Once again Chinese common sense, practicality comes to the fore, this 15th iteration of the atypical 5 year plan will undoubtedly cement China as the pre-eminent global superpower with growth domestically driven, woe and betide nascent or worse corrupt officials implementing this agenda..
It makes you think, seriously, this will be by its end 75years of strict Chinese planning, look at what has been achieved in that time frame, from whence they began following the century of humiliation that accounted for a large swathe and part of that 75 years duration, comparittive the Western established economies that have regressed spectacularly during the same period, indeed, much of China’s rise to where she presently finds herself is directly attributed to Western laissez faire and an greed obsessed attitude as they pillaged and plundered their own economies offshoring much of what sustained China’s growth.. the real tell tale, China has since offshored much of those earlier industrial roles to the Vietnams, Myanmars, Thailands, Bangladeshis etc.. in the process lifting them up economically and creating markets for their products in tech, High Tech etc..
Seems China’s future is assured, I wouldn’t bet against them, they have the com0lete package, Education, Military, Governance, Contented populace despite narratives stating otherwise which is all Western wishful thinking borne of jealousy and the realisation, they have been found out, left in China’s wake.. China is a high tech economy more so than the U.S, Western economies, most assuredly it is safe, enjoys a rule of law westerners would salivate over, a system more equanimous that Western jurisprudence that has morphed into a multi tiered justice system, its streets are safe, infrastructure is first class.. environment is now cleaner than most, it has the highest clean energy use of any state in the World, generates more power than most, doing so by spades…hardly surprising all the West can do is malign, denigrate, deride China’s growth, her future and successes… t8me they got over themselves
One piece of data you cite may be misleading. You write that, according to an OECD analysis released in 2026, around 60 percent of Chinese firms’ gains in global market share between 2005 and 2023 came from government subsidies rather than productivity improvements, and that Chinese firms received three to eight times more subsidies than competitors in OECD economies. I have studied that OECD report, and my reading is that it applies different standards to different countries: subsidies in Western economies are often treated as legitimate industrial policy, climate policy, defense policy, or innovation support, while similar Chinese policies are framed as distortionary. This double standard is exactly what the Chinese government has repeatedly objected to. As I argued in my recent essay, everyone subsidizes. The United States subsidizes massively and the most in terms of subsidies compared with industrial output value. Europe subsidizes. Japan and Korea subsidize. But China is often singled out as if subsidies themselves were uniquely Chinese. At that point, the issue becomes less an objective economic measurement and more a political narrative about which countries are allowed to conduct industrial policy.
Excellent insights on the connection between “national unified market" construction and Chinanomics 3.0.
In terms of commodity circulation, cross-provincial employment, manufacturing supply chains, logistics networks, platform e-commerce, and industrial ecosystems, China has long been one of the most integrated large national markets in the world. In many respects, its internal market functions more smoothly than those of the United States, the European Union, or India.
So when Beijing now speaks of building a “national unified market,” the goal is not to create a national market from scratch. The real objective is deeper: to build an institutionally unified national market, with unified rules, unified regulation, unified factor pricing, clearer boundaries for local government behavior, unified public resource transactions, and more integrated data and energy markets.
My understanding and observation is that the key problems it seeks to address include:
On the surface, firms can certainly invest in other provinces. But if a local government creates hidden barriers through approvals, qualifications, filings, subsidy conditions, procurement requirements, or local standards, the market is not truly unified.
Tendering and bidding, property-rights transactions, data interfaces, platform rules, and information disclosure are still not fully unified or interconnected across regions.
A fully national electricity trading center has not yet taken shape, and oil and gas pipeline infrastructure is still not sufficiently interconnected or fairly open.
The same product, service, corporate qualification, or testing result may not be equally recognized across different provinces and regulatory systems. Quality certification, standards, inspection, and testing systems are still not fully unified.
Local protectionism, market segmentation, designated transactions, and policies that discriminate against foreign-invested firms or firms from other provinces still exist.
Standards for administrative penalties are not consistent. Under fiscal pressure, some local governments may affect business operations through fines, seizures, asset freezes, cross-regional enforcement, or the use of criminal procedures in commercial disputes.
A nationally unified secondary market for the transfer, leasing, and mortgage of construction land-use rights has not yet been fully established.
There is still work to do on direct settlement of medical insurance for cross-provincial treatment, cross-regional sharing and mutual recognition of medical test and examination results, and platform interoperability — for example, Tmall allowing WeChat Pay, or JD.com integrating Alipay.
Some local governments still offer excessive concessions in investment promotion. Local platform companies, industrial funds, and government procurement orders can jointly create local closed loops. Firms may face obstacles when moving into or out of certain localities. Local subsidies may still be tied to local registration, local output value, or local procurement.
One of the issues with local and provincial development has been a buildup of debt that doesn't really have a dedicated means of being paid off. This may require a shift in internal revenue distribution along with verification of accounting. The EU has a somewhat similar problem in having a currency union but lacking a fiscal union. Various local debts can't be centrally managed. However the local/national issues are managed may be a good example for Canada to follow, given their levels of local angst.
Once again Chinese common sense, practicality comes to the fore, this 15th iteration of the atypical 5 year plan will undoubtedly cement China as the pre-eminent global superpower with growth domestically driven, woe and betide nascent or worse corrupt officials implementing this agenda..
It makes you think, seriously, this will be by its end 75years of strict Chinese planning, look at what has been achieved in that time frame, from whence they began following the century of humiliation that accounted for a large swathe and part of that 75 years duration, comparittive the Western established economies that have regressed spectacularly during the same period, indeed, much of China’s rise to where she presently finds herself is directly attributed to Western laissez faire and an greed obsessed attitude as they pillaged and plundered their own economies offshoring much of what sustained China’s growth.. the real tell tale, China has since offshored much of those earlier industrial roles to the Vietnams, Myanmars, Thailands, Bangladeshis etc.. in the process lifting them up economically and creating markets for their products in tech, High Tech etc..
Seems China’s future is assured, I wouldn’t bet against them, they have the com0lete package, Education, Military, Governance, Contented populace despite narratives stating otherwise which is all Western wishful thinking borne of jealousy and the realisation, they have been found out, left in China’s wake.. China is a high tech economy more so than the U.S, Western economies, most assuredly it is safe, enjoys a rule of law westerners would salivate over, a system more equanimous that Western jurisprudence that has morphed into a multi tiered justice system, its streets are safe, infrastructure is first class.. environment is now cleaner than most, it has the highest clean energy use of any state in the World, generates more power than most, doing so by spades…hardly surprising all the West can do is malign, denigrate, deride China’s growth, her future and successes… t8me they got over themselves
Just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
One piece of data you cite may be misleading. You write that, according to an OECD analysis released in 2026, around 60 percent of Chinese firms’ gains in global market share between 2005 and 2023 came from government subsidies rather than productivity improvements, and that Chinese firms received three to eight times more subsidies than competitors in OECD economies. I have studied that OECD report, and my reading is that it applies different standards to different countries: subsidies in Western economies are often treated as legitimate industrial policy, climate policy, defense policy, or innovation support, while similar Chinese policies are framed as distortionary. This double standard is exactly what the Chinese government has repeatedly objected to. As I argued in my recent essay, everyone subsidizes. The United States subsidizes massively and the most in terms of subsidies compared with industrial output value. Europe subsidizes. Japan and Korea subsidize. But China is often singled out as if subsidies themselves were uniquely Chinese. At that point, the issue becomes less an objective economic measurement and more a political narrative about which countries are allowed to conduct industrial policy.
https://leonliao.substack.com/p/why-the-wests-subsidy-accusation?r=731anr
Excellent insights on the connection between “national unified market" construction and Chinanomics 3.0.
In terms of commodity circulation, cross-provincial employment, manufacturing supply chains, logistics networks, platform e-commerce, and industrial ecosystems, China has long been one of the most integrated large national markets in the world. In many respects, its internal market functions more smoothly than those of the United States, the European Union, or India.
So when Beijing now speaks of building a “national unified market,” the goal is not to create a national market from scratch. The real objective is deeper: to build an institutionally unified national market, with unified rules, unified regulation, unified factor pricing, clearer boundaries for local government behavior, unified public resource transactions, and more integrated data and energy markets.
My understanding and observation is that the key problems it seeks to address include:
On the surface, firms can certainly invest in other provinces. But if a local government creates hidden barriers through approvals, qualifications, filings, subsidy conditions, procurement requirements, or local standards, the market is not truly unified.
Tendering and bidding, property-rights transactions, data interfaces, platform rules, and information disclosure are still not fully unified or interconnected across regions.
A fully national electricity trading center has not yet taken shape, and oil and gas pipeline infrastructure is still not sufficiently interconnected or fairly open.
The same product, service, corporate qualification, or testing result may not be equally recognized across different provinces and regulatory systems. Quality certification, standards, inspection, and testing systems are still not fully unified.
Local protectionism, market segmentation, designated transactions, and policies that discriminate against foreign-invested firms or firms from other provinces still exist.
Standards for administrative penalties are not consistent. Under fiscal pressure, some local governments may affect business operations through fines, seizures, asset freezes, cross-regional enforcement, or the use of criminal procedures in commercial disputes.
A nationally unified secondary market for the transfer, leasing, and mortgage of construction land-use rights has not yet been fully established.
There is still work to do on direct settlement of medical insurance for cross-provincial treatment, cross-regional sharing and mutual recognition of medical test and examination results, and platform interoperability — for example, Tmall allowing WeChat Pay, or JD.com integrating Alipay.
Some local governments still offer excessive concessions in investment promotion. Local platform companies, industrial funds, and government procurement orders can jointly create local closed loops. Firms may face obstacles when moving into or out of certain localities. Local subsidies may still be tied to local registration, local output value, or local procurement.
One of the issues with local and provincial development has been a buildup of debt that doesn't really have a dedicated means of being paid off. This may require a shift in internal revenue distribution along with verification of accounting. The EU has a somewhat similar problem in having a currency union but lacking a fiscal union. Various local debts can't be centrally managed. However the local/national issues are managed may be a good example for Canada to follow, given their levels of local angst.