A surprising statistic has rippled through fashion and retail circles: Chinese consumers buy only about 21 garments and two pairs of shoes per year on average — fewer than people in Mexico and far below levels in the United States, Germany, France and Japan. That figure comes from a CF40 comparison of per-capita clothing and footwear purchases, and it sits uneasily alongside other data showing China as the world’s second-largest apparel market by revenue. The country’s huge population masks a more modest per-person appetite for new clothes.
China’s apparel market generated roughly $31.4 billion in revenue last year, behind the United States’ $35.1 billion but well ahead of India and other markets. The total market size helps explain why global brands and fast-fashion chains once flocked to Chinese high streets and why homegrown exporters and platforms such as SHEIN have boomed internationally. Yet the aggregate market tells only part of the story; per-capita spending and the composition of household budgets give a truer view of how Chinese households prioritise consumption.
Two big drivers help explain the paradox. First, income and consumption patterns remain mismatched: China’s per-capita GDP is close to Mexico’s in dollar terms, yet Chinese per-capita consumption is only about half Mexico’s. Second, structural household spending remains tilted towards necessities. China’s Engel coefficient — the share of household spending on food — has only recently fallen below 30 percent, well above the sub-20 percent levels typical in developed economies and far higher than the United States, where it is below 10 percent. Higher shares devoted to essentials leave less discretionary income for categories such as apparel.
Price levels only partly account for subdued clothing purchases. Global price indices compiled by Numbeo show that common branded items are not dramatically more expensive in China than in many other markets: a Levi’s pair of jeans averaged about $43.40 in China and a Nike running shoe around $73.04. But relative affordability depends on income and the cost of other essentials — housing, education, healthcare and transport — which absorb a larger share of Chinese household budgets than in many wealthy countries. In other words, the sticker price looks reasonable, but the relative burden does not.
The data also distinguish between quantity-driven fast consumption and quality- or status-driven purchases. China still produces and exports enormous volumes of clothing, and low-priced options are widely available on domestic e-commerce platforms. Yet many Chinese shoppers show a clear tendency to prioritise durability and utility: the cultural norm described by retailers and social media influencers is careful selection rather than frequent replacement. That attitude has dovetailed with a wider shift among younger shoppers toward seeking value, function and experience over conspicuous brand signaling.
Luxury and high-end segments offer a sharper contrast. Luxury goods are markedly more expensive in mainland China than in Europe once taxes and import pricing are accounted for; Bain’s market checks find price gaps of 20–25 percent on higher-priced items and 30–40 percent for lower-tier luxury leather goods priced under CNY 10,000. Those markups suppress broader participation in luxury consumption and concentrate demand among a smaller pool of high-income buyers.
Geography and city culture help explain wide domestic variance. Shanghai, with its commercial heritage and dense retail ecosystem, recorded clothing expenditure of about CNY 12,703 per capita in the latest local retail figures, while Beijing’s comparable figure was just CNY 2,214. The two cities epitomise different urban mixes: Shanghai’s consumption-heavy lifestyle versus Beijing’s more dispersed, functional urbanism where residents often prioritise savings or durable assets such as jewellery.
Macroeconomic headwinds compound these structural factors. Slower growth, stagnant wage gains for many workers and rising living costs have heightened precautionary saving and reduced willingness to spend on non-essentials. At the same time, a more informed and digitally savvy consumer base has accelerated demand for cost-effective alternatives — from high-quality “dupe” products to travel and experiences — rather than a simple rebound to volume-driven fast fashion.
For global retailers and policymakers alike the implications are twofold. Brands can no longer count on volume-driven growth from sheer population size; success requires sharper segmentation, pricing that reflects local purchasing power, and product propositions that emphasise durability, value and experiential utility. For Chinese policymakers, raising household income and reducing the share of spending tied to basic needs remain central if domestic consumption is to catch up with per-capita levels seen in other large markets.
China’s low per-capita clothing purchases are not a cultural oddity so much as a symptom of a consumption model in transition — one shaped by income distribution, living costs, and evolving preferences that favour selective buying over habitual turnover. As incomes, social protections and urban lifestyles change, so too will the outlook for apparel consumption, but for now the country’s vast retail footprint coexists with cautious, selective spending habits.