| |
|
 |
|
| How
Large is China's Private Sector?
|
|
|
Sep
30th 2005, C.P. Chandrasekhar
|
|
It
is a truism that economic reform in China has meant
a substantial expansion in the role of private initiative
in economic activity. The dismantling of communes and
collectives, the encouragement of foreign investment,
the recognition of the private sector initially as a
''supplement to the state-owned economy'' and subsequently
as an ''important component of the socialist market
economy'', the closure, restructuring and disinvestment
of shares of enterprises in the state-owned sector,
the opening of Communist Party of China (CPC) membership
to entrepreneurs and businesspersons, the sale of equity
in leading state-owned banks and most recently the decision
to make all state-held shares in the1,300 listed companies
publicly traded, have all contributed to a substantial
expansion in the role of the private sector, and continue
to do so.
As this process has been unfolding, Western observers
have repeatedly sought to assess the relative roles
of the private and state sector in the Chinese economy.
The reasons for this interest are not difficult to identify.
To start with, it could be argued that as and when the
private sector overtakes the public sector in China's
economy, the only example of a large economy with substantial
state ownership and control vanishes, leaving no living
example of an significant alternative to predominately
market-driven capitalist economies. But more importantly,
many observers feel that if the private sector displaces
the state-sector as the dominant player in the economy,
it would not be long before the CPC would have to relax
its legally unopposed dominance and control over the
political, social and cultural life of the nation. Some
have even argued that political democracy would be an
inevitable fall out of a growing role for the market
and the private sector, resulting in a gradual decline
in the ideological sway of the CPC. In sum, China is
in their view on the brink of a ''velvet revolution''
precipitated by the very state and party that would
be ousted by such a revolution.
This renders significant the release in September of
a first survey of China by the OECD as part of its Economic
Surveys series, which is unconventional since China
is not an OECD member. The survey argues that as far
back as 1998 the private sector's share of value added
exceeded 50 per cent both at an economy-wide level and
within the business sector. And more recently in 2001,
the report says, the private share of value added crossed
the half way mark in the non-farm business sector as
well. The long delay in recognising that the so-called
''transition'' had been completed is attributed to the
fact that Chinese Law, which specifies what is an enterprise
and which enterprises can be deemed to be private, and,
therefore, Chinese statistics, make the segregation
of the private-controlled component in different sectors
extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible. Add
to this the peculiarities of the transition in China
where state-owned firms, collective enterprises and
town and village enterprises are being gradually corporatised
with both other state organisations and private individuals
and institutions acquiring a stake, and the difficulty
of deciding which is private and which is not, only
increases.
Thus, Chinese law does not consider a unit with a single
industrial or commercial proprietor employing eight
or less workers as an enterprise, and leaves such units
out of the category of private enterprises. Units deemed
to be privately owned enterprises are one of eight categories
of domestically funded enterprises along with state-owned
enterprises, collectively-owned enterprises, cooperative
enterprises, joint-ownership enterprises, limited liability
enterprises, shareholding enterprises, and other enterprises.
Besides these there are foreign funded enterprises,
including those funded from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.
Reform has meant that in almost all these categories,
private stakeholders have been accommodated to differing
degrees. But none of them can be considered as being
fully private, inasmuch as some of these enterprises
still only have a minority private stake. Even foreign
funded enterprises need not be privately controlled,
since foreign-funded shareholding corporations require
only a minimum 25 per cent foreign capital contribution
to registered capital.
The OECD survey attempts to unbundle the data by dropping
the official definition of what is private and using
microdata from the National Bureau of Statistics to
arrive at an assessment of the relative size of the
private sector. The survey claims to use a strict definition
of the private sector by separating firms according
to type of controlling shareholder: whether it is the
state (directly or indirectly), a collective (local
government), or a private entity (individuals, domestic
legal persons, or foreign companies) that controls the
firm. The estimates are made for the business sector
as a whole (including all economic sectors up to distribution
and commercial services but excluding government and
non-profit services), which accounted for 94 per cent
of GDP in 1998, as well as for specific components of
that sector such as its non-farm component which accounted
for 76 per cent of GDP in that year. To simplify matters,
economic activities included in GDP that take place
outside the official reporting system are assumed to
be in the private sector.
On the basis of this analysis, the survey declares that
the Chinese economy has been characterised by more private
than public ownership for some time now. Thus, the private
sector, which accounted for 43 per cent of value added
in the non-farm business sector, was responsible for
57.1 per cent in 2003. The corresponding figures for
the business sector and the economy as a whole were
53.5 and 63.3 and 50.4 and 59.2 respectively. This is
indeed a remarkable transition.
What is more, if the analysis is restricted to companies
that regularly produce statistical reports (those with
annual sales of over CNY 5 million), then the private
sector's share of valued added has risen from 28 to
52 per cent between 1998 and 2003. Further, in 1998,
the private sector contributed a larger share of value
added in only 5 out of 23 ''non-core'' manufacturing
industries. By 2003 this had risen to cover all 23 of
these industries. In half of those industries, private
firms produced more than three-quarters of output. Overall
in these 23 industries, the private sector is estimated
to employ two-thirds of the labour-force, contribute
two-thirds of valued added in these industries, and
is responsible for over 90 per cent of their exports.
To top it all, over a quarter of all industrial output
is now reportedly produced by private foreign-owned
companies.
This rapid rise of the private sector implies that it
is not just the result of private firms accounting for
a disproportionate share of the increase in domestic
and export markets. The private sector is displacing
the collective state-owned sectors in pre-existing markets
as well, partly as a result of the conversion of these
units into private-controlled entities and partly as
a result of their closure. According to the OECD's figures,
about one-third of the increase in the private sector
share is mirrored in a decline in the number and output
of collectives, with the remaining two-thirds reflected
in closure and divestment of solely state-owned firms.
It must be noted that, outside the non-farm business
sector, to treat these figures as indicative of the
role of private ownership is indeed an exaggeration.
This is because land is by no means privately owned
in much of rural China. Rural land in China is still
owned by the village collective, which allocates land
to households predominantly based on size. Further,
even though laws have been passed to provide peasants
rights to a 30-year lease, this has not been implemented
in most parts of the country. The OECD survey itself
reports that in 1999, almost two-thirds of farmers in
a random sample of 11 provinces lived in villages that
had not implemented the 30-year lease system. And whatever
be the duration of lease adopted, there are indications
that most leases do not foreclose adjustments of allotments
during the lease period. That is while there is a strong
relationship now between household effort and returns
earned, Chinese agriculture cannot be seen as characterised
by private ownership in the conventional sense.
However, this does not undermine the significance of
the large and rising share of private business in the
value-added by the non-farm business sector. But here
too the evidence underestimates the role of the state.
To start with private presence in industry is regionally
concentrated. An overwhelming share of private industrial
output is produced in the eastern coastal region (especially
Zhejiang, Guangdong and Jiangsu provinces). In this
region, the share of industrial value added attributable
to the private sector is as high as 63 per cent, as
compared with only 32 per cent in other regions. Thus
there is a considerable lag in the development of the
private sector in central, western, and north-eastern
regions when compared with the export-oriented eastern
coastal region. That implies the continued persistence
of the non-private or state sector. But there are signs
of a faster growth in private activity in the interior
regions as well.
But this is not the only reason why the state remains
important. To start with, the public sector dominates
core or strategic areas identified as the lifelines
of the economy, energy the energy, metals, automobile,
and defence industries. Between three-fourths and 95
per cent of value added in the gas, petroleum, coal
mining, electricity and water supply industries is contributed
by the state-owned sector.
Further, the state share in aggregate fixed capital
formation remains high, making it the prime driver of
growth. Of the total investment in fixed assets of CNY
5.6 trillion in 2003, 53 per cent was accounted for
by state-owned units and collectives, and the rest was
undertaken in the ''individuals' economy'' or by units
characterised by other types of ownership. But since
the role of provincial and local bodies in the other
types of units can be substantial, the actual role of
the state in financing fixed investment and growth is
still crucial.
But these features of state presence are visible in
some market economies as well, making the characterisation
of the Chinese economy and society a knotty issue. What
is clear, however, is that the transition that has occurred
does not seem to have challenged the supremacy of the
CPC and the Chinese government in any way - as yet.
Chart
1 >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|