Development Bank Research Bulletin

Return to Capital is not low in China

There are two famous myths about China.

The first one is that the savings rate is high because ordinary Chinese worry about the lack of safety net. This myth has been busted because evidence has shown that Chinese household savings rate is actually lower than the Indian one. The overall saving rate is high because businesses heavily save their self-generated profit for re-investment. For private business, the reason is the lack of access to other forms of external finance. For state-owned enterprises, managers always prefer re-investing the profits to paying dividends to the government. Therefore, the right solution is: (a) to reform the financial sector and improve the access to finance for private sector businesses; (b) force state-owned enterprises to pay dividends! Building a safety certainly will help, but only at the margin.

The second famous myth is that return to capital is very low in China, and that the current high investment rate is a sign of money being wasted. A NBER working paper "The return to capital in China", written by three prominent Chinese economists, however shows that the return to capital in China has been remained flat at roughly 20% since 1998, which is not low compared to the rest of the world. Olivier Blanchard also provides a nice discussion (PDF file) of of the results.

As a matter of fact, the myth about the high investment rate per se has also been overturned. Goldman Sachs economist Hong Liang show that the investment rate is between 36%-40%, and the incremental capital-output ratio (ICOR) is about 3.1 in recent years. These are two very reasonable numbers for a rapidly growing economy. In at least the export-oriented sectors in China, improvement in productivity still remains that greatest driver of growth.

I have long been the subscriber of the view that China is still a very poor country; the gap to the productivity frontier is still so wide that the main decision to make is still how much to invest rather than where to invest. Chinese are starting to worry about investment efficiency, but at this moment it is still of second order importance. The nation’s production is still so inefficient that there are numerous easy opportunities waiting for entrepreneurs to capitalize on. In order for this to happen, the government should remove the planning-economy-era regulations that create the inefficiency, and protect the property rights of entrepreneurs. These reforms will create prosperity much more than will any scientific breakthrough.

Newspapers like to repeat the same punch line “the money is wasted in building roads that lead to nowhere” when describing the government investment in infrastructure in China. But people familiar with the geography of China would find it difficult to find any such “roads that lead to nowhere.” Even if an idiot randomly draw a line on the map in the eastern seaboard and build a toll road; in five years the road capacity will be full. That’s exactly why there are so many corruptions in such infrastructure projects: high returns are guaranteed so long as you can get the license to build the toll roads that almost always lead to somewhere. The new Chinese saying: money follows the roads.

The Return to Capital in China (download pdf file)
Chong-En Bai, Chang-Tai Hsieh, and Yingyi Qian
NBER Working Paper No. 12755
December 2006
ABSTRACT: China's investment rate is one of the highest in the world, which naturally leads one to suspect that the return to capital in China must be quite low. Using the data from China's national accounts, we estimate the rate of return to capital in China. We find that the aggregate rate of return to capital averaged 25% during 1978-1993, fell during 1993-1998, and has become flat at roughly 20% since 1998. This evidence suggests that the  aggregate return to capital in China does not appear to be significantly lower than the return to capital in the rest of the world. We also find that the standard deviation of the rate of return to capital across Chinese provinces has fallen since 1978.

Rafael Correa: another Latin American president with an econ Ph.D.

Rafael Correa has been favored to become the next president of Ecuador, in the upcoming election, probably after a second-round run-off (See the Latin Americanist Blog for a brief). He is very likely to become another Latin American president with a Ph.D. degree in economics (e.g. Ernesto Zedillo, Mexican president 1994-2000, Ph.D. Yale '81)

He has been rumored to be a leftist and a close friend of Hugo Chavez. Nevertheless, as a U.S.-trained economist with a Ph.D degree in economics from the University of Illinois ('01), and a previous degree from Belgium, it is a neccesory strategy for him to campaign under an ultra-leftist and anti-West platform, otherwise other candidates from the far-left can easy attack him and alienate him based on his U.S. education background.

His former professor, Werner Baer, who is a Latin American expert, knows the trick very well: "My guess is that some of the posture he's taking now is because that's the way he hopes to get elected and win votes. Once in power, I doubt that he would be virulently anti-American like Chavez." He said Correa would more likely follow the lead of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, who spooked investors with radical discourse as candidate, but once in office "became extremely orthodox in his economic policy."

In April 2005, Correa was appointed economy minister, but he was forced to resign after four months when he failed to consult the president before publicly lambasting the World Bank for denying Ecuador a $100 million loan. He now portrays himself as a “Christian leftist”, and concurs with Chavez’s attack of Bush by adding that "to call Mr. Bush the devil is an insult to the devil" and that “The devil is evil, but intelligent.”

This cheap talk is all understandable and predictable. Do you know of any other easier strategy that can help you accumulate political capital so fast in Latin America?

His professor Baer described Correa as a top-notch economist, which I would not agree.
At least his doctoral dissertation did not appear to confirm it. According to a self-description Correa made when he was still a Ph.D. student in University of Illinois (UIUC), his research was mediocre:

“My dissertation and research interests are Economic Development and International Economics. Specifically, the first part of my dissertation evaluates the effects of liberalization and globalization on the Latin-American economic growth, investment, and productivity. I am using state of the art techniques in instrumental variables and dynamic panel data models. The panel includes 19 Latin-American countries. The second part of the dissertation studies the economic desirability of a monetary union for the Andean countries. In this study, the basic techniques are vector auto-regressive models and disturbances orthogonalization. The third part of the dissertation is an evaluation of the impact of structural reforms on growth, human development and poverty in Latin America.”

However, he is certainly not a leftist! He is simply a political opportunist. We will see.

Chinese private sector firms are twice more productive than state-owned firms

An OECD report “Fast-falling barriers and growing concentration” (pdf file) shows that Chinese private firms are twice more productive than state-owned firms.

This seems to be a very clear and common sense fact that shouldn’t need to be studied in the first place, but there are actually many people who still believe that state-owned firms, with proper restructuring and introduction of modern management expertise, can turn around, and do much better than private sector firms.

The favorite example they always cite is the higher profitability of giant state-owned firms listed in Hong Kong, particularly those in the energy and telecommunication sector, compared to low profit margin private sector firms in the consumer electronic industry. They are comparing apples with organs though. Even an idiot can run a very profitable state-owned firm in the energy sector: a monopoly can charge whatever price it wants and realizes any level of profitability it wants . Consumers are losing out and paying the bill though.

This OECD report sends a hard blow to people who still believe in the viability of state-owned firms. The report uses data from the government statistics bureau: if anything, it should have underestimated the productivity of private sector firms, for they always understate their revenue for tax purpose.

State-owned firms, go kill yourself, you are wasting everyone’s resources.

Indian households save more than Chinese!

According to a new report by McKinsey “Putting China's capital to work”, Chinese households save 23.8% of their disposable income, not particularly high compared to the saving rates of Asian tigers in their high growth period.

Indian households save 31.9% of their income, a ratio that is much higher than Chinese. The current saving rate of French is 16.6%

Chinese = high saving rate? Myth busted!

The report points out that the high total saving rate of China is mostly the result of higher corporate saving rate, which stands at twice world average. The report however also cautions readers that the higher household saving rate of Indians could be the result of small and micro businesses reporting themselves as households.

Nevertheless, the Chinese saving rate could be overestimated too, as Chinese disposable income, the denominator of the ratio,  is severely under-reported because of the huge underground economy.

Note that saving rate of an average Chinese household could be much lower than the headline number. In 2003, 1.86% of the wealthiest Chinese households control 60% of the total stock of liquid financial assets in China, and they certainly have much higher saving rate than poor people. A McKinsey survey indeed shows that the lowest income quintile of Chinese households save only 20% of their income.

A new political economy: China grew at 10.9% in 1H06

China grew at 10.9% in the first half of 2006, and 11.3% in the 2Q, surprising almost all major investment banks.

"Maybe this is a new economy" said Stephen Green, China economist for Standard Chartered Bank, "Maybe China can grow fast without inflation"

I am not sure whether China can grow fast without inflation, but I am expecting the fast growth this year and I am not surprised at all.

As I wrote in the Bulletin back in April, things are changing in China. It may not be a "new economy", but it is certainly a "new political economy!"

The Communist Party's 17th national convention is upcoming in the second half of 2007, and thus major personnel promotion decisions will be made in the first half of 2007. Every provinical boss is working hard to secure political capital before the event, and GDP is the key political capital. In today's new political landscape where strongman politics is phasing out, GDP becomes more and more important a bargaining stake for provincial bosses.

So don't expect a slowdown in the second half. The economy is going to operate at full speed.

As I wrote in that article:

"Year 2006, however, is the last year of the 2002-2006 political cycle, and based on past experience, should grow at the lowest speed. The economy however grew at the highest speed in ten years. Something must have changed. One speculation is that the incentive structure has changed. In the past, provincial heads worked hard in the first and second year of the cycle to impress their national boss. Now they work hard in the last year to pro-actively build up political capital for their future career which will be decided in the 2007 national meeting of the Communist Party, and the best political capital in China is GDP, GDP, GDP!  At national level, central government wants to slow down the investment boom, but provincial bosses have made up their own minds. "

Czech Republic to overtake East Germany in seven years

What could explain why East Germany, with all the rule of law and administrative integrity in place, plus 1 trillion euro of subsidy, is soon going to be overtaken by Czech Repbulic (in gdp per captia) which is plagued by rampant "looting" and "no law and no finance"? Labor market inflexiblity is the key.

The economic transition in the East Bloc is always said to be a failure. Rapid convergence didn’t happen, income level stagnates, reforms and polices are wrong... Nevertheless, to give a fair judgment, we need to find a proper benchmark, because otherwise we don’t know how things otherwise would have evoled.

For Czech Republic, the perfect benchmark is East Germany. Before taken over by the communists, The Czech lands (Bohemia and Moravia) were at similar level of economic development as what later became Democratic Republic of Germany. Four decades later, at the time of communism’s collapse, Czech was poorer than East Germany. East Germany is bigger than Czech (population: 16 million vs. 10 million at the time of transition), but not much bigger. They are not only neighbors, share a lot of historic background, but also similar in industrial structure (as a result of Soviet planning) at the time of transition.

What did East Germany get afterward?  East Germany got pretty good institutions (legal system, political system, business environment) in place in short period of time, , rapid transfer of knowledge and know-how from fellow Germans from the West through training and transfer programs, efficient banking sector as a result of the direct takeover of East German Bank by more efficient Frankfurt banks, and on top of all these, one trillion Euro of fiscal transfer to finance massive public investment in equipment and infrastructure.

With all of these perfect advantage, East Germany was supposed to be converge to living standard in the West pretty soon and further widened the gap with its Easter neighbor the Czech Republic.

In the Czech Republic, in contrast, legal system is not functioning, “looting” was rampant among corporate managers in the midst of mass privatizations, business environment is plagued by corruption and bureaucracy red-tape, inflation was high and fiscal policy was not working for most of the 1990s, financial system was in bankruptcy until foreigners start to take over some of them......and not to forget, there is no "West Czech Republic" that can inject one trillion Euros.

All of these contracts will forecast East Germany’s rapid and certain dominance of Czech Republic in terms of economic growth and rising GDP per capita.

The results in hindsight however contract such predictions made back then. Yes, Now East Germany is still some 15% richer than Czech Republic (note that East Germany started richer), but the trend in the past seven years or so will project that with another seven years, the Czech Republic is going to take over East Germany in terms of GDP per capita, if Czech Republic continues to growth at 3.3% /year while East Germany at 1.0%/year.

The reason, as Professor Jennifer Hunt (McGill University) suspects is rooted in the labor market in East Germany.  East Germans are half as productive as their Western counterparts, but with the slogan “The same pay for the same work” they are demanding the same level of salary.  In 2003, although Eastern GDP per capita was only 67% of the western level, disposable income per capita was already 82% of the western level.  Western firms thus would rather expand their facilities in the West to serve the new consumer market in the East, instead of employ workers in the East.

It is certainly a good and attractive slogan that everyone gets the same pay, but when you are not as good as others (at least at this moment before you go through some skill training), demanding the same level of wage as the smarter people are getting can only give you two results: (1) unemployment; why would employers (except the public sector) want to pay more to get less. (2)  lower paid and dirty jobs that people in the West don’t want to do; so you are segregating yourself by your own decision. As an old communist-era axiom in the Czech Repubic goes: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us". True in East Germany now.

The whole plot was conspired by the labor unions in the West, which got higher wage pact for their comrades in the East. The true intention was to price out East German workers from the market, not to show solidarity!

Reference:

Jennifer Hunt: Is the transition in East  Germany as success?  (pdf file)

Technology industry and the over-educated Russia

In a Goldman Sachs research note (pdf file), the human capital of four BRIC countries are analyzed.

It is found that, China has only marginally more tertiary graduates than Russia despite having 10 times the population of Russia.

Russia, despite much lower income than the U.S., already reaches 60% the U.S. level, in terms of tertiary graduates per capita.  Among population over age 25, in the U.S. there are 192 tertiary graduates in every 1,000 people, while in the Russia, it is already 115. The correspond number for China and India are merely 16 and 14, respectively.

Russia seems to have huge potential in moving to higher value-added technology industries than India does!

The research also finds that Russia has almost as many science and engineering PhDs as Germany, which is much richer than Russia.

But when it comes to the number of R&D workers, i.e., those who went through the education and are actually applying what they learn in the college to what they are supposed to do,  Russia starts to fall behind China and Japan. India is nowhere in the sight.

For Russia, the gap between number of people with science and technology degrees and the number of R&D professionals  seems to corroborate the worry by  cops around the world: mafia organizations are entering a new level of sophistication after Russians enter the trade, because most Russian mafia members have Ph.D. degree in physics or mathematics.

Goldman Sachs: China makes largest progress in energy efficiency than other developing countries

Goldman Sachs publishes a note "Improving energy intensity across the BRICs"  (pdf file). There are several interesting take-away points:

(1) China’s energy use per unit of output in industry fell by 56% between 1994 and 2003, which is the largest energy-efficiency improvement progress in developing world. In the same period, India only achieves reduction of 30%, and Brazil almost makes no progress.

Why is everyone blaming China for using too much energy?! China uses more energy simply the population is larger and the economy is still in the early stage of industrialization, and as such a large economy, China is already making much better progress than others.

(2) Russia remains the most energy-intensive countries in the world, The country’s energy intensity is close to three times that of US.

Not surprising, considering that the government is subsidizing energy (for Russian residents) to such an extend that electricity is almost free. By the way, Venezuela always consumes a lot of gasoline, because the price is heavily subsidized. I always say that letting market to determine the price is the best weapon against energy waste.

(3) In China, non-industrial sector is twice more energy-intensive than industry.

I have no idea why!

(4) Projection results show that BRICs (except Russia) will consume much less energy per capita than the current level in more developed economies (U.S., Japan, etc) when  they reach the same income level of developed economies.

I.e., both now and in the future, Americans will remain the heaviest user of energy, even on per capita term.  Why do Americans still point fingers at developing countries and keep on blaming China for exhausting the energy resources of the planet?

Implication for the relationship between growth and environment : as a country gets richer, it will use less energy (because industry becomes more productive and structural shift to service sector will also save energy). The best weapon against pollution is economic growth, not to turn Africa into a zoo.

Year-half assessment of investment banks’ forecast accuracy on China’s GDP growth

In a previous Bulletin article written back in February, I summarized several major investment banks’ forecast of China’s 2006GDP growth rate.

Now it is time to assess the accuracy of these forecasts after six months have passed.

In the first half of 2006, China was growing at unprecedented and unexpected pace, at 10.9% on year-to-year basis. Only Credit Suisse’s forecast of 10.1% can be said to be in line with the actual outcome. CSFB’s China economist Dong Tao is doing well

Thus most investment banks are revising their forecast up ward:  Deutsche from 9% to 9.9%, Citigroup from 8.7% to 9.3%, and Morgan Stanley from 7.8% to 9.5%. The consensus now is 9.7% (based on data from Consensus Economics).  (Deutsche Bank again is following the herd in setting their forecast! Can they be a little bit braver?)

Morgan Stanley, after two years of very poor performance in forecasting China’s GDP growth finally makes a large upward revision of the number. They have been voicing their worry about China slowdown for a long time, and have been the most pessimistic about growth rate of India and China back in 2004, and 2005.

Stephen Roach in his commentary (10/21/2005) in MS’s Global Economic Forum supplied some explanations on why they were wrong on the "China slowdown", and why they still believed that slowdown in American consumption (as a result of oil shock and low saving rate) may “ultimately” causes a China slowdown. Well, he is wrong again.... I am expecting a follow-up execuse from him

I think China's potential slowdown in the future is more likley to be caused by domestic problem instead of external factors. China is not exporting many durable goods to the U.S., and I think Americans even in recessions have to buy clothes and have to give Christmas gifts to children. I don’t deny that China is dependent on U.S. market, but not in the same way as Japanese do (they export cars, the demand of which is more cyclical)

After BRICs, Goldman Sachs names another eleven promising economies

In Global Economics Paper No.134 “How Solid are the BRICs?” (pdf file), Goldman Sachs names another eleven economies that may emerge as important players by 2050. They are (in alphabetic order): Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam. Goldman Sachs names them N11 (i.e., the Next Eleven).

P.S. I would say GS forgets another important economy: the Hispanic population of the United States! According to another GS report "The Hispanization of the United States", by 2030, Hispanic/Latino population in the United States will reach 73 million, or 20% of US population. The Latino US is going to become an important emerging (or even industrialized) economy! Be prepared for it.

GS believes that following BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), these eleven economies may become influential by 2050 because of the projected size of their economies.

Among them, Korea and Mexico are particularly important. Mexico will become the sixth-largest economy. By 2050, Korea will become richer (in income per capita) than any  of the current G7s (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.) except the U.S.  GDP per capita of Korea will reach 81,462 USD (in market exchange rate) in 2050, if everything goes smoothly, while Mexico’s will reach 52,990 USD. U.S.’s GDP per capita, standing at 89,663 USD in 2050,  will be still slightly richer than Korea’s.

Currently, US’s GDP per capita stands between 42,000 and 43,000 USD/year, and Korea’s GDP per capita will reach this level between year 2015 and 2020, which is not very far away from now.

In a previous post in the Bulletin, I also discussed why Korea has potentials to become an economic and geopolitical regional power.

Will India collapse in balance sheet crisis? a worse scenario analysis

Special note: this analysis is more a stress-test/worse-scenario type of exercise and "thought experiment". I don’t think a crisis is imminent for India, neither do I think it is a large-probability event. An external debt crisis is in particular impossible. The analysis however, by dissecting the problem, helps you identify the weakest links of the system and hopefully may help inform policy-makers in addressing the problem ealier than later.

Will India collapse in balance sheet crisis?

My evaluation is that: India’s national balance sheet is unsustainable in the long term, but financeable  in the short term. Nouriel Roubini has the same opinion in his article “A balance sheet crisis in India” (PDF file)

First, let me tell you why it is unsustainable in the long term. When evaluating a country’s vulnerability to crisis, we need to examine the overall balance sheet of the country, which include not only the corporate and banking sector, but also the government sector.  This is particularly true in India and China, where the liability can be easily moved between balance sheets of the banking sector and the government as a result of strong state intervention in the economy.

In both India and China, governments are heavily involved in loss-making projects. But the losses are recorded differently.

In China, government forces state-owned banks to extend so-called “soft loans” to industries and enterprises favored by the government’s fiscal goals, and thus the huge losses are recorded in the banking sector as non-performing loans.

In India, the government directly involves in subsidizing these “white elephant” projects,  and then finance the expenditure through issuing government bonds to captive state-owned banks. Indian government thus accumulates huge public debts, which amount to more than 400% of its annual revenue.

We have to understand that, although the losses are recorded differently in India and China, if we examine the balance sheet of the country as a whole, they are not better than each other. If Chinese government increases its public debt to the level of India, she can use the revenue to write off the bad loans of the banking sector for many times. Similarly, if Indian government is to default or restructure on its debts, or there are doubts among depositors about the government’s repayment capacity, Indian banking sector will be broke over night as more than 35% of Indian banking sector’s total assets are in the form of government securities. Currently, government papers are treated as very safe and capital and loss reserve is not allocated to safeguarding against potential future losses, which results in misleading capital adequacy ratios.

In a worse scenario, such structure can cost you dearly. According to Professor Roubini, anything that can go wrong tend to go wrong together:

“Note also that if a bank run were to eventually occur—when and if depositors become concerned about the quality of the bank assets and the sustainability of government  debt—the ability of the Indian government to stem the run via explicit guarantees of deposits may be limited. A solvent government running a low deficit and with little debt may credibly guarantee deposits since it has resources to finance a bailout of the financial system. But an insolvent government cannot credibly backstop the banking system and promise to protect deposits given that the cause of the run is, in the first place, concerns about the solvency of the sovereign. Thus the risks of a bank run and the necessity of a deposit freeze become more severe when the government is effectively insolvent or semi-insolvent.”

Will Indian government default on its debt? India’s public debt to GDP ratio is some 85% and the government is still running large fiscal deficits every year, and even if India can maintain its 7%-8% economic growth rates and the interest rates do not go up, the debt ratio is heading toward 90% by the end of this decade, maybe even faster with the coalition government that will certainly spend more. However, high debt ratio alone will not trigger crisis. India’s public debts have long maturity terms (which however also means that banking sector will experiences large losses when short-term interest rates hike), and are mostly denominated in local currencies (which make India relatively free from crisis in external sector).

Nevertheless, everything that can go wrong will go wrong. When the balance sheet is unsustainable in the long run, it becomes very fragile in the short term too, as participants in the economy are forward-looking. Nothing will happen if India can maintain high growth and low interest rates, and (2) No large scandals happen in state-owned enterprises and banks. But if any one of these factors (growth, interest rate, confidence in public sector) goes wrong, investors will start to reevaluate the situation, and some of them may start to think: hey, the whole system is unsustainable in the long run, someone will eventually have to pay the bill, and I don’t want to be the last one to liquidate my position! 

One may point out that European countries also accumulate huge public debt, and why don’t you worry about them. Well, since when has India become a developed country?

Emerging markets are fragile in nature. Let’s review some famous Murphy’s laws:
(1) Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
(2) If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
(3) If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
(4) If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
(5) Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
(6) If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
(7)It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
(8) Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
(9) Every solution breeds new problems
I more and more feel that Mr. Edward A. Murphy is such a damn-good economist! World-class!

Recommended Readings:

Deutsche Bank Research: India’s public finances: do they matter? (PDF file)

Also two of my previous articles on India's banking sector:

Why is India’s financial system less solvent than China’s

Fix Mexico’s banks, not China’s

Financial Times interviews Lula and Alckmin

Financial Times' Richard Lapper and Jonathan Wheatley has made two long interviews with two leading candidates in the upcoming Brazilian presidential election.

Both Lula and Alackmin are the type of politicians who really try to convincing people by making points rather than by making sensational appeals, which is a bless for Brazilian politics. Indeed, from the long-term historic perspetive, Brazil is probably the most peaceful (baring the everyday petty street crims and the recent Sao Paolo riot) nation in the World. Immigrants from different origins, of different skin colors live quite comfortably along each other (relative to other immigrant nations), and even the military coups turned out to be the least bloody than they usually should be.

Let's see what they have to say to all of us, on the future of Brazil, and how they plan to make it a better one:

Interview transcript: Geraldo Alckmin (Centrist)
Interview transcript: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Left)

My general impression is that,   the two's policies are not fundamentally different (partly because Lula is not that type of radical left, and partly because Alckmin really doesn't have anything new and concrete to impress and convince voters), and Alckmin's inexperience is going to cost him dearly.  Alckmin is much less eloquent and charismatic than Lula, and I don't see hard evidence that Alckmin can really get things done despite his repeated claim that "we have a lot of experiences" in this and in that.

I would bet that Lula is going to be re-elected by large margin.

McKinsey says financial sector reform could raise Chinese GDP by 17% a year

A study recently published in May by the McKinsey Global Institute, titled "Putting China's Capital to Work: The Value of Financial System Reform", has found that financial sector reforms in China, if properly executed, would raise gross domestic product by an astounding 17 per cent, or $321bn.

According to the report: better capital allocation would raise GDP by $259bn, while improving the efficiency of the banking system, switching from paper-based to electronic payments, and diversifying the mix of funding vehicles for corporations would raise GDP by $62bn annually.

Another report by McKinsey points out that Chinese domestic banks are more fragile then we thought, when facing foreign competition likely incoming in 2007.

We usually think that foreign banks cannot compete with Chinese local banks in retail banking, because it is prohibitively expensive for any foreign banks to attempt to replicate a nationwide branch network.  McKinsey report however identify an opportunity: just 2 per cent of local banks’ customers account for half of total household deposits and the bulk of banking profits in retail banking. 

This means that it is actually not that difficult for foreign banks to poach away these small number of "high net-worth individuals"  without setting up a huge branch network. These wealthy customers are more likely to have private transport vehicles and shouldn’t care that much about the location of the bank branches, so long as they are located in the posh financial districts.

Bad news for gigantic Chinese local banks though. The report warns that "If even a small number of customers from this group shift to the foreign competitors, existing banks could face a liquidity crisis"

Hat tip: Financial Time: Ready to compete in global markets

Inefficient banking sector in China is actually an optimal way of taxation

It is well perceived that China's state-monopoly banking sector (with the help of capital control) is a powerful tool in channelling private sector wealth into loss-making state-owned enterprises and numerous white-elephants public infrastructure projects.

A paper written by several Chinese economists however argues that such a mechanism is actually optimal. The idea is as follows.

In developing countries, it is usually very difficult for the government to collect taxes (everyone hides their income), and official taxation is usually very inefficient (it creates a lot of distortion in the economy and a disproportionate burden on hard-working and smart people). Formal taxation thus becomes very costly and creates a lot of dead-weight costs.

But the government needs money and by whatever means the government will try to extract revenue from the private sector. Conditional on the "grabbing hand" nature of the government, an “implicit taxation” by channeling private sector wealth into low-return public projects, through the monopoly banking sector, becomes an optimal and efficient solution:  it is efficient because (1) the cost of “tax “collection is low (you can avoid it only if you completely go underground) (2) the “taxation” is relatively fair and less distorting (it is proportionate to your existing wealth).

Certainly it is even better if the government does not try to extort the private sector in the first place. But if the government does do it, it is better that it does it through the banking sector. At least you don’t need to pay the robber to rob you, and at least hard-working people don’t have higher chance of being robbed.

When a gun is pointed at you, it makes no sense to fight. Take my money but don't hurt me.

Financial Repression and Optimal Taxation (pdf file)

Chong-en Bai, David D. Li, Yingyi Qian, Yijiang Wang

Financial repression entails an implicit taxation on savings. When effective income-tax rates are very uneven, as common in developing countries, raising some government revenue through mild financial repression can be more efficient than collecting income tax only.

China offers to build 1 M low-cost houses.....for Filipinos though

I was at first very excited when reading the title of the news: “China offers to build 1 M low-cost houses”. Chinese government is starting to fulfill its promise to help low-income people! I thought.

As I read on, however, to my disppointment, I discovered that the houses will be built in Filipinos in Philippines.

I am not saying that China should not share the responsibility in helping poor countries, but come on, there are more people back home in China who are in greater need of housing, and China after all is not a rich country.

Shouldn’t China solve the domestic problems first? Shouldn’t China treat its own citizens well first?

But then I remember something:

Oil reserve, offshore Philippines in China sea!

Then it could be profitable deal.

Time of India: "India 12th wealthiest nation in 2005"???

Times of India: “India 12th wealthiest nation in 2005: World Bank”?  Also in the Hindu

Oh my god! India? Wealthiest nation?  Pankaj Mishra's op-ed "The myth of new India" published in the Hindustan Times makes some very good and sober comments on this type of media euphoria: "Mittal is as much an Indian success story as Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, is proof of Russian's imminent economic superstardom."

A foreigner, if he never walks out of his Indian hotel and reads only Indian newspaper headlines, will certainly get an impression that Indian is the heaven.

Everyday, you are bombarded by headlines like “Asian Development Bank president: India to become a developed nation soon”,   “Indian banks beat Asian peers” “India to beat China in 10 years: BBC survey” (by the way it was actually a survey of Indians),  “No one has actually made any money in China” , so on and so forth.

Any rankings released by any small organizations, so long as India ranks better than Pakistan or China in one of the numerous components of the ranking system, will be highlighted on the same day on Indian newspapers.

The same is true for China, but never to such an extent. Many Chinese are proud of their country as the 4th largest economies in the world, not realizing that the “wealth” has to be divided by 1.3 billion fellow countrymen, and in an terribly unequal way. But I never see any Chinese newspaper headline that portraits China as one of the “richest” or “wealthiest” nations.

When you read Chinese newspapers, except the state media People’s Daily (which by the way cannot be found in most newspaper stands on the streets. i.e., no one buy it), I will say when it comes to economic news, there is not much difference between Chinese newspapers and Indian newspapers. This is not to say that Chinese media is in any sense free, but that Indian newspapers, at least when it comes to economic news, are as propagandist as Chinese ones. The difference is that: Chinese newspapers are forced to, while Indian newspapers choose to, to please readers.

There is a joke that goes like the following. China and India are the same although one has the strictest media censorship in the world while the other has free media. In Chinese newspapers, you always find a lot of articles about the need for reform and how many hidden dangers are ahead of the economy. In Indian newspapers, you will find the same thing: banking sector problems, pollutions, labor unrest......... in China though!

There are actually quite a few academic studies that try to find out the reason why media industry, even with perfect degree of freedom, will still purportedly propagate biased information. One of the reasons, as many researchers point out, is that readers believe only what they want to believe, and when the benefit of finding out the truth is much smaller than the cost, no one bother to find out.

I think it is quite true. If you cannot do anything about the poverty, why bother emphasizing it on a daily basis. The other day, I saw a BBC article, which highlights the number of Indians living under $1/day. A local Indian commented below the article that: “why do you throw out a number every several days about the poverty of India. We don’t need you to tell me that we are poor. We can see it everyday when we goes to work. We don’t need you to repeat it”

It's qutie true. After you spend you real life in a sweatshop, why don't you want to review your real tough life again when you go home to relax.

Private Sector Development is good for the environment: new data from World Bank’s China office

Private sector and privatization is always blamed for the degradation of the environment. Some self-proclaimed “environmentalists” always insist that greed and evilness is deeply rooted in the heart of  private sector and big “bad” corporations, and only the angel, i.e. the government, can and always benevolently acts as the savior of the earth.

Let’s set aside for a moment the debate on who (private sector or the government) are more greedy (there are certainly more government corruptions than corporate scandals, don't you agree?), and see some hard data first.

The World Bank’s survey results recently released show that, within China, wherever private sector prospers, more efforts are exerted to improve on environmental standards, and residents enjoy not only higher wage but also cleaner air and more green space. When state-owned firms dominate, the reverse happens.

The reason is quite simply: private sector development increases government’s tax revenue, which is necessary (although not sufficient) for the conduction of environmental projects. We always hesitate to talk about money when it comes to environmental protection. How dare we introduce the sinful money into the purest domain of human race: environmental protection?  We sometimes think.

But the cold truth is that: to carry out environment-improving projects, you need money more than lip services. As Dan Harris in the China Law Blog rightly points out: “Copenhagen can afford a state of the art sewage system; Freetown, Siera Leone cannot.”

Certainly private sector development is not a sufficient condition for better environment, but we do know that state-owned firms are always the worse polluters.

The World Bank’s China country office surveys 12,400 firms in 120 Chinese cities. It is found that private sector development varies across China. In Wenzhou and Jiaxing, 99% of the firms are privately owned, while in the old Northeastern rust belt, only 60%. The cross-city variation of private sector development is then closely associated with local environmental standards.

According to an article written by David Dollar (World Bank's China country director) for the Newsweek:

“A good investment climate for firms also goes hand in hand with a good environment for people. As expected, cities with better investment climates tend to have higher wages (averaging $3,000 to $4,000 a year in coastal cities, versus $1,000 in the interior), less unemployment, lower infant mortality and higher education spending.

But surprisingly, they also score higher on environmental measures such as green space per capita, clean-air days per year and percent of water discharge that is treated. For example, cities like Weihai, Qingdao, Suzhou, Hangzhou and Fuzhou all score very highly in terms of business climate, and all treat 97 percent or more of their industrial waste water, with Weihai treating a perfect 100 percent.The opposite is also true. The average waste water treatment rate for cities with poor investment environments was about 78 percent. Why is this so? Cities with poor investment climates tend to have industry dominated by state firms, which often are the worst polluters.”

In an article "China's Pearl River Smells, But the Mayor insists to Swim in it" I posted in this Bulletin some time ago, I reports on the improved river water quality in Guangzhou, a southern Chinese boom town.  An American teacher living in that city comments with his/her first hand experience that the river still smells badly. It is very true that the river still smells. But five years ago, it stunk and it could hardly be called a river. And the river’s water quality is still much better than other Chinese cities.

Why? The reason is very simple. Guangzhou is one of the richest cities in China, and government tax revenue grows at 40% a year, and residents who are now better off financially are very sensitive to the environments surrounding them. Everything comes naturally after a country or a city gets richer.  London stunk too in the 19th  century.

Without private sector development, there certainly will be no greed, no pollution, because the earth will become a large zoo with all human beings living primitive lives. Note that these do not include some half-hearted prominent environmentalists residing in rich countries. They will still stay in New York, complaining about air pollution, and telling media how much they love Africa, as their zoo.

Finally, I have to emphasize that, to re-forest the earth, you need to plant more trees instead of consuming less paper. Research shows that the average American consumes the equivalent of one mature tree every year. This means that, however hard you try, you cannot save more than one tree even if you restrain from using any paper-related products.  But when you use less greeting cards, those people in developing countries who make these cards lose their jobs. I am quite curious why we are making so much fuss about sending paper Christmas cards. Isn’t it more efficient to donate some money to plant more trees instead of going through so many hassles to save one tree every five years?  No.... then a lot of lobby groups will lose their jobs. It is politics, stupid.

Note: I don’t think these “environmentalists” are true environmentalist. To qualify as a true environmentalist, you have to care about lives of the local people more than your daily media coverage. In the case of some labor unions, don’t disguise your own agenda as “helping poor people in developing countries”. If you truly want to help out, let the most capable and hardworking people from the developing countries compete with you and take your job.  And when you say you hate the pollution in New York and like to turn it into Amazon jungle, you must have a concrete plan to move to live in Amazon jungle, and let the local Brazilians to move here to occupy your apartments. Isn’t it a perfect exchange program: you want natural forest, and they want higher living standard. Kenyans are not stupid either, and they don’t want to live in a zoo watched by you, no matter how you portrait nomad life as a perfect integration with the environment. Enjoy it by yourself if you like it.

Deutsche Bank’s take of China, India, Brazil and Mexico: Reports

Below I put together a collection of country research reports produced by Deutsche Bank Research, on several important emerging economies. Let's see what are Deutsche Bank's take of Goldman Sachs's BRICs.

China 2020: challenges ahead (PDF file)
China should be able to achieve high growth for another decade, moving its GDP above that of most industrial countries. Challenges however include a fragile banking sector, rising unemployment, large government debt, and corruption within the one-party political system.

India rising: a medium-term perspective (PDF file)
GDP per capita will double in 2020. Favorable demographics, increasing investment in education and infrastructure and further integration with the world economy are the factors behind DB’s projections. IT-related services, textiles, and the auto-ancillary industry and pharmaceuticals are expected to gain dynamism given India’s comparative advantage.

Brazil: O pais do futuro? (PDF file)
Grow at an average of 3.3% year. Competing against China, Brazil is likely to maintain its position in niche high-tech sectors where it has a competitive advantage. Increased Chinese demand for commodities will provide Brazil with an opportunity to move up the value chain in commodity-related sectors.

Mexico 2020: Tequila sunrise (PDF file)
Geographic closeness to the US gives it an unique advantage. There is fair chance that Mexico’s industrial profile will make a successful transition from low value-added to more sophisticated products.

Russian “corruption market” estimated 3 billion USD/year

Russian thinktank INDEM Fund based on its annual survey estimates that the volume of Russia's “everyday corruption market” (i.e., sum of the bribes to be paid by citizens within one year) is 3 billion USD in year 2005, a slight increase from 2.8 billion USD in year 2004. The methodology of the study takes into two factors that determines the “market of corruption”: (1) corruption risk (authorizer’s corruption pressure onto citizens) (2) corruption demand (citizens’ readiness to bribe)

Several “services” occupy the top positions of “market share”:

(1) Higher education: to enter, transfer, exams, etc (583 million USD);
(2) Free medical service (401 million USD);
(3) Solving problems related to conscription procedure (354 million USD)
(4) Dwelling: to obtain and/or legalize a relevant proprietary interest ( 299 million USD)
(5) To obtain justice in law-court (210 million USD)
(6) to solve problems with road police authorities (obtaining driver’s license, technical examination, road traffic, etc.) (183 million USD) . Obtaining driver's license is quite a "business" in many developing countries; you may also want to read a World Bank report on corruption of obtaining driver’s license in India (hat tip: PSD blog)

The Russian corruption report by INDEM Fund can be found here.

Five billion is certainly surprisingly a small amount, compared to China’s 50-84 billion USD/year, which amouts to 3-5% of China's GDP (according to an global anti-corruption report by OECD, co-authored by among others Janos Bertok). The China and Russia numbers however are not quite comparable, because the Russian number only takes into account everyday bribes, while petty bribe is  actually a relatively smaller problem in China compared to embezzlement of public funds.

In China, according to the same OECD reports, two-third of the corruption fugitives were senior executives of state-owned enterprise. When they fleed(to favorite destination: California, New Jersey, Canada, where extradition treaties are not signed with China), they bring with them huge amount of money.

CLSA: China manufacturing price will have to rise

According to CLSA’s latest Purchasing Manager Index (PMI), Chinese manufacturing firms are having a very good time:  production up, employment up,  incoming business up, new export orders up, backlogs of work up, stock of inventory down. China is (over) heating!

The overall effect for foreigners however is that consumer price and interest rate will move up inevitably in the next several months. I am not sure whether this will continue for ever; based on estimated capacity of power plants and steel mills under construction, in 2007 both electricity and steel capacity in China will exceed demand (currently there is a shortage of both) and the trend of rising input costs is likely to slow down.

According to the CLSA report:

“Production rose for a sixth consecutive month in May, at a rate close to April’s eleven-month high. Output was led higher by increased volumes of incoming new business, which rose at the strongest rate in thirteen months. New order gains were driven by robust demand from both domestic and foreign clients. Growth of new export orders accelerated to the sharpest for twelve months during May.

     Backlogs of work rose for the third consecutive month, with the rate of growth picking up to the sharpest since last December. A number of firms met increased sales from warehouse inventory, contributing to further contraction in stocks of finished goods.

     Latest data highlighted a rise in employment at Chinese manufacturing firms for the second month running in May, though the rate of hiring remained only marginal.

     The quantity of inputs purchased by firms continued to rise in May, with the rate of growth quickening for the fourth straight month to its strongest since April 2005. This contributed to a further expansion of pre-production inventories. Supplier lead times were found to have lengthened slightly for the fourth consecutive month in May, reflecting stronger demand for inputs.

     The rate of input price inflation in the Chinese manufacturing economy surged from April’s already strong pace to a fourteen-month high in May, as 44% of panellists signalled a rise in their average purchase costs since the previous month. Firms widely reported higher prices paid for oil and related products, as well as chemicals and metals.      In order to offset rapidly rising input costs, manufacturers raised their charges again in May. The rate of output price inflation was robust and the sharpest since March 2005, but was still well below that of input prices, reflecting intense competition in a number of markets. This suggests a further squeeze of profit margins.”

Go head, learn Mandarin? There is no need.

The TIME magazine says that now we need to start learning Chinese Mandarin, because “ to an extent, this is a case of history repeating itself—with a twist. Just as Americans started studying Japanese in droves in the 1980s, when Japan's economy was ascendant, so today, as China rises, the world is embracing Mandarin.”

But in any case, Japanese businessmen speak English if they do business with foreigners and it takes a lot of patience for them to wait for you to practice your basic and broken Japanese in the meeting room in a serious negotiation. Japanese may not speak English very fluently, but communication and business can already be done at that level . If it is a very important billion dollar deal, go hire a first-class translator. Language, friction it certainly is, is never a formidable barrier for doing business.

Some basic greetings and conversation skills may be needed, as TIME ends the article by quoting someone who is practicing Chinese: "But we weren't sent here by the company. We're drinking buddies, and decided to do something more constructive with our time than guzzling beer." Indeed, to make your life less boring when meeting Chinese businessmen and on a business trip, this is useful.

But in any case speaking Mandarin (unless you really master the language at decent level) is torture for both you and people on the other side of the negotiation table. True, in South Korea, 160,000 high school and university students are studying the Chinese language, but they are moving to China and many plan to settle there; this is a different story.

Nevertheless, speaking a little bit (not neccesarily much) local language helps you make friends and brings you unexpected favors. According to TIME's Beijing correspondant Susan Jakes:

"The more boldly I stammered through basic conversations, the more people seemed to attach themselves to me as unofficial teachers. In Beijing, a woman once invited me home for dumplings when I said "excuse me" after bumping into her on a crowded subway. A Harbin cop took me driving in his new Mercedes, and a couple I met in line at a bank included me in their family bowling nights. Each invitation was an opportunity to make mistakes and collect new words: "home cooking," "special privilege," "gutter ball." "

Beginner education kit for libertarians: “Free to Choose”, “Commanding Height”, “I, Pencil”

Do you want to become a libertarian? Do you want to learn more but have little patience to finish a book? Here I recommend several classical TV series that you can watch in the evening when you have some free time.

They can be watched or downloaded on Internet, so you don’t need to make any financial investment.

Milton Friedman’s PBS TV series: Free to Choose (1980) 10 Volumes
Link to online video (courtesy of Palmer R. Chitester Fund)
Vol.1  Power of the market
Vol 2  The tyranny of control
Vol.3  Anatomy of a crisis
Vol 4  From Cradle to Grave
Vol.5 Created Equal
Vol.6.  What’s wrong with our schools?
Vol.7.  Who protects the consumer?
Vol.8  Who protects the worker?
Vol.9  How to cure inflation?
Vol.10  How to stay free?

Milton Friedman’s PBS TV series: Free to Choose (1990) 5 Volumes
Link to online video (courtesy of Palmer R. Chitester Fund)
Vol.1 The power of the market
Vol.2 The tyranny of control
Vol.3 The failure of socialism
Vol.4  What’s wrong with our school?
Vol.5  Created Equal

PBS TV series: Commanding Height
Link to online video: (courtesy of PBS)
Episode 1: The Battle of Ideas
Episode 2: The Agony of Reform
Episode 3: The New Rules of the Game

After finishing the videos, if you have 10 minutes for reading, I highly recommend to you a famous short article by Leonard E. Read, titled “I, Pencil”.  The basic idea of the article is that, it is not any easier to manufacture a pencil than to deliver mails; both tasks require coordinations of millions of people with differnet expertise; thus it makes no sense that a pencil can be produced by private sector without a central planner while there are so many services the government claims only she can coordinate and deliver.

The article contains  only 2,300 words, but it may fundamentally influence the way you think about how our economy operates.

If you like all of these material I introduce here, welcome on board, you are a libertarian! And do leave a message here to let me know!

William Seidman (former FDIC chairman)’s banking jokes

L.William Sediman was chairman of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). He has produced numerous banking jokes. Below I put together some of them.

On Russian banking problem:
“Ivan asked his mother – mother, why have I got the biggest feet in the third grade? Is it because my dad was communist? She says, no son, it’s because you’re 19”

On Russian lending problem:
“I went into one small bank and there were three or four of the tougher looking Russians sitting around with AK47s and I said, I know that crime is awful around here, but do you need to have a real army here to defend this small of a bank? They said, well, they are not here to defend the bank, those are the people who collect our loans.”

On Japan banking problem:
“A doctor calls up his patient and says, I have bad news for you and worse news for you. You have only 24 hours to live. The patient says, oh, that’s terrible. What could be worse news? The doctor says, I’ve been trying to get you since yesterday”

On World Bank’s blank check aids
“I was there for the World Bank and we had $2 billion to spend, and if you want to really be treated royally, just wander through Russian with $2 billion that you can provide  them I got so full of caviar that I couldn’t look at a fish egg again.”

On Japan’s stagnation:
“They’ve been in a non-growth economy for many years now... if something like that was going on this country, there would be a revolution. The fact of the matter is in Japan, the average Japanese citizen may be better off than he was seven years ago... since they  have experienced deflation in effect, the average person in Japan is living as well or better than he did in the past. As a matter of fact, the crash in real estate prices ahs allowed lots of Japanese to now live somewhere closer to their work than a two-hour commute by train to Tokyo”

China or India, who’s got sweatshops?

China is known for its labor-intensive low-wage manufacturing. But according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting: software engineers, sales staff, financial analysts and factory workers all earn more in China than India.

AVERAGE ANNUAL PAY-CHINA (in British Sterling)
Project manager: £12,173
Software engineer: £6,998
Accountant: £4,677
Sales rep: £2,649
Production worker: £1,214

AVERAGE ANNUAL PAY-INDIA (in British Sterling)
Project manager: £5,220
Software engineer: £5,344
Accountant: £2,956
Sales rep: £2,464
Production worker: £964

According to a report in The Australian, in the newly-completed Toyota factory in Guangzhou, China, workers, 3500 of them, are paid about $2.70 an hour. Note that these are assembly-line workers, not IIT-educated genius.

Labor regulations never get you higher pay; Market foreces and your own skills do!

Liberalization of imports harms India?

Ashok Sharma in the Indian newspaper Financial Express argues that unilateral and unconditional lowering of tariff for sugar imports harm India

“... the institution of TRQ for sugar import is unilateral and unconditional. We have not in exchange negotiated for raising our low bound tariff rate of 45% on soyabean oil. The policy of unilateral and unconditional liberalisation of imports will weaken India’s negotiating position at WTO. It will endanger domestic production as had been the case with vegetable oil and oilseeds.”

If this were true, then why don’t India raise tariff to 1000% or close the economy completely from international trade then? This should be able to gain India formidable negotiating position at WTO, according to the theory of Mr. Sharma.

Sometimes, busting a myth requires just a little bit of counterfactual thought experiment.

Is Nicholas Kristof an idiot? the "******* vs. Netizens" case

Nicholas Kristof, op-ed columnist of New York Times, publishes an article today describing how he tests the limits of the Internet in China.

He started several blogs in Chinese internet service provider, and find that however political sensitive words he includes in the blogs are not deleted, but are just replaced by ******. He thus claims it to be a victory of Netizens, that Internet police are not able to control numerous blogs mushrooming in China.

Yes, Nicholas, you are very smart that you find this loophole in the system.

But everyone knows it too, just no one else is stupid enough to disclose it publicly.

Everyone, except you, understands that the loophole will be closed once it is disclosed publicly.

Provision of  Internet service, including hosting of blogs, is a very competitive business in China. In order to attract users, most providers will always “walk on the edge of the law” and try to create as little inconvenience to users as possible.

This includes, not removing “sensitive words” as the state censors require; instead, they simply replace the words with ******.  Technically, by doing this, Internet service providers violate the law, but the Internet police don’t bother to interrupt. I guess there is implicit agreement between them: Internet police want a quite life; Internet service providers want profit; Thus, police will leave service providers alone unless big troubles are made that humiliate the Internet police.

As a by product, Chinese netizens get a little bit more freedom than the law provides.

This will be soon gone, after Nicholas Kristof’s stupid move; typically the state will feel very embarrassed and feel publicly humiliated (in New York Times!), and then the Internet police will be reprimanded. And boy, who are the ultimate victims? The netizens!!

I still don’t understand why Nicholas Kristof publicizes this. To raise awareness? I guess everyone already knows that Chinese government censors Internet, and what Nicholas is telling us is no big news. Even when you want to raise awareness, there are many better ways that are much better than publicizing a loophole that has been benefiting Chinese netizens!

Certainly, you will say that the ultimate blame should be the government, and Kristof is only the little boy who tells everyone the Emperor has no clothes.

But why do we care whether the Emperor dresses or not!

See Kristof's op-ed article: "In China it's ******** vs. Netizens"
(Sorry I copy this NYT article without permissoin, but considering the great harm he's done to one hundred million Chinese netizens, I think Nicholas should allow me to violate his copyright for several days as a compensation)

Update: So far the two "test blogs" are yet to be closed down.

Should journalist use lies to fight lies? The Apple “slave” labor case

Apple is running into trouble recently. A recent U.K. newspaper report claims that workers at a Chinese iPod factory were working long hours, for little pay, and in "slave conditions". They were said to have been earning $50 a month (or about $1.60 a day) while working 15-hour shifts. The reporters visited two plants in the crowded country, one close to Shanghai and the other near Hong Kong. One, described as iPod City, was said to have 200,000 workers who lived in dormitories on the site.

Labor compensation is really terrible in China, but I don’t think these journalist should use lies to fight lies.

First, in the two locations where the journalist claim they investigate (I guess one in Kunshan and the other in Shenzhen), it is impossible to hire assembly workers at $50 /month. It is just impossible, not because the employers are benevolent, but because factories next doors will recruit away all you workers at the prevailing market price if you offer only $ 50/month.

Reading the report  carefully (I guess most readers will only remember the headline numbers they throw out instead of finishing the whole report),  however, you will find that $50/month is not the wage, but the net saving after deducting expenses as calucauted by the journalists. Should we say that some American workers are paid zero dollars/month because they rarely save money?

Interestingly, the real monthly salary number (about $100 /month) obtained by the journalists (I guess the number should be real, as journalists do not have incentive to over-report the number) meets the minimum wage requirement, which many labor activists believe to be fair but don't think are actively enforced! The report unexpectedly provides evidence that minimum wage law in China does have teeth!

$100 /month is small sum for British, but it is a lot of money in China. Why don’t the journalist make some attempt to put the number into perspective. In inland provinces, government employees (dream position for most local residents ) are paid $100/month.  $300/month is also three times what Indian workers can get.

Why don’t the journalist tell readers what are the alternative income these workers could get if they don’t have a job in the  factory?  It is a poor country, and $100 /month is exactly the same as the country’s GDP per capita. The average monthly British GDP/per capita is over $2800, will you call a British worker who are paid $2800/month a slave!!

Second, in the past five years, Apple sold 42 million i-Pods. If 200,000 workers are employed to produce i-pods, then each worker produced only 210 i-pods so far.  Don’t you think such productivity is ridiculously low. A Washington Post article reveals that the factory is not owned by Apple, but by a contract manufactures Hon Hai precision Industry, also known as Foxconn electronics Inc.  Foxconn does employ 200,000 workers, but Apple is only a client, and only small fraction of the 200,000 workforce work on i-pods.

I really don’t know why the journalists want to throw out a sensational number of "200,000 workers", and the so-called “iPod city” name, just to exploit the popularity of iPod brand name?  And “the 200,000 workers in one site” description also tries to get readers to have an impression that all 200,000 workers are fit into one dorm room!

I want to say to the journalist of Mail on Sunday (the U.K. newspaper that reports the story): 
The best weapon of journalists is fact and truth, if you degrade yourself to the same level of a lying regime, you bring shame to the whole journalist community!

Interestingly, Mail on Sunday doesn't put the report online. Are you fearing of sunshine?

Reference:
Sweatshop conditions at iPod factory reported
Apple eyes labor conditions at iPod plant

Update:

found that Perry Wu in the ChinaTechNews.com has the same views as mine, in his article "Hyperbolic Apple iPod factory woes"

Sun Bin recommends a blog post "A Chinese view of iPod City", which provides a nice summary of the event and coverage. Thanks.

Outsourcing is good for American job growth! Two data-intensive evidence

As more manufacturing and service jobs are outsourced to developing countries, complaints arise domestically that it is responsible for the “jobless growth” in the U.S.

Two research papers recently produced however provide evidence that outsourcing is actually good for American job growth. 

The first study, authored by Mihir Desai, Fritz Foley, and James Hines Jr., investigates migration of manufacturing production to developing countries. They show  that 10% greater foreign capital investment is associated with 2.2% greater domestic investment, and that 10% greater foreign employee compensation is associated with 4.0% greater domestic employee compensation.

You may ask: “but the growth is not proportional – growth in the U.S. is smaller!”.  But this already is a serious blow to those who believe that the impact should have been negative!  Furthermore, 10% growth in compensation for foreign workers is much smaller than 4% growth in compensation for U.S. workers (who’s pay level starts at least 10 times that of their foreign counterparts.

The second study, authored by Mary Amiti and Shang-Jin Wei, looks into service outsourcing, which is feared by white-collar workers.

They show that,  in each of the past 10 years, the value of US insourcing (i.e. the value of business services expoerted by a country like the U.S., e.g., high-priced business consultants and lawyers in richer countries offering their services to the rest of the world) has been greater than that of US outsourcing! This is true even though the US has been running a trade deficit and an overall current account deficit.

Examining 100 sectors of the U.S. economy, they also show that there  is no evidence that the most outsourcing-intensive sectors have had systematically slower (or negative) job growth in the last decade. In fact, the millwork and plywood sector, the metal coating, engraving, and allied services sector, and the insurance industry have had some of the fastest increases in service outsourcing but at the same time also some of the fastest
rates of job creation.

Study 1: Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Economic Activity   (pdf file)
Abstract:   How does rising foreign investment influence domestic economic activity? Firms whose foreign operations grow rapidly exhibit coincident rapid growth of domestic operations, but this pattern alone is inconclusive, as foreign and domestic business activities are jointly determined. This study uses foreign GDP growth rates, interacted with lagged firm-specific geographic distributions of foreign investment, to predict changes in foreign investment by a large panel of American firms. Estimates produced using this instrument for changes in foreign activity indicate that 10% greater foreign capital investment is associated with 2.2% greater domestic investment, and that 10% greater foreign employee compensation is associated with 4.0% greater domestic employee compensation. Changes in foreign and domestic sales, assets, and numbers of employees are likewise positively associated; the evidence also indicates that greater foreign investment is associated with additional domestic exports and R&D spending. The data do not support the popular notion that greater foreign activity crowds out domestic activity by the same firms, instead suggesting the reverse.

Study 2: Fear of Service Outsourcing: Is It Justified?   (pdf file)
Abstract:      The recent media and political attention on service outsourcing from developed to developing countries gives the impression that outsourcing is exploding. As a result, workers in industrial countries are anxious about job losses. This paper aims to establish what are the hypes and what are the facts. The results show that although service outsourcing has been steadily increasing it is still very low, and that in the United States and many other industrial countries "insourcing" is greater than outsourcing. Using the United Kingdom as a case study, we find that job growth at a sectoral level is not negatively related to service outsourcing.
(Also check out Raghuram Rajan and Shang-Jin Wei's op-ed "The non-threat that is outsourcing (pdf file))

China’s pollution and sweatshops revisited

Two recommended articles, both from New York Times:

(1) China’s burning of coal casts a global cloud

China’s increasing pollution due to use of coal in generating electricity  has become a global problem as the West Coast states of the U.S. also suffer from polluted dusts that can move thousands of miles across Pacific Ocean . At the end of the article, however, the reports also remind us that an average American still consumes more energy and is responsible for the release of 10 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese, and thus it is still not time for finger-pointing.

(2) In praise of the maligned sweatshop

Nicholas Kristof tells us why students campaigning to boycott “sweatshops” in developing countries, however well-meaning they are,  are actually harming poor people badly, and why students should actually campaign  for more “sweatshops”.

Without sweatshops, poor people won’t be exploited. It is true, because they starve and die instead! which some self-righteous students don’t care about any way.

Morris Goldstein and Nicholas Lardy’s solution to Chinese currency problem

Morris Goldstein and Nicholas Lardy’s solution to the Yuan problem:

“...we propose the following compromise. First, China should implement in the next few months a 10 to 15 percent appreciation of the renminbi relative to the current value of the basket. This could be done either by a revaluation or by allowing market forces to push up the currency’s value. Such a “downpayment” would help to persuade external critics that China is serious about controlling its growing external imbalance. Second, China should widen substantially either the band around the central rate or the daily fluctuation limit. That would provide increased independence for monetary policy, allow scope for further renminbi appreciation and give China experience in managing increased flexibility. Third, to offset some of the contractionary effect of the renminbi appreciation, China should simultaneously implement fiscal expansion. Fourth, China should maintain most capital controls until its banks are further strengthened.

This would still require sizeable real appreciation of the renminbi later, with all the problems that such a phased adjustment entails. If speculative inflows resurge, the authorities would need to choose between an acceleration of renminbi appreciation and a temporary recourse to tighter controls on capital inflows. In the final stage of currency reform—when China’s banking system is more stable—China would float the currency and remove the remaining capital controls. Admittedly, this is not an elegant plan. But if it would break the existing logjam in addressing global payments imbalances, it merits consideration.”

see Goldstein and Lardy's full article in the Finanicla Times

Asking China to revaluate currency? Now you see the inflation consequence

Central bankers in both U.S. and the U.K. are worrying about domestic inflation as manufacturing wage and prices in China hike recently.

Bloomberg: Rising costs in China could affect America

Financial Times: Chinese exports add to U.K. inflation fears

Let’s see what are driving them to worry: Costs of goods from countries in the Pacific Rim region, including China, rose 0.2 percent in May.

Well, if 0.2% worries them, how about revaluation of Yuan by 50%, WalMart shoppers!

How cheap is Chinese labor? U.S. Department of Labor has the answer for the first time

Contracted by the U.S. Department of Labor, Judith Banister, famous for her estimation of Chinese death number (30 million) in Great Leap Forward, has put out a number on average wage of Chinese manufacturing workers.

According to the report, in 2002, Chinese manufacturing employees are paid on average 57 cents/hour, and those in cities are paid twice that amount. In comparison, U.S. manufacturing workers are paid   $21.11/hour, and Mexican workers are paid $2.48/hour.

57 cents/hour however is not a bad deal for many Chinese workers. Because China’s living costs are low, it is equivalent to nearly $3 dollar/hour adjusted for purchasing power.

The numbers are based on 2002 though. In the past four year, particular after 2004, wage level hikes in Chinese manufacturing factories, so the latest number should be much higher than that.  According to London-based EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit), labor costs last year has reached $1.36/hour, 72% higher than in 2001, and in 2010 they will be double again.

"It is not just wage that is going up; companies are having to buy air conditioners for employee dorms, provide better food and make the enviroment better for workers"  according to Michael Kleist, author of Global Sources' China Supplier Survey.

Banister also points out that, Western companies shouldn’t expect to pay only 57 cents per hour (not even in 2002), because foreign-owned factories are usually located in cities, and hire skilled workers who earn more. 

Evidence seems to point to the direction that c