The garment industry in Vietnam and India is developing rapidly. What should China learn from it?

In recent years, with the rapid development of the textile and apparel industries in India, Vietnam and other countries, some people even believe that they will soon surpass China. I think this view is very one-sided. Because of industrial transfer, establishing a status as a world factory is a process. And this process takes a long time, or in other words, the realization of its advantages and effectiveness is a process that takes a long time. ​
Whether it is from the earliest Britain, to the United States, and later Japan, to Hong Kong, the status of the world’s factories in these countries and regions is indeed in the process of continuous transfer, but each process has gone through a long time. We cannot simply say that China’s status will be surpassed simply because some factors such as labor costs have been replaced. It can be said that until now, the connotation of China’s world factory is still in the process of continuous development and improvement. ​
Industrial transfer, first of all, takes a long time. This must be noted. Secondly, due to the huge changes in world economic integration and industrial background at this stage, if China wants to establish its labor force as the world’s factory, it will be much more difficult than it was in the past when Britain, the United States and Japan; but a fact that cannot be ignored is that now, in addition to the transfer of labor Apart from being restricted, all other elements are in a state of free flow. Third, because historical conditions have changed and the industrial environment has changed, China has no longer simply become a processing plant. We are constantly upgrading to both ends of the industry. Although to a large extent China will still bear the burden of the world However, we have extended the tasks of processing plants to both ends. In this sense, China’s manufacturing has been continuously given new tasks, new functions and new connotations in the process of undertaking the transfer. ​
Moreover, one thing must be remembered: China’s industrial transfer is both in the process of undertaking and in a very reasonable layout. Our transfer is not a forced transfer, but a reasonable and positive behavior of Chinese enterprises, which not only sees the problems of labor factors, but also sees some market problems. Because some products are close to the Southeast Asian and Indian markets. ​
But we cannot ignore the continuous improvement of our own connotation in the process of “Made in China”. While giving full play to our traditional comparative advantages, we must also give full play to our creative and competitive advantages. ​
China is a big country, which will be an advantage for a long time. But we should learn well from countries like Germany and Italy. Although Germany was also affected during the entire financial crisis, why was it relatively stable among European and American countries? This has a lot to do with the fact that it has retained the manufacturing link for a long time and a considerable share. Germany’s design is very sophisticated, its manufacturing is complete, and its channels are smooth. Therefore, in a certain sense, especially as a big country, it is impossible to only assume one link in the industrial chain. China must stabilize its own manufacturing and actively move towards Transfer at both ends. ​
In a short period of time, there will still be a big gap between Vietnam, India and other countries and China in terms of manufacturing level. Today’s manufacturing is no longer simple processing. We must remember that the concept of “madein” is not the concept of processing. In our early days, “Made in China” equaled “Processing in China”. Now, “Made in China” already includes marketing, design and some high-end content. If they want to catch up with China, it may take a long time. There is a problem of “difference in advantages” here. It is not simply a matter of “who is caught up by whom, and who is moved by whom.” The core is to improve our own competitiveness. ​
We need to carry out two layouts, one is to adjust the domestic industrial layout, and the other is that the Chinese people need to learn global layout. For example, some of our companies have gone abroad and can set up factories in Vietnam and Cambodia for processing; but similarly, we can also go to France and Italy to acquire brands there and establish our own design and marketing centers there. China is a big country. It relies on its own market and domestic demand to stabilize its industry, and while improving its capabilities, it must build its industrial chain on a global scale. ​
So I have always said that our industrial development should also have a “three-step” strategy. First, integrate into the world, then improve yourself, and finally establish your position in resource allocation. You can use an analogy like this: you first have to participate in a sports meeting to compete; then you have to achieve good results and enter the finals; and finally you have to get into the top three and become the first echelon. ​
Our “chain economy” ultimately needs to be viewed from the perspective of the global economy and market economy.
​