The Chinese government’s heavy-handed efforts to contain recent stock market volatility — the latest move prohibits short selling and sales by major shareholders — have seriously damaged its credibility, but China’s policy failures should come as no surprise. China’s lawmakers are far from the first to mismanage financial markets, currencies and trade. For example, many European governments suffered humiliating losses defending currencies that were misaligned in the early 1990s.
Still, China’s economy remains a source of significant uncertainty. Indeed, although the performance of China’s market and that of its real economy has not been closely correlated, a major slowdown is under way. That is a serious concern, occupying finance ministries, central banks, trading desks and importers and exporters worldwide.
Beijing believed that it could engineer a soft landing in the transition from torrid double-digit economic growth, fueled by exports and investments, to steady and balanced growth underpinned by domestic consumption, especially of services. And, in fact, it enacted some sensible policies and reforms.
However, rapid growth obscured many problems. For example, officials seeking to secure promotions by achieving short-term economic targets misallocated resources. Basic industries like steel and cement built up vast excess capacity and bad loans accumulated on the balance sheets of banks and local governments.
Nowhere are the problems with this approach more apparent than in the attempt to plan urbanization, which entailed the construction of large new cities — complete with modern infrastructure and plentiful housing — that have yet to be occupied. In a sense, these “ghost cities” resemble the Russian empire’s Potemkin villages, built to create an impressive illusion for the passing czarina; but China’s ghost cities are real and were presumably meant to do more than flatter the country’s leaders.
Now that economic growth is flagging — official statistics put the annual rate at 7 percent, but most observers believe the real number is closer to 5 percent (or even lower) — China’s governance problems are becoming impossible to ignore. Although China’s growth rate still exceeds that of all but a few economies today, the scale of the slowdown has been wrenching, with short-run dynamics similar to a swing in the US or Germany from 2 percent GDP growth to a 3 percent contraction.
A China beset by serious economic problems is likely to experience considerable social and political instability. As the slowdown threatens to impede job creation, undermining the prospects of millions of people moving to China’s cities each year in search of a more prosperous life, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is likely to struggle to maintain the legitimacy of its political monopoly. (More broadly, the weight of China’s problems, together with Russia’s collapse and Venezuela’s 60 percent inflation, has strained the belief of some that state capitalism trumps market economies.)
Given China’s systemic importance to the global economy, instability there could pose major risks far beyond its borders. China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury securities, a major trade partner for the US, Europe, Latin America and Australia, and a key facilitator of intra-Asian trade, owing partly to the scale of its processing trade.
The world has a lot at stake in China and China’s authorities have a lot on their plate. The CCP must cope with the short-term effects of the slowdown while continuing to implement reforms aimed at smoothing the economy’s shift to a new growth model and expanding the role of markets. Foreign firms are seeking access to China’s rapidly growing middle class, which the McKinsey Global Institute estimates already exceeds 200 million, but that implies a stable business environment, including more transparency in government approvals and looser capital controls.
With these goals in mind, Beijing recently engineered a modest currency devaluation — about 3 percent so far. That is probably too small to alter China’s trade balance with Europe or the US significantly, but it signals a shift toward a more market-oriented exchange rate. The risk on the minds of investors, managers and government officials is that currency markets — or government-managed currencies buffeted by market forces — often develop too much momentum and overshoot fundamental values.
As Beijing uses monetary policy to try to calm markets, micro level reforms must continue. China must deploy new technologies across industries, while improving workers’ education, training and health. Moreover, China needs to accelerate its efforts to increase domestic consumption, which, as a share of GDP, is far below that of other countries. That means reducing the unprecedented high savings rate, a large share of which accrues to state-owned enterprises.
If private firms and households are to replace government-led investment as the economy’s main drivers of growth, the state must reduce its stake in major enterprises and allow more profits to be paid directly to shareholders, while providing more of the profits from its remaining shares to citizens.
The shift away from excessive state control should also include replacing price subsidies and grants to favored industries with targeted support for low-income workers and greater investment in human capital. In addition, China must reduce administrative discretion, introducing sensible, predictable regulation to address natural monopolies and externalities.
Back at the macro level, China needs to reallocate responsibilities and resources among the various levels of government, in order to capitalize on their comparative advantage in providing services and raising revenue. And the country must gradually reduce its total debt load, which now exceeds 250 percent of GDP.
Fortunately, in facing the difficult adjustment challenges that lie ahead, China’s US$3.6 trillion in foreign-currency reserves can serve as a buffer against unavoidable losses, but China must also avoid reverting to greater state control of the economy — a possibility glimpsed in the authorities’ ham-fisted response to the correction in equity prices. That approach needs to be abandoned once and for all, before it does any more damage to China’s quest for long-term stability and prosperity.
Michael Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served as chairman of former US president George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS