Western policy circles and mainstream media have deliberately fueled anxiety over the claim of “Chinese overcapacity.”
Yet one observable reality dismantles this entire narrative: BYD openly confirms it cannot meet global orders, with waiting periods stretching for months across overseas markets.
These are not symptoms of oversupply.
They signal unmet demand.
Compounding this contradiction, CATL, the world’s largest electric vehicle battery manufacturer, unveiled transformative technological breakthroughs at its 2026 Tech Day in Beijing on April 21.
Its third‑generation Shenxing ultra‑fast charging battery achieves 10 to 98 percent charge in just over six minutes at room temperature.
The Qilin Condensed Battery delivers a range of 1 500 kilometres on a single charge, setting a new industry benchmark.
These are not the products of an overbuilt, subsidized, or stagnant industry. They reflect the output of a fiercely competitive innovation ecosystem advancing at full speed.
- New perspectives: How Zimbabwe can effectively fight money laundering
- New perspectives: How Zimbabwe can effectively fight money laundering
- Why loss and damage is such a sticking issue at COP27
- The curse of imported knowledge, investment models
Keep Reading
To resolve this paradox, we must move beyond aggregate statistics to structural analysis.
The real surplus lies in outdated internal combustion engine capacity, not in electric vehicle production.
China’s overall automotive capacity utilization has fallen to 50–60%, but his average masks extreme divergence.
Traditional joint ventures producing gasoline vehicles operate at below 40 percent utilisation, with many lines idle.
By contrast, dedicated electric vehicle production lines at leading firms including BYD, Geely, and Li Auto run above 85%, with some models operating three shifts.
What is labelled “overcapacity” is merely the coexistence of declining legacy capacity and tight supply in the new energy sector.
Domestic competition and global expansion are two sides of the same structural shift.
More than 70 brands and hundreds of models compete intensively in China’s domestic market, pushing industry profit margins down to just 1.8%.
Yet in the first quarter of 2026, China’s new energy vehicle exports surged 88 percent year on year.
Chinese brands hold over 50 percent of the electric vehicle market in Southeast Asia and more than 80% in the Southern Hemisphere. BYD’s overseas revenue share has risen to 38.65%.
Extreme cost control and rapid product iteration forged in domestic competition have become decisive global advantages.
Even facing punitive European Union tariffs ranging from 17 to 35%, Chinese brands still hold 13% of Europe’s electric vehicle market.
The label of “overcapacity” is a political assertion, not a technical diagnosis.
Applying it to an industry where leading firms face production shortages, global demand remains strong, and Western legacy manufacturers suffer heavy losses reflects either statistical ignorance or deliberate narrative warfare.
Why, then, does the West insist on repeating this claim? The answer lies not in economics, but in competitive anxiety, institutional inertia, and political calculation.
First, the charge of overcapacity is defensive moral posturing.
After dominating global automotive manufacturing for a century, Western incumbents cannot accept losing leadership in the defining industrial transition of the 21st century.
Unable to match Chinese cost efficiency, speed, or vertical integration, they resort to rhetorical framing.
Labelling Chinese electric vehicles a “flood” or “glut” allows them to present their own competitive failure as defence of fairness. It is the classic sour grapes allegory, but with lobbying and tariffs attached.
Second, the narrative shields structural inertia. Legacy automakers are trapped by their own histories: stranded assets in internal combustion engines, powerful labour unions, rigid supplier networks, and shareholder pressure to sustain short‑term dividends.
Admitting China has taken the lead in electric vehicles would require painful restructuring: plant closures, layoffs, and write‑offs.
Blaming external overcapacity allows them to avoid internal reform. It is easier to publish a headline than to retool a factory.
Third, the myth reflects anxiety over losing narrative control. For decades, the West set global rules: advocating free markets when leading, and imposing protectionism when falling behind.
China competes not by violating rules, but by delivering better, faster, and more affordable products.
The “overcapacity” smear redefines success as unfair practice. This is not economic analysis. It is moving the goalposts during the match.
Fourth, the claim serves electoral theatre. In both the United States and Europe, voters in industrial heartlands influence elections.
Blaming “Chinese dumping” offers a convenient political talking point for leaders unable to defend failed industrial policies.
Anxiety over capacity is amplified during election cycles, then downplayed when officials engage in trade negotiations. It is performance, not policy.
In short, the West’s overcapacity narrative is a crutch for uncompetitive incumbents. China’s electric vehicle expansion is not a market distortion.
It is the result of long‑term strategy, sustained investment, and rigorous execution.
The appropriate Western response would be to match that commitment. Instead, it chose complaint.
As the Global South knows too well, complaint builds no roads, no factories, and no future.
A direct comparison reveals two systems on opposing trajectories.
China’s electric vehicle ecosystem is defined by speed, vertical integration, and global expansion.
Supply chains are deeply integrated: BYD develops its own batteries, semiconductors, electric motors, and electronic controls, and even operates its own car‑carrier fleet.
CATL pushes technological boundaries with each product cycle. In 2025, overseas investment by Chinese automakers exceeded domestic investment for the first time, with new assembly plants established in Thailand, Brazil, Hungary, and Indonesia.
A new model moves from design to mass production in 18–24 months, half the 36–48 months typical for Western manufacturers.
Chinese electric vehicles cost roughly 30% less to produce than European equivalents and 25 percent less than those in North America. Competitive pressure fuels a virtuous cycle of scale and efficiency.
The Western legacy system, by contrast, is trapped in complexity, delay, and contraction.
Ford’s electric vehicle unit lost US$8.2 billion in the most recent fiscal year; Stellantis reported multibillion‑euro losses; General Motors’ profits plunged 55%.
Volkswagen’s chief executive has publicly acknowledged the collapse of the “develop in Germany, sell globally” model.
Total manufacturing costs in Europe are more than 30% higher than in China, driven by expensive energy, labour, regulatory compliance, and fragmented supply chains.
The core dilemma is that legacy giants cannot abandon internal combustion engine profits, which still exceed 70% of total earnings, while they lack the agility to transition rapidly to electric vehicles.
They are overwhelmed by their own institutional weight.
The fundamental divide is not technological. It is institutional and strategic. The Chinese system transforms pressure into speed and efficiency.
The Western system converts pressure into internal conflict, layoffs, and protectionist lobbying.
This tectonic industrial shift opens a historic window for the Global South. But such windows do not remain open indefinitely. Four critical lessons emerge.
First, do not be trapped by Western narrative warfare. The overcapacity claim is moralized protectionism.
When Europe complains about Chinese electric vehicles, it reveals its inability to compete.
The Global South’s interest lies not in repeating such complaints, but in harnessing China’s manufacturing strength for its own industrialisation.
Nations should prioritise local assembly, technology transfer, and local content requirements over imports of finished vehicles.
Second, exporting unprocessed minerals amounts to accepting continued predation. The Democratic Republic of Congo supplies more than 70% of the world’s cobalt, yet for decades has exported raw ore, surrendering refining profits.
Indonesia banned raw nickel exports in 2020, compelling Chinese firms to build local processing facilities and multiplying export value within years.
Every mineral contract should require that at least 50% of production undergo primary processing domestically, with investors committed to supporting power, road, and port infrastructure. No processing provisions, no agreement.
Third, move beyond assembly to genuine manufacturing.
South Africa’s 150% tax credit for electric vehicle investment over ten years has successfully attracted BYD, Great Wall Motors, and other manufacturers.
Semi‑knocked‑down assembly provides a useful starting point for skills development and job creation, but must not become a permanent low‑value trap.
The goal is local production of batteries, electric motors, and electronic components, and eventually vehicle design and engineering.
Africa’s young population is ideally suited for labour-intensive parts production: wiring harnesses, interiors, wheels, and charging equipment.
Fourth, regional integration is a prerequisite for sustainable industrialization.
No single African market is large enough to support a fully independent electric vehicle industry.
Only the African Continental Free Trade Area, with 1.3 billion people and US$3.4 trillion in gross domestic product, can generate the necessary economies of scale as a unified market.
Eliminating intra‑African tariffs on electric vehicles, harmonizing charging standards, and aligning technical regulations must be urgent priorities.
From these lessons, five actionable strategic initiatives follow.
First, establish a critical minerals alliance for collective bargaining. Alone, African nations face overwhelming asymmetric power relative to multinational corporations.
Through the African Union and regional economic communities, a joint bargaining platform can enforce minimum local processing requirements, coordinate infrastructure tenders, and share refining technology.
Collective negotiation dramatically increases leverage. Indonesia’s example confirms that export restrictions drive investment in processing.
Second, bundle mineral development with energy infrastructure. Electric vehicles require charging networks, which require reliable electricity, which requires investment in generation.
Nations of the Global South should require mining investors to finance solar farms, grid upgrades, or energy storage systems.
This supports electric vehicle adoption while serving as a catalyst for broader industrialisation.
Guinea’s Simandou iron ore project integrated rail and port construction; this model must become standard.
Third, proactively absorb spillover segments from China’s electric vehicle value chain.
Labor‑intensive, non‑core components including wiring harnesses, interiors, wheels, charger assembly, and battery pack integration are increasingly relocated offshore.
Dedicated electric vehicle industrial parks, supported by tax, land, and utility incentives, can target these sectors.
They create mass employment and build the technical skills needed for upgrading. Vietnam and Indonesia have moved early; Africa must accelerate.
Fourth, mandate investment in human capital. Allocate 15–20% of critical mineral revenues to technical education and engineering research. Without local engineers and technicians, resource deals only create a dependent comprador class.
This is not a cost. It is the only sustainable path to strategic autonomy over the next three decades.
Fifth, leverage great‑power competition to achieve multi-directional leverage. China needs Africa’s minerals; so do the European Union and the United States.
The Global South must avoid overreliance on any single buyer. Europe’s Critical Raw Materials Act and the United States’ Minerals Security Partnership represent buyer blocs.
The Global South must form its own seller bloc and encourage competition among purchasers.
Real leverage comes from rivalry between buyers, not loyalty to any partner.
The global automotive industry is undergoing a tectonic shift in power and value.
China’s electric vehicle ecosystem expands at a pace the West cannot match, while legacy giants sink under institutional inertia.
For Africa and the Global South, this moment offers a fairer structural opportunity than the oil era — because cobalt, lithium, graphite, and manganese are overwhelmingly located in the Global South.
Yet resources alone do not determine destiny. Western powers colonized resource‑rich regions but required two centuries to industrialise, because they built processing capacity, technological systems, and market institutions.
The Global South’s mission today is not to repeat Cold War‑era resource‑for‑arms arrangements.
It is to secure four pillars of sovereign development: local processing, technology transfer, infrastructure, and human capital.
The West will continue to promote the overcapacity myth, because it is easier than admitting defeat in the industrial transition.
The Global South must not repeat this error. True strategic autonomy means refusing to let others define your reality.
Leverage competition. Demand processing. Build skills. Integrate markets. One day, cease being a pawn on the global board and become a player.
*Saxon Zvina is a principal consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services – Insight. Strategy. Transformation.
Email: [email protected] | X: @saxonzvina2
