1/7

Very interesting piece on the gradual and imperfect transition (“GDP adoption in China was an experimental – and ultimately unsuccessful – process of translation”) in China from the Soviet-invented Material Product System (MPS) of accounting for... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2020.1835690
2/7

the size of the economy and its rate of growth to the more widely used System of National Accounts (SNA). For the latter the GDP calculation is the main indicator of aggregate economic production, whereas for the former it is NMP (net material production).
3/7

At the heart of these methods are different ways of measuring what counts as productive activity with, among other things, NMP reporting physical output numbers rather than the value of income flows. More output, not necessarily more value, increases the size of the economy.
4/7

The authors write that “Full adoption of the SNA meant committing to the idea that the economy was driven by the market and economic planning would completely disappear. It implied abandoning material output statistics and developing statistics measuring new...
5/7

concepts as market prices and interest rates.”

Of course economic planning is at the heart of the Chinese economic system: GDP growth in China, for example, is not an output measure of economic activity, as it is in other countries, but rather a target that the...
6/7

economy is required to meet. China’s GDP measure, in other words, is actually a hybrid in which NMP is imposed on top of GDP.

This is why I have long argued that comparing China’s GDP with that of other countries is quite meaningless, although I don’t expect most...
7/7

analysts and journalists to give up the false precision it allows. Recognizing the hybrid nature of China’s GDP measure leaves one without an obvious and easy way to make an objective adjustment.
You can follow @michaelxpettis.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: