China shock

Last updated

The China shock (or China trade shock) is the impact of rising Chinese exports on manufacturing employment in the United States and Europe after China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. [1] [2] Studies have estimated that the China trade shock reduced U.S. manufacturing employment by 550,000 (explaining about 16% of the total decline in manufacturing employment in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007), [3] 1.8-2.0 million, [4] and 2.0-2.4 million. [5] Losses in manufacturing employment have also been observed in Norway, [6] Spain, [7] and Germany. [8] Studies have shown that there was "higher unemployment, lower labor force participation, and reduced wages in local labor markets" in U.S. regions that have industries that competed with Chinese industries. [9]

Contents

A 2023 review of existing economic research concluded that US-China trade since the early 2000s caused aggregate welfare gains in both countries; had winners and losers in the US; and was not a leading cause of manufacturing employment decline in the US. [10]

Experts have argued that the China trade shock in relation to consumer goods largely ended by 2006 while indicating that for capital goods the effects of Chinese imports to the United States continued up until 2012 and are ongoing in specific product categories. [1]

Background

In 1991, China only accounted for 1% of total imports to the United States. [11] Innovations in communications and transportation technology in the 1990s made it easier for firms to offshore production to low-wage countries such as China. [12] China's accession to the WTO meant that it had to liberalize its economy, and reduce state interference, which boosted the efficiency of Chinese exporters. [13] As China already had "most-favored nation" (MFN) status since the 1980s in Europe and the United States, WTO accession did not lead to lower trade barriers. [13] However, China's MFN status had been subject to annual approval by Congress in the United States; research has suggested that this caused uncertainty, and discouraged China-U.S. trade. [13]

Economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson, who have extensively studied U.S. labor markets adjustments to trade competition shocks caused by China, [13] supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. [14] Autor, Dorn and Hanson argue the adoption of the TPP "would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage" and pressure China to raise regulatory rules and standards to those of TPP members, while "killing the TPP would do little" to bring manufacturing back to the United States. [14]

Economic impact

Studies have shown that while some markets in the United States suffered adverse welfare and labor impacts, American trade led to net gains in employment and welfare over the period 1991-2011. [4] [3] [15] These claims have been disputed by Economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, who state that "at the national level, employment has fallen in the US industries more exposed to import competition, as expected, but offsetting employment gains in other industries have yet to materialize." [16] A 2017 study found that Germany gained on net from trade. [17] A 2023 study found that increased wealth in China as a result of trade liberalization boosted the American higher education sector, as more Chinese families sent their children to study at American universities and pay tuition. [18]

Political impact

Studies have linked the effects of the China shock to an increase in populism and a backlash against globalization. [19] Studies have shown that British regions that were more exposed to Chinese import competition were more likely to vote for Brexit in the 2016 referendum. [20] [21] [22] Exposure to the China shock has led to negative views of minorities, in particular among American whites and males. [23]

Papers have found that the China shock has contributed to political polarization. [24] One analysis also found that it contributed to Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election: "A counterfactual study of closely contested states suggests that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania would have elected the Democrat instead of the Republican candidate if, ceteris paribus, the growth in Chinese import penetration had been 50 percent lower than the actual growth during the period of analysis. The Democrat candidate would also have obtained a majority in the electoral college in this counterfactual scenario." [25]

In Italy, surges in support for the Lega Nord in the 2010s have been observed in localities where textile mills were undercut by Chinese manufacturers. [26]

Social impact

A 2016 study found that exposure to Chinese import competition led to greater high school graduation rates in the United States. This is possibly because of lower wages and employment opportunities for individuals without high school degrees in regions that competed with China. [27] Economist Samuel Hammond, the director of poverty and welfare policy for the Niskanen Center, has argued that the signing into law of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China on October 10, 2000 and the subsequent accession of China to the WTO has had wide reaching social implications. He states that the "PNTR has been implicated in some of the most significant and distressing trends of American life in this century: millions of well-paying manufacturing jobs lost; declining family formation and rising deaths of despair; soaring real-estate prices and medieval levels of urban inequality; increased political polarization and populist movements, left and right; and faltering faith in the power of liberal democracy to respond to these and related challenges. To pin all this on a single trade agreement would be a step too far, of course. And yet the imprint of what's come to be known as the "China shock" can be seen on all these trends, either through its first-order effects, or its reverberations through the body politic." [28]

According to two studies, trade-related job losses contribute to greater military enlistment in the United States. [29] [30]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International trade</span> Exchange across international borders

International trade is the exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or territories because there is a need or want of goods or services.

A minimum wage is the lowest remuneration that employers can legally pay their employees—the price floor below which employees may not sell their labor. Most countries had introduced minimum wage legislation by the end of the 20th century. Because minimum wages increase the cost of labor, companies often try to avoid minimum wage laws by using gig workers, by moving labor to locations with lower or nonexistent minimum wages, or by automating job functions. Minimum wage policies can vary significantly between countries or even within a country, with different regions, sectors, or age groups having their own minimum wage rates. These variations are often influenced by factors such as the cost of living, regional economic conditions, and industry-specific factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free trade</span> Absence of government restriction on international trade

Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold economically liberal positions, while economic nationalist and left-wing political parties generally support protectionism, the opposite of free trade.

New Keynesian economics is a school of macroeconomics that strives to provide microeconomic foundations for Keynesian economics. It developed partly as a response to criticisms of Keynesian macroeconomics by adherents of new classical macroeconomics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protectionism</span> Economic policy of regulating trade between states through government regulations

Protectionism, sometimes referred to as trade protectionism, is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors and raise government revenue. Opponents argue that protectionist policies reduce trade, and adversely affect consumers in general as well as the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries against which the protections are implemented.

Offshoring is the relocation of a business process from one country to another—typically an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting. Usually this refers to a company business, although state governments may also employ offshoring. More recently, technical and administrative services have been offshored.

The productivity paradox, also referred to as the Solow paradox, could refer either to the slowdown in productivity growth in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s despite rapid development in the field of information technology (IT) over the same period, or to the slowdown in productivity growth in the United States and developed countries from the 2000s to 2020s; sometimes the newer slowdown is referred to as the productivity slowdown, the productivity puzzle, or the productivity paradox 2.0. The 1970s to 1980s productivity paradox inspired many research efforts at explaining the slowdown, only for the paradox to disappear with renewed productivity growth in the developed countries in the 1990s. However, issues raised by those research efforts remain important in the study of productivity growth in general, and became important again when productivity growth slowed around the world again from the 2000s to the present day.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deindustrialization</span> Process of reduction of industrial activity

Deindustrialization is a process of social and economic change caused by the removal or reduction of industrial capacity or activity in a country or region, especially of heavy industry or manufacturing industry.

In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist, which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dennis Snower</span> American-German economist (born 1950)

Dennis J. Snower is an American-German economist, specialising in macroeconomic theory and policy, labor economics, digital governance, social economics, and the psychology of economic decisions in "caring economics". He is President of the Global Solutions Initiative in Berlin, Professorial Research Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford University, Fellow at the New Institute in Hamburg, and Non-resident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He is former president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. His prominent labor research explores the role of “insiders” and “outsiders” in generating unemployment and macroeconomic fluctuations; his socio-economic research examines how social groups shape economic behavior; his psycho-economic research explains how economic decisions depend on psychological motives; and his macroeconomic research investigates why inflation and unemployment can move in opposite directions even in the long run.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manufacturing in the United States</span> Overview of the manufacturing industry of the United States of America

Manufacturing is a vital economic sector in the United States. The United States is the world's second-largest manufacturer after the People's Republic of China with a record high real output in 2021 of $2.5 trillion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Technological unemployment</span> Unemployment caused by technological change

Technological unemployment is the loss of jobs caused by technological change. It is a key type of structural unemployment. Technological change typically includes the introduction of labour-saving "mechanical-muscle" machines or more efficient "mechanical-mind" processes (automation), and humans' role in these processes are minimized. Just as horses were gradually made obsolete as transport by the automobile and as labourer by the tractor, humans' jobs have also been affected throughout modern history. Historical examples include artisan weavers reduced to poverty after the introduction of mechanized looms. During World War II, Alan Turing's bombe machine compressed and decoded thousands of man-years worth of encrypted data in a matter of hours. A contemporary example of technological unemployment is the displacement of retail cashiers by self-service tills and cashierless stores.

International trade theory is a sub-field of economics which analyzes the patterns of international trade, its origins, and its welfare implications. International trade policy has been highly controversial since the 18th century. International trade theory and economics itself have developed as means to evaluate the effects of trade policies.

Wage compression refers to the empirical regularity that wages for low-skilled workers and wages for high-skilled workers tend toward one another. As a result, the prevailing wage for a low-skilled worker exceeds the market-clearing wage, resulting in unemployment for low-skilled workers. Meanwhile, the prevailing wage for high-skilled workers is below the market-clearing wage, creating a short supply of high-skilled workers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Autor</span> American economist

David H. Autor is an American economist, public policy scholar, and professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he also acts as co-director of the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative. Although Autor has contributed to a variety of fields in economics his research generally focuses on topics from labor economics.

Gordon Howard Hanson is the Peter Wertheim Professor in Urban Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

David Dorn is a Swiss economist and currently the UBS Professor of Globalization and Labor Markets at the University of Zurich. His research focuses on the interplay between globalization and labour markets. In 2014, his research was awarded the Excellence Award in Global Economic Affairs by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Robert Christopher Feenstra is an American economist, academic and author. He is the C. Bryan Cameron Distinguished Chair in International Economics at University of California, Davis. He served as the director of the International Trade and Investment Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1992 to 2016. He also served as Associate Dean in the Social Sciences at the University of California, Davis from 2014 to 2019.

Mary Amiti is an Australian economist and a Vice President of the Microeconomic Studies Function at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The decoupling of wages from productivity, sometimes known as the great decoupling, is the gap between the growth rate of median wages and the growth rate of GDP. Economists began to acknowledge this problem toward the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century. This problem furthermore leads to wage stagnation despite continued economic growth.

References

  1. 1 2 Brad W. Setser. "When Did the China Shock End?". Council on Foreign Relations.
  2. ↑ Lipton, Gabe (2018-08-14). "The Elusive 'Better Deal' With China". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
  3. 1 2 Caliendo, Lorenzo; Dvorkin, Maximiliano; Parro, Fernando (2019). "Trade and Labor Market Dynamics: General Equilibrium Analysis of the China Trade Shock". Econometrica. 87 (3): 741–835. doi:10.3982/ECTA13758. ISSN   1468-0262.
  4. 1 2 Feenstra, Robert C.; Sasahara, Akira (2018). "The 'China shock,' exports and U.S. employment: A global input–output analysis" (PDF). Review of International Economics. 26 (5): 1053–1083. doi:10.1111/roie.12370. ISSN   1467-9396. S2CID   168726505.
  5. ↑ Acemoglu, Daron; Autor, David; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon H.; Price, Brendan (2015-12-21). "Import Competition and the Great US Employment Sag of the 2000s" (PDF). Journal of Labor Economics. 34 (S1): S141–S198. doi:10.1086/682384. hdl: 1721.1/106156 . ISSN   0734-306X. S2CID   14134863.
  6. ↑ Balsvik, Ragnhild; Jensen, Sissel; Salvanes, Kjell G. (2015-07-01). "Made in China, sold in Norway: Local labor market effects of an import shock". Journal of Public Economics. The Nordic Model. 127: 137–144. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.08.006. hdl: 11250/196942 . ISSN   0047-2727. S2CID   14918934.
  7. ↑ Donoso, Vicente; Martín, Víctor; Minondo, Asier (2015-01-01). "Does Competition from China Raise the Probability of Becoming Unemployed? An Analysis Using Spanish Workers' Micro-Data". Social Indicators Research. 120 (2): 373–394. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0597-7. ISSN   1573-0921. S2CID   55904167.
  8. ↑ Dauth, Wolfgang; Findeisen, Sebastian; Suedekum, Jens (2014). "The Rise of the East and the Far East: German Labor Markets and Trade Integration". Journal of the European Economic Association. 12 (6): 1643–1675. doi:10.1111/jeea.12092. hdl: 10419/88626 . ISSN   1542-4774. S2CID   11039378.
  9. ↑ Hanson, Gordon H.; Dorn, David; Autor, David H. (2013). "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States". American Economic Review. 103 (6): 2121–2168. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.6.2121 . hdl: 1721.1/95952 . ISSN   0002-8282.
  10. ↑ Caliendo, Lorenzo; Parro, Fernando (2023). "Lessons from US–China Trade Relations". Annual Review of Economics. 15 (1): 513–547. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-082019 . ISSN   1941-1383.
  11. ↑ Feenstra, Robert; Ma, Hong; Sasahara, Akira; Xu, Yuan (2018-01-18). "Reconsidering the 'China shock' in trade". VoxEU.org. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
  12. ↑ Irwin, Neil (2018-03-23). "Globalization's Backlash Is Here, at Just the Wrong Time". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2019-06-10.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Autor, David H.; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon H. (2016-10-31). "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade" (PDF). Annual Review of Economics. 8 (1): 205–240. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015041. ISSN   1941-1383. S2CID   1415485.
  14. 1 2 Autor, David; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon H. "Why Obama's key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
  15. ↑ Galle, Simon; Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés; Yi, Moises (2022). "Slicing the Pie: Quantifying the Aggregate and Distributional Effects of Trade". The Review of Economic Studies. 90: 331–375. doi:10.1093/restud/rdac020.
  16. ↑ Autor, David H.; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon H. (2016). "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade". CESifo Working Paper Series.
  17. ↑ Suedekum, Jens; Findeisen, Sebastian; Dauth, Wolfgang (2017). "Trade and Manufacturing Jobs in Germany" (PDF). American Economic Review. 107 (5): 337–42. doi:10.1257/aer.p20171025. hdl: 10419/149134 . ISSN   0002-8282. S2CID   158035589.
  18. ↑ Khanna, Gaurav; Shih, Kevin; Weinberger, Ariel; Xu, Mingzhi; Yu, Miaojie (2020). "Trade Liberalization and Chinese Students in US Higher Education". The Review of Economics and Statistics: 1–46. doi:10.1162/rest_a_01378. ISSN   1556-5068.
  19. ↑ Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry; Weymouth, Stephen (2021). "Populism in Place: The Economic Geography of the Globalization Backlash". International Organization. 75 (2): 464–494. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000314 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  20. ↑ Stanig, Piero; Colantone, Italo (2018). "Global Competition and Brexit". American Political Science Review. 112 (2): 201–218. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000685. ISSN   0003-0554. S2CID   220040728.
  21. ↑ Ballard-Rosa, Cameron; Malik, Mashail A.; Rickard, Stephanie J.; Scheve, Kenneth (2021). "The Economic Origins of Authoritarian Values: Evidence From Local Trade Shocks in the United Kingdom". Comparative Political Studies. 54 (13): 2321–2353. doi:10.1177/00104140211024296. ISSN   0010-4140. S2CID   92984576.
  22. ↑ Steiner, Nils D.; Harms, Philipp (2021). "Trade shocks and the nationalist backlash in political attitudes: panel data evidence from Great Britain". Journal of European Public Policy. 30 (2): 271–290. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2021.2002925 . ISSN   1350-1763. S2CID   226689961.
  23. ↑ Ferrara, Federico Maria (2022). "Why does import competition favor republicans? Localized trade shocks and cultural backlash in the US". Review of International Political Economy. 30 (2): 678–701. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2021.1980898 . ISSN   0969-2290. S2CID   248439169.
  24. ↑ Majlesi, Kaveh; Hanson, Gordon H.; Dorn, David; Autor, David H. (2016-09-01). "Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure". CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP11511. Rochester, NY. SSRN   2840708.
  25. ↑ Autor, David; Dorn, David; Hanson, Gordon; Majlesi, Kaveh (2020-10-01). "Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure". American Economic Review. 110 (10): 3139–3183. doi:10.1257/aer.20170011. hdl: 10419/260193 . ISSN   0002-8282.
  26. ↑ Peter S. Goodman and Emma Bubola (2019-12-05). "The Chinese Roots of Italy's Far-Right Rage". New York Times .
  27. ↑ Greenland, Andrew; Lopresti, John (2016-05-01). "Import exposure and human capital adjustment: Evidence from the U.S.". Journal of International Economics. 100: 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.02.002. ISSN   0022-1996.
  28. ↑ "The China Shock Doctrine". www.nationalaffairs.com. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  29. ↑ Dean, Adam (2018-12-01). "NAFTA's Army: Free Trade and US Military Enlistment". International Studies Quarterly. 62 (4): 845–856. doi: 10.1093/isq/sqy032 . ISSN   0020-8833.
  30. ↑ Dean, Adam; Obert, Jonathan (2019-10-18). "Shocked into Service: Free Trade and the American South's Military Burden". International Interactions. 46: 51–81. doi:10.1080/03050629.2019.1674298. ISSN   0305-0629. S2CID   211393086.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.