By the early 21st century much of the above system was in the process of changing, as the role of the central government in managing the economy was reduced and the role of both private initiative and market forces increased. Nevertheless, the government continued to play a dominant role in the urban economy, and its policies on such issues as agricultural procurement still exerted a major influence on performance in the rural sector.
The effective exercise of control over the economy requires an army of bureaucrats and a highly complicated chain of command, stretching from the top down to the level of individual enterprise. The Chinese Communist Party reserves the right to make broad decisions on economic priorities and policies, but the government apparatus headed by the State Council assumes the major burden of running the economy. The State Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance also are concerned with the functioning of virtually the entire economy.
The entire planning process involves considerable consultation and negotiation. The main advantage of including a project in an annual plan is that the raw materials, labour, financial resources, and markets are guaranteed by directives that have the force of law. In fact, however, a great deal of economic activity goes on outside the scope of the detailed plan, and the tendency has been for the plan to become narrower rather than broader in scope.
There are three types of economic activity in China: those stipulated by mandatory planning, those done according to indicative planning (in which central planning of economic outcomes is indirectly implemented), and those governed by market forces. The second and third categories have grown at the expense of the first, but goods of national importance and almost all large-scale construction have remained under the mandatory planning system. The market economy generally involves small-scale or highly perishable items that circulate within local market areas only. Almost every year brings additional changes in the lists of goods that fall under each of the three categories.
Operational supervision over economic projects has devolved primarily to provincial, municipal, and county governments. In addition, enterprises themselves are gaining increased independence in a range of activity. Overall, therefore, the Chinese industrial system contains a complex mixture of relationships. In general, the State Council exercises relatively tight control over resources deemed to be of core importance for the performance of the entire economy. Less-important aspects of the system are devolved to lower levels for detailed decisions and management. In all spheres, moreover, the need to coordinate units that are in different bureaucratic hierarchies produces a great deal of informal bargaining and consensus building.
Although the state controlled agriculture in the 1950s and ’60s, rapid changes were made in the system from the late 1970s. The major vehicles for dictating state priorities—the people’s communes and their subordinate teams and brigades—have been either abolished or vastly weakened. Peasant incentives have been raised both by price increases for state-purchased agricultural products and by permission to sell excess production on a free market. Greater freedom is permitted in the choice of what crops to grow, and peasants are allowed to contract for land that they will work, rather than simply working most of the land collectively. The system of procurement quotas (fixed in the form of contracts) is being phased out, although the state can still buy farm products and control surpluses in order to affect market conditions.
Economic policies
The First Five-Year Plan (1953–57) emphasized rapid industrial development, partly at the expense of other sectors of the economy. The bulk of the state’s investment was channeled into the industrial sector, while agriculture, which occupied more than four-fifths of the economically active population, was forced to rely on its own meagre capital resources for a substantial part of its fund requirements. Within industry, iron and steel, electric power, coal, heavy engineering, building materials, and basic chemicals were given first priority; in accordance with Soviet practice, the aim was to construct large, sophisticated, and highly capital-intensive plants. A great many of the new plants were built with Soviet technical and financial assistance, and heavy industry grew rapidly.
As the Second Five-Year Plan—which resembled its predecessor—got under way in 1958, the policy of the Great Leap Forward was announced. In agriculture this involved forming communes, abolishing private plots, and increasing output through greater cooperation and greater physical effort. In industry the construction of large plants was to continue, but it was to be supplemented by a huge drive to develop small industry, making use of a large number of small, simple, locally built and locally run plants. A spectacular drop in agricultural production ensued. Meanwhile, the indiscriminate backyard production drive failed to achieve the desired effects and yielded large quantities of expensively produced substandard goods. These difficulties were aggravated when Soviet aid and technicians were withdrawn. By late 1960 the country faced an economic crisis of the first order.
The authorities responded with a complete about-face in policy. Private plots were restored, the size of the communes was reduced, and greater independence was given to the production team. There was also a mass transfer of the unemployed industrial workers to the countryside, and industrial investment was temporarily slashed in order to free resources for farm production. The agricultural situation improved immediately, and by 1963 some resources were being redirected to the capital goods industry.
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution began in 1966, but, unlike the Great Leap, it did not have an explicit economic philosophy. Nevertheless, industrial production was badly affected by the ensuing decade of confusion and strife, which also left some difficult legacies for the Chinese economy. In industry, wages were frozen and bonuses canceled. Combined with the policies of employing more workers than necessary to soak up unemployment and of never firing workers once hired, this action essentially eliminated incentives to work hard. In addition, technicians and many managers lost their authority and could not play an effective role in production in the wake of the movement. Overall output continued to grow, but capital-to-output ratios declined. In agriculture, per capita output in 1977 was no higher than in 1957.
Rural economic reform initiated after Mao Zedong began with major price increases for agricultural products in 1979. By 1981 the emphasis had shifted to breaking up collectively tilled fields into land that was contracted out to private families to work. During that time the size of private plots (land actually owned by individuals) was increased, and most restrictions on selling agricultural products in free markets were lifted. In 1984 much longer-term contracts for land were encouraged (generally 15 years or more), and the concentration of land through subleasing of parcels was made legal. In 1985 the government announced that it would dismantle the system of planned procurements with state-allocated production quotas in agriculture. Peasants who had stopped working the land were encouraged to find private employment in the countryside or in small towns. They did not obtain permission to move to major cities, however.
The basic thrusts of urban economic reform were toward integrating China more fully with the international economy; making enterprises responsible for their profits and losses; reducing the state’s role in directing, as opposed to guiding, the allocation of resources; shifting investment away from the metallurgical and machine-building industries and toward light and high-technology industries, while retaining an emphasis on resolving the energy, transportation, and communications bottlenecks; creating material incentives for individual effort and a consumer ethos to spur people to work harder; rationalizing the pricing structure; and putting individuals into jobs for which they have specialized training, skills, or talents. At the same time, the state has permitted a private sector to develop and has allowed it to compete with state firms in a number of service areas and, increasingly, in such larger-scale operations as construction.