Supply Chain

More stories

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Russia-Ukraine War Changed This Finland Company Forever

    by

    Even with sheets of rain falling, the sprawling construction site was buzzing. Yellow and orange excavators slowly danced around a maze of muddy pits, swinging giant fistfuls of dirt as a chorus line of trucks traipsed across the landscape.This 50-acre plot in Oradea, Romania, close to the border with Hungary, beat out scores of other sites in Europe to become the home of Nokian Tyres’ new 650 million-euro, or $706 million, factory. Like an industrial-minded Goldilocks, the Finnish tire company had searched for the just-right combination of real estate, transport links, labor supply and pro-business environment.Yet the make-or-break feature that every host country had to have would not have even appeared on the radar a few years ago: membership in both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Geopolitical risk “was the starting point,” said Jukka Moisio, the chief executive and president of Nokian. That was not the case before Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.Nokian Tyres’ altered business strategy highlights the transformed global economic playing field that governments and companies are confronting. As the war in Ukraine drags on and tensions rise between the United States and China, critical decisions about offices, supply chains, investments and sales are no longer primarily ruled by concerns about costs.As the world re-globalizes, assessments of political threats loom much larger than before.Oradea, Romania, became Nokian Tyres’ top choice for a new factory.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesThe new factory is going on a 50-acre site.Andreea Campeanu for The New York Times“This is a world that has fundamentally changed,” said Henry Farrell, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins. “We cannot just think in terms of innovation and efficiency. We have to think about security, too.”For Nokian Tyres, which first sold shares on the Helsinki stock exchange in 1995, the new reality struck like a hammer blow. Roughly 80 percent of Nokian’s passenger car tires were manufactured in Russia. And the country accounted for 20 percent of its sales.The perils of over-concentration hit home, Mr. Moisio said, “when your company loses billions.”Within six weeks of the war’s start, it became clear that the company had no choice but to exit Russia and ramp up production elsewhere. Rubber had been added to the European Union’s rapidly expanding package of sanctions. Public sentiment in Finland soured. The share price plunged. In January 2022, the share price was over €34; today it’s €8.25.“We were very exposed,” Mr. Moisio said, sipping coffee in a sunny conference room at the company’s low-key Helsinki office. The Russian operation had high returns, but it also had high risks, a fact that, over time, had faded from view.Diversifying may not be as efficient or cheap, he said, but “it’s far more secure.”With roughly 80 percent of its production located in Russia, “we were very exposed” when Russia attacked Ukraine, said Jukka Moisio, Nokian’s chief executive.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesC-suite executives are relearning that the market often fails to accurately measure risk. A January survey of 1,200 global chief executives by the consulting firm EY found that 97 percent had altered their strategic investment plans because of new geopolitical tensions. More than a third said they were relocating operations.China, which has become an increasingly fraught home for foreign businesses and investment, is among the places that firms are leaving. Roughly one in four companies planned to move operations out of the country, a survey conducted last year by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China found.Businesses are suddenly finding themselves “stranded in the no-man’s land of warring empires,” Mr. Farrell and his co-author, Abraham Newman, argue in a new book.Mr. Moisio’s tenure at Nokian has coincided with the triple crown of crises. He started in May 2020, a few months after the Covid-19 pandemic essentially shut down global commerce. Like other companies, Nokian hunkered down, cutting production and capital spending. Its lack of outstanding debt helped it ride out the storm.And when the economy bounced back, Nokian scrambled to restart production and restock raw materials amid a huge breakdown of the supply chain and transportation. The war posed an existential threat to Nokian’s operations.Adding production lines to existing facilities is often the fastest and cheapest way to increase output. Still, Nokian decided not to expand its operation in Russia.Production there was already concentrated, Mr. Moisio said, but more important, the persistent supply chain bottlenecks underscored the added risks and costs of transporting materials over long distances.The Nokian Tyres main office in Nokia, Finland.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesNewly completed tires on the production line. Nokian is moving manufacturing closer to specific markets.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesGoing forward, instead of locating 80 percent of production in one spot, often far from the market, 80 percent of production would be local or regional.“It turned upside down,” Mr. Moisio said.Tires for the Nordic market would be produced in Finland. Tires for American customers would be manufactured in the United States. And in the future, Europe would be serviced by a European factory.Diversification had, to some extent, already been incorporated into the company’s strategic plan. It opened a plant in Dayton, Tenn., in 2019, in addition to the original factory that operated in Nokia, the Finnish town that gave the tire maker its name.At the end of 2021, the company opened new production lines at both of those plants.When it came time to build the next factory, executives figured it would be in Eastern Europe, close to its largest European markets in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France, as well as Poland and the Czech Republic.That moment came much sooner than anyone expected.In June 2022, less than four months after the invasion of Ukraine, Nokian executives asked the board to approve an exit from Russia and the construction of a new plant.Negotiations to leave Russia commenced, as did a high-speed search for a new location. Aided by the consulting firm Deloitte, the site assessment process, which included dozens of candidates across Europe, was completed in four months, said Adrian Kaczmarczyk, senior vice president of supply operations. By comparison, in 2015 Deloitte took nine months to recommend a site in a single country, the United States.Nokian expedited its search for a site, selecting Oradea in just four months, said Adrian Kaczmarczyk, senior vice president of supply operations.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesMr. Kaczmarczyk and engineers examining designs for the project.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesThe aim was to start commercial production by early 2025.Serbia had a flourishing automotive sector, but was eliminated from the get-go because it was in neither the European Union nor NATO. Turkey was a member of NATO but not the European Union. And Hungary was labeled high risk because of its illiberal prime minister, Viktor Orban, and close relationship with Russia.At each successive round, a long list of other considerations kicked in. Where were the closest highway, harbor and rail lines? Was there a sufficient pool of qualified employees? Was land available? Could permitting and construction time be fast-tracked? How pro-business were the authorities?Nokian would have looked to reduce a new factory’s carbon footprint in any event, Mr. Moisio, the chief executive, said. But the decision to commit to a 100 percent emissions-free plant probably would not have happened in the absence of war. After all, cheap gas from Russia was what helped lure Nokian there in the first place. Now, the disappearance of that supply accelerated the company’s thinking about ending dependence on fossil fuels.“Disruption allowed us to think differently,” Mr. Moisio said.As the winnowing progressed, a complex matrix of small and large considerations came into play. Was there good health care and an international school where foreign managers could send their children? What was the likelihood of natural disasters?Countries and cities fell out for various reasons. Slovenia and the Czech Republic were considered low-to-medium-risk countries, but Mr. Kaczmarczyk said they couldn’t find appropriate plots of land.A machine operator monitoring equipment on the production line inside the factory in Nokia.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesTires being made on the production line.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesSlovakia fell into the same bucket and already had a large automotive industry. Bratislava, though, made clear it had no interest in attracting more heavy industry, only information technology, Mr. Kaczmarczyk said.At the end, six candidates made Deloitte’s final cut: two sites in Romania, two in Poland, and one each in Portugal and Spain.The messy mix of new and old considerations that businesses have to contemplate were evident in the list of finalists. Geopolitics, as the Nokian Tyres chief executive said, had been a starting point, but it was not necessarily the end point.Spain has virtually no geopolitical risk. And the site in El Rebollar had a large talent pool, but Deloitte ruled it out because of high wage costs and heavy labor regulations. Portugal, another country with no security risk, was rejected because of worries about the power supply and the speed of the permitting process.Poland, along with Hungary and Serbia, had been labeled high risk despite its staunch anti-Russia stance. It has an antidemocratic government and has repeatedly clashed with the European Commission over the primacy of European legislation and the independence of Poland’s courts.Yet low labor costs, the presence of other multinational employers and a quick permitting process outweighed the worries enough to elevate the sites in Gorzow and Konin to second and third place.Oradea, the top recommendation, ultimately offered a better balance among the company’s competing priorities. The cost of labor in Romania, like Poland, was among the lowest in Europe. And its risk rating, though labeled relatively high, was lower than Poland’s.The factory in Nokia. The low cost of labor in Romania attracted the company.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesStretching the lining for tires. The main raw materials for tires are natural rubber, synthetic rubber, soot and oil.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesThere were other pluses as well in Oradea. Construction could start immediately; utilities were already in place; a new solar power plant was in the works. The amount of development grants from the European Union for companies investing in Romania was larger than in Poland. And local officials were enthusiastic.Mihai Jurca, Oradea’s city manager, detailed the area’s appeal during a tour of the turreted confection of Art Nouveau buildings in the renovated city center.“It was a flourishing cultural and commercial city, a junction point between East and West,” in the early 20th century, under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mr. Jurca said.Today the city, an affluent economic hub of 220,000 with a university, has solicited businesses and European Union funds, while constructing industrial parks that house domestic and international companies like Plexus, a British electronics manufacturer, and Eberspaecher, a German automotive supplier.Nokian is not looking to replicate the kind of megafactory in Romania that it ran in Russia — or anywhere else, for that matter. The idea of concentrating production is “old-fashioned,” Mr. Moisio said.For him, the company emerged from crisis mode on March 16, the day $258 million from sale of its Russian operation landed in Nokian’s bank account. Although only a fraction of the total value, the amount helped finance the construction and closed out the company’s involvement with Russia.Now uncertainty is the norm, Mr. Moisio said, and business leaders need to constantly be asking: “What can we do? What’s our Plan B?”Oradea “was a flourishing cultural and commercial city, a junction point between East and West,” in the early 20th century, said Mihai Jurca, the city manager.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesOradea is an affluent hub of 220,000 people with a university, and has solicited businesses and European Union funds.Andreea Campeanu for The New York Times More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why What We Thought About the Global Economy Is No Longer True

    by

    While the world’s eyes were on the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and China, the paths to prosperity and shared interests have grown murkier.When the world’s business and political leaders gathered in 2018 at the annual economic forum in Davos, the mood was jubilant. Growth in every major country was on an upswing. The global economy, declared Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, “is in a very sweet spot.”Five years later, the outlook has decidedly soured.“Nearly all the economic forces that powered progress and prosperity over the last three decades are fading,” the World Bank warned in a recent analysis. “The result could be a lost decade in the making — not just for some countries or regions as has occurred in the past — but for the whole world.”A lot has happened between then and now: A global pandemic hit; war erupted in Europe; tensions between the United States and China boiled. And inflation, thought to be safely stored away with disco album collections, returned with a vengeance.But as the dust has settled, it has suddenly seemed as if almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong.The economic conventions that policymakers had relied on since the Berlin Wall fell more than 30 years ago — the unfailing superiority of open markets, liberalized trade and maximum efficiency — look to be running off the rails.During the Covid-19 pandemic, the ceaseless drive to integrate the global economy and reduce costs left health care workers without face masks and medical gloves, carmakers without semiconductors, sawmills without lumber and sneaker buyers without Nikes.Calverton National Cemetery in New York in early 2021, where daily burials more than doubled at the height of the pandemic.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesCaring for Covid patients in Bergamo, Italy, in 2020. Cost-cutting and economic integration around the globe left health care workers scrambling for masks and other supplies when the coronavirus hit.Fabio Bucciarelli for The New York TimesThe idea that trade and shared economic interests would prevent military conflicts was trampled last year under the boots of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.And increasing bouts of extreme weather that destroyed crops, forced migrations and halted power plants has illustrated that the market’s invisible hand was not protecting the planet.Now, as the second year of war in Ukraine grinds on and countries struggle with limp growth and persistent inflation, questions about the emerging economic playing field have taken center stage.Globalization, seen in recent decades as unstoppable a force as gravity, is clearly evolving in unpredictable ways. The move away from an integrated world economy is accelerating. And the best way to respond is a subject of fierce debate.Of course, challenges to the reigning economic consensus had been growing for a while.“We saw before the pandemic began that the wealthiest countries were getting frustrated by international trade, believing — whether correctly or not — that somehow this was hurting them, their jobs and standards of living,” said Betsey Stevenson, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.The financial meltdown in 2008 came close to tanking the global financial system. Britain pulled out of the European Union in 2016. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on China in 2017, spurring a mini trade war.But starting with Covid-19, the rat-a-tat series of crises exposed with startling clarity vulnerabilities that demanded attention.As the consulting firm EY concluded in its 2023 Geostrategic Outlook, the trends behind the shift away from ever-increasing globalization “were accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic — and then they have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine.”A view of the destruction in Bakhmut, Ukraine, in May.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesUkrainians lined up to receive humanitarian aid in Kherson last year. Trade and shared economic interests weren’t enough to prevent wars, as once thought.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesIt was the ‘end of history.’Today’s sense of unease is a stark contrast with the heady triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was a period when a theorist could declare that the fall of communism marked “the end of history” — that liberal democratic ideas not only vanquished rivals, but represented “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.”Associated economic theories about the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism took on a similar sheen of invincibility and inevitability. Open markets, hands-off government and the relentless pursuit of efficiency would offer the best route to prosperity.It was believed that a new world where goods, money and information crisscrossed the globe would essentially sweep away the old order of Cold War conflicts and undemocratic regimes.There was reason for optimism. During the 1990s, inflation was low while employment, wages and productivity were up. Global trade nearly doubled. Investments in developing countries surged. The stock market rose.The World Trade Organization was established in 1995 to enforce the rules. China’s entry six years later was seen as transformative. And linking a huge market with 142 countries would irresistibly draw the Asian giant toward democracy.China, along with South Korea, Malaysia and others, turned struggling farmers into productive urban factory workers. The furniture, toys and electronics they sold around the world generated tremendous growth.China joined the World Trade Organization at a signing ceremony in 2001. ReutersThe favored economic road map helped produce fabulous wealth, lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spur wondrous technological advances.But there were stunning failures as well. Globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities.In the United States and other advanced economies, many industrial jobs were exported to lower-wage countries, removing a springboard to the middle class.Policymakers always knew there would be winners and losers. Still, the market was left to decide how to deploy labor, technology and capital in the belief that efficiency and growth would automatically follow. Only afterward, the thinking went, should politicians step in to redistribute gains or help those left without jobs or prospects.Companies embarked on a worldwide scavenger hunt for low-wage workers, regardless of worker protections, environmental impact or democratic rights. They found many of them in places like Mexico, Vietnam and China.Television, T-shirts and tacos were cheaper than ever, but many essentials like health care, housing and higher education were increasingly out of reach.The job exodus pushed down wages at home and undercut workers’ bargaining power, spurring anti-immigrant sentiments and strengthening hard-right populist leaders like Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France.In advanced industrial giants like the United States, Britain and several European countries, political leaders turned out to be unable or unwilling to more broadly reapportion rewards and burdens.Nor were they able to prevent damaging environmental fallout. Transporting goods around the globe increased greenhouse gas emissions. Producing for a world of consumers strained natural resources, encouraging overfishing in Southeast Asia and illegal deforestation in Brazil. And cheap production facilities polluted countries without adequate environmental standards.It turned out that markets on their own weren’t able to automatically distribute gains fairly or spur developing countries to grow or establish democratic institutions.Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said in a recent speech that a central fallacy in American economic policy had been to assume “that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently — no matter what our competitors did, no matter how big our shared challenges grew, and no matter how many guardrails we took down.”The proliferation of economic exchanges between nations also failed to usher in a promised democratic renaissance.Communist-led China turned out to be the global economic system’s biggest beneficiary — and perhaps master gamesman — without embracing democratic values.“Capitalist tools in socialist hands,” the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said in 1992, when his country was developing into the world’s factory floor. China’s astonishing growth transformed it into the world’s second largest economy and a major engine of global growth. All along, though, Beijing maintained a tight grip on its raw materials, land, capital, energy, credit and labor, as well as the movements and speech of its people.Globalization has had enormous effects on the environment — including deforestation in Roraima State, in the Brazilian Amazon.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesDistributing food in Johannesburg in 2020, where the pandemic caused a significant spike in the need for assistance.Joao Silva/The New York TimesMoney flowed in, and poor countries paid the price.In developing countries, the results could be dire.The economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic combined with soaring food and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine have created a spate of debt crises. Rising interest rates have made those crises worse. Debts, like energy and food, are often priced in dollars on the world market, so when U.S. rates go up, debt payments get more expensive.The cycle of loans and bailouts, though, has deeper roots.Poorer nations were pressured to lift all restrictions on capital moving in and out of the country. The argument was that money, like goods, should flow freely among nations. Allowing governments, businesses and individuals to borrow from foreign lenders would finance industrial development and key infrastructure.“Financial globalization was supposed to usher in an era of robust growth and fiscal stability in the developing world,” said Jayati Ghosh, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. But “it ended up doing the opposite.”Some loans — whether from private lenders or institutions like the World Bank — didn’t produce enough returns to pay off the debt. Others were poured into speculative schemes, half-baked proposals, vanity projects or corrupt officials’ bank accounts. And debtors remained at the mercy of rising interest rates that swelled the size of debt payments in a heartbeat.Over the years, reckless lending, asset bubbles, currency fluctuations and official mismanagement led to boom-and-bust cycles in Asia, Russia, Latin America and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, extravagant projects undertaken by the government, from ports to cricket stadiums, helped drive the country into bankruptcy last year as citizens scavenged for food and the central bank, in a barter arrangement, paid for Iranian oil with tea leaves.It’s a “Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Ghosh said.Private lenders who got spooked that they would not be repaid abruptly cut off the flow of money, leaving countries in the lurch.And the mandated austerity that accompanied bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, which compelled overextended governments to slash spending, often brought widespread misery by cutting public assistance, pensions, education and health care.Even I.M.F. economists acknowledged in 2016 that instead of delivering growth, such policies “increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”Disenchantment with the West’s style of lending gave China the opportunity to become an aggressive creditor in countries like Argentina, Mongolia, Egypt and Suriname.A market in Buenos Aires. China has become an aggressive creditor to countries like Argentina. Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSelf-reliance replaces cheap imports.While the collapse of the Soviet Union cleared the way for the domination of free-market orthodoxy, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has now decisively unmoored it.The story of the international economy today, said Henry Farrell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is about “how geopolitics is gobbling up hyperglobalization.”Old-world style great power politics accomplished what the threat of catastrophic climate collapse, seething social unrest and widening inequality could not: It upended assumptions about the global economic order.Josep Borrell, the European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, put it bluntly in a speech 10 months after the invasion of Ukraine: “We have decoupled the sources of our prosperity from the sources of our security.” Europe got cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufactured goods from China. “This is a world that is no longer there,” he said.Supply-chain chokeholds stemming from the pandemic and subsequent recovery had already underscored the fragility of a globally sourced economy. As political tensions over the war grew, policymakers quickly added self-reliance and strength to the goals of growth and efficiency.“Our supply chains are not secure, and they’re not resilient,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last spring. Trade relationships should be built around “trusted partners,” she said, even if it means “a somewhat higher level of cost, a somewhat less efficient system.”“It was naïve to think that markets are just about efficiency and that they’re not also about power,” said Abraham Newman, a co-author with Mr. Farrell of “Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy.”Economic networks, by their very nature, create power imbalances and pressure points because countries have varying capabilities, resources and vulnerabilities.Russia, which had supplied 40 percent of the European Union’s natural gas, tried to use that dependency to pressure the bloc to withdraw its support of Ukraine.The United States and its allies used their domination of the global financial system to remove major Russian banks from the international payments system.The Port of Chornomorsk near Odesa, last year. In 2021, Ukraine was the largest wheat exporter in the world.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesHarvesting grapes at a vineyard in South Australia. China blocked Australian exports of wine and other goods after the country expressed support for Taiwan.Adam Ferguson for The New York TimesChina has retaliated against trading partners by restricting access to its enormous market.The extreme concentrations of critical suppliers and information technology networks has generated additional choke points.China manufactures 80 percent of the world’s solar panels. Taiwan produces 92 percent of tiny advanced semiconductors. Much of the world’s trade and transactions are figured in U.S. dollars.The new reality is reflected in American policy. The United States — the central architect of the liberalized economic order and the World Trade Organization — has turned away from more comprehensive free trade agreements and repeatedly refused to abide by W.T.O. decisions.Security concerns have led the Biden administration to block Chinese investment in American businesses and limit China’s access to private data on citizens and to new technologies.And it has embraced Chinese-style industrial policy, offering gargantuan subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries, wind farms, solar plants and more to secure supply chains and speed the transition to renewable energy.“Ignoring the economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous,” Mr. Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said. Adherence to “oversimplified market efficiency,” he added, proved to be a mistake.While the previous economic orthodoxy has been partly abandoned, it is not clear what will replace it. Improvisation is the order of the day. Perhaps the only assumption that can be confidently relied on now is that the path to prosperity and policy trade-offs will become murkier.A solar farm in Yanqing district, in China. The country makes 80 percent of the world’s solar panels.Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    TikTok, Shein and Other Companies Distance Themselves From China

    by

    Companies are moving headquarters and factories outside the country and cleaving off their Chinese businesses. It’s not clear the strategy will work.As it expanded internationally, Shein, the rapidly growing fast fashion app, progressively cut ties to its home country, China. It moved its headquarters to Singapore and de-registered its original company in Nanjing. It set up operations in Ireland and Indiana, and hired Washington lobbyists to highlight its U.S. expansion plans as it prepares for a potential initial public offering this year.Yet the clothing retailer can’t shake the focus on its ties with China. Along with other brands like the viral social app TikTok and shopping app Temu, Shein has become a target of American lawmakers in both parties. Politicians are accusing the company of making its clothes with fabric made with forced labor and calling it a tool of the Chinese Communist Party — claims that Shein denies.“No one should be fooled by Shein’s efforts to cover its tracks,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, wrote in a letter to other lawmakers this month.As relations between the United States and China turn increasingly rocky, some of China’s most entrepreneurial brands have taken steps to distance themselves from their home country. They have set up new factories and headquarters outside China to serve the United States and other foreign markets, emphasized their foreign ties and scrubbed any mention of “China” from their corporate websites.TikTok has set up headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore, and invested in new U.S. operations that it says will wall off its American user data from its parent company, ByteDance. Temu has established a headquarters in Boston, and its parent company, PDD Holdings, has moved its headquarters from China to Ireland.Chinese solar companies have set up factories outside China to avoid U.S. tariffs on solar panels from China and limit their exposure to Xinjiang, a region that the United States now bars imports from because of its use of forced labor.JinkoSolar, a behemoth that produces one in 10 solar modules installed globally, has set up a supply chain entirely outside China to make goods for the United States.Other companies, including those that are foreign-owned, are building walls between their Chinese operations and their global businesses, judging that this is the best way to avoid running afoul of new restrictions or risks to their reputation.Sequoia Capital, the venture capital firm, said last week that it would split its global business into three independent partnerships, spinning off unique entities for China and India.Shein said in a statement that it was “a multinational company with diversified operations around the world and customers in 150 markets, and we make all business decisions with that in mind.” The company said it had zero tolerance for forced labor, did not source cotton from Xinjiang and fully complied with all U.S. tax and trade laws.A spokesperson for TikTok said that the Chinese Communist Party had neither direct nor indirect control of ByteDance or TikTok, and that ByteDance was a private, global company with offices around the world.“Roughly 60 percent of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as BlackRock and General Atlantic, and its C.E.O. resides in Singapore,” said Brooke Oberwetter, a spokesperson.Temu did not respond to requests for comment.Analysts said companies were being driven out of China by a variety of motivations, including better access to foreign customers and an escape from the risk of a crackdown by the Chinese authorities.Some companies have more practical concerns, like reducing their costs for labor and shipping, lowering their tax bills or shedding the shoddy reputation that American buyers continue to associate with goods made in China, said Shay Luo, a principal at the consulting firm Kearney who studies supply chains.But a wave of tougher restrictions in the United States on doing business with China appears to be having an effect, too.Research by Altana, a supply chain technology company, shows that since 2016, new regulations, customs enforcement actions and trade policies that hurt Chinese exports to the United States were followed by “adaptive behavior,” like setting up new subsidiaries outside China, said Evan Smith, the company’s chief executive.For Chinese companies, going global is not a new phenomenon. The Chinese government initiated a “go out” policy at the turn of the century to encourage state-owned enterprises to invest abroad to gain overseas markets, natural resources and technology.Private companies like the electronics firm Lenovo, the appliance maker Haier and the e-commerce giant Alibaba soon followed, seeking investment targets and new customers.As tensions between the United States and China have risen in recent years, investment flows between the countries have slowed. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods put in place by President Donald J. Trump and maintained by President Biden encouraged companies to move manufacturing from China to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Mexico. The pandemic, which halted factories in China and raised costs for moving goods across the ocean, accelerated the trend.International companies are now increasingly adopting a “China plus one” model of securing an additional source of goods in another country in case of supply interruptions in China. Chinese companies, too, are following this practice, Ms. Luo said.In the 12 months that ended in April, the share of imports to the United States from China reached its lowest level since 2006.“It is definitely a rational strategy for these companies to offshore, to move manufacturing or their headquarters to a third country,” said Roselyn Hsueh, an associate professor of political science at Temple University.In addition to tariffs and the ban on products from the Xinjiang region, the United States has imposed new restrictions on trade in technology and tougher security reviews for Chinese investments.The Chinese government, too, is clamping down on the transfer of data and currency outside the country, and it has squashed some Chinese companies’ efforts to list their stocks on American exchanges because of such concerns.Beijing has detained and harassed top tech executives, and foreign consulting firms. And its draconian lockdowns during the pandemic made clear to businesses that they operate in China at the mercy of the government.“Companies like Shein and TikTok move overseas both to reduce their U.S. regulatory and reputational risk, but also to reduce the likelihood that their founders and staff get intimidated or arrested by Chinese officials,” said Isaac Stone Fish, the chief executive of Strategy Risks, a consultant on corporate exposure to China.But companies like Shein and Temu still source nearly all of their products from China, and it’s not clear that the changes the Chinese companies are making to their businesses have done much to lower the heat.The opposition to these companies in Washington is being fueled by an incendiary combination of legitimate concerns over national security and forced labor, and the political appeal of appearing tough on China. It also appears to be driven by the opposition of certain competitors to these services, which are now some of the most downloaded apps in the United States.Shou Chew, the chief executive of TikTok, was questioned at a House hearing in March over whether the social app would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesIn March, a group called Shut Down Shein sprang up to pressure Congress to crack down on the retailer. The group, which has hired five lobbyists with the firm Actum, declined to disclose who is funding its campaign.In a five-hour hearing in March, lawmakers grilled TikTok’s chief executive over whether it would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government, or censor the information broadcast to young Americans. Legislation is being considered that could permanently ban the app.Some lawmakers are arguing that JinkoSolar’s U.S.-made panels should not be eligible for government tax credits, and, for reasons that have not yet been disclosed, the company’s Florida factory was raided by customs officials last month.State governments, which have often been more welcoming to Chinese investment, are also growing more hostile. In January, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor of Virginia, blocked a deal for Ford Motor to set up a factory using technology from a Chinese battery maker, Contemporary Amperex Technology, calling it a “Trojan-horse relationship.”A House committee set up to examine economic and security competition with China is investigating the ties that Temu and Shein have with forced labor in China, and lawmakers are calling for Shein to be audited before its I.P.O.“The message of our investigation of Shein, Temu, Adidas and Nike is clear: Either ensure your supply chains are clean — no matter how difficult it is — or get out of countries like China implicated in forced labor,” Representative Mike Gallagher, the Republican chair of the committee, said in a statement.An investigation by Bloomberg in November found that some of Shein’s clothes were made with cotton grown in Xinjiang. In a statement, Shein said it had “built a four-step approach to ensure compliance” with the law, including a “code of conduct, independent audits, robust tracing technology and third-party testing.Jordyn Holman More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Companies Push Prices Higher, Protecting Profits but Adding to Inflation

    by

    Corporate profits have been bolstered by higher prices even as some of the costs of doing business have fallen in recent months.The prices of oil, transportation, food ingredients and other raw materials have fallen in recent months as the shocks stemming from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have faded. Yet many big businesses have continued raising prices at a rapid clip.Some of the world’s biggest companies have said they do not plan to change course and will continue increasing prices or keep them at elevated levels for the foreseeable future.That strategy has cushioned corporate profits. And it could keep inflation robust, contributing to the very pressures used to justify surging prices.As a result, some economists warn, policymakers at the Federal Reserve may feel compelled to keep raising interest rates, or at least not lower them, increasing the likelihood and severity of an economic downturn.“Companies are not just maintaining margins, not just passing on cost increases, they have used it as a cover to expand margins,” Albert Edwards, a global strategist at Société Générale, said, referring to profit margins, a measure of how much businesses earn from every dollar of sales.PepsiCo, the snacks and beverage maker, has become a prime example of how large corporations have countered increased costs, and then some.Hugh Johnston, the company’s chief financial officer, said in February that PepsiCo had raised its prices by enough to buffer further cost pressures in 2023. At the end of April, the company reported that it had raised the average price across its products by 16 percent in the first three months of the year. That added to a similar size price increase in the fourth quarter of 2022 and increased its profit margin.“I don’t think our margins are going to deteriorate at all,” Mr. Johnston said in a recent interview with Bloomberg TV. “In fact, what we’ve said for the year is we’ll be at least even with 2022, and may in fact increase margins during the course of the year.”The bags of Doritos, cartons of Tropicana orange juice and bottles of Gatorade drinks sold by PepsiCo are now substantially pricier. Customers have grumbled, but they have largely kept buying. Shareholders have cheered. PepsiCo declined to comment.PepsiCo is not alone in continuing to raise prices. Other companies that sell consumer goods have also done well.The average company in the S&P 500 stock index increased its net profit margin from the end of last year, according to FactSet, a data and research firm, countering the expectations of Wall Street analysts that profit margins would decline slightly. And while margins are below their peak in 2021, analysts are forecasting that they will keep expanding in the second half of the year.For much of the past two years, most companies “had a perfectly good excuse to go ahead and raise prices,” said Samuel Rines, an economist and the managing director of Corbu, a research firm that serves hedge funds and other investors. “Everybody knew that the war in Ukraine was inflationary, that grain prices were going up, blah, blah, blah. And they just took advantage of that.”But those go-to rationales for elevating prices, he added, are now receding.The Producer Price Index, which measures the prices businesses pay for goods and services before they are sold to consumers, reached a high of 11.7 percent last spring. That rate has plunged to 2.3 percent for the 12 months through April.The Consumer Price Index, which tracks the prices of household expenditures on everything from eggs to rent, has also been falling, but at a much slower rate. In April, it dropped to 4.93 percent, from a high of 9.06 percent in June 2022. The price of carbonated drinks rose nearly 12 percent in April, over the previous 12 months.“Inflation is going to stay much higher than it needs to be, because companies are being greedy,” Mr. Edwards of Société Générale said.But analysts who distrust that explanation said there were other reasons consumer prices remained high. Since inflation spiked in the spring of 2021, some economists have made the case that as households emerged from the pandemic, demand for goods and services — whether garage doors or cruise trips — was left unsated because of lockdowns and constrained supply chains, driving prices higher.David Beckworth, a senior research fellow at the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a former economist for the Treasury Department, said he was skeptical that the rapid pace of price increases was “profit-led.”Corporations had some degree of cover for raising prices as consumers were peppered with news about imbalances in the economy. Yet Mr. Beckworth and others contend that those higher prices wouldn’t have been possible if people weren’t willing or able to spend more. In this analysis, stimulus payments from the government, investment gains, pay raises and the refinancing of mortgages at very low interest rates play a larger role in higher prices than corporate profit seeking.“It seems to me that many telling the profit story forget that households have to actually spend money for the story to hold,” Mr. Beckworth said. “And once you look at the huge surge in spending, it becomes inescapable to me where the causality lies.”Mr. Edwards acknowledged that government stimulus measures during the pandemic had an effect. In his eyes, this aid meant that average consumers weren’t “beaten up enough” financially to resist higher prices that might otherwise make them flinch. And, he added, this dynamic has also put the weight of inflation on poorer households “while richer ones won’t feel it as much.”The top 20 percent of households by income typically account for about 40 percent of total consumer spending. Overall spending on recreational experiences and luxuries appears to have peaked, according to credit card data from large banks, but remains robust enough for firms to keep charging more. Major cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean, have continued lifting prices as demand for cruises has increased going into the summer.Many people who are not at the top of the income bracket have had to trade down to cheaper products. As a result, several companies that cater to a broad customer base have fared better than expected, as well.McDonald’s reported that its sales increased by an average of 12.6 percent per store for the three months through March, compared with the same period last year. About 4.2 percent of that growth has come from increased traffic and 8.4 percent from higher menu prices.The company attributed the recent menu price increases to higher expenses for labor, transportation and meat. Several consumer groups have responded by pointing out that recent upticks in the cost of transportation and labor have eased.A representative for the company said in an email that the company’s strong results were not just a result of price increases but also “strong consumer demand for McDonald’s around the world.”Other corporations have found that fewer sales at higher prices have still helped them earn bigger profits: a dynamic that Mr. Rines of Corbu has coined “price over volume.”Colgate-Palmolive, which in addition to commanding a roughly 40 percent share of the global toothpaste market, also sells kitchen soap and other goods, had a standout first quarter. Its operating profit for the year through March rose 6 percent from the same period a year earlier — the result of a 12 percent increase in prices even as volume declined by 2 percent.The recent bonanza for corporate profits, however, may soon start to fizzle.Research from Glenmede Investment Management indicates there are signs that more consumers are cutting back on pricier purchases. The financial services firm estimates that households in the bottom fourth by income will exhaust whatever is collectively left of their pandemic-era savings sometime this summer.Some companies are beginning to find resistance from more price-sensitive customers. Dollar Tree reported rising sales but falling margins, as lower-income customers who tend to shop there searched for deals. Shares in the company plunged on Thursday as it cut back its profit expectations for the rest of the year. Even PepsiCo and McDonald’s have recently taken hits to their share prices as traders fear that they may not be able to keep increasing their profits.For now, though, investors appear to be relieved that corporations did as well as they did in the first quarter, which has helped keep stock prices from falling broadly.Before large companies began reporting how they did in the first three months of the year, the consensus among analysts was that earnings at companies in the S&P 500 would fall roughly 7 percent compared with the same period in 2022. Instead, according to data from FactSet, earnings are expected to have fallen around 2 percent once all the results are in.Savita Subramanian, the head of U.S. equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America, wrote in a note that the latest quarterly reports “once again showed corporate America’s ability to preserve margins.” Her team raised overall earnings growth expectations for the rest of the year, and 2024. More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Officials Announce Indo-Pacific Trade Deal, Clashing With Industry Groups

    by

    The United States announced a deal to coordinate supply chains with allies, but prominent business groups said the deal fell short on reducing tariffs and other trade barriers.The Biden administration announced Saturday that it had reached an agreement with 13 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to coordinate supply chains, in an effort to lessen the countries’ dependence on China for critical products and allow them to better weather crises like wars, pandemics and climate change.The supply chain agreement is the first result of the administration’s trade initiative in the region, called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Negotiations are continuing for the other three pillars of the agreement, which focus on facilitating trade and improving conditions for workers, expanding the use of clean energy, and reforming tax structures and fighting corruption.Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said the supply chain agreement would deepen America’s economic cooperation with partners in the Indo-Pacific region, helping American companies do business there and making the United States more competitive globally.“Bottom line is, this is about increasing the U.S. economic presence in the region,” she said in a call with reporters Thursday.But prominent business groups expressed reservations about the Indo-Pacific deal, and on Friday, more than 30 of them sent a public letter to the administration saying the negotiations were leaving out traditional U.S. trade priorities that could help American exporters. That included lowering tariffs charged on their goods but also limiting other regulatory barriers to trade and establishing stronger intellectual property protections.The Biden administration says that past trade deals with those provisions have encouraged outsourcing and hurt American workers. Business leaders are arguing that without them, the Indo-Pacific deal will ultimately have little impact on the way these countries do business.Regulatory barriers to trade undermine efforts to strengthen supply chains, potentially sapping the effectiveness of the administration’s new agreement, the business groups’ letter said. It also expressed concern that the administration was not pushing for digital trade rules.“We are growing increasingly concerned that the content and direction of the administration’s proposals for the talks risk not only failing to deliver meaningful strategic and commercial outcomes but also endangering U.S. trade and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond,” said the letter, which was signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and other groups.In remarks Saturday in Detroit, where she was meeting with trade ministers from the participating countries, Ms. Raimondo said the group’s characterization of the deal was “flatly wrong and just reflects a misunderstanding of what the I.P.E.F. is and what it isn’t.”The United States began negotiations for a more traditional trade deal in the Pacific during the Obama administration, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deal was designed to strengthen America’s commercial ties in the Pacific, as a bulwark to China’s growing influence over the region. It cut tariffs on auto parts and agricultural products and established stronger intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals, among many other changes.But the Trans-Pacific Partnership created deep divisions among both Republicans and Democrats, with some politicians in both parties arguing it would hollow out American industry. Former President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States from that deal, and Japan, Australia and other members put the agreement into effect without the United States.The Indo-Pacific Framework includes some of the same countries as the Pacific deal, as well as India, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. But the Biden administration argues that the agreement is designed to better protect American workers and the environment.“The I.P.E.F. is not a traditional trade deal,” Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, said Saturday in Detroit. “It is our vision, our new vision for how our economies can collaborate to deliver real opportunities for our people.”“We’re not just trying to maximize the efficiencies of globalization,” Ms. Tai added. “We’re trying to promote sustainability, resilience and inclusiveness.”Ed Gresser, the director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, said allies like Japan were participating in the new deal but still trying to convince the United States to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership.There is good will internationally toward the Biden administration, Mr. Gresser added, but also confusion about what a trade agreement would mean without market access.Countries have a long history of creating trade and investment frameworks that fall short of traditional trade deals, he said, but “they’re generally not seen as very ambitious things.” More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Persists and Car Prices Are a Big Reason

    by

    Prices of new and used vehicles were supposed to recede quickly as supply chain problems dissipated. The market had other ideas.‌Car prices soared after the coronavirus lockdowns, and two years into the United States’ worst inflationary episode since the 1980s, the industry demonstrates that getting back to normal will be a long and lurching ride.In 2021 and early 2022, global shipping problems, a semiconductor shortage and factory shutdowns coincided with strong demand to push vehicle prices sharply higher. Economists had hoped that prices might ease as supply chains healed and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases deterred borrowers.Instead, prices for new cars have risen further. Domestic automakers are still producing fewer cars and focusing on more profitable luxury models. Used car prices helped to lower overall inflation late last year, but rebounded in April as short supply collided with a surge in demand.Echoes from the industry’s pandemic disruptions are reverberating through the economy even though the emergency has formally ended, and illustrate why the Fed’s fight to quash inflation could be a long one as consumers continued spending despite higher prices.A Wild Ride for Car PricesUsed car prices have been volatile, while new car costs have continued to climb, adding to overall inflation.

    Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics By The New York Times“Inflation is not going to be a smooth path downward — there are going to be bumps along the road,” said Blerina Uruci, chief U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price. “There are so many idiosyncratic factors at play right now, and I think some of that has to do with demand post-pandemic.”Elevated car prices have proved uncomfortably sticky. Used car prices have declined, but in a more muted — and volatile — fashion than economists had anticipated. And new cars have continued to get more expensive this year as manufacturers strive to maintain the margins established in 2021.“The big question now is: Are companies going to start competing with one another on price?” Ms. Uruci asked.But that’s a difficult question to answer, because the automotive market has drastically changed. To understand the situation, it’s useful to examine how the auto industry worked before.“Going into the pandemic, the dynamic in the automobile business was this idea that retail profitability was under constant pressure, driven by the internet,” said Pat Ryan, the chief executive of CoPilot, a car shopping app that monitors prices across about 40,000 dealerships.Automakers produced more cars than the marketplace demanded, offering incentives to clear inventory and compete with lower-cost imports. Dealers made their profits on volume and financing, often resulting in customer complaints of excess fees.As the coronavirus spread, factories shut down. Even when they reopened, semiconductors remained scarce. Manufacturers allocated chips to their highest-priced models — trucks and sport utility vehicles — offsetting lower volume with higher profits on each sale. About five million cars that normally would have been produced never were, Mr. Ryan said.Dealers got in on the action, charging thousands of dollars above list price — especially as stimulus programs rolled out, and consumers sought to upgrade their vehicles or buy new ones to escape cities. A study by the economist Michael Havlin, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that dealer markups accounted for 35 percent to 62 percent of total new-vehicle consumer inflation from 2019 to 2022.There were downsides to the lower sales volumes; dealerships also make money on service packages years after cars drive off the lot. But on balance, “it was the best of times for car dealers, for sure,” Mr. Ryan said.It was the worst of times, however, for anyone who suddenly needed a car.Hailey Cote with her recently purchased Toyota Corolla.Ross Mantle for The New York TimesThat’s the position that Hailey Cote of Pittsburgh found herself in last summer. After tiring of low-wage jobs on farms and in restaurants, she built a business cleaning houses for $25 an hour. When her 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee broke down, she knew she had to find a replacement quickly to ferry cleaning gear to each job and get to school, where she’s pursuing a degree in counseling.At that point, the used cars she could find were only a few thousand dollars less than the cheapest new cars, so she went with a 2022 base model Toyota Corolla. Her loan payment is about $500 a month. Insurance, which has also become more expensive, is another $200. Including gas and maintenance, Ms. Cote’s transportation cost is almost as much as her rent, leaving nothing for savings or recreation.“I think it’s the basic necessities that are really the worst,” Ms. Cote, 29, said. “Food’s gone up a bit, but the cost of housing, health care and cars is pretty brutal.”The car price frenzy began to ease in the second half of 2022, as more vehicles started rolling off assembly lines. But the supply has risen only gradually. Automakers, loath to relinquish profits enabled by scarcity, started talking about exercising “discipline” in their production targets.“During this two-year period, auto dealers and auto manufacturers discovered that a low-volume, higher-price model was actually a very profitable model,” Tom Barkin, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, said in an interview.Car Dealers Reap Big Profits in Inflation EraCar companies have been increasing prices by more than their input costs have climbed, leading to big profits on new vehicles.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Percent markups for publicly traded dealerships
    Source: Michael Havlin (Bureau of Labor Statistics)By The New York Times“The experience of higher prices, and the ability to move prices, does broaden the perspectives of business people in terms of what their options are,” he said. “It’s attractive if you can do it.”One way the automakers tried to buoy prices was jettisoning cheaper models, like the Chevrolet Spark and Volkswagen Passat. Responding to federal subsidies, car companies rolled out electric vehicles, but that didn’t help to bring prices down — they started with luxury versions, like the $42,995 Mustang Mach-E.And there have been added supply constraints. The generation of cars that would typically be coming off three-year leases is smaller than usual. Those who leased cars in the spring of 2020 have an incentive to buy them at the prices that were locked in before everything became more expensive.On top of that, some rental car companies are aggressively restocking their fleets after being starved for several years, leading dealership groups like Sonic Automotive to complain on earnings calls that they’re being outcompeted at auctions.“There are so many sources of used vehicles that just dried up over the last few years,” said Satyan Merchant, a senior vice president for financial services at TransUnion, a credit monitoring company. “And it all has this downstream effect.”The Fed has been raising interest rates sharply to slow demand — including for cars — and cool price increases. But during the adjustment period, that is making it even tougher for many Americans to afford a vehicle. According to TransUnion, the average monthly payment for a new car rose to $736 in the first quarter of 2023, from $585 two years before. Used cars average $523 per month, up $110 over the same period.Prices for Cars of All Ages Are Above Prepandemic LevelsA new car will run you about $51,000 on average – about 30 percent more than in January 2020. 

    Source: CoPilotBy The New York TimesCars are now a bifurcated market: Demand remains strong on the high end, where wealthy buyers with excess savings from the past two-plus years are able to absorb higher interest rates, or simply pay cash. Some are only now receiving vehicles they ordered in 2022 at inflated prices.Competition for vehicles is also fierce on the low end, since people with thin financial cushions and in-person jobs can’t afford to forgo transportation, which in most of the country is synonymous with a car. The job market has remained strong, especially for in-person jobs in fields like hospitality and health care, so more people have workplaces to get to.And many people in between, who might switch cars every few years, are waiting for prices to fall.“What we’ve seen is the disappearance of the middle,” said Scott Kunes, chief operating officer of a dealership group in the Midwest. He faults the automakers for abandoning cheaper, smaller, basic cars that people need just to get around, especially as interest rates put fancier versions beyond reach. “It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.”The situation may start to resolve itself soon. Wholesale car prices have begun to fall, and carmakers are offering more incentives. Kelley Blue Book data shows that average prices have fallen below list for the past two months, which Jonathan Smoke, chief economist at Cox Automotive, said signaled that demand was easing. Prices have come down in recent months for electric cars — the fastest-growing segment of new car sales, though a small portion of the overall market.Recent history has shown, however, that pricing trajectories are rarely linear. Adam Jonas, an auto industry analyst with Morgan Stanley, said that over the short to medium term, more inventory was the only answer.“Even though the statements from the Japanese and the Koreans are that the chip shortage is ending, it takes many months to spool it up,” he said. “Dealers should prepare for a tight summer.”Jack Ewing More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    G7 Countries Borrow China’s Economic Strategy

    by

    Wealthy democracies rev up an effort to spend trillions on a new climate-friendly energy economy, while stealing away some of China’s manufacturing power.Midway through his face-to-face meeting with President Biden in Indonesia last fall, the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, offered an unsolicited warning.Mr. Biden had in the preceding months signed a series of laws aimed at supercharging America’s industrial capacity and imposed new limits on the export of technology to China, in hopes of dominating the race for advanced energy technologies that could help fight climate change. For months, he and his aides had worked to recruit allied countries to impose their own restrictions on sending technology to China.The effort echoed the sort of industrial policy that China had employed to become the world’s manufacturing leader. In Bali, Mr. Xi urged Mr. Biden to abandon it.The president was not persuaded. Mr. Xi’s protests only further convinced Mr. Biden that America’s new industrial approach was the right one, according to a person familiar with the exchange.As Mr. Biden and fellow leaders of the Group of 7 nations meet this weekend in Hiroshima, Japan, a centerpiece of their discussions will be how to rapidly accelerate what has become an internationally coordinated round of vast public investment. For these wealthy democracies, the goal is both to reduce their reliance on Chinese manufacturing and to help their own companies compete in a new energy economy.Mr. Biden’s legislative agenda, including bills focused on semiconductors, infrastructure and low-emission energy sources, has begun to spur what could be trillions of dollars in government and private investment in American industrial capacity. That includes subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries, wind farms, solar plants and much more.The spending — the United States’ most significant intervention in industrial policy in decades — has galvanized many of America’s top allies in Europe and Asia, including key leaders of the Group of 7. European nations, South Korea, Japan, Canada and others are pushing for increased access to America’s clean-energy subsidies, while launching companion efforts of their own.“This clean-tech race is an opportunity to go faster and further, together,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said after an economy-themed meeting at the Group of 7 summit on Friday.“Now that the G7 are in this race together, our competition should create additional manufacturing capacity and not come at each other’s expense,” she said.Mr. Biden touring a semiconductor manufacturer in Durham, N.C., in March.Al Drago for The New York TimesMr. Biden and his Group of 7 counterparts have embarked on a project with two ambitious goals: to accelerate demand, even by decades, for the technologies needed to reduce emissions and fight climate change, and to give workers in the United States and in allied countries an advantage over Chinese workers in meeting that demand.Much of that project has roared to life since the G7 leaders met last year in the German Alps. The wave of recent Group of 7 actions on supply chains, semiconductors and other measures to counter China is based on “economic security, national security and energy security,” Rahm Emanuel, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, told reporters this week in Tokyo.He added: “This is an inflection point for a new and more relevant G7.”Mr. Emanuel said the effort reflected a growing impatience among Group of 7 leaders with what they call Beijing’s use of economic measures to punish and deter behavior by foreign governments and companies that China’s officials do not like.But more than anything, the shift has been fueled by urgency over climate action and by two laws Mr. Biden signed last summer: a bipartisan bill to shower the semiconductor industry with tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies, and the climate provisions of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which companies have jumped to cash in on.Those bills have spurred a wave of newly announced battery plants, solar panel factories and other projects. They have also set off an international subsidy race, which has evolved after being deeply contentious in the immediate aftermath of the signing of the climate law.The lucrative U.S. supports for clean energy and semiconductors — along with stricter requirements for companies and government agencies to buy U.S.-made steel, vehicles and equipment — have put unwelcome pressure on competing industries in allied countries.Workers at a solar energy parts and batteries factory in Suqian, China, in February.Alex Plavevski/EPA, via ShutterstockSome of those concerns have been quelled in recent months. The United States signed a deal with Japan in March that will allow battery materials made in Japan to qualify for the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act. The European Union is pursuing a similar agreement, and has proposed its own $270 billion program to subsidize green industries. Canada has passed its own version of the Biden climate law, and Britain, Indonesia and other countries are angling for their own critical mineral deals.Administration officials say once-rankled allies have bought into the potential benefits of a concerted wealthy-democracy industrial strategy.At the Group of 7 meeting, “you will see a degree of convergence on this that, from our perspective, can continue the conversion of the Inflation Reduction Act from a source of friction into a source of cooperation and strength between the United States and our G7 partners,” Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, told reporters on Air Force One as Mr. Biden flew to Japan.Some Group of 7 officials say the alliance has much more work to do to ensure that fast-growing economies like India benefit from the increased investments in a new energy economy. “It is important that the acceleration that is going to be created by this doesn’t disincentivize investment around the world,” Kirsten Hillman, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, said in an interview.One country they don’t want to see benefit is China. The United States has issued sweeping restrictions on China’s ability to access American technology, namely advanced chips and the machinery used to make them. And it has leaned on its allies as it tries to enforce global restrictions on sharing technology with Russia, as well as China. All of those efforts are meant to hinder China’s continued development in advanced manufacturing.Biden officials have urged allied countries not to step in to supply China with chips and other products it can no longer get from the United States. The United States is also weighing further restrictions on certain kinds of Chinese chip technology, including a likely ban on venture capital investments that U.S. officials are expected to discuss with their counterparts in Hiroshima.Although many of the Group of 7 governments agree that China poses an increasing economic and security threat, there is little consensus about what to do about it.Mr. Biden with Xi Jinping, China’s leader, in Bali, Indonesia, in November.Doug Mills/The New York TimesJapanese officials have been relatively eager to discuss coordinated responses to economic coercion from China, following Beijing’s move to cut Japan off from a supply of rare earth minerals during a clash more than a decade ago.European officials, by contrast, have been more divided on whether to risk close and lucrative business ties with China. Some, like the French president, Emmanuel Macron, have pushed back on U.S. plans to decouple supply chains with China.Ms. von der Leyen, the European Commission president, has been pushing for a “de-risking” of relations with China that involves recognizing China’s growing economic and security ambitions while reducing, in targeted ways, European dependence on China for its industrial and defense base. European officials said in Hiroshima that they had been pleased to see American leaders moving more toward their approach, at least rhetorically.Still, the allies’ industrial policy push threatens to complicate already difficult relations with China. Consulting and advisory firms with foreign ties have been subject to raids, detainments and arrests in China in recent months. Chinese officials have made clear that they see export controls as a threat. Adopting the phase American officials use to criticize Beijing, the Chinese Embassy in Washington warned the Group of 7 this week against what it called “economic coercion.”Mr. Xi issued a similar rebuke to Mr. Biden in Bali last fall. He pointed to the late 1950s, when the Soviet Union withdrew support for the Chinese nuclear program.China’s nuclear research continued, Mr. Xi said, and four years later, it detonated its first atomic bomb. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Solar Makers Criticize Biden’s Tax Credits as Too Lax on China

    by

    U.S.-based manufacturers of solar products say rules issued by the Biden administration on Friday will “cement China’s dominance” over the solar industryBiden administration rules released on Friday that will determine which companies and manufacturers can benefit from new solar industry tax credits are being criticized by U.S.-based makers of solar products, who say the guidelines do not go far enough to try to lure manufacturing back from China.The rules stem from President Biden’s sweeping clean energy bill, which offers a mix of tax credits and other incentives to try and spur the construction of more solar factories in the United States and reduce the country’s reliance on China for clean energy goods needed to mitigate climate change.The Treasury Department, in guidance issued on Friday, said it would offer a 10 percent additional tax credit for facilities assembling solar panels in the United States, even if they import the silicon wafers used to make those panels from foreign countries. Under the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, solar and wind farms can apply for a 30 percent tax credit on the costs of their facilities.Senior administration officials told reporters on Thursday that they were trying to take a balanced approach, one that leaned toward forcing supply chains to return to the United States. But China’s dominance of the global solar industry has created a tricky calculus for the Biden administration, which wants to promote U.S. manufacturing of solar products but also ensure a plentiful supply of low-cost solar panels to reduce carbon emissions.The officials said that the Biden administration would have the leeway to change the rules when American supply chains become stronger.“The domestic content bonus under the Inflation Reduction Act will boost American manufacturing, including in iron and steel, so America’s workers and companies continue to benefit from President Biden’s Investing in America agenda,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement. “These tax credits are key to driving investment and ensuring all Americans share in the growth of the clean energy economy.”Critics said the new rules would not go far enough to give companies incentives to move the solar supply chain out of China.Mike Carr, the executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America Coalition, which includes solar companies with U.S. operations like Hemlock Semiconductor, Wacker Chemie, Qcells and First Solar, called the move “a missed opportunity to build a domestic solar manufacturing supply chain.”“The simple fact is today’s announcement will likely result in the scaling back of planned investments in the critical areas of solar wafer, ingot, and polysilicon production,” he said in a statement. “China is producing 97 percent of the world’s solar wafers — giving them substantial control over both polysilicon and cell production. We fear that this guidance will cement their dominance over these critical pieces of the solar supply chain.”A four-acre solar rooftop in Los Angeles. The Biden administration wants 100 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from carbon-free energy sources by 2035.Mario Tama/Getty ImagesThe Biden administration has set an ambitious goal of generating 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2035, a goal that may require more than doubling the annual pace of solar installations.The United States still relies heavily on Chinese manufacturers for low-cost solar modules, although many Chinese-owned factories now make these goods in Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.China also supplies many of the key components in solar panels, including more than 80 percent of the world’s polysilicon, which most solar panels use to absorb energy from sunlight. And a significant portion of Chinese polysilicon comes from the Xinjiang region, where the U.S. government has banned imports because of concerns over forced labor.Other companies in the solar supply chain, which rely on imported components, were more positive about the Treasury Department’s guidance.Abigail Ross Hopper, the chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the guidance was an important step forward that would “spark a flood of investment in American-made clean energy equipment and components.”“The U.S. solar and storage industry strongly supports onshoring a domestic clean energy supply chain, and today’s guidance will supplement the manufacturing renaissance that began when the historic Inflation Reduction Act passed last summer,” she said.Congressional Republicans have already targeted the Biden administration’s climate legislation, saying that it fails to set tough guidelines against manufacturing in China and that it may funnel federal dollars to Chinese-owned companies that have set up in the United States.The Biden administration is also dispensing funding to build up the semiconductor and electric vehicle battery industries. Guidelines for that money include limits on access to so-called foreign entities of concern, like Chinese-owned companies. But the Inflation Reduction Act does not contain guardrails against federal dollars going to the U.S. operations of Chinese solar companies.In a congressional hearing on April 25, Representative Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointed to the Florida facilities of JinkoSolar, a Chinese-owned manufacturer, as being eligible for federal tax credits.“Work at the plant involves robots placing strings of solar cells — which are largely sourced from China — onto a solar panel base,” a fact sheet released by Mr. Smith said.Mr. Biden has also clashed with domestic solar manufacturers over a separate trade case that would see tariffs imposed on solar products imported from Chinese companies based in Southeast Asia.Mr. Biden’s decision to waive the tariffs for two years angered Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, who said U.S.-based manufacturers deserved more protection. In recent weeks, the House and Senate approved a measure to reverse the president’s decision, which Mr. Biden is expected to veto. More