Včeraj sem na X imel zanimivo razpravo z Bradom Setserjem (ki ga sicer zelo cenim) o kitajskem avtomobilskem izvoznem boomu, ki naj bi predstavljal “napad na evropski avtomobilski trg”. Zmotila me je hipokrizija v pozivanju na katastrofo in nujnost samoobrambe, čeprav Kitajska počne natanko to, kar so počele ostale azijske države in Nemčija po drugi svetovni vojni in kar so propagirale vse trgovinske doktrine, ki smo jih po drugi svetovni vojni predavali na podlagi mainstream univerzitetnih učbenikov. Spodaj je debata, če slučajno koga zanima.
Začelo se je s tem prvim tvitom Brada Setserja (in nadaljevanjem njegove niti):
Moj odziv na Setserjev zapis:
This whole thing (“China’s assault on Europe’s car market”) is quite misguided. First, since when—and under what theory of international trade—does trade have to be balanced within the same sector (i.e. product category)? The theory of comparative advantage (Ricardo, Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuelson) is built on the idea that a country should be a net exporter of the goods in which it has a comparative advantage.
Second, the (new trade) theory of intra-industry trade (Helpman, Krugman) is based on countries exporting differentiated products within the same product category. China has found its niche—its product differentiation—in EV manufacturing, while the EU has specialized in ICE vehicles. Chinese car exports to Europe are overwhelmingly based on EVs.
Third, where exactly is the problem? The real problem is that European automakers failed to understand both the EU’s own regulatory framework (the ban on the sale of new ICE vehicles from 2035) and the market incentives created by the EU (subsidies for the purchase of EVs). How are Chinese manufacturers to blame for adapting to the EU’s regulations and incentives in a timely manner and for correctly interpreting the market signals?
Fourth, exports to the EU account for only about 10% of China’s total car exports, and Chinese brands hold roughly a 10% share of the EU’s new car market. How can this possibly be described as a “Chinese assault” on Europe’s car market?
Fifth, serious analysts should avoid ideology and remain objective. They should not invoke the mainstream trade theories taught in economics textbooks since the second half of the 20th century when those theories support their world view, only to retreat to 19th-century protectionist doctrines when actual trade patterns no longer fit their preferred narrative. That may be acceptable for politicians, but it is not how serious economists and analysts should approach the issue.

You must be logged in to post a comment.