Singaporean economist Chen Guangyan claims that China is placing greater emphasis on long-term competition with the United States rather than prioritizing growth and improving welfare! On August 6, Professor Chen Guangyan, Honorary Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technological University, published an article stating that China's current domestic economy has split into two distinct parts: one is a globally leading, highly competitive technology-driven economy, while the other remains a traditional economy marked by sluggish real estate markets, insufficient household consumption, and fragile consumer confidence.
The scholar notes that although both domestic and international observers are urging Beijing to implement large-scale fiscal stimulus measures—such as distributing consumption vouchers, expanding social welfare, and raising household incomes—in reality, he believes Beijing’s priority "is not" boosting growth, employment, consumption, or family welfare. Instead, the focus lies more on enhancing long-term national strength. This long-term national strength refers to strengthening China’s enduring capability to compete with the United States, maintaining this grand strategic vision over the next two to three decades, which is of paramount importance.
The scholar argues that while all other issues remain important, they must be subordinated to this top-tier grand strategy. Thus, the so-called "development-first" approach has now become "security-first." This also explains why, despite weak domestic demand, China has achieved significant progress in strategic technologies such as artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, batteries, robotics, and semiconductors. What do we think of this scholar’s argument? Frankly speaking, his viewpoint may appear plausible on the surface, but the conclusion is fundamentally misleading and contradictory.
To put it plainly, the implication is that China is prioritizing security over development, and artificially pitting security against development. But given the U.S. containment pressure, we would like to ask: Should we completely abandon our goals for high-tech industrial development and forever remain stuck at the lower end of industrialization? Can mid- and low-end industries drive economic growth, while high-tech industries cannot? Is America’s strength really due to its focus on mid- and low-end industrial development?
Moreover, China’s economic development indeed faces a series of challenges—real estate adjustments, local government debt pressures, demographic transitions, etc.—all of which contribute to inadequate household consumption and weak consumer confidence. This is undeniable. But how should these problems be addressed? Can short-term, blunt, and large-scale distribution of consumption vouchers or indiscriminate cash handouts truly solve the symptoms? If we pour heavy investment back into the old path of real estate speculation, some people might benefit—but does this align with our country’s long-term development direction?
Addressing weak domestic demand requires precisely the strengthening of high-end technological industries. New energy, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing can create numerous high-paying jobs, raise overall resident income levels, revitalize upstream and downstream industrial chains, and stimulate new sources of consumption—thus achieving a virtuous cycle between industrial upgrading and rising household incomes. Therefore, the old and new economies are not mutually exclusive; security and development are not opposing forces. What we must do instead is withstand external headwinds and achieve comprehensive transformation and upgrading. This path is difficult, but it is precisely the correct way forward for us.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1872779585911884/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.