China looks to green economy to hit GDP growth target of 7.5 per cent

Country also puts focus on consumers to drive growth.

At the annual meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao announced that the growth target for the PRC would remain at 7.5 per cent, the same as last year. In 2012, China only just made the target, as growth slowed to its most leisurely rate in 13 years, expanding by "just" 7.8 per cent.

While the growth goal remains the same, China has lowered its inflation goal to 3.5 per cent, and is planning to increase its budget deficit by 50 per cent to £128bn to "maintain support for economic growth", according to Jiabao.

Separately, the National Development and Reform Commission reported its own targets, aiming for an 8 per cent increase in foreign trade (down from 10 per cent).

As well as the economic targets, China also used the draft budget to announce an increase in military spending, growing 10.7 per cent to £76.41 billion. The Financial Times' Kathrin Hille adds:

Despite the increasingly tense regional climate, experts agree that the days of the sharpest defence spending hikes are over.
This year’s 10.7 per cent increase is roughly in line with last year’s 11.2 per cent hike and a 12.7 per cent increase in 2011.
These figures compare with annual average increases of 16.5 per cent between 2000 and 2009 and 15.7 per cent between 1990 and 1999, according to a forthcoming article by Adam Liff and Andrew Erickson, two US experts on Chinese military affairs.

China's insistence that it will hit the 7.5 per cent growth target indicates the country is not concerned that it may experience a "hard landing" — a quicker-than-expected decline from its current levels of growth to the developed-nation norm of 2-3 per cent. The country has, however, experienced some problems following its current model of growth, which Reuters describes as "investment-driven" and "export-oriented".

As the rest of the world struggles on through the most prolonged depression in living memory, China's export strength has started to look like a double-edged sword, exposing it to weakness it would otherwise be inured to. And its investment-driven growth has also led to massive "ghost cities", hundreds of thousands of new homes built with no-one living in them.

Instead, Jiabao seemed to highlight a model of development which fits with the trend started by the proposal of a Chinese carbon tax, telling the assembly:

The state of the ecological environment affects the level of people's well-being and also posterity and the future of our nation. We should adhere to the basic state policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment and endeavor to promote green, circular and low-carbon development.

But the country still has massive internal issues to overcome before it can really change tack on growth. Local government in China has tremendous independence, and will need to get on board with the plans. Reuters reports:

In a separate document, the Ministry of Finance said it was raising the quota for bonds issued by local governments to 350 billion yuan in 2013, compared with 250 billion yuan in 2012.
It also pledged to further strengthen regulation of local government debt and curb irregular financing activities.

The government has its work cut out.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.