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 Economics & Governance

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 article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

A rushed deal or a rush to judgement?

The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is supposed to improve market access for European companies operating in China and to ensure a level playing field, as well as reciprocity. Does it fulfil such expectations?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 27, 2021
Read about event
 

Upcoming Event

Feb
4
13:00

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Greening the EU trade?

Assessing CBAM from a trade perspective.

Speakers: Luis Garicano, Emily Lydgate and André Sapir Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

中國企業受累貿戰和疫情,但仍優於全球同業

總體上,中國企業的表現半喜半憂:相對全球同業表現較好,但收入下降和槓桿率升高帶來的風險也不容忽視。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 21, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

RCEP對亞洲影響積極,無阻價值鏈重組

總體而言,雖然RCEP成員之間在市場准入上實際提升幅度有限(例如中國和澳洲),但這一協定的意義在於讓世界意識到,亞洲仍然依賴中國市場,亞洲國家不能錯過中國放寬市場准入的機會,即使幅度有限。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 21, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

An EU - China investment deal: a second look

For the moment, it does not look like we have the basis for greater and deeper economic relations with China. However, dismissing China and the opportunities that it creates for global cooperation would also be a mistake.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 19, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Résilience : la nouvelle boussole

Pour surmonter le choc de la pandémie de Covid-19, l’économiste écarte, dans sa chronique, l’idée d’un repli protectionniste, mais suggère de passer d’un objectif de réduction des coûts à celui de la réduction des risques.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 18, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The double irony of the new UK-EU trade relationship

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed between the European Union and the United Kingdom goes against six decades of UK efforts to avoid being economically disadvantaged in Europe. Tracking the evolution of the EU-UK relationship over the last 60 years can help in understanding this.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 12, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe's disappointing investment deal with China

Why rush a deal that is so inherently complex?

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 4, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Deglobalisation in the context of United States-China decoupling

After decades of increasing globalisation, there now seems to be a slowing, or even a turn to deglobalisation, meaning decelerating trade and investment and reduced global value chains. This trend seems to have accelerated because of the United States’ push to contain China in the context of their strategic competition. So far, however, there is less evidence of deglobalisation in terms of financial flows.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Junyun Tan Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 21, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

When and how should the European Union conclude an investment agreement with China?

A look into the potential Comprehensive Agreement on Investment between China and the European Union.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 17, 2020
Read about event Download PDF More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Europe and India: Comparing Approaches to Global Economic Challenges

Stakeholders from government, private sector, media and academia/institutions come together to review India-EU relations and point to a promising direction for the future.

Speakers: Yamini Aiyar, Suman Bery, Navroz K Dubash, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, Alicia García-Herrero, Rajat Kathuria, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, Ananth Padmanabhan, Georgios Petropoulos, André Sapir, Shyam Saran, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 15, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Are we out of the woods yet?

The return to normal may just have to wait.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2020
Load more posts