I remember the meeting of the Asian Development Bank’s board of directors way back in the spring of 1992 very well…

Representing the United States during a review of a Chinese finance sector loan, I asked what I thought was a straightforward question, “Isn’t it time for China to begin privatizing state-owned banks and companies?”

After a pregnant pause, the attack from the other board members began.

“Why is America always so impatient?”

“These things have to be done slowly and carefully.”

“The Chinese will develop a privatization plan that suits their needs and culture.”

Dealing With the Consequences

Well, here we are, more than 20 years later, and China remains a semi-market state at best. There’s still too little market and too much state.

Half the Chinese work for the Chinese government or for state-owned or controlled companies. One quarter of state-owned companies are unprofitable, but state-owned companies grab 90% of bank lending. The top five state-owned banks control 80% of total bank lending.

The country has had so many lost chances:

  • China had the choice to set itself on a path to sustainable growth, but instead chose a strategy of over-dependence on investment and exports.
  • China had the choice of balancing growth with protecting the environment, but instead chose growth at all costs.
  • China had the choice of using trade surpluses to provide a safety net, so that rural Chinese could avoid saving 30% of their household incomes, but instead chose to let its reserves grow to $4 trillion.
  • China had the choice to put in place basic institutions – such as an independent judiciary, a transparent process to transfer power, a free press, and bankruptcy laws to support growth – but instead avoided any reforms that might weaken the authority of its party leaders.
  • China had the choice to – like Singapore – take a hard line on political corruption, but instead looked the other way as business and politics became one and the same.
  • China had the choice to open its markets and become a champion of free trade, but instead chose a policy of state mercantilism – welcoming foreign capital and know-how – but protecting access to markets.
  • Print Friendly, PDF & Email