2010年11月11日 星期四

Twitter's fairy dust

Start-Ups Follow Twitter, and Become Neighbors

SAN FRANCISCO — When Joe Fernandez, a tech entrepreneur, moved his start-up here last spring, a big goal, he said, was “to be best friends with the Twitter guys.” His theory was that by hanging around with executives at one of the hottest tech companies today, some of the magic could rub off.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

The coveted address of Twitter, 795 Folsom Street.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Joe Fernandez of Klout sees benefits from being in the same building.

And so he snagged an office at 795 Folsom, Twitter’s headquarters in the SoMa neighborhood. There, he has been stalking executives on — where else? — Twitter, to see who is to visit Twitter’s offices. When he finds out, he pounces and “hijacks the meeting,” he said, by asking them to swing by his company, Klout.

By doing that, he has met Robert Scoble, the influential technology blogger, and Steve Rubel, director of insights for the digital division of Edelman, the big public relations firm, and has spotted Kanye West in the lobby on his way to Twitter.

Through elevator and lobby run-ins, he has also forged a close enough relationship with Twitter’s chief executive, Dick Costolo, that Mr. Costolo is helping Klout raiseventure capital. “Now I have his cellphone, and I text him,” Mr. Fernandez said.

Mr. Fernandez is not the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur trying to follow Twitter — literally. Although the beige-and-brown office building at 795 Folsom doesn’t have a gym, a cafeteria, decent iPhone reception or a particularly attractive facade, tech start-ups are jostling to rent offices there. Like middle schoolers drawn to the popular kid’s table in the lunchroom, they are hoping that proximity to Twitter will lead to chance encounters in the elevator, partnerships or an acquisition — or simply that some of Twitter’s fairy dust will land on them.

Twitter moved into the sixth floor late last year, and expanded to the third floor in May. Among the start-ups that have moved in since are Klout, which helps marketers reach influential people on Twitter; Storify, a service for building online articles out of media like Twitter posts; and Liquid Traffic, an online marketing company. All say a top requirement in renting office space was to be near Twitter, which has attracted 175 million users in just a few years.

Several real estate firms that rent space in the building say they have noticed the Twitter allure.

“Our brokers have received a lot of calls about tenants just wanting to be close to Twitter, if not in the building, then nearby in another building, since they’re the new hot company,” said Victoria Burkheimer, vice president of acquisitions at Westcore Properties, which owns 795 Folsom.

Mr. Fernandez and other Twitter admirers see the irony in their desire for personal interactions with Twitter executives when their business is focused on building virtual relationships. “Even though it’s all about tech and the Internet, the real magic of Silicon Valley comes from people being in the same space,” said Burt Herman, co-founder of Storify.

And they may be on to something, said Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the business effects of innovation clusters. Research shows that physical proximity — as close as working in the same building — leads to increased knowledge, productivity, income and employment, he said.

The phenomenon has been observed before — in the songwriting business, at Manhattan’s Brill Building, for instance, and in science, at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. But the draw to be near the cool kid in Silicon Valley may reflect the particular alchemy of business success here — a mysterious combination of timing, luck and the fickle preferences of users. And it may have particular resonance for fast-growing tech start-ups, Mr. Muro said.

“For certain early-stage insights and design matters in a very fast-moving, hot industry, the proximity, even at the room level and the elevator level, is important,” he said.

Mr. Fernandez said he sees a definite payoff, even in more mundane matters. For example, he frequently hops in the elevator to visit Twitter to ask technical questions about the company’s changes to its tools for software developers. “I think the person at the front desk thinks I work there,” he said.

Andy McLoughlin, co-founder of Huddle, which makes workplace collaboration software and moved to the building in July, said, “It’s certainly something that adds to the credibility of the address when you have people coming to see you, and you can say it’s the Twitter building.”

And the Twitter effect means he gets to meet other start-ups that have moved nearby. “The buzz of the area is palpable,” he said.

Roxy Rosen, founder of Liquid Traffic, said her company had been in the building only since September, so had not yet had interactions with Twitter. But, she said, since every company she works with uses Twitter for marketing, as Twitter rolls out tools for businesses, she hopes to have contact. “It’s more likely to happen here,” she said, adding: “It’s a very energetic spot. It makes you feel charged up when you walk in.”

Another lucky office building, 165 University Avenue in Palo Alto, was the early home to tech triumphs like Google, when it employed just six people, PayPal and Logitech. Other start-ups flocked there, too, seeking a little of the sparkle. And demand has increased for office space near Microsoft, Oracle and Facebook, local real estate companies say.

The SoMa neighborhood (SoMa is a contraction of South of Market) has also attracted other hot Web start-ups, including Yelp, Eventbrite and Zynga, the online game maker that just leased a huge building nearby. In the last year, the vacancy rate for big buildings in the area has decreased to 21 percent from 26 percent, and average rent has increased to $32 from $29 a square foot, according to the CAC Group, a commercial real estate firm.

Asked whether Westcore had raised rent to take advantage of the Twitter effect, Ms. Burkheimer laughed and said, “No comment.”

Still, just as the popular middle schooler moves on to high school, hot start-ups turn into big companies. With 300 employees and a rapid pace of hiring, Twitter will outgrow its 62,000 square feet around next spring, Mr. Costolo predicted, and the company will either need to take over new space in the building or move elsewhere.

Mr. Fernandez said he was ready. “We’ve moved past just Twitter; we’re on Facebook now,” he said. “We need to establish our own identity. Right now we feel like we’re in Twitter’s basement like their kid cousin, so it’ll be good.”

Biz Stone, Twitter’s co-founder, said he could understand why the younger start-ups would want to be physically close to his.

“We spent more money than we probably should have as a start-up to make everything feel as cool and pretty as we could, so people wake up in the morning and want to come to work,” Mr. Stone said. “I’m not surprised other companies want to take advantage of all the mojo we put into the place. I would do the same thing.”

QE2 and S&P reaching 1,350?

The intention of QEs, as the Fed spelling it clearly, is to boost core CPI. For the equity market, this equates to PE multiple expansion. QE1 did manage to stabilise CPI for a while. But the Fed considered it inadequate to fight the deflationary forces, hence the launch of a $600 bln QE 2.

The Fed will start purchasing US Treasury debt from Nov. 12 onwards. The rate of purchase will be $5 bln per day, as opposed to the $5 bln per week we have seen since mid-August. Between Nov. 12 and Nov. 19, some $30 bln to $43 bln of liquidity will be injected to the markets, representing about 50 percent of the liquidity ($76 bln) poured by the Fed since mid-August.

If QE2 is to raise core CPI to 2.5 percent, a level consistent with pre-crisis levels, the PE multiple is to increase to its pre-crisis level of 14 times. At 14X forward PE, the S&P should close to 1,350, up 12.5 percent from a current level of 1,200.

Supposedly, company executives and private equity will take advantage of low rates and tight spreads to leverage up companies. Let's see if we'll see increase in dividends, share buybacks, M&As and LBOs.

2010年11月8日 星期一

HFT and the May 6 flash crash

On May 6th 2010, the US markets were thrown into a frenzy as equity prices rocked and rolled from $43 to a cent for Accenture and from $250 to $99,999.99 for Apple.

After almost five months of investigations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a joint report titled "Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6,2010" on the flash crash dated Sept 30.

The SEC reported: "During the 20 minute period between 2:40 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., over 20,000 trades (many based on retail-customer orders) across more than 300 separate securities, including many ETFs, were executed at prices 60% or more away from their 2:40 p.m. prices." What was happening and what caused this massacre of the markets? Everyone initially thought it was cyberattack or the fault of the algorithms of High Frequency Traders (HFT), whose systems control liquidity flows and volumes of staggering proportions. But no! After deep analysis the SEC found that it was actually the fault of a single trade from a large, fundamental money management institution, Waddell & Reed. Does this imply that HFT is flawed, that the turbo-charged technologies are at fault and that regulators are at a loss to manage markets? Equally, and more fundamentally, with OTC Derivatives and other markets under scrutiny, the term "systemically important" is being bandied about more and more frequently. What does systemically important mean and how does this play into HFT?

Shanghai World Financial Center, Pudong

Shanghai World Financial Center, Pudong

Shanghai rising

Andy Barker
05.11.10

'Life in Shanghai was lived wholly within an intense present,' wroteJG Ballard in his childhood memoir, Empire of the Sun, about growing up in the war-torn city in the 1930s and 1940s. Arriving on the Bund, Ballard-style, in a chauffeur-drivenRolls-Royce, with the war over, Mao long dead, and the Communists open for business, I expected things to have calmed down by now. But there was a gigantic throng on the historic waterfront. 'Everybody from all over China is here for the Expo,' said the driver in broken English as we passed the banks and consulates on the left and the Huangpu river on the right. Sure enough, the local newspaper confirmed that 800,000 visitors, 99.9 per cent
Chinese, had arrived (or been bussed in for propaganda purposes) this weekend, making it the busiest day since the World Fair opened in May. Top of the government's agenda, I soon discovered, are superlatives.

An estimated £28 billion was spent on Expo (the most popular ever), about £8 billion more than Beijing's Olympics (the most expensive ever) cost two years ago. Part of the investment was used to reduce the Bund's 11 lanes to six (funnelling most of the traffic underground), allowing for a wide riverside promenade where people can bustle – the Chinese national pastime. And no trip to Shanghai is complete without a bit of bustling on the Bund, taking in the thrusting Pudong skyline, the symbolic heart of the world's fastest- growing economy.

So what better start to the trip than a dinner of spicy Schezuan chicken at the top of Pudong's
tallest building (albeit only the world's third tallest), ambitiously called the World Financial Center – which it hopes to become over the next few years. Avoiding the queues for the top-floor viewing platform, we entered around the back where a lift takes you up to the Park
Hyatt's 91st-floor restaurant in the base of the trapezoidal hole of the giant bottle-opener-shaped building. From the restaurant, the frenzied Bund is reduced to a trickle of amber, like a radioactive ant trail, but I was in a good position to inspect the new tower being built next door, set to topple Dubai's Burj Khalifa off the world's top spot when it opens in 2012, much to the delight of the government.

We were staying at The Peninsula, the first new building on the Bund in 60 years, where porters
scuttle around in white Nehru jackets and bellboy hats, polishing every last block of black marble laid by Pierre-Yves Rochon, the Frenchman who has

just done up The Savoy and the about-to-open Four

Seasons in
London. The highlight is the white-
pillared lobby, best enjoyed during afternoon tea when smoked salmon finger sandwiches and scones arrive on tiered trays and a string quartet plays 'Chim chiminey' in the minstrels' gallery. Although the music, not to mention the cream tea, was lost on the predominantly Chinese guests who prefer dumplings and loud chitchat, even at breakfast.

What they do love is a designer label. China is the world's second largest luxury market and the only one left untouched by the global recession. At Expo, Chanel, Versace andPrada all took stands and the Qatari royal family is considering opening up a Shanghai branch of Harrods. I noticed that the boutiques weren't exactly swarming with buyers, perhaps because each of the many malls has its own Gucci and D&G. Although shoppers on the Huai Hai Road queue up to have their photo taken in Louis Vuitton and the other flagships, which dwarf anything on Sloane Street.
Navigating Shanghai, a city of 19 million people, takes some doing. After the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century, Britain,
France and America carved up the city into concessions: small international settlements with their own police forces. By the 1920s it was in its colonial heyday, known by day as the Paris of the East, due to the proliferation of Beaux-Arts-style buildings, and by night as the Whore of the Orient, thanks to the clubs and casinos and the concubines who frequented them.

Keen to steer clear of the touristy nightspots of the Bund, we headed across town to the French Concession where the 1920s and 1930s villas around which Ballard used to ride his bicycle have been converted into restaurants and bars, retaining some of the grandeur of colonial times. We started at Yongfoo Elite, a bar in the former British consulate site, where there's a mishmash of mahogany furniture and traditional Chinese paintings, as well as green crystal chandeliers, elaborate silk wallpaper and a huge garden worthy of an ambassador's reception. After that we nipped around the corner to Constellation, which is the size of a living room with bow-tied 1920s throwbacks making Mai Tais in front of an Art Deco mirrored bar. It was here we were told to head to the Monkey Bar, the city's nod to the global speakeasy trend set by Milk & Honey in London and PDT in New York. The waiter drew the directions on a napkin because, like any good speakeasy, half the fun is finding it. Down a dimly lit back alley we found a black door with a monkey-shaped knocker. Inside were immaculately groomed expats, lounging on banquets and drinking whisky sours. Were it not for Kanye West on the sound system, it could have been the 1920s all over again.

THE PENINSULA
Our grand deluxe suite was triple the size of my top-floor two-bed in W9. The bedside control panel opened the blinds to an incredible view of the Pudong skyline. The
iPhone dock piped The xx through the whole suite, there was a printer for digital photos and even a nail dryer built into the wall. At the ESPA spa I had a back and shoulder massage, which involved the masseuse climbing on top of me, leaning back while I clung on to her wrists (amazing!), leaving me supple and stretched. Afterwards I cooled off in the glass-domed pool (left). A bespoke four-night stay including breakfast at The Peninsula
with The Ultimate Travel Company (020 7386 3636; theultimatetravelcompany.co.uk) costs from £1, 250 per person. The price includes flights from London with
Virgin Atlantic and private transfers. A Rolls-Royce to collect you from the airport starts at £100, organised through the hotel.


2010年11月7日 星期日

Finance In The 21st Century: Movable financial centres

Finance In The 21st Century: Movable financial centres

Howard Davies

988 words

1 November 2010

The Edge Malaysia (Weekly)

EDGEWK

English

© Copyright 2010. The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd. All rights reserved.

There was a time when league tables were to be found only on the sports pages of newspapers. Now they are a global obsession.

There are school and university league tables, rankings of companies on profitability or corporate social responsibility, tables of happiness indicators by country and tables that attempt to rank consumer brands by value. There is even a league table of the world’s funniest jokes (I did not laugh much).

The financial world is also full of such rankings. Investment bankers wait with bated breath for the mergers and acquisitions league tables, even though the link between a high ranking and profitability is somewhere between loose and non-existent. Bank league tables have been with us for a while and now tend to be based on capital strength rather than asset volume, which is an improvement of sorts but still not very meaningful.

There are also now several different league tables — which are generating considerable angst — that rank financial centres based largely on surveys of firms. How badly the financial crisis damaged the reputation and performance of the major Western centres is a question increasingly asked in London, and to a lesser extent in New York. (Some Americans tend to think that the world will beat a path to their door no matter how badly they are received when they arrive!)

So far, the message from the most recent tables is not too alarming for the incumbents. A ranking prepared for City Corp in London shows New York and London still neck and neck at the top of the league. The Banker magazine produces another, with New York on top and London a close second — though the distance between them and their pursuers is narrowing. The scores in both London and New York for the quality and intensity of regulation and the tax burden have dropped. Firms seem nervous about the future in both areas.

The most striking change in the rankings is the rise of major Asian financial centres — and not just Hong Kong and Singapore but also Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen. The Chinese have been explicitly promoting their financial centres and the impact is beginning to be seen. The World Economic Forum’s Financial Development Index — yet another league table to consider — shows Hong Kong and Singapore very close indeed to London, with China now ahead of Italy on the overall measure of financial sophistication. Noodles are beating spaghetti.

Some of this is unsurprising. As the world’s centre of economic gravity shifts east, the balance of financial activity is bound to move with it. On the principle that if something is inevitable, it is wise to welcome it, the appropriate response in London and New York is to find ways of collaborating with these new centres.

But the more important question for the traditional financial centres is whether international activity that can move really is moving. That is far harder to judge. There are anecdotes about individual hedge-fund managers moving to Geneva. Every time a government or a regulator announces some new control or a tightening of existing controls, there are threats from bankers that they will pack up and leave town, taking their Porsches and mistresses with them.

These threats, which used to have a lot of political impact, are now much less effective. Some politicians and commentators quickly say, “Good riddance.” Even the Bank of England has asked whether, given the cost of mopping up the mess caused by the latest crisis, it is worth playing host to a global financial market. This is risky speculation. However badly bankers have behaved — and some clearly deserve a decade or more in the sin bin — financial services are a crucial element of London’s economy. If the financial sector declines, what will replace it in employment terms?

Airy talk about science and manufacturing as ladders out of recession (a favourite image of former British prime minister Gordon Brown) is just that — empty words. There are few, if any, examples of high-cost post-industrial societies reviving their manufacturing sector on a large scale once it has declined.

London, in particular, has no inalienable right to be a global financial centre. The UK’s domestic market is, after all, much smaller than that of the US. Indeed, the location of financial activity has changed through the centuries. If incumbency were a permanent advantage, Goldman Sachs’ global headquarters would be in Babylon. There must be a tipping point at which some combination of higher taxation, more burdensome regulation and a hostile political climate causes financial firms to relocate.

There is a risk that Britain may now be approaching that point. That is why the UK’s Financial Ser­vices Authority and even the Confederation of British Industry, which speaks largely for non-financial firms concerned about access to credit, has begun to call for a truce between the authorities and financial markets.

The next two or three months will determine whether peace breaks out and if it does, whether it will endure. As is always the case in peace negotiations, both sides must be willing to compromise.

Firms will need to show visible restraint when it comes to this year’s bonus round. The British government will not tolerate another jamboree. And governments on both sides of the Atlantic will need to decide just how far they want to go in punishing banks. Continued threats of ever higher tax burdens could prove dangerously counterproductive. If we fail to settle on a new social contract between the state and the markets soon, those markets may indeed move elsewhere. — Project Syndicate

Howard Davies, former chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority and a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, is currently director of the London School of Economics. His latest book is Banking on the Future: The Fall and Rise of Central Banking.

The G20 must look beyond Bretton Woods

By Robert Zoellick

Published: November 7 2010 18:10 | Last updated: November 7 2010 18:10

With talk of currency wars and disagreements over the US Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing, the summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in Seoul this week is shaping up as the latest test of international co-operation. So we should ask: co-operation to what end?

When the G7 experimented with economic co-ordination in the 1980s, the Plaza and Louvre Accords focused attention on exchange rates. Yet the policy underpinnings ran deeper. The Reagan administration, guided by James Baker, the then Treasury secretary, wanted to resist a protectionist upsurge from Congress, like the one we see today. It therefore combined currency co-ordination with the launch of the Uruguay Round that created the World Trade Organisation and a push for free trade that led to agreements with Canada and Mexico. International leadership worked with domestic policies to boost competitiveness.

As part of this “package approach”, G7 countries were supposed to address the fundamentals of growth – today’s structural reform agenda. For example, the 1986 Tax Reform Act broadened the revenue base while slashing marginal income tax rates. Mr Baker worked with his G7 colleagues and central bankers to orchestrate international co-operation to build private-sector confidence.

History moved on after the huge changes of 1989 and the experience of the 1980s is still being debated, but this package approach was significant for its combination of pro-growth reforms, open trade and exchange rate co-ordination.

What might such an approach look like today? First, to focus on fundamentals, a key group of G20 countries should agree on parallel agendas of structural reforms, not just to rebalance demand but to spur growth. For example, China’s next five-year plan is supposed to transfer attention from export industries to new domestic businesses, and the service sector, provide more social services and shift financing from oligopolistic state-owned enterprises to ventures that will boost productivity and domestic demand.

With a new Congress, the US will need to address structural spending and ballooning debt that will tax future growth. President Barack Obama has also spoken of plans to boost competitiveness and revive free-trade agreements.

The US and China could agree on specific, mutually reinforcing steps to boost growth. Based on this, the two might also agree on a course for renminbi appreciation, or a move to wide bands for exchange rates. The US, in turn, could commit to resist tit-for-tat trade actions; or better, to advance agreements to open markets.

Second, other major economies, starting with the G7, should agree to forego currency intervention, except in rare circumstances agreed to by others. Other G7 countries may wish to boost confidence by committing to structural growth plans as well.

Third, these steps would assist emerging economies to adjust to asymmetries in recoveries by relying on flexible exchange rates and independent monetary policies. Some may need tools to cope with short-term hot money flows. The G20 could develop norms to guide these measures.

Fourth, the G20 should support growth by focusing on supply-side bottlenecks in developing countries. These economies are already contributing to half of global growth, and their import demand is rising twice as fast as that of advanced economies. The G20 should give special support to infrastructure, agriculture and developing healthy, skilled labour forces. The World Bank Group and the regional development banks could be the instruments of building multiple poles of future growth based on private sector development.

Fifth, the G20 should complement this growth recovery programme with a plan to build a co-operative monetary system that reflects emerging economic conditions. This new system is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and a renminbi that moves towards internationalisation and then an open capital account.

The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.

The development of a monetary system to succeed “Bretton Woods II”, launched in 1971, will take time. But we need to begin. The scope of the changes since 1971 certainly matches those between 1945 and 1971 that prompted the shift from Bretton Woods I to II. Serious work should include possible changes in International Monetary Fund rules to review capital as well as current account policies, and connect IMF monetary assessments with WTO obligations not to use currency policies to remove trade concessions.

This package approach to economic co-operation reaches beyond the recent G20 dialogue, but the ideas are practical and feasible, not radical. And it has clear advantages. It supplies a growth and monetary agenda that parallels the G20 financial sector reforms. It could be built upon prompt incremental actions, combined with credible steps to be pursued over time, allowing for political dialogue at home. And it could help rebuild public and market confidence, which will remain under stress in 2011. Perhaps most importantly, this package could get governments ahead of problems instead of reacting to economic, political and social storms.

Drive or drift? How the G20 decides could determine whether multilateral co-operation can achieve a strong economic recovery.


The author, president of the World Bank Group, served at the US Treasury from 1985-88

World Bank calls for a new system that include RMB and gold

Robert Zoellick, World Bank's president since 2007, calls for a new gold standard following a "Bretton Woods II" system of floating currencies that has held since the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime broke down in 1971.

Zoellick, a former US Treasury official, calls for a system that "is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pounds and a renminbi that moves towards internationalisation and then an open capital account." The system "should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values.

Mr. Zoellick's remarks came ahead of this week's meeting of government heads in South Korea.

The original Bretton Woods system, instituted in 1945, comprised fixed but adjustable exchange rates linked to the value of gold.

2010年11月5日 星期五

China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis

Observers of China’s rise, when assessing the implications for global peace and prosperity, have largely focused their attention on the country’s economy, on its energy and resource needs, on the environmental consequences of its rapid expansion, and on the nation’s military buildup and strategic ambitions. Yet, underlying all these dazzling changes and monumental concerns is a driving force that has been seriously underappreciated: China’s changing demography.

With 1.33 billion people, China today remains the world’s most populous country. In a little more than a decade, however, it will for the first time in its long history give up this title, to India. But, even more important, China’s demographic landscape has in recent decades been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes. These changes will in the future drive the country’s economic and social dynamics, and will redefine its position in the global economy and the society of nations. Taken together, the changes portend a gathering crisis.

One number best characterizes China’s demographics today: 160 million. First, the country has more than 160 million internal migrants who, in the process of seeking better lives, have supplied abundant labor for the nation’s booming economy. Second, more than 160 million Chinese are 60 years old or older. Third, more than 160 million

Chinese families have only one child, a product in part of the country’s three-decade-old policy limiting couples to one child each. (The total populations of countries like Japan and Russia do not reach 160 million; Bangladesh’s population is roughly equal to that number.)

But the relative size of these three Chinese population groups of 160 million will soon change. As a result of the country’s low fertility rates since the early 1990s, China has already begun experiencing what will become a sustained decline in new entrants into its labor force and in the number of young migrants. The era of uninterrupted supplies of young, cheap Chinese labor is over. The size of the country’s population aged 60 and above, on the other hand, will increase dramatically, growing by 100 million in just 15 years (from 200 million in 2015 to over 300 million by 2030). The number of families with only one child, which is also on a continued rise, only underscores the challenge of supporting the growing numbers of elderly Chinese.

Why should one care about these demographic changes, and why should the overused label “crisis” be attached to such slow-moving developments? The aging of China’s population represents a crisis because its arrival is imminent and inevitable, because its ramifications are huge and long-lasting, and because its effects will be hard to reverse.

Political legitimacy in China over the past three decades has been built around fast economic growth, which in turn has relied on a cheap and willing young labor force. An aging labor force will compel changes in this economic model and may make political rule more difficult. An aging population will force national reallocations of resources and priorities, as more funds flow to health care and pensions.

Indeed, increased spending obligations created by the aging of the population will not only shift resources away from investment and production; they will also test the government’s ability to meet rising demands for benefits and services. In combination, a declining labor supply and increased public and private spending obligations will result in an economic growth model and a society that have not been seen in China before. Japan’s economic stagnation, closely related to the aging of its population, serves as a ready reference.

China’s demographic changes will also have far-reaching implications for the world economy, which has relied on China as a global factory for the past two decades and more. The changes may also affect international peace and security. An aging population is likely to lead to a more peaceful society. But at the same time, the projected 20 to 30 million Chinese men who will not be able to find wives, due to the country’s decades-long imbalanced sex ratio at birth, may constitute a large group of unhappy, dissatisfied people. Claims that these future bachelors will harbor criminal intentions and a propensity to form invading forces against China’s neighbors are unsubstantiated and overblown. Still, the fact that such a large number of Chinese men will not be able to marry is clearly a serious social concern, and the issue should not be neglected.

What also makes China’s demographic future a looming crisis is that, so far, the changes have largely taken place under the radar. This is so in part because China still has the world’s largest population and its population is still growing. It is also due in part to a continued tendency in China and elsewhere to believe that overpopulation is the root cause of all problems. Hence China’s hesitation, even reluctance, to phase out its one child policy—an important cause of the country’s demographic challenges.

Something little understood by the outside world, and indeed to the Chinese government and public, is that today’s demographic changes mark only the beginning of a crisis that will be increasingly difficult to mitigate if action is not taken soon.

A new era

China has entered a new demographic era. Its mortality rate has dropped to a level not very different from that of the developed countries. It fertility has dropped to a level lower than that of many developed countries, including the United States, Britain, and France—indeed, it is among the lowest in the world. And China has witnessed the largest flow of internal migrants in world history, resulting in an urbanization process that is of comparable historical proportions. These forces combined have created a population that is rapidly aging and rapidly urbanizing.

China’s mortality over the past three decades has been on a path of continuous decline. Despite concerns over the collapse of the rural collective public health care system in the 1980s and increasing incidents and reports of air pollution, food poisoning, and public health crises (such as the SARS epidemic in 2003), the Chinese population’s overall health has continued to improve with the spread of affluence. The latest numbers based on nationally representative surveys put life expectancy at birth at 74.5 years for females and 70.7 for males, levels that approach those of the world’s more developed countries. Longer life expectancy means more old people in the population and an increasing demand for services and expenditures related to health care. But more important than increased life expectancy in defining China’s new demographic era—and determining

China’s demographic future— is declining fertility. For nearly two decades, the average number of children a couple is expected to produce has been less than 2, recently falling as low as approximately 1.5. Such a number is below the replacement level (the level required for a population to maintain its size in the long run).

China’s low fertility, however, is a fact that has been established as real only relatively recently, in part because of problems associated with deterioration in the country’s birth registration and statistical data collection system, and in part because of the government’s reluctance to acknowledge declining fertility. The current period of fertility decline began quietly and remained unnoticed for almost a decade. When the first signs that fertility had dropped below the replacement level were reported in the early 1990s, they were quickly dismissed in the context of what was believed to be widespread underreporting of births.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, China’s demographic transition could no longer be doubted. Today the national fertility level is around 1.5 and possibly lower. In the country’s more developed regions, fertility has been even lower for more than a decade—barely above 1 child per couple, a level that rivals the lowest fertility rates in the world.

The ripple effects of fertility decline have begun to emerge everywhere in China these days. In 1995, primary schools nationwide enrolled 25.3 million new students. By 2008, that number had shrunk by one-third, to only 16.7 million. In 1990, China had over 750,000 primary schools. By 2008, due to the combined effects of fertility decline and educational reforms, the number of primary schools nationwide had fallen to about 300,000. In a country where getting into a university has always been a matter of intense competition and anxiety, the number of applicants to universities has begun to decline in the past couple of years.

The challenges posed by these demographic changes will be more daunting in China than in other countries that have experienced mortality and fertility declines. The reason for this does not lie in the size of China’s population, but in the speed with which the People’s Republic has completed its transition from high to low birth and death rates. China has achieved in 50 years—increasing life expectancy from the 40s to over 70—what it took many European countries a century to accomplish. In 2000, when the ratio of income levels in the United States and China was still about 10 to 1, female life expectancy in China was only about five years below that of the United States (75 versus 80). China, in other words, completed its mortality-decline transition while per capita income was still at a very low level.

Major fertility reduction in China took even less time. In just one decade, from 1970 to 1980, the total fertility rate (TFR) was more than halved, from 5.8 to 2.3, a record unmatched elsewhere. (TFR extrapolates an average woman’s fertility over her lifetime from a society’s fertility rate in a given year.) In contrast to Western European countries, where it took 75 years or longer to reduce TFR from around 5 to the replacement level, in China a similar decline took less than two decades. As a result, in 2008, China’s rate of population growth was only 5 per thousand, down from over 14 per thousand in 1990 and 25 per thousand in 1970. Such a compressed process of demographic transition means that, compared with other countries in the world, China will have far less time to prepare its social and economic infrastructure to deal with the effects of a rapidly aging opulation.

And for the People’s Republic the challenge is all the more difficult because the country is undergoing an economic upheaval at the same time that its population is rapidly changing. While China continues to transform itself from an agrarian to an industrial and post-industrial society and from a planned to a market-based economy, it not only will need, for example, to provide health care and pensions for a rapidly growing elderly population that has been covered under government-sponsored programs. It also will need to figure out how to expand the scope of coverage to those who were not covered under the old system.

Reversal of fortunes

China’s astonishing economic expansion over the past two decades took place within a highly, almost uniquely favorable demographic context. But the country is at the end of reaping economic gains from a favorable population age structure.

Economic growth relies on a number of basic factors. Aside from institutional arrangements, these include capital, technology, markets, and labor. In China’s case, foreign direct investment, especially from overseas Chinese, brought not only capital but also technology and management know-how. Foreign consumer demand, especially in the United States (fueled first by the dot-com boom and then by the housing and stock market boom), supplied a ready market for China’s export industries. But capital, technology, and overseas markets alone would not have made China a global factory in the last two decades of the twentieth century. The country’s economic boom relied on another crucial factor: a young and productive labor force.

Such a labor force, a non-repeatable historical phenomenon resulting from a rapid demographic transition, was fortuitously present as the Chinese economy was about to take off. The large birth cohorts of the 1960s and 1970s were at their peak productive ages when the boom began. This good fortune, measured as a demographic dividend, is estimated to have accounted for 15 to 25 percent of China’s economic growth between 1980 and 2000.

The term “demographic dividend” refers to gains (or losses) in per capita income brought about by changes in a population’s age structure. It is expressed as the ratio of the growth rate of effective producers to the growth rate of effective consumers. It resembles but is not the same as the commonly used “dependency ratio,” which is the ratio of the dependent-age population (such as 0–14 years old and 60 and above) to the productive-age population (such as 15–59 or 20–59). The demographic dividend, unlike the dependency ratio, takes into account people in the productive age cohort who are not contributing to income generation (for example, because they are unemployed) as well as those within the dependent age range who generate income (such as from after-retirement earnings).

For the most part, China has exhausted its demographic fortune as measured by the demographic dividend—that is, by the changing support ratio between effective producers and effective consumers. Between 1982 and 2000, China enjoyed an average annual rate of growth in the support ratio of 1.28 percent. Using the World Bank’s figure of per capita annual income growth during this same period, 8.4 percent, we find that the demographic dividend accounted for 15 percent of China’s economic growth. Today, the net gain due to favorable demographic conditions has been reduced to only one-fifth of the average level maintained from 1982 to 2000.

By 2013 China’s demographic dividend growth rate will turn negative: That is, the growth rate of net consumers will exceed the growth rate of net producers. Starting in 2013, such a negative growth rate will reduce the country’s economic growth rate by at least half a percentage point per year. Between 2013 and 2050, China will not fare demographically much better than Japan or Taiwan, and will fare much worse than the United States and France.

As a result of China’s very low fertility over the past two decades, the abundance of young, inexpensive labor is soon to be history. The number of workers aged 20 to 29 will stay about the same for the next few years, but a precipitous drop will begin in the middle of the coming decade. Over a 10-year period, between 2016 and 2026, the size of the population in this age range will be reduced by about one-quarter, to 150 million from 200 million. For Chinese aged 20 to 24, that decline will come sooner and will be more drastic: Over the next decade, their number will be reduced by nearly 50 percent, to 68 million from 125 million.

Such a drastic decline in the young labor force will usher in, for the first time in recent Chinese history, successive shrinking cohorts of labor force entrants. It will also have profound consequences for labor productivity, since the youngest workers are the most recently educated and the most innovative.

As the young population declines, domestic demand for consumption may weaken as well, since young people are also the most active consumers of everything from wedding banquets to new cars and housing units. And because China is a major player in the global economy, the impact of the country’s demographic changes will not be limited by its borders.

Fragile families, fragile society

So far, observers of China’s demographic changes have focused most of their attention on consequences at the aggregate or societal level: the size of the labor force, of the elderly population, and of the number of men who will not be able to marry. Worries at this level of analysis generally relate to the country’s future economic growth and social stability. But the challenges that China will face as a result of its changing demographics go far beyond economic growth and other aggregate concerns.

China’s unprecedented population control policy, the one-child policy, turned 30 this year. It has forcefully altered the family and kin structure of hundreds of millions of Chinese families. And families, in addition to their other functions, are first and foremost the primary source of support for dependents, the young and the elderly.

Because the population control policy has been in place for so long, many Chinese couples, especially in the more affluent urban areas, have had only one child. Current government policy still requires nearly two-thirds of all families to have no more than one child per couple. Although policy implementation has varied over time and across different regions, almost all urban Chinese couples have observed the one-child rule for the past three decades. With the current birth control policy in place amid continued low levels of fertility, by the middle of the current century, half of Chinese women aged 60 are projected to have had only one child. This is a development unprecedented in both China’s and the world’s history.

Although the full extent of the one-child policy’s societal consequences will not be known until later, it is safe to predict that the social costs that China will need to pay, especially in terms of family support for aging parents, will be exceedingly high. In no small part due to implementation of the one-child policy, China by 2005 had accumulated nearly 160 million only children aged 0 to 30. That number has further grown in the past five years. These figures imply that over 40 percent of Chinese households have only one child.

That such a huge share of Chinese families have only one child, despite the fact that many parents would have liked to have more, presents serious economic and social risks for individuals, and for the whole society. Fragile families mean a fragile society. The tragic deaths of thousands of only children in the earthquake of May 2008 in Sichuan province highlighted the potential for extreme misfortune.

More generally, ever more Chinese parents in the future will not be able to count on their children in their old age. And many parents will face a most unfortunate reality: outliving their children and therefore dying alone. Given the current mortality schedule, the likelihood that an 80-year-old Chinese man will see his 55-year-old son die before he does is 6 percent. Because women live longer, the likelihood that an 80-year-old woman will outlive her 55-year-old son is 17 percent.

Due to these odds, and the large numbers of Chinese parents who have only one child, the sheer number of elderly people living without any children is significant and growing. This creates grim prospects for many Chinese who hope in old age to rely on their children for emotional and physical if not financial support.

Prospects and policy options

Because of China’s continued mortality decline, and especially its sustained fertility decline to below replacement levels, the country has effectively entered an era of population decline. China’s current TFR of 1.5 implies that, in the long run, each future generation will be 25 percent smaller than the one preceding it. China’s population is still growing, albeit very slowly, because the country still has a relatively young age structure, which produces more births than deaths, even though on average each couple has fewer than two children. Had it not been for China’s relatively young age structure, the population would have begun declining in the early 1990s, almost two decades ago. The current growth, in other words, is a result of population momentum.

The same force of momentum will work in the opposite direction soon. Given current mortality and fertility rates, and with a population age structure that is growing increasingly older, the number of deaths will soon exceed the number of births. China’s population is likely to peak less than 15 years from now, below a maximum of 1.4 billion. After that will come a prolonged, even indefinite, population decline and a period of accelerated aging.

Even if China can restore fertility to replacement level within 10 years after the country reaches its population peak, population will still exhibit a decline nearly half a century long, with a net population loss of over 200 million, if not more. The median age of the Chinese population, at its peak, could be as high as 50 years.

China is by no means unique in experiencing below-replacement fertility. In the past decade, below-replacement fertility has become a new global reality. Whereas in some parts of the world high fertility rates continue to pose severe challenges to women and children’s health, for more than half of the world’s population, below replacement fertility is now the norm.

In Europe, North America, and East Asia, prolonged below-replacement fertility has already set in motion a negative population growth momentum. In the most extreme cases, such as Italy and Japan, population could be reduced by half in as few as 40 years or so if current rates of reproduction persist. A gradual but substantial reduction in population, especially with a concomitant aging of populations in the world’s richest countries, constitutes an unprecedented shift that is redefining the global demographic, economic, and political landscape.

What makes China unique, however, is that it still has a state policy, unique in human history, that restricts the majority of Chinese families to one child per couple. At the time the policy was announced 30 years ago, it provoked great controversy both within and outside China; over the years it has extracted great sacrifices from Chinese families and individuals, especially from women. And although the policy was designed as an emergency measure to slow down China’s population growth, and was intended to last for only one generation, the government has not yet shown the willingness, or courage, to phase it out.

China’s slow recognition and inaction in the face of its impending demographic crisis—inaction that persists despite appeals by almost all the country’s population experts to phase out the one child policy quickly—reflect policy makers’ lack of understanding of the changing demographic reality. Inertia also results from the resistance of the country’s birth-control bureaucracy, which formally employs half a million people.

This exemplifies a characteristic feature of China’s regime—relegating difficult, long-term, structural challenges to the back burner, while giving priority to short-term crisis management and concerns about stability. The looming demographic crisis will largely define China in the twenty-first century. Given that demographic changes take time to develop, and that their ramifications are not only massive but also long-lasting, China’s inaction has already proved costly—and will only grow more so the longer it persists.