Red Dawn

Why the United States should embrace, not fear, China's economic rise.

BY CHARLES KENNY | SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

Henry Kissinger's 2001 book Does America Need a Foreign Policy? opens with the observation that "[a]t the dawn of the new millennium, the United States is enjoying a preeminence unrivaled by even the greatest empires of the past. From weaponry to entrepreneurship, from science to technology, from higher education to popular culture, America exercises an unparalleled ascendancy around the globe." One decade, two military quagmires, and an economic meltdown later, few authors would venture such a presumption -- not least Kissinger, whose most recent tome reflects the obsession of those who have come to realize that the post-Cold War world is not so unipolar after all. It's called On China.

But for all the urgent attention paid to China in recent years, we might actually be underestimating how fast the world has already changed. This is the argument that Arvind Subramanian advances in Eclipse, his new book on the Sino-American balance of power. "The economic dominance of China relative to the United States is more imminent (it may already have begun), will be more broad-based … and could be as large in magnitude in the next 20 years as that of the United Kingdom in the halcyon days of empire or the United States in the aftermath of World War II," he suggests. Subramanian, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (and also a part-time colleague of mine at the Center for Global Development), notes that by 2010 China had overtaken the United States as the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (a measure that accounts for the fact that many goods are cheaper in the developing world).

Historically, there has been far more to global power than brute output statistics, of course. In 1870, when Britain was undoubtedly the world's top dog, it accounted for 9 percent of global output. But the economy of the United States, still a geopolitical start-up and barely through its catastrophic Civil War at the time, was already almost the same size -- and China's share was nearly the size of Britain's and America's combined, amounting to 17 percent of global output. And remarkably, this was at the beginning of a period roundly considered to be China's historical nadir: Twelve years earlier, China had signed the Treaty of Tientsin, a humiliating ending to a war with Britain that forced the Middle Kingdom to open its borders to foreign goods, accelerating a decline that eventually earned China the pitying epithet "the sick man of Asia." Indeed, China has been the world's largest economy -- though not its richest -- for most of the last 500 years, according to data from late economist Angus Maddison, who collected historical statistics on the global economy for the OECD.

But the 21st century is not the 19th -- China's place in the world and the nature of its power are quite different. Not least, China's growing prominence extends beyond simple measures of output. While the United States and the European Union each had shares of world trade more than four times larger than China's as recently as 2000, by 2010, their shares were all within a percentage point of each other (and China had overtaken the European Union). In 2000, China accounted for only 4 percent of world net capital exports; by 2010, it had climbed to 18 percent.

And when it comes to the technological and educational underpinnings of modern growth, while the United States is still far ahead, China is fast gaining. The World Intellectual Property Organization reports that U.S. filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty dropped from 51,000 to 45,000 between 2006 and 2010. Over the same period, China's international patent filings tripled from under 4,000 to over 12,000. According to Subramanian, in 2006 China was producing twice as many science and engineering graduates as the United States, and by 2008 the United States' lead in peer-reviewed scientific article publications had shrunk by more than half from the sixfold advantage it enjoyed in 2002.

By 2030, Subramanian predicts, China is likely to account for about a quarter of world GDP compared with America's 12 percent, and 15 to 20 percent of world trade compared with 7 percent each for the United States and the European Union. China's share of global trade and GDP will look similar to those for the United States in 1950, and its net capital exports share similar to America's in 1973.

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Charles Kenny is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation, and author, most recently, of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More. "The Optimist," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

BRIANM

6:12 PM ET

September 6, 2011

China ascendency

There is no reason why the USA cannot get back into this game....no reason except our current collective governments. The right is more interested in legislating religion and morality and hasn't done a much better job of keeping the democratic nanny state that the left wants from growing any better than it has kept the government growing in general.....maybe with the exception of comparison to the current idiot.

If we change tax policy and tax consumption not production and get rid of the over $2T in regulatory costs, the GDP would soar. GDP needs to be growing at a rate much higher than the debt or the costs of entitlements which need a major overhaul or game over.

Its simple, but there are no brave souls in congress and nobody but Ron Paul dares propose such a thing. If Obummer really wanted to create jobs, he would announce that he is ready to eliminate corporate taxes, cap gains and dividend taxes and simplify the tax code eliminating all dedcutions or move to a consumption tax and immediately get working on it for this year.

But he's too much of an ideologue to admit everything he has believed for his 30 years of adult life is wrong....and he probably isn't that smart. People who cannot change when all data says the oppposite of what you believe and have tried don't really have the genes....I don't think he is that smart. In fact, sub-average.

 

REVILO

7:29 AM ET

September 7, 2011

Yes but

one of the problems I find with your article is the fact that the numbers that you've chosen for the united states and Britain are not from withers heyday 1973 and 1975 both being difficult years fir the us and 1870 is far away from the british empires prime in the first quarter of the 20th century.

Also I would like to point out that china is far from being a country that respects the notions of free trade, which I'm reasonably sure includes the free circulation of capital,which as we all know china limits in order to keep the rmb as low as possible.

I'd also like to point out that yes it is true that china does not use any military might to keep up it's trade relations but that is partly a consequence of the pax Americana now with the united states decreasing it's military power weight very well see the pla take a more assertive stance outside of the country.

But I do agree with your general point, though it would be preferable for china to open up it's currency so that the law of comparative advantages may make it more beneficial to the whole international community instead of creating the imbalances that we now see.

 

BVSHRECKENGAST

9:39 AM ET

September 7, 2011

close

The author does well to pick out certain trends in China's development that make it its own special case, however the author focuses only on China's improvements and not its own unique problems.
First, in order for China to surpass the United States as the preeminent economic power it will have to fundamentally change the nature of its economy. An export-driven economy, which China's overwhelmingly is, requires wealthy and stable markets to sell to. An export economy can of course become wealthy and highly-developed, Germany and Japan being the favorite examples, however these nations are small relative to the markets that they sell to-- the United States and increasingly China. China can continue to grow for some time on its current model, but in the end it will not be sustainable. China must inculcate its own healthy domestic market, which today it struggles to do, as the low pay that makes it a great exporter and the lack of social safety nets-- not to mention the exploding costs of real-estate and food-- requires the vast majority of Chinese to keep their meager earnings in savings. Savings which are used by the banks to fund investments in US treasury bonds that keep the RMB low.
Secondly, China is getting old. And not old like Japan is old, or Europe, or even Taiwan. Within the next decade we will see the second/ third generation of single children come into maturity. These children will be solely saddled with the care for two parents and four grandparents, six people total, plus the same of their spouse's, should they still have the capital to even get married (which, for men, means a car and a house on top of that, as that gender ratio, initially the curse of Chinese girls, is swinging back in their favor). The job market for bachelor degrees is already fierce; un- or underemployment high for the educated. Add the pressure of caring for such a family without government assistance to the difficulty of finding a wife and caring for her family and you get a recipe that not only makes creating a consumption economy near-impossible, but will drive up labor costs in an export economy that requires low ones, and perhaps most importantly could be a hotbed for unrest.
And finally there is scarcity. The increasing demand and shortage for oil, electricity, raw material and food will be one of the most defining trends of this century. Massive numbers of people, particularly in China and India, join the consuming class just as resources begin to dwindle and global warming takes its toll. Scarcity will define the future economy for all of us-- but in China its consequences will be of a far greater nature, particularly as it gets richer. 1.3 billion workers is the greatest resource in the world-- so long as you can feed it.

 

TOWER

3:55 AM ET

September 10, 2011

LOL

China's demographic is aging due to One Child Policy, but China is unencumbered by an 1940's era welfare state system that is essentially a Ponzi scheme that will bankrupt America's future.

In fact, China is the opposite of the U.S. since China has almost zero government supported health care insurance or social welfare programs to support her people. The worse this would do is simply jack up China's saving rate and less purchasing power for products period - foreign or domestic...

U.S. on the other hand has social security, medicare, medicaid liabilities equal to the world's GDP.

If you want to talk about demographics and it's associated liabilities, then America is far worse off than China when it comes to funding and caring for it's old people.

 

BING520

10:26 AM ET

September 7, 2011

Ron Paul & Tax

US corporate tax contributes to 9% of our total tax revenue while individual income tax and social security tax, about 80%.

Most countries has corporate tax, but it is difficult to compare. US corporate tax rates range from 15-35%, but the effective corporate tax rate is low, compared to OECD countries (Western Europe). Our coprporate tax revenue is about 1.8% of the total economy while OECD countries, on the average, 2.5%. Our corporate tax burden is one of the lowest. Germany is the highest. Japan is similar to Germany. What GOP attacks is the statutory corporate tax rate, not the actual tax burdens. We have so many lookholes in our corporate tax law that are highly unusual in other OECD countries. ( We have not talked about the free money - not in form of tax reduction - our governments give to corporations)

Our total tax burdens (all federal and state taxes included) are also lower than OECD countries. We give away 28% of our economy in form of taxes to the governments while OECD on the average, 35%.

So, where did we go wrong? Our expenditures. No countries spend on military, medicare and social security as much as we do. We have the greatest army. I am not so sure about medicare and social security.

Ron Paul has people believe that the only way to re-energize our economy is elimination of tax. It is for the simple-minded folks. Econmy is much more complex. Ron Paul's PR team positions him as a better alternative to GOP and Democrat. I think he would reduce the corporate taxes and incur huger debts than Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and other presidents, Democrat or Republican.

Unless Ron Paul could also reduce our spending on military, medicare and social security.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

2:19 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Elimnation of taxes is a absurd really

Also, the goal of a government shouldn't be only about reducing expenditures, but on how to invest wisely on programs. In this regard, tax cuts and loopholes are government investments like any other program. The problem is that they don't work all that well to generate more domestic corporate spending.

 

BING520

3:39 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Tax

@XTIANGODLOKI

A very valid point. Government should promote economic activities through taxes and subsidies, but I am really disappointed at how efficacious our current tax loopholes and subsidies are. Look at ExxonMobil. With $53 billion operating income, ExxonMobil insists it need all the tax credits and subsidies to continue its oil exploration, and has spent millions of dollars on funding research and institutes spreading doubts about climate change

 

DAVELNAF

10:31 AM ET

September 7, 2011

On the other hand

Even in the short run China’s growth is unsustainable—even if you believe their numbers. This nominally capitalist country run by a communist party is no different from every communist party that has ever existed on this planet: it is criminal in character. And it is this character that is driving its exploitation of its own people and the world system to its advantage while rigging everything in sight to keep this way.

The author puts the very best face on today’s China, a country that cannot sustain its growth or, to put it another way, continue to get away what it is getting away with. The rest of the world, in particular its target countries, cannot afford the game it is playing. In fact, If something isn't done soon--and it probably will be--China could cause the entire world trading system to crash during this decade.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

2:10 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Why don't Americans think about how to sell more to China?

While its true that China has some protectionist policies it's also true that the Chinese love foreign imports. In fact most Chinese would happily pay double for many foreign made items and brands.

Instead of complaining about China and its behaviors, why can't American politicians start thinking about how to sell more to the Chinese? I see articles trying to convince Americans to spend money into the military to fight against "that China menace" all the time. I also see articles whining about China's manipulation of its currency. Yet the fact is that other nations such as Japan and Korea face the same challenges but export more to China than the US. Germany which has only a fraction of the US' economy export to China nearly as much as the US. How do other nations capture the Chinese market and why aren't there discussions on what American can do to export more?

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:22 PM ET

September 7, 2011

U. S. is responsible for China's rise

U. S. has nobody to blame but itself for the rise of China.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s rise to super power status would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US treasuries from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

The second cold war has already started, this time between US and China. And if US had upper hand against Soviet Union in first cold war, then creditor China has upper hand against debtor US in this second cold war.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated far-sightedness of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to Reagan embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

 

ERICDAVIS1

2:00 PM ET

September 8, 2011

The US can easily fix the

The US can easily fix the China problem by using tariffs. The problem is that neither political party actually wants to fix the China problem.

 

MACCUARDI

5:24 PM ET

September 7, 2011

China

To be honest I'm tired of the United States having to be the watch dog and cop of the world. Let someone else be the target. Not to mention as a country improves it's position in the world governments like communist China will have a hard time continuing to hold it's people in check. An economic power like China will most likely turn into a democratic power.

 

ANTIE

6:14 PM ET

September 13, 2011

Welcome the Red Dawn!

Having shed their cloak of isolation, China has made its foray into international agreements and peace-
keeping efforts by playing an active role in WTO and other international platforms. China is re-defining its social image in accordance with its economic acceleration that is nudging the country towards the path of economic super power in the days to come. China has acquired this status sans extensive military prowess and geographical hegemony that so characterizes the super power status of the countries like, U.S. Slowly and steadily, China is emerging economically and like systemic enzymes, contributing towards a healthy competition in the matters of trade & commerce.

 

TAYFA34

3:12 AM ET

September 30, 2011

REDDAWN very good

And Palestinian land will shrink, suicide bombers will respond, rockets will be launched and Israelis killed. Now Hezbollah and Sunnis have started up again in Lebanon. And Iran is powering up its nuclear capacity. Israel may feel impelled to react at some point if it calculates either Lebanon or Iran needs to be nipped in the bud. Add Syria to the toxic mix in Lebanon; and if things boil over there then Palestine will be left to sit and stew on the perennial international back burner. Hope, at this point, is not even a diamond in the rough. porno porno porno porno web tasarım

 

YARINSIZ

2:34 PM ET

October 6, 2011

In fact, China is the

In fact, China is the opposite of the U.S. since China has almost zero government supported health care insurance or social welfare programs to support her people. The worse this seslichat would do is simply jack up China's saving rate and less purchasing power for products period - foreign or domestic..