1. Text: | Print|

      Overcapacity obsession

      2013-08-19 09:22 China Daily Web Editor: qindexing
      1

      The market rather than the government should determine which iron and steel enterprises are to close down

      The elimination of iron and steel overproduction has been a key part of a campaign the government launched in 2010 to promote its long-overdue industrial structural adjustment.

      That the government decides which steel enterprises will be retained and which are to be closed down shows that China still uses administrative means to decide the fate of its steel enterprises.

      But what are the effects of this?

      According to recent data from the China Iron and Steel Association, from 2006 to 2012, China reduced 76 million tons of crude steel production much less than the additional 440 million tons of crude steel manufactured during the same period. As the construction of some iron and steel enterprises is still under way, China is expected to witness an additional 110 million tons of iron production and 130 million tons of steel production over the next three years.

      The government should reflect on the use of administrative means to reduce overcapacity in the iron and steel sector, as it simply results in "the more measures, the greater the capacity". Instead, it should let market mechanisms break what has become a vicious circle.

      From the perspective of market competition, some overcapacity is not inevitably a bad thing, given that moderate overproduction will not only increase the pressure on enterprises to introduce technological innovations, it will also provide the motivation for industrial upgrading. With excessive capacity in the market, all enterprises will have to promote technological innovations and structural upgrading to ensure that they can improve the quality of their products or develop new products to sharpen their competitiveness edge and raise their return ratio.

      According to data published by the United States Federal Reserve, the rate of industrial capacity utilization in the US was 74.2 percent in 2008 and its industrial capacity increased by 40.7 percent from 2002 to 2008. However, its actual industrial production increased by just 4.4 percent during the same period.

      In comparison, China's actual steel manufacturing capacity was 976 million tons by the end of 2012, compared with its actual crude steel production of 731 million tons, a 74.9 percent rate of capacity utilization. These indicate that the US' industrial excess capacity during the global financial crisis was even more prominent than it is in China today.

      A moderate degree of overcapacity is not a cause for concern. But, compared with the government, the market is more sensitive to where the overcapacity line lies. It has become common in China for the government to put a strict ban on the start of new projects and work out a list of enterprises to close down in order to reduce overcapacity. However, the imposition of an indiscriminate ban on new projects will possibly restrict the entry of new technologies.

      Since 2010, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has published several lists of enterprises that are to be eliminated in the power, coal, steel, non-ferrous metals and textile sectors. However, the standards for their elimination are mainly based on whether they are big energy consumers and polluters, or whether they are below a given scale. Eliminating polluting enterprises and those that consume a lot of energy is understandable and desirable, but the elimination of enterprises based on scale is open to discussion, as a small production scale does not inevitably mean low technological and management levels.

      Some local governments, because they want to expand the local gross domestic product to project their performance, make enterprises bigger in order to prevent them from being closed down because the central government deems them too small. As a result, those enterprises with overcapacity prefer to ponder how to expand their scale rather than working hard for industrial upgrading. These remain the biggest obstacle to the market-based reduction of overcapacity. International practices also indicate that the use of administrative means to deal with overcapacity will not have any substantial effect.

      To increase or reduce excess capacity, market-based means are desperately needed, such as mergers or reorganization among the enterprises themselves, to let those with a sharp edge thrive and drive out the less competitive ones.

      What the government should do now is to create a good environment for market competition and give the market a bigger role in the distribution of resources and the national structural adjustments. It should refrain from acting as a judge to decide which enterprises should be eliminated and which ones retained.

      The author is a professor and Chen Jinbao a researcher at the School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Science and Technology.

      Comments (0)
      Most popular in 24h
        Archived Content
      Media partners:

      Copyright ©1999-2018 Chinanews.com. All rights reserved.
      Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

      主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲国产欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲乱码一二三四五六区| 亚洲欧美黑人猛交群| 2020因为爱你带字幕免费观看全集 | 国产亚洲精品a在线观看app| 一级毛片免费播放男男| 亚洲人成色77777在线观看大 | 亚洲AV无码专区国产乱码4SE| 国产免费人成视频在线播放播 | 国产国产人免费人成成免视频| 亚洲av中文无码| 国产线视频精品免费观看视频| 国产亚洲人成网站在线观看不卡 | 久久伊人免费视频| 亚洲美免无码中文字幕在线| 97在线线免费观看视频在线观看| 亚洲娇小性色xxxx| 国产高清在线免费视频| 国产精品永久免费视频| 亚洲精品高清视频| 天天摸天天操免费播放小视频| 国产精品亚洲一区二区三区| 中文字幕亚洲无线码a| 最近中文字幕完整版免费高清| 77777午夜亚洲| 亚洲高清国产拍精品青青草原| 中文字幕看片在线a免费| 亚洲福利一区二区三区| 午夜无遮挡羞羞漫画免费| 免费手机在线看片| 亚洲专区在线视频| 日韩精品无码人妻免费视频| 精品国产免费一区二区三区| 亚洲熟妇无码久久精品| 免费观看午夜在线欧差毛片 | 成年女人午夜毛片免费看| 天堂亚洲免费视频| 亚洲A∨无码一区二区三区| 免费看大黄高清网站视频在线| 中文字幕无码毛片免费看| 亚洲伦理中文字幕|