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
1/13
It is helpful to think about Taisu Zhang's list of the EU's perceived weaknesses in the context of global trade, and especially in the context of a global trading system that exhibits the beggar-thy-neighbor characteristics that Joan Robinson warned about.
2/13
To take the first, the EU's lack of political unity means that it cannot respond unilaterally in a world in which its major trading partners (China, Japan, India and, increasingly, the US) are determined to control their external accounts and are able unilaterally to do so.
3/13
A country's ability control its external accounts affects the extent to which it can control its internal imbalances while externalizing their costs, along with the structure of its economy and its mix of manufacturing and services. foreignaffairs.com/united-states/…
1/8 SCMP: "China should add a quantitative target for consumption growth as part of its long-term modernisation goals to help sustain growth momentum as the country’s population declines, a prominent Chinese economist said."
via @scmpnewssc.mp/qmm5m?utm_sour…
2/8 The article continues: "Currently, household consumption accounts for about 39% of China’s GDP, according to Cai Fang, an academician at CASS. Over the next decade it should rise to around 61% as China strives to become a “moderately-developed” country by 2035."
3/8 Most prominent economists in China have already called for increases of anywhere from 5 to 10 percentage points of GDP, and while Cai is right that household consumption of 61% of GDP would indeed make China a more "normal" country, I wonder if he has done the math.
1/8 NYT: "The biggest recipient of Chinese financing over the past two decades has been the United States, where Chinese banks have extended $200 billion in financial support to American companies and projects." nytimes.com/2025/11/18/bus…
2/8 This shouldn't surprise us, even if it seems to go against what we've been reading in headlines in recent years. China is the largest net export of capital in the world, which is just the flip side of its running the biggest trade surpluses in the world.
3/8 While we often read about Chinese capital exports to the developing world, in fact these flows probably peaked in 2015-16, when problems in Venezuela taught Beijing just how risky this can be. This meant surpluses had to be recycled mostly to the advanced economies.
1/8 Good FT piece on the increasing difficulty economists have in understanding, correlating and reconciling Chinese economic statistics. This leads to concerns among many analysts that GDP may be overstated, and fairly substantially. ft.com/content/5b9e74…
2/8 For the FT (and for many others), the biggest puzzle is over how GDP growth can stay constant at 5% even as investment (which plays a bigger role in driving Chinese GDP growth than in any other country in history) is reportedly declining.
4/8 Part of the answer may be that GDP growth has in fact declined, and rapidly, over 2025, albeit from extremely high levels. Another part of the answer may be the surging trade surplus, which is extraordinarily high for such a large economy, and clearly not sustainable.
1/10
Important Benn Steil article on globalization, free trade, and the cost of underwriting both. He cites Wendell Willkie in 1944 as "recognizing how perilous it would be to integrate market economies with state-directed ones."
@ProSyn @BennSteil prosyn.org/LkdDyx7
2/10
"When global prices fail to reflect supply-and-demand dynamics," Steil cites Willkie as arguing, "they distort production and trade flows, killing off more efficient enterprises, fueling imbalances, and breeding resentment."
3/10
This is a point I've often made, although in a different way, including in an upcoming piece in Foreign Affairs.
We start with the widely-recognized insight that every country's internal imbalances must always be perfectly consistent with its external imbalances.
1/7 China's fixed-asset investment declined 1.7% year on year in the first 10 months of 2025, more than twice the expected rate of decline, and well above the 0.5% decline during the first nine months of the year.
2/7 Excluding a 14.7% decline in the property sector, investment rose by 1.7% during the first ten months of 2025, led by a 2.7% rise in manufacturing investment.
As I see it, the weakness in investment growth suggests that the fight against "involution" is working so far.
3/7 It suggests that the post-2022 surge in investment in preferred manufacturing sectors, such as EVs, batteries and solar panels, is being reversed.
But this leaves us with the same questions that we were left with following the post-2022 collapse in property investment.