China Research

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

China’s Strive for Quality of Growth and Growth Data – Challenges for Economic Analyses and the European/Global Corporate Sector

August 12, 2015

Abstract

Economists – particularly foreign financial analysts, also in Europe – focus mainly on the Purchasing Manager Indices (PMIs) and quarterly GDP changes when analyzing Chinese growth. This is understandable since these data are easily available. More recently these data did not produce an optimistic picture for China’s economy. But does this information really provide reliable information on China’s growth performance and outlook? Does this analytical approach capture the strategy and policy changes announced during the Third Plenum in November 2013?

Certainly not. Consequently, foreign and even domestic investors run the risk that portfolio and particularly more long-term investments are too heavily based on short-term indicators that do not reflect ongoing structural improvement measures or policy changes.

The paper will summarize past and current discussion on Chinese GDP data and deal with the alternatives for assessing economic growth and its quality. Merely relying on an improved and widened analysis of Chinese reform policy since November 2013 is difficult and has its limits. But better analysis can be created by economists themselves even under current conditions. Transparency is still by far too poor. Improvements should not be that difficult to achieve all the same. Some ideas are given in this paper – and also hints how and where to find information on structural improvements that have taken place or are planned concretely for the nearer future.

Better insight into Chinese reform policy and underlying GDP-growth conditions could give a sounder input for decision-making by domestic, European and global investors, Swedish and German companies included. The ambition of the paper is to contribute to a move from too much short-term to more medium- and long-term analysis of China’s development – an approach that should be promising also from a European corporate perspective.

JEL:   E60, F23, F 60, O53, P21, P48.

Read the full article here,
China’s Strive for Quality of Growth and Growth Data.pdf

 

Hubert Fromlet
Senior Professor of International Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

 

Back to Start Page

The Baltics in Search for Exports

June 3, 2015

In 2014, Estonia grew by 2.1%, Latvia by 2.4%, and Lithuania by 2.9%. Flash estimates for Q1 2015 report GDP growth dipping to 1.2% YoY in Estonia and Lithuania (contraction of 0.3% and 0.6% QoQ), and 2.0% in Latvia (still up 0.4% QoQ). Investment activity has been quite weak for a couple of years whereas consumption growth has remained by and large robust. Thus, the key reason for the dip in growth seems to be external, i.e.: (i) collapse in Russian demand, and (ii) subpar EU growth.

If subpar EU growth has tamed the upside for the Baltics (overall it still holds good growth prospects as the EU demand is still rising), Russian contraction and especially the rouble depreciation have an outright negative hit. The reason for Russia’s contraction is its chronic structural weaknesses (excessive dependence on oil, poor rule of law, weakness of market institutions) – reinforced by sanctions (impaired access to finance and technologies due to the sanctions from the West, but also Russia’s own imposed embargo on food imports) due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Flash estimate for Q1 2015 reports Russian GDP to have shrunk by 1.9% YoY. Real household incomes are down about 10% YoY as are retail sales; investment activity seems to have fallen through the floor. It could have been worse… with oil prices gradually picking up, the rouble has stabilized at somewhat stronger levels than expected, which means that inflation, though still at about 16%, seems to have peaked and is likely to start retreating. Industrial output has reported small positive numbers. Still, Russia is set to shrink further this year and recession is likely to end only in 2016. Moreover, when recession will end, recovery will be bleak low single digits as its old oil-driven growth model has run out of steam and there is nothing broad and strong enough to substitute for it. So, there is not much hope for strong demand growth from Russia over the longer term either, even when ignoring the lagging rule of law, investor protection and geopolitical risks.

How does this Russia trouble affect the Baltic economies? It has cut sharply into the Baltic exports – in Q1 2015, goods exports to Russia fell by 29% for Latvia, 34% for Lithuania (-60% for Lithuanian origin goods) and 49% for Estonia from one year ago. More difficult to measure, but confidence must also have suffered, reducing investment activity. Yet, the overall impact is not that devastating at all. Despite the massive drop of exports to Russia, total exports have grown a tad for Latvia (up 0.4% YoY), and only marginally inched down for Estonia (-0.4%) and Lithuania (-3.8%; -4% for Lithuanian origin goods).  Thus, the good news is that the massive fall in the exports to Russia have been compensated with expansion in other (mainly EU) markets. So far we see only limited and contained impact – within certain sectors or companies – on corporate profitability and liquidity.

In short, the Baltics are coping quite well with this. One of the reasons is that it is not the first time the Baltics see something like that; during the 1998 Russian crisis, for example, dependence on trade with Russia was much larger than it was before the current watershed, so companies have been diversifying their markets for a long time. As to the sanctions – Russia has had a habit of introducing one off sanctions against specific goods already before and also quite regularly (e.g. there was a ban specifically on Lithuanian milk products in 2013). Companies know how to react in such instances. Yes, this is costly, but companies have seen it before and know what to do.

We expect the Baltic goods exports to Russia to fall by 30%-50% in 2015, and trade links with Russia to weaken substantially. Russia’s share in goods exports has been shrinking, e.g. for Latvia, from 9.4% in Q1 2013 to 6.8% in Q1 2015. To compensate for the shortfall in Russia, there has been a spectacular growth to many so far for quite exotic markets for the Baltic exporters such as Middle East, China or Japan. But the major volume growth has been already established to the core partners of the EU. The share of destination EU has risen, e.g. for Latvia from 70.9% in Q1 2013 to 75.4% in Q1 2015, and it is likely to continue going forward. If political alliances for the Baltics have clearly been with Europe, fast and lucrative export growth to Russia and its peripheral trade partners at times may have put politicians in a situation to weigh among political and economic alliances… now political and economic alliances are likely to become closer aligned, which will add to stability – and this is good.

We see the dip in early 2015 as temporary since a gradual pick up in EU growth (supported by ECB quantitative easing stimulus) must lift European demand and thus the Baltic exports and consumer spending. Overall, we expect the Baltics to grow by about 2% in 2015 and 3% in 2016. Slower than before, but not that bad either.

Annual_Growth_of_Goods_Exports_3M_Average

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mārtiņš Kazāks
Swedbank Deputy Group Chief Economist and Chief Economist for Swedbank in Latvia

 

Back to Start Page

Should the Yuan Become Part of SDR?

Chinese statements and domestic debate make increasingly clear that China soon wants to become part of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) artificial currency, the so-called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) – also described as kind of reserve currency for the IMF-member countries. Currently, one SDR contains fixed amounts of four currencies denominated in USD, i.e. somewhat above 40 percent for the USD and slightly below 40 percent for the EUR plus around 10 percent for both the GBP and the JPY.

In January 2016, the Chinese want their renminbi (RMB) to become the fifth currency in the SDR basket. The question, however, is whether China already is mature for such a big step. To get there, some main criteria for SDR entry have to be met:

– the size of the country’s exports;

– the currencies included in SDRs should be “widely used” and “widely traded”

The first criterion, of course, would be easily met by China, the no 1 exporting country in the world.

The evaluation of the second criterion with its two parts, however, is much more complicated. One must certainly note the RMB today is widely – and increasingly – used when it comes to international trade finance. Chinese RMB or yuan have also a growing weight in the composition of currency reserves in an increasing number of central banks.

Consequently, the possible membership of the RMB in the SDR composition will probably be decided by the interpretation of the question whether the Chinese currency is “widely traded” – which in my view should be related to free forex trading of all over the world. This is currently not the case. The IMF is talking more precisely about “widely traded in the principal exchange markets” which, however, opens for broad interpretations. As the IMF expressed the issue very recently: the future inclusion of the RMB in the SDR is not a matter of “if” – but of “when”.

Altogether, I feel strongly that joining the SDR by the RMB already in January 2016 would be premature. I share the view that China will be there at some point in the future. Reforms of the domestic financial system and the gradual deregulation of the capital balance seem to be much more important than the RMB’s joining of the SDR already in a couple of months – and not to forget the need of much better transparency. But we know that the Executive Board has the mandate to change the entry criteria, by, for example, giving emerging markets more influence in IMF decisions.

Hopefully, the decision by the Executive Board of the IMF will be based purely on economic, financial and institutional criteria – and not on political considerations. Nota bene: This is no opinion against emerging markets per se which I indeed have sympathized with since many years ago.

Sources:                                                                              http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/092311.pdf   http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm

 

 

Hubert Fromlet
Senior Professor of International Economics, Linnaeus University
Editorial board

 

Back to Start Page