magnus5_claffraGetty Images_dollarrenminbi

Economics

Los altos costos del desacoplamiento para China

Jun 28, 2022 George Magnus

OXFORD – Durante más de treinta años, la economía global estuvo definida por una integración desenfrenada y una interdependencia sin precedentes. Ni las disputas políticas ni las guerras localizadas pudieron frenar el tren de la globalización. Los mercados eran mercados, los negocios eran negocios y las empresas multinacionales se volvieron más multinacionales. Ya no.

En esta nueva era de competencia estratégica entre China y Occidente, el desacoplamiento está a la orden del día. Si bien esta tendencia impedirá el crecimiento económico, aumentará los costos comerciales (a través de la restructuración de las cadenas de suministro) y hará subir los precios para todos, la economía que sale más perjudicada bien puede ser la china.

La República Popular no estaría donde está hoy si no fuera por la globalización. El comercio internacional, la inversión y el acceso al mercado de capital impulsó el crecimiento económico, mientras que la transferencia de tecnología –ayudada por el involucramiento de estudiantes, científicos y académicos- permitió una nivelación tecnológica.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 Comments on this article

Shaun Narine Jul 3, 2022

We've been reading about China's coming collapse for decades now. That is not to say that it won't happen, but I suspect it's unlikely to happen for the reasons Mr. Magnus states. Indeed, China's move to self-sufficiency could well pay off and leave the rapidly declining Western world in a position where it is cut off from the largest and best markets in the world. The most populous, developing countries in the world are far more likely to side with China if forced to choose in a world split into economic and technological blocs- after all, the West is the historical exploiter of the world, not China. And, BTW, hasn't China' been a bigger economy than the US for about 8 years now? In saying this, I am not dismissing Mr. Magnus' analysis, but there are many, many ways for this to go. Any comparison of the US and China must include a critical analysis of the US situation, which does not look good. One primary difference between China and the US is that China is dedicated to erasing poverty within its borders and creating a sustainable middle class. The US has no such commitment and, in fact, is pursuing policies almost guaranteed to further inequality and associated political/social unrest. I expect the US to fall apart much sooner than China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bill Blazo Jun 30, 2022

A few things to point out...

1) The idea that geopolitics didn't matter for three decades in the development of neoliberal globalization, and now it magically does, is sheer fantasy meant to entertain neoclassical economists. Globalization was always a project dominated by the ruling classes in the West, who saw the rest of the world as a plundering hole for critical natural resources and cheap labor. Globalization is an outgrowth of America's imperial domination since World War II, accelerated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it seemed like the whole world was ripe for imperial plundering. America's domination is now under threat, and so is the neoliberal economic regime to which it gave rise. Global economics and international trade has always been about power, geopolitics, spheres of influence, and imperial domination. There's not a single time in recorded history when this wasn't true.

2) The deindustrialization of the West was sold to people as a good thing because we'd get cheap products based on underpaid Asian labor. But the pandemic has exposed the stupidity of that argument: a fragmented supply chain is much more susceptible to collapse during a time of crisis, and that has contributed enormously to rising inflation in the Western world, the very thing that neoliberal globalization was supposed to protect against! China has learned this lesson and it's implemented a highly diversified manufacturing sector capable of producing everything, from low-value goods like toys and clothes to high-value goods like satellites and aircraft carriers. China is absolutely right to pursue this strategy; it’s good for its national security and future economic stability.

3) GDP is a useless aggregate that indicates virtually nothing about productivity or living standards, so who cares if China’s nominal exchange rate GDP surpasses America's or not? There are so many ways to measure GDP that, depending on which standard you go with, you can reach just about any conclusion you like. China's GDP measured through purchasing power is already way higher than that of the US.

4) China has a lot flaws. Ecological degradation, an absurdly high investment rate, lack of civil rights, and I could go on. But one big thing China does better than the West is knowing how to effectively respond to a crisis. In America, politicians sit on their behind while the country loses 1.5 million people in 2 years, then pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The West cannot effectively mobilize to handle a crisis because it's been corrupted by dominant capitalists who cannot stomach the exercise of public power.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
BEN L. Jun 30, 2022

George Magnus is well known for his negative views about China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
alex Finch Jun 29, 2022

The suggestion that Chinese leaders view the U.S., and the West in general, as being in „terminal decline“ does not make sense when Chinese exports to the U.S. and the EU have substantially increased in the last 10 years, China’s two major trading partners. Chinese exports alone to the EU were 10x what they were to Russia. For China to now team-up with the „school yard bully“ makes no sense at all. China obviously needs oil and gas security and will play it’s cards along those lines, but without upsetting the West too much. There will be a lot of saber rattling between the US, EU and China, but having personally worked with Chinese and Russians, I would argue that they are like chalk and cheese in character and don’t fit together. The Chinese are great business people, so why jeopardize 95% of trade by pandering to one outcast supplier of oil and gas, who started the most economically damaging war since Hitler.
- Shaun Narine Jul 3, 2022
  
  I think that the proof is in the pudding. China has pulled back from Russia and clearly does not favour the war that Russia started. However, it also is sympathetic to Russian security concerns and, more importantly, it sees the US as highly aggressive and violent. It does not want to see Russia fall, knowing that will then leave it alone to be the target of American aggression. So, China does have a securit reason to keep Russia above water. But it is doing this very carefully and being careful not to go too far so as not to alienate its best customers. However, the pendulum swings both ways on this. The West is seeing the results of its economic war on Russia and they have backfired, to some degree. Starting an economic war with China at the same time is not sensible.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Qc4W9btes

Los altos costos del desacoplamiento para China

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Los altos costos del desacoplamiento para China

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification