Are China's Exports Crowding Out or Being Crowded Out? Evidence from Japan's Imports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have investigated whether Chinese exports have crowded out those from other countries. However, what has yet to be considered is the evidence based on different quality varieties. Using the most detailed Harmonized System 9‐digit product‐level data, the present paper provides evidence of crowding‐out and crowded‐out effects across different product quality segments and across manufacturing sectors by quality segments. The empirical evidence presented in this paper shows that the crowding‐out effects of Chinese exports have been greatest at the lower end of the quality spectrum but less significant at the higher quality spectrum. Moreover, since 2007, China's own exports of lower quality manufactured goods have been increasingly crowded out. The key policy implication is that China's export path is in line with that taken by other Asian economies in previous decades; the crowded‐out effect could achieve win–win outcomes for countries involved; and lower income countries would do well to be open to receive those relocated low value‐added industries from China. However, the relocation policy in China is best implemented gradually as climbing up the product quality ladder takes time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".