The Western debate about China’s industrial rise keeps circling the same question: how much of it is subsidised? The European Commission’s anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines have produced tariff schedules that treat government funding as the primary explanation for Chinese competitiveness. The US Treasury and Commerce departments have imposed duties and export controls premised on the same assumption. The framing is politically useful. It is also incomplete. Subsidies are part of the story. They are not the interesting part. The interesting part is commercialisation: the ability to take a technology, whether invented domestically or imported, and scale it to global competitiveness faster than any other economy in history. That capacity, not the subsidies that partially fund it, is what the rest of the world has failed to replicate.

The shift

Chinese policymakers describe their industrial evolution as a shift from the “old three” exports, textiles, furniture, and home appliances, to the “new three”: electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and solar panels. The transition is not a metaphor. In 2025, clean energy accounted for more than a third of China’s GDP growth. Chinese companies shipped a record 68 gigawatts of solar panels in March 2026 alone, double the previous month’s total and 49 per cent above the previous record. Battery exports hit $10 billion in the same month. Fifty countries set all-time records for Chinese solar imports. The “new three” generated two-thirds of the value added from clean energy in China and attracted more than half of all investment in those sectors.

The scale is the product, not the subsidy. BYD sold 4.54 million new energy vehicles in 2025. CATL held 39.2 per cent of the global EV battery market, with BYD adding another 16.4 per cent. Six Chinese battery manufacturers together controlled 69 per cent of global installations. Europe stockpiled seven billion euros’ worth of Chinese solar panels in warehouses, enough to power 20 million homes, because European manufacturers cannot produce panels at a competitive price. China manufactures four out of five of the world’s photovoltaics. The dominance is not the result of a single subsidy programme. It is the result of a system that moves from laboratory to factory to global market faster than any competitor can respond.

The machine

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The mechanism that drives China’s industrial climb is often misidentified as innovation. It is not innovation in the way Silicon Valley uses the word, meaning the invention of something new. It is commercialisation: the capacity to take an existing technology and produce it at massive scale, at lower cost, with continuous iterative improvement, in a domestic market large enough to absorb early failures. The combination of market size, supply chain integration, patient state financing, and ferocious domestic competition among private firms has produced a commercialisation machine with few historical parallels.

Government venture capital funds invested an estimated $184 billion in nearly 10,000 AI-related firms between 2000 and 2023. That figure is large. But the $184 billion is distributed across two decades and thousands of companies. It is not a central directive producing a single national champion. It is a financing ecosystem that seeds hundreds of competitors, lets them fight for market share, and watches which ones survive. The survivors, BYD, CATL, Huawei, DJI, are not the products of state planning. They are the products of state-funded competition, which is a structurally different thing.

DeepSeek’s release of its V4 model on Huawei’s Ascend chips demonstrated the pattern in real time. DeepSeek trained its earlier V3 model for $6 million, roughly 3 to 4 per cent of what OpenAI spent on GPT-4. The company achieved comparable performance not through superior resources but through algorithmic efficiency born of constraint. US export controls restricted China’s access to Nvidia’s best chips. DeepSeek built around the restriction, rewrote its code for Huawei’s CANN framework, and released an open-source model that competes at the frontier. The subsidy question is beside the point. The relevant question is how a company under technology sanctions built a competitive AI model at a fraction of the cost.

The numbers

China’s total domestic research and development spending reached 3.92 trillion yuan, approximately $569 billion, in 2025, with R&D intensity rising to 2.8 per cent of GDP. By one measure, China has already surpassed the United States in total R&D spending, with gross expenditure on research and development reaching approximately $1.03 trillion in 2024 compared with $1.01 trillion for the US. Chinese entities filed 1.8 million patent applications in 2024, triple the American total of 603,000. China has led globally in the share of the top 1 per cent most-cited scientific papers since 2019.

The 15th Five-Year Plan, covering 2026 to 2030, formalises what Beijing calls “new quality productive forces”: innovation-driven production capacity characterised by high technology, high efficiency, and high quality. The plan targets 7 per cent average annual growth in R&D spending, aims to grow core digital industries to 12.5 per cent of GDP, and prioritises breakthroughs in integrated circuits, industrial machine tools, high-end instruments, foundational software, advanced materials, and biomanufacturing. A humanoid robot beat the human half-marathon world record by seven minutes at a Beijing race with 112 teams, and China’s 15th Five-Year Plan elevates robotics and embodied intelligence to one of the country’s top ten “new industry tracks,” backed by a one-trillion-yuan state fund. The plan is not aspirational. It is the operational blueprint for an economy that has already achieved or exceeded 86 per cent of the targets set under its predecessor, Made in China 2025.

The response

The Western response to China’s industrial climb has been primarily defensive: tariffs, export controls, and subsidy investigations. The European Union imposed countervailing duties of up to 35 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles. Brussels is expanding duties of 20 to 50 per cent across green technology, industrial goods, and strategic sectors. The EU’s proposed Industrial Accelerator Act includes a 70 per cent EU-content requirement for electric vehicles. The White House accused China of deliberate, industrial-scale campaigns to distil American AI models, with the Office of Science and Technology Policy documenting thousands of proxy accounts and jailbreaking operations targeting OpenAI, Anthropic, and other frontier AI companies.

The tariff response assumes that the problem is price. It is not. The problem is capability. American and European manufacturers cannot match Chinese scale, cost structure, or speed of iteration even at price parity. When Brussels imposed 35 per cent duties on Chinese EVs, the price gap narrowed but did not close. European automakers still cannot produce an electric vehicle at BYD’s price point, because BYD controls its own battery supply chain, manufactures its own semiconductors, and operates at volumes that no European competitor approaches. The tariff protects the margin. It does not close the capability gap.

After Northvolt’s collapse, Europe’s battery path leads either to China or to next-generation technology frontiers that do not yet exist at commercial scale. Northvolt had secured $15 billion in funding, aimed to capture 25 per cent of Europe’s battery market by 2030, and filed for bankruptcy before achieving any of it. Chinese and South Korean companies supply 90 per cent of Europe’s batteries. The failure was not a funding problem. Northvolt had more money than any European battery startup in history. It was a commercialisation problem: the inability to move from funded ambition to manufactured product at competitive cost and quality.

The question

The Made in China 2025 programme achieved global leadership in five of the thirteen critical technologies it targeted: high-speed rail, graphene, unmanned aerial vehicles, solar panels, and electric vehicles with lithium batteries. It fell short in aerospace, advanced robotics, and the growth rate in manufacturing value added. The success rate, roughly half its sectors achieving their goals, with many of those goals being highly ambitious, was sufficient to make the sequel credible. The 15th Five-Year Plan is not a new strategy. It is the next iteration of a strategy that has already demonstrated results in precisely the sectors that matter most to the global energy transition and the AI economy.

What the West calls “China Shock 2.0” is the external manifestation of an internal process that has been running for two decades. China’s trade surplus doubled between 2015 and 2025. The EU’s trade deficit with China doubled in value to 309 billion euros in 2024 and quadrupled in physical terms. Imports of Chinese industrial robots into Europe rose 171 per cent over twelve months while prices fell 31 per cent. Integrated circuit imports rose 84 per cent. Car imports more than doubled. The numbers are not the result of a cyclical export surge. They are the result of an industrial system that has learned to commercialise technology faster, cheaper, and at greater scale than any Western economy can currently match. The question is no longer whether Beijing subsidises its industries. Every major economy subsidises its strategic sectors. The question is why China’s subsidies produce globally competitive companies and Europe’s produce Northvolt.