April 26th, 2012
02:00 PM ET

America's renminbi fixation

Editor's Note: Stephen S. Roach, a member of the faculty at Yale University, is Non-Executive Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and the author of The Next Asia.

By Stephen S. Roach, Project Syndicate

For seven years, the United States has allowed its fixation on the renminbi’s exchange rate to deflect attention from far more important issues in its economic relationship with China. The upcoming Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the US and China is an excellent opportunity to examine – and rethink – America’s priorities.

Since 2005, the US Congress has repeatedly flirted with legislation aimed at defending hard-pressed American workers from the presumed threat of a cheap Chinese currency. Bipartisan support for such a measure surfaced when Senators Charles Schumer (a liberal Democrat from New York) and Lindsey Graham (a conservative Republican from South Carolina) introduced the first Chinese currency bill.

The argument for legislative action is tantalizingly simple: the US merchandise trade deficit has averaged a record 4.4% of GDP since 2005, with China accounting for fully 35% of the shortfall, supposedly owing to its currency manipulation. The Chinese, insists a broad coalition of politicians, business leaders, and academic economists, must revalue or face sanctions.

This reasoning resonates with the US public. Opinion polls conducted in 2011 found that fully 61% of Americans believes that China represents a serious economic threat. As such, the currency debate looms as a major issue in the upcoming US presidential campaign. “Enough is enough,” President Barack Obama replied, when queried on the renminbi in the aftermath of his last meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Obama’s presumptive Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has promised to declare China guilty of currency manipulation the day he takes office.

But, however appealing this logic may be, it is wrong. First, America’s trade deficit is multilateral: the US ran deficits with 88 nations in 2010. A multilateral imbalance – especially one that it is traceable to a saving shortfall – cannot be fixed by putting pressure on a bilateral exchange rate. Indeed, America’s major threat is from within. Blaming China merely impedes the heavy lifting that must be done at home – namely, boosting saving by cutting budget deficits and encouraging households to save income rather than rely on asset bubbles.

Second, the renminbi has now appreciated 31.4% against the dollar since mid-2005, well in excess of the 27.5% increase called for by the original Schumer-Graham bill. Mindful of the lessons of Japan – especially its disastrous concession on sharp yen appreciation in the Plaza Accord of 1985 – the Chinese have opted, instead, for a gradual revaluation. Recent moves toward renminbi internationalization, a more open capital account, and wider currency trading bands leave little doubt that the endgame is a market-based, fully convertible renminbi.

Third, there has been significant improvement in China’s external imbalance. The International Monetary Fund estimates that China’s current-account surplus will narrow to just 2.3% of GDP in 2012, after peaking at 10.1% in 2007. American officials have long bemoaned China’s saving glut as a major source of global instability. But they should look in the mirror: America’s current-account deficit this year, at an estimated $510 billion, is likely to be 2.8 times higher than China’s surplus.

Finally, China has evolved from the world’s factory to its assembly line. Research shows that no more than 20% to 30% of Chinese exports to the US reflect value added inside China. Roughly 60% of Chinese exports represent shipments of “foreign invested enterprises” – in effect, Chinese subsidiaries of global multinationals. Think Apple. Globalized production platforms distort bilateral trade data between the US and China, and have little to do with the exchange rate.

Rather than vilifying China as the principal economic threat to America, the relationship should be recast as an opportunity. The largest component of US aggregate demand – the consumer – is on ice. With households focused on repairing severely damaged balance sheets, inflation-adjusted private consumption has expanded at an anemic 0.5% average annual rate over the past four years. Consumer deleveraging is likely to persist for years to come, leaving the US increasingly desperate for new sources of growth.

Exports top the list of possibilities. China is now America’s third largest and most rapidly growing export market. There can be no mistaking its potential to fill some of the void left by US consumers.

The key to realizing that opportunity lies in access to Chinese markets – all the more significant in light of China’s upcoming pro-consumption rebalancing. Historically, China has had an open development model, with imports running at 28% of GDP since 2002 – nearly three times Japan’s 10% import ratio during its high-growth era (1960-1989). As a result, for a given increment of domestic demand, China is far more predisposed toward foreign sourcing.

As the Chinese consumer emerges, demand for a wide variety of US-made goods – ranging from new-generation information technology and biotech to automotive components and aircraft – could surge. The same is true of services. At just 43% of GDP, China’s services sector is relatively tiny. There is enormous scope for America’s global services companies to expand in China, especially in transactions-intensive distribution sectors – wholesale and retail trade, domestic transportation, and supply-chain logistics – as well as in the processing segments of finance, health care, and data warehousing.

The US needs to refocus the US-China trade agenda toward expanded market access in these and other areas – pushing back against Chinese policies and government procurement practices that favor domestic production and indigenous innovation. Some progress has been made, but more is needed – for example, getting China to join the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement. At the same time, the US should reconsider antiquated Cold War restrictions on Chinese purchases of technology-intensive items.

For a growth-starved US, the opportunities of market access far outweigh the currency threat. The long-dormant Chinese consumer is about to be unleashed. This plays to one of America’s greatest strengths – its zeal to compete in new markets. Shame on the US if it squanders this extraordinary chance by digging in its heels at the upcoming Strategic and Economic dialogue.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Stephen Roach.

Post by:
Topics: China • Economy • United States

soundoff (64 Responses)
  1. Handy Anderson

    Lets get the facts straight. America does not have fixation on China and reminbi, IT IS CHINA WHO HAS FIXATION ON US$ WITH REMINBI! Ha ha. I think Stephen Roach should reveal if he has received any support financially or in kind from China, its agents, or lobbysts, for trips to China, honorariums, or in other ways.

    April 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Reply
    • Lloyd Lofthouse

      Handy Anderson,

      Roach was right. Check out The New York Times -
      As China's Currency Rises, U.S. Keeps Up Its Pressure


      "In his Oval Office meeting on Tuesday with Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and likely next leader, President Obama discussed the currency as one of the trade practices that concerned the United States."

      April 30, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Reply
  2. troubledgoodangel/Voiceinthedesert

    "As the Chinese consumer emerges, demand for a wide variety of US-made goods – ranging from new-generation information technology and biotech to automotive components and aircraft – could surge, Zacharia says. Garbage! Every demand that may arise, "shall be filled up by the Chinese industry." That is straight from the Politburo Manifesto! I don't know what Zacharia has been reading. He probably is listening to the few U.S. magnates now investing in the Chinese industry! I grant, they may benefit. But he is forgetting the millions of unemployed Americans, who will need another American Revolution, to restore their families' American Dream!

    May 1, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Reply
  3. vistarian2011

    We must all accept that China is now in a position to do what it thinks is right politically and economically.

    Nothing, not even any threat of any trade boycotts or sanctions on Chinese products can change this fact.

    The Chinese Government has, I think, work out a self reliance contingency plan, just in case the global economy goes into a tailspin, like when the US $ collapses.

    And I think it will work for them, because they have the money and a big population. China can afford to open or shut their doors at their own will.

    May 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Reply
  4. Stephen Perl

    I have just read your article Mr. Roach and it hits a home-run in bringing the quintessential issues of US-China relations to the table. It removes the economic smoke that our government has painted for election purposes and logically drives home the overwhelming need to focus on the market opportunities that exist in China for the US. With China being the US’s third largest export market with US exports to China up 53% since 2007, I think your point is made well on the importance “access to the China market”; however, on the same note, my book that I published in February of this year, “Doing Business with China: Dancing with the Dragon” focuses on the next logical issue…”How to Access the Chinese Market”. One of my chapters, “Creating Your Own Access to China” tells owners how to do this, but stresses that our real opportunities in China cannot be achieved unless our Federal and local government start working closely with business to create real long-term strategies to support this effort. It’s funny…after all my years of doing business with China, I see the Chinese government putting in these supportive functions in their government to assist their businesses to expand to the US (and other markets!) and their efforts have really worked…why are we not doing this too in the US? (I see small glimmers of this but no real strategy).

    If Washington could just stop running for the next election and pandering to every special interest group, and start being proactive and focusing on implementing long term strategies instead of being so reactive...then we could drive a whole new export market to create jobs and opportunities for the US… my book goes into great detail on this matter as well. Your article should be placed in the Wall Street Journal for free… as it could serve as a real public service announcement to wake our country up…Great article.

    July 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.