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
1/9 Good piece in Nikkei Asia by former acting deputy U.S. trade representative Wendy Cutler on trade-related discussions during Trump's upcoming trip to China. She argues, however, that for a president focused on... asia.nikkei.com/opinion/trump-…
2/9 rebalancing, Trump must "hold China's feet to the fire," including pressing for export restraints in sectors like steel and autos and tougher action on transshipments – or tariff dodging via third countries.
3/9 She continues: "By seeking Chinese agreement to impose export restraint in specified product areas, discouraging Chinese companies from transshipping their goods through third countries to the U.S. and reducing tariffs and nontariff measures in nonsensitive sectors, both...
1/7 Bloomberg: "China is balancing productivity gains from AI with labor stability, as automation could displace workers and trigger an economic spiral."
2/7 Getting workers to become more productive doesn't cause workers to be fired. In fact that's the only way to make them richer.
What really matters is whether or not wage growth for the overall economy keeps pace with productivity gains.
3/7 If they don't, growth in production will outstrip growth in consumption, and while this can temporarily be resolved by rising household debt, ultimately it means that production will be reduced and unemployment rise.
1/5 SCMP: "“China needs to move decisively towards consumption-led growth,” Sonali Jain-Chandra, IMF mission chief for China, said in an interview with the South China Morning Post." scmp.com/economy/china-…
2/5 Yes, but how? The IMF has urged China to put into place a stronger social safety net, but even if China were to do so, until it is credible (which will take years, even decades) it will have little impact on current consumption.
3/5 I'd argue that the only sustainable way "to move decisively towards consumption-led growth" requires a major shift in the distribution of national income away from either businesses or the government (or both) towards workers and middle-class households.
1/5 Bloomberg: "The scale of the problem is staggering. Trade data released Thursday showed a record $112 billion gap between what China reported exporting to the US and what US Customs said actually arrived last year." bloomberg.com/news/features/…
2/5 "Put simply," Bloomberg continues, "that suggests that as much as a quarter of what Asia’s top economy shipped to American shores last year slipped under the tariff radar."
3/5 It also suggests why a hodgepodge of sectoral and bilateral tariffs are less efficient than a simple tariff on all imports. While the former mostly shift trade around, the latter is equivalent to a currency devaluation for a country that doesn't intervene in its currency.
1/6 Bloomberg: "Instead of fighting over quotas and rules, officials should be rolling up their sleeves and thinking honestly about where the EU has a fighting chance of competing — not “picking winners, but letting the losers go.”" bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
2/6 This might be perfectly good advice in a "normal" trading environment, in which countries maximize exports in order to maximize imports and domestic consumption, trade is broadly balanced, and production shifts according to comparative advantage.
3/6 But that is not the world we live in. Consider China. It accounts for roughly 18% of global GDP, only 13% of global consumption, and a massive 31% of global manufacturing.
But it did not get there by “picking winners, and letting the losers go.”
1/4 As this WSJ article points out, countries are keeping their exports competitive in the face of US tariffs by increasingly subsidizing them, with the subsidies ultimately being paid for in the form of suppressed consumption. wsj.com/economy/trade/…
2/4 This means that we are increasingly caught up in a globalized Kalecki Paradox: when one country subsidizes manufacturing exports at the expense of wage growth, it can grow more quickly, but when all countries do it, they collectively grow more slowly. engelsbergideas.com/notebook/europ…
3/4 That's because by reducing demand, they are also reducing demand for their exports. They have to double down to remain competitive, even as a collective doubling down worsens the overall outcome.
As the article points out, this makes the US deficit the key variable.