A Strong State vs.The Market Mechanism in China

Under Marxist ideology, the Chinese economy was a command-and-control economy eschewing the market mechanism. Mao's collective farms provide us with a good example. The economy of the U.S.S.R., also Marxist, was based on production quotas and fixed prices. They changed by fiat rather than by changes in demand. State owned, or socialist, productive enterprises were given quotas based on the prior year's production (plus more). This push replaced that of producing more to sell more. Any hint of a market brought with it the stench of Capitalism. So one would suppose that China marked a significant departure when the government announced in 2013 that it would expand the range in which the yuan currency would float. Yet in 2019 in the midst of a trade tussle with the United States, the Chinese state demonstrated just how dominant the state still was relative to any market system.  

The reforms incorporating the market mechanism had begun under Deng Xiaoping. Although publicly-owned and state-owned-enterprises still dominated, they were set within a market economy. The mix of government-owned (i.e., socialist) businesses and a market mechanism has been uneasy in practice. Private or partially-privately owned enterprises could find it difficult to compete with competitors subsidized by the state. Widen the circle to international trade and foreign private enterprises could be found having the same complaint. Of course, the domestic and foreign consumers stood to benefit by the subsidized lower prices, so assessing the existence of state-owned enterprises is more complex than first meets the eye. In part, this is so because governments tend to emphasize the interests of business rather than consumers.  

The United States, for example, has protested against the Chinese government devaluing its currency. A low currency means that exports are less expensive in exported markets.  The complaint has been that "a weak yuan gives Chinese exporters an unfair price edge in foreign markets and helps swell the massive U.S. trade deficit with China."[1] In the face of the trade dispute with the U.S. in 2019, China promised in August "to avoid 'competitive devaluation' to hold down export prices in the face of of Trump's tariff hikes."[2] However, the yuan's low point of 7.0927 on August 23, 2019 was the currency's weakest rate since January 2008.[3] The heavy hand of the central bank could easily dominant market forces because the bank set the exchange rate every morning and let the yuan fluctuate only 2% against the dollar during the day. 

Interestingly, the Chinese government had announced in 2013, "The exchange rate is going to be more market-oriented" [4] People's Bank of China Vice Governor Yi Gang made this statement on a panel at the International Monetary Fund’s 2013 spring meeting in Washington. In other words, “China's central bank plans to widen the yuan's trading band in the near future," he said.[5] This meant that China's leaders would "press ahead with change despite the surprise slowing of the economy."[6] On the surface, this shows that the "Communists" were really serious about moving closer to a market economy. At a deeper level, this shows just how much power the government still had over its economy--power that could be used to restrict the market in service to state objectives. In the literature of international political economy, the Chinese government would be classified as a strong state because it could resist external pressure. By contrast, six years later, the U.S. Federal Reserve would lower a key interest rate due to political pressure from the White House, where concerns of a possible recession in 2020 were intensifying. The weak state classification could also explain the accumulating federal public debt (i.e., the failure to resist pressures to tax less and spend more). 

From a big-picture perspective, balance or equilibrium in the global economy is in everyone’s financial interest. Keeping a currency artificially low is like a dam keeping waters from reaching a balance. The pressure from the held-up water can be expected to destabilize the global economy. China’s policy to gradually let the yuan’s value be market-determined was thus taken to be a prudent step. However, American frustrations on state subsidies and a low yuan in 2019 suggest that the Chinese government rather than the market mechanism was still very much in control of the Chinese economy. 

1. Joe McDonald, "China Let Its Currency Sink to an 11-Year Low After Trump's Trade Threats," Time Magazine, August 26, 2019. 

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Natasha Brereton-Fukui and Bob Davis, “China Vows Wider Yuan Movement,” The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2013.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Capitulates on a Proposed Extradition Law

Facing huge violent protests, Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous region of China, decided on June 15, to indefinitely suspend her proposal to open extradition to mainland China and Taiwan. As the Chinese government demonstrated during the protests at Tiananmen Square decades earlier, holding a mass protest in China was not among the ways to impeded proposed legislation. Why, then, did Lam seem to cave into the popular protests in Hong Kong?

Perhaps it is naïve to claim that even in China, when popular protests are so large government officials cannot but conclude that enough of the people are advocating that Rousseau’s general will has spoken. Of course, a highly visible protest need not be from a majority of citizens. Often the political extremes show up to protest while the centrist majority stays home. In fact, the regularization or ubiquity of political protests in the E.U. and U.S. may dilute the ability to stand out in such a way that the intended change will happen. The Arab Spring’s mass protests in the Middle East demonstrate that even huge protests can be “regularized” within the control of a government. So I think the efficacy of protests has diminished as they have become increasingly hackneyed. It follows that the large, violent protests in Hong Kong in 2019 against the extradition bill were not decisive in the legislation’s untimely demise.

Alternatively, that local business leaders turned away from Lam on the issue could be said to be the decisive change that led to Lam’s decision to indefinitely shelve the bill. In the U.S. especially, the loss of support of corporate leaders could indeed stop legislation from progressing. The power by which corporations can use campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington, D.C. had indeed become formidable by 2019. In contrast, however, the Chinese government was relatively strong against the power of amassed private capital (i.e., large companies). With the support of the Chinese government, Lam could have handled the errant business elite, but did she have the central government’s support?

Government officials in Beijing “were starting to question her judgment in picking a fight on an issue that they [regarded] as a distraction from their real priority: the passage of stringent national security legislation in Hong Kong.”[1] So rather than yielding to the streets or the business sector, Lam yielded to the central government. The implication is that Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status within a dictatorship could be questioned. In fact, semi-autonomous is an oxymoron in a dictatorship—that is to say, a façade.

---

1. Keith Bradsher, “In Hong Kong, Leader Yields to the Streets,” The New York Times, June 16, 2019.

Wen and Obama: Breaking Up the Banks

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told a radio audience on April 3, 2012 “that China’s state-controlled banks are a ‘monopoly’ that must be broken up.”[1] He also urged other businesses to get into the financial sector. “Let me be frank,” he said. “Our banks earn profit too easily. Why? Because a small number of large banks have a monopoly. To break the monopoly, we must allow private capital to flow into the financial sector.”[2] This included raising the total amount foreigners can bring into China under the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor program to $80 billion.

Besides combined earnings of a bit over 632 billion yuan ($99 billion) in a slowing economy, the largest banks—Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and China Construction Bank—were able to raise fees indiscriminately, sparking the popular resentment that Wen was able to tap on the radio. Beyond the unfairness of the windfall profits, the artificially low cost to the banks in borrowing from domestic savings accounts meant that investment has proceeded at the expense of consumption. Given that the current account surplus stood at just 2.7% of GDP in 2011 due to slackening demand in Europe and North America, the imbalance regarding consumption could already be seen as a potential constraint to economic growth.

Therefore, Wen’s strategy in going after the unpopular banking oligopoly was wise both politically and economically. The question at the time was whether anything would come of his remarks. “The major question is whether increasing rhetoric and new initiatives toward economic revisions will lead to broader reform. Prior efforts have faltered amid Beijing’s drive to keep a tight rein on the economy and opposition from interest groups.”[3] That Wen made his remarks as he was preparing to leave office may mean that they should be regarded as akin to President Eisenhower’s “Beware the military-industrial complex” farewell speech. A swan song is not apt to be followed by still another act.

In terms of lessons from a comparative approach, it would be ironic, to say the least, were the Chinese government willing and able to break up the four largest banks while the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 in the U.S. let the banks too big to fail remain intact in spite of the plights of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers in 2008. That is to say, if the Chinese government could have taken on its powerful banks, the U.S. government would have looked comparatively weak as against the American banking sector.

Lest it not be forgotten, however, President Andrew Jackson’s defunding of the Second Bank of the United States at around 1830 was daring even bank then when the financial sector was smaller relative to the U.S. economy as a whole. Five or six years later, Congress finally got around to ending the bank’s charter altogether. Jackson’s argument was that having a bank would make Congress, and thus the U.S. Government, too powerful in the American federal system. The dangers to the American republics in having a powerful moneyed interest were also not lost on the nineteenth-century president.

Therefore, we can view the Dodd Frank Financial Reform Act of 2010 through the lenses both of China, assuming something comes of Wen’s remarks, and of American history. President Obama barely broached the subject of breaking up Wall Street banks even though they had been culpable in the derivative mess. Congress would hear nothing of it.  The Chinese government may not be so constrained by the self-serving interests of its banking oligarchy.

Similarly, claims that President Obama’s reliance on private health-insurance companies rather than a state-owned entity in his Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 was somehow socialism (i.e., ownership by the state of means of production) can also be viewed relative to a Wen’s criticism of the state-owned banks (which favor state-owned enterprises in terms of lending). Obama caved to the private health-insurance company lobby on even a public option, whereas Wen suggests that the Chinese government might break up the four biggest banks. Is the Chinese state stronger than the U.S. Government relative to the interests of private capital?

Relative to the “socialist” leader’s distancing himself from a bias toward state-owned banks (and enterprises in general) in China, President Obama’s support of both the Dodd-Frank and Health-care Affordability laws can be seen in retrospect as anything but advocating U.S. Government ownership of means of production/services. Wen’s remarks show a movement away from socialism, toward Obama’s stance, though perhaps with government rather than banks in the driver’s seat.

1. Dinny McMahon, Lingling Wei, and Andrew Galbraith, “Chinese Premier Blasts Banks,” The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2012.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.