On August 10, The Financial Times reported a forecast by
Global Insight projecting that the People's Republic of China (PRC)
would surpass the U.S. in 2009 in manufacturing. It predicts a
stunning increase in China's share from 13.2 percent in 2007 to
roughly 17 percent in 2009 and a roughly corresponding, and equally
stunning, decrease in the American share.
In real, inflation-adjusted terms, this is jumping the gun. Even
so, given current trends, it is not a question of if China
surpasses the U.S. in manufacturing; it's really a matter of
when. But the when is far enough away that we have
time to better understand what it means for America.
One Problem with the Figures
There are several ways to measure China's growth in
manufacturing. The most simple and straightforward is to do so in
nominal terms, not adjusted for inflation or exchange rates. The
upside is that nominal forecasts are more precise, containing the
least number of variables. It's the easiest prediction and, in
fact, the one generating headlines. The downside is that not
accounting for changes in the value of money distorts the picture
of true manufacturing activity.
On the economist's inevitable other hand, then, is Global
Insight's projection of when China will overtake the U.S. in
manufacturing adjusting for inflation and the exchange rate. In
June 2007, they anticipated this occurring no sooner than 2021.
Barely a year later, their forecast is for a new, real
manufacturing king to be crowned in 2017. China's share of global
manufacturing quadrupled from 1990 to 2007. So there would have to
be a major misstep for the PRC not to ultimately become the world's
leading manufacturer.
The Significance of Chinese
Manufacturing Prowess
Whether next year or 15 years from now, does Chinese supremacy
on this score matter?
Psychologically, it might. Until the 19th century, China had
been the world leader in manufacturing for over a millennium. It
lost that position during the so-called 150 years of shame and
humiliation at the hands of inept leaders and foreign powers. The
reclaiming of the title could be taken as the formal introduction
of a new era.
On the eastern side of the Pacific, the U.S. has been the
largest manufacturer by a wide margin for over a century. It took
the global mantle from a declining Britain and held off challenges
from Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan. One of those countries
is extinct, and the remainder no longer nurse ambitions for empire.
Likewise, an America no longer first in manufacturing may be a
portent for an America no longer first as a world power.
At the moment, however, most indicators point to sustained U.S.
leadership. On a per capita basis, American workers are
obviously far more productive than their Chinese counterparts. Even
in raw size, the U.S. share of global GDP will remain more than
twice that of the PRC for at least another decade. The
indispensable element of global trade today is not Chinese
manufacturing exports or even oil supply but the American
consumer.
Nor do there appear to be profound commercial consequences.
Until the current slowdown, American manufacturing growth had
remained steady while China rose. The value of the dollar has been
far more important for American exports than direct competition
from greater Chinese manufactures.
U.S. Still Strong
The story is similar at the sector level. The PRC's present
production advantage in textiles and both consumer and office
products will be extended. The U.S. will maintain a very sizable
lead in more advanced equipment such as aircraft and
semiconductors. Global Insight puts the U.S. share in
semiconductors and related equipment at more than three times the
Chinese share in 2006. The U.S. auto industry today still dwarfs
China's.
Some change has already been wrought, of course. An obvious
impact of the Chinese industrial explosion is sharply lower world
prices for outputs such as clothes and computers and sharply higher
world prices for inputs such as oil and metals. This has shaped new
winners and losers among American companies, workers, and
stockholders, and it will continue whether the PRC passes the U.S.
in the next year or in the next generation. The exact date matters
little.
At the national level, the U.S. traditionally thrives off of
change. Efficiency and the ability to adjust to new circumstances
separated us from a wasteful U.S.S.R and an inflexible Japan. It is
our slowdown that has brought forecasts of imminent Chinese
economic leadership, and it is our choices that will determine
where leadership will genuinely reside for the next two decades and
beyond. Beyond the psychological, the sheer size of Chinese
manufacturing output has little import.
All this, of course, assumes China will sustain something close
to its remarkable growth of the last 30 years. That is not a
foregone conclusion, and it is not possible to predict this trend
with purely extrapolative forecasts. There are convincing signs
that market-oriented restructuring in the PRC is dying or
dead. Has China found a way to sustain prosperity in violation of
the laws of economics? Not likely. It is the development of sound
institutions based on private property and the rule of law that
will ultimately determine the accuracy of scenarios painted purely
from the numbers.
Time Is on Our Side
As China reaches for global power commensurate with its economic
strength, it is important to keep in perspective exactly what that
strength is. We only inflate China's image--from which it derives
important benefits--when we grab for eye-catching but incomplete
numbers.
A competitive China that can match its territorial and military
ambitions with manufacturing output is something to take into
account when we set our own priorities, both economic and in
foreign and defense policy. We can count the numbers of planes and
ships China churns out and work to stay ahead--something,
incidentally, we are currently not doing a very good job of. We
have time, though, to focus on the true nature of the problem and
plan accordingly.
Derek Scissors, Ph.D., is a research
fellow in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.