Economy

Markets

Industries

Insights

Reports

Events

Usage of SOEs' profits

(China Daily)
Updated: 2006-09-08 09:05

As State firms managed to transform themselves from loss-makers into cash cows in recent years, debates understandably heated up over how to tap the fat dividends to which the State is fully entitled.

Many inspiring policy suggestions have been made by observers from home and abroad.

A report newly issued by the Asian Development Bank pointed out that if State enterprises were required to pay dividends, the government owners would have an additional source of funds to channel toward social development and consumption.

Last month, a World Bank report called for the establishment of a dividend policy for State-owned enterprises (SOEs) to reduce their abundant investment capital.

For the Chinese Government, which is showing great concern about both its under-funded social causes and the ongoing runaway growth in investments, these advices are surely more than welcome.

The State has borne most of the SOEs' restructuring costs, taking over social obligations such as schools and hospitals as well as unemployment benefits and workers' pensions. Yet, for historical reasons, SOEs do not pay dividends to the State, their key shareholder.

If a sound dividend policy for SOEs can both slow unbridled investment and improve the overall allocation of public financial resources, it might be worth trying.

However, before policy-makers seriously consider those suggestions, scepticism that State-owned enterprises (SOEs) might not be as profitable as claimed also deserves their attention.

Undoubtedly, the current growth of these SOEs' profits is remarkable, particularly given the poor performance of the State sector less than a decade ago.

Nevertheless, the actual picture of SOEs might be not as rosy as the one on which optimistic observers have based their policy suggestions.

The World Bank report attributed China's investment boom, to a large extent, to enterprises' soaring profits as a key source of financing for investment. But the data it used to support its argument was drawn from those provided by the National Bureau of Statistics, which, as some observers noted, were pre-tax figures. In other words, regardless of expenditures other than corporate income tax, SOEs' profits in the World Bank report should be cut by one third.

It is definitely justified for the State to require its due dividend from SOEs no matter how fat their profit margins are. In the long run, if the need to increase government spending on education and health clearly overrides SOEs' capital accumulation for future growth, policy-makers should not hesitate to levy dividends on State firms.

In the absence of a firm grasp of SOEs' profitability, it is misleading to sell a sound dividend policy as a quick solution for present economic problems like excessive investment. If investment is not driven by firms' profits and profitability, putting too much policy focus on the issue will only delay implementation of the needed tightening measures.