|
說比做容易的「脫鉤」 -- James Crabtree
|
瀏覽856 ｜回應1｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
本城市已經有多篇文章討論此議題。以下這篇《金融時報》分析「經濟脫鉤」的評論 -- 《西方難逃「脫鉤幻想」》在數字之外提供了一個有趣的觀察角度。我袖珍式的譯述要點於下；欲知細節如何，請讀原文分曉。
馬來西亞首相安華訪問中國沒有引起國際注意，但它顯示了「經濟脫鉤」的困難。
歐盟執委主席馮德萊恩訪問中國之前，曾在一次演說中表示，歐盟與中國(經貿)關係的策略應該是「降低風險」而不是「脫鉤」。
本週G7財長會議中曾大談如何擴大「供應鏈」來助長開發中國家的經濟。
安華首相的北京之旅則呈現完全不同的論調。他不但沒有提「脫鉤」，反而盛讚中國經濟的強大實力並鼓勵更多投資。隨他訪問中國的企業家們則「簽訂」了價值近390個億美元的合約。
在西方國力圖為幾十年來的「全球化」遺患解套時，亞洲國家從孟加拉和印尼到馬來西亞和泰國，都把它們的經濟未來寄望於中國。這些國家不但無意「脫鉤」，反而要增加和中國的雙邊貿易。這可是西方政策造成，令人感到諷刺的反效果。
國際企業當下正在大吹「(經濟)哥倆好風」；這個規劃的前提卻不切實際。
1. 除了半導體外，「脫鉤」在其它產業連個影兒都沒有(請參看《中、美經貿脫鉤的虛實》)。
2. 東南亞各國如越南，過去幾年來與中國雙邊貿易的金額暴增。這個現實說明；將工廠移到中國以外地區，將增加該地區對中國生產零件的需求；從而，在實質上它並沒有減低西方國家經濟上對中國的依賴程度。
這就是俗話說的：耍嘴皮子容易多了。
The west is in the grip of a decoupling delusion
Trying to move production from China is much harder than many companies and governments think
James Crabtree, 04/15/23
Two recent Beijing trips by global leaders have shed light on the many paradoxes of a future age of economic decoupling.
A visit by Emmanuel Macron, president of France, and Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president, last week generated waves of controversy in the west. Another, by Anwar Ibrahim, prime minister of Malaysia, went almost unnoticed but in many ways proved more illuminating of the challenges of decoupling.
Macron travelled to Beijing with von der Leyen to present a united European approach to China. But he also brought a phalanx of business leaders, opening Paris up to accusations of mercantile foreign policy and leaving Europe looking divided.
A few days earlier, von der Leyen had delivered a speech in which she argued that Europe should “de-risk” rather than decouple its Chinese ties. Full decoupling was undesirable, she said, so the west should instead reduce risks in strategic sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and critical minerals. This week G7 finance ministers also talked up the need for supply chain “diversity” with plans to “empower” emerging economies.
Anwar’s visit to Beijing could hardly have been more different. Here there was no talk of decoupling. Rather, Malaysia’s leader hailed China’s economic prowess and encouraged greater investment. He took a group of Malaysian businesses too, returning with deals worth almost $39 bn, on paper at least.
The sight of leaders from the “global south” streaming back to Beijing should alarm the west. Having previously focused on solving China’s Covid-19 crisis and securing his own third term, Xi Jinping is once again flexing his diplomatic muscles — from peace deals in Ukraine and the Middle East to investment deals for south-east Asian neighbours.
While western leaders are trying to unpick decades of globalisation, Asian nations from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Malaysia and Thailand view China as central to their economic future. Rather than decoupling, they seek more trade with Beijing. And, paradoxically, this is an outcome western policies might actually deliver.
Global businesses now talk about “friend-shoring”, meaning moving production towards geopolitical partners such as India, Mexico or Poland. Alternatively, they might set up facilities in south-east Asia, where most nations are geopolitically neutral between Beijing and Washington. The likes of Malaysia and Vietnam are often predicted to be winners from decoupling, able to hoover up western businesses as they leave China.
There are problems with this account, however, the first being that so far decoupling has barely begun to happen. Semiconductors are one notable exception, given successful American attempts to stop global chipmakers selling to China. But for all the talk of supply chain de-risking and resilience, similar moves in other sectors are hard to spot.
Western multinationals talk more often about a “China plus one” strategy, in which they keep making things in China but also pick another manufacturing base, Malaysia say, as a hedge.
But imagine for a second that geopolitical events take a further turn for the worse, western companies get spooked, and decoupling does begin to move forward more quickly. What then? Here, many in the west assume that shifting production will make them less reliant on China, while the decoupling process will probably draw countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam closer to the west itself. Both assumptions are questionable, to say the least.
Take Samsung. Its decision in 2020 to shift production to Vietnam means the South Korean giant now assembles millions of phones in Vietnamese factories each year. Many are then exported to the west. Many components that go into those phones are still made in China, however, so Vietnam must also import more of those too.
Vietnam’s bilateral trade with China has rocketed in recent years, with similar patterns discernible in the rest of what is sometimes called “factory Asia”. Forthcoming research from Aaditya Mattoo, an economist at the World Bank, suggests that east Asian nations have lately been exporting more to the US but also importing much more from China.
The result is a double paradox. First, rather than connecting emerging economies more tightly to the west, decoupling often leaves countries in regions such as south-east Asia more economically dependent upon China, not less. Second, while shifting supply chains around the world appears to leave the west less reliant on China, the continuing need for components that still mostly come from there means the fundamental vulnerability remains.
Before her recent Beijing visit, von der Leyen argued that “it is neither viable — nor in Europe’s interest — to decouple from China”. She is right. And given the complex and intertwined structure of modern globalisation, even the task of partially reducing dependence on the Chinese economy is likely to turn out to be much harder than it looks.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
「脫鉤」的利弊與難易 -- Joel Mathis
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The U.S. and China want to 'decouple' their economies. Is it possible?
As tensions rise, there is growing talk of a split. But there will be difficulties.
JOEL MATHIS, 04/20/23
Tensions are rising between the United States and China, and there is talk of "decoupling" the two countries' economies. But is that a good idea? Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, doesn't think so. A U.S.-China split, she said Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, "would lead to less economic growth, less prosperity in the world, more poverty across the world. So I think that this is something that should be by all means avoided."
That decoupling may already be underway, however. Bloomberg reports that while U.S.-China trade hit a record $690 billion in 2022, there are signs "that both the U.S. and China have meaningfully reduced the share of their imports coming from each other." The dollar numbers are large, but Chinese goods made up just 16.6 percent of imports in 2022 — down five percent from 2017. The share of American exports going to China also fell.
As China and the United States prepare for a possible war, both sides have their reasons for the decoupling. China has seen how the U.S. isolated Russia's economy following the invasion of Ukraine, so leaders don't want to leave their economy reliant on exports to America. U.S. leaders don't want China to have access to America's most advanced technology if the two countries do end up in a conflict. But a split will have ramifications for the world economy. "Industry is kind of united," Antonia Tzinova, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight, told The New York Times. "We don't want this."
What do the commentators say?
It's not clear if decoupling is even achievable. "While Western leaders are trying to unpick decades of globalization, Asian nations from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Malaysia and Thailand view China as central to their economic future," James Crabtree writes for the Financial Times. Rather than isolating China, the U.S. effort to decouple "often leaves countries in regions such as south-east Asia more economically dependent upon China, not less." Even companies that have moved their production to other countries still purchase components from China. Real decoupling "is likely to turn out to be much harder than it looks."
"Even the closest U.S. ally is never going to cut itself off from China politically or economically," Bilahari Kausikan writes at Foreign Affairs. Few Western countries will be willing to forego the benefits of selling and buying from China, and right now "China has no real alternative but the West for critical technologies and access to important markets." The U.S. and China will compete "robustly," but for the moment they "must accept the risks and vulnerabilities of remaining connected to each other. "
All this decoupling talk may overlook important effects on other countries, Tamás Mészáros writes at The Diplomat. "Decoupling rhetoric masks the fact that the United States and China play very different economic roles in East Asia and possess very different sources of economic power." China is a "key hub" for manufacturing and production across the region, while the United States remains a key market for all those goods — as well as "by far" the largest source of foreign investment. Leaders in Asia "need both great powers to remain engaged in East Asia, and economic realities suggest they would do well to do so."
What's next?
A full decoupling probably isn't in store for the United States and China, unless the two countries go to war. But a "selective decoupling" is "inevitable," U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) tells Bloomberg. Big companies like Apple and Disney will have to undergo a "complicated and costly" restructuring to ensure that supply chains involving sensitive materials are moved out of China. The U.S. wants to curb investments and sharing of technology in areas such as "quantum computing, bioengineering, advanced semiconductors" that can be used for military purposes.
There is more to come. The CHIPS Act passed last year is intended to increase American investment in the domestic semiconductor industry, Asia Times reports, while the Biden administration has set about strengthening export controls for sensitive technologies. One concern for the broader global economy is making sure military-grade technology doesn't get lumped in with civilian-level tech. "If the border is not made clear, the private sector will face huge uncertainties that may shrink trade and investment," Asia Times adds.
As Lagarde's comments suggest, it's not entirely clear that America's closest allies will go along with U.S. efforts at decoupling. Some "derisking" is needed, European Union President Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech recently, but only to a limited extent. "Decoupling is clearly not viable, desirable, or even practical for Europe."
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
