Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 183
  • Primary focus 57
Showing 57 database articles primarily about Trade (not deficits)
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Trade (not deficits)
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,206 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Trade (not deficits)):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Global Firms Are Eyeing Asian Alternatives to Chinese Manufacturing

Mike Bird The Economist
Date Posted:
February 22, 2023
Is Database:
Database

.@Birdyword reports that Asian alternatives to China (including India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Vietnam) have larger working age populations and exported more goods to the United States in the 12 months ending Q3 ‘22: $634B vs. China’s $614B.

Chinese labor is no longer that cheap: between 2013 and 2022 manufacturing wages doubled, to an average of $8.27 per hour. More important, the deepening techno-decoupling between Beijing and Washington is forcing manufacturers of high-tech products, especially those involving advanced semiconductors, to reconsider their reliance on China. Alternative Asian supply chain—call it Altasia—looks evenly matched with China in heft, or better. Its collective working-age population of 1.4bn dwarfs even China’s 980m. Altasia is home to 154m people aged between 25 and 54 with a tertiary education, compared with 145m in China—and, in contrast to ageing China, their ranks look poised to expand. In many parts of Altasia wages are considerably lower than in China: hourly manufacturing wages in India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are below $3.

The Economist reports that Asian alternatives to China (including India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Vietnam) have larger working age populations and exported more goods to the United States in the 12 months ending Q3 ‘22: $634B vs. China’s $614B.

Description automatically generated “…Chinese labor is no longer that cheap: between 2013 and 2022 manufacturing wages doubled, to an average of $8.27 per hour. More important, the deepening techno-decoupling between Beijing and Washington is forcing manufacturers of high-tech products, especially those involving advanced semiconductors, to reconsider their reliance on China. Alternative Asian supply chain—call it Altasia—looks evenly matched with China in heft, or better. Its collective working-age population of 1.4bn dwarfs even China’s 980m. Altasia is home to 154m people aged between 25 and 54 with a tertiary education, compared with 145m in China—and, in contrast to ageing China, their ranks look poised to expand. In many parts of Altasia wages are considerably lower than in China: hourly manufacturing wages in India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are below $3…”

Mike Bird, “Global firms are eyeing Asian alternatives to Chinese manufacturing,” The Economist, February 20, 2023, https://www.economist.com/business/2023/02/20/global-firms-are-eyeing-asian-alternatives-to-chinese-manufacturing

Global firms are eyeing Asian alternatives to Chinese manufacturing

In 1987 panasonic made an adventurous bet on China. At the time the electronics giant’s home country, Japan, was a global manufacturing powerhouse and the Chinese economy was no larger than Canada’s. So when the company entered a Chinese joint venture to make cathode-ray tubes for its televisions in Beijing, eyebrows were raised. Before long other titans of consumer electronics, from Japan and elsewhere, were also piling into China to take advantage of its abundant and cheap labour. Three-and-a-half decades on, China is the linchpin of the multitrillion-dollar consumer-electronics industry. Its exports of electronic goods and components amounted to $1trn in 2021, out of a global total of $3.3trn. These days, it takes a brave firm to avoid China.

Increasingly, however, under a weighty combination of commercial and political pressure, foreign companies are beginning to pluck up the courage if not to leave China entirely, then at least to look beyond it for growth. Chinese labour is no longer that cheap: between 2013 and 2022 manufacturing wages doubled, to an average of $8.27 per hour. More important, the deepening techno-decoupling between Beijing and Washington is forcing manufacturers of high-tech products, especially those involving advanced semiconductors, to reconsider their reliance on China.

Between 2020 and 2022 the number of Japanese companies operating in China fell from around 13,600 to 12,700, according to Teikoku Databank, a research firm. On January 29th it was reported that Sony plans to move production of cameras sold in Japan and the West from China to Thailand. Samsung, a South Korean firm, has slashed its Chinese workforce by more than two-thirds since a peak in 2013. Dell, an American computer-maker, is reportedly aiming to stop using Chinese-made chips by 2024.

The question for Dell, Samsung, Sony and their peers is: where to make stuff instead? No single country offers China’s vast manufacturing base. Yet taken together, a patchwork of economies across Asia presents a formidable alternative. It stretches in a crescent from Hokkaido, in northern Japan, through South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh, all the way to Gujarat, in north-western India. Its members have distinct strengths, from Japan’s high skills and deep pockets to India’s low wages. On paper, this is an opportunity for a useful division of labour, with some countries making sophisticated components and others assembling them into finished gadgets. Whether it can work in practice is a big test of the nascent geopolitical order.

This alternative Asian supply chain—call it Altasia—looks evenly matched with China in heft, or better (see chart). Its collective working-age population of 1.4bn dwarfs even China’s 980m. Altasia is home to 154m people aged between 25 and 54 with a tertiary education, compared with 145m in China—and, in contrast to ageing China, their ranks look poised to expand. In many parts of Altasia wages are considerably lower than in China: hourly manufacturing wages in India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are below $3, around one-third of what Chinese workers now demand. And the region is already an exporting power: its members sold $634bn-worth of merchandise to America in the 12 months to September 2022, edging out China’s $614bn.

Altasia has also become more economically integrated. All of it bar India, Bangladesh and Taiwan has, helpfully, signed on to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (rcep, which also includes China). By harmonising the rules of origin across the region’s sundry existing trade deals, the pact has created a single market in intermediate products. That in turn has eased regulatory barriers to complex supply chains that run through multiple countries. Most Altasian countries are members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, a newish American initiative. Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam belong to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (cptpp), which also includes Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

A model for the Altasian economy already exists, courtesy of Japanese companies, which have been building supply chains in South-East Asia for decades. More recently Japan’s rich Altasian neighbour, South Korea, has followed its example. In 2020 South Korean firms’ total stock of direct investments in Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—which together with unstable Myanmar make up the Association of South-East-Asian Nations (asean)—and Bangladesh reached $96bn, narrowly outstripping Korean investments in China. As recently as a decade ago the stock of Korean companies’ investments in China was nearly twice as large as in Altasia. Samsung is the biggest foreign investor in Vietnam. Last year Hyundai, a South Korean carmaker, opened its first asean factory, making electric vehicles in Indonesia.

Now more non-Altasian firms are eyeing the region, often via their Taiwanese contract manufacturers. Taiwan’s Foxconn, Pegatron and Wistron, which assemble gadgets for Apple, among others, are investing heavily in Indian factories. The share of iPhones made in India is expected to rise from around one in 20 last year to perhaps one in four by 2025. Two Taiwanese universities have teamed up with Tata, an Indian conglomerate with ambitious plans in high-tech manufacturing, to offer courses in electronics to Indian workers. Google is shifting the outsourced production of its newest Pixel smartphones from China to Vietnam.

More sophisticated manufacturing, especially of geopolitically fraught semiconductors, is also moving to Altasia. Malaysia already exports around 10% of the world’s chips by value, more than America. asean countries account for more than a quarter of global exports of integrated circuits, easily surpassing China’s 18%. And that gap is growing. Qualcomm, an American “fabless” chipmaker, which sells microprocessor designs for others to manufacture, opened its first research-and-development centre in Vietnam in 2020. Qualcomm’s revenues from Vietnamese chip factories, many of which belong to global giants like Samsung, tripled between 2020 and 2022. Earlier this month the local government of Ho Chi Minh City announced that it was courting a $3.3bn investment from Intel (though it later struck the American chip giant’s name from the statement online).

China’s huge advantage has historically been its vast single market, knit together with decent infrastructure, where value could be added without suppliers, workers and capital crossing national borders. For Altasia to truly rival China, therefore, its supply chain will need to become far more integrated and efficient. Although rcep has greased the wheels of intra-Altasian commerce somewhat, the flow of goods faces more obstacles than it does within China. Its member countries will need to play to their comparative advantage.

For now the infrastructure that connects them is shabby, at best. Finicky regulations and national ambitions can easily gum up the alternative supply chain. Altasia’s poorer countries are also not necessarily keen on the logical division of labour, which would see them with a bigger role in the more menial parts of the electronics supply chain. And forgoing all Chinese-made parts is next to impossible. Thamlev, an American electric-bike startup, moved production from China to Malaysia in 2022 in order to avoid a 25% American tariff, but still needed to import Chinese components. As a result, it took a month longer for its e-bikes to reach American riders.

Prospects for deeper integration are hazy, both within Altasia and with big consumer markets in the rich world. India, on whose 1.4bn people Altasia’s future may depend, seems in no rush to become part of rcep. Although the country has, with other Altasian neighbours, signed up to America’s Indo-Pacific framework, it has opted out of the initiative’s trade provisions. And these anyway lack bite: America is in a protectionist mood and has offered no tariff cuts or better access to its vast market. One asean policymaker likens it to a doughnut, lacking substance in the middle.

Altasia will certainly not replace China soon, let alone overnight. In January, for example, Panasonic announced a big expansion of its Chinese operations. But in time China is likely to become less attractive to foreign manufacturers. Chinese labour is not getting any cheaper and its graduates are not getting much more numerous. America may yet realise that reducing its reliance on China in practice requires closer ties with friendly countries, including membership of the cptpp, the precursor of which collapsed after America pulled out in 2017. And as a budding alternative to China, Altasia has no equal.

  • Trade (not deficits)
Previous articleFebruary 22, 2023Biden Administration Announces New Border CrackdownUnder a new proposed rule which will take effect in 30 days, migrants will be ineligible for asylum if they enter the country unlawfully. @nytimesNext articleFebruary 22, 2023Missing Chinese Banker Was Working to Set Up Singapore Family OfficeThe billionaire founder of investment bank China Renaissance was in the process of setting up a family office in Singapore when he disappeared in February. @FT
Showing 56 database articles primarily about Trade (not deficits)

The Global Economy Is Threatened Again by Trade Imbalances

AI Summary. Global trade imbalances have reached 3.7% of world economic output, the highest since the 2008 financial crisis, as deficits and surpluses have become more persistent and structurally entrenched across economies.

Greg Ip The Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
June 12, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Greg Ip warns that while global imbalances are “narrower” than they were pre-crisis, “they are more persistent and more entrenched in national behavior,” pointing to China’s trade surplus and chronic US fiscal deficits.

Are persistent trade imbalances becoming a structural threat to global stability?

Core argument: Global trade imbalances reached 3.7% of GDP last year, up from a post-2008 low, driving renewed financial stability risks across.

The IMF calculates that deficits plus surpluses reached 3.7% of global gross domestic product last year after falling steadily from around the global financial crisis. Until the early 2000s, they fluctuated between 1% and 3%. This is worrisome. Current-account deficits played a part in the crises that swept Latin America in the early 1980s, East and Southeast Asia in the late 1990s, the U.S. in 2007-09, and the eurozone from 2009 on. Today’s imbalances look different. While annual deficits are narrower than 15 years ago, they are more persistent and more entrenched in national behaviour. Take the U.S., whose current-account deficit of $1.1 trillion is by far the largest single imbalance. Last year, tariffs did reduce some imports, but because the AI boom sucked in foreign-made tech equipment, the current-account deficit narrowed only slightly. The bigger contributor to the U.S. current-account deficit is its budget deficit, which sustains excessive U.S. spending and inadequate saving. The IMF estimates a budget deficit of 2% of GDP increases the current-account deficit by 0.5% of GDP.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Global trade imbalances reached 3.7% of GDP last year, up from a post-2008 low, driving renewed financial stability risks across.
  2. Current-account deficits have narrowed vs. 15 years ago but grown more persistent, leading to entrenched structural imbalances that amplify systemic.
  3. Trade imbalances fluctuated 1–3% of GDP through the early 2000s before spiking post-crisis, indicating a structural shift in savings behavior.

Related Articles:

  • Understanding Global Imbalances — Four economies—the United States, China, Germany, and Japan—account for roughly two-thirds of global imbalances, with current account surpluses and deficits now lasting twice as long as they did in the 1980s. Persistent imbalances have accumulated into large foreign asset and liability positions, with the United States holding net foreign liabilities
  • Why Global Imbalances Matter — Surplus economies depend on deficit countries as buyers of excess goods, giving deficit nations structural leverage despite appearing financially weak.
  • The U.S. Trade Deficit: Myths and Realities — Obstfeld @PIIE argues that current account deficits have not been forcibly “imposed” on the US from abroad since 2002. Rejecting Pettis’ tax on capital flows…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • China
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • GDP
    • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan Are Suffering Industrial Rot

AI Summary. North-east Asian manufacturing has become almost entirely dependent on AI-related production, with all 15% of the region's industrial output growth since 2019 driven by AI-linked goods. Output at factories unrelated to AI has shrunk, leaving chips and data-centre hardware accounting for 40–80% of exports across South Korea and Taiwan.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
May 28, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The industrial production of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan has risen 15% since 2019 – entirely driven by AI-related demand. Apart from chip-making, IP has shown no trend since 2011. The fall in non-chip output is likely due to Chinese competition.

Is North-East Asia's economy becoming dangerously dependent on AI manufacturing?

Core argument: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan Are Suffering Industrial Rot.

North-east Asian manufacturing is getting narrower. Chips and other gear related to AI make up over 40% of South Korean exports, more than double their share just two years ago. In Taiwan it is 80% of exports, compared with about half before the pandemic. After accounting for firms not neatly captured as AI-linked in official statistics, like Japan’s Advantest (which makes chip-testing gear) and Taiwan’s Foxconn (which produces data-centre servers, among other electronics), The Economist finds that all 15% of the region’s rise in industrial output since 2019 is thanks to AI. In Japan, South Korea and Taiwan output at factories unrelated to AI has shrunk in recent years.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan Are Suffering Industrial Rot.
  2. North-east Asian manufacturing is getting narrower.
  3. In Taiwan it is 80% of exports, compared with about half before the pandemic.

Related Articles:

  • China’s Next-Generation Industrial Policy — China's exports are shifting away from consumer goods and toward intermediate inputs and capital goods, with those categories rising 26% and 32% respectively over three years. This reflects a strategy of progressively localizing entire supply chains, embedding China deeper into global manufacturing systems as a supplier of components and machinery
  • China Is Making Trade Impossible — Robin Harding argues, “China is making trade impossible. If it will buy nothing from others but commodities and consumer goods, they must prepare to do…
  • Sticking with What Works: Raising GDP Forecast on China’s Manufacturing Push — GS estimates that for every 1pp export-driven increase in Chinese GDP, advanced economies experience a 0.1–0.3pp drag. “China Shock 2.0 is likely to crowd out…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • China
  • GDP
    • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit
  • Productivity
    • Investment

State of U.S. Tariffs: February 21, 2026

John Iselin Yale University
Date Posted:
February 23, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The new 15% tariffs under Section 122 bring the mean effective tariff rate to 13.7%, down from 16.9% prior to the SCOTUS ruling that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal. Section 122 tariffs will expire in 150 days unless extended by Congress.

The Budget Lab (TBL) estimates the effects of all US tariffs and foreign retaliation implemented through February 20, 2026, including the new 15% Section 122 tariffs and the elimination of IEEPA-based tariffs. Under our baseline case, the Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days. Before the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, consumers faced an overall average effective tariff rate of 16%, the highest since 1936. Immediately following the IEEPA ruling, the rate fell to 9.1%. After the Section 122 tariffs were imposed, the rate rose to its current level of 13.7%. If those tariffs expire in 150 days, the rate will fall again to 9.1%. Assuming Section 122 tariffs expire in 150 days, the administration’s tariffs will raise about $1.3 trillion over 2026-35, though slower economic growth reduces revenues and brings the net dynamic revenue to $1.1 trillion. (If they are instead made permanent, these figures would be $2.2 trillion and $1.9 trillion.)

Related Articles:

  • US Notches One of Its Biggest Annual Trade Gaps Since 1960 — The US trade deficit was $901.5B in 2025, effectively unchanged from 2024 despite the new tariff regime. The US bilateral deficit with China fell to $202B, the…
  • Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States — Tariffs implemented during the 2018-2019 trade war were “at best a wash, and may have been mildly negative” in terms of employment, but increased political…
  • Did Tariffs Make American Manufacturing Great? New Evidence from the Gilded Age — In a study of over 80 US manufacturing industries from 1870-1909 @cmicmeissner concludes that higher tariff rates reduced labor productivity. “The era’s high…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Taxation
  • GDP

Trump’s Options After the Supreme Court Said His Tariffs Are Illegal

Isabel Gottlieb Bloomberg
Date Posted:
February 20, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Trump has at least five tools he can use to offset the IEEPA tariffs; however, none of them offer the latitude that Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA allowed. Section 338 of Smoot-Hawley, which has never been used, likely has the broadest scope.

President Donald Trump can lean on alternative legislation to try to rebuild his tariff wall, after the US Supreme Court ruled that he can’t use a 1977 emergency law to impose import taxes. [Notably], Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The Depression-era provision empowers the president to introduce tariffs on imports from nations “whenever he shall find as a fact” that these countries impose unreasonable charges or limitations, or engage in discriminatory behavior against US commerce. There’s no prerequisite for a federal agency to conduct an investigation before the president can apply tariffs. Section 338 has never been used before to impose tariffs. If Trump were to lean on this provision, such an unprecedented move may invite legal challenges. The possibility that Trump could tap Section 338 has alarmed some Democrats in the House of Representatives — five lawmakers introduced a resolution in March 2025 to repeal this section of the 1930 law.

Related Articles:

  • Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States — Tariffs implemented during the 2018-2019 trade war were “at best a wash, and may have been mildly negative” in terms of employment, but increased political…
  • The Incidence of Tariffs: Rates and Reality — Actual 2025 tariff rates are, to date, far less than statutory rates, but the costs of the tariffs are mostly borne by the US – estimated tariff…
  • Who Is Paying for the 2025 U.S. Tariffs? — A FRBNY analysis finds that ~90% of tariffs’ economic burden was borne by American firms and consumers in the first 8 months of 2025. Between January and…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Taxation
  • GDP

State of U.S. Tariffs: February 20, 2026

John Iselin Yale University
Date Posted:
February 20, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Without the IEEPA tariffs, the mean effective tariff rate is 9.1%, down from 16.9%. The previous tariff regime was projected to raise ~$2.7T over 2026–35 ($2.3T dynamically). The SCOTUS decision will cut revenue by about 50% to ~$1-1.2T with or without refunds.

The Budget Lab estimates the effects of all US tariffs and foreign retaliation implemented in 2025 after the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that President Trump exceeded his authority to invoke the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose reciprocal tariffs. Without IEEPA tariffs, consumers will face an overall average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, which remains the highest since 1946 excluding 2025. (If IEEPA tariffs had been allowed to stay in effect, this figure would have been 16.9%.) All tariffs to date as of February 2026 are projected to raise about $1.2 trillion over 2026-35, though slower economic growth reduces revenues and brings the net dynamic revenue to $1 trillion. (With IEEPA, these figures would be more than twice as large.) The economic implications of the SCOTUS decision are complicated by two major factors. First, in the short-term, firms will be aggressively seeking refunds on tariffs paid in 2025, which has large revenue effects and uncertain distributional effects. Second, the current Administration has stated its intent to replace IEEPA tariffs with tariffs using other authorities, but there remain timing and other questions regarding these steps.

Related Articles:

  • US Notches One of Its Biggest Annual Trade Gaps Since 1960 — The US trade deficit was $901.5B in 2025, effectively unchanged from 2024 despite the new tariff regime. The US bilateral deficit with China fell to $202B, the…
  • China Is Making Trade Impossible — Robin Harding argues, “China is making trade impossible. If it will buy nothing from others but commodities and consumer goods, they must prepare to do…
  • Sticking with What Works: Raising GDP Forecast on China’s Manufacturing Push — GS estimates that for every 1pp export-driven increase in Chinese GDP, advanced economies experience a 0.1–0.3pp drag. “China Shock 2.0 is likely to crowd out…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Taxation
  • GDP

Industrial Policies, Global Imbalances and Technological Hegemony

Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi, Andrea Ferrero, Luca Fornar, and Martin Wolf Bank of England
Date Posted:
February 12, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Cesa-Bianchi et al show that countries (primarily in East Asia) that make more intensive use of industrial policies have had more rapid growth in manufacturing employment, total factor productivity, and exports, but not larger trade surpluses.

Figure 5 [see image gallery] reports scatter plots together with correlation coefficients (ρ) and associated t-statistics. The data reveal strong and interesting correlations. The left panel shows that countries with higher use of industrial policies experienced larger rises (or smaller drops) in manufacturing employment shares. The correlation is 0.52 and highly statistically significant. The right panel shows that an analogous result applies to TFP growth, with a similar correlation (0.48) and high statistical significance. As one would expect, East-Asian countries play an important role in driving these correlations. This conforms with the popular view that East-Asian countries have adopted a strategy of outward-oriented growth, characterized by policies that promote tradable sectors. Figure 6 shows the relationship between industrial policies and export growth (left panel) and the current account to GDP ratio (right panel), both averaged over the 2002- 2019 period. The results show a positive relation between industrial policies and exports, though with a smaller coefficient (0.30) and lower statistical significance than for TFP or manufacturing employment shares. Industrial policy does not appear to be related to current account to GDP ratio in the raw cross-country data.

Related Articles:

  • The Dangerous Triumph Of Neo-Mercantilism — China’s refusal to address its excess saving will likely fracture the global economy, Wolf argues. He suggests reviving Keynes’ attempt, rejected by the US at…
  • Sticking with What Works: Raising GDP Forecast on China’s Manufacturing Push — GS estimates that for every 1pp export-driven increase in Chinese GDP, advanced economies experience a 0.1–0.3pp drag. “China Shock 2.0 is likely to crowd out…
  • Europe Has No Choice But To Intervene On Trade — Pettis argues that unless the EU is “willing to dismantle its welfare system and force down wages relative to productivity to restore competitiveness,” it must…
  • Trade (not deficits)
  • GDP
    • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms