Keyu Jin

Maybe they don't even want to do it.

Look at the U.S.

The U.S.

is very, very behind on some of the new strategic sectors.

But once you've reached a certain level of market competition, I think the state needs to withdraw or to retreat because ultimately the state is not the best at allocating resources, picking winners.

You want the private actors, whether it's the venture funds or the through-market competition, to ultimately decide who gets the most resources.

But in the beginning, that big push is not really in any of the canonical models that I've studied in economics in the Western school of thought.

State push, state mobilization, state initiation, that's not there.

But I think if you look at EVs, solar panels, even just thinking about the idea of reforms in the first place, that initial state push was vitally important.

The other negative, although I think by and large positive aspect is I don't.

think that we need 80 cities to do their own EV brands, but to get started, maybe that's what it would have taken to drive that incentive.

And then ultimately, it's up to the market to decide who are the last five remaining EV companies, right, through market mechanisms.

That's Chinese-style industrial policy.

Industrial policy was heavily criticized.

And again, if I talk to my

Harvard professors, they will be very, very, very skeptical about the role of the state, especially in such a major way.

But if you look at the Chinese experience, the evidence for success is all there.

The cities that have pushed the most on supporting that particular sector ultimately did the best in terms of production, but also in terms of innovation, measured by patents.

It's all in the data.

But the downside is that a lot of the capital is wasted.