Opinion

Europe’s disappointing investment deal with China

Why rush a deal that is so inherently complex?

By: Date: January 4, 2021 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This opinion piece was originally published in El Confidencial and Nikkei Asia.

After more than seven years of negotiations, the European Union and China appear to have reached a deal for their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment to go forward right before the deadline pressed by President Xi Jinping at the EU-China summit back in September.

The deal is important politically as it shows the EU’s commitment to its own economic sovereignty without constraints from the U.S. and it follows the example set by the 10-members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Australia, Japan and South Korea in signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership back in November. Suddenly, it looks as if U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has been left alone in his pursuit to contain China even before he is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Still, RCEP and now the CAI have their limitations. When it comes to CAI, much of what has been written relates to the lack of enforcement for China regarding international conventions on labour — including forced labour — but much less attention has been paid to the economic consequences of this deal. Alas, the reason for that might be because the deal amounts to so little.

To start, the purpose of CAI is limited to foreign direct investment and contains no trade clauses. While some aspects of the deal are about more than market access, including sustainability, climate change, international conventions and labour, those provisions remain general and contains limited enforcement possibilities.

Within that narrower scope the main objective, from the European perspective, really is to improve market access for European companies operating — or intending to operate — in China and to ensure a level playing field when they do, as well as reciprocity. Based on that yardstick, the question is whether CAI fulfils such expectations? The answer is a resounding no.

If we start with the hardest, reciprocity, China’s market remains much more closed to EU companies than the EU market is for Chinese companies. On a level playing field, an attempt has been made to address the issue of subsidies harming European companies operating in China, but it is really just that: an attempt.

There are a number of reasons for that. First of all, only subsidies in the service sector are covered, while most of the EU investment in China is in manufacturing, where subsidies cannot be scrutinised. Secondly, even within the service sector, the enforcement mechanism is poor as the state-to-state dispute settlement included in the treaty does not apply to subsidies.

Finally, on market access, only a few concessions have been made bilaterally and all of them are limited. The three main sectors where concessions have been made are electric vehicles, telecommunications and private hospitals.

For the former, it only applies to new investments in electric vehicles, and only if there is no excess capacity in a particular province. As for telecommunications, EU investment remains capped at below 50%. For private hospitals, control has been granted in some provinces but limited to the existence of enough demand.

Given all of the above, the question is why rush a deal that is so inherently complex? Probably because to many it seems as if the EU has nothing to lose, as its concessions to China appear minimal and because the COVID pandemic is leaving a huge scar on Europe’s economies. Only time will tell whether this is in reality a free lunch for Europe, no matter how small the meal.

But even if the EU is getting a free lunch, that does not mean it will not get indigestion, and two scenarios come to mind where that might occur. The first is the reaction of the U.S., which remains Europe’s largest investor and trading partner. Secondly, the EU’s ability to protect its own market from unfair competition.

More specifically, the EU is in consultations to pass legislation on foreign subsidies harming the single market with an implicit focus on China. On paper, CAI allows both China and the EU to take additional regulatory measures if needed but the reasons stated in CAI do not mention subsidies.

China has already protected itself by rushing a National Security Law on Dec. 19, right before getting CAI approved, to fend off foreign investment whenever it harms China’s national security. The question is whether the EU will now dare continue with its efforts to protect its market from unfair competition by legislating against foreign subsidies.


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 by this author
 

Opinion

Why China should fear the EU's carbon border tax

Expect Beijing to soon start lobbying against the proposal.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: July 26, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

Will European Union recovery spending be enough to fill digital investment gaps?

The recovery facility will boost digital transformation, but questions remain whether it will be sufficient to achieve Europe’s digital ambitions.

By: Zsolt Darvas, J. Scott Marcus and Alkiviadis Tzaras Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 20, 2021
Read article Download PDF
 

External Publication

Building the Road to Greener Pastures

How the G20 can support the recovery with sustainable local infrastructure investment.

By: Mia Hoffmann, Ben McWilliams and Niclas Poitiers Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Testimonies Date: July 15, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Could the RMB dislodge the dollar as a reserve currency?

The dollar remains the world’s largest reserve currency, but it is facing both domestic and external risks.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 14, 2021
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Financing for Pandemic Preparedness and Response

How can we better prepare for future pandemics? In this event, co-hosted by the Center for Global Development and Bruegel think tanks, speakers will present "A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age", a report of the G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

Speakers: Masood Ahmed, Victor J. Dzau, Amanda Glassman and Lawrence H. Summers Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: July 14, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Fair vaccine access is a goal Europe cannot afford to miss – July update

European countries must do more to tackle the vaccine uptake gap. Vaccination data should be published at the maximum granularity level so researchers and local decision-makers can monitor progress.

By: Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud and Mario Mariniello Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 14, 2021
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

SPACs in the gap

Special-purpose acquisition vehicles could fill a gap in European equity markets and lure risk-averse investors off the sidelines.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 13, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age

Report of the G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

By: Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Lawrence H. Summers, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Ana Botin, Mohamed El-Erian, Jacob Frenkel, Rebeca Grynspan, Naoko Ishii, Michael Kremer, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Luis Alberto Moreno, Lucrezia Reichlin, John-Arne Røttingen, Vera Songwe, Mark Suzman, Tidjane Thiam, Jean-Claude Trichet, Ngaire Woods, ZHU Min, Masood Ahmed, Guntram B. Wolff, Victor J. Dzau and Jeremy Farrar Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 9, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

A breakdown of EU countries’ post-pandemic green spending plans

An analysis of European Union countries’ recovery plans shows widely differing green spending priorities.

By: Klaas Lenaerts and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

CCP's 100th Anniversary: Reflecting and looking forward

As the Chinese Communist Party celebrates its 100th anniversary, we looked into the past, future and present of the country's economic development.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 7, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

What to expect from the ECB’s monetary policy strategy review?

Emphasis will be placed on greening monetary policy and clarifying the ECB's price stability objective, but is this enough?

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 23, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The socio-economic consequences of COVID-19 in the Middle East and North Africa

Confronted with COVID-19, high-income Gulf countries have done better than most of their middle- and low-income neighbours; Jordan and Morocco are also positive exceptions.

By: Marek Dabrowski and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 14, 2021
Load more posts