logo
The Challenge to China's ‘Unified Big Market' Drive

The Challenge to China's ‘Unified Big Market' Drive

The Diplomat4 days ago
The country's vast consumer base is the key to riding out Trump's tariffs. But China's internal market is riven by its own trade barriers.
In April, U.S. President Trump announced his so-called 'Liberation Day,' slapping tariffs on nearly every country in the world. However, after Beijing retaliated, Trump made China his primary target.
China has been widely viewed as 'well-prepared' for Trump's full-scale tariff war. It did not come as a surprise; Chinese economic officials and scholars had been discussing the possibility of renewed China-U.S. trade tensions since Trump's election victory in November 2024. Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, one of his top economic priorities has been to enhance the Chinese Communist Party's capacity to control and lead the economy while strengthening China's resilience to external shocks. The trade war during Trump's first term, along with the COVID-19 pandemic, further accelerated China's pivot away from reliance on international trade.
Xi's strategy of economic self-strengthening – through technological nationalization and the promotion of 'dual circulation' – has made China less vulnerable to foreign economic coercion. The dual circulation strategy, introduced by Xi in 2020, prioritizes domestic economic activity over international trade. The goal is to increase the resilience of China's supply chains by reducing dependence on foreign technology.
Xi's confidence rests on his belief in the strength of China's domestic market. He identifies China's vast consumer base – comprising over 400 million middle-class citizens – as the foundation of the national economy. As a result, strengthening the domestic market has become a top priority on Xi's agenda.
During the most recent National People's Congress in March, Chinese leaders emphasized boosting domestic demand as the key to future growth, introducing new policies aimed at stimulating consumer spending and improving the domestic business environment. One example was the launch of a national subsidy program for major household purchases. Under this program, individuals buying cars, home appliances, and electronics can apply for price reductions. The goal is to encourage consumer spending and, in turn, stimulate economic growth through increased domestic consumption.
The Chinese government is also advancing a major structural reform: dismantling internal market barriers. In the Government Work Report released in March, building a 'unified national market' was identified as a key policy objective. By breaking down regional trade barriers, policymakers aim to reduce logistics and other operational costs, thereby improving corporate profit margins and lowering consumer prices to boost domestic sales. Additionally, a unified market is expected to foster fair competition among businesses, enhancing the efficiency of resource allocation. More broadly, Xi envisions a system in which all factors of production – land, labor, capital, skills, and information – can circulate freely across the country. This nationwide integration, he argues, will maximize the use of resources and generate greater economic value.
The root of China's 'dukedom economics' – a term coined by Chinese economists in the 1980s to describe the fragmented domestic market – can be traced to the growing power of local governments following the economic reforms. As part of the fiscal decentralization efforts in the 1980s, local governments gained control over their own budgets. In addition, they acquired authority over regional state-owned enterprises, effectively making them both regulators and entrepreneurs. The reforms also altered the incentives of local leaders: fostering local economic development became their top priority, as economic growth emerged as the most important criterion for cadre promotion. This shift gave rise to a tournament-style competition among localities, with each striving for rapid economic gains.
As a result, local governments pursued aggressive investment strategies aimed at generating visible outcomes within short timeframes, often emphasizing self-sufficiency and local protectionism to achieve their growth targets. They are also incentivized to maximize the profits of local enterprises, which serve as their primary tax base. To protect these interests, many local governments established trade barriers to prevent local resources from flowing out and to block external goods from entering their jurisdictions.
In recent years, the Chinese government has launched several major initiatives to dismantle internal trade barriers, including strengthened enforcement of anti-monopoly measures and regulations on unfair competition. These efforts specifically target local protectionist policies that discriminate against non-local firms.
In June 2024, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) issued a policy document on fair market competition regulation, outlining the agency's responsibilities and enforcement powers. The document authorizes the SAMR and its local branches to investigate local laws and regulations that obstruct the development of a unified national market – particularly those involving discriminatory practices in subsidies, market access, and market entry and exit. Notably, the policy grants local Market Regulation Bureaus sweeping authority to scrutinize the policymaking processes of other local agencies and to strike down any regulations deemed inconsistent with the goal of building a unified national market.
While China's recent reforms have significantly elevated the status of the Market Regulation Bureau – giving it more power within local governments – important exemptions remain in its authority. Specifically, policies that aim to 'protect national interests,' 'promote technological and innovation capabilities,' and 'provide public goods such as energy conservation, environmental protection, and disaster relief' are exempt from investigation. These broad exemptions leave the door open for local governments to continue offering subsidies to China's strategic industries, particularly the high-tech sector, including electric vehicles. In effect, local authorities can shield their own tech companies from both domestic and international competition, making market consolidation in China's tech sector more difficult.
Regarding the national interest clause, an immediate question arises: Who holds the authority to define 'national interest'? Local governments – especially those at the municipal level – play a crucial role in the distribution of subsidies. While national and provincial governments formally own industrial policy subsidies, they typically do not engage in the detailed review and allocation process. For national subsidies, the central government allocates funds to provinces based on economic performance and other indicators. Provinces then distribute these subsidies to cities using similar criteria. It is the municipal governments that actually review companies' applications and decide on the final allocation of subsidies to individual firms. In addition to subsidies from higher levels, many cities also operate their own local industrial policy programs.
There have been some attempts to centralize the distribution of subsidies. For example, last year Hunan province revised its industrial policy so that companies would submit subsidy applications directly to the provincial government, rather than through municipal governments. The goal was for the provincial government to review applications and allocate subsidies in a way that better reflected provincial economic priorities. However, the provincial government quickly found itself overwhelmed by the volume of applications, exceeding its processing capacity. Moreover, unlike municipal governments, which could conduct on-site visits to verify company information, the provincial government lacked the human and financial resources to carry out such reviews. As a result, the effort failed, and the Hunan government was forced to delegate the review and distribution authority back to the municipal level.
By controlling the distribution of subsidies, municipal governments effectively gain the power to define 'national interests,' which often results in equating national interests with local interests. Consequently, city governments continue to use subsidies to protect local companies from outside competition.
For example, Article 46 of the 'National Unified Big Market Construction Guideline' (全国统一大市场建设指引) states that local government cannot use local registration, subsidiary, and investment requirements to exclude companies from receiving local subsidies. But the local commerce bureaus, who are responsible for subsidies distribution, view this article as complete nonsense. 'Our job is to protect our [local] companies and promote our economic growth,' a Commerce Bureau cadre said, commenting on this requirement. 'If you don't contribute to our local economy, why do we give you our money?'
'We will try our best to carry out the rest of the document, but there is no way for us to implement this article,' he concluded.
The SAMR is responsible for enforcing the unified national market, so the local Market Regulation Bureau is expected to monitor compliance. According to the cadre, the Commerce Bureau would likely receive a warning from the local Market Regulation Bureau. However, the Commerce Bureau would respond by invoking 'national interest' to justify its policy.
In the end, the local Market Regulation Bureau is still part of the local government – its budget comes from the city – so it understands that it cannot act in direct opposition to local interests. The warning is therefore more symbolic than substantive; it serves primarily to demonstrate to the higher-level Market Regulation Agency that it is fulfilling its duties, rather than to enforce any meaningful policy change.
The challenge to Xi's 'unified big market' vision will certainly hamper China's ability to weather the China-U.S. trade war. Without a massive boost to the domestic market as a buffer, China cannot implement a shifting export policy without experiencing short-term pain. However, the implications go far beyond the current trade war: Despite over a decade of power centralization under Xi, Beijing still faces pushback from its localities in implementing its vision.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fujifilm raises camera and lens prices in the U.S. due to tariffs
Fujifilm raises camera and lens prices in the U.S. due to tariffs

Japan Times

time8 hours ago

  • Japan Times

Fujifilm raises camera and lens prices in the U.S. due to tariffs

Fujifilm Holdings raised U.S. prices for the majority of its digital cameras and lenses on Friday, in some cases by hundreds of dollars, as President Donald Trump's tariffs continue to reverberate across the consumer tech industry. Many of the company's camera bodies, which are popular with creators and professionals on account of their film simulations and unique color rendering, are now $200 more expensive than they were on Thursday evening. For instance, Fujifilm's premier consumer camera, the X-T5, sold for $1,699 early last week but now costs $1,899, a 12% bump. The Japanese firm did not respond to an emailed request for comment. Japan is subject to a baseline 15% tariff under a deal that the Trump administration struck with the country last month. Fujifilm subsequently relocated manufacturing for a few camera models from China to Japan; during that time, the prices remained stable. Other consumer hardware makers have also raised prices in recent months, including Kyoto-based Nintendo, which earlier announced a U.S. price increase for the original Switch console, citing "market conditions.' Fujifilm is the fourth-largest camera-maker behind Canon, Sony and Nikon, according to market research firm Techno Systems Research. But the brand's products often stir an outsize buzz on social media among tech enthusiasts. Its X100 series went viral on TikTok during the COVID-19 pandemic and has consistently been on backorder at most retailers since then. The latest model in that lineup, the X100VI, has risen to $1,799 with the latest price changes — up from $1,599. As for the other major camera manufacturers, Canon, Sony and Nikon already raised prices for a number of products earlier this year. Smaller players like Sigma have also given in after months of global tariff anxiety; that brand increased the cost of its lenses by around 10% in June, the photography outlet PetaPixel reported at the time, but the company told retail partners it's not planning another hike despite the new 15% rate levied on Japan. Fujifilm's most recently announced mirrorless camera, the X-E5 unveiled in June, has not undergone any price adjustments. That product is scheduled to ship later in August. The X Half, a compact, lightweight model the company introduced this year to attract more Gen Z customers, has also maintained its $850 price for the time being.

From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price

The Mainichi

time9 hours ago

  • The Mainichi

From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers -- from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes -- tariffs -- on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands -- and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run -- even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. "In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. "The biggest winner is Trump," said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. "He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded -- dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls "Liberation Day'' -- April 2 -- when the president announced "reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% "baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs -- all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States -- up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year -- but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. "20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate," Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under -- and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath -- got hit harder. Even some poorer countries were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 -- versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax -- even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. "If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits -- or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. "Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser," Wolff said.

China and Russia collaborate in global spread of surveillance states
China and Russia collaborate in global spread of surveillance states

Nikkei Asia

time10 hours ago

  • Nikkei Asia

China and Russia collaborate in global spread of surveillance states

Comment Political meddling in Georgia shows threat of growing authoritarian coordination Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping are working to expand their countries' influence in Georgia, a crucial South Caucasus link between Asia and Europe. (Nikkei montage/Source photos by Reuters) HIROYUKI AKITA TBILISI, Georgia -- It was a rare instance of a senior Chinese official speaking with unusual candor: On July 2, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told European Union top diplomat Kaja Kallas that he does not want to see Russia lose the war in Ukraine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store