谁是第一名? (Part 1)

Kurzgesagt: Who is number 1? The U.S.-China rivalry is often framed as a neck-and-neck struggle for global dominance, with Washington dominant in traditional metrics like economic strength, military power, and technology. However, a closer look reveals that China is playing a different game—one where it has long been defining the terms of competition. This post is the first of a series in which I discuss how Beijing has set the tone in several key policy areas in the last few years and thereby reshaped how global dominance is understood. Today, we look at what this policy-setting power entails and its role in the US-China competition.

Rule-setter vs Rule-follower

For a long time, dynamics between the USA and China seem to have followed a historically familiar pattern. As demonstrated by Graham Allison's Thucydides Trap project, the power struggle between an established hegemon and an aspiring competitor has been observed since Ancient Greece (around 430 BC). In this dynamic the established hegemon enjoys influence through political, economic and military might, making them the rule-setter. This role allows them to pursue its interests and those within its sphere of influence have little choice other than to accept and follow suit, making them the rule-follower.

Washington’s influence in setting policy norms is clear in its relationship with Europe. Policy trends that emerge in the United States often find their way across the Atlantic, shaping European political discourse—but with a time lag. It’s as if European politics operate on a delayed timeline, frequently adopting U.S. policies, debates, and ideological shifts several years later. From economic policy and industrial strategy, to foreign policy, European governments tend to closely align with trends that originate in the US. In the transatlantic relationship it's clear who is the rule-setter and who is the rule-follower.

Who did it first: America First or China First?

However, in the US-China relationship this role assignment is becoming increasingly murky. While the US is still largely seen as the established hegemon, since it holds the edge in traditional power structures (military power, financial hegemony, and technological leadership, global institutional governance), several US policy trends over the last few years have taken on a slightly placative tone.

For example, the narrative of prioritizing national interests over global economic cooperation—often attributed to Trump’s trade policies—was actually pioneered by China with Xi Jinping's rise to power. Similarly, China's model of state-led capitalism, aggressive industrial policy, and strategic economic nationalism has forced the U.S. and the EU to abandon traditional free-market approaches in favour of government intervention. Trump's "America First" doctrine, particularly in trade, tariffs, and industrial policy, can be seen as a reaction to decades of China-first economic behaviour.

Why does it matter?

Because it shows a shift in policy norms. While the US may still have the lead in many respects, Beijing has managed to alter what competition looks like. Even in areas where the PRC lags behind, it has already reshaped how governance, economic strategy, industrial policy and foreign diplomacy are understood. Even if China is not yet winning outright the world is competing on China's terms.