I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, but I find it unsatisfying and I suspect it's really more of an apologia for American corporate power than a sound history.
Manufacturing was absolutely galloping into China before this sort of tight inter-company integration was even a gleam in anyone's eye, and there's no obvious reason such integration couldn't have developed elsewhere -- except for the labor issues.
The integration that's now heralded as the reason for moving manufacturing to China seems self-evidently a product of such movements to me.
It doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that manufacturing initially moved to China because of the cheap labor, but that it's stayed there because of the supply chain advantages. Labor in China isn't cheap as it once was, scrutiny of conditions is heightened, and domestic labor isn't as expensive as it once was either.
Manufacturing was absolutely galloping into China before this sort of tight inter-company integration was even a gleam in anyone's eye, and there's no obvious reason such integration couldn't have developed elsewhere -- except for the labor issues.
The integration that's now heralded as the reason for moving manufacturing to China seems self-evidently a product of such movements to me.