Beijing’s industrial subsidies are on average three to four times higher than in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries — sometimes up to nine times as much. A report published this week by IfW-Kiel estimated that industrial subsidies amounted to €221 billion or 1.73% of China’s gross domestic product in 2019. Another study put annual subsidies typically at around 5% of GDP.
The IfW-Kiel report revealed how Chinese subsidies for domestic green-tech firms had increased significantly in 2022. The world’s largest EV maker, BYD, received €2.1 billion, compared with €220 million just two years earlier. Support for wind turbine maker Mingyang rose from €20 million to €52 million.
Europe’s green-energy sector has already taken a beating from cheap Chinese imports of solar panels, which have wiped out several domestic players and prompted an EU anti-subsidy probe. Though EU countries installed record levels of solar capacity last year — 40% more than in 2022 — the vast majority of panels and parts came from China, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
Analysts argue that China can’t succeed without strong and stable markets for its products, which should give US and EU leaders the edge in negotiations with Beijing.
Given this lack of transparency, is a trusted cooperation possible? (The answer is: no, it isn’t.)
This is silly and absolutist reasoning. The law exists to encourage companies to push their suppliers for more ethical behaviour, if China won’t allow transparency, then it’s a violation of the supply chain transparency law and they’ll have to choose between A) more transparency, or B) not being on the receiving end of deals. The crucial difference is this only targets the things you pointed out that weren’t even on topic to subsidies to begin with, but instead we’re enacting protectionist policies and complaining about “unfairness” with the amount of subsidies they have.
You are just repeating your statements and ignoring mine it seems.
That’s funny considering you changed the subject. I’m trying to stay on topic with the original article talking about subsidies, you’re moving the goalpost. I don’t have to respond to things that aren’t on topic.
