Mint Primer: China's economy beats the gloom. Can it do more?
How is the Chinese economy doing?
Despite the disruptions to trade, caused by a trade war with the US that briefly saw Washington impose tariffs running into an unbelievable three digits, China's merchandise exports remained robust. In the first five months of 2025, they have risen by 6%. This, notwithstanding a 35% fall in exports in May to the US—its biggest market. Domestic demand is good, too. Retail sales in the first four months of 2025 grew by 4.8%, a good 1.5 percentage point better than the same period last year. The Purchasing Managers Index for May, released on Monday, showed a marginal improvement in manufacturing activity.
How did China manage this show?
It increased exports by focusing on non-US markets. Exports to India, Brazil, East Asia and Europe rose sharply. The Chinese government has also announced fiscal and monetary stimulus amounting to 1.6% of its GDP in a bid to catalyse domestic demand. This includes subsidies for trading in consumer goods and cuts in the cost of housing loans. Consumption of household appliances and furniture posted double-digit growth in the first four months of this year. Public spending has also increased. This caused infrastructure investments to rise 11.6% in the January-April period compared with 10% last year.
Has China's growth outlook been revised?
Citigroup has raised China's growth estimate for 2025 to 5% from earlier 4.2%. According to the World Bank, China posted 5% growth in 2024. In the first quarter of 2025, its economy grew by 5.4%. That was before the new trade war. The World Bank projects a 4.5% growth for 2025. An upward revision can happen if China's economic show sustains.
What are the risk factors?
There are many. Though the US and China have struck a trade deal, it remains fragile. Many countries are raising their defence against cheap Chinese goods. This could hurt exports. The revival in domestic demand is not broad-based, reflecting weak consumer confidence. Experts attribute this to slower income growth and uncertain job prospects. The property sector crisis looks sticky as home prices continue to decline. Deflationary pressures remain. The economy, experts say, needs more stimulus.
What can Beijing do to improve things?
Apart from a stimulus, economists have called for reforms to address slowing productivity, high debt and an ageing population that are pulling down economic growth. With little healthcare protection and a frayed social safety net, the Chinese hold back on spending when uncertainty increases. For a sustained improvement in household spending, there is a need to direct fiscal resources to improve medical cover and safety net. The property crisis needs a lasting solution as declining home prices hurt consumer sentiment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘India Won't Sign If…'- CII President Warns On India-US Trade Deal, Says ‘Pact Must Be Fair'
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) President Rajiv Memani emphasized that Indian industry supports a fair and balanced US-India trade deal but not at the cost of national interest. He warned that without a deal, a 26% tariff could hurt Indian exporters. Memani said industries are ready for any outcome and praised the Indian government's extensive consultations before talks. Stressing that India is under no compulsion to sign, he stated the deal must serve both nations. Indian industry, he said, will only support a Free Trade Agreement if it offers better terms than Trump-era tariffs and enhances India's global competitiveness.#usindiatrade #ciipresident #rajivmemani #fairdeal #fta #indiatradepolicy #exporttariff #bilateraltrade #makeinindia #toi #toibharat Read More
Mint
32 minutes ago
- Mint
India-US trade deal: Industries prepared for trade talks outcome, national interest in focus, says CII President
India-US trade deal: The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) President Rajiv Memani on Sunday emphasised that the Indian industries are prepared for any outcome which is proposed after the bilateral trade talks between the United States and India. Memani also said that industries will not pursue deals that are likely to compromise the national interest. The Indian government consulted industry stakeholders before entering trade negotiations with the United States. 'The Indian government has given considerable time to understand industry concerns, issues and opportunities. Every industry, every size of industry has been consulted to understand how India should be positioned,' reported news agency quoting CII President. He added that India is not compelled to conclude the trade deal with the US at any cost until the deal is in the interest of both nations. 'There is no doubt that India will only do this deal when it is in India's interest and America's interest. Until it is not in the interest of both countries, this deal will not happen. There is no compulsion in this regard,' Memani said. The CII President also pointed out that Indian industries will only support the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) if it offers them favourable terms compared to those of the other countries affected by the Trump tariffs. 'The 26% tariff that has been imposed will come down, and industry will get opportunities to operate there. We will remain more competitive compared to other countries,' said Memani. Acknowledging that certain sectors like automotive will face difficulties if the trade deal doesn't provide a suitable outcome, Rajiv Memani highlighted that automakers in Mexico would be the primary beneficiary with the nation's tariffs at a near 0% level, making them the 'most competitive.' 'The maximum alternative replacement will come from Mexico, with some possibility from Vietnam,' he said. Vietnam has a 20% tariff deal with the US, making it 'slightly less competitive' than Mexico compared to India's 26% tariff. The CII chief's assessment cited in the report suggests that the existing trade relationships can harm India's competitiveness. 'Many American companies may also invest in India to export from India. Indian companies will also have to focus on their competitiveness,' he told the news agency, suggesting that the government may need to implement reforms and support measures to help the domestic industries become more competitive in nature. CII President Rajiv Memani also highlighted that India needs an average nominal GDP growth rate of 10% annually to achieve the Viksit Bharat target by 2047. 'India would require an average about 10 per cent nominal growth to achieve the Viksit Bharat vision,' Memani told PTI. The nominal GDP of a nation is the total value of goods and services produced in the nation, determined by measuring the current market prices. This nominal GDP data is without adjusting the values for inflation, unlike real GDP data.
The Wire
40 minutes ago
- The Wire
No, India Is Not the Fourth Most Equal Country. Here's the Real Data
Today, several major Indian newspapers – including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Times of India and The Indian Express – carried a story claiming that India is the fourth most equal country in the world, attributing the finding to a recent World Bank report. This is incorrect: India ranks not four but 176 out of the 216 countries, as of 2019. Let's unpack how this serious misrepresentation came to be. This claim is based on a Press Information Bureau (PIB) release, which gravely misreads a World Bank brief. Unfortunately, multiple media houses ran with the story without any fact-checking or data scrutiny. Here's what the the World Bank Brief says: 'India's consumption-based Gini index improved from 28.8 in 2011–12 to 25.5 in 2022–23, though inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations. In contrast, the World Inequality Database shows income inequality rising from a Gini of 52 in 2004 to 62 in 2023. Wage disparity remains high, with the median earnings of the top 10 percent being 13 times higher than the bottom 10 percent in 2023–24.' The PIB picks out the 25.5 figure – which measures consumption inequality – and uses it to compare India to other equal countries whose rankings are based on income inequality. This is a basic and critical statistical error. Note, the consumption inequality as an index is usually lower than income inequality for countries. This is because the rich save a large part of their income, so consumption, as unequal as it is, at least looks more equal than income. So, when the PIB compares India's consumption Gini of 25.5 with other countries' income Ginis, it's comparing apples to oranges. In fact, the World Bank brief also does not make any such comparisons based on these numbers since they are not comparable, even though PIB seems to claim it does. A fair comparison would either be to compare India's income inequality with other countries' income Ginis, or compare India's consumption inequality with other countries' consumption Ginis – which the World Bank brief does not provide. Screenshot from PIB, where it says 'India Achieves Greater Income Inequality', with a figure right below saying 'Consumption-based Gini Index'. India's Gini index for income inequality, comparable with other countries, is 61 (in 2019 and 2023), according to the world inequality database, and as also stated in the World Bank brief. This inequality has been consistently increasing since the 1990s, placing India as a highly unequal country (the higher the index, higher the inequality). Ranking countries based on how equal they are in terms of the income Gini, we find that India is ranked 176 out of a total of 216 countries in 2019, while its rank was 115 in 2009 – thereby becoming much more unequal, relative to other countries, over time. The wealth inequality Gini index as per the world inequality database for India is even higher, at 75 in 2023 (and 74 in 2019). India's comparison with a few selected countries. India is among the most unequal in the world, alongside Brazil, South Africa. Source: World Inequality Database Let's turn our attention towards comparable consumption inequality figures. First, the World Bank does not compare India's consumption Gini index with any other country. Worse still, the World Bank brief explicitly cautions that India's consumption inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations; specifically it notes 'International poverty estimates for India are derived from the 2011-12 Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES) and the 2022-23 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey, using the modified mixed reference period and a spatially and intertemporally deflated welfare aggregate. Changes in questionnaire design, survey implementation, and sampling in the 2022-23 survey represent improvements but present challenges for making comparisons over time. Moreover, sampling and data limitations suggest that consumption inequality may be underestimated.' And those limitations are substantial. The survey methodology for the 2022-23 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey underwent considerable changes from the earlier 2011-12 CES, making direct comparisons unreliable. This has been widely discussed by Indian economists and statisticians. To make some reasonable comparisons of consumption inequality, we can look at inequality in per capita calorie intake, which also reflects food consumption disparities. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and processed by Our World in Data, we find that India ranked 102nd out of 185 countries in 2019 – a worse position than in 2009, when it ranked 82nd. So, by this measure too, India's relative performance has deteriorated over the past decade. Whichever way one looks at the data, the picture is clear: India is a highly unequal country, and inequality is worsening. The intervention needed for a massive redistribution, including taxing the rich, is urgent. Misreporting this reality is not just misleading – it can be dangerous. When trusted national media outlets reproduce statistical errors without scrutiny, they obscure urgent issues facing the country and downplay the lived realities of millions that we collectively need to address.
