China

In an article for National Review, Rob Atkinson writes that, at its heart, Chinese state capitalism is a system in which the purpose of firms — private and public — is to fulfill the goals of the Communist Party.

As Rob Atkinson writes for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Margarethe Vestager’s decision to veto a merger between rail companies Alstom and Siemens shows how preventing EU firms from merging will result in weakened and shrunken European competitors.

In the decade since the global financial crisis, the Chinese government has moved aggressively to stimulate capital investment that will strengthen its competitive position, both domestically and in global markets.

As Eline Chivot and Daniel Castro write for Euronews, Europe will not win the global AI race by philosophizing on the sidelines. Instead, it needs to focus on putting in place the investment, skills, data, and regulations needed to outcompete China.

From a skewed standardization law in China to mercantilist digital services tax proposals in Europe, when countries impose protectionist policies in high-value, high-tech sectors, they don’t just damage competitors; they damage the entire global innovation system.

In commentary for the Epoch Times, ITIF President Rob Atkinson writs that it’s time for China to start acting like a globally responsible trading partner. If it does, then the Chinese economy and the world economy will be better off.

The Chinese government funds an exceptionally large amount of R&D, with direct government subsidies accounting for a quarter of the country’s total R&D spending in 2015. As such, how well the government allocates those funds plays an outsized role in determining how innovative the nation can be.

The practical effect of tariffs on key components used in cloud computing would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing services, and stunting U.S. growth.

China is marching toward global technological, economic, and military leadership. Who was responsible for letting this happen? In an opinion piece for National Review, Rob Atkinson explains how pretty much everyone—from successive U.S. administrations and the Washington trade and economics establishment to China itself—is at fault.

U.S.-China economic tensions are escalating, raising serious questions. What are the prospects of these tit-for-tat tariff measures escalating into a full-blown trade war? How likely is it that China will make serious concessions, including rolling back some of its most egregious “Made in China 2025” practices? What will be the potential impact on supply chains and U.S. producers? What alternatives to tariffs should the Trump administration use to gain leverage over China? Can we expect our allies to help, or are those bridges already burned?

Trump’s approach to tariffs has drawn widespread criticism, sparking a debate in which partisans have made all sorts of claims and counter-claims. This briefing sets the record straight on 10 important points of fact.

Foreign predatory economic practices harm the U.S. economy. In testimony before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, Rob Atkinson outlines how the U.S. government should respond.