One can't really argue against this policy. A shift to be less dependent on foreign (especially US suppliers) is a good thing. It's basically risk management, and as we have seen US are not the champions of free market it held itself to be. It is no stranger or averse to using it's dominance to impose it's will on others to get it's way.Here is a good piece on dual circulation by CSIS. Keep in mind they are a DC think tank. But I think their work on analyzing dual circulation is pretty fair:
My general feeling is that the supply side reforms to restructure the economy to produce for domestic consumption as opposed for export, will be easier than boosting domestic demand which requires higher income/productivity increases at an individual level. Its easy to retool factories to produce products for the domestic market, but if the workers in that factory cannot afford the products the factory produces then that's a problem.
If someone who has more knowledge in economics can chime in that would be great. @Gatekeeper ?
To emulate the German model is also a very sound strategy. The Germans, after all it's the powerhouse of Europe.
Supply side management similar to the UK's in the noughties sounds good too. After all, governments tend to have more control over the supply side than demand side. Especially when authorities have difficulties in tax collecting to rein in spending, or the abilities to encourage consumption of the "correct" goods. Most countries only tends to use demand management to boost consumption.
In China's case, I don't think they are at a level that needs encouraging consumers to spend more. In the West, this consumption lead to indebtinesss over time, which is why the West is in an awful state when shocks like covid 19 taking a shock to the economic system.