China

Prof. David Autor speaks with NPR Planet Money host Greg Rosalsky about his new working paper exploring the aftermath of the China Shock and the economic impact of tariffs. Autor and his colleagues found that while regions impacted by the China Shock did eventually recover, the people hurt by the China Shock did not. “The China Shock research suggests that classic, free market economic theory blinded many to the reality that free trade can destroy the livelihoods of many people and that they have a hard time adjusting," says Rosalsky.

A new tabletop exercise, developed by researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has found that “a further buildup of U.S. nuclear capabilities would have limited effect on whether China might use its own nuclear weapons should a war over Taiwan erupt,” reports Brad Dress and Ellen Mitchell for The Hill. “The first large-scale war game of such an incident,” they write, “found that a U.S. buildup that goes past current modernization plans would not bolster nuclear deterrence in relation to Taiwan.” 

Researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have used a tabletop exercise to determine whether a further build-up of US nuclear capabilities would impact China’s nuclear weapon use in Taiwan, reports Kathrin Hille for Financial Times. “The US has 600-plus tactical nuclear weapons, and it is modernizing their delivery means,” explains Principal Research Scientist Eric Heginbotham. “In the game, the one US team that employed tactical nuclear weapons used fewer than a dozen. In no cases did any of the participants ever say: ‘We need SLCM-N or some other system that is not in the inventory or being deployed under the current modernization plan.’”

Writing for The Washington Post, Prof. Daniela Rus, director of CSAIL, and Nico Enriquez, a graduate student at Stanford, make the case that the United States should not only be building more efficient AI software and better computer chips, but also creating “interstate-type corridors to transmit sufficient, reliable power to our data centers.” They emphasize: “The United States has the talent, investor base, corporations and research institutions to write the most advanced AI models. But without a powerful data highway system, our great technology advances will be confined to back roads.”

Writing for The Boston Globe, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif makes the case that “without strong research universities and the scientific and technological advances they discover and invent, the United States could not possibly keep up with China.” He emphasizes that “punishing universities financially for their failings — real and imagined — would be counterproductive. If anything, the China challenge demands that universities do more than they are already doing — and that they have the resources to do so.”

A research group led by postdoctoral associate Minde An analyzed China’s greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade, finding a substantial increase thought to be primarily driven by aluminum production, reports Ellen McNally for The Guardian. The researchers, writes McNally, say these levels could be reduced “with technological innovation and incorporation of the aluminum industry into the carbon market, or a national carbon trading scheme allowing emitters to buy or sell emission credits.” 

Prof. Yasheng Huang joins a Financial Times podcast to speak with James Kynge about how China’s technological advancement and economic growth could be threatened by the country’s increasing authoritarianism. “My own prediction is that if Chinese domestic policy doesn’t change substantially, the pace of technological and scientific progress that we have witnessed during the reform era, that pace is going to slow down,” Huang says.

Writing for The Washington Post, Brian Deese, an MIT innovation fellow, lays out a framework for responding to China’s focus on increasing manufacturing. “The United States should send a clear message that the world will not absorb the costs of these distortionary policies,” Desse writes, “and should work with our allies toward a more durable framework for global growth.”

New York Times reporter Stephen Wallis spotlights Prof. Carlo Ratti’s proposal for the world’s first “farmscraper” in Shenzhen, China, a 51-story building that would be wrapped in a vertical hydroponic farm and could produce enough food annually to feed 40,000 people. “At this critical moment, what we architects do matters more than ever,” Ratti emphasizes. “Every kilowatt-hour of solar power, every unit of zero-carbon housing and every calorie of sustainably sourced vegetables will be multiplied across history.”

Prof. David Autor speaks with Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Douglas about how there may be another “China shock” due to the influx of goods manufactured in China being made available in foreign markets. “It won’t be the same China shock,” says Autor, adding that “the concerns are more fundamental” as China is competing with advanced economies in cars, computer chips and complex machinery.

New York Times reporter Ana Swanson spotlights a working paper co-authored by Prof. David Autor which suggests “the sweeping tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump imposed on China and other American trading partners were simultaneously a political success and an economic failure.” Autor and his colleagues found that “the aggregate effect on U.S. jobs of the three measures — the original tariffs, retaliatory tariffs and subsidies granted to farmers — were ‘at best a wash, and it may have been mildly negative.’”

Writing for The Boston Globe, Prof. Gang Chen emphasizes the harm caused by the “China Initiative.” Chen notes that “some initiatives by the government, such as the China Initiative and the National Institutes of Health’s investigation into academics’ collaborations with China, weaken rather than strengthen US national security. American scientific prowess has been built on the United States’ ability to attract the best and the brightest minds from around the world.” He adds that the China Initiative has been deterring scientists from pursuing their research and careers in the United States.”

Prof. Daron Acemoglu and Prof. Simon Johnson write for Project Syndicate about how to structure U.S. international trade policies so that they benefit American workers and global stability. “Two new principles can form the basis of U.S. policy. First, international trade should be structured in a way to encourage a stable world order,” they write. “Second, appealing to abstract 'gains of trade' is no longer enough. American workers need to see the benefits. Any trade arrangement that significantly undermines the quality and quantity of middle-class American jobs is bad for the country and its people, and will likely incite a political backlash.”

Prof. M. Taylor Fravel speaks with NPR reporter Emily Feng about a new Pentagon report highlighting China’s accelerated efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal. “It’s a complete transformation of China's approach to nuclear weapon,” says Fravel. “[The information found in the report] confirms “the rapid modernization foreshadowed several years ago is on track.”

Writing for Foreign Affairs, Prof. M. Taylor Fravel examines the suggestion that China’s economic downturn could lead to war. “Chinese leaders have rarely, if ever, started a conflict purely as a diversion, even during moments of domestic crisis,” writes Fravel. “When the Chinese economy falters, the danger is not diversionary war. It is that China’s leaders will feel weak and become more sensitive to external challenges, potentially lashing out to show strength and deter other countries from taking advantage of their insecurity.”