But China had had MFN status since 1980. What changed with WTO accession was that the US Congress made that status permanent. We also know the marginal effects of the change in status: far from trivial, but hardly crucial to the 'rise of China'.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Yes, but MFN status was conditional on annual presidential approval. So the argument that the US grew their own competitor still stands, I’d say. Not implausible either.
I’m not saying US policy made zero contribution to China’s rise. I’m saying its contribution was limited. China’s exports to the USA maxed out at something like 21-22% of total. Even without MFN status the share might have been in the teens.
Agree, but is that the argument that is being made? China’s net exports as share of GDP and FDI soared after WTO accession. Granted, the US only was responsible for parts of that. But if US had blocked WTO membership, exports to other nations may have been lower as well.
without WTO membership there would have been more uncertainty about market access, & slower FDI growth in China, but things would not have stood still. China likely would have pursued regional agreements by offering access to its own market, the very reason US businesses supported Chinese accession!
Yes yes, all agreed, but still, let’s say net exports and FDI would have grown at half pace, would China be where it is now in terms of technology or, say, naval ship-building capacity? These are open questions.
Half the pace is unreasonable IMO. The WTO effect on Chinese exports was not via by market opening in other countries, but by China's lowering its own tariffs on intermediate goods imports in anticipation of WTO accession; this increased firm productivity, lowered export prices, & increased exports
Comments