O neomercantilismo asiático: a análise dos avanços industriais da China e do Vietnã

Abstract

The present study analyzes the industrial policies of China and Vietnam during the first two decades of the 21st century from the theoretical perspective of neo-mercantilism. It is grounded in the field of International Political Economy (IPE) and draws from a school of thought that emphasizes the need for state agency over the economy while recognizing the use of the market as a tool to meet national demands. This is a case study of both countries based on the analysis of the following variables: (a) the authoritarian regimes of both countries established their manufacturing expansion programs; (b) structured the relationship between the state and the private sector; (c) integrated themselves into the global economy through the World Trade Organization (WTO); and (d) the impact of these policies on their foreign trade. The sources and data used alternate between research from non-governmental institutions such as the World Bank (WB), the WTO, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), governmental reports, and academic books and articles. This study is based on the hypothesis that the industrial advances of China and Vietnam resulted from the adoption of neo-mercantilist policies in which the state plays a central role as planner and promoter of development, strategically engaging with the private sector and fostering international integration aligned with national interests. And the results show that both China and Vietnam, following their political and economic reforms, adopted hybrid management models in which state intervention and economic openness were strategically combined to promote industrialization, economic growth, and increased international competitiveness. Both governments are seen to defend key sectors of their economies and uphold the power projection of their single-party systems. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the private sector within the export-oriented industrial model of both China and Vietnam is evident. Despite differences in scale, context, and degree of intervention, both cases demonstrate that state planning, combined with integration into global value chains, was crucial for their economic and industrial performance.