• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Yukon Huang"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

There’s More Volatility to Come in China

Beijing’s efforts to liberalize its financial markets have become much more complicated and increased volatility has been the result.

Link Copied
By Yukon Huang
Published on Jan 14, 2016
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: Wall Street Journal

Global financial markets have been rattled by the extreme volatility in China’s equity markets and by pressures for the yuan to depreciate more than just a few percentage points. Some observers interpret the turbulence as evidence of a possible economic collapse with global repercussions. Others believe Beijing intends to use currency depreciation to buoy up exports, potentially triggering rounds of competitive devaluations. Both perceptions are largely misguided.

China’s current stock-market gyrations are unrelated to the state of its real economy, which is in little danger of collapsing, though the slowdown will persist. Nor will such a modest depreciation significantly impact trade balances when other Asian currencies have experienced much sharper declines. Then why have these largely China-specific events shaken global markets?

Some see the turbulence as an overreaction. But this can’t be the full story given a similar round of swings last summer. Others see more fundamental problems involving Beijing’s unwillingness to allow market forces to guide its economy. Yet China’s strong past performance was due to its receptivity to market-based reforms. China is in fact coming closer to being a more “normal,” market-driven economy. Like other market economies, it is less able to manipulate prices and economic aggregates. This, coupled with globalization, makes China vulnerable to economic cycles.

Meanwhile, its current problems stem from being neither a true market economy nor completely state-controlled. Hence the uncertainty.

China’s slowdown will be protracted because it involves a longer-term structural shift to more service-driven growth and a shorter-term cyclical adjustment to balance the overbuilt property market. The hope is that this process will be smooth, but underlying pressures shaping these trends suggest that volatility should be expected.

Beijing’s actions have complicated matters. Its eagerness to internationalize the yuan before the requisite institutions could be put in place has accentuated risks and limited options. When the International Monetary Fund approved the inclusion of the yuan in the special drawing rights basket of reserve currencies, it didn’t do China any favors by interpreting the eligibility rules so liberally. One of the two technical conditions for inclusion is that the currency be “freely available,” which generally means that currency transfers aren’t restricted by capital controls. This clearly isn’t the case in China.

Chinese firms and households are eager to move funds abroad as the country transforms from a state-planned economy reliant on capital controls into a more market-based economy where investors can diversify their holdings abroad. As long as there is pressure for the yuan to depreciate, a freely available currency will be nearly impossible.

In the past, this pressure was largely contained because returns were much higher in China than abroad. Property prices were soaring, and persistent trade surpluses pushed the value of the yuan upward.

But with the slowing economy, declining property prices and narrowing interest-rate differentials, incentives for Chinese firms and households have reversed. Beijing’s efforts to liberalize its financial markets are now much more complicated. The result is increased volatility.

Volatility is also heightened on China’s equity markets because of government interventions. The Shanghai Stock Exchange continues to be dominated by state-owned firms even as the economy has become driven by the private sector.

Meanwhile, movements in the exchange are shaped more by unsophisticated investors with a gambler’s mentality than by economic fundamentals. And by intervening after this summer’s collapse with state purchases and bans on large-scale selling, the government has artificially propped up prices, almost guaranteeing that there will be major periodic sell-offs.

Some volatility is always to be expected, but trying to reverse the direction of market-driven shifts only leads to more extreme adjustments in the future. Beijing would be better off letting the equity market find its own equilibrium while strengthening its regulatory and institutional foundations so that eventually these fluctuations will be driven by economic fundamentals.

Dealing with volatility in the exchange-rate market is more complicated. China is moving away from a peg to the U.S. dollar and toward a more flexible system linking the yuan to a basket of currencies. If successful, the yuan would be stabilized relative to this basket but allowed to fluctuate more widely relative to the dollar. This is a sensible way to transition to a free-floating exchange-rate system that isn’t possible at China’s current stage of financial development.

In the interim, Beijing is trying to create a mechanism to link the yuan to this currency basket and determine its appropriate value. The market is signaling that this will require depreciation, but the big question is by how much. If it’s modest, a process of gradual adjustments might work. But if the gap is large, then more actions like the ones we saw recently to counteract market pressures for depreciation are unlikely to be sustainable.

This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

About the Author

Yukon Huang

Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Huang is a senior fellow in the Carnegie Asia Program where his research focuses on China’s economy and its regional and global impact.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Three Takeaways From the Biden-Xi Meeting

      Yukon Huang, Isaac B. Kardon, Matt Sheehan

  • Commentary
    Europe Narrowly Navigates De-risking Between Washington and Beijing

      Yukon Huang, Genevieve Slosberg

Yukon Huang
Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Yukon Huang
EconomyEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Paper
    Egypt’s Military Landlord Economy and its Limitations

    The armed forces champion a form of capitalism that is generating revenue, but its reliance on rent faces diminishing returns, leaving the country with massive sunk costs and deferred returns, deepening dependency on external borrowing.

      Yezid Sayigh

  • Aerial view of Washington DC
    Paper
    Network and Structural Power: The Four Trend Lines Weakening U.S. Leverage

    Networks—from international payments platforms to key economic sectors—underlie many aspects of U.S. power. But they are suffering under an extractive approach to foreign policy.

      Daniel W. Drezner

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Photo of commercial ship anchored near the Strait of Hormuz.
    Article
    In the Middle East and North Africa, America and China Converge More Than They Diverge

    Middle powers in the region will keep hedging between Washington and Beijing. It’s in the great powers’ interests to play along.

      • Photo of Kathryn Selfe.

      Amr Hamzawy, Kathryn Selfe

  • Container ship arriving in Savannah, Georgia
    Paper
    The Future of American Economic Power

    The future of American economic power will be determined by the interplay between Trump’s ambitions and the global backlash against them, as well as economic developments outside the direct control of the government, such as advances in AI.

      Peter Harrell

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.