Growth at any price? China vs. Germany: Why comparing growth is a dangerous trap

Speed ​​versus the rule of law: The hidden price of China's "economic miracle"

Systemic question: Can Germany learn from China's state capitalism – or is it a dead end?

In the current economic policy debate, one phrase has almost become a mantra: "China does it better." Whether it's the rapid pace of infrastructure development, the dominance in electromobility, or the impressive growth figures – the comparison with the People's Republic often serves as a harsh judgment on Germany's supposed sluggishness. But while some admire Chinese state capitalism and others indignantly reject it, the core issue is often lost. An honest systemic comparison cannot stop at superficial statistics. It must look behind the scenes of the planned economy, identify the structural risks in the Far East, and simultaneously analyze the real obstacles facing Germany as a business location. It's about more than just GDP percentages: It's about the fundamental question of what price we are willing to pay for economic speed and why our rule of law is an underestimated factor of production.

Related to this:

• Neijuan, China's secret weapon, and what measures Latin America, the USA and Europe can each do for their economies to counter it

Two systems, one debate: What the China comparison really reveals

Why a flawed comparison obscures an important question

There are phrases that one hears almost automatically in economic policy debates these days. "China is doing it better than Germany" is undoubtedly one of them. It pops up in discussions about energy infrastructure, the speed of industrial transformation, government investment programs, and the supposed sluggishness of democratic decision-making processes. And it regularly provokes two equally unsatisfactory reactions: enthusiastic agreement on the one hand and indignant rejection on the other.

Both reactions miss the point. The comparison isn't wrong because China can't boast impressive economic achievements. It's wrong because it compares apples and oranges – and systematically ignores what lies behind the figures. This analysis attempts to focus the comparison where it's truly insightful: not as an ideological argument, but as a systemic question with economic substance.

The growth paradox: Numbers that conceal more than they reveal

China reported economic growth of exactly 5.0 percent for 2024 – precisely at the state-mandated target. Germany, on the other hand, recorded a contraction of 0.2 percent in its gross domestic product in the same year, marking its second consecutive year of recession. This contrast is often cited in public debate as compelling proof of the superiority of the Chinese economic model. It isn't – at least not in the way it's presented.

First, let's look at the Chinese perspective: Achieving the growth target was anything but a given. The People's Republic is grappling with a profound real estate crisis, persistent weak consumer spending, and deflationary tendencies. After a strong first quarter of 2024 with 5.3 percent growth, the second quarter brought a sobering 4.7 percent. The annual result was largely supported by export-oriented government intervention and a broad-based "scrapping" program for durable consumer goods. Also telling is the comment by economist Xu Chenggang of Stanford University, who, regarding China's growth figures, notes that targets set are met no matter what, and that official statistics are usually somewhat embellished.

For Germany, however, it should be noted that the Federal Statistical Office has even revised the figures downwards: According to their data, GDP shrank by 0.5 percent in 2024 (instead of the initially reported 0.2 percent) and by 0.9 percent in 2023 (instead of 0.3 percent). Measured against the economic output of 2019 – the last pre-crisis year – the German economy is thus effectively on a five-year path of zero growth. This is a serious structural challenge that should not be downplayed.

However, a truly meaningful system comparison requires more than simply juxtaposing two GDP growth rates. It requires addressing the following questions: Under what conditions was this growth achieved, at what cost, and how sustainable is it?

The core of the difference: control through planning or through price

China's basic economic structure is that of a state-controlled economy. This doesn't mean there are no markets—on the contrary, the Chinese market is vibrant and highly competitive in many sectors. But it does mean that the state assumes the decisive steering role in strategically important industries. Capital is directed, not allocated. Permits are granted based on political priority, not bureaucratic negotiation processes. If Beijing decides that an industry should grow, then it grows—financed by state-owned banks, subsidized by taxpayers' money, and accelerated by political pressure on local authorities.

The prime example is China's rise to global superpower status in photovoltaics, wind power, and electric vehicles. Generous loans from state-owned banks and lavish subsidies from local governments generated massive production capacities—initially at the expense of profitability, then through ruthless price competition that squeezed out weaker competitors. The result is astonishing: China controls roughly 90 percent of the solar industry's supply chain, is the world leader in 5G mobile communications, and produces significantly more ships annually than the USA. DJI drones dominate the global market with a share of approximately 70 percent.

These successes, however, are based on a mechanism considered unfair competition in a market economy: state-subsidized overproduction at prices that no private competitor can achieve without government support. The EU and the US have therefore imposed import tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. China rejects this criticism, arguing that global demand for electric vehicles will rise to 45 million units by 2030 – four times the 2022 figure. The debate is ongoing. But the core mechanism cannot be ignored: China's industrial rise in these sectors is not the result of free market processes, but rather of targeted state allocation of resources.

Germany, however, operates on a fundamentally different principle. The social market economy – developed after the Second World War by Ludwig Erhard and the ordoliberals – combines market-based price formation with state regulation and social security. The state sets the rules, protects competition, guarantees property rights, and ensures the enforcement of contracts through legal certainty. It does not decide which industries should grow – that is determined by millions of companies and consumers through their purchasing and investment decisions.

State control power: Speed ​​as an illusion

The most striking feature of the Chinese model from a European perspective is its apparent speed. Infrastructure projects that take decades in Germany are completed in China in just a few years. The "Made in China 2025" program—adopted in 2015 with the goal of making China a global high-tech superpower by 2049—has indeed produced remarkable results: Huawei is a world-leading 5G company, DeepSeek has established itself as a serious AI player, and Chinese-made humanoid robots are entering the global market.

This speed, however, comes at a price that is systematically underestimated in public debate. First, it is not efficiency, but capital intensity. China invests enormous amounts of public funds without the usual market-based filters—profitability, return on capital, consumer preference—determining the rationale of these investments. For a long time, the Chinese model operated on the principle: build first, build big, think about the purpose later. The real estate market is the most drastic example of this: for over two decades, cities and property prices grew—until the system collapsed. Between 2010 and 2020, property prices in China's 70 largest cities rose by almost 60 percent; since 2021, they have been falling. Goldman Sachs expects that property prices could fall by another 10 percent by 2027 before bottoming out.

Secondly, government planning produces misinvestments on an industrial scale. China's overcapacity in the solar industry is not a sign of entrepreneurial success, but of government misallocation: Generous subsidies created capacities that far exceeded domestic demand – with the consequence that overproduction was pushed onto the world market at subsidized prices, squeezing out private competitors worldwide.

Thirdly, the speed of central planning has historically known limits. Anyone who looks at East Germany, the USSR, or early Cuba as a reference will recognize a pattern: planned economies are strong in mobilizing resources for defined goals, but weak in adapting to changing needs and generating innovation through competition. China has partially circumvented this dilemma with a hybrid solution—a state-capitalist mix of market mechanisms and political control. But even there, the limitations are evident.

China's structural risks: What lies behind the growth figures

An honest economic analysis cannot avoid openly acknowledging China's structural risks. The People's Republic's economy is currently grappling with a combination of problems reminiscent of Japan's stagnation in the 1990s: deflationary tendencies, a real estate crisis of historic proportions, weak domestic consumption, and dramatically declining foreign direct investment.

The real estate crisis is the most serious structural burden. For decades, the sector had served as the most important investment vehicle for the middle class and as the main driver of growth for local governments. When Beijing tightened credit restrictions for over-indebted developers in 2020/2021, the system collapsed. Real estate prices have fallen by around 20 percent in four years. Municipal budgets, which depended heavily on land sales, are under immense pressure. Goldman Sachs describes the unfolding correction in the Chinese real estate market as one of the most significant economic events of this decade.

The development of foreign direct investment (FDI) is particularly revealing. Between 2021 and 2024, net FDI, according to balance of payments data, plummeted by around 90 percent, reaching its lowest level in over three decades. In 2024, FDI fell by 24.7 percent, and in 2025 by a further 9.5 percent – ​​the third consecutive year of decline. Technology companies such as IBM, Microsoft, and Cisco have reduced or completely withdrawn their research and development centers due to stricter data restrictions. These are not temporary economic fluctuations, but rather an expression of a fundamentally altered climate of confidence.

Youth unemployment reached a record high of over 21 percent in August 2024, prompting Beijing to temporarily halt data publication. Following a methodological change that excluded university students from the calculation, the National Bureau of Statistics published a starting figure of 14.9 percent in December 2023—a methodologically controversial approach that does not address the structural employment problems facing young Chinese. In August 2025, the rate, calculated using the new methodology, rose again to 18.9 percent. While China's high-tech offensive—AI, robotics, semiconductors—is creating strategically important industries, it is generating comparatively few new jobs for the millions of university graduates entering the labor market each year.

Added to this is the per capita income gap. China's GDP per capita in 2024, adjusted for purchasing power parity, was around US$23,846 – significantly below the global average of US$27,291. China's Gini coefficient is approximately 0.47, considerably higher than Germany's figure of around 0.29. Contrary to initial impressions in the glittering coastal metropolises, China remains a poor country: the poverty of the rural population continues to be a structural prerequisite for industrial growth.

Our global industry and economic expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

Germany's real weaknesses: Don't romanticize them, don't downplay them

Anyone who identifies China's shortcomings must analyze Germany's structural problems with equal honesty. These problems are real and require serious economic policy responses – even if one doesn't consider the Chinese alternative model to be the right one.

Germany's economic standing is suffering from a combination of burdens that have been known for years but are being addressed too slowly. According to the "Location Radar Germany"—a study based on extensive data analysis—the biggest factors contributing to the crisis by far are wage and structural costs (31 percent of the transformation pressure), followed by excessive regulation (24 percent), fierce international competition (21 percent), and a shortage of skilled workers (20 percent). In contrast, the often-discussed energy costs play a comparatively minor role—contrary to public perception—accounting for only four percent.

Bureaucratic burdens are a real problem: According to the National Regulatory Control Council, the ongoing compliance burden for companies has reached an unprecedented level. The GDPR and national regulations have created over 300,000 additional administrative positions in Germany alone. 85 percent of German companies cite the flood of red tape as a serious obstacle to productivity. The new federal government has announced plans to reduce bureaucratic costs for the German economy by 25 percent – ​​which would amount to approximately 16 billion euros per year.

Industry, the backbone of the German economy, is under immense pressure. In 2024, the manufacturing sector lost three percent of its gross value added; mechanical engineering and the automotive industry produced significantly less. Energy-intensive industries – chemicals and metals – are operating at historically low levels of production. Some companies are already relocating parts of their production abroad or are seriously considering doing so: 30 percent of the surveyed medium-sized industrial companies are toying with this idea. China has been Germany's most important trading partner since 2016 – but exports are losing ground because Chinese companies are now competing directly in markets that were once key to Germany.

These problems are serious. They demand consistent reform policies: accelerating approval processes, targeted investments in infrastructure and education, more competitive energy prices, and a smart immigration policy for skilled workers. The German Economic Institute and the Ifo Economic Council clearly identify these necessities. The weak economic year of 2025 – GDP grew by only 0.2 percent after two years of recession – shows that the economy, despite everything, possesses a certain resilience, but no self-healing powers that could replace a political reform push.

Related to this:

• Open secret – suppressed, but not forgotten: Economics is 50 percent psychology

Innovative strength: patents, investments and system comparison

A frequently underestimated aspect of system comparison is the question of innovative capacity. China is investing massive amounts of public funds in future technologies – AI, robotics, semiconductors, quantum computing. The "Made in China 2025" program explicitly aims to transform China from a low-wage manufacturing hub into an innovation leader and reduce its dependence on Western high-tech imports. The successes are real: Chinese patent applications have increased significantly in the last decade, and in certain areas such as drone technology and battery technology, China is indeed a world leader.

At the same time, it is important to question the quality of this innovation. In a market economy, innovation arises from an evolutionary process: companies that develop new solutions to real demand problems in free competition displace less effective approaches. This mechanism works in the solar sector, as the Chinese example shows – but there it was distorted by government capital injections, not triggered by market insights. The question is whether government-directed innovation is systemically as effective as competition-driven innovation – or whether it is more effective at imitation and scaling, while groundbreaking basic research and disruptive business model innovations emerge more strongly from open social systems.

Despite all its structural weaknesses, Germany demonstrates remarkable strength in core technological competencies: According to the TÜV Association, more than half of the relevant green technology patents in the EU originated in Germany in 2022. Germany's strength lies in the high quality of its engineering and industrial expertise – in mechanical engineering, automation technology, and measurement technology. This strength is at risk if industry continues to decline. However, it cannot be replicated at will through political decisions – neither in Germany nor in China.

Related to this:

• Germany in the dock: Why the USA and China are really badmouthing us

The rule of law as an economic factor of production

One aspect that is chronically undervalued in economic comparisons between market economies and authoritarian state capitalisms is the economic function of legal certainty. Legal certainty means that government decisions are transparent, reliable, and predictable, and cannot be arbitrarily changed. It is the fundamental prerequisite for private investors to venture long-term investments—in machinery, research, and the development of businesses.

China possesses this foundation only to a very limited extent. Companies—both foreign and domestic—report regulatory arbitrariness, sudden policy shifts, and the risk of government intervention. The dramatic decline in foreign direct investment is partly attributable to precisely this uncertainty. Technology companies withdrew their research and development centers when stricter data protection laws altered the business landscape. The fate of companies like Alibaba and DiDi—which, after spectacular growth, were suddenly confronted with government regulatory campaigns—illustrates the systemic risk of government arbitrariness in the Chinese economy.

Germany, on the other hand, is internationally regarded as a stronghold of legal reliability. Its political institutions are recognized as a key strength of its economic standing. German law protects property rights, enables the enforcement of contracts, and provides both companies and employees with a secure foundation for planning. This institutional strength is difficult to quantify – however, it is indirectly reflected in the fact that, despite its economic weakness, Germany is internationally regarded as a preferred investment location when it comes to reliable framework conditions.

The price of the model: freedom as a system variable

It would be incomplete and dishonest to reduce the system comparison to purely economic metrics. The Chinese growth model comes at a price that the figures don't capture: the restriction of individual freedoms to a level considered unacceptable in democratic societies.

China has established a highly technological surveillance state. Its social credit system is designed to evaluate and control citizens' behavior both online and offline. According to Freedom House, press freedom is rated "not free"—the lowest possible rating. Journalists who report on taboo topics risk imprisonment. Since Xi Jinping assumed leadership of the party in 2012, ideological control over the media and public opinion has intensified significantly. Ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs face systematic state repression.

These characteristics are not mere footnotes to an otherwise successful development model. They are a constitutive element of Chinese state capitalism: State control of the population is the other side of the same coin that enables rapid infrastructure decisions. An approval process that takes several years in Germany, following a rule-of-law procedure with opportunities for appeal, often takes only weeks in China—not because the Chinese are more efficient, but because those affected cannot mount effective legal resistance. Speed ​​and arbitrariness are two sides of the same coin.

Anyone who calls for the Chinese model to serve as a blueprint for Germany must ultimately explain which of these freedoms they would be willing to relinquish. This is not a rhetorical exaggeration, but a fundamental question of the economic system: The institutional complexities of German democracy—federal structures, co-determination, judicial review, parliamentary oversight—are not flaws that need to be corrected. They are design features of a society that legitimizes collective decision-making.

Germany's real systemic question: Reform instead of imitation

The productive conclusion to be drawn from the comparison with China is therefore not that Germany should imitate Chinese state capitalism. It is that Germany must address its own weaknesses with the same courage that a functioning democratic state governed by the rule of law allows.

In concrete terms, this means: a reduction in bureaucracy on a scale that is actually noticeable – the federal government's announcement of a 25 percent reduction in bureaucratic costs is a first step, but there is still a long way to go. Approval processes for infrastructure and industry must be accelerated without undermining the rule of law. Germany needs an education and skilled worker strategy that takes demographic change seriously. And it needs a digitalization initiative in public administration: the fact that a single app covers all public transport in China, while Germany is still struggling with paper tickets and confusing fare zones, is not an argument for state capitalism – but striking evidence of the need for catching up in terms of reform policy.

At the same time, Germany should not underestimate its systemic strengths. Legal certainty, independent courts, strong institutions, and a consensus-oriented democracy are not obstacles to economic dynamism. They are the foundation for sustainable prosperity that does not depend on political shifts. No foreign investor in Germany needs to fear that their company will fall victim to a sudden regulatory campaign. No business owner needs to wonder whether property rights will still apply tomorrow. This is a competitive advantage that cannot be measured in quarterly growth rates, but is crucial in the long run.

Lessons from system comparison: What can realistically be learned

A serious comparison of the systems of China and Germany does not produce sweeping judgments, but rather nuanced lessons. China demonstrates that state coordination in certain sectors—particularly in the development of new industries during their early stages—can generate speeds that market forces alone could not achieve. This is a real, undeniable argument that can provide impetus to the economic policy debate in democracies.

What can be learned is that the state can act more strategically in a market economy without becoming a planner. This means: clear priorities for infrastructure investments, streamlining approval processes for new technologies, and targeted research funding in strategically relevant sectors. However, it does not mean: allocating capital through political decisions instead of price mechanisms, suppressing legal remedies in favor of speed, or abandoning independent courts.

What is not transferable is the systemic mechanism that generates China's speed – namely, the subordination of individual rights and entrepreneurial autonomy to state planning objectives. This mechanism cannot be selectively copied. It only functions as a complete package, and this complete package contains components that are incompatible with a democratic legal order.

What remains important is an honest examination of China's structural problems. A country that experiences youth unemployment rates that at times exceed 21 percent, whose real estate market has been in crisis for years, whose domestic consumption is structurally weak, and whose foreign direct investment has declined for three consecutive years, is not a model that should be copied uncritically – regardless of impressive GDP growth figures.

Which system do we want?

The real question behind the superficial "China does it better" refrain is a normative systemic question: What do we as a society want to demand from our economic system? Do we want maximum growth in politically prioritized sectors – with all the associated institutional costs? Or do we want a system that enshrines individual freedom, legal certainty, democratic control, and sustainable prosperity for broad segments of the population as fundamental values?

The social market economy is not a perfect system. It can be too slow, too bureaucratic, and too risk-averse – and these weaknesses are currently linked in Germany to a backlog of reforms that generates real economic costs. But it is a system that incorporates the lessons learned from decades of economic experience and two totalitarian experiments. Planned economies ultimately do not fail because the people who organize them are unintelligent or malicious. They fail because no central planner can aggregate and meaningfully process the information from all millions of economic actors – and because the mechanism that provides this coordination in market economies is the price that is not accessible to state control.

China's hybrid model survives this logic because it largely relies on market mechanisms – and employs state planning where strategic priorities are defined. But it pays the price of increasing capital misallocation, declining investor confidence, and social tensions that remain hidden behind the glittering facades of its coastal cities.

Anyone who says Germany must become like China should at least be honest enough to say what they are willing to pay for it: legal certainty, co-determination, independent courts, freedom of expression, the right to dissent. Only when this bill is on the table is the comparison intellectually honest. Anything else is ideologically convenient partisan thinking – on both sides of the debate.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your native language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I and my team are happy to be available to you as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form here or simply call me at +49 7348 4088 965. My email address is: [email protected]

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

The quasi-in-house solution: How Xpert.Digital closes operational gaps in B2B marketing and sales – Smart Content-Driven Business - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital is a data-driven B2B industry hub led by Konrad Wolfenstein . The company acts as an external, quasi-in-house solution for industrial partners, closing operational gaps in marketing, content, and sales – without requiring additional resources on the client side.

More information here:

• The quasi-in-house solution: How Xpert.Digital closes operational gaps in B2B marketing and sales – Smart Content-Driven Business