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

Source: Getty

In The Media

In China, Lower Rates but Rising Worries

Repressed interest rates penalize household savers and cause banks to misallocate capital.

Link Copied
By Michael Pettis
Published on Nov 4, 2015
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

Two weeks ago the People’s Bank of China announced this year’s sixth interest-rate cut. Each announcement has brought limited relief to the many corporate and local-government borrowers struggling with a phenomenon China hasn’t seen in nearly two decades: high real interest rates.

Up until 2012, Beijing practiced a development policy known as financial repression. Through the PBOC, it directed the banks that held a rapidly growing pool of household savings to lend at interest rates far below the country’s growth rate, and often below the inflation rate, and to pay depositors even less. This benefited borrowers at the expense of savers.

More than any other factor, this unleashed China’s investment-driven growth “miracle.” But artificially low interest rates make it difficult to judge the quality of investment. After many years of healthy growth, Chinese banks began to misallocate capital on an unprecedented scale. And because the same low interest rates depressed household income, it depressed consumption, further unbalancing China’s economy.

When the lending rate is in line with nominal GDP growth, savers and borrowers share the benefits of growth evenly. This wasn’t the case in China. While nominal growth averaged in the high teens for most of this century, China’s benchmark one-year lending rate averaged between 7% and 8%. This was painful for household savers, who typically received at least three percentage points less on their deposits.

But conditions began to change dramatically in 2012. Nominal growth dropped to 11.3% in 2012 from 17.4% in 2011. Now it’s fallen to 6.2%. This was matched by rapidly declining inflation; the broadest measure dropped sharply to just under 3% in 2012 from nearly 8% in 2011. It is slightly negative today.

Interest rates didn’t fall nearly as quickly. They began to decline in 2013, and by late October the benchmark one-year lending and deposit rates were lowered to 4.4% and 1.5%, respectively. Even if producer-price deflation is substantially less next year than the nearly 6% of the past 12 months, borrowing costs will still feel painfully high and borrowers will continue clamoring for relief.

If consumer prices keep increasing at last year’s levels of 1.6%, depositors will finally break even on their savings in real terms. But this comes after decades in which the real value of their savings declined by several percentage points each year.

This is why the PBOC was right to resist lowering interest rates in line with falling nominal GDP growth and inflation, and is right to continue resisting further reductions in interest rates. Thanks to years of repressed rates, China’s households saw their share of GDP drop sharply, while Chinese borrowers developed a very cavalier attitude to risk-taking.

And for all the wailing among borrowers, the benchmark one-year lending rate is still well below nominal GDP growth of 6.2%; government borrowing rates are even lower. Even if growth continues to drop on average by more than one percentage point every year until 2020, as I expect it will, borrowing costs are still low.

In spite of short-term pain, China is better off in the medium term by holding the line on interest rates. Beijing is working hard to reform the management of state-owned businesses, but their terrible investment record was caused less by incompetent management than by rational responses to excessively low interest rates. Higher interest rates will do more to fix this problem than any reorganization or changes in ownership structure.

More importantly, the longer the PBOC holds off lowering the deposit rate, the faster household income will grow. That will stimulate consumption, which must rise quickly if investment is to decline without causing job loss.

China must rapidly reduce investment growth if it hopes to control its burgeoning debt. Because high interest rates support consumption growth, the less aggressively the PBOC lowers them, the less likely it is that debt will soar to unmanageable levels.

The administration of Party Secretary Xi Jinping inherited a terribly unbalanced economy with burgeoning debt. Beijing doesn’t have easy options to control that debt before it reaches dangerous levels in three or four years. The PBOC will almost certainly lower interest rates further, but by delaying as much as possible it can promote needed restructuring. Higher rates will be painful, but much less so than allowing debt to spiral out of control.

This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

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

      Michael Pettis

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

      Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China
Michael Pettis
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

  • Trump and Xi standing next to each other
    Commentary
    Emissary
    A Path Forward on AI Safety for the United States and China

    “AI safety in parallel” is modest and pragmatic but vital.

      Matt Sheehan

  • 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

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.