Editorial: Is the global hot selling of "New Three Products" a form of "dumping"?
In recent years, some American and European politicians and media have used the economic term "overcapacity" to concoct a confusing new claim that China's products represented by the "new three types" (electric vehicles, lithium batteries, and photovoltaic products) will form so-called "dumping" and "disrupt the global supply chain and market order". For this argument, it is necessary to clarify: what exactly is fair competition and what is dumping?
At present, China has gradually abolished the so-called export subsidies for green electricity products such as the "New Three Samples", and the remaining export tax rebates are also gradually being phased out or cancelled. Export tax rebate is a tax neutral policy implemented by countries around the world, aimed at refunding taxes paid on products during domestic production and circulation, avoiding double taxation of exported goods. It is an internationally recognized trade practice that complies with WTO rules and is adopted by developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and European countries without exception.
China is actively tightening and gradually withdrawing from this compliant export tax rebate. Previously, China has significantly lowered its export tax rebate policy multiple times. According to the latest policy, starting from April 1, 2026, the export tax rebate rate for photovoltaic modules will be reduced from 9% to 0; The export tax rebate rate for energy storage lithium batteries has been simultaneously reduced from 9% to 6%, and it is clearly stated that it will be fully cleared by 2027. China has voluntarily relinquished its market space, and the "new three types" still maintain high-speed growth, confirming the authenticity of its competitiveness. If companies really rely on subsidies and such a large-scale tax refund withdrawal, they cannot maintain their export advantage. This precisely demonstrates that China's "new three" approach to going global does not rely on policy subsidies.
Looking at the market prices of related export products, the so-called "low price dumping" is even more untenable. Chinese green power products are not only not sold at low prices, but their terminal prices in overseas markets are generally higher than those in China. Taking new energy vehicles as an example, overseas prices are about twice as high as those in China. Similarly, photovoltaic modules and energy storage batteries are priced higher than domestic products exported to Europe, America, and Southeast Asia. This proves that the core competitiveness of China's green power products is not "low price", but high cost-effectiveness and technological innovation, which also confirms the demand for such products in overseas markets.
According to the logic of some Western public opinion, because you sell more and cheaper than my products, you are inevitably dumping. This logic rudely ignores the most fundamental principle of "comparative advantage" in economics. The President of Caresoft Global, an American automotive benchmark testing company, has pointed out that compared to other competitors, Chinese car companies have a cost advantage of 30% to 40% because they have a higher degree of vertical integration, such as self-sufficiency in most parts. Secondly, Chinese car companies use universal components on many models, which greatly reduces production costs.
It cannot be denied that the start of China's green power industry is indeed inseparable from the guidance and support of national industrial policies, but the key to determining the rise and fall of the industry lies in advanced layout, long-term persistence, and stable and sustained systematic cultivation. Looking back at the development process of green industries, China's layout was much earlier than the outside world imagined. Relying on a globally unique and complete manufacturing system, China has formed a unique industrial cultivation model: the country has done a good job in top-level design, anchored the long-term goals of green transformation and manufacturing power; Local governments should improve industrial chain support, create industrial clusters, and reduce comprehensive costs for enterprises; In the full market competition, enterprises strive for technology, efficiency, and management, relying on the hard work and excellence of the Chinese people, ultimately giving birth to a group of global leading enterprises such as BYD, CATL, and Longi Green Energy, and building a full industry chain advantage from upstream raw materials, core components to end products.
Industrial policies are not exclusive to China. Compared with developed countries in Europe and America, China's industrial policies are only different in development mode and focus. The United States has played an important role in establishing its global leading position in original technology in high-tech fields such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and biomedicine through early investment from the Department of Defense's seed fund, tax credits, government procurement orders, and other means; The EU has also launched a series of green industry subsidy programs to support the development of local new energy industries.
The difference is that the industrial policies in Europe and America are too volatile, and the alternation of political parties leads to frequent changes in industrial policies. The biggest advantage of China's industrial policy is stability, continuity, and long-term success. Once the direction is identified, it is resolutely promoted without any fuss or wavering, which enables the industry to complete technological accumulation, scale expansion, and cost exploration, ultimately forming a global leading competitiveness. Professor Kirsch from the University of Maryland admitted, "Looking back at the development from 1969 to the present, the inconsistency of US policies is shocking, while China, with its consistent stability policy, completely defeated us
From an international perspective, green production capacity is not an excess, but a serious shortage. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global demand for new energy vehicles will reach 45 million by 2030, which is more than double the demand in 2025. Climate change is a global challenge. We want to say to those with ulterior motives: instead of fighting a trade war without a winner, it is better to join hands with other countries and jointly promote technological progress in a fair competition market environment, so that people in more countries and regions can enjoy the green, convenient, and affordable benefits brought by new energy products. This is the right path to achieving sustainable development.