The Importance of Manufacturing in the Age of COVID-19

 

Ontario’s economy has been hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic.  Seasonally adjusted monthly employment in Ontario between February 2020 and September 2020 fell 6.3 percent - from 7,551,900 jobs to 7,077,600 jobs.  However, as illustrated in my last post, the employment drop varied across its CMAs.  The worst hit CMAs are Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge and Thunder Bay - which saw declines of 11.2 and 9.2 percent respectively while at the other end are Guelph and Brantford, which despite early losses have now recovered and in the case of Guelph even seen a small increase.  The question of course is what might account for this variable performance?

One’s first thought is that it is the result of the impact of Covid-19 with cities harder hit by the virus getting a bigger employment wallop.  However, a plot of the percent change in employment levels across Ontario’s 15 largest CMAs from February 2020 to September 2020 (Figure 1) against Covid-19 cases per million population as of mid-October show only a slight relationship between more negative employment growth and higher case counts.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Can the effect of Covid-19 on employment depend on a community’s employment structure?  For example, are communities more dependent on occupations in health, social services, education and public administration  (HSEP)– which are mainly broader public sector jobs – more insulated from employment effects of Covid-19?  Figure 2 illustrates this relationship for Ontario’s 15 largest CMAs and again there really is not much of a relationship.  Indeed, outside of Ottawa, Kingston and Thunder Bay have the largest HSEP shares in Ontario at 42 and 37 percent respectively and they are not exactly coasting. And, if one looks at the share of employment in food and accommodation services (not shown) it is also a pretty flat curve.  Indeed, the employment drop across CMAs seems to be impervious to being more service intensive as well as the specific effects of Covid-19. 

 

 

However, there is one more figure that is worth considering. Figure 3 plots the percent of employment in manufacturing against the percentage change in employment. What is interesting here is that the relationship is a positively sloping one – that is, on average, larger employment shares in manufacturing seem to be associated with a smaller employment drop over the February to September period.  It is of course by no means an ironclad relationship.  Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, for example has a manufacturing employment share of 17 percent but nevertheless experienced the largest employment drop of the 15 CMAs at 11 percent. 

 

However, the four CMAs with the largest manufacturing employment share are Windsor (23%), Brantford (19%), Guelph (19%) and Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo (17%).  They average 19.4 percent in manufacturing as a share of employment and their average employment drop was 4.5 percent.  Meanwhile, the four cities with the lowest manufacturing employment share are Thunder Bay (6%), Kingston (5%), Sudbury (3%), and Ottawa (2%). They averaged a manufacturing employment share at approximately 4 percent, but an average drop in employment of 7 percent.  What is it about manufacturing that may insulate your economy more from Covid-19 related employment drops over the longer term?

Good question. Obviously, it is easier to shut down things are deemed non-essential such as personal services and perhaps even some broader public sector service activities.  Moreover, some of these sectors are relatively low-paying and the fairly generous CERB payments probably more attractive than returning to work.  These are very labour-intensive activities and when hit hard can generate a lot of employment losses.  On the other hand, manufacturing – especially advanced manufacturing – is already quite capital intensive so it is relatively more difficult to shed employment.  Moreover, once the economy reopened – it was things that were needed be they masks or toilet paper or metal products – and production resumed as quickly as possible. And, manufacturing is much higher paying making staying on the CERB less attractive.

 

The relative robustness of employment in the Covid-19 era as a result of manufacturing intensiveness may have global implications for economic recovery.  Economies around the world have been hit hard with large drops in GDP and employment. However, many countries over the last few decades have seen an evolution of their economies away from goods production and towards services.  The G-7 countries certainly are in this category.  This means countries that are currently more manufacturing intensive will likely do much better in the short to medium term especially if they are producing goods in high demand.

 

This also explains China’s seemingly robust economic recovery.  Given that so much of the world’s manufacturing has relocated to China over the last two decades, they are poised to dominate economic recovery over the next couple of years.  China’s success however may be fragile. First, their longer-term export success requires that other economies recover.  Being a mercantilist means you want to expand your national economy and power by exporting high value-added products and importing low value-added items.  However, having your export markets devastated by Covid-19 is going to be bad for business. Second, most other countries are about to embark on a manufacturing repatriation program as they realize that having a mercantilist and authoritarian country with a monopoly on goods production does place your supply chain at risk and ultimately your national economic welfare.

 

 

The Empire Ascends: Pax Canadensis and the Threat to China

 

The public pronouncements of Chinese diplomats on Canada-China relations have become quite interesting of late.  In marking the 50^th anniversary of the establishment of formal relations between China and Canada (which incidentally was instrumental in getting China recognized by other countries and ultimately helped get China where it is today) Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau remarked on the current strains on relations between the two countries – namely the Meng Wanzhou and Kovrig/Spavor affairs.  

 

This came on the heels of Bob Rae’s remarks at the United Nations in response to China’s claims that Canada was “bullying” Beijing by refusing to release Meng Wanzhou. Rae’s response was not the usual polite and timid mutterings of diplomatic nothings that the Chinese government has come to expect from Canada and its politicians and diplomats.  Rae essentially said: “When you say that a country of 35 million people that we are somehow bullying a nation of over one billion, one of the great superpowers of the world and they have chosen to treat these two Canadian citizens in this way, this is something that we shall never forget.”

 

Well, good for Bob Rae.  Since the Meng Wanzhou affair began, China’s ambassadors in Ottawa have used ominous threatening language and the Chinese government has used trade as a punishment by reducing its canola imports and halting pork and beef imports for a while.  However, apparently, we are the bullying nation.  One wonders what the point of such language is on the part of China’s government representatives in Ottawa and New York?  Is it an attempt at mockery or humour?  Does President Xi Xiping really believe that Canada is bullying China?

 

Or is there something more here?  I recall an old  story my father used to tell me about a man who went to his doctor because he had a phobia about chickens.  The man believed the chicken might eat him.  The doctor explained the absurdity of this in calm measured terms and convinced the man that he was indeed not a mere grain of corn that the chicken might eat but many times larger and indeed a threat to the chicken.  The man appeared to accept this, calmed down and prepared to leave but as he was leaving turned and said: “I am still worried. You are right, I am many times larger and not a grain of corn, but does the chicken know this?”

 

China’s behaviour on the world stage seems driven by extreme insecurity.  While it is now the second largest economy in the world and has become a major world player, it still smarts from past injustices and when backed against a wall reverts to old diplomatic language and behaviour.  It still sees itself as a developing economy with a past marked by western colonialism despite the progress it has made and does not understand why it is not always getting its way.  Canada not doing exactly what it says is somehow being seen as a loss of face and not a problem to be solved given Canada’s position between China and the United States.  That is the most charitable explanation of its behaviour. 

 

Aside from the uncharitable explanation that China really is a mean self-centered bully is the off the wall possibility that the Chinese government truly believes it is in a parallel universe where Canada is a huge imperial power.   Canada has foisted a Pax Canadensis on the world backed by the force of its arms.  In this mirror universe straight out of a Star Trek episode, the evil Canadian empire that arose on the ashes of the British and American regimes now encircles the globe with colonial possessions right up against China’s borders and is trying to keep China from asserting its rightful place in the world.  Its flag of crossed swords is the ultimate symbol of bullying diplomacy and its arrival on your shores heralds the onslaught of red coated Mounties directing your traffic and polite bilingual bureaucrats overseeing the construction of hockey arenas and Tim Horton’s franchises. A Pax Canadensis indeed.  The world should be so blessed.

 

Whether China is psychologically insecure or simply misguided does not matter.  Neither bode well for a peaceful and stable world future.

 

 

International Relations & Trade Discussion Missing in Current Federal Election Campaign

Monday's Federal Leader's debate made nary a mention of international trade, our current dispute with China or even what is going on with the USMCA ratification in the United States.  With exports accounting for about 30% of our GDP, it is astounding that such an important issue is being ignored.  It is therefore worth re-posting the piece I had published early this week on the Fraser Institute Blog.

Canada needs more major trading partners beyond China and the U.S.

First Appeared in Fraser Blog , October 7^th, 2019

On the campaign trail, there’s little talk about Canadian trade policy and the repercussions of our current poor political relationship with China. The need to continue diversifying our trade is the elephant in the room this federal election.

In what seems to be explicit retaliation over the Meng Wanzhou Affair, China has detained Canadian citizens—putting a chill on business travel there—and essentially halted our exports of meat and canola. Any memories of Norman Bethune appear to have faded as China reveals its view of us as a small, inconsequential and puny power that should do as told. As a result, an important trade strategy—to diversify our trade away from dependence on what has also become a more capricious United States—lies in tatters.

The U.S. takes nearly 75 per cent of our exports, and despite recent bumps, has been by international trade standards a dream trade partner. It’s a large, rich, populous market literally on our doorstep where we share a close political and social culture, common language and history. It’s a market economy like ours with a strong rule of law. Subsequently, Canadians have not had to work very hard when it comes to exports given that the access to such a profitable market has historically been easy. A one stop export market for 75 per cent of your exports has become the gold standard of Canadian trade policy.

But Canadian business has been seduced by the prospects of China’s growing economy and the vision of a rich market of 1.4 billion people as a sort of future U.S.-like trade relationship. China has rapidly industrialized and is developing a large, dense and wealthy market. At first, it even seemed to be moving towards a more liberal market order in its economy.

Yet despite early promise, it would appear China is only playing lip service to liberal economic values and seems set on explicitly using trade relationships as part of its diplomatic and political arsenal, given that it views government policy and trade relationships as one dominion. Its recent behaviour raises an important question: Do we really want to ever be in a situation where 75 per cent of our exports are dependent on China’s market? Do we really want to give the Chinese government a quasi-monopoly over both our trade and political affairs?

It really would be the road to serfdom.

Despite the large dollar value of our trade relationship with China, it currently still only represents five per cent of our exports. Trade is about free exchange and mutually beneficial gains. If China wants our trade goods, we should certainly sell them as part of a free and open bargaining process. However, if it wants to use its economic relationships as a tool to get its way when dealing with countries on other issues, then we must protect ourselves. We are a small open economy dependent on trade and we must diversify our trade. Our recent efforts in negotiating agreements with the EU and the Trans-Pacific are only a start. We need many countries to compete for our business, but to do so we also need to show interest and compete for theirs. Part of this also involves reducing our own protectionism (agricultural supply management would be a good place to start).

If the Asia-Pacific is the future of trade, then look for opportunities in other wealthy Asian countries. Japan, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are all important economies that can serve as markets for Canadian products.

Moreover, instead of waiting for government-led initiatives, Canadian businesses should start the process themselves. Rather than placing all your eggs in a one-shot market-access strategy in the hopes that China can one day replicate our success in the U.S., shift your markets to other partners. Make sure there are a lot of them so no one country can ever hold our economy hostage. This should become the new gold standard for Canadian trade policy.

Dealing With China: Maybe We Need a New Approach?

In its dispute with Canada over the Meng Wanzhou affair, China has definitely upped the ante.  Along with the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the announcement that Canadian Robert Schellenberg has now been given a death sentence for drug smuggling sends a message that China is definitely a bully and will continue to target Canadians until it gets what it wants - Canada's release of Meng Wanzhou to China.  China has obviously a lack of expertise with respect to Canada in its foreign service and diplomatic corps given its misreading of Canadian law as well as Canadian practices, conventions and sensibilities.  No doubt, it thinks its latest actions will spark an offer to trade Meng Wanzhou for the three Canadians in some sort of bizarre international hostage swap straight out of the plot of a low budget drug cartel movie.

As a small country, Canada does not have the clout to force China to do anything.  Obviously, the message that China is sending to the rest of the world - that it will resort to the "kidnapping" of other country's citizens while guests in their country as a bargaining tool - will do little to advance its soft power in the rest of the world.  China's government may think it is now a major power on the world stage and that it should be treated with more respect but respect must be earned and with power also comes the responsibility to set an example if you are truly trying to gain influence.  China has sadly shown itself as a mean-spirited bully and has resorted to a grand theatrical strategy because it feels it can scare small countries like Canada to do their bidding.

What is Canada to do?  I am not an expert in international affairs but I think our relatively quiet and reasonable behavior to date is simply being viewed by China as a sign of weakness.  The Canadian response to China's bullying needs to be a response that in no uncertain terms communicates that their behaviour to date is unacceptable.  Canada needs to be as creative as possible in sending its message to China.  I would urge the Canadian government to consider any or all of the following set of actions and naturally to word them as firmly but as politely as possible.

1. Issue an immediate travel advisory to all Canadians considering travel to China that they may be at risk of arbitrary arrest and detention.  As well, an advisory to all Canadians conducting business in China that their safety should be a concern and that the Government of Canada cannot guarantee their safety while operating in China.
2. The Chinese Ambassador to Canada should be immediately summoned to Rideau Hall and given a dressing down by the Governor General that the behaviour by the Chinese government of Canadian Citizens in China is not only disrespectful but appalling in the community of nations and diminishes China's standing in the world.  The displeasure of the Canadian people must be stressed in no uncertain terms.
3. Canada's ambassador to China should be temporarily recalled to Ottawa for immediate "consultations and instructions"
4. Given Canada's concerns about the deteriorating relations between Canada and China and our ever present concern for safety of all our visitors, an immediate RCMP presence is to be instituted around the Chinese embassy in Ottawa and all other Chinese consulates in other Canadian cities.  As well, given that the issue that has sparked all of this is the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on an extradition request by the United States, we should also post enhanced security around the United States Embassy as well as the residences of Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver.
5. A Royal Commission should be struck to evaluate the future of Canada-China trade and economic relations in light of the recent deterioration in relations with public hearings to commence immediately.  Serious consideration to be given to the question that the prospect of further increasing trade with China is not in Canada's best interests.
6. With respect to Huawei and the adoption of its 5G Network in China, the Canadian government should finally announce that it plans to ban Huawei from Canadian 5G networks in accord with our American, Australian and New Zealand allies.

 Ottawa may view these actions as not "constructive" because they might further inflame China.  I would venture that China is already inflamed and thinks we are going to be intimidated into doing their bidding.  I'm not sure being calm, reasonable and quiet is getting us anywhere.  Why not try something different.

Canada and the New International Age

Well, it has been a breath-taking week in international affairs and the best indicator yet that so to speak, “Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.” By acting on a US legal request to arrest for extradition Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, Canada has earned an over the top response from China that to date has also been accompanied by the arrest of two Canadians in China on “national security” concerns.  The response of the Chinese government and media includes words like “revenge” and “heavy price” with respect to what Canada will face if Meng Wanzhou is not ultimately released.  This all comes at a time when China’s economy is increasingly seen as a source of opportunity for Canada with a desire to boost trade via sectoral agreements.

And to top it all off, President Trump has basically made Canada look like the ultimate puppet state by arguing that he could intervene in the dispute and let Meng Wanzhou off the hook if it was useful in securing trade concessions from China.  The Rule Breaker in Chief has made it apparent that he is just fine without a rules-based international order.  There really is very little that seems to distinguish the tenor of the President’s behaviour from that of other authoritarian leaders around the world.  God bless America for a constitution that has a division of powers and checks and balances for otherwise all of this could be much worse – as hard as that might be to believe.

It goes without saying that it is becoming an increasingly difficult time for a small open economy on the world stage.  Over the last year, the NAFTA negotiations with the United States and Mexico involved public insults directed at Canada’s leadership while Saudi Arabia had a major tantrum over our views on human rights issues.  Even if Canada had done a better job of politically tiptoeing around these assorted landmines, it remains that we would still get bullied because we are viewed as small and not of sufficient consequence.  Even China’s recent diatribes against us are really directed at the United States given that they can send it a message by targeting what they obviously perceive to be its “vassal” state.  So much for their respect for us.

While China undoubtedly has some valid points in this diplomatic dispute as expressed by its Ambassador to Canada in a recent Globe opinion piece, it remains that its behaviour is reflective of an insecure adolescent on the world stage.  When a country of 1.3 billion people that claims to be an up and coming world superpower unleashes such an stream of invective and vitriol on a small country of 37 million people, one does not see an injured party but a bully.  Only a bully terrorizes the small fry while treading lightly with the bigger kids.

So where is this going next?  Well, it is unfortunate Canada cannot seriously consider getting a membership with the European Union because quite frankly, it has become a pretty friendless world.  We can’t even rely much on our Anglosphere friends because Australia and New Zealand are small like us while the United States is on a world disorder frenzy and the British are busy immolating themselves over Brexit.  So, we are on our own.

We need to do what we do best.  Remain polite and play the hand that we have been dealt as best we can and ride out the storm.  Weather analogies are good - we can't control the weather, we only deal with it and Canadians are used to dealing with bad weather.  We need to reach out to the Chinese at a senior level and reassure them that we are doing everything we can to resolve this issue in a fair, responsible and rules based manner.  We need to reach out to the Americans and ask for reassurance that this is not just a trade manoeuvre and request that this matter be dealt with expeditiously.  If anything, we might want to try and bring the two sides together to seek a diplomatic solution though given the rhetoric to date we would risk getting side swiped by both sides. 

In the end, this will get resolved and life will go on.  Indeed, President Trump’s own words provide the best excuse for us releasing Meng Wanzhou immediately – obviously, he thinks the arrest is a trade bargaining chip and not a matter of national security.  If we were more opportunistic, that is exactly what we would do and stick it to the Americans given that they have no qualms about throwing us under the bus.  However, we are polite and follow rules.

However, once the dust has settled, we really need to re-evaluate and review our international relationships – especially those involving the United States and China.  In the case of the United States, given our economic integration and the fact that they take 75 percent of our exports, there is going to be little we can do except hope for the day when a new and more reasonable administration takes the White House.  We share a continent with the Americans and not with China and that is that.  They can be bullies too when occasion warrants but our ties with them have been long standing.  In a sense, we are not caught in the middle between China and the United States, we are with the US given our shared history and geography.

As for China, well that requires some more thought.  Given mercurial and aggressive behaviour on the part of China when they don’t get their way and their willingness to bully, we do need to be very careful that we do not become as dependent on their economy as we have become with the Americans.  I’m not sure the Chinese market is worth greater access to us given the potential costs to our businesses and our sovereignty when China decides they are unhappy with us and wish to punish us. Nobody likes being slapped around and if they do, you need to either break off the relationship or minimize contact via a more structured relationship.  It’s a big world and there are other customers for our wares.  We need to trade with countries that behave in a less vindictive manner when it comes to international issues.

Long Run Economic Performance: Comparing China, the UK and USA

In light of my recent contributions on China’s economic performance which have appeared in The Hill and on the Fraser Institute Blog, I thought it might be useful to provide the figures which underpin the longer-term analysis of their performance.  The data I used is from the Angus Maddison Database – the 2018 update – and the data is summarized in the accompanying Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 plots total real GDP from 1820 to 2016 in 2011 USD for the United States, the United Kingdom and China.  In 1820, China had a vastly larger economy than either the US or the UK with a real GDP of $325 billion compared to $69 billion for the UK or $21 billion for the USA.  Indeed, for much of economic history, China has always been the biggest economy in the world as a result of its massive population.  In 1820, China had a population of 381 million people compared to 10 million for the United States and 21 million for the UK.  However, the 19^th century was not kind to China and by 1870, China’s economy had shrunk to $270 billion but it was still larger than the United States at $150 billion and the UK at $179 billion. 

 

Total GDP of both the US and the UK grew quickly as a result of late nineteenth century industrialization with the US matching the UK in 1878 and then pulling ahead in terms of total GDP.  By 1887, the US economy at $306 billion was larger than China at $274 billion and the UK at $228 billion.  By the eve of the First World War in 1913, the US economy at $791 billion was nearly twice the size of both the UK and China at $368 billion and $344 billion respectively. In the period since WWI, the United States grew rapidly and by the mid 1970s was over five times the size of the UK economy and about five times larger than China’s economy.

China had a Communist revolution in 1949 but economic performance in its aftermath - while substantial - was not as robust when compared to the last forty years.  From 1950 to 1975, China real GDP grows from $348 billion to $1.2 trillion – a tripling of output.  However, things for China really take off with the first economic reforms and liberalization of the 1970s and from 1975 to 2016, its economy expands from $1.2 trillion to $17.3 trillion.  Over the 1975 to 2016 period, the US economy expanded from $5.6 trillion to 17.2 trillion while the UK expanded from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion.

In 2016, China re-assumed its historical role as the world’s largest economy.  Yet, as I pointed out in my oped pieces, this is not the end of the story.  Despite its impressive and rapid economic growth in terms of total output, China still lags when it comes to per capita output. As Figure 2 shows, over the entire 1820 to 2016 period, China has always had a lower per capita GDP than either the UK or the US and the relative gap has not changed all that much despite the rapid growth of the last 40 years.  In 1820, per capita GDP in China was about 26 percent that of the UK and 41 percent that of the USA.  By 1975, its per capita GDP was 7 percent that of the UK and 5 percent that of the United States.  After the robust growth of the post 1975 period, by 2016 per capita Chinese GDP now stands at 34 percent that of the UK and 24 percent that of the US.

 

So, China has done very well but it still has a long way to go.  Its rapid extensive growth masks the fact that large swaths of its population are still quite poor.  Its economy is showing signs of economic and political fragility given its aging population, large debt levels and economic inequality and this has global implications.  Such fragility is probably a reason for its more authoritarian turn in recent years under President Xi Jinping.  After the rapid growth and improvement in living standards of the last few decades, any economic slowdown may create a politically volatile domestic mix of discontent.

So What Happened to Free Trade with China?

Well, the news this morning was that the anticipated start of free trade talks between Canada and China has now been put off and the two countries will continue to explore whether to launch negotiations.  Given the hoopla that seemed to surround Prime Minister Trudeau's departure for China, it does seem a remarkable turn of events and somewhat of a loss of face.  According to the Globe and Mail, Mr. Trudeau declined to say what had stalled the free trade talks but said that Canada was holding out for a better deal.  Indeed, Canada may also be more wary in the light of reports that competition from Chinese manufacturing has had a negative effect on Canadian manufacturing employment and part of the delay is Trudeau playing to a domestic audience.

Of course, there is probably more to the story.  On the one hand, this could be the Prime Minister once again demonstrating to the Americans on the eve of the NAFTA talks in Montreal that Canada is prepared to walk away from a trade deal if it does not get a good deal.  Indeed, the Globe story noted that Canada wants a broader deal with China whereas China seems interested in a more "pared-down" deal.  If this is the case, then China will no doubt not be amused by being used as a negotiating ploy thereby making future negotiations more prickly. 

Still  perhaps the stumbling point was more on China's side.  From China's perspective, if they expect NAFTA to fall through then they may see it as improving their bargaining position with respect to Canada in any trade talks.  Waiting out the NAFTA negotiations to see if they fall through is a prudent strategy from their perspective and swooping in afterwards when Canada "needs" the deal more can be to their advantage if indeed what they want is a pared-down deal.

In any event, Canada is a small open economy and quite dependent on international trade.  Playing these type of negotiating tactics - if that is what they are - may actually make our life more difficult on the international stage.  On the other hand, what is going on here may simply be beyond Canada's control and Trudeau is simply reacting as best he can to moves on the part of both China and the United States acting in their own perceived best interests.