I’ve applauded China’s economic progress.
It’s economic liberty score jumped from 3.64 in 1980 to 6.46 in the most recent edition of Economic Freedom of the World.
That shift toward markets (which started in a village) helped to dramatically reduce poverty and turn China into a middle-income nation.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is that most of China’s economic liberalization (from 3.64 to 6.15) occurred between 1980 and 2003.
Since that time, China’s score has improved at a glacial pace. Moreover, because other nations have been more aggressive about reducing the burden of government, China’s relative ranking has actually dropped (from #88 to #107) since 2003.
Which is why I’ve warned that China needs another burst of pro-market reform if it wants to become a rich country.
Regarding this issue, the Wall Street Journal has a very interesting report about how China is under-performing.
The country’s state-led growth model is running out of gas. A recession or crisis may not be imminent, but the long-run implications are just as serious. Absent a change in direction,
China may never become rich. …First, official statistics probably paint too flattering a picture. Per-capita income may be a quarter lower than reported, based on a study of nighttime light co-authored by Yingyao Hu of Johns Hopkins University. …Second, it doesn’t measure up to the economies China seeks to emulate. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan all opened their economies to global trade and investment, enjoyed superfast growth for several decades… In fact, China seems to be slowing sooner than the others.
Why is China underperforming?
Too much statism. Simply stated, the government has too much control over the allocation of labor and capital.
For 30 years the Communist Party opened ever more of the economy to private enterprise, trade, foreign investment and market forces. Yet it never relinquished its commitment to socialism and
Mr. Brandt says that since the mid-2000s the government has tightened control over sectors… An inefficient state sector matters less if the private sector grows fast enough. But in recent years, private firms in China have faced multiple headwinds. State-controlled banks prefer to lend to state-owned enterprises… The domestic private sector’s share of total sales has dropped about 5 percentage points since 2016, according to Goldman, while the state sector’s share has risen roughly as much.
By the way, many observers (from the American Enterprise Institute, Peterson Institute for International Economics, the New York Times, the New York Post, and Investor’s Business Daily) echo the concern about China becoming more statist in recent years.
I’ll make a more restrained point.
I’ll start by sharing this very interesting chart from the WSJ story. It shows how China’s growth, while impressive, has not been as rapid as the growth enjoyed by other Asian economies.
If you look below, you’ll see I’ve now augmented the chart to explain why China has under-performed.
On the right side, I’ve added the historical rankings from Economic Freedom of the World. As you can see (and just as theory and evidence teaches us), the other nations on the chart enjoyed more growth because they had more economic freedom.
These numbers reinforce my argument that China needs more pro-market reform. Though I should add the caveat that EFW has added more nations over time, so this comparison overstates the degree to which China is lagging.
But it is lagging. The bottom line is that China needs to copy Hong Kong and Singapore if it wants to become a rich nation. Or even Taiwan, which is an under-appreciated success story.
P.S. Keep in mind that China also faces demographic decline, which makes good policy even more necessary and important.
P.P.S. Amazingly, both the OECD and IMF are trying to sabotage China’s economy.
P.P.P.S. The WSJ story is an example of good reporting. If you want an example of bad reporting about China, check out this bizarre story from the New York Times.
[…] that make the United States as bad as today’s China? Or the former Soviet […]
[…] and South Korea. Singapore and South Korea are examples of “tiger” economies. But China lags well behind because it does not have the pro-market policies that enabled the other two nations (as well as […]
[…] The fact that people and money have been escaping is a symptom of that problem. […]
[…] years ago, I wrote that China needed to choose between “Statism and Stagnation or Reform and […]
[…] China vs. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan […]
[…] The bad news, though, is that China is still a relatively poor nation. Living standards are not only far below American levels, but per-capita economic output is also much lower than the levels in other East Asian nations. […]
[…] The bad news, though, is that China is still a relatively poor nation. Living standards are not only far below American levels, but per-capita economic output is also much lower than the levels in other East Asian nations. […]
[…] tradeoff between inequality and growth, it is quite good on trade-related issues (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] you really need to know is that China only ranks #124 in the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World. To be sure its score is much higher […]
[…] that Switzerland is in the middle of the pack. But I’m not surprised to see poor scores for China and […]
[…] hope, for what it’s worth, is that China’s leaders reverse the current trend and resume the 1979-2000 path of economic liberalization that was so successful in reducing mass […]
[…] the big worry is that China’s score could move in the wrong direction. Especially with policies that […]
[…] According to the most-recent edition of Economic Freedom of the World, Brazil is only ranked #120, which is lower than nations such as Greece, Haiti, and China. […]
[…] also explained that China’s economy is being held back by statist […]
[…] A week ago, I wrote about the turmoil in Hong Kong and pointed out that a crackdown would be bad for China’s already-faltering economy. […]
[…] are also chapters about Sweden, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Georgia, and […]
[…] is why, as I wrote just a couple of days ago, China instead needs free-market reforms to liberalize the […]
[…] and cronyism would be very beneficial for the Chinese economy. In other words, China would enjoy more growth and prosperity if it had to fix its bad policies in response to adverse WTO rulings. And, of course, the United […]
China’s state-owned sector – poor performance and low efficiency
China’s private sector – struggle due to low economic freedom
Mr Trump – Stop Made in China 2025!Stop Huawei!
[…] are also chapters about Sweden, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Georgia, and […]
[…] « China’s Choice: Statism and Stagnation or Reform and Prosperity […]
LBF, ‘My real fear . . .’ – I suspect you are correct.
Seems to me, also, that there is a growing realisation among communists and socialists around the world that democracy has failed them, and that prosperity is anathema to their cause. Communism comes before all else, including the well-being of the population. I have little doubt that all in China is assessed according to the exigencies of maintaining the communist party through an all-encompassing state. Prosperity, economic freedom, be damned.
You are spot-on describing China’s economic fragility. But I believe it is worse. The development loans to 3rd world countries are going to default to State-Owned Banks, their high cost of utterly useless development within China has already started to crumble – fiscally and physically, and suppliers are looking to other countries for better prices and higher quality. My real fear is the Chinese state will use some pretext to distract from governance failures and look to Hong Kong and Taiwan for assimilation to keep the domestic population distracted from the very real consequence to come. I hope I am wrong.