Front one of the US print edition of the Wall Street Journal last Fridy: Deep, Swift China Shock Drove Trump’s Support. A fascinating article that suggest, despite its title, that the impacts of China as it joined the global trade game led to swift and irreparable damage to America’s workforce and so led to the swell of support for Trump and Saunders. It so happens that I am half way through reading China Shock, by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson. The story in the paper and the WSJ article is referring to in its title.
There are are several things to note about this so called, “China Shock”. They are not all good news and hindsight helps (where doesn’t it?)
Firstly global trade is taking a bashing. This is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because economically global trade has been shown to balance out and help everyone, even if one nation is better than all others at everything. What the economists models thus far did not show, nor were they meant to, is what happens under extreme changes in the dynamics of global trade. That is the fact: China shock is not a weakness of global trade, it’s a lack of understanding of the dynamics underpinning it.
The WSJ journal and the paper demonstrate with examples where massive displacement of jobs took place, in a very quick period, over and over in related industries. The two factors that made the shock such a shock are:
- Original employers (US, per WSJ article and including Europe per the paper) national institutions, job training, educational practices and industrial policy were focused on the wrong thing. Instead of being focused on rapid migration and support for global trade dynamics, they were more focused on slow and limited protection for targeted and said to be critical industries
- Exporting nation (China) was exporting so much cheap Labour and products across a broad and often related swathe of markets and industries that had a multiplier effect I terms of displacement and elimination of ‘landing places’ for those initially displaced.
These two factors explain how it was that worker after worker listed in the article lost a job, gained a job, then lost it again. Then finally were not able to get a job.
Our economists did misunderstand some of the dynamics of global trade given the entrance of such a large supplier as China. But governments should have spent more time focused on policies related to growth and industrial migration, rather than pandering to selfish efforts protecting themselves.
Now that China Shock has shocked, what do we do about it? Well, media and press are now gunning for global trade. This hype will damage global growth and crimp efforts to get past current anemic conditions. Capitalism is again under attack not due to a failure of the system but a failure of our own misunderstanding of the dynamics of the world around us.
Governments need to focus on building a resilient trade and industrial policy that responds to changing global dynamics. Industry and government need to work more closely together so that as global trade pressures alter the competing advantage of nations and firms, action can be taken to provide alternative safety nets.
Another article in the Business and Technology section of the WSJ demonstrates this: Coding Camps Attract Tech Firms. A small private educator runs 12 week courses for $15,000 that leads to no degree. But almost every attendee gets a job within 6 weeks of graduating with an average salary of over $74K. What is impressive is that the curriculum changes within weeks of any new demands from industry. Try doing this at more established educational establishments.
Governments also need to work on exchange rate policy and collaborative monetary policy. One aspect, not explored in detail here, relates to how currency value can have a big impact on comparative advantage. As such this policy effort needs to be reconciled to industrial policy.
If global trade gets bashed, and government policy targets protection of industries that are no longer competitive, we will just avoid paying the piper at the right time. The piper will be back but his tune will be louder and more deafening.