China has a Choice – Short-term Growth or Sustainability

Source: Getty
Op-Ed Financial Times
Summary
How Beijing responds to pressure to lower lending rates will be an important indicator of whether it is prioritizing short-term growth or the transition to a healthier economy in the medium-term.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

Years of artificially low interest rates have been key both to China’s rapid growth and to its notorious domestic imbalances. The role of financial repression – manipulating the financial system to divert money from savers to producers – in the Chinese growth model is widely recognised. But the improvement in the country’s interest rate structure is not.

As a rule when nominal lending rates are broadly in line with nominal gross domestic product growth rates, the rewards of expansion are efficiently distributed between savers and users of capital. When they are substantially lower, however, as they have been in China for the past 30 years, net lenders – mainly household depositors – in effect pay a hidden subsidy to net borrowers. In China these include state entities, manufacturers, state-owned enterprises and real estate developers.

This subsidy – an astonishing 5-8 per cent of GDP – encourages irresponsible borrowing and forces down household income. This is why its elimination is crucially important both for rebalancing the economy towards greater household consumption and for reducing the amount of wasteful investment.

There is good news on that front. The hidden subsidy has declined dramatically since 2011. In the five years from 2006 to 2011, nominal GDP growth averaged about 18 per cent or more, while the official lending rate averaged around 7 per cent. In the past two years the nominal GDP growth rate has fallen to below 10 per cent while the lending rate rose to 7.5 per cent, bringing the gap down by an impressive three-quarters.

Interest rates are still artificially low, but with much of the economy addicted to cheap capital, any further narrowing of the gap is likely to be opposed by borrowers. In fact the combination of slowing growth and the recent low inflation numbers has already sparked urgent calls for interest rate cuts.

On the surface these calls seem justified. China’s economy is slowing partly because borrowers are struggling to repay debt. Usually this would argue for rate cuts – but not in China. It is still overly reliant on investment for growth. Because so much investment in the past has been in nonproductive projects, debt has risen faster than debt-servicing capacity for many years, to the point where it has reached alarming levels.

Here is where the problem lies. The faster Beijing reduces the gap between the nominal growth rate and the nominal lending rate, the more painful it will be for existing borrowers, especially the most irresponsible, who have depended on the subsidy. But the slower Beijing does so, the more debt will be added to the country’s overstretched balance sheets, especially among the least efficient borrowers, and the more painful the adjustment will be.

So far Beijing has shown tremendous restraint. In 2012 there were rumours that Li Keqiang, now prime minister, strongly opposed reducing lending rates even as inflation all but collapsed. It is also impressive that China has continued to resist interest rate cuts as growth drops and inflation fears subside further. The longer Beijing resists calls to cut interest rates, the harder it will be to maintain 7 per cent growth rates, and it is almost certain that GDP growth will drop further. However, by resisting the temptation Beijing will force swifter rebalancing and will reduce the overall debt and wasted investment that it will eventually have to confront.

Just as importantly, by eliminating the hidden transfer from household depositors to borrowers it can boost growth in household income even as output growth slows. This will allow China to move more quickly towards developing a healthy balance between consumption and investment while preventing slower growth from undermining the income of ordinary households. Cutting interest rates, in other words, will hurt households and increase bad debt, while not doing so will hurt the elite and cause the economy to slow in the short term.

Beijing faces a difficult choice. It must choose between preventing growth from slowing further in the short term and speeding up the transition to a healthier economy over the medium term. How China responds to interest rate pressures over the next year will be an important indication of the political difficulties Premier Li faces.

This article was originally published in the Financial Times

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments

 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/09/02/china-has-choice-short-term-growth-or-sustainability/glau

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。