When it comes to the Chinese economy, I have been a congenital optimist for over 25 years. But now I have serious doubts. The Chinese government has taken dead aim at its dynamic technology sector, the engine of China’s New Economy. Its recent actions are symptomatic of a deeper problem: the state’s efforts to control the energy of animal spirits. The Chinese Dream, President Xi Jinping’s aspirational vision of a “great modern socialist country” by 2049, could now be at risk.
At first, it seemed as if the authorities were concerned about a one-off personnel problem when they sent a stern message to the irreverent Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba, the world’s largest e-commerce platform. Ma’s ill-timed comments at a Shanghai financial forum in late October 2020 about the “pawnshop” mentality of the bank-centric Chinese financial system crossed the line for China’s leaders. Early the following month, a record $34 billion initial public offering for Ant Group, the behemoth fintech spinoff of Alibaba, was canceled less than 48 hours before the scheduled listing. Five months later, Alibaba itself was fined a record $2.8 billion for alleged anti-monopoly violations.
And now it’s Didi Chuxing’s turn. Didi, the Uber-like Chinese ridesharing service, apparently had the audacity to raise $4.4 billion in US capital markets, despite rumored objections from Chinese officials. After forcing the removal of more than 25 of Didi’s apps from Chinese Internet platforms, talk of a fine that might exceed the earlier penalty imposed on Alibaba, or even a possible delisting, is rampant.
Moreover, there are signs of a clampdown on many other leading Chinese tech companies, including Tencent (Internet conglomerate), Meituan (food delivery), Pinduoduo (e-commerce), Full Truck Alliance (truck-hailing apps Huochebang and Yunmanman), Kanzhun’s BossZhipin (recruitment), and online private tutoring companies like TAL Education Group and Gaotu Techedu. And all of this follows China’s high-profile crackdown on cryptocurrencies.
It is not as if there were a lack of reasons – in some cases, like cryptocurrencies, perfectly legitimate reasons – for China’s anti-tech campaign. Data security is the most oft-cited justification. This is understandable in one sense, considering the high value the Chinese leadership places on its proprietary claims over Big Data, the high-octane fuel of its push into artificial intelligence. But it also smacks of hypocrisy in that much of the data has been gathered from the surreptitious gaze of the surveillance state.
The issue, however, is not justification. Actions can always be explained, or rationalised, after the fact. The point is that, for whatever reason, Chinese authorities are now using the full force of regulation to strangle the business models and financing capacity of the economy’s most dynamic sector.
Nor is the assault on tech companies the only example of moves that restrain the private economy. Chinese consumers are also suffering. Rapid population aging and inadequate social safety nets for retirement income and health care have perpetuated households’ unwillingness to convert precautionary saving into discretionary spending on items like motor vehicles, furniture, appliances, leisure, entertainment, travel, and the other trappings of more mature consumer societies.
Yes, the absolute scale of these activities, like everything in China, is large. But as a share of its overall economy, household consumption is still less than 40% of GDP – by far the smallest share of any major economy.
The reason is that China has yet to create a culture of confidence in which its vast population is ready for a transformative shift in saving and consumption patterns. Only when households feel more secure about an uncertain future will they broaden their horizons and embrace aspirations of more expansive lifestyles. It will take nothing less than that for a consumer-led rebalancing of China’s economy finally to succeed.
Confidence among businesses and consumers alike is a critical underpinning of any economy. Nobel Prize winning economists George Akerlof and Robert Shiller view confidence as the cornerstone of a broader theory of “animal spirits.” This notion, widely popularised by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s, is best thought of as a “spontaneous urge to action” that takes aggregate demand well beyond the underpinnings of personal income or corporate profit.
Keynes viewed animal spirits as the essence of capitalism. For China, with its mixed model of market-based socialism, animal spirits operate differently. The state plays a far more active role in guiding markets, businesses, and consumers than it does in other major economies. Yet the Chinese economy, no less than others, still requires a foundation of trust – trust in the consistency of leadership priorities, in transparent governance, and in wise regulatory oversight – to flourish.
Modern China lacks this foundation of trust that underpins animal spirits. But while this has long been an obstacle to Chinese consumerism, now distrust is creeping into the business sector, where the government’s assault on tech companies is antithetical to the creativity, energy, and sheer hard work they require to grow and flourish in an intensely competitive environment.
I have frequently raised concerns about the excesses of fear-driven precautionary saving as a major impediment to consumer-led Chinese rebalancing. But the authorities’ recent moves against the tech sector could be a tipping point. Without entrepreneurial energy, the creative juices of China’s New Economy will be sapped, along with hopes for a long-promised surge of indigenous innovation.
China’s mounting deficit of animal spirits could deal a severe, potentially lethal, blow to my own long-standing optimistic prognosis for the “Next China” – the title of a course that I have taught at Yale for the past 11 years. As I caution my students in the first class, the syllabus is a moving target.
Stephen S. Roach is a faculty member at Yale University and the author of Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2021, published here with permission.
17 Comments
Control freaks try to control everything and cannot trust anybody. They need policemen to police the policemen and so on. Inevitably they strangle and crush the life out of everything. You come across quite a few in your work life. I imagine that it is no different on a national scale. China is if nothing else, a totalitarian state run by a control freak.
You simply have to control 1.4 billion citizens though don't you ? Just imagine if they were like the USA and throw a couple of billion guns into the mix. China has everyone pulling in the same direction, the USA has 2 sides pulling in the opposite direction the outcome on a global scale is obvious.
Yes, but as the article suggests; how do you do that without killing creativity and initiative? May be you can overcome that through enormous national management overhead. I suppose the Japanese are not notably free to innovate at an individualistic level, but still manage some mighty achievements in an incremental, directed environment. Do the Chinese have the same sense of community and honor as the Japanese? I guess we shall have to wait and see.
"for a consumer-led rebalancing of China’s economy finally to succeed"
Roach is always a good read (thanks), but he misses the point here: the authorities well know there isn't enough planet left for China to consume, per head, at (recent) US levels. They know there's a reconciliation ahead, and it is unsurprising they're putting on the brakes.
"the authorities well know there isn't enough planet left for China to consume, per head, at (recent) US levels"
Do you really think that's the reason for these changes??
Don't disagree with your statement that there isn't enough planet left for continuing over-consumption, I would just be surprised if that's the reason for this crackdown... on what basis do you say this?
Only if you ignore Erricson, Nokia, Samsung, NEC, Cisco, Mavenir, or Fujitsu to start a list. All supply comprehensive (or in some cases niche) 5G infrastructure. Some outrank ZTE and Huawei in tech terms too. 5G services will do just fine in NZ and elsewhere whether Huawei is an option or not. If they are not, it may just mean one low-bidder is off the list.
I am waiting for 5G in my area of Wellington.
On November 6, 2020, China successfully launched an experimental test satellite with candidates for 6G technology into orbit, along with 12 other satellites, using a Long March 6 launch vehicle rocket. The satellite is intended to "verify the terahertz (THz) communication technology in space", according to the Global Times newspaper.[19][20] Link
I think Stephen Roach here ignores the elephant in the room: a lot of those 'dynamic tech capitalist' companies are being run out of town by the CCP because they are *frauds*. Look at the absolute fictions in the edu-tech companies' books, or the debt structure of Evergrande. In the US, any company that enjoys the confidence of investors can lie to regulators and the public with impunity; for the CCP, there appear to be *some* limits to that.
I suspect the CCP have knowingly allowed these frauds to grow because they were 'good for the economy', but unlike the US, they are cognisant that they must collapse at some point, and they'd rather it happen on their terms.
You are quite correct. Reining in of Chinese big tech will open the door to the rise of novel competitors, which will be good for China in the long run.
In the US, by contrast, weak anti-trust enforcement means that US big tech is swallowing or smothering any emerging companies that are perceived to be a threat.
Listening to Cathie Wood’s take on technology and the exponential advancement and growth she see’s in some businesses over the next 5 years I can’t help but think China could be making a big mistake here. But that’s only to be expected from a totalitarian government. No wonder wealthy Chinese are looking at US housing again.
Cathie Wood is an idiot who got lucky betting on Tesla. Her investment approach is equivalent to going to the races and putting ten bucks on every horse, cos then you can't lose, right? Pumping money into unprofitable companies who promise magic beans has worked out really well so far, but there comes a time when you have to start making money on investments, eventually, and she's gone all in on magic-bean tech that doesn't actually exist. Because Growth!!
Yes. And I am *far* from a CCP apologist, but I think they're right to view the likes of Tencent as a national security problem. Privately-owned, monopoly tech. Look at the absolute cancer on society Facebook has proved to be.
I've spent time in China. *Every* transaction is done via WeChat. Cash has almost disappeared, and quickly. Go to a bar, they won't even have a cash register - just a QR code for WeChat scans. When your whole economy is dependent on one, privately-owned channel, that's a genuine security risk. If the US could hack WeChat and take it down, they'd probably crater the Chinese economy worse than Covid did.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.