Opinion

Companies must move supply chains further from China

Virus shows Southeast Asian factories too dependent on imported production inputs

By: Date: February 28, 2020 Topic: Global economy and trade

More abrupt and unexpected than the U.S.-China trade war, the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has become a wake-up call for international companies about the risks of excessive dependence on China.

It is already proving a far bigger shock than the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, outbreak. This is because China’s economy is now more than eight times larger than it was then and its importance to the global economy has grown even faster.

The country has become a large and vital market for international companies ranging from Apple to Adidas. But with millions of Chinese people confined to their homes and most malls and stores shut, domestic demand has collapsed for the majority of goods and services.

Online retail is an exception but is generally dominated by domestic companies. China’s auto market, important to foreign companies, has virtually ground to a halt.

Beyond the expansion of China’s economy, it has also become much more sophisticated and integrated into global value chains since 2003. With factories across China now closed or operating well below full capacity and much of the country’s domestic and international transport halted, the Covid-19 virus has had an unexpectedly large impact on many overseas manufacturers.

Like a number of international carmakers, Nissan Motor and Toyota Motor have had to halt production at some factories in Japan because of the interruption in the supply of parts from China. Indian pharmaceutical companies have warned that their output is at risk from disrupted shipments of Chinese ingredients. Western manufacturers of industrial electronics complain they cannot get the Chinese circuit boards their machines require.

Over the past two decades, China has moved up the value ladder to become the world’s largest exporter of intermediate goods used to make final products. It has a one-third share of this global market, much higher than the country’s share in most consumer sectors.

Such products now represent almost two-thirds of Chinese exports. The severity and uncertain duration of the Covid-19 shock have left overseas manufacturers with little ability to substitute inputs from other sources in the short run.

The fact that inbound transport links have also been disrupted is of less consequence: China has become less and less reliant over the years on foreign production inputs under Beijing’s industrial policy of substituting imports with domestic production in strategic sectors.

Most foreign companies’ plants have remained closed since the Lunar New Year holiday last month or are still not back to running at full capacity due to the disruptive impact of quarantines and transport restrictions on the companies’ workers, suppliers and distributors.

This has further fractured supply chains that had already been buffeted by the past two years of special tariffs and retaliatory duties thrown up during the U.S.-China trade war, which forced companies to scramble for alternatives to mainland production sites.

Even before the trade war, Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese companies had already begun to diversify their offshore production investment into Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations, with such output in some cases overtaking that coming out from China, as with Samsung Electronics‘ mobile phones.

The problem that has now emerged is that Southeast Asian economies are themselves heavily dependent on China for production inputs. As a consequence, the strategy of moving value chains to Southeast Asia from China has had a limited impact on companies’ ultimate goal of reducing concentration risk.

Every multinational must now be looking at how to reduce its dependence on China, as a production site or as a source of inputs, as soon as possible, whether through moving such purchasing and manufacturing back to its home market, to the markets of its customers or to third countries.

Implementing such wholesale change to supply chains is hard but necessary. Countries with sufficiently large supplies of available labor, adequate logistical capabilities and comparatively low dependence on China will be most attractive for new production sites. Mexico, Turkey and Eastern European nations are among those which should soon be busy entertaining visits from major multinationals.

The coronavirus is putting the well-established model for integrated supply chains of production to the test. China was allowed to become too important to multinationals even as it remained vulnerable to shocks like the U.S.-led trade war and now Covid-19.

While the coronavirus’ impact on economic growth and inflation in China and other nations may be short-lived, the episode’s impact on the operation of global value chains will be longer-lasting. How isolated a production site is from China in terms of import dependence will help to determine if it receives substantial new foreign direct manufacturing investment.

The proximity and links to China that used to be an advantage have become liabilities. The most important structural consequence should be a much faster reshoring of the value chain away from its territory.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to [email protected].

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Fiscal policy and rules after the pandemic

What are the possibilities for shaping the new fiscal policy?

Speakers: Zsolt Darvas, Maria Demertzis, Michel Heijdra and Katja Lautar Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: November 24, 2021
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

Fiscal arithmetic and risk of sovereign insolvency

The record-high debt levels in advanced economies increase the risk of sovereign insolvency. Governments should start fiscal consolidation soon in an environment of low nominal and real interest rates and post-COVID growth.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global economy and trade, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 18, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Goodbye Glasgow: what’s next for global climate action?

After COP26, and as the debate on whether Glasgow represents a success or a failure dies down, what next for global climate action?

By: Klaas Lenaerts and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Green economy Date: November 18, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Pandemonium

How did Europe respond to the pandemic?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European governance Date: November 17, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Why is China cracking down on big tech?

A look at China’s recent regulatory efforts in the digital space.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global economy and trade Date: November 10, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Phasing out COVID-19 emergency support programmes: effects on productivity and financial stability

How can European countries phase out the COVID-19 support measures without having a negative impact on productivity and financial stability?

Speakers: Eric Bartelsman, Maria Demertzis, Peter Grasmann and Laurie Mayers Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: November 9, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

What to make of the EU-US deal on steel and aluminium?

While deeply disappointing that the surprise deal maintains aluminium and steel tariffs against the EU beyond a modest quota, it alleviates a major irritant in transatlantic relations and contains interesting and innovative features relating to climate policy and to dispute settlement under WTO rules.

By: Uri Dadush Topic: Global economy and trade Date: November 4, 2021
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Contribution

European governance

COVID-19 financial aid and productivity: has support been well spent?

While support schemes during the pandemic were not targeted at protecting ‘good’ firms, financial support mostly went to those with the capacity to survive and succeed. Labour schemes have been effective in protecting employment.

By: Carlo Altomonte, Maria Demertzis, Lionel Fontagné and Steffen Müller Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 4, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governanceInclusive growth

The socioeconomic effects of COVID-19 on women

The pandemic has disproportionately affected women both professionally and at home. Although the gender gap in labour force participation since the onset of the pandemic hasn't worsened, policy still needs to tackle existing gender gaps, which for some EU countries are very substantive.

By: Maria Demertzis and Mia Hoffmann Topic: European governance, Inclusive growth Date: November 3, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

The state of trade: the EU's trade policy

A conversation with Member of the European Parliament Bernd Lange on the European Union’s trade policy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global economy and trade Date: November 3, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

Elimination versus mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of effective vaccines

Article published in Lancet Global Heath on strategies to end the COVID-19 pandemic in the presence of effective vaccines.

By: Miquel Oliu-Barton and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global economy and trade Date: November 3, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governance

Is the risk of stagflation real?

Most economic forecasts predict a return, in the medium-term, to pre-pandemic growth and inflation. Nevertheless, the European Central Bank and fiscal authorities need to be vigilant for signs of the contrary.

By: Monika Grzegorczyk, Francesco Papadia and Pauline Weil Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 2, 2021
Load more posts