By: Prof. Habib Badawi and Dr. Ali Darbaj
Introduction
The contemporary discourse surrounding US-China relations has been dominated by historical analogies, particularly Graham Allison’s application of the “Thucydides Trap” framework, which suggests that rising powers inevitably challenge established hegemons, often leading to conflict (Allison, 2017). However, such binary frameworks struggle to capture the unprecedented complexity of a relationship where strategic rivalry intensifies alongside deepening economic integration. The characterization of US-China competition as a new Cold War oversimplifies dynamics that operate across multiple dimensions simultaneously, creating novel forms of international interaction that existing theoretical frameworks inadequately address.
Recent scholarships have increasingly recognized the limitations of traditional “power transition theory” in explaining contemporary great power dynamics. While A.F.K. Organski’s foundational work on power transition theory provided valuable insights into historical patterns of great power competition (Organski, 1968; Organski & Kugler, 1980), the framework’s emphasis on military capabilities and territorial control fails to capture the multidimensional nature of twenty-first-century power competition. As Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye demonstrated in their seminal work on complex interdependence, contemporary international relations operate through multiple channels of interaction, diminishing the utility of purely military-focused analyses (Keohane & Nye, 2011).
The empirical reality of US-China relations challenges conventional wisdom about power transitions. China’s gross domestic product has reached approximately 70% of US output in nominal terms, while exceeding it by 25% when adjusted for “purchasing power parity”, representing a fundamental shift in global economic equilibrium. Yet this economic ascendance occurs within a framework of deep interdependence that constrains both powers’ strategic options, creating what this study terms “competitive interdependence”—a relationship characterized by simultaneous rivalry and mutual dependence across different domains.
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Traditional Power Transition Theory
Classical power transition theory, as developed by Organski (1968) and refined by subsequent scholars, posits that international conflict becomes most likely when a rising challenger approaches parity with the dominant power (Tammen et al., 2000). This framework has been applied extensively to US-China relations, with scholars debating whether China’s rise necessarily portends conflict. However, traditional power transition theory assumes relatively low levels of economic integration between competing powers, a condition that fundamentally differs from contemporary US-China dynamics.
The theory’s emphasis on dissatisfaction with the international order as a key variable has relevance for understanding Chinese behavior. China’s approach represents neither full acceptance nor complete rejection of the “liberal international order”, but rather a strategy of selective engagement and parallel institution-building. This nuanced position challenges power transition theory’s binary categorization of powers as either satisfied or dissatisfied with the existing system.
Hegemonic Stability Theory and Institutional Competition
Charles Kindleberger’s “hegemonic stability theory” suggests that international economic stability requires a dominant power willing to provide public goods and maintain open markets (Kindleberger, 1973). However, the theory’s applicability to contemporary conditions faces challenges from the emergence of alternative institutional frameworks. G. John Ikenberry demonstrates that the liberal international order established under American leadership faces pressures not only from rising powers but from changing global economic structures that reduce the effectiveness of traditional hegemonic tools (Ikenberry, 2011).
China’s institutional strategy reflects a challenge to American primacy through the creation of parallel institutions rather than direct confrontation with existing structures. The Belt and Road Initiative exemplifies this approach, offering alternative development financing mechanisms that compete with Western-led institutions while avoiding direct institutional conflict. This strategy represents a novel form of hegemonic competition that operates through institutional multiplication rather than institutional capture.
Economic Interdependence and Strategic Constraint
The literature on economic interdependence offers crucial insights into how economic integration affects strategic competition. Richard Rosecrance argued that economic interdependence reduces incentives for military conflict by raising the costs of disrupting profitable relationships (Rosecrance, 1986). However, subsequent research has revealed the dual nature of interdependence, which can serve as both a constraint on conflict and a source of leverage in strategic competition (Baldwin, 1985).
Albert Hirschman’s foundational analysis of national power and foreign trade structure demonstrates how economic relationships create asymmetric dependencies that can be exploited for political purposes (Hirschman, 1945). This insight proves particularly relevant for understanding US-China relations, where deepening economic ties have persisted alongside intensifying strategic competition. The phenomenon challenges simple assumptions about interdependence as either a force for peace or a source of vulnerability.
Complex Interdependence in the Contemporary Era
Keohane and Nye’s “complex interdependence theory” provides a framework for understanding relationships characterized by multiple channels of contact, absence of issue hierarchy, and reduced role of military force (Keohane & Nye, 2011). Their analysis emphasizes how technological change and economic integration create new forms of international interaction that transcend traditional realist assumptions about power and conflict.
The theory’s emphasis on multiple channels of interaction proves particularly relevant for analyzing US-China relations, which operate simultaneously across technological, economic, military, and institutional domains. Technological interdependence creates new forms of vulnerability and leverage that traditional international relations theory struggles to incorporate. The semiconductor sector exemplifies this dynamic, where technological dependencies create strategic vulnerabilities that extend far beyond traditional economic relationships.
Toward a Hybrid Theoretical Framework
This study’s theoretical innovation lies in synthesizing insights from multiple frameworks to create a comprehensive understanding of competitive interdependence. Drawing on power transition theory’s emphasis on changing power distributions, hegemonic stability theory’s focus on institutional competition, economic interdependence theory’s analysis of mutual constraints, and complex interdependence theory’s recognition of multidimensional relationships, the framework captures dynamics that individual theories address incompletely (theoretical integration detailed in Table IX).
The concept of competitive interdependence represents a distinct form of international relationship that differs from both traditional cooperation and competition (see Table X for comparative analysis). Unlike pure cooperation, competitive interdependence involves ongoing strategic rivalry and zero-sum competition in certain domains. Unlike pure competition, it maintains significant areas of mutual dependence and positive-sum interaction. This hybrid character creates unique challenges for both theoretical understanding and practical policy-making.
Methodology
This research employs a mixed-methods approach that combines theoretical synthesis with empirical analysis across multiple dimensions of US-China relations. The study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to capture the complexity of competitive interdependence dynamics while maintaining analytical rigor.
Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative component analyzes economic indicators including “gross domestic product” comparisons using both nominal and purchasing power parity measurements, manufacturing output ratios across key sectors, bilateral trade flows and balance data, technological innovation metrics encompassing patent applications and scientific publications, and military expenditure trends and capability assessments. Data sources include official government statistics from both countries, World Bank databases, International Monetary Fund reports, and specialized trade and technology databases covering the period from 2020 to 2025.
Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative methodology employs content analysis of policy documents, diplomatic statements, and strategic communications from both governments to identify patterns in strategic discourse and policy evolution. The approach examines institutional behaviors within international organizations to assess patterns of cooperation and competition, analyzes alliance structures and bilateral agreements to understand strategic positioning, and tracks the evolution of sector-specific policies to identify patterns of selective decoupling and continued integration.
Comparative Case Studies
The study employs comparative case analysis across three critical sectors: semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and agricultural products. These sectors represent various aspects of interdependence dynamics, from high-technology competition to resource dependencies and traditional trade relationships. Each case study examines the interplay between competitive dynamics and interdependence constraints, revealing how competitive interdependence operates differently across various economic domains.
Temporal Analysis
The research tracks relationship evolution from 2018 to 2025, identifying patterns and trends in competitive behavior while controlling external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in domestic political leadership. This longitudinal approach enables identification of structural trends distinct from cyclical fluctuations or temporary disruptions.
Empirical Findings
The Manufacturing Foundation of Chinese Power
Contemporary analysis reveals that China has achieved manufacturing dominance on a scale not witnessed since American industrial supremacy between the 1870s and 1940s. The empirical evidence demonstrates the magnitude of this transformation:
Table I Economic Output Comparison: GDP Metrics and Manufacturing Capacity (2025)
| Economic Indicator | United States | China | China/US Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| GDP (PPP) – Trillions USD | 24.0 | 30.0 | 1.25 |
| GDP (Nominal) – Percentage of US | 100% | 70% | 0.70 |
| Global Manufacturing Share | 15% | 30% | 2.00 |
| Manufacturing Capacity (Relative) | 1.0x | 3.0x | 3.00 |
Note: Data represents comparative analysis of US and Chinese economic output using different measurement methodologies. PPP = Purchasing Power Parity.
China’s productive capacity now exceeds that of the United States by a factor of three, representing a fundamental shift in the material foundations of international power. This manufacturing advantage extends across traditional industries while simultaneously advancing in high-technology sectors, as demonstrated by sectoral analysis:
Table II Sectoral Manufacturing Dominance: China’s Production Multiples Relative to United States (2025)
| Industrial Sector | China Production Multiple vs. US |
|---|---|
| Cement | 20x |
| Steel | 13x |
| Automobiles | 3x |
| Energy | 2x |
| Chemicals | ~50% of global production |
| Ships | ~50% of global production |
| Electric Vehicles | >66% of global production |
| Electric Batteries | >75% of global production |
| Consumer Drones | 80% of global production |
| Solar Panels | 90% of global production |
| Refined Rare Earth Minerals | 90% of global production |
Note: Production multiples indicate Chinese output relative to United States baseline. Global production percentages represent China’s share of worldwide output.
These figures reveal China’s dominance across traditional industries—producing twenty times the cement, thirteen times the steel, and three times the automobiles of the United States—while demonstrating even more pronounced leadership in emerging sectors.
The implications of this manufacturing dominance extend beyond simple economic metrics. Manufacturing capacity directly translates into military-industrial potential, providing China with advantages in both economic competition and military modernization. China’s shipbuilding capacity, which exceeds American capacity by a factor of two hundred, exemplifies how manufacturing dominance creates strategic advantages across multiple domains simultaneously.
China’s leadership in advanced manufacturing sectors represents a particularly significant development. The country produces nearly half of the world’s chemicals, more than two-thirds of electric vehicles, over three-quarters of electric batteries, and ninety percent of solar panels and refined rare earth minerals. These capabilities reflect the success of industrial policies such as the “Made in China 2025” initiative, which has systematically targeted strategic industries for development and technological advancement.
Technological Competition and Innovation Dynamics
The technological dimension of US-China competition represents a contest for dominance in the industries of the future. China’s systematic approach to innovation challenges American technological supremacy across multiple indicators:
Table III Innovation and Technology Leadership Indicators (2024-2025)
| Technology Metric | China Status | US Comparison | Strategic Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active Patents (Annual) | Leading | Secondary | Innovation capacity shift |
| Scientific Publications (Cited) | Leading | Secondary | Research output dominance |
| Industrial Robot Installations | 50% of global total | ~7% of China’s volume | Manufacturing automation |
| Fourth-Generation Nuclear Reactors | Decade ahead in deployment | Behind | Energy technology leadership |
| Planned Nuclear Reactors (Next 20 years) | >100 reactors | Not specified | Infrastructure development |
| AI Chip Revenue Share Agreement | N/A | 15% of China sales* | Technology transfer constraints |
Note: AI chip revenue share refers to agreement requiring US companies to pay 15% of China sales revenues to obtain export licenses.
China’s advances in artificial intelligence, renewable energy technologies, and advanced manufacturing create new forms of competitive advantage that transcend traditional economic metrics. Chinese leadership in patent applications and scientific publications in key technological domains reflects a systematic approach to innovation that challenges American technological supremacy.
The semiconductor sector exemplifies the strategic importance of technological competition. While the United States maintains advantages in chip design and high-end manufacturing equipment, China’s investments in domestic semiconductor production capacity represent a direct challenge to American technological leadership. The sector’s strategic importance extends far beyond commercial considerations, encompassing national security implications that affect everything from military systems to critical infrastructure.
China’s advancement in fourth-generation nuclear reactor technologies demonstrates how technological competition creates new forms of international leverage. With plans to construct more than one hundred reactors over the next two decades, China’s nuclear technology advancement represents both commercial opportunity and strategic positioning in global energy markets. Such technological leadership creates dependencies that extend far beyond bilateral US-China relations, affecting global energy security and climate change mitigation efforts.
Supply Chain Leverage and Economic Weaponization
The concept of “supply chain leverage” represents a novel form of economic statecraft that reflects the realities of globalized production networks. China’s control over rare earth mineral processing—encompassing nearly one hundred percent of critical mineral refining and eighty percent of rare earth magnet production—creates strategic leverage that extends across multiple industries and national security applications. The deployment of this leverage during trade negotiations demonstrates how economic interdependence can serve as both constraint and weapon in strategic competition.
The rare earth minerals case illustrates the asymmetric nature of many interdependence relationships. While China depends on American markets for many manufactured goods, the United States faces far more acute vulnerabilities in critical materials and components. American dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals affects industries ranging from consumer electronics to military systems, creating leverage relationships that traditional trade theory inadequately addresses (Baldwin, 1985).
Agricultural trade presents a contrasting dynamic where American leverage through soybean exports encounters Chinese efforts at supply diversification. China’s systematic development of alternative supply sources, particularly increased imports from Brazil, reflects a strategic approach to reducing dependence on American agricultural products. The success of this diversification strategy—reducing American soybean exports to China from 25-33% of the market to 21%—demonstrates how interdependence relationships can be deliberately restructured to reduce vulnerability (see Table VI for comprehensive analysis of global supply patterns). This case illustrates the dynamic nature of competitive interdependence, where initial leverage relationships can be systematically undermined through strategic diversification efforts.
Military Modernization and Strategic Competition
China’s military modernization represents the fastest and most comprehensive military transformation in modern history. The development of capabilities across multiple domains demonstrates the integration of economic and military power:
Table IV Military Capabilities and Defense Manufacturing Capacity (2025)
| Military Indicator | China | United States | China Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naval Fleet Size | Largest globally | Second largest | Leadership |
| Shipbuilding Capacity | 200x US capacity | Baseline (1x) | 200:1 ratio |
| Missile Stockpiles | Multiple times larger | Baseline | Several multiples |
| Military Modernization | Fastest in history | Established capability | Rate of change |
Note: Quantitative assessments based on available public data; specific numerical values for classified military capabilities not provided in original sources.
The development of the world’s largest naval fleet, supported by unprecedented shipbuilding capacity, reflects a systematic approach to challenging American military primacy in the Western Pacific. Chinese missile stockpiles and advanced military technologies create new forms of strategic competition that operate alongside rather than replacing economic and technological competition.
The integration of military and economic competition represents a distinctive feature of contemporary US-China rivalry. Chinese military modernization draws directly on the country’s manufacturing and technological capabilities, creating synergies between economic and military power that traditional strategic analysis often treats separately. The development of military drone capabilities based on civilian drone manufacturing leadership exemplifies these integration dynamics.
Chinese military strategy reflects an approach designed to exploit American vulnerabilities while avoiding direct confrontation. The focus on anti-access/area-denial capabilities, cyber warfare, and space-based systems represents asymmetric competition designed to erode American military advantages without triggering direct conflict. This approach reflects the constraints of competitive interdependence, where military competition must operate within bounds that avoid disrupting profitable economic relationships.
Institutional Competition and Parallel System-Building
China’s institutional strategy represents “competitive multilateralism” rather than direct challenge to existing institutions. The Belt and Road Initiative, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership create alternative frameworks for international cooperation that compete with Western-led institutions while avoiding direct confrontation (see Table VII for institutional comparison).
This approach reflects strategic patience and recognition that institutional change occurs gradually rather than through revolutionary upheaval. The framework comparison reveals how Chinese initiatives provide alternative mechanisms for development finance, trade organization, and technology standards, creating competitive pressure on traditional Western-led frameworks while avoiding direct confrontation.
The success of Chinese-led institutional initiatives demonstrates changing global preferences for development financing and trade arrangements. The Belt and Road Initiative’s encompassing of over sixty countries reflects demand for alternative development models that offer different approaches to economic integration and political conditionality (Badawi & Mimari, 2025). These initiatives create new forms of international leverage based on infrastructure financing and trade facilitation rather than traditional diplomatic or military tools.
Parallel institution-building creates complex dynamics within existing international organizations. Rather than withdrawing from Western-led institutions, China pursues strategies of engagement designed to gradually shift institutional norms and practices. This approach reflects sophisticated understanding of institutional change processes and recognition that complete institutional replacement would be both costly and destabilizing.
Analysis and Discussion
The Paradox of Competitive Interdependence
The empirical findings reveal a fundamental paradox in contemporary US-China relations: the intensification of strategic competition alongside deepening economic integration. This paradox challenges traditional international relations theory, which typically assumes that interdependence and competition represent opposite ends of a spectrum rather than coexisting phenomena (Hirschman, 1945). The relationship demonstrates that mutual dependence and strategic rivalry can reinforce rather than contradict each other, creating novel dynamics that existing theoretical frameworks inadequately address.
The persistence of interdependence amid strategic competition reflects the complex nature of great power intentions in contemporary international relations. Both powers maintain economic relationships that create mutual benefits while simultaneously preparing for potential conflict or attempting to gain strategic advantage. This dual approach creates uncertainty about ultimate intentions while providing flexibility to pursue various strategic options depending on changing circumstances.
The selective nature of decoupling efforts illustrates how competitive interdependence operates across different domains. While both powers seek to reduce vulnerabilities in strategically sensitive sectors such as semiconductors and military technologies, they maintain integration in areas deemed less critical to national security. This selectivity requires sophisticated analysis to distinguish between strategic and non-strategic interdependencies, creating new forms of complexity in international economic relationships.
The supply chain leverage case demonstrates the asymmetric vulnerabilities that characterize contemporary interdependence relationships. While traditional trade theory focuses on comparative advantage and mutual gains, the strategic dimension of interdependence reveals how control over critical inputs creates power relationships that extend far beyond commercial considerations (detailed vulnerability analysis in Table VIII). The examination of sectoral interdependencies reveals that dependencies manifest differently across various domains, with some creating mutual vulnerabilities while others generate asymmetric leverage opportunities that can be exploited during periods of strategic tension.
Power Transition in the Age of Interdependence
The findings challenge traditional power transition theory’s emphasis on military capabilities as the primary determinant of international power distributions. China’s manufacturing dominance creates forms of structural power that operate through economic rather than military mechanisms yet produce strategic effects comparable to traditional military advantages (Gilpin, 1981). The ability to control global supply chains, influence technological standards, and shape infrastructure development patterns represents power projection capabilities that traditional metrics inadequately capture.
The multidimensional nature of contemporary power competition creates what Kenneth Waltz might recognize as multiple theaters of competition operating simultaneously (Waltz, 1979). Economic, technological, military, and institutional competition proceed according to different logics and timescales, creating complex interactions that resist simple predictions about overall power balances. Success in one domain does not automatically translate into advantages in others, requiring strategies that coordinate across multiple competitive dimensions.
The temporal aspects of power transition reveal different trajectories across various domains. While China has achieved manufacturing superiority and makes rapid progress in military modernization, the United States maintains advantages in financial markets, technological innovation ecosystems, and alliance relationships. These differential advantages create a multipolar distribution of capabilities that defies simple characterizations of rising versus declining powers.
Technology as the New High Ground of Strategic Competition
The centrality of technological competition represents a fundamental shift in great power rivalry. Unlike traditional competitions over territory or markets, technological competition creates winner-take-all dynamics where early advantages can become self-reinforcing through network effects and ecosystem development. The semiconductor sector exemplifies these dynamics, where control over critical technologies affects capabilities across multiple industries and military applications.
Technological interdependence creates new forms of vulnerability that traditional security analysis struggles to address. Dependence on foreign technologies for critical infrastructure, military systems, and economic production create leverage relationships that operate continuously rather than only during crises. These dependencies require innovative approaches to national security that encompass economic and technological as well as military dimensions.
The speed of technological change accelerates competitive dynamics while simultaneously increasing interdependence. Rapid innovation cycles require international cooperation for research and development while creating opportunities for strategic advantage through technological leadership. This paradox creates pressure for policies that maintain access to global innovation networks while protecting critical technological capabilities from foreign control or influence.
Institutional Competition and Global Governance
China’s parallel institution-building strategy represents a sophisticated approach to challenging American institutional leadership without triggering direct confrontation. Rather than attempting to capture existing institutions or creating revolutionary alternatives, Chinese initiatives offer complementary frameworks that gradually shift global governance patterns. This approach reflects understanding that institutional change occurs through evolutionary rather than revolutionary processes.
The success of Chinese-led initiatives demonstrates changing global preferences for international cooperation frameworks. Many developing countries prefer Chinese approaches that emphasize economic development over political conditionality, creating demand for alternative institutions that offer different models of international engagement. This preference shift reflects broader changes in global power distributions that extend beyond US-China bilateral relations.
The institutional dimension of competition creates long-term implications that may prove more consequential than short-term economic or military advantages. Institutions shape the rules within which future competition occurs, making institutional leadership a form of meta-power that influences all other competitive dimensions (Keohane & Nye, 2011). China’s institutional strategy reflects recognition of these dynamics and commitment to long-term strategic positioning rather than immediate advantage-seeking.
Crisis Management in an Interdependent World
The structure of competitive interdependence creates both constraints on conflict escalation and new sources of crisis potential. Economic integration raises the costs of conflict while providing multiple channels for tension management, yet interdependence also creates new vulnerabilities that can be exploited during crises. The challenge for both powers lies in developing crisis management mechanisms that operate effectively within interdependent relationships.
Traditional crisis management approaches assume relatively limited economic integration between competing powers, enabling clear separation between political and economic dimensions of conflict. Competitive interdependence blurs these distinctions, requiring crisis management approaches that account for complex feedback effects between political tensions and economic relationships. The development of such approaches represents an urgent priority for preventing minor disagreements from escalating into major confrontations.
The global implications of US-China crisis management extend far beyond bilateral relations. Given the centrality of both powers to global supply chains, financial markets, and technological ecosystems, crisis escalation would impose costs on the entire international system. This reality creates international pressures for responsible crisis management while providing both powers with leverage derived from their systemic importance.
Implications for Theory and Policy
Theoretical Contributions
This study’s primary theoretical contribution lies in demonstrating the limitations of existing international relations theories for explaining contemporary great power competition. The concept of competitive interdependence fills a gap between traditional frameworks that treat cooperation and competition as mutually exclusive phenomena. The framework provides analytical tools for understanding relationships characterized by simultaneous rivalry and mutual dependence across multiple domains.
The integration of multiple theoretical perspectives reveals the value of hybrid approaches for analyzing complex international phenomena. Rather than privileging any single theoretical tradition, the framework draws insights into realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches to create a more comprehensive understanding of contemporary power dynamics. This methodological innovation suggests directions for future theoretical development in international relations.
The study’s emphasis on multidimensional power analysis challenges traditional approaches that privilege military capabilities or economic size as primary indicators of international power. The framework demonstrates how power operates differently across various domains, requiring analysis that captures these variations while understanding their interactions. This approach provides more nuanced tools for assessing power balances and predicting competitive outcomes.
Policy Implications
The findings suggest that policymakers must develop novel approaches to managing competitive relationships constrained by interdependence. Traditional strategies based on either confrontation or accommodation prove inadequate for addressing competitive interdependence dynamics. Instead, policies must carefully calibrate competitive measures to avoid triggering destructive feedback effects while maintaining strategic positioning.
The selective nature of decoupling requires sophisticated analysis to distinguish between strategic and non-strategic interdependencies. Policies that attempt wholesale decoupling risk destroying beneficial relationships while failing to address genuine vulnerabilities. Successful strategies must identify critical dependencies while maintaining beneficial integration in non-strategic areas.
The institutional dimension of competition suggests that both powers must develop long-term strategies that extend beyond immediate advantage-seeking. Institutional leadership provides meta-power that influences future competitive dynamics, making institutional strategy a critical component of overall competitive positioning. This insight requires policymakers to think in longer time horizons and invest in institutional capabilities alongside traditional policy tools.
Future Research Directions
The study identifies several critical areas for future investigation. The role of artificial intelligence and quantum computing in reshaping technological competition requires analysis that extends beyond current capabilities to consider future potential. The development of these technologies may create new forms of competitive advantage that fundamentally alter power balances across multiple domains.
The domestic political dimensions of competitive interdependence deserve deeper analysis. The interaction between internal political pressures and external strategic imperatives creates complex feedback loops that influence policy choices in both countries. Understanding these dynamics requires research that bridges international relations and comparative politics approaches.
The global implications of competitive interdependence extend beyond US-China bilateral relations. The role of middle powers, alliance relationships, and multilateral institutions in shaping competitive dynamics requires systematic analysis. Future research should examine how third parties navigate competitive interdependence relationships and what strategies prove most effective for protecting their interests.
Concluding Remarks
This study reveals that US-China relations have evolved into a form of competitive interdependence that challenges existing theoretical frameworks and policy approaches. The relationship combines intense strategic rivalry with deep economic integration, creating dynamics that resist simple characterizations such as either cooperation or competition. Understanding these dynamics requires theoretical innovation and policy sophistication that extends beyond traditional approaches to great power competition.
The empirical findings demonstrate that China has achieved manufacturing dominance and technological capabilities that create new forms of international leverage, yet these advantages operate within interdependent relationships that constrain both powers’ strategic options. The result is a competitive relationship that must be managed rather than resolved, requiring ongoing attention to crisis prevention and cooperation maintenance alongside strategic positioning.
The concept of competitive interdependence provides analytical tools for understanding contemporary international relations while pointing toward future developments in great power competition. As interdependence deepens and competition intensifies, the international system faces unprecedented challenges that require original approaches to theory, policy, and global governance. The stakes of successfully managing these challenges extend far beyond US-China bilateral relations to encompass global stability, economic prosperity, and international cooperation.
The study suggests that both powers—and the international community more broadly—must learn to navigate relationships characterized by simultaneous competition and cooperation. This navigation requires wisdom, restraint, and sophisticated understanding of interdependence dynamics. The alternative—allowing competitive dynamics to overwhelm interdependent relationships—risks creating instabilities that would harm all parties and undermine the foundations of contemporary international order.
The age of simple answers to complex international challenges has passed. In its place, the international system requires nuanced understanding, sophisticated analysis, and recognition that in an interdependent world, the fates of competitors remain inextricably intertwined. The challenge now is to ensure that this intertwining leads toward stability rather than catastrophe, toward managed competition rather than destructive conflict, and toward a future where rivalry and cooperation can coexist within sustainable strategic frameworks.
Appendix A: Supporting Tables and Data Analysis
Table I Economic Output Comparison: GDP Metrics and Manufacturing Capacity (2025)
| Economic Indicator | United States | China | China/US Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| GDP (PPP) – Trillions USD | 24.0 | 30.0 | 1.25 |
| GDP (Nominal) – Percentage of US | 100% | 70% | 0.70 |
| Global Manufacturing Share | 15% | 30% | 2.00 |
| Manufacturing Capacity (Relative) | 1.0x | 3.0x | 3.00 |
Note: Data represents comparative analysis of US and Chinese economic output using different measurement methodologies. PPP = Purchasing Power Parity.
Table II Sectoral Manufacturing Dominance: China’s Production Multiples Relative to United States (2025)
| Industrial Sector | China Production Multiple vs. US |
|---|---|
| Cement | 20x |
| Steel | 13x |
| Automobiles | 3x |
| Energy | 2x |
| Chemicals | ~50% of global production |
| Ships | ~50% of global production |
| Electric Vehicles | >66% of global production |
| Electric Batteries | >75% of global production |
| Consumer Drones | 80% of global production |
| Solar Panels | 90% of global production |
| Refined Rare Earth Minerals | 90% of global production |
Note: Production multiples indicate Chinese output relative to United States baseline. Global production percentages represent China’s share of worldwide output.
Table III Innovation and Technology Leadership Indicators (2024-2025)
| Technology Metric | China Status | US Comparison | Strategic Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active Patents (Annual) | Leading | Secondary | Innovation capacity shift |
| Scientific Publications (Cited) | Leading | Secondary | Research output dominance |
| Industrial Robot Installations | 50% of global total | ~7% of China’s volume | Manufacturing automation |
| Fourth-Generation Nuclear Reactors | Decade ahead in deployment | Behind | Energy technology leadership |
| Planned Nuclear Reactors (Next 20 years) | >100 reactors | Not specified | Infrastructure development |
| AI Chip Revenue Share Agreement | N/A | 15% of China sales* | Technology transfer constraints |
Note: AI chip revenue share refers to agreement requiring US companies to pay 15% of China sales revenues to obtain export licenses.
Table IV Military Capabilities and Defense Manufacturing Capacity (2025)
| Military Indicator | China | United States | China Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naval Fleet Size | Largest globally | Second largest | Leadership |
| Shipbuilding Capacity | 200x US capacity | Baseline (1x) | 200:1 ratio |
| Missile Stockpiles | Multiple times larger | Baseline | Several multiples |
| Military Modernization | Fastest in history | Established capability | Rate of change |
Note: Quantitative assessments based on available public data; specific numerical values for classified military capabilities not provided in original sources.
Table V Bilateral Trade Balance and Strategic Dependencies (2025)
| Trade Category | China Exports to US | US Exports to China | Strategic Balance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Trade Balance | 3-4x US imports | Baseline (1x) | 3-4:1 ratio |
| Soybean Trade Share | Chinese imports | US supplies 21% | Reduced US dependency |
| Rare Earth Minerals | China supplies 80% globally | US dependency | Chinese leverage |
| Rare Earth Magnets | China produces 80% globally | US dependency | Critical supply vulnerability |
Note: Trade ratios represent relative export volumes. Percentage figures indicate market share of global or bilateral trade.
Table VI Global Soybean Trade Dependencies and Supply Diversification (2024-2025)
| Supply Source | Share of Chinese Imports | Strategic Significance | Trend Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 71% | Primary alternative to US | Increasing |
| United States | 21% | Reduced from 25-33% pre-2018 | Declining |
| Other Sources | 8% | Limited capacity | Stable |
| Total Chinese Share of Global Trade | 60% | Market dominance | Stable |
Note: Percentages reflect Chinese soybean import sources. Pre-2018 figures represent baseline before trade tensions escalation.
Table VII Institutional Competition: Traditional vs. Alternative Frameworks
| Domain | Traditional/Western Framework | Chinese Alternative Framework | Competitive Dynamic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Finance | World Bank, IMF | Belt and Road Initiative | Parallel systems |
| Trade Organization | WTO | Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership | Alternative multilateralism |
| Technology Standards | Western standards | Chinese standards initiatives | Standards competition |
| Manufacturing Focus | Service economy transition | Manufacturing dominance strategy | Economic model divergence |
| Global Production Share | Declining (US: 15%) | Expanding (China: 30%, projected 45% by 2030) | Structural shift |
Note: Framework comparison illustrates institutional competition dynamics rather than institutional replacement strategies.
Table VIII Critical Supply Chain Dependencies and Mutual Vulnerabilities
| Sector | US Dependency on China | Chinese Dependency on US | Mutual Vulnerability Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rare Earth Elements | 80% of global supply | Limited | High US vulnerability |
| Semiconductors | Manufacturing capacity | Technology/design | Mutual vulnerability |
| Agricultural Products | Limited | Soybeans (21% from US) | Moderate Chinese vulnerability |
| Consumer Electronics | Manufacturing base | Market access | Mutual dependency |
| Electric Vehicle Components | Battery supply (75%) | Technology licensing | Mutual interdependence |
Note: Dependency percentages represent approximate market share or supply chain reliance. Vulnerability assessments reflect strategic rather than commercial considerations.
Table IX Multi-Theoretical Framework Integration for Competitive Interdependence Analysis
| Theoretical Framework | Key Analytical Insights | Application to US-China Relations | Explanatory Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power Transition Theory | Rising challenger vs. dominant hegemon | China’s manufacturing/economic rise | Limited interdependence consideration |
| Hegemonic Stability Theory | System maintenance vs. change | Parallel institution-building | Binary stability assumptions |
| Economic Interdependence Theory | Mutual dependencies constrain conflict | Supply chain entanglement | Overlooks strategic competition |
| Complex Interdependence Theory | Multiple channels of interaction | Technology, trade, institutional competition | Limited power transition focus |
Note: Theoretical integration demonstrates complementary analytical contributions while identifying individual framework limitations.
Table X Competitive Interdependence: Definitional Characteristics and Distinctions
| Characteristic | Traditional Cooperation | Traditional Competition | Competitive Interdependence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Integration | High | Low | Selective/Strategic |
| Strategic Rivalry | Low | High | High |
| Institutional Approach | Shared systems | System overthrow | Parallel systems |
| Conflict Constraints | Shared interests | Power balance | Mutual dependencies |
| Decoupling Pattern | None | Complete | Selective sectors |
| Relationship Stability | Cooperative equilibrium | Conflictual dynamics | Managed competition |
Note: Typological comparison illustrates distinctive features of competitive interdependence as novel relationship category.
References
Aggarwal, V. K., & Pu, X. (2019). Competitive multilateralism: The new politics of international trade. In V. K. Aggarwal & S. J. Evenett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the political economy of international trade. Oxford University Press.
Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
ASEAN Secretariat. (2020). Summary of the RCEP agreement. ASEAN.
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. (n.d.). Our mission. AIIB. https://www.aiib.org/
Badawi, H., & Mimari, A. (2025). “The Belt and Road Initiative: The revived strategy for China’s supremacy.” Journal of Afro-Asian Studies, 24, 18-58. Democratic Arabic Center.
Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton University Press.
Drezner, D. W. (2014). The weaponization of economic interdependence. In D. M. Patrick (Ed.), The future of American power. Council on Foreign Relations.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/weaponized-interdependence-how-global-economic-networks-shape-state-coercion
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1945). National power and the structure of foreign trade. University of California Press.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.
International Monetary Fund. (2020). Purchasing power parity. IMF. https://www.imf.org/
Kennedy, S. (2015). Made in China 2025. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/made-china-2025
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2011). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Longman.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression, 1929-1939. University of California Press.
Krepinevich, A., Watts, B., & Work, R. (2010). Meeting the anti-access and area-denial challenge. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Organski, A. F. K. (1958). World politics. Alfred A. Knopf.
Organski, A. F. K. (1968). World politics (2nd ed.). Knopf.
Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. University of Chicago Press.
Rosecrance, R. (1986). The rise of the trading state: Commerce and conquest in the modern world. Basic Books.
Tammen, R. L., Kugler, J., Lemke, D., Stam, A. C., III, Berbaum, M., Alsharabati, C., Efird, B., & Organski, A. F. K. (2000). Power transitions: Strategies for the 21st century. Chatham House.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2021). Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China. https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/03/2002885874/-1/-1/0/2021-CMPR-FINAL.PDF
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
World Bank. (2019). Belt and road economics: Opportunities and risks of transport corridors. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/publication/belt-and-road-economics-opportunities-and-risks-of-transport-corridors
World Nuclear Association. (2021). Generation IV nuclear reactors. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx
