Key Trends in Globalisation

Why China can maintain 8% growth

China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) has set a 7.5% official GDP growth target for this year. Lin Yifu, former Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, and one of China’s most important economists, predicts that China can maintain 8% annual growth for 20 years. A key question is evidently whether such targets are realistic. Can China maintain this type of growth rate?

The immediate negative factors are evident. The international context for China’s economy this year is bad. The Eurozone economy is shrinking, Japan is stagnant and US growth is anemic. A 16% fall in world commodity prices since their peak has led to slower growth in major developing economies such as Brazil.

China’s policy makers initially underestimated the problems in the advanced economies. Adjusted for inflation, imports by developed economies have not regained pre-financial crisis levels. China therefore did not achieve its 2012 target of a 10% trade increase – the ctual rise was 6.2%. The lower 8% trade growth target set for 2013 is more realistic if still challenging. All major motors for growth will therefore have to come from China’s domestic economy.

In terms of strengthening China’s relative international economic position, and maintaining its ranking as the world’s most rapidly growing market, all this makes no difference. China is the world’s most open major economy, so it cannot cut itself off from international trends. China’s growth rate inevitably goes up or down with global economic fluctuations – the constant is that China strongly outperforms these trends.

To give more precise numbers, a rule of thumb of over 20 years, which successfully passed the test of events, is that China grows on average at whatever the advanced economies expand at plus 6% - the greater outperformance during the financial crisis was untypical. Developed economies this year will probably grow at around 1.5-2.0%, implying China will grow at 7.5-8.0% - in line with official forecasts. This is consistent with the official target of doubling the size of China’s economy between 2010 and 2020.

But for estimating expansion of China’s market, and growth of living standards, the absolute rate at which China’s economy develops is obviously key. It is therefore worth looking beyond short term ups and downs to the fundamental factors determining how fast an economy grows. This makes clear why China will achieve its 7.5-8% growth target. It also eliminates ‘manic-depressive’ analyses of China’s economy – periodic oscillating predictions of ‘hard landing’ and ‘rampant growth’ which appear in some parts of the media.

The current infatuation with examining consumption in China’s GDP is misleading in terms of analysing its economic performance. A country’s consumption growth is overwhelmingly determined by its GDP growth – internationally 87% of consumption increase is determined by the latter. If China’s GDP grows rapidly consumption will grow rapidly. If China’s GDP growth slows its consumption, over anything other than the very short term, will be lower than its potential with high GDP growth.

Every economy’s growth, including China’s, is necessarily determined by two key parameters: how much it invests and how efficiently that investment creates growth. Taking the five year average for 2006-2011, the latest internationally comparable data, China’s fixed investment was 43.1% of GDP, and it invested 4.1% of GDP for its economy to grow by a percentage point. Consequently, as a matter of simple arithmetic, China’s economy grew at an annual average 10.5%.

The lower the percentage of GDP invested for any given economic growth the more efficient that investment is. Furthermore, contrary to some myths, China’s investment is extremely efficient by international standards as the Table shows. For example in 2006-2011 China needed to invest 4.1% of GDP to grow by 1% whereas the US invested 24.3% - China’s investment was six times as efficient in generating GDP growth as the US. Even before the international financial crisis the US invested 7.0% of GDP to grow by 1% compared to China’s 3.4%. These key numbers determine how fast China’s economy grows.

Table 1

 

If China’s economy is to slow, as some critics argue, then it is necessary one or both of these key parameters changes. Either China’s percentage of investment in GDP must fall or the efficiency of its investment in generating GDP growth must decline – there are no other choices.

Taking first investment efficiency, the Table shows that almost all economies were negatively affected by the international financial crisis. China was no exception – the percentage of GDP which had to be invested for its economy to grow by a percentage point rising from 3.4% to 4.1%. But this deterioration was less than for most countries – the US figure rose from 7.0% to 24.3%, Germany’s from 8.2% to 18.4%.

China’s investment efficiency would have to fall greatly not to achieve its 7.5% growth target. If China’s recent investment level was maintained then the percentage of GDP it needs to invest to grow by a percentage point would have to rise to over 5.7% before China failed to hit its growth rate target. Maintaining China’s efficiency of investment is therefore a constant challenge for the government, but China has a considerable safety margin in setting its target growth. The government’s entire focus is on maintaining the efficiency of investment, not reducing it.

The other possibility for slowing China’s economy would be a sharp reduction in the percentage of investment in GDP. There are certainly some in China advocating reducing the level of investment in GDP, but not by nearly enough to prevent China hitting its growth targets. At its present level of investment efficiency China’s GDP growth rate falls by 1% for each 4.1% reduction in the percentage of fixed investment in GDP. But in the last 5 years China’s annual GDP growth averaged 10.5%. To reduce China’s GDP growth below 7.5% requires a fall in the percentage of investment of GDP of 10%. No serious figure in China, as opposed to a few Western analysts, advocates this. A fall in investment share of 2-4% of GDP, the type of figure sometimes advocated, would only slow China’s economic growth by 0.5-1.0%.

Therefore international economic headwinds are negative. But in both the efficiency of its investment and the percentage of investment in GDP China has considerable safety margins for achieving its growth targets - unless the administration makes very large errors the growth targets will therefore be met. Indeed, looking at these margins of manoeuvre, Lin Yifu’s 8% is perhaps more realistic that the government’s 7.5% - administrations always like to announce they have exceeded targets.

*   *   *

This article is slightly edited for an international audience from one which originally appeared in Shanghai Daily.

China’s investment stimulus ensures it will retain its international growth lead in 2013

In the 4^th quarter of 2012 China’s economy speeded up, with GDP growth rising to 7.9%. For 2012 as a whole China’s GDP rose by 7.8%. Internationally this contrasted sharply with the EU and Japan, both of which have passed into new downturns, and the US where economic growth in 2012 was 2.2% - anaemic compared to previous recoveries. China’s industrial production in the year to December rose by 10.3% - compared to 2.9% in the US. China’s annual economic expansion now exceeds the US in dollar as well as percentage terms – China’s GDP in 2012 rose by $982 billion compared to $600 billion for the US.

 

 

The scale of changes in the world economy involved can be seen even more clearly if the period since the international financial crisis began is taken. Peak US GDP prior to the financial crisis was in the fourth quarter of 2007. Since then China’s GDP has grown by 52.5%. But in the 4th quarter of 2012 US GDP was only 2.4% above its pre-crisis level.

In the last five years China’s economy has therefore grown more than twenty times as fast as the US while the economies of the EU and Japan have shrunk. In current dollar prices China’s GDP has risen by $4.7 trillion and the US by $1.65 trillion.

In industrial production, the most internationally traded sector, and the one with the fastest productivity growth, the change in the last five years is even more dramatic. On the latest available data EU industrial production is 12% below its pre-crisis peak and Japan’s 22% below. In the US, despite unsubstantiated talk of ‘industrial revival’, in December US industrial output was still over 2% below its peak of more than five years previously. In the five years up to December 2012 US industrial production had fallen by 3%, but China’s industrial production had risen by 80%.

These huge economic shifts pose two questions entering 2013. This year can China maintain the pickup in economic momentum that was clear in the fourth quarter of 2012? Can China maintain this over the medium/longer term with the consequences for further changes in the structure of the world economy flowing from this? Examining the economic processes unfolding at the beginning of 2013 gives the answer ‘yes’ to both questions – and for the same reason.

Turning back to short terms trends, undoubtedly at the beginning of 2012 China's economic policy makers had underestimated the difficulties in the developed economies. China's official prediction of a 10% export increase in 2012 could not be achieved without significant growth in developed markets. This did not materialize and exports rose only 7.9%.

As external demand was overestimated there was a delay in launching a program to stimulate domestic demand. Therefore China’s economy slowed. By May 2012 annual fixed asset investment growth had fallen to 20.1%, the lowest for a decade. In August the yearly increase in industrial production declined to 8.9%. In the same month the annual increase in industrial company profit fell to 6.2%.

However, by mid-2012 policy was adjusted appropriately. In late May Premier Wen Jiabao announced an infrastructure centred investment program that grew to $157 billion. Theoretical support to this new stimulus was given by former World Bank Chief Economist and Vice President Lin Yifu - who has now returned to Beijing to be a major influence in China’s economic policy making.

The correctness of these policies was rapidly shown. By December the investment decline reversed, with the annual increase in fixed asset investment rising to 20.6%, and industrial output growth accelerating to 10.3%. Industrial company profits grew – rising to a 22.8% annual increase in November. These trends underlay the GDP growth increase from 7.4% in the third quarter to the fourth quarter’s 7.9%.

In a perfect world doubtless China would have launched its domestic stimulus a few months earlier. But in economics it is impossible, due to the enormous number of variables involved, to make precisely accurate projections, only orders of magnitude can be accurately predicted. In particular policy makers had to take into account that China’s population is extremely inflation adverse. If export demand had been at the level expected, launching a domestic stimulus would have threatened economic overheating with inflationary dangers. In the grand economic scheme of things, with China’s GDP rising at 7.8%, the US at 2.2%, and the EU and Japan not at all, a few months delay is virtually neither here nor there.

Nevertheless there exists a small industry of those claiming China is ‘soon’ to suffer deep economic crisis – the ‘soon’ merely progressively moving forward in time when it doesn’t materialize. A few examples will give the flavor of the genre:

• Gordon Chang in The Coming Collapse of China in 2002 declared ‘A half-decade ago the leaders of the People's Republic of China had real choices. Today they do not. They have no exit. They have run out of time.' Actually rather than collapse China was entering a decade of the most rapid growth ever experienced by a major economy in human history.
• Michael Pettis of Beijing University, a frequent predictor of ‘sharp slowdown’ or ‘crisis’ in China, in 2009 reiterated: ‘I continue to stand by my comment [made] last year... that the US would be the first major economy out of the crisis and China one of the last.’ In fact since the peak of the last US business cycle, in the fourth quarter of 2007, China’s GDP has grown by 53% and US GDP by 3%.
• The Economist magazine, in a special supplement in 2002, ‘A Dragon Out of Puff’, predicted: 'In the coming decade, therefore, China seems set to become more unstable. It will face growing unrest as unemployment mounts.' And 'the economy still relies primarily on domestic engines of growth, which are sputtering. Growth over the last five years has relied heavily on massive government spending. As a result, the government's debt is rising fast. Coupled with the banks' bad loans and the state's huge pension liabilities, this is a financial crisis in the making.' In fact in the next 10 years China underwent the most rapid growth of any major economy in history.

The fact that such predictions are regularly refuted by events does not stop them being put forward. A slight delay in China launching a domestic stimulus in 2012 therefore created a frenzy of speculation in such circles regarding a ‘hard landing’ or ‘crash’ in China’s economy – which as always failed to materialize and instead, as already noted, China’s economy accelerated.

A new ‘theory’ therefore had to be put invented of why China’s economy will substantially slow – that China’s government is allegedly sacrificing the long term interest of its economy for a short term ‘fix’. According to one formulation of this, by Jamil Anderlini and Simon Rabinovitch in the Financial Times: ‘China went into reverse in the second half of 2012 in its efforts to rebalance its economy… Though steady, consumption took a back seat to capital spending as a driver of growth.’

Unfortunately this line of argument makes as little sense as, and will be therefore be just as refuted by events as, the numerous others.

First, taking the long run, modern econometrics shows clearly that as an economy develops it becomes more dependent on investment for growth, not less. As China moves from a developing to a developed economy investment would be expected to play a greater role in its growth.

Second Lin Yifu has rightly stressed that the industrial upgrading of an economy consists of it moving from labor intensive to increasingly investment intensive industries. This is precisely the path China is following with its exports increasingly switching from labour intensive products such as textiles and toys into more capital intensive ones such as ships, construction equipment, smartphones and cars.

Finally, in the purely short term, the present global economy conforms to economic theory showing that investment fluctuates more than consumption, and it is investment downturns which therefore create economic recessions. The latest data shows in developed economies fixed investment is nearly 10% below its peak and has been declining since the first quarter of 2012. China’s ability to counter such threats by an investment stimulus program is therefore a sign of the strength of its economy, not a weakness. It is this ability to control and raise investment which determined that China’s economy continued to grow rapidly, while the sharp decline of investment in the developed economies led to their stagnation or renewed recession.

Consequently, rather than China’s government’s policies sacrificing the long term strength of the economy to short term expedients, the stimulus launched from summer 2012 integrates both short and long term considerations in economic development. This is why the majority of predictions for growth in China’s economy in 2013, from both Chinese and the majority of international experts, are for a further speed up in GDP growth to more than 8% - the World Bank’s 8.4% being fairly typical.

The main dangers to China’s growth in 2013 are therefore not domestic but those from external weakness in developed economies. The latest prediction by the World Bank for growth in 2013 is 1.9% in the US, 0.8% in Japan and -0.1% in the Euro Area. For this reason the World Bank’s overall projection for global growth is a low 2.4% in 2013.

Naturally China, as the world’s second largest economy, and the world’s largest goods exporter, cannot isolate itself from world economic trends. If the world economy slows in 2013 China is likely to slow, and if the world economy accelerates China’s economy is likely to speed up. But whatever the short term ups and downs China will continue to enjoy its 6-7% growth lead over the developed economies.

In regard to the medium term a major turning point in world history is being approached. The IMF projects that, in comparable price levels, that is parity purchasing powers, China will overtake the US to become the world’s largest economy in 2017. At market prices China will overtake the US to become the world’s largest economy a few years later. Exactly when the latter transition will take place depends on the assumption on exchange rates, with 2019-20 being the most central date. To be safe it may be said China will become the world’s largest economy ‘within 10 years’. Given the short time scale, unless China’s economy slows very drastically and very quickly this transition is inevitable.

No one alive has ever lived in a world in which the US was not the largest economy – it gained that position in approximately 1870. It is, among other reasons, because it is mentally difficult for humans to adjust to the new and never experienced that constant theories are put forward that China’s economy must be about the slow substantially. But, for the reasons already outlined, China will maintain its rapid economic growth. That is 2013’s realistic economic perspective.

* * *

An earlier shorter version of this article appeared in China Daily.

China's economy speeds up

China's economy in 2012 was "a tale of two halves": In the first six months slowdown, even a feeling of developing crisis; in the second half recovery and accelerating growth. The story therefore had a happy ending. But it is worth noting what went wrong in the first half, and how it was corrected in the second, as this contains lessons for the future.

The initial problem in early 2012 was simple. China's economic policy makers underestimated the problems in the developed economies. China's official prediction of 10 percent export increase in 2012 could not be achieved without significant growth in developed markets. This did not materialize – the US economy grew slowly while Japan and the EU's fell into a new decline. Consequently, as is now officially stated, 2012's export target will not be achieved.

This itself was not an extremely serious error. It is impossible in economics, due to the enormous number of variables involved, to make precisely accurate predictions, only orders of magnitude can be accurately predicted. The undershoot in export growth in 2012 will not be enormous. To compensate for international demand being weaker than predicted China required a domestic economic stimulus. It was here that a much more serious problem initially arose.

Early in 2012 the World Bank produced a report arguing that China's state should "get out" of the economy – something clearly going against a new state stimulus program. Supporters of such neo-liberal policies in China, for example Lang Xianping, launched a campaign arguing that a stimulus program was futile and that China faced terrible economic depression. Western authors such as Nouriel Roubini advanced less extreme versions of the same analysis.

Such "the state must get out of the economy" neo-liberal policies have produced economic disaster where they have been pursued in countries as diverse as Europe, Latin America and Russia. I warned in this column in March that such policies would damage China's economy.

By summer 2012 the damaging consequences of state failure to intervene were clear. In May annual fixed asset investment growth fell to 20.1 percent, the lowest level for a decade. In August the yearly increase in industrial production declined to 8.9 percent, from 11.4 percent in January. In the same month industrial company profit fell 6.2 percent year on year. A sense of malaise, even elements of crisis, was evident during the first half of the year under the impact of policies which reflected neo-liberal opposition to state intervention.

Fortunately from mid-year policy changed, creating the happy economic ending to the year. In late May Premier Wen Jiabao announced growth must receive more support. An infrastructure investment program that grew to US$157 billion was launched. Theoretical support to the new stimulus was given by former World Bank Chief Economist and Vice President Lin Yifu – who specifically stressed an investment based stimulus package was preferable to a consumer based one.

These policies meant the state "getting back" into the economy – not in the sense of trying to administer it, but in that of setting the overall investment level. Such policies are familiar in either Chinese economic analysis stemming from Deng Xiaoping or Western ones coming from accurate reading of Keynes. Premier Wen Jiabao also turned the economic tables, explicitly justifying not only the 2012 stimulus but the earlier one in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

The stimulus package launched in mid-2012 was rightly of a much smaller scale than 2008's. In 2008 the world economy plunged downwards in the greatest economic decline since 1929. A huge stimulus was necessary to guard against downturn on such a scale – particularly under conditions where not only was there severe existing global recession but also further downside risks. The 2008 scale of stimulus, US$586 billion, was to guarantee China's economy was not dragged into global downturn.

But in 2012 there was stagnation, not sharp decline, in the advanced economies. China's required stimulus was therefore much smaller – a program on 2008's scale would have been highly undesirable in overheating the economy in these different circumstances. The announced infrastructure stimulus in 2012 was approximately one third of 2008's. But the state was "stepping into" the economy on an appropriate scale.

The correctness of these policies was shown rapidly. By November the investment decline had reversed – the annual increase in fixed asset investment rising to 20.7 percent. The same month year on year industrial production accelerated to 10.1 percent. Industrial company profits began to grow – rising to a 20.5 percent yearly increase in October and 22.8 percent in November. Profits growth in October and November was so strong that it turned the 1.8 percent yearly decline in January-September into a 3.0 percent increase in January-November. While GDP growth for the 4th quarter 2012 will not be available until later it would be highly astonishing, given these trends, if it were not higher than the 3rd quarter of 2012's 7.4 percent.

What are the conclusions, and what are 2013's perspectives? It showed, as always, the disastrous consequences of neo-liberal opposition to appropriate state intervention in the economy. A moderate problem facing China, lower than anticipated growth in developed economies, and consequently somewhat slower than anticipated export growth, became a significant crisis due to opposition to appropriate state intervention. However once policies were corrected, and appropriate investment stimulus policy measures adopted, all the advantages of China's economic structure came into play. Within a few months China's economy was recovering with an impetus that is strong enough that it will clearly continue into 2013.

China's difference to Western economies is that once the appropriate economic policy response is decided it has structures to deliver it. The Chinese state has sufficient levers that it can set an overall investment level in the way that Deng Xiaoping or Keynes considered necessary. This created rapid economic recovery in the second half of 2012. In contrast the Western economies have no structures to set the overall investment level. The latter remains purely in private hands – something Keynes explicitly warned would create crisis.

In the Western economies, to attempt to reverse the decline in fixed investment which is the core of the Great Recession, governments are reduced to running huge, ultimately unsustainable, budget deficits or flooding the economy with money – symbolized by the various quantitative easing programs in the US and hyperexpansionary monetary policies now followed by the European Central Bank and Japan's central bank. These have failed both to reverse the investment decline in developed economies while threatening other states in the global economy with inflation and currency fluctuations due to this excessive monetary expansion. China's policies ensure its own investment does not decline, thereby generating economic growth, while not pumping excessive monetary stimulus into the global economy.

Provided the policies which brought China's economy success in the second half of 2012 are continued, its economy's prospects for 2013 are clear. China's economy in the 2nd half of 2012 was on an upward trajectory shown clearly by upward shifts in profitability. As this was still growing it will clearly continue into the first half of 2013. Projections of accelerated growth for the first half of 2013, compared to 2012, therefore appear well founded.

During the course of 2013 external conditions will have to be reviewed to see if the existing domestic stimulus is sufficient – theoretically the domestic stimulus could be reduced if export conditions significantly improve, or it could be accelerated further if external conditions deteriorate. But 2013's basic dynamic is that China will grow much more rapidly than other major economies, due to its structural strength and its much superior mechanisms for dealing with economic downturns which 2012 again demonstrated.

*   *   *

This article originally appeared on China.org.cn.

Note to neo-liberals: Earth orbits the sun

The following article originally appeared in China Daily Europe.

*   *   *

 

In the next 15 years one of the greatest turning points in world history can occur. In five to seven years China will become the world's largest economy. In about 15 years China will achieve the annual $12,000 GDP per capita qualifying it as a developed economy by World Bank criteria. China is so large that these events will change the world. For example, China's 1.3 billion population is larger than the combined 1.1 billion of all existing developed economies.

But these successes are not inevitable. China has enjoyed tremendous economic achievements since 1978, experiencing in the last decade the fastest per capita GDP growth in any major economy in history, and the fastest growth of consumption in a large country. It achieved this because it followed economic policies laid out by Deng Xiaoping from 1978. But now an attempt is being made by some to divert China onto an economic path, neo-liberalism, which has failed wherever it has been carried out. Examining the factual record of neo-liberal policy shows the scale of what is at stake both for China and internationally.

Neo-Liberal policies were applied in Latin America in the 1980s. The result was that Latin America's per capita GDP fell by an average 0.5 percent a year for 10 years.

In the former Soviet Union neo-liberal shock therapy, based on full privatization, was carried out after 1991. Russia's GDP fell 36 percent, the greatest decline of a major economy in peacetime in modern world history. Russia's male life expectancy fell by four years, to only 58, by 1998 and Russia's population today is 7 million less than it was in 1991.

Neo-liberal policies in the US instigated under Ronald Reagan led to the colossal accumulation of debt that culminated in the international financial crisis of 2008. During the earlier Keynesian period of US economic policy, lasting from the end of the Korean War (1950-53) until 1980, US state debt fell from 70 percent to 37 percent of GDP. During the succeeding neo-liberal period US state debt rose to 88 percent of GDP by last year. Over the same period the 10-year moving average of annual US GDP growth fell from 3.3 percent to 1.6 percent. Under neo-liberal policies US state debt more than doubled, and US economic growth halved.

Given neo-liberalism's disastrous record, which is even starker when compared with China's growth, how can anyone advocate that China adopt such a failed policy? The answer is that intellectually this can be done only by making no reference to economic facts or by falsifying them. An example of the latter is the assertion that China's investment is less efficient than that of economies such as the US when the facts show the opposite. Even before the international financial crisis China had to invest only 4.1 percent of GDP to produce each percentage point of economic growth, compared with the 8.8 percent in the US. Since the financial crisis the US position has worsened.

Neo-liberalism fails as economic policy because it refuses to follow science's first rule of starting with the facts, or, in the famous Chinese phrase, it refuses to "seek truth from facts". Rather in the style of pre-Copernican astronomers who insisted that the sun orbited the Earth, because they failed to make measurements showing the Earth circles the sun, neo-liberals construct models of an economy that does not exist. They imagine an economy made up of millions of competitive firms (technically "perfect competition"), in which prices are flexible downward as well as upward, and in which investment is a low percentage of the economy. The real economy is nothing like this.

The scale of investment has been rising for 300 years to levels of 20 percent, or even more than 40 percent, of GDP. Huge financial structures were necessarily created to centralize the resources for this. Banks now agreed to be "too big to fail", and which therefore cannot be allowed to operate in a free market without incentivizing uncontrollable risk taking. Due to this high investment the world's most important industries - automobiles, aviation, computers, finance, pharmaceuticals - do not operate according to "perfect competition" but are monopolies or oligopolies. As neo-liberalism does not correspond to economic reality its policies are necessarily damaging.

For this reason, even when not fully adopted, neo-liberalism's influence damages China's economy. For example, early this year severe negative pressure on China's economy occurred due to a downturn in the global economy driven by a fall in private investment. However, due to the influence of neo-liberal views, that the State should "get out" of the economy, the necessary stimulus to counter this was not launched early enough. Fortunately, in the second half of the year, China's government launched a required medium-scale State-led investment stimulus that stabilized the economy during the third quarter and should now lead to accelerated growth.

The consequences for the popularity of those implementing neo-liberal policies, and for social stability, are also clear. For example in Britain David Cameron launched the Big Society, the concept that the state should be small and be replaced in social protection by the market and voluntary organizations. But factual evidence shows that pure operation of the market increases, not decreases, social inequality and fails to provide social protection. The result under Cameron was sharply rising social inequality, ridiculing of his policies even by those not associated with the political opposition, and a collapse in the government's popularity.

In China, where there is a widespread consensus that in the recent period social inequality has gone too far, and which due to size is more difficult to govern than any European state, to embark on neo-liberal policies, which would inevitably increase inequality, would not only be economically damaging but socially and politically destabilizing.

However, neo-liberalism is not just an intellectual theory. Many people profit from it. In the US most of those in the finance sector who led its economy to disaster in 2008 retain the private wealth gained from neo-liberal policies.

Two groups of people would gain from neo-liberalism in China, and therefore support it. The first are some financial layers in the country. The second are US neo-con circles that aim to maintain the US as the world's largest economy despite remorseless arithmetic showing this is impossible.

The population of the US is only 23 percent of China's. The only way the US could remain the world's largest economy is if China's per capita GDP, and by implication its living standards, never reaches 23 percent of US levels. Quite rightly China's population will never accept they can only have less than one quarter of the US living standard; nor in the future will India. As China's GDP per capita moves toward that of the US China's economy will become first the largest and later the strongest in the world. The only way to stop this is to sharply slow China's economic growth, neo-liberalism's disastrous consequences being the way to achieve that.

China's economic rise immensely benefits not only itself but humanity. When, in about 15 years, China achieves advanced economy status, 35 percent of the world's population, for the first time in modern history, will enjoy the benefits of this. When China has come so close not only to full national revival but to decent living standards for its people it would be one of the greatest tragedies in world history for neo-liberalism to block this.

Investment will boost China’s economy

The underlying weakness in the US, European and Japanese economies was underestimated in China’s forecasts for 2012. The US is currently consuming more capital than it creates, while its percentage of investment in GDP is near post-World War II lows. Japan’s investment levels have declined for two decades while its savings rate has fallen. EU investment is the lowest percentage of GDP since World War II and declining. These economies cannot achieve rapid recovery under such conditions.

These structural features dictated the poor short term performance of Western economies during 2012. The EU entered a new recession with GDP still 2.1% below 2008’s peak levels. Japan’s latest GDP data shows tortoise like 0.8% annualized growth with output still 1.9% below its peak. US GDP growth decelerated from 4.1% at the end of 2011 to 1.7% in the last quarter. The US PMI fell for three months to 49.6 in August. US industrial production in the same month only rose 2.8% compared to a year previously – less than a third of China’s growth.

The problems in developed economies directly affected China. China’s 10% projected export increase in 2012 will not be achieved, helping explain why China's economy significantly decelerated in the first part of the year. GDP growth fell to 7.8 percent in the first half of the year, while August’s industrial growth declined to 8.9 percent and the official manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index fell to 49.2.

Weakness in Western economies can to a certain degree be compensated for by China’s export growth to developing countries as the latter now constitute 53% of China’s exports. But as Western economies still account for almost half China’s current global market the growth prospects for China’s exports are structurally limited. Consequently, as the great majority of analysts conclude, China’s economic expansion in the next few years must be based primarily on domestic demand. It is therefore good news for China’s economy later this year that lessons drawn by China’s economic policy makers have begun to overcome some confusions which existed earlier regarding the dynamics of China’s domestic demand. This process has been aided by policy recommendations by Lin Yifu - China’s former World Bank Senior Vice President and Chief Economist.

Problems had earlier been created in discussion of China’s economic policy by confusing ‘domestic demand’ with ‘domestic consumption’. The two are not the same. Domestic demand consists not only of domestic consumption but also domestic investment. Formulas such as the following, which were regularly used, were therefore erroneous: ‘China will not be able to rely on exports for its economic growth. Therefore, China will have to adopt a consumption-driven growth strategy.’

From the viewpoint of increasing domestic demand, China’s exports can just as much be replaced by raising China’s domestic investment as by increasing consumption. Indeed whether, and in what proportion, to expand China’s domestic demand by expanding investment or consumption is a crucial economic policy choice.

The clarity necessary on this has been highlighted by Lin Yifu and confirmed by trends in China’s economy in the first part of 2012. Lin argued that, compared with boosting consumption, encouraging investment is a more sustainable and successful path. This analysis, which is justified by factors set out in Lin’s writings on long term economic growth, was also clearly confirmed by trends in China’s economy during 2012.

Some deceleration in China’s economy was inevitable in 2012 due to negative international trends. Nevertheless this was magnified earlier in the year by errors in China’s normally surefooted economic policy which are now being overcome.

China’s economic policy during the last period took as a key aim raising consumption – i.e. living standards. This indeed should be economic policy’s aim – the target should be maximizing the sustainable rate of increase of consumption. But unfortunately this became confused with a different idea of sharply increasing the percentage of consumption in China's GDP. These two goals are actually contradictory as GDP growth, which is largely fueled by investment, underpins sustainable consumption. Sharply increasing consumption’s percentage in GDP cuts investment levels, thereby inadvertently leading to lower GDP and consequently lower consumption growth.

The practical consequences of this confusion were clear in 2012. To attempt to raise the share of consumption in China's GDP, wage increases far above the economy's growth rate were pushed through. In the most striking examples, Sichuan raised the 2012 minimum wage by 23 percent, and Shenzhen announced a 16 percent increase to the 2012 minimum wage following a 20 percent increase in 2011.

Such measures increased inflationary pressures in China’s economy and squeezed private and state company profits, helping create in the first half of 2012 a trend accurately termed ‘profitless growth’. Falling profits in turn led to investment reductions, with fixed asset growth declining from 25.0% in August 2011 to 20.2% in August 2012. Falling economic growth also reduced government tax receipts, pressuring the state budget.

This process illustrates why the phrase ‘consumer-led growth’, sometimes used in China, is fatally confused. In a market economy production does not take place because there is a demand for consumption. It only occurs if production is profitable. As profits declined in 2012 investment fell, the economy slowed, and consumption's growth rate therefore declined. The growth rate of retail sales, before adjusting for inflation, fell by 4.9 percent between December 2011 and August 2012 while the CPI fell by 2.2 percent. Real retail sales growth, the main factor in consumption, therefore fell. Predictably, attempting to sharply increase consumption's percentage in GDP led to the population’s consumption rising more slowly!

But while consumption was boosted the government initially did not use available policy tools to halt the decline in fixed investment – as shown by the fall in fixed asset formation. These policies are now being corrected. Instead of the confused formula of ‘consumer-led growth,’ Premier Wen Jiabao has rightly emphasized ‘a pattern in which economic growth is jointly driven by consumption, investment and exports.‘ A $154 billion state-stimulated investment program has been announced. These practical steps by the government are clearly broadly in line with the economic policy arguments advanced by Lin Yifu.

If China's government continues these corrections, China’s growth will stabilize and then accelerate towards the end of 2012.

*   *   *

This article originally appeared in China Daily.

Quantitative easing - US and non-US markets

An important article by Gavyn Davies on his Financial Times blog analyses the effects of US quantitative easing (QE) on bond, share and commodity markets and the relation of these to trends in the productive economy.

Gavyn Davies charts the graph in Figure 1.

Figure 1

 

His commentary is self-explanatory:

‘A quick glance at the graph suggests that equities, bonds and commodities have all been in bull market trends ever since the successive rounds of quantitative easing started. However, a closer inspection reveals that this is not in fact the case. Only bonds have been in a continuous uptrend. The behaviour of global equities and commodities can more meaningfully be split into two separate phases.

‘From the start of the recovery to the end of April 2011, both equities and commodities recorded extremely strong bull markets, with both asset classes rising by some 90 per cent.

‘Since then, however, the bull market in risk assets has fizzled out. In the second phase (shaded blue), equities have been volatile around a broadly flat trend, and commodities have actually fallen by 16 per cent from the peak, despite their recent rally. Quantitative easing has not been powerful enough, at least up to now, to restore the 2009-11 bull market.’

As regards bond markets the essentially continuous upward trend of prices noted by Gavyn Davies naturally indicates that the intended goal of QE of depressing interest rates has been achieved. As regards commodity prices he is accurate that these have not yet regained their post-financial crisis peaks reached in April 2011 – as is clear from Figure 2.

Figure 2

 

World share prices have also not significantly risen above their April 2011 post-international financial crisis highs – see Figure 3. However this graph also illustrates the sharp difference between US and non-US share price performance.

US shares have continued to advance since April 2011, more than overcoming their decline in the second half of 2011. Non-US shares have, however, fallen back from April 2011 levels.

Whereas up to April 2011 US and non-US share markets moved in the same direction, both showing recovery, since April 2011 US and non-US share markets have moved in opposite directions with the former having risen and the latter fallen.

Figure 3

 

In order to illustrate this more clearly Figure 4 shows the changes in world, US and non-US share prices since 31 March 2011. By 21 September US share prices were 9.9% above their 31 March 2011 levels whereas non-US share prices were 9.2% below them.

Figure 4

 

These contrary trends in US and non-US share prices naturally don't contradict Gavyn Davies’s fundamental argument. But they highlight an important trend within its overall framework.

US QE policies have been accompanied by, almost certainly caused, a significant and continuing rise in US share prices which continued after April 2011. But US QE policies have been accompanied since April 2011 by a fall in non-US share prices. Any analysis of trends in world markets must take into account and explain these divergent trends.

It is also unlikely that the explanation can simply be more rapid economic growth in the US compared to other economies . Despite some recent slowdowns emerging economies have grown significantly more rapidly than the US, but emerging economy share prices have performed significantly worse than the US – Figure 5. Whereas emerging economy share prices have fallen by 14.2% since 31 March 2011 US shares have risen by 9.9%.

Figure 5

 

The Federal Reserve could, therefore, argue that it has created a ‘wealth effect’ within the US through QE – US house prices have also stabilised and then risen slightly this year. However the data from commodity markets and non-US share markets indicates no such effect has been created by QE outside the US.

Whether US QE has contributed to the negative trends in non-US economies, as countries such as Brazil have argued, would of course requires a separate article. The distinction between US and non-US markets is however relatively clear.

Misanalysis in China of Europe’s economic crisis

The following article originally appeared in Beijing Times.

* * *

This week Greece’s Prime Minister Samaras met, and publicly argued, with German Chancellor Merkel over the EU’s latest attempt to solve the Greek economic crisis. Given that earlier misunderstandings in China of the dynamics of Europe’s crisis have damaged its own economy it is therefore important that a correct assessment is made of this new stage in Europe.

The reason China was previously damaged by a wrong analysis was that the seriousness of Europe’s economic crisis was considerably underestimated. By July 2012 China’s exports to the EU had declined by 16% in a year – easily the most serious blow to China’s exporters. Yet a year previously few analysts in China were predicting such negative European trends.

The reason for this widespread underestimation of the seriousness of the situation was that many analysts in China supported austerity policies being pursued in Europe and rejected the alternative proposal for European governments to launch economic stimulus programs. As most European governments were following austerity, and austerity was considered the correct policy, such Chinese analysts concluded Europe’s crisis would be overcome.

However the results clearly show that Europe’s austerity policies have worsened the situation and analysts who supported Europe’s austerity policies were dangerously mistaken.

To assess accurately Europe’s real economic dynamics, and their consequences for China, first the overall results of the different policies pursued internationally to deal with the financial crisis can be summarized and then the situation in individual European countries analyzed.

Internationally three types of policies were adopted in response to the financial crisis:

· The EU combined loose monetary policy with no stimulus to the productive economy – the ‘austerity’ approach. The outcome is that EU GDP is 2.1% below its peak of four years ago and Europe is in ‘double dip’ recession.

· The US combined loose monetary policy with a stimulus to consumer spending via a large budget deficit. The outcome is that average annual US GDP growth in the last four and a half years is only 0.4%

· China combined loose monetary policy with an investment focused stimulus to the productive economy. China’s GDP grew by more than 40% in four years.

The EU’s ‘austerity’ policy was therefore easily the least successful approach to dealing with the financial crisis. This is further confirmed by analyzing the individual EU countries committed to austerity. In the UK, where Cameron’s government voluntarily implemented the policy, GDP is 4.5% below its peak output and the UK is in a new recession. Considering countries which adopted austerity as a condition for bailouts, Ireland’s economy is 8.8% below its peak, Portugal’s GDP is 5.2% below its peak and has been declining for two years; Spain’s economy is 4.7% below its peak and is in a new recession, while in Greece the economy has contracted by 13.0%.

Given these dreadful economic results analysts in China should realize support for Europe’s austerity policies was mistaken. Instead they should hope European leaders will initiate an EU wide economic stimulus. As Greece is clearly too small to launch this, a stimulus must be started by the main European economies. International experience confirms such a stimulus will be more effective if concentrated on investment, as in China, rather than on consumption as in the US. If neither stimulus is launched then China must prepare for a long drawn out European crisis with negative consequences for China’s economy.

China has the fastest growth rate of consumption of any major economy in the world

One of the most stupid economic claims, sometimes recycled even in economic and financial media which should know better, is that China has a slow rate of growth of consumption. On the contrary China has the fastest rate of growth of consumption of any major economy in the world.

The data for the latest 10 year period for which data exists is set out in the table below. Only Russia comes close to matching China’s increase in consumption in that period. China’s rate of growth of consumption is sixty per cent higher than India's, three times as fast as South Korea's and approximately ten times as fast as the main G7 economies.

What the world economy should learn from China

I have a new article at the Guardian's Comment is Free analysing China's economic success both during the international financial crisis and in general since since 1978. It analyses the theoretical bases of China's economic policies in terms of both Chinese and Keynesian economic theory. The article starts: 

'Few things better illustrate the difference between the state of China's economy and that of the rest of the world than the fact that its newly announced GDP growth figures of 7.6% were analysed as a "slowdown". In any other major economy this would have been considered blistering growth threatening overheating. Instead, it is clear China has room for further stimulus measures in the second half of the year.

'Indeed, as the international financial crisis has unfolded, there have been few starker contrasts than those between China, the US and the EU. Europe has combined loose monetary policy with little or no stimulus to the productive economy – the "austerity" approach. The result has been that the EU's economy shrank by 2% over four years – the UK's shrank by 4.4%. The US has combined loose monetary policy with a consumer stimulus delivered via the budget deficit. The result? The US economy has grown by 1.2% in four years. India, which followed the US model of a budget deficit delivering a consumer stimulus, saw its growth decline from 9.4% in the first quarter of 2010 to 5.3% in the first quarter of 2012.

'Meanwhile China, which combined expansionary monetary policy with an investment-led stimulus, has experienced more than 9% annual average growth throughout the four years of the financial crisis.'

The rest of the article can be found here.

 

To get out of its economic crisis Europe needs to learn from China

Four years into the international financial crisis, it is clear that the economic policies followed in Europe to deal with it have failed to do so. For a long time, there was a refusal to examine the real facts of Europe's economic situation and take the appropriate policy measures. Once Europe does start to analyse its economic problems correctly, however, it will see that it has a lot to learn from China. Naturally this does not mean that Europe can mechanically copy China's approach, but there are important trends which Europe can study.

The fundamental trends in Europe's economy are illustrated in Figure 1. This shows the changes in different components of the European Union (EU)'s GDP since the first quarter of 2008 – the peak of the last business cycle and immediately before the onset of the financial crisis. It may be seen that the negative trend in the EU economy is entirely dominated by its fall in investment. The EU's trade balance has improved during the financial crisis, government consumption has risen, and the fall in personal consumption is relatively small. But the fall in fixed investment is huge, amounting to 150 percent of the total decline in GDP. This fall far more than offsets the performance in other economic sectors. The economic situation in Europe is therefore entirely dominated by this investment fall.

Figure 1

 

After four years of failing to look at the real situation, an identification of this actual core problem in Europe's economy is beginning to emerge. European Parliament President Martin Shulz recently wrote on Europe's crisis: "…what is to be done? First, targeted investment should be given priority." José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, and Olli Rehn, the European commissioner charged with dealing with the euro crisis, have now said it is likely that EU leaders will agree next month to increase the capital of the European Investment Bank by €10bn ($13 billion), which could be used as collateral to start large infrastructure "pilot projects" on a pan-European scale.

These policy changes, while a step in the right direction, are too small to turn the situation around. The EU is a US$16 trillion economy. The idea that a $13 billion program, only 0.06 per cent of the EU GDP, can offset the US$343 billion decline in EU investment since the first quarter of 2008 is clearly unrealistic.

The European Commission admits that there is €82 billion (US$106 billion) in unused structural funds in the EU's medium-term budget. This could theoretically be used to tackle the investment decline. But firstly, even the use of this entire sum is less than one third of the decline in investment which has taken place in Europe. Secondly, national governments have not yet agreed that these funds can be used for a European investment program.

Therefore four years after the beginning of the crisis, EU governments are beginning to discuss the right issues, but the practical measures they are proposing are still much too small to deal with the scale of problems that Europe faces.

The difference with China can be seen clearly in Figure 2, which shows the results of the stimulus program launched by China in 2008 to counter the international financial crisis. This stimulus program directly targeted raising investment – in particular infrastructure and now housing. The results are evident. Far from falling sharply, as in Europe and the US, China's investment rose. Consequently, compared to the situation on the eve of the financial crisis, China's economy expanded by over 40 per cent in four years compared to growth of 1 per cent in the US and a contraction of 2 per cent in Europe. China's stimulus program was $586 billion, or about 13 per cent of China's 2008 GDP – the majority part directly targeted investment.

Figure 2

 

China's stimulus, in terms of proportion of GDP, is equivalent to a program of US$2 trillion in the EU today. An investment program on that scale would be substantially too large in the EU at present – the situation is not as critical as in 2008. Nevertheless it is only necessary to compare this number to the $13 billion discussed by EU commissioners today, to see how inadequate is the scale of the proposed EU response to the present situation.

Jens Weidman, president of Germany's Bundesbank, has complained about the lack of policy tools available in Europe: "Now that fiscal stimulus has reached the bounds of feasibility in many countries, monetary policy is often seen as the 'last man standing'…However…contrary to widespread belief, monetary policy is not a panacea and central banks' firepower is not unlimited." But Weidman's conclusion exists only because Europe, somewhat arrogantly, refuses to study the country which passed most successfully through the international financial crisis – China.

Two years ago I wrote: "The dispute… between the US and Europe over'economic stimulus' versus 'deficit reduction' convincingly demonstrates the superiority of China's system of macro-economic regulation. China has faced no similar dilemma. It has simultaneously carried out the world's biggest economic stimulus package while running a budget deficit which is entirely sustainable – under 3 percent of GDP. China has therefore not had to face the choice between continuing fiscal economic stimulus measures and placing the priority on budget consolidation."

This remains the key problem. Unless Europe is prepared to grasp the nettle of a large "China style" program, one based on state-led investment, Europe is likely to face, at best, years of economic stagnation.

China's authorities have always rightly clarified that it is not arguing for its economy to be a model for others. It rightly insists every country is specific and therefore no country can or should mechanically copy another. But nevertheless China learned many things from other countries. For its own sake, Europe should start to learn from China

*   *   *

This is an edited version of an article which originally appeared at China.org.cn.

Analysing China's new 3.6% inflation data and its implications for the world economy

This blog has frequently drawn attention to the extremely close correlation between China’s consumer inflation (CPI) trends and world commodity prices – Figure 1. It is world commodity prices, rather than monetary data, which provides the best indicator of China’s inflation trends. In that light how is China’s 3.6% CPI figure for March to be analysed? As China’s inflation trend is a major determinant of China’s ability, or otherwise, to pursue expansionary economic policies this is a major issue not only for that country but for the world economy.

Figure 1

 

It is evident China’s CPI is not powerful enough to drive world commodity prices. The correlation between the two indicators therefore necessarily shows either, or both, that world commodity prices determine China’s CPI shifts, or more probably that some third factor, for example overall global economic trends, determines both. In either case China’s CPI would be expected to follow trends in global commodity prices.

In that light China’s 3.6% CPI for March is not particularly surprising. Despite the monthly increase from 3.2% in February the overall downward trend in China’s inflation continues – Figure 2. The 3.6% CPI figure in March is a decline of almost half since the 6.5% peak in July 2011 and is within the government’s 4.0% target.

Figure 2

 

The fact that March saw an upward tick within a descending trend of China’s inflation is in line with the fact that, as this blog has analysed, world commodity prices stopped falling between December and the end of March – Figure 3. This, as was noted here, was likely to slow the decline of China’s inflation rate and therefore the March figure was not highly surprising. What is significant, however, is that late in March and so far in April a new downturn in international commodity prices started, probably under the impact of softening in the global economy – Figure 3. If that downturn continues then, as analysed here, it would be expected that China’s CPI would start to decline again.

Figure 3

 

Therefore, to have a perspective on China’s economy, world commodity prices and China’s CPI in April must be watched closely. If global commodity price changes continue their downwards trend it would also be anticipated, on the basis of existing trends, that China’s CPI will also fall – creating further room for expansionary policies. If world commodity prices were to fall, but China’s CPI did not, it would indicate that existing correlations between global commodity prices and China’s CPI no longer held.

April will therefore be a significant month not only for China’s economy but for the theoretical analysis of it.

Commodity price falls suggest global economic slowdown but good news for China's inflation

After stability from December to March world commodity prices have started falling again - Figure 1. This indicates global economic softening but good news for China’s inflation and therefore increased possibilities for China’s economic policy to adopt an expansionary approach.

Figure 1

 

Looking at the trends in greater detail, world commodity prices fell sharply during the second half of 2011. The Dow Jones-UBS spot commodity index fell from a year on year increase of 46.4% in June 2011 to a fall of minus 7.8% in December 2011. However then until mid-March 2012 no further decline occurred. As China’s consumer price index (CPI) is highly correlated with global commodity prices this raised the danger that inflationary pressures in China had ceased lessening - with negative consequences for the ability of China to undertake expansionary economic policies.

However during the latter part of March and the beginning of April 2012 commodity prices resumed their year on year fall. By 5 April the Dow Jones-UBS spot commodity index had fallen 12.9% below its level a year previously.

As commodity prices are an extremely sensitive and up to date indicator of global economic conditions two conclusions may be drawn from this.

• Global economic conditions may be softening – which would be in line with the latest unfavourable US jobs report for example.
• A decline in global commodity prices will significantly reduce inflationary pressures in China – creating more space for expansionary economic policies.

Because of the significance of such trends further development of world commodity prices must be be watched closely.

Globalization not protectionism remains the main trend in the world economy

Protectionist measures by the US government have received considerable publicity. These include tariffs against China's solar panel exports, the dispute over rare earths, a bill against "subsidized" exports passed by both houses of the US Congress and other steps.

These measures are real. But it is also important not to exaggerate them. Protectionism is not the main trend in the global economy. This is shown both by factual economic trends and considering the underlying forces at work. Protectionist measures affect trade at the margins but do not alter the core of world trade which continues to expand.

To show this first consider the facts. The volume of world trade fell severely during the international financial crisis, declining by 19.7 percent between April 2008 and May 2009. But it then more than recovered. According to the latest available data, by January 2012 the volume of world trade was 4.8 percent above pre-crisis levels - Figure 1.

Figure 1

 

After the financial crisis US imports fell sharply, from 15.7 percent of GDP in the third quarter of 2008 to 10.6 percent of GDP in the second quarter of 2009, but then recovered to 14.8 percent of GDP by the fourth quarter of 2011.

Regarding relations between China and the US, frequently seen as the main area of protectionism, in dollar terms China's exports to the US rose 22 percent between their pre-crisis peak in September 2008 and the same month in 2011, well above the 15.4 percent increase to the EU, and not far behind the 27 per cent increase to Japan. In short, US post-financial crisis trends showed trade recovery, not deepening protectionism. Nor was protectionist actions even the main trend in trade between the US and China.

Claims that protectionism is the dominant trend in the world economy are therefore factually exaggerated, and take individual developments out of context without examining their overall weight.

Analysis of fundamental economic forces confirms why protectionism is not the main trend. Modern production is on such a large scale that it cannot find an adequate market for its volume of production, at efficient levels, purely within a national economy. That is why, for example, China's reform and opening-up was necessary, but exactly the same pressures affect the US.

Even in 1929 serious retreat into protectionism led to disastrous economic decline and crisis, culminating in economic and political destabilization of all countries and finally world war. Today, when production is on a far larger scale than 1929, the economic results would be more catastrophic. This is why all major economies have so far rejected large-scale protectionism.

Fundamental economic analysis therefore confirms what the facts reveal, that certainly there will be some protectionist actions, but these will be at the margins, and globalization, not protectionism, will remain the main trend in the world economy.

Nor is protectionism likely to be the main instrument of US 'neo-cons' or a Republican president. US neo-cons have much experience in how to slow Asian economies. This was successfully achieved against Japan and then the South East Asian "Tiger" economies during the 1997 debt crisis. In neither case was protectionism the main weapon.

The first 'neo-con' strategy was to transfer disputes from the economic realm, where the US is gradually weakening, to the military and political fields, where the US remains much stronger.This tactic is followed in the US 'pivot' toward the Asia-Pacific region.

Within the economic realm the main methods US 'neo-cons' used were forcing other countries to overvalue their currency, forcing cuts in investment levels, which slow economies, and lower foreign inward investment to reduce technology transfer. All these methods are being attempted against China. Protectionism is not dominant in any of these methods.

Attention must certainly be paid to real protectionist measures but exaggerating the degree of protectionism is factually incorrect, not based on analysis of the world economy's main forces, and fails to identify the main economic tactics used by US 'neo-con' circles. 

Competition within globalization, not protectionism, is still the world economy's main trend.

*   *   *

An earlier version of this article appeared, in Chinese and English, in Global Times.

China's achievement is literally the greatest in world economic history

Economic development’s purpose is to improve the conditions of human beings. Robert Lucas put it eloquently, in frequently quoted words, examining the consequences of different rates of economic growth: ‘I do not see how one can look at these figures without seeing them as possibilities. Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the Indian economy to grow… If so, what, exactly?… The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: Once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.’

In this framework it should be stated, soberly and with due consideration, that China’s economy since 1978 is the greatest economic achievement in world history. This article shows this in the prosaic language of statistics. But of course that is not the real issue. What really counts is the consequences of this for human beings – escape from poverty, improvement in life expectancy, improved health, expanded potential for education, improvement in the position of women, and many other dimensions. Economic statistics, such as GDP per capita, simply underpin this improvement in human conditions.

The scale of China’s economic achievement

A problem in assessing the true scale of China’s economic achievement is that partial statistics are frequently used to state it. Some of these, for example that China has become the world’s second largest economy, or that it has raised 620 million people out of internationally defined poverty, are extremely striking (Quah, 2010). But nevertheless, because they are partial, they do not capture the full scope of what has occurred. Only when systematic data is used does the full magnitude of China’s achievement become clear.

Again, even when systematic comparisons are attempted, the scale of China’s economic achievement is frequently underestimated because inappropriate measures are used. For example when comparing rates of economic growth, in calculating contributions to economic welfare, it is misleading to take individual countries as the unit of comparison, rather than the proportion of world population affected – rapid economic growth in a small country evidently contributes  less to human well being than rapid growth in a large country.

In order to give an initial systematic comparison, therefore, Table 1 shows the percentage of world population affected at the point when sustained rapid growth commenced in major economies. For example the first country to experience sustained rapid economic growth was the UK in the industrial revolution - which was in a country with 2.0 per cent of the world’s population. The sustained rapid US economic growth after the Civil War was in a country with 3.3 per cent of the world’s population.

There are, of course, arguments about some additional individual countries that might be included in the comparison – for example Italy from 1950 (1.9 per cent of the world’s population) or Spain from 1960 (1.0 per cent of the world’s population). But it is evident from the data that introducing such extra countries makes no difference to the essential situation.

No other economy starting sustained rapid economic growth even approaches the 22.3 per cent of the world’s population in China in 1978 at the beginning of its new economic policies. For comparison Japan’s rapid post-World War II growth was in a country with 3.3 per cent of the world’s population, and the growth of the four Asian ‘Tigers’ (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) was in economies with only 1.4 per cent of the world’s population.

Only India’s sustained economic growth after the late 1980s, in a country with 16 per cent of the world’s population, even begins to approach China’s achievement in scale, but the percentage of the world population affected is still lower than China’s, as is India’s growth rate.

Table 1

 

Introducing the necessary correction of population size also makes clear that the method sometimes utilised of ranking by country size is misleading. To see why it need only be noted that, if current exchange rates are used, on the World Bank tables for 2010, the latest year for which comprehensive statistics are available, 87 of the countries for which data was available have a higher GDP per capita than China and 83 had a lower. This appears to place China about half way up the list of world rankings. As when the People’s Republic of China was created in 1949, or economic reform was launched in 1978, China was one of the world’s most economically underdeveloped countries this might appear a quite good performance, but it wholly understates China’s achievement.

The reason is that ranking by country takes no account of relative population. For example among the countries above China are the Seychelles, Palau, St Kitts and Nevis, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda – all with a population of less than 100,000. If the real international position of China is to be assessed then, again, size of population must be taken into account. Figure 1 below, therefore, shows the percentages of world population living in countries with GDP per capita above and below China and shows the real proportions of China’s economic achievement.

In 1978 countries containing only 0.5 per cent of the world’s population had a GDP per capita below China’s, while 73.5 per cent had a higher one – China itself accounted for 25.9 per cent of the world’s population for which data was available. By 2010, using the same measure, the percentage of the world’s population living in countries with a higher GDP per capita than China was 31.3 per cent - given the speed of increase, it is clear that when 2011’s data is published it will show that less than 30 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries with a higher GDP per capita than China.

Figure 1

 

Therefore in only slightly over thirty years China, containing more than twenty per cent of the world’s population, has moved from being one of the world’s least economically developed countries, to a position where less than one third of the world’s population lives in countries with a higher GDP per capita, and where China’s position is rising rapidly.

Checking these current price statistics against international parity purchasing powers (PPPs), which takes into account different price levels in different countries, confirms the same result. Measured by PPPs in 1980, the first year for which World Bank data is available, only 1.3 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries with lower GDP per capita than China and 73.0 per cent in countries with a higher one. By 2010 only 31.5 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries with a higher GDP per capita than China.

Another way of measuring is to compare China to the rest of the world’s population. To do this, the best measure is not the average as, for well known statistical reasons, averages covering wide ranges are excessively affected by small numbers of extreme values. This is confirmed very clearly by world data. Only 25 per cent of the world’s population has a GDP per capita above the global average and 75 per cent have one below it. A better, and the standard, measure of incomes is to make a comparison to the median – the exact mid-point.

In 1978 China’s GDP per capita was only 42 per cent of the median for the rest of the world’s population. By 2010 China’s GDP per capita was 289 per cent of the median.

That since 1978 China, with more than one fifth of the world’s population, has moved from being one of the poorest countries in the world to a situation where less than one third of the world’s population has a higher GDP per capita is without historical precedent. Never before in human history has such a large proportion of the world’s population advanced so rapidly.

A number of conclusions clearly follow from the above data – in addition to the obvious one of simply recognising this as a fact of economic history. But for now it need simply be noted, soberly and with due measure, that China’s is quite literally the greatest economic achievement in world history.

*   *   *

An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared, in English and Chinese, in Global Times.

Notes

Deng Xiaoping and John Maynard Keynes

 

 

Introduction

The international importance of China’s economy is twofold. The first is practical - the scale of China’s economic growth, its global impact, and the consequences for the improvement of the social conditions of China and the world’s population. The second is theoretical, including the potential international applicability of conclusions drawn from China’s economic policies.

Regarding the latter it is necessary to clearly state that no country can mechanically copy another. As China’s political leaders and economic theorists stress its economy has unique ‘Chinese characteristics’. This was formulated as a cardinal principle by the initiator of China's economic reform, Deng Xiaoping: ‘To accomplish modernization of a Chinese type, we must proceed from China’s special characteristics.’ (Deng, 30 March 1979) Therefore China must: ‘blaze a path of our own.’ (Deng, 21 August 1985). As recently reiterated by Justin Yifu Lin, Chinese Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank: ‘we can never be too careful when it comes to the application of a foreign theory, because with different preconditions, no matter how trivial they seem, the result can be very different.’ (Lin, 2012, pp. 66 - emphasis in the original) In that sense, therefore, there is no ‘Chinese model’. However as Lin simultaneously states: ‘Some may think that the performance of a country as unique as China, with more than 1.3 billion people, cannot be replicated. I disagree. Every developing country can have similar opportunities to sustain rapid growth for several decades and reduce poverty dramatically if it exploits the benefits of backwardness, imports technology from advanced countries, and upgrades its industries.’ (Lin, 2011)

There is, however, no contradiction between these different statements. The fundamental structural elements of which an economy is composed (consumption, investment, savings, primary industry, secondary industry, tertiary industry, trade, money etc.) are universal. However the particular way in which these elements combine and are interrelated in any economy is unique and entirely specific both in place and time – which is why no country can copy another’s economic policy, while it can learn from other economies. As analysed below, China has solved in practice problems stated in general macro-economic theory. For that reason such elements, in very different forms and combinations, are of major importance for economic policy elsewhere. However the specific forms and combinations in which such policies are applied are entirely unique both in each country and at different points in time.

The practical impact of China’s economic rise have been considered extensively elsewhere.¹ The focus of this article is on the theoretical economic issues. In particular it aims to relate China’s economic performance to Western economic theory which will be more familiar to most readers.

China and macro-economic theory in Keynesian and Marxist terms

China’s ‘reform and opening up’ process under Deng Xiaoping was, of course, formulated in a Marxist economic framework. It can indeed be clearly outlined in those terms – see the appendix below, for a more detailed account of Chinese discussions on these issues see (Hsu, 1991), but an alternative statement in Western economic terms, those of Keynes, is considered here.

Stated briefly in Marxist terms, China’s reform policy included a critique of Soviet economic policy that this had made the error of confusing the ‘advanced’ stage of socialism/communism, in which the regulation of the economy is ‘for need’, and therefore not market regulated, with the socialist, or more precisely ‘primary’ developing stage of socialism, during which the transition from capitalism to an advanced socialist economy takes place and in which market regulation takes place. This transition should be conceived as extending over a prolonged period. The final formulation arrived at was that China’s was a ‘socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics’. Contrary to suggestions by some writers, for example (Hsu, 1991), such an analysis is in line with Marx’s own writings although, as shown below, it is not necessary to be a Marxist understand it - a more detailed analysis is given in the appendix.

This debate was framed in Chinese terms, without primary reference to previous economic theory in other countries other than Marx himself. The approach, in a Chinese phrase emphasised by Deng, was to ‘seek truth from facts’ (Deng, 2 June 1978). In practical terms in China, such analysis meant abandonment of an administratively planned economy and substitution of a market economy in which the state would control certain key macroeconomic parameters. In terms of ownership it led to ‘Zhuada Fangxiao’ – maintaining large state firms and releasing small ones to the non-state/private sector.

Restatement of Chinese economic policy in terms of Keynesian economics

Most people in the US and Europe are unaware of, or disagree with, Marxist economic categories. To make the essential economic policies clear, therefore, this article will put them in more familiar terms of Western economics – those of Keynes. The proviso is that this is the actual Keynes of The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money - not the vulgarised version in economics textbooks. Geoff Tily’s Keynes Betrayed (Tily, 2007) is one of the best in a series of works outlining the difference between the two. However, there is no substitute for reading Keynes General Theory itself, which differs sharply from the presentation of what is frequently presented as ‘Keynesian’ economics. For example, budget deficits play only a secondary role in both Keynes General Theory and in China’s stimulus packages – even during 2009’s maximum anti-crisis measures China’ s budget deficit was only 3% of GDP. The core of Keynes’ General Theory itself, unlike vulgarisations, centres on factors determining investment. It is therefore through this optic that both Keynes and Chinese economic strategy can be best approached.

The rising proportion of the economy devoted to investment

In the founding work of classical economics, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith identified division of labour as the fundamental force raising productivity, stating as the opening sentence of the first chapter: ‘The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is any where directed, or applied, seems to have been the effects of the division of labour.’ (Smith, 1776, p. 13) Smith concluded that a necessary consequence of the increasing division of labour was that the proportion of the economy devoted to investment rose with economic development: ‘accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, so labour can be more and more subdivided in proportion only as stock is previously more and more accumulated… As the division of labour advances, therefore, in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things must be accumulated beforehand.’ (Smith, 1776, p. 277) A more comprehensive treatment of Smith’s views may be found in (Ross, 2011). Marx reached the same conclusion as Smith, concluding that the contribution of investment rose as an economy developed, which he termed the rising ‘organic composition of capital’ (Marx, 1867, p. 762).

Keynes similarly analysed that the proportion of the economy devoted to investment rose with economic development. His explanation was, however, somewhat different to Smith’s as Keynes rooted this in rising savings levels accompanying development. As the percentage of income consumed fell with increasing wealth, the proportion devoted to saving necessarily rose proportionately: ‘men are disposed… to increase their consumption as their income increases, but not by as much as the increase in their income… a higher absolute level of income will tend… to widen the gap between income and consumption.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 36) As total savings necessarily equals total investment, a rising proportion of saving therefore necessarily means a rising proportion of investment.

A necessary consequence of an increase in the proportion of the economy devoted to investment is that any investment decline will have increasingly serious consequences: ‘the richer the community, the wider will tend to be the gap between its actual and its potential production… For a poor community will be prone to consume by far the greater part of its output, so that a very modest measure of investment will be sufficient to provide full employment; whereas a wealthy community will have to discover much ampler opportunities for investment if the saving propensities of its wealthier members are to be compatible with the employment of its poorer members. If in a potentially wealthy community the inducement to invest is weak… the working of the principle of effective demand will compel it to reduce its actual output, until, in spite of its potential wealth, it has become so poor that its surplus over its consumption is sufficiently diminished to correspond to the weakness of the inducement to invest.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 31)

Failure of attempts to refute Keynes on the rising proportion of investment

In the mid-20^th century attempts were made to dispute this conclusion of classical economics, originally deriving from Smith, of a rising proportion of investment in the economy - Milton Friedman devoted a book, A Theory of the Consumption Function, to attempting to refute Keynes on this (Friedman, 1957). However modern econometrics findings are conclusive in support of Smith and Keynes and against Friedman – the definitive demonstration, as frequently on matters of long term economic growth, being given by Angus Maddison. (Maddison, 1992) Factually, as classical economics and Keynes analysed, the trend is for the proportion of the economy devoted to investment to rise. To illustrate this, Figure 1 shows the percentage of fixed investment in GDP of the leading economies of successive periods of growth over the 300-year period for which meaningful statistics exist.

Figure 1

 

A reason Friedman attempted, unsuccessfully, to refute Keynes over the rising proportion of investment in the economy is that such a trend, as will be seen, is potentially destabilising - Friedman noted: ‘the central analytical proposition of the [theoretical] structure is the denial that the long-run equilibrium position of a free enterprise economy is necessarily at full employment.’ (Friedman, 1957, p. 237)

Effective demand

There is a parallelism between Keynes’s analysis and Marx’s regarding the role of profit and investment. The latter noted that without offsetting factors, a rise in the proportion of investment in the economy would led to a falling rate of profit as a necessary consequence of a rise in capital relative to the profits stream – i.e. Increasing division of labour, through its effect in raising investment as proportion of the economy, as analysed by Smith, created a tendency to a declining rate of profit (Marx, 1894, pp. 317-375).

Keynes also approached economic fluctuations via profit: ‘The trade cycle is best regarded… as being occasioned by a cyclical change in the marginal efficiency of capital.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 313) However, Keynes specific development was to approach the potentially destabilising consequences of the rising proportion of investment in the economy via effective demand.

Effective demand is composed of both consumption and investment, with the latter, as noted, tending to rise relative to the former over time. Keynes therefore noted: ‘when aggregate real income is increased aggregate consumption is increased but not by as much as income… Thus to justify any given amount of employment there must be an amount of current investment sufficient to absorb the excess of total output over what the community chooses to consume when employment is at the given level… It follows… that given what we shall call the community’s propensity to consume, the equilibrium level of employment, i.e. the level at which there is no inducement to employers as a whole either to expand or to contract employment, will depend on the amount of current investment.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 27)

Keynes noted no automatic mechanism ensures a necessary volume of investment to maintain effective demand: ‘the effective demand associated with full employment is a special case… It can only exist when, by accident or design, current investment provides an amount of demand just equal to the excess of the aggregate supply price of the output resulting from full employment over what the community will choose to spend on consumption when it is fully employed.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 28) Put aphoristically: ‘An act of individual saving means – so to speak – a decision not to have dinner today. But it does not necessitate a decision to have dinner or buy a pair of boots a week hence or a year hence.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 210). In more technical terminology: ‘The error lies in proceeding to the … inference that, when an individual saves, he will increase aggregate investment by an equal amount.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 83)

Any investment shortfall would be amplified by the well known economic ‘multiplier’ into much stronger cyclical fluctuations: ‘It is… to the general principle of the multiplier to which we have to look for an explanation of how fluctuations in the amount of investment, which are a comparatively small proportion of the national income, are capable of generating fluctuations in aggregate employment and income so much greater in amplitude than themselves.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 122) Such fluctuations in investment, combined with consumption, in turn determined employment: ‘The propensity to consume and the rate of new investment determine between them the volume of employment.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 30)

From this analysis Keynes derived key policy conclusions.

Budget deficits

One, well known, is countering recession with budget deficits, which Keynes dealt with as ‘loan expenditure’ – vulgarisation of Keynes lies in reducing his theories to support for budget deficits, not in the fact that he supported deficit spending. Keynes noted: ‘”loan expenditure” is a convenient expression for the net borrowing of public authorities on all accounts, whether on capital account or to meet a budgetary deficit. The one form of loan expenditure operates by increasing investment and the other by increasing the propensity to consume.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 128)

Therefore, in a famous passage: ‘If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines… and leave it to private enterprise… to dig the notes up again... with the help of repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater… It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 130)

Such a view of deficit spending naturally did not mean Keynes was indifferent to what deficits should be spent on - today environmentally sustainable investment would be added to his existing list. He had scathing contempt for double standards regarding when deficits were justifiable: ‘Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars… may serve to increase wealth, if… our statesmen… stands in the way of anything better… common sense… has been apt to reach a preference for wholly “wasteful” forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict “business” principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of interest…wars have been the only form of large-scale loan expenditure which statesmen have thought justifiable.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 129)

Interest rates

While Keynes supported deficit spending, the causes of recession lay in more fundamental factors affecting investment, which in turn were affected by interest rates: ‘the succession of boom and slump can be described and analysed in terms of the fluctuations of the marginal efficiency of capital relatively to the rate of interest.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 144) This was because marginal efficiency of capital was ‘equal to the rate of discount which would make the present value of the series of annuities given by returns expected from the capital-asset during its lift just equal to its supply price.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 135) Consequently, ‘inducement to invest depends partly on the investment-demand schedule and partly on the rate of interest.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 137)

As investment was affected by interest rates, therefore, a crucial issue to maintain investment at a sufficient level to sustain effective demand was a low interest rate. This problem, in turn, tended to become more acute because of the rising proportion of the economy devoted to investment: ‘Not only is the marginal propensity to consume weaker in a wealthy community, but owing to its accumulation of capital being already larger, the opportunities for further investment are less attractive unless the rate of interest falls at a sufficiently rapid rate; which brings us to the theory of the rate of interest and… reasons why it does not automatically fall to the appropriate levels.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 31)

The aim of low interest rates was to relaunch investment by ensuring that the return on investment was above the rate of interest plus whatever was the required premium to overcome liquidity preference. But, as Keynes openly acknowledged, such low term interest rates destroy the ability to live from income from interest – which is why, in his famous phrase, Keynes foresaw ‘euthanasia of the rentier.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 376) He concluded: ‘I see… the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 376)

‘A somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’

Nevertheless, despite support for low interest rates Keynes, did not judge these would be likely by themselves to overcome the effects of an investment decline. It would therefore be necessary for the state to play a greater role: ‘Only experience… can show how far management of the rate of interest is capable of continuously stimulating the appropriate volume of investment… I am now somewhat sceptical of the success of a merely monetary policy directed towards influencing the rate of interest… I expect to see the State… taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 164) Consequently Keynes believed that regulating the level of investment would have to be undertaken by the state and not by the private sector: ‘I conclude that the duty of ordering the current volume of investment cannot safely be left in private hands.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 320) It was necessary, therefore, to aim at ‘a socially controlled rate of investment.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 325)

If, however, the state were to determine ‘the current volume of investment’ then this led Keynes to the conclusion: ‘It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 378)

Keynes noted that this ‘somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’ did not mean the elimination of the private sector, but socialised investment operating together with a private sector: ‘This need not exclude all manner of compromises and devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative… the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society… apart from the necessity of central controls to bring about an adjustment between the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest there is no more need to socialise economic life than there was before…. The central controls necessary to ensure full employment will, of course, involve a large extension of the traditional functions of government.’ (Keynes, 1936, p. 378)

The conclusion

It is now possible to clearly see the structure of Keynes’s argument. The rising proportion of the economy devoted to investment meant any downturn in the latter would have increasingly destabilising consequences. Budget deficits could deal with this to some degree, but as the key element was investment, which was determined by interaction between profits and interest rates, low interest rates was necessary. This would lead to the ‘euthanasia of the rentier’. However it was unlikely interest rates would be sufficient themselves and therefore the state would need to step in with ‘a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’ which would however work alongside a private sector.

Tracing this argument one has now arrived at a ‘Chinese’ economic structure - although approaching it via a Keynesian and not a Marxist framework. ‘Zhuada Fangxiao’, grasping large state firms and releasing small ones to the non-state/private sector, coupled with abandonment of quantitative planning, means that China’s economy is not being regulated via administrative means but by general macro-economic control, including centrally of the level of investment – as Keynes advocated.

Implications

What is the overall significance of this? Deng Xiaoping’s most famous economic statement is ‘cats theory’ – ‘it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white provided it catches mice’. But ‘cats theory’ can be applied to economics itself – it doesn’t matter whether something is described in Marxist or Western economic terms provided the same economic policies exist. ‘Zhuada Fangxiao’ may be arrived at from either a Keynesian or a Marxist framework.

But while one may be indifferent to the colour of theoretical cats it is not possible to be indifferent as regards the policy measures to be taken – steps in budget deficits, interests rates, investment etc are material and precise. Here there is a radical difference in between the US and Europe on one side and China on the other.

In the US and Europe budget deficits have been utilised – although they are under increasing attack. Low central bank interest rates have been pursued and some forms of quantitative easing, driving down long term interest rates through central bank purchases of debt, have been used. But no serious programmes of state investment have been launched – let alone Keynes’s ‘somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’.

In China, in contrast, relatively limited budget deficits have been combined with low interest rates, a state owned banking system (‘euthanasia of the rentier’) and a huge state investment programme. While the West’s economic recovery programme has been timid, China has pursued full blooded policies of the type recognisable from Keynes General Theory as well as its own ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ Why this contrast and why has China’s stimulus package been so much more successful than the West’s?

Because in the US and Europe, of course, it is held that the colour of the cat matters very much. Only the private sector coloured cat is good, the state sector coloured cat is bad. Therefore even if the private sector cat is catching insufficient mice, that is the economy is in severe recession, the state sector cat must not be used to catch them. In China both cats have been let lose – and therefore far more mice are caught.

The recession in the Western economies, as foreseen by Keynes, is driven by decline in investment – in most countries decline in fixed investment accounted for two thirds to more than ninety per cent of the GDP fall (Ross, Li, & Xu, 2010). Keynes’s calls for not only budget deficits and low interest rates but also for the state to set about ‘organising investment’ are evidently required. But this is blocked because the state coloured cat is not allowed to catch mice.

To put it another way, the US and Europe insist on participating in a race while hopping on only one leg – the private sector. China is using two legs, so little wonder it is running faster.

To turn from metaphors to economic measures, a large scale state financed house building programme, or large scale expansion of transport, of the type China is following as part of anti-crisis measures not only delivers goods that are valuable in themselves but boosts the economy through macro-economic effects in raising investment. But in the West such state investment is blocked as it creates competition for the private sector. As the top aim in the US and Europe is not to revive the economy, but to protect the private sector, therefore such large-scale investment must not be undertaken.

It is an irony. Keynes explicitly put forward his theories to save capitalism. But the structure of the US and European economies has made it impossible to implement Keynes’s policies even when confronted with the most severe recession since the Great Depression. The anti-crisis measures of China’s ‘socialist market economy’ are far closer to those Keynes foresaw that any capitalist economy. Whereas in the US, for example, fixed investment fell by over twenty five per cent during the financial crisis in China urban fixed investment rose by over thirty per cent. Consequently, there is no mystery why China’s economy has grown by 41.4 per cent in the four years since the peak of the last US business cycle, in the 4^th quarter of 2007, while the US economy has grown by 0.7 per cent.

Deng Xiaoping famously said his death was ‘going to meet Marx’. But Deng may also be having an intense talk with John Maynard Keynes. And Keynes would be interested to discuss with Deng’s two cats – who appear to have read the  General Theory more closely and accurately than any administration in the West.

Put in more prosaic terms, China’s economic structure, because it allowed ‘a socially controlled rate of investment’ and a ‘somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’, could utilise policy tools developed by Keynes but the US and European economies could not. Although Keynes explicitly wished to save capitalism it turned out that Western capitalism could not use his tools, but China’s ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ could. Deng Xiaoping could not fit in the framework of Keynes, but Keynes could fit rather neatly within the framework of Deng Xiaoping.

Appendix – the issues restated in Marxist terms

In the article above an account has been given of China’s macro-economic policy in terms of a theoretical framework derived from Keynes. Deng Xiaoping, however, as a Communist naturally explicitly formulated China’s economic policy in Marxist terms - China’s economic reform policies were seen as the integration of Marxism with the specific conditions in China. More precisely Deng stated: ‘We were victorious in the Chinese revolution precisely because we applied the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism to our own realities.’ (Deng, 28 August 1985) Consequently: ‘Our principle is that we should integrate Marxism with Chinese practice and blaze a path of our own. That is what we call building socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ (Deng, 21 August 1985)

Authors, including (Hsu, 1991), have contended that Deng’s economic policies were not in accord with those of Marx. However while China’s economic policies clearly differed from those of the USSR after the introduction of the First Five Year Plan in 1929, which introduced comprehensive planning and essentially total state ownership, it is clear that China’s economic policies were in line with those indicated by Marx. Whether people wish to formulate Chinese economic policy in Keynesian or Marxist terms may be left to them. What is most crucial is not the colour of the cat but whether it catches mice – that is, the practical policy conclusions drawn. This appendix therefore briefly shows that Deng’s essential concepts in launching China’s economic reform in in 1978 corresponded to Marx’s.

The primary stage of socialism

Regarding China’s economic reform policies Deng noted, as stated in Marxist terms, that China was in the socialist and not the (higher) communist stage of development. Large scale development of the productive forces/output was the prerequisite before China could make the transition to a communist society: ‘A Communist society is one in which there is no exploitation of man by man, there is great material abundance, and the principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to his needs is applied. It is impossible to apply that principle without overwhelming material wealth. In order to realise communism, we have to accomplish the tasks set in the socialist stage. They are legion, but the fundamental one is to develop the productive forces.’ (Deng, 28 August 1985) More precisely, in a characterisation maintained to the present, China was in the ‘primary stage’ of socialism, which was fundamental in defining policy: ‘‘The Thirteenth National Party Congress will explain what stage China is in: the primary stage of socialism. Socialism itself is the first stage of communism, and here in China we are still in the primary stage of socialism – that is, the underdeveloped stage. In everything we do we must proceed from this reality, and all planning must be consistent with it.’ (Deng, 29 August 1987)

The fundamental characterisations by Deng have been maintained to the present – thus for example in July 2011 President Hu Jintao stressed that ‘China is still in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long time to come’ (Xinhua, 2011), while speaking to the UN premier Wen Jiabao noted ‘Taken as a whole, China is still in the primary stage of socialism’ (Xinhua, 2010). The conclusion flowing from this as noted by Hsu, was that: ‘From this perspective, a serious error in the past was the leftist belief that China could skip the primary stage and practice full socialism immediately.’ (Hsu, 1991, p. 11)

The conclusion of such a contrast between a primary socialist stage of development and and the principle of a communist society (which, as noted by Deng above, was regulated by ‘from each according to their ability to each according to each according to his needs’) was that in the present 'socialist' period the principle was ‘ to each according to their work’: ‘We must adhere to this socialist principle which calls for distribution according to the quantity and quality of an individual’s work.’ (Deng, 28 March 1978) In Marxist theory, outlined by Marx in the opening chapter of Capital (Marx, 1867), economic distribution according to work/labour is the fundamental principle of commodity production – and a commodity necessarily implies a market. In this socialist period a market would therefore exist – hence the eventual Chinese terminology of a ‘socialist market economy.’ As presented by Deng Xiaoping and his successors above such Chinese analysis is highly compressed but clearly in line with Marx himself.

It is clear Marx envisaged that the transition from capitalism to communism would be a prolonged one, noting in The Communist Manifesto: ‘The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.’ (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 504) The ‘by degree’ may noted – Marx therefore clearly envisaged a period during which state owned property and private property would exist. China’s system, after Deng, of simultaneous existence of sectors of state and private ownership is therefore clearly more in line with Marx’s conceptualisation than Stalin’s introduction ‘all at once’ of essentially 100 per cent state ownership in 1929.

Regarding Deng’s formulations on communist society being regulated by ‘to each according to their need’ versus the primary stage of socialism regulated by ‘each according to their work’ Marx noted in the Critique of the Gotha Programme of the post-capitalist transition to a communist society: ‘What we are dealing with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.’ (Marx, 1875, p. 85)

In such a transition Marx outlined payment in society, and distribution of products and services, necessarily had to be 'according to work' even within the state owned sector of the economy:‘Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

‘Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values…. as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another form.

‘Hence, equal right here is still in principle - bourgeois right… The right of the producers is proportional to the labour they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labour.’ (Marx, 1875, p. 86)

In such a society inequality would necessarily still exist: ‘one… is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can labour for a longer time; and labour, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour... it tacitly recognises the unequal individual endowment and thus the productive capacities of the workers as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality in its content like every right. Right by its very nature can consist only as the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable by an equal standard only insofar as they are made subject to an equal criterion, are taken from a certain side only, for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Besides, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, etc. etc.. Thus, given an equal amount of work done, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right would have to be unequal rather than equal.’ (Marx, 1875, pp. 86-87)

Marx considered only after a prolonged transition would payment according to work be replaced with the ultimately desired goal, distribution of products according to members of society’s needs.

‘Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development which this determines.

‘In a higher phase of communist society… after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of common wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!’ (Marx, 1875, p. 87)

It is therefore clear that post-Deng policies in China were more in line with Marx’s prescriptions than post-1929 Stalin policies in the USSR. Given the essentially 100 per cent state ownership of industry in China in 1978 'Zhuada Fangxiao' – maintaining the large enterprises within the state sector and releasing the small ones to the non-state sector – together with the creation of a new private sector created an economic structure clearly more in line with that envisaged by Marx than the essentially 100 per cent state ownership in the USSR after 1929. Deng’s insistence on the formula that in the transitional period reward would be ‘according to work’ and not ‘according to need’ was clearly in line with Marx’s analyses. It is notable that in the USSR itself a number of economists opposed Stalin’s post-1929 policies on the same or related grounds – including Buhkarin (Bukharin, 1925) , Kondratiev (Kondratiev), Trotsky (Trotsky, 1931) and Preobrazhensky (Preobrazhensky, 1921-27) (Preobrazhensky, 1921-27). Their works were, however, almost unknown as these issues were ‘resolved’ by Stalin killing those economists who disagreed with him and banning their works - although several accounts have been published outside the USSR – see for example (Jasny, 1972) (Lewin, 1975). China’s economic debates therefore appear to have preceded with reference to China’s conditions and Marx and not any preceding debates in the USSR.

It is therefore clear that China’s post-reform economic policy is in line with Marx’s analysis and that, as stated in Chinese analysis, post-1929 Soviet policy departed from Marx’s analysis – the argument that the converse is true, by Hsu and others, is invalid.

As China’s economic policy and structure can be understood in either Keynesian or Marxist terms it is a more general issue which is to be preferred. ‘It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white provided it catches mice’ might appear an appropriate response.

* * *

An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared in Soundings.

Notes and Bibliography

China and developing economies will determine the chances for world growth in 2012

China’s economic growth has become a key factor not only for itself but for world markets. As the scale of China's impact is still too frequently underestimated it should be noted that, measured in current dollars and at market exchange rates, i.e. in terms of actual effective demand, in the three years following the start of the international financial crisis China contributed 33.4 per cent of global market growth – more than four times as much as the US 8.1 per cent (Table 1). While final data for 2011 is not yet available, it is already clear from the first three quarters figures that China’s market last year expanded by over $1 trillion – approximately twice as much in dollars as the US, despite US growth having resumed. Table 1 makes clear no other economy has approached China in terms of market/global aggregate demand expansion.

It is therefore a key question whether China will continue essentially the same scale of market growth in 2012. The answer is ‘yes’  - but because of the issue’s importance the reasons should be clearly outlined. Interlinked with this is the decisive role played by developing economies in recovery from the financial crisis – the interlinking being that China is by far the largest developing economy, while the developing economies have become China’s largest trade partners.

In the three years covering the period from the beginning of the international financial crisis to the latest available annual data, i.e. in 2007-2010, developing economies accounted for 78.6 per cent of world market growth and developed economies for only 21.4 per cent. Considered from another angle, simply taking different classifications, either the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China), or China plus Latin America, contributed the majority of world market/effective demand expansion – either of these groupings accounting for more than twice as much market expansion as the developed economies.

Table 1

 

Turning to more detailed trends, the first feature determining China’s continued dominant position in world market expansion, one the consequences of which are insufficiently frequently noted, is that as China’s economy becomes larger a similar percentage yearly growth necessarily turns into an increasingly large annual absolute market increase - in inflation adjusted terms, China’s economy expanded by 2.3 trillion RMB in 2008, 2.4 trillion RMB in 2009, and 3.1 trillion RMB in 2010.

But even frequently cited constant price growth figures underestimate the expansion of China’s position in the world market. Actual sales, and therefore changes in aggregate demand, use real money which is affected by exchange rate shifts and inflation – further figures in this article are therefore at current market exchange rates and prices unless otherwise stated. In 2009, when China froze the RMB’s exchange rate due to the international financial crisis, China’s economy grew by $469 billion – compared to a US contraction of $353 billion. In 2010, when China allowed the RMB exchange rate to rise, its annual economic expansion rose to $935 billion and the figure will be over $1 trillion in 2011 – roughly twice US market expansion.

Table 1 also makes clear the second reason China’s market will continue  its expansion. World growth is now dominated by developing economies and China is their most rapidly expanding trading partner.

Considering trends among developing economies, China accounting for 33.4 per cent of global market expansion. Latin America was second – constituting 17.3 per cent of world growth, with Brazil accounting for 58 per cent of this. China and Latin America together accounted for 50.7 per cent of world market growth..

Among other developing economic regions, South Asia contributed 8.0 per cent to world market growth, with India accounting for 84 per cent of this. Developing East Asian economies, excluding China, accounted for 7.0 per cent of world growth – Indonesia constituting 54 per cent of this. The Middle East and North Africa accounted for 6.1 per cent of world growth with no single dominant regional economy – the largest contributor, Egypt, constituted only 19.9 per cent of the total. Developing countries in Europe and Central Asia accounted for 4.5 per cent of world growth – of which 55 per cent was Russia. Sub-Saharan Africa grew rapidly, but due to its low starting point only contributed 2.1 per cent of world growth.

Turning to developed economies, Japan illustrates the importance of currency movements for shifts in markets measured in dollar terms. Due to the yen’s sharp exchange rate rise, Japan contributed 14.9 per cent of the dollar expansion of the world market despite Japan’s economy contracting in inflation adjusted terms. The US contributed 8.2 per cent to world market growth, despite the US not having grown in constant price terms, due to the dollar rising against other currencies,

The ‘disaster area’ for world markets was the developed European economies with a decline of $668 billion - equivalent to subtracting 9.2 cent from world growth.

It is already clear 2012 will show no fundamental change in this pattern. Developed European economies will again be the worst performing region – suffering a recession possibly magnified by a low Euro exchange rate. The US should expand, but slowly compared to previous upswings in US business cycle. Therefore if the world economy is to grow this will again have to be primarily due to developing  economies.

Fortunately, the large developing economies are slowing but still growing substantially more rapidly than developed ones. China, the dominant factor in the equation, even on pessimistic estimates is likely to grow by at least 7-8 per cent in real terms this year which, after increases in the exchange rate of the RMB and inflation is take into account, means an expansion of its market of probably 12-15 per cent in dollar terms. Minimum real growth estimates for India are at least seven per cent.

It is also clear from the pattern in Table 1 why BRIC economies will again dominate world growth – in 2007-2010 they contributed 52.5 per cent of world market expansion. Not only are the BRICs individually the largest developing economies but each is the centre of a major regional economic area. While Brazil has slowed, Russia’s economy has been accelerating, and it is in any case China and India which are the dominant dynamic BRIC economies.

This overall situation clearly interrelates with China as it already carries out the majority of its trade with developing economies – 54 per cent of total trade, 49 per cent of exports and 60 per cent of imports.

The implications for China’s markets are clear. China has not only the world’s most rapidly expanding domestic market, and declining inflation gives it extra room for domestic economic loosening/stimulus in 2012, but its biggest trading partners are the most rapidly growing regions of the world economy. It is this combination of domestic and international factors which determines that  China will continue to remain the world’s most rapidly expanding market/supplier of increased aggregate demand in 2012. Given the negative prospects in Europe, and slow growth in the US, it will then be the situation in the developing economies, which is increasingly related to the situation in China, which will necessarily determine the overall prospects for world growth in 2012.

*   *   *

This is an expanded version of an article which originally appeared in Shanghai Daily.

China's stronger economic structure than the US and Europe means its fast growth will continue in 2012

The beginning of 2012 is a suitable moment to assess China's economic prospects for the year and coming period. This overall perspective is clear – China will grow strongly, remaining the world's fastest growing major economy, and will continue to substantially outperform Western pessimist predictions. This is the same fundamental analysis maintained by the author over the last two decade period. Factual results during these twenty years have confirmed such projections - as opposed to the opposite perspective. As accurate or inaccurate predictions do not depend on personal characteristics, but on different fundamental analyses, therefore what leads to repeatedly correct and incorrect projections regarding China's economic growth?

The core issue is simple but difficult for the majority of non-Chinese analysts to admit, despite constant confirmation by economic facts and repeated falsification of predictions of China's serious slowdown. This core issue is that statements by Chinese analysts that China has a stronger economic structure than the US and Europe, and that this therefore produces stronger economic performance, is not a boast but actually factually correct. As this stronger character of China's economic structure is not understood by many Western analysts, they therefore systematically, and each year, underestimate China's economic growth potential.

Nevertheless, a genuine difficulty for non-Chinese analysts is that explanations of this economic strength are frequently posed only in terms of specifically 'Chinese characteristics'. It is therefore worth spelling out more generally why China has a stronger economic structure than the US and Europe, and how this relates to global economic issues that will be faced in 2012.

 

 A model performance [By Jiao Haiyang/China.org.cn]

 

China self-definition of its system is a 'socialist market economy'. This denotes it differs fundamentally from the economy, modeled on the former USSR, which existed prior to China's 1978 economic reforms, in that economic policy is not run by administrative but by market means. China has a large and vibrant private sector – indeed the world's most rapidly growing private sector. However China differs from the US or Europe in having a sufficiently large state sector, and a nationalised core banking system, that it can directly set the economy's overall investment level – the state sector is too small in the US or Europe to achieve this. This combination of market system and a state sector sufficiently strong to determine the overall level of investment is what gives China its greater economic strength than the US or Europe - such a structure can be understood either from a Chinese 'socialist' point of view or a Western 'Keynesian' one, and for present purposes it  is unimportant which is chosen. 

To illustrate this, consider a key contemporary economic problem – the current situation in the US. The Financial Times on December 15 accurately described the situation in the US economy. It noted that the share of wages in US GDP had fallen to the lowest level since records began and concluded: 'The decline in the labor share, along with a shift of labor income towards higher earners, may be an important part of why the US economic recovery is so sluggish. Workers on lower wages consume much of their income, while higher wage earners and those with capital income are more likely to save. That will not affect total demand if savers lend to those who want to consume or invest in buildings and start-ups – but investment has been slow to recover in the wake of the recession.'

In short, the US economy is growing slowly not because there is a shortage of funds for investment, on the contrary profits are at a record high, but because investment is very low – indeed the entire decline in US GDP in the current 'Great Recession' is accounted for by the investment fall. The problem is that in the US there is no mechanism which ensures that the huge funds available for investment are actually invested.

In China no such problem exists. If funds are not directly invested by companies, then the state owned banking system and state sector can invest them. Therefore no shortfall of demand occurs of the type analysed by the Financial Times in the US. During the entire international financial crisis China, unlike the US, suffered no investment decline – on the contrary investment increased. The problem of accumulation of unused funds of the US type, that is in Keynesian terms a shortage of effective demand, does not arise in China. Equally if China's economy is booming, and companies are utilizing all funds for investment, the state steps back and cuts its own investment – reducing it to cool overheating. That is why China's macroeconomic policy is stronger than that in the US - the problems of either shortage of or excessive demand, which plague the US and European economies, are smoothed in China.

This evidently does not mean China escapes all macroeconomic issues. No policy maker can judge absolutely accurately how strongly the international economy will grow, what will be all the inflationary or deflationary pressures present, exactly how China's own economy will respond to a given measure etc. Therefore there are always issues of overheating, undershooting, inflation, deflation etc. But these are qualitatively smaller fluctuations than in the US or Europe.

The period since the onset of the international financial crisis showed this strength of China's economic structure clearly. Faced with the international financial crisis in 2008, China was able to launch a massive stimulus package which meant its economy did not suffer a recession at all. The recovery of the world economy in 2010-2011 combined with the aftermath of the stimulus package to create some economic overheating and 2011 was therefore mainly spent damping inflation. In 2012, with negative trends dominating the world economy, China will loosen policy.

The overall result is evident. In the four years to the latest economic data, for the 3rd quarter of 2011, the US grew by 0.5 percent, the EU shrank by 0.3 percent, and China grew by 42.2 percent. China's economy therefore suffered some fluctuations on a strong growth path, whereas the US and Europe suffered overall economic stagnation. The stronger character of China's economic system was shown by these facts – those predicting crisis for China, on the same scale as the US or Europe, made the wrong predictions because they failed to analyze that strength.

It is this superior strength of China's economic structure that also makes it clearly possible to predict for 2012 that China's economy will continue to grow strongly, that it will remain the fastest growing major economy in the world, and that it will outperform on the upside Western pessimists predictions – as in previous years the facts of 2012 will confirm that analysis. Not until they understand the greater structural strength of China's economy will current critics be able to make persistently accurate predictions.

 *   *   *

 A shorter and edited version of this article originally appeared on China.org.cn.

Wrong analyses of China - listed by author and date

Numerous authors make wrong analyses predicting an economic crash or drastic slowdown in China and then, when these fail to occur, nevertheless continue to present themselves as 'China experts'. The ability to do this rests on readers forgetting what they predicted. Given that the test of an analysis and a theory is its ability, or otherwise, to predict real developments this periodically updated article conveniently lists, for reference, by author and date such wrong predictions of coming economic disaster in China so that readers can use it as reference to judge the track record of various analysts they read.

This article was last updated on 24 December 2011

*   *   *

Bremmer, Ian: 12 November 2011

'The world's three largest economies can't continue along their current paths, and everybody knows it. Investors watch nervously for signs that China is headed toward a hard landing, that America will sink back into recession, and that the euro zone will simply implode.

'In all three cases, kicking the can down the road has staved off disaster so far, but the cans are getting bigger and heavier. Which economy will be the first to stumble on its problems?...

'In China... It has been... three years since the financial crisis made clear that China's growth remains dangerously dependent on exports to Europe, America and Japan.

'To ensure long-term economic expansion (and political stability), Beijing must figure out a way to encourage Chinese consumers to buy more of the products that local manufacturers make. This will demand a massive transfer of wealth from the state and China's state-owned companies to Chinese households.

'But Beijing is moving in the opposite direction. The leadership responded to Western market turmoil not by boosting consumption but by increasing state and private spending on fixed investment, which now accounts for nearly half of China's growth. The result has been an explosion in residential and commercial real estate, more state spending on infrastructure and more cheap loans from state-owned banks to state-owned enterprises.

'Indeed, a key obstacle to reform is that China remains so heavily invested in its state-managed model of capitalism. Of the 42 Chinese companies listed in the 2010 edition of the Fortune 500, 39 were state-owned enterprises, and three quarters of China's 100 largest publicly traded companies are government controlled. Party officials with a stake in the success of state-owned enterprises have amassed considerable power within the leadership, and they ferociously resist efforts to transfer away their wealth to private enterprises and ordinary citizens.

'China has the cash and foreign reserves to postpone a crisis. But growth is slowing, financial stresses are rising, and there is good reason to fear that China's days of can-kicking are numbered as well...

'Make no mistake: The challenges that the U.S. faces are formidable, and persistent political gridlock could delay badly needed fiscal and structural reforms. But everything is relative, and the best can to be kicking down the road just now is undoubtedly the one made in America.' (Written with Nouriel Roubini)

 

Chang, Gordon: June 2002 The Coming Collapse of China pxxiii

''A half-decade ago the leaders of the People's Republic of China had real choices. Today they do not. They have no exit. They have run out of time.'

 

Duncan, Richard: 17 February 2011

'regardless of what happens in the US, China is facing a much more difficult future than is generally believed. Every boom busts. Every bubble pops. China will be no exception.

'It is a serious mistake to believe China’s economy will continue to grow at 8 per cent or more for the next decade. That’s what people believed about Japan in 1989. Today, Japan’s economy is no larger than it was in 1993, if you don’t adjust for deflation. 2 per cent to 4 per cent annual GDP growth would be an excellent outcome for China over the decade, in light of the enormous capital misallocation that has occurred there over the past 10 years.'

 

Economist, The: 15 June 2002 'A dragon out of puff'

'In the coming decade, therefore, China seems set to become more unstable. It will face growing unrest as unemployment mounts.'

''the economy still relies primarily on domestic engines of growth, which are sputtering. Growth over the last five years has relied heavily on massive government spending. As a result, the government's debt is rising fast. Coupled with the banks' bad loans and the state's huge pension liabilities, this is a financial crisis in the making.'

Krugman, Paul: 14 March 2010

'The International Monetary Fund expects China to have a 2010 current surplus of more than $450 billion — 10 times the 2003 figure.' China's actual current account surplus in 2010 turned out to be $237 billion. Krugman never explained why he accepted this wholly inaccurate and unsubstantiated figure.

Pettis, Michael: 14 August 2009

'I continue to stand by my comment last year... that the US would be the first major economy out of the crisis and China one of the last.'

 

Roubini, Nouriel: 12 November 2011

'The world's three largest economies can't continue along their current paths, and everybody knows it. Investors watch nervously for signs that China is headed toward a hard landing, that America will sink back into recession, and that the euro zone will simply implode.

'In all three cases, kicking the can down the road has staved off disaster so far, but the cans are getting bigger and heavier. Which economy will be the first to stumble on its problems?...

'In China... It has been... three years since the financial crisis made clear that China's growth remains dangerously dependent on exports to Europe, America and Japan.

'To ensure long-term economic expansion (and political stability), Beijing must figure out a way to encourage Chinese consumers to buy more of the products that local manufacturers make. This will demand a massive transfer of wealth from the state and China's state-owned companies to Chinese households.

'But Beijing is moving in the opposite direction. The leadership responded to Western market turmoil not by boosting consumption but by increasing state and private spending on fixed investment, which now accounts for nearly half of China's growth. The result has been an explosion in residential and commercial real estate, more state spending on infrastructure and more cheap loans from state-owned banks to state-owned enterprises.

'Indeed, a key obstacle to reform is that China remains so heavily invested in its state-managed model of capitalism. Of the 42 Chinese companies listed in the 2010 edition of the Fortune 500, 39 were state-owned enterprises, and three quarters of China's 100 largest publicly traded companies are government controlled. Party officials with a stake in the success of state-owned enterprises have amassed considerable power within the leadership, and they ferociously resist efforts to transfer away their wealth to private enterprises and ordinary citizens.

'China has the cash and foreign reserves to postpone a crisis. But growth is slowing, financial stresses are rising, and there is good reason to fear that China's days of can-kicking are numbered as well...

'Make no mistake: The challenges that the U.S. faces are formidable, and persistent political gridlock could delay badly needed fiscal and structural reforms. But everything is relative, and the best can to be kicking down the road just now is undoubtedly the one made in America.' (Written with Ian Bremmer)

The statistical data indicates the population and shareholders have counterposed interests - implications of the negative correlation of economic growth and share prices

Summary

The studies on the relation between per capita GDP growth and returns on shares persistently find that the two are negatively correlated - i.e. a higher rate of growth of per capita GDP is associated with a lower return on shares. Cardiff Garcia and Neil Hume, in the Financial Times, recently logically used this data to deal with the relatively narrow issue of questioning analyses that the high growth rates of emerging markets, for example China, will lead to them displaying superior share performance to developed markets. But the implications of the overall finding are much more widespread and fundamental for economic policy. Specifically the implications of a negative correlation of per capita GDP growth and returns on shares include:

• The population's living standard, i.e its consumption, is on average positively determined by, and positively correlated with, growth of per capita GDP. However the return on shares is negatively correlated with per capita GDP growth. It follows that the interests of the population's living standards and the interests of shareholders are counterposed - the population has an interest in higher per capita GDP growth whereas shareholders, in terms of return on shares, would benefit from lower per capita GDP growth.
• Governments targeting high rates of increase in per capita GDP, that is high increases in living standards, should expect lower returns on shares than those with low rates of increase of per capita GDP, that is living standards. Therefore, high rates of per capita GDP and living standards, and high rates of growth of share prices/total return on shares, are counterposed and not complimentary objectives.
• These issues are in addition to the points made in the Financial Times that over the long run the higher economic growth rates of emerging economies would produce lower growth of share prices and total return on shares - this clearly fits China which has the highest rate of growth of any major economy but an underperforming share market. 

It should be stressed that such processes operate 'other things being equal' and over long periods of time. But they provide a long term determinant of economic developments which underlays, and therefore inflects, more short term trends. 

Given the widespread implications of this issue the present article therefore outlines the data and examines in more detail some of the implications.

*   *   *

Not just emerging but developed economies

The Beyond BRICs section of the Financial Times recently analysed a report by Deutsche Bank's John-Paul Smith which argued that share prices in emerging markets will suffer negative trends due to these countries government policies. The article however failed to provide the essential context that a negative correlation exists between per capita GDP growth and share price growth and total return on shares not only in emerging but in developed economies. It therefore follows, other things being equal, that high per capita GDP growth in some emerging markets would be anticipated to be correlated with underperformance of their shares.

However, this clearly raises a more general issue. Given that the aim of economic policy is to increase sustainable GDP per capita, as this makes possible increased living standards, this goal necessarily means that governments in both emerging and developed economies have to target high GDP per capita growth even although this will be necessarily be associated with lower share price growth and lower return on shares. The opposite course, targeting higher share prices and higher return on shares at the expense of lower GDP per capita growth, and therefore lower living standards, would mean placing the interests of the population lower than that of shareholders - a goal which, if being pursued, should be explicitly stated and would be unlikely to command widespread support. 

More specifically John-Paul Smith criticised governments of emerging markets on the grounds that: ‘GEM (Global Emerging Markets) companies are increasingly seen as “facilitators” for the broader economy, on the Chinese model, across many GEM markets.’ Stefan Wagstyl of the Financial Times paraphrased Smith as arguing: ‘The state will drive the redistribution of resources away from shareholders and in favour of labour.’

However it is well established in the studies on the correlation between share price growth/total return on shares and per capita GDP growth - for example Siegel's Stocks for the Long Run, Dimson, Marsh and Staunton’s Triumph of the Optimists and Ritter’s Economic Growth and Equity Returns - that a negative correlation between per capita GDP growth and share prices exists in both developed and developing economies. Such negative correlation is not due specifically to government policies in emerging markets but is an overall feature of economic growth.¹ 

The data

Turning first to the data establishing the negative correlation between GDP per capita growth and share prices, Siegel found: 'Real GDP growth is negatively correlated with stock market returns. That is, higher economic growth in individual [developed] countries is associated with lower returns to equity investors. Similarly, the stock returns for the developing countries against their GDP growth are plotted in Figure 81-b Again... there is a negative relation between the returns in individual countries and the growth rates of their GDP.' (Siegel p124) Siegel's findings for developed economies are shown in Figure 1 and those for developing economies in Figure 2.

Figure 1

Figure 2

 

Dimson, Marsh and Staunton found, regarding the total real return on equities and GDP per capita growth: ‘statistically, the correlation is -0.27 for 1900-2000 and -0.03 for 1951-2000.' (Dimson et al p156)

Regarding the correlation of GDP per capita growth and share price increases Ritter found: ‘My calculations for… 16 [developed] countries over the 1900-2002 period get a correlation of -0.37.’

In a recent survey Jain and Kranson's ‘The Myth of GDP and Stock Market Returns’ noted: ‘The data shows clearly that, over long periods and when adjusted for inflation, stock market returns and GDP per capital growth are negatively correlated.’

Goldman Sachs private wealth group, in a review, recently noted that the overall negative correlation between GDP per capita growth and share price growth extended to different groups of economies when ranked by growth rate: ‘Dimson et al have shown that if one invested in the slowest growing quintile of countries during this hundred-year- plus period, the equity returns would have outperformed the fastest growing quintile by 3% a year… Our own analysis for emerging market countries since 1991 showed the equity markets of the slowest growing countries within emerging markets outperformed those of the fastest growing countries by nearly 5% a year.’

This relation found by Goldman Sachs is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

 

China

Goldman Sachs noted China as illustrating this general trend: ‘China probably provides one of the best examples of the lack of correlation between strong economic growth and equity returns… China’s economy has outgrown that of the US by about 8% a year since the end of 1992 (the inception date of the MSCI China equity market index). Its equity market, however, has lagged that of the US by about 8% a year. Over the last 15 years, earnings per share growth in China has been negative 0.9% while that of the S&P 500 companies has been 5.4% a year. Most recently, in 2010, China has outgrown the US by an estimated 7% but the MSCI China Index has returned just 4.8% (the local Shanghai Composite Index is actually down 12.8%). On the other hand, US equities have returned 15.1%. Since the peak of US and Chinese equities in October 2007, China has outgrown the US by an estimated 10% a year, but Chinese equities have lagged the US by 2.7% a year.’ This data is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

 

Goldman Sachs survey therefore concluded: ‘Whether it is 1 year, 3 years or 18 years, economic growth has not translated into better investment returns in China … The evidence shows that faster economic growth rates do not result in higher equity returns. In fact, if faster growth is priced into the equity markets, the equity markets are most likely going to lag those of slower growth economies.‘

In a recent update of their study, for the Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook, Dimson, Marsh and Staunton concluded: ‘[Our] Figure 2 ranks the real equity return of the 19 Yearbook countries over the period 1900–2009, from lowest to highest…. [our] Figure 2 shows that the supposed association between long-run real growth in GDP per capita and real equity returns is simply not there (the correlation is –0.23).’ This is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

 

Dividends, share prices and growth

In their study Dimson, Marsh and Staunton however noted an extremely close correlation between share prices/return on shares and dividend payments: ‘there is a high correlation (0.87) between real equity returns and real dividend growth across the 19 countries.’ 

Such a close correlation between dividend payments and share prices is related to the negative correlation between share prices and economic growth: ‘the claim that real dividends grow at the same rate as real GDP is clearly incorrect. Real dividend growth has lagged behind real GDP per capita growth in all but one country, averaging just –0.1%, and the correlation between the two is -0.30.’ Higher economic growth is correlated with lower dividends and vice versa.

Conclusion

The clearly established negative correlation between economic growth and share price growth has a number of implications:

• It must be understood that correlation by itself does not establish causality - i.e. the negative correlation between share price growth and return on shares and GDP per capita growth does not establish whether rapid economic growth causes lower returns on shares, or higher returns on shares causes lower GDP growth, or some other factor(s) causes both. The negative correlation however does exclude that high share prices cause high GDP per capita growth, and therefore that economic policy should aim to have high share price growth in order to stimulate economic growth. The negative correlation shows that high returns on shares are either irrelevant (i.e. non-causal) for economic growth or if causal then higher returns on shares are negative for economic growth.
• Underperformance of shares in emerging economies with high growth rates would be expected to flow from the negative correlation between GDP per capital growth and share prices. Other things being equal, the more rapid the growth of GDP per capita the greater the underperformance of shares that would be anticipated - this clearly fits China.
• As the negative correlation of GDP per capita growth and share prices exists in both developed and developing economies pointing to underperformance of share prices in emerging markets does not justify the claim that underperformance of shares in such markets is due to government policy – except that such an underperformance would necessarily follow from the (desirable) policy of ensuring high GDP per capita growth.
• If share prices are negatively correlated with GDP per capita growth, but dividend payments are positively correlated with returns on shares, this again fits the case of China. China experiences high GDP per capita growth but low dividend payments due in substantial part to the large role played in the economy by State Owned Enterprises which pay extremely low, or zero, dividends to the state.
• Once again correlation does not establish causality, but the negative correlation of share price growth with per capita GDP growth, while dividend payments are positively correlated with share prices, means either that low dividend payments are beneficial for economic growth, that economic growth creates low dividend payments, or some other factor(s) causes both trends.
• Given the rate of growth of living standards is positively correlated with GDP per capita growth, whereas share prices are negatively correlated with GDP per capita growth, there is no reason to assume a positive correlation between rising living standards and rising share prices - i.e. that rising share prices will enhance living standards. Given that the aim is rising living standards there is therefore no reason for governments to target high share prices.

Taking the specific case of China, the negative correlation between share prices and GDP per capita growth is one reason this blog, which has a positive analysis of the growth of China’s economy, has a negative position as regards any major expectations for China’s share market.

Evidently the Financial Times and John-Paul Smith dealt primarily with short term trends in share prices which can can be affected by very different factors to the long term correlations outlined above. However:

• It is misleading to present underperformance of shares in emerging markets as being due to negative government policies when underperformance of shares in rapidly growing developing economies would be precisely expected to be correlated with their rapid growth.
• The implications of the negative correlation between GDP per capita growth and share prices, in both developed and developing economies, are far wider than those raised by John-Paul Smith and in the Financial Times article.

Notes & References

Financial Times begins to correct its analysis of China's trade

For several years the Financial Times has been giving widespread publicity to an analysis, particularly promoted by its (rightly respected) chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, and US finance professor Michael Pettis, that China was pursuing a 'mercantalist' policy aimed at creating a large trade surplus. This blog has repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case and what China has aimed at is a high degree of openness of its economy, that is of both exports and imports in GDP. This does not necessarily imply a surplus at all. 

At last, confronted with the decline in China's trade surplus, the message seems to be getting through more generally in the FT. Analysing the latest trade data, and a speech by China's president Hu Jintao, Kathrin Hille and Simon Rabinovitch from the FT' in Beijing note:

'China’s trade surplus is set to decline in 2011 for the third straight year and is on track to be about half the size of the record $298bn surplus in 2008. That would amount to less than 3 per cent of gross domestic product, suggesting that China’s trade relationship with the rest of the world is increasingly balanced.

'Critics in the US continue to point to their country’s yawning trade deficit with China as evidence of Beijing’s unfair support for its exporters, especially through what they allege is an artificially cheap renminbi.

'But the US deficit with China appears to be more the result of the global trade structure than Chinese policy distortions. As a major processing hub in the global supply chain, China runs large bilateral trade deficits with producers of raw materials and large bilateral surpluses with importers of finished products.'

This is entirely correct. Let us hope that the FT from now on will drop its wrong analysis.

 

China's CPI fall confirms its inflation is driven by international commodity prices and China has room for stimulus

The present author has consistently pointed out that China’s consumer price inflation (CPI) is primarily driven by international commodity prices and not, as some have argued, by monetary conditions in China – for a more extended recent analysis see ‘Key Trends in China’s Inflation’ which appeared in China Daily. This fact is strongly confirmed by China’s new CPI data, showing a fall to 4.2% from October’s 5,5% and a peak of 6.5% in July. To illustrate this Figure 1 shows both international commodity prices and China’s CPI. The tight correlation of the two is evident.

Figure 1

 

To deal with the argument that correlation is not necessarily causation, the direction of causation between international commodity price indexes and China’s CPI inflation is clear. China’s CPI is simply not a sufficiently large factor in the world economy to determine world commodity prices. In terms of causality, therefore, either world commodity prices cause the changes in China’s CPI or a third factor, for example international supply and demand, causes parallel changes in both. In either case examining international commodity prices allows trends in China’s CPI to be predicted.

This close correlation gives good news for future trends in China’s CPI and therefore for the ability of its government to stimulate the economy. Year on year changes in international commodity prices are currently falling rapidly. The year on year change in the daily Dow Jones-UBS international commodity index has dropped from a maximum of plus 52.8 per cent in March to minus 0.5 per cent on 7th December. Given the close correlation between China’s CPI and international commodity prices these sharp falls in commodity prices create good conditions for China’s fight with inflation.. This in turn increases the room for the government to stimulate the economy.

At present the international economy as a whole faces overall stagnation in the developed economies rather than a large 2008 style downturn - despite the recession in Europe. China does not require a full scale 2008 type stimulus package, but loosening of economic policy is clearly increasingly possible. This will ensure there is no large fall in China's GDP growth.

China's latest CPI data are therefore important in confirming:

• The real causes and therefore dynamic of China's inflation.
• The slowdown in inflation gives China the economic room for manoeuvre to loosen economic policy and ensure a 'soft' and not a 'hard' landing.

The decline of individual share ownership in the UK

The Financial Times on 8 December carried a long review by Brian Groom and Sylvia Pfeifer of the 25th anniversary of the privatisation of British Gas. This included a highly interesting insert, for which additional research was done by Yan Morrell Y Alcover, on the trends in individual share ownership in the UK. The trend in individual share ownershp was unequivocally and strongly downwards - see Figure 1.

The article noted British Gas and other privatisations 'failed to reverse the decline in private share ownership that began in the 1960s.... By the end of the 1980s... individuals owned 20.3 per cent of UK equities... Although later water and electricity privatisations briefly lifted holdings back to the 1980s levels, they had dropped to 16 per cent by the millenium. Capita Registrars suggests ownership hit an all-time low in May 2010, before recovering to 12 per cent in August 2011. In 1963 private investors had been majority shareholders in UK-listed companies, owning 54 per cent.'

Readers can find the entire analysis here.

Figure 1

China globalizes - Chinese companies recent progress in global branding and R&D

The following is an article, slightly expanded for a non-Chinese audience, which originally appeared in Global Times.

*   *   *

The recent period has seen important progress by some of China’s leading companies in globalization and enhancing their brands. Haier has now become the world’s largest producer of domestic ‘white goods’ goods such as refrigerators. Huawei has become the world’s second largest telecommunications equipment producer after Ericsson and is on course to become number one next year. ZTE has entered the world’s top five mobile phone manufacturers. Lenovo has overtaken Dell and Acer to become the world’s second largest personal computer manufacturer.

These advances are not simply in scale. The Financial Times, a publication with a clearly ‘upmarket’ audience in mind, recently reviewed new notebook computers from Apple, Lenovo and Acer. It concluded Lenovo was the best engineered and number two in design to Apple – both ranking clearly ahead of Taiwanese Acer.

Such companies are significant because of their technological level. These are medium and high technology industries, far removed from the textiles and similar products with which Chinese companies entered the world market at the beginning of its economic reform.

Naturally there should be no exaggeration. China’s government rightly stresses that despite being the world’s second largest economy, China is still a developing and not a developed country. China’s GDP per capita is less than 10 per cent of that of the US. Given this disparity it is unsurprising that in the latest list of the world’s 100 most valuable brands, produced by leading brand consultancy BrandZ, China has only 12 such companies compared to 43 for the US. But the upward momentum of China’s brands, as shown by this recent progress by its top companies, is palpable.

Such development destroys factually the argument that used to be deployed against China’s companies that they were incapable of producing global ‘brands’. This argument was always invalid as it took no account of China’s relative stage of economic development. In terms of percentage comparison to the US’s current per capita GDP, China’s level of development is still only equivalent to Japan before 1960 or South Korea in 1976. Neither Japan before 1960, nor South Korea in 1976, had a significant number of famous international brands either!

Instead the development of high brand values by Japanese and South Korean companies, such as Toyota or Samsung, came from the 1970s in Japan and the 1990s in South Korea. That level is where, on present growth trends, China will be in the next 10-20 years’ time. In terms of recent brand successes China is probably slightly ahead of where you would expect it to be given its stage of economic development.

Taking another key indicator, expenditure on R&D, China’s current progress and stage of development is also clear. Analysis of the US, the world’s most advanced economy, confirms that innovation is a result of the application of resources and money. It thoroughly confirms Thomas Edison’s famous observation that his own greatest invention was not the microphone, the light bulb, the gramophone, or electric power transmission but ‘the ideas factory’, that is the industrial research laboratory.

Zoltan Acs classic Innovation and the Growth of Cities, found that almost nine tenths of the difference between US states in their number of commercial innovations was accounted for by the amount of research spending in the state. Furthermore it was the quantity of research spending, not the type of institution which carried it out, that was crucial. The difference was that US states with high proportions of R&D spending by companies tended to have more innovations by large companies, whereas states with high proportions of R&D spending by universities tended to have a higher proportion of innovations by small companies.

This itself carries important lessons for China. The majority of R&D spending by a highly developed economy such as the US is carried out by large companies. But small company innovation, including the famous ‘start ups’, do not spring out of nowhere but from association with very large well-funded research institutions. The most famous example is California’s Silicon Valley and its relation to Stanford University - out of which emerged dominant US technology companies such as Google, HP, Cisco etc.

It is therefore instructive to compare current R&D spending in China and the US. China has made great strides in increasing the percentage of R&D spending in GDP. The OECD’s international comparisons show the percentage of China’s R&D spending in GDP has tripled since 1995. But China’s spending on R&D in 2011 will only be 1.4 per cent of GDP, $154 billion, compared to 2.7 per cent of GDP, $405 billion, for the US. That is, China’s R&D spending will only be 37.9 per cent of the US.

This is why recent international attempts to denigrate China for ‘not having a Steve Jobs’ were completely unintelligent. Apple, that is Steve Jobs, is the world’s most valuable company because it is based in the country with the world’s highest research spending not only in technology but in design. Apple is the US’s greatest commercial success to date in this field. As people in China and the US are equally intelligent no one who thought about the matter seriously would find it surprising that China’s companies cannot yet compete with the highest product of the world’s most advanced research based economy while China’s R&D spending is still less than half that of the US! For the same reasons not only China but also South Korea does ‘not have a Steve Jobs’, Germany ‘does not have a Steve Jobs’, France ‘does not have a Steve Jobs’, India ‘does not have a Steve Jobs’ etc. The reality is that the present rapid progress being made by China’s brands shows that as China moves towards the same levels of economic development and research spending as the US it is developing brands and innovations just as you would expect.

To follow China’s company developments in globalization and branding is therefore particularly illuminating while teaching in Antai College of Economics and Management, in Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University as this university contains not only one of China’s top business schools but also one of its top engineering departments. Teaching ‘globalization’ to Chinese and international students it is possible to see the sharp acceleration in progress being made in this field by China’s companies precisely in combining business, engineering and design. Particularly fascinating is to see how China’s top companies internalize international experience and fit it to their own strategies.

Three years ago China’s companies, in my experience, saw R&D too narrowly in terms of technology and insufficiently also in design terms. But many of the most iconic and commercially successful globalized companies with the highest brand values - Sony in the 1980s, Samsung from the 1990s, and Apple today - achieved that position through the integration of design with technology. In only a few years the shift in thinking by Chinese companies, such as Huawei or Lenovo, is clear as they pour large resources into international design departments linked to their growing engineering development.

But such globalization techniques are being integrated into specifically Chinese strategies. Lenovo provides is a classic case. In 2005 the company experienced problems after a misexecuted step in globalization – buying the PC division of IBM, which the latter sold because of its decline. Lenovo let its focus slip from China. Globally it was overtaken by Acer and internal crisis led to management and strategy changes. Lenovo refocused on China and greatly strengthened itself in developing markets – a strategy also followed by companies such as Huawei and which has been described in Mao Zedong’s famous formula as the economic equivalent of ‘using the countryside to surround the cities’. Lenovo then added a stronger focus on design. It has now emerged as the number two PC producer in the world with a realistic chance of becoming number one. Many individual international techniques were used by Lenovo but its overall strategy was wholly Chinese.

The latter development, indeed, may be taken as the ultimate expression of the new strengthening of China’s brand positioning. A brand is something which is unique – this distinguishes it from a low value copy. That China’s brands are visibly, in measurable fashion, beginning to strengthen their globalized positions is linked to the fact that China’s top companies are increasingly confident in integrating techniques which originated in international markets into their own approaches. Not only in branding but in company strategy China’s companies are therefore developing distinctive positions - the two developments being inextricably linked.

Eurozone rescue packages will continue to fail until they deal with the central issue in Europe's recession

The international financial system is passing through the agony of a new round of the Eurozone debt crisis for the simple reason that European governments, like that in the US, refuse to deal with the core of the economic recession in Europe for reasons of economic dogma.

Anyone who looks at the economic data for the Eurozone without wearing ideological blinkers can see the situation at once – it is charted in Figure 1. The Eurozone recession is due to a collapse in fixed investment. Taking OECD data, at inflation adjusted prices and fixed parity purchasing powers (PPPs), then between the last quarter before the recession, the 1st quarter of 2008, and the 2nd quarter of 2011 Eurozone GDP fell by $204bn. But private consumption declined by only $29bn while the net trade balance increased by $32bn and government consumption rose by $91bn. However fixed investment fell by $290bn – i.e. the recession in the Eurozone was wholly due to the fixed investment decline

Figure 1

 

Equally evidently, due to its scale, until this fall in investment is reversed it will take a prolonged period for the recession to be overcome. Therefore to restore growth, which by now is generally realised is the core to turning round the budget deficit problem, the fixed investment decline must be overcome.

Nor is there anything mysterious about how to do this – the state has entirely adequate means. To take the most decisive international case China made the core of its stimulus package direct state investment particularly aimed at infrastructure and housing – the result being that China’s economy has grown by over thirty per cent in three years.

Europe and the US clearly do not have the scale of state sector, nor the political willingness, to act on the scale China did. But US history shows that even without proceeding to a socialist scale of measures direct state intervention on investment is entirely possible.

Roosevelt expanded US state investment from 3.4% of GDP to 5.0% between 1933 and 1936 (data from US Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 1.5.5). Jason Scott Smith, in his study of New Deal public spending, summarises such investment as including 480 airports, 78,000 bridges, 572,000 miles of highway - which, in addition to its immediate effect in stimulating demand, reinforced the productive position of the US economy. Roosevelt, it is superfluous to point out, was neither a socialist nor a communist (despite claims to the contrary by the US right!).

Quarterly, up to date, data is regrettably not available on what is occurring across the Eurozone for state investment, but it is available for the US and there is no reason to suppose, with  current policies, that the situation in Europe is any better. Between the peak of the previous US business cycle, in the 4th quarter of 2007, and the 2nd quarter of 2011 US private fixed investment fell from 15.8% of GDP to 12.2% - i.e. a decline of 3.6% of GDP. Yet in the same period US state investment did not compensate but also fell marginally – from 3.3% of GDP to 3.2% of GDP. Therefore while Roosevelt expanded the weight of US state investment current US administrations have been letting it fall.

Instead of directly addressing the core issue of the investment fall European administrations are either attempting to stimulate it indirectly – which, as it is ineffective, has led to fiscal/sovereign debt crises, or are acting via expansion of the money supply – which, in a situation whereby companies and households are paying down debt, is merely the famous ‘pushing on a piece of string’. 

The most favourable outcome of such a situation is that eventually the debt will be paid down, but only after several years of stagnation. The less favourable variant, of course, is that the banking system breaks under the strain and renewed recession is further propelled by fiscal cutbacks. All these problems simply arise from the fact that, under the rubric of the dogma ‘private equals good, state equals bad’, European governments refuse to use the state tools available to deal with the investment fall which is at the core of the Eurozone recession.

Some European politicians are now beginning to call for state measures to increase investment, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable being one. But the action they envisage so far is inadequate to deal with the scale of the investment fall.

China's economy, which does not have such ideological inhibitions, will continue to expand while the Eurozone remains relatively stagnant for a significant period - and as long as economic stagnation continues there will be no resolving of the Eurozone debt crisis.

 

Acknowledgement

Some of the data in this article regarding the US was worked up in an exchange with Gavyn Davies on his blog. Readers may therefore want to look at it there, where further points are developed, and some of the issues also become clearer in the context of an exchange with Gavyn Davies own analysis.