China Research

A discussion forum on emerging markets, mainly China – from a macro, micro, institutional and corporate angle.

China’s communication on the corona virus – reality and opportunities

February 27, 2020

More recently, the corona virus has also started to frighten stock markets. The virus has reached more and more countries – and finally Europe more visibly as well, particularly Italy. The outbreak is spreading. One may say unfortunately and unexpected – but for virologists certainly no surprise.

Statistical sources

China remains by far the most negatively affected country with its epicenter in Wuhan (see https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441, also the following more anonymous source with similar numbers https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries). Here I could find for China on February 26 totally 78 073 cases with infection, 30 049 totally recovered people and, unfortunately, 2715 total deaths.

It must be regarded as impossible to judge more precisely the quality and correctness of these statistics. Despite further search, however, I could not find better or more reliable info on the Chinese infection and recovery cases.

The corona virus in Chinese media – a new opportunity for more transparency?

There is a widely spread belief outside China that the numbers for the initial outbreak of the epidemic, the unregistered cases of the disease and the true lethality rate strongly underestimate real developments. This mistrust is certainly caused by inconsistent and limited reporting in the beginning of the crisis – but also by the long-time transparency bottlenecks which I addressed many times in the past.

Having studied more lately quite a number of articles on the corona topic in Chinese media takes me to the conclusion that the virus problem indeed dominates the headlines. However, these reports are mainly presented with encouraging attributes, supported by selected positive comments on all the managed efforts from official and prominent voices from abroad.

Thus, hope dominates, also when it comes to the economy. President Xi Jinping has recently been stating that China can and will meet this year’s social and economic goals. This conclusion underlines what has been written in one of my previous blog that this year’s GDP growth should come in as close as possible to the growth goal of “around 6 %”.

But: The content of “as close as possible to 6 percent” may or will be changed in reality to a somewhat lower “as close as possible”, at the same time using the foreseeable and unforeseeable negative consequences of the corona virus as an excuse.

Right or wrong, China has recently also received some international praise for its fight against the corona virus. In my view, China has now a unique opportunity to improve transparency and international recognition by communicating as openly as possible about the corona virus and the economic/statistical consequences.

Why not commencing now – with the corona virus as the concrete starting point – a new kind of opening-up policy aiming at better transparency after Deng Xiaoping’s important opening-up approach for more cross-border trade in 1978/1979?

At the end of the day, transparency always means a virtue.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

 

Back to Start Page

China’s political leadership and the coronavirus – how to handle growth objectives and statistics?

February 10, 2020

Hur kommer Kinas ledare att tackla coranavirusets negativa tillväxteffekter?

Summary / Sammanfattning på svenska

Det skrivs för närvarande väldigt mycket om de negativa effekterna på Kinas ekonomi p g a coronaviruset. Detta trots att det saknas underlag till mer precisa beräkningar. Effekter från minus 0.5 upp till minus 1.5 procent av BNP nämns såväl för det första kvartalet med åtföljande normalisering som för helåret 2020 – trots den helt omöjliga förutsebarheten. Dock förbises en annan intressant fråga: Hur kommer Kinas politiska ledare att tackla den kommande BNP-statistiken med tanke på det så sent som i januari i år uppsatta BNP-tillväxtmålet för 2020 på “omkring 6 procent”?

—————————————-

Every day we can read about revised GDP forecasts on China as a consequence of the coronavirus. Economists “introduce” themselves as medical doctors, virologists and experts on both Chinese politics and statistics – many of these economists, however, dealing with China only occasionally. For this reason, readers of these new China forecasts should be very careful and also consider possible psychological overreactions or minimization. I hereby stress the word “possible”. An unknown factor is also Africa with many Chinese working there. Hopefully, negative news from there will not reach us.

Analysts neglect the political strategy conflicts

The coronavirus does not fit at all in the communist party’s economic planning process. First, there is – or should be according to previous plans – the “evaluation” of the 60 relatively detailed reform plans from the Third Plenum in 2013 which should give “significant” results by 2020.

Second, in 2021 the Communist Party of China will celebrate its 100 th anniversary. A major weakening of GDP-growth the year before would certainly not be appreciated by the leaders of the strong Standing Committee and all the other highly ranked party officers.

Third, the next five-year plan will start already in 2021. This means that the underlying growth trend will be even more difficult to find if the coronavirus really should cause structural or sustained psychological damage. And it is certainly not easy to recognize and determine appropriate assumptions and preconditions five years ahead in this critical and not normal year of 2020.

Fourth, considerably slower GDP growth in 2020 could indeed jeopardize the official objective to double GDP in the decade to 2020. It will be a narrow race in any case.

The alternatives

Altogether: Looking at 2020, it appears obvious that President &:Chairman Xi Jinping and the other political top leaders around him actually cannot “afford” a clear weakening of GDP growth. Such a negative development can either be counteracted  by further fiscal or monetary stimuli and/or by “window dressing” of GDP statistics (as critics interpreted surprising upward-revisions of GDP last fall).

It is hard to imagine that China’s political top leaders (in the Standing Committee) will remain passive without influencing GDP in a more positive direction. In my view, trying to remain relatively close to the official growth target will have political priority. But I do not want to give a GDP-growth number for 2020 at this very moment.

Conclusion

Clearly missing the annual growth target and/or the goal of doubling GDP would be negative or even embarrassing for China’s political leaders – unless the coronavirus really would make the situation much more critical. Consequently, keeping GDP growth for 2020 as close as possible to the “around 6-procent target” seems to be the guiding strategy.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

 

Back to Start Page

Laureate Esther Duflo and colleagues – admirable award courage in Stockholm

October 18, 2019

Pristagare Esther Duflo (och kolleger) – hurra för Nobelpriskommittén!

——————————————————————————————–

Summary in English

October 14 in 2019 turned out to be a great day also in my own professional life. I had no particular achievement myself but I could see something come true that I have been pleading for repeatedly for quite some time – the Nobel Prize in economic sciences with development economics as the awarded research area and Esther Duflo as a female winner together with Abhijit Banerjee. Concerning a third person I had in recent years changed my mind a couple of times forward and backward between Partha Dasgupta, William Easterley and Michael Kremer. Kremer made it finally – a good choice as well.

In recent years, I have pointed several times at my view that the evaluation time for the winning research area not in each and every case necessarily has to be 20-30 years – and certainly not when it comes to developing countries (poverty) and the scientific field experiments there.

———————————————————————————————

Own contributions / bidrag på svenska och engelska

https://lnu.se/en/meet-linnaeus-university/current/news/2019/who-will-be-awarded-the-nobel-prize-in-economics-2018/

https://blogg.lnu.se/fromlet-bbsresearch/files/2019/10/Nobel_Prizw_2019.pdf

https://johanschuck.se/hubert-fromlet-dags-for-en-ny-kvinnlig-ekonomipristagare/

https://lnu.se/mot-linneuniversitetet/aktuellt/nyheter/2019/hubert-fromlet-det-ar-hog-tid-att-hitta-kvinnliga-ekonomipristagare/

https://www.di.se/debatt/debatt-kvinnorna-som-borde-fa-ekonomipriset/

——————————————————————————————–

När jag igår fick höra resultatet från omröstningen till ekonomipriset 2019 blev jag mycket glad. Dels för att forskningsområdet “utvecklingsekonomi” belönades, dels för att Esther Duflo blev en av pristagarna (utan att göra avkall på de två manliga pristagarnas meriter). Det hade dock tagit så mycket som tio år sedan den första kvinnliga pristagaren hade belönats (Elinor Ostrom).

Jag hade också föreslagit i några av ovanstående länkar att – om det ej skulle uppstå kvalitativa risker – att (något) förkorta den traditionella, 20-30 år långa utvärderingsperioden för att kunna utvidga listan på kvinnliga priskandidater.

Så klart att jag kände mig nöjd efter tillkännagivandet. En del traditionellt skolade och sinnade kolleger framförde en hel del tvivel. Några sade också till mig rakt på sak att fältexperiment inte duger för att komma fram till generella eller makroorienterade slutsatser.

Visst, i vissa situationer kan det vara så. Har man dock sysslat lite närmare med fattiga utvecklingsländer brukar man märka rätt snabbt att effektiviteten och resultaten av speciella reformer och satsningar endast kan mätas med hjälp av fältorienterade mikroexperiment, speciellt eftersom makroekonomiskt statistikstöd av olika skäl knappt förekommer. Men neutralt vunna lokala eller regionala undersökningsresultat kan också göra mycket nytta och leda till bredare geografisk tillämpning.

Bra med Banerjees och Duflos forskning är inte minst att de kan åstadkomma praktisk koppling med sina studier och exempelvis även inkludera något så viktigt som psykologiska aktioner och reaktioner. Deras forskning är neutral och kan ej påverkas eller manipuleras av inhemska institutioner. Såväl berörda (fattiga) människor och inhemska institutioner kan dra direkt nytta av MIT-ekonomernas forskning som utländska biståndsgivare och företag. En helt ny forskargeneration kan äntligen mer konkret bidra till en bättre och rättvisare värld.

Min hyllning till Banerjee och Duflo ska dock inte förringa Michael Kremers mycket seriösa vetenskapliga insatser för fattiga länder, speciellt eftersom han sysslar så mycket med hälsoekonomi – ett viktigt forskningsområde med Amy Finkelstein, Jonathan Gruber och Kevin Murphy som potentiella pristagare längre fram. ”Health economics” förtjänar ännu mer uppmärksamhet framöver, både i utvecklade och mindre utvecklade länder.

Hubert Fromlet
Affiliate Professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

 

Back to Start Page