Download China and the Current Imbalances: the Need for a New Strategy of

One Hundred Million Jobs for the Chinese Workers!:
Why China’s Current Model of Development Is Unsustainable and How A Progressive
Economic Program Can Help the Chinese Workers, the Chinese Economy, and China’s
Environment
CHIARA PIOVANI
Ph.D. Candidate (Corresponding Author)
Department of Economic, University of Utah
Mailing Address: 813 East 100 South, Apt #3
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Phone: 801-413-4209; E-mail: [email protected]
MINQI LI
Assistant Professor
Department of Economics, University of Utah
Phone: 801-581-7697; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This paper argues that China’s current model of development led by exports and investment
is not sustainable for economic, social, and environmental reasons. The accumulation of economic,
social, and environmental imbalances could potentially lead to a major crisis for China and the
global economy. The paper proposes a progressive economic program that could help China move
towards a more equitable and ecologically sustainable model of development.
JEL classification: E60, O53, P30
Keywords: Chinese economy; export-led growth; investment; sustainability; progressive economic
program
1
1. Introduction
Since 1978, China has undertaken the transition from a socialist centrally planned economy
to a system, which the Chinese leadership refers to as the “socialist market economy”. Over the
period of market-oriented economic reform, China has accomplished rapid economic growth.
Between 1980 and 2006, the Chinese economy grew at an average annual rate of 9.5 percent.
Measured by purchasing power parity, China is now the world’s second largest economy and, if the
current trend continues, China could overtake the U.S. to become the world’s largest economy in
the next decade or so.
Despite these impressive achievements, the development process in China has been
characterized by serious social, environmental, and economic imbalances. These imbalances, if not
addressed effectively and timely, could evolve into major crises in the coming years.
Back to the early 1980s, China was one of the most egalitarian countries in Asia. Since then,
China has experienced substantial worsening of income and wealth distribution, as well as growing
tensions between different social classes and groups (Khan and Riskin 2001; Zhang and Wan 2006).
Economic liberalization and the dismantling of state-owned enterprises have led to substantial urban
unemployment, increasing gender disparities, and declines of living standards for large sections of
the population (Berik, Dong, and Summerfield 2007).
China’s economic growth has been highly energy and resources intensive, and has led to
serious environmental degradation. China has now among the world’s worst air and water pollution
problems. Land degradation is taking place at alarming rates. China’s massive resources demand
contributes to the rapid depletion of the world’s remaining nonrenewable resources, and China has
already become a major contributor to the global greenhouse gas emissions (Tisdell 2001; Wen and
Li 2006).
At the macroeconomic level, China’s economic growth has been primarily driven by
investment and exports, whereas consumption has steadily declined as a share of China’s economic
output. As the U.S. economy moves into recession and the US current account deficit starts to
correct, China can no longer rely upon rapid growth of exports as a major engine of growth and
2
China’s excessively high level of investment cannot be sustained for long without leading to major
macroeconomic difficulties.
Thus, China’s current model of development cannot be sustained for social, ecological, and
macroeconomic reasons. This paper argues that China’s current model of development is
characterized by serious social, ecological, and macroeconomic imbalances. For China’s
development to be sustained, China needs to undertake major transformations that restructure the
Chinese economy in accordance with equitable and ecologically sustainable principles. We propose
a progressive economic program that would allow China to take the initial steps to move in such a
direction.
Section 2 reviews the structural and institutional evolution that led to the emergence of
China’s current model of development. Section 3 discusses the social and environmental
consequences of China’s market-oriented economic reform and economic growth. Section 4
examines the macroeconomic structure of the Chinese economy, and argues that rapid expansion of
exports can no longer serve as a major engine for China’s future economic growth. Section 5 argues
that China’s current level of investment is excessively high, and provides an estimate of the likely
sustainable level of investment. Section 6 proposes a progressive economic program, which is
designed to transform China’s macroeconomic structure so that the future economic growth is to be
led by domestic consumption rather than investment and exports. The macroeconomic
transformation is to take place in such a manner that it simultaneously advances the goals of social
equity and ecological sustainability.
2. The Structural and Institutional Evolution towards the Current Model of Development
Economic reforms began in China with the Third Plenum of the Eleventh Congress of the
Chinese Communist Party in late 1978. Initially, the official goal of economic reform was to build a
“socialist commodity economy with planning”. State and collective ownership were to remain
dominant, and central planning would continue to play a prominent role in resources allocation and
capital formation.
3
The economic reform began in the rural-agricultural sector with the dismantling of the
people’s communes and the adoption of the “household responsibility system”, which represented a
de facto privatization of agricultural production in China. The return to family farming was
followed by a period of rapid growth of agricultural output. The infrastructure built during Mao's
era, rapid increases in the use of chemical fertilizers, and higher state procurement prices for
agricultural goods also made important contributions to the agricultural growth in this period.
During the 1970s, rural collective enterprises known as “communes and brigade enterprises”
emerged and started to grow rapidly. These became the institutional roots for the later well known
“town and village enterprises” at the onset of the reforms. The town and village enterprises
remained collectively owned throughout the 1980s and were considered by many as constituting
China’s most dynamic economic sector (Riskin 1987; Lin 1988; McMillan, Whalley, and Zhu 1989;
Naughton 1995).
Incremental reforms were applied to the urban industrial sector. In contrast to the reform
strategy pursued in agriculture, in the 1980s no state owned enterprise was privatized. Until 1990,
the state owned enterprises and the collective owned enterprises combined stilled accounted for 90
percent of the industrial output (NBS 1992). The initial restructuring of the industrial sector focused
on the managerial system. State enterprise managers were given more autonomy in price and output
decisions, and firms were allowed to retain a portion of the profits.
A more radical step in this direction was undertaken in 1987 when the “contract
responsibility system” was introduced in all state owned enterprises. Under the contract
responsibility system, managers were given the exclusive power to determine workers’
compensation and duration of employment. Until the early 1990s, managers rarely exercised the
power to dismiss workers. The new system, however, represented a break with the historical
socialist commitment to equality and employment security. The balance of power within the state
owned enterprises started to change to the workers’ disfavor.
With respect to international trade and investment, the so-called “open door policy” was
introduced in 1978 with the objective of expanding foreign trade and allowing foreign companies to
4
invest in China. With the rationale that modernization could not be achieved while maintaining
closure towards the outside world, special economic zones were established in the coastal regions.
Preferential policies, such as special tax incentives for foreign investment and greater freedom to
conduct foreign trade for international partners, were implemented in the special economic zones.
Despite the rapid expansion of trade following the adoption of the open door policy, the
impact of external markets on China’s economy remained modest. Until the end of the 1980s, the
contribution of exports as a component of aggregate demand and foreign investment as a source of
capital formation remained relatively small in magnitude. In this period, China’s economic growth
was largely driven by internal demand (to be further discussed in section 4).
During the 1980s, the Chinese economy grew at an average annual rate of near 10 per cent.
The economy was still dominated by state and collective owned enterprises, and the economic gains
associated with the growth process tended to be broadly shared across the society. Nonetheless,
rapid growth also led to widespread corruption and emerging social and economic imbalances.
Income distribution became more unequal. In the state sector, the traditional employment security
and other welfare programs, referred to by the Chinese workers as the “iron rice bowl”, started to be
undermined. In addition, the dismantling of the people’s communes in the countryside led to a
deterioration of the rural public infrastructures.
After the 1989 political turmoil, there was a short-lived attempt by sections of the Party
leadership to reorient the Chinese economy towards more central planning and state guidance.
However, after Deng Xiaoping’s notorious Southern Tour in early 1992, the internal debate within
the Party was settled once and for all1. At the Fourteenth Party Congress in October 1992, the Party
was officially committed to the objective of transforming the Chinese economy into a “socialist
market economy”. The commitment opened the way for full-scale market liberalization and
1
In the spring of 1992, Deng Xiaoping’s visited Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhuhai, cities that had pioneered opening
to foreign capital and capitalist-style economic reform.
Deng’s tour reconfirmed the direction of market-oriented
reform. For further details, see Meisner (1999: 516).
5
privatization.
By the end of the 1990s, most of the state owned enterprises and virtually all of the
collective owned enterprises had been privatized (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett 2005). The
remainders were restructured into corporations with shares held by both domestic and foreign
capitalists. This widespread privatization was accompanied by massive lay-offs that reduced the
state sector employment by more than 40 percent (Naughton 2007: 105)
China has also taken major steps towards trade and financial liberalization. In 1996, the
Chinese currency (renminbi) was made fully convertible on the current account. In 2001, China was
admitted into World Trade Organization with a full range of commitments of further trade
liberalization. In the financial sector, state owned banks were required to become fully commercial,
and a large number of new banking institutions were established. The stock market also developed
rapidly during the 1990s, which resulted in an increase in total market capitalization as a share of
GDP from 10 percent in 1993 to 48 percent in 2000 (Naughton 2007: 468). China has also been
taking steps to open its capital account to allow for freer cross-border capital flows.
The post-1992 reforms inspired by greater market orientation continued to generate rapid
economic growth. However, in comparison with the earlier phase, the market reforms led to serious
social and environmental problems. In the urban sector, many workers experienced declines in
living standards due to the withdrawal of the employment security and other welfare programs. The
rural residents faced major deterioration in access to basic health care and education, which used to
be provided by people’s communes (Cook 2002; Li and Zhu 2004) 2 .
As the workers’ and
peasants’ incomes fall behind the overall economic growth, household consumption declines as a
share of China’s GDP and China’s economic growth has been increasingly driven by investment
and exports (see section 4 below). China’s economic growth has also led to serious environmental
degradation, and has been heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels and other non-renewable
resources.
2
For further details on the deterioration of China’s rural health care system, see Hossein (1997), WHO (2000), and
Wen (2005 and 2007).
6
Since 2003, the new Chinese leadership has demonstrated the intention to tackle China’s
social, ecological, and macroeconomic imbalances by broadening its political agenda to focus
greater attention on social equity and the sustainable use of natural resources. The new leadership
promised to pursue a “scientific perspective of development” in order to achieve "common
prosperity" and a “harmonious society”. However, there has been no change in the general
commitment to privatization and liberalization. The effects of the new government policies have
been modest thus far, and have not yet been able to contain the general tendency towards rising
inequality, environmental degradation, and macroeconomic imbalances.
3. The Social and Environmental Consequences of China’s Current Model of Development
The economic reform in China has been applauded by many as a great success. During the
reform period, the Chinese economy has been growing at an annual average rate of nearly 10
percent. In 2005, there were 600 million fewer people living below the poverty line than 1978,
measured by an income of purchasing power parity $1.25 per day (Chen and Ravallion 2008). From
1978 to 1996, the per-capita consumption of rural residents nearly quadrupled, and the per-capita
consumption of urban residents tripled (Chow 2007).
However, as China is becoming the world’s second largest economy, imbalances in social,
ecological, and economic areas have also emerged. The current processes of privatization,
liberalization, and retreat of the State from social security have generated in the Chinese economy a
sharp increase in inequality along different dimensions. Growing income and wealth inequality has
been reflected by greater disparities between coastal and inner provinces, between urban and rural
areas, between sexes, and between different social classes and groups (Khan and Riskin 2001;
UNDP 2005; Lin 2007; Naughton 2007). In the urban sector, the income gap between the richest 10
percent of households and the poorest 10 percent increased from 3.3 times in 1992 to 7.9 times in
2002. As a reflection of these disparities, the Gini coefficient shows that China’s inequality in
household income distribution increased from 0.38 in 1988 to 0.47 in 2004 (World Bank 2007). By
this measure, China is now more unequal than the United States and the majority of Asian
7
developing countries. The radical acceleration of liberalization and privatization has thus imposed a
radical departure from the traditional socialist commitment to equality.
Inequality in China is also rapidly increasing with respect to non-monetary indices. In recent
years, health care, education, and housing costs have escalated, which have had a dramatic impact
on the budget of ordinary working families. According to a survey conducted by the Chinese
government, about 50 percent of the urban residents and almost 90 percent of the rural residents
cannot afford any health insurance. In some poor provinces, it is estimated that from 60 to 80
percent of the people who died because of diseases could have survived if they had been able to pay
for the medical treatments (Zhu 2005; Quinlan 2007). Inequities in the distribution of entitlements
and capabilities have also had a gender dimension. Compared to men, women have less access to
health care, face poorer working conditions, and have fewer market opportunities due to their
greater responsibilities in household activities (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett 2005; Berik, Dong, and
Summerfield 2007).
The outcome of the reforms in terms of increasing inequalities represents a key challenge to
the sustainability of the current strategy of development pursued by the Chinese leadership.
According to China Human Development Report 2005, “Inequity, if unaddressed, could penalize
China’s economic development and undermine the extent and sustainability of future progress”
(UNDP 2005: 6). Since the late 1990s, rising inequality has also led to a slowdown in poverty
reduction. Half of the decline in poverty was achieved in the first few years of the 1980s.
Addressing the problem of rising inequality is therefore crucial to restore the past rate of poverty
reduction (Ravallion and Chen 2004; Yao, Zhang, and Hanmer 2004; Naughton 2007).
The Chinese government has taken steps to address the inequities in health care access. In
2002, the Chinese government introduced the new cooperative medical system in the rural areas,
under the intention of replacing the previous cooperative medical system that collapsed with the
dissolution of the people’s communes. The new insurance scheme is run on a voluntary basis, and it
entitles participants to be at least partly reimbursed for their medical expenses with the payment of a
participation fee. The practical design and management of the program is left to the discretion of
8
local governments so that significant differences can be observed across different parts of the
country. The effectiveness of such measures cannot be fully assessed yet. The implementation of
the program is proceeding at a slow pace. As of 2006, the rural cooperative medical system was
only available in 10 percent of China’s villages. Some also point out that the current insurance
scheme fails to provide people with sufficient incentives to participate. As a result, most of the rural
residents are still responsible for their own health care expenditures, which are often reserved for
emergency needs given the poor quality that generally characterize health care services in the rural
areas (Brant et al. 2006; Brown, de Brauw, and Theoharides 2008).
China’s economic growth under the market-oriented reform has also been characterized by
intensive use of resources with destructive effects on the internal environment and potentially also
on the global environment. The current pattern of resource and energy utilization is likely to be
unsustainable not only for economic and social reasons, but also in light of the natural resource
endowment of the country.
China is characterized by scarcity of land and water availability in relation to its population.
China’s per capita arable land is one-third of the world average, and its fresh water availability is
only one-quarter of the world average. Measured by the concept of ecological footprint (the areas of
cropland, grassland, pasture, forests, and fishing grounds required to meet people’s material
consumption), China’s per capita bio-capacity is only about 45 percent of the world average.
China’s current per capita ecological footprint, while still being lower than the world average, is
already twice China’s own bio-capacity (WWF et al. 2006).
In other words, China’s current level of economic activities has already overshot China’s
ecological capacity, and is now imposing unsustainable burden on China’s own environment. Seven
of the most polluted cities in the world are located in China. About 60 percent of the water in the
seven major river systems is considered dangerous for human contact. Due to soil erosion and
industrial pollution, 40 percent of China’s arable land is now degraded. Desertification is advancing
at an annual rate of 10,400 square kilometers (Wen and Li 2006).
9
China depends on coal for 70 percent of its energy consumption. As coal emits more
greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels, China’s emissions of greenhouse gases have been growing
rapidly and China has already overtaken the U.S. to become the world’s largest emitter of
greenhouse gases. It is now well established and widely accepted that the emissions of greenhouse
gases contribute to climate change with potentially catastrophic consequences for the humanity.
Thus, China’s current model of development, if not transformed, would threaten not only to bring
about a national environmental crisis but also precipitate a global environmental crisis.
4. China’s Macroeconomic Structure and the Limits of Export-Led Growth
Figure 1 demonstrates the changing macroeconomic structure of the Chinese economy from
1978 to 2006. From 2000 to 2006, household consumption as a share of GDP fell from 46 percent
to only 36 percent, probably one of the lowest consumption shares in the world. By contrast, during
the same period, the investment share rose from 35 percent to 43 percent, the share of exports of
goods and services surged from 23 percent to 37 percent, and the share of net exports rose sharply
from 2.4 percent to 7.5 percent. Thus, in recent years, China’s economic growth has clearly been led
by investment and exports.
While the absolute living standards of the population have improved over the years, with
rising inequality, the income (and therefore the purchasing power) of the great majority has lagged
behind the growth of national output. The great majority of the population depends primarily on
labor income to make a living, and the relative decline of labor income has largely paralleled the
relative decline of household consumption.
Figure 2 compares the household consumption and total labor income as a share of GDP.
The relative decline of household consumption largely parallels the relative decline of labor income.
There are no official statistics on China’s total labor income. China’s National Bureau of Statistics
conducts surveys of rural and urban households that provide data of household incomes. We
estimate the total labor income as the sum of the wage incomes of urban residents and the total
peasant net income. For the urban areas, the total wage income is derived by multiplying the urban
10
population by per capita wage income of urban residents. For the rural areas, the total peasant net
income is calculated by multiplying the rural population by the peasants’ per capita net income. The
peasant net income includes farming income, wages earned by migrant workers, and a limited share
of supplementary sources of income. The data for the urban wage incomes and peasants’ net
incomes are from National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS 2007 and previous years). Using this
approach, our own estimates show that the total labor income, which constituted about 50 percent of
GDP in 1990, declined to 37 percent of GDP in 2005. During the same period, household
consumption fell from 49 percent of GDP to 36 percent.
How long can China continue to run large trade surpluses relative to its economy?3 In 2007,
the European Union as a whole actually overtook the U.S. to become China’s largest exports
market. The European Union accounted for 20 percent of China’s total merchandise exports, and
the U.S. accounted for 19 percent. However, in term of net exports, in 2007, according to the
Chinese data, China had a bilateral trade surplus against the European Union of $134.2 billion,
whereas in the same year China had a bilateral trade surplus against the U.S. of $162.2 billion. As
China’s total trade surplus in 2007 was $262.2 billion, by this measure, the United States accounted
for 62 percent of China’s total trade surplus (NBS 2008).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2007, the U.S. ran a bilateral trade
deficit with China of $256.3 billion (BEA 2008). Thus, on the basis of the U.S. statistics, one could
argue that China’s entire trade surplus depends on the bilateral trade between China and the U.S.4
In recent years China’s trade with Asian countries has been growing rapidly. However,
under the current trade pattern China tends to import machines and equipment from Japan and
South Korea, and raw materials from Southeast Asian countries, processing within China and
3
As we are mainly interested in China’s macroeconomic imbalances, in the following discussions, we will focus on the
sustainability of China’s net exports position rather than the total exports.
4
The difference between the U.S. trade statistics and China’s trade statistics mainly results from that the U.S. counts
the goods manufactured in China but re-exported through Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan as Chinese exports to the
U.S., while China does not.
11
exporting the final products to the U.S. and European markets. As a result, China has been running
trade deficits against other Asian countries. In 2007, China ran a merchandise trade deficit of $3.2
billion against Japan, $4.8 billion against South Korea, and $1.4 billion against ASEAN countries
(NBS 2008).
Since the 1990s, the U.S. has been running large and rising trade deficits, which peaked at
near $800 billion or more than 6 percent of GDP in 2006. The U.S. trade deficits have reflected the
internal imbalances of the U.S. macroeconomic structure. In recent years, the U.S. economic growth
has been driven primarily by household consumption. On the other hand, over the neoliberal period,
the U.S. working class has suffered from declining real wages and stagnating family incomes. In
this context, the growth of household consumption has been largely financed by explosive growth
of household debt.
Now with the burst of the housing bubble, the U.S. economy is moving into recession,
which is likely to be followed by persistent stagnation. Moreover, with the sustained depreciation of
the U.S. dollar, the U.S. trade deficit has been shrinking. It is unlikely that the European Union can
replace the U.S. to become a major engine of the global economy and provide an ample space for
the rest of the world to pursue export-led growth. Within the European Union, the Euro-zone
exports and imports are actually roughly in balance. While the U.K. has been running relatively
significant trade deficits, like the U.S., it is now also struggling with the economic consequences of
a bursting housing bubble (Kotz 2008; Li 2008).
For China to continue running large trade surplus, there has to be some other large economy
that is able and willing to run large trade deficit on a sustained basis. As the U.S. sinks into
stagnation and Europe cannot fill the vacuum, in the coming years the expansion of the Chinese
exports is likely to slow down dramatically and in all likelihood, China’s trade surplus will have to
shrink in relation to China’s GDP.
5. What Is A Sustainable Level of Investment?
Since the 1980s, the Chinese economy has experienced three investment-led booms as
12
measured by investment to GDP ratio. The first peaked in 1985, the second peaked in 1993, and the
third boom started in 2003 and may have already peaked. China’s current level of investment is
excessively high with respect to both international standards and China’s own historical records.
Excessively high levels of investment have potentially dangerous consequences. First, a
significant share of the current level of investment could eventually prove to be excess investment,
which could translate into massive amounts of excess capacity. Until now, much of the additional
production relative to domestic demand has been absorbed by exports. However, given that exportled growth cannot be sustained much longer, as China’s exports slow down, a large portion of the
industrial production capacity could have great difficulty to find readily available markets (Wang
2007). Secondly, China’s high level of investment has generated very high demand for energy and
raw materials, which is not sustainable (to be discussed below). Thus, the excessively high level of
investment could potentially lead to massive amounts of excess capacity as well as potentially
serious shortage of energy and raw materials. This would in turn lead to falling rate of return on
capital and, if the problem is not corrected in time, China could potentially be confronted with a
major economic crisis.
The rate of return on capital depends on the profit share of output and capital productivity
(or the output-capital ratio). In the long run, if there is no major change in the profit share, then the
rate of return on capital is primarily determined by capital productivity. Thus, from a purely
economic point of view, a “sustainable” investment level should be one that is consistent with stable
capital productivity. In other words, at equilibrium, investment should be just enough to compensate
for depreciation of fixed capital and to cover the net investment required for the capital stock to
grow at the same rate as GDP. The relationship between the sustainable level of investment as a
share of GDP and the equilibrium capital-output ratio (the inverse of the output-capital ratio) can be
calculated as follows:
Equilibrium capital to GDP ratio =
Investment to GDP ratio / (Sustainable growth rate of GDP + Depreciation rate of fixed capital)
13
There are no official statistics on China’s capital stock. We made our own estimates of
China’s capital stock (defined as the economy-wide net stock of fixed assets), and used these
estimates to calculate China’s capital productivity. There are two different types of capital stock:
productive capital stock (such as the capital stock in the profit-making business sector), and
infrastructure capital stock (such as the capital stock in transportation, communications, public
utilities, and general social services). Infrastructure capital stock contributes to society’s long-term
economic and social development, and a case can be made that it should not be treated in the same
category as general productive capital stock.5
Figure 3 presents two different measures of China’s capital productivity from 1992 to 2006,
with capital measured by total capital stock and total productive capital stock. For the data sources
and the estimating procedures, see Appendix. Both measures of capital productivity have tended to
fall since the mid-1990s. From 1995 to 2006, the output to total capital ratio fell by 16 percent and
the output to total productive capital ratio fell by 9 percent. But the output to total productive capital
ratio seems to have flattened since 2002, suggesting that the recent decline of total capital
productivity primarily reflects an increase in the infrastructure capital stock.
Assuming China’s long-term sustainable economic growth rate being 7 percent (which could
be too optimistic) and the depreciation rate being 8 percent, for total capital to GDP ratio to stabilize
at 2.5 (that is, for the capital productivity to stabilize at 0.4, lower than the current value), then the
investment to GDP ratio needs to stabilize at [2.5 * (7 percent + 8 percent)] = 37.5 percent.
It may be argued that since much of the recent increase in capital stock has to do with
5 A related issue has to do with the role played by foreign direct investment in China’s capital stock growth. Arguably,
foreign direct investment contributes to technological progress and may be more desirable than domestic investment. In
fact, foreign direct investment accounts for only a small proportion of China’s total investment and therefore is not a
significant part of China’s capital stock. Foreign direct investment played a relatively significant role only in the early
phase of market reform. The ratio of foreign direct investment to total fixed capital formation reached a peak of 17
percent in 1994. Since then, it has tended to fall, having stayed below 10 percent since 2000, and was only 6 percent in
2005 and 2006 (NBS 2007).
14
infrastructure investment, China’s current very high level of investment (now approaching 45
percent of GDP) is nevertheless sustainable despite falling output to total capital ratio. However,
China’s very high level of investment has not only led to falling capital productivity, but also very
high demand for energy and mineral resources that simply cannot be sustained.
Investment in fixed capital includes investment in buildings and structures, and investment
in equipment. The former requires building materials (such as steel and cement) that are energy
intensive to produce. The latter, such as the production of tools and machines, also requires large
amounts of energy and materials. According to China’s Energy Development Report, the following
industries are generally considered to be highly energy intensive industries with energy-to-output
ratios much higher than other industries: chemical industry, ferrous metals industry (iron and steel
industry), non-ferrous metals industry, and the building materials industry (Cui ed. 2008: 230).
Among the four energy intensive industries, three clearly have to do with fixed capital investment.
As shown in Figure 4, between 1995 and 2006, investment growth and the growth of
production of coal, steel, cement, and electricity were closely correlated. The correlation
coefficients between the growth rate of real fixed capital formation and the growth rate of coal,
steel, cement, and electricity production are, respectively: 0.67, 0.44, 0.71, and 0.68. The correlation
coefficients between the GDP share of fixed capital formation and the growth rate of coal, steel,
cement, and electricity production are, respectively: 0.67, 0.81, 0.70, and 0.69.
China now consumes one-third of the world’s steel and one-quarter of the world’s aluminum
and copper (Wolf 2008). If the current trend continues, by 2020 China is expected to consume about
40 percent of the world’s aluminum, copper, nickel, and 70 percent of the iron ore (Financial
Times, August 1, 2008, p. 12, “Chinese Commodity Crunch”).
China consumes nearly 20 percent of the world’s total energy supply, and will soon overtake
the U.S. to become the world’s largest energy consumer and, as is discussed earlier, is already the
world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.
In 2007, China produced 1.3 billion tons of cement, or half of the world’s total cement
production (USGS 2008). Cement production is highly energy and pollution intensive. It is
15
estimated that world cement production is responsible for about 8 percent of the world’s annual
emissions of carbon dioxide (WWF et al. 2008).
All of these trends are clearly unsustainable. One way or the other, in the coming years,
China’s energy and materials demand will have to adjust towards more reasonable levels. Given the
high correlation between fixed capital investment and the demand for energy and materials, China’s
investment as a share of GDP will have to adjust accordingly.
6. Towards A Progressive Economic Program: One Hundred Million Jobs for the Chinese
Workers
Since the early 1990s, the Chinese economy has become highly dependent on exports and
investment as drivers of economic growth. This model of development has been responsible for the
accumulation of economic, social, and environmental imbalances that could potentially lead to
major crisis for China and the global economy.
Over the last few months of 2008, there were signs that the Chinese economy was
decelerating rapidly. As the world leaders went to Washington D.C. to discuss the global economic
crisis, the Chinese government announced a fiscal stimulus package with a massive headline figure
of four trillion Yuan ($570 billion).
However, later it was revealed that the central government was committed only to a total
spending of one trillion Yuan, and the rest of the stimulus package was expected to be made up with
extra spending by local governments and state owned enterprises. Some economists worried that
local governments and enterprises might not be willing or able to provide the extra spending.
Moreover, it is not clear what proportion of the announced stimulus package represents new
spending in addition to pre-existing spending plans. Thus, the actual size of the fiscal stimulus
package could be a lot smaller than what the headline figure suggests (Dyer 2008a).
About 80 percent of the expected four trillion Yuan spending is expected to be investment in
infrastructure projects, such as roads, railways, and nuclear power plants. As these projects
generally take years to prepare and build, some economists questioned the stimulus effect of these
16
projects in the near term. Some worried that these infrastructure projects could turn out to be low
quality projects that would lead to wasteful spending and rising corruption (Dyer 2008b).
Some economists warned that unless carefully controlled, infrastructure investment could
encourage even more investment in the manufacturing sectors in later years, resulting in excess
capacity and unsustainable demands for energy and materials. Thus, there is a risk that the Chinese
government’s fiscal stimulus package, in its current form, could actually exacerbate China’s
existing macroeconomic and environmental imbalances in the medium- and long-run. Concerned
about these problems, many Chinese economists are now calling on the government to focus on
stimulating domestic consumption rather than investment and exports (Dyer 2008c).
Currently, China’s investment to GDP ratio is about 45 percent and net exports are likely to
reach 10 percent of GDP in 2008. The above analysis argues that in the coming years, China’s
investment to GDP ratio needs to fall back to about 37 percent and given the developments in the
global economy, China will no longer be able to run large trade surpluses. If China’s trade surplus
were to return to 0-5 percent of China’s GDP, then the combined share of investment and net
exports in GDP would fall by 13-18 percent. It follows that the combined share of household and
government consumption needs to increase by the same amount.
As the majority of the population depends on labor income for their living hoods, the level
of household consumption has been closely related to the level of labor income. For consumption to
rise by 13-18 percent, then the labor income and government social spending need to rise by a
similar amount. Will the Chinese leadership be wise and enlightened enough to pursue such a
transformation? What policies could help such a transformation to take place?
One policy the Chinese government could consider is to implement a large-scale public
employment program that offers all unemployed and underemployed workers a living wage. Public
programs of this sort could help to absorb the unemployed and underemployed labor force, set an
effective income floor, and greatly increase the workers’ bargaining power in general.
In 2006, the average wage for urban sector workers was 21,000 Yuan a year (NBS 2007). If
a living wage is set at about half of the current average wage, then the annual living wage is
17
approximately 10,000 Yuan (around $1,400). By comparison, the minimum guaranteed per person
annual income (similar to the government poverty line) for urban residents in Beijing in 2005 was
only 3,500 Yuan (Tang and Zhang 2005).
If the Chinese government is committed to such a program, then to offer one hundred
million Chinese workers with an annual living wage of 10,000 Yuan would cost about one trillion
Yuan (or $140 billion). This would amount to about 4 percent of China’s current GDP or 7 percent
of China’s current foreign exchange reserves.
In recent years, the Chinese government has enjoyed rapid growth in fiscal revenue. In 2007,
the Chinese government fiscal revenue grew by 32 percent and ran a surplus of 165 billion Yuan, or
0.7 percent of GDP. By the end of 2007, China's government debt to GDP ratio was only 22 percent
of GDP, far lower than the 71 percent debt to GDP ratio for the US, 67 percent for the Euro-zone, or
163 percent for Japan (China Daily, December 27, 2008, “China’s Economic Fundamentals in
Good Shape”, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-12/27/content_7346667.htm). Thus, in
the short run, the Chinese government should have little difficulty to run a fiscal deficit of a few
percentages of GDP.
In the medium run, a public employment program of a magnitude suggested above will have
to be financed by more regular sources of fiscal revenue. Preferably, the new sources of fiscal
revenue will facilitate China's rebalancing of macroeconomic structure and contribute to the longterm social and ecological sustainability.
To reorient China’s economic structure towards domestic consumption, China needs to
reduce its excessive dependence on trade surplus. An appreciation of the Chinese currency would
help to discourage exports and encourage imports. However, cheaper imports would tend to make
imported capital goods and luxury consumer goods cheaper. This would primarily benefit the upper
classes, which consume the imported consumer goods and could lead to further investment bubbles.
A more desirable policy is to impose a general export tax that would allow the government to
capture some of the value added generated by China’s exports and use the revenue for social and
environmental policies. An export tax would certainly increase costs for exporters, reducing in turn
18
the volume of production for foreign markets. However, if the goal is to transform China’s
macroeconomic structure by raising internal demand, this taxation policy will facilitate the
transition towards a domestic consumption-driven model of development.
In the medium- and long-term, China will also have to take measures to reduce its intensive
use of fossil fuels. The fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources that are being rapidly depleted and
the consumption of fossil fuels is the major factor behind greenhouse gas emissions. According to
the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, global oil production either is near the peak or
may have already peaked (ASPO 2008).
By discouraging the use of fossil fuels, China could be better positioned to deal with the
coming global energy crisis while making a major contribution to the global effort against climate
change catastrophes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) estimates that
to provide sufficient incentives for the greenhouse gas emissions to fall along a trajectory that
would help prevent climate catastrophes, the global carbon price needs to be at $20-80 per metric
ton of carbon dioxide. Over the past year, there has been a growing consensus among the scientists
that global warming and its potential consequences are in fact more severe than what has been
suggested by the IPCC (Hansen, 2007).
Thus, the carbon price required is likely to be near the
high end of what is recommended by the IPCC.
According to the International Energy Agency (2007), in 2005 China emitted more than 5
billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and China’s emissions have been growing at 10 percent a year.
In the coming years, China – as the world’s largest emitter – will almost certainly be under strong
pressure from the international community to reduce its share of global emissions. The European
Union is currently pressing emerging economies, such as India and China, to cut their emissions by
15-30 percent in order to reach the global targets set for 2050 (Sandhu 2008). If China could
consider charging a carbon tax on all fossil fuels consumption, then a carbon tax of 350 Yuan ($50)
per metric ton of carbon dioxide would generate 1.75 trillion Yuan in tax revenue.
Thus, with a general exports tax, a carbon tax, or a combination of both and other tax
policies, the Chinese government should be able to generate an additional fiscal revenue of more
19
than one trillion Yuan, which could in turn be used to finance a public employment program that
offers living wages to one hundred million workers. These workers could in turn work on socially
and environmentally beneficial projects.
A public employment program for one hundred million workers would help to absorb the
entire urban unemployed workforce and nearly all of the underemployed in the rural areas. It would
directly redistribute several percentage points of national income to the workers and peasants.
Indirectly, through its positive impact on the workers’ bargaining power, it could lead to further
income redistribution to labor’s favor and help China to rebalance its macroeconomic structure.
For the Chinese government, the implementation of such a program would represent
important and significant steps towards the building of a socially and ecologically sustainable model
of development.
20
Appendix: Estimating China’s Capital Stock, 1992-2006
Estimating China’s Total Capital Stock
The real value of the capital stock can be estimated as follows:
KT = K1992 + Σ1992T(NIT)
Where KT is the level of real capital stock in year T, K1992 is the level of real capital stock in 1992,
and Σ1992T(NIT) is the sum of real net investment from 1992 to year T.
Real net investment equals real gross investment (real fixed capital formation) less real
depreciation.
The National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS 2007 and previous years) provides data for
fixed capital formation. Real fixed capital formation is derived by deflating nominal fixed capital
formation with the fixed investment price index.
The National Bureau of Statistics also provides data for depreciation of fixed capital in
1992, 1995, 1997, and 2000. The share of depreciation in GDP can thus be calculated for these four
benchmark years. For the years in between, shares of depreciation in GDP can be assumed to move
along a straight line, which means that they can be calculated as weighted averages of the
benchmark years. For instance:
Depreciation share 1993 =
Depreciation share 1992 + (Depreciation share 1995 – Depreciation share 1992) / 3
Depreciation share 1996 =
(Depreciation share 1997 + Depreciation share 1995) / 2
The nominal value of depreciation from 1992 to 2000 is then calculated by multiplying the
21
depreciation share in each year by GDP. Real depreciation is then derived by deflating nominal
depreciation with the fixed investment price index.
Assuming that the depreciation rate (the ratio of depreciation to capital stock) did not change
between 1992 and 1995, the depreciation rate can be calculated as the ratio of the difference
between the real depreciation in 1995 and the real depreciation in 1992 over the cumulative real net
investment from 1993 to 1995. The resulting value is 0.074937. The real capital stock in 1992 then
can be calculated from the real depreciation and the depreciation rate.
After estimating the real capital stock in 1992, the real capital stock for each year between
1993 and 2000 can be calculated using the following formula:
Kt = Kt-1 + NIt
By calculating the depreciation rate in 2000 (which is calculated to be 0.08406), and
assuming that it remains constant in the following years, it is possible to estimate the value of real
capital stock from 2001 to 2006:
Kt-1 = (Kt + It+1) / 1.08406
Where I is real gross fixed capital formation.
After the value of real capital stock is derived for each year from 1992 to 2006, nominal
value of capital stock for each year is derived by re-inflating the real capital stock with the fixed
investment price index.
Estimating China’s Productive Capital Stock
The productive capital stock is estimated in a similar way as the total capital stock. The
share of the productive capital stock in the total capital stock in 1992 is assumed to be the same as
the ratio of the cumulative real fixed investment in the productive sectors from 1980 to 1992 over
22
the cumulative total real fixed investment. The share of the productive sectors in the real net
investment for each year after 1992 is assumed to be the same as the ratio of the real fixed
investment in the productive sectors over the total real fixed investment.
With the real capital stock in 1992 and the real net investment in the following years for the
productive sectors estimated, the real capital stock in the productive sectors in the remaining years
can be estimated accordingly.
The investment in the productive sectors is defined as the difference between the total
investment and the investment in the infrastructure sectors. The infrastructure sectors include the
following:
- Production and supply of electricity, gas, and water;
- Transport, storage, and post;
- Scientific research, technical services, and geological prospecting;
- Management of water conservancy, environment, and public facilities;
- Education;
- Health care, social securities, and social welfare;
- Culture, sports, and entertainment;
- Public management and social organizations;
- International Organizations.
23
References
ASPO. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas of Ireland. 2008. ASPO Newsletters. Website:
http://www.peakoil.ie
BEA. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2008. International Economic Accounts, Website:
http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop.
Berik, G., X. Y Dong, and G. Summerfield. 2007. “China’s Transition and Feminist Economics”,
Feminist Economics 13 (3-4): 1-33.
Brant, S., M. Garris, E. Okeke, and J. Rosensfeld. 2006. “Access to Care in Rural China: A Policy
Discussion”. Paper prepared for the International Economic Development Program, The Gerald
R. Ford School of Public Policy - University of Michigan, April 2006. Website:
http://www.umich.edu/~ipolicy/china/1)%20Access%20to%20Health%20Care%20in%20Rural
%20China,%20A%20Policy%20Discussion.pdf.
Brown, P. H., A. de Brauw, and C. Theoharides. 2008. “Health-Seeking Behavior and Hospital
Choice in China’s New Cooperative Medical System”. Social Science Research Network,
Website: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1176194.
Chen S. and M. Ravallion. 2008. “The Developing World is Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less
Successful In the Fight Against Poverty”. Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 4703, The
World Bank Development Research Group.
Cook, S. 2002. “From Rice Bowl to Safety Net: Insecurity and Social Protection during China’s
Transition”, Development Policy Review 20 (5): 615-635.
Cui, M. (ed.). 2008. Zhongguo Nengyuan Fazhan Baogao (China’s Energy Development Report).
Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe (Social Sciences Academic Press).
Dyer, G. 2008a. “Beijing Offering Just Quarter of Stimulus Funds”, Financial Times, November 15,
2008, p. 3.
_____. 2008b. “Golden Era of Growth in Double Figures Ends”, Financial Times, November 24,
2008, Special Report on China, p. 2.
_____. 2008c. “China Eyes a Further Economic Stimulus”, Financial Times, December 8, 2008, p.
24
3.
Hansen, J. E. 2007. “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise”, March 2007. Website:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf.
Hart-Landsberg, M. and P. Burkett. 2005. China and Socialism – Market Reforms and Class
Struggle. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Hossein, S. I. 1997. “Tackling Health Transition in China”. Policy Research Working Paper, WPS
1813, The World Bank Development Research Group.
Khan, A. R. and C. Riskin. 2001. Inequality and Poverty in China in the Age of Globalization.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Kotz, D. M. 2008. “Contradictions of Economic Growth in the Neoliberal Era: Accumulation and
Crisis in the Contemporary U.S. Economy”, Review of Radical Political Economics 40 (2): 174188.
IEA. International Energy Agency. 2007, Key World Energy Statistics 2007. Website:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1199.
IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007 - Summary for
Policymakers. Website: http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Li, M. 2008. “An Age of Transition: the United States, China, Peak Oil, and the Demise of
Neoliberalism”, Monthly Review 59(11): 20-34.
Li, M. and A. Zhu. 2004. “China’s Public Service Privatization and Poverty Reduction: Health Care
and Education Reform (Privatization) in China and the Impact on Poverty”. United Nations
Development Programme Policy Brief.
Lin, J. Y. 1988. “The Household Responsibility System in China’s Agricultural Reform: A
Theoretical and Empirical Study”, Economic Development and Cultural Change 36 (3): 199224.
Lin, T-H. 2007. “Class Structure, Income Inequality, and Class Consciousness in Urban China:
Evidence From the 2003 Panel Data”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, New York City, August 11, 2007.
25
McMillan J., J. Whalley, and L. Zhu. 1989. “The Impact of China’s Economic Reforms on
Agricultural Productivity Growth”, Journal of Political Economy 97(4): 781-805.
Meisner, M. 1999. Mao’s China and After. New York: Free Press.
NBS. National Bureau of Statistics of China. 2007 and previous years. The China Statistical
Yearbook, various years. Website: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj.
NBS. National Bureau of Statistics of China. 2008. Statistical Communiqué of the People’s
Republic of China on 2007. Website:
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20080228_402465066.htm.
Naughton, B. 1995. Growing Out of The Plan – Chinese Economic Reform 1978-1993. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
____. 2007. The Chinese Economy – Transition and Growth. Cambridge; London: The MIT Press.
Quinlan, J. 2007. “Why We Should Not Bank on the Chinese Consumer”, Financial Times, October
3, 2007, p. 24.
Ravallion, M. and S. Chen. 2004. “China’s (Uneven) Progress Against Poverty”. Policy Research
Working Paper, WPS 3408, The World Bank Development Research Group.
Riskin, C. 1987. China’s Political Economy – The Quest for Development Since 1949, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sandhu, E. 2008. “EU Asks China and India to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Green Daily.
Website:
http://www.greendaily.com/2008/10/22/eu-asks-china-and-india-to-cut-greenhouse-
gas-emissions/.
Tang, J. and Z. Shifei. 2005. “Tiaozheng Zhong de Chengxiang Zuidi Shenghuo Baozhang Zhidu
(The Urban and Rural Minimum Living Standards Guarantee System in Adjustments)”, in 2006
Nian: Zhongguo Shehui Xingshi Fenxi yu Yuce (2006: Analyses and Predictions of China’s
Social Situation), edited by R. Xin, L. Xueyi and L. Peilin (eds.), pp. 165-175. Beijing: Shehui
Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe (Social Science Academic Press).
Tisdell, C. 2001. “Economic Growth in China: Can China Cope with Its Environmental Constraints
and Problems?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Development, 8(1): 15-35.
26
UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. 2005. China Human Development Report 2005 –
Development with Equity. Beijing: UNDP.
USGS. The U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. Mineral Commodity Summaries. Website:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/.
Wang, Q. 2007. “China: Our Views on the Economy in a Single Diagram”, Morgan Stanley Global
Economic Forum, June 25, 2007. Website:
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20070625-Mon.html#anchor5101
Wen, D. 2005. China Copes with Globalization – A Mixed Review. The International Forum on
Globalization. Website: http://www.ifg.org/store.htm
____. 2007. “Too Much Growth, Too Little Development: The Reality behind China’s Economic
Miracle”, Development, 50(3): 30-35.
Wen, D., and M. Li. 2006. “China: Hyper-Development and Environmental Crisis”, in Coming to
Terms with Nature (Socialist Register 2007), edited by L. Panitch and C. Leys, pp. 130-146.
London: The Merlin Press.
WHO. World Health Organization. 2000. The World Health Report 2000 - Health Systems:
Improving Performance. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Wolf, M. 2008. “China Changes the Whole World”, Financial Times, January 23, 2008, Special
Report: The World in 2008, p. 2.
World Bank. 2007. World Development Indicators CD-ROM. Washington DC: The World Bank.
WWF et al. World Wildlife Fund in the USA and Canada, Zoological Society of London, and
Global Footprint Network. 2006. Living Planet Report 2006. Website:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf
____. 2008. A Blueprint for a Climate Friendly Cement Industry. Website:
www.worldwildlife.org/climate/poznan/WWFBinaryitem10896.pdf
Yao, S., Z. Zhang, and L. Henmer. 2004. “Growing Inequality and Poverty in China”, China
Economic Review 15: 145-163.
Zhang, Y., and G. Wan. 2006. “The Impact of Growth and Inequality on Rural Poverty in China”,
27
Journal of Comparative Economics 34 (4): 694-712.
Zhu, Q. 2005. “Jumin Shenghuo he Xiaofei Jiegou de Xin Bianhua (New Changes in Household
Living Conditions and the Consumption Structures)”, in 2006 Nian: Zhongguo Shehui Xingshi
Fenxi yu Yuce (2006: Analyses and Predictions of China’s Social Situation),” edited by R. Xin,
L. Xueyi, and L. Peilin, pp. 85-96. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe (Social Science
Academic Press).
28
Figure 1
Macroeconomic Structure of the Chinese Economy
Share of GDP, 1978-2006
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
1978
1982
1986
Private Consumption
Exports
Investment
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Government Consumption
Net Exports
Sources: National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS 2007 and previous years).
29
Figure 2
China's Labor Income: Rural and Urban Population
Share of GDP, 1990-2005
55
50
45
40
35
30
1990
1995
Total Labor Income
2000
2005
Household Consumption
Sources: National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS 2007 and previous years).
30
Figure 3
China's Capital Productivity, 1992-2006
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1992
1994
1996
1998
Output to Total Capital Ratio
2000
2002
2004
2006
Output to Productive Capital Ratio
Sources: Authors’ calculations. See Appendix for data sources and construction.
31
Figure 4
Investment, Minerals and Electricity Production
Rate of Growth, 1995-2006
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
1995
Coal
1997
Steel
1999
Cement
2001
Electricity
2003
2005
Investment Growth
Sources: National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS 2007 and previous years).
32