Connect with us

Government

Understanding China: Economic System

China’s share of global gross domestic product (GDP) shrank to just 5% in 1978, but a series of market reforms supercharged the country’s economic…

Published

4 months ago

on

China’s share of global gross domestic product (GDP) shrank to just 5% in 1978, but a series of market reforms supercharged the country’s economic growth. Today, China is the world’s second largest economic power and a major player on the global stage. But is its momentum sustainable?

Comments are edited excerpts from part two of our three-part continuing education series China: A Deeper Look. Learn how to earn CE credits now.

The Stark Contrast: Before and After China’s Market Reforms

In 1820, during the Qing Dynasty, China’s economy was the largest in the world, accounting for more than 30% of the global GDP at the time.

However, by 1978, nearly 80% of China’s industrial production was from state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as private companies and foreign firms were largely prohibited. Even foreign trade was limited to obtaining certain goods that could not be made in China. As a result, there was essentially no market mechanism to efficiently allocate resources, and China remained stagnant and isolated from the global economy.

To help spur economic development, China introduced a series of market reforms in 1978. The first aspect of the reforms was changing its centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one with a socialist ideology; the second aspect was embracing a manufacturing and service-based economy (vs. an economy based in agriculture); and the third aspect was shifting from a closed to an open economy.

After the rollout of these reforms, China’s economy evolved into one that is pro-growth, pro-market, and pro-technology thanks to initiatives that decentralized economic production, encouraged large-scale capital investment, and boosted productivity growth. The timeline below highlights several key events that accelerated China’s economic development.

Overall, the market reforms unleashed China’s economic growth potential. China’s 2021 GDP was roughly 120 times the size of its 1978 GDP, and its GDP per capita grew over 200 times during the same period.

But exponential growth can result in some challenges. In China’s case, GDP growth from exports has begun to decline, a trend that was spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic; other hurdles such as a structurally weak property market and a widening income gap add to China’s economic worries.

We believe the ability of the Chinese government to implement reforms to counteract these challenges will determine whether China can continue to maintain relatively rapid economic growth rates moving forward.

A Unique Economic Model

China’s socialist market economic model is unique; it’s a hybrid model that combines top-down (socialist) and bottom-up (capitalistic) forces. The essence of this model is that it applies socialism as a social system and the market economy as a resource-allocation mechanism so that the two approaches can coexist.

The core element in China’s economic model is the relationship between the government and market systems, which has evolved over the decades.

At the 12th Chinese Communist Party (CCP) National Congress in 1982, an agriculture-based economy was still in effect; the market only played a supplementary role to central planning. In 1992, at the 14th CCP National Congress, the government decided that the market should play a fundamental role in resource allocation to drive the economy. And at the 18th CCP National Congress in 2012, China’s government further minimized its own role, and the market now plays a decisive role in the economy.

Today, China’s government will only intervene in the economy when it believes it has an appropriate role to play. But the balancing act is ongoing—picture a pendulum constantly swinging between market forces and government macro intervention.

The balancing act is ongoing—picture a pendulum constantly swinging between market forces and government macro intervention.

Other Economic Challenges Emerge

There are three key examples that showcase how certain economic challenges have manifested and how the Chinese government has intervened.

The first example is China’s after-school tutoring (AST) ban, which is a policy implemented by the Chinese government in July 2021 to restrict private tutoring services and regulate the country’s education sector.

The AST ban came in response to a slowdown in China’s GDP growth, growing concerns of social inequality, and an unfavorable demographic makeup.

Leading up to the ban, in 2020 venture capital funding for education technology companies surged as the industry sought to leverage parents’ anxiety about their children’s education to maximize demand, as shown in the chart below.

The ban directly reduced education spending for most Chinese families, allowing for more kinds of household spending, and resulted in increased access to high-quality online education resources.

The second example focuses on the structural slowdown of China’s property market and its deep links to the financial sector and Chinese household wealth.

For decades, China’s property market has played a significant role in its economy. Nationwide average real-estate prices have increased four times since 2020, and local governments have benefited from rising property prices. But as property prices go up, land prices follow, and as land prices go up, property prices increase even further.

This cycle was exacerbated by increased price speculation and the pressure Chinese people, especially those living in tier-one cities such as Shenzhen, feel to purchase a home. But because of sky-high prices, many housing options became unaffordable; the average monthly salary in Shenzhen is around 5,000 renminbi per month, meaning people could only afford one square meter on a full year’s salary.

The average monthly salary in Shenzhen is around 5,000 renminbi per month, meaning people could only afford one square meter on a full year’s salary.

The Chinese government is working to reduce its reliance on the property market for growth, a key pivot as China’s population growth slows down. It also wants to prevent further home-price speculation and will need to strike a delicate balance to avoid impacting households and other upstream and downstream sectors such as building materials, home appliances, and furniture.

The third example highlights China’s high level of corporate debt. As of 2020, China’s debt as a percentage of GDP is 275%, 150% of which is corporate debt. Global investors have been concerned about the high debt levels in recent years. A major force driving up China’s corporate debt level is SOEs, which tend to take on more debt to facilitate large government-related projects.

However, the Chinese government has rolled out policy reforms to address high corporate debt, and its elevated savings level, which reached nearly $7 trillion in 2020, is a mitigating factor.

Understanding China Series

Part 1 | Politics and Governance

Part 2 | Economic System

Part 3 | Society and Foreign Policy

Evelyn Kong, CFA, is a research associate on William Blair Investment Management’s global consumer team.

Want more insights on the economy and investment landscape? Subscribe to our blog.

The post Understanding China: Economic System appeared first on William Blair.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

International

Fair and sustainable futures beyond mining

Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what…

Published

33 mins ago

on

October 2, 2023

By

Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what happens when the mines close? What problems face communities that lose their main employer and the very core of their identity and social networks? A research fellow at the University of Göttingen provides recommendations for governments to successfully navigate mining communities through their transition toward non-mining economies. Based on past experiences with industrial transitions, she suggests that a three-step approach centred around stakeholder collaboration could be the most effective way forward. This approach combines early planning, local-based solutions, and targeted investments aimed at fostering economic and workforce transformation. This comment article was published in Nature Energy.

Credit: Kamila Svobodova

Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what happens when the mines close? What problems face communities that lose their main employer and the very core of their identity and social networks? A research fellow at the University of Göttingen provides recommendations for governments to successfully navigate mining communities through their transition toward non-mining economies. Based on past experiences with industrial transitions, she suggests that a three-step approach centred around stakeholder collaboration could be the most effective way forward. This approach combines early planning, local-based solutions, and targeted investments aimed at fostering economic and workforce transformation. This comment article was published in Nature Energy.

 

Dr Kamila Svobodova, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow at the University of Göttingen, argues that, in practice, governments struggle to truly engage mining communities in both legislation and action. Even the more successful, often deemed exemplary, transitions failed to follow the principles of open and just participation or invest enough time in the process. Early discussions about how the future will look following closure help to build trust and relationships with communities. A combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches engages people at all levels. This ensures that the local context is understood and targeted specifically. It also establishes networks for collaboration during the transition. Effective coordination of investments toward mining communities, including funding to implement measures to support workers, seed new industries, support innovations, and enhance essential services in urban centres, proved to be successful in the past.

 

“To ensure energy security, it’s essential for governments to recognize the profound transformation that residents of mining communities experience when they shift away from mining,” Svobodova explains. “Neglecting these communities, their inherent strength of mining identity and unity, could lead to social and economic instability, potentially affecting the overall national energy infrastructure.”

 

Moving toward closure and consequently away from mining is not an easy or short journey. “It is essential that governments recognize that the transition takes time, and persistence is essential for success,” says Svoboda. “They should openly communicate their strategies, ensuring communities and other stakeholders are well-informed and engaged. Building trust and providing guidance helps residents navigate the uncertainties associated with transitions. By embracing the three-step approach that centers around stakeholder engagement, governments can prioritize equitable and just outcomes when navigating mining transitions as part of their energy security strategies.”

 

Original publication: Svobodova, K., “Navigating community transitions away from mining,” Comment article in Nature Energy 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-023-01359-9. Full text available here: https://rdcu.be/dnmU3 

 

Contact:

Dr Kamila Svobodova

University of Göttingen

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development

Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany

kamila.svobodova@uni-goettingen.de

 

Journal

Nature Energy

DOI

10.1038/s41560-023-01359-9

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Navigating community transitions away from mining

Article Publication Date

29-Sep-2023

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Turley: Four Biden Impeachment Articles & What The House Will Need To Prove

Turley: Four Biden Impeachment Articles & What The House Will Need To Prove

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

With the commencement of the…

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 2, 2023

By

Turley: Four Biden Impeachment Articles & What The House Will Need To Prove

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

With the commencement of the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, three House committees will now pursue key linkages between the president and the massive influence peddling operation run by his son Hunter and brother James.

The impeachment inquiry should allow the House to finally acquire long-sought records of Hunter, James, and Joe Biden, as well as to pursue witnesses involved in their dealings.

I testified this week at the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry on the constitutional standards and practices in moving forward in the investigation. In my view, there is ample justification for an impeachment inquiry. If these allegations are established, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. I listed ten of those facts in my testimony that alone were sufficient to move forward with this inquiry.

I was criticized by both the left and the right for the testimony. 

Steven Bannon and others were upset that I did not believe that the basis for impeachment had already been established in the first hearing of the inquiry.

Others were angry that I supported the House efforts to resolve these questions of public corruption.

Without prejudging that evidence, there are four obvious potential articles of impeachment that have been raised in recent disclosures and sworn statements:

  1. bribery,

  2. conspiracy,

  3. obstruction, and

  4. abuse of power.

Bribery is the second impeachable act listed under Article II. The allegation that the President received a bribe worth millions was documented on a FD-1023 form by a trusted FBI source who was paid a significant amount of money by the government. There remain many details that would have to be confirmed in order to turn such an allegation into an article of impeachment.

Yet three facts are now unassailable.

First, Biden has lied about key facts related to these foreign dealings, including false statements flagged by the Washington Post.

Second, the president was indeed the focus of a corrupt multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme.

Third, Biden may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct benefit to Joe and Jill Biden.

What must be established is the President’s knowledge of or participation in this corrupt scheme. The House now has confirmed over 20 calls made to meetings and dinners with these foreign clients. It has confirmation of visits to the White House and dinners and events attended by Joe Biden. It also has confirmation of trips on Air Force II by Hunter to facilitate these deals, as well as payments where the President’s Delaware home address was used as late as 2019 for transfers from China.

The most serious allegations concern reported Washington calls or meetings by Hunter at the behest of these foreign figures. At least one of those calls concerned the removal or isolation of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma, an energy company paying Hunter as a board member. A few days later, Biden withheld a billion dollars in an approved loan to Ukrainian in order to force the firing of the prosecutor.

The House will need to strengthen the nexus with the president in seeking firsthand accounts of these meetings, calls, and transfers.

However, there is one thing that the House does not have to do. While there are references to Joe Biden receiving money from Hunter and other benefits (including a proposed ten percent from one of these foreign deals), he has already been shown to have benefited from these transfers.

There is a false narrative being pushed by both politicians and pundits that there is no basis for an inquiry, let alone an impeachment, unless a direct payment or gift can be shown to Joe Biden. That would certainly strengthen the case politically, but it is not essential legally. Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action.

For example, in Ryan v. United States, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of George Ryan, formerly Secretary of State and then governor of Illinois, partly on account of benefits paid to his family, including the hiring of a band at his daughter’s wedding and other “undisclosed financial benefits to him and his family and to his friends.” Criminal cases can indeed be built on a “stream of benefits” running to the politician in question, his family, or his friends.

That is also true of past impeachments. I served as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment tried before the Senate. My client, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, had been impeached by the House for, among other things, benefits received by his children, including gifts related to a wedding.

One of the jurors in the trial was Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who voted to convict and remove Porteous. Menendez is now charged with accepting gifts of vastly greater value in the recent corruption indictment.

The similarities between the Menendez and Biden controversies are noteworthy, in everything from the types of gifts to the counsel representing the accused.  The Menendez indictment includes conspiracy charges for honest services fraud, the use of office to serve personal rather the public interests. It also includes extortion under color of official right under 18 U.S.C. 1951. (The Hobbs Act allows for a charge of extortion without a threat of violence but rather the use of official authority.)

Courts have held that conspiracy charges do not require the defendant to be involved in all (or even most) aspects of the planning for a bribe or denial of honest services. Thus, a conspirator does not have to participate “in every overt act or know all the details to be charged as a member of the conspiracy.”

Menendez’s case shows that the Biden Administration is prosecuting individuals under the same type of public corruption that this impeachment inquiry is supposed to prove. The U.S. has long declared influence peddling to be a form of public corruption and signed international conventions to combat precisely this type of corruption around the world.

This impeachment inquiry is going forward. The House just issued subpoenas on Friday for the financial records of both Hunter and James Biden. The public could soon have answers to some of these questions. Madison called impeachment “indispensable…for defending the community” against such corruption. The inquiry itself is an assurance that, wherever this evidence may lead, the House can now follow.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/02/2023 - 15:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

How the Polen Capital Global Small and Mid Cap Fund finds under-explored high quality companies

In this video insight, I am joined by Rob Forker, the portfolio manager of the Polen Capital Global Small and Mid Cap Fund. We discuss Polen Capital’s…

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 2, 2023

By

In this video insight, I am joined by Rob Forker, the portfolio manager of the Polen Capital Global Small and Mid Cap Fund. We discuss Polen Capital’s strategy of selecting elite companies from a pool of 8000 global stocks based on their five guide rails. Rob also highlights Polen’s approach to investing across the growth spectrum, balancing slower-growing, stable companies like Cochlear with high-growth firms like Globant. Despite the challenging market conditions, Rob remains confident in their strategy, believing that earnings growth will ultimately drive long-term stock price appreciation.

Transcript:

David:

Hi I’m David Buckland, and welcome to this week’s video insight. Today, I’m being accompanied by Rob Forker. For those who don’t know, Rob is the portfolio manager of Polen Capital’s global small and mid-cap fund.

Rob, you have about 8000 stocks to choose from in the global space in the small to mid-cap area, and you have to go all the way down to try and get the best 35 stocks or approximately 35 stocks in the world. How do you do it?

Rob:

It’s a hard task, but one we enjoy doing. So, finding the best of the best is what we’re all about. We want to find the most elite companies we can find globally wherever they reside, Australia, continental Europe, America, Japan, wherever. The way we do it is we apply our proven five guardrails that we’ve been executing at Polen Capital for almost 35 years. Those are:

  1. Real organic revenue growth,
  2. High end or improving margins,
  3. High returns,
  4. Abundant cash flow,
  5. And a strong balance sheet.

And at the end of the day, what we’re looking for is companies that have strong earnings, have strong cash flow, and a fortress like balance sheet because those are quality companies that can be durable over the long term.

David:

And it’s interesting that out of your portfolio of, I think it’s 33 stocks at the moment, the average market capitalization is about 8.5 billion Australian dollars, which actually would put it in the top 60 on the ASX and be similar sized to something like Qantas (ASX: QAN) or Mirvac (ASX: MGR) so it’s interesting that, for Australians, that seems quite big, but by global standards, they’re still categorized as a small or medium sized type businesses.

Rob:

Yeah, no question, so we find companies of course globally, and small cap, mid cap is a bit of an art as to how you define it but what we believe is that the inefficiency of the asset class is clear. So, a typical company that we’re looking at in our class has 7 to 8 analysts. For reference, Apple has 55. And so, the beauty of what we do is that we’re looking at under explored companies that we believe have a secret sauce. Now it’s our job to figure out what that secret sauce is, but what we do, as an example, is look at the companies that have no self-side coverage. So, this is an opportunity and one that we relish in.

David:

That’s good. Now, one of the interesting graphs we get from Polen Capital is investing across the growth spectrum. On one side of the spectrum. You’ve got these very sexy, very high growth companies, but are earning money. And on the other side of the spectrum, a little bit more ballast in the portfolio. Can you just explain for the small mid cap global audience? Investing across the growth spectrum and how you think about it.

Rob:

Yeah, so on the safety side, these are to consumer staples companies or healthcare companies where they’re a lit little bit slower growing, low double digit earning. So, it’s still great, but slower going. Cochlear (ASX: COH) would be a great example, a fortress in market share and their constant research and development (R&D), typically grows earnings at 12-14 per cent.

On the far end, we call these growth companies, they typically grow earnings 30 – 40 per cent. An example would be Globant, which is an IT consulting firm at the forefront, of what they do. They’re basically a mini-Accenture. And so those type of companies are growing faster.

We want both because we appreciate the safety and the growth elements that can help you in bad times and give you outsized returns in good times.

David:

So, if we look at the fundamentals of the total portfolio let’s just sort of spend a minute or two on that.

Rob:

Absolutely so, when you put it all together, this is a portfolio that trades at roughly 25 times earnings on a 12-month basis.

We believe earnings growth is nearly 20 per cent per annum.

David:

For some years?

Rob:

Yeah, where we forecast out 5 years in our investment time horizon. We want to think and act like owners when looking at these great companies, and what they can do over the long term.

The balance sheet is nearly net cash, so no balance sheet risk to speak of. As I mentioned, strong cash flows. We want companies that self-fund, which is quite unique in this space. Many small cap managers own unprofitable companies where they’re betting that things will get great.

David:

Have to go back to the market for equity, on a regular basis.

Rob:

We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to buy what will be quality. We buy what’s proven to be quality today. And this is the beauty of the menu that we have of nearly 8000 companies. We can be choosy. We want to own elite companies.

David:

And I guess the elephant in the room Rob, we launched this in Australia although the fund out of America is actually, well, Boston where Rob’s based is actually a bit older than that, but we actually pick the timing to perfection in terms of the bigger the market, so October 2021. So, it’s coming around for its, it’s two year anniversary. It’s been a very, very rough ride for the early investors.

Yours truly as one of them.

Let’s just give it give it some context. It’s obviously been a very rough 24 months. Do you want to sort of just spend a few minutes on that?

Rob:

Yeah, and yours truly as well. So, I eat my own pudding, I’m an investor and my children are investors you know, I am betting on the success of this strategy as many of you are. The elephant in the room is that 2022 was bruising, just literally awful.

We weren’t certainly the only ones that had the bruising. This was a global phenomenon, particularly in small to mid caps. This year, what’s been surprising is the bounce back has not been there. The strategy is certainly not doing poorly, but it hasn’t had the type of returns that that many of the large cap strategies have had, small cap in general has been toward left behind. What we focus on is the fundamentals of the business.

We believe that earnings growth for our companies was 12 per cent last year. We believe that earnings growth will also be very strong closer to that 15 to 20 per cent level that I was talking about. And that’s what we are focused on. Price to earnings (P/E) multiples as Roger and many astute investors talk about, P/E multiples are confidence, they go up and down. But we believe over the long term that stock prices follow earnings growth, and that’s what we think will happen over the long term. But certainly, are, we didn’t want to start this way. And it would have been better had we not, but this is where we are in there in lies the opportunity.

David:

Alright. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s all we have time for this week. As many of you know, we’ve had a very, very good relationship with Polen Capital for about 2 and a half years now. Rob, Damon, and many members of the team come out pretty much on a 6 monthly basis. And, we have been blessed to partner with an organization of such great quality.

The Polen Capital Global Small and Mid-Cap Fund owns shares in Globant. This article was prepared 25 September 2023 with the information we have today, and our view may change. It does not constitute formal advice or professional investment advice. If you wish to trade Globant, you should seek financial advice.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending