网络安全检测|网络安全服务|网络安全扫描-香港墨客投资移动版

　　[1]In the five-year plans and annual plans, economic growthtargets were generally set below 8%. For example, the expected growth rate was set at 7.5% and 7% during the 12th Five-Year and 13th Five-YearPlan periods. However, the 8% economic growth rate was identified at the central government level as a floor to be safeguarded. During the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 andthe global financial crisis of 2008-2009, for example, China’s central government put forward theobjective to ensure an 8% growth rate.

　　[2]In the accounting of China’s economic growth rate, theaggregate of provincial growth rates has always been greater than the nationaleconomic growth rate. Therefore, in conducting regional decomposition, China’sgrowth rates of various years are calculated through the aggregation ofprovincial GDP figures, which are obviously higher than the national growthrates released by the NBS. This paperfollowed this method of treatment due to data availability,rather than dueto an assessment of the accuracy of the different data sources.

　　It needs to be noted that China ’seconomic slowdown coincided with the world economic downturn after the eruptionof the global financial crisis. According to the World Bank’s database, based on2005 US dollar, global GDP growth rate plummeted in 2008 and 2009, down to 1.5%and -2.1% respectively. Despite a short-lived uptick to 4.1% in 2010, growthnosedived again thereafter. From 2011 to 2015, world economic growth ratesregistered 2.8%, 2.3%, 2.4%, 2.5% and 2.4% respectively, failing to restore tothe pre-crisis level.

　　In 2014, the low-income countries defined by theWorld Bank (with gross national income or GNI per capita below US$1,035) had anaverage GDP growth rate of 6.3%; lower middle-income countries (GNI per capita betweenUS$1,075 and US$4,086) grew by 5.7%; upper middle-income countries (GNI percapita between US$4,086 and US$12,616) grew by 4.6%; and high-income countries(GNI per capita above US$12,616) only grew by 1.7%. At a minimum, this group offigures suggests the following messages: first, countries in different stagesof development have different sources and potentials of growth, hence theirdifferent growth rates; second, China’s growth rate registered 7.3% in 2014,which was significantly above the average growth of 4.6% among countries ofsimilar stages of development and was also much higher than the average growth rateof 6.3% among low-income countries; third, the shift of gears in economicgrowth is a milestone in China’s transition from an upper middle-income status toa high-income status.

　　Without a doubt, China ’s economic slowdown is partof the world economic slowdown. However, if the above analysis still fallsshort of what needs to be explained, the following sections of this paper willreveal that the new normal of China ’seconomy and the new mediocrity of the world economy are vastly different interms of the manifestations, causes and solutions. Over the years, the “ China collapse”theory in its various versions never failed to crop up every now and then. Thesame authors feasted on every chance by peddling their predictions on China ’seconomy. None of their predictions proved true. Yet this time, China ’s economyfinally slowed down. Some observers and investors or speculators are thus onceagain prompted to join the camp of selling China out. Nevertheless, given theblatant defects in their arguments, this paper does not intend to discuss them unlessnecessary, instead it focuses only on studies that follow economics methodologies,and it will attempt to clarify some misperceptions about China’s economicslowdown to shed light on the real outlook of China’s economy and convince thatthe China miracle will not have ended.

　　2. Cyclical Perspective Fails to Capture theChange of Development Stage

　　The most common explanation of China ’s slowdownis the “insufficient demand theory.” For instance, Justin Yifu Lin (2011)explained the recent round of slowdown from demand-side reasons (thus alsocyclical reasons) behind China ’sshrinking net export after the global financial crisis. The theory believesthat once demand bottlenecks are overcome by beefing up investment, a new boom willstart and China ’seconomy will return to its normal track of above 8% growth rates. Similar viewsin favor of stimulating demand hold sway among Chinese and internationaleconomists. However, unlike Justin Yifu Lin (2011), not many studies providedempirical evidence. By comparing the per capita GDP of an economy to the levelof the United States as ameasurement of the development stage, Justin Yifu Lin discovered that China ’s current per capita GDP is equivalent to20% of that of the United States . This level of development was what Japan achieved in 1951, Singapore in 1967, Chinese Taiwan in 1975 and South Korea in1977. Data suggest that in the two decades after reaching this level, theabove-mentioned economies respectively scored annual economic growth rates of9.2%, 8.6%, 8.3% and 7.6%. The conclusion thus arrived at is that China stillenjoys great potentials of rapid growth for years to come. However, such amethod of comparing development stages fails to take demographics into account.