• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael Pettis"
  ],
  "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": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Asia Needs to Ditch Its Growth Model

Asian countries are responding to the economic crisis with policies that may temporarily boost growth but that are likely to make the transition from a development model that emphasizes personal savings and increasing production more difficult.

Link Copied
By Michael Pettis
Published on May 19, 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

Asia Needs to Ditch Its Growth ModelThe recent upturn in Asian economies is creating a dangerous optimism that almost wilfully ignores the difficulties ahead. Future historians will mark 2008 as the year that the development model that has driven much of Asia’s rapid growth for the past two decades went bankrupt. While the next decade will represent a difficult transition towards a new development model, unfortunately many Asian countries are responding to the economic crisis with policies that may temporarily boost growth but that are only likely to make the transition more difficult.

At the centre of the Asian development model, with China providing a steroid-fuelled example, were policies aimed at mobilising high levels of domestic savings and channelling massive investment into productive capacity. These policies boosted savings by constraining consumption even while they forced rapid growth in domestic production. One of the consequences of the Asian development model has been that production outgrew consumption for decades. When a country produces more than it consumes, it must run a trade surplus to export its excess capacity. The Asian model consequently required high and rising trade surpluses that allowed Asian producers to produce far in excess of what Asian consumers could afford to absorb.

But there cannot be trade surpluses without trade deficits elsewhere. A fundamental requirement for the Asian model was that foreigners were able to run the requisite trade deficits. In practice, only the US economy and financial system were large and flexible enough to play this role. The Asian model, in other words, implicitly involved a massive bet on the willingness and ability of the US to continue to run large and rising trade deficits.

For nearly two decades US households borrowed recklessly to finance the consumption binge that allowed Asian exporters to continue exporting excess capacity but, as household balance sheets in the US became vastly overextended, it was just a question of time before a long deleveraging process would occur. The global financial crisis is part of this very process.

As a consequence, US consumption will grow more slowly than US gross domestic product for many years. This is another way of saying that the US trade deficit must fall and may even become a trade surplus. Since it is clear that Europe, the only other economy large enough to replace the US, is too sickly and indebted to take up the slack, for the next several years Asians will not be able to continue running massive trade surpluses to absorb their excess capacity.

So what can they do? If Asian countries could boost domestic net consumption as rapidly as US net consumption declines, none of this would matter. Unfortunately, and if history is any guide, this is going to take much longer than many hope. The transition from an export-led economy to a domestic consumption-led model involves a long restructuring of the financial system and household behaviour, and a major reversion away from political structures and industrial policies that powered growth in the past.


But, wedded as they are to an outmoded development ideology and rigid industrial and financial systems, many Asian policymakers are making things worse. They are attempting to raise domestic consumption by accelerating the policies that are bankrupt.

These investment-oriented policies raise consumption indirectly, by boosting production, and so although they temporarily boost growth, they cannot result in a sufficiently large increase in domestic net consumption to replace American buying. What is worse, in some cases these policies will sharply constrain future domestic consumption, just when it is needed most.

For example, the unprecedented loan expansion that Chinese policymakers have encouraged in the past five months is not only targeted primarily at boosting investment, but will almost certainly result in a massive expansion in future non-performing loans. As these become apparent and threaten the viability of the banking system, Beijing will be forced to respond, as it did in the past, with policies that further constrain consumption – either by forcing lower deposit rates to increase bank profitability or by capturing savings to recapitalise the banks.

The risk is that China’s transition will be made worse by policies whose effect will be to cause a short-term and unsustainable rise in fiscal borrowing, bank debt and corporate inventory. Eventually working these off will make the transition to a domestic-led economy slower and more painful.

The assumption that implicitly underlay the Asian development model – that US households had an infinite ability to borrow and spend – has been shown to be false. This spells the end of this model as an engine of growth. The sooner Asian policymakers accept this and force through the necessary economic and political changes, the less painful the transition will be. Unfortunately this does not seem to be happening.

About the Author

Michael Pettis

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China

Michael Pettis is a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. An expert on China’s economy, Pettis is professor of finance at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in Chinese financial markets. 

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

      Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China
Michael Pettis
EconomyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast 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
    China Financial Markets
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

    China’s banking crisis in the 2000s was resolved by transferring the costs to households through financial repression—a decision that recapitalized the banks while exacerbating the structural imbalances that continue to shape the Chinese economy today.

      Michael Pettis

  • Japanese troops take part in a counter-landing live fire exercise as part of the annual Balikatan joint military drills on May 04, 2026 in Laoag, Ilocos Norte province, Philippines.
    Article
    The Two Logics Driving Japan’s Security Policy

    Japan’s revision of its three strategic documents reflects an intention to keep the United States engaged in the region while Japan fills any vacuums of U.S. power to preserve the Indo-Pacific order.

      • Ryo Sahashi

      Ryo Sahashi

  • Robot arm with disposable test tube virus sampling in laboratory
    Commentary
    Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. Sanctions

    Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.

      Xue Gong

  • Two people in blue PPE standing over large metal rolls
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Inside the Global Race to Erode a Battery Manufacturing Monopoly

    Over the past decade, China has moved from marginal player to major producer of all things batteries. The United States, Europe, and others are aiming to balance the market.

      Milo McBride

  • Aerial View of a Geothermal Energy Plant in the Imperial Valley of California near the Salton Sea
    Paper
    A Geothermal and Nuclear Strategy for the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

    The DFC should focus on advanced, low-carbon energy sources, prioritizing areas where the United States has comparative advantages.

      • Noah J. Gordon

      Noah Gordon, Liana Schmitter-Emerson

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.