where it went wrong - unam

22
"天下大乱 天下大乱 天下大乱 天下大乱, ,形式大好 形式大好 形式大好 形式大好.” -- Mao Zedong Where It Went Wrong 1

Upload: others

Post on 12-Apr-2022

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

"天下大乱天下大乱天下大乱天下大乱,,,,形式大好形式大好形式大好形式大好.”

-- Mao Zedong

Where It Went Wrong

1

Page 2: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

China’s Vertical Political Systems

2

Page 3: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

The Fundamental Problem

• The economic shift required new institutions. These

were created ad hoc, without the related political

restructuring.

– Ex: moving danwei benefits to municipal funds, enabling

bankruptcy

– Company Law and companies limited by shares—but no

market for shares, so no leverage for shareholders

– “Group” and “Umbrella” corporations without associated

audit, tax, and legal regimes

3

Page 4: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Local vs. Central

• Legacy of economic reform:

– A steady release of central-government control over the economy and

thus politics

– Economic entities multiplied. Decision-making authority devolved.

– The negotiated style of management broke down, as local

governments lost their dependence on the central authorities

• Tax sharing arrangements

• Personnel assignments

– Revenue mechanisms decayed before the central government could

respond; central revenues plummeted. The new fiscal deficits were

viewed as untenable.

– Budget plunges from 33% of GDP in 1978 to 11% in 1990

– Local governments devised every form of protectionist policy for their

own markets. 4

Page 5: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Crisis Points

• The Soviet break-up and the “color revolutions”

• Rogue exports and business ventures by military or other uncontrolled

bureaucracies

• The 1987 democracy marches

• The 1987-88 Qigong craze

• The Tiananmen massacre

– Inability of the government to act

– Massacre of innocents

– A literature of disintegration

5

Page 6: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Responses

• Recapturing appointments control over financial bureaucracies. Regular

regional rotation.

• Central authorities cut local governments off from borrowing.

• Banking reform: negotiated split of banks into those reporting to the

central and local governments. PBOC restructuring by region.

• The “Five Goldens” projects in IT and internet were designed to create

virtual channels for central government control when older, direct

channels had decayed

6

Page 7: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

The 1994 Tax Reform

Measures

• Increased central

government collections from

22% to 56% and more once

the VAT was fully

implemented.

• Direct collections by the

central government, then

rebates back, initially to

maintain local governments’

take.

Effects

• Tax rebates trickled down 4 levels

of government, with no clear

rules about sharing. The levels at

the bottom were swiftly

impoverished.

• Aggrandizement of the central

government, focus on concerns

distant from those of the

people—the “build the west”

program, tech parks.

7

Page 8: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Responsibilities of Local Governments

• Despite major gaps in delivery of revenue through five layers of

government, local governments are responsible for substantially all social

services—schooling, infrastructure, hospitals, and social security.

• In the 1980s, subsidies expenditures ballooned to cushion the transition

from womb-to-tomb security to a market economy.

• 1995 Labor Law required local governments to create pooling funds for

pension, health, unemployment, maternity, and disability.

• But local governments lack taxation authority.

8

Page 9: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

上有政策、下有对策

How Local Governments Responded

• Rapid increase in fees, especially land-related.

• Creative means: schools in the 1990s received only half their

budgets in subsidies and had to find income for the rest,

leading to events like the fireworks tragedy in Jiangxi.

• The big kahuna: land transfer revenues

– By 2009, local governments were financing roughly 50% of their

budgets by selling land. In some regions, the ratio is as high as 70%.

– In addition to selling land, governments collateralize land for loans.

These outstanding loans are well over 12 trillion RMB, or about 25%

of GDP.

9

Page 10: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Local Government Revenue vs

Expenditure

0000

1,0001,0001,0001,000

2,0002,0002,0002,000

3,0003,0003,0003,000

4,0004,0004,0004,000

5,0005,0005,0005,000

6,0006,0006,0006,000

7,0007,0007,0007,000

8,0008,0008,0008,000

9,0009,0009,0009,000

10,00010,00010,00010,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Revenue of Local Governments (bln RMB) Expenditure of Local Governments (bln RMB)

10

Page 11: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Land Sales 2005-2011

0000

200200200200

400400400400

600600600600

800800800800

1000100010001000

1200120012001200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Value of Land Sold (bln RMB)

Total Value of Land Purchased (bln RMB)

11

Page 12: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

The Demand Shock: Housing Reform

• As part of the SOE restructuring, China embarked on housing

privatization in 1998. State enterprises were obliged to sell

their housing stock at low prices to employees.

• This had two effects:

– It generated a lot of cash for state enterprises

– It created a private market for housing, as, after five years, the

employees who purchased housing could sell. Also, new employees

knew they would not be allocated housing.

• In 2004, to reduce corruption in the sale of land, the central

government implemented an auction system. Supply shrunk as

demand was rising. Cash + land scarcity + demand = bubble

12

Page 13: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Infrastructure

• In 1998, the State Development Bank received quiet political

support to create the “Wuhu model” of lending: the Anhui city

of Wuhu hocked its land resources in return for loans. With the

loans, it built infrastructure.

• Wuhu created “financing platform companies” to hold the

debt. Classified as SMEs in the Chinese data system, these

companies enable local governments to raise debt under the

headlights.

• The LGFV model was the principal one used for the 2008-2010

build-out of infrastructure under the stimulus plan.

13

Page 14: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Currency: Major Unrealized Losses?

• 1994: Currency unification, elimination of the swap markets

• Under-valuation of the currency, est. about 30%

• As a result, the bank has had to intervene constantly to

maintain the rate, leading to an accumulation of foreign

reserves.

• Each intervention represents an unrecognized loss on a trade.

That loss in a sense can be measured in terms of domestic

inflation, since the bank had to print RMB.

• Why is inflation nominally quite low? Because of over-

production and warehousing of goods, a form of savings.

• A significant portion of China’s economic growth, therefore,

has been ephemeral. 14

Page 15: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Currency– a big but underestimated story

15

12-5 emphasizes continued interest in making the RMB a regional or global

trade settlement currency

The Policy Goal--

� Reduce accumulation of FOREX by settling more exports in RMB,

� Improve efficiency of Chinese foreign aid and buyer credits,

� Improve efficiency of regional production sharing networks

The Market Reality-

� Trade and investment activity impossible to separate

� Some 450B RMB accumulated in Hong Kong, with rapidly

diversifying services and financial products

� Shanghai monopoly in MNC financial services in RMB broken with

intense competition from Singapore and Hong Kong

� Continued high levels of inflation and credit expansion may reduce

returns and appeal of holding RMB

Page 16: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Capital Deployment Becomes More

Wasteful

0000

1000100010001000

2000200020002000

3000300030003000

4000400040004000

5000500050005000

6000600060006000

7000700070007000

8000800080008000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012YTD

Floor Space of Commercial Buildings Sold (mln sq.m) FAI in Real Estate (bln RMB)

16

Page 17: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Ghost Cities: Ordos

17

Page 18: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Tianjin

18

Page 19: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Guiyang

19

Page 20: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Shaoxing

20

Page 21: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

Manzhouli

21

Page 22: Where It Went Wrong - UNAM

China’s growth driver dilemmaThe first 30 years cannot be the next 30 years

� Concentration of investment capacity supports huge

progress in physical modernization

� Ultra-light regulation of substantial capital flows

allows great agility and speed in large scale

financing

� Strong emphasis on tangible competitive assets

throughout the system creates competitive

advantage in mass production space on value chains

� Low wealth distribution to households drives

investment and stunts consumption

� “Grey Space” laws and regulation provide agility to

enlightened Government leaders/bureaucrats

Factors That Drove Growth

and Wealth

Are Now Driving Imbalance

and Risk

Over-concentration of investment capacity supports

growing inefficiency of investment and entrains

corruption

Deficient debt measures and regulatory controls lets

a huge amount of non-performing and triangular

debt to accumulate

Lack of attention to intangible competitive assets

weakens access to high value and sustainable

advantage on value chain and reduces potential for

creating a knowledge economy

Lack of household spending power makes quick

shift to consumption driven growth very difficult

Grey property rights allow public assets to be

converted into private wealth of the political elite –

and curtail innovation, entrepreneurship, and the

competitiveness of the private economy overall