Richard McGregor of the Financial Times:
“The fastest growing export sectors in 2006 were aircraft parts, shipbuilding, integrated circuits, cars and car parts, electrical machinery and telecommunications equipment.”
Hmmm. I guess China no longer just imports parts (like "integrated circuits") from abroad for final assembly. It increasingly is making parts for export – and increasingly is moving beyond the final assembly of electronics. That shouldn’t be a shock. Its 2006 trade surplus ($180b) is only a bit smaller than its total exports in 2001 – the pace of change over the past few years has been breathtaking.
McGregor quotes Jun Ma of Deutsche Bank:
“China’s export sector is experiencing a rapid structural upgrading in areas including technology, product mix and marketing,” said Deutsche Bank economist Jun Ma. “Most visibly, many textile, machinery and auto parts companies have dramatically expanded their product categories, enhancing their pricing power and profit margins.”
China increasingly has the export and industrial production profile of a middle income country – but it still has the wages of a low-income country. And with an export base of now nearly a trillion dollars seemingly expanding at 25-30% on a y/y basis, it casts a very long shadow over the world economy. One reason Brazil is intervening so heavily to limit the real's appreciation right now is that it worries about Chinese competition. There are parts of Brazil that produce goods, not commodities.
The case for RMB appreciation isn’t that it will it will immediately get rid of China’s trade surplus. It won’t. The case for RMB appreciation is that it is necessary to keep China’s trade surplus from continuing to expand.
It also is necessary to create the conditions that will eventually allow China’s government to avoid adding an ever-rising sum – a sum that is likely to be around $400b in 2007 — to its foreign assets.
Finally, RMB appreication is necessary to create the conditions that allow China to take the brakes off domestic demand – remember, right now, net exports are contributing so much to Chinese growth that China has had to hold down other parts of the economy to avoid overheating. The best example is the curbs the government has placed on bank lending.
Larry Summers is right. China should change for its own sake, and should do so now.
“This suggests that if China is to sustain rapid growth and not run into the kinds of problems that Japan encountered, now, when the sun is shining, is the time to fix the policy roof. Allowing the inevitable currency appreciation and spurring domestic demand by encouraging consumption is much easier now, when the economy is at the edge of overheating, than it is likely to be in the future when it cools off.”
Personally, I think China should have started to allow a meaningful real appreciation three years ago, if not even earlier. Following the dollar down in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was a mistake. Back in 2004, China's government started talking about rebalancing, but it consistently adopted policies that were too cautious and small to achieve its stated goal, so external and internal imbalances ended up getting bigger. Back in 2004, China had half as many reserves as it does now, a far smaller trade surplus and a less export-based economy. China’s growth momentum was so strong that it could have done as well as it has, but with less dependence on exports and less of a need for the government to constantly put a break on domestic demand.
Changing courses hasn’t gotten any less necessary – but the risks and costs have gone up.
brad you know i am a friend of china
i’l admit i prefer their ruling party to our pair when it comes to economic policy
but trying to convince them a steady serious reval
is in china’s let alone
the politbureau’s interest ….
i’m a fool here to repeat myself
but we need a set of benchmark
rates of exchange and dates
with a system of quota/tariff consequences if they are not met
of course to be fair we should produce a full set of optimal global trade balncing rats
so the targets isn’t china
but we need to take control of imports from asia ….now
start to get the full lists of products sources and destinations
home land security of the jobbler kind
the bosses won’t move of the dime
either on wall street or corporation row
or at the politbureau meetings in the forbidden city
unless signifigant voices don’t
threaten fast and dire consequences
throw down the gauntlet
and watch jobbled europe will join in ….
I agree with your analysis. The question becomes: why does China continue to amass dollars? I think (1)conflicting opinion/advice among the decision makers (Setser v. McKinnon) creates deadlock; (2) they literally have no choice; i.e. China lacks the financial,legal and regulatory institutions to deal with $1T. Why doesn’t China move towards more domestic demand? Again: very different domestic political demands plus: they have no choice: inadequate fiscal structure to make the transition. To build the requisite institutions will take decades.
What if you found out that exchange rates can’t help you, and the best you could do was to screw up Asia’s trade flows? It seems exchange rate changes in Asia have two distinct effects: 1.) relative prices change, rebalancing X and M; and 2.) exchange rate volatility hampers trade (by disrupting global supply chains, maybe). Depending on where you are, the respective effects are different. In most places, any gains from exchange rate changes are swamped by volatility disruptions. In Japan, exchange rates make no difference at all – maybe because offshored costs counter the yen’s effects on domestic content. China, Who knows, they’re out of scope here. Mostly what matters is US incomes, anyway, so really what would work best is a big stinkin recession, so just hang on a while.
Brad, between the US housing downturn (and US leveraged consumer), and Asia targeting US and Euro manufacturing (and Germany’s new VAT jump) I think the world is going to get into some serious trouble by Q3 2007.
Do you agree?
It is very unfortunate that China has, apparently, locked itself into an ultimately destructive path.
stuart mills,
“Asia targeting US and Euro manufacturing” ?
You seem to forget that 60% of China’s exports are by foreign-invested firms.
60%.
DOR, I am concerned about manufacturing employment and investment in US and Euro area.
I agree with DOR that the ability of domestic Chinese firms to move up the manufacturing value chain is highly overrated.
One example is the telecommunications sector, where there are quite a few strong Chinese firms such as Huawei and ZTE. In addition, CEC bought the Philips handset division, and TCL bought the Alcatel handset division, neither acquisition a roaring success.
Although manufacturing standard handsets is now a mature technology, the world so far has not been flooded with Chinese handsets. Even in China, the market leaders are Nokia and Motorola, with the cumulative markets share of the dozens of domestic players below 30%, most of them making losses. China manufactured 400 million handsets in 2006, roughly 40% of the global market, and many of them were exported. But the bulk of exports would certainly come from foreign vendors.
One of China’s key problems is IPR: They own neither CDMA nor GSM IPRs, not having contributed to the development of either technology. So even for equipment manufactured in China by Chinese companies, they would have to pay approximately 7% of sales revenue to the holders of essential IPRs such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson or Siemens. 7% of sales can be 50% of profit, or even more. This is no way to outcompete the incumbent foreign giants who not only do not have to pay the same amount of royalties, but also enjoy a royalty revenue stream from their competition, on top of their own equipment sales.
China’s attempt to solve this problem by developing its own cellular standard TD-SCDMA has been a miserable failure so far.
Trick question:
Who is Korea’s biggest handset exporter?
Wrong! It is Nokia, not Samsung or LG. Although Korea is one of the few remaining countries where Nokia does not sell a single phone due to the local CDMA standard, Nokia has a huge manufacturing plant in Masan, purely for export to Asia and the US.
If it is true that at least in some sectors, exports higher up the value chain are driven by foreign players, does an RMB appreciation really make sense? The foreign companies have to buy their components no matter what, probably at world market prices as part of a global supply chain, but higher production costs might drive both component and equipment production away.
Development process is a very dynamic and complex phenomena and it seems China is getting it right and Latin America, Eastern Europe and Turkey still does not get it.
The reason US and Western Europe still enjoy global domination is their monopolistic grip on many tecnologies and industries.
Combustion engine, jet engine, high precision machines, etc. The strong grip enable them monopolistic profits and skilled labor income to underpin their prosperity.
A challenger country should build a close to complete set of indigenous technical capabilities in order to avoid being dumb screwdrivers of the the developed world.
Why is that Siemens, Bosch, Toyota etc still keep their crucial development skills at their home countries whereas economic theory would dictate ever increasing localizatian of research and development as well?
I guess Chinese leadership is aware of this process unlike others (like clueless Turkish PM or all Eastern Europeans). For this reason they keep their exchange rate competitive in order to gain scale and scope from multinationals and on top that do theır best to master and internalize certain skillset to reach the commanding heights of techologies.
To gain this technologies they probably resort to dark means as well but hey they learned from Alexander Hamilton how to steal technology.
Brad your global adjustment argument is right for a well meanıng and honest world but that is not the world we are living in.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aM8RETp3KkyU – “The Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 Index, which tracks yuan- denominated A shares listed on China’s two exchanges, slid 250.18, or 9.2 percent…”
Shouldn’t we also be paying more attention to financial services and commodity companies in China, which presumably are also moving up the value chain, despite what seems to be an ongoing lack of transparency: “China Agri-Industries Holdings Ltd., a unit of China’s largest grain trader, may raise as much as HK$2.6 billion ($332 million) in an initial public offering in Hong Kong… BOC International (Holdings) Ltd. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are managing the sale. Ning Xia, a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for BOC International, declined to comment. Edward Naylor, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong, couldn’t immediately be reached on his office phone… Fritz Chen, a spokesman at China Agri, declined to comment.” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=a69Ry75ZU9II&refer=china
Stating the obvious, the more interesting aspects of these corrections are the knock-on affects: “…As in Asia, it was financial stocks that took the biggest hit in continental Europe – particularly those geared to emerging markets… Rising aversion to other risky strategies, such as the carry trade… helped fuel gains for both the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen…” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/399a04c8-c643-11db-be1a-000b5df10621.html
I’ve been watching MCO drop over the past few days. Whether or not I’m connecting too many dots – if their upgrades will prove to be too generous, and what that means for confidence in the system: “Moody’s Investors Service was on Monday accused of undermining its own ratings system by upgrading 16 European banks to its top triple-A status…” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3c8ddac8-c5cc-11db-9fae-000b5df10621.html
another question being if fraud and counterfeiting issues are as chronic as reported in the press, how long before profit pressures contribute to product quality and security issues that can seriously dent market share – thinking not only about recent drug counterfeiting stories – but how these concerns may extend into other ‘value-added’ exports as mentioned above…
China moves up the value added chain, but with foreign firms and for foreign markets based on an undervalued RMB and correlative irresponsible lending …
How china will avoid a 1929 situation once the US consumer gives up … U tell me.
Brad–As far as China’s ability to climb up value chain is concerned, I am in between optimists like stuartmills and kaan, and pessimists like DOR and Indonesia. and I may be close to you.
Comparative advantage is certainly the major determinant of trade and investment. However, characteristics of goods and services are multi-dimensional, so that seemingly the same goods and services may be produced in different places.
A Japanese sport shoes maker moved almost all production facility to China, but retained a small potion of it in Japan. Why? First because the company continued to serve professional sport players for their custom made shoes, and second because some backup productive capacity was required to supply shoes in case of need (e.g. production delay in China).
DOR is right. 60%. Sixty per cent. And IT is within the 80% plus mark.
An interesting article to read in Foreign Affairs: “The Globally Integrated Enterprise,” by Sam Palisano, CEO of IBM.
In it, he celebrates the rise and development of the MNC’s. Between 2000 and 2003, he claims that foreign firms created 60,000 manufacturing plants in just China alone.
Sixty thousand—in 3 years. And what has happened since 2003? And we haven’t touched other developing countries.
“The most visible signs of this change can be seen in China and India. By one estimate, between 2000 and 2003 alone, foreign firms built 60,000 manufacturing plants in China. Some of these factories target the local Chinese market, but others target the global market. European chemical companies, Japanese carmakers, and U.S. industrial
conglomerates are all building (or have declared their intention to build) factories in China to supply export markets around the world. Similarly, banks, insurance companies, professional-service firms, and it companies are building R & D and service centers in
India to support employees, customers, and production worldwide.”
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/governmentalprograms/samforeignaffairs.pdf
If we do not address head-on these rather remarkable developments, then any discussion of trade is dust in the wind.
Taking Gcs’s suggestion on step further: I would tariff/tax target not indigenous Chinese firms but foreign firms within China. These are our boys, making a killing. China merely wears the golden collar they have fastened to its neck.
Brad: care to comment on Chinese stock market plunge?
Also, about technology transfer. The most crucial bits of technology involve information that is in people’s heads and cultural practices. That takes time (10-20 years) to move across.
qingdaoGuest: The problem with economists is sometimes they imagine that there is a lever marked “stimulate demand” when there really isn’t.
Stormy: The trouble is that its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between an “indigenous” firm and a “foreign” firm. For someone like me with a mixed identity, this is a good thing since you have rich, powerful people in the world that really don’t care want flag you salute as long as you make them money.
Guest: Stock market plunge was a good thing. It means that air is being taken out of the bubble before it gets too big.
it isn’t 1929
India’s firms are, apparently, outsourcing production work to China – if you can tell us how your tax/tarriff scheme will work.
The ‘correction’ seems to have been broadly anticipated. Too early to judge whether it’s a good or bad thing. But the reverberations are interesting.
Dow dropping 180
Here we go guys.
The AP is talking about trends in US and Chinese stock markets. Also the durable goods orders fell 7/8%, due mainly to a drop in order for Boeing airliners.
Here is a link:
AP article; Dow drops 180
David,
Point well taken. With the number of mergers and acquisitions, it does become a problem…but quite solvable, I think. (In this regard, I posted here some time ago, the scope of these M&A’s. Nothing to sneeze at.)
As far as the flag saluting…couldn’t agree more. However, I do throw a couple of things on the table….
1. China’s 4000 year history: Repeated repression of the masses by its leaders, who always seem to have these grand plans that mercilessly squeeze the peasantry until they finally revolt. This last leap forward and refashioning the shape of China is again being done on the backs of the poor. I am not convinced that the tiger has changed its spots.
2. A clannishness and xenophobia that few in the West really understand. I could elaborate…but I will simply leave it at that other than to say: The implications are considerable.
The first rule about China is don’t generalize. Anything attempt to try to summarize China in one sentence is superficial and best and dangerously misleading at worst.
Also, China isn’t xenophobic or clannish. It went through a nasty period of xenophobia a few decades ago, and pretty much everyone thinks that was a mistake.
stuart mills,
I’m concerned about the impact of manufacturing employment and investment (and a whole lot else) on human beings. Not important to me what color / nationality they might accidentally happen to be.
* * *
Indonesia (and HK),
I didn’t say that I doubt the ability of Chinese manufacturers to move up the value-added chain; indeed, they have done that quite well.
My point was that as long as such a huge part of China’s export capacity is in foreign-invested hands, there can be no grand strategy of the Chinese leadership to do something or other to the US or European manufacturing structures. Not possible.
* * *
Stormy,
“Between 2000 and 2003, he claims that foreign firms created 60,000 manufacturing plants in just China alone. ”
After subtracting the first 60,000, the subsequent 63,923 foreign investment projects in 2000-03 were in services (OK, a token handful in mining and agriculture).
Oh, and in 2004-06, the total rose from 123,923 to 170,219 projects, +37.4%; value up from US$329.69 bn to $457.61 bn (+38.8%).
* * *
Guest,
RE: Chinese stock market, the house is having a lucky streak. Nothing more.
* * *
Joseph Wang,
China is both xenophobic and clannish.
It is also aggressive, tolerant, demanding, racist, open, closed, friendly, hostile, polluted and pristine.
But, only if one generalizes
.