• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "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

In The Media

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.

Link Copied
By Pieter Bottelier
Published on Oct 6, 2010
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: The New York Times

How China Sees Its CurrencyIt is important to know when and how the renminbi became undervalued. This aspect of the story is rarely covered in United States commentaries on the issue of China’s currency. In my opinion, the renminbi became undervalued late 2003 when China’s trade surplus — especially its bilateral trade surplus with the United States — fairly suddenly began a steep incline.

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

Pieter Bottelier

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.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    China's Economy is Slowly Becoming More Normal

      Pieter Bottelier

  • Article
    China's Economy: Slower Growth, But Structural Reforms Progressing

      Pieter Bottelier

Pieter Bottelier
Former Nonresident Scholar, International Economics Program
Pieter Bottelier
EconomyTradeNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

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

  • Paper
    Egypt’s Military Landlord Economy and its Limitations

    The armed forces champion a form of capitalism that is generating revenue, but its reliance on rent faces diminishing returns, leaving the country with massive sunk costs and deferred returns, deepening dependency on external borrowing.

      Yezid Sayigh

  • Article
    From Hormuz to the Maghreb: The Geopolitical Reach of a Gulf Crisis

    Morocco and Algeria, each in its own way, are having to navigate the global economic fallout of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.

      Yasmine Zarhloule

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Nolan’s "The Odyssey" Has a Colonialism Problem

    Despite Morocco’s hopes that its film industry would reap rewards, the blockbuster’s success will be tainted by controversy surrounding filming in occupied Western Sahara.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes

  • Aerial view of Washington DC
    Paper
    Network and Structural Power: The Four Trend Lines Weakening U.S. Leverage

    Networks—from international payments platforms to key economic sectors—underlie many aspects of U.S. power. But they are suffering under an extractive approach to foreign policy.

      Daniel W. Drezner

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    A Thousand Days After October 7, Washington Still Has No Strategic Plan

    Five major trends are shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East.

      Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.