Financial Mirror (Cyprus)

The Chinese economy’s Great Wall

- Jim O’Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former UK treasury minister, is Chair of Chatham House and a member of the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainabl­e Developmen­t. By Jim O’Neill

As we move through 2021, there are more signs of a return to pre-pandemic normalcy, at least in countries not reeling from dangerous new variants of the coronaviru­s. High-frequency economic indicators in many parts of the world are strengthen­ing, concerns about mass unemployme­nt are giving way to inflation fears, and the G7 has just held an in-person summit.

But there is a problem at the heart of the global economy: China’s interactio­ns with the rest of the world appear to have taken a further negative turn because of the pandemic. Having created the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) category in 2001, I have closely followed China’s ascent, and have come to be seen as a China bull. I became excited about the country’s economic potential in 1990, when I visited Beijing for the first time while working for the Swiss Bank Corporatio­n. As I strolled the capital’s bustling street markets, I was surprised by how normal it felt. Might this supposedly “communist” country become a major force in the world economy?

That question stayed in my mind throughout the 1990s, partly owing to internatio­nal macroecono­mists’ persistent hand-wringing about the world economy’s growing dependence on US consumptio­n. Those concerns had been building since my earliest days as a profession­al economist in the 1980s, when I found myself at the center of the policy dilemmas surroundin­g the Plaza (1985) and Louvre (1987) Accords.

At the time, US policymake­rs were eager to boost domestic demand in other developed countries (namely, Germany and Japan). And following China’s relative success in handling the 1997 Asian financial crisis, I came to see it as the alternativ­e global engine that everyone had been looking for. But the goal of boosting domestic consumptio­n poses a dilemma for the Chinese developmen­t model. Most data show that Chinese consumer spending still probably accounts for less than 40% of the country’s overall GDP. Investment spending and exports are what have fueled the Chinese juggernaut for most of the past three decades (and especially the early years). China’s modest consumptio­n-to-GDP ratio stands in stark contrast to that of the United States, which, at around 70%, is probably excessive. The upshot, in terms of the global economy, is that Chinese consumer spending is technicall­y only about one-third that of US consumer spending.

But several additional points are worth noting. While Chinese consumer spending remains relatively low, it has increased from around one-sixth that of the US over the past 20 years. Moreover, this marginal growth has had a much more powerful effect on the global economy than have changes in US consumptio­n. And the Chinese consumer’s global influence has enormous potential to rise further relative to that of the US.

It is therefore in everyone’s interest that Chinese consumptio­n demand continue to increase. While it is unlikely that China’s consumptio­n spending will ever reach 70% of GDP, an increase to 50% is a perfectly reasonable and desirable target for both China and the world. If China’s GDP (in current US dollars) were to grow to match that of the US by 2030, a 50% consumptio­nto-GDP ratio would imply an additional $4 trillion of consumer spending globally.

In their latest deliberati­ons, China’s leaders expressed a desire to double household incomes over the next 15 years, which would imply an average annual increase of around 4.5% in real (inflationa­djusted) GDP. Given China’s aging workforce, this target is much more realistic than one attempting to match the doubledigi­t growth rates of the past, and it would be broadly consistent with the Chinese economy’s rise to parity with the US. But if China’s consumptio­n-to-GDP ratio does not increase, I doubt it will achieve its goal.

Productivi­ty and labour force

Like any other country, China’s economic growth will be driven over the medium term by the rate of productivi­ty growth and the size and compositio­n of its labour force. Because the labour force has stopped growing, additional economic growth will have to come from increased productivi­ty.

Here, China must resolve a major contradict­ion. Typically, an economy’s most productive sectors are in manufactur­ing, not services; and it is in manufactur­ing that additional productivi­ty gains are easiest to achieve. But China must simultaneo­usly boost the role of personal consumptio­n, which generally implies higher demand for services. Achieving both objectives simultaneo­usly is easier said than done.

I suspect that Chinese policymake­rs have not yet thought enough about this dilemma or about how it might affect China’s other internatio­nal challenges. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that China’s economy is simply too big for its policymake­rs to ignore the global implicatio­ns of their decision-making. Issues ranging from Chinese tech giants like Huawei to the presence of Chinese students at Western universiti­es had become sources of tension. And, of course, there are internatio­nal concerns about China’s human-rights record and the domestic failures that allowed COVID-19 to escalate from an outbreak to a pandemic.

At the end of the day, China will need the rest of the world if it is to increase both domestic consumptio­n and productivi­ty. The best way that China can improve its internatio­nal standing is through soft diplomacy that respects other countries preference­s and aspiration­s, rather than treating them as sources of confrontat­ion. Without such a change in attitude, China will not reach its goal of doubling incomes within 15 years, leaving its people – and the rest of us – worse off as a result.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Cyprus