Opinion

China’s state-owned enterprises reform still lacking bite

China has gone through a remarkable transformation in recent decades but tough reforms have become rare, especially since the global financial crisis. Among the many reforms announced since President Xi Jinping's administration took office in March 2013, the most significant for China's economic outlook undoubtedly will be the reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

By: Date: October 4, 2016 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This op-ed was originally published in Nikkei.

nikkei

Large SOEs are known for their low efficiency, heavy debt loads and poor corporate governance. Returns on assets have been decreasing in China over the last few years and are now lower than those of most emerging economies. This could reduce the country’s growth unless action is taken.

On July 26, the State Council issued new guidelines on reform of central government-owned companies. The aim is to classify SOEs into four groups — strategic, innovative, to be consolidated and to be cleaned up — according to their sector and to clarify the outlook for each group by 2020.

The new outline however may not provide a smooth pathway to improve efficiency or reduce moral hazard. Nor does the policy guideline necessarily mean there will be a Darwinian winnowing of unviable entities. In fact, closer examination shows that there were few references to unviable SOEs that need to disappear.

All in all, the policy outline has too few sticks and too many carrots to change the behavior of SOEs.

A reduction in the size of SOEs does not seem to be a key objective, which means that the crowding out of the private sector by the public sector looks to be here to stay. In fact, only the very small part of the SOE universe classified in the guidelines as “to be cleaned up” — is set to shrink. This boils down to just the steel and coal industries and only accounts for 5% of total SOEs. China’s overcapacity problem extends well beyond these two sectors.

Moreover, there are growing signals that Beijing will not allow further defaults by SOEs in these two sectors and that the government prefers alternatives such as injections of bank capital and debt-for-equity swaps. Consolidation is another more favored option even for industries suffering from overcapacity and marked for cleanup, as seen in the announcement Sept. 21 that Baosteel Group will merge with Wuhan Iron & Steel Group.

Not convincing

The new reforms do open the door to private capital but only for companies put in the innovation group. This is a narrower opening than what was announced at the National People’s Congress session in March 2014.

Some 45% of central government SOEs have been classified as strategic by their asset size, which indicates the government will definitively retain control of a big chunk of state companies. Furthermore, no clarification has been given to the meaning of private participation as the word “control” was carefully avoided in the State Council’s statement.

It will not be easy to convince private investors with such unclear guidelines. This means that more will need to be done to attract capital, especially in an environment of very low returns on assets. Unless there are further clarifications or additional sweeteners forthcoming from the government, public-private partnerships will remain sporadic.

While the cry for reform is loud, the reality is that SOE investment still supports China’s economic growth. Fundamental reform would be too disruptive in the short run and long-term benefits are not the key consideration for the Chinese government now. There is indeed a trade-off between reform and short-term growth, and Beijing has made growth its priority.

Although there would be clear benefits in terms of resource allocation and an increase in returns on assets, the cost of funding for SOEs would increase if there were real restructuring. It is evident the role of the state in production will not be reduced any time soon in China. In fact, the assets of SOEs have only increased in the last few years compared with those of private companies.

The thunder of reform has been loud, but the rain has been rather light. The government continues to drag its feet on SOE reform and the liberalization of markets. The disappointing guidelines on SOE reform fall short of the needed Darwinian action to improve efficiency and returns on assets. Meanwhile, lax monetary policy will continue to feed the liquidity needs of government-owned companies, especially in overcapacity industries.

Via mergers, the consolidation process will continue but China will end up with even larger SOEs this way. Given that these mergers will be politically driven, efficiency gains cannot be expected and the companies will become much harder to manage. As SOEs become even larger, the risk of crowding out the private sector only increases. In this scenario, we should not expect returns on assets in China to increase anytime soon, to the detriment of the country’s potential growth.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Japan must boost R&D to keep rising Chinese rivals at bay

As China shifts into a more advanced industrialised economy, Japan has slowly but surely lost to some of its comparative advantages to its rival. One possible solution to help the government keep pace would be to concentrate research and development efforts on a few key sectors where Japanese players still hold a large competitive lead.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 20, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: Developing the EU-China relationship amid rising global trade tensions

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by Alicia García-Herrero, senior fellow at Bruegel, and Zhang Weiwei, director at The China Institute of Fudan University, following up a Bruegel conference focused on the potential for closer economic links between China and the EU.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 20, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China Made Two Promises in Africa. Can It Keep Them?

China has committed to a market-driven relationship with Africa, as well as a new $60 billion investment plan on the continent, following the recent China-Africa summit. In this light, the author assesses the China-Africa economic relationship, suggesting those new objectives may not be so easy to achieve.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China real estate developers: a grey rhino in the jungle of financial risks

The author assesses the Chinese real estate industry’s liquidity concerns and its leverage, which is estimated to be four times higher than its global peers.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 18, 2018
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

China's digital economy

How to measure China's digital economy?

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Claudia Vernotti and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 17, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Perils and potential: China-US-EU trade relations

We are hosting a number of Chinese and EU experts to discuss trade relations between the three forces.

Speakers: Miguel Ceballos Barón, Alicia García-Herrero, Wei Jianguo, André Sapir, Herman Van Rompuy, Zhang Weiwei, Guntram B. Wolff, Zhou Xiaochuan, Zhang Yansheng and Ruan Zongze Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 17, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

US-China trade war: What’s in it for Europe?

To help evaluate whether the market response is warranted or exaggerated, the author measured the trade impact of additional import tariffs based on standard economic theory, namely two key parameters—the tariff pass-through rate and the price elasticity of demand. The end of multilateralism seems clear, at least for trade.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: August 23, 2018
Read article

Opinion

Goodbye deleveraging: Fiscal and monetary expansion to support growth in China

China has opted for a renewed fiscal and monetary stimulus to address the risk of the US-led trade war. The dual policies send a clear signal that economic growth is the priority, but such measures do not come without a cost. Deleveraging efforts will have to be put on hold for the time being.

By: Alicia García-Herrero, Gary Ng and Jianwei Xu Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: August 23, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Can Multilateralism Adapt?

Global governance requires rules, because flexibility and goodwill alone cannot tackle the hardest shared problems. With multilateralism under attack, the narrow path ahead is to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the minimum requirements of effective collective action, and to forge agreement on reforms that fulfill these conditions.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 3, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

US tariffs and China's holding of Treasuries

China has the biggest bilateral trade surplus vis-à-vis the US but is also a top holder of US government bonds. While China has started to counteract US trade tariffs, economists have been discussing the case of China acting on its holdings of US Treasuries. We review recent contributions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 2, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Trade war trinity: analysis of global consequences

Analysis of the long-term impact of the trade war and its three key players: EU, US, and China.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Ignasi Guardans and Carl B Hamilton Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 28, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

China’s strategic investments in Europe: The case of maritime ports

The EU is currently working on a new framework for screening foreign direct investments (FDI). Maritime ports represent the cornerstone of the EU trade infrastructure, as 70% of goods crossing European borders travel by sea. This blog post seeks to inform this debate by looking at recent Chinese involvement in EU ports.

By: Shivali Pandya and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 27, 2018
Load more posts