Author | Zhiyu Learn more financial information | BT Financial Data Pass The main text comprises 2,730 words, with an estimated reading time of 9 minutes.

Trump is scheduled to visit Beijing on May 13, 2026. Meanwhile, the EU has imposed additional tariffs of up to 38% on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), which have been in effect for seven months.

In 1981, the United States imposed “voluntary export restraints” on Japanese car exports. From that point onward, the Japanese automotive industry underwent a painful yet transformative restructuring.

By 2009, Toyota’s overseas production capacity had surpassed its domestic capacity, marking a “spatial transfer” that took the Japanese automotive industry nearly three decades to achieve.

In 2023, China overtook Japan to become the world’s largest automotive exporter, with EV exports leading the way. Three years later, China’s EV industry faces pressures remarkably similar to those Japan encountered.

Behind these events, spanning 40 years, lies a recurring structural pattern.

Market observers refer to this pattern as the “Three Pathways for Responding to Export Pressure.” This framework will help you understand China’s EV industry’s current position.

Full text approximately 2,500 words · Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

1. What Happened in Japan in 1981?

In 1980, Japanese car exports accounted for over 26% of the U.S. market share, with Honda, Toyota, and Nissan vehicles ubiquitous on American streets. Workers in Detroit began losing their jobs, and pressure mounted on the U.S. Congress, which was then transmitted to the White House.

In May 1981, the Reagan administration reached a “Voluntary Export Restraint (VER) agreement” with Japan, stipulating that Japanese car exports to the U.S. would not exceed 1.68 million units annually. Prior to 1981, Japan had exported 1.91 million cars to the U.S.

The Japanese automotive industry’s initial response: Export restrictions were unacceptable, but market share must not be lost.

They took three simultaneous actions:

First, they shifted toward high-end products. With export volumes restricted, they increased the unit price of each vehicle. Toyota launched Lexus, Honda introduced Acura, and Nissan unveiled Infiniti. These three luxury brands all emerged within a decade after the export restrictions. The average unit price rose from $6,500 in 1981 to over $20,000 in the 1990s.

Second, they built factories in the United States. Honda established its first U.S. plant in Marysville, Ohio, in 1982. Toyota opened its Georgetown factory in Kentucky in 1988. By building factories in the U.S., export restrictions became irrelevant—products no longer needed to be “exported” but were manufactured and sold locally in the U.S.

Third, they accepted price discipline. Quantity restrictions created scarcity on the supply side, allowing Japanese car prices in the U.S. to rise and profits to increase. Some economists later analyzed that the VER agreement actually benefited Japanese automakers.

This was Japan’s path: High-end transformation + capacity relocation + accepting quantity constraints in exchange for pricing power.

The cost: It took nearly 30 years for the Japanese automotive industry to complete this round of restructuring. Toyota’s overseas production capacity did not surpass its domestic capacity until 2009.

2. Seven Similarities in the Pressures Faced by China’s Electric Vehicles

Comparing China’s EV industry’s current situation with Japan’s automotive industry in 1981:

Similarity 1: Rapid export growth triggers protectionist backlash in target markets. According to 36 krypton, Japan’s car export market share in the U.S. was 26% in 1980; by 2026, China’s EVs had captured approximately 20% of the European market.

Similarity 2: The target market’s domestic industry has strong political lobbying power. In 1981, Detroit’s Big Three lobbied Congress; in 2026, Volkswagen, BMW, and Stellantis lobbied the European Parliament in Brussels.

Similarity 3: “Unfair subsidies” are the core accusation. In the 1980s, the U.S. accused the Japanese government of subsidies; from 2024 to 2026, the EU launched anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese EVs, with final tariffs reaching up to 38%.

Similarity 4: Export restrictions are a double-edged sword that may inadvertently boost profits. Limited supply + sustained demand = room for price increases.

Similarity 5: Pressure accelerates overseas factory布局 (layout). BYD’s factory in Hungary has already begun operations, while SAIC, Chery, and Great Wall all have plans to build factories in Europe.

Similarity 6: The domestic market is highly saturated, making exports a strategic necessity. In the 1980s, Japan’s domestic automotive market was already mature; by 2026, China’s new energy vehicle penetration rate had exceeded 60%, with growth primarily dependent on overseas markets.

Similarity 7: When facing pressure, governments at both levels have chosen dialogue over direct confrontation. The Reagan administration used VERs instead of tariffs; after the EU imposed tariffs, the Chinese government chose to appeal through WTO channels while keeping negotiation channels open.

3. Three Fundamental Differences That May Lead to a Different Outcome

The similarities end here. Three variables make China’s EV industry’s situation fundamentally different from Japan’s in 1981.

The first difference: Technological dominance.

In 1981, Japan’s automotive industry led in manufacturing efficiency and quality management, such as lean production and the Toyota Production System, but core components like engines and transmissions were also mastered by the U.S., not exclusively by Japan. Therefore, the U.S. could maintain its technological self-sufficiency while restricting Japanese exports.

The situation is different for China’s EVs. Battery technology (CATL’s CTB/CTP technology), fast-charging systems (800V high-voltage platforms), and intelligent driving algorithms (Huawei ADS, XPENG XNGP) have achieved global leadership in certain dimensions. A CITIC Construction Investment report in Q1 2026 showed that European automakers face a 3-5 year technological gap in pure electric platforms. This means that if Europe wants to develop its domestic EV industry, it cannot bypass China’s technological supply chain in the short term, including battery materials, motor rare earths, and inverters.

This is the “sense of being needed” that Japan’s automotive industry lacked in 1981.

The second difference: The scale and resilience of the domestic market.

In the 1980s, Japan’s domestic automotive market sold approximately 6 million vehicles annually, nearing its ceiling. Export restrictions directly compressed growth space.

According to CAAM data in April 2026, China’s automotive market sold approximately 31 million vehicles in 2026, with new energy vehicle penetration nearing 60%. This scale means that even if exports completely stall, Chinese automakers’ economies of scale and cost-spreading logic will not collapse. In 1981, Japan faced a situation where “exports were a lifeline”; in 2026, China faces a situation where “exports are a source of growth, not a matter of survival.”

The third difference: Alternative markets in the Global South.

In 1981, the global automotive consumer market was essentially a tripolar system of the U.S., Europe, and Japan. If Japan faced restrictions in the U.S. and Europe followed suit, alternative markets were very limited.

BYD’s Q1 2026 production and sales report revealed that by 2026, Chinese automakers had deeply penetrated Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. BYD’s market share in Thailand had surpassed Toyota’s, while its share of new energy vehicles in Brazil reached 27%. These markets lack systemic protectionism against Chinese vehicles, where price competitiveness serves as a moat.

4. Where Do You Stand?

In 1981, it took nearly 30 years for Japan’s automotive industry to transition from “export restrictions” to “mature overseas production.” That history represents a successful restructuring, but at the cost of two generations’ efforts and tens of billions of dollars in overseas investment.

In 2026, China’s EVs face similar external pressures but with three different variables—technological dominance, domestic market resilience, and alternative markets in the Global South—that may allow this path to be traversed more quickly and less susceptible to interruption.

But one thing is certain: China’s EV industry will not repeat Japan’s exact path, nor will it forge a completely different one.

On this timeline, we are probably at the “1983” position—pressure is clear, internal differentiation has begun, but true strategic choices have not yet been fully finalized.

The next critical junctures will be the actual production timeline of European domestic EVs and the capacity ramp-up speed of Chinese automakers’ overseas factories. Whichever happens first will determine the direction of this contest.

This article is for information sharing and industry analysis only and does not constitute any investment advice, investment analysis opinions, or trading solicitations. The market carries risks, and investments should be made with caution. Anyone making investment decisions based on this article’s content bears the risks and gains or losses themselves; the author and publishing platform assume no legal responsibility.

This article is an original piece by BT Finance and may not be used, reproduced, disseminated, or adapted without permission. Infringement will result in legal liability.