Reflections on Forty Years of China’s Reforms

Speech at the Fudan University’s Fanhai School of International Finance

January 2018
Bert Hofman, World Bank1
This conference is the first of undoubtedly many that will commemorate China’s 40 years
of reform and opening up. In December 2018, it will have been 40 years since Deng
Xiaoping kicked off China’s reforms with his famous speech “Emancipate the mind,
seeking truth from fact, and unite as one to face the future,” which concluded that year’s
Central Economic Work Conference and set the stage for the 3rd Plenum of the 11th
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. The speech brilliantly used Mao
Zedong’s own thoughts to depart from Maoism, rejected the “Two Whatevers” of Mao’s
successor Hua Guofeng (“Whatever Mao said, whatever Mao did”), and triggered decades
of reforms that would bring China where it is now—the second largest economy in the
world, and one of the few countries in the world that will soon2 have made the journey
from low income country to high income country.
This 40th anniversary is a good time to reflect on China’s reforms. Understanding China’s
reforms is of importance first and foremost for getting the historical record right, and this
record is still shifting despite many volumes that have already been devoted to the topic.
Understanding China’s past reforms and with it the basis for China’s success is also
important for China’s future reforms—understanding the path traveled, the
circumstances under which historical decisions were made and what their effects were
on the course of China’s economy will inform decision makers on where to go next.
Increasingly, though, this reflection on China’s reforms is important for the rest of the
world. Because of China’s economic success, more and more countries see China as an
example to emulate, a model of development that could mean moving from rags to riches
within a generation.
With the 19th party congress last October, for the first time as far as I know, China now
also positions itself as such an example. One excerpt from General Secretary Xi Jinping’s
speech particularly signifies a departure from China’s past ambitions and aspiration. In
discussing the success of China, and by implication the Communist Party, Xi stated:
“It means that the path, the theory, the system, and the culture of socialism with
Chinese characteristics have kept developing, blazing a new trail for other
developing countries to achieve modernization. It offers a new option for other
countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving

1
This paper reflects the personal opinions of the author and should in no way be attributed to the World
Bank, its executive board or its member countries.
2
By around 2024 in our estimates, sooner, if the RMB appreciates
 their independence; and it offers Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to
solving the problems facing mankind.”
Ten years ago, together with one of China’s great reformers, Wu Jinglian, I put down some
thoughts on China’s reforms in a background paper to the Growth Commission (see here).
I think the paper has held up pretty well, and I will use some of it in this speech, though
China’s reform path has been changing in the past decade (Figure 1).
In some ways, China’s reforms followed many of the prescriptions mainstream
economists would recommend. The country opened up for trade and foreign investment,
gradually liberalized prices, diversified ownership, strengthened property rights, and kept
inflation under control. Continued (relative) macroeconomic stability allowed high
savings to be turned into high investment and rapid urbanization, which in turn triggered
rapid structural transformation and productivity growth. But this is simplifying the
reforms, and obfuscates the essence of China’s reforms: it was the unique way in which
China went about in reforming its system that makes the country’s reform experience of
interest. China’s gradual, experimental way to reform its economic system, especially in
the early days, was in sharp contrast to the reforms in Eastern Europe and the Former
Soviet Union. Although often compared, China and other transition countries were simply
too different in terms of initial economic conditions, political development, and external
environment to make comparison of much use. Similarly, comparison with much of the
Latin American reforms seems out of place—the likes of Brazil, Mexico and Argentine
were far closer to a market-based system than China was in 1978, and their reforms--
liberalization and macroeconomic stability—were of a different order of complexity than
China’s.
At the onset of reforms, China was among the poorest nations on earth and a
predominantly rural, agricultural country. China had barely 25 years of history in central
planning, marred by the failure of the Great Leap Forward and the political disruptions
during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The country was neither integrated in
the world economy nor in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON).
Internally, in part due to Mao’s “Third Front” that required individual regions to survive
economic isolation in case of a war, industry was inefficient, but also far less concentrated
than in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. When central planning relaxed,
competition among regions and their enterprises became possible, and economic
oligarchy was avoided. Perhaps most importantly, although political reforms were
implemented over time, the state and the ruling party remained intact throughout the
reforms, so China could focus on the economic and social transition.
In contrast, most of the other transition countries were middle income, highly urbanized
and industrialized, and had experienced more than 40 years and sometimes 70 years of
collectivization and state planning. They were highly specialized in production structure
Figure 1: China’s economic development 1978-2016
 Figure 1 (Continued): China’s economic development 1978-2016

and integrated in the COMECOM, with heavy concentration of industry in often

monopolistic enterprises. The gradual reforms initiated in the system, first in Hungary and
later in the Soviet Union had met with only limited success, especially in the latter country.
Reforms started under conditions of large macroeconomic imbalances and a large
monetary overhang so price liberalization led to an almost immediate and disruptive jump
in inflation, which eroded people’s savings. But the biggest difference with China was
undoubtedly the collapse of the political systems throughout much of the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, which made a gradual transition of the economic system, if at
all feasible, virtually impossible for most. And for some, notably countries in eastern
Europe, a new economic system was swiftly found in the EU, to which most of them have
now acceded. This adoption of a ready-made economic system eliminated the need for
a search for institutions that fit the individual country. Though perhaps less than fully
suited for the middle-income transition countries, the EU framework offered stability and
a clearly specified reform path. As a result, the transition recession for those that aspired
to accede the EU was short, and most are now thriving high income countries.
How did China Reform?
Gradual Reforms. Reforms in China developed only gradually, starting in the rural areas
with the household responsibility system and township and village enterprises, and some
initial steps to open up the economy to foreign trade and investment, which only started
to play a significant role in the 1990s. Gradual also were the moves on the financial sector
and State Owned Enterprise (SOE) reform, which were much discussed throughout the
1980s but gained momentum only in the mid‐1990s. “Crossing the river by feeling the
stones” became China’s mode of economic reform, implementing partial reforms in an
experimental manner, often starting in a few regions, and expanding them upon proven
success. Only with the 1993 Decisions of the CPC Central Committee on Some Issues
Concerning the Establishment of a Socialist Market Economic Structure did a broader
overall strategy emerge. Yet, this, too, was implemented gradually and experimentally
rather than comprehensively. I recall one of my first visits to Chongqing (then a
municipality in Sichuan province) to study the pilot implementation of the Value Added
Tax, something which World Bank staff (including yours truly) could hardly imagine being
possible. But it worked and helped prepare for nationwide roll-out.
There were several reasons for this gradual approach to reforms. First, gradualism was a
means to circumvent political resistance against reforms (Wu 2005). While, as mentioned,
the political ideology of class struggle of the Cultural Revolution had been put to rest after
Mao’s death, many in the communist party retained a deep suspicion against the market,
and instead trusted the “administrative” system (including the Party) more. Gewirtz (2017)
provides a lively account of these ideological battles in the early days of reform and how
foreign advisors (including the World Bank) played a role in this. Second, gradual,
experimental reform was a pragmatic approach in a heavily distorted environment in
which “first best” solutions were unlikely to apply. Experimental reforms, confined to
specific regions or sectors, allowed the authorities to gather information on the effects of
reforms that could not be anticipated. They were also necessary to develop and test the
administrative procedures and complementary policies needed to implement the reforms.
With proven success, the experiment could be expanded to other regions and sectors.
Third, experimental reform may have suited the Chinese culture well as a means to avoid
loss of face: if an experiment did not work, it could be abandoned as an experiment,
rather than considered a policy failure. China’s gradual strategy reinforced the credibility
of reform over time. By making reforms one step at a time, and starting with those most
likely to deliver results, the government built up its reputation for delivering on reform.
With every successful reform, the likelihood that the next one would be a success as well
undoubtedly increased. It also gradually built up the experience and skills for the design
and implementation of reforms. Thus, by gradually reforming, China built up its “reform”
capital.
Decentralization and Incentives. Decentralization to local government became a
powerful tool for progress within the confines of central political guidance. The provinces
and local governments received increasing authority over investment approvals, fiscal
resources, and policies. Provinces, municipalities and even counties were allowed, even
encouraged, to experiment with reforms in specific areas, and successful experiments
then became official policy and were quickly adopted throughout the country. In a way,
by decentralizing, China turned the country into a laboratory for reforms. The fiscal
system and the political organization within the party were key in aligning subnational
government incentives with that of the center. The fiscal reforms introduced in 1980,
which became known as “Eating from Separate Kitchens,” formed a de facto tax
contracting system, with high revenue retention rates for local governments, in particular
for those local governments that were set for growth. For instance, Guangdong province
only had to pay a lump sum in revenues to the central government, and could retain 100
percent of the rest. This distributed the benefits of reforms to a large part of the
population as well as to local government and party officials, who therefore had strong
incentives to pursue growth and promote a market economy (Qian and Weingast 1997).

Within the party, the personnel promotion system was largely based on achieving growth.
The dominant criteria for promotion were growth itself, creation of employment,
attraction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), control of social unrest, and achievement
of birth control targets. Four out of these five were closely aligned with GDP growth.
Experience in the regions also counted heavily in the promotion to higher‐level party
posts, which provided the most talented with the incentives to gain that experience, and
to demonstrate their capacity to reform and spur growth. Taken together, this
environment provided a strong incentive for growth. A disadvantage was imperfect
macroeconomic control and repeated bouts of inflation driven by local government
loosening of investment and credit controls. Further, these conditions gave rise to local
protectionism, which threatened to undermine China’s unified market and competition
among domestic firms. When in 1992 reforms regained momentum after the 1989-91
retrenchment, and inflation reemerged, the agenda became one of centralization of
policies, with major effects on macroeconomic conditions. The fiscal and financial reforms
that followed were aimed at creating the tools for macroeconomic management in a
market economy.

Pragmatism and Transitional Institutions. China’s approach to reforms provided the

room for the country’s own particular institutions to emerge, which suited the country’s
purposes well at any given point on its reform path. The “dual track” system for growing
out of the planned economy was the preeminent of all transitional institutions. It allowed
a continuation of the planning system at planned prices, which avoided the collapse of
production, but at the margin the system allowed a nonplanned economy to emerge. This
also provided the information needed to gradually reform within-plan prices in such a
way that by the time of the abolition of most material planning in the mid‐1990s, plan
and outside‐plan prices had been largely aligned. Similarly, the de facto fiscal contracting
system installed after 1980 gave strong incentives for growth to subnational governments
by leaving much of the incremental revenues in the provinces. The growing control over
resources by local officials provided them with the incentives to pursue the reforms and
attract the investments needed to promote growth. The price, though, was a growing
loss of macroeconomic control, and when inflation became the dominant concern in the
early 1990s, the system was replaced by a more mainstream tax sharing system, although
not without a considerable political struggle led by then-Vice Premier Zhu Rongji.

Perhaps the most successful example of a transitional institution was the Township and
Village Enterprise (TVE), an enterprise form that operated outside the plan, but which was
owned and to some extent managed by local governments across rural China. Born out
of the Collective Production Brigades, these enterprises were highly successful in
expanding production and creating employment, even though their ownership form was
far from the private ownership that standard theory predicted would work best. However,
as argued in Qian and Wu (2003), in an environment where private property was in many
circles frowned upon and hardly protected by law, creating an ownership form that
aligned the interests of the local government with that of the enterprise was crucial for
its emergence and survival. Although perhaps not the most efficient ownership form
imaginable, it was a feasible one, one that was more efficient than the prevailing State
Enterprises, and as such it increased the efficiency of the economy as a whole. As
protection of property rights improved, the success of the TVEs started to falter, and in
the last decade they have been overtaken by private and foreign‐invested companies as
the main source of growth and job creations. Increasingly, TVEs are being turned into
private companies.

Institutionalization of Reforms. Of importance to other countries that aspire to reform,

in China the study and formulation of reforms and new policies was institutionalized itself.
Starting with the China Academy of Social Sciences in the early days of reforms—the only
place in which the study of “western” economics had continued throughout the cultural
revolution—a variety of think tanks sprang up to study and promote reforms. Among the
most influential was the Development Research Center (DRC) of the State Council, a policy
research organization directly under the cabinet, which provided a continued stream of
inputs for reforms. In recent years, the DRC has been a partner of the World Bank, among
others in the China 2030 (2013) and Urban China (2014) studies. Today, the Center for
Knowledge for International Development under the DRC, founded in 2017, is tasked with
studying China’s reform experience to make it accessible and digestible for other
countries. Another highly influential body was the Systems Reform Commission (SRC)
(formally the State Commission for the Reform of the Economic System), whose very task
was to propose reforms in the system. The DRC and SRC, while government organizations,
were set up to provide China’s leadership with options for reforms in the economic
system and economic policy. Not burdened by institutional interests like many traditional
government departments, these organizations became the source of many of the reforms
undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s.

Where next?

I think it is helpful to analytically distinguish three phases of reforms. At Fudan University,

I called them: Market Seeking reforms, roughly from 1978 to 1993; Market Building
reforms from 1993 to around 2003; and Market Enhancing reforms from about 2003
onwards.
In the first phase, there was a genuine search for the right economic institutions for China.
In part driven by politics, experiments and decentralized initiative, China was searching
for ways to allow more market into its system. Informed by reforms in Eastern Europe
under communism, reforms concentrated largely on microeconomics, to some extent
with a neglect of macroeconomics, and the highly volatile growth rate in the 1980s bears
witness to that. After the retrenchment, Deng Xiaoping’s tour through the south makes
clear that market reforms were there to stay.
The Decisions of the 3rd Plenum of the 14th Party Congress in 1993 triggered the second
phase by laying out a comprehensive plan to build the institutions for a market-driven
economy—including a modern tax system, enterprise reforms, and a financial system that
separated policy banks from commercial banking. The start of serious SOE reforms in the
mid-1990s allowed those commercial banks to indeed become commercial, and housing
and (urban) social security reforms followed. Entry in the WTO not only served as a lever
for those domestic reforms, but also ensured much greater competition on the goods
market. The slashing of import tariffs made China far more competitive in exports, as well
as a viable platform for final assembly for much of the Asia-based exports hitherto
produced elsewhere.

Figure 2

In my view, the inclusion of private property in the constitutions concluded the market
building phase. This phase—the Zhu Rongji years if you like—can be seen as years in
which the state retrenched and left increasing room for the market. Perhaps the best
indicator for this was the explosion of private investment in the economy, which
increased its share in the economy from less than 2 percent in 1992 to some 15 percent
by 2003 (granted, some of this was due to a reclassification of collective enterprises as
private). In 1999, government also consolidated all the industry-related ministries into
the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
Since then, reforms have focused on what I would call enhancing the market. The two
main ingredients of this are a gradual expansion (or, if you want rebuilding) of the social
safety net (pensions, health care, welfare), notably after the Harmonious Society became
the goal of State Policy after 2006. Second, we have seen a return of Industrial policy as
noted by Ling and Naughton (2016). As Ling and Naughton argued, “techno-industrial
policy” never left, but had been on the defense after 1978, only to re-emerge after Zhu
Rongji left office. Perhaps to signify a new phase, the Systems Reform Commission was
merged with the State Development Planning Commission in 2003, to form the National
Development and Reform Commission. With the publication of the Medium-Term
Strategy for Science and Technology and initiation of the 16 Megaprojects (both 2006),
industrial policy returned to the forefront. This has since then been amplified with the
5th plenum of the 14th Party Congress (on productivity and innovation), the 13th Five Year
Plan and the Manufacturing 2025 Strategy (2015). This return of industrial policy in the
economy was supercharged by the global financial crisis, which China countered with a
large domestic stimulus, and which gave ample resources for central and local
government to pursue those policies. State banks and SOEs were called to task to serve
as instruments to implement this policy. Though the 3rd Plenum of the 18th Party Congress
in 2014 assured that the market should play a “decisive role” in the allocation of
production factors, it also pledges adherence to the “basic economic system” with public
ownership playing a dominant role in the economy.
The 19th Party Congress and General Secretary Xi Jinping’s report confirms these policy
directions: market-based allocation, a dominant role for public ownership, and a strong
emphasis on industrial policies and science and technology to achieve the goals of the
“first phase of the New Era (2020-2035)” namely socialist modernization. Interestingly,
“Socialist Modernization” was also what Deng Xiaoping envisioned when he set out for
reforms in 1978—and he saw the “Four Modernizations” (of industry, agriculture,
national defense and science and technology), which go back to Zhou Enlai, who
formulated these first in 1963. With the New Era, China seems to have found its distinct
own economic system, with markets and state ownership living side by side, and with
industrial policies guiding the market. No doubt did the global financial crisis contribute
to the idea that a western model of market economy was not the panacea for China’s
economic development. China’s current economic system has its own complexities and
issues—both internal to China and in the international arena. It also is too early to tell
whether this system will best serve China in achieving its 2 centennial goals, and how the
balance between state and market will shape up in the years to come. Irrespective, those
who believed that by “crossing the river” China would reach a familiar river bank on the
other side--a market economy not that different from the many varieties found in OECD
countries—would need to think again.
Sources
Bottelier, Pieter (forthcoming), Economic Policy Making in China (1949-2016); the Role of
Economists,” Routledge.

Gewirtz, Julian (2017), Unlikely Partners, Chinese Reformers, Western Economists, and the
Making of Global China Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hofman, Bert and Jinglian Wu (2009) Explaining China’s Development and Reforms,
Commission on Growth and Development Working Paper No. 50.
Ling, Chen and Barry Naughton (2016) An institutionalized policy-making mechanism: China’s
return to techno-industrial policy Research Policy 45, pp. 2138-52.

Naughton, Barry (1995) Growing out of the Plan: Chinese Economic Reforms 1978–1993,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Naughton, Barry (2006) The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge
MA.

Qian, Yingyi and Jinglian Wu, 2005, Transformation in China, paper presented at the 14th World
Congress, the International Economic Association Marrakech, Morocco, August.

Qian, Yingyi and Weingast, Barry (1997) ‘Federalism as a commitment to preserving market
incentives’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 83–92.

Wu, Jinglian. 2005. Understanding and Interpreting Chinese Economic Reforms.

Singapore: Texere Press, Thomson‐South Western.
 Annex 1: 40 Major Reform Steps in China 1978-2017
Year Reform Step
1978 Deng Xiaoping’s speech at the Central Party Work Conference “Emancipate the Mind, Seek
Truth from Facts and Unite as One in Looking to the Future”
1978 Communiqué” of the third central party Committee (CPC) plenum of the 11 th party congress
confirming “four modernizations” as the major goal for reforms
1979 “Open door” policy initiated, foreign trade and investment reforms begin. Law on Joint
Venture Companies passed.
1979 Limited official encouragement of household responsibility system, informally initiated in
1976
1979 Three specialized banks separated from the People’s Bank (the central bank).
1980 First 4 special economic zones created
1980 “Eating from Separate Kitchens” reforms in intergovernmental fiscal relations
1984 Socialist Commodity Economy endorsed at the 3rd Plenum of the 12th Party Congress
1984 Individual enterprises with less than 8 employees officially allowed
1984 Tax for Profit reforms of SOEs
1986 Provisional bankruptcy law passed for SOEs
1986 CPC approved a comprehensive “Economic System Reform Implementation Plan”
1987 Contract responsibility system introduced in SOEs
1989 Retrenchment policy, halt on reforms
1990 Stock exchange started in Shenzhen, Shanghai
1992 Deng Xiaoping’s “Tour through the South” reignites reforms
1993 16 point program introduced to fight inflation
1993 Decision of the third plenum of the 14th party congress to establish a “socialist market
economy” paving way for fiscal, financial, SOE reforms
1994 RMB convertible for current account transactions announced
1994 Tax Sharing System Reforms introduced,
1994 Policy banks established, commercialization of banking system announced
1995 Central Bank Law, Banking Law, Budget Law enacted
1995 5th Plenum of the 13th Party Congress confirms SOEs reform plans to “grab the big, let go of
the small”
1996 China in compliance with IMF Article VIII (current account convertibility).
1999 Urban housing reforms initiated. Practically all of the housing stock privatized.
1999 Government reforms consolidate industry-related ministries and institutes.
2001 China’s accession to WTO
2001 10th Five year plan emphasizes efficiency, structural change, industrial upgrading
2003 State Commission for the Restructuring of the Economic System merged with SPC to create
NDRC.
2003 3rd CPC plenum of the 16th party congress, decision to “perfect” the socialist market economy
2004 Constitution amended to guarantee private property rights
2005 Construction Bank, Bank of China Initial Public Offerings
2006 6th CPC plenum of the 16th party congress establishes the goal of “Harmonious Society”
2006 Medium Term Plan for Science and Technology approved
2008 Stimulus program launched in reaction to the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers, Global
Financial Crisis
2013 12th Five Year Plan launched, emphasizing rebalancing and avoiding middle income trap
2014 3rd Plenum of the 18th Party Congress decides on Decisive Role of the Market in Resource
Allocation, Adherence to the “Basic Economic System (Dominance of SOEs)
2015 4th Plenum of the 18th Party Congress decides on Rule of Law with Chinese characteristics
2016 13th Five Year Plan Launched emphasizing innovation and productivity as drivers of growth
2017 19th Party Congress defines “New Era” and China’s new long term goals for Modernization
Sources: Hofman, Bert and Jinglian Wu (2007); Pieter Bottelier, forthcoming, China’s Economic
Policies 1940-2016, Jonathan Gewirtz, 2017 Unlikely Partners, Government of China official
documents and publications.