Wen/Lian Ping, columnist of Sina Financial Opinion Leader
main points
This round of international tax reform may rewrite the rules of global tax and investment in the future, making China face a new tax system and investment and financing system.
On June 5, 2021, the Finance Ministers' Meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) member countries supported the reform of the international tax system under the inclusive framework of the Group of Twenty (G20)/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (hereinafter referred to as "international tax reform"). At the beginning of July, China and other G20 members all expressed their support for the reform; The OECD announcement also indicated that 130 economies participating in the inclusive framework negotiations also expressed their support for the motion, and only a few economies had not yet made a statement. As a major event in the international economic field, how will the international tax reform affect China and the world? In the process of future reform implementation, what strategies should be taken to maximize China's interests, and this article will discuss this.
G7 Why promote international tax reform
This round of international tax reform was initiated and promoted by G7. The main contents of the tax reform include four aspects: first, we reached a fair plan with the market country on the distribution of tax rights, and promised that the market country would have the right to tax at least 20% of the profits of qualified multinational enterprises (the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises with an annual profit margin of more than 10%); Second, cancel all digital service taxes levied on transnational digital enterprises; The third is to levy at least 15% of the global minimum corporate tax on multinational enterprises, which is 23% lower than the current average global corporate income tax rate; Fourth, we reaffirmed and strengthened the "two pillar" tax reform plan, and proposed to launch the common rules in October 2021. One of the "two pillars" is that the taxable profits of large multinational enterprises will be redistributed to the market place rather than the registered place. This fully takes into account the reality that digital and technological multinational enterprises can trigger consumption behavior and earn profits without registering in the market country. The second of the "two pillars" is to set the global minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises, aiming to prevent multinational enterprises from choosing low tax places to conduct business activities in order to achieve tax avoidance.
In general, this international tax reform has a series of profound backgrounds and three main purposes.
First, we will crack down on tax avoidance globally and reverse the trend of tax cuts. With the development of economic globalization and digitalization, the traditional international tax system has been impacted by such factors as competitive tax cuts by governments, tax avoidance by multinational enterprises, and the digital economy. For a long time, governments of various countries have enhanced their attraction to direct investment in multinational enterprises by directly reducing tax rates or increasing indirect tax preferences. Although this approach can increase the scale of foreign direct investment in tax reducing countries in the short term, more and more countries join in the tax reduction action, which provides space for multinational enterprises to avoid taxes globally. Multinational enterprises continue to transfer corporate profits from areas with high tax rates to areas with low tax rates. Countries have to increase and reduce taxes to meet the competition for foreign investment, which in turn erodes the tax base of countries. In view of this, one of the purposes of the global tax rate agreement reached this time is to determine the minimum tax rate and tax rules for global multinational enterprises to avoid tax avoidance through "guerrilla".
The second is to deal with the tax challenges brought by digitalization. The current international tax system still follows the tax theory and tax system framework of the 1920s, and the tax issues of multinational enterprises follow the tax principle of the location of the enterprise entity. However, with the development of economic globalization and digitalization, the digital economy, based on the characteristics of cross-border transmission of data elements without the need for cross-border physical flow, has changed the principle of matching the location of enterprise entities with the taxable income region, making the taxation of transnational digital enterprises a major problem. Multinational enterprises engaged in digital economy services tend to take advantage of this, increase profit transfer, and combine with the aforementioned international tax "bottom to bottom competition", the tax issue of transnational digital enterprises has become a focus. One of the important purposes of this round of international tax reform is to change this situation.
Third, expand tax sources to ease the pressure of fiscal deficit. Another important reason for G7 to promote this round of international tax reform is to increase taxes and enrich financial resources to promote economic recovery and strengthen macro-control capacity. From a macro perspective, most countries, including the G7, have been in a state of financial deficit for a long time. Government debt is high, leverage levels continue to rise, and debt risks are looming. In particular, the major outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 has led to a sharp decline in the global economy, and large-scale fiscal stimulus has made the financial resources of governments more strained. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that by the end of 2021, the global fiscal deficit will reach 8.6 trillion US dollars, 2.7 times more than 2019. G7 countries have high corporate tax rates, so the lowest corporate tax rate in the world is 15%, which will not increase the tax burden of domestic enterprises for these countries; However, the corporate tax rate of 15% has narrowed the gap with the tax rate of "tax havens", which can weaken the "tax avoidance" function of "tax havens", reduce the motivation of multinational enterprises' profit transfer, and increase the possibility of profits remaining in or even returning to their home countries, thus filling the tax sources of these countries.
Different interest demands make it difficult for international tax reform to go smoothly
The important goal of G7 in promoting this round of international tax reform is to maximize the tax avoidance benefits of multinational enterprises into the financial benefits of G7 and other developed countries. However, G7 countries have their own "small plans". While maintaining national competitiveness, the United States hopes to solve the problem of domestic fiscal sustainability; The four European countries belong to the digital economy market countries, and most want to solve the tax right allocated to the digital economy market countries; Japan and Canada do not have large multinational enterprises that need to pay digital taxes, which has little impact, but they are also one of the digital economy market countries, so they also hope to be allocated the right to tax. Although the G7 has actively promoted, it is certain that there is still great uncertainty whether this round of international tax reform will finally take effect on a global scale.
First, the overall framework of international tax reform is still flawed. First, there are disputes on the scale definition of multinational enterprises under "Pillar I". Some countries proposed that the scope of application of "Pillar I" should only cover 100 leading multinational enterprises, while others proposed that the number of companies included in the scope should cover 2000 leading multinational enterprises in the world. Accordingly, there are also differences in the definition of group income included in the scope of application. The minimum threshold of income can be as high as 20 billion euros and as low as 750 million euros. Second, the scope of exemption industry. Many developing countries and resource rich countries have high expectations on the scope of exemption industries. It is generally believed that this round of international tax reform is mainly aimed at transnational enterprises in industries related to the digital economy, such as the large Internet; Enterprises operating in natural resources and bulk commodities are likely to be included in the exemption scope of "Pillar I". Earlier inclusion framework level also discussed the exclusion of finance, real estate, infrastructure and shipping and marine industries. At present, there is still a great dispute on the scope of exemption. Third, the redistribution ratio of multinational enterprises' profit taxation right, that is, how much taxation right is given to the market jurisdiction country (the source of profits). This round of international tax reform agreement initially proposed that multinational enterprises with a profit margin of more than 10% should allocate at least 20% of the right to tax profits to the market jurisdiction (the source of profits). This agreement will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the total profits to be redistributed to market jurisdictions, and is also the focus of this round of international tax reform. Up to now, there has not been a relatively unified opinion on this proportion.
Second, the implementation details of this round of international tax reform still need to be confirmed. In addition to the above three issues of the overall framework, there are still many important details to be resolved if the international tax reform is to be put into practice. For example, how should multinational enterprises be taxed even if industries are identified? Should investment funds and REITs be covered? Some countries may nominally implement a minimum tax rate of 15%, but in fact they reduce the actual tax burden of enterprises through various tax relief measures. How should we punish this situation? Some countries have formulated lower effective tax rates for specific enterprise activities, such as specific measures such as providing tax subsidies for R&D expenses, and how to coordinate the minimum tax rate agreement with the above measures, etc. It is conceivable that these details are complex problems at the same time, and it is not easy to solve them.
Third, the international tax reform agreement is difficult to meet the interests of all countries. It is inevitable to ignore one thing and lose another, which may affect the process of promotion. The current round of international tax reform is still in the declaration stage. It has not been approved by the relevant legal procedures of various countries, and has no legal effect. At present, countries are still subject to their domestic tax laws. Even if the international tax reform finally reaches an agreement, it will still take a long time for countries to revise their corresponding tax laws and regulations. Therefore, in terms of time, this round of international tax reform has a long way to go before it is actually implemented. Moreover, any agreement must meet the different and complex needs of small countries, big countries, developed countries and developing countries. If the final rules are to be applied globally, they need to be collectively recognized by all countries led by OECD. Since the tax rate of each economy and the setting of the minimum tax rate lead to different degrees of impact, the attractiveness of countries with low tax rates has declined, and they may face the risk of capital outflows, while economies with high tax rates will benefit significantly, so there must be huge differences in interests and positions between each other.
The "Pillar II" of the international tax reform - the global minimum enterprise tax rate clause, is likely to be finally passed, and the risk lies only in the obstruction of a few low tax rate countries. If, after the implementation of the global minimum corporate tax rate, the attractiveness of countries with low tax rates has declined, it is difficult to form competitiveness in the business environment and other aspects in the short term, facing the problem of tax base damage caused by the departure of multinational enterprises, as well as the balance of payments imbalance caused by capital outflows, which will harm domestic economic growth. Within the scope of OECD, only Ireland and Hungary have corporate tax rates lower than 15%; Globally, the number of economies with corporate tax rates below 15% accounts for about 20%.
The major obstacle to the follow-up of the international tax reform comes from the divergence of countries on "Pillar I", that is, to distribute the taxable profits of large multinational enterprises according to the market. The conflicts of interest in this field are mainly between developed countries. In addition, the distribution of digital tax right itself is very complex, both complex and innovative, and involves many conflicts of interest, which makes the "Pillar I" face relatively large resistance.
The global impact of international tax reform is far-reaching
The international tax reform is undoubtedly a major event in the history of the world economy, which may have far-reaching impacts on the world economy in many aspects, mainly reflected in the following four points:
First, the pattern of international tax governance has been deepened into multilateral cooperation. International tax governance has gradually shifted from bilateral cooperation to multilateral cooperation, marked by the OECD's advocacy and implementation of the BEPS plan in 2013. The international tax reform advocated by G7 in this round is in essence a new progress made on the basis of BEPS Action Plan, marking that international tax governance continues to move forward in the comprehensive governance phase of combining direct and indirect taxes. In the future, the trend of "beggar thy neighbor" in the international tax field will be reversed, and the trend of "bottom to bottom competition" in tax reduction policies of various countries will be gradually ended, and the international tax governance pattern will be further promoted towards multilateral cooperation. The G20 is expected to become a new platform for international tax governance cooperation, and the voice of developing countries in international tax governance will also be significantly enhanced. The content of international tax cooperation is expected to be further expanded and deepened, and tax governance cooperation among multinational enterprises, the digital economy, and countries and regions will continue to move forward. International tax governance will provide a demonstration effect for interregional international tax cooperation, such as the "Belt and Road" and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
The second is to start the global tax increase cycle. At present, governments all over the world are heavily indebted, and the pressure on debt repayment and interest payment is increasing. The total debt is constantly reaching the legal ceiling, which further accumulates debt risks. By the end of 2020, the total global debt has exceeded 281 trillion US dollars, and the macro leverage ratio has accumulated to 330%. Under the impact of COVID-19, financial resources of all countries have become increasingly tight. In recent decades, the "bottom to bottom competition" of countries competing for tax cuts has increased the financial vulnerability of countries. In this context, many countries have begun to use the monetization of fiscal deficits to promote economic recovery and respond to the crisis, but the ensuing inflation and asset price fluctuations have hurt countries even more. This round of international tax reform proposes the global minimum enterprise tax, which is essentially a behavior of "high tax rate countries do not reduce taxes, low tax rate countries increase taxes, thus increasing taxes globally". This kind of tax increase can not only alleviate the above financial pressure, but also reduce the government's impulse to monetize the fiscal deficit while supplementing financial resources, thus helping to maintain the independence of monetary policy and even return to normalization; In addition, it can also improve the macro-control ability of the government, especially the central government, to finance government activities such as infrastructure. The structural tax increase advocated by the international tax reform, especially for the rich, is also conducive to promoting fairness and alleviating social contradictions in developed countries. Therefore, governments of all countries have the internal impetus to promote international tax reform. From this point of view, the current round of international tax reform may change the trend of international tax cuts in the future and gradually form a global cycle of tax increases.
Third, the spillover effect of technological knowledge and digital economy may be hindered. G7 promotes this round of international tax reform and sets the global minimum enterprise tax rate, which will produce a series of chain reactions. At the lowest level, the international tax reform has hit the tax avoidance behavior of multinational enterprises in the digital economy, prevented large multinational enterprises such as Facebook and Amazon from transferring profits to reduce taxes, urged giant companies to pay more taxes in the countries where they operate, and adjusted the corresponding rules to deal with the trade of intangible assets such as data and information. But there is another intention behind it, that is, to prevent these large technology multinational enterprises from moving out, so as to leave capital and employment in the developed countries represented by the United States. This will change the global layout of these high-tech multinational enterprises, making them more inclined to the domestic layout, and reducing the overseas location, thus reducing the possibility of technology and technology spillover.
Fourth, international capital flows may shift to developed countries. Tax rate is one of the most important factors in international capital competition. After the global minimum corporate tax is set, the comparative advantages of different countries and regions will change. Developing countries generally regard attracting foreign investment as their basic economic policy, and once relied on tax incentives as their main attraction measures. The global minimum enterprise tax will offset the tax preference of these countries to a certain extent, and will have a negative impact on their existing foreign capital stock and future increment, which will affect their national economic development and national fiscal revenue to a certain extent. For the developed countries represented by the United States, due to the large number of large scientific and technological transnational enterprises and the large economic volume and profits created, the global minimum corporate tax can, to a certain extent, promote capital repatriation and hinder new capital outflows. This will, to a certain extent, protect the economic development of the country and combat the tax avoidance of large multinational enterprises in the country, which is beneficial to these developed countries. For "tax havens" and offshore island economies, the current round of international tax reform will largely ease the problem of multinational enterprises' profit transfer and tax avoidance, and because these economies are lack of capital and resources for international political negotiations, they may face obvious economic losses in a certain period of time.
The international tax reform has more advantages than disadvantages on China
China is a large open economy, and the international tax reform will certainly have a profound impact on China. The author tends to believe that the current round of international tax reform promoted by G7 has both advantages and disadvantages, and the overall advantages outweigh the disadvantages. However, the benefit aspect is not very prominent, and may change significantly with the advancement of international tax reform in the game process among countries. In general, the advantages and disadvantages of international tax reform for China are mainly reflected in the following five aspects.
First, it has different impacts on Chinese enterprises in transnational operations. At present, there are two types of Chinese funded enterprises establishing equity structures overseas: one is pure tax avoidance enterprises, which retain profits in overseas tax havens by adjusting and transferring profits through equity structure relationships. Such enterprises have higher tax avoidance requirements, and can be further divided into goods trade enterprises and digital economy enterprises. The second is to access overseas market enterprises. Through the adjustment of equity structure, we can use the establishment of branches/subsidiaries in channel countries to bypass restrictions on Chinese enterprises or reduce the cost of access to overseas markets. The main purpose of such enterprises is to enter the overseas market at a low cost, and they have certain requirements for tax avoidance. This round of international tax reform is mainly aimed at large multinational giants. Most of the goods trading enterprises in the first category above cannot be classified as large multinational enterprises, so the international tax reform has little impact on them. The main purpose of the second type of enterprises is to enter the market of the target country through the channel country. The tax preference of the channel country is not its priority, and the international tax reform will not change its existing organizational structure. Therefore, Chinese enterprises will choose to build a similar structure if they need the channel country structure model to "go global"; However, if this tax reform makes the channel national tax rate rise, it is still an additional but unavoidable cost for Chinese enterprises to "go global". Among the first type of enterprises, Chinese funded digital economy service enterprises are greatly affected. These enterprises realize their income in China, but use tax havens to avoid taxes. Once the global minimum corporate tax is implemented, it will increase the income tax collection of these enterprises. If our country chooses not to implement it temporarily, our tax right will be transferred to other countries. Such enterprises still cannot escape the 15% corporate tax. At the same time, our country has also lost some taxes. Therefore, China will inevitably choose to levy the minimum enterprise tax. In the current situation, these enterprises probably will not move back to China, because the domestic tax rate is far higher than 15%. To sum up, the international tax reform will not change the operation and structure mode of "going global" Chinese enterprises, but will have an impact on the actual tax collection scale.
Second, it is conducive to giving play to China's great power advantages. The lowest corporate tax in the world will weaken the attractiveness of economies that rely on low tax rates to attract investment, making multinational enterprises less consider tax avoidance factors and more consider market factors when considering overseas layout as a whole. At present, China has obvious advantages in the global market, and the advantages of big countries are increasingly prominent. China's manufacturing industry has complete lines and cost advantages, which is conducive to the expansion of the trade chain of multinational enterprises. This has been fully reflected in the global division of labor system in the past decades, and this advantage has become more and more obvious after the impact of the epidemic. China's market is large. Driven by the "14th Five Year Plan" and the internal circulation oriented strategy, consumer demand is rapidly rising and the structure is constantly enriched. Multinational enterprises have seen the rapid growth of China's market, and will move more branches to China to share the cake of the world's largest consumer market in the layout, which is conducive to China's long-term attraction of foreign direct investment. At the exchange rate of 6.5 US dollars to RMB, there is still a gap of about 270 billion US dollars between China's total retail sales of consumer goods and that of the United States in 2020, and the consumption scale is equivalent to about 95% of that of the United States. If the average GDP growth rate is 5%, it is estimated that by 2025, China's economic aggregate will reach more than 20 trillion dollars, and the size of the consumer market is expected to reach more than 10 trillion dollars, becoming the largest and most important consumer market in the world. After the implementation of this round of international tax reform, changes in international investment flows will also indirectly benefit China's economy. The pace of developed economies investing in developing countries may gradually slow down; And developing countries will correspondingly reduce their dependence on developed countries, thus boosting their demand for China. China can take this opportunity to promote the "going global" of Chinese enterprises.
Third, in the long run, it may weaken the function of Hong Kong, China's global offshore center. At present, the comprehensive corporate tax rate in Hong Kong, China is about 16.5%, and many tax incentives are attached, slightly higher than the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, so the impact should be small. However, Hong Kong, China, as the registration place of the offshore center, a large number of enterprises gather here, choose the offshore business model, and exempt from corporate tax. After the final implementation of this round of international tax reform, the offshore business of Hong Kong, China may be greatly affected. However, the characteristics of Hong Kong offshore center in China are that it does not mainly rely on tax revenue, but provides financial services and other services as its main source of income; And because this round of international tax reform is only for corporate tax, the impact on Hong Kong offshore center may not be too great. However, from a dynamic perspective, if the offshore tax advantages of the offshore center no longer exist, the number of enterprises stationed in the offshore center will gradually decrease, which will reduce the offshore service demand of the offshore center.
Fourth, the pilot free trade zone was forced to reduce tax rates to promote reform. At present, China's pilot free trade zones have not clearly stipulated the tax rate for tax preferences, and the default is to implement a 25% corporate income tax. This tax rate is significantly higher than 15% of the global minimum enterprise tax set in the current round of international tax reform, which makes China's pilot free trade zones have no advantage in facing competition from overseas economies that implement the minimum tax rate. Multinational enterprises can still use pricing transfer to achieve zero tax payment in China, while paying taxes overseas will erode the tax base of the pilot free trade zone. Based on this, if this round of international tax reform is finally implemented, it will have a great impact on the development of the pilot free trade zone. On the one hand, the advantages of the pilot free trade zone are that it is located in China and has a vast hinterland of China as the basis for foreign economic exchanges; On the other hand, institutional innovation and policy breakthrough are obstacles. Therefore, the implementation of international tax reform will objectively force the pilot free trade zone to reduce the corporate income tax rate. At the same time, when making development plans, the respective national trade pilot zones have more or less referred to the development experience of overseas offshore centers, and many of these experiences are based on the premise of low tax rates. After the implementation of this round of international tax reform, the reference basis of each trade pilot zone will change significantly, and the development path needs to be reconsidered.
Suggestions on China's coping strategies
This round of international tax reform may rewrite the rules of global tax and investment in the future, making China face a new tax system and investment and financing system. In this regard, China should make early preparations and take precautions.
First, there should be no vacancy in the reform process of the global tax governance system. We should actively promote the reform of the global tax governance system, support the establishment of the global minimum corporate tax rate, and constantly enhance our voice. From the perspective of fiscal and tax reform orientation of most countries in the world, especially developed countries, there is an urgent need to stabilize macro tax burden, improve tax collection and management capacity, prevent tax base erosion and profit transfer, combat international tax evasion/avoidance, and safeguard domestic tax interests. Therefore, strengthening international coordination and cooperation, actively participating in the formulation and improvement of international tax rules and standards, and continuously promoting the reform of the global tax governance system are in line with China's own strategic interests as a super large economy. In addition, supporting and promoting the reform of the global tax governance system is an opportunity to further strengthen China US and China EU contacts and cooperation.
Second, we should adhere to G20 Instead of G7 It also emphasizes the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" between developing countries and developed countries. China should work with other emerging market countries to establish a "united front", adhere to the G20 leading global tax governance process, and further build consensus in the OECD international tax negotiations involving 139 economies. Only in this way can we maximize the compatibility with the demands of developing and developed countries and strive for the basic interests of China and the vast number of developing countries, such as allowing developing countries to implement the minimum enterprise tax slightly lower than the standard of developed countries, achieving the goal of enterprise tax reform in stages, or listing local areas as "exceptions". This will help to enhance China's voice in the international arena, make the final tax reform plan inclusive and win the support of more developing countries.
Third, it is suggested to take the lead in the pilot implementation of the minimum enterprise tax in the FTZ, but its focus is not tax increases but tax reductions. At present, 21 national level free trade zones have been established in various provinces, cities and districts in China. However, except for a few free trade zones such as Zhuhai Hengqin and Shenzhen Qianhai, which clearly stated that "enterprise income tax shall be levied at a reduced rate of 15%", most free trade zones have not provided relevant tax preferences for enterprises in the zones. Even in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, the enterprise income tax will only be levied at a reduced rate of 15% within five years for enterprises engaged in production and research and development of core links in key fields such as integrated circuits, artificial intelligence, biomedicine, civil aviation, etc. within the new zone. In view of the fact that the standard corporate income tax rate in China is mostly 25%, far exceeding the minimum standard of 15%, it is suggested that the 15% tax rate can be implemented in the national level free trade zone at the right time to highlight the characteristics of the free trade zone and attract more international capital and enterprises.
Fourth, for transnational enterprises and domestic enterprises in China to flee across borders and regions / Tax avoidance and other acts, further improve and strengthen the tax collection and management system. China should accelerate the reserve and training of international tax professionals, and improve its ability to detect and prevent tax evasion/avoidance by multinational enterprises from the source. It is necessary to establish a "global one family" multinational enterprise monitoring system, strengthen tax information exchange with other countries, fully grasp the profit level, capital flow, property, shareholding and other relevant information of multinational enterprises and their controllers in the world, and tax according to law. We will standardize local tax preferences and further restrict cross regional tax transfers by domestic enterprises. Due to the tax differences between domestic regions and industries, and the financial return policies set by some local governments for attracting investment, some domestic enterprises have created conditions for tax avoidance. It is suggested that the relevant departments should standardize and correct the policies of some regions that rely too much on financial and tax returns and tax subsidies as soon as possible.
Fifth, for domestic Internet technology giants, we should not only "manage" domestic taxes, but also "help" international tax regulation. It is suggested that the relevant departments should not only promote financial supervision, anti-monopoly supervision, science and technology supervision, but also strengthen tax supervision to promote the steady development of Internet technology giants on the standardized road. Considering the uncertainty and instability of the international environment, the Internet technology giants that "go global" still need to be supported and guided. It is suggested that the government can guide and support enterprises to invest their operating income or pre tax profits in scientific research, or facilitate enterprises to acquire overseas small and medium-sized enterprises with development prospects from foreign exchange policy and other aspects. This can not only expand the company's scale and R&D strength, but also achieve the purpose of reducing profits and paying less taxes, which is conducive to the long-term steady development of the enterprise.
Sixth, we should strengthen the protection of the interests of Hong Kong and Macao, and highlight the advantages of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong, China only pays corporate income tax (16.5% tax rate) on income from Hong Kong, while Macao, China pays corporate income tax at a lower rate of 12%. Therefore, the global minimum tax has little impact on the mainland of China, but has a certain impact on small open economies such as Hong Kong and Macao. It is suggested that China, when participating in the negotiations on the reform of the global tax system governance system under the G20 and OECD frameworks, actively strive for the international community to agree to delay or implement the global minimum corporate tax rate in stages for Hong Kong and Macao, or appropriately reduce the 15% standard proposed by the G7 to 12.5%; At the same time, the mainland of China, Hong Kong and Macao should further deepen the construction of the Guangdong Hong Kong Macao Greater Bay Area, and work together to enhance the attractiveness of global capital by simplifying the tax system, improving infrastructure, improving and optimizing the business environment and other measures.
Members of the research team:
Lian Ping Zhixin, Chief Economist of Investment and President of Research Institute, Chairman of China Chief Economist Forum
Deng Zhichao, Secretary General of Zhixin Investment Research Institute
Liu Tao, Vice President of Zhixin Investment Research Institute
Chang Ran, Senior Researcher of Zhixin Investment Research Institute
Luo Huanjie, Senior Researcher of Zhixin Investment Research Institute
Wang Haozhixin, Senior Researcher of Investment Research Institute
This article is originally from the 17th issue of China Foreign Exchange in 2021.
(The author of this article introduces: Chief Economist and Dean of the Research Institute of Zhixin Investment, Honorary Director of the Department of Economics and Management of East China Normal University, Doctor, Professor, Doctoral Supervisor, enjoying special government subsidies from the State Council.)
