ameri resources


Need an office in metro Detroit, Alabama or Toronto? Office suites, meeting rooms, virtual offices, network access




free downloads
USA: "NAM: 2007 Annual Labor Report"

USA: "NAM: 2007 Annual Labor Report". Report by National Association of Manufacturers.

proceed to download
eJournals





back to index backAMERItalk February,  2017


Did Trade with China Make U.S. Manufacturing Less Innovative?

In early 2016 economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published an influential paper that highlighted some of the costs of global trade. They reviewed the literature and reported that trade with China had cost the U.S. as many as one million manufacturing jobs since 1999, had lowered wages, and had not led to the new jobs and industries that trade proponents had promised.

The main case for trade, though, was always that it would improve overall welfare by allowing a greater variety of products to be produced more efficiently. China might focus on producing labor-intensive goods, but the U.S. would shift toward work that was more valuable and innovative. If trade’s winners” compensated the losers,” everyone could benefit.

On Monday the same trio of economists published a paper, with coauthors Pian Shu and Gary Pisano, that complicates this story. Was increased trade with China really pushing U.S. companies to become more innovative? For manufacturers, at least, they found that the answer was no. In fact, the relationship went in the opposite direction: U.S. manufacturers exposed to competition from Chinese imports became far less innovative.

The researchers looked at trade data from 1991 to 2007, during which time China became a global manufacturing powerhouse. They measured how varying levels of exposure to Chinese imports affected U.S. manufacturers’ performance and patenting. Competition with China was associated with decreased performance on several measures. Aggregate firm sales revenues, employment, available capital, market valuation, and investments in new technology have diminished as competitive conditions have tightened, thereby contributing to diminished profitability,” the authors wrote. These effects held up after controlling for numerous other variables.

The first takeaway from this paper is that more competition, from trade or otherwise, doesn’t necessarily lead to more innovation. While competition can force firms to innovate to fend off rivals, it can also cut profit margins, leaving companies with less to invest in research and development. A widely cited paper from 2002 posited an inverted-U relationship between competition and innovation: Too little competition, and firms won’t bother to innovate; too much, and they won’t be able to afford to.

The second takeaway, which is trickier, concerns the relationship between trade and innovation. Is it possible that trade has hurt rather than bolstered American innovation? The research literature is mixed. There’s evidence that European manufacturers became more innovative in response to competition from China, for example, but also that Canadian manufacturers became less innovative. It’s possible that this difference corresponds to the inverted-U. Because manufacturing prior to China’s rise was more competitive in the U.S. than in the EU, trade with China could have pushed the U.S. onto the too-much-competition side of things while spurring European manufacturers to become more innovative.

And the new U.S. evidence is only looking at innovation in manufacturing. It’s possible that other U.S. industries became more innovative, thanks to cheaper inputs made possible by trade. I have no reason to think that globalization reduces innovation in net [worldwide],” Autor told me, but he emphasized that manufacturing plays an outsize role in U.S. innovation. As he and his coauthors write in the paper, Manufacturing still generates more than two-thirds of U.S. R&D spending and U.S. corporate patents despite accounting for less than one-tenth of U.S. private non-farm employment.”

It’s hard to say exactly what this new evidence means for the overall case for global trade, and the authors caution against overgeneralizing the result. Most economists believe that trade is beneficial in the long run, but long-run prosperity depends heavily on innovation. If this new paper shows anything, it’s that we can’t just assume that more competition and open markets will deliver new ideas. Under the right circumstances, they can. But if they squeeze entire industries’ ability to invest or make it easy to rely on cheap labor rather than technology, the result could be less innovation, rather than more.

Source: HBR - GAI






previous page

go top
search our site


Loading

AMERItalk

Other articles from the same issue (February,  2017).

NAFTA Briefing: Trade benefits to the automotive industry and potential consequences of withdrawal from the agreement
play read on

Top Legal Issues Facing the Automotive Industry in 2017
play read on

Canada’s path toward new automotive investments
play read on

German Auto Industry Warns Against Trump’s ‘Border Tax’
play read on

Trucks: Steps in Right Direction for North America Class 8 Market
play read on

Autos: North America Build Solid in Q4; Upside Potential in 2017
play read on

Connected Cars: Navigating Top Trends in 2017
play read on

Private Equity Compensation Trends in North America 2016 - automotive
play read on

Auto Execs Say One Connected Car Generates 10 Times More Revenue Than A Conventional Vehicle: KPMG Survey
play read on

Global Automotive M&A Deals Insights Year-end 2016
play read on

Understanding Incentives in the Automotive Industry
play read on

Honing US Manufacturing’s Competitive Edge
play read on

Manufacturing USA program design and progress: A third-party evaluation
play read on

Did Trade with China Make U.S. Manufacturing Less Innovative?
play read on

Commercial Contract Risk in 2017
play read on

The emerging model shift in global talent mobility
play read on

Canada’s Intent to Create the World’s Largest Trading Bloc
play read on

Top priorities for US boards in 2017
play read on

Council, Gallup: U.S. Suffering from Productivity Decline
play read on

Kentucky’s Right-to-Work Earthquake Reverberates Across State Lines
play read on

What is top-of-mind for US CEOs for 2017? How US CEOs plan to grow in 2017 and beyond.
play read on

Canadian CEOs Optimistic Over the Long-Term Despite Short-Term Uncertainty, Increased Protectionism and Continued Aversion to Risk
play read on

In Focus: Digital Transformation in the Manufacturing Sector
play read on

Homeward bound: nearshoring continues, labor becomes a limiting factor, and automation takes root
play read on

Global Supply Chain Report 2017
play read on

Business, Government Leaders Address U.S. Leadership in the Global Economy at National Competitiveness Forum
play read on

Client Alert: New Administration: Continued Emphasis on Compliance
play read on

Mississippi: Proposed New Rule Requires Out-of-State Sellers with Substantial Economic Presence to Collect Use Tax on In-State Sales
play read on

Tennessee DOR Explains Entities Included in an “Affiliated Group” for Franchise & Excise Tax Purposes
play read on

U.S. Gallup-Purdue Index Report 2016
play read on


Our Free eJournals
GlobalAutoExperts

To visit GlobalAutoExperts Directory, click here.


©2008 GlobalAutoIndustry.com | HCI Group, Ltd.
101 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1400 | Troy, MI 48084 USA
USA Tel: +1.248.687.1060 | USA Fax: +1.248.927.0347
Fax UK: +44.(0)845.127.4765 | Fax Europe: +31.20.524.1659 | Fax Asia: +852.3015.8120