Published on: 2026-08-25
Source: People’s Republic of China — Translation
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
On the Substack platform, an article by American historian Adam Tooze from Columbia University was published on August 5. In the article, he states that the so-called “Chinese pressure” theory is not based on analysis of economic data but solely on political considerations, and characterizes this rhetoric as complete deception.
The author notes in the article that this theory is the third version in the ‘Chinese shock’ series. The first two versions focused on the impact of Chinese exports on employment in the US and the challenges that Chinese electric vehicles pose to the European automotive industry. And ‘Chinese shock 3.0’ is based solely on the hypothetical assumption that China, while strengthening its position in high-tech manufacturing, continues to maintain a positive trade balance in labor-intensive sectors, thereby ‘squeezing’ the space for development of low-income countries.
The author of the article argues that this reasoning is based on two erroneous assumptions. The first is the so-called “benchmark path,” according to which all countries must go through sequential stages of development: from agriculture to light industry and labor-intensive production, and then to high value-added sectors. The second is “proportional distribution,” according to which the share of labor-intensive exports should correspond to the share of a country’s labor force in the global total labor resources.
The author points out that these assumptions are completely detached from reality. Development does not represent a queue and does not follow a fixed order — each country has its own path that corresponds to its national conditions. China’s advantage in labor-intensive industries is mainly due to its having a comprehensive system of supply chains. History also proves that low wages alone cannot create a competitive industry, and the share in international trade has never been distributed proportionally to the population size.
The article also criticizes that these three versions of the “China shock” share a common trait: they all try to blame China for their own problems. The main reason for job losses in the United States lies in the decline of the domestic manufacturing industry; the difficult situation of the European automotive industry is due to technological conservatism and a lack of innovation, while India’s inability to accept the relocation of production capacities is caused by infrastructural shortcomings and internal structural problems.
The article emphasizes that the so-called ‘Chinese pressure’ exists only in imagination. In the real world, China does not pressure anyone, but simply follows its own path of development. Every country in the world should face its own problems, rather than creating imaginary enemies.
Please note; This information is raw content obtained directly from the information source. It represents an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.