Where's the Chinese Toyota?

If China is going to build on its growth, it's going to need an industrial policy that backs it up instead of holding it back.

BY ALEXANDRA HARNEY | DECEMBER 8, 2009

The common perception of China relying on industrial policies to make its economy successful is just an illusion," says Fan He, assistant director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "If industrial policy works, it's mainly at the local level."

Industrial policy is sometimes shorthanded by its critics as "picking winners" -- essentially, it's government intervention to build certain industries by offering incentives and shielding them from foreign competition. Japan's industrial policy of the 1970s and 1980s, which was later copied by South Korea and Taiwan, is among the most studied recent examples. But if the goal of traditional industrial policy is to invest in companies and turn them into global dynamos, China has a long way to go. More than half of Chinese exports are made by companies with significant foreign investment. Although Lenovo and Haier have made laudable strides overseas, Beijing has yet to produce a truly international brand along the lines of Japan's Sony or Toyota. And it has struggled to consolidate its automotive, steel, aluminum, and coal-mining industries.

Take cars, for instance. Although the government has been guiding the development of the automotive sector for at least two decades, more than 80 percent of industry revenues still come from joint ventures where the management expertise and technology is provided by foreign companies such as Shanghai Volkswagen, FAW-Volkswagen, and Shanghai GM, according to Arthur Kroeber, managing director of the consultancy Dragonomics. Despite government support for state-owned enterprises, the most-aggressive, fastest-growing automotive companies in China are the independents -- companies with entrepreneurial leaders like Chery, Geely, Great Wall, and BYD, says Bill Russo, senior advisor at Booz & Co.

It's not that Beijing has done everything wrong. For one, its tight management of the currency has enhanced its global competitiveness, to put it mildly. The government has also managed to keep costs down for manufacturers by offering cheap capital through the banks and allowing state-run companies to dominate key sectors such as telecommunications and electrical-power generation.

But currency control and cheap capital do not a winning industrial policy make. Since the 1980s, the overarching goal of Chinese industrial policy has been rapid economic growth through industrialization -- a strategy that mirrors those of South Korea and Japan in earlier years. Like its neighbors once did, China singles out strategic industries, including the automotive, semiconductor, aerospace, oil, and petrochemicals sectors, sets goals for their development, encourages banks to provide financing, and introduces policies to encourage their growth, including those on foreign investment. These policies essentially send a message to industry: Here's what we want to promote.

"China's industrial policies are mainly trying to balance between different sectors," explains He of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. But what sets China apart is the way it has implemented this policy. Where South Korea and Japan ruled from the top, in China, industrial policy is decentralized and sometimes even chaotic.

AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, ECONOMICS
 

Alexandra Harney is author of The China Price: The True Cost of Chinese Competitive Advantage and a consultant to investors on China and Japan.

 

KENSDE

8:13 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Bowtrol Cleanse

Yes i agree with this statement that China really such an economic success .
Bowtrol Colon Cleanse

 

SAN FERNANDO CURT

1:29 PM ET

December 9, 2009

In the dogma house

China will never be a premier economic power until it junks its nomial "Marxist" foundation. It hasn't been Marxist for decades, and holds onto the fiction to preserve oppressive, intrusive state mechanism. As a template for government and economics, Marxism failed; it's not an alternative to capitalism, simply because Marx's ideas aren't good enough. Proof of this monumental flop is the 20th century. But if China dumps it, look out. A potential industrial powerhouse, fueled by a system that encourages free and open exchange of ideas would be unstoppable. Better for us that China sleep under the hindquarters of the fat ol' German drunk.

 

STUDENTOCHAOS

4:12 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Thank You

Thank you Alexandra Harney. This is the first article on FP in months which seems to even know how Chinese policy is made, let alone how it works. But still it could have been better. You criticize China for not increasing its innovation, but in recent years China's R and D spending and raw number of patents have grown markedly. Consider this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/business/global/09innovate.html?ref=business

Also, you fail to account for the growth of retail and auto sales in China which have both jumped dramatically as a middle class is beginning to appear in China. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/economy/10consume.html?ref=business

You are correct that the industrial policy is overall heavily bent towards industrial investment, but the growth of wealth of average households has been creating a influx of consumer spending. The Chinese don't have to consume foreign goods for the Chinese economy to grow consumption.

 

JIMMY W

5:09 PM ET

December 9, 2009

Bottom-Up Innovation

Harney fails to establish clearly why Bottom-Up innovation, seems the case in China, is worse than Top-Down Innovation, the case in Japan.

The general problem with an opaque policy-making process is that it imposes too many regulations and encourages corruption. Is that the case with China? Harney does not say.

Harney bemoans the saving nature of the Chinese consumers. What's wrong with that? A lower velocity of money helps to head off a bubble in China, which is good news for everyone (except perhaps India.)

Lastly, Harney talks about currency deregulation, but fails to establish why that's good. It seems to be conventional wisdom that currency pegging is bad, but conventional wisdom is frequently wrong. If the prices reflect the inputs, ie not artificially distorted, a pegged currency is not market-distorting. Now China may be giving up control of its monetary policy, but a currency peg is not automatically bad.

 

AKPROGRESSIVE

4:06 AM ET

December 10, 2009

Japanese Companies

all i really have to add to this discussion is that many of the largest japanese companies that went on to become global mainstays have been producing for the domestic japanese consumer for centuries. i wonder if china basically wiped out those cultural and economic gems during its cultural revolution.

 

RKERG

12:33 PM ET

December 10, 2009

China sees manufacturing as a stepping stone

I heard one of the Chinese leaders say recently that China does not want to be
the worlds manufacturer. I think that what he meant was that he wants to grow the economy to the point where they are outsourcing their manufacturing to Africa. It is perhaps this view that keeps the Chinese from creating their own "Toyota". They are not obsessed with excellence as much as with success, when in reality, the former begets the later.

 

TOUFU

10:02 PM ET

December 12, 2009

Industrial Policy?

By industrial policy you mean corporate welfare?