I realize a lot of my posts are about BYD, and I think that attests to the prowess of their PR team and their ability to keep themselves in the news. (One could say the same for Geely.) Today's story, however, is not one that BYD's PR department would have wanted us to know about.
About a week ago the news emerged that BYD was being fined and having some of its factories in Xi’an confiscated as punishment for a land-use violation. This came as a bit of a surprise to me.
First, a little background
In July of 2009 BYD signed an agreement with the Xi’an High Tech Zone to build a factory that would expand production by 200,000 vehicles per year. That same month, two different village governments in Huxian County (in the Xi’an area) appropriated 725 acres of land for BYD’s project, and, according to law, compensated the people who were being moved off the land. As is turns out 91 percent of the land appropriated was arable.
Huxian County then asked the Xi’an city government to approve an expansion of the BYD project land to about 807 acres (90 percent of which would be arable). Xi’an City then passed this request up to the Shaanxi Provincial government who approved the request in November of 2009.
By the following month, BYD had begun construction on seven factory buildings including a dormitory, a mixing plant and surrounding roads on about 121 acres of land, 92 percent of which was arable. (The difference between the acreage being used by BYD and that requested by Huxian County is not immediately apparent.)
All of this came to light in July of 2010 when the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources ordered a halt in construction and launched an investigation into illegal development of arable land.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the development of arable land has become a serious issue in China, drawing much discussion at the National People’s Congress in March of 2010. The law, as it pertains to this issue, also seems pretty serious: any potential non-farm use of arable land, anywhere in China, must be submitted to China’s State Council (the Cabinet) for approval.
By agreeing to BYD’s use of arable land for factory construction, the Shaanxi Provincial Government was clearly in violation of this law. It had no authority to grant an approval.
BYD, for its part, thought it had covered all its bases. It went to the local government and filed its request, and within a few months, it received the approval it wanted. And this kind of behavior by BYD and local governments was not out of the ordinary.
The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, however, did not see it that way. It fined BYD nearly $500,000 and confiscated all of its illegally constructed buildings. And since an entire hierarchy of local officials from village to county to city to province had granted approvals, Beijing handed out punishments to them as well, meting out fines, warnings and demerits to 14 officials at various levels.
What this means
The fact that both BYD and local officials were punished was a clear signal from Beijing that this law in particular is not to be broken – killing a few chickens to scare the monkeys. Monkeys all over China are now duly warned.
What initially surprised me upon the announcement of the investigation in July was that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (MLNR) would enforce this law against BYD, a company that appeared to be among Beijing’s favorite private companies due to its success in selling low-emission cars and development of new energy vehicles. BYD was even the favored recipient of a loan from Bank of China last December for building a solar plant.
My assumption had been that someone above the MLNR, perhaps in one of the more powerful ministries like MIIT or the NDRC, would trump MLNR’s decision, and BYD would get off lightly. Well, a nearly $500K fine and confiscation of buildings is anything but light. (Fortunately for BYD, they weren’t also forced to restore the land to its pre-construction arable state!)
And this comes at an unfortunate time for BYD whose sales have been dropping. In the summer it announced a significant scaling back in projected sales for 2010 from 800,000 to 600,000. Its F3 (a Toyota Corolla clone) was the best selling sedan in China in 2009, but it wasn’t even among the top-ten sellers last month. Also, for reasons that are not entirely clear, BYD has backed away from its previous intention to introduce its all-electric E6 crossover in California this year.
But BYD’s difficulties are not the most important part of this story. The issue here is that Beijing is getting serious about the use of arable land, and it is sending out the signal that such abuses of the law will no longer be tolerated.
(This is, in my opinion, related to China’s concern for self-sufficiency which borders on paranoia. The apparent fear is that other countries will hoard goods China needs as it may now be doing with the rare earth metals that Japan needs. Perhaps China is not aware that the United States sold grain to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. But I digress…)
Many China-watchers observe local governments getting away with ignoring Beijing’s dictates and assume this means that Beijing is powerless to enforce its will in the provinces. This simply is not true. As this incident demonstrates, even a relatively weak ministry can get its way when it wants to. Just because you can get away with breaking the law today doesn’t mean you can do it tomorrow.
__________________
Chinese sources consulted for this article:
国土资源部公布四起部挂牌督办违法案件处理结果
比亚迪项目违规占地受罚
比亚迪西安违法占地案处理超预期 14名官员被问责
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
UPDATED--It's about M-O-N-E-Y, Mr. Friedman
Last week New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote another of his "Wow, China is awesome!" columns. This one is about how the Chinese are on top of climate change while the Americans are so caught up in partisan bickering that they have allowed an opportunity to slip out of their hands.
So far, so good. Nothing to disagree with there, at least as far as his impression of the US is concerned.
But Friedman takes comments by Peggy Liu (of JUCCCE) that the Chinese are running various clean energy pilot projects as a signal that the Chinese are serious about cleaning up their environment.
This is where I have to part ways with Tom. As someone who has, for the past 16 years, lived in or traveled frequently to China -- not just the big cities, but the countryside as well -- I can only verify that things have become worse, not better. There are many things China could have been doing for the past decade or so to clean up its environment or to reduce its carbon footprint, but it hasn't done any of them. I'm sorry, I like China, I love the people, but the place is filthy.
Still Friedman manages to make one valid connection -- that China's clean energy efforts are all about "J-O-B-S". He's pretty close on that one, but while J-O-B-S are certainly a nice side-effect, it's really more about M-O-N-E-Y. I've made these same assertions before on this blog:
The point here is not to pile on China and accuse it of being duplicitous. China is actually being very clear about what it wants. The problem is when the Tom Friedmans of the world fly into Beijing, stay in five-star hotels and then proceed to interpret Chinese actions through their own worldview.
I think it's great that China is undertaking all of these pilot projects. This work desperately needs to be done, and much more could be done in the US if our political leaders were more focused on the good of the country than they are on their careers (and if voters would punish them for it).
But it is way too early to draw the conclusion that China is concerned about climate change. This is a country that is concerned more about growth than anything else. If things continue on their current course, China will get what it wants: M-O-N-E-Y.
And they'll continue to get it from the US.
________________
UPDATE:
I came across this article today, from a law professor at Beijing University, that supports this idea. The basic message of "China's green laws are useless" is that, while China's environmental laws are impressive, they have had no effect on the country's environment.
So far, so good. Nothing to disagree with there, at least as far as his impression of the US is concerned.
But Friedman takes comments by Peggy Liu (of JUCCCE) that the Chinese are running various clean energy pilot projects as a signal that the Chinese are serious about cleaning up their environment.
This is where I have to part ways with Tom. As someone who has, for the past 16 years, lived in or traveled frequently to China -- not just the big cities, but the countryside as well -- I can only verify that things have become worse, not better. There are many things China could have been doing for the past decade or so to clean up its environment or to reduce its carbon footprint, but it hasn't done any of them. I'm sorry, I like China, I love the people, but the place is filthy.
Still Friedman manages to make one valid connection -- that China's clean energy efforts are all about "J-O-B-S". He's pretty close on that one, but while J-O-B-S are certainly a nice side-effect, it's really more about M-O-N-E-Y. I've made these same assertions before on this blog:
Ultimately, Beijing sees great opportunity in the climate change movement. But contrary to outward appearances, the opportunity for China lies, not in cleaning up its environment, but in selling related technologies to foreigners.But don't take my word for it. Let's see how the Chinese government describes what it is doing. The following is a summary from China's 2009 Auto Industry Yearbook (a government publication) summing up the purpose of China's pursuit of "new energy vehicles":
Clean technology will be expensive, and a country facing a demographic time bomb in a decade or so cannot afford to waste a single percentage point in GDP growth to clean up its environment. China will, however, be more than happy to sell the necessary technology to those countries that are already on the bandwagon.
新能源汽车行业有望为中国汽车提供赶超国际汽车先进国家的机会... 有望在全球新能源汽车产业分工中获取更大收益。While this is just part of the summary paragraph, there's nothing in the the entire section on "new energy vehicles" about climate change or environmental protection. Though the term "energy saving" is used once or twice.
Translated:
The hope of the new energy vehicle industry is that it will provide China with an opportunity to overtake countries with advanced auto industries ... the hope is that, in the division of labor in the new energy vehicle industry, [China] can earn more profit.
The point here is not to pile on China and accuse it of being duplicitous. China is actually being very clear about what it wants. The problem is when the Tom Friedmans of the world fly into Beijing, stay in five-star hotels and then proceed to interpret Chinese actions through their own worldview.
I think it's great that China is undertaking all of these pilot projects. This work desperately needs to be done, and much more could be done in the US if our political leaders were more focused on the good of the country than they are on their careers (and if voters would punish them for it).
But it is way too early to draw the conclusion that China is concerned about climate change. This is a country that is concerned more about growth than anything else. If things continue on their current course, China will get what it wants: M-O-N-E-Y.
And they'll continue to get it from the US.
________________
UPDATE:
I came across this article today, from a law professor at Beijing University, that supports this idea. The basic message of "China's green laws are useless" is that, while China's environmental laws are impressive, they have had no effect on the country's environment.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
China Auto Mergers: It's a sellers' market...
...and nobody's selling.
An article in today's People's Daily (English) says that the auto industry tops the list of industries in which China's State Council wants to see an acceleration in mergers and acquisitions. The article goes further to say that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) is drafting specific policies on mergers due to be released later this year.
The article is right in that consolidation of this industry is much needed. There are currently more than 100 auto assemblers in China, though only the top 20 or so really really count. Still, if China is to develop a globally competitive auto industry, they will need for a lot of the smaller producers to either disappear or be consolidated into larger producers.
If the article is correct, these new policies that MIIT is working on will do something to accelerate M&A in the auto industry. If those new policies are to do anything to accelerate mergers, however, it will require a pretty drastic change in Beijing's behavior.
Ever since China's government began to take notice of its auto industry around the mid-1980s, there has been an increasing desire to make China's industry globally competitive. And part of every auto policy that has been written to date has focused on a need for consolidation. I know this because I've read all of them.
Early on in the reform era, the auto bureaucracy du jour was always well aware of how other countries' auto industries had developed. For example, they knew that, in the early part of the 20th century, the United States also had more than 100 auto companies, and that number had shrunk to about half a dozen by the late 1950s, and only three by the century's end.
As the US has, until recently, been the one market China most wanted to emulate (since the US was, and still is, the world's largest economy), it seems to have made sense to auto planners in Beijing that the route taken by America's "Big 3" should soon be taken by China's largest auto companies.
And until now no matter how strongly the government has stressed the need for consolidation, implementation has always included allowing the market to determine the outcomes -- just as it presumably did in the US. Yet, while there have been a handful of mergers over the past decade (First Auto-Tianjin, Shanghai-Nanjing, Guangzhou-Changfeng, Chang'an-Hafei-Changhe), there have been nowhere nearly the number one might expect if the market were truly determining the outcomes.
Many of China's smallest auto companies continue to soldier on, year-after-year, cranking out a handful of cars. In a true market economy, these would never have survived on their own, yet in China, they do. Why? Because their local governments want them to. They employ people, they pay taxes, and they also very likely give local leaders a few vehicles to drive around every year.
If not for local governments who stand in the way, the market would have indeed taken care of China's fragmented auto industry. There is no lack of desire on the part of the CEOs of large auto groups to buy others; there's simply no desire on the part of small company CEOs and local governments to sell.
So these new policies that MIIT introduces later this year will probably not look much different from those we have seen to date. Beijing will very likely still want the strongest companies to take over the weaker ones. The question is whether Beijing will put any teeth in its policy. Will it change the incentive structures faced by local governments that keep them from supporting consolidation where necessary?
The tradeoffs are pretty clear. The status quo (little consolidation) helps to prevent social instability that could result from closure or merger of less efficient players. On the other hand, significant consolidation would help China's auto industry to become more globally competitive.
Which is really more important to Beijing?
An article in today's People's Daily (English) says that the auto industry tops the list of industries in which China's State Council wants to see an acceleration in mergers and acquisitions. The article goes further to say that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) is drafting specific policies on mergers due to be released later this year.
The article is right in that consolidation of this industry is much needed. There are currently more than 100 auto assemblers in China, though only the top 20 or so really really count. Still, if China is to develop a globally competitive auto industry, they will need for a lot of the smaller producers to either disappear or be consolidated into larger producers.
If the article is correct, these new policies that MIIT is working on will do something to accelerate M&A in the auto industry. If those new policies are to do anything to accelerate mergers, however, it will require a pretty drastic change in Beijing's behavior.
Ever since China's government began to take notice of its auto industry around the mid-1980s, there has been an increasing desire to make China's industry globally competitive. And part of every auto policy that has been written to date has focused on a need for consolidation. I know this because I've read all of them.
Early on in the reform era, the auto bureaucracy du jour was always well aware of how other countries' auto industries had developed. For example, they knew that, in the early part of the 20th century, the United States also had more than 100 auto companies, and that number had shrunk to about half a dozen by the late 1950s, and only three by the century's end.
As the US has, until recently, been the one market China most wanted to emulate (since the US was, and still is, the world's largest economy), it seems to have made sense to auto planners in Beijing that the route taken by America's "Big 3" should soon be taken by China's largest auto companies.
And until now no matter how strongly the government has stressed the need for consolidation, implementation has always included allowing the market to determine the outcomes -- just as it presumably did in the US. Yet, while there have been a handful of mergers over the past decade (First Auto-Tianjin, Shanghai-Nanjing, Guangzhou-Changfeng, Chang'an-Hafei-Changhe), there have been nowhere nearly the number one might expect if the market were truly determining the outcomes.
Many of China's smallest auto companies continue to soldier on, year-after-year, cranking out a handful of cars. In a true market economy, these would never have survived on their own, yet in China, they do. Why? Because their local governments want them to. They employ people, they pay taxes, and they also very likely give local leaders a few vehicles to drive around every year.
If not for local governments who stand in the way, the market would have indeed taken care of China's fragmented auto industry. There is no lack of desire on the part of the CEOs of large auto groups to buy others; there's simply no desire on the part of small company CEOs and local governments to sell.
So these new policies that MIIT introduces later this year will probably not look much different from those we have seen to date. Beijing will very likely still want the strongest companies to take over the weaker ones. The question is whether Beijing will put any teeth in its policy. Will it change the incentive structures faced by local governments that keep them from supporting consolidation where necessary?
The tradeoffs are pretty clear. The status quo (little consolidation) helps to prevent social instability that could result from closure or merger of less efficient players. On the other hand, significant consolidation would help China's auto industry to become more globally competitive.
Which is really more important to Beijing?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is China "skirting the rules" on clean tech support?
Maybe, maybe not, but I think there's a far more important story here.
There's a great article by Keith Bradsher in today's New York Times, "On Clean Energy, China Skirts the Rules". Bradsher compares the extent to which clean tech firms in China and in the US receive government support. The upshot of the article is, as has become de rigeur recently, to paint a picture of a China that is getting ready to clean America's clock (pun intended).
Bradsher quotes the CFO of a US-based clean tech company on difficulties:
My sense is the recent rash of "China is kicking America's ass in clean tech" articles is really more about prodding the US government to take a larger role.
What concerns me is, if those who promote such views get their wish for more US government involvement in industry, would the US government know where to draw the line?
At some point government support in the US (and elsewhere) starts to result in diminishing returns. Once you unleash the state, it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. Once you put in place a new bureaucracy, the people inside it begin immediately to plan for a perpetual existence.
During a recession, it becomes easy to clamor for government help, but when conditions improve, how likely is the government to withdraw?
This, to me, is a fascinating difference between the Chinese and US systems. We know that, over time, democracies bulk up with special interest driven programs that beneficiaries will fight for to the death, and that the rest of the population rarely have the collective will to fight.
On the other hand, China's "special interests" are all pretty much contained within the Politburo. They fight, someone wins, then they move on.
All the hand-wringing about whether the US should help with clean tech, though important, seems to be missing the much broader point (though raising the vital question) of whether the political system that has served the US well for over 200 years is sustainable in its current form.
There's a great article by Keith Bradsher in today's New York Times, "On Clean Energy, China Skirts the Rules". Bradsher compares the extent to which clean tech firms in China and in the US receive government support. The upshot of the article is, as has become de rigeur recently, to paint a picture of a China that is getting ready to clean America's clock (pun intended).
Bradsher quotes the CFO of a US-based clean tech company on difficulties:
"You can’t get a penny in the United States, it doesn’t matter who you call — banks, government. It’s awful," he said. "Therein lies the hidden advantage of being in China."Then he closes with this quote from the head of a Chinese tech company with operations in both China and the US:
"Who wins this clean energy race," Mr. Zhao of Sunzone said, "really depends on how much support the government gives."Beijing-based lawyer, Stan Abrams, adds some illuminating commentary on this story at his blog, China Hearsay. He looks at it from more of a legal standpoint and concludes that, though China does appear to be skirting the rules, little to none of its behavior appears to be in gross violation of China's WTO commitments.
My sense is the recent rash of "China is kicking America's ass in clean tech" articles is really more about prodding the US government to take a larger role.
What concerns me is, if those who promote such views get their wish for more US government involvement in industry, would the US government know where to draw the line?
At some point government support in the US (and elsewhere) starts to result in diminishing returns. Once you unleash the state, it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. Once you put in place a new bureaucracy, the people inside it begin immediately to plan for a perpetual existence.
During a recession, it becomes easy to clamor for government help, but when conditions improve, how likely is the government to withdraw?
This, to me, is a fascinating difference between the Chinese and US systems. We know that, over time, democracies bulk up with special interest driven programs that beneficiaries will fight for to the death, and that the rest of the population rarely have the collective will to fight.
On the other hand, China's "special interests" are all pretty much contained within the Politburo. They fight, someone wins, then they move on.
All the hand-wringing about whether the US should help with clean tech, though important, seems to be missing the much broader point (though raising the vital question) of whether the political system that has served the US well for over 200 years is sustainable in its current form.
Friday, September 3, 2010
US and China support for auto industries: not that different
A comparison of auto industries: China's government supports its auto firms in growth and development while the US government only rescues its auto firms from bankruptcy. (Right?)
For the past several weeks, I have been plowing through this nearly complete set of China Automotive Industry Yearbooks, tracing China's auto policy since the early 1980s.
Toward the end of the 1990s, I began to see references to a supposed US government program the Chinese call "新一代汽车伙伴计划" (literally translated: "new generation vehicle partnership plan"). My first thought was, they have to be making this up to justify their own intervention in the auto industry. The US government does not intervene in the auto industry -- or at least it didn't until it had to rescue GM and Chrysler last year. Before that, the only other time was to rescue Chrysler (the first time) in the early '80s.
After seeing several references to this program and another one they called "自有汽车" (Freedom car? Seriously?), I decided I had to find out what this was all about. What I learned was that the US government has indeed established partnerships with the former "Big 3" American automakers to develop new vehicle technologies.
The first one "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV) was started in 1993 under the Clinton administration and, according to this article at Wikipedia, resulted in the development of some useful technologies that made vehicles lighter and more efficient. The program also resulted in diesel-burning cars built by each of the Big 3 that were able to get at least 72 miles per gallon. (You never heard of this? Funny. Neither had I.)
Curiously, this program was ended by the Bush Administration in 2001 (apparently at the request of the Big 3) and replaced with a new program called "Freedom Car". This new program dropped the focus on current technologies and began a push to make fuel-cell vehicles commercially viable.
In more recent times, I have become aware of funds have that been made available under a Department of Energy program to support the development of advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles, but my assumption had been that this was a one-off program put together under the stimulus program. However, as it turns out, I was wrong about that too. This program started in 2007, well over a year before we started to notice the economic downturn.
US government involvement in the auto industry, as it turns out, is not an aberation; it's quite the regularity. And it's not only about rescue from bankruptcy; the US government has been pushing all along for development of advanced vehicle technologies.
As is typically the case with Wikipedia articles, people with competing agendas are able to edit the pages to which I have linked above, so those articles do contain some bias. Still, it was interesting to discover that China isn't the only country whose government wants to see its automakers develop new technologies.
And I found it especially ironic that I had to learn about these US efforts from Chinese government documents.
For the past several weeks, I have been plowing through this nearly complete set of China Automotive Industry Yearbooks, tracing China's auto policy since the early 1980s.
Toward the end of the 1990s, I began to see references to a supposed US government program the Chinese call "新一代汽车伙伴计划" (literally translated: "new generation vehicle partnership plan"). My first thought was, they have to be making this up to justify their own intervention in the auto industry. The US government does not intervene in the auto industry -- or at least it didn't until it had to rescue GM and Chrysler last year. Before that, the only other time was to rescue Chrysler (the first time) in the early '80s.
After seeing several references to this program and another one they called "自有汽车" (Freedom car? Seriously?), I decided I had to find out what this was all about. What I learned was that the US government has indeed established partnerships with the former "Big 3" American automakers to develop new vehicle technologies.
The first one "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV) was started in 1993 under the Clinton administration and, according to this article at Wikipedia, resulted in the development of some useful technologies that made vehicles lighter and more efficient. The program also resulted in diesel-burning cars built by each of the Big 3 that were able to get at least 72 miles per gallon. (You never heard of this? Funny. Neither had I.)
Curiously, this program was ended by the Bush Administration in 2001 (apparently at the request of the Big 3) and replaced with a new program called "Freedom Car". This new program dropped the focus on current technologies and began a push to make fuel-cell vehicles commercially viable.
In more recent times, I have become aware of funds have that been made available under a Department of Energy program to support the development of advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles, but my assumption had been that this was a one-off program put together under the stimulus program. However, as it turns out, I was wrong about that too. This program started in 2007, well over a year before we started to notice the economic downturn.
US government involvement in the auto industry, as it turns out, is not an aberation; it's quite the regularity. And it's not only about rescue from bankruptcy; the US government has been pushing all along for development of advanced vehicle technologies.
As is typically the case with Wikipedia articles, people with competing agendas are able to edit the pages to which I have linked above, so those articles do contain some bias. Still, it was interesting to discover that China isn't the only country whose government wants to see its automakers develop new technologies.
And I found it especially ironic that I had to learn about these US efforts from Chinese government documents.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Chevy's Volt in China: Why not call it the Volt?
China Car Times reports that the new Chevrolet Volt was unveiled at an event in Shanghai today, though it won't be going on sale until sometime in 2011.
I'm always curious to know how the names of foreign products are Sinicized for sale in the Chinese market. In this case, GM has picked the Chinese name 沃蓝达 (wo lan da), a name apparently intended to sound somewhat like "volt". (Incidentally that's the same 沃 used in Wal-Mart in China: 沃尔玛.)
I wondered why they didn't simply call it "volt" in Chinese. I mean, they do have electricity there, and it's also measured in volts. So I looked it up.
The word "volt", meaning a measurement of electricity, is translated as 伏特 (fu te), which sounds exactly like the Chinese translation of Ford Motors, "福特" (fu te).
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Elusive Innovation: Inventing Stuff is Hard
Once one has climbed to the top of the hierarchy of the global division of labor, it really isn’t all that difficult to reach back down. However, if one has yet to make it to the top, getting there is extremely hard.
The US no longer manufactures most of what it buys, and many items it formerly manufactured are now being made elsewhere. But it’s not as if the US no longer has any economic activity. Much of that manufacturing activity was replaced by “higher level” knowledge work, part of which includes research and development that brings us such innovations as iPhones and this internet thing.
Despite the loss of manufacturing, one advantage the US has is that it can always decide to manufacture something if it wants to. All it has to do is throw money at the problem. The US rescue of General Motors is a case in point. It is quite likely that GM would no longer be building cars in the US if the US government had not determined to save the company. This is not to say the rescue of GM was necessarily a good strategy, just that, if the US government so desires, it has the wherewithal to pull it off.
China’s economy now provides a significant portion of the world’s manufacturing, a task for which it is currently well-suited. It has more people than it can count to throw at factories requiring unskilled labor. But an unfortunate disadvantage for China is that, whereas the US has the option of employing brute force (i.e., lots of money) to keep manufacturing onshore, China cannot simply employ brute force to encourage innovation.
Innovation is a higher level activity that requires a certain quality of education and a relatively free and open political environment. In absence of these requirements, China can throw all the money and slogans it wants at innovation and it will still not happen.
And this is why the US is in a far more favorable position relative to China. If, for whatever reason, all trade between China and the US were to stop for a period of time, not only could the US buy manufactured goods from other countries, but it would also have the option to begin rebuilding the manufacturing industries it once had. Again, while that may not be the optimal strategy, at least it is an option for the US. On the other hand, China, try as hard as it might, cannot become an innovative society without undertaking the kinds of political reform necessary to encourage innovation.
(And ironically, if China were to undertake such political reform, the probability of an interruption in trade between China and the US would quickly drop to about 0%, making this whole discussion more or less moot.)
To slightly oversimplify, while the US can do what China does, China cannot do what the US does. Not today.
But it is not as if China is a stranger to innovation. While my European ancestors were still banging sticks together, the Chinese were inventing cool things like gunpowder, the plow, the compass, paper. So I am quite certain the current lack of innovation is not an issue of human capacity, but more of a systemic one.
Of course, the bad news for Chinese citizens is that, in the short term, the system will not change. But the good news for many educated Chinese is that there is always the option of emigration to more innovative societies. Unfortunately for China, this is a double blow to the country as a whole. Nearly every educated Chinese who leaves is not only a minus-one for China, but also a plus-one for the country to which he or she immigrates.
The global hierarchy of the division of labor, as it currently stands, has brought the world both innovation and inexpensively manufactured goods. The current structure, despite its flaws, works pretty well, but a major problem China has with the current structure is that China is not in its traditional place on top. We can see this dissatisfaction in the central government’s continually unsatisfied demands for “indigenous innovation”.
For how long will insistence on rule by an unelected government continue to outweigh the Chinese desire to once again lead the world in innovation? For as long as China’s single greatest fear is instability. Until China's government can become comfortable with a little unpredictability, it should expect little in the way of breakthrough innovation.
The US no longer manufactures most of what it buys, and many items it formerly manufactured are now being made elsewhere. But it’s not as if the US no longer has any economic activity. Much of that manufacturing activity was replaced by “higher level” knowledge work, part of which includes research and development that brings us such innovations as iPhones and this internet thing.
Despite the loss of manufacturing, one advantage the US has is that it can always decide to manufacture something if it wants to. All it has to do is throw money at the problem. The US rescue of General Motors is a case in point. It is quite likely that GM would no longer be building cars in the US if the US government had not determined to save the company. This is not to say the rescue of GM was necessarily a good strategy, just that, if the US government so desires, it has the wherewithal to pull it off.
China’s economy now provides a significant portion of the world’s manufacturing, a task for which it is currently well-suited. It has more people than it can count to throw at factories requiring unskilled labor. But an unfortunate disadvantage for China is that, whereas the US has the option of employing brute force (i.e., lots of money) to keep manufacturing onshore, China cannot simply employ brute force to encourage innovation.
Innovation is a higher level activity that requires a certain quality of education and a relatively free and open political environment. In absence of these requirements, China can throw all the money and slogans it wants at innovation and it will still not happen.
And this is why the US is in a far more favorable position relative to China. If, for whatever reason, all trade between China and the US were to stop for a period of time, not only could the US buy manufactured goods from other countries, but it would also have the option to begin rebuilding the manufacturing industries it once had. Again, while that may not be the optimal strategy, at least it is an option for the US. On the other hand, China, try as hard as it might, cannot become an innovative society without undertaking the kinds of political reform necessary to encourage innovation.
(And ironically, if China were to undertake such political reform, the probability of an interruption in trade between China and the US would quickly drop to about 0%, making this whole discussion more or less moot.)
To slightly oversimplify, while the US can do what China does, China cannot do what the US does. Not today.
But it is not as if China is a stranger to innovation. While my European ancestors were still banging sticks together, the Chinese were inventing cool things like gunpowder, the plow, the compass, paper. So I am quite certain the current lack of innovation is not an issue of human capacity, but more of a systemic one.
Of course, the bad news for Chinese citizens is that, in the short term, the system will not change. But the good news for many educated Chinese is that there is always the option of emigration to more innovative societies. Unfortunately for China, this is a double blow to the country as a whole. Nearly every educated Chinese who leaves is not only a minus-one for China, but also a plus-one for the country to which he or she immigrates.
The global hierarchy of the division of labor, as it currently stands, has brought the world both innovation and inexpensively manufactured goods. The current structure, despite its flaws, works pretty well, but a major problem China has with the current structure is that China is not in its traditional place on top. We can see this dissatisfaction in the central government’s continually unsatisfied demands for “indigenous innovation”.
For how long will insistence on rule by an unelected government continue to outweigh the Chinese desire to once again lead the world in innovation? For as long as China’s single greatest fear is instability. Until China's government can become comfortable with a little unpredictability, it should expect little in the way of breakthrough innovation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
