
Much of the push coming today from both the political right and the political left for industrial policy – and coming also for simple protectionism – has to do with helping Americans better ‘compete’ with China. As the argument goes, China is a bad actor in part because, being communist, its government has no problem using large-scale government initiatives to promote China’s role on the world stage and to boost the Chinese economy by funneling resources toward Chinese producers, innovators, exporters.
The results of these actions by the CCP are allegedly helping China achieve global economic dominance, which will in turn allow them to kick our American butts.

The biggest of all these initiatives that American politicians and pundits love to be scared of is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is one of those hyper-vigilant politicians who has been tirelessly warning us about the risks of this Chinese policy. He put out report titled “Made in China 2025 and the Future of American Industry” outlining “the challenges posed by China’s whole-of-state industrial planning for America’s prosperity and productivity, including the jobs and wages of American workers.” He also offers a list of policy ideas meant to challenge Chinese central planning with our own central planning.
I pick on Senator Rubio, but he’s far from alone. The CHIPS Act, which was enacted a few weeks ago by Congress and signed into law by the President, is all about using more subsidies and other protectionist measures to “compete with China.” While I can appreciate that there are some legitimate national-security concerns relating to China, I don’t buy the claim that to compete economically with the communist regime we must emulate that regime’s anti-market policies. To be sure, the Chinese government gets an A in spending a ton of its people’s money in subsidies and stuff. However, the assumption that this prosperity, economic growth, and innovation depends on who wins the battle of subsidies is ludicrous if you understand anything about the incentives that plague government decisions to spend money on special interests- not to mention that we have thousands examples of crony investments failing to achieve their goals.
In addition, good reasoning and evidence offer ample that industrial policy, narrowly or widely defined, has always been, and still is, bad economics and as source of cronyism.
Speaking of failure… A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal had a great piece by its chief China correspondent Lingling Wei on how China is working on an overhaul of its Belt and Road Initiative. The cause? After a decade and some $1 trillion BRI “investments” in 150 countries, most of which are in serious financial distress, mostly what it has to show for is malinvestments are high default rates on its loans and failure to deliver. A tidbit:
Chinese President Xi Jinping once called the initiative “a project of the century,” but the overhaul exposes limits to his vision to reshape the global order. ..
Nearly 60% of China’s overseas loans are now held by countries considered to be in financial distress, compared with 5% in 2010, according to economists Sebastian Horn, Carmen Reinhart and Christoph Trebesch, who have written about international debt….
The process could force Chinese banks to accept losses, something they’ve long opposed. For years, Beijing preferred to extend the maturity of troubled loans, a practice known in the finance industry as “extend and pretend.” That strategy risks prolonging countries’ debt woes rather than fixing them.
Beijing has also dialed down its rhetoric in state media. …
By 2017, Chinese banking executives were complaining to Beijing that they were being asked to finance projects that had little prospect of returns, according to executives involved in the discussions. Some lenders threatened to stop supporting certain projects unless regulators let them clarify that those loans were “policy-instructed,” the executives said, so the banks wouldn’t be held accountable for defaults.
You can read the whole saga here.
It’s not as if none of the initiative has worked. As the Journal reports:
But while reform of the BRI and more prudent lending can limit the program’s losses, bad incentives, bureaucracy, mismanagement and so on and so forth will still be at play.
The road to prosperity isn’t paved with industrial policy, loan guarantees, and subsidies. Shouldn’t we know this lesson by now?
Veronique de Rugy is a Senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and syndicated columnist at Creators.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Sep 29 2022 at 11:03am
Anyone that is seriously concerned about the increase in China’s geopolitical weight relative the that of the US — that ought to be just about everybody — should be focusing on how to increase US long term growth: Freer trade (POSSIBLY some very strategic exceptions with regard to China), lower deficits (higher taxes with low deadweight losses [eg on net emissions of CO2], lower taxes with high dead weight loss, more expenditures with positive NPV, less expenditures with negative NPV), attraction of high value immigrants, removal of land use obstacles to residential and commercial development, regulations that pass cost benefit tests.
What if any and how much “industrial policy” would fall out of these principles.
Jon Murphy
Sep 29 2022 at 3:05pm
One of the issues is the supporters of industrial policy see a false choice. They see “industrial policy” versus “no industrial policy.” But that’s not the choice that exists. The real choice is “a single industrial policy” or “many industrial policies all working in concert.” China and the protectionists have chosen the former while us market liberals prefer the latter.
America’s stregnth has always been innovation and adaption. Why surrender that now? Americans should not give up one of our largest advantages (intellectual capacity and flexibility) and become China.
David Seltzer
Sep 29 2022 at 3:42pm
Jon, the concept of spontaneous order has escaped the policy makers. “Products of Human action, but not human design.” Adam Ferguson. I suspect the central policy makers could not successfully plan a bowl of cereal.
Jon Murphy
Sep 29 2022 at 5:16pm
I suppose I cannot judge on that front. I tried making cereal this morning and ended up dumping corn flakes and milk all over the table
David Seltzer
Sep 29 2022 at 5:48pm
An anomalous error. I have great faith in your kitchen skills.
Dylan
Sep 30 2022 at 7:18am
I’m glad you mentioned this part. A few years back I had the opportunity to have a few class sessions on BRI while in China, and even there it was acknowledged (not in class, but in sidebar discussions with teachers and Chinese classmates) that the majority of loans would not be repaid and that many projects would not pass a cost benefit analysis without accounting for the increase in “goodwill” that China would get around the world.
Knut P. Heen
Sep 30 2022 at 10:29am
Tariffs and subsidies are war preparations to build up supply from other sources than the target of the war.
Mark
Sep 30 2022 at 2:37pm
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Semiconductor chips are integral to contemporary industry. The majority, and especially the most advanced, are made in Taiwan. It is conceivable that conflict with the PRC will happen and choke off these essential components.
Grand Rapids Mike
Oct 1 2022 at 11:34am
Wonder if any of Hayek’s work ie Road to Serfdom is ever seriously taught or discuused discussed in Econ Departments.
Comments are closed.