Perverse Fiscal Consolidation

Between 2011-2013 IMF documents and research papers have revised upwards earlier estimates of fiscal multipliers, which throughout 1970-2009 were assumed by the IMF and other international organisations to be on average about 0.5 for advanced countries (Blanchard and Leigh 2012, 2013, Batini et al. 2012, Cottarelli and Jaramillo 2012 and other researchers associated with the IMF).

The upward revision applies from 2010 and was justified by: the ineffectiveness of countervailing monetary expansion close to the zero floor of the interest rate, lack of opportunities for exchange rate devaluation especially in the Euroarea, by a large gap between potential and actual income (for fiscal multipliers are higher in a downturn than in a boom); and by simultaneous recent consolidation across countries.  Moreover, the fiscal multiplier for expenditure cuts – contrary to earlier claims - turns out to be much (up to ten times) higher than for tax rises.

This means that fiscal consolidation is more expensive in terms of output loss than previously believed.  But there is worse: the higher are fiscal multipliers, the higher is the probability that fiscal consolidation will have the perverse effect of actually raising the Public Debt/GDP ratio. 

Namely:  a fiscal consolidation (tax increases plus government expenditure cuts) will always necessarily result in an increase instead of a decrease of the Public Debt/GDP ratio, with respect to what that ratio would have been in the absence of fiscal consolidation, as long as the fiscal multiplier – or more precisely the weighted average of fiscal multipliers applicable to the composition of the fiscal package – is greater than the inverse of the country’s Public Debt/GDP ratio. Thus in such circumstances fiscal consolidation, contrary to received wisdom, will make Public Debt more rather than less costly to re-finance, and therefore less instead of more sustainable. In plain words, fiscal consolidation works only in those countries that, having a sufficiently low Public Debt/ratio, do not actually need a consolidation.

Here is the proof. Given D=Public Debt, Y=GDP, d=D/Y, x=the size of fiscal consolidation (tax rises plus expenditure cuts of given composition) expressed as a share of GDP, 

ΔD=-xY

ΔY= -mxY

where m is the appropriate fiscal multiplier,

Δ(D/Y) = [(ΔD)Y – (ΔY)D]/Y² = 

= [(-xY)Y – (-mxY)D]/Y²

= -x Y²/Y² + mxY D/Y² =

= -x + mxD/Y = mxd – x  and therefore                 

Δ(D/Y) = x(md – 1) = xd(m – 1/d)

from which we can see that the ratio D/Y must increase,
i.e. Δ(D/Y) >0,  if and only if m>1/d.  Q.E.D.

The interest of this proposition is in the fact that the inverse of the D/Y ratio is naturally all the smaller the more heavily indebted a country is, and particularly small with respect to the kind of fiscal multipliers estimates that have been produced in recent literature (such as Blanchard and Leigh 2012, 2013, Batini et al. 2012, Cottarelli and Jaramillo 2012 and other researchers associated with the IMF). Thus the counterproductive nature of fiscal consolidation in advanced economies, especially in highly indebted countries with high fiscal multipliers, is an absolute certainty.   

Figure 1. Illustration of perverse fiscal consolidation raising the Public Debt/GDP ratio (CLICK TO ENLARGE): Δ(D/Y) >0 for plausible values of m and as an increasing function of D/Y. 

The figure above (for which I am indebted to my colleague Marilena Giannetti) illustrates the impact of a fiscal stabilisation package of 5% of GDP, relatively modest by the standards of the current crisis, on the Public Debt/GDP ratio, Δ(D/Y)= x(md – 1), as a function of the current d=D/Y ranging from 50% to over 200% of GDP and for alternative values of fiscal multipliers ranging from 0.5 to 3.5.  At high D/Y ratios and relatively high multipliers still within the range estimated by recent IMF sources, the rise in D/Y can be devastating. 

By way of example, a country with d=1.20, m=3, undertaking a stabilisation of x=5%, would raise its d by 0.05*(1.20*3-1)=13% of GDP, from 1.20 to 1.33.  In a country like Japan, for a Public Debt at over 200% of GDP, a fiscal consolidation package of 5% would lead to an increase of the Public Debt/GDP ratio of the order of 30% of GDP. For a perverse effect of fiscal consolidation on such a massive scale the claim that “The short-term effects of fiscal policy on economic activity are only one of the many factors that need to be considered in determining the appropriate pace of fiscal consolidation for any single economy” (Blanchard and Leigh, 2013, p.6) is facile and disingenuous. Such a regime switch cannot be ignored.

Table 1. Threshold of the fiscal multiplier over which fiscal consolidation necessarily leads to higher Public Debt/GDP ratio for selected countries (calculated as the GDP/Public Debt ratio, from the data estimated by US-CIA, The World Factbook, 2013, for 2012), ranked by increasing value of the multiplier threshold.

Country    Public Debt/GDP      GDP/Public Debt

Japan            214.3                        0.47
Greece          161.3                        0.62
Ireland          118.0                        0.84
Italy              126.1                        0.79
France             89.9                        1.11
UK                  88.7                        1.13
Spain              85.3                        1.17
Germany         81.7                        1.22
Hungary          78.6                        1.27
Austria            74.6                        1.34
US                  73.6                        1.36
Netherland       68.7                       1.45
World  average 64.0                       1.56
Albania            60.6                       1.65
Poland             53.8                       1.85
Finland            53.5                       1.87
Slovakia          48.6                       2.06
Czechoslovakia 43.9                       2.21
Denmark         45.3                        2.21
Sweden           38.6                        2.56
Romania          37.2                        2.69

We have seen above that before the crisis the value of fiscal multipliers generally assumed by the IMF for advanced economies for forty years (1970-2009) was on average 0.5.

This leads to the presumption that – if national fiscal multipliers were all identical to the group average of 0.5 – only in Japan (with a GDP/Public Debt ratio as low as 0.47 in 2012 and 0.43 in 2013) would fiscal consolidation have raised the Public Debt/GDP ratio, and only very marginally at that. In all other countries fiscal consolidation would have worked, lowering both D and the D/Y ratio. 

The lower bound of the fiscal multipliers revised by Blanchard and Leigh (2012 and 2013), at 0.9, would imply a perverse consolidation pattern in 2012 not only in Japan but also in Greece, Ireland and Italy; while the upper bound of 1.7 would add to the list of perverse consolidation also France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Austria, the US, the Netherlands and Albania.

The lower bound of the expenditure multipliers estimated by Batini et al. (2012), 1.6, would remove only Albania from the list of perverse fiscal consolidation, but its higher bound 2.6 would include – in addition to the previous list, also Poland, Finland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden, leaving out Romania as the only country in table 1 in which consolidation would not raise the Public Debt/GDP ratio and reduce GDP growth.  Using the range of estimated multipliers for tax rises, 0.16-0.35, on the contrary, that kind of fiscal consolidation would always work, i.e. would reduce both the absolute level of Public Debt and its ratio to GDP.

For the multiplier estimated by Auerbach-Gorodnichenko (2012b), near zero in normal times to about 2.5 during recessions, fiscal consolidation would work always in a boom, and never in a recession except in Sweden and Romania.  Finally, for Christiano et al. (2011), with the multiplier at 3.2 once the interest rate approaches the zero interest lower bound, all the countries in Table 1 would experience perverse fiscal consolidation. 

It is reasonable to presume that all the IMF researchers involved in this kind of work must have been aware of such devastating implications of the upward revision of fiscal multipliers.  My colleague and good friend Giancarlo Gandolfo helped me to work out the proof of the proposition above linking the multiplier to the inverse of the Public Debt/GDP ratio, for which I am most grateful, but in all honesty he would be the first to point out that the proof does not involve the use of rocket science.  Cottarelli and Jaramillo (2012) who discuss the feedback loops between fiscal policy and growth, get remarkably close to that proposition, but use an obscure turn of phrase, and stop short of stating it in so many words, or mathematically:

“a deceleration of growth prompted by a fiscal consolidation could result in a rise in the government debt-to-GDP ratio. This is found to be the case if the initial stock of debt is large and the fiscal multiplier is high. The effect of fiscal tightening on debt (the numerator of the ratio) in percentage terms is smaller the higher the initial stock of debt to GDP. Meanwhile, the negative effect of fiscal tightening on GDP (the denominator of the ratio) is larger the higher the fiscal multiplier.”

The point is that although the participants in the debate "should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF", as stated in all IMF publications, naturally their writings are taken as a pointer to the way IMF views are evolving.  Therefore they must be anxious not to suggest that their upwards revision might result in perverse fiscal consolidations in all or near all advanced economies, and baulk at saying in so many words that fiscal consolidation backfires precisely in those highly indebted countries on which it is pressed most energetically. Thus Blanchard and Leigh (2013) are adamant:

“... our results should not be construed as arguing for any specific fiscal policy stance in any specific country. In particular, the results do not imply that fiscal consolidation is undesirable.”

And Cottarelli and Jaramillo (2012) make a case against abrupt, front-loaded and simultaneous fiscal consolidations (like Blanchard and Cottarelli had done separately in 2011 and 2012 respectively).  “It is imperative to lower Public Debt over time”, though:  “However, in the short-run, front-loaded fiscal adjustment is likely to hurt growth prospects, which would delay improvements in fiscal indicators, including deficits, debt, and financing costs. A measured, although not trivial, pace of adjustment, based on a clear medium-term plan, is therefore preferable, if market conditions allow it.” Nevertheless, they claim that fiscal consolidation and economic growth go “hand in hand”.

All researchers advocate structural reforms, precisely to offset the recognition that fiscal adjustment will slow down growth.  “Reforms in goods, services, and labor markets that improve economic efficiency will boost potential growth, in turn serving as important tools in the fiscal adjustment process” (Cottarelli and Jaramillo 2012). These cover a multitude of sins and virtues that have mixed and ambiguous effects, if any, and in any case only in a distant long-run.    The notion of a virtuous circle in which “pro-growth fiscal adjustment measures, other structural reforms, and lower debt boost growth and the latter facilitates fiscal adjustment” (ibidem) is pie in the sky, and a dangerous vision if it is used to justify perverse fiscal consolidation.

The proposition that fiscal consolidation harms development only when it is abrupt, front-loaded and internationally coordinated is a non-sequitur.

At this point two further considerations are in order.  First, we know – not least from Cottarelli and Jaramillo (2012, Appendix on Short-run Determinants of CDS Spreads in Advanced Economies) – that a country’s cost of borrowing tends to rise with the Debt/GDP ratio and with the fall in the growth rate, both phenomena being associated with “perverse” fiscal consolidation i.e. with the near totality of consolidations.  For “a deceleration of growth prompted by a fiscal consolidation could trigger nervousness in financial markets” and “...markets seem to have been focusing recently on short-term growth developments.”  “The possible increase in spreads when fiscal policy is tightened creates a problem for upholding a fiscal adjustment strategy, not only because higher financing costs increase the overall deficit, but also because of political economy reasons. If painful fiscal tightening is accompanied by early evidence of an improvement in credibility, the adjustment is more easily sustained, but if markets do not reward the effort, the resolve of the government to carry on the fiscal adjustment may be undermined.”  Therefore fiscal consolidation can and often does generate a vicious circle that makes Public Debt more and more unsustainable. 

Second, we know that in a prolonged depression productive capacity does not just stand idle but is actually destroyed: factories close down with no more than a fraction of their productive capital being re-deployed elsewhere, if at all, in other productive uses; human capital is also destroyed, as workers made redundant are dispersed, and their skills are lost or forgotten or made obsolete.  When actual output falls below potential output, at some point gross investment stops and net investment falls below zero as unused or obsolete capital is not replaced, thus reducing not only employment but the number of those “employable”, pulling down the growth path of potential output (Vianello 2005). “An insufficient demand protracted over time unavoidably generates a slowdown in the formation of new productive capacity and therefore of potential income” (ibidem). Discouraged workers will stop looking for work and the rate of participation will fall.  As Nicholas Kaldor (1983) had argued, “It is illegitimate to assume that there exists a long run equilibrium growth path, for a single country or even the world as a whole, determined by population growth, capital accumulation and the rate of technical progress, all taken exogenously [italics added].” (p. 95).

In such conditions, in the world as we know it, fiscal consolidation definitely can harm economic growth and development, even if it is not abrupt, front-loaded and internationally coordinated.  This is not to say that there are no limits to a country’s or even a group of countries’ ability to sustain a fiscal stimulus.  But fiscal consolidation has to be avoided absolutely as long as the GDP/Debt ratio is smaller than the fiscal multiplier – even if otherwise the country is growing less fast than the interest rate on its debt, for with perverse fiscal consolidation the country would continue to raise its Debt/GDP ratio even faster than with continued fiscal stimulus. 

This is true even if government expenditure consists of Keynes’ proverbial policy of hiring some workers digging holes and others filling them, that Tanzi (2012) would relegate “to the museum of old and wrong ideas” (p. 11).  Obviously the replacement of unproductive expenditure with productive investment has significant additional benefits over a continuation of unproductive investment such as digging and filling holes or building pyramids or cathedrals, but even the continuation of such unproductive investment is superior to fiscal consolidation.  

REFERENCES

Auerbach Alan, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko (2012a), “Fiscal Multipliers in Recession and Expansion,” in Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, University of Chicago Press.

Auerbach Alan, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko (2012b), “Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy,” American Economic Journal – Economic Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 1–27. 

Auerbach Alan, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko (2012c), “Output Spillovers from Fiscal Policy,” NBER Working Paper No. 18578, Cambridge, Mass. 

Batini Nicoletta, Giovanni Callegari and Giovanni Melina (2012), “Successful Austerity in the United States, Europe and Japan”, IMF Working Paper 12/190, July, Washington.

Blanchard Olivier J. (2011), “Blanchard on 2011’s four hard truths”, 23 December,  http://www.voxeu.org/article/blanchard-2011-s-four-hard-truths 

Blanchard Olivier J. and Daniel Leigh (2012), “Box 1.1. Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” in International Monetary Fund (2012), World Economic Outlook - Coping with High Debt and Sluggish Growth, Chapter, “Global prospects and policies”, pp. 41-43., October, Washington.

Blanchard, Olivier J. and Daniel Leigh (2013), Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers, IMF Working Paper No. 13/1, January, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf 

Christiano Lawrence, Martin Eichenbaum, and Sergio Rebelo (2011), “When Is the Government Spending Multiplier Large?”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, pp. 78–121. 

Cottarelli Carlo (2012), “Fiscal Adjustment: Too Much of a Good Thing?”, Posted on January 29 by iMFdirect. 

Cottarelli Carlo and Laura Jaramillo (2012), “Walking Hand in Hand: Fiscal Policy and Growth in Advanced Economies”, IMF Working Paper WP12/137 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12137.pdf

International Monetary Fund, (2010), World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing, October, Washington 

Kaldor Nicholas (1983), “The role of effective demand in the short run and the long run”, reprinted in Targetti Ferdinando and A. P. Thirlwall, Eds., (1989) Further essays on economic theory and policy – Collected economic essays, vol. 9, Duckworth, London. 

Tanzi Vito (2012), Realistic Recovery - Why Keynesian Solutions Will Not Work, http://www.politeia.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/Vito%20Tanzi%20Final.pdf London, Politeia.

Vianello Fernando (2005), “La Moneta Unica Europea”, mimeo, and in Economia & Lavoro (2013), XLVII-1, pp. 27-46. 

Vladimir Popov replies on China

[A Guest Post by Vladimir Popov, New Economic School, Moscow, vpopov@NES.RU, http://www.nes.ru/~vpopov]

I am very grateful to everyone who commented on my post of 24 May on the Uniqueness of Chinese Capitalism. Here are some brief replies that I hope might promote further debate.

Mario stresses the prohibition of trades unions and strikes in today’s China. Well, trade unions formally exist, but the right to strike is really not guaranteed by Deng’s constitution, although it was guaranteed by Mao’s constitution. (By the way, the relative popularity of Mao and Deng in China today could be measured by observing the numbers at the memorial site where people can go and put virtual flowers to personalities they like: http://jidian.china.com Since 2009 and until July 8, 2010, Mao got over 2 million bouquets of flowers, Deng – only 33,000, less than Zhou Enlai (nearly 200,000) and Norman Bethume, a Canadian doctor helping Republicans in Spain in 1936-39 and Communists in China during the Anti-Japanese and Civil Wars (over 37,000)).

Mario questions my statement that all developed countries had authoritarian regimes in the past. “Including England, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the United States? If you said "many developed countries had before" nobody could argue, but all? You might say more about this presumably universal authoritarianism”. Well, I would stick to what I said – there was life before democracy, which emerged at a very late stage of human history. In ancient Greece neither women nor slaves had voting rights. In France in 1815-30 voters amounted to only 0.25-0.3 per cent of the population, and about 0.6 per cent in 1830-48. In England suffrage was extended by the Reform Act of 1832. Nevertheless, voting rights were received by 14-18 per cent of men only. Universal male suffrage was introduced only in 1928. In Germany, Italy, Belgium women were not given voting rights until after the Second World War. Rich countries were generally late in introduction of universal suffrage: it was granted in 1965 in the USA, in 1970 - in Canada, in 1971 - in Switzerland. (Polterovich, Popov, 2007).

Mario writes: “Mao's contribution to filling state coffers is fine, but did he really contribute to building state institutions? I thought Maoism had been fairly destructive rather than constructive in this respect?”

I referred to the fact that Mao created the “vertical of power” that not only Putin, but Qin Shihuangdi (the first emperor that unified China in 3rd century B.C.) could not have dreamt of. I gave the data on shadow economy and murders. I said that party cells were created in every village, so for the first time in China’s history the central government in Beijing could enforce decisions taken in the capital all across the country. And I explained that government for the first time in Chinese history started to collect reasonable revenues (always a problem in developing countries).

A couple of examples can be enlightening. In Mao’s days policemen used to be unarmed like most British Bobbies. Bank officials collected cash from retail shops at the end of the business day and carried it back to the bank on a bike or via public transport (and unarmed, of course). Today, the same procedure is different – armoured vehicles, bullet proof jackets, helmets, machine guns…

Another good indicator of the ability to maintain social order and the magnitude of non-compliance with existing regulations is the incarceration rate – the number of inmates per capita. It is 120 per 100,000 against 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 population in the US and 151 in the UK. Which is the “land of freedom” and which is the “prison state”?

Anonymous comments that the lower Chinese murder rate does not account for “capital punishment and the silent massacre of female babies along with the number of suicides directly or indirectly induced by Chinese state repression and rule of force”. It does account for capital punishment; Amnesty International estimates that “Legal murders” – executions (1000-2000 a year) account for about 5% of total murders.

“The silent massacre of female babies” is probably a reference to Berlusconi statement that “under Mao's China they didn't eat babies, but they boiled them to fertilise the fields” (Berlusconi, 2006). There is a debate, whether China has sex-selective abortions (although it is illegal for doctors in China to reveal the gender of the foetus) because China has one of the highest gender imbalances for the newborns. But “silent massacre of female babies” is as probable as “boiling them to fertilize the fields”.

And on “suicides directly or indirectly induced by Chinese state repression and rule of force”: the total number of suicides in China is 21 per 100,000, quite high by international standards, but less than in Japan and Finland, and way less than in Estonia and Hungary.

Alberto’s comment that “authoritarian types of mixed capitalist economy with an important steering role for the state have thrived in South-East Asia, from Japan to Singapore, to South Korea and Taiwan, without any communist connotations, leading those countries to development and prosperity” is missing the point. All the countries mentioned were supported by the US during the Cold War as counterweights to global communism, some even call this “development by invitation”. Not only did they receive Western assistance, but also, and most important, got access to US markets. In addition in Japan and Korea the agricultural reform was carried by the US occupation authorities and in Taiwan it took place under pressure from the US.

In a sense, Alberto writes, “over the long haul Chiang Kai-shek has triumphed over Mao. (An analogous consideration could be made with respect to Vietnam, where after a long bloody civil war the vanquished appear to have triumphed over the victors.)”. I would dispute that. Chiang Kai-shek, as the puppet South Vietnamese government, had the time to carry reforms and produce an economic miracle but failed to do so. There was no growth and no peace in China in 1928-48, when Chiang Kai-shek was the leader. When Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan (even after the so called “golden decade of the 1930s”), he left China with GDP per capita of $500 (Maddison, 2008), same as in 1500, and a life expectancy of 35 years.

To put it differently, to produce an economic miracle in Taiwan Chang Kai-shek had to be defeated and learn from his defeat and from the communists (and to carry out agrarian reform on the island that he never carried out in China) and to get a support from the US (access to the US market).

“…Maoism left the Chinese economy and society in such a bad shape that simply the demolition of Maoism produced the economic miracle”, says Alberto. This is wrong again. The catch-up development of China since 1949 was extremely impressive: not only were growth rates in China higher than elsewhere after the reforms (1979 onward), but even before the reforms (1949-79), despite temporary declines during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese development was quite successful. According to Maddison (2008), Chinese per-capita GDP was about 70 percent of India’s in 1950, rose to about 100 percent by 1958-59, fell during the Great Leap Forward, rose again to 100 percent of the Indian level by 1966, fell during the first years of the Cultural Revolution, and rose again to 100 percent by 1978. By 2006, it was more than twice the Indian per capita GDP. World Bank estimates, however, suggest that since 1960, Chinese growth rates (five-year moving averages) were always higher than Indian growth rates. Life expectancy in China in 1950 was only 35 years but by the end of the 1970s rose to 65 years—thirteen years higher than in India. Today, it is seventy-three years—seven years higher than in Russia and India. Some charts below (from Popov, 2009).

Berlusconi (2006). Communists boiled babies: Berlusconi. “Herald Sun”, 27 March 2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603618/posts

Maddison, A. (2008). Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2006 AD (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls)

Polterovich, V. Popov, V (2007). Democratization, Quality of Institutions and Economic Growth.
-TIGER Working paper No. 102, Warsaw, July 2007.

Popov, V. (2009). Why the West Became Rich before China and Why China Has Been Catching Up with the West since 1949: Another Explanation of the “Great Divergence” and “Great Convergence” Stories. -NES/CEFIR Working paper # 132, October 2009.

Is The Chinese Variety of Capitalism Really Unique?

A Guest Post by Vladimir Popov [1]

Because the Chinese economy did much better in the recent recession of 2008-09, there is no shortage of articles suggesting that the Chinese model is more viable and that the West should learn from China.

“We in the West have a choice - writes Anatole Kaletsky in The Times -. Either we concede the argument that China, in the 5,000 years of recorded human history, has been a much more successful and durable culture than America or Western Europe and is now reclaiming its natural position of global leadership. Or we stop denying the rivalry between the Chinese and Western models and start thinking seriously about how Western capitalism can be reformed to have a better chance of winning” [2].

“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”? Rudyard Kipling's oft quoted words prompt a more modest question: does the Chinese economic model today differ radically from the Western model; does it really have magic properties that allow growth amidst the world-wide recession or has growth been just a stroke of luck?

Certainly the Chinese economy is no longer either centrally planned or state-owned. On the similarities with the West side we have the:

- Dominant role of the private sector - 75% of GDP is produced by non-state enterprises, including joint stock companies and individual private businesses, which are not that different from their Western counterparts;

- Relatively small share of government spending in GDP (about 20%) – lower than in all Western countries and often lower than in developing countries with similar per capita GDP;

- No longer free education and health care, and relatively high income and wealth inequalities (Gini coefficient of 45% and 64 billionaires on the mainland alone, according to the March 2010 “Forbes’ account, second in the world after the US with 403, but ahead of Russia's 62).

Differences with the Western economic model also do not seem to be all that significant:

- China has a strong, export-oriented industrial policy – mostly caused by undervaluation of the yuan leading to the accumulation of vast foreign exchange reserves. This is not without a precedent, however, since this practice was used by Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore at earlier stages of development);

- Land is still not private property in China and is not traded, but private, long-term transferable private leases are widespread; besides, public ownership of land is not uncommon in other countries, albeit in smaller proportions;

- China exercises controls over its capital account but, again, this practice is used by many developing countries now and was still being used by European countries just half a century ago, until well after the end of the Second World War;

- China has an authoritarian regime (which, of course, all developed countries had in the past; some of them, like Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea, as recently as three-four decades ago).

A real difference is the institutional capacity of the state.

Many formal comparisons of the similarities and differences of Chinese and Western economic models misses the most important point. The uniqueness of China is that while it looks very much like a developed country today in terms of the institutional capacity of the state, it is a developing country according to GDP per capita. Instead China should be compared with developing countries today or developed countries a hundred years ago, when their GDP was at the current Chinese level; this comparison is very much in China favour.

The institutional capacity of the state, narrowly defined, is the ability of a government to enforce laws and regulations. While there are a lot of subjective indices (corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness, etc.) that supposedly measure state institutional capacity, many researchers do not think they help to explain economic performance and consider them biased[3]. The natural objective measures of state institutional capacity are the murder rate – non-compliance with the state’s monopoly on violence[4], and the shadow economy – non compliance with the economic regulations. China is unique in having some of the lowest scores for both indicators in the developing world, comparable to those of developed countries (see chart 1).

Chart 1. Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants and government effectiveness index (ranges from -2.5 to +2.5) in 2002


















Upper chart - countries with a high (15-75) murder rate; Lower chart – countries with a low rate (0-3). Source: WHO, World Bank.

With less than 3 murders in 2002 per 100,000 inhabitants against 1-2 in Europe and Japan and over 5 in the US) China looks like a developed country. Only a few developing countries, mostly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), have such low murder rates, normally they are considerably higher, as in Latin America, Sub Saharan Africa, and many Former Soviet states. By way of comparison, it took Western Europe 300 years to move from a murder rate of over 40 per 100, 000 inhabitants in the sixteenth century to current levels of 1-2 murders per 100, 000 inhabitants in the nineteenth century beyond [5].

The same is true of the shadow economy: it is less than 17% of the Chinese GDP, lower than in Belgium, Portugal, Spain, whereas in developing countries it is typically around 40%, sometimes even over 60%. Only few developing countries have such low share of shadow economy, in particular, Vietnam and some MENA countries (Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria).

Chart 2. Share of the shadow economy in GDP in 2005, %, and government effectiveness index in 2002 .
















Source: World Bank. Data on shadow economy are from: Friedrich Schneider. Shadow Economies and Corruption All Over the World: New Estimates for 145 Countries. – Economics. Open Access, Open Assessment E-Journal, No. 2007-9 July 24, 2007 (measures of the shadow economy are derived from divergence between output dynamics and electricity consumption, demand for real cash balances, etc.).

Where does the strength of the Chinese institutions come from?

The pre-conditions for the Chinese success of the last thirty years were created mostly in the preceding period 1949-76. It would be no exaggeration at all to claim that without the policies implemented by Mao’s regime, the market-type reforms of 1979 and beyond would never have produced the impressive results that they did. In this sense, economic liberalization in 1979 and beyond was only the icing on the cake. The other ingredients, most importantly strong institutions and human capital, had already been provided by the previous regime. Without these other ingredients, liberalization alone in different periods and in different countries was never successful and sometimes was counterproductive, as in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s.

Market-type reforms in China in 1979 and beyond brought about such an acceleration in economic growth because China already had an efficient government, created by the Chinese Communist Party after the Liberation, which the country had not had in centuries - not least because of its deliberate destruction by various colonial, European aggressors. Through the party cells in every village, the communist government in Beijing was able to enforce its rules and regulations throughout the country more efficiently than Qing Shi Huang Di or any subsequent emperor, not to mention the Kuomintang regime (1912-49). While, in the late nineteenth century, the central government had revenues equivalent to only 3 percent of GDP (against 12 percent in Japan right after the Meiji Restoration) and, under the Kuomintang government, they increased to only 5 percent of GDP, Mao’s government left the state coffers to Deng’s reform team with revenues equivalent to 20 percent of GDP [6].

The Chinese crime rate in the 1970s was among the lowest in the world, A Chinese shadow economy was virtually non-existent, and corruption was estimated by Transparency International even in 1985 to be the lowest in the developing world (China, together with the USSR, was in the middle of the list of 54 countries – below Western countries, but ahead of most developing countries and even ahead of South Korea, Greece, Italy, and Portugal [7]). In the same period, during “clearly the greatest experiment in the mass education in the history of the world”, literacy rates in China increased from 28 percent in 1949 to 65 percent by the end of the 1970s (41 percent in India, for comparison)[8].

By the end of the 1970s, China had virtually everything needed for growth except some liberalization of markets — a much easier ingredient to introduce than human capital or institutional capacity. The foundations for the truly exceptional success of the post-reform period had been laid purposefully in 1949-76. [9]

But even this seemingly simple task of economic liberalization required careful management. The USSR was in a similar position in the late 1980s. True, the Soviet system lost its economic and social dynamism, growth rates in the 1960s-80s were falling, life expectancy was not rising, and crime rates were slowly growing, but institutions were generally strong and human capital was large, which provided good starting conditions for reform. Nevertheless, economic liberalization in China (since 1979) and in the USSR and later in Russia (since 1989) produced markedly different outcomes.[10]

[Russia was assaulted for decades by the West and suffered massive human and material losses in the Second WW. China may have been having objectively hard and troubled times but it was not under attack in the same way, and having itself constantly diverted from its course of action by the Americans].

Fast economic growth can materialize only if several necessary conditions are met simultaneously. Specifically rapid growth requires: infrastructure, human capital, in agrarian countries even land re-distribution, strong state institutions, and economic stimuli, among other things. Rodrik, Hausmann, and Velasco talk about “binding constraints” that hold back economic growth; finding these constraints is a task in “growth diagnostics”[11]

Why did economic liberalization work in central Europe but not in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America? The answer, according to the outlined approach, would be that in central Europe the missing ingredient was economic liberalization, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America there was a lack of state capacity, not a lack of market liberalization. Why did liberalization work in China and central Europe but did not work in the Commonwealth of Independent States? It is because in the CIS it was carried out in such a way as to undermine state capacity — the one useful heritage of the socialist past ― whereas in central Europe and even more so in China , state capacity did not decline substantially during transition?

Unlike Russia after 1991, so far it seems that China in 1979-2009 managed to preserve its strong state institutions better — the murder rate, a reliable measure of state capacity as noted above, in China is still below 3 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to about 30 in Russia in 2002 and about 20 in 2009. In the 1970s, under the Maoist regime, the murder rate in Shandong Province was even less than 1 [12], and in 1987 it was estimated to be 1.5 for the whole of China [13]. The threefold increase in the murder rate during the market reforms is comparable with the Russian increase, but Chinese levels are nowhere near the Russian levels.

If the Chinese model exists, is it replicable and sustainable, or even desirable?

The litmus test is a question on which economists sharply disagree: where will the next economic miracles occur, if at all.

Today, conventional wisdom suggests democratic countries that encourage individual freedoms and entrepreneurship, as Mexico and Brazil, Turkey and India, for future growth miracles, whereas rapidly-growing, currently authoritarian regimes, like China and Vietnam or Iran and Egypt, are thought to be doomed to experience a growth slowdown, if not a recession, in the near future. According to Jack Goldstone [14], “a country encouraging science and entrepreneurship will thrive regardless of inequality: hence India and Brazil, and perhaps Mexico, should become world leaders. But I say countries that retain hierarchical patronage systems and hostility to individualism and science-based entrepreneurship, will fall behind, such as Egypt and Iran ”. Many believe that rapid growth could be achieved under authoritarian regimes only at the catch-up stage, not at the innovative stage: once a country approaches the technological frontier and it becomes impossible to grow just by copying innovations of the others, it can continue to advance only with free entrepreneurship, guaranteed individual freedoms and a democratic political regime [15].

We still do not have enough evidence for innovation-based growth. For one thing, on all measures of patent activity, Japan , South Korea and China are already ahead or rapidly catching up with the US. The patent office of the United States of America, which had consistently issued the highest number of patents since 1998, was overtaken in 2007 by the patent office of Japan . The patent office of China replaced the European Patent Office as the fourth largest office in terms of issuing grants (the five largest patent offices - those of Japan, the USA, the Republic of Korea, China and the EPO accounted for 74.4% of total patent grants). The number of resident patent filings per $1 of GDP and $1 of R&D spending is already higher, sometimes considerably higher, in Japan, Korea and China than in the US [16].

And the evidence for catch-up growth is controversial to say the least. Imagine, for instance, that the debate about future economic miracles were happening in 1960: some would be betting on more free, democratic and entrepreneurial India and Latin America, whereas others would predict the success of authoritarian (even sometimes communist), centralized and heavy handed government interventionist East Asia. What is unknown, however, is whether the gradual weakening in the reform period capacity of the Chinese state will continue to weaken further, which will convert China into a “normal” developing country. In this case Chinese rapid growth would come to an end and there wouldn’t be any more a question of what is so special about the Chinese economic model.

POSTSCRIPT by DMN: The 27 May issue of the Russian magazine "Russkiy Reporter" lists Vladimir Popov among the "10 best [Russian] economists and sociologists in 2000-2010". Vladimir is sketched on the right-hand top corner of the magazine's cover.
Warmest congratulations, Vladimir!























[1] New Economic School, Moscow. vpopov@NES.RU, http://www.nes.ru/~vpopov.

[2] Anatole Kaletsky. “We need a new capitalism to take on China . If the West isn’t to slide into irrelevance, governments must be much more active in taking control of the economy”. “The Times”. February 4, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7014090.ece.

[3] Mushtaq H. Khan. Governance, Economic Growth and Development since the 1960s. DESA Working Paper No. 54, August 2007.
http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2007/wp54_2007.pdf

[4] Crimes are registered differently in different countries—higher crime rates in developed countries seem to be the result of a better registration of crimes. But serious crimes, like murders, appear to be registered quite accurately even in developing countries, so an international comparison of murder rates is well warranted.

[5] Eisner, Manuel. Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime. – Crime and Justice, Vol. 30 (2003), pp 83-142.

[6] Lu, Aiguo. China and the Global Economy since 1840. New York , St. Martins Press, 1999.

[7] Internet Center for Corruption Research, Historical comparisons. Http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_olderindices_historical.html

[8] Peterson Glen. State Literacy Ideologies and the Transformation of Rural China. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, No. 32 (Jul., 1994.

[9] To a lesser extent, this is true for India : market-type reforms in the 1990s produced good results because they were based on the previous achievements of the import substitution period. Fast Indian growth is sometimes attributed to the deregulation reforms of the 1990s, but it was shown that fast growth actually started in the early 1980s, well before the deregulation reforms were launched (Ghosh, Jayati. Macroeconomic and Growth Policies. Background Note. UN DESA, 2007). Like Chinese growth, Indian growth was based on the achievements of the 1950s-70s period of ISI and mobilization of domestic savings: the savings rate (as a percentage of GDP) doubled in the last fifty years, going up from 12-15% in the 1960s, to 16-20% in the 1970s, 15-23% in the 1980s, 23-25% in the 1990s, and to 24-35% in 2000-08.

[10] Popov, V. Shock Therapy versus Gradualism Reconsidered: Lessons from Transition Economies after 15 Years of Reforms. – Comparative Economic Studies, Vol. 49, Issue 1, March 2007, pp. 1-31
(http://www.nes.ru/~vpopov/documents/Shock%20vs%20grad%20reconsidered%20-15%20years%20after%20-article.pdf); Popov, V. Why the West Became Rich before China and Why China Has Been Catching Up with the West since 1949: Another Explanation of the “Great Divergence” and “Great Convergence” Stories. -NES/CEFIR Working paper # 132, October 2009.

[11] Rodrik, Dani, R. Hausmann, A. Velasco. Growth Diagnostics. 2005. Http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/barcelonafinalmarch2005.pdf

[12] Shandong Province database [ Shandong sheng shengqing ziliaoku].
http://www.infobase.gov.cn/bin/mse.exe?seachword=&K=a&A=16&rec=42&run=13.%20%20Chinese%20PPP%20GDP%20per%20capita%20in%20the%201970s%20was%20about%201000Chinese PPP GDP per capita in the 1970s was about $1000 – at the same level as in Western Europe in the seventeenth century, when the murder rate was about 10 per 100, 000 inhabitants (Eisner, op.cit; Maddison, Angus. Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008 AD (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/).

[13] WHO Health for All Database, 2004.

[14] Goldstone, J. Unpublished comments on Popov, V. Why the West Became Rich before China and Why China Has Been Catching Up with the West since 1949: Another Explanation of the “Great Divergence” and “Great Convergence” Stories. -NES/CEFIR Working paper # 132, October 2009.

[15] Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

[16] World Intellectual Property Indicators. WIPO, Geneva , 2009.