Introduction of Government Guarantees, Constraints of Maintaining Stable Growth and the Expansion Trap of Local Government Debt
Wentao MA,Caoyuan MA
2018-01-01
Abstract:Over the past 30 or more years, local governments in China have played an active role in promoting economic growth while accumulating a huge amount of debt. This study comprehensively assesses the vital role of local government guarantees, which are intended to create stability in economic growth but have led to expansion of local government debt. The focus of the analysis is the effect of local government guarantees on individuals, and it takes into account the characteristics of China (e. g. , fiscal decentralization, regulation of household registration, and its tax-sharing system), extends the local equilibrium analysis to the general equilibrium analysis, switches from a dynamic model based on a single region to a multi-regional dynamic model, and organically combines game theory, comparative static analysis, and numerical simulation. The results show that the impact of guarantees depends not only on the endogenous response to output growth but also on the competition between local governments. When the former dominates, the positive effect of local government guarantees on capital is enhanced, but its negative impact on production efficiency is also deepened, which leads to a decline in output growth and the expansion of local government debt. Under this condition, the economy may enter a negative feedback loop in which strengthening local government guarantees results in the production of more local government guarantees. When the latter dominates, it creates a positive feedback loop between local government guarantee sand economic growth in the region subordinate to the local government, but creates ups and downs in the whole economy and huge fluctuations in local government debt. Thus, the endogenous response of local government guarantees to output growth indicates that local government guarantees simultaneously positively affect capital and negatively affect interest rates;however, it also implies that the central government vertically guarantees the local governments. Quantitatively, shocks produced by local government guarantees maintain the debt of local governments at around 30％ over the long run;this is affected by the response to output growth, the mutual pegging mechanism of local government guarantees, financial decentralization, the control of household registration, and macro-policy instruments. The absence of guarantees may cause a concentrated release of the risk of local government debt, resulting in the risk premium on the debt reaching 50％ in the short term, and over 10％ in five years. The impact of the guarantee on local debt varies with the collocation of various instruments of macro policy. The introduction of any policy instrument will reduce the impact of the guarantee on debt in developed regions. In underdeveloped regions, the introduction of monetary policy can improve the impact of the guarantee on the debt of local government. Furthermore, local guarantees in underdeveloped regions have a stronger response to output growth, and this results in a bigger and faster expansion of local debt than in developed regions. In addition, local government guarantees not only promote the expansion of local government debt, they are also responsible for increases in asset prices, the leveraging process of the finance sector, the low efficiency of enterprises, and the cyclical shortage of money in the interbank market, implying that the debt trap mentioned in the introduction is just a token of the trap of government intervention. The government should weaken its core focus on the stability of economic growth in the framework of macroeconomic regulation and control. The government should speed up fiscal reform and clarify the decision rights and financial rights of the central and local governments. It should make these rights institutionalized and transparent and gradually weaken the local guarantee for individuals by removing the expectation that local governments will be bailed out by the central government. The government should gradually establish macro-policies based on market-oriented tools with minimal administrative interventions.