Michael Pettis
{
"authors": [
"Michael Pettis"
],
"type": "other",
"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": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}Source: Getty
The Contentious Debate Over China's Economic Transition
Rebalancing China's growth from investment to consumption is necessary if China is to sustain long-term economic growth. Recent attempts to move in this direction have been insufficient; true rebalancing will require a more fundamental revision of the growth model.
Much of the news coverage about the recent meeting in Beijing of the National People’s Congress has focused on the government’s determination to bring down inflation. An even more interesting story, however, may be the difficult internal debate on Beijing’s longer-term effort to raise the level of Chinese household consumption.
This is not to say that the fight against inflation isn’t an important issue. In Premier Wen Jiabao’s opening speech on March 5, it was noteworthy that the top priority on his list of government objectives for the next five years was containing rising prices. This is the first time in many years that maintaining high economic growth was not listed as the top priority. The second priority Wen listed, however, was raising the household consumption share of China’s GDP.
At the risk of oversimplifying a complex debate—whose political sensitivities make the debate itself at times somewhat oblique—the issue is whether or not China can rebalance its economy toward a greater reliance on domestic consumption by engineering administrative measures targeted specifically at consumption. Vice Minister of Commerce Jiang Zengwei, for example, recently announced a development plan, to be released in April, in which, according to the People’s Daily, “efforts will be made to further expand domestic consumption demand, vigorously promote consumption of residents in urban and rural areas, foster new consumption growth areas, accelerate circulation modernization, develop chain operations and speed up the development of e-commerce.”
But will the execution of the plan actually increase consumption? Although much of the policy-making establishment seems to believe that these measures can work, a small but growing group insists that China cannot raise the consumption share of GDP without a major adjustment in the growth strategy that has been in place for the last decade. Previous administrative attempts to boost consumption—for example, the automobile and white-goods subsidies of the past two years—have increased consumption of specifically targeted items, they point out, without boosting overall consumption.
If that’s the case, the administrative measures are likely to fail because they do not address the underlying problem, which is the low share of Chinese household income. The measures will merely boost consumption of certain favored items at the expense of other items, and overall consumption will stagnate as a share of GDP.
In the end, resolving this debate may be the most important economic issue for China’s policy makers. Rebalancing growth from investment to consumption will be a difficult task at best, but the process will determine the success of China’s long-term economic growth.
About the Author
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.
- Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?Commentary
- What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like ChinaCommentary
Michael Pettis
Recent Work
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- A Path Forward on AI Safety for the United States and ChinaCommentary
“AI safety in parallel” is modest and pragmatic but vital.
Matt Sheehan
- Egypt’s Military Landlord Economy and its LimitationsPaper
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
- From Hormuz to the Maghreb: The Geopolitical Reach of a Gulf CrisisArticle
Morocco and Algeria, each in its own way, are having to navigate the global economic fallout of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.
Yasmine Zarhloule
- Network and Structural Power: The Four Trend Lines Weakening U.S. LeveragePaper
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
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
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