Every now and then, an army of experts goes around proclaiming the end of China’s economy. Since the middle of this month, the new song is about China being a bubble and the bubble bursting. Giving the answers right away: Yes, China’s economy is weakening; Yes, there are troubling signals; No, China is not a bubble; No, the bubble is not bursting.
What is wrong with China?
Chinese economic authorities have revised their growth-forecast from 8 percent to 7.5 percent for this year. This rate, taken at face-value, does not mean anything. It is important to compare it with inflation, which has been estimated at between 4 and 5 percent. This leaves room for a yearly real growth rate of about 3 percent. Not bad? Not good.
China needs more than 4 percent-growth to pull its citizens out of poverty and to accumulate capital to invest in all those new branches of innovation and technology in which it aspires to compete. Most importantly, China needs more than a 4 percent real growth-rate to fulfil the Chinese Communist Party’s promise to its people and therefore for the party to stay in power.
So, it is true that China will be facing downturn risks this year. The weakening of its spectacular growth may entail the country getting stuck in the middle income trap. Even a mild recession is possible. However, it does not mean that it will decline or fail.
A bubble? Bursting?
The best definition of a bubble was given by former US Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan when he described it as speculative “irrational exuberance.” This means that a bubble is fundamentally speculative and driven by mostly (macroeconomic) irrational actions. However, China’s economy is the contrary of speculation. Its profit rates — if anything — are lower than the high yields of exuberance. Its economic planning is too rational not to scare notorious risk-takers. The very fact that the whole country is constantly analyzing data and looking for flaws to remedy them tells us that it is not a bubble.
There is value in China. Over the past decades, the country has come a long way. Today, Chinese companies are world-players, universities innovate, the labor-market has know-how, banking and finance thrives and there is a relatively high rate of new investment. China still has strong fundamentals that allow a rational pricing of its assets. Therefore, it is not a bubble and it is not going to burst.
Is anything wrong at all?
Yes, and it is important. China’s remarkable resilience to crisis (so far) and the value it is building up come at high cost. The more the government intervenes to create value and to avert downturns, the bigger the economic imbalance it creates.
First, it is diverting almost all investment into infrastructure, telecommunications and construction. This crowds out more interesting options like technology or pharmaceuticals. The logic is simple: If the government gives me a safeguard to build a road at a return rate of 5 percent, I will not be investing in technology at a rate of 8 percent, but without a safeguard.
This massive accumulation of investment in some sectors not only diminishes capital gains, but also influences the allocation of labor to lesser-paid jobs, therefore keeping the value of labor below the market threshold. These two market distortions ultimately lead to less growth.
Second, China is making its provinces pay for these massive investments. This leads provinces into debt; some have already a debt to GDP ratio of more than 100 percent. If there is anything to learn from Europe: sovereign debt is the enemy of growth and stability.
What does this all mean? China is about to go through a soft-patch. This is not as worrisome as the prophets of doom make-believe. However, the Middle Kingdom has economic challenges that need to be addressed, the sooner the better.
Henrique Schneider is chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium Enterprises and a researcher on the Chinese economy.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath