sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

New protections of land and intellectual-property rights in China are welcomed says Shang-Jin Wei. But the real work to protect these rights has a long way to go

Business
New protections of land and intellectual-property rights in China are welcomed says Shang-Jin Wei. But the real work to protect these rights has a long way to go

By Shang-Jin Wei*

China recently adopted new guidelines to strengthen protection of property rights. The guidelines are an important step toward ensuring long-term economic growth. But there is more to be done.

The guidelines aim to advance three key objectives. First, they limit the government’s discretionary ability to take private property from entrepreneurs and private citizens. In the past, the law defined the state-owned sector as the “foundation” of a “socialist market economy,” and the private sector as its “supplement.” The new guidelines stress the “equal status” of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private firms, and the “equal protection” of their property rights. Now, private property will no longer be inferior to state property – at least officially.

China has lately been facing a new wave of capital flight, driven partly by concerns among entrepreneurs that President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign – so far focused on corrupt government officials – could one day be re-directed at them and their assets. After all, given that the laws and regulations governing business in China are highly complex and, at times, even contradictory, it has been difficult for Chinese entrepreneurs not to violate some rule or another.

The new guidelines address this by calling for forgiveness of “original sins” – irregular or illegal activities or tax evasion by private entrepreneurs in their firms’ early days. This amnesty program – together with a broader shift toward equality between SOEs and private firms – could remove a thick cloud of uncertainty for Chinese businesspeople, encouraging them to keep their wealth and talent in the country.

The second objective of the new guidelines is to eliminate the expropriation of state-owned assets by private parties, including by self-dealing managers of SOEs. Such self-dealing takes many forms, including selling state-owned assets at below-market value to connected private parties and insider trading in the stock market.

One positive effect of the anti-corruption campaign has been the suppression of such behavior. Even so, to be responsive to Xi’s call to strengthen and expand existing SOEs, it makes sense for  the guidelines’ drafters to propose more measures to minimize risks stemming from poor corporate governance.

The third objective of the new guidelines is to encourage innovation, by protecting the fruits of creative efforts. The engines that have propelled China’s growth over the last few decades – a huge supply of cheap labor, imported technology, and massive physical investment – are petering out. Now, productivity increases and local innovation must pick up the slack. And that requires adequate protection of intellectual property.

My own research, carried out with Zhuan Xie and Xiaobo Zhang, shows that Chinese firms – especially in the private sector – have lately accelerated innovation, and are being awarded an increasing number of patents at home and abroad. Unsurprisingly, they have joined multinational firms and foreign trade negotiators in demanding better intellectual-property protections. As intellectual property rights become more secure, China’s new growth engines can gain substantial steam.

But the new guidelines are not sufficient to guarantee such an outcome.

For one thing, the amnesty program for entrepreneurs’ “original sins” still lacks sufficient detail. If it allows the officials implementing the program to define which sins are eligible, and what timing makes them “original,” it could create new rent-seeking opportunities, augmenting the burden on entrepreneurs, rather than removing uncertainty.

Moreover, the guidelines will not eliminate the state-owned sector’s advantages. Despite the new, more equal terms established in the guidelines, a financial system that is dominated by state-owned banks will give an edge to SOEs in terms of access to funding and the cost of capital.

Similarly, local governments, which own a majority of the SOEs, may struggle to adjudicate fairly disputes that arise between their own firms and private companies. To ensure genuinely equal status for SOEs and private firms will require reforming the financial system, as well as government divestment from those SOEs lacking a strong national-security dimension – that is, the majority of them.

China’s new legal framework for protecting property rights holds a lot of promise. But its success will depend heavily on how it is implemented, as well as on the extent to which the government pursues complementary reforms. For the sake of the entire global economy, one hopes that China gets it right.


Shang-Jin Wei, a former chief economist of the Asian Development Bank, is Professor of Chinese Business and Economy at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016, published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

2 Comments

Nice thoughts.

However I read a review of a book about China recently (can't remember its name), that suggested that the whole Chinese system is based on corruption. That is today, the support of the elite and all levels of government are based on rent-seeking, paybacks, confiscations and suchlike. Evidence for this is that the wealth of those in the top tiers of the system have accumulated vastly more wealth than those at the top of the US system (Congress, Senate etc), even though China is far less wealthy per capita.

The premise of the book is that if anti-corruption drives and legal protections went "too far", the whole edifice would fall down.

As chance would have it, I'm reading the Montefiore book on the Romanov Tzars at present, the same syndrome is evident - even tho they eventually "freed" the serfs, the fundamental system was impossible to reform - until it eventually blew up in their faces. Scary.

Up
0

Intreseting . We now regularly see the words "Capital flight" and "China" in the same sentence in media reports

The idea of an Amnesty on past wrongs , means that China is basically admitting it cant control the problem , and hopes that people will be honest in future .

One wonders if when corruption has become endemic , there is the political will to sort it out

Up
0