At their recent summit in San Francisco, US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made progress in a few key areas. Notably, they agreed to resume direct military-to-military communications — which China had suspended last year, following a visit by then-speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan — to reduce the chances of accidental conflict. However, neither leader was negotiating from a particularly strong position: As Biden struggles with low approval ratings, Xi is overseeing a rapidly weakening economy.
The economic news out of China has been poor for some time. Growth is slowing; the population is declining; the property sector is facing huge losses; banks are grappling with nonperforming loans; and foreign investment is falling. Each of these developments has its own cause and cure, but together, they paint a grim picture — so grim, in fact, that some now wonder whether China is facing a long period of stagnation similar to the one from which Japan has only recently emerged.
Like China, Japan benefited from a prolonged period of robust economic performance — GDP growth in the 1950s and 1960s averaged 9 percent to 10 percent — before slowing to 5 percent to 6 percent growth in the 1970s and 1980s. This is not hard to explain. As incomes per capita catch up to those in advanced economies, the increase in per capita income becomes more difficult to sustain, and GDP growth slows. This pattern — known as “growth convergence” — can also be observed in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.
This slowdown in income growth per capita might occur before an economy has reached high-income status. It might emerge at middle-income levels, so that, rather than achieving convergence, countries become ensnared in the so-called middle-income trap. China — which until a decade ago was on track to reach high-income status — might well be falling into precisely this pattern.
The decline in China’s working-age population makes this all the more likely. In Japan, a shrinking labor force is dragging down total growth by about one percentage point: The potential per capita growth rate remains in the 1.5 percent to 2 percent range, but the overall potential growth rate is estimated to be less than 1 percent. With China facing similarly unfavorable demographic trends — the legacy of decades of strict family-planning policies — the government has been forced to lower its growth target to 5 percent.
The Chinese property sector’s travails also echo Japan’s experience. In the second half of the 1980s, Japanese stock prices tripled, and land prices quadrupled, inflating an asset-price bubble that would collapse in the 1990s. So far, China’s real-estate booms — of which there have been a few in the past two decades — have not led to a bust, with prices instead plateauing at very high levels.
However, this time might be different.
For starters, China’s real-estate boom has already engulfed third- and fourth-tier cities — a foreboding sign, given that Japan’s bubble spread to provincial cities and undeveloped forest areas just before it collapsed. Moreover, unlike in Japan, Chinese developers have built a huge number of units that stand empty. The combined floor area of unsold homes in China amounted to 648 million square meters, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics.
Then there are all the residential projects that have not been completed, owing to cash-flow issues among property developers, some of which — most prominently, Evergrande — have been unable to service their debts. These delays have driven some Chinese home buyers — who must cover the full price of the unit they are purchasing even if construction is not complete — to stop making mortgage payments.
The risks are not borne exclusively by private entities. In China — again, unlike in Japan — local governments have been deeply involved in real-estate development, leasing land to property developers and funding projects. Tumult in the property sector thus directly affects the public budget.
However, perhaps the greatest threat to China’s economic growth and development is Xi himself. Xi has spent the last few years tightening government control over all aspects of life in the country, including the economy. The regulatory crackdown on large tech companies like Alibaba, which began in late 2020, is a case in point.
Though regulators have since backed off somewhat, and China’s government is actively supporting high-tech industries like electric vehicles, Xi’s obsession with control continues to pose a serious threat to China’s prospects. Not only does it hamper innovation by domestic firms, it also discourages foreign investment.
Foreign companies, such as the polling and consultancy group Gallup, are fleeing the country. This can be partly explained by China’s economic slowdown, which has reduced the availability of high-return investment opportunities and, together with demographic trends, promises to shrink the Chinese market over time, but, with China still targeting 5 percent growth, there is clearly more going on.
In fact, foreign companies worry about becoming the target of spurious antitrust investigations and fear that the newly expanded, but deliberately vague counter-espionage law could result in them being punished for normal business activities. Of course, US restrictions on high-tech exports to and investment in China are not helping matters.
China today shares many features with Japan in the 1980s, but the biggest risks to its economic prospects are all homegrown. By prioritizing security and stability — through surveillance, control, and coercion — over economic dynamism, China’s leaders are abandoning some of the policies and principles that underpinned the country’s “economic miracle.” Unless they change course, the entire global economy would suffer.
Takatoshi Ito, a former Japanese deputy vice minister of finance, is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a senior professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence