From the early 19th century to the early 20th century, Western countries attributed their economic growth to the discoveries of “scientists and navigators.” A country needed only the “zeal” to develop “obvious” commercial applications and build the facilities to meet demand for new products.
Until recently, Chinese believed the same thing, but now, Chinese businesspeople and entrepreneurs are increasingly showing not only the entrepreneurial drive to adapt to new opportunities, but also the desire and capacity to innovate for themselves, rather than simply copying what is already out there.
More Chinese companies are realizing that they must innovate to get — and stay — ahead in the global economy. Several companies — notably Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent — made breakthroughs by offering digital-age infrastructure that facilitates innovative activity, and industrial firms have recently moved into the business of robots and artificial intelligence.
For its part, China’s government is evidently supportive of Chinese businesses developing a capacity to produce indigenous innovations. It no doubt recognizes that such innovations are all the more valuable when innovation remains weak in the West, where growth in total factor productivity (TFP) has continued its long slowdown.
In the past few years, China’s government has introduced initiatives aimed at increasing both entrepreneurship and innovation. It has shortened dramatically the process for forming a new company. It has built a vast number of schools, where Chinese children learn more about the world they are to face, and it recently facilitated the entry of foreign experts to work on new projects in the business sector.
The authorities have also recognized the importance of allowing more competition in the economy. Individuals should be freed up to start new companies and existing companies should be freed up to enter new industries. Competition solves a lot of problems — a point that is increasingly lost on the West.
At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese officials discussed basic reforms that the government introduced two years ago to increase competition.
Under the new policy, excess capacity now signals that supply should be allowed to contract and prompt redundant firms to exit the market. Of course, excess demand signals that supply should be allowed to increase, leading to the entry of new firms.
The key insight is that when existing enterprises are protected from new market entrants bearing new ideas, the result will be less innovation and less “adaptation” to a changing world, to use Friedrich Hayek’s term.
Another argument can be made. In any modern economy, virtually every industry operates in the face of a largely unknowable future. The more companies an industry has thinking about a problem, the more likely a solution is to be found.
A company that has been kept out of an industry might know something that all the companies in the industry do not, or some unique experience might have furnished an individual with “personal knowledge” that is impossible to transmit to others who have not had the same experience.
Whatever the case, society benefits — through lower prices, more jobs, better products and services, and so forth — when outsiders with something to add are free to do so.
All of this was known to the great theorists of the 1920s and 1930s: Hayek, Frank Knight and John Maynard Keynes, and now it is known to Chinese, who understand that a country benefits when companies — each with their own thinking and knowledge — are free to compete.
The West seems to have forgotten this. Since the 1930s, most Western governments have seen it as their duty to protect established enterprises from competition, even when it comes from new firms offering new adaptations or innovations.
These protections, which come in myriad forms, have almost certainly discouraged many entrepreneurs from coming forward with new and better ideas.
History is rife with evidence of the value of competition. In post-war Britain, into the 1970s, industries were controlled by exclusive clubs within the Confederation of British Industry, which barred new entrants. By the time Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979, TFP had stagnated, but Thatcher put a stop to the confederation’s anti-competitive practices and Britain’s TFP was growing again by the mid-1980s.
We are now seeing something similar in China. In 2016, China’s TFP growth rate had been slowing for a number of years, but since the reforms that year, it has been increasing.
The West must address its great TFP slowdown, which has lasted since the late 1960s. Ending protection of incumbents from new entrants possessing ideas for new adaptions and innovations is a good place to start.
Edmund Phelps is the 2006 Nobel laureate in Economics and director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs