1/7 Very interesting article. A series of Chinese studies may be discovering something about the high-speed rail system that France had already learned: rather than boost the economies of secondary cities, being connected...
2/7 to the HSR may actually reduce economic activity and encourage a brain drain. Even patent applications in secondary cities have dropped significantly, according to one study, after the city was connected to a high-speed line.
3/7 If this is true, it undermines the claim that even if much of the HSR is not economically viable today, it will generate enough growth in the less economically advanced areas to become viable in the future. The value of HSR is more likely to decline than to increase.
4/7 This reinforces a point I have made many times before, including in the linked essay. The idea that concentrating investment in poorer regions will drive economic convergence is based on a confusion about what drives growth.
5/7 Poorer regions are usually poorer because their social, economic, legal, and cultural institutions prevent businesses and workers from being able to absorb high levels of capital productively.
6/7 In that case more investment only generates sustainable growth when these regions are relatively underinvested, and this doesn't mean relative to more advanced regions but rather relative to their own specific institutional capacity (what I call the Hirschman level).
7/7 Once each region has as much investment as it can productively absorb — and in China most regions reached that point well over a decade ago — more investment doesn't help. What it needs is more institutional reform.
1/4 The point of this thread is not to suggest that investment in HSR, or capital deepening more generally, is economically a bad idea. It is in fact often a very good idea – for example infrastructure investment in China in the 1990s, or in the US today – but we should ...
2/4 understand both the conditions under which it can accelerate economic development and those under which further economic development will not occur without the right institutional reforms, in which case further capital deepening can actually reduce future growth.
3/4 As a corollary, the longer an investment-driven growth model has proven successful, the more politically entrenched it is likely to become – that is certainly what the historical precedents suggest – but in fact the less successful it is likely to be...
4/4 in the future as it closes the gap between actual investment and the amount of investment the region can productively absorb.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/5 FT: “German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has backed protectionist measures to shield the country’s ailing steel industry from cheap Chinese imports, in a striking departure from the country’s traditional commitment to free trade.”
via @ftft.com/content/a02d77…
2/5 I’d argue that what Germany traditionally displayed wasn’t a commitment to free trade so much as the standard trade-surplus country’s insistence that their trade partners don’t intervene against their abilities to run trade surpluses.
3/5 Germany’s post-2003 trade surplus, after all, didn’t emerge from free trade. It emerged from labor reforms that effectively pushed down the household share of GDP, combined with the role of the newly-created euro in preventing “normal” currency and interest rate adjustments.
1/10
NYT: "China has offset the decline from America with breathtaking speed. Shipments to other parts of the world have surged this year, demonstrating that China’s manufacturing dominance will not be easily slowed." nytimes.com/interactive/20…
2/10
"That’s because." the New York Times explains, "China was prepared. It has been seeking out new customers for years, and its massive manufacturing investment allows it to sell goods at low prices."
This explanation shows just how confused analysts remain about trade.
3/10
It also illustrates why my mentor at Columbia, Michael Adler, threatened to fail any student who mentioned bilateral trade imbalances. In a our hyperglobalized world of extremely low transportation costs, bilateral trade imbalances tell us almost nothing about trade pressures.
1/4 Interesting article by Yanmei Xie: "Why does involution defy repeated attempts to purge it?" she asks. "Because the foundational structure of China’s political economy breeds it." ft.com/content/e768df…
2/4 She's absolutely right. "Involution:" is just the latest name for a decades-old problem arising from a development model built around the need to keep increasing investment in capacity, even when capacity is already excessive. carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/08/…
3/4 Xie points out that what creates this excess capacity is simply the flip side of the very thing that creates global competitiveness, concluding that "what begins as glut at home could end as supremacy abroad."
1/8 Yale's Stephen Roach says China must raise the household consumption share of its GDP by ten percentage points over the next decade. In August PKU economics professor Lu Feng, said that China should raise it by 5 to 10 percentage points over the.. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/8 next 5 to 10 years, while Peng Sen, chairman of the China Society of Economic Reform, said it should raise it by more than 10 percentage points.
A 10-percentage-point increase, by the way, would still leave China with among the lowest consumption shares of any major economy.
3/8 While by now pretty much every serious economist in and out of China agrees that China must urgently raise the consumption share of its GDP, and by a lot more than analysts had at first assumed, what they aren't yet doing is explaining why it will be so difficult.
1/7 The NYT on US (and probably EU) over-reliance on China for the chemicals involved in manufacturing drugs. They argue that it is the combination of lower unit labor costs and a greater tolerance for environmental degradation that makes the difference. nytimes.com/2025/10/15/hea…
2/7 If this isn't too much of an oversimplification, a rational trade policy could easily address both issues. The purpose of such a policy would not be to protect specific sectors except to the extent that they have national security implications.
3/7 It would be simply to ensure broadly balanced trade. Once trade is balanced, after all, countries cannot run surpluses to externalize the costs of their domestic policies. For example if a country chooses to become globally competitive in a particular sector, perhaps in...
1/9 Bloomberg: "There’s an upside for the entire global economy from the massive, state-led investments China has made over the years: The abundant supply of cheaper Chinese vessels has helped push down freight rates and keep cargo moving around the world." bloomberg.com/search?query=H…
2/9 This type of incremental thinking explains why our understanding of trade has been so muddled for decades. To assume that the story stops at cheaper freight rates is to ignore almost everything important about this story.
3/9 There is a major difference to the global economy between a country that exports in order to pay for imports of other goods and one that export in order to externalize the cost of its weak domestic demand.