Index > Briefing
Back
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
The Myths and Realities Surrounding Street-Stall Economy
ANBOUND

Over the past few weeks, “street-stall economy” has become a much-discussed term in China. In his recent speech, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang praised and voiced his support for such economy, which acts as a lifeline for Chinese local governments seeking effective economic growth, to stimulate employment and to respond to the current economic crisis. In some cities, the urban management were actively encouraging the appearance of stalls. Unfortunately, such initiatives never last long, as seen when the hype surrounding street-stall economy eventually dying down amongst many local governments a few days later. Beijing even outright stated that street-stall economy does not go well with the city, disappointing those who were looking forward to setting up a stall.

If that is the case, then what should we make of the shift?

Back in 2016, like the street-stall economy today, the bicycle-sharing system that was the rage had caught the attention of Chinese local governments. To them, the bicycle-sharing system and later on, the "sharing economy" showed potential in becoming the next growth point in China’s economy. Consequently, the local governments invested many resources to encourage sharing economy, even placed urban environment under strict control to pave way for it, i.e.: by re-adjusting urban planning. The governments’ efforts eventually made sharing economy popular. For a time, "shared bicycles" were rampant in China. It oversaw the citizens’ day-to-day travel, and helped the government ease the issue of overwhelming traffic. It also fit the motif of energy conservation, being eco-friendly and having low-carbon emission. Then Hu Weiwei, founder of Mobike, eventually rose to fame, and people were astonished by her achievements. How did a nobody like her manage to secure a near RMB100 billion funding in just under three years?

However, the concept of bicycle-sharing and its actual operation are two different things, and cities could only bear so much of its costs. In less than two years, “bicycle-sharing” became a problem for many urban managers. Conflicts about deposits broke out in the market, followed by a lack of supervision in business operations, which led to issues such as financial frauds, bicycles being parked at random spots, and traffic jams to surface. Many cities introduced policies to confiscate bicycles found along the roads, and people started dubbing "Sharing economy" as "sharing trash". Even the urban policies had changed. Not so long ago, "bicycle sharing" was recognized by the government as a form of innovation. Later on however, more local governments stressed the need for a stricter management, to limit the number of companies allowed to run such businesses, and required bicycles to be parked at designated spots.

Be it "street-stall economy" or "bicycle-sharing", the outcome reflects a core issue in China's continued economic development, namely its extensive management model, where many are forced to accept it whether they like it or not. In a paper discussing policies some time back, ANBOUND warned China that the shift from production to consumption would pose a great challenge to the country, that is the need to refine urban management for the government. And such shift can be difficult. For a long time, the local governments have grown accustomed to the “model” of jumping on the bandwagon while ignoring complex management problems such as cost and efficiency. In its 40 years of reform and opening-up, China had accomplished a rare economic miracle in world history by relying on this very model, and people continue to insist that the approach is suitable for China's "national conditions."

Yet, what works for one may not necessarily work for the other. A production society requires a continuous flow of resources and even if it lacks all the necessary conditions, it can still attract external investment, as large numbers of foreign businesses can act as a continuous source of resources. However, when the transformation takes place and the shift to a consumption-oriented society happens, there will be changes. Resources will be limited, there will be a lack of money, and it will be harder for the country to procure more money. This makes the method unsustainable. Going by the current stages of social development, things may not necessarily pick themselves up even if the opportunity presents itself. Clearly, the extensive models in China's economic development and urban management in the past few decades no longer work today.

The unrestrained development model is causing many problems today, both directly and indirectly, such as environmental problems, a chaotic market, and many Chinese companies' failure to cope in foreign countries. Currently, the biggest problem for China is an endless cycle where the tide of globalization has subsided while labor costs have risen sharply. China is now experiencing what it has tried so hard to deny in the past, that is its economic growth has lost its driving force. Within five years, China's GDP growth rate has dropped from 10% to 6%, even lower. The ugly truth is, it can no longer return to its original state, and it is stuck in an endless cycle.

Considering the circumstances on hand along with the employment pressure brought by the Covid-19 pandemic, when speaking of street-stall economy, what the Chinese central government is truly referring to is to provide local governments with an option rather than to demand for a one-size-fits-all solution. Yet, the local governments in China continue to plunge from one extreme to another, just like the infrastructure craze previously. Post-2008, the infrastructure wave was meant to rectify the problem of unfulfilled internal demands, yet it was taken as a panacea for the local economic development. Then, the market's problems have now become the government's problems too, yet the government does not know how solve it, and things are stuck in an endless loop.

Going back to the issue of street-stall economy, as the advocate for the Pedestrian-Oriented Development (POD) principle, ANBOUND was one of the earliest institutions to propose a similar concept. We mentioned that the retail industry should return to the city and let the city serve the people. Unfortunately, our proposed ideas for the POD principle were not realized, not even the part that involved providing a designated, orderly space for stalls to run their businesses, which resulted in stall economy falling into a mess. The cause of the problem lies in urban management. The days of ambiguous management are over. Now, it is necessary for the Chinese government to focus on establishing the right system to develop the economy for long-term, effective results.

Final analysis conclusion:

In just a few days, street-stall economy has experienced a huge transformation. The root cause lies in the extensive model adopted by urban and economic management in China. At the end of the day, the purpose of street-stall economy is to return prosperity the city and the streets, and strive to eliminate the endless cycle that plagues China’s economy.

Contact ANBOUND Malaysia Office at :  Suite 25.5, Level 25, Menara AIA Sentral, 30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur

TEL : +60 3-21413678       Email : malaysia@anbound.com ; ong@anbound.com

Copyright © 2012-2020 ANBOUND RESEARCH CENTRE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD