominating the future of automobile manufacturing, the US is merely focused on how (or whether) to continue pouring money into a once-proud industry that is saddled with legacy costs and hostile unions.
Posts
Greg,
ReplyDeleteYour summary very timely and insightful. However, I would not oversimplify it as a financial vs. engineering strategy. China's approach is unique in the sense that it is attempting to balance the political and social agendas with the long-term health of what it considers a "pillar" industry. Recognizing that the industry itself could never on its own make the investment to create the infrastructure for alternative propulsion, China is willing to support the necessary investment in order to position the industry to invest in the technology and still remain financially viable. There isn't a place in the world where this approach is taken - and quite frankly in today's global economy it is a brilliant move which gives China a huge advantage.
Bill Russo
Thanks again for your comments, Bill.
ReplyDeleteRe: oversimplification. That was sort of the purpose of my last paragraph. I realize that things are far more complex.
China is trying to build an industry while the US is trying to rescue one. My intention was to point out that the two activities draw on two very different skill sets.
Regarding China's approach, as you say above, "there isn't (another) place in the world where this approach is taken..." -- which is exactly why I'll be in China for the rest of this year trying to understand exactly how it works.
I agree with Bill that this is not purely a "financial vs. engineering strategy" - it should also be viewed as an environmental issue.
ReplyDeleteHere's what my colleague from EMBARQ (www.embarq.org) had to say:
"The ingenuity of the Chinese is welcomed and should be praised; but focusing on the vehicle technology is not enough, and has little impact in reducing congestion, accidents and urban sprawl."
Check out my full post about this news on TheCityFix.com:
http://thecityfix.com/will-china-dominate-the-electric-car-market/
Thanks for your comments, Erica.
ReplyDeleteI cannot disagree at all with your assessments of the environmental impacts.
I find that many people's views on China's emergence as a player in the auto industry depend very much on which part of the "elephant" they happen to be touching. :)
First blush, seeing an engineer leading the pack as opposed to a finance guy engenders a certain degree of comfort, until we consider that engineers have their particular blind spots, such as the Three Gorgeous Damn Project.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mao Ruiqi.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, those blind spots can be particularly destructive when they're ideologically driven, regardless of how talented an engineer one might be.
And while the skills of finance are also valuable, they can also be destructive when driven by greed.
You (and the other commenters) raise a very important point. In the end, skills are only part of the equation. What matters more is the driving force behind those skills. Ideology and greed can turn useful, innocuous skills into tools of destruction.