Misconception: Prices in China Are Higher than in America or Europe

Published in Sohu
(China) on 13 May 2010
by Mei Xinyu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michelle Deeter. Edited by Alex Brewer.
Are prices in China higher than in America or Europe? In the case of some consumer goods this is true, but overall, this is totally false. How could this mistake happen? It’s all because of erroneous comparisons.

Skewed sampling is the primary factor leading to this misconception. One should compare prices of typical goods and services bought by a majority of middle class and lower class people, not prices of goods and services bought by a small population of rich people. Per capita income and wealth naturally tend to split in a market economy, which means that the goods and services bought by different classes of people are very different. The economic system as well as a recent opening of economies and markets makes this difference even more apparent in developing countries.

Most traditionally socialist Western countries implemented income distribution measures after the Second World War. This alleviated the degree to which income and wealth polarized. In contrast, many developing countries lacked a powerful government or did not fully implement a market economy. Thus, income and wealth diverged to an astonishing degree, which increased the difference in consumption patterns among differing classes.

This can be clearly seen in China after implementation of reforms, as well as in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, as economic systems opened, many developing countries did not have policies that motivated companies to develop the quality of national products.

Naturally, consumers in developing countries coveted products made by developed countries or at least their brand names. Thus, counterfeit versions of famous Western brands became popular. Brands that are considered to be ordinary in the West are considered to be high quality in developing countries; product sales make this point quite clear. The prices of those goods are always inflated, so middle and lower class consumers who have to save money will mostly buy or only buy national brands. High income consumers, however, will choose expensive Western brands.

The consumption patterns of high income consumers in developing countries is very similar to the consumption patterns of consumers in developed countries, whereas the consumption patterns of different groups within developing countries is becoming more and more different. This is because developing countries have a closed economy.

In this way, using the consumption patterns of the upper classes as a benchmark for prices in a country misrepresents the facts. If we look at a luxury good like a French "Pierre Cardin" shirt, or a high quality American windbreaker, and check its prices in Beijing’s Scitech Plaza (a luxury shopping center) or in Thailand’s tourist areas, we can come to the conclusion that prices are higher in China than in America and Europe. However, in these places, the prices of goods do not represent the average price of goods in that country.

Another error leading to the misconception is comparisons made during different sales periods, such as during a sale or when products were being sold at full price. The sales cycle of fashionable goods such as clothing, leather and electronics can be divided into three periods: first hitting the market, becoming popular, and becoming less popular.

The same good will have a much lower price when it is becoming less popular than when it is first hitting the market and when it is very popular. This is especially true for high quality goods. When they first hit the market, new goods are sold in the best shopping malls. Less popular goods will be sold in surplus stores or clearance stores. The higher quality the brand is, and the more fashionable or special the product is, the bigger the changes in price depending on the timing of the sales cycle. Therefore, it is important to use statistics from the same sales period and the same kind of shopping location when comparing prices regionally and internationally.

It is easy for such mistaken comparisons to be made because any particular sales period in Europe and America comes earlier than in China, even for the same good. Middle level and high quality Western brands are always considered high quality brands in China, which is mostly due to consumers in developing countries blindly pursuing brands and fashions from developed countries.

Today, China has already eliminated the constraint of the foreign exchange gap, so, if some consumers decide to buy foreign brands it’s not the end of the world. China’s cash flow is balanced, so it can be lenient towards this blind pursuit of foreign brands.

This kind of blind pursuit cannot be completely eliminated as long as China has not fully caught up with the West. However China’s trade policies should not aim to satisfy the needs of foreign fashion products. Our trade policy should always focus on the development of national industry.


“中国物价高于美国欧洲”?对某些人的某些消费而言,确实如此;对全局而言,大谬不然。何以出错?原因全在错位比较。

  首要的错位是样本选择。用以比较的应该是占人口绝大多数的中等收入及低收入普通居民所消费的商品与服务价格,而不是小小高收入群体的消费价格。因为在市场经济体制下,居民收入和财富水平天然趋向分化,不同居民群体所消费的商品与服务差异很大,经济体制取向和开放经济将进一步拉大发展中国家居民群体的消费差异。在汲取传统社会主义国家经验的基础上,二战以降的西方国家普遍推行了一系列收入再分配措施,从而缓解了收入和财富两极分化的程度;相反,在缺乏强有力政府或全面推行市场化改革的发展中国家,收入和财富的两极分化达到了惊人的地步,从而加大了不同居民群体的消费差异,这一点,我们从改革后的中国和转轨后的苏联东欧可以看得很清楚。同时,在开放经济体制下,不考虑“发展国货”等思想驱动下的行为决策,发展中国家消费者天然更加倾慕发达国家制造或有发达国家品牌的消费品,西方名牌赝品流行、西方大路货品牌在发展中国家往往当作高档品牌销售等现象就表明了这一点。而这些消费品真品往往又价格高昂,中低收入群体受预算制约而主要或完全选择廉价国货,高收入群体则会选择较多的高价西方商品,其消费模式往往与发达国家同类群体差异甚小,但该国居民群体消费差异比封闭经济环境下进一步拉大。

  这样,以高收入群体的消费作为衡量全国物价水平的标杆,扭曲程度可想而知。但在借以得出“中国物价高于美国欧洲”结论的文章中,我们看到用以比较的是皮尔·卡丹衬衣、法国制造服装、美制风衣等高价西方品牌,北京赛特商场这种以奢侈品而闻名的购物场所,以及在泰国开会旅游度假的地方,这些场所、这类商品的价格完全不足以代表一个国家整体物价水平。

  其次是销售周期错位,即将销售周期不同阶段的商品价格拿来比较。服装、皮具、电器等时尚型消费品整个销售周期可以划分为“上市—流行—退市”三阶段,同一商品在退市阶段的价格远远低于在上市、流行两个阶段的价格,特别是高档品牌,新上市货品在高档商场黄金柜台销售,退市货品可能就会沦落到尾货商场之类清仓处理。越是高档品牌,越是时尚特征显著的消费品,销售周期内的价格变动幅度越大。因此,要跨地区、跨国比较同一商品的价格,应采用同一阶段、同类销售场所的价格数据,方才不致于扭曲结果。

  这种错位比较之所以容易发生,是因为现阶段同一时尚型消费品商品流行周期美欧往往领先中国一步两步,西方中档品牌在中国往往当作高档品牌销售,而这些现象很大程度上又源于发展中国家国内消费者对发达国家品牌与时尚的盲目追捧。目前我国已经消除了外汇缺口约束,一部分消费者追逐国外名牌不至于危机我国国际收支平衡,我们已经有条件对这种盲目追捧宽容一点,只要中国尚未完成对西方的全面赶超,这种盲目追捧也难以彻底消除,但我们的贸易政策不应以便利、满足这种对外国时尚消费品的盲目追捧为目标,我们的贸易政策着眼点永远应当是促进本国产业发展。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

2 COMMENTS

  1. The author tends to ignore the fact that almost all consumer goods in the U.S. come from Chinese industries, and are subjected to negligible import tariffs, or no tariffs at all.

    It’s the primary reason for the U.S.’s massive trade deficit with China.