A new book about the threat China poses to the United States is a good illustration of the different approach taken by political scientists and economists in assessing international competition. Even those economists who are not gung ho free marketeers believe that, for the most part, trade and cross border investment bring mutual benefits. Not so those authors who see the world in terms of strategic contests. Aaron Friedberg is one of these. The title of his book, [amazon_link id=”0393068285″ target=”_blank” ]A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia[/amazon_link], says it all. Only one country can reign supreme. This is a winner-take-all view of the world.

I haven’t read the whole book, but its argument hinges on the inability of the US to figure out how to compete with China. China does not fit into any pattern that Americans understand, Friedberg argues, being both a trading partner and an authoritarian state determined to replace the US as the sole superpower, at least in Asia. It’s evident that Friedberg would sacrifice trade relations and instead see the Chinese more clearly as a strategic enemy of growing military might.

The book obviously draws heavily on Chinese sources but it’s dark view of US-China relations means that one of two conclusions must apply. Either most other evaluations of China have been naively optimistic or this polemic is extremely pessimistic. As the book does not seem to cover some of the structural weaknesses often mentioned by economists, such as the ageing population or China’s terrible environmental problems, I incline to the latter conclusion.
[amazon_image id=”0393068285″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia[/amazon_image]