王雲程〈作為需求與供給對峙的美中貿易衝突〉 Framing the U.S.-China Trade War as a Clash Between Demand and Supply by HoonTing

標題：作為需求與供給對峙的美中貿易衝突

作者：王雲程（提出關片架構後在ChatGPT幫助下完成初稿）

摘要： 本文從全球結構性經濟的角度，重新審視美中貿易衝突的演變。跳脫關稅與貿易戰的戰術層面，本文將雙邊緊張關係重構為全球最大消費市場（美國）與全球最大製造基地（中國）之間的對抗。透過宏觀經濟數據、政策分析與結構性指標，本文主張此衝突反映出全球需求與供給的不對稱，並對全球化與國際經濟治理的未來帶來深遠影響。

關鍵詞： 美中關係、貿易戰、結構性失衡、全球經濟、需求供給不對稱、產業政策

---

一、引言

自2018年起，美中經濟關係日益緊張，始於川普政府對中加徵關稅，後延伸至更廣泛的科技與產業對抗。儘管政治與意識形態因素廣為討論，本文主張，這場衝突背後有更深層的結構性經濟原因：美國作為全球需求中心，而中國則是全球供給重心。

二、重構衝突：結構性 vs 戰術性維度

傳統論述常將貿易戰視為對不公平貿易行為或貿易逆差的反應，但這樣的說法忽略了更深層的系統性驅動力。美國約占全球GDP的16%，但其全球消費支出占比接近25%（世界銀行，2023）。相較之下，美國在全球製造業的占比已從1980年的28%降至2022年的不到10%（UNIDO）。與此同時，中國已成為全球最大製造國，占全球製造產出超過30%（Statista，2023）。

三、美國的回應：重建供給面

美國在川普與拜登政府下的政策主軸，均為重建本國製造能力。從《晶片與科學法案》到《降低通膨法案》，顯示美方正致力於關鍵產業的回流，並減少對外依賴。這是以國家安全與經濟競爭力為目標的供給面再工業化政策。

四、中國的立場：遲疑的需求面改革

儘管中國多年來倡議「雙循環」策略，但至今仍未明確轉向以內需為主導的經濟模式。中國家戶消費僅占GDP的38%，遠低於全球平均60%（IMF，2023）。高儲蓄率、不健全的社會保障制度與制度性不確定性，皆抑制了中國內需的發展，使其持續依賴出口拉動。

五、結構性不對稱的全球影響

此一需求與供給的不對稱性，為全球貿易治理帶來複雜挑戰，並增加經濟碎片化的風險。國際貨幣基金（IMF）曾警告，若供應鏈進一步因地緣政治而分裂，全球GDP長期可能減損高達7%。除非雙方進行結構性調整——美國恢復其供給能力、中國有效釋放內需——否則雙邊衝突可能將成為國際經濟關係的常態。

六、結論

將美中貿易衝突視為結構性對抗，能提供更全面的理解架構。超越關稅與貿易逆差的表面議題，真正的問題在於全球經濟角色分工的失衡。彌合此落差將需要雙方國內的結構改革、長期戰略規劃，甚至對全球化本身進行重新思考。

參考資料：

• 世界銀行（2023），《世界發展指標》
• 聯合國工業發展組織（UNIDO）（2022），《國際工業統計年鑑》
• Statista（2023），《各國全球製造產出佔比》
• 國際貨幣基金（IMF）（2023），《世界經濟展望報告》
• 《晶片與科學法案》（2022），美國國會
• 《降低通膨法案》（2022），美國國會

 

Title:Framing the U.S.-China Trade War as a Clash Between Demand and Supply

Author: HoonTing (proposing the conceptual framework, and completed the draft with the help of ChatGPT)

Abstract:
This paper examines the evolving U.S.-China trade conflict through the lens of global structural economics. Moving beyond tactical interpretations of tariffs and trade wars, the analysis reframes the bilateral tension as a confrontation between the world's largest consumer market and the world's largest manufacturing base. Using macroeconomic data, policy analysis, and structural indicators, the paper argues that the conflict reflects an asymmetry in global demand and supply, with significant implications for the future of globalization and international economic governance.

Keywords: U.S.-China relations, trade war, structural imbalance, global economy, demand-supply asymmetry, industrial policy

---

1. Introduction

Since 2018, U.S.-China economic relations have been marked by increasing tension, beginning with tariffs under the Trump administration and extending into broader technological and industrial rivalry. While the political and ideological dimensions are well-documented, this paper proposes that a more fundamental explanation lies in structural economic asymmetry: the United States represents the global demand center, while China anchors the global supply side.

2. Framing the Conflict: Structural vs. Tactical Dimensions

Conventional narratives often treat trade wars as reactions to unfair practices or imbalances in bilateral trade deficits. However, this approach overlooks deeper systemic drivers. The United States, which accounts for roughly 16% of global GDP but nearly 25% of global consumption (World Bank, 2023), has seen its share of global manufacturing fall from 28% in 1980 to under 10% in 2022 (UNIDO). In contrast, China has risen to become the world's largest manufacturer, accounting for over 30% of global manufacturing output (Statista, 2023).

3. The U.S. Response: Rebuilding the Supply Side

The American policy response under both Trump and Biden has aimed at restoring domestic production capacity. Legislation such as the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act represents a concerted effort to reshore strategic industries and reduce foreign dependencies. This signals a supply-side reindustrialization strategy aligned with national security and economic competitiveness goals.

4. The Chinese Position: Hesitant Demand-Side Reform

Despite years of rhetoric around “dual circulation,” China has yet to decisively pivot toward domestic consumption. Household consumption represents only 38% of China's GDP compared to a global average of around 60% (IMF, 2023). High savings rates, weak social safety nets, and systemic uncertainty have constrained demand-side development, maintaining China's export dependency.

5. Global Implications of Structural Asymmetry

The persistence of this demand-supply asymmetry complicates global trade governance and increases the risk of long-term fragmentation. The IMF has warned that further decoupling and supply chain bifurcation could reduce global GDP by up to 7% in the long term. Without mutual structural adjustments—U.S. restoring supply, China stimulating demand—the trade conflict may become a permanent feature of international economic relations.

6. Conclusion

Understanding the U.S.-China trade conflict as a structural confrontation provides a more comprehensive framework for analysis. Beyond the politics of tariffs and trade deficits, the real issue lies in the systemic imbalance of global economic roles. Bridging this gap will require coordinated domestic reforms, long-term strategic planning, and potentially a rethinking of globalization itself.

References:

• World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators.
• United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2022). International Yearbook of Industrial Statistics.
• Statista. (2023). Share of Global Manufacturing Output by Country.
• International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2023). World Economic Outlook.
• CHIPS and Science Act (2022), U.S. Congress.
• Inflation Reduction Act (2022), U.S. Congress.