In the final stretch of the US presidential race, former US president Donald Trump and US Vice President Kamala Harris are touting competing plans to create middle-class jobs for workers without college degrees by revitalizing manufacturing. However, the candidates are not only playing on the electorate’s nostalgia for a bygone era; they are ignoring the diminished role that manufacturing can now play as a source of growth and opportunity.
Trump proposes to eliminate the US deficit in manufacturing trade by erecting high tariffs. He blames the long-term decline in US manufacturing employment on bad trade agreements and unfair practices by other countries.
Closing off the economy with trade barriers would reverse the trend and generate large increases in US manufacturing jobs, he said.
For her part, Harris wants to double down on the industrial policies of US President Joe Biden’s administration by introducing an additional US$100 billion in federal subsidies to the manufacturing industries of the future.
These policy prescriptions are remarkably myopic. They ignore the fact that the decline of manufacturing as a share of total employment — from 30 percent in the 1970s to barely 8 percent today — reflects long-term structural forces such as automation, productivity gains and a shift in demand from goods toward services (which happens naturally as economies develop).
There have been similar declines in other advanced and emerging-market economies, even those with long-standing manufacturing trade surpluses, including Germany, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and China. Such trends call into question Trump’s belief that a smaller trade deficit is the key to spurring more manufacturing employment. Moreover, the employment share of manufacturing is declining in mature economies regardless of their overall industrial policy approaches. The trend is apparent in economies that have adopted free market policies (Hong Kong, the US, the UK and Germany) and in those with interventionist policies (Japan, South Korea and China). Again, such evidence casts doubt on the claim that neoliberal policies are to blame for lost manufacturing jobs, or that more interventionist industrial policies can significantly reverse the decline.
Similar lessons can be drawn from the US’ own experience. Trend declines in manufacturing’s employment share were evident in the US as early as the 1950s and 1960s, when international trade played a minimal role in the US economy. Moreover, they continued between 2019 and this year. Although the Biden administration maintained Trump’s tariffs and pursued more interventionist industrial policies, jobs in manufacturing only grew by 1 percent.
This trend is likely to continue. Even after the Biden administration’s policies had passed, the US Department of Labor last year continued to forecast a declining US manufacturing employment share over the next decade.
All the evidence points to deep and powerful forces that drive the long-term decline in manufacturing’s share of jobs and GDP as countries become richer. Historically, as an economy evolves, the share of manufacturing employment follows an inverted U pattern: After rising in the initial stages of development, it then declines as development progresses.
Many countries are now moving down the right side of the curve. The trends in their manufacturing employment resemble those that prevailed earlier in agriculture. As farming becomes more productive, fewer farmers are needed, because demand increases only so much in response to cheaper food. Similarly, as manufacturing becomes more productive, goods become cheaper; but since demand for goods does not rise proportionately, people spend more of their income on services and fewer manufacturing workers are needed. In both cases, exports can generate some additional demand, but not enough to sustain employment growth forever.
Meanwhile, technological changes have shifted employment demand in manufacturing toward more educated workers. Older Americans might remember the days (decades ago) when factory jobs provided good pay and benefits to many workers with a secondary education or less. However, manufacturing jobs today increasingly require workers with at least a college degree, and this shift seems set to continue.
A central objective of industrial policies in advanced and developing economies is to promote new manufacturing technologies. Many countries want to master labor-saving digital technologies such as robotics and additive manufacturing (3D printing); skill-intensive technologies such as nanotechnology and advanced materials; and green technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs, which are basically computers on wheels). While the full implications of artificial intelligence (AI) are unknown, most of its uses are likely to increase the requirements for more skilled and educated workers.
That is why the next administration should emphasize policies that promote growth and inclusion throughout the economy. This means work adjustment and job placement assistance; wage loss insurance for displaced workers; and grants for skills training and apprenticeship programs to equip workers for jobs and careers offering middle-class incomes. US structural policies should be expanded and tailored to community needs.
To be sure, manufacturing has a vital role to play in providing the hardware for the digital economy, the semiconductors for AI (where domestic production might be important for national security), and the solar panels, wind turbines and EVs for decarbonization. However, the sector should not be promoted as a vehicle of inclusive growth and employment for low-skilled workers.
Robert Z. Lawrence is a Peterson Institute for International Economics non-resident fellow, Harvard Kennedy School international trade and investment professor and author of Behind the Curve: Can Manufacturing Still Provide Inclusive Growth?
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The Cabinet on Nov. 6 approved a NT$10 billion (US$318.4 million) four-year plan to build tourism infrastructure in mountainous areas and the south. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) on Tuesday announced that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications would offer weekday accommodation discounts, birthday specials and other domestic travel incentives beginning next March, aiming to encourage more travel outside the usual weekend and holiday peaks. The government is right to focus on domestic tourism. Although the data appear encouraging on the surface — as total domestic trips are up compared with their pre-COVID-19 pandemic numbers — a closer look tells a different
For more than seven decades, the Chinese Communist Party has claimed to govern Tibet with benevolence and progress. I have seen the truth behind the slogans. I have listened to the silences of monks forbidden to speak of the Dalai Lama, watched the erosion of our language in classrooms, and felt the quiet grief of a people whose prayers are monitored and whose culture is treated as a threat. That is why I will only accept complete independence for Tibet. The so-called “autonomous region” is autonomous in name only. Decisions about religion, education and cultural preservation are made in Beijing, not
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
I recently watched a panel discussion on Taiwan Talks in which the host rightly asked a critical question: Why is the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) spearheading a robust global movement to reject China’s ongoing distortion of UN Resolution 2758? While the discussion offered some context, a more penetrating analysis and urgent development was missed. The IPAC action is not merely a political gesture; it is an essential legal and diplomatic countermeasure to China’s escalating and fundamentally baseless campaign to manufacture a claim over Taiwan through the deliberate misinterpretation of a 1971 UN resolution. Since the inauguration of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as
RSS