|
Chinese Economy under the New "Dual Circulation" Strategy: Challenges and Opportunities—A Summary of the Annual SUFE Macroeconomic Report (2020–2021)
Kevin X.D. Huang, Shuangjian Li, Guoqiang Tian
Front. Econ. China. 2021, 16 (1): 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.3868/s060-013-021-0001-0
Entering year 2020, the Chinese economy was struck by the COVID-19 outbreak. The unprecedented pandemic, entangled with the already elevated complexities in the nation’s internal environment and external surroundings, aggravated its economic outlook. Internal factors including severe education mismatch in China’s labor force, its vanishing demographic dividend, the declined purchasing power of its middle-income groups, risen leverage ratio of households and enterprises, and soared local government debt reinforced to weaken China’s domestic demand. External factors, especially uncertainty in the China-US relation in the face of the re-shaping global value chain, dragged world economic recovery and thus China’s exports and imports. This summary report highlights some major challenges and opportunities faced by the nation under its new development strategy that stresses internal circulation of domestic economy aided by its interaction with the globe. Our analyses based on IAR-CMM model provide a unified framework for addressing China’s short-, medium-, and long-term issues in an internally coherent manner. Looking into year 2021, our benchmark projection reports an 8.4% annual real GDP growth rate. Alternative scenario analyses and policy simulations are conducted to assess the impacts of potential downside risks and the corresponding policy options for ensuring implicit targets. Through the lens of these analyses, we conclude that a refocus on effective management of internal demand, while deepening structural reforms on supply side and advancing orderly opening up, can help smooth the internal and external circulations of the Chinese economy to achieve high-quality development.
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
|
China's Growth Slowdown: Labor Supply, Productivity, or What?
Anping Chen, Nicolaas Groenewold
Front. Econ. China. 2021, 16 (1): 35-66.
https://doi.org/10.3868/s060-013-021-0003-4
There has been much discussion of the sources of China’s growth slowdown but little formal econometric analysis of this question. Chen and Groenewold (2019) show that the slowdown was primarily supply-driven, but they stopped short of identifying specific supply variables. This paper extends their analysis and distinguishes several potential supply components: labor supply, productivity, and capital accumulation. Our results confirm their main conclusion that supply dominates the explanation of the slowdown. A model with two supply factors (labor supply and productivity) reveals that both components contribute to the slowdown, although productivity makes the greater contribution. However, when capital stock is added to the model, the decline in the capital accumulation rate becomes an important factor in the growth slowdown, to some extent replacing the effects of both labor supply and productivity.
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
|
Why the Industrial Revolution Started in 18th Century Britain, Not China, from the Perspective of Globalization
Li Zhang
Front. Econ. China. 2021, 16 (1): 124-169.
https://doi.org/10.3868/s060-013-021-0006-5
The research examines the role of market expansion and international labor division in the British Industrial Revolution from the perspective of globalization. The research shows that British cotton textile output in pieces grew 275 times from the 1770s to the mid-1850s and documents that such growth would never have happened without a vast overseas market for the supply of raw cotton and the sale of products. The paper argues that the continuous and dramatic expansion of overseas markets allowed the British cotton industry to expand greatly without hitting the ceiling of marginal returns, leading not only to the great expansion of production, but also to technological and institutional innovations, and that international labor division made it possible for the industry to import ample amounts of raw cotton and export large amounts of cotton textiles. In contrast, foreign demand for Chinese cotton textiles increased significantly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but accounted for only 0.3% of production capacity, which was too little to lift the law of diminishing marginal returns and to induce either technological or institutional changes. As a result, only Smithian growths could be achieved through optimal resource utilization and specialization in production.
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
6 articles
|