Pieter Bottelier
{
"authors": [
"Pieter Bottelier"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}Source: Getty
How China Sees Its Currency
Understanding that the renminbi became undervalued because of expansionary monetary policy in the United States in 2003 helps explain why Chinese economists and political leaders have a differerent interpretation of the currency issue than Americans.
Source: The New York Times

The initial burst of China’s trade surplus, which had never been significant before, came on the heels of the sharp monetary expansion in the United States (and to a much lesser extent in some European Union countries) that was triggered by the switch to budget deficits in the early George W. Bush years. The Greenspan Fed’s interest rate cuts after the Nasdaq collapse and 9/11 also played a role.
China was the only major exporter that could and did respond quickly to the sharp increase in global demand driven by the massive credit expansion in the United States. In other words, China’s surplus exploded not because of anything China did with its exchange rate – it did nothing – but because of an explosion in external demand led by credit expansion in the United States.
When China fixed the nominal renminbi/dollar exchange rate at 8.27 in December 1997 — after the financial collapse of South Korea and contrary to international expectations of a renminbi devaluation — gaining an unfair trade advantage was clearly not China’s objective. If anything, the renminbi was slightly overvalued at 8.27.
China was applauded by Asian neighbors and by the U.S. Treasury for what it did at that time. It made the renminbi into a regional anchor currency, which helped the crisis economies in East Asia to overcome their economic and financial problems more quickly that otherwise would have been possible.
There were no international complaints about China’s fixed-exchange rate policy until the second half of 2003. Then, once the renminbi became undervalued, new dynamics set in.
Chinese officials were reluctant for a long time to admit that there was a problem with the exchange rate for several reasons: (a) they did not believe that the increased trade surplus was structural in nature, and (b) they did not want to reward the speculators who had found ways of bringing large amounts of “hot” money into the country, mainly to invest in the booming property markets of the big cities. They were also reluctant to respond to international political pressure led by the U.S.
If you accept this perspective on the question of how and when the renminbi became undervalued, you’ll understand better why almost all Chinese economists and political leaders sharply differ with American economists and political leaders in the interpretation of the currency issue as it stands today.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Scholar, International Economics Program
Bottelier was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s International Economics Program and senior adjunct professor of China studies at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), the Johns Hopkins University. His work currently focuses on China’s economic reform and development.
- China's Economy is Slowly Becoming More NormalArticle
- China's Economy: Slower Growth, But Structural Reforms ProgressingArticle
Pieter Bottelier
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade RoutesCommentary
This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.
Galiya Ibragimova
- The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the PastCommentary
By burying disagreements in imprecision, the new deal risks same fate as its predecessors.
James M. Acton
- Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?Commentary
The United States and Israel may have unwittingly revived the Islamic Republic’s “zombie regime.”
Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
- The Overlooked Link Between Disaster Response at Home and U.S. Power AbroadCommentary
Natural disasters are no longer local incidents but sources of systemic risk that threaten vital infrastructure and the economy—and public support for international engagement.
Leonardo Martinez-Diaz
- Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?Commentary
When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?
Rym Momtaz, ed.