Why does Jiangsu build and California can’t?

In November 2013, six months after Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road Initiative at a podium in Astana, the Jiangsu Provincial Development and Reform Commission stood up a dedicated leading small group to handle implementation. The group had a budget and full-time staff. Within three years, Jiangsu had launched 47 infrastructure projects across partner countries worth USD 8.3 billion, formed 23 international partnerships, and sent its senior leadership on 15 overseas promotional trips. The province’s 13th Five-Year Plan, adopted in 2016, treated the initiative not as a directive from Beijing but as an opportunity Jiangsu intended to shape around its own industrial priorities.

In January 2008, five years before Jiangsu even heard of BRI, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond issue to build a high-speed rail line connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. Governor Schwarzenegger signed the authorizing legislation the following year. The line was projected to open in 2020 at a total cost of $33 billion. As of February 2026, not a single train operates on any portion of the California High-Speed Rail system. The projected cost has risen to approximately $135 billion. The current governor, Gavin Newsom, announced in 2019 that the full line would not be built, pivoted to a partial segment in the Central Valley, and then in 2025 claimed credit for entering the “track-laying phase” of that reduced segment. In the same state, over the same period, over $37 billion has been spent on homelessness programs; California now has more unhoused residents than any other state in the country. Newsom ran for governor in 2018 promising 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. The actual total is 640,873 homes built across seven years, less than a fifth of his target.

Both of these happened. Both are the work of senior sub-national officials in major economies, operating under democratic or authoritarian institutions as the case may be, given large budgets and clear mandates.

One set of officials built things. The other set did not.

Which half is the West copying?

The misdiagnosis of why this gap exists is already shaping Western policy, and the policies being produced will make Western economies worse rather than better.

In September 2024, former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi delivered his report on European competitiveness to the European Commission. The report is now the official economic doctrine of the EU, endorsed by every member state and the European Parliament, with Renew Europe minister Stéphane Séjourné declaring that “everything proposed since has been aligned with it.” Draghi’s diagnosis: Europe is falling dangerously behind the United States and China, its productivity growth has collapsed, its firms are too small to compete at global scale, its fragmented markets prevent the emergence of European champions. Draghi’s prescription: relaxed merger rules, industrial consolidation, capital market integration, the construction of “European champions” in key sectors, €800 billion per year of investment partly financed by joint EU borrowing.

Consider how specific this gets. The EU currently has 34 mobile network operators compared with 3 in the United States and 4 in China. Draghi treats this as a self-evident problem, blaming “overly cautious competition authorities” for the “plurality of players.” The Commission’s Competitiveness Compass, released in January 2025, goes further than Draghi himself in loosening merger rules to support European champion creation. The telecoms sector is the first target. Defense is next. Automotive is in the queue.

American commentators make the same pattern-match. Jennifer Lind’s Foreign Affairs essay from February 2026, drawn from her book Autocracy 2.0, frames China’s rise as a story of “smart authoritarianism” in which the CCP adapted its tools of control to foster innovation while preserving central command. The Washington Monthly in October 2025 praised China’s “state-managed capitalism” for combining “political repression with a coherent economic plan.” The American Compass, on the right, characterizes China as a state-controlled economy whose successes flow from CCP direction over industry. The implicit lesson across these accounts, regardless of whether the author approves or disapproves, is that China is winning because of central command, and that Western states must therefore either copy the command or wall themselves off from its results.

Chinese centralization is real, and in specific domains it is valuable. Beijing directs state bank credit into strategic sectors at scales the West has never matched. Beijing holds industrial electricity prices below market through state-set benchmark tariffs. Beijing disciplines its own billionaires when they step out of line, most famously when Jack Ma criticized financial regulators in October 2020 and saw Ant Financial’s IPO suspended within weeks. These are desirable uses of state power. A Western observer who looks at Chinese success and concludes that the center’s strategic capacity matters is not wrong.

What that observer is wrong about is which uses of central power the West will actually copy.

The EU is not about to cap industrial electricity prices. It has spent the last five years deliberately raising them. The IEA’s 2025 analysis shows EU industrial electricity prices at roughly twice US levels and 50% above China’s in 2025, up from 50% above the US and 20% above China in 2019. The gap doubled in half a decade, driven by EU ETS carbon pricing, deliberate phase-out of domestic generation, and LNG dependence. Germany shut down its last operational nuclear reactors in April 2023 while importing LNG at roughly three times pre-2022 prices. By country, industrial rates run roughly 18 US cents per kWh in Germany, 16 in Japan, 12 in France, and 7 in China. The EU has the formal authority to hold industrial electricity prices low through state aid, cross-subsidization, or domestic production mandates. It refuses to use it.

The United States, which has the world’s largest shale gas reserves, imposed a moratorium on new federal oil and gas leases in January 2021 through Executive Order 14008. A Louisiana federal judge ruled the moratorium exceeded presidential authority, but lease sales kept falling by orders of magnitude through the rest of the term. The blocked Q1 2021 Wyoming sale covered 476,000 acres across 383 parcels; the Q1 2024 sale covered 13,417 acres across 30 parcels.

The leasing freeze was the visible half; the financial architecture was worse. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance launched in April 2021 under UN auspices with JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs as founding members committed to align lending portfolios with a 1.5°C pathway by 2050. Reserve-based lending to small and mid-cap independents dried up. Institutional LPs backed away from oil and gas private equity under ESG pressure. When Russia invaded Ukraine and WTI peaked near $130 in March 2022, US producers with breakevens around $60 still could not grow. The Dallas Fed Q1 2022 Energy Survey found nearly 60% of executives cited investor pressure to maintain capital discipline as the primary reason they were not drilling; 29% said growth was not dependent on oil price at any level. Big integrated producers returned cash to shareholders. Biden’s response was historic SPR releases, pressure on OPEC to pump more, and Russia sanctions that pushed prices higher.

Four years later the pattern repeats with the rhetoric inverted. The 2026 Iran war closed the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, pushing Brent past $120 and OPEC production down a record 7.56 million barrels per day that month. Trump’s response is the same playbook: SPR release structured as a loan from a reserve still at 58% of capacity a year after he pledged to fill it to the top, pressure on Saudi Arabia and OPEC to ramp output, and deregulation of LNG export terminals whose first shipments arrive in 2029-2030. Small and mid-cap producers remain capital-starved. Marshall Adkins of Raymond James says Trump’s push for lower prices is bad for US producers; the EIA now predicts US production will fall to 13.5 million barrels per day in 2026, the first annual contraction since 2020. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance dissolved in November 2025; institutional capital remains absent anyway, because the alliance was the visible surface of allocation preferences that persist without it.

Biden had $130 oil, a producer base with $60 breakevens, and the full federal toolkit: Defense Production Act loans, Treasury loan guarantees, SPR floor-price purchases, bank regulator guidance. He deployed none of it. Trump inherited the same toolkit, inverted the rhetoric toward deregulation, and is producing the same outcome: falling domestic production during a price shock, capital-starved small and mid-cap producers, strategic dependence on OPEC goodwill. When Beijing’s strategic sectors need capital, state banks lend and municipal guidance funds take equity. When American producers needed capital during two separate price shocks in four years, the federal response across both parties has been to release the emergency reserve and ask OPEC for help.

These are not limits on Western central authority. These are exercises of Western central authority, in directions opposite to what Beijing chose. Both Berlin and Washington possessed the formal tools to do what Beijing did and refused. The EU could direct state aid at industrial energy costs; it preferred carbon pricing that raises them. The US could have directed capital to domestic producers through multiple price shocks across two administrations; it preferred emergency reserve releases and calls to OPEC.

Now consider capital direction. Beijing routes strategic capital through state banks and guidance funds into semiconductors, batteries, renewables, and EVs at scales the West has never matched. The CHIPS Act of 2022 authorized $52 billion in US semiconductor funding; Chinese state guidance funds deployed around $1.52 trillion into strategic sectors between 2015 and 2021 alone, with state-bank lending pushing the total substantially higher. The EU’s Important Projects of Common European Interest framework has cumulatively spent less than €40 billion since 2018, compared with €190 billion in uncoordinated national aid in 2023 alone. Scale matters. Direction matters more.

Now consider discipline of incumbents. When Jack Ma criticized regulators, Beijing suspended Ant Financial’s IPO, launched antitrust investigations against Alibaba, and ultimately extracted multi-billion-dollar fines and structural changes. Similar discipline hit the private education tutoring sector (essentially dismantled in 2021), online gaming (forced time limits and new-game approval moratoriums), and real estate speculation (forced deleveraging through the “three red lines” policy). Contrast this with the West’s relationship to its own incumbents. The EU has issued antitrust fines against US tech firms totaling well over €10 billion since 2017, and none of these have produced structural change. The US Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, decided in 2024, has yet to produce remedies. The political will to discipline incumbents does not exist in Western systems at the level Beijing routinely exercises.

These are the categories where Chinese central authority acts decisively against commercial incumbents on behalf of strategic priorities: cheap energy, directed capital, and disciplined platforms. These are also the categories where Western states consistently refuse to exercise their own authority. Subtract those three and look at what remains. The one category where Chinese central authority routinely fails (forced industry consolidation, as the Dongfeng-Changan merger collapse of June 2025 will show) becomes, in Western discourse, the primary lesson to copy. Draghi wants fewer telecom operators. The Competitiveness Compass wants looser merger rules to build champions. American commentators want scale through consolidation. The West is about to import the single habit that even Xi cannot fully execute, while refusing to import the habits where Beijing excels.

Western centralization without the political will to hold energy prices, direct capital at scale, or discipline billionaires will produce the costs of centralization without the benefits. It will leave the West with the worst possible combination: fewer competitors, none of them strategically directed, all of them protected.

Is China really a command system?

The monolithic picture rests on real evidence. China is a Leninist party-state. The Central Organization Department appoints every senior official in the country. Xi has spent a decade consolidating personal power: abolishing term limits, enshrining “Xi Jinping Thought” in the party constitution, purging hundreds of thousands of officials through anti-corruption. Lind is not wrong that the regime has maintained rigid control while achieving innovation. Fang, Li, and Lu’s analysis of 3.7 million policy documents confirms real recentralization after 2013: the central share of local policy portfolios rose from roughly 30% to above 40%.

The monolithic story is not wrong to identify central strategic capacity as part of what makes China hard to compete with. What it misses is that central strategic capacity does not execute itself, you still need people and subsystems. Every directive Beijing issues must be translated into operational activity by sub-national administrations. The center sets the strategic direction; the provinces and municipalities build the semiconductor fabs, finance the battery makers, run the tech regulatory investigations, and implement the benchmark industrial tariffs. Remove the deep provincial bench and Beijing’s strategic directives become press releases. This is exactly what they become in Qinghai.

The sharpest recent empirical work on the gap between central directive and provincial execution is a 2026 study by Zheng Gong and Tim David in the Journal of Chinese Political Science, Provincial Governance and Variation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Gong and David assemble panel data on BRI implementation across all 31 Chinese provinces from 2015 to 2019 and run a hierarchical linear model to decompose the variance in implementation effectiveness. Their finding: about 34 percent of the variation sits between provinces rather than within them over time, and provincial characteristics explain 58 percent of that between-province variance. The single strongest predictor, even after controlling for GDP per capita, population, coastal location, and distance from Beijing, is provincial bureaucratic capacity.

This is not what a pure command system produces. In a pure command system, the same directive produces comparable outcomes, with variation attributable to geography or noise. Gong and David find something else. The same directive produces radically different outcomes across provinces, tracking each province’s administrative depth. The center is the senior partner, not the sole actor. Take away provincial capacity and the center has authority with nothing to point it at.

The second piece of evidence is the Dongfeng-Changan merger collapse of June 2025, which reveals what happens when central direction confronts provincial resistance on a policy where Beijing itself is ambivalent. In February 2025, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, reporting directly to the State Council, announced a plan to merge Dongfeng Motor Group and Chongqing Changan Automobile into a single central state-owned automaker with roughly five million annual vehicle sales, a scale competitive with BYD. Xi Jinping’s Central Financial Affairs Commission had made industrial consolidation an explicit priority.

116 days later the merger collapsed. Caixin‘s reporting identified the cause as intervention from the municipal government of Chongqing and the provincial government of Hubei, each refusing to accept the terms on offer. The companies, with that political cover, walked away. Analysts had predicted this before the announcement was even official, noting that auto consolidation in China “has failed to happen due to reluctance by government stakeholders to give up control of such important contributors to their local economies.” The fiscal architecture makes the refusal rational rather than obstructionist. If Chongqing loses Changan’s headquarters, it loses the tax revenue, the employment numbers, the cadre credit, and the center’s willingness to tolerate the province’s LGFV debt. No local leader who wants promotion acquiesces to that without extraordinary compensation.

The monolithic story cannot accommodate this without contortion. The distributed-competence story explains it immediately, and it also explains why Beijing wins on some domains and loses on others. Where central strategic priorities align with provincial incentives (strategic capital allocation, cheap industrial electricity, disciplining outside-system incumbents like Alibaba), the center wins. Where central priorities cut against provincial fiscal interests (consolidating automakers means some provinces lose their local industrial base), the center loses, even to Xi. The distributed structure is not a bug in the Chinese system. It is a feature whose costs and benefits are distributed unevenly across policy domains.

What happens when three provinces get the same directive?

Three provincial cases, same directive. Gong and David study Jiangsu, Henan, and Qinghai, selected to represent high, medium, and low bureaucratic capacity respectively. All three provinces receive the same BRI directive in 2013. All three face the same central policy intensity over 2015-2019. All three are subject to the same Central Organization Department appointment system, the same nomenklatura, the same target-responsibility evaluation framework. The variable that differs is provincial administrative capacity. The outcomes track that variable with almost embarrassing clarity.

Jiangsu is the high-capacity case. Its Provincial Development and Reform Commission moved within six months to stand up the dedicated BRI leading small group mentioned at the opening of this piece. The 13th Five-Year Plan of 2016 treated BRI as an opportunity to align provincial industrial policy with overseas market expansion. Jiangsu’s execution figures cited at the opening (47 projects, $8.3B, 23 partnerships, 15 overseas promotional trips) came from a deep SOE bench in construction and engineering that allowed the province to assemble consortia for overseas tenders. The mechanism Gong and David describe is “bureaucratic entrepreneurship,” in which provincial officials do not merely implement the central directive but actively shape it around what their province is organizationally capable of delivering. Jiangsu was not told to do any of this specifically. It chose to, because its administrators could.

Henan is the medium-capacity case, and the most instructive of the three. It is inland. It has no obvious BRI advantages. Its economy is smaller and less internationally integrated than Jiangsu’s. By the logic of the monolithic story, Henan should have either followed Jiangsu’s template (if Beijing imposes uniformity) or done very little (if provincial resources determine outcomes). It did neither. Henan’s administrators negotiated. They identified aviation logistics as the province’s one potentially BRI-relevant asset, then spent three years lobbying the National Development and Reform Commission to designate the Zhengzhou Airport Economy Zone as a regional BRI hub. They drafted feasibility studies. They bargained with central agencies. They did not ask for permission to participate on standard terms; they asked to participate on terms their province could actually meet. By 2019, Henan had launched 23 BRI projects worth roughly USD 3.1 billion, less than Jiangsu but more than any low-capacity Western or interior province. The province got there through policy entrepreneurship, deployed by officials most foreign observers could not name, in a province most foreign observers could not place on a map.

Qinghai is the low-capacity case. It issued an official BRI framework in 2016. It established coordination bodies similar to those in Jiangsu and Henan. It incorporated BRI into its provincial work reports. It launched eight projects worth roughly USD 0.4 billion by 2019, less than 5 percent of Jiangsu’s volume. Gong and David document that many of these were pre-existing provincial programs relabeled as BRI initiatives without new resource commitments. The monolithic story would predict either uniform execution (which did not happen) or principled refusal (which also did not happen). What happened instead was symbolic compliance: the forms of participation, without the substance, because the substance exceeded the province’s administrative capacity.

Same directive. Same national context. Same five-year window. Three outcomes, each tracking the administrative capacity of the receiving province rather than the intensity of the central directive. I don’t know about you, but this clearly does not look like the centralized command system we were told.

The point becomes sharper in Gong and David’s cross-level interaction analysis. The authors estimate that central policy intensity interacts with provincial bureaucratic capacity at γ = 0.187, p < 0.01. When Beijing pushes harder on BRI, high-capacity provinces deliver substantially more, while low-capacity provinces barely respond. A one-standard-deviation increase in central pressure produces a 0.44-unit change in implementation effectiveness in high-capacity provinces and only a 0.09-unit change in low-capacity ones. Central pressure is an amplifier of provincial capacity, not a substitute for it. When Beijing leans on Jiangsu, Jiangsu builds more. When Beijing leans on Qinghai, Qinghai issues more press releases.

Beijing’s willingness to hold electricity prices low means nothing without provincial grid operators executing the tariff structure; state-bank credit directed to semiconductors means nothing without municipal guidance funds co-investing and local SOE managers building the fabs; discipline of Alibaba means nothing without provincial and municipal regulators who can run the investigations and enforce the remedies. The center is the senior partner, not a substitute.

Who actually writes Chinese industrial policy?

The BRI case is not an anomaly. It is the operating system.

Fang, Li, and Lu’s 2025 NBER analysis, summarized accessibly by VoxDev, identifies 768,000 documents as industrial policy, roughly a quarter of all government policy output. Of these, 13 percent come from the central government. 45 percent come from provinces. 39 percent come from cities. 3 percent come from counties and townships. Eighty-seven percent of Chinese industrial policy, by document count, originates below Beijing. A 2025 Stanford SCCEI brief puts the figure for Chinese policy overall at more than 80 percent originating locally. The authors attribute this to tournament competition among officials seeking promotion through growth-oriented policy innovation, the same incentive structure that Li and Zhou described in their 2005 analysis of political turnover and economic performance.

Provincial capacity drives not just policy volume but policy quality. Wang and colleagues, writing in Management and Organization Review in 2024, examine industrial specialization choices by all 31 provincial governments and find that provinces with greater organizational efficacy, measured by access to better-resourced local SOEs in their focal industries, make smarter specialization decisions. The finding mirrors Gong and David’s finding for BRI: capacity predicts both the quantity and the intelligence of provincial policy output.

The theoretical framework that organizes all of this is Chenggang Xu’s 2011 Journal of Economic Literature article, which names the Chinese system “regionally decentralized authoritarian.” Xu’s formulation: the center controls personnel and sets strategic direction, subnational governments run the bulk of economic execution. The personnel pipeline is centralized. The policy machinery is not. What looks from the outside like a single commanding intelligence is actually several thousand provincial, municipal, and county-level administrations running their own industrial strategies, competing with each other for growth, and negotiating with Beijing over the terms on which they participate in centrally-branded initiatives.

The same pattern appears in finance. The 1994 tax-sharing reform centralized most tax revenue with Beijing but left local governments responsible for the bulk of public expenditure. Local revenue fell below 40 percent of the national total; local expenditure now approaches 85 percent. The instruments developed to bridge that gap are themselves evidence of distributed administrative sophistication. The Local Government Financing Vehicle, pioneered in Wuhu, Anhui in 1998, became ubiquitous after 2008. By 2023, total LGFV debt reached roughly 50 trillion yuan, or 41 percent of GDP; Victor Shih’s UCSD analysis puts the total including shadow credit at 75 to 91 percent of GDP. More than twelve provinces now carry LGFV debt exceeding half their own provincial GDP. Revealingly, CKGSB reportingconfirms that LGFV financial distress is concentrated precisely where Gong and David’s paper identifies low-capacity provinces: Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Liaoning, Qinghai.

Since around 2014, Chinese industrial policy financing has also flowed through Government Guidance Funds, public-private investment vehicles combining state capital with private VC and PE expertise. Georgetown’s CSET reportprovides the authoritative English-language overview. Between 2015 and 2021, roughly 2,000 guidance funds deployed around £850 billion; they now account for about 30 percent of all PE and VC capital raised in China. The architecture is deliberately tiered, as Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center explains. Beijing sets broad strategic priorities. Provincial and municipal authorities refine them with local specificity. Sub-funds typically invest primarily within their own jurisdictions.

The Hefei municipal guidance fund apparatus is the case that best illustrates the pattern. Hefei, the capital of Anhui province, is not a Tier-1 Chinese city. It does not have the fiscal resources of Shanghai or Shenzhen. Its guidance fund nevertheless took early equity stakes in both NIO and BOE Technology before either was a dominant firm, and helped transform Hefei into a national center for electric vehicles and display technology. It was not Beijing that picked NIO. It was municipal officials in Anhui, making allocation decisions with enough sophistication to pick winners that national-level funds had passed on, operating within a strategic framework Beijing had set but Beijing had not executed.

The answer has two parts. The center sets strategic direction, holds input costs low through state-set tariffs, directs credit at scale toward priority sectors, and disciplines incumbent commercial interests that threaten strategic coherence. The provinces and municipalities execute, competing with each other under a tournament incentive structure, financed through a tiered capital-allocation system that places real decision-making at the sub-national level. Remove either half and the system stops working. What looks like authoritarian command is the interaction of strategic central authority and deep distributed execution.

What makes it hold together?

The architecture that sustains this pattern is not a conspiracy and does not require anyone in it to be virtuous. It is a set of incentive structures that make both strong strategic center and distributed provincial competence the rational equilibrium.

Start with personnel. The Central Organization Department controls appointment and promotion for every senior cadre in the country. Pierre Landry’s 2008 book Decentralized Authoritarianism in China documents the core mechanism: officials are selected young, rotated deliberately across jurisdictions and functional portfolios, and promoted on the basis of measurable performance in their current posts. Li and Zhou’s 2005 Journal of Public Economics article shows that provincial leaders’ promotion probabilities track GDP growth in their provinces, creating a tournament in which officials compete for advancement by delivering measurable outcomes. Jia, Kudamatsu, and Seim (2015) find that competence and factional connections operate as complements rather than substitutes. Both performance and political reliability are rewarded, but the performance component is real.

Forty years of rotation-and-promotion tournament, operated at continental scale with real career consequences, produces a population of senior administrators who have run multiple jurisdictions, handled multiple portfolios, and been selected repeatedly for their ability to deliver results. The system’s pathologies are real: statistical falsification (Wallace 2014), anti-corruption purges that disproportionately target factional rivals, metrics gaming that produces visible outputs while obscuring substantive failure. But even the pathologies operate within a machine that has built administrative capacity at the provincial level. That is why Jiangsu can stand up a BRI leading small group in six months and why Hefei can pick NIO before anyone else does.

The fiscal architecture reinforces this. The 1994 tax reform created a structural imbalance between local revenue (below 40 percent of national) and local expenditure (now approaching 85 percent). Local governments had to develop financing mechanisms or default on their obligations. The LGFV system layered on top of state-bank lending is essentially a parallel municipal-bond market routed through land collateral, land-use-rights capitalization, and implicit central guarantees. It is not elegant. It has produced the distressed-LGFV crisis concentrated in the lowest-capacity provinces. But it works because the incentives reward local governments that can finance and deliver infrastructure, and punish those that cannot. The guidance-fund system layered on after 2014 does the same for industrial equity: reward provincial and municipal administrations that can identify and back winners, disadvantage those that cannot.

Put together, the deep provincial bench plus strategic central authority willing to act against incumbents is what produces results. Western attempts to copy Chinese centralization consistently pick the wrong half.

The United States consolidated its auto industry decades ago into the Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrysler) and has spent forty years losing global market share, punctuated by repeated bailouts, the most recent in 2008-2009 when two of the three required federal rescue. Japan, by contrast, kept its industry fragmented. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Daihatsu, and Isuzu all still operate as independent firms, with cross-shareholdings but no merger pressure from Tokyo. Japan has dominated global auto markets for most of the last fifty years. China’s current EV industry structure (BYD, Geely, NIO, Xpeng, Li Auto, Zeekr, all operating as distinct competitors backed by different provincial coalitions) looks structurally closer to Japan than to Detroit.

The EU’s response to Chinese EV dominance is to propose consolidating its own fragmented auto sector into fewer, larger European champions. This is moving from the Japan model toward the Detroit model while citing Chinese success as the justification. The direction is inverted. China is not winning because of consolidation. China is winning because its center holds strategic input costs low, directs capital to strategic sectors, disciplines platforms that threaten strategic priorities, and its provinces compete intensely on execution within that strategic framework. Remove the provincial competition and you do not have China. You have Detroit in the 1970s, plus some extra paperwork.

The American side of the misreading is worse, because it is domestic. US commentators across the ideological spectrum praise Chinese centralization while their own sub-national governments are visibly failing. California is governed by Gavin Newsom, whose record includes the high-speed rail debacle described at the opening, $37 billion spent on homelessness while California’s unhoused population remains the largest in the nation, and an Employment Development Department that lost $33 billion to unemployment fraud during the pandemic. Texas is governed by Greg Abbott, whose tenure includes the February 2021 power grid failure that killed hundreds after the Public Utility Commission under Abbott’s appointees dismantled oversight mechanisms that could have required winterization, followed by a years-long political posture of claiming to have fixed a grid that independent assessments still find vulnerable. These are not minor officials. California is the world’s fifth-largest economy. Texas is the second-largest US state by GDP.

Compare this to the governors of Jiangsu and Guangdong. You almost certainly cannot name them. They run provincial economies larger than most OECD countries, coordinate tens of billions of dollars annually in guidance-fund equity, anchor overseas infrastructure initiatives that span continents, and do so within a tournament structure that would remove them from office if they failed to deliver. The anonymity is the tell. The American system does not produce provincial executives of comparable depth, and the commentators praising Chinese centralization are praising the theater visible to foreign observers while ignoring the machinery that actually does the work.

What is the West getting wrong?

China’s industrial performance comes from two machines running in combination, not one. The first is a personnel and fiscal architecture that produces a deep provincial administrative bench: rotation across jurisdictions, promotion by tournament on measurable outcomes, local fiscal autonomy routed through LGFVs and guidance funds. The second is a political economy in which central authority is willing to use its power against powerful domestic commercial interests when strategic priorities require it: industrial electricity prices held below market, state-bank credit directed to strategic sectors at scale, billionaires disciplined when they step out of line. The 87% of Chinese industrial policy that originates below Beijing implements the 13% that originates at the center, and neither half works without the other.

The Western mirror lacks both halves. It lacks deep provincial and municipal competence not because it needs a CCP-style cadre tournament (it doesn’t), but because Western parties reward factional politics over governing results. A party that actually wanted to deliver housing, trains, and grid capacity would produce competent provincial executives within a decade. None has tried in a generation. It lacks the central strategic will because its incumbent commercial interests are wired into the political coalitions that make central authority legitimate. US oil majors and European Green coalitions each hold veto power over their respective energy policies. The formal toolkit exists; the political economy prevents its deployment.

The inversion matters. When the West “centralizes” in response to Chinese success, it centralizes in the one category where even Xi regularly fails (forced consolidation, champion-building, merger liberalization), while refusing to centralize in the categories where Chinese centralization actually delivers. The EU’s Competitiveness Compass wants to consolidate 34 mobile operators into fewer champions while industrial electricity prices have widened to nearly double US levels and Apple and Google remain untouched. American industrial policy advocates want national champions while the US has not passed serious antitrust reform in a generation and has reduced rather than expanded domestic hydrocarbon production across two administrations.

The Western failure is not a missing Xi. Centralizing without both halves produces only protected inefficient monopolies like the American car industry, a political class slightly more empowered to defend them, and an industrial electricity bill that keeps going up. If you want the benefits of centralization, you need to govern and focus on cutting energy prices and the costs of capital. If you will not do those things, centralization will make you weaker, not stronger. This is what the West is about to learn, and the learning is going to be expensive.

Tokyo, April 1, 2026. JOGMEC, the Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security, publishes a news release on its website. New equity investment instruments for LNG projects. Revised debt guarantee fee schedules, with discounts calibrated to the volume of LNG destined for Japan. These are two distinct instruments with different risk profiles: equity capital for exploration and debt guarantees for development. The announcement follows December 2025 deliberations at METI’s Advisory Committee on Resources and Fuels and implements the 7th Strategic Energy Plan’s target of raising Japan’s self-development ratio (自主開発比率) to 50 percent by 2030 and 60 percent by 2040, up from roughly 37 percent in FY2023.

The bureaucratic language is unremarkable. The timing is certainly not if you are on the up and up with current events. While the largest energy supply disruption since the 1970s is actively unfolding, while Japan’s LNG reserves are measured in weeks, while the yen has lost more than a third of its value against the dollar since 2021, the institution responsible for Japan’s energy security is announcing revised guarantee fee schedules for upstream equity positions. This is the latest turn of a ratchet that has been clicking forward for six decades. The question we explore is whether the ratchet is turning fast enough. And whether it is turning in the right direction.

Midland, Texas. Same week. Rigs idle in stockyards. The Permian Basin frac crew count is down 20 percent from its January peak. The Q1 2026 Dallas Fed Energy Survey captures the other half of the paradox: business activity turned positive for the first time in nearly a year, driven by the crisis-induced price spike, but nearly 70 percent of large E&P firms reported they had not changed their 2026 drilling plans. Small firms were far more responsive; nearly 60 percent planned to increase drilling. But large firms control more than 80 percent of total production, and they are not moving. One executive’s survey comment distills the mood: “Oil prices are high but will fall dramatically as soon as the new government in Iran is announced.”

The world’s largest energy importer and the world’s largest oil producer are both failing to respond to the same price signal, for different reasons that turn out to be connected. Tokyo cannot secure supply at any cost. Midland cannot deploy supply at any price. Between these two failures sits a market structure that enriches a narrow group of aligned producers and imposes costs on everyone else.

Welcome to the cost that I call the discipline tax.

The Architecture of Capital Discipline

The mechanism has been well documented. The shale boom of 2010 to 2014 was, to a first approximation, a capital destruction event disguised as a growth story. Operators outspent cash flow for a decade. Saudis and OPEC responded with increasing their own production. Production kept climbing higher and higher until investors revolted. The 2014 to 2016 crash and the 2020 pandemic collapse cemented the shift: Wall Street demanded returns, not growth. We acknowledge, emphatically, that people need to make a profit at the end of the day and a correction was needed.

Our point is different.

The correction evolved into a production restraint regime that, whether by explicit coordination or structural convergence, aligns the behavior of publicly traded U.S. producers with OPEC+ output management. The FTC’s complaint against Scott Sheffield, Pioneer Natural Resources’ co-founder and former CEO, provided the documentary evidence: hundreds of text messages with OPEC officials discussing crude oil market dynamics, pricing, and output. Public and private communications aimed, in the FTC’s language, “to organize tacit (and potentially express) coordination of capital investment discipline and oil production levels in the Permian Basin and across the United States.” Sheffield’s own summary of the effort: “I was using the tactics of OPEC+ to get a bigger OPEC+ done.” The parallel Hess finding in the Chevron merger review documented similar communications and similar endorsements of supply restrictions. The FTC characterized Sheffield’s behavior as a “sustained and long-running strategy to coordinate output reductions”, not a one-off event.

The posture is now industry-wide and spans every major basin. In North Dakota’s Bakken, rigs have fallen from 217 at peak to 27, with frac crews dropping from 13 to 7, yet production holds near 1.17 million barrels per day because longer laterals substitute for activity. A HighPeak Energy SEC filing states the logic in plain English: “Although recent events in the world have caused a surge in near-term oil prices, we are committed to developing our assets at the appropriate cadence, one that reflects sustained market conditions, capital discipline and long-term value creation.” The worst supply disruption in fifty years, and the plan does not change.

Varied forms of the NOPEC bill, designed to strip OPEC’s sovereign immunity and expose cartel behavior to U.S. antitrust law, have been introduced some 16 times since 2000. In 2007, it passed the House 345 to 72 and the Senate 70 to 23, overwhelming bipartisan margins, only to die under a Bush veto threat. In 2022, it advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee 17 to 4. Never brought to the floor. Who lobbied against it? The American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing the very companies whose production restraint aligns with the cartel’s output management. API explicitly urged a “no” vote.

The predecessor asked why the American industry doesn’t respond to price signals. We ask a different question: what does that non-response cost everyone else?

The international dimension is what the domestic debate almost always misses. When U.S. shale was growing at breakneck speed, adding 5 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2019, it was the only non-OPEC supply elasticity in the global market. The only counterweight to cartel output management. Discipline removed it. OPEC+ members now hold virtually all global spare capacity, roughly 3.5 million barrels per day, concentrated in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the same countries currently absorbing Iranian missile strikes. The discipline regime didn’t just restructure the American oil industry. It restructured the global energy market, removing the only supply-side competition that importing nations could rely on.

To see who benefits from this arrangement, consider the IMF’s fiscal breakeven oil prices for OPEC member states, the minimum price per barrel each country needs to balance its government budget. For 2025, the IMF estimated Iran at $124.12, Algeria at $118.95, Iraq at $92.43, Saudi Arabia at roughly $91, Kuwait at $81.84, and the UAE at $49.95. The GCC median fiscal breakeven is projected at about $70 for 2025, declining to $62 by 2030 as diversification proceeds. Before the Hormuz crisis, Brent averaged $65 in 2025. That means even the discipline-elevated price was not high enough for most OPEC treasuries to balance their books. The war has, for the moment, solved their problem: Brent above $100 generates massive surplus revenues for Saudi Arabia and comfortably covers Iraq’s $92 threshold. The discipline regime and the cartel’s output management together hold prices in a range that serves OPEC fiscal needs and major-company shareholder returns simultaneously.

The tax this arrangement levies falls on everyone outside the aligned producer group: importing nations, independent operators, service companies, energy communities, and consumers. And it is paid not in a line item on a bill but in currency depreciation, trade deficits, inflation, and idled human capital.

But here is a question worth posing to every audience, including the producers who believe they benefit: do you really want structurally elevated oil prices as a permanent feature of the global economy? The importing nations obviously do not. But even for the producers, the math is less favorable than it appears. High prices accelerate the transition to alternatives. They incentivize every non-OPEC government to invest in renewables, nuclear, and efficiency. They drive Asian economies toward electrification at a pace that, over a decade, permanently destroys oil demand. China’s own state media has described the Hormuz crisis as a “historic opportunity” for its renewable energy industry, with analysts projecting solar export surges comparable to the 120 percent increase that followed the 2022 Russia-Ukraine shock. CNPC News, the outlet of China’s largest oil company, called for accelerating wind, solar, storage, and hydrogen development as the structural lesson of the crisis. The discipline regime extracts maximum rent today at the cost of accelerating the obsolescence of the asset base.

But the damage from structurally elevated prices is not only about accelerating alternatives. It is more immediate and more fundamental than that. Cheap, reliable energy supply is the foundation on which industrial economies are built. Korea’s steel mills, shipyards, semiconductor fabs, and petrochemical complexes do not run on renewables. They run on hydrocarbons, and they compete globally on margins that structurally elevated input costs erode quarter by quarter. Japan’s manufacturing export machine, already strained by a 37 percent currency depreciation, cannot absorb permanently higher energy costs and remain competitive with Chinese producers who have pipeline access to Russian gas and domestic coal-to-chemicals capacity. Every dollar added to the per-barrel cost of energy is a dollar subtracted from the capital budget of a shipyard in Geoje, a chip fab in Kumamoto, a petrochemical complex in Chiba. For economies whose global competitiveness depends on transforming imported energy into exported manufactured goods, the price of that energy is not a macroeconomic abstraction. It is the determining variable.

It is worth noting, in this context, that the shale boom of 2010 to 2019 was the only force in the global market that ever broke OPEC’s pricing power. Five million barrels per day of new U.S. production, brought online by independent operators funded by American PE and debt markets, drove prices low enough to strain every OPEC fiscal budget and force multiple rounds of production cuts. Capital discipline, enforced by Wall Street and aligned with OPEC+ output management, removed that force. The independent operators who created it are still there. Their acreage is still there. Their geological knowledge is still there. What is not there is the capital. And the capital that replaced American PE in the Haynesville, the $10 billion from Japanese trading houses, operates on a different logic: longer time horizons, lower return thresholds, willingness to fund through price cycles. The question of what that logic could do if applied beyond Tier 1 acquisitions, to the broader independent sector where the supply elasticity actually resides, is one that the current moment makes difficult to avoid.

Who Pays

The typical account of capital discipline treats it as an internal industry matter, a question of corporate governance and investor preferences. But discipline is not a closed system. It radiates outward. The restraint that enriches shareholders in Houston imposes costs on importers in Tokyo, locks independent operators out of capital markets, and liquidates the service infrastructure that any new supply response would need. Three groups. Three different kinds of damage. One structural cause.

The Import Bill

A Japanese trading company executive calculates the cost. His government’s fossil fuel import bill nearly doubled in a single year, from JPY 17 trillion in 2021 to JPY 33.7 trillion in 2022. The trade deficit hit a record JPY 20 trillion, roughly $155 billion, the largest since records began in 1979. The yen depreciated from 109.78 to the dollar in 2021 to 131.37 in 2022, to 140.5 in 2023, and past 150 in 2024, a decline of more than a third. The mechanism is straightforward: dollar-denominated energy imports feed current account deterioration, which drives depreciation, which raises the yen cost of the next shipment, which worsens the current account further. A vicious cycle with no natural brake.

The Bank of Japan spent an estimated $60 billion in currency interventions in September and October 2022, the first yen-buying interventions since 1998. The effect on the exchange rate trajectory was not lasting. GDP growth slowed to 0.9 percent in 2022 and just 0.1 percent in 2024. Government debt stands at 235 percent of GDP, the highest among advanced economies. Energy subsidies from 2022 to 2025 totaled JPY 13.4 trillion. IEEFA projects that a prolonged Hormuz closure could reduce Japan’s GDP by up to 3 percent in 2026, reversing the modest recovery underway.

The standard response, diversify suppliers and sign more LNG contracts, has reached its limits. Japan’s LNG import bill increased 98 percent in yen terms between 2021 and 2022 even as import volumes declined by 3 percent. Diversification of supply sources does not insulate against global price shocks. What would insulate is equity ownership of production capacity, the self-development ratio that JOGMEC exists to raise. The ratio stands at 37 percent. The 60 percent target for 2040 implies an enormous volume of new upstream investment. JOGMEC’s budget for oil and gas exploration and asset acquisition is expected to double in FY2026 to 108.2 billion yen, roughly $733 million. Japanese public institutions provided $93 billion in support for overseas oil and gas projects between FY2013 and FY2024, with 45 percent concentrated in upstream investments. The capital exists. The institutional infrastructure exists. The question is what it buys.

Korea’s exposure is, if anything, more acute. The country imports more than 95 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East and more than 20 percent of its LNG through routes that transit the Strait. The won lost 20 percent of its value in 2022, moving from 1,189 to the dollar in January to 1,428 by October. Energy imports consumed $145 billion in eight months. The depreciation constrains the Bank of Korea’s ability to cut rates, because cheaper money would accelerate the won’s decline, which in turn suppresses domestic demand. A macroeconomic trap in which energy import costs simultaneously cause inflation and prevent the monetary response to it. The Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP) projects that even in an early ceasefire scenario, oil prices will not return to the pre-war level of $63, with $90 as the floor and $117 if the blockade extends. The Korea Research Institute for Industrial Economics estimates that manufacturing costs would rise 11.8 percent if the blockade lasts three months or more. The OECD cut Korea’s 2026 growth forecast from 2.1 percent to 1.7 percent, the largest downgrade among major countries. Korean commentators describe the situation as a “triple trap” (삼중 함정): energy crisis, U.S.-China strategic competition, and the North Korean nuclear threat, all converging at once.

Korea has the institutional pieces to address this. KOGAS, the state gas monopoly, simultaneously functions as monopsony importer, pipeline operator, and regasification terminal owner, an organizational structure that gives it enormous latent buyer power and operational capability for managing an integrated value chain from wellhead to burner tip. KNOC, the national oil corporation, has operated upstream projects in 17 countries. Korea’s chaebols, Samsung C&T, SK Group, Hyundai, POSCO, frequently invest in overseas energy projects, funded by KEXIM, K-Sure, Korea Development Bank, and the sovereign wealth fund KIC. The downstream infrastructure is world-class. What is missing is the upstream half.

And unlike Japan, where upstream energy security policy has been pursued with institutional consistency across administrations, Korea has witnessed shifts in policy priorities with every change of government. As one comparative analysis noted, Japan’s consistent approach produced an upward trend in its oil and gas self-sufficiency ratio. Korea’s inconsistency produced a decline. KNOC’s debt-to-equity ratio climbed to 529 percent by 2016. KOGAS’s debt-to-equity exceeded 450 percent, with uncollected receivables reaching 14.5 trillion KRW by end-2024, the result of regulated domestic prices lagging global spot rates for years. Since 2013, Korean energy policy moved away from self-sufficiency targets altogether, focusing instead on reducing debt ratios at the state-owned enterprises. The Blue Whale project, Korea’s flagship offshore exploration in the East Sea with potential reserves of 3.5 to 14 billion barrels, was defunded by the government in September 2025 and BP was brought in at 49 percent to share costs that Korea could no longer bear alone.

The institutional capability exists. The financial capacity to deploy it does not. And the policy consistency to sustain a long-term upstream investment program has never been achieved.

The contrast with China is instructive, though not in the way Western commentary usually frames it. China imports more Middle Eastern oil than Japan and Korea combined: over 55 percent of its crude comes from Middle Eastern producers, with roughly 45 percent of total oil imports transiting Hormuz. Oil imports hit record highs in 2025 at 11.55 million barrels per day. Yet while Japan’s yen collapsed 37 percent and Korea’s won fell 20 percent, China’s currency and bond markets have been comparatively stable. Not because China is less exposed. Because it spent two decades building buffers that Japan and Korea did not. Overland pipelines from Russia and Central Asia that bypass maritime chokepoints entirely. Strategic and commercial reserves estimated at 1.3 to 1.6 billion barrels, covering three to four months of demand, well above the IEA’s 90-day recommendation. Domestic production at roughly 27 percent of consumption. And a preferential transit arrangement with Iran that has allowed Chinese-flagged vessels to continue passing through the strait, with the IRGC reportedly assessing fees in yuan.

But even China’s buffers have limits. A Renmin University economist quoted by Xinhua described the IEA’s record strategic reserve release as “a painkiller, not surgery” (止痛药, 不是手术刀): it can relieve symptoms but cannot solve structural supply dependence. If the closure extends beyond three months, even China’s reserves and pipeline capacity face serious strain. China’s advantage is not that it solved the vulnerability. It is that it diversified supply routes and built redundancy into the system while the strait was still open. Japan and Korea, almost entirely dependent on seaborne imports through contested chokepoints, did not build the equivalent on the supply side. The question is whether they still can.

The numbers, we think, speak for themselves. But the implicit question deserves stating: why is there no countervailing supply capacity? Why are these countries still price-takers in a market that is structurally organized to extract maximum rent from importers? And what does it mean that the country with the deepest buffers, China, is now resuming large-scale purchases of U.S. crude and LNG to resell into Asian markets as a tool of political influence, while the countries with the shallowest buffers have made no comparable move toward upstream equity ownership?

The Locked-Out Driller

A private operator in the Anadarko Basin has 200 undeveloped locations on Tier 2 acreage. Breakeven at his current cost structure: about $65 per barrel, the Dallas Fed survey average. Large firms average $61; small firms average $66. Compare that to Diamondback’s ~$37 per barrel breakeven. That $28 gap is not geology. You know it and I know the reason, it’s organization: the accumulation of longer laterals, automated drilling analytics, continuous pumping, microgrids, advanced water recycling, developed by well-funded operators with deep engineering benches. With those improvements, the operator’s breakeven could be $48. But the improvements require engineering teams, data systems, and capital the operator does not have.

PE firms are not interested: exit markets are frozen, and a Tier 2 independent does not offer the return profile that institutional LPs demand. The majors are not interested: they are buying each other’s Tier 1 inventory, not developing Tier 2. Bank lending has tightened. Thirty-nine percent of E&P firms expected capital expenditures to decline in 2026; among large producers, the figure was higher still. One Dallas Fed respondent captured it with the weariness of four decades: “I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career.” Another put it more bluntly: “’Drill, baby, drill’ does not work with $50 per barrel oil.”

The operator is viable but capital-starved. The geology works. The problem is that every domestic capital source has either exited, consolidated, or tightened. The irony is that his Tier 2 acreage is viable at $48 with the right operational improvements. JAPEX paid $1.3 billion for Verdad Resources’ DJ Basin assets in December 2025, demonstrating that the rock in analogous basins works for buyers with different return expectations. But the only capital that would fund a multi-year development program through price cycles, without demanding a 20 percent IRR and a three-year exit, is the kind of patient, balance-sheet-backed capital that American PE structurally cannot provide.

And even if the capital appeared tomorrow, the operator would face a second problem. The engineering teams that could implement the operational improvements, the people who know how to run automated drilling analytics, optimize pad development, manage simul-frac completions, are being laid off by the service companies at the same time he needs them most.

The Idled Engineer

A completions engineer in Houston is experiencing the consequences. Her frac crew was laid off when the operator dropped a rig. The U.S. frac crew count is down roughly 15 percent year-over-year, with the Permian down 20 percent from its January peak. ConocoPhillips announced plans to eliminate up to 25 percent of its global workforce; Chevron cut 15 to 20 percent, roughly 8,000 people. Petroleum engineering graduates at U.S. universities collapsed from a peak of 2,615 in 2017 to roughly 623 bachelor’s degrees annually, a 76 percent decline. Some programs were nearly wiped out: Louisiana State down 89 percent, University of Oklahoma down 90 percent, Colorado School of Mines down 88 percent from their peaks. Her students are choosing software engineering, not because demand for energy is falling, but because capital discipline has throttled the demand for her expertise.

The techniques she knows, the ones that drove the best operators’ breakevens down by 8 percent in two years through ultra-long laterals, AI-driven well spacing optimization, continuous pumping, 90-plus percent produced water recycling, are transferable. The question is: transferable to whom?

If a different capital allocation logic were applied, the demand for petroleum engineers would not look like it does today. The total upstream workforce has shed 252,000 core jobs while producing substantially more energy. Those 252,000 people did not forget how to drill. But they are leaving the industry permanently, and the universities are no longer replacing them.

What’s Already Moving

It would be tempting, at this point, to conclude that the situation is simply stuck, that capital discipline has locked the system and no countervailing force exists. That would be a mistake. Something is already happening. Over the past twelve months, Japanese companies have deployed more capital into American shale gas than at any point in history. To understand what they have done, and more importantly what they have not done, we need to look carefully at the deals.

In twelve months, Japanese companies deployed more than $10 billion into American shale gas, part of a $550 billion investment framework between Washington and Tokyo.

JERA, Japan’s largest power generator, paid $1.5 billion for Haynesville assets in October 2025, closing in February 2026. Production of 500 MMcf/d, with plans to double to 1 Bcf/d through operational improvement. JERA holds 6.5 million tons per year of LNG offtake from U.S. projects due online by the end of the decade. JAPEX followed in December with $1.3 billion for Verdad Resources’ DJ Basin assets. Tokyo Gas secured positions in East Texas.

Then the capstone. In January 2026, Mitsubishi Corporation acquired Aethon Energy Management for $7.5 billion, the largest acquisition ever made by a Japanese trading house in the American upstream sector. Aethon’s Haynesville assets produce 2.1 Bcf/d of natural gas, equivalent to roughly 15 million tons per year of LNG. The sellers: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and RedBird Capital Partners, PE backers exiting exactly the kind of independently managed, operationally excellent shale positions that discipline has rendered unfashionable for domestic capital. The new entity, Adamas Energy, will be a wholly owned Mitsubishi subsidiary, with Aethon founder Albert Huddleston’s son serving as CEO.

Mitsubishi’s stated rationale merits careful attention. The investment will “accelerate efforts to build an integrated value chain in the United States, from upstream gas development to power generation, data center development, chemicals production, and related businesses.” Mitsubishi’s North American energy platform already includes partnerships in Canadian shale gas, midstream operations via CIMA Energy in Houston, LNG exports through LNG Canada and Cameron LNG, and power generation via Diamond Generating. The Aethon acquisition was not a standalone bet on natural gas prices. It was the addition of an upstream position to a value chain that already stretches from wellhead to power plant.

These deals represent a genuine and, in some ways, unprecedented shift. Japanese firms historically preferred minority stakes in overseas E&P assets; the 2026 wave marked a pivot to full operational control. And the movement is not only Japanese. KOGAS signed a 10-year supply agreement with Trafigura for 3.3 million tons per year, mostly from U.S. LNG sources. POSCO signed a heads of agreement for 1 million tons per year from Alaska LNG over 20 years.Hanwha Aerospace signed a 20-year deal with Venture Global for 1.5 million tons per year. And in a development that received little English-language coverage, KOGAS and JERA, the world’s two largest LNG importers, signed a cooperation agreement for cargo swaps and coordinated supply management in direct response to the Hormuz crisis. A KOGAS official stated that they maintain “response preparedness including inter-country coordination such as planned cargo exchanges with JERA within the year.” The two biggest buyers in the global LNG market are already cooperating at the operational level, quietly, without fanfare.

And then there is Alaska. The Alaska LNG project, a $44 billion development led by Glenfarne, has secured preliminary commercial commitments from LNG buyers in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand for 11 million tons per year, including agreements with JERA, Tokyo Gas, CPC, PTT, and POSCO International. POSCO is providing steel for the 807-mile pipeline and making an equity investment. The project’s stated competitive advantage: “short shipping distance to Asia, featuring canal-free routes avoiding contested waters.” That last phrase is the Hormuz hedge stated in six words. LNG from Alaska’s North Slope, piped to the Pacific Coast and shipped to Tokyo or Busan, never transits the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, or any other contested chokepoint. On the oil side, ConocoPhillips’ $9 billion Willow project is halfway to completion with first oil expected in 2029, producing conventional crude with decades of production life, and a record $163 million federal lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in March 2026 drew eleven interested companies. But we should note the caveats: Alaska state lawmakers have stressed that Alaska LNG has no binding gas sales agreements and no agreements for financing. As one senator put it, “You know you have a project when you have take-or-pay contracts and you have access to capital.” The preliminary commitments are real. The final investment decision is not.

That said, we should be precise about what these deals, across all the basins, are and what they are not.

They are acquisitions of already-operational assets from competent producers on proven acreage. They bought Aethon, “quietly the largest private natural gas producer in the United States”, not a struggling wildcatter on Tier 2 ground. Aethon was built by Albert Huddleston and his team over decades: veterans who understood the Haynesville intimately, who had assembled acreage positions through the bankruptcies and restructurings of the 2015 to 2020 period, and who had achieved operational results that justified the $7.5 billion price tag.

This is not an accident. It reflects a deep structural preference in the way Japanese trading houses approach upstream risk. They do not take geological risk. They buy operational assets after someone else has proven the geology, established the production history, and demonstrated the decline curves. This preference is rational, culturally embedded, and unlikely to change because the Strait of Hormuz closed. Mitsubishi bought Aethon because Aethon was already working, not because Mitsubishi suddenly became a wildcatter. And it is, in part, why the self-development ratio has remained at 37 percent after six decades of JOGMEC effort. The institutional machinery is designed to acquire de-risked assets, not to take the exploration risk that creates them.

We think this preference, however rational in its origins, requires re-examination in light of what it is actually buying and what it is leaving on the table. Because here is the part of the story that the preference obscures: the “risky wildcatters” that Japanese institutions have historically avoided are the people who built the assets they are now paying billions to acquire. Aethon was assembled from the wreckage of Chesapeake Energy’s bankruptcy. Verdad Resources, which JAPEX bought for $1.3 billion, was built by a PE-backed team that took the geological risk in the DJ Basin. Every de-risked asset in the current acquisition pipeline exists because an independent operator, funded by American PE or debt markets, drilled the wells, proved the reserves, and established the production base that makes the asset investable by risk-averse institutions. The wildcatter is not the opposite of the de-risked asset. The wildcatter is the person who created it.

And the wildcatter model did not fail because the geology was bad. It failed because it was too successful. The shale boom added 5 million barrels per day to U.S. production between 2010 and 2019. That surge crashed prices, triggered the investor revolt of 2014 to 2016, and produced the capital discipline regime that now prevents the independent sector from operating. The wildcatters drilled so much oil that they destroyed their own business model. The discipline regime is the scar tissue from that success. What it left behind is not a landscape of unproven geological risk. It is a landscape of proven basins, known formations, established production histories, and demonstrated well results, operated by hundreds of independent companies that lost their capital source, not their geological knowledge.

This distinction matters enormously for the risk calculus. The operators currently sitting capital-starved across the Permian, the Bakken, the Anadarko, the DJ Basin, and the Haynesville are not wildcats in any meaningful sense. They have drilled wells. They have production data. They have decline curves. They have breakeven calculations published in the Dallas Fed survey every quarter. Many of them have acreage positions that were assembled and high-graded over decades. What they lack is not geological proof. It is capital. And the capital they need operates on a time horizon and return threshold that American PE can no longer provide.

The risk of waiting for the next Aethon to appear, fully formed and ready for a $7.5 billion acquisition, is that inaction does not preserve optionality. It destroys it. Every month the discipline regime persists, the operators who proved up the basins shed staff, defer maintenance, let leases expire, and sell equipment at liquidation prices. The engineers who could optimize the assets leave the industry. The service companies that would support development programs downsize or close. The longer a risk-averse institution waits for the geological risk to be fully retired before deploying capital, the more the operational infrastructure required to realize the value of that geology degrades. What looks like a de-risked opportunity today will look like a greenfield rebuilding project in three years if nobody funds the operators in the interim.

The question is not whether Japanese or Korean institutions should become wildcatters. They should not. The question is whether they can recognize that the landscape they are surveying is already far more de-risked than their institutional memory suggests, that the people who de-risked it are available and identifiable, and that the window in which those people and their knowledge remain in the industry is closing.

The Efficiency Gap Nobody’s Closing

This brings us to the question that, in our view, ought to be central to the conversation about American energy production but almost never is. Not “should we drill more?”, a political question with no analytical content. Not “will OPEC cut?”, a geopolitical question beyond any single country’s control. But: why is the gap between the best operators and the rest so large, and who has the capability to close it?

The drilling productivity gap between the best operators and the rest is not small. Diamondback breaks even at $37 per barrel. The Dallas Fed survey average is $65. Large firms average $61; small firms, $66. That gap, roughly 43 percent, is not primarily geological. It is organizational. Diamondback’s CEO put it plainly: “Never underestimate the American engineer.” The techniques driving the gap are documented: ultra-long laterals exceeding 15,000 feet, AI-driven drilling analytics, continuous pumping, microgrids for power cost reduction, 90-plus percent produced water recycling. Coterra is installing microgrids in West Texas to reduce power costs. These are organizational capabilities, not proprietary physics. Data systems, workflow management, crew training, equipment standardization. They are, in principle, transferable.

But to whom? And by what mechanism?

The wildcatter we described earlier faces a specific operational problem. His breakeven is $65 because he independently contracts drilling, completion, sand supply, water management, and midstream transport without scale economies or standardized data systems. The engineering knowledge to solve each of these problems exists. It is the same knowledge that drove Diamondback’s breakeven down by 8 percent in two years. But it is embedded in organizational systems that the independent cannot access or afford to build from scratch.

In certain industrial traditions, this exact problem, how to transfer the operational capabilities of a lead firm to a fragmented supplier base, has been solved systematically. The lead firm embeds engineers in supplier operations. It teaches its production system from the inside. It shares cost savings. It builds relationships that last decades, not quarters. The result is not charity; it is a supply chain whose quality and efficiency reflect the standards of the lead firm rather than the baseline of the market. The same trading houses now buying U.S. shale assets, Mitsubishi and Mitsui among them, operate exactly such supplier networks in their manufacturing and logistics businesses.

The fragmentation runs deeper than any single operator’s cost structure. Three hundred or more Permian independents each independently negotiate OFS contracts, drilling schedules, sand procurement, water management, pipeline capacity, and marketing arrangements. The collective purchasing power represented by that fragmented base is substantial but unrealized. Each operator pays retail for services that, if aggregated, could command wholesale terms. Mitsubishi’s stated strategy, upstream development to power generation to data centers to chemicals, is precisely the kind of integrated value-chain organization that has historically solved this kind of coordination failure. Some industrial economies have built entire competitive advantages by wrapping value chains into single corporate ecosystems, eliminating the coordination costs that fragmented competitors cannot overcome on their own.

And beyond integration, there is another model worth noting: network-based industrial coordination. Dense clusters of specialized small firms sharing intelligence, pooling procurement, and collectively negotiating with larger counterparties. Not by merging, but by cooperating. This model drove rapid industrialization in parts of East Asia, transforming thousands of small manufacturers into globally competitive production ecosystems without requiring any single firm to achieve scale on its own. The 300-plus Permian independents represent exactly this kind of fragmented base: individually subscale, collectively formidable, lacking only the coordination mechanism that other industrial traditions developed decades ago.

We are not suggesting that any of these models should be imported wholesale into the Permian Basin. Industrial traditions are not modular components. But the gap we have documented, between the $37 breakeven of the best operators and the $65 breakeven of the rest, is an organizational gap. The engineer being laid off in Houston has the techniques to close it. The wildcatter in the Anadarko has the acreage where it could be closed. The trading houses in Tokyo have the organizational tradition of closing exactly such gaps across fragmented supplier bases. And the capital to fund the effort operates on a time horizon, decades rather than quarters, that the problem requires.

We are not assembling a blueprint. That is not our job. Our job is to document that the pieces exist, and that as of this writing they are scattered across three continents, in the hands of three groups that have not yet recognized each other as relevant to their own problems.

The Math

The predecessor article documented what $100 oil used to buy in Houston: 457,500 jobs, marriages, mortgages, children. It documented what $100 oil buys now: buybacks, dividends, and a fertility decline that shows up in the demographic data a decade later. The discipline tax is the gap between those two outcomes, paid not only by Houston’s roughnecks and their families, but by every importing nation whose trade deficit, currency depreciation, and inflation are the arithmetic consequence of a supply side that refuses to respond.

The numbers documented above require only one comparison. Japan’s fossil fuel import bill increased by JPY 16.7 trillion in a single year. The BOJ burned $60 billion in currency interventions that achieved nothing lasting. Against that: JERA’s Haynesville acquisition cost $1.5 billion. Mitsubishi’s Aethon deal cost $7.5 billion. Total Japanese shale investment over twelve months: $10 billion. JOGMEC’s cumulative upstream investment over six decades of operation amounts to less than what the Ministry of Finance spent in a single weekend trying to defend a currency collapsing under the weight of energy import costs it had no supply-side mechanism to reduce.

The discipline tax is paid every year. The alternative is a one-time capital deployment that, even in a worst case, costs less than a single quarter’s currency intervention.

Close

The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Asia’s reserves are measured in weeks. Brent is above $100. Iran is now demanding sovereignty over the strait and proposing tolls on foreign shipping, potentially $800 million per month.

In Midland, Texas, rigs sit in stockyards. Nearly 70 percent of large producers have not changed their drilling plans. Equipment auctions run at steep discounts. A tool store owner, “this is my sixth boom-bust”, waits for customers who are not coming. But this is not a boom-bust. An engineer with twenty years of frac experience is updating her LinkedIn profile, and the petroleum engineering program that trained her has lost 88 percent of its enrollment since the peak. Across the basin, operators with viable acreage and manageable breakevens sit capital-starved, not because the rock is bad, but because the capital allocation regime sends money to buybacks instead of wells. A PE fund manager in Houston could produce a list of investable independents, with acreage maps, well results, and breakeven calculations, in a week. Anybody can find them. Nobody with the right capital structure has looked.

In Tokyo, a bureaucratic news release on a government website announces revised guarantee fee schedules for LNG investment. JOGMEC’s budget is doubling. The self-development ratio, after six decades of institutional effort, sits at 37 percent. The target is 60 percent by 2040, fourteen years away. Closing a 23-percentage-point gap in fourteen years would require a pace of upstream equity acquisition several times faster than anything Japan has sustained in the preceding six decades. The $10 billion deployed into U.S. shale over the past twelve months is the most aggressive burst in JOGMEC’s history. At that rate, sustained annually, the math might work. Whether the institutional machinery built for a slower tempo can operate at that speed is a question the news release does not address.

In Seoul, the situation is starker. The institutional debts and policy reversals documented earlier have produced no corrective response. Korea’s chaebols have the organizational capability to wrap entire value chains into integrated ecosystems. Korea’s state institutions have the downstream infrastructure and the procurement relationships. What they have not had is the political consistency to sustain an upstream investment program long enough for it to compound. Japan’s recent $10 billion burst shows what is possible when the institutional commitment is there. Korea has not yet had its $10 billion moment. The OECD’s growth downgrade, the largest among major countries, suggests that the cost of continued delay is no longer abstract.

The rigs, the engineers, the acreage, the geological knowledge, the organizational expertise, the patient capital, the institutional infrastructure: all of it exists. All of it is available. The operators are identifiable. The acreage is mapped. The breakevens are published in the Dallas Fed survey every quarter. The service companies holding the equipment and the skilled crews are listed in trade journals anyone can read. The information required to evaluate the opportunity is not hidden. It is sitting in public filings, investor presentations, and industry databases, waiting for someone with the right time horizon to act on it.

To understand what is being lost, it helps to understand what it costs. A drilling rig contracts for roughly $15 million to $20 million per year. A frac crew runs about the same. The equipment being auctioned at 30 percent discounts in Midland stockyards today was drilling wells last year. It does not need to be designed, manufactured, or shipped from overseas. It needs a contract. The engineers being laid off were, until recently, implementing the operational improvements that drove the best operators’ breakevens below $40. The formations they worked on have already been drilled, tested, and proved. These are not speculative costs for unproven capabilities. They are the current liquidation prices of a functioning industrial ecosystem. For context: retaining a frac crew for six months costs less than what the Bank of Japan spent in a single hour of currency intervention in October 2022. The entire annual cost of a drilling rig is a rounding error on a single weekend’s sovereign debt defense. The mismatch between what is being spent to treat the symptoms of energy dependence and what it would cost to maintain the operational capacity that could address the cause is, at this point, almost farcical.

But not forever. Every month that passes, another frac crew disperses. Another engineer leaves the industry. Another equipment auction clears at pennies on the dollar. Another university program shrinks. A rig that sits idle for six months needs refurbishment before it can drill. A frac crew that breaks apart takes months to reassemble, and the experienced hands do not come back from the construction job or the data center that hired them. The geological knowledge is published. The operational knowledge is embodied in people, and those people are walking away. The window in which the idle capacity described in this article remains available is not indefinite. It is closing, visibly, one layoff and one liquidation at a time.

Most of it is still idle. Not all of it will be there when someone finally comes looking.

In June 2017, a small team from a Chinese biotech company that almost nobody in the West had heard of walked into a presentation hall at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and showed their data. ASCO is the biggest oncology research conference in the world. The data were from an experimental CAR-T cell therapy for multiple myeloma. The response rates were near 100% in heavily pre-treated patients. The room noticed.

Within months, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen subsidiary signed a worldwide collaboration, paying $350 million upfront. It was one of the largest payments ever made for a China-originated therapeutic asset. The company was Legend Biotech, a subsidiary of a gene synthesis company called GenScript, operating from limited space in Nanjing. The therapy would eventually become Carvykti, the first and only cell therapy to show a statistically significant overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma. By mid-2025, it was generating roughly $439 million per quarter.

That moment would have been nearly unthinkable five years earlier. It has since become routine. In 2024, China's innovative drug license-out transactions reached 94 deals totaling approximately $51.9 billion. In 2025, the numbers more than doubled: 157 cross-border outlicensing deals worth a record $135.7 billion. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, deal value hit $60 billion, a 73 percent jump from the same period a year earlier and nearly half of the entire 2025 total. GSK signed a $12 billion alliance with Hengrui. Novartis paid $5.36 billion for a deal with Argo Biopharmaceutical. AstraZeneca agreed to a weight-loss drug collaboration with CSPC Pharmaceutical worth up to $18.5 billion, with $1.2 billion upfront. The direction of pharmaceutical deal flow has reversed entirely. A decade ago, Chinese firms overwhelmingly licensed drugs in from the West. Now nearly half of transactions flow the other way.

But here is what the deal figures don’t capture: Unlike other aspects of Chinese industrial policy (like cosmetics), China’s medical industrial policy that produced this innovation may not be able to sustain it. China’s domestic venture investment in biotech peaked at $15.7 billion in 2021 and plunged to $4.2 billion in 2024, in spite of surging cross border deals. Only four biotech firms listed on Chinese exchanges that year, the lowest since 2008. The government’s own pricing regime compresses margins on innovative drugs so severely that every major Chinese pharma company now depends on Western licensing revenue to fund its R&D. And in December 2025, Congress passed the BIOSECURE Act, a law that restricts how U.S. pharmaceutical companies receiving federal funds can do business with designated Chinese biotechnology companies, putting new pressure on exactly the cross-border integration that makes the whole system work.

This is not a simple success story. It is a story about a system, built deliberately over decades, that moved a country from the periphery of pharmaceutical R&D toward the frontier, and that now faces contradictions rooted in its own design. Four companies illuminate different pathways through that system. A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research adds precision about which forces drove what. And the structural tensions reveal whether any of it can last.

Assembling the Machine

Before the companies, before the deal flow, before the insurance reform that everyone is now trying to understand, something more basic had to happen. China had to build the capacity to innovate. That took decades, and it was not an accident.

The most important infrastructure change was the August 2015 State Council policy document that restructured the Chinese drug regulatory system. Before 2015, the system was rigid, redundant, and slow. The reform overhauled the Drug Administration Law, introduced a new Vaccine Administration Law, and rewrote the core regulations. Then, in June 2017, China joined the International Council for Harmonisation, committing to align its regulatory standards with the FDA, EMA, and other leading agencies. The NMPA adopted all 71 ICH guidelines and compressed review timelines for innovative drug applications from roughly 14 months to approximately 30 working days. A reduction of more than 90%.

The physical infrastructure came alongside it. “Made in China 2025,” “Healthy China 2030,” the 14th Five-Year Plan, and the construction of more than 100 state-financed biotechnology parks built a physical R&D base at a scale few countries can match. Capital market reforms opened pathways for biotech firms to list and raise funds. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange’s Chapter 18A rules allowed pre-revenue biotech companies to list on the main board. Shanghai’s STAR Market attracted innovative drug makers seeking domestic investors.

Then there were the people. China’s biopharma boom has been driven substantially by returnee scientists: researchers trained at Western pharmaceutical companies and academic labs who went back to China, bringing expertise, networks, and institutional knowledge about how drugs actually get developed and approved. Government recruitment programs actively cultivated this talent pool. The sector now draws from 30,000 active AI researchers at the intersection of AI and drug discovery, and China produces roughly 5 million STEM graduates a year.

None of this was self-assembling. Regulatory reform, physical infrastructure, capital markets, human capital. Each was the product of deliberate state investment. This was industrial policy: the state building the preconditions for an industry to exist.

But supply-side capacity alone does not explain the timing. China’s scientific output and talent base grew steadily throughout the 2010s. The clinical trial surge didn’t. Something happened around 2016 that activated the capacity. To understand what, you first need to see how four companies rode the wave, and how each of them ran into the same wall.

The 30-year grind

In 1970, the Chinese government opened a small pharmaceutical factory in Lianyungang, a mid-tier coastal city in Jiangsu Province. For two decades, it produced pharmaceutical ingredients and generic copies of Western drugs. Exactly the kind of operation that confirmed the conventional wisdom: developing countries consume medicines invented elsewhere.

When Sun Piaoyang took over in the early 1990s, he had a theory. Generics were a commodity business with vanishing margins. The future was innovation. But you couldn’t jump to the frontier overnight. So Sun pursued what he called “secondary innovation”: me-too drugs that improved upon existing Western molecules. Critics dismissed it as generics with extra steps. Sun’s argument was different. Secondary innovation was scaffolding. It built the capabilities that genuine novelty would eventually require. The company listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange in 2000 and began a long, deliberate pivot.

Three decades later, the scaffolding has produced a building. Hengrui’s R&D spending increased 33.8% year-over-year in 2024, with over 29% of revenue going to research. Innovative drug revenue rose 30.6% to roughly RMB 13.9 billion ($1.9 billion). In 2024, Hengrui overtook AstraZeneca as the most prolific clinical trial sponsor on earth. A state-owned factory in a city most Western pharma executives couldn’t find on a map, out-trialing a century-old British-Swedish multinational.

But Hengrui’s story also reveals the tension at the heart of this system. The government’s pricing regime subjects drugs to negotiated cuts of 50–63%. Those cuts compress domestic margins on innovative drugs. Hengrui’s response has been to license assets to the West: a $12 billion GSK alliance, three obesity drugs to a Bain Capital/RTW-backed startup for up to $6 billion. The company doesn’t license directly to Western pharma. It licenses into separately capitalized Western entities, receiving upfront payments while retaining equity. The structure de-risks geopolitical exposure. It has been widely copied. But it also means that Hengrui, the company that most fully embodies China’s pharmaceutical transformation, cannot sustain its R&D from its home market alone.

Luxury of Time: What patient capital makes possible

Drug development grinds against the clock of capital markets. Most VC-backed biotechs don’t have 15 years. HUTCHMED could.

The company was established in 2000 as a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings, Li Ka-shing’s conglomerate. That parentage gave it patient capital and freedom from quarterly fundraising pressures. Fruquintinib, its flagship molecule, was discovered entirely in-house, a highly selective VEGFR inhibitor designed to deliver anti-tumor efficacy with fewer off-target effects than competitors. The development timeline is itself the point: well over a decade from discovery to NMPA approval in 2018, making it the first China-discovered novel oncology drug (for metastatic colorectal cancer) to receive full approval in China. Then the global FRESCO-2 trial across roughly 130 sites in 10 countries. FDA approval November 2023. European Commission approval June 2024. Projected global sales exceeding $1.5 billion.

HUTCHMED built a hub-and-spoke partnership model: discovery in-house, Eli Lilly for China distribution, AstraZeneca for savolitinib, Takeda for global commercialization. In 2025, it sold a 45% stake in its non-core drug distribution business for $608.5 million to concentrate on next-generation programs. But notice the same pattern. The revenue that sustains R&D runs through Western partners.

Raids, Breakthrough, crisis, and the fragility of partnership

Return to the ASCO moment. Now for the full story.

Legend grew from a small team inside GenScript Biotech, operating as the “Legend Project” starting in late 2014. The bet was specific: target BCMA in multiple myeloma using a novel dual-binding-domain CAR construct, leveraging GenScript’s genetic engineering expertise and China’s access to a large patient population. The 2017 ASCO presentation happened. The $350 million J&J deal followed. FDA approval came in 2022. NMPA approval in August 2024 based on a trial showing 87.9% overall response. Manufacturing at scale in Ghent, Belgium. Over 7,500 patients treated globally.

Then the crisis. In September 2020, three months after Legend’s $424 million Nasdaq IPO, Chinese customs raided GenScript and Legend offices. Founder Frank Zhang was detained and later arrested for suspected smuggling related to human genetic resources regulations. Legend’s stock plummeted more than 15%. The company survived because Ying Huang, a former Wall Street analyst with a Columbia Ph.D., stepped in and held the J&J partnership together.

Legend’s model exploited a division of labor: China for discovery and early clinical work, J&J for the rest. It reached the world faster and with less capital than vertical integration would have required. But it also exposed a kind of risk that Western biotech boards have never had to plan for, the political vulnerability of Chinese founder-led companies working at the intersection of genetic data, cross-border research, and state security.

A Swiss Passport and a New Name

The arc reaches its high point with the company that made the biggest gamble and won, and then had to reckon with what winning meant.

In 2010, John V. Oyler, an American serial entrepreneur, and Xiaodong Wang, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, set out to build a vertically integrated, globally competitive oncology company from China. Not a licensing shop. A company that would discover molecules, run global trials, build its own salesforce, and sell its own drugs in the United States and Europe. First-in-human study of zanubrutinib in Australia in 2014. Commercial infrastructure built across the U.S., Europe, and Asia, burning through cash for years. R&D at approximately 52% of revenue in 2024.

The moment that changed the narrative was the Phase 3 ALPINE trial, a direct head-to-head against J&J’s ibrutinib in CLL. A loss would have been devastating. Zanubrutinib won. Reduced the risk of progression or death by 75% vs. bendamustine-rituximab in treatment-naïve CLL. The first FDA approval of a new chemical entity discovered in China. From roughly $42 million in 2020 revenue to $2.6 billion in 2024. Approved in 70+ markets. 100,000+ patients. $30 billion market cap.

Then came the identity reckoning. In November 2024, the company announced it would rebrand as BeOne Medicines. It changed its Nasdaq ticker from BGNE to ONC. In May 2025, it redomiciled from the Cayman Islands to Basel, Switzerland, joining Roche and Novartis as a Swiss-domiciled pharma company. John Oyler called it a reflection of “who we are today as a leading global oncology company.”

That is one way to read it. Another: a $30 billion company that was built in China, on Chinese scientific talent, with Chinese regulatory pathways and Chinese patient data, concluded that its Chinese identity had become a liability. The BIOSECURE Act was advancing through Congress. U.S.–China tariff uncertainty was escalating. More than three-quarters of American biotech companies contract out services to Chinese firms, and the political environment around those relationships was shifting fast. BeOne’s redomiciliation was not a corporate address change. It was an acknowledgment that the most successful Chinese-origin pharmaceutical company in history believed its origin story was becoming structurally incompatible with its commercial future.

A system built to produce Chinese pharmaceutical innovation produced a company so successful that it needed to stop being visibly Chinese. That is the contradiction, and it is not incidental. It runs through everything.

The Same Great Wall

Hengrui, HUTCHMED, Legend, BeOne. Four very different strategies. All four drew on the supply-side preconditions that decades of industrial policy built. The reformed regulatory system. The talent pipelines. The research infrastructure. All four produced globally validated molecules: FDA approvals, head-to-head trial wins, tens of billions in licensing payments from the world’s most demanding buyers.

All four share a structural dependency. They need Western revenue. The Chinese domestic market, despite being the catalyst that activated their innovation, compresses the pricing needed to sustain it. That paradox, a market that simultaneously creates and constrains innovation, turns out to be the central mechanism of the story. The sharpest academic evidence available helps explain how it works.

Demand Side Policy is Industrial Policy

The supply-side preconditions grew steadily through the 2010s. More publications, more scientists, more infrastructure, year after year. But the clinical trial surge was not steady. Something happened around 2016 that converted latent capacity into an explosion of activity.

A working paper published this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “From Free Rider to Innovator: The Rise of China’s Drug Development,” by Panle Jia Barwick at the University of Wisconsin, Hongyuan Xia at Cornell, and Tianli Xia at the University of Rochester, provides the most comprehensive attempt so far to disentangle the competing explanations. The authors compiled a synchronized database spanning clinical trials, scientific publications, drug sales, and government policies across China, the U.S., and Europe from 2010 to 2024.

A few caveats before the findings. This is a working paper. It has not been peer-reviewed. The identification strategy is credible, an event-study framework with disease-by-country fixed effects, placebo tests, and multiple robustness checks, but the specific magnitudes will be debated, and the decomposition leaves a substantial unexplained residual. What follows should be read as the best available evidence on a specific question, not as settled fact.

The paper zeroes in on a specific policy: the National Reimbursement Drug List reform.

Before 2016, China had nearly universal health coverage, more than 95% of the population, but the national formulary prioritized low-cost generics and excluded innovative drugs. Patients paid full price out of pocket for novel therapies. The innovative drug market totaled just ¥66 billion ($10 billion) in 2015. A market of 1.4 billion people that was, for innovative drugs, effectively tiny.

Starting in 2016, the National Healthcare Security Administration launched centralized “price-for-volume” negotiations. Firms accept average price cuts of 50–60% in exchange for NRDL inclusion, which guarantees access to roughly 1.4 billion insured lives at low coinsurance rates. By 2024, 699 drugs had been included. Cumulative spending reached ¥460 billion ($67 billion) between 2016 and 2024. The inclusion criteria explicitly favor new molecular entities and reward clinical novelty and unmet needs.

The paper documents what happened to individual drugs after NRDL inclusion. Retail prices dropped roughly 50% (66% for oncology). But quantities sold increased 350% on average, and nearly ten-fold for cancer drugs. Net producer revenue increased about 100% on average and roughly 500% for oncology. Given low marginal production costs (the authors estimate about 18% of pre-negotiated price), these revenue gains flowed through to profits.

The timing evidence is clean. Benchmarking China against the U.S. at the disease-country-year level, the paper shows flat pre-trends before 2016 and a sharp divergence starting in 2016–2017. By 2024, China’s trial volume had expanded by 172% relative to the U.S. High-novelty trials increased 123%. And 88% of the post-2015 increase was driven by domestic firms, not multinationals relocating R&D.

The paper’s strongest finding may be the placebo test. Disease categories never exposed to NRDL expansion showed no systematic increase in trial activity after 2015. The diseases with the largest NRDL expansion, including non-small cell lung cancer, liver cancer, and renal cancer, saw the sharpest increases. The contrast is stark.

The decomposition exercise attempts to quantify relative contributions for oncology: 43% attributed to the NRDL reform, 24% to knowledge accumulation and talent flows, less than 1% to other government policies. About 32% remains unexplained.

Those numbers need careful reading. The less-than-1% figure for industrial policy does not mean industrial policy was unimportant. It means that within the paper’s framework, once you account for the NRDL, knowledge stocks, and talent, the additional explanatory power of counting policy documents is small. But the regulatory reforms, biotech parks, talent programs, and capital market infrastructure that industrial policy built over decades are preconditions baked into the base of the model. The NRDL would not have produced a clinical trial surge if no firms had been capable of running trials, no regulatory system capable of processing them, and no scientists capable of designing them.

The honest reading is that both were necessary. Industrial policy built the capacity over decades. The NRDL activated it by changing the expected returns. The paper’s contribution is to show that the demand-side market expansion was a larger factor than most observers had assumed, and that its design features (rewarding novelty, targeting unmet needs) shaped the direction of innovation, not just the volume. That is a genuinely important finding. It does not mean the supply side was optional.

One more result, and it may be the most consequential for anyone thinking about drug pricing. For 57 cancer drugs included in the NRDL, the short-term consumer surplus gain from expanded access is approximately ¥35.6 billion ($5.1 billion) per year. The long-run gain from roughly 60 additional oncology drugs induced by the reform is approximately ¥67.6 billion per year. If those estimates are broadly right (and they are one study’s estimates), the long-run gains from induced innovation are roughly three times the short-run gains from improved access.

The standard framing of drug pricing treats it as zero-sum: lower prices increase access but reduce innovation incentives. The NRDL evidence complicates that. Under specific conditions (massive population coverage, genuine monopsony power, inclusion criteria that reward novelty), a price-volume reform may be able to expand both access and innovation simultaneously. Whether that finding generalizes beyond China’s specific institutional context is a question the paper cannot answer. But the direction is suggestive enough that health system architects in other countries should be paying attention.

Strengths and Fragilities Are the Same Thing

So the system works. The supply-side capacity was built. The demand-side shock activated it. The companies produced globally validated drugs. The licensing revenue is flowing.

But the system’s contradictions are not footnotes. They are structural, and they are getting worse.

Start with the domestic funding crisis. The NRDL expanded the market for innovative drugs and activated the capacity that industrial policy built. It also compressed domestic margins. Average negotiated price cuts of 50–63% mean that Chinese companies cannot generate enough domestic revenue to fund globally competitive R&D from the home market alone. Meanwhile, China’s national priorities have shifted. Government subsidies that once flowed generously to life sciences are being redirected toward semiconductors and computing, leaving local venture capital firms with less support. Venture investment in Chinese biotech peaked at $15.7 billion in 2021 and collapsed to $4.2 billion by 2024. Cash-strapped Chinese biotechs are increasingly out-licensing assets not because they want to, but because they have to, selling molecules to Western buyers to stay solvent and fund their remaining programs. At JPMorgan Healthcare Conference 2025, industry observers reported that Eastern funds and biotechs arrived ready to sell, proactively showcasing portfolios, a reversal from previous years when deals had to be hunted.

This is not a healthy equilibrium. It is a fire sale dressed up as a licensing boom. The numbers look like acceleration, and they are. Deal value hit $135.7 billion in 2025 and is on pace to exceed that in 2026. UBS projects that China's innovative drug market will grow at an annualized pace of 20 percent between 2026 and 2030, with the broader pharmaceutical industry generating revenues of $2.1 trillion by the end of the decade. But those projections sit alongside a domestic venture market that has collapsed by 73 percent since its peak. The innovative drug market is growing. It is not growing fast enough to replace the funding sources that are disappearing. Every quarter of record-breaking outbound licensing is also a quarter in which Chinese biotechs are selling molecules to Western buyers because the domestic capital environment no longer supports carrying them to commercialization alone.

Then there is the geopolitical problem, which is not abstract. On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed the BIOSECURE Act into law as part of the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The law restricts U.S. federal procurement and grants involving biotechnology products or services provided by “biotechnology companies of concern.” Any company on the Department of Defense’s 1260H list of Chinese military companies is automatically designated. A process led by the Office of Management and Budget will name additional companies, with annual updates.

The law’s reach extends deep into the pharmaceutical value chain. Its definition of “biotechnology equipment or services” covers sequencing tools, data-storage platforms, cloud-based bioinformatics, CDMO services, and certain reagents or diagnostic devices. Any U.S. pharma company that conducts federally funded research or manufactures products purchased by government programs would need to validate the provenance of its entire upstream infrastructure. Prominent contract research and manufacturing organizations like WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics are not currently on the 1260H list and are not immediately subject to the law’s restrictions. But more than three-quarters of American biotech companies contract out preclinical and clinical services to Chinese companies, and 30% depend on China-linked companies for manufacturing of approved medicines. The most significant consequence may not be the immediate prohibition but the gradual decoupling of federal biomedical programs from globally integrated supply chains.

BeOne’s redomiciliation to Basel. Hengrui’s NewCo structures. Legend’s J&J partnership. These are all corporate architectures designed to navigate decoupling. But they are navigating it from a position of dependency. The pharmaceutical supply chain between the U.S. and China is too integrated for clean separation. Chinese companies were 35% of announced pharma M&A targets in 2025. It is also too politically charged for business-as-usual. The result is an unstable middle ground where every deal, every trial, every licensing transaction now carries a geopolitical risk premium that did not exist five years ago.

And the pipeline itself faces concentration risk. Innovation remains heavily concentrated in oncology, where NRDL coverage went deepest. The PD-1/PD-L1 overcrowding, more than 80 molecules in China, is what demand-pull incentives look like when they cluster around a single validated pathway. China now accounts for 24% of the world’s first-in-class pipeline, and more than 40% of the pipeline is fast-follower or first-in-class. The composition is genuinely shifting. But data integrity remains a credibility issue. A peer-reviewed analysis of FDA inspections from 2016 to 2023 found no significant difference in clean inspection outcomes between Chinese and Western sites in multi-regional trials, which is reassuring. But transparency in disclosing inspection findings still lags, and perception matters for a system that depends entirely on Western regulatory acceptance.

Each of these problems traces back to how the system was designed. The price compression that drives the licensing boom is the flip side of the market expansion that activated innovation. The geopolitical exposure comes from the integration that commercializes the innovation. The concentration in oncology reflects the targeting that directed R&D toward unmet needs. You cannot have the strengths without the fragilities. They are the same thing.

The Factory in Lianyungang

In 1970, the Chinese government opened a pharmaceutical factory in a mid-tier coastal city. It made generic drugs. In 2024, that company overtook AstraZeneca as the most prolific clinical trial sponsor on earth.

Between those two dates, a system was assembled. Decades of industrial policy laid the regulatory infrastructure, the talent pipelines, the research parks, the capital markets. An insurance reform activated that system by changing the expected returns to innovative drug development. Four companies took four different paths through it and each produced globally validated molecules. The best available academic evidence suggests the long-run welfare gains from the induced innovation substantially exceed the short-run gains from expanded drug access.

But the system has a problem it has not solved. It produces world-class pharmaceutical innovation. It cannot pay for it at the prices needed to sustain the investment. Domestic venture funding has collapsed. Government priorities are shifting toward semiconductors. The companies that embody the transformation are licensing their assets to stay afloat, redomiciling to foreign jurisdictions to shed their identities, and navigating a law whose stated purpose is to decouple the supply chains they depend on.

The most successful Chinese-origin pharmaceutical company in history concluded that it needed a Swiss passport and a new name. The licensing boom that the deal tables celebrate is, in part, a funding crisis selling molecules at market. And the geopolitical environment on which this system’s commercial viability depends is tightening, not loosening.

Can the system that created the innovation learn to sustain it? That is the question, for the companies, for Beijing, and for every Western pharmaceutical executive trying to figure out whether the next check they write buys them a molecule or a geopolitical liability.

While Cass is on target in pointing to the waste and abuse in the financial sector, the big question is where is the rest of the economics profession? Supposedly, eliminating waste and corruption was the mantra of “free trade” neo-liberals. But the massive waste and corruption in the financial sector is easy for anyone with clear eyes to see. -

Everyone who reads this publication knows what needs to get built. More grid transmission. More nuclear plants. More housing. More automated industrial capacity. The policy conversation has gotten good at identifying the demand side: permitting reform, regulatory overhaul, federal lending, emergency declarations. All essential, all should continue.

What almost nobody talks about is the supply side of capital. Scratch that, a lot of critics keeps talking about how YIMBYs, industrial policy wonks, and the rest don’t have a clue how to finance their proposals (despite the mountain of literature saying otherwise). That capital exists. There is roughly $6 trillion of it, sitting in American public pension funds, currently being allocated in a way that serves nobody.

’s recent New York Times column describes an American financial sector that has stopped fueling the real economy and started consuming it. , writing at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, endorsed Cass’s diagnosis and added a complementary set of regulatory reform proposals. Both focus on constraining finance: transaction taxes, bankruptcy reform, cultural stigma. Neither addresses where the capital should go instead, or why the largest pool of patient capital in the American economy is the right place to start.

A conservative populist and a progressive labor economist who has called finance a cancer on the economy, arriving at the same diagnosis. I think that’s interesting, especially given how much the capital question matters for everything I care about.

Share

A note on the economics profession’s credibility problem

Part of why people mistrust economics, is the fact that most people see only one side of the profession. The side whose’s public voice applies its skepticism selectively and has an incredibly poor track record both in economics and in finance. Larry Summers warned against “moral hazard lectures” and demanded SVB depositors be made whole immediately in 2023, months after calling student loan relief inflationary and unfair. Moral hazard for borrowers, bailouts for banks. Not lost on the public.

The convergence myth

The countries that followed the more “orthodox” development playbook didn’t converge with rich ones, despite the “advocacy” of that side of the profession. The country that built the world’s largest development bank, directed state capital into infrastructure at a third the cost, and added more industrial robots in 2023 than the rest of the world combined did. China’s state-directed industrial policy accounts for roughly three-quarters of the global decline in extreme poverty over four decades. noted that the three economists who announced a “new era of unconditional convergence” in 2021 came back in late 2025 to say they were wrong: once Chinese growth slowed, poor-country growth collapsed because there was no durable capital accumulation underneath it. Mozambique’s per capita growth fell from 5.2% to 0.3%, Zambia from 3.5% to 0.3%.

If you look at the profession as a whole, you see a lot of economists pointing at this gap for decades. They are routinely sidelined in favor of voices whose concern for market discipline ends where Wall Street’s balance sheet begins.

Where I’m going with this

I’m taking Cass’s and Baker’s arguments in a more “developmental state” direction, with pensions being the biggest target. Three claims:

First, the capital that energy, infrastructure, and housing buildouts need already exists: $6 trillion in public pension funds, with liability profiles that match 30-year transmission lines and 40-year nuclear plants almost perfectly.

Second, that capital is trapped in an institutional arrangement that charges enormous fees to match the performance of a simple index fund, while the money deployed through these intermediaries actively harms the communities pensioners live in: buying up their housing, closing their hospitals, bankrupting their local employers, gutting their newspapers.

Third, redirecting this capital doesn’t require new government spending or new financial structures. It requires breaking the equilibrium that one side of the debate defends (Summers) in favor of the other (Baker, or further still, the developmental-state economists in China, Singapore, and Japan). And it requires conditioning any future public rescues on actual structural reform.

The Performance Scandal

We want to start with the data, because the data are damning.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College ran a straightforward comparison: how did actual public pension returns stack up against a simple 60/40 portfolio of stock and bond index funds, the kind any individual investor could assemble in a Vanguard account for nearly zero cost? The answer: roughly the same. Public pensions earned about 6.1% annually. The 60/40 benchmark earned about 6.1% annually. The entire apparatus of consultants and alternative managers produced no excess return.

It gets worse. Pensions performed better than the benchmark before the 2008 financial crisis and worse afterward, precisely as they ramped up allocations to hedge funds, private equity, and other “alternatives.” Richard Ennis has documented a negative alpha of approximately 1.2% per year since 2008, virtually all of it associated with alternative investments. Reason Foundation found that 84% of public pension funds failed to beat a passive 60/40 portfolio over the past 20 years. The median plan trails the benchmark by 1-2% annually over 15- and 20-year horizons.

Cass documents the same pattern from the other end of the transaction: private equity is now underperforming a simple S&P 500 index fund across three-month, one-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year horizons.

The fee structures explain why. For a large pension fund with 30-40% in alternatives, total portfolio costs exceed 1% annually, versus roughly 5 basis points for an indexed strategy. The most expensive slice is private equity, where Ennis estimates total costs of 6%+ annually. On $6 trillion in assets, 1% is $60 billion per year. Over a decade, half a trillion dollars. Over 30 years, more than a trillion.

CalPERS, the nation’s largest public pension, exited hedge funds in 2014, citing “high costs and weak performance.” Their hedge fund portfolio had generated 4.8% annually over a decade, trailing the hedge fund industry’s own benchmark by roughly a fifth. Then, by 2024, CalPERS announced plans to increase private market investments by $30 billion. The cycle repeats because nothing about the incentive structure has changed.

The Duration Mismatch

The tens of billions in annual fee waste is actually the smaller problem.

The larger problem is what pension capital is and what it’s being used for. Pension capital is money that will not be needed for 20 to 40 years. By its nature, it is the most patient capital in the American economy, longer in duration than venture capital (5-7 year exit targets), longer than private equity (similar horizon despite the “long-term” branding). Pension funds should be the natural financiers of the long-duration assets this publication covers: transmission lines, nuclear plants, housing bonds, grid infrastructure.

Instead, pension funds hand their capital to intermediaries who invest it on shorter time horizons and charge 6% annually. The assets that need patient capital, grid, nuclear, housing, defense-industrial capacity, can’t find it. And the intermediaries collect fees regardless.

We’ve solved this kind of problem before.

A Brief History of Why This Worked Before

What we are describing is not novel. It is approximately what American public pensions did for four decades before the alternatives revolution.

From roughly 1920 to 1960, legal restrictions confined pension investments to government securities, primarily municipal and state bonds. Michael Glass and Sean Vanatta call this “fiscal mutualism.” At the system’s peak in 1942, public pension portfolios held 73% of their assets in state and local bonds. New York Comptroller Morris Tremaine invested pension funds in municipal bonds explicitly “to assist local governments in procuring funds for improvements at fair interest rates.” The bonds paid market rates. This was not a subsidy. But the closed loop aligned the interests of pensioners, taxpayers, and local governments in a way the current system does not. A retired firefighter’s savings backed the fire station. There were essentially no intermediary fees.

The mechanism generated what Glass and Vanatta describe as a “virtuous cycle.” Public employees contributed wages to the pension fund. The fund bought municipal and school district bonds. The captive demand suppressed borrowing costs, allowing localities to build schools, roads, and sewers at favorable rates. That infrastructure supported community growth, which expanded the tax base and the number of public employees, which increased contributions to the pension fund. Nobody got rich intermediating the transaction, which is why nobody has an incentive to bring it back.

The system started to strain in the 1940s when municipal bond yields fell to around 1.2%, roughly 41% of corporate bond returns, and broke open in the 1960s when states adopted the “prudent man rule” allowing pension funds to invest in corporate equities. That first shift, from municipal bonds to corporate stocks, was defensible. Equities offered higher long-term returns, and pensioners deserved the benefit. The adoption of the prudent man rule by states and its role in transforming public pension investment is documented in detail by Vanatta.

The second shift was not. Starting in the 1980s and accelerating after 2000, pensions piled into hedge funds, private equity, and other alternatives that promised superior returns through sophisticated strategies. By 2021, alternatives constituted nearly 40% of pension risk allocations. Two decades of data now show this shift was a pure loss: same returns, vastly higher fees, and no benefit to the communities whose workers the funds are supposed to serve. The virtuous cycle was replaced by an extractive one. Pension contributions flow to consultants, who recommend alternative managers, who charge 6% in fees and deliver index-matching returns. Meanwhile the communities that employ the pensioners struggle to finance basic infrastructure.

We are not arguing for a return to 1942. We are arguing that some version of the closed loop should replace the current arrangement.

The International Comparison

Japan and China both built their own versions of fiscal mutualism at national scale.

Japan ran the Fiscal Investment and Loan Program (FILP) from the postwar period through 2001, channeling postal savings and pension reserves through the Ministry of Finance into infrastructure and public housing. At its peak, the system controlled assets equivalent to 82% of GDP. But it was politically captured: by the 1990s, the Liberal Democratic Party was using FILP funds for the Daini Tomei freeway, an $83 billion project to parallel an existing highway with declining traffic.

Japan reformed the system in 2001, creating the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), now the world’s largest pension fund at $1.8 trillion. GPIF holds just 1.6% in alternatives, compared to 30-40% for American public pensions. The fee gap tells the story. GPIF pays its external managers roughly 2 to 4 basis points of portfolio value; in its record fee year, total payouts were ¥61 billion on a ¥186 trillion portfolio, about 3.3 basis points. American public pensions report average investment management expenses of 39 basis points, but that dramatically understates the real number: when unreported alternative investment fees including carried interest are counted, the full cost is closer to 100 basis points. American pensions pay 25 to 50 times more in fees than GPIF. And the extra spending doesn’t buy anything. GPIF has earned 4.33% annualized since 2001. American public pensions have earned roughly 7-8% annualized over the same period, higher in nominal terms and incredible variation of results from plan to plan, but Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research found that since 2000, pension fund returns have been “virtually identical to a simple 60/40 portfolio” of index funds. The move into expensive alternatives added cost without adding return. The Japanese failure was political capture of capital allocation. The American failure is intermediary capture, which may be even worse. Both are real risks, and any reform must guard against both.

But here is what Japan got right that America is getting wrong. As of December 2024, 88.1% of Japanese government debt is held domestically. The Bank of Japan holds 46.3%, domestic insurance companies 15.6%, domestic banks 14.5%. Foreign investors hold only about 12%. Japanese households save at high rates, deposit into banks and insurance companies, and those institutions buy Japanese government bonds because their liabilities are also yen-denominated. The government uses the proceeds for spending and debt service. Even after the formal FILP reforms in 2001, the structural logic persists through this market-mediated channel. The institutional successor is hiding in plain sight. Japan Post Bank, the semi-privatized descendant of the postal savings system that once fed FILP, still holds ¥190 trillion in deposits (~$1.29 trillion), still maintains ¥40.3 trillion in Japanese government bonds, and still operates across nearly 24,000 branches serving 120 million accounts. It posted record profits for the second consecutive year in FY2025. The government still holds a 22% economic interest. The fiscal mutualism did not disappear with the 2001 reform. It became more market-mediated, for better or worse. Japan Post Bank channels household savings into government debt and, increasingly, into a diversified global portfolio of ¥87.4 trillion in foreign securities. The postal savings pipeline that built postwar Japan is still operating. It just has a stock ticker now.

Japan carries gross debt exceeding 230% of GDP, levels that would trigger capital flight in any country dependent on foreign creditors. It hasn’t. The domestic savings channel has proved so resilient that betting against JGBs became known on Wall Street as the “widowmaker trade.” Every macro fund that shorted Japanese government bonds on the theory that the debt was unsustainable lost money, because the theory ignored the closed loop of domestic savings financing domestic debt.

The widowmaker shorts were wrong for a deeper reason than they realized. The domestic holding base doesn’t merely prevent capital flight. It keeps funding costs so low that the entire Japanese public sector operates (as we are clearly seeing) what economists at the St. Louis Fed and Stanford have called “a sovereign wealth fund with borrowed money.” Domestic savers accept low yields on JGBs because their liabilities are yen-denominated and the alternatives are limited. The government borrows at those low rates and holds the proceeds (directly and through entities like GPIF and the Bank of Japan) in higher-returning assets: foreign reserves, equities, and other risky positions. Research by YiLi Chien of the St. Louis Fed, Wenxin Du of Harvard, and Hanno Lustig of Stanford estimates that this strategy has earned the Japanese government an additional 6 percent of GDP per annum above its funding costs over the past decade.

The scale becomes concrete when you look at the individual channels. The Bank of Japan holds ¥83.2 trillion ($532 billion) in exchange-traded funds, making it the largest single shareholder in the Japanese stock market, owning an estimated 7% of the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s market capitalization. Those holdings carry ¥46 trillion in unrealized gains, a 124% return on cost, and generate ¥1.2 trillion in annual dividends that flow to the national treasury. When the BoJ announced in September 2025 that it would begin selling these holdings, the divestment plan was set at ¥625 billion per year, a pace that would take over a century to complete. While other major central banks sit on underwater bond portfolios, the BoJ’s equity book is ¥44 trillion in the black. Add Japan’s foreign exchange reserves, $1.39 trillion as of January 2026, mostly in dollar-denominated assets earning the rate differential over near-zero yen funding costs. Japan’s central bank is running a profitable equity long book funded by money creation, its finance ministry is running a leveraged carry trade in foreign currencies, and its pension fund is compounding returns at minimal cost. The “sovereign wealth fund with borrowed money” is not a metaphor. It is a description of actual positions totaling several trillion dollars.

This is why the gross debt number is misleading in isolation. When you consolidate the entire public sector balance sheet (the Bank of Japan’s equity holdings, the foreign exchange reserves, GPIF, the public financial institutions) Japan’s net public sector liability had fallen to roughly 65 percent of GDP by the third quarter of 2025. When the St. Louis Fed researchers ran the same calculation for the United States in 2022, America’s net public sector liability was 119 percent of GDP, nearly double Japan’s current figure, despite America’s gross debt being barely half of Japan’s in GDP terms. The country that looks fiscally reckless on the headline number is in better net shape than the country that looks responsible, because Japan kept its savings at home and earned a spread on them while America scattered its capital across fee-extracting intermediaries.

Japan is not the only country running this playbook. Singapore carries gross debt of 173% of GDP, higher than the United States, but has no net debt. Its sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek, together with the Monetary Authority of Singapore manage assets estimated at three to four times GDP. Investment returns from these reserves contribute roughly 20% of government revenue, about 7% of GDP annually. Singapore’s constitution bars the government from borrowing to spend; instead it allows spending up to half of expected long-term real returns on the reserves. As OMFIF put it: “Singapore has employed borrowing not to meet current expenses or to fund a deficit, but to build a strong balance sheet.” The crude debt-to-GDP metric that dominates American fiscal debate would rank Singapore as more indebted than the United States. In reality it is one of the wealthiest sovereigns on earth.

The principle is the same in both cases. The domestic holding base is the load-bearing wall of fiscal stability; the direct product of keeping capital circulating inside the national economy rather than handing it to intermediaries who scatter it across global alternative assets. The St. Louis Fed researchers note that Japan’s ability to sustain this depends on “stable and low funding costs from bondholders,” meaning the domestic savings channel must hold. If domestic institutions stop buying JGBs, the spread collapses and the sovereign wealth fund logic unravels. America cannot copy Japan’s solution or Singapore’s. But the underlying principle is clear: a nation that keeps its savings circulating domestically earns the fiscal room to maneuver that a nation dependent on foreign creditors and fee-extracting intermediaries does not.

China built a similar engine through the China Development Bank and Local Government Financing Vehicles, routing household deposits into infrastructure at massive scale. The CDB is the world’s largest development bank, larger than the World Bank, with RMB 18.2 trillion in total assets (~$2.5 trillion). It is the second-largest bond issuer in China after the Ministry of Finance, and its debt is treated as risk-free under Chinese capital adequacy rules. CDB issues sovereign-status bonds, raises capital from commercial banks at low rates, and lends to strategic projects: Three Gorges Dam, Shanghai Pudong Airport, the high-speed rail network, the Belt and Road Initiative.

The physical output is visible at continental scale. China’s high-speed rail network reached 48,000 kilometers by the end of 2024, roughly two-thirds of all high-speed rail on earth, built in about sixteen years from essentially zero. China built it at roughly one-third the per-kilometer cost of comparable Western projects — California’s unfinished HSR runs around $52 million per kilometer, while China’s 350 km/h lines cost $17-25 million. Only about 6% of the network is profitable in narrow financial terms, but a World Bank study found an 8% annual economic return when accounting for travel times, labor mobility, regional development, and reduced congestion. Fiscal mutualism optimizes for national returns, not financial returns to intermediaries.

LGFVs used land as collateral to borrow for local infrastructure, physically transforming the country’s built environment in a single generation. By the early 2020s, LGFV debt had reached an estimated $8.3 trillion, with more recent estimates placing total liabilities at roughly RMB 78 trillion (~$10.8 trillion), and the property crash exposed it as a potential debt trap.

China’s response in 2024 was to swap LGFV debt into official sovereign bonds. The State Council secured approval for ¥6 trillion in new local government debt limits plus ¥4 trillion from special-purpose bonds over five years, totaling ¥10 trillion in direct debt reduction. The interest rate arbitrage is the point: some weak LGFVs had been paying effective rates as high as 8-16%, while sovereign local government bonds carry rates of roughly 2-3%. The swap is a massive transfer of interest expense from local governments to the sovereign balance sheet — the same logic Japan applied through its domestic holding structure, executed at a different scale and speed.

But the more important development for our purposes is what China is doing next with its state-mobilized capital. The National Social Security Fund has pivoted toward domestic semiconductor and artificial intelligence companies as part of a whole-of-nation effort at technological self-sufficiency. The most direct instrument is the National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Phase III, known as Big Fund III, established in May 2024 with ¥344 billion ($47.5 billion), the largest state-backed semiconductor fund in history. It is backed by 19 state-owned investors led by the Ministry of Finance and CDB Capital, with six major state-owned banks providing additional capital. Where previous phases focused on fabrication capacity, Big Fund III targets the supply chain chokepoints that US export controls have identified as vulnerabilities: lithography tools, inspection systems, etching platforms, photoresists, and wafer materials. Across all three phases, the Big Fund has mobilized roughly $95 billion, nearly double the US CHIPS Act’s $53 billion in incentives. Domestic savings flow through state banks into the Ministry of Finance, through CDB Capital, and into the industrial base that will determine whether China can manufacture semiconductors without foreign permission.

The comparison is hard to ignore. China directs state-mobilized capital toward strategic technology competition and builds physical infrastructure at a third the cost, financed through a banking system that treats development lending as a sovereign function. Japan runs a disciplined, low-cost portfolio and keeps its domestic savings circulating where they underwrite fiscal stability and a 6 percent of GDP annual spread. Singapore borrows at 173% of GDP and funds a fifth of government revenue from the proceeds. America pays tens of billions per year to financial intermediaries who add no value, while the infrastructure and defense-industrial capacity that pension capital should be financing goes underfunded. We don’t need to emulate China’s state-directed model. But we should stop being the only major economy whose largest pool of patient capital is optimized for fee extraction rather than national capacity.

What Pension Capital Should Be Funding

So where would this capital actually go?

Housing

The housing case is the most proven, because it’s already working at small scale.

New York City’s pension systems allocate 2% (but effectively less) of assets to economically targeted investments, deploying $852 million through the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust since 2002 and financing over 37,000 affordable apartments using union labor. The GAO evaluated these programs and found they achieved competitive returns.

Texas offers another model at the infrastructure level. Municipal Utility Districts are special districts that issue tax-exempt bonds to finance water, sewer, drainage, and road infrastructure for new developments. MUD bonds are self-liquidating (homeowners pay them off through property taxes over 20-30 years), asset-backed, transparent, and regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. They have financed major projects like The Woodlands, Clear Lake City, and First Colony. Pension funds holding MUD bonds instead of hedge fund LP interests would earn comparable returns while financing actual housing and infrastructure.

The question is why New York’s ETI allocation is 2% instead of 15%. The answer is institutional inertia and the same consultant-driven incentive structure that pushes everything toward complex, high-fee alternatives. The mechanism works. It is just not being used at scale.

Grid and Transmission

argued that America can beat China on energy, but identified the “location problem” as a critical bottleneck: cheap power exists in places like Texas and the Pacific Northwest but can’t reach population centers like San Francisco or New York. His conclusion: “New transmission capacity must be heavily subsidized.”

He’s right, and we need to go further with providing cheaper capital. Transmission lines are 30-50 year assets with regulated, predictable cash flows. They don’t need charity, they need patient buyers for the debt that finances them. The natural buyers are pension funds, whose 30+ year liability profiles match transmission asset durations almost perfectly. The reason pension funds aren’t buying is that their capital is tied up in alternative strategies with 5-7 year horizons, paying 6% in annual fees to roughly match a bond index.

Pension funds currently hold around $2 trillion in the bond side of their portfolios. Most of that is in corporate bonds, complex fixed-income strategies, and private credit funds charging 2-and-20. If even a quarter of that allocation shifted to municipal and infrastructure bonds, including bonds financing grid transmission, that would create roughly $500 billion in captive demand for infrastructure debt. That would lower the cost of financing transmission buildout. Not through subsidies. Through a large, natural buyer entering the market for the assets its liability structure already demands.

Parlmer estimates that solving the location problem might be part of a greater-than-$1 trillion project. The pension system’s bond allocation alone could absorb a significant fraction of that financing need, if it weren’t locked up in hedge fund LP interests.

Nuclear

China has roughly 30 reactors under construction, financed in significant part through state-mobilized patient capital channeled via the China Development Bank. American pension funds hold $6 trillion in equivalent long-duration capital and are spending it on hedge fund fees.

has written about the LPO’s role in nuclear financing and the double-dipping restrictions that impede it. The LPO is a critical tool, providing federal debt for projects that private lenders consider too large or technically complex. But nuclear projects also need long-term equity commitments and project finance bonds that match their 40-60 year operational life. A nuclear plant with a power purchase agreement is essentially an infrastructure bond: predictable cash flows over a multi-decade horizon, backed by a regulated revenue stream. Pension funds should be natural participants in that capital stack.

Parlmer has floated the idea of state-backed reactor fleets, either DoD or DoE operated, because he can’t see another path to rapid deployment. Pension-backed project finance isn’t state ownership, but it could serve a similar de-risking function. A pension fund investing in a nuclear project finance bond backed by a DoD power purchase agreement would face lower risk than most of what is currently in pension alternative allocations, and would fund something that matters.

A More Speculative Case: Industrial Automation

Parlmer’s analysis of Chinese industrial automation is alarming: PRC added more industrial robots in 2023 than the rest of the world combined, quintupled its per-worker robot count since 2017, and is pulling ahead of the United States in industrial sophistication. His prescription: dollars flowing into industrial automation at more than ten times current levels, with subsidies directed to startups rather than legacy firms.

Pension funds already allocate significant capital to venture through their alternatives sleeve, but that money flows overwhelmingly to Sequoia and Andreessen, not to defense tech or industrial automation startups in Ohio or Texas. The geographic and sectoral concentration of pension-funded VC mirrors the broader venture ecosystem’s biases: software over hardware, Bay Area over everywhere else, consumer over defense.

Redirecting even a fraction of pension VC allocation toward regional defense and industrial venture vehicles wouldn’t require new government spending. It would redirect existing capital flows. The Ohio Innovation Fund and similar state-level vehicles demonstrate that the institutional architecture is feasible. The returns are uncertain (this is venture, after all) but the counterfactual is not a guaranteed 12% from private equity. It’s 6% from a fund that charges 6% in fees to roughly match the S&P 500.

We will be candid: the venture case is weaker than the infrastructure case. Pension funds are not natural venture investors, and pushing them toward VC risks the “picking winners” failure mode that destroyed Japan’s Fiscal Investment and Loan Program. But our argument is not that pensions should become venture funds. It is that the capital they currently waste on underperforming alternatives could be partially redirected toward asset classes that at least fund something strategic, and that the bar for improvement over the status quo is extraordinarily low.

Where the Money Actually Goes Instead

Pension capital allocated to private equity and hedge funds does not just fail to generate excess returns. It actively harms the communities pensioners live in: their housing, their hospitals, their local employers, their newspapers. The capital that once built those communities through municipal bond investment now funds their extraction. Public pension funds provide roughly one-third of all private equity investment capital, over $620 billion in 2022, up from 3.5% of pension assets in 2001.

Workers, Jobs, and Communities

Start with Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Public school custodians earning $25 an hour had their jobs privatized when Aramark, then owned by private equity and backed by 37 state and local retirement funds, underbid their union for the school cleaning contract. Aramark offered the custodians their jobs back at $8.75 an hour, a 56% pay cut. Their own pension savings funded the company that destroyed their livelihoods.

Chelmsford is not an outlier. Over the past decade, approximately 597,000 workers at PE- and hedge fund-owned retailers have lost their jobs directly. When indirect supply-chain effects are included (the Economic Policy Institute estimates 122 additional jobs lost per 100 direct retail losses), the total approaches 1.3 million. Toys “R” Us, 99 Cents Only Stores, Joann, Big Lots, Red Lobster: PE-owned firms go bankrupt at roughly ten times the rate of comparable non-PE firms. Cass catalogues the pattern across veterinary practices, funeral parlors, campgrounds, youth sports, and volunteer fire departments, all consolidated and squeezed and repackaged as “value creation.”

In local media, hedge fund Alden Global Capital and similar firms now control more than half of America’s daily newspaper circulation. Over 2,000 local newspapers have closed nationwide. When local papers disappear, research shows communities experience increased political polarization, decreased civic engagement, and higher borrowing costs for local governments, because the loss of journalistic oversight reduces transparency. The function that fiscal mutualism once served, lowering government borrowing costs through captive pension demand, is being actively undermined by what pension capital currently funds.

Cass argues that financialization should be treated as “a grift, a rarefied form of bookmaking.” But the Chelmsford custodians don’t need a cultural reckoning. They need their pension fund to stop financing the company that cut their wages by 56 percent.

Hospitals

Steward Health Care shows how the extraction works at its most lethal. In 2010, Cerberus Capital Management bought Caritas Christi, a Catholic hospital system in eastern Massachusetts, for $895 million, putting up only $246 million in equity. Cerberus subsequently sold Steward’s hospital real estate to Medical Properties Trust for $1.25 billion in a sale-leaseback that saddled the hospitals with unsustainable rent obligations. All told, Cerberus and Steward CEO Ralph de la Torre extracted approximately $1.3 billion from the system. De la Torre bought a $40 million yacht and two private jets. Steward filed for bankruptcy in 2024 with $9 billion in liabilities. Five hospitals closed. Roughly 2,400 workers lost their jobs. Nashoba Valley Medical Center, which served 115,000 residents in rural Massachusetts and received 16,000 emergency room visits annually, shut its doors. First responders now travel roughly 15 miles to the next hospital.

Steward is not an outlier either. A 2024 Review of Financial Studies paper found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with an ~10% increase in deaths, implying approximately 22,500 additional deaths over the twelve-year sample period. A Harvard Medical School study the same year found PE ownership associated with a 25% increase in hospital-acquired conditions. A 2021 JAMA study found nursing home residents under PE ownership 11% more likely to visit emergency departments and 9% more likely to be hospitalized for preventable conditions. No study to date has found PE ownership improves patient outcomes or lowers costs.

Private equity investment in healthcare has grown from $5 billion in 2000 to an estimated $104 billion in 2024. PE firms now own approximately 488 U.S. hospitals, more than one in five for-profit hospitals, and roughly 40% of emergency departments are staffed or managed by PE-owned companies.

The Bailout Asymmetry

The public money doesn’t just flow to private equity and hedge funds through pension fees. It flows through bailouts too, and in both directions.

Start with hedge funds. In 1998, the Federal Reserve brokered a $3.625 billion rescue of Long-Term Capital Management, coordinating 14 banks to recapitalize a single hedge fund whose collapse threatened the broader financial system. That set a template. In March 2020, when COVID triggered a liquidity crunch, hedge funds running highly leveraged Treasury basis trades started dumping Treasuries en masse. The Fed responded by purchasing roughly $1.6 trillion in Treasury securities over several weeks. The basis trade was effectively backstopped with public money. That trade has since doubled in size, to roughly $1 trillion, concentrated among fewer than ten hedge funds. And in March 2025, a Brookings Institution paper co-authored by former Fed governor Jeremy Stein proposed formalizing this arrangement: a standing “basis purchase facility” that would allow the Fed to unwind hedge fund positions during the next crisis. The financial establishment is now pre-planPublic money doesn’t just flow to private equity and hedge funds through pension fees. It flows through bailouts too, and in both directions.

Start with hedge funds. In 1998, the Federal Reserve brokered a $3.625 billion rescue of Long-Term Capital Management, coordinating 14 banks to recapitalize a single hedge fund whose collapse threatened the broader financial system. That set a template. In March 2020, when COVID triggered a liquidity crunch, hedge funds running highly leveraged Treasury basis trades started dumping Treasuries en masse. The Fed responded by purchasing roughly $1.6 trillion in Treasury securities over several weeks. The basis trade was backstopped with public money. That trade has since doubled in size to roughly $1 trillion, concentrated among fewer than ten hedge funds. And in March 2025, a Brookings Institution paper co-authored by former Fed governor Jeremy Stein proposed formalizing this arrangement: a standing “basis purchase facility” that would let the Fed unwind hedge fund positions during the next crisis. The financial establishment is now pre-planning the next hedge fund bailout.

Now the pension side. Years of fee extraction and underperformance have left pensions deeply underfunded, $1.3 trillion in the hole by official accounting, or closer to $5.1 trillion using market-rate discount rates, according to Stanford’s Joshua Rauh. That underfunding eventually triggers its own bailouts. In 2021, the American Rescue Plan included roughly $97 billion in “special financial assistance” for the most severely underfunded union pension plans. The single largest allocation, $36 billion, went to the Teamsters’ Central States Pension Fund. That assistance has improved headline numbers: Milliman’s year-end 2024 study reports aggregate multiemployer funding at 97%. But strip out the SFA grants and the aggregate drops to 89%. Eighty-five plans remain below 60% funded. And the SFA program made no changes to multiemployer plan funding rules, so the structural dynamics that created the underfunding are entirely intact.

The obvious objection to redirecting pension capital is political capture, Japan’s FILP and its bridges to nowhere. That risk is real. But Japan’s pension system, whatever FILP’s failures, is not trillions in the hole. The counterfactual is not “safe status quo vs. risky reform.” The current system already fails, already gets bailed out, and taxpayers are already on the hook.

On top what the pension funds already pay out in fees, if the federal government is going to spend $97 billion rescuing pension plans, and the Fed is going to deploy trillions backstopping the Treasury market, the obvious question is: why isn’t any of that capital building something?

A $97 billion pension rescue conditioned on not just reforms but also investing 25% of assets in domestic infrastructure bonds would have simultaneously stabilized the pensions, financed grid buildout, and created a template for redirecting patient capital toward national priorities. Instead, the money went in with no structural reform. No investment mandates, no fee caps, no requirement to stop feeding the same intermediary complex that created the underfunding. The plans that received bailout funds are free to continue allocating to the same managers whose fees helped drain them. And they will.

Why This Doesn’t Happen

The institutional dynamics are a textbook captured-bureaucracy problem. Career risk provides cover through complexity: run a simple indexed portfolio and underperform in a given year, and you look unsophisticated. Run a complex alternatives-heavy portfolio and underperform, and you look like you tried your best. No one gets fired for hiring Goldman Sachs. Consultants don't get paid to recommend index funds; they get paid to recommend strategies requiring ongoing advice and manager searches. Benchmarks are gamed: pension funds construct custom benchmarks biased by 1-2% annually relative to fair passive alternatives, and private equity returns are reported with lags that smooth volatility and create the illusion of diversification. Trustees worry that directing capital toward municipal or infrastructure bonds rather than "optimizing" globally could be challenged as a breach of fiduciary duty, even though the "safe" legal path leads into strategies that have demonstrably underperformed. The cycle is self-reinforcing. CalPERS tried to break it in 2014 when they exited hedge funds. Ten years later, they were back in private markets.

Why We Don’t Have a “What To Do” Section

The honest version of this section would list transparency mandates, fee caps, infrastructure bond requirements, and indexing mandates. We drafted it. Then we deleted it, because every item on the list requires action by the same actors who benefit from the current arrangement.

State legislators who would mandate fee transparency receive campaign contributions from the asset management industry. Pension board trustees who would cap alternatives face career risk if they simplify. The consultants who would need to recommend index funds over complex strategies are the same consultants whose business model depends on recommending complex strategies. Federal legislators who would attach conditions to bailouts just passed $97 billion with no conditions attached, because the political incentive was to deliver the money and move on.

We have spent this entire piece documenting a self-reinforcing capture loop. It would be dishonest to end it by proposing that the captured institutions reform themselves. CalPERS knew the answer in 2014. They exited hedge funds, published the rationale, took a public stand. A decade later they were back in private markets for $30 billion more, because nothing about the incentive structure had changed. If the nation’s largest and most sophisticated pension fund, with a board that understood the problem and acted on it, could not sustain the exit, a policy white paper is not going to do it.

We are describing a trap, not proposing an escape.

What will actually happen

What will happen is another bailout. The math guarantees it. The SFA grants improved headline numbers, but strip them out and aggregate multiemployer funding drops to 89%. Eighty-five plans remain below 60% funded. The program changed no funding rules. The fee extraction continues. The underperformance compounds. At some point, probably within the next decade, a recession or market downturn will force the next round of plans into insolvency and Congress will face the same choice it faced in 2021.

That is the only moment when the political dynamics actually shift. When public money is on the table and legislators need a story to tell about why this time is different, there is a narrow window in which conditions can be attached. Not because anyone in the system wants reform, but because the politics of unconditional bailouts get worse each time. The 2021 rescue passed in a COVID relief omnibus where no one was paying attention. The next one will face more scrutiny, more anger, and a public that has watched pension-funded private equity close their hospitals and cut their neighbors’ wages.

The question is not “how do we reform pension allocation now.” It is: “when the next bailout arrives, what conditions are ready to attach?” That means having the legislative language drafted. It means having the qualifying criteria for infrastructure bonds defined (investment-grade, revenue-backed, independently certified) so that the debate is over a concrete mechanism rather than an abstract principle. It means having the fee cap number chosen and the benchmark methodology specified. It means having the sunset clause and the performance trigger designed, so that the infrastructure mandate self-destructs if it fails and cannot become a permanent slush fund.

None of that requires passing legislation today. It requires preparation for a political window that is coming whether anyone wants it or not.

The trap will not reform itself. But it will need public money again. The work between now and then is to make sure that the next time Congress writes a check to rescue a pension system bled dry by intermediary fees, the check comes with conditions that route the capital toward qualifying infrastructure debt rather than back into the same extraction loop that created the crisis. That is the difference between rescue and subsidy. It is also, realistically, the only reform that has a chance of happening.

Share

Rising rents don’t just squeeze household budgets. They’re systematically excluding young Americans from starting businesses, creating a hidden barrier to economic mobility that compounds existing inequalities in wealth and opportunity.

New research by Seungyub Han (Louisiana State University) and Jin Seok Park (University of Southern California), “Priced Out of Entrepreneurship? Rising Local Home Prices Lower Economic Opportunities for Young Renters,” tracks metropolitan areas from 2005 to 2019 and reveals a neat little pattern: when local housing costs rise relative to incomes, entrepreneurship falls sharply among renters while increasing among homeowners. The effect is largest among younger workers, the cohort that historically drives business formation and economic renewal. This isn’t a temporary phenomenon tied to the financial crisis. It’s a structural feature of how housing markets now shape who can take economic risks.

Share

The traditional pathway (accumulate savings while renting, buy a home, leverage equity to start a business) no longer functions in high-cost markets where down payments exceed what most young workers can save in a decade. Renters now account for roughly a quarter of all self-employed workers, with their share growing steadily over two decades. Declining homeownership rates, delayed household formation, and rising housing costs in productive metro areas mean more Americans spend their prime working years as renters in markets where affordability has deteriorated sharply.

Key Data

The affordability-entrepreneurship gap is large and growing:

• Young renters see an 8.4% decline in self-employment rates when housing price-to-income ratios rise 10%. For incorporated businesses with higher capital requirements, the effect is similar though less precisely estimated.

• Young homeowners see a 6.8-7.7% increase in self-employment when affordability declines, driven by expanding home equity that relaxes borrowing constraints.

• Renters now comprise 26% of the self-employed, up from 22% in 2000. Among young self-employed workers, nearly 40% are renters, precisely the group most exposed to economic (and affordability) shocks.

• The mechanism is structural, not cyclical: Excluding the 2008-2011 financial crisis from the analysis produces similar results, confirming this isn’t driven by temporary credit dislocations.

• Effects concentrate where liquidity binds tightest: The negative impact is strongest for unincorporated self-employment (necessity-driven businesses), non-tradable sectors, and asset-light industries where personal savings matter most.

• Demographic disparities amplify: Among renters, affordability shocks hit hardest for women, Asian workers, and US-born citizens, groups already facing systematically tighter credit constraints.

The research uses an instrumental-variable strategy, exploiting the fact that metro areas with inelastic housing supply (constrained by geography or regulation) experience larger price swings from the same national housing demand shocks. This isolates affordability effects from confounding local economic conditions like job growth or industry composition. The researchers interact national housing demand shocks with local housing supply elasticity from Saiz (2010), creating plausibly exogenous variation in affordability while controlling for local labor demand (Bartik shocks), credit supply (Community Reinvestment Act small business lending), unemployment, and population growth.

Two Opposing Mechanisms

The same housing market shock affects renters and owners through opposite channels, formalized in a theoretical model that guides the empirical analysis.

The Renter’s Liquidity Trap. Entrepreneurship and homeownership compete for the same scarce resource: savings. A young San Francisco renter earning $75,000 faces monthly rent consuming 40-50% of take-home income while needing a $150,000+ down payment to buy a home and access mortgage credit.

Higher rents raise the required return for entrepreneurship through two channels. First, they reduce risk-bearing capacity: lower expected future consumption makes households less willing to bear entrepreneurial income uncertainty. Second, they create a rent-burden channel: when borrowing constraints bind (typical for young households), higher rents increase the marginal utility of current consumption, making upfront entrepreneurial investment effectively more expensive.

The data confirm the model’s predictions. Young renters show 8.4% declines versus 5-6% for older renters, consistent with accumulated savings buffers. Effects are sharpest for unincorporated self-employment (freelancing, personal services, small-scale trade) that depends on personal cash flow. Incorporated businesses show effects too, but less consistently, since people clearing that higher capital threshold are already less liquidity-constrained.

The Owner’s Collateral Advantage. Rising house prices relax borrowing constraints through the collateral channel: higher home values expand borrowing capacity against housing wealth. A homeowner whose house appreciates from $400,000 to $500,000 can access $60,000-$80,000 in additional home equity credit. This borrowing (cash-out refinancing or home equity lines) remains the largest startup capital source for small business owners.

The model predicts (and data confirm) this effect is strongest for younger owners leveraging recent purchases. Young homeowners show 6.8-7.7% increases in self-employment; older homeowners show small, statistically insignificant effects.

Picture two 32-year-olds with similar education and income, one renting and one owning a Seattle condo purchased three years ago. When prices jump 20%, the renter’s monthly cost rises $400-$600 while saving capacity falls. The owner’s housing cost stays fixed (30-year mortgage) while net worth increases $60,000-$100,000 and credit access expands.

Selective Effects Reveal the Mechanism

Affordability shocks suppress entrepreneurship most in non-tradable sectors tied to local demand (retail, personal care, restaurants, construction) and asset-light industries (personal services, consulting, small retail). Tradable sectors and capital-intensive industries show weaker effects, confirming affordability shocks crowd out entry at the low fixed-cost margin.

The businesses that don’t form aren’t Silicon Valley startups but local service businesses (childcare providers, contractors, personal trainers, restaurant owners) providing neighborhood employment and community ties. Historically, these sectors offered economic pathways for people without credentials or connections.

Demographic disparities amplify. Women renters show particularly large declines, reflecting tighter credit access and smaller financial buffers. Asian renters (disproportionately in high-cost coastal metros) see sharp drops. Non-citizens and immigrants face even larger barriers, consistent with weaker credit histories and family wealth networks. Groups with systematically lower wealth and tighter credit access are precisely those for whom housing costs matter most, producing less diverse entrepreneurship concentrated among people with wealth buffers.

System Interactions Compound the Problem

Housing markets interact with other institutional failures:

• Restrictive zoning limits supply in productive metros

• Mortgage credit flows to home purchases but not business investment

• Financial regulations favor home equity borrowing over unsecured business loans

• Student debt delays homeownership, extending rent exposure

These are policy choices, not accidents. We’ve designed a housing finance system treating homes as leverageable assets and made homeownership the primary wealth accumulation vehicle. This works for people clearing the ownership threshold while systematically excluding everyone else from similar credit access.

Geography compounds constraints. High-cost metros (coastal cities, tech hubs, Sun Belt areas) offer the strongest agglomeration benefits but steepest affordability declines. Young entrepreneurs needing both affordable housing and strong business ecosystems increasingly can’t find either.

Generational timing matters. The 2010s brought declining homeownership, rising student debt, and delayed household formation for younger cohorts entering labor markets during recessions. These cohorts face lifetime earnings losses they’ll never recover. Adding housing-constrained entrepreneurship creates compounding disadvantages across multiple opportunity dimensions.

Why This Matters for Economic Dynamism

Business dynamism (the rate new firms enter, grow, and replace less productive incumbents) has declined sharply since the 1980s. Employment at young firms has fallen nearly half as a share of total employment.

Rising housing costs explain part of this pattern. High-productivity cities that should attract entrepreneurs have become less accessible as success drives housing costs beyond what young workers can afford without family wealth.

Feedback loops self-reinforce the problem. Deteriorating affordability concentrates entrepreneurship among homeowners who leverage collateral, raising the capital threshold for entry. Would-be entrepreneurs without housing wealth face higher barriers and steeper failure odds. Meanwhile, declining renter entrepreneurship reduces local business ecosystem diversity, potentially lowering innovation and dynamism in compounding ways.

The Political Economy Trap

Expanding housing supply (zoning reform, reduced parking requirements, streamlined permitting) would directly address affordability and indirectly boost entrepreneurship. Cities that allow building maintain better affordability.

But supply expansion faces entrenched opposition from homeowners who benefit from scarcity, vote at higher rates, organize effectively through neighborhood associations, and have clear financial incentives to block construction. Young renters have weak political voice. Existing homeowners dominate local land-use politics. Entrepreneurship advocates don’t connect housing costs to business formation.

Local governments control land use without bearing costs of exclusionary policies. Restricting supply raises renter prices while enriching homeowners who dominate local politics.

Breaking this requires either shifting land-use authority to higher government levels (California’s SB 9 and SB 10) or changing local government incentives by conditioning state aid on housing production. Both require political will to overcome status quo beneficiaries.

Policy Alternatives

Credit Market Reforms. Regulations favor home equity borrowing over unsecured business loans. Reforming rules to treat business investment like education loans (lending based on expected returns rather than current collateral) could expand access. This requires accepting higher default rates, but society might prefer that to excluding capable entrepreneurs lacking housing wealth. Public bank models providing seed funding or loan guarantees deserve attention, along with expanded microloans and community lending.

Housing Assistance. Rental assistance targeted to young entrepreneurs faces implementation challenges. Means-tested vouchers create cliff effects and work disincentives. Universal vouchers are expensive. Entrepreneur-specific subsidies invite gaming. The least distortionary approach may be broad-based subsidies reducing rent burden, but this requires substantial fiscal commitment and political consensus that doesn’t exist.

Complementary Barriers. Tax incentives disproportionately benefit higher-income entrepreneurs, but targeted versions (expanding SBA microloans, refundable credits for first-time business registration) could reach liquidity-constrained groups. Combining accelerators and incubators with grants or low-interest loans could address capital constraints these programs currently don’t solve.

A System Producing Predictable Outcomes

We’ve designed a system where housing wealth determines business capital access, then allowed housing to become unaffordable where economic opportunities are strongest. This isn’t about individual shortcomings or changing preferences. It’s a system producing predictable outcomes from its incentive structure.

When metropolitan areas become unaffordable, they don’t just redistribute wealth from renters to owners. They redistribute economic opportunity. Young workers aren’t becoming more risk-averse. They’re responding rationally to incentive structures where starting a business means foregoing homeownership (the primary wealth accumulation vehicle), making entrepreneurship a luxury good for those with homes or family wealth.

Whether we have political capacity to redesign this system remains open. What’s clear: the current system systematically excludes younger and less wealthy Americans from a traditional mobility pathway. That’s a policy choice, not economic inevitability. We could choose differently by expanding supply in high-opportunity metros, reducing business credit barriers for non-homeowners, and recognizing housing policy is entrepreneurship policy. But this requires confronting entrenched interests who benefit from current arrangements.

Share

In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, the psychohistorian Hari Seldon develops mathematical models proving the Galactic Empire is collapsing. His equations detect patterns invisible to individual observers: peripheral regions losing technical knowledge, productive capacity concentrating in the capital Trantor then atrophying, social cohesion dissolving despite aggregate prosperity.

The Empire’s decay follows predictable stages. Trantor, the administrative capital, grows to house over forty billion inhabitants: bureaucrats, financiers, and administrators consuming resources but producing nothing. As Asimov describes it: “All the land surface of Trantor, 75,000,000 square miles in extent, was a single city. The population, at its height, was well in excess of forty billions. This enormous population was devoted almost entirely to the administrative necessities of Empire.”

Share

Meanwhile, peripheral regions that once sustained the Empire lose technical knowledge systematically. Salvor Hardin, mayor of the Foundation’s colony on Terminus, describes the pattern: “We’re receding and forgetting, don’t you see? Here in the Periphery they’ve lost nuclear power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has undergone meltdown because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that nuclear technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they’re to restrict nuclear power.” The decay spreads: first they can’t maintain their systems, then they forget the principles, finally they treat remaining equipment as religious artifacts.

Trantor’s leadership dismisses Seldon’s similar warnings and put him on trial. The statistics look fine. Economic activity concentrates in the capital. Markets boom. Administrative employment soars. Why worry about distant manufacturing regions when the core economy thrives?

Seldon sees what aggregate numbers miss. At his trial for treason, he states plainly: “The fall of Trantor cannot be stopped by any conceivable effort. It can be hastened easily, however.” He explains to the imperial court: “The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity—a hundred other factors.”

Civilizations that stop producing and start only consuming, administering, and financializing don’t transition smoothly. They collapse. Not uniformly, but from the periphery inward. By the time the center notices, reconstituting lost productive capacity requires centuries.

Paul Krugman credits Foundation with inspiring his economics career. Economists love Seldon’s insight that mathematical models can predict civilizational patterns. What some miss is what doomed Trantor: the belief that administration and finance can replace production.

The Contrarian Bets

In 2018, Singapore (a city-state that successfully transitioned to services, with 73% of GDP from finance, trade, and logistics) announced Manufacturing 2030, a strategy targeting 50% growth in manufacturing value-add by 2030. Not preserving heritage industries. Aggressively expanding advanced manufacturing.

Meanwhile, China, having achieved the service transition that development economists prescribed, reverses course. After a decade experimenting with financialization and property speculation, Xi Jinping declares manufacturing the foundation of future development. “The real economy should not be abandoned, nor should the traditional industries within it.”

Two of the world’s most analytically sophisticated governments betting against academic consensus.

Development theory offers a clear path: agriculture/mining → manufacturing → services. Every economics textbook explains this progression. The advanced economies that abandoned manufacturing in the 1980s-2000s believed they were following natural economic evolution. Reagan-era policymakers shifted focus to services during recession. Clinton administration economists called the 1990s “the Fabulous Decade” as services boomed and manufacturing declined.

Singapore and China didn’t reject this logic casually. They independently discovered something about the service transition that conventional metrics didn’t detect. One learned through systematic research, one through crisis experience. Their analysis identified patterns in demographic data, employment multipliers, and competitive foundations that aggregate productivity statistics missed entirely.

The academic establishment pushes back hard. Leading economists at Peterson Institute argue that even eliminating the entire U.S. manufacturing trade deficit would increase manufacturing’s employment share by only 1.7 percentage points. Bruegel’s analysis concludes “the manufacturing jobs boom isn’t happening” and warns policymakers are “setting themselves up for failure.” IMF research argues that services can drive productivity growth just as well as manufacturing, and the decline in manufacturing jobs has contributed little to rising inequality in advanced economies.

The consensus: Services drive productivity growth. Trying to restore manufacturing jobs is nostalgic futility.

But what if the conventional metrics are measuring the wrong things?

What They Discovered

The Multiplier Asymmetry

Singapore didn’t set out to challenge development theory. As a small city-state facing survival constraints, it obsessively measures every economic relationship because mistakes show up immediately in a 280-square-mile economy. In 2018, the Ministry of Trade and Industry commissioned research to understand sectoral spillovers.

The numbers revealed an asymmetry that surprised the researchers. Manufacturing creates $0.29 in additional services for every $1 million in value-added. Services create only $0.02 in manufacturing. A 14.5x asymmetry. Employment followed the same pattern: 100 manufacturing jobs create 27 service jobs. 100 service jobs create only 3 manufacturing jobs.

Singapore’s policymakers checked whether this was a local quirk. U.S. data validated a similar pattern. Manufacturing multipliers range from $1.92 to $2.74 for every dollar of output, the highest of any economic sector. Retail and wholesale trade generate only $0.54 and $0.58 respectively.

Manufacturing doesn’t just create manufacturing jobs. It creates demand for precision logistics, specialized financing, engineering support, IP protection, and corporate R&D. These aren’t generic service jobs. They’re high-skill, high-wage positions requiring specialized expertise. Services mostly create demand for more services. Marketing agencies need graphic designers. Consultants need other consultants.

That 14.5x reveals what conventional metrics tend not to focus on: At high development levels, advanced manufacturing and sophisticated services are complements, not substitutes. Without manufacturing, services become generic rather than specialized.

Israel’s experience validates this finding. Between 1975 and 2005, Israel’s Office of the Chief Scientist enforced strict requirements that state-funded R&D be manufactured domestically. Products developed with public money had to be produced in Israel. Intellectual property couldn’t be transferred abroad without repayment of 3-6 times the original grant.

Between 1995 and 2011, high-tech employment more than doubled from 98,000 to 215,000 workers. Israeli economists quantified the multiplier effect: each employee in high-tech manufacturing created two additional jobs in non-manufacturing industries. Each R&D center employee created only one-third of an additional job.

When Given Imaging pioneered endoscopy capsule technology with $5 million in state R&D funding, the IP retention requirements forced a choice: take state money and build here, or forfeit the investment. The required technology didn’t exist domestically. Given Imaging built it anyway, establishing a production facility in Yokneam Illit that eventually employed nearly 1,000 workers.

High-tech exports grew from 14% of manufactured exports in the 1980s to 54% by the early 2000s. The multiplier worked exactly as Singapore’s research predicted: manufacturing created sophisticated services, not the reverse.

The Demographic Signals

China discovered the problem through crisis. After decades of manufacturing-led growth that lifted 800 million people from poverty, China faced pressure to rebalance toward services and domestic consumption. The 2008 global financial crisis provided the catalyst: massive stimulus, doubled bank lending, infrastructure investment boom.

GDP growth remained steady at 7%. The service sector expanded to 50% of economy. By conventional metrics, the transition was working. But total debt doubled to nearly 3x GDP. Nearly 40% of bank loans went to property speculation. Domestic consumption remained stuck at 37% of GDP versus 60-70% in developed economies.

When the property bubble deflated, the diagnosis was confirmed. Evergrande defaulted in 2021 with over $300 billion in debt. The “service boom” had generated speculative froth, not sustainable prosperity.

Chinese policymakers paid attention to signals that conventional economic metrics weren’t designed to capture. Similar patterns were emerging across advanced economies, but going largely unnoticed.

Around 2000, U.S. life expectancy stopped improving for the first time since 1918. Between 1992 and 2017, deaths from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol abuse (what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton call “deaths of despair”) more than tripled among middle-aged Americans without bachelor’s degrees. By 2021, over 176,000 Americans died from despair-related causes, making it the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. Between 2019 and 2021, American men lost 1.8 years of life expectancy; women lost 1.2 years.

Case and Deaton identified the likely cause: “The collapse of the steady, decently paid manufacturing jobs that once gave meaning and purpose to working-class life.”

The pattern appears across advanced economies. Finnish men in stable service positions like police work saw 9% fertility decline between 2010-2019. Men in precarious ICT contract work saw 40% decline. Same education level, same sector, wildly different family formation patterns. In the Netherlands, administrative records show the highest-earning women now have 60% higher birth rates than the poorest, a reversal of historical patterns. When researchers measure income before childbearing decisions, higher income consistently predicts more children.

Homeownership rates for Americans under 35 dropped to 36.3% in late 2024, the lowest since 2019. For the first time on record, graduate unemployment now exceeds general unemployment. Young college graduates aged 23-27 experienced 4.59% unemployment in 2025, compared to 3.25% in 2019.

People make long-term decisions about children, education, and home-buying based on employment stability and economic security. Traditional metrics measured whether people had jobs. These indicators reveal whether those jobs support major life decisions. Countries with precarious employment show declining fertility, household formation, and human capital investment, regardless of GDP growth.

These are the signals that conventional measurement systems weren’t designed to detect.

The Competitive Foundations

Both Singapore and China independently converged on structural requirements for manufacturing competitiveness. Energy costs matter. Not as one input among many. As foundation.

Matt Parlmer () analyzed industrial electricity pricing data and found Southern China’s Pearl River Delta, the world’s electronics manufacturing hub, pays roughly $0.09/kWh for industrial electricity. California companies pay ~$0.24/kWh. Massachusetts pays ~$0.18/kWh. When electrons on one side of an ocean cost three times what electrons on the other side cost, you don’t need sophisticated economic modeling to predict where capacity gets built.

Europe’s experience confirmed this logic. Between 2019 and 2023, UK industrial electricity prices grew 124%, Hungary 171%, Poland 137%, and France 93%. During the same period, U.S. industrial prices grew only 21%. When Europe’s industrial electricity costs doubled relative to the U.S., manufacturing weakened systematically.

The competitive gap is widening rapidly. Between 2017 and 2023, China quintupled its industrial robots per manufacturing worker while simultaneously growing its human manufacturing workforce. In 2023, China added more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined, installing roughly as many robots per year as the entire U.S. stock. On a per capita basis, China now deploys 470 industrial robots per 10,000 manufacturing workers, surpassing the United States’ 295.

But automation’s impact depends entirely on how it’s implemented. W. Edward Deming’s 11th point of quality management warned: “Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals.”

The American approach to automation followed exactly what Deming warned against. Rather than designing systems for long-term capability building, management pursued quarterly cost reduction targets. Automation became a tool for hitting numerical goals: reduce headcount by X%, cut labor costs by Y%. When firms automated to hit cost targets rather than build capabilities, they got cost reduction without productivity gains.

China automated while maintaining manufacturing employment as a system goal. In 2017, China had 97 industrial robots per 10,000 manufacturing workers compared to 200 in the U.S. By 2023, China quintupled its robot density while growing its human manufacturing workforce. The U.S. robot growth over the same period, for its shrinking human workforce, was less than 0.5x.

Same technology. Opposite outcome. The difference isn’t the robots. It’s whether management views workers as essential to the system or variables to optimize.

As Parlmer observes: “The main reason people offshore to China nowadays is access to a dramatically more sophisticated manufacturing sector than anywhere else in the world.” Not labor costs. Manufacturing sophistication.

Why the Consensus Was Wrong

If this analysis is correct, why did most advanced economies miss it? The forces that made abandoning manufacturing appear rational were powerful and self-reinforcing.

Short-term metrics looked good. GDP growth continued. Unemployment stayed low. The stock market tripled during the 1980s. Clinton’s 1990s averaged 4% annual growth with balanced federal budgets by decade’s end. Services created jobs. Why question success?

Management by objectives dominated corporate decision-making. Quarterly earnings targets, numerical performance metrics, and cost-reduction goals shaped strategic choices. Manufacturing required patient capital and long-term capability building. Services offered immediate returns measured in financial metrics. When you manage by quarterly objectives rather than system performance, abandoning manufacturing for services makes perfect sense.

Financial sector profits were enormous. Finance, insurance, and real estate generated huge returns with less capital investment than manufacturing. Reagan’s deregulation of financial markets continued under Clinton, making financial services increasingly lucrative.

The political economy favored change. Manufacturing unions were powerful and expensive. The service sector offered flexibility. Reagan breaking the air traffic controllers’ strike signaled broader anti-union shift that continued across administrations.

Israel’s experience shows how financial interests reshape systems. When the country’s venture capital sector gained influence in the 2000s, they successfully lobbied to weaken the IP retention requirements that had driven manufacturing scale-ups. The VCs wanted state R&D subsidies without conditions that would slow exits or reduce returns. The employment multipliers that had generated 2:1 spillovers during the IP retention era largely evaporated.

When Senator Marco Rubio raised similar questions during U.S. Innovation and Competition Act debates (what prevents Chinese acquisition of IP developed with U.S. funding?) the bill passed without proposed restrictions. Senator Bernie Sanders proposed amendments requiring recipient firms to give government partial equity stakes and prohibiting stock buybacks and outsourcing. The amendments failed.

The pattern repeats across political systems: Financial interests favor public risk-taking and private reward-taking. Manufacturing interests favor requirements that ensure domestic spillovers. When financial interests dominate policy, systems optimize for exits rather than employment.

Development theory provided intellectual justification. Every economics textbook endorsed the service transition as natural progression. The academic establishment, with few exceptions, dismissed concerns about manufacturing decline as protectionist nostalgia.

The hidden costs weren’t visible in real time because conventional metrics weren’t designed to detect them. Employment quality deterioration showed up in demographics but not GDP. Multiplier effects aren’t measured in national accounts. Energy cost foundations seemed like minor inputs. Automation benefits depended on implementation approaches nobody was tracking systematically.

But why could Singapore and China see what others missed?

Singapore’s small size forced obsessive empiricism. When you’re 280 square miles, you can’t hide from consequences as much as a country large as the United States. The Ministry research that discovered multiplier asymmetries came from institutional necessity to optimize limited resources. Mistakes show up immediately.

China’s crisis experience made the service transition failure visceral. Property bubble collapse affected millions directly. Leadership with long time horizons could see demographic warning signs early. When social stability is threatened, you pay attention in ways that countries coasting on legacy advantages don’t.

The Counterarguments

The mainstream economic response to this analysis is sophisticated and deserves engagement. Economists at Peterson Institute and Bruegel aren’t naive. Their calculations are technically correct within their framework. Eliminating the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit would marginally increase manufacturing’s employment share. Industrial subsidies haven’t delivered promised job growth in the timeframes politicians claim.

The dispute isn’t about arithmetic. It’s about what economic systems are meant to optimize. IMF economists are correct that services productivity growth matches manufacturing in aggregate statistics. Finance sector productivity soared throughout the 2000s. GDP per capita rose steadily even as manufacturing employment declined.

The question is whether aggregate productivity captures what matters for social stability.

Finance sector productivity soared while deaths of despair tripled. GDP grew while homeownership for under-35s collapsed. Fertility plummeted among precarious workers while remaining stable among secure ones. Graduate unemployment exceeded general unemployment for the first time on record.

The mainstream response would be: these problems reflect other failures (housing policy, healthcare costs, education debt, social safety net inadequacy). Fix those, and service-dominated economies work fine. Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Singapore itself thrive with majority service economies.

This argument has merit. But it assumes employment structure and social policy are separable. The evidence suggests they interact. Services can grow GDP while undermining social stability. Gig work generates economic activity while making family formation decisions nearly impossible. The question isn’t whether services create economic activity. It’s whether that activity generates the employment stability that supports long-term decisions about children, homes, and education.

The demographic patterns suggest that at current implementation levels in most advanced economies, service-dominated structures correlate with social instability regardless of aggregate growth. This could reflect policy choices rather than inherent limitations, but those policy choices have proven remarkably difficult to change across different political systems.

The Reconstitution Challenge

Understanding this analysis doesn’t mean copying it works. Local institutional context determines which policies actually succeed.

Two Mexican states pursuing identical industries over 40 years illustrate the problem. Jalisco and Querétaro both developed electronics, ICT, automotive, and aerospace industries from the 1980s through 2010s. Same global opportunities. Same federal support. Radically different results.

Jalisco’s business-guided approach let private sector design policies: tax exemptions, deregulation, land grants. The state hosted over 30 corporate R&D centers and diversified from 3 electronics products to over 30. But less than half the ICT firms survived past 2015. Researchers documented “scarce spillovers” to local firms. Explosive proliferation without sustainability.

Querétaro’s state-guided approach created lasting institutions: specialized training programs, quality infrastructure networks. The state achieved world-class efficiency in automotive and aerospace. OEMs transferred entire production lines from Japan and Canada citing superior production efficiency. But product diversification remained limited.

These patterns persisted through multiple political transitions. Early wins locked in approaches that later became constraints. Countries can’t simply copy policies from others. Local institutional styles, built over decades, determine which policies actually work.

The U.S. lost global semiconductor manufacturing share from 37% in mid-1990s to 12% by 2020. The pattern mirrors Asimov’s Empire exactly. Peripheral regions first lose the ability to maintain their systems. Then they forget the underlying principles. Finally, they treat remaining technology as something mysterious, importing what they can no longer make.

The U.S. semiconductor industry followed similar stages. First, manufacturing moved offshore while design stayed domestic. America would innovate, Asia would produce. Then advanced packaging and testing migrated because they required proximity to manufacturing. Now cutting-edge process development happens where the fabs are, because you can’t separate R&D from production at the technological frontier.

The knowledge atrophied because the institutional systems that created and transmitted it (the fabs, the supplier networks, the engineering communities, the daily problem-solving on production floors) dissolved. You can’t rebuild capacity by funding research alone.

Rebuilding requires reconstituting the entire system: manufacturing facilities, supplier ecosystems, technical communities, institutional knowledge embedded in thousands of daily decisions. Israel discovered this when IP retention requirements forced Given Imaging to build domestic manufacturing capability that didn’t exist. China is building it through patient, systematic investment at scale.

What Policy Actually Requires

Current U.S. policy reveals the difficulty. The CHIPS and Science Act allocated $52.7 billion to rebuild semiconductor manufacturing: $30.6 billion in grant awards to 19 companies across multiple states. This represented the first serious industrial policy in decades.

Then President Trump called the program “a horrible, horrible thing” and urged Congress to eliminate it. The Commerce Department laid off 40 workers from the CHIPS program. Manufacturing employment has fallen 42,000 jobs since his tariff announcement in April 2025.

Tariffs without industrial policy don’t rebuild what decades hollowed out, assuming that’s the goal. They raise costs for manufacturers that remain, since over half of U.S. imports are business inputs: industrial supplies, capital goods, materials. Tax Foundation analysis documents how tariffs on manufacturing inputs hurt American manufacturers who depend on global supply chains.

The U.S. needs energy infrastructure that makes industrial electricity competitive with China, not three times more expensive. It needs patient capital that abandons quarterly objectives for decade-long capability building. It needs functional labor relations that treat workers as system components rather than costs to minimize. It needs political institutions that can sustain multi-administration commitments.

Brazil’s agricultural research corporation Embrapa provides evidence that successful industrial policy can work against conventional wisdom. Between 1973 and 2010, Embrapa increased Brazilian agricultural productivity by 110%, generating $17 in benefits for every dollar spent. The key: geographic dispersion, not concentration. Embrapa established 40+ research centers across Brazil’s six biomes, with researchers in the Amazon studying Amazon problems.

Had Embrapa concentrated all resources in Brasília headquarters, productivity gains would have been just 70% instead of 110%. The benefit-cost ratio would drop from 17 to 11. This matters because manufacturing, like agriculture, increasingly requires solutions adapted to local conditions: energy infrastructure, workforce capabilities, supplier networks, regulatory environments.

For the United States, this suggests regional strategies rather than national mandates. Texas’s energy costs, Washington’s hydropower, remaining technical expertise in specific sectors provide foundations. But even regional strategies require institutional transformations that take years: patient capital, functional labor relations, infrastructure investment measured in decades.

China’s Made in China 2025 robotics program (recent analysis) reveals both achievements and constraints. The program mobilized 12 pilot cities and 604 companies, generating nearly 400,000 patents. China’s domestic industrial robot market share rose from marginal to 52.45% by 2023.

Yet upstream component producers showed no statistically significant improvement in core technologies. Precision reducers, controllers, and sensors remain beyond reach despite seven years of targeted support. Core component development requires 5-10 year cycles versus 1-2 years for applications, materials science breakthroughs rather than incremental improvements, and precision manufacturing capabilities developed over generations.

Chinese policymakers understand these limits. The question for the United States is whether it can match even this level of sustained commitment.

The Experiment’s Results

The evidence is clear. Singapore’s 14.5x asymmetry. Israel’s 2:1 employment spillovers under IP retention requirements. Over 176,000 annual deaths of despair. Collapsing homeownership among the young. Plummeting fertility concentrated among precarious workers. China quintupling robot density while growing human manufacturing employment as the U.S. does neither.

Singapore’s manufacturing sector grew 4.3% in 2024, with S$31 billion committed through 2025. China could control half of all industrial robots globally by late 2025. American industrial electricity prices in population centers remain three times China’s rates, despite superior natural advantages.

The United States has spent four decades testing whether advanced economies can thrive on services alone, whether employment quality doesn’t matter as long as GDP grows, whether you can break the link between manufacturing and prosperity without social consequences. The results are written in life expectancy tables, birth rates, and homeownership statistics.

In Foundation and Empire, the sequel to Asimov’s original work, the Foundation faces what appears to be an overwhelming external threat: a mutant warlord called the Mule with powers psychohistory couldn’t predict. Everyone focuses on this external shock that broke Seldon’s Plan (despite the previous Seldon Crises). But the real threat isn’t revealed until later. The First Foundation had maintained surface-level technological superiority (advanced weapons, superior equipment, higher productivity) while losing the deeper institutional knowledge that made innovation possible. They operated sophisticated technology without understanding underlying principles. When tested by external pressure, this hidden weakness became catastrophic.

China isn’t America’s Mule, the unpredictable external threat. China is revealing what four decades of policy choices already broke. The U.S. maintains technological leadership through globally dispersed supply chains it no longer controls. Advanced chips designed in California, manufactured in Taiwan using Dutch lithography equipment and Japanese materials. Like the First Foundation’s weapons built from imported components they couldn’t manufacture themselves.

The institutional transformations necessary to rebuild can’t happen overnight. They require sustained commitment across multiple administrations, patient capital that abandons quarterly thinking, functional labor relations, and energy infrastructure investment measured in decades. The question isn’t whether transformation is difficult. The question is whether the alternative is sustainable.

As Case and Deaton wrote: “Destroy work and, in the end, working-class life cannot survive.”

Seldon’s warning at his trial echoes across the centuries: “The fall of Trantor cannot be stopped by any conceivable effort. It can be hastened easily, however.” The fall he predicted came from “a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity.” From the center focusing on administration and finance while the periphery lost the knowledge to produce.

The United States still has technical advantages, remaining manufacturing expertise, natural resource wealth that could support competitive energy costs. The institutional capacity to exploit these advantages is dissolving in real time. How long before recognition comes? In Asimov’s Foundation, it came too late. Reconstituting what had been lost required centuries.

Share

Evolution keeps inventing crabs.

Biologists call this carcinization: the tendency of crustaceans to independently evolve crab-like forms. King crabs aren’t true crabs. Neither are hermit crabs or porcelain crabs. They evolved from different ancestors at different times in different oceans, yet converged on the same body plan: claws, a hard shell (homegrown or secondhand), flattened carapace, reduced tail, legs optimized for walking.

Share

Nature finds the crab shape over and over because it solves fundamental problems about living on the ocean floor. The form isn’t copied. It’s rediscovered.

Healthcare policy just did the same thing.

In 1961, Japan implemented universal health insurance with government-set prices and unrestricted equipment deployment. Goal: make healthcare affordable and accessible. Side effect: Now MRI scans cost $160-200 (with some hospitals even lower!), life expectancy reached 84.5 years, and a domestic medical imaging industry emerged.

In 2020, Operation Warp Speed guaranteed vaccine purchases before products existed, negotiated prices during development, and streamlined deployment. Goal: end the pandemic fast. Side effect: vaccines in under one year, domestic mRNA manufacturing capacity, proof that coordinated procurement works.

American health economists call Japan’s system “overutilization” and “supplier-induced demand.” They celebrate Operation Warp Speed as innovative emergency response.

They’re looking at the same organism and seeing different species.

Both systems converged on identical principles: guaranteed demand + price discipline + minimal barriers to deployment. Different origins, different goals, same solution. Like crabs, this policy form keeps getting rediscovered because it solves fundamental problems about translating medical innovation into population health.

Why do Americans abandon proven principles the moment COVID becomes endemic? And can we spot the same convergent evolution in policy failures, where different systems independently discover the same dysfunctions?

The Cancer Detection Paradox

Start with numbers that make no sense.

Japan has 57 MRI scanners per million people. America has 28 per million. Between 2005 and 2011, CT scanners increased 47% and MRI scanners 19% in Japan with no government restrictions. Small clinics compete by buying imaging equipment.

Every healthcare economics textbook says this should be catastrophic. Fee-for-service payment plus equipment proliferation equals spiraling costs, wasteful testing, worse outcomes. Certificate of Need laws exist in 35 U.S. statesspecifically to prevent this “overcapacity,” requiring government permission before hospitals can buy expensive equipment or add beds.

But Japan’s “wasteful” system produces MRI costs one-fifth of America’s ($160-200 vs $1,100-1,700), healthcare spending half of America’s (8.5% of GDP vs 17.6%), life expectancy 84.5 years versus 78.8, and the second-highest cancer survival rates globally.

This shouldn’t work. It does.

Cancer statistics reveal why. The 10-year survival rate for stage 1 stomach cancer in Japan is 80.4%. For stage 4: 6.0%. That 74-point gap isn’t about treatment quality. It’s about timing. Among Japanese lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2013, 38.6% were stage I at diagnosis. Their 3-year survival: 89%. Stage IV survival: 12.3%.

Small lung cancers under 2 cm increased from 23.4% of cases in 1994 to 39.0% in 2010, driven by widespread CT use.

The tradeoffs exist. Japanese physicians acknowledge that “clinicians have become indifferent to indications of imaging modalities and tend to rely on CT or MRI.” Japan’s estimated annual collective radiation dose from CT is 277,400 person-Sieverts, driven by physician workload, malpractice fears, and patient expectations. Defensive medicine is real. Some scans are unnecessary.

But the “wasteful” imaging catches cancer when surgery still works. Combined MRI and mammography screening in high-risk women produced cancer detection rates of 1.4% versus 0.5% for mammography alone. The MRI group had zero interval cancers (cancers appearing between screenings). The mammography-only group had nine.

MRI screening for hereditary breast cancer detected tumors significantly smaller and less likely to be node-positive than control groups. Most screening studies without MRI showed 30-45% positive nodes in high-risk women. With MRI: 21%.

Population-scale imaging access enables early detection. Early detection transforms survivability. The “overcapacity” is a cancer surveillance network operating at scale.

Which raises the real question: Why does this cost less rather than more?

When America Rediscovered the Crab

Operation Warp Speed did something American healthcare almost never does: eliminated market uncertainty through guaranteed demand.

OWS invested over $18 billion starting May 2020. Pfizer received a $2 billion order for 100 million doses before FDA authorization. Moderna got direct development funding. The government paid for factory expansion during clinical trials. Unprecedented financial risk that private capital wouldn’t take.

Companies built manufacturing capacity not knowing if their vaccines would work. Why? Guaranteed procurement eliminated downside risk.

Two vaccines received FDA emergency authorization in December 2020: Pfizer-BioNTech on December 11, Moderna on December 18. From virus sequencing to deployment: under one year.

The European contrast clarifies the mechanism. The European Commission spent months negotiating prices, achieved 24-45% lower costs than the U.S., but received almost no initial supply. Manufacturers prioritized countries guaranteeing payment. Price negotiation without procurement guarantees produced notional savings but actual shortages.

Critics argue this only works for emergencies because normal quality standards don’t apply. Wrong. FDA maintained safety standards throughout OWS. Emergency authorization compressed timelines by running trial phases in parallel and processing applications faster. Not lowering safety bars. The emergency revealed that standard timelines included significant slack.

The portfolio approach funded six vaccine candidates across three platform technologies: mRNA, viral vectors, protein subunits. Not picking one winner but de-risking multiple approaches simultaneously. Two became primary vaccines. The “waste” of funding four others bought speed insurance. When facing exponential pandemic growth, parallel development beats sequential optimization.

Guaranteed demand plus negotiated pricing plus parallel deployment plus portfolio risk management. Japan’s healthcare system uses the same structure, implemented continuously since 1961.

The Formula Both Systems Discovered

Both systems guarantee demand. Every Japanese resident must have health insurance by law since 1961. Patients don’t skip MRIs because of cost. Doctors don’t hesitate to order scans. Equipment runs at high utilization. OWS worked the same way. Government contracts guaranteed purchase of 100 million doses before vaccines existed. Make something that works and sales are certain.

When buyers commit to purchasing successful products, suppliers can invest in capacity without market risk. Private capital flows when government eliminates demand uncertainty.

This isn’t market distortion. It’s correcting for fragmentation that prevents coordination. Healthcare systematically violates conditions for efficient markets: multiple buyers can’t coordinate, information asymmetry is extreme, entry barriers are enormous, externalities are massive. The “natural” market delivers local monopolies with asymmetric information. Guaranteed universal coverage doesn’t distort. It enables coordination buyers couldn’t achieve individually.

Both systems enforce price discipline. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare sets a nationwide fee schedule negotiated every two years. For diagnostic imaging, a fixed amount is paid per scan as technical fee, currently around $160 for an MRI. That’s not suggested pricing. That’s the only price. OWS negotiated prices during development, paying for both R&D and manufacturing scale-up. Moderna: $15-25 per dose. Pfizer: $19.50 initially. Clear pricing before deployment.

Single-payer or coordinated buying power prevents monopoly pricing. Manufacturers compete on efficiency and innovation, not price exploitation.

Some argue OWS paid premium prices compared to other countries. True. And America got supply when others didn’t. The “premium” bought domestic manufacturing capacity and priority delivery. Other countries negotiated lower prices but got rationed supply. The choice wasn’t between high and low prices. It was between paying enough to guarantee supply or saving money but getting vaccines months later during exponential pandemic growth.

Japan makes the opposite calculation: accept lower margins but guarantee massive volume. The tension is real. Japan’s aggressive price cuts over 20 consecutive years have contributed to drug shortages and “drug lag.” Only 40% of new molecular entities launched between 2010-2015 are available in Japan, versus 61% in the US. Japan’s share of the global pharmaceutical market declined from 12% in 2003 to 5.1% in 2022. Both approaches work better than fragmented American healthcare, where dispersed buyers have no negotiating power and no guaranteed volume, producing high prices AND supply uncertainty.

Both systems remove barriers to rapid deployment. Japan has no Certificate of Need laws restricting equipment acquisition. Any hospital or clinic can buy imaging equipment if they can fill appointment slots at $160 per scan. OWS used Emergency Use Authorizations to compress approval timelines while maintaining safety standards. Other Transaction Agreements replaced standard federal procurement contracts that normally take six months, closing deals in three weeks.

Regulatory barriers that protect incumbents prevent competition and innovation. Removing unnecessary restrictions while maintaining safety standards allows rapid scaling.

Certificate of Need laws emerged from legitimate concerns about healthcare arms races and duplicated services in the 1970s. The worry: competing hospitals would overbuild, duplicate expensive equipment, then spread fixed costs across fewer patients by increasing utilization. Some early evidence suggested this was happening.

But research consistently shows CON laws increase costs 10-15% while reducing access, especially in rural areas. One study found CON laws resulted in 50% fewer hospitals per 100,000 persons and 12% fewer beds. The concerns were real. The solution failed. Scarcity-driven pricing overwhelmed any efficiency gains from avoiding duplication. Japan and Singapore don’t use CON laws. Neither do most peer nations. Congress eliminated the federal CON mandate in 1986; fifteen states have since eliminated CONs entirely.

High guaranteed demand plus negotiated pricing plus minimal barriers equals manufacturers investing in capacity and competing on efficiency rather than rent-seeking.

The Valley of Death and How Guaranteed Procurement Bridges It

Medical innovation typically dies between lab proof-of-concept and commercial manufacturing. Biotech calls this the valley of death. New technology requires massive capital investment with uncertain returns. Private capital won’t fund risky scale-up. Technologies languish despite being transformative.

DARPA funded Moderna’s mRNA platform research since 2013 with $25 million. Moderna designed its COVID vaccine in two days after China published the virus sequence. But proven technology doesn’t automatically scale.

Dr. Dan Wattendorf, who led DARPA’s biotech office: “DARPA’s early investments de-risked the technical problem. But they didn’t solve the fundamental capital shift we needed.” The technology worked in the lab. No one would fund billion-dollar manufacturing facilities with uncertain demand.

OWS changed the calculation: guarantee purchase if the product works, and private capital flows. Manufacturers built factories during clinical trials because downside risk was eliminated.

Japan solves this continuously for medical equipment. When buying MRI machines from Siemens or GE, Americans pay about twice as much as Japanese for the exact same machine. Japan sets low prices; manufacturers lower their prices to access the Japanese market. They charge Americans more because American hospitals will pay more.

Manufacturers face a choice: miss the Japanese market entirely, or engineer machines profitable at Japanese price points. The guaranteed volume makes lower margins viable.

Toshiba (now Canon Medical) developed Japan’s first MRI system in 1982. Japanese manufacturers specialized in cost-effective, high-reliability scanners for high-volume use. Hitachi sold over 7,000 permanent magnet MRI systems globally, with operating costs about one-third of superconducting systems. Fujifilm acquired Hitachi’s imaging business for $1.6 billion in 2021.

Japanese companies don’t dominate globally. Siemens, GE, and Philips still command roughly 65% of MRI market share. But Japan created a domestic manufacturing base in affordable, efficient imaging equipment through market conditions where only cost-effective designs survive.

Similarly, SiO2 Materials Science received a $143 million OWS contract to produce advanced vials domestically. The company spent a decade developing glass-plastic hybrid vials that could handle ultracold mRNA storage. VCs typically don’t invest in manufacturing startups. Guaranteed procurement changed that. President Laurence Ganti: “Before Warp Speed I thought the government would only slow things down. I am shocked at speed of government.” The jobs pay $80,000 annually in rural Alabama.

Guaranteed procurement converts research breakthroughs into scaled manufacturing. Both systems independently evolved this mechanism.

Why The “Overutilization” Diagnosis Fails

American health economists look at Japan’s scanner density and diagnose waste. They miss that high volume enables low unit costs.

Imagine you’re a Japanese hospital administrator. An MRI machine costs $1.5 million. You can charge $160 per scan. That’s not negotiable. It’s the only price the government will pay. The math only works if you’re running dozens of scans daily. What kind of machine do you buy?

Private hospitals in Japan wholly depend on reimbursement revenue, so they must adopt cost-effective (low-field) machines. Hospitals with high-field machines can’t escape deficits in MRI operation. When reimbursement is capped at $160 per scan, the premium 3-Tesla systems American hospitals prefer make no economic sense.

Japanese hospitals need machines that are cheap to purchase, cheap to operate, reliable enough for high-volume use, and adequate for routine diagnostics. Market selection pressures manufacturers toward cost-effectiveness rather than premium features.

Equipment pays for itself through volume. Finding stage 1 cancer instead of stage 4 means 80% survival instead of 6%. For stage 4 stomach cancer, 10-year survival is 6.0%. If detected at stage 1 it rises to 80.4%. Downstream savings dwarf imaging costs.

Paying billions for vaccine development before knowing if products would work looked wasteful. Until vaccines arrived in under one year instead of 5-10 years. The “waste” was optimization under conditions of exponential threat growth.

Critics measure equipment per capita and procedure volumes. They should measure productive years of life saved. By that metric, Japan’s “overcapacity” is optimization and America’s “efficiency” is waste.

The Accidental Industrial Policy in Both Cases

Neither system was designed as industrial policy. Japan’s goal: healthcare access through universal coverage, cost control, and early disease detection. OWS goal: end pandemic fast through rapid vaccine development.

But both created conditions for domestic manufacturing. Universal coverage guarantees demand in Japan; purchase commitments before product approval did the same for OWS. Unrestricted equipment deployment in Japan generates volume; building multiple factories simultaneously did the same for vaccines. Fee schedules negotiated every two years force cost innovation in Japan; negotiated pricing during development did the same for OWS. High utilization generates population-scale data in Japan; monitoring vaccine effectiveness across millions of doses served the same function for OWS.

Japan established the Japan Medical Image Database (J-MID) in 2018, containing CT and MRI scans from major university hospitals. Transformed to cloud infrastructure in 2023, J-MID now contains approximately 500 million images. Population-scale data enables AI-driven diagnostic improvements. Small-sample experiments can’t generate this.

OWS demonstrated the same principle. Continuous monitoring of vaccine effectiveness across millions of doses enabled rapid detection of rare side effects and optimization of dosing strategies.

The manufacturing base emerged as side effect. When hundreds of hospitals need profitable operation at $160 per scan, manufacturers meet that price point or lose the market. When government guarantees vaccine purchases, manufacturers build domestic capacity or miss the opportunity.

Convergent evolution doesn’t require conscious design. Selective pressures produce similar forms independently.

Convergent Evolution Also Produces Dysfunction

The same forces that independently produce successful policy forms also produce failed ones. America and Japan haven’t just converged on what works. They’ve converged on predictable failures.

83% of public hospitals in Japan operated at a deficit in fiscal 2024, with combined losses of ¥395.2 billion. This isn’t unique to Japan. Healthcare expenditures are projected to reach ¥89 trillion by 2040, 1.6 times current levels, creating a ¥27 trillion funding gap without tax increases. American hospitals face the same dynamic through different mechanisms: Certificate of Need laws create artificial scarcity, allowing incumbents to maintain monopolies while extracting rents. High prices, poor access, and hospitals that still go bankrupt when pandemics hit or populations shift.

Different causes. Same outcome. Convergent evolution toward financial instability.

Japanese physicians work 66.4 hours per week on average. A 2020 nationwide survey found 67.9% of resident physicians work over 60 hours/week, and 26.5% exceed 80 hours, the threshold for “karoshi” (death from overwork). American physicians face different pressures: administrative burden consumes 19% of hospital revenue navigating multiple payers, and physicians spend twice as much time on electronic health records as with patients. Japan extracts value from physician time through overwork. America extracts it through administrative complexity. Both systems independently discovered how to burn out their medical workforce.

Japan’s aggressive price cuts discourage drug development. America’s fragmented system produces monopoly pricing. Japan’s share of the global pharmaceutical market declined from 12% in 2003 to 5.1% in 2022. America’s prices are roughly double Japan’s for the same drugs, yet Americans contribute an estimated 78% of OECD profits from pharmaceuticals, essentially financing drug development for the world through monopoly rents. Neither system effectively translates high investment into accessible innovation. Both converged on extractive models that fail patients.

Policy convergence isn’t just about successes. Different political economies, constrained by similar pressures, independently evolve toward similar dysfunctions. Japan’s fiscal discipline produces hospital deficits and physician exhaustion. America’s market fragmentation produces administrative waste and monopoly pricing. The mechanisms differ. The failure modes converge.

Japan’s Response: Facing the Hidden Costs

Japan recognizes the stress points. Since April 2024, the country has implemented comprehensive physician work hour reforms capping annual overtime at 960 hours for most physicians, with special circumstances allowing up to 1,860 hours. Still far above the “karoshi line” of 80 hours monthly, but progress. Early data shows results: among pediatricians, those working ≥60 hours/week dropped from 51.7% in 2020 to 31.0% in 2024, and those exceeding 80 hours/week fell from 14.4% to 4.9%.

The pharmaceutical challenge presents a more interesting puzzle. Japan’s response, the 2024 drug pricing reforms, follows conventional wisdom: create new premiums for “early introduction” of innovative drugs, expand “usefulness premiums,” abolish company criteria that disadvantaged biotech firms, and provide stronger price protection for pediatric drugs. The goal: eliminate drug lag by making Japan more financially attractive to pharmaceutical companies.

This misses the lesson from Japan’s own success, especially as the fact that China is taking a more “industrial policy” approach.

Japan doesn’t need American drug prices. It needs the MRI approach applied to pharmaceuticals.

Consider the contradiction: Japan solved imaging equipment costs through guaranteed demand plus price discipline plus unrestricted deployment. This created a domestic manufacturing base in cost-effective imaging. The system works because manufacturers compete on efficiency rather than monopoly rents.

But for pharmaceuticals, Japan is moving away from this model. Trying to raise prices through premiums and protections rather than applying guaranteed procurement logic. The pharmaceutical industry explicitly demands this: “exclude innovative medicines from actual market price-based revisions during the patent period.”

This is backwards.

Apply Operation Warp Speed logic to pharmaceutical innovation instead. Guarantee procurement of domestically-developed pharmaceuticals that meet efficacy thresholds. Fund parallel development of multiple approaches to the same disease target. Create committed purchase agreements for biotech startups developing innovative therapies. Maintain price discipline while eliminating market uncertainty.

The guaranteed demand would solve the drug lag. Not by matching American prices, but by de-risking investment the way OWS did. Japanese biotech firms would know: develop an effective therapy and the domestic market is guaranteed. Foreign firms would include Japan in early trials not because prices are high, but because guaranteed procurement at reasonable prices beats the uncertainty of American fragmentation.

Hospital financial deficits and physician burnout are being addressed through direct interventions: work hour caps, staffing requirements, financial reforms. These are tractable problems with known solutions.

But pharmaceutical policy represents a fork in the road: Japan can either abandon its successful model by raising prices toward American levels, or it can double down on guaranteed procurement plus price discipline as the solution to drug lag. The MRI approach worked. The OWS approach worked. The question is whether Japan recognizes its own success.

The American Political Paradox: Both Parties Abandon OWS

America, meanwhile, has orphaned its own proof of concept.

Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in under one year. Trump once called it “one of the greatest achievements ever.” But during the 2024 campaign, he barely mentioned it. In a June 2023 Fox News interview, Trump explained: “I really don’t want to talk about it because, as a Republican, it’s not a great thing to talk about, because for some reason it’s just not.” Governor DeSantis distinguished himself as a vaccine skeptic. Trump was reduced to defensively noting DeSantis had initially supported vaccines.

Democrats haven’t championed OWS either. Despite “progressive enthusiasm for Covid vaccines, there’s been no effort to systematize or institutionalize the successes of Operation Warp Speed,” writes Noah Smith. Vaccine development for new COVID variants remains slow. Next-generation coronavirus vaccines get no fast-track funding. The organizational capabilities that produced vaccines in under a year have dissolved.

The most successful American industrial policy intervention in decades has no political constituency.

Simultaneously, Trump’s administration is allowing the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire at the end of 2025. These subsidies (passed during COVID and extended in 2022) cover 22 million Americans. Without them, average premiums will rise from $888 to $1,904 annually. About 80% of subsidy beneficiaries live in states Trump won. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4 million people will become uninsured.

Yet Republicans largely oppose extending the subsidies, with conservative groups arguing they “exacerbate rising health care costs.” Polls show 78% of Americans, including majorities of Republicans and MAGA supporters, support extending them. The political response is a shutdown that ended for a promise for a vote on subsides (no guarantees). If the vote happens, it will fail. The policy is popular, except with political leadership apparently. The beneficiaries are mostly Trump voters. The subsidies are ending anyway.

Proven interventions that work become politically radioactive. OWS demonstrated guaranteed procurement works. Both parties ignore it. Enhanced ACA subsidies expanded coverage to 24 million people. They’re expiring. The principles that Japan applies continuously, America abandons the moment emergencies end.

Concentrated interests benefit from fragmentation. Insurance companies, hospital systems, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and device makers extract rents from dysfunction. Insurers consume $16 of every $100 in administrative overhead, but under medical-loss-ratio rules, higher provider costs mean higher allowable insurer profits. They don’t want to control costs. They want costs to rise while they capture their percentage. Certificate of Need laws increase costs 10-15%, but incumbent hospitals defend their monopolies. Diffuse costs, concentrated benefits.

OWS succeeded partly because pandemic urgency overwhelmed these barriers. The organizational structure resembled a pharmaceutical company without shareholders demanding short-term profits. Emergency enabled coordination that normal politics prevents.

But when COVID stopped being a declared emergency, proven principles became politically toxic. Republicans can’t champion vaccines without alienating the base. Democrats won’t systematize OWS’s industrial policy, preferring the old ineffective system that came before. Both parties would rather Americans pay double and die younger than acknowledge the other side proved guaranteed procurement works.

This too is convergent evolution, toward political dysfunction. Different constraints, same failure mode. Japan’s challenge is applying its successful model to pharmaceuticals. America’s challenge is applying any model continuously rather than only during declared emergencies.

What the Crab Form Tells Us About Policy

Healthcare policy keeps discovering guaranteed procurement plus price discipline plus deployment freedom. The pattern holds across successes and failures.

Successes converge on guaranteed demand eliminating market uncertainty, price discipline preventing monopoly rents, minimal deployment barriers enabling rapid scaling, and portfolio approaches managing risk. Failures converge on hospital financial instability through different mechanisms, physician burnout through different extraction methods, pharmaceutical dysfunction through opposite pricing errors, and political economy favoring concentrated interests over diffuse benefits.

Japan produces 5-6 extra years of life at half America’s healthcare costs, with second-highest cancer survival rates globally. But it also struggles with hospital deficits, physician burnout at the “karoshi” threshold, and pharmaceutical drug lag. Japan is responding: work hour reforms cut extreme physician overwork, and 2024 pharmaceutical pricing reforms target the drug lag.

But Japan’s pharmaceutical solution moves away from guaranteed procurement toward matching American prices. This abandons the very principles that made MRIs affordable. Japan should apply OWS logic to pharmaceuticals: guarantee procurement of effective therapies at disciplined prices rather than raising prices to American levels. The guaranteed demand would solve drug lag through de-risked investment, not monopoly rents.

America proved these principles work in 2020. Then both parties abandoned them. Trump barely mentions OWS during campaigns because “as a Republican, it’s not a great thing to talk about.” Democrats haven’t systematized its lessons. Enhanced ACA subsidies covering 22 million Americans are expiring despite 78% public support including Republican majorities.

The most successful American industrial policy intervention in decades has no political constituency. Concentrated interests benefit from fragmentation. Insurers extract $16 of every $100 while being financially incentivized not to control costs. CON laws increase costs 10-15%, but incumbent hospitals defend their monopolies. Americans pay double for worse outcomes because political economy rewards dysfunction.

The convergent form works. The evidence is clear. Japan’s healthcare spending as GDP percentage has remained relatively stable while costs rise in absolute terms. America’s 17.6% and rising. That’s the crisis.

Different selective pressures produce the same solution when it’s optimal. The question is whether either country can learn from its own successes. Japan must recognize that MRI logic solves pharmaceutical lag, not American price levels. America must acknowledge that OWS principles work continuously, not just during declared emergencies.

Evolution doesn’t care about intentions. It selects for what works. The question is whether political systems can sustain proven solutions once the immediate crisis passes, or whether it will take another emergency to force another temporary convergence.

Americans face ongoing emergencies: life expectancy 4 years shorter than peer nations, $1,145 average per MRI in 2018 versus $~160 in Japan, cancer survival rates lagging, healthcare consuming 17.6% of GDP heading toward 20%.

These kill more Americans annually than COVID-19 did in 2020. Somehow only COVID merited the efficiency of guaranteed procurement and coordinated action. The crab form works. We keep abandoning it. That’s the real convergent evolution, toward political systems that can’t sustain what works.

Share

The paper (Does “Made in China (2025)” improve innovation quality in robotics? Evidence from PageRank-based patent network by Yihan Han, Silu Pang, Fuxin Jiang and Tao Wang) talks about the (frankly) surprising success of the Made in China 2025 in boosting the actual quality of China’s robotics industry (well midstream and downstream, not so much the upstream). China overtaken Japan a while ago in advanced industrial robots manufacturing, but one of the key (and cliched) limits is the *quality* of the robots. That is frankly changing. The program mobilized 12 pilot cities and 604 companies generating 398,872 patents, yet achieved contrasting outcomes across the robotics value chain. These results offer evidence for global debates about industrial policy effectiveness.

Share

By the numbers:

• China's domestic industrial robot market share rose from marginal to 52.45% by 2023

• Robot exports increased 86.4%

• 8,453 firm-year observations from 604 A-share listed robotics companies (2010-2023)

• Innovation quality improved 15.9% overall in pilot cities after 2017

• Downstream integrators achieved 23.4% innovation quality gains

• Midstream manufacturers saw 17.3% improvement

• Upstream component makers showed no statistically significant improvement

• Sample includes 209 upstream, 111 midstream, and 284 downstream companies

The methodology: The paper use an enhanced PageRank algorithm to measure innovation quality through patent citation networks. The method evaluates patents based on their influence on subsequent innovations, similar to how Google's algorithm ranks websites by the quality of incoming links.

Four Mechanisms Driving Partial Success

1. Targeted Innovation Subsidies

Pilot cities including Guangzhou, Wuhan, and Nanjing shifted from general corporate support to R&D-specific funding. Innovation subsidies increased 67.2% (statistically significant at 1% level) while general subsidies showed no significant change. Researchers identified 68,354 innovation subsidy records through keyword analysis of government documents.

2. Strengthened Intellectual Property Protection

Patent infringement resolution rates rose 5.1% in pilot zones (p < 0.05). Guangzhou implemented rapid protection systems with enhanced penalties and established monitoring mechanisms for IP violations. The study measured protection strength using the formula: Resolution Rate × ln(1 + Granted Patents), capturing both enforcement effectiveness and innovation activity.

3. Accelerated Robot Adoption

Robot installation density increased 111.8% in pilot regions (p < 0.01). This created feedback loops between manufacturers and users. Suzhou Green Harmonic Drive, for example, developed "P-tooth" structures and third-generation harmonic transmission technology in response to specific demands from Yangtze River Delta manufacturers. The study weighted installations by industry robot intensity and regional labor shares to calculate accurate density measures.

4. Enhanced Human Capital

Firms in pilot cities increased their share of employees with advanced degrees by 6.2% (p < 0.05) and raised per-employee training expenditure by 10.6% (p < 0.01). Programs such as the "Pearl River Talent Plan" attracted high-skilled professionals while universities partnered with companies for collaborative innovation.

Value Chain Analysis Reveals Sharp Contrasts

Successful segments:

• Midstream robot body manufacturers (111 companies, 149,632 patents): 17.3% improvement focusing on mechanical components, end effectors, and joints

• Downstream system integrators (284 companies, 160,649 patents): 23.4% improvement in welding, assembly, and service robot applications

Failed segment:

• Upstream component producers (209 companies, 88,591 patents): No significant improvement in core technologies including reducers, controllers, and sensors

The policy coefficient for upstream firms was 0.089, statistically indistinguishable from zero despite seven years of targeted support. These companies focus on precision reducers, control algorithms, high-performance sensors, and servo systems where Japanese firms Nabtesco and Harmonic Drive maintain dominance.

Validation Through Multiple Approaches

The study's robustness checks confirm the main findings:

• Propensity Score Matching: 14.5% effect persists with 3,841 matched observations

• Entropy Balancing: Effect increases to 16.6% after balancing covariates

• 500 placebo tests: Random assignments cluster around zero

• Alternative innovation measures confirm improvements: invention patents up 12.1%, utility patents up 23.2%, forward citations up 10.2%

When excluding COVID-19 years (2020-2021), the policy effect strengthens to 17.9%, suggesting temporary pandemic disruption rather than policy failure. The effects remain significant after controlling for concurrent AI Innovation and National Innovative City pilot programs.

Large Firms Captured Disproportionate Benefits

Established companies benefited more than smaller firms:

• Large firms (above median assets): 20.0% innovation improvement (p < 0.01)

• Small firms: 12.9% improvement (p < 0.01)

• Difference statistically significant at 5% level

This 55% stronger effect for large firms contradicts expectations that smaller companies would respond more dynamically to policy incentives. The study attributes this to superior resource access, established R&D infrastructure, and stronger institutional relationships among larger firms.

Shanghai Step Electric: A Case Study

The company exemplifies successful innovation under the policy. Using the PageRank algorithm, researchers tracked how Shanghai Step's patents evolved from baseline scores to 230.3, indicating genuine influence on subsequent control system innovations. The analysis traced specific patent citations through IPC classifications including B25J (manipulators), H02P (control of electric motors), and G01B (measuring instruments), demonstrating knowledge diffusion across technical domains.

Technological Barriers Explain Upstream Failure

Core component development faces fundamentally different challenges:

• Development cycles of 5-10 years versus 1-2 years for applications

• Requirement for materials science breakthroughs rather than incremental improvements

• Need for precision manufacturing capabilities developed over generations

• Investment scales exceeding downstream innovation by orders of magnitude

Green Harmonic achieved advances in torque and lifespan but continues to lag behind Harmonic Drive in precision and noise reduction. These gaps reflect accumulated expertise rather than funding shortfalls.

Policy Implications

For upstream technologies: Establish mission-driven teams combining enterprises and universities, support technology acquisition through overseas mergers with tax incentives, create patient capital funds with horizons exceeding 10 years, and focus resources on specific technical bottlenecks.

For quality assessment: Implement three-tier evaluation frameworks with government standards, third-party technical assessment, and enterprise data provision. Apply network-based algorithms to identify breakthrough innovations beyond simple patent counts.

For ecosystem development: Strengthen IP protection infrastructure before expecting innovation returns, facilitate researcher mobility between institutions, create platforms linking technology users and developers, and implement targeted talent programs modeled on successful pilot city initiatives.

Bottomline

The Made in China 2025 initiative demonstrates the potential of industrial policy, and the blindspots that policymakers might want to be aware of. The program successfully improved quality in robot applications and integration, where market feedback loops are tight and development cycles short. However, it failed to advance core component technologies requiring fundamental scientific breakthroughs and generational expertise accumulation.

This divergence suggests that industrial policy works best when enhancing existing capabilities rather than creating entirely new ones. China's 52.45% market share built partially on imported components showcase this: policy can accelerate commercialization and application innovation. It cannot compress the time required for basic technological development, unless you design for basic technological development. Successful industrial policy requires matching support mechanisms to technological characteristics. Resources alone cannot overcome the patient accumulation of expertise that defines leadership in precision manufacturing and materials science.

For American, European, Japanese, Korean, etc policymakers: Another paper on top of the mountain of evidence suggests it's time to grow up and move past consensus about whether governments should have an industrial policy or even funding it (because tariffs and noise making doesn’t exactly seem to provide results ig you aren’t going to put your money where your mouth is).

The question isn't whether industrial policy works, China keeps on just proved it does, you just need to make sure to adapt it on a market by market basis. The real question is whether you're willing to compete in a world where your biggest rival is successfully using tools you've spent 50 years claiming don't work or been downgrading.

Share

Brazil's agricultural research corporation proves developing countries can escape the "technology mismatch trap" through strategic public investment in locally-appropriate innovation, transforming from food aid recipient to the world's third-largest agricultural exporter. A new NBER working paper, "Public R&D Meets Economic Development: Embrapa and Brazil's Agricultural Revolution" by Ariel Akerman, Jacob Moscona, Heitor S. Pellegrina, and Karthik Sastry, provides the first rigorous quantification of these returns.

Share

By the numbers:

• 110% increase in Brazilian agricultural productivity from Embrapa's research

• 17-to-1 benefit-cost ratio (compared to 5-to-1 for U.S. public R&D)

• 39% of Brazil's total agricultural productivity growth since 1970

• 2,300 agricultural scientists employed by 2010

• 350+ crop varieties developed

• 200 international patents secured

The backstory: In 1973, Brazil faced a crisis. The country relied on foreign food aid while sitting on 2 million square kilometers of unused Cerrado savanna. Norman Borlaug said this land would never be productive due to acidic soils, aluminum toxicity, and nitrogen deficiency.

Brazil's response: Create Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária) with a radical premise. Don't import foreign technology; develop solutions for Brazil's unique ecology.

How they did it:

• Geographic spread over concentration: Embrapa established 40+ research centers across Brazil's six biomes, not in a single hub. Researchers in the Amazon studied Amazon problems; those in the Cerrado tackled acidic soils.

• Focus on staples, not cash crops: While existing research targeted coffee and sugarcane exports, Embrapa prioritized beans, cassava, maize, rice, soy, and wheat.

• Problem-based, not curiosity-driven: Scientists worked directly with farmers, developing agricultural liming to neutralize the Cerrado's acidic soils and creating the first soybean varieties for tropical latitudes.

• Scale matched ambition: By 2010, Embrapa's $1.15 billion budget equaled 1% of Brazil's agricultural GDP, comparable to U.S. agricultural R&D spending as a share of sector output.

What the data shows: MIT and Princeton economists analyzed 35,000+ Brazilian agricultural scientists' careers and nine census rounds to quantify Embrapa's impact:

• Embrapa researchers published 74% more articles about Brazilian biomes and 64% more about local pests than university researchers

• Employment at Embrapa increased researcher productivity, especially in remote regions where it fully compensated for the productivity disadvantage of working outside major research hubs

• Municipalities ecologically similar to new Embrapa centers saw agricultural output surge 30-40% within a decade

• Effects concentrated on Embrapa's focus crops: productivity gains for targeted staples dwarfed those for other crops

Decentralization Dividend: Had Embrapa concentrated all resources in Brasília headquarters, productivity gains would have been just 70% instead of 110%. The benefit-cost ratio would drop from 17 to 11.

Operating from a single location in Brasília still beats the average return from other potential single centers by 50%, suggesting strategic headquarters placement.

Key mechanisms at work:

• Technology mismatch matters: Research output's effectiveness decays rapidly with ecological distance. Technology developed for one biome often fails in another.

• Local focus drives innovation: Researchers were 1.75x more likely to study their local biome and 2x more likely to research locally-present pests

• Input intensification followed innovation: Fertilizer, seed, and chemical use surged in areas exposed to Embrapa research

• Land use shifted: Cropland expanded while pasture declined as crop productivity improved relative to livestock

What didn't happen:

• No crowding out of private research (Embrapa actually stimulated non-Embrapa agricultural research)

• No increase in inequality (farm size inequality decreased in areas with greater Embrapa exposure)

• No productivity penalty from geographic dispersion (Embrapa maintained high research output even in remote locations)

Historical parallel: Brazil's strategy echoes the Netherlands' post-WWII agricultural transformation, where Wageningen University anchored a government-led research and extension system that turned a war-ravaged nation into the world's second-largest agricultural exporter despite having 237 times less land than Brazil. Both cases demonstrate how coordinated public research institutions, farmer engagement, and technology development can revolutionize national agriculture.

Bottomline: Embrapa demonstrates that developing countries need not accept technological dependence. Strategic public R&D investment in locally-appropriate technology can drive massive productivity gains, but success requires both scale and geographic scope.

The model challenges Silicon Valley wisdom about innovation clustering. For technologies sensitive to local conditions (agriculture, medicine, climate solutions), spreading research infrastructure may generate higher returns than concentration.

With the low-hanging fruit harvested, returns to new Embrapa centers have declined from 60% productivity gains pre-1973 to 10% today. The organization now pivots toward climate resilience and sustainability rather than pure productivity growth.

Share

While the Fed prepares to engineer joblessness and despair to fight yesterday's supply-driven inflation, Trump's new tax bill would actively create tomorrow's supply shocks — raising electricity costs by $400 per family while destroying renewable energy jobs.

The Research That Exonerates Workers

In a comprehensive 35-page analysis published by the American Economics Association, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and economist Olivier Blanchard meticulously documented what really drove the pandemic-era inflation surge. Their findings should have vindicated workers who bore the brunt of criticism from inflation hawks.

The data tells a clear story: Energy price shocks accounted for the lion's share of inflation's rise in late 2021 and early 2022 — and "essentially all" of its decline in the second half of 2022. When Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices spiked further. When those shocks reversed, inflation fell. The correlation was unmistakable.

Labor markets? They actually contributed negatively to inflation in 2020 and early 2021. Even by 2023, after two years of supposed "overheating," tight labor markets remained "by no means dominant" as an inflation source. The feared wage-price spiral never materialized, workers couldn't even achieve nominal wage gains sufficient to maintain their purchasing power according to their own research!

The smoking gun: Sectoral shortages peaked in 2021:Q3, precisely when automobile production hit its trough (falling 25% to under 9 million units annually), inventories reached record lows, and Google searches for "chip shortage" and "car shortage" exploded. The supply constraints were visible, measurable, and temporary.

The Contradiction at the Heart of Fed Policy

This part broke me, I cannot even stomach this disgusting recommendation. Despite this evidence, the paper's prescription remains orthodox: reduce the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio from current levels to 1.2, potentially pushing unemployment above 4.3%. If this was a matter of excess cash in the system, then they would have a point, but they admit this isn’t the case. The authors acknowledge this would require "achieving a better balance of labor demand and supply" — economist-speak for reducing capital expenditure by the way that would increase production to handle inflation long term throwing people out of work, which often means the destruction of these people’s economic futures, and in some cases their lives.

The dishonesty, to the point I am I struggling not to call it depravity, is breathtaking. After proving that commodity prices, supply chain disruptions, and sectoral shortages drove inflation. They still recommend the same medicine: unemployment. It's as if a doctor diagnosed food poisoning but prescribed chemotherapy because that's what's in the medical textbook.

The Human Cost Already Mounting

This prescription ignores the suffering already visible in labor markets. Long-term unemployment — defined as joblessness lasting 27 weeks or more — has surged to 23.5% of all unemployed workers, the highest level in three years. These aren't statistics; they're people watching their savings evaporate, their career momentum stall, their retirement dreams recede.

"It's definitely a tough state out there," says Liz Bentley, a consulting firm founder. The stagnation hits workers across all career stages — from new graduates facing a "deteriorated" job market to mid-career professionals finding themselves suddenly unmarketable.

The housing market tells its own story of middle-class dreams deferred. Despite the good work of YIMBYs getting rid of zoning and trying to make it easier to expand housing supply. The insufferable rate increases since 2022 work to suppress new housing starts lower and lower. With 30-year mortgage rates stuck between 6% and 7% (double their 2021 lows), the median home now requires over a full year of household income for a down payment. Monthly mortgage payments consume 35% of the median household's income — a level that would have been considered predatory lending a generation ago.

Now Trump's Bill Makes Everything Worse

As if workers haven't suffered enough from being blamed for inflation they didn't cause, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" promises to recreate the very supply shocks that triggered the crisis — while destroying jobs in the industries that could solve it.

The legislation would slash renewable energy capacity additions by 72% over the next decade through a toxic combination of:

• Phasing out wind and solar subsidies by 2027

• Imposing new excise taxes on renewable projects using Chinese inputs (which most do)

• Curtailing support for domestic manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries

The cruel irony is perfect: After energy shocks drove inflation, and after punishing workers who had nothing to do with it, politicians now want to create new energy shocks by sabotaging the very industry that could prevent future ones.

The cost to families: Studies show ending renewable tax credits alone could push the average family's energy bill up by $400 per year within a decade. This from the party that claimed to care about the cost of living.

Even more perversely, the bill undermines America's tech industry just as it needs massive amounts of new electricity for data centers. With natural gas plants facing years-long backlogs and nuclear taking forever to build, renewables are the only quick solution. By throttling them, Trump's bill hands technological leadership to China on a silver platter.

New Supply Shocks on the Horizon

Meanwhile, fresh supply disruptions loom. The 12 day war has ratcheted Iran-Israel-American tensions to new heights, with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz during the war — the chokepoint for 20% of global oil trade. While the crisis cool for now, it is become increasingly clear it isn’t over. Energy analysts now assign a non-trivial probability to oil spiking above $100/barrel, potentially reigniting the very inflation the Fed claims to be fighting.

The absurdity compounds: The Fed prepares to create unemployment to fight yesterday's supply shocks, Trump's bill actively creates tomorrow's supply shocks, and new geopolitical risks threaten even more supply shocks — yet workers will pay the price for all of it.

China's Alternative Path

While American policymakers compete to see who can inflict more damage on workers and consumers, China is attacking the actual problem with stunning efficiency. In May 2025 alone, China installed 93 gigawatts of solar capacity — equivalent to Poland's entire electricity generation. They added 26 GW of wind power, roughly 5,300 turbines spinning up in a single month.

The scale defies comprehension. Between January and May, China added enough renewable capacity (198 GW solar, 46 GW wind) to power Indonesia or Turkey. Their total installed solar capacity now exceeds 1,000 GW — half the world's total.

This isn't just about climate goals. It's about energy security and price stability. By dramatically expanding energy supply, China directly addresses the constraints that Bernanke and Blanchard identified as inflation's primary driver. No unemployment required. No artificial energy scarcity created.

China's central bank seems to understand this. Despite facing similar global pressures, the People's Bank of China kept lending rates steady at 3.0% (one-year) and 3.5% (five-year). Officials express "strong degree of satisfaction" with their current stance. They're building solutions, not creating new problems.

Cruelty, At The Expense of Economic Power, Is Compounding

Workers face a perfect storm of policy failures:

Already happening:

• Fed engineering unemployment (especially long term unemployment) to fight inflation that workers didn't cause

• Long-term unemployment at 3-year highs

• Housing unaffordable with mortgages consuming 35% of income

• Real wages still below pre-pandemic levels

About to happen:

• $400 annual energy cost increases from Trump's bill

• Millions of renewable energy jobs destroyed

• New supply constraints from throttled clean energy production

• Potential oil shocks from Middle East tensions

• Potential shocks coming from rare earth metals

Bottomline

The Bernanke-Blanchard paper admits that workers didn't cause inflation. Energy shocks and supply constraints did, with more economists and politicians are *forced* to admit this . Yet the Fed prepares to punish workers with unemployment anyway. Now Trump's bill promises to recreate the very energy shocks that caused the problem while destroying jobs in the industries that could prevent future ones.

It's a deliberate choice to make innocents pay twice: first for inflation they didn't cause, then for politicians' refusal to address its actual sources. While some like YIMBYs are addressing causes of housing inflation, and antitrust are trying to deal with the whole cartel issue. If the cost of capital is high, capital expenditure keeps decreasing, and it’s harder and harder for people to find a job after a layoff. What do you think is going to happen?

The cruelty, it seems, is not a bug but a feature of American (and Western considering how god damn thirsty European politicians are for austerity, especially the British) economic policy — this universal agreement that innocents must suffer and look for any excuse to punish them, while China is building up capacity and actual economic power.

Nathan Lane's study "Manufacturing Revolutions: Industrial Policy and Industrialization in South Korea" in The Quarterly Journal of Economics provides the first rigorous empirical evidence that purposeful industrial policy can successfully transform an economy's manufacturing base. Using modern econometric techniques on newly digitized data spanning two decades, Lane's findings challenge conventional economic wisdom that governments can't effectively pick winners — demonstrating that temporary interventions can shift entire industries toward advanced markets when implemented with clear objectives and strong state capacity.

Share

By the numbers:

Direct industrial effects:

• 128% increase in output for targeted vs non-targeted industries (1973-1986)

• 109% rise in real intermediate outlays in HCI sectors

• 81.4% jump in total investment for treated industries

• 63.8% employment growth in targeted sectors

• 17.2% boost in labor productivity (value added per worker)

• 9.55% relative price reduction in HCI products

• 29.7% increase in number of plants in HCI markets

• 4.3% higher total factor productivity in HCI plants during 1980s

Export transformation:

• 13% greater increase in revealed comparative advantage vs non-HCI exports

• 10.6 percentage point rise in probability of achieving comparative advantage

• 4.92% increase in share of manufacturing exports

• 50% of total exports from HCI by 1983 (surpassing 1980 target)

• 11-13% higher probability of export success vs peer countries

Policy instruments:

• 5 percentage points - interest rate discount on policy loans

• 50% of all domestic credit through subsidized channels

• 100% import duty exemptions for HCI producers

• 80% average tariff exemption rate for "key industries"

• 6 sectors targeted: steel, nonferrous metals, shipbuilding, machinery, electronics, petrochemicals

Learning and spillover effects:

• 5.3% unit cost reduction per doubling of cumulative output in HCI

• 4.4% output increase for every 1% rise in forward linkages to HCI

• 0.46% price decrease for every 1% rise in forward linkages

• 0% significant effect through backward linkages to suppliers

Note: Forward linkages measure how much an industry supplies to others as inputs; backward linkages measure how much an industry purchases from suppliers

Study scope:

• 278 five-digit industries analyzed

• 1967-1986 study period with 1973 intervention

• 320 input-output sectors for linkage analysis

• 91,094 plants in post-1979 microdata

• 4 major industrial classification revisions harmonized

The backstory

Nixon's 1969 announcement of U.S. military withdrawal from Asia triggered an existential crisis for South Korea. The country faced an industrially superior North Korea without the promise of American protection. North Korea had pursued aggressive military industrialization throughout the 1960s, while South Korea lacked even a basic domestic arms industry. Without U.S. troops, military planners calculated South Korean forces couldn't withstand a North Korean invasion.

President Park Chung-hee responded with the Heavy and Chemical Industry (HCI) drive in January 1973, targeting six strategic sectors: steel, nonferrous metals, shipbuilding, machinery, electronics, and petrochemicals. The choice wasn't random. Korean planners recognized they couldn't leap directly to advanced weapons manufacturing, but they could produce the quality inputs that weapons required. Steel and metals would supply crucial defense components, electronics would enable modern weaponry systems, and machinery would support precision military production.

Foreign skeptics thought Korea was delusional. The World Bank blocked Korea's proposed integrated steel mill in 1969, declaring the country had "no comparative advantage in the production of steel." The IMF and USAID rejected financing for proto-HCI schemes throughout the early 1970s. The U.S. Export-Import Bank joined European lenders in refusing support for heavy industry ventures. These rejections continued right up until Park's autocratic self-coup in late 1972, which finally gave him the political power to push through the controversial program.

How the intervention worked

The government's primary weapon was directed credit, channeling massive resources through both state development banks and commercial lenders. Half of all domestic credit in Korea consisted of subsidized "policy loans" that carried interest rates 5 percentage points below market rates. The Korea Development Bank led the charge, with lending to machinery and intermediate sectors exploding after 1973. Commercial banks were essentially forced to participate, with policy loans automatically rediscounted by the central bank at preferential rates.

Tax policy reinforced this credit bias. Effective marginal tax rates for heavy and chemical industries dropped dramatically after 1973, when new laws gave strategic industries a menu of incentives: five-year tax holidays, 8% investment tax credits, or 100% special depreciation allowances. The divergence was stark and lasted until fiscal reforms in the early 1980s finally closed the gap between strategic and non-strategic sectors.

The trade policy surprise: Despite claims that Korea's intervention was protectionist, the data reveals something different. HCI producers received exemptions from up to 100% of import duties, and average output protection was actually lower for targeted industries than for non-targeted ones during the policy period. The focus remained firmly on export competitiveness rather than import substitution. Input tariffs faced by heavy industry fell significantly, as planners understood these sectors needed access to foreign technology and materials.

What actually happened: The results were massive and persistent. Real output in targeted industries increased 128% relative to non-targeted sectors. Labor productivity jumped 17.2%, while employment in HCI sectors rose 63.8%. Perhaps most surprisingly, output prices in targeted industries fell 9.55% relative to other sectors — the opposite of what critics predicted would happen under protection.

The manufacturing landscape shifted dramatically. The share of total manufacturing output and employment moved decisively toward heavy and chemical industries, and this reallocation proved durable. The number of plants operating in HCI markets increased nearly 30%, indicating genuine industrial expansion rather than mere capacity stretching. Investment surged 81.4%, while intermediate outlays — the materials and components needed for production — jumped 109% in real terms.

Learning effects proved crucial: The data reveals powerful learning-by-doing forces in targeted industries. Each doubling of cumulative output reduced unit costs by 5.3% in HCI sectors — significantly stronger than the learning effects in non-targeted industries. Plant-level data from the 1980s shows HCI establishments maintained 4.3% higher total factor productivity (TFP) — a measure of efficiency that accounts for all inputs — even after policies ended. These weren't just individual plant improvements; industry-wide spillovers amplified the learning effects, suggesting knowledge diffused across firms within targeted sectors.

The productivity gains took time to fully materialize. Industry-level total factor productivity differences only became statistically significant after 1979, and the upward trajectory continued through the mid-1980s. This delayed emergence aligns with infant industry theory, which predicts that productivity improvements require sustained production experience.

Export transformation followed a different timeline: While output and employment effects appeared quickly, export competitiveness emerged more gradually. During the early years (1973-1976), gains in revealed comparative advantage were modest. The middle period (1977-1979) saw acceleration in export share growth, but the full realization of export competitiveness came in the post-policy period (1980-1986).

By the numbers, targeted industries saw their revealed comparative advantage — a measure of how much a country specializes in exporting specific products relative to the world average — increase 13% more than other manufacturing exports. The probability of achieving comparative advantage (RCA > 1, meaning Korea exported proportionally more of that product than the global average) jumped by 10.6 percentage points. Korea's original target — having heavy and chemical products constitute 50% of exports by 1980 — was actually surpassed by 1983. Cross-country comparisons using triple-difference estimates confirm these patterns weren't global trends; Korean HCI sectors dramatically outperformed the same industries in peer countries.

Downstream industries reaped unexpected rewards: The policy's effects rippled through Korea's production network — the web of connections showing which industries buy from and sell to each other. Industries that relied heavily on inputs from targeted sectors (forward linkages from HCI's perspective) experienced significant benefits. For every 1% increase in an industry's dependence on HCI inputs, downstream sectors saw 4.4% higher output and 0.46% lower output prices. These weren't temporary gains — the benefits persisted and even strengthened after 1979.

The mechanism was straightforward: as HCI sectors expanded and became more productive, they supplied cheaper, higher-quality intermediate inputs (materials and components used to make other products) to downstream users. Material outlays expanded differentially for heavy users of HCI products, and these downstream industries eventually developed their own export advantages. Remarkably, downstream export competitiveness mainly emerged after the policy ended, suggesting these spillovers took time to translate into international competitiveness.

Upstream effects disappointed: In contrast to the strong downstream benefits, spillovers to upstream suppliers were limited and statistically insignificant. Industries selling inputs to HCI sectors (backward linkages from HCI's perspective, like steel suppliers selling to machinery makers) didn't experience differential growth in output, employment, or productivity. This asymmetry likely reflects the deliberate choice to target relatively upstream industries — there simply weren't many domestic suppliers further up the value chain to benefit from increased HCI demand.

The crowding-out that wasn't: Critics often assume industrial policy must harm non-favored sectors, but Korea's experience suggests otherwise. Investment in non-targeted industries continued growing throughout the HCI period. Commercial banks maintained substantial lending to light industry, and Japanese lenders filled financing gaps for non-HCI sectors. Capital-intensive industries outside the HCI umbrella showed no decline in investment rates. The absolute growth of non-targeted sectors continued; they simply grew more slowly than their HCI counterparts.

Political economy mattered: The policy's success hinged on unusual political circumstances. The existential security threat from North Korea focused policy on coherent objectives rather than political favoritism. Park's autocratic control from 1972-1979 ensured consistent implementation without legislative interference. His assassination in October 1979 triggered immediate liberalization — special loan rates were eliminated, tax advantages phased out, and trade policy shifted toward broader liberalization.

This abrupt ending actually strengthens the empirical findings. The policy's termination was driven by political assassination rather than economic factors, providing a clean break for analysis. Moreover, the persistence of benefits after 1979 demonstrates that temporary interventions can create lasting structural change.

About the Study

The study employs difference-in-differences design to establish causality. The study comparing how targeted and non-targeted industries evolved differently after 1973, along with analyzing 278 five-digit industries over two decades, with pre-trends from 1967-1972 statistically indistinguishable from zero. Double-robust estimators that combine propensity score weighting with regression adjustment confirm the magnitude of effects. Cross-country triple-difference estimates (comparing Korea's industry differences to the same differences in other countries) validate that Korean HCI sectors performed exceptionally compared to global peers.

The data construction required extensive work. The research digitized and harmonized Korea's Mining and Manufacturing Surveys across four major industrial classification revisions, hand-matched legislative acts to industry codes, and combined this with 1970 input-output tables for network analysis. This creates one of the most comprehensive databases of industrial development during a major policy intervention.

Bottomline

The World Bank declared in 1969 that Korea had "no comparative advantage in steel production" and blocked their proposed steel mill. The IMF rejected HCI financing. USAID turned them down. European lenders refused support. Every major international institution advised against pursuing heavy industry.

Korea implemented the policy anyway, driven by the existential threat from North Korea. Nixon's 1969 announcement of U.S. military withdrawal from Asia left Korea facing an industrially superior North Korea without American protection. Korean military planners calculated they couldn't withstand a North Korean invasion without domestic defense industrial capabilities.

The results documented in this study followed: 128% output growth in targeted sectors, 17.2% productivity gains, and transformation into a major exporter of heavy and chemical products within a decade. Without this intervention, Korea would have remained focused on light manufacturing exports. The chaebols that became global powerhouses - Samsung, Hyundai, LG - built their capabilities through the heavy industry drive.

China under Deng Xiaoping followed a similar path, learning from the heavy handed mistakes of Mao and the successes of Japan and South Korea, implementing targeted industrial policies that transformed China from an agricultural economy into the world's manufacturing center. Like Korea, China ignored conventional wisdom about comparative advantage and successfully built industries through strategic state intervention.

The study demonstrates that strategic industrial policy can create comparative advantage when implemented correctly, which isn’t easy by any means. Korea succeeded by targeting sectors with strong learning effects and forward linkages, providing temporary rather than permanent support, and maintaining focus on export competitiveness. The policy addressed specific market failures in credit allocation and allowed infant industries to mature.

The evidence shows that countries need not accept their current position in the global economy. With clear objectives, strong state capacity, and appropriate sector selection, industrial policy can reshape a nation's manufacturing base and development trajectory. Both Korea and China prove this transformation works in practice.

Share

New research provides ammunition for spreading federal R&D dollars beyond Silicon Valley. Economists Federica Coelli (EBRD) and Paul Pelzl (NHH Norwegian School of Economics) studied 2.5 million patents across 759 U.S. communities over 40+ years. Their finding: smaller urban areas innovate effectively when economies improve.

Current reality: Just 5% of U.S. communities produce 75% of all patents.

Share

By the numbers:

The boom effect:

• 8.3% increase in overall patents when oil/gas employment doubles

• 8.5% DECREASE in oil & gas patents during their own boom (the paradox)

• 2x stronger innovation response in non-metro vs. metro areas

• 1 additional patent per 100,000 residents during booms

Economic impacts:

• 3.7% employment increase, 2.2% wage growth during booms

• 4.6% GDP jump, 6.2% local government revenue surge

Who actually innovates:

• 58% of patents from incumbent inventors (not newcomers)

• 5% from in-movers, 37% from first-time inventors

• 57% company patents, 32% individual, 2% university

Study scope:

• 2.5 million patents analyzed over 40+ years (1969-2012)

• 759 U.S. commuting zones studied

• 5% of zones currently produce 75% of all patents

The research design:

Researchers used oil and gas booms as natural experiments through a sophisticated shift-share methodology, not simple correlations. These booms create substantial economic shocks across communities: population increases 1.9%, employment rises 3.7%, wages grow 2.2%, personal income climbs 1.8%, GDP jumps 4.6%, and local government revenue surges 6.2%.

The study's precision comes from tracking patents by filing date (when innovation actually occurs) rather than grant date, and using fractional counting when multiple inventors or locations are involved. The results remain robust whether researchers use oil prices instead of employment or control for coal booms.

Surprising finding: Oil companies innovate less during booms

The paradox: While overall patents surge 8.3%, oil and gas companies cut their own patenting by 8.5% during boom times — even as they dramatically increase extraction activity.

The numbers tell the story: When oil prices and national oil & gas employment rise together, sector profits soar. Companies respond by drilling more wells and pumping more oil, not developing new technology. This direct trade-off between immediate profits and future innovation provides rare empirical evidence for economic theory.

Why this matters: Economists have theorized that firms innovate during downturns when the opportunity cost is lower (Dave’s note: Economists really REALLY need to read more Operations Research stuff like Deming or Beer who would quickly throw cold water on this nonsense, why would anyone spend money on investments when they are having a hard time paying bills or corporate executive bonuses?) — you develop new technology when you can't sell as much product. But most studies find the opposite: innovation rises during good times. This oil sector finding proves the opportunity cost theory actually works (Dave’s note: Why? It’s going to be an interesting research project in itself considering OPEC and greater oil and gas consolidation is a thing) — it's just usually overwhelmed by other factors like better financing and agglomeration effects in other industries.

What it reveals: The oil paradox helps solve a decades-old puzzle about innovation timing. Industries closest to the boom, facing the highest opportunity costs, reduce innovation. Industries further from the boom's center benefit from prosperity without the same profit pressure, so they increase innovation. This explains why studies find conflicting results — it depends which industries and regions you examine.

Three major cycles studied:

• Late 1970s-early 1980s oil boom

• Extended decline through late 1990s

• 2000s fracking revolution

Natural experiment strength: 35% of oil/gas reserves were "undiscovered" in 1960 — pure geology, not exploration efforts. Shale reserves existed underground throughout but became economically viable only with 2001 fracking technology. This mirrors how innovation capacity might remain dormant in regions until economic conditions activate it.

Prosperity drives innovation, not hardship

Conventional wisdom: Constraints force creativity. Scarcity sparks breakthroughs. Economic pressure drives invention.

The data shows otherwise. When booms increase wages 2.2%, personal income 1.8%, and GDP 4.6%, innovation rises proportionally. Patent quality remains stable during good times, measured by forward citations. The 1984-2000 downturn saw innovation decline symmetrically — no silver lining of constraint-driven creativity emerged. Even as local government revenue rises 6.2% during booms, private innovation continues to flourish rather than being crowded out. The stark reality: 97% of patents come from companies with capital to invest, not struggling inventors in garages.

How it works: Agglomeration effects

Booming areas see increases in both college graduates and creative workers (up 1.8%), creating a richer environment for innovation. But the gains don't come from attracting star inventors from elsewhere. Instead, existing local inventors become more productive, driving higher patents per capita alongside total patent growth.

The strongest effects emerge in urban areas with median populations around 75,000 — large enough for meaningful knowledge spillovers but small enough to avoid the congestion costs of major metros.

Winners and losers by distance:

Winners:

• The booming community

• Neighbors within 100 miles

Losers:

• Communities 300-400 miles away lose patents

• Too far for spillover benefits, close enough to lose talent

Political reality: 8 of 10 people moving to boom towns come from the same state.

Industry breakdown:

Innovation winners:

• Highly traded goods: watches, x-ray equipment, aircraft parts

• These sell nationally, so local demand doesn't affect them

No change:

• Local-serving industries: concrete, ice manufacturing

• Oil supplier industries (surprisingly — no "rising tide" effect)

Note: Upward wage pressure from booming oil sector could hurt highly traded manufacturers, but evidence shows only weak production worker displacement and no crowding out of innovation workers (since oil & gas patenting actually declines).

Big companies:

• File 53% of all patents

• Average 20 patents/year

• Spread across 3.3 locations

• Keep 71% of innovation at headquarters

Other key findings:

Prior patenting experience matters far more than education levels for capturing boom benefits — areas with innovation history see bigger gains regardless of local college presence. The mechanism isn't financial: public and private companies respond identically to booms, ruling out credit constraints as the driver.

The innovation response lags economic upswings by 2-3 years, consistent with typical R&D project timelines. And the effects show perfect symmetry — economic busts reduce patenting by exactly the same magnitude that booms increase it.

The academic debate:

Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti has argued that concentrated tech hubs produce more innovation per dollar invested — an efficiency case for keeping R&D funding in Silicon Valley. Harvard economists Edward Glaeser and Naomi Hausman warned that spreading wealth to struggling regions might actually reduce work incentives and decrease innovation.

The data proves both critiques wrong. Prosperity boosts both productivity and patent output across diverse regions, with mid-sized cities showing the strongest responses.

Bottomline:

America has vast untapped innovation potential — 95% of communities produce just 25% of patents. Mid-sized cities might not match tech hubs city vs city, but on a per dollar basis it’s a different story. Turns out that focusing on local economies helps "jump-start the American growth engine”.

Requirements for success: Existing innovation infrastructure and acceptance that gains in one region mean might be losses elsewhere — particularly within state boundaries.

For policymakers: The question isn't whether to spread R&D funding. It's how to manage geographic trade-offs when booms, not busts or “capital discipline” drives innovation. With 18% of America producing no patents annually, the opportunity — and challenge — are clear.

Share

Leave a comment

Beijing's policy banks now control 1.5% of global GDP and account for one-quarter of all developing country loans. Since crossing the $1 trillion threshold during the 2008 financial crisis, China has become the world's largest official creditor, surpassing the World Bank and IMF combined. A new study, "Banking on the State: The Competitive Advantage of State-Led Financing" by Stephen B. Kaplan (George Washington University) and Aparna Ravi (University College London), reveals how this financial dominance is forcing a global rethink of development strategy.

By the numbers:

• $5 trillion: Total assets of China's three largest policy banks

• $45 billion: China's first telecom credit lines in 2001 (3% of GDP)

• 6-fold growth: Expansion rate of both China's and India's development banks in the 2000s

• 1/20th: Brazil and India's banking assets compared to China's

• 178% of GDP: China's bank credit to private sector vs. 71% for Brazil, 50% for India

• 40 countries: Where India's TATA-owned Tetley now operates after Exim Bank support

The big picture:

Middle-income nations are discovering they can't match China's financial muscle. So, they're getting smarter instead!

The precedent: Japan pioneered development banking in the 1980s, but OECD reforms blocked it from using cheap loans for commercially viable projects. China, operating outside OECD rules, scaled up where Japan was forced to stop.

The China playbook: Beijing floods entire sectors with cheap "vendor financing" and "patient capital." When China Three Gorges Corporation couldn't get Western financing for its massive dam project in the 1990s, the China Development Bank stepped in. Today, that company owns stakes in energy firms worldwide. In Brazil, Huawei used CDB credit lines to lend money to local companies, who then bought Huawei equipment — capturing two-thirds of Brazil's 3G and 4G networks through operators Vivo, Claro, and Oi.

The adaptation: Brazil and India target individual firms for "competitive advantages" rather than China's sector-wide "comparative advantage." India's Exim Bank helped TATA acquire UK's Tetley tea for its first major overseas purchase, instantly gaining distribution networks and capturing 28% of Britain's tea market within five years. The $27 million to Ethiopian textile plants shows the new scale — strategic but smaller.

What they're doing:

India's approach:

• Shifted from export credits (35% of assets in 2007) to overseas lending and equity after 2008

• Launched LOC joint ventures and Overseas Investment Finance for M&A support

• Apollo Tyres acquired Netherlands' Vredestein to compete with Michelin

• ICT exports jumped to 30% of total exports; now ranks 42nd in economic complexity

• Moved up to 40th globally in innovation, 19th in ICT market capitalization

Brazil's strategy:

• BNDES lending peaked at 1.5% of GDP (2009-2013), five times India's peak

• Created BNDESpar for minority stakes after 2014-2016 corruption scandals forced pivot

• Backed "national champions" like Petrobras with $4.3 billion for pre-salt oil development

• TOTVS IT firm used BNDES support to acquire Bematech and expand R&D centers

• ICT exports increased from 5.74% to 8.8% of GDP; maintained top 35 industrial ranking until 2014

South Africa's struggle:

• Development banks hold just 5% of GDP in assets (vs. 9.5% Brazil, 10.7% India)

• DBSA expanded "Rest of Africa" lending from 20% to 35% of portfolio

• Limited to traditional export credits and insurance — no M&A or equity tools

• Zero companies on Global 500 list; only 5 on BCG's top 100 emerging market firms

• Ranked 52nd in industrial performance, 61st in innovation (vs. Brazil 54th, India 40th)

More Details:

• The trigger: China's "go global" strategy launched in 2001 under President Jiang Zemin with $45 billion in telecom credit lines. Advisory council included Henry Kissinger and AIG's Hank Greenberg, signaling global ambitions.

• The Santa Cruz example: China's $1 billion Argentina hydropower financing included supply contracts for Chinese turbines, bulldozers, dump trucks, and modular housing — showing how infrastructure loans create markets for multiple Chinese industries simultaneously.

• The learning curve: Brazilian BNDES president Luciano Coutinho (whose Cornell dissertation analyzed international oligopoly capital) noted: "The Chinese development banks lend more than us, but they only do mono-lines. We do credit, we support capital markets, and we operate through the private banking sector."

• The backlash: After Brazil's Lava Jato scandal, critics asked: "Why finance infrastructure in Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua while people are hungry here?" BNDES shifted from visible government loans (peaked at 70% of international lending) to quieter equity investments.

• The innovation game: Indian firms pursue "strategic asset-seeking FDI" — one automotive executive called it "reverse globalization" where overseas tech acquisitions benefit the home market. Exim Bank helps firms establish Mexican plants to supply U.S. automakers directly.

• The 2014 turning point: Commodity price collapse and corruption scandals forced Brazil and others to abandon China-style mega-loans, accelerating the shift to targeted firm support.

• The Stack Exchange deal: South Africa's Naspers acquired the U.S. platform for $1.8 billion in 2021 — but without state support, such deals remain rare compared to state-backed Indian and Brazilian acquisitions.

• The stakes: With 28 Chinese firms on the Global 500 list versus 16 Indian, 11 Brazilian, and zero South African, the competitive gap is already massive. Without adapting these financial tools, emerging markets risk becoming permanent junior partners in Chinese-dominated value chains.

What the data shows:

China's model works through abundance — its banks provide credit equal to 178% of GDP. Brazil (71.4%) and India (50%) must be selective, creating what researchers call "micro-emulation": copying the concept but shrinking the scale.

The tools evolved over time:

• Export credits: Traditional trade finance, declined after 1990s Asian crisis

• Lines of Credit (LOCs): Government-to-government loans India adopted post-2008

• Overseas Investment Finance (OIF): M&A support that grew 5x in India by mid-2010s

• Equity investments: Brazil's post-scandal pivot to minority stakes in firms

The results are measurable:

• Indian automotive firms now supply directly to Mexican factories serving U.S. markets

• Brazilian agribusiness doubled global market share to 5% using BNDES innovation funding

• 40% of Indian LOCs overlap with Chinese project locations — direct competition

• South African firms remain concentrated in African resource extraction with minimal tech transfer

Bottomline:

State-backed finance is the new industrial policy. Countries adapting China's tools to their constraints (India's tech M&A focus yielding 30% ICT export share, Brazil's equity model maintaining industrial competitiveness) prove targeted intervention works. Those relying on traditional market financing, like South Africa with its persistent 30% resource export dependence, face permanent disadvantage.

As China's Belt and Road enters its second decade and commodity cycles tighten budgets further, expect the "micro-emulation" model to spread. The winners won't match China's scale but will master precision, i.e. using limited state capital to help specific firms capture specific technologies in specific markets. The era of broad liberalization is over; the age of surgical state capitalism has begun.

Share

Leave a comment

Finland's export-dependent economy faces a stark choice; match rivals' industrial subsidies or watch investments flow to the U.S., China, and larger EU nations. The country's 100 largest exporters generate 60% of exports, making industrial competitiveness existential for Finnish prosperity.

This Government Report to Parliament (submitted June 5, 2025) emerges from Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's administration recognizing that "many things are changing in the operating environment of industry." Based on an industrial policy strategy submitted to Minister of Economic Affairs Wille Rydman in December 2024, the report seeks parliamentary discussion on Finland's industrial future. The government hopes this discussion will forge consensus on success factors for Finnish industry amid Trump's tariff threats, EU policy shifts, and accelerating state aid competition. The strategy was developed with extensive stakeholder input including industry federations, unions, ministries, and research organizations.

The timing is critical! The Finnish government acknowledges that traditional approaches have failed (I really wish more people can do the same), with Finland suffering prolonged trade deficits, weak productivity growth, and inadequate investment volumes for industrial renewal. By submitting this comprehensive review to Parliament, the government signals that industrial policy choices have become too consequential for executive decisions alone. The document serves both as a frank assessment of Finland's industrial challenges and a roadmap for parliamentary debate on transforming economic strategy.

The big picture: Trump's tariff threats and EU industrial policy shifts create a perfect storm for Nordic manufacturing. Finland's response marks a departure from its traditional market-based approach, embracing targeted state intervention to secure strategic investments.

Context: Finland's Industrial Evolution

Finland's industrial policy has evolved dramatically since World War II. The post-war period through the 1980s saw state-led industrialization rebuild the economy through strict steering and technology transfer, laying foundations for today's industrial clusters. The 1990s and 2000s shifted focus to innovation policy, with the state acting as opportunity provider while RDI investments targeted globalization opportunities and built the information society.

The 21st century brings new challenges where traditional innovation measures no longer sustain competitiveness. Mission-centered approaches now compete with securing jobs in traditional sectors, and industrial policy has become an umbrella concept implemented across multiple policy areas. The government acknowledges that "policy measures taken so far have not been sufficient" to address prolonged foreign trade deficits and weak productivity development.

The Stakes in Numbers

Finland faces massive investment needs with €270 billion in pending green transition projects, of which €14 billion is already in production. The clean transition alone requires €100-242 billion by 2050, translating to €3.3-8 billion annually. This creates potential for €3 billion in annual export growth from low-carbon solutions.

The investment landscape shows stark imbalances. Finnish companies have invested €130 billion abroad as of 2022, growing by €40 billion since 2015, while foreign investment in Finland stagnates at €78 billion with only €21 billion targeting industry. Despite this, Finland achieved record returns of €6.9 billion on foreign investments to its current account.

Industrial investment expectations turn positive with €9.7 billion expected in 2025, representing 4% growth. SMEs forecast 8% turnover growth for 2025, up from just 2% in 2024. The government targets state R&D funding of €3.75 billion annually to reach 1.2% of GDP by 2030, aiming for 4% combined public-private R&D investment.

Finland's Industrial Landscape

Finland's industrial structure remains concentrated with exports representing 41% of GDP compared to 51% in eurozone countries. Industry accounts for 18% of GDP, above the EU average of 16.8%, yet only 10% of Finnish companies engage in exports. Employment data reveals exports create 150,000 direct industrial jobs and 65,000 service sector positions, while indirect effects generate over 270,000 additional jobs, including 200,000 in services.

The metal industry leads exports at €29.0 billion with €56.1 billion in revenue and 116,300 employees, achieving 55% domestic value added. Chemical industry follows with €15.0 billion in exports and notably low 42% domestic value added despite €38.3 billion revenue. Electrical and electronic industries generate €13.9 billion in exports with 64% domestic value, while forest industry matches that export level but achieves 72% domestic content. Information and communication shows the highest domestic value at 78% with €8.8 billion exports, while transport and storage contributes €4.9 billion with 69% domestic content.

Global Forces Reshaping Competition

State aid competition has intensified as China systematically pursues self-sufficiency in strategic sectors, driving global acceleration of subsidies. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 escalated this race, and Trump's administration is expected to cut corporate taxes while increasing protectionism. The EU temporarily relaxed state aid rules for decarbonization, approving €155 billion in clean transition support schemes during 2023-2024.

These shifts accompany major supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and Ukraine war. Companies respond by increasing domestic production and diversifying suppliers while import dependencies undergo examination at national and EU levels. Risk assessments have become standard corporate practice as businesses navigate an increasingly fragmented global economy.

EU Industrial Policy Transformation

Mario Draghi's competitiveness report shapes the new Commission's agenda, identifying innovation gaps as the root cause of EU competitiveness issues. The Clean Industrial Deal continues the Green Deal's path while emphasizing regulatory simplification. Energy networks and competitive pricing have become central issues, particularly for Central European industrial powerhouses.

The proposed Competitiveness Coordination Tool would identify strategic investment needs while aligning industrial and research policies between EU and national levels. This tool aims to coordinate investments and promote shared priorities in strategic sectors. The Clean Industrial Deal ensures affordable energy access, increases European demand for EU-made clean products, promotes international partnerships, and develops skills programs while creating a new State Aid Framework for clean-tech.

Important Projects for Common European Interest (IPCEI) face proposed reforms including process simplification, scope expansion to new sectors, movement beyond breakthrough innovations, and potential EU funding alongside state aid. The Commission shows increased focus on basic industry, particularly energy-intensive sectors like steel and chemicals, with more flexible state aid for their decarbonization efforts.

Technology and Data as Change Drivers

Finland possesses strong expertise in emerging technologies including microelectronics, quantum technologies, wireless connectivity, high-performance computing, and artificial intelligence. The country also pioneers new materials, biotechnology, and energy technologies. These technologies offer dual-use applications that increase demand while holding strategic importance for economic security. Their system-level integration creates cross-sector renewal opportunities.

Significant sectors have emerged around technological competence, with data industry, microelectronics, and quantum technology offering leverage for other sectors' renewal. The changed security situation has increased demand for these critical technologies, enhancing their importance in building Europe's strategic competitiveness and economic security.

Clean Transition Economics

Global investment needs reach $3,500 billion annually, with Finland requiring €100-242 billion total by 2050. Pending projects worth €270 billion could increase GDP by €3 billion annually if just one-fifth materialize, creating 12,000 jobs and generating €16 billion in tax revenue over 30 years.

Finland's opportunity lies in producing clean electricity for growing industrial needs, leveraging renewable energy capacity and participating in electric system balancing. However, regional disparities emerge as western and southern Finland attract most investments while northern regions compete with Nordic neighbors for skilled labor and eastern areas struggle with Russian border impacts.

Defense Industry Expansion

NATO membership creates new opportunities, particularly for SMEs who represent the majority of Finnish defense industry actors. Networks through NATO enable knowledge expansion, solution testing, additional funding access, and procurement participation. Tesi's €33 million investment in the NATO Innovation Fund targets dual-use technology development.

The EU's strengthening defense industry policy generates value through R&D cooperation, funding, and joint procurement. Growing dual-use product markets require government-to-government connections that serve company export efforts, while technology integration and cost-effective system development become crucial capabilities.

Workforce and Financial Challenges

Finnish export companies employ workers with lower education levels than Nordic peers, affecting productivity development. Global competition for talent intensifies while education mismatches industry needs and company-led training remains insufficient. Future requirements include considerably more highly educated employees, IT and environmental competence for clean transition, sector-specific workforce forecasting, and enhanced international recruitment.

The financial market remains highly bank-driven, especially for SMEs, with stricter regulation over the past decade and increasing importance of sustainability criteria. Tesi's market analysis identifies gaps in late-stage venture capital and industrial-scale project funding, while international investors remain absent from seed-stage investments. Public actors including ELY centres, Business Finland, and Finnvera provide crucial SME support, with Tesi restructured to focus on leveraging private capital.

Regional Strengths and Industrial Clusters

Industrial location depends on logistics connections, raw material availability, subcontracting networks, and skilled labor pools. Industrial clusters gain importance as electrification harmonizes processes, side stream utilization increases, and clean energy proximity matters more. Cross-sector synergies emerge in centralized locations, making industrial parks crucial for attracting investments.

Special programs address regional challenges with Eastern Finland development responding to Russian border impacts and Northern Finland competing for skilled labor. The industrial parks strategy recognizes these facilities as growth centers that combine clean energy use with efficient logistics, infrastructure, and material flows.

Seven Strategic Objectives

1. Developing Competitive Investment Environment

The €400 million clean transition support program opens applications in spring 2025 for investments with eligible costs exceeding €30 million. Tax credits support climate-neutral investments through 2025 while Tesi Group launches with €300 million additional capitalization for industrial-scale projects. An investment task force coordinates strategic projects as permit process streamlining creates new agencies by 2026.

New measures include resource allocation for permit implementation, regulatory predictability improvements, and investment task force knowledge base enhancement. Alternative investment incentives explore options beyond 2025 while maintaining Finland's EU position that industrial renewal requirements remain prerequisites for funding, preventing aid as life support for declining industry.

2. Leveraging Public Funding for Private Capital

Tesi's centralization of venture capital operations accompanies Finnvera legislative reform strengthening export support. The Ministry of Finance develops a financial sector growth strategy while Economic Development Centres establish as part of regional reform.

Proposed intensification of public funder cooperation would improve division of work while growth funding through public-private partnerships addresses risk-sharing in scaling operations. Economic Development Centre integration with transferred TE services aims for more effective EU structural fund utilization, advancing Finland's goal of market-based instruments that reduce reliance on national state aid.

3. Boosting Productivity Through Intangible Capital

The high-growth entrepreneurship program accelerates medium-sized enterprise expansion while the national IPR strategy supports innovation through 2030. The data economy growth program launches spring 2025 through December 2026, recognizing data as critical input for industrial renewal.

R&D tax deduction evaluation considers expansion to broader intangible capital investments while data infrastructure standardization enables better utilization. Finland advocates for horizontal EU measures serving all sectors while enabling European Investment Bank funding for defense and dual-use development, ensuring Finnish participation in EU defense projects.

4. Scaling Innovation Through Networks

State R&D investments grow toward €3.75 billion annually, reaching 1.2% of GDP by 2030 with a 4% combined public-private target. The multiannual R&D funding plan guides implementation across administrative branches while the Research and Innovation Council monitors progress. Technology policy roadmap preparation involves cross-administrative coordination as the health sector RDI program boosts medical technology exports.

The quantum strategy, completing spring 2025, prepares companies for radical solution development while the national standardization strategy strengthens competitiveness in critical sectors. The Ministry of Economic Affairs will identify themes with best growth opportunities where companies eagerly allocate resources, directing state funding to company-relevant joint research and shared infrastructure including high-performance and quantum computing.

5. Capturing Clean Transition Opportunities

The Energy and Climate Strategy produces updated scenarios for energy needs and emissions while the High-Voltage Grid working group integrates increasing electricity generation with growing consumption. Support mechanisms for non-fossil flexibility increase market responsiveness as the Medium-Term Climate Change Policy Plan addresses burden-sharing sectors.

The Circular Economy Green Deal enables voluntary industrial commitments to resource efficiency while updated sectoral low-carbon roadmaps inform strategy preparation. The National Mineral Strategy, completed December 2024, examines Finland's mineral cluster and circular economy promotion. The National Forest Strategy 2035 coordinates forest sector development while the food production strategy, due December 2025, accompanies a food industry export growth program.

Proposed measures ensure competitive clean energy availability while developing networks for growing needs. Industry participation in electricity system balancing maximizes competitiveness and clean energy value. Support for electrification, resource efficiency, and fossil fuel replacement follows circular economy and bioeconomy strategies while streamlined corporate reporting reduces administrative burden.

6. Upgrading Logistics and Infrastructure

Government decisions strengthen Fingrid and Gasgrid capital for energy transmission development. The industrial parks report from January 2025 examines strengthening opportunities while Northern and Eastern Finland programs, published February 2025, promote investment attraction and competence development.

Logistics subgroup objectives address security of supply, international accessibility, and competitive logistics. Digital infrastructure development ensures adequate server, computing, and transmission capacity. Long-term energy infrastructure planning includes national hydrogen networks between industrial clusters while the development program combines clean energy use with efficient logistics and cross-sector synergies.

7. Securing Skilled Labor

Labor market reforms increase flexibility to support employment and productivity while Talent Boost 2023-2027 streamlines work permits and promotes foreign graduate employment. The Finnish National STEM Strategy advances technical competence as TE services transfer to municipalities for closer company connections.

Continuous learning opportunities require competence modules less extensive than degrees with flexible study paths. Short-term apprenticeship training gains recognition in vocational education while competence earned in working life receives better acknowledgment. Workforce skills foresight must consider planned investments and growth sectors in education planning and international recruitment while improving foreign degree understanding and work immigration services.

Finland's Strengths & Weaknesses

Finland's strengths include social stability, high-quality workforce, relatively low-cost skilled labor, reasonably priced clean energy with functioning infrastructure, public R&D funding, and critical minerals expertise.

Weaknesses encompass small domestic markets, distance from key markets, limited export diversity, low intangible capital investments, and limited risk-taking capacity for large projects.

Opportunities emerge from clean transition demand, regulatory predictability, AI and digitalization productivity gains, promising technology clusters, bio-based materials, NATO cooperation, and defense technology growth. Threats include state aid competition, EU market malfunction, geopolitical risks, disadvantageous EU policies, infrastructure capacity constraints, skilled labor competition, and climate impacts.

Bottomline

Finland's industrial policy represents a generational shift from pure innovation focus to active industrial support, acknowledging decades of market orthodoxy have reached their limits. The government hopes parliamentary discussion will establish common views on Finnish industry's success factors while identifying the most effective policy responses. With Trump's trade wars looming and EU policy shifting rapidly, execution speed becomes critical as competitors move faster with larger budgets. Industrial policy reflects the times — Finland's economic survival may depend on how quickly it can adapt.

British capital deficit directly translates to stagnant wages, with real income growth averaging 33% per decade from 1970-2007 but flatlining since 2008. The Productivity Institute study by Tera Allas (University of Manchester) and Dimitri Zenghelis (University of Cambridge) provides the first rigorous quantification of this gap, revealing the true scale of the UK's investment challenge.

By the numbers:

• UK workers have access to 33% less capital per hour worked than peers in the US, Germany, France, and Netherlands

• The absolute capital gap stands at £2 trillion (2019 figures)

• UK productivity is 15% below Germany and the US, 10% below France

• GDP per hour worked: UK at $66 vs peer average of $72 (PPP-adjusted)

• Capital stock per hour: UK at $128 vs peer average of $190 (PPP-adjusted)

• At current investment rates, closing the gap would take nearly 100 years

• With 4% of GDP additional annual investment: still requires a century

• To close gap in 20 years: UK needs 28% of GDP investment rate (10 percentage points above 30-year average)

What they found: Researchers analyzed the EUKLEMS & INTANProd dataset, which includes both traditional assets (machinery, buildings, transport equipment) and intangibles (software, R&D, training, organizational capital). The study uses harmonized net capital stocks with geometric depreciation to approximate productive capital.

The scope: Capital measured includes:

• Traditional tangible assets: Equipment, structures, transport (excluding residential dwellings in main case)

• National accounts intangibles: Software, databases, R&D, intellectual property

• Additional intangibles: Training, organizational development, design, branding, market research

Key insights:

• UK capital generates 22% more value per unit than peer countries, indicating high returns but persistent underinvestment

• UK has second lowest capital stock per hour among 12 countries analyzed

• Investment gap persists across all sectors: services, manufacturing, ICT, pharmaceuticals

• Sensitivity analysis shows gap ranges from 12% to 50% depending on methodology, but remains substantial in all scenarios

• Including residential housing increases absolute gap to £6.2 trillion

Go deeper on causes:

• Investment flows chronically low: UK averaged 18% of GDP (1993-2024) vs 22% for France/Germany, 21% for US

• Policy uncertainty: Rapid political changes and fiscal constraints deter long-term commitments

• Ownership structure: UK has most dispersed shareholding among OECD countries, creating short-termism

• Management quality: Poor assessment of future risks and returns, cultural differences in ambition

• Coordination failures: Between firms, financial markets, and government

• Public infrastructure: Underinvestment reduces returns to private capital

Current policy response:

• Chancellor Reeves' National Wealth Fund: "tens of billions" equals roughly £20 billion annually

• Expected additional investment over parliament: £100 billion total

• Public sector net investment forecast to decrease from 2.7% to 2.4% of GDP by 2029-30

• Business confidence remains weak (ICAEW, 2025)

What's needed:

• Immediate action: Investment increase of at least 1% of GDP public, 3% total (£77 billion annually)

• Strategic coordination: Align regional development, skills training, innovation diffusion

• Fiscal reform: Adjust accounting to consider assets, not just liabilities

• Macroeconomic space: Boost household savings, consider revenue-raising measures

• Management focus: Improve firm-level decision-making and technology adoption

• Stability: End decades of policy churn

Methodology notes:

• Uses 2019 data to avoid COVID distortions

• Compares whole economy excluding households as employers

• Converts currencies using purchasing power parities for accurate comparison

• Hours worked data from OECD for international consistency

Bottomline: This isn't about "more investment at any cost" but recognizing that marginal increases and minor initiatives are distractions. The UK sits in a fundamentally different steady state from its peers. Breaking this low productivity/low capital equilibrium requires unprecedented, coordinated action measured in hundreds of billions, not tens of billions, sustained over decades.

As nations increasingly weaponize critical supply chains, this research reveals how certain types of industrial policy (specifically export restrictions on critical inputs) can spectacularly misfire. China's attempt to exploit its near-monopoly on rare earths instead catalyzed technological breakthroughs that permanently weakened its market power, while inadvertently demonstrating the effectiveness of innovation-focused industrial policies in responding countries. The paper Trade and Industrial Policy in Supply Chains: Directed Technological Change in Rare Earths by Laura Alfaro, Harald Fadinger, Jan S. Schymik, and Gede Virananda takes a look at the finer details.

(Dave’s note: Considering the current US administration preference for export restrictions, tariffs, and cutting spending for industrial policy; you can guess the what’s gonna happen and how little some policy makers learned from China’s successes and failures, considering how little they are interested in what works and very interested in repeating the failures)

The big picture: Rare earth elements possess four characteristics that make them uniquely susceptible to this backfire effect:

• Broad applications at the knowledge frontier: Essential for electronics, aerospace, defense, medical devices, and clean energy

• Extremely difficult to substitute: Due to unique magnetic, catalytic, and luminescent properties

• Inelastic supply: Complex extraction as byproducts, toxic processing, long development times

• Extreme concentration: China controls 60% of mining, 90% of processing

By the numbers:

• 10-45x: Price spike for different rare earth elements (Cerium saw the largest jump)

• 98%: China's share of global REE production in 2009

• 72%: Reduction in China's export quota in July 2010

• 7.4%: Increase in REE-enhancing patents outside China for sensitive industries

• 0.5 p.p.: Annual productivity growth boost for Japanese REE-intensive industries

• 90%: Reduction in global GDP losses due to innovation response

The research methodology:

• Novel input-output table: Researchers constructed the first comprehensive mapping of REE usage across industries using U.S. Geological Survey data

• Patent analysis via AI: Used GPT-4 to classify 30,000+ patents as REE-related and identify whether they improved efficiency or found substitutes

• Multi-country panel data: Analyzed manufacturing across 50 countries from 2002-2018

• Quantitative trade model: Developed new framework combining trade theory with directed technological change

• Balanced literature review: Authors acknowledge mixed evidence on industrial policy effectiveness, citing both successes (upstream sector corrections) and limitations (regional policies that boost employment but not productivity)

Timeline of the crisis:

• July 2010: China cuts export quota by 72%

• September 2010: Senkaku-Diaoyu boat collision triggers Japanese embargo

• January 2011: Export tariffs increased on certain REE products

• March 2012: U.S., EU, Japan file WTO complaint

• 2014: WTO rules against China

• 2015: China removes quotas, replaces with licensing system

Key findings on innovation response:

Patent surge by region (one standard deviation increase in REE sensitivity):

• Europe: 18.4% more REE-enhancing patents

• U.S.: 17.9% increase

• Japan: 25.7% increase

• China: Only 2.9% increase (not statistically significant)

Productivity effects:

• Outside China: 0.466 percentage point higher TFP growth for REE-sensitive industries

• Japan specifically: 1.029 p.p. higher TFP growth

• Within China: -2.142 p.p. lower TFP growth for REE-sensitive industries

Export growth impacts:

• Non-China countries: 0.856 p.p. higher annual export growth for REE-intensive industries

• Europe: 0.661 p.p. increase

• Japan: 1.526 p.p. increase

• China: -0.729 p.p. (negative but not significant)

The mechanism - Directed Technological Change:

• When inputs are gross complements (elasticity of substitution < 1), higher prices increase innovation incentives

• Researchers' estimates: REE-labor substitution elasticity ranges from 0.75-1.28 across industries

• Transport equipment: Lowest elasticity (0.75), highest REE intensity

• Textiles: Highest elasticity (1.28), lowest REE intensity

Specific industry impacts:

Most affected sectors (by total REE requirements):

1. Storage batteries (SIC 3691): $6.93 of REE per $1,000 final demand

2. Fabricated metal products (SIC 3499): $5.91 per $1,000

3. Relays and industrial controls (SIC 3625): $0.58 per $1,000

4. Turbines and generators (SIC 3511): $0.53 per $1,000

Real-world innovation examples from patent analysis:

• GM (2011): Powder coating process reducing Dysprosium/Terbium use by 20%

• Toyota (2016): Reduced Dysprosium in Prius, cut Neodymium 20% by 2018

• Skyworks Solutions (2011): Yttrium substitute for electronic devices

• Tesla, Nissan, BMW: Developed magnet-free motor prototypes

Element-specific details:

• Least substitutable: Dysprosium (complementarity index: 100)

• Most substitutable: Samarium (index closer to 0)

• Price increases: Cerium (45x), Terbium (10x), Europium (10x)

• Key applications: Neodymium magnets (motors), Cerium catalysts (petroleum), Europium phosphors (displays)

Quantitative model results:

With endogenous technology response:

• China's real GDP gain: 0.25%

• Other countries' GDP loss: 0.04-0.05%

• China's welfare gain: 2.6%

Without technology response (counterfactual):

• China's real GDP gain: 3%

• Other countries' GDP loss: 0.54-0.56%

• China's welfare gain: ~5%

The supply chain scramble: The immediate response to China's restrictions revealed the difficulty of quickly diversifying rare earth supplies. California's Mountain Pass mine, once the world's primary REE source before closing in the early 2000s, rushed to reopen in 2015 but promptly went bankrupt in 2016 before restarting under new ownership in 2018 (with Chinese miner Leshan Shenghe holding a non-voting minority stake). Australia's Lynas began Malaysian processing operations in 2013 after six years of development, while Chinese companies simultaneously began mining operations in Myanmar. Japanese firms, caught between supply uncertainty and price volatility, chose to hoard existing inventory rather than release stockpiles, fearing depletion without guaranteed fresh imports from China.

The hidden catalyst: China's export restrictions inadvertently became the world's most effective industrial policy stimulus for rare earth innovation. Countries that had long ignored calls to develop domestic REE capabilities suddenly found themselves implementing crash programs to reduce dependence. Japan launched public-private partnerships for REE recycling and substitution research. The EU classified rare earths as critical raw materials and funded research consortiums. The U.S. reactivated dormant defense production authorities. Rather than strengthening China's leverage, the restrictions unified global efforts to break its monopoly—a textbook case of strategic overreach spurring exactly the response Beijing hoped to avoid.

A tale of two policies: The research reveals a striking contrast in industrial policy effectiveness. China's export restrictions (designed to force global production to relocate domestically) largely failed as innovation abroad offset the supply shock. Meanwhile, the innovation-focused industrial policies implemented by Japan, Europe, and the U.S. in response proved highly successful, generating lasting productivity gains and technological breakthroughs. The difference? While China tried to leverage market power through supply restrictions, other countries invested in expanding technological possibilities. The paper's evidence suggests that industrial policies promoting innovation and R&D can be highly effective, especially when responding to supply chain vulnerabilities.

Behind the numbers: The researchers employed sophisticated quantitative methods to reach their conclusions, setting trade elasticity at 6 (standard in the literature) and calibrating an innovation spillover parameter of δ = -1, where negative spillovers actually increase innovation incentives by raising input bundle prices. They combined data from multiple sources including WIOD trade tables, UN Comtrade, UNIDO industrial statistics, Google Patents, and Penn World Tables. Their novel estimation approach uses patent ratios to estimate substitution elasticities—a breakthrough necessitated by the absence of comprehensive REE expenditure data. The model validation shows simulated results closely match empirical patterns for innovation, productivity, and exports across all regions studied.

What it means for policy: This research reveals important nuances about industrial policy effectiveness. Export restrictions on technologically critical inputs with complementary characteristics can backfire spectacularly, triggering innovation that permanently erodes market power. However, the study also validates innovation-oriented industrial policies (basically countries responded with targeted R&D support, public-private partnerships, and strategic research funding) saw significant productivity gains. The lesson isn't that industrial policy doesn't work, but rather that its effectiveness depends critically on the type of intervention and the characteristics of the targeted sector. For policymakers, the key insight is that promoting technological capabilities often proves more effective than attempting to exploit market power through supply restrictions. The very characteristics that make inputs attractive targets for economic coercion, also make them prime candidates for innovation-driven solutions when supplies are threatened.

Recent developments: China reimposed restrictions on six REEs and permanent magnets in April 2025, following earlier bans on Gallium, Germanium, and Antimony exports to the U.S. in late 2024, but global manufacturers are now far better prepared.

Bottomline: This research demonstrates that industrial policy effectiveness depends critically on its design and target. When countries weaponize control over critical inputs through export restrictions, they risk triggering innovation that breaks their monopoly. But when countries respond with innovation-focused industrial policies (as Japan, Europe, and the U.S. did) they can achieve lasting productivity gains. China's rare earth restrictions became a textbook case of how one type of industrial policy (export restrictions) can backfire by inadvertently spurring more effective industrial policies (innovation support) elsewhere.

As countries scramble to build high-tech industries and escape middle-income stagnation, Alberto Fuentes and Seth Pipkin's research on "Sticky industrial policies and divergent value chain upgrading patterns" reveals a critical blind spot: sticky local policy styles determine success more than technical merit, even when industries face identical global opportunities. Their study of Querétaro and Jalisco challenges the conventional wisdom that governments can simply select the "right" policy from a menu of options.

The evidence: Researchers tracked four industries across Jalisco and Querétaro from the 1980s through 2010s, conducting dozens of interviews and analyzing firm-level data across electronics, ICT, automotive, and aerospace sectors.

Tale of two states

By the numbers:

• Jalisco electronics (late 1990s): 76,000 workers, 70% of state exports

• Jalisco ICT (late 2010s): Shifted from 3 export products → 30+ including laptops, semiconductors, routers

• Querétaro automotive (late 1990s): 260+ firms, wages 16% above regional average

• Querétaro aerospace (late 2010s): 30+ Tier 1 suppliers, 23% of state exports

• Patent applications per 100k workers: Jalisco ranks #1, Querétaro #5 among Mexican states

Jalisco's "Business-guided" playbook:

• Private sector designs and often implements policies

• Business associations like CANIETI Occidente and CCIJ drive agenda

• Government provides support but never "carries the baton"

• Policies shift dramatically between administrations

• Focus: Tax exemptions, deregulation, land grants, horizontal infrastructure

Querétaro's "State-guided" approach:

• Government leads but consults extensively with business, labor, academia

• Creates long-lasting institutions that outlive administrations

• Explicitly rejects tax competition for investment

• Focus: Specialized training programs, quality infrastructure, industry-specific public goods

The electronics boom and bust

Jalisco's electronics rise (1980s-1990s): The transformation was dramatic. Major players like HP, Motorola, Kodak, and IBM arrived first, followed by contract manufacturers Foxconn, Jabil, and Flextronics. These companies established over 30 corporate R&D centers, marking Latin America's most concentrated high-tech cluster. HP Guadalajara pioneered touchscreen production while designing memory components. IBM's Programming Lab experimented with software development. The arrival of TD Com and Freescale crowned Jalisco as Latin America's semiconductor design leader.

The IBM deal that changed everything (1985): Federal rules required foreign firms to partner with Mexican majority owners, but IBM wanted full control of its new Jalisco plant. The state government stayed completely absent from negotiations - a telling sign of its hands-off approach. Despite competitor protests about changing the "rules of the game," local business associations backed IBM's exemption request. IBM won 100% ownership in exchange for export commitments and promises to invest in semiconductor R&D. But when HP came calling later, they got the same ownership deal without any of IBM's obligations. The precedent was set: Jalisco would compete by removing barriers, not imposing conditions.

CADELEC reality check: Created by CANIETI Occidente with UN, state, and federal funding, CADELEC aimed to strengthen local suppliers for multinational OEMs. The reality proved far more modest. "We taught suppliers how to generate business quotes and present their numbers to OEMs. These were basic things," explained one program engineer. Rather than building deep capabilities, CADELEC focused on helping firms clear basic entry hurdles - perfectly aligned with Jalisco's business-guided philosophy of reducing barriers rather than building competencies.

Software dreams meet harsh realities

Jalisco's ICT pivot (2000s-2010s): China's WTO entry and the US recession devastated Jalisco's electronics sector, forcing a dramatic shift to software and ICT services. Oracle, Tata, and Intel arrived alongside Mexican startups like Interlatin and Sigtao. These firms targeted diverse markets - government, healthcare, aviation, insurance, entertainment, finance - showcasing impressive product variety. Yet the harsh reality emerged quickly: less than half of the ICT firms in the researchers' sample survived past 2015. The proliferation strategy that defined Jalisco's approach created quantity without sustainability.

Plan Vallarta genesis: In the late 1990s, managers from IBM and HP began meeting with officials from ITESM's business development office. This private sector group hired consultants to diagnose the industry's needs, presenting their findings at a conference in Puerto Vallarta - hence the plan's name. Their recommendations followed the classic business-guided template: export promotion, labor market flexibilization, and grants for small firms. The state government adopted these proposals wholesale, creating COECYTJAL and launching the PROSOFT grants program, all designed to ease market entry rather than build lasting capabilities.

IJALTI's struggles: The Jalisco Institute of Information Technology epitomized the state's approach. Though formally public-private, business held the majority of board votes and appointed the director. The institute closed after just one year due to internal disagreements, reopening in 2004 with even less public influence. Its current director describes IJALTI's main function starkly: when CISCO needed 150 engineers to establish a facility, IJALTI supplied them by "merging 5 or 10 small local companies." Rather than building local capacity, the institute simply reshuffled existing resources to meet multinational demands.

Policy graveyard: Jalisco's government created a Secretary of Innovation without a budget in its first year, eventually housing it in space provided by a private business association. Failed initiatives accumulated: CIPIS, Technopolis, and the Multimedia Park in Chapala all collapsed. The state's priority industries shifted wildly - IT to biotech to automotive to fashion to aerospace to pharmaceuticals - sometimes within the same administration. Governor Ramírez-Acuña initially rolled back support for electronics and IT in 1995, only to reverse course two years laterafter IBM and HP executives took him on a tour of competing clusters in Singapore, India, and China.

The quality infrastructure advantage

Querétaro's automotive transformation (1980s-1990s): The Total Quality Management revolution began with firms like Tremec and Singer operating through CANACINTRA, eventually spreading throughout the sector. Tier 1 suppliers like Kostal, Dana, and Clarion led the charge as production evolved from simple transmission components to complete steering, braking, and suspension systems. Yet despite this sophistication, Querétaro attracted zero final assembly plants while neighboring states landed GM and Nissan facilities - a telling limitation of the state-guided approach.

Building the ecosystem: In 1986, state actors repurposed a tripartite commission originally created to manage labor tensions. Through this state-business-labor body, the Palacios administration created CONCYTEQ, a public institution serving multiple industries. Five hundred workers received technical skills scholarships in the early years alone. The state then built a training pipeline through Universidad Tecnológica de Querétaro and Universidad Tecnológica de San Juan del Rio, while attracting elite institutions like UNAM's Juriquilla campus and CINVESTAV-IPN for materials research and engineering.

Quality infrastructure network: CIATEQ and CIDESI focused on process-oriented R&D, responding to business requests for technical assistance. One administrator described helping a firm solve paint durability problems by testing new formulations and application methods, then integrating these improvements into the production line. CENAM provided metrology standards while IMT handled transportation-specific research. This network of specialized centers - publicly funded and coordinated - contrasted sharply with Jalisco's reliance on siloed corporate R&D.

Aerospace ambitions

Querétaro's aerospace ascent (2000s-2010s): The Bombardier coup in 2006 brought a $200 million investment and 1,500 promised jobs, leading to federal designation as one of Mexico's two "strategic poles for innovation." Today, the industry includes three OEMs plus over 30 Tier 1, 2, and 3 suppliers and MRO providers, employing everyone from trained assemblers to engineers with post-graduate degrees.

The airport gambit: The Loyola administration (1997-2003) built an international airport that the business community derided as "costly and irrelevant." But the Garrido administration (2003-2009) made it the centerpiece of Querétaro's Bombardier pitch, promising to establish the publicly-funded Querétaro Aeronautics University (UNAQ) adjacent to the airport. This wasn't an empty promise - Querétaro had already proven its ability to deliver customized training through its automotive programs. The strategy worked, and UNAQ opened as scheduled, followed by aerospace programs at CONALEP, CECyTEQ, ITQ, UAQ, and UPQ. Safran Group and Aernnova Aerospace soon followed Bombardier, attracted by the same state-coordinated training infrastructure.

The R&D ecosystem: GE established what it calls its "most important aviation engineering center outside the United States" in Querétaro. LabTA emerged as a joint project of three national science labs. Specialized centers proliferated: CENTA, RIIAQ, CIAT, CEDIA, CICATA-IPM, and CFATA-UNAM, all focusing on incremental improvements like heat-tolerant chemical treatments and ergonomic workstations to boost production efficiency. This patient, process-focused innovation enabled dramatic results - OEMs transferred entire production lines for the Q400 and Global Express jets from Japan and Canada to Querétaro, citing superior production efficiency.

Patterns of success and failure

Jalisco's upgrading strengths: The numbers tell a story of explosive diversification. Electronics exports grew from 3 products to over 30 in just 20 years. The state then pivoted successfully into software, AI, biotech, media, and financial services. Over 30 corporate R&D centers in electronics alone marked genuine innovative capacity. The ICT sector saw 50 new firms in the researchers' database, mostly founded between 2000 and 2019, showcasing entrepreneurial dynamism.

Jalisco's persistent weaknesses: Yet beneath this proliferation lay troubling patterns. Researchers documented "scarce spillovers" to local firms due to their "lack of competitiveness." High turnover meant constant firm entry and exit. Small firms either stayed small or got acquired by multinationals. Despite the R&D presence, most activity remained focused on assembly rather than deep integration into global innovation networks.

Querétaro's upgrading strengths: The state achieved world-class efficiency in targeted sectors through systematic workforce upskilling via public institutions. Its firms mastered continuous improvement in existing products, moving from simple components to sophisticated systems. Most importantly, these capabilities proved durable - programs and institutions survived multiple political transitions, providing stability that attracted long-term corporate commitments.

Querétaro's persistent weaknesses: This laser focus came with costs. Product diversification remained limited compared to dynamic economies. Local firms could master aerospace certifications through state programs but lacked capital to win supplier contracts. The state completely missed the auto assembly boom that enriched neighbors like Guanajuato. Innovation, while constant, stayed incremental - improving existing products rather than creating breakthroughs.

Political continuity, policy persistence

Both states transitioned from PRI to PAN rule in the mid-1990s and experienced multiple party alternations since. Yet their industrial policy styles remained unchanged across administrations, suggesting institutional momentum stronger than partisan politics.

Jalisco's shifting priorities illustrate this instability within continuity. In 2003, the state prioritized IT, multimedia, and microelectronics. By 2004, biotech joined while IT disappeared. In 2006, agro-food, tourism, automotive, and fashion entered the mix. By 2007, the state returned to its original three sectors plus aerospace. Then in 2013, everything changed again to agroindustry, pharmaceuticals, and creative industries. Each shift maintained the same business-guided approach - private sector leadership, barrier reduction, short-term programs - while constantly searching for the next big thing.

Querétaro showed the opposite pattern: consistent sectors with consistent methods. The state simply repurposed its automotive support infrastructure for aerospace. The same tripartite consultation model that built CONCYTEQ in 1986 guided UNAQ's creation in 2006. Public institutions adapted to new industries rather than being replaced. This stability attracted firms seeking long-term partnerships rather than just incentive packages.

Comparative context

Why structure doesn't explain outcomes: Both electronics and automotive industries underwent similar globalization and de-verticalization in the 1980s and 1990s. Both ICT and aerospace shifted toward relational governance modes requiring close buyer-supplier collaboration in the 2000s and 2010s. Each industry pair offered entry points ranging from simple assembly to sophisticated R&D. Yet Jalisco and Querétaro extracted completely different upgrading patterns from these identical opportunities.

Other Mexican aerospace clusters demonstrate that Querétaro's pattern isn't structurally determined. Baja Californiafocused on basic parts like radio modules and rotors that require certification but not deep process innovation. McGuire's research identified product upgrading as the norm in Mexican aerospace - making Querétaro's process and functional upgrading focus an outlier requiring explanation.

Global electronics comparisons make Jalisco's pattern equally puzzling. Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore achieved significant process and functional upgrading in electronics during the same period, despite facing similar GVC governance structures. Ernst documented how Asian electronics clusters moved from assembly to design, while Jalisco largely remained stuck at assembly despite hosting numerous R&D centers. The difference lay not in global value chain positioning but in local institutional approaches.

Bottomline

Path dependence in practice: Resource availability didn't determine policy choice - both states had similar access to federal programs and international investment. Industry characteristics didn't dictate upgrading patterns - the same aerospace opportunity drove process upgrading in Querétaro but product innovation in Baja California. Political ideology didn't alter approaches - PRI and PAN governors maintained their states' distinctive styles. Instead, local policy styles shaped both tool selection and ultimate outcomes, creating self-reinforcing patterns that persisted for decades.

Three uncomfortable truths:

1. Sticky styles limit options: Even facing new challenges, policymakers recycled familiar tools. Jalisco kept cutting taxes and funding individual firms even as sustainability problems mounted. Querétaro kept building training centers and research institutes even as product diversification lagged.

2. Each style has built-in blind spots: Jalisco couldn't deepen expertise despite hosting 30+ R&D centers because its policies emphasized entry over capability building. Querétaro couldn't diversify despite world-class capabilities because its policies emphasized deepening over broadening.

3. Success reinforces limitations: IBM's exemption spawned a race to the bottom in investment conditions. Bombardier's recruitment created aerospace-specific infrastructure that couldn't easily serve other industries. Early wins locked in approaches that later became constraints.

What's next: This 40-year natural experiment suggests industrial policy needs radical localization. Technical merit matters less than institutional fit. The same aerospace opportunity that drove process upgrading in Querétaro sparked product innovation in Baja California, while identical electronics GVC conditions produced diversification in Jalisco but deepening in East Asia.

For policymakers: Map your local style first, then adapt global best practices to fit. Fighting institutional momentum wastes resources; working with it might limit options but improves execution. The choice isn't between Jalisco and Querétaro's models - it's about recognizing which one you're already in and maximizing its strengths while compensating for its weaknesses.

It was going to be a summary on the paper ("Decoding China's Industrial Policies" by researchers Hanming Fang, Ming Li, and Guangli Lu), but I found the paper so engaging, I decided to take the extra steps and turn it into a "crash course" to get people up to speed on how China does industrial policy. By analyzing 3 million government documents with LLMs (people often call it AI but it's not, but for the sake of getting through the course I stick with the AI), researchers have decoded China's vast industrial policy landscape, revealing how the economic giant successfully targeted strategic sectors.

Why it matters: Industrial policy is experiencing a renaissance globally. The (now short lived) CHIPS Act, (insufficient in my opinion) European Green Deal, and India's self-reliance push all borrow from China's playbook. Understanding this system, beyond visible subsidies, provides critical insights as Western economies embrace government intervention for the first time in decades.

The evolution of China's industrial policy: A twenty-year journey

China's approach to economic intervention unfolded in distinct phases, each shaped by domestic priorities and external pressures:

2000-2007: Decentralized experimentation

• Gradual decline in top-down policy pass-through rates as local governments gained autonomy

• WTO entry drove focus on export-oriented manufacturing and global integration

• Provincial and city governments cited central directives with decreasing frequency

• Coastal regions pioneered new policy tools that would later diffuse inland

2008-2012: Post-financial crisis expansion

• Global economic downturn triggered massive stimulus package and policy intensification

• Provincial governments emerged as key policy formulators, balancing central goals with local needs

• Heavy emphasis on infrastructure investment and fiscal subsidies to maintain growth

• City governments increasingly looked to provincial rather than central models

2013-2018: Xi Jinping centralization

• Sharp reversal of decentralization trends as top-down governance strengthened

• Central-to-local policy pass-through rates jumped significantly after years of decline

• "Made in China 2025" established clear national priorities for technological advancement

• Cities and provinces increasingly aligned target sectors with central directives

2019-2022: Technological self-reliance

• "Dual circulation" strategy prioritized domestic supply chains amid international tensions

• Industrial policy documents surged 30% compared to previous period

• High-skill and emerging manufacturing sectors received unprecedented attention

• Policy similarity across regions reached record levels, creating both coordination and overcapacity challenges

This chronological evolution reveals how China's industrial policy adapted to changing circumstances while maintaining remarkable consistency in its fundamental approach: central strategic guidance with local implementation flexibility.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• China's industrial policy went through four distinct phases: decentralized experimentation (2000-2007), post-crisis expansion (2008-2012), Xi-era centralization (2013-2018), and technological self-reliance (2019-2022)

• The trend toward decentralization reversed sharply after 2013, with increasing top-down policy implementation

• Later periods saw much higher policy similarity across regions, creating both coordinated development and overcapacity problems

The big picture

For two decades, China deployed a sophisticated system where central authorities established strategic priorities while local governments experimented with implementation. This "Regionally Decentralized Authoritarianism" created both remarkable successes and significant inefficiencies.

By the numbers:

• 3 million government documents analyzed across central, provincial, and city levels

• 768,387 industrial policy documents identified using machine learning

• 21 distinct policy tools classified into five major categories

• 29% of policies targeted manufacturing, 40% production-related services

• Only 41% used fiscal subsidies, challenging prevailing research assumptions

LLM/AI methodology: How the study decoded policy documents

The researchers pioneered unprecedented approaches to analyze policy documents at scale:

Dealing with the hallucination issue in LLMs

Traditional AI models struggle with long government documents, often "hallucinating" content that doesn't exist. The researchers developed a multi-stage verification process to ensure accuracy:

• Decomposing complex questions into sequential steps, forcing the AI to tackle one element at a time

• Requiring explicit citation of text passages supporting each conclusion

• Verifying extracted information against the original document

• Cross-checking outputs across multiple LLM models to identify inconsistencies

The keyword search limitation

The researchers directly compared their AI approach with traditional keyword methods:

• Keyword searches identified only 328,495 industrial policies (versus 768,387 found by LLM)

• Keyword methods missed policies using uncommon terminology or contextual descriptions

• Traditional approaches could not extract relationships between policy elements

• Manual verification confirmed AI's superior accuracy in identifying relevant documents

Extracting multidimensional information

The AI methodology enabled unprecedented information extraction:

• Policy tone classification (supportive, regulatory, or suppressive)

• Targeted industries mapped to standardized codes

• Implementation tools categorized into structured framework

• Intergovernmental relationships decoded from citation patterns

• Evolution of policies tracked across time and regions

This methodological breakthrough has implications beyond industrial policy, offering a model for analyzing large government document collections across various domains.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Traditional keyword searches identified less than half the industrial policies found by LLM methods

• The research team developed novel verification techniques to prevent AI hallucination when analyzing complex documents

• The AI approach could extract multidimensional information impossible to capture with traditional methods

• This methodology creates opportunities for similar large-scale analysis of government documents across fields

Breaking down China's industrial policy toolkit

China's approach transcends simple subsidies, deploying sophisticated tool combinations that evolved across regions, industries, and time. The research identified five major categories working in concert to transform the economic landscape.

1. Fiscal and Financial Tools — The foundation but not the whole story

These traditional monetary levers formed the backbone of support, but revealed surprising patterns in their deployment. Fiscal subsidies dominated city-level policies (48%) but appeared in only 25% of central policies, with wealthy coastal cities deploying larger but more targeted subsidies while inland regions offered broader but smaller support. In Shenzhen, for example, EV manufacturers received ¥3,000 per kWh of battery capacity, helping create a production hub.

Tax incentives showed a striking decline over time, falling from 32% in 2000 to 16% in 2020, and were nearly always paired with R&D support in high-tech sectors. Meanwhile, credit and finance interventions created lasting productivity gains through state-directed lending, increasing the probability of securing long-term debt by 2.3 percentage points. Though rarest among financial tools, equity support (appearing in just 5% of policies) delivered the strongest productivity effects (1.7% TFP increase), particularly through government guidance funds that took stakes in semiconductor firms.

2. Entry and Regulation Tools — Controlling who plays the game

The central government wielded market access and regulation as its primary lever (42% of central policies), both lowering barriers for domestic firms while restricting foreign competition. This approach declined from 55% to 31% of policies as economic liberalization progressed. Meanwhile, business environment improvement expanded rapidly after 2015 administrative reforms, with typical cities slashing approval requirements from 167 to 41 procedures. Industrial funds, entrepreneurship promotion, and trade protection completed this toolkit, each with distinctive regional and sectoral patterns.

3. Input Policy Tools — Addressing production bottlenecks

The research found technology R&D and adoption generated the highest overall productivity gains (2.1% TFP increase) among all policy tools, but required significant government expertise that limited effective implementation in less-developed regions. Labor policies were more prominent at city level (27%) than central (16%), with wage subsidies promoting employment but often decreasing productivity (-1.6% TFP effect), while talent programs targeting high-skilled workers showed more positive results. Infrastructure investment, environmental regulations, and preferential land arrangements rounded out this category, each playing distinctive roles in different contexts.

4 & 5. Demand Side and Supply Chain Tools — Ensuring market pull and ecosystems

Through industrial promotion events, government procurement programs, and consumer subsidies, these tools ensured market demand for targeted industries, with consumer subsidies growing significantly after 2015. On the supply chain side, industrial clusters (14% of policies) generated substantial productivity increases (1.5% TFP gain) through knowledge spillovers, while localization policies built domestic supply networks—though sometimes at the cost of creating regional protectionism.

How tools work together: The policy bundle effect

The true power of China's approach lay in tool combinations—policies employing three or more complementary tools boosted firm productivity 2.3 times more than single-tool approaches. These bundles evolved systematically over industry lifecycles: entry-stage policies typically combined fiscal subsidies with land arrangements and entrepreneurship support; growth-stage bundles shifted toward R&D and talent development; while maturity-stage approaches emphasized clustering, supply chain integration, and consumer-oriented demand stimulation. This lifecycle-specific bundling created comprehensive support ecosystems tailored to each development phase.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• China deployed 21 distinct policy tools across five categories: fiscal/financial, entry/regulation, input, demand-side, and supply chain

• Contrary to common perception, only 41% of industrial policies used fiscal subsidies

• Different government levels favored different tools: central focused on regulation, cities on subsidies

• Policy bundles with 3+ complementary tools were 2.3× more effective than single-tool approaches

• Tool selection evolved systematically over industry lifecycles from entry support to upgrading

Spotlight: Signature industry case studies

The semiconductor saga: Two decades of persistence

China's semiconductor strategy illustrates the full spectrum of policy tools and their evolution:

Initial phase (2000-2008): Manufacturing foundation

• Tax holidays (5-10 years) established for production facilities

• Preferential land allocation in dedicated parks like Shanghai's Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park

• Direct subsidies covered 25% of capital equipment costs

• Implementation heavily reliant on local initiative, creating uneven development

Middle phase (2009-2016): Design capability building

• R&D subsidies shifted focus from manufacturing to chip design

• Talent programs recruited overseas Chinese engineers with housing benefits

• Government procurement guaranteed markets for domestic designs

• Implementation increasingly coordinated between central and local governments

Recent phase (2017-2022): Full supply chain integration

• Equity investments through government guidance funds surged

• Industrial clusters enhanced knowledge sharing between design and manufacturing

• Consumer subsidies encouraged domestic chip adoption in key applications

• Implementation became more centralized following international sanctions

The semiconductor case reveals both strengths and limitations of China's approach—significant progress in creating a domestic industry, but persistent gaps in cutting-edge capabilities despite massive investment.

Electric vehicle ecosystem: From consumer subsidies to industrial transformation

China's EV strategy demonstrates how policy tools target different leverage points over time:

Consumer-driven phase (2009-2014)

• Purchase subsidies reached ¥60,000 per vehicle

• Local governments added matching subsidies, creating cumulative incentives

• Tax exemptions eliminated 10% purchase tax

• Implementation fragmented, with cities competing through different incentive levels

Infrastructure-building phase (2015-2018)

• Charging network investment became priority

• Land allocation for facilities received preferential treatment

• Local procurement policies required government fleets to buy EVs

• Implementation more coordinated, with standardized charging protocols

Supply chain integration phase (2019-2022)

• Battery technology R&D support intensified

• Industrial clusters around battery production hubs established

• Export promotion targeted foreign markets

• Implementation increasingly aligned with national dual circulation strategy

The EV case demonstrates the dynamic nature of China's industrial policy, continually adapting tools as the industry progressed from market creation to technological advancement to global competitiveness.

Solar energy: The overcapacity cautionary tale

China's solar industry highlights both the successes and pitfalls of industrial policy:

Export-oriented phase (2007-2012)

• Tax rebates incentivized export-focused production

• Credit guarantees enabled rapid capacity expansion

• Land subsidies attracted manufacturing facilities

• Implementation dominated by provincial competition for investment

Trade dispute adjustment (2013-2016)

• Domestic installation subsidies pivoted from export to home markets

• Government procurement of solar installations increased

• Infrastructure investment in grid integration expanded

• Implementation struggled with interprovincial coordination

Overcapacity correction phase (2017-2022)

• Industrial consolidation policies encouraged mergers

• Environmental regulation increased quality standards

• Consumer subsidies gradually reduced to promote market forces

• Implementation increasingly focused on managing excess capacity

The solar case reveals a critical industrial policy risk: when multiple regions simultaneously target the same sector with similar tools, the resulting overcapacity can undermine the very industries being supported.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Each industry received a custom-tailored policy approach that evolved as the sector developed

• Semiconductor policies shifted from manufacturing to design to supply chain integration over two decades

• EV policies progressed from consumer subsidies to infrastructure to technology development

• Solar energy policies caused overcapacity problems through excessive regional competition, requiring later correction measures

Policy mechanisms: How China's industrial policy actually works

The study reveals multiple causal pathways through which policies influence firm behavior:

Entry incentive mechanisms

Many tools specifically lower barriers to entry:

• Fiscal subsidies reduce initial capital requirements

• Land allocation overcomes scarcity constraints

• Business environment reforms cut transaction costs

• Tax holidays improve early-stage cash flow

The study found these mechanisms increased entry rates by 4.4-6.7% depending on the specific tool, creating both vibrant competitiveness and potential overcapacity.

Productivity enhancement mechanisms

Certain tools specifically target efficiency improvement:

• R&D support enables process innovation

• Technology adoption subsidies promote modernization

• Talent programs improve human capital quality

• Clustering creates knowledge spillovers

These mechanisms improved TFP by 1.5-2.1% but often with limited duration (1-2 years), suggesting the need for continuous policy evolution to sustain productivity growth.

Implementation and adaptation mechanisms

The study identifies several pathways for policy effectiveness:

• Target-setting creates clear objectives for local officials

• KPI systems translate goals into measurable outcomes

• Learning systems disseminate successful approaches

• Piloting allows experimentation before wider adoption

These mechanisms reveal why similar policies often produced different results—implementation quality matters as much as policy design.

Intergovernmental coordination mechanisms

The research uncovered how different government levels interact:

• Policy citation networks reveal information flows

• Personnel rotation spreads ideas between regions

• Funding requirements enforce central-local alignment

• Promotion incentives reward policy adoption

These mechanisms explain both the strengths of China's approach (rapid diffusion of successful policies) and its weaknesses (harmful policy mimicking).

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Industrial policies work through four main causal pathways: entry incentives, productivity enhancement, implementation/adaptation, and intergovernmental coordination

• Entry mechanisms successfully increased new firm formation by 4.4-6.7% depending on the tool used

• Productivity effects were positive but typically short-lived (1-2 years), requiring ongoing policy evolution

• Implementation quality often determined success more than the specific policy design

The political economy of industrial policy

The research uncovered powerful patterns shaping how and why China deployed industrial policies in particular places and sectors:

Economic rationality in targeting

Cities predominantly targeted sectors with comparative advantage:

• Strong correlation (0.35) between revealed comparative advantage and policy targeting

• More developed regions showed stronger correlation (0.52) than less developed areas (0.21)

• The relationship strengthened over time as policy learning accumulated

• Regions with greater administrative capacity made more economically rational choices

Political incentives shape implementation

Political dynamics profoundly influenced local policy choices:

• Cities in provinces with more cities (greater promotion competition) showed 16.3% stronger alignment with provincial directives

• Officials with personal connections to higher authorities displayed 14% greater policy independence

• Political turnover disrupted policy continuity, with 5% lower persistence during leadership changes

• New leaders often imported policies from their previous posts, creating a personnel-driven diffusion mechanism

Policy similarity and local protectionism

As policies diffused geographically, problematic patterns emerged:

• Cosine similarity of targeted industries across cities within provinces increased from 0.12 to 0.41 over the study period

• Higher policy similarity correlated strongly (0.37) with local protectionism in intercity trade

• Intra-city trade as a share of total trade rose with policy similarity

• Cities with similar industrial policies traded less with each other, suggesting reduced complementarity

Pioneer versus follower dynamics

The sequencing of policy adoption created systematic efficiency differences:

• Pioneer cities (first 20% to target a sector) saw 31% higher productivity gains than followers

• Entry increases were 42% larger in pioneer cities compared to late adopters

• Pioneer cities more frequently combined complementary tools (average 4.2 tools versus 2.8 for followers)

• Pioneer cities showed stronger correlation between targeting and local comparative advantage

These political economy findings reveal the complex interplay between economic rationality, political incentives, and policy diffusion that shaped China's industrial policy outcomes.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Cities typically targeted industries where they had comparative advantage, but this relationship was stronger in more developed regions

• Political incentives significantly influenced policy implementation—officials in competitive environments followed upper governments more closely

• Policy similarity across regions increased dramatically over time, correlating with higher local protectionism

• Early adopters of industrial policies for specific sectors (pioneer cities) achieved 31% higher productivity gains than followers

Measuring effectiveness: The balance sheet

The research combined policy data with firm-level records to create a detailed assessment of industrial policy impacts across multiple dimensions. On the financial side, firms in targeted industries received substantial benefits: effective tax rates dropped by 5 percentage points, subsidy levels increased by 6%, and access to long-term debt improved by 2.3 percentage points. However, these benefits weren't evenly distributed—larger companies consistently captured disproportionate shares, with fiscal benefit size strongly correlating with firm registered capital.

Entry effects varied dramatically by tool type. Fiscal subsidies proved most effective at increasing new firm formation (6.7%), followed by labor policies (4.8%) and preferential land arrangements (4.4%). Interestingly, some interventions produced opposite effects—environmental regulations reduced entry by 3.6% while trade protection decreased new firm formation by 2.9%, revealing complex tradeoffs between different policy objectives.

Productivity impacts showed equally nuanced patterns. R&D support generated the largest TFP gains at 2.1%, with equity financing (1.7%) and cluster policies (1.5%) also delivering significant improvements. In contrast, labor subsidies actually reduced productivity by 1.6%, highlighting how policies that boosted employment sometimes undermined efficiency. Most productivity improvements lasted only 1-2 years before fading, suggesting challenges in sustaining long-term impacts without continuous policy evolution.

Regional variations revealed stark patterns in which areas benefited most. Coastal regions captured 68% of all measured productivity gains, while inland areas saw higher entry effects but weaker efficiency improvements. Policy effectiveness correlated strongly with local administrative capacity—more developed cities implementing identical policies achieved significantly better outcomes. Places with stronger initial revealed comparative advantage showed systematically better results, suggesting that policies worked best when reinforcing existing strengths rather than attempting to create entirely new industrial capabilities.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Industrial policies substantially benefited targeted firms through reduced taxes, increased subsidies, and improved financing access

• Different tools had dramatically different effects: fiscal subsidies boosted entry by 6.7%, while R&D support increased productivity by 2.1%

• Productivity gains typically lasted only 1-2 years, requiring continuous policy evolution

• Benefits were unevenly distributed, with coastal regions capturing 68% of productivity improvements

Natural experiments within the Chinese system

The study's comprehensive data revealed multiple natural comparison points that generate crucial insights without requiring external controls. The differences in how governments at various levels deployed the same policy tools created a natural experiment in central versus local implementation approaches. Central authorities consistently emphasized regulatory tools (42% compared to 24% at city level) and focused on strategic industries, while provincial governments functioned as policy intermediaries, adapting central directives to regional conditions. City governments prioritized fiscal tools (48% compared to 25% at central level) and infrastructure development, with more localized implementation correlating with higher firm entry rates but generally lower productivity gains.

Administrative capability created stark differences in outcomes between high and low capacity regions. Areas in the top quartile of administrative capability showed 2.3 times greater productivity effects from identical policies compared to bottom quartile regions. Low-capacity areas achieved stronger entry effects but weaker efficiency gains, highlighting an important tradeoff. High-capacity regions typically deployed more sophisticated tool combinations and showed better targeting of sectors with comparative advantage. Interestingly, administrative capability mattered significantly more for complex tools like R&D support programs than for straightforward interventions like fiscal subsidies.

The 2013 shift toward recentralization created another natural experiment in before-and-after policy dynamics. Policy similarity across regions increased 68% post-2013 as local governments more closely followed central directives. Productivity effects declined 23% as policies became less tailored to local conditions, though entry effects increased 17% as stronger implementation capacity was mobilized from the top down. The proportion of suppressive/regulatory policies declined from 36% to 24%, reflecting the central government's increased emphasis on supportive measures during this period.

Perhaps most revealing was the comparison between pioneer and follower regions in policy adoption sequencing. Early adopter regions (first 20% to target a sector) showed substantially higher returns on identical policies compared to late adopters, with productivity gains 31% higher and entry increases 42% larger. While followers often used similar tools, their implementation proved less effective, and they frequently targeted industries with weaker local comparative advantage. The productivity gap between pioneers and followers widened over time, suggesting cumulative advantages from early policy adoption.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• The study identified four natural experiments within China's system: central vs. local implementation, high vs. low capacity regions, before vs. after 2013 centralization, and pioneer vs. follower cities

• Administrative capacity was crucial—high-capacity regions saw 2.3× greater productivity effects from identical policies

• The 2013 centralization shift increased policy similarity by 68% but decreased productivity effects by 23%

• Pioneer cities achieved 31% higher productivity gains and 42% larger entry increases than followers implementing similar policies

Practical lessons for future industrial policy

The study yields specific insights highly relevant for policymakers worldwide now embracing industrial strategies. Effective tool selection emerged as a foundational principle; successful approaches matched tools to industry development stage, combined complementary instruments for synergistic effects, and considered local implementation capacity constraints. The research demonstrated how China systematically adjusted its tool mix as industries matured, planning for evolution from direct subsidies toward market-enhancing mechanisms as sectors developed. This dynamic approach proved far more effective than static policy frameworks.

Creating coordination mechanisms to prevent overcapacity emerged as another critical lesson. China's experience revealed both successes and failures in this domain. When properly implemented, information-sharing systems between regions, capacity approval processes, and differentiated regional roles based on comparative advantage helped prevent harmful duplication. However, the study documented numerous cases where these mechanisms failed, resulting in severe overcapacity in sectors like solar panels, steel, and electric vehicles. Implementing sunset provisions for support policies and establishing monitoring systems for industry-wide capacity metrics proved crucial for sustainable industry development.

Implementation prerequisites constituted a third key insight area. Regions that built administrative capacity before deploying complex policies significantly outperformed those that didn't. Establishing clear metrics that evolved with industry development—shifting from quantity to quality indicators as sectors matured—drove better outcomes. Creating formal learning systems to disseminate successful approaches, training officials in industry-specific knowledge, and designing incentives for appropriate targeting rather than blind mimicking all contributed to more effective implementation.

The study also identified common pitfalls to avoid. Preventing harmful policy mimicking through differentiated regional roles proved essential but challenging. Many regions fell into traps: excessive focus on entry at the expense of productivity; overemphasis on incumbent support at the cost of new entrant opportunities; and failure to incorporate market-based selection mechanisms as industries matured. Perhaps most importantly, many local governments struggled to recognize when to phase out support, continuing subsidies long after sectors had reached maturity, creating dependency rather than self-sustaining competitive advantage.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Success requires matching tools to industry development stage and systematically evolving support as sectors mature

• Preventing overcapacity demands coordination mechanisms between regions and clear capacity monitoring

• Administrative capacity building must precede complex policy implementation

• Common pitfalls include harmful policy mimicking, failure to transition from quantity to quality metrics, and inability to phase out support at appropriate times

Between the lines

China's industrial policy success stemmed not from simple subsidies but from a sophisticated system evolving with industry development stages and local conditions. Central authorities provided strategic direction while local governments experimented with implementation—a model other countries now rush to adapt without fully understanding its complexity or pitfalls.

This first comprehensive view reveals a system far more nuanced than Western caricatures suggest. China's approach combined central strategic guidance with local experimentation, creating both remarkable successes in building new industrial capabilities and the willingness to endure significant inefficiencies in resource allocation if it means getting the capacity to produce what they want.

The bottom line: China's experience demonstrates that effective industrial policy requires far more than government funding. It demands sophisticated institutional capabilities, strategic tool selection, dynamic adaptation, and mechanisms to prevent harmful policy competition. Countries now embracing industrial policy would do well to learn from both China's achievements and its costly mistakes.

Glossary of Key Terms

Administrative capacity: The government's ability to effectively implement complex policies, including skilled personnel, data systems, and coordination mechanisms.

Comparative advantage: A region's relative efficiency in producing certain goods compared to other regions, measured by higher productivity or resource suitability.

Cosine similarity: A mathematical measure (0-1) of the similarity between two vectors; in this study, used to quantify how similar industrial policy targets were across different cities.

Dual circulation strategy: China's post-2019 economic framework emphasizing both domestic demand ("internal circulation") and international markets ("external circulation"), with increased focus on self-reliance.

Industrial cluster: Geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field, often promoted through policy to generate knowledge spillovers.

Industrial fund: Government-backed venture capital or investment fund targeting specific sectors, providing equity financing for strategic industries.

KPI (Key Performance Indicator): Quantifiable measures used to evaluate the success of an organization or policy in meeting objectives; in China, often used in cadre evaluation systems.

Local protectionism: Policies or practices that protect firms in a local jurisdiction against competition from other regions within the same country.

Pass-through rate: The degree to which local governments adopt and implement policies initiated by higher-level governments.

Pioneer vs. follower cities: Classification based on timing of policy adoption, with pioneers being among the first 20% to target a specific sector and followers implementing similar policies later.

Policy bundle: Combination of complementary policy tools deployed simultaneously to support a target industry, typically more effective than individual tools used in isolation.

Revealed comparative advantage (RCA): An empirical indicator of a region's comparative advantage demonstrated by its existing production patterns relative to the national average.

Smart specialization: The concept that regions should focus policy support on areas where they have existing strengths or comparative advantage rather than mimicking successful sectors from elsewhere.

TFP (Total Factor Productivity): A measure of economic efficiency calculated as output divided by the weighted average of inputs (labor and capital); increases indicate producing more with the same resources.

The NBER working paper "Who Benefits from Place-Based Policies? Evidence from Matched Employer-Employee Data" by Philipp Grunau, Florian Hoffmann, Thomas Lemieux, and Mirko Titze proves these targeted subsidies work — challenging skepticism that place-based (i.e. regional) policies are inefficient or merely fund investments companies would make anyway. For policymakers worldwide seeking to boost regional activity, this provides evidence that well-designed subsidies can create lasting employment in economically weak areas.

The research:

Economists have long debated whether government subsidies to businesses in struggling regions are effective. This study provides the first comprehensive evidence by combining:

• Unique data: Researchers matched the universe of German administrative employee data with complete GRW funding records and regional eligibility parameters

• Natural experiment: EU competition laws create sharp geographic boundaries in subsidy eligibility that municipalities cannot manipulate

• Establishment-level analysis: Rather than just examining aggregate statistics, researchers could track precisely which businesses received funding and how they performed

• Commuter tracking: The dataset's unique feature of documenting both place of work and place of residence allowed researchers to directly quantify regional spillovers

By the numbers:

• €25,000: Cost to create one additional job at the establishment level

• €20,000: Cost per job at the municipality level (slightly lower due to spillover effects)

• 7: Average number of additional jobs created per subsidized establishment (from baseline of ~20 employees)

• 21%: Average employment increase at subsidized establishments

• 50%+: Proportion of new jobs filled by commuters from other municipalities

• 31%: Increase in commuters from the same labor market region

• 16%: Increase in commuters from adjacent labor market regions

• 10+ years: Duration of positive employment effects after subsidies end

• 3-4%: Temporary wage gains for incumbent workers

• 5.3%: Wage increase for workers with post-secondary education

• €300,000: Average expenditure per subsidized establishment per year

• €1+ trillion: Amount Germany has spent supporting East Germany since reunification in 1990

• €14.9 billion: GRW budget for 2000-2006 funding period

• €11.5 billion: GRW budget for 2007-2013 funding period

• €5.5 billion: GRW budget for 2014-2020 funding period

How the GRW program works:

• Started in 1969: Created to close socio-economic gaps between structurally weak regions and the rest of Germany

• Eligibility scoring: Based on unemployment (40-50%), gross wages (40%), infrastructure quality (5-10%), and employment projections (5-10%)

• Funding periods: Typically seven years, aligned with EU funding cycles

• Subsidy rates by establishment size:

  • Small establishments (<50 employees): 15-50% of capital costs

  • Medium establishments (50-249 employees): 7.5-50% of capital costs

  • Large establishments (250+ employees): 0-35% of capital costs

• Geographic targeting: Funding rates vary across labor market regions (similar to U.S. commuting zones)

• Enforcement: Establishments must guarantee job creation or maintenance; projects monitored for five years

• Infrastructure component: About one-third of funding goes to municipal business-related infrastructure projects

• EU compliance: Program operates under European Union rules for regional aid, with regions below 75% of EU average GDP automatically qualifying for highest subsidy rate

Who benefits:

The researchers found clear evidence about which workers gain most from the subsidies:

• Less-educated workers: Experience 23% employment gains compared to just 9% for workers with post-secondary degrees

• Younger workers: Subsidized establishments hire disproportionately younger employees (average age decreased by 1.7 years)

• Previously non-employed: Nearly half of new hires come from non-employment

• Workers with lower tenure: Average tenure decreased by 12.4% at subsidized establishments

• Commuters: Over half of new jobs go to workers living in different municipalities

• Marginally employed workers: Increased by 19% (workers with monthly earnings below €450)

Surprising discoveries:

• Growth-oriented firms apply: The common assumption that struggling businesses seek subsidies is wrong - fast-growing establishments with good prospects are more likely to receive funding

• Long-lasting effects: Employment gains persist for at least 10 years after funding, with no evidence of job cuts after regulatory monitoring ends

• Hiring drives growth: Job creation comes primarily from increased hiring (43% increase) rather than reduced separations (12% increase)

• Limited wage effects: Despite substantial employment gains, wage effects are modest except for incumbent workers

• Similar impact across sectors: Subsidies work in both service and capital-intensive industries, challenging assumptions about targeting manufacturing

• East-West divide: Program shows stronger effects in West Germany (21.9% employment increase) than East Germany (4.3% increase)

• Industry effects: Largest impacts in trade & transportation (16.4% increase) and other services (10.8%); smallest in communications, finance & real estate (-1.3%)

• Limited spillovers: Little evidence of employment spillovers to non-subsidized establishments in same municipalities

Research methodology:

• Event-study design: Compared 286 funded establishments to matched control establishments for 9 years (4 before and 5 after funding)

• Extended tracking: Followed 164 establishments for 10 years after funding

• Geographic matching: Compared establishments across municipality borders with different subsidy rates

• Control selection: Matched on industry, baseline employment, and pre-event growth trends

• Sample expansion: Larger sample of 1,816 establishments when using county-level rather than municipality-level matching

• Placebo tests: Confirmed no differential trends between treated and control areas

• Instrumental variables approach: Used subsidy rates as instruments for actual funding amounts

• Labor supply elasticity: Estimated to be 6-7%, consistent with recent monopsony literature

Policy implications:

• Place-based policies work: At €25,000 per job, these subsidies efficiently create employment in disadvantaged areas

• Target labor market regions: Designing programs at the commuting zone level contains spillover effects

• Sector-neutral approach: No evidence supports targeting specific industries; effects are similar across sectors

• Implementation matters: Programs need proper geographic targeting and monitoring to be effective

• Expect some distortions: Wage gains for incumbent workers and geographic spillovers represent trade-offs

• Optimal design: The findings validate key principles from Austin, Glaeser, and Summers (2018) for effective place-based policies in the 21st century

• Redistribution effectiveness: Results inform recent theoretical work by Gaubert et al. (2025) and Fajgelbaum and Gaubert (2025) on optimal place-based policies with regional spillovers

Bottomline

Place-based investment subsidies in disadvantaged regions create lasting jobs at a relatively low cost per worker, with effects concentrated among younger and less-educated workers who need opportunities most.

A new NBER working paper ("Automation, Career Values, and Political Preferences" by Maria Petrova, Gregor Schubert, Bledi Taska, and Pinar Yildirim) examines how automation and robotization affected career prospects and political preferences in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016.

The big picture: Increased robot adoption led to declining career values and upward mobility, especially for low-skilled workers. This correlated with shifts in voting behavior and support for populist candidates.

By the numbers:

• One additional robot per 1,000 workers decreased the average local market career value by $3,820 (1.7% of the 2000 average)

• Low-skilled workers saw a $1,520 reduction in lifetime earnings from upward mobility vs. $1,040 for high-skilled workers.

• One standard deviation increase in career values led to a 0.68 percentage point decrease in Trump's 2016 vote share.

• Average local market career value grew by $2,100 (0.9%) between 2000-2008 but declined by $200 (0.09%) from 2008-2016

Key findings:

• Career values (expected lifetime earnings) declined, especially after 2008

• Automation reduced both wages and upward job mobility

• Effects spilled over to non-manufacturing industries like retail and services

• Areas with more education opportunities saw fewer negative impacts

• Lower career values correlated with less investment in housing and education

• Automation exposure increased support for Trump in 2016 but not previous GOP candidates

• Younger voters' income was more strongly associated with Trump support, consistent with career value concerns

• Republican candidates made more campaign visits to areas with higher robot exposure

Methodology:

• Used resume data from 16 million individuals to calculate "career values" based on job transition probabilities and wages

• Instrumented U.S. robot adoption using industry-level adoption in EU countries

• Controlled for demographic characteristics, manufacturing share, and other factors

Between the lines: The study suggests automation's effects on future career prospects, not just immediate job losses, shaped economic and political outcomes. It also found evidence of the political impacts of supply-side (e.g., campaign visits) and demand-side (voting intentions).

What's next: The authors hypothesize AI could exacerbate inequality and erode the middle class by replacing white-collar jobs and reducing demand for middle managers.

The bottom line: Policymakers should consider automation's broader impacts on career mobility and inequality when crafting responses. The study highlights the importance of forward-looking measures like career values in understanding labor market dynamics.