If Chinese manufacturing becomes stronger, will we stop importing from abroad?

　　Some foreign media have expressed concern that “Made in China 2025” seeks to replace foreign technologies with Chinese ones in high-end industries, supplant foreign manufacturing with Chinese production, and enhance the global competitiveness of China’s high-tech enterprises.

　　Why is it necessary to develop indigenous core technologies in high-end industries? Is the goal really to replace foreign technologies? To address these questions, reporters interviewed government officials and industry experts.

　　It is impossible to replace all foreign-made products.

　　“Some foreign media believe that ‘Made in China 2025’ is aimed at import substitution, but this reflects a misreading and misunderstanding,” said Li Beiguang, Deputy Director-General of the Planning Department of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, in an interview with a reporter from the Economic Daily. He noted that China remains a developing country with substantial demand for advanced technologies and products. The formulation and implementation of “Made in China 2025” seek to accelerate the transformation and upgrading of China’s industrial sector, while promoting independent innovation and developing high-end manufacturing—efforts that are also intended to meet the needs of economic development, improve people’s livelihoods, and safeguard national security.

　　In response to foreign media claims that “Chinese technology is set to replace foreign technology,” Xu Zhaoyuan, a researcher at the Industrial Economy Research Department of the Development Research Center of the State Council, explained that “Made in China 2025” primarily emphasizes the development of high-end manufacturing. This strategic goal is benchmarked against developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and Germany—nations whose economies are driven by high-value-added, cutting-edge industries. Consequently, some foreign media have asserted that China seeks to supplant foreign manufacturers in these high-end sectors.

　　“Some foreign media are overly concerned; no single country can monopolize or replace all high‑tech industries,” said Xu Zhaoyuan. Drawing on the experience of the world’s major developed economies, he noted that later‑developing nations generally follow a trajectory of industrial upgrading, steadily increasing the share of high‑end sectors—yet this process has not significantly altered the global manufacturing landscape. For instance, during their catch‑up and rise in manufacturing, Japan, South Korea, and Germany did not fully displace U.S. manufacturing.

　　In other words, the implementation of “Made in China 2025” will undoubtedly spur further technological breakthroughs in certain sectors, enabling China to develop its own cutting-edge technologies and exert competitive pressure on the high-end industries of other countries. However, given that each country has its own comparative advantages, it is unlikely that any single nation’s manufacturing sector will entirely replace foreign‑made products.

　　Since the beginning of this year, several international organizations—including Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, and the American Chamber of Commerce—have released research reports on “Made in China 2025.” In response, Li Beiguang emphasized that the report’s references to domestic market shares in relevant sectors and other development indicators associated with “Made in China 2025” are drawn from a study prepared by the Strategic Advisory Committee for Building a Manufacturing Powerhouse. These figures are forward-looking and primarily serve as guidance. Moreover, the Strategic Advisory Committee is a research and advisory body composed of experts, scholars, and corporate executives; when publishing the roadmap, it explicitly stated that these indicators are predictive, non‑binding, and do not constitute government action.

　　It will not lead to unfairness.

　　Following the release of “Made in China 2025,” some have argued that China would increase investment in domestic enterprises, thereby creating an uneven playing field for foreign-invested firms. In response, Li Beiguang stated unequivocally that, over the more than two years since the launch of “Made in China 2025,” the policy has consistently applied the same standards to both domestic and foreign‑invested enterprises, treating them equally. In January 2017, the State Council issued a notice clarifying that both foreign‑invested and domestically‑capitalized enterprises are subject to the same strategic policies and measures under “Made in China 2025.”

　　For example, in establishing manufacturing innovation centers, the National Power Battery Innovation Center has jointly set up a joint laboratory with the University of Western Ontario in Canada, and the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Alliance now includes three overseas member organizations. In the field of intelligent manufacturing, the “Smart Workshop Pilot Demonstration for Shipbuilding” at Nantong COSCO KHI Ship Engineering Co., Ltd. has been designated as an intelligent manufacturing pilot demonstration project.

　　Li Beiguang added that the C919 is a prime example of Sino‑foreign cooperation, with its engines, avionics, and flight‑control systems sourced from numerous joint ventures and wholly foreign‑owned enterprises in Europe and the United States. Its suppliers include U.S. firms such as General Electric and Honeywell, among others. Among its tier‑one suppliers, there are more than a dozen international companies, while the number of tier‑two and tier‑three suppliers runs into the hundreds.

　　“The view that ‘only supporting domestic enterprises puts pressure on foreign-invested firms’ is based on misinterpretations, subjective assumptions, and deliberate distortions,” said Qiao Biao, Director of the Planning Research Institute at the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. On the surface, this appears to be a concern about China’s manufacturing development strategy; in reality, it seeks to leverage international discourse hegemony to exert pressure on China’s manufacturing sector, stoke discontent among foreign investors, and undermine the attractiveness of China’s business environment. A closer analysis reveals that the skepticism voiced by European and American countries regarding “Made in China 2025” stems primarily from fears that the rise of China’s high-end manufacturing industry could erode their share of the global market.

　　It should be noted that, at present, many advanced technologies and related products from developed countries are subject to strict restrictions or export embargoes in China. “Being dependent on others for core technologies is the fundamental reason why China’s manufacturing sector is large but not strong,” says Qiao Biao. He argues that unless this challenge is addressed, not only will the upgrading and transformation of traditional industries remain mere rhetoric, but the development of strategic emerging industries will also lack a solid foundation. The guiding principle behind “Made in China 2025” is to rely on independent innovation to remedy our developmental shortcomings and meet the evolving demands of the domestic market.

　　It will bring enormous business opportunities to both domestic and international markets.

　　Qiao Biao candidly stated that every country seeks to enhance the quality and sophistication of its military equipment, a goal that is entirely legitimate. However, pursuing such improvements behind closed doors—especially in an era of globalization—is tantamount to reinventing the wheel and will ultimately fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

　　“Our country is actively advancing ‘Made in China 2025,’ offering vast market opportunities and prospects for cooperation to enterprises worldwide,” said Li Beiguang. Following the release of “Made in China 2025,” China has engaged in proactive exchanges and collaborations with several countries. For instance, a cooperative framework has been established between “Made in China 2025” and Germany’s “Industry 4.0,” yielding positive results.

　　However, for reasons such as cost, the developed countries of Europe and North America still maintain their advantages and focus primarily on high-end manufacturing. For China, transitioning its manufacturing sector from the mid‑low end to the mid‑high end will require a gradual process. Li Beiguang noted that, in the period ahead, China will continue to enjoy a complementary relationship with manufacturing powerhouses like the United States and Japan, and the existing global industrial division of labor and competitive landscape are unlikely to undergo any disruptive changes in the short term.

　　It is certain that, as the Chinese market continues to pursue higher product quality and advanced equipment, its own standards have risen, which will inevitably help expand the global market. According to Qiao Biao’s analysis, on the one hand, the implementation of “Made in China 2025” will create substantial market opportunities for both domestic and foreign enterprises. To enhance the quality of their products, Chinese companies must upgrade their manufacturing processes and equipment; in this process, they will need to collaborate with developed countries, leading to greater access for foreign‑made equipment and technologies into the Chinese market.

　　On the other hand, with the implementation of “Made in China 2025,” more Chinese and foreign enterprises will strengthen cooperation in the field of equipment technology. China is the world’s largest consumer market and also the biggest market for advanced technologies; to enter the Chinese market, foreign equipment manufacturers must localize their products. For example, General Electric of the United States now holds a 17% market share in China, having adapted its offerings to local road conditions, climate, and other factors, thereby steadily expanding its market presence.

　　Li Beiguang stated that the launch and implementation of “Made in China 2025” by no means amounts to “refraining from purchasing foreign products” or “replacing foreign manufacturing.” On the contrary, as China advances this initiative, it will consistently uphold the principles of open development and win-win cooperation, engaging in collaboration with an increasing number of foreign enterprises and fostering a favorable environment for pragmatic business-to-business partnerships. (Reporter: Ji Leilei)