|
on China |
| By: | Gustafsson, Björn (Göteborg University); Li, Shi (Beijing Normal University); Nivorozhkina, Ludmila (Rostov State Economic University) |
| Abstract: | Harmonised microdata show a Gini coefficient for per capita total income of 45.3 percent in China 2002 and 33.6 percent in Russia 2003. A much larger urban to rural income gap in combination with a much smaller proportion of people living in urban areas in China are important reasons for this cross-country difference in inequality. Wage is a more non-equalising income source in China than in Russia. While Russian public transfers reduce income inequality, Chinese public transfers increase income inequality. Cross-country differences in the process of transition are also found to be significant. A relatively large non-agriculture self-employment sector is non-equalising in rural China, but is also narrowing the urban to rural income gap. In contrast to the many cross-country differences revealed, we report income inequality among urban residents in China and in urban Russia to be very similar. |
| Keywords: | income distribution, inequality, China, Russia, public transfers |
| JEL: | D31 P25 P52 |
| Date: | 2010–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp5383&r=cna |
| By: | Nathaniel John Porter; Ashvin Ahuja; Lillian Cheung; Gaofeng Han; Wenlang Zhang |
| Abstract: | Sharp increase in house prices combined with the extraordinary Chinese lending growth during 2009 has led to concerns of an emerging real estate bubble. We find that, for China as a whole, the current levels of house prices do not seem significantly higher than would be justified by underlying fundamentals. However, there are signs of overvaluation in some cities’ mass-market and luxury segments. Unlike advanced economies before 2007-8, prices have tended to correct frequently in China.Given persistently low real interest rates, lack of alternative investment and mortgage-to-GDP trend, rapid property price growth in China has, and will continue to have,a structural driver. |
| Date: | 2010–12–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:imf:imfwpa:10/274&r=cna |
| By: | Sai Ding; Alessandra Guariglia; John Knight |
| Abstract: | This paper addresses the hotly-debated question: do Chinese firms overinvest? A firm-level dataset of 100,000 firms over the period of 2000-07 is employed for this purpose. We initially calculate measures of investment efficiency, which is typically negatively associated with overinvestment. Despite wide disparities across various ownership groups, industries and regions, we find that corporate investment in China has become increasingly efficient over time. However, based on direct measures of overinvestment that we subsequently calculate, we find evidence of overinvestment for all types of firms, even in the most efficient and most profitable private sector. We find that the free cash flow hypothesis provides a good explanation for China’s overinvestment, especially for the private sector, while in the sector, overinvestment is attributable to the poor screening and monitoring of enterprises by banks. |
| Keywords: | Overinvestment, investment efficiency, free cash flow, debt, China |
| JEL: | G31 O16 O53 |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oxf:wpaper:520&r=cna |