Syndicate content

Add new comment

Hao, Thank you for your comment. You mention that recent growth in China is largely "uneconomic" and costly. I am not fully sure that I know mean, but I will try to comment. To my shame I did not know Herman Daly's work. But I googled him and I found out he is a specialist in Ecological Economics. There are potentially 2 types of costs stemming from China's rapid recent growth. The first one is costs to the environment and resources that make the growth unsustainable. I think that, looking back on the last, say, 10 years of phenomenal growth, this type of growth cannot be sustained over the next decades without large scale environmental degradation. Thus, I strongly hope, and also believe, that the government will be able to make enough progress with rebalancing the pattern of growth, to make growth more environmentally sustainable, but also address some of the other imbalances that have come hand in hand with China's growth, such as increasing inequality. This rebalancing was a major objective of the current (11th) Five Year Plan. I think important first steps have been made in many areas. But, this clearly is an unfinished job (this 2 sided conclusion was also the conclusion of a mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the 11th 5 Year Plan that I coordinated: I hope and expect that the rebalancing will continue to be pursued during the 12th Five Year Plan period. Economic growth often creates pressure on the environment, but this is particularly the case when resources and the environment are not rightly priced. That is why getting prices right and removing subsidies for industry, implicit and explicit, is so important. The second potential type of costs of the recent growth, particularly the growth in 2009, could be investments that will turn out not to be economically viable. In particular, there are concerns that some of the infrastructure investment carried out by local government investment platforms will not generate enough returns to repay back the loans. This may well be the case. Of course, some infrastructure is not built in order to generate more financial return or more economic growth, but in order to improve the quality of growth. This is true for instance for waste and waste water management facilities, sewage systems and other second generation infrastructure that we have seen more of recently than in the past. But what would be particularly problematic is if infrastructure such as roads and bridges are built that are not used and that do not over time generate growth and revenues. There is always a risk this happens, and history has many examples. However, I would say that China actually scores quite ok on this front. By and large, the infrastructure in China ends up being used and helps development. In all, I take your point that for various reasons economic growth may be uneconomical and costly. Looking ahead, this actually poses an important question. What would be a sustainable rate of growth. Economists--me included--love to talk about "potential" growth. However, this is actually a narrow concept, which says something about the capacity to produce and how fast a country can grow without running into macroeconmic problems. As China is preparing for the 12th 5YP, and as the government is emphasizing not just the pace of growth but also the quality of growth, determining a sustainable rate of growth is one of the key tasks ahead.