U.S. vs. China: The Race for Industrial Parks

 Geopolitics, Partnerships, and the Paradox of Interdependence 

This article is also available in Brazilian Portuguese. 👉 

Image - AI-AFPP

 By Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro

The relationship between the United States and China goes far beyond commercial competition. Despite ongoing disputes, both nations remain deeply interdependent, directly influencing the course of the global economy.

This article aims to objectively analyze why these two powers are now competing to host industrial parks—after decades of outsourcing production centers to Asia, which left a trail of unemployment across the West.

Abandoned steel mill in the rust belt

Deindustrialization and Globalism

Globalization gave rise to a “globalist” mindset that saw an opportunity to export industry to Asian regions with “low human cost”—the so-called “Asian Tigers” of the 1980s.

The relocation of industries—free from labor disputes and union pressures—came at the cost of massive job losses and the collapse of entire economic cycles in the West, especially in the Americas and Europe. In contrast, it opened vast opportunities for banks in finance and real estate, fueling economic concentration and expanding consumer markets.

However, this shift also widened social inequality and reduced educational mobility in Western countries. In response, globalist elites sought to “compensate” the West through politically correct programs filled with mechanisms of “purging and indulgence”—including social assistance, minority protections, environmental advocacy, and climate change initiatives. These efforts revealed a strong Eurocentric bias and ideological dominance by financial elites, often detached from meritocracy, democratic standards, and national sovereignty.

The result is visible today: a fragmented West, morally disoriented, plagued by economic dysfunction, environmental dogma, and migration crises.

Meanwhile, industrialization in Asia transformed the global landscape, bringing China, South Korea, India, Singapore, Taiwan, and New Zealand into an industrial arena once dominated solely by Japan. China stands out for its rapid and determined rise, blending its ancient cultural-commercial posture with centralized governance—now challenging the U.S. on the global economic battlefield.

Smart technology industrial park in China

The Strategic Value of Industrial Parks

Today’s industrial process bears little resemblance to that of the 1970s and 1980s. Industrial parks have gained profound strategic importance.

Both the U.S. and China now seek to optimize “human-machine collaboration,” where robotics handle precision tasks while humans focus on cognitive, supervisory, and social functions. By clustering industries, parks enhance this synergy and create interconnected production hubs that attract companies and generate jobs.

Industrial parks form ecosystems of opportunity for direct and indirect workers. They create new professions and increase formal employment, especially among youth. Their installation not only generates jobs but also attracts investment in logistics, technology, and services—multiplying opportunities for surrounding businesses.

The economic activity surrounding these parks strengthens local income and benefits both urban and rural communities. The training of thousands of professionals for integrated labor markets also boosts employability in education and culture, reinforcing regional development.

Trump: Restoring Core Values and Free Enterprise

Trump’s industrial policy seeks to reverse decades of deindustrialization. His strategy emphasizes national production, mechanical industry, and traditional energy sources to restore the country’s former industrial belt.

This approach includes revising public and institutional policies to promote free enterprise, productivity, and deregulation. It also involves restoring nationalism, countering institutional activism, and defending freedom of expression and economic liberty.

Internationally, the strategy aims to halt geopolitical maneuvers harmful to U.S. interests—such as the politicization of BRICS, organized crime, politicized drug trafficking, and transnational terrorist networks.

Economically, the plan reintroduces fossil fuels into the production cycle, directly impacting the revival of mechanical industries. The goal is to reactivate the Rust Belt by encouraging both technological hubs and traditional sectors like metallurgy and auto parts, which rely on abundant, affordable energy.

The revival of industrial parks is supported by tariff countermeasures to rebalance trade and redirect investment back to U.S. soil. It also includes reforms to attract talent committed to American development.

Early signs point to factory reactivations, job creation, and a strengthened national supply chain. Another strategic sector is construction, which supports this industrial resurgence through infrastructure investment and increased demand for skilled and unskilled labor.

Xi Jinping: Global Expansion and Technological Advantage

China, anticipating the U.S. strategy, has invested in expanding industrial parks abroad—“nationalizing” assembly lines and components in consumer countries, including the U.S.

China benefited from Western globalist, energy, and environmental policies. As socio-environmental restrictions raised costs and hindered competitiveness in the U.S. and Europe, China advanced technologically—consuming raw materials by the ton and selling industrialized products by the gram at prices Western industries couldn’t match.

Xi Jinping consolidated the “Belt and Road” initiative, building infrastructure to connect China’s peripheral provinces with neighboring countries. The “Silk Road” was also reinforced, with rail and air traffic from Chengzhou to Hamburg and a major logistics hub in Duisburg.

Simultaneously, China established a tech hub in South America, including the Neuquén Space Observation Station, revitalization of the Inter-Patagonian railway, and a nuclear plant in partnership with Argentina in Tierra del Fuego. It also plans a transoceanic route from Brazil to Peru for exporting minerals and grains, and seeks to install electromechanical industries and vehicle assembly plants in Brazil. These projects, however, face bureaucratic hurdles typical of Latin American political instability.

In truth, China and the U.S. live a paradox of interdependence. Despite rivalry, their global production chains remain integrated, making any rupture costly for both sides. Shared opportunities in commodity-producing countries are clearly on the horizon.

The "complex" environment in South America

Redefining Strategic Landscapes

Trump seeks to re-engage South America, while China expands its presence in Africa. The South China Sea remains the primary geopolitical flashpoint.

Africa emerges as a promising extractive market, supplying China with agricultural goods, minerals, and oil—though political instability remains a challenge.

With a tacit consensus between the powers, Latin America may experience a “domino effect,” replacing leftist regimes with more “Western-aligned” governments. This shift may not hinder Chinese investment; rather, it could clear ideological obstacles, reduce corruption, and facilitate peaceful commercial partnerships with both giants.

Europe, in turn, must reassess its globalist stance—marked by financial Eurocentrism—if it wants to remain relevant alongside China and the U.S. This reevaluation must also consider two other key players: Japan and Russia.

Conclusion

The future of industrial parks may redefine the global balance of power.

This is not about rhetorical adjustments. The revitalization and strategic deployment of industrial parks should be a priority for any reasonably developed nation. Those who align production, technology, and influence will shape the new rules of international trade.

The U.S.–China dispute remains open, with direct impacts on industry, energy, and infrastructure. The balance between competition and cooperation, tradition and innovation, will determine the next chapters of this unfolding global narrative.

Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro is a lawyer (University of São Paulo), journalist, and institutional and environmental consultant. He is the founding partner of Pinheiro Pedro Advogados law firm and director of AICA – Corporate and Environmental Intelligence Agency . He served on the Green Economy Task Force of the International Chamber of Commerce, was a professor at the Barro Branco Military Police Academy, and a lecturer at NISAM — the Information and Environmental Health Center at the University of São Paulo. He has worked as a consultant for UNICRI — the United Nations Interregional Crime Research Institute, as well as for UNDP, the World Bank, and the IFC. He is a member of the Brazilian Institute of Lawyers (IAB), the Superior Council for National Studies and Policy at FIESP — the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo, and Vice President of the São Paulo Press Association. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Ambiente Legal portal and curator of the blog The Eagle View.

.