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

Source: Getty

In The Media

A Freer China Would Stimulate Spending

To rekindle growth, Beijing needs more than just an economic stimulus; it must give its people a voice so that they are free to consume.

Link Copied
By Minxin Pei and Ali Wyne
Published on Apr 7, 2009
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: Financial Times

A Freer China Would Stimulate SpendingThe global economic crisis has caused a sharp decline in China’s exports, placing renewed pressure on Beijing to raise domestic demand, particularly household consumption. With net exports accounting for 20-25 per cent of its growth in the past five years, China will have to increase domestic demand significantly to compensate for the loss in external demand.

Although this challenge has acquired greater urgency today, it is not new. Chinese policymakers and Beijing’s biggest trading partners have been warning about the massive imbalance between the country’s levels of exports and domestic consumption.

In 2007, China’s current account surplus, a key indicator of this imbalance, was $372bn (€275bn, £250bn), the world’s largest in absolute terms. With global trade in its worst slump since the second world war, Beijing is now paying for policies that have consistently accorded higher priority to exports than household consumption.

The Chinese government has long recognised the risks of such imbalances and has pledged to reduce them through reforms. But despite Beijing’s rhetoric, China’s rate of household consumption has been falling, not rising. In 1985, household consumption was 51 per cent of gross domestic product; in 2007, it was 35 per cent, the lowest proportion ever for China and for a major country in peacetime.

Why has the government been un-able to stimulate household consumption? Conventional wisdom blames “precautionary savings” – Chinese households save an ever-increasing proportion of their income to pay for healthcare, retirement and higher education because China’s social safety net is inadequate, and its social services are under-provisioned. Although this observation correctly identifies the problem, its explanation is insufficient. One ought to examine what role China’s closed political system plays.

In other words, is there a connection between freedom and consumption? Reviewing data on political freedom, civil liberties and household consumption for the years 1985 to 2005, we find two intriguing clues.

First, China is among a small group of countries that has become less free (as measured by Freedom House’s Freedom Index) and experienced a significant drop in their rates of household consumption (defined here as a decline of 20 per cent or more). The others are Venezuela, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bhutan, Swaziland, Iran, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia – not exactly the countries that China should strive to emulate.

Second, although the overall relationship between freedom and consumption is complex, countries that have become freer in the past two decades are more likely to have registered an increase in their consumption rates. Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Indonesia are some notable examples.

When we confine our focus to those countries for which the data are statistically significant, we find that 71 per cent of the countries that experienced an increase in their consumption rates became freer. Those that experienced larger gains (10 per cent or more) were twice as likely to have become freer.

We offer two possible explanations for these observations. First, political stability appears to be a critical condition for rising household consumption. The advent of democracy may increase stability by facilitating the resolution of longstanding conflicts, making individuals more confident consumers. Most of the countries that saw their consumption rates rise are stable developing countries, whereas the majority of those that experienced the reverse are unstable developing countries.

A second key distinguishing factor is the provision of social safety nets. Of the 20 statistically significant countries that became both freer and managed to raise their consumption rates, most are developing economies that underwent simultaneous transitions to democracy and market economics, and built social safety nets to meet the demands of their newly empowered citizens.

To the extent that its deficient social safety net depresses household consumption, the root cause of China’s problem is political, not economic. The lack of democracy in China not only results in a poor human rights record but also disenfranchises the groups that would otherwise pressure ruling elites to provide the necessary social services.

To rekindle growth, Beijing needs more than just an economic stimulus; it must give its people a voice so that they are free to consume.

About the Authors

Minxin Pei

Former Adjunct Senior Associate, Asia Program

Pei is Tom and Margot Pritzker ‘72 Professor of Government and the director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College.

Ali Wyne

Former Junior Fellow, China Program

Authors

Minxin Pei
Former Adjunct Senior Associate, Asia Program
Minxin Pei
Ali Wyne
Former Junior Fellow, China Program
Political ReformEconomyEast 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

  • Commentary
    Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil Crisis

    There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.

      Gita Wirjawan

  • Commentary
    Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in Indonesia

    As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.

      Sana Jaffrey

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia

    The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like China

    The GDP measure is an attempt to measure value creation in an economy. This measure, however, can vary greatly between economies that have disciplinary mechanisms that force them to recognize investment losses quickly and economies that don’t, and can postpone this recognition for many years.

      Michael Pettis

  • A White man in a tan jacket stands with his back to the camera, plugging in an electric car to a row of green and white chargers.
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Some Countries Are Better Prepared for an Energy Crisis This Time

    As the Iran war shocks oil prices, countries that have invested in renewables, EVs, and battery development since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are seeing the value of their investments.

      • Noah  Gordon ​​​​

      Noah Gordon

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • 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.