The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released more detailed ACO-level data for participants in first two years of the Pioneer ACO Model. The program, which is designed for health systems with more experience assuming financial risk for patient populations, has generated savings and improvements in quality measures, but has also struggled to retain participants. The program began with 32 provider organizations; following a series of recent announcements there are now 19 total participants.

Last month, CMS announced that the Pioneer Program was able to yield total program savings of $96 million in its second year and resulted in ACOs sharing in savings of $68 million. CMS also reported that the Pioneers were able to improve mean quality scores by 19 percent and increased performance on 28 of 33 measures between performance year one and performance year two.

Financial Results

The latest financial results provide more participant-level data and allow for a new level of analysis of performance across all these ACOs. In year one of the program, financial performance for individual Pioneers ranged from a gross loss of $9.31 million to a gross savings of $23.34 million. Thirteen Pioneers reduced costs enough to qualify for shared savings, with an average of $5.85 million returned to the ACOs, ranging from $1.00 million to $14.00 million. One ACO owed shared losses of $2.55 million. The remaining eighteen ACOs were within the minimum savings or loss rate and did not earn shared savings or owe money to Medicare due to losses.

Following year one, nine Pioneer ACOs either left the Medicare ACO program entirely, or moved to the lower risk Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Eight of the nine Pioneers that left the program failed to reduce spending in their first year. Out of the remaining 23 participants in the second performance year, three of these ACOs opted to defer reconciliation until the end of Performance Year 3. The 20 Pioneers with final Performance Year 2 data had financial performance ranging from a gross savings of $24.59 million to gross losses of $6.26 million. Fourteen ACOs reduced spending in Performance Year 2, eleven of which reduced enough to qualify for shared savings. The average shared savings for these ACOs was $6.55 million, ranging from $1.22 million to $13.41 million. Three Pioneers shared losses, averaging $2.33 million back to the Medicare program.

The table below shows the breakdown of ACOs according to whether they reduced spending, increased spending, shared in savings, or owed money back to Medicare due to losses. More than half of the Pioneers were able to reduce spending in year one (18/32) and year two (14/23), with more than one-third of total ACOs earning shared savings in each year as well.

The data also suggest that those ACOs that were most successful in reducing spending in the first year were also more likely to reduce spending in their second year. As the chart below shows, three ACOs that earned shared savings in year one owed money back to Medicare due to losses in year two, while no ACO that had shared losses in year one was able to attain shared savings in year two.  

Quality Results

CMS also released ACO-level performance on all 33 measures for Pioneer participants in year one and year two. The 23 ACOs that remain in the Pioneer Program showed overall improvement in average quality scores from the first to second performance year. The ACOs also improved overall on 28 of 33 measures, as the chart below shows.

The quality domain with the greatest improvement in year two was Domain 4 (At Risk-Populations) which saw an overall improvement from 67.5% to 83%. The marked improvement in this domain suggests that ACOs are making progress at better coordinating and delivery care for high-risk patients, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions. Chronic care management for conditions such as diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension is critical for the continued success of accountable care efforts. All other domains saw average quality improvement as well, summarized below.

Likewise, almost all of the individual Pioneer ACOs improved their performance on quality measures from year one to year two. Of the ACOs that remained in the program for year two, all but one ACO was able to improve its overall quality score in its second year.

Additionally, the percentage of Pioneer ACOs performing in the 80^th or 90^th percentile in quality scores also increased from year one to year two, as shown in the chart below.

Putting Together Financial and Quality Results

In year one of the Pioneer Program there appeared to be no direct correlation between average quality scores and gross savings or losses for individual ACOs. This may not be unexpected, especially since Pioneer ACOs in their first year are eligible for shared savings simply by reporting their quality. In subsequent years, however, the ACO’s quality score impacts the level of shared savings that the Pioneers are eligible to receive, so we might expect a bit more alignment between quality and financial performance. Average quality scores and level of savings or losses for each of the 32 first year Pioneer ACOs is below.

After year two, there still does not appear to be a direct relationship between higher quality scores and level of savings or losses in the Pioneer Program. Further examination of results begs additional questions about why certain ACOs clustered in different parts of the grid relative to others.

Of those ACOs in the red circle above— higher total savings and relatively average quality scores—two of the ACOs are from the Boston area and the remaining ones from other large metropolitan areas (New York City; Orange County, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and Detroit, MI). The average per capita Medicare spending for the counties corresponding to these ACOs is $11,544, compared to an average of $10,384 for counties corresponding to all 23 of the Pioneer participants.

Meanwhile those ACOs within the yellow circle had the highest quality scores, but also experience financial losses or slight savings. Many of these ACOs are from less densely populated areas, such as Maine, Wisconsin, and Illinois. There are a number of factors that could be contributing to their quality success, but little financial savings—healthier patient populations, a smaller or more engaged patient population, financial baselines impacted by lower per capita spending in these areas, or other factors driven by their region. Further analysis of these ACOs and the other public and private ACO programs, including both their characteristics and regional market characteristics, will provide needed further insights on the factors most likely to drive success.

Next Steps

These ACO-level data reflect the range of experiences across Pioneer participants. Some ACOs have sustained positive performance to date, while others have seen diminishing rates of return. Those organizations more committed to clinical transformation, patient outreach, and organizational change may be more likely to do better, but further analysis of differences in performance could enable the Pioneer Program and ACOs to achieve bigger impacts over time.

It is hard to know what the third performance year of the Pioneer program will show, but as noted earlier, the Pioneer Program has already lost over a third of its original 32 participants. Despite the decline in participation and mixed results so far, CMS remains optimistic and committed to the program, and the overall number of Medicare, Medicaid, and privately-insured individuals in ACO arrangements continues to rise. We can anticipate a proposed rule impacting the MSSP, likely later this Fall, which will impact elements of the Pioneer ACO program. Regulatory changes that may help increase the ability of the Medicare ACO programs to support better care while ensuring sustainability include: adjustments to attribution methods, benchmark calculations, collection and sharing of data with ACOs, updating performance measures, linking to other ongoing payment and delivery reforms, and creating more financial sustainability for program participants. The current Pioneer program can be a key step toward effective payment reform, but further steps are needed to assure long-term success.

Event Information

In an era of fluid geopolitics and geoeconomics, challenges to the global order abound: from ever-changing terrorism, to massive refugee flows, a stubbornly sluggish world economy, and the specter of global pandemics. Against this backdrop, the question of whether leader summitry—either the G-7 or G-20 incarnations—can supply needed international governance is all the more relevant. This question is particularly significant for East Asia this year as Japan and China, two economic giants that are sometimes perceived as political rivals, respectively host the G-7 and G-20 summits. 

On April 18, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies and the Project on International Order and Strategy co-hosted a discussion on the continued relevancy and efficacy of the leader summit framework, Japan’s and China’s priorities as summit hosts, and whether these East Asian neighbors will hold parallel but completely separate summits or utilize these summits as an opportunity to cooperate on issues of mutual, and global, interest.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #G7G20Asia

Audio

• Japan’s G-7 and China’s G-20 chairmanships: Bridges or stovepipes in leader summitry?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160418_g7g20_transcript

Capitalism has provided unprecedented wealth and prosperity around the world, but a growing community is raising concerns about whether the promise of the capitalist system to achieve a more shared and durable prosperity can be achieved without systemic changes in the way for-profit corporations are governed and managed. The change in public opinion has become evident among workers, consumers, and investors, as well as through new policies enacted by elected officials of both parties: more than ever before, the public supports businesses that demonstrate positive social change and sustainable development. These new attitudes have begun to take root in corporations themselves, with a growing community of investors, business leaders, and entrepreneurs expressing a fiduciary duty to create value not only for shareholders but for society. However, businesses and investors seeking to harness these opportunities face significant institutional and normative barriers to achieving their goals.

In a new paper, the co-founders of non-profit B Lab, Andrew Kassoy, Bart Houlahan, and Jay Coen Gilbert, write about this overarching culture shift, the importance of and impediments to effective impact governance and impact management to make this shift meaningful and lasting, and how a rapidly growing community of responsible businesses has overcome these barriers, is maximizing its social impact, and is creating pathways for others to follow. The impact and growth of the B Corp movement will be maximized not only through increased adoption by business leaders, but also through the unique roles played by research institutions, the media, policy-makers, investors, and the general public. With enough support, this movement may soon transform shareholder capitalism into stakeholder capitalism, in which businesses can more easily live up to their potential to create a more shared and durable prosperity for all. 

This paper is published as part of the Center for Effective Public Management’s Initiative on 21st Century Capitalism. It is one of more than a dozen papers written by academics and practitioners about the changing role of the corporation and the importance of improving corporate governance. The authors of this paper are the co-founders of B Lab, a nonprofit organization that oversees the certification of B Corporations, and a major subject of this paper. The perspectives put forth in this paper are solely those of the authors, based on their professional expertise in this area.

Downloads

• Download the paper

The much anticipated Third Plenum of the Chinese Communist Party’s 18^th Congress closed its four-day session last Tuesday. A relatively bland initial communiqué was followed today by a detailed decision document spelling out major initiatives including a relaxation of the one-child policy, the elimination of the repressive “re-education through labor” camps, and a host of reforms to the taxation and state-owned enterprise systems. Today’s blizzard of specific reform pledges allays earlier concerns that the new government led by party chief Xi Jinping and premier Li Keqiang would fail to set major policy goals. But is this enough to answer the three biggest questions analysts have had since Xi and  Li ascended a year ago?

Those questions are, first, do Xi and his six colleagues on the Politburo standing committee have an accurate diagnosis of China’s structural economic and social ailments? Second, do they have sensible plans for addressing these problems? And third, do they have the political muscle to push reforms past entrenched resistance by big state owned enterprises (SOEs), tycoons, local government officials and other interest groups whose comfortable positions would be threatened by change? Until today, the consensus answers to the first two questions were “we’re not really sure,” and to the third, “quite possibly not.”

These concerns are misplaced. It is clear that the full 60-point “Decision on Several Major Questions About Deepening Reform”[1] encompasses an ambitious agenda to restructure the roles of the government and the market. Combined with other actions from Xi’s first year in office – notably a surprisingly bold anti-corruption campaign – the reform program reveals Xi Jinping as a leader far more powerful and visionary than his predecessor Hu Jintao. He aims to redefine the basic functions of market and government, and in so doing establish himself as China’s most significant leader since Deng Xiaoping. Moreover, he is moving swiftly to establish the bureaucratic machinery that will enable him to overcome resistance and achieve his aims. It remains to be seen whether Xi can deliver on these grand ambitions, and whether his prescription will really prove the cure for China’s mounting social and economic ills. But one thing is for sure: Xi cannot be faulted for thinking too small.

Main objective: get the government out of resource allocation

The four main sources we have so far on Xi’s reform strategy are the Plenum’s Decision, the summary communiqué issued right after the plenum’s close,[2] an explanatory note on the decision by Xi,[3] and a presumably authoritative interview with the vice office director of the Party’s Financial Leading Small Group, Yang Weimin, published in the People’s Daily on November 15, which adds much useful interpretive detail.[4] Together they make clear that the crucial parts of the Decision are as follows:

• China is still at a stage where economic development is the main objective.
• The core principle of economic reform is the “decisive” (决定性) role of market forces in allocating resources (previous Party decisions gave the market a “basic” (基础）role in resource allocation.
• By implication, the government must retreat from its current powerful role in allocating resources. Instead, it will be redirected to five basic functions: macroeconomic management, market regulation, public service delivery, supervision of society (社会管理), and environmental protection.

In his interview, Yang Weimin draws a direct comparison between this agenda and the sweeping market reforms that emerged after Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour in 1992, claiming that the current reform design is a leap forward comparable to Deng’s, and far more significant than the reform programs of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao.

This a very bold and possibly exaggerated claim. But the basic reform idea – giving the market a “decisive” role in resource allocation – is potentially very significant, and should not be dismissed as mere semantics. Over the last 20 years China has deregulated most of its product markets, and the competition in these markets has generated enormous economic gains. But the allocation of key inputs – notably capital, energy, and land – has not been fully deregulated, and government at all levels has kept a gigantic role in deciding who should get those inputs and at what price. The result is that too many of these inputs have gone to well-connected state-owned actors at too low a price. The well-known distortions of China’s economy – excessive reliance on infrastructure spending, and wasteful investment in excessive industrial capacity – stem largely from the distortions in input prices.

Xi’s program essentially calls for the government to retreat from its role in allocating these basic resources. If achieved, this would be a big deal: it would substantially boost economic efficiency, but at the cost of depriving the central government of an important tool of macro-economic management, and local governments of treasured channels of patronage. As a counterpart to this retreat from direct market interference, the Decision spells out the positive roles of government that must be strengthened: macro management and regulation, public service delivery, management of social stability, and environmental protection. In short, the vision seems to be to move China much further toward an economy where the government plays a regulatory, rather than a directly interventionist role.

Keep the SOEs, but make them more efficient

Before we get too excited about a “neo-liberal” Xi administration, though, it’s necessary to take account of the massive state-owned enterprise (SOE) complex. While Xi proposes that the government retreat from its role in manipulating the prices of key inputs, it is quite clear that the government’s large role as the direct owner of key economic assets will remain. While the Decision contains a number of specific SOE reform proposals (such as raising their dividend payout ratio from the current 10-15% to 30%, and an encouragement of private participation in state-sector investment projects), it retains a commitment to a very large SOE role in economic development. The apparent lack of a more aggressive state-sector reform or privatization program has distressed many economists, who agree that China’s declining productivity growth and exploding debt are both substantially due to the bloated SOEs, which gobble up a disproportionate share of bank credit and other resources but deliver ever lower returns on investment.

The communiqué and the Decision both make clear that state ownership must still play a “leading role” in the economy, and it is a very safe bet that when he retires in 2022, Xi will leave behind the world’s biggest collection of state-owned enterprises. But while privatization is off the table, subjecting SOEs to much more intense competition and tighter regulation appears to be a big part of Xi’s agenda. In his interview, Yang Weimin stresses that the Plenum decision recognizes the equal importance of both state and non-state ownership – a shift from previous formulations which always gave primacy to the state sector. Moreover, other reports suggest that the mandate of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (Sasac), which oversees the 100 or so big centrally-controlled SOE groups, will shift from managing state assets to managing state capital.[5] This shift of emphasis is significant: in recent years SOEs have fortified their baronies by building up huge mountains of assets, with little regard to the financial return on those assets (which appears to be deteriorating rapidly). Forcing SOEs to pay attention to their capital rather than their assets implies a much stronger emphasis on efficiency.

This approach is consistent with a long and generally successful tradition in China’s gradual march away from a planned economy. The key insight of economic reformers including Xi is that the bedrock of a successful modern economy is not private ownership, as many Western free-market economists believe, but effective competition. If the competitive environment for private enterprises is improved – by increasing their access to capital, land and energy, and by eliminating regulatory and local-protectionist barriers to investment – marginal SOEs

must either improve their efficiency or disappear (often by absorption into a larger, more profitable SOE, rather than through outright bankruptcy). As a result, over time the economic role of SOEs is eroded and overall economic efficiency improves, without the need to fight epic and costly political battles over privatization.

Can Xi deliver?

Even if we accept this view of Xi as an ambitious, efficiency-minded economic reformer, it’s fair to be skeptical that he can deliver on his grand design. These reforms are certain to be opposed by powerful forces: SOEs, local governments, tycoons, and other beneficiaries of the old system. All these interest groups are far more powerful than in the late 1990s, when Zhu Rongji launched his dramatic reforms to the state enterprise system. What are the odds that Xi can overcome this resistance?

Actually, better than even. The Plenum approved the formation of two high-level Party bodies: a “leading small group” to coordinate reform, and a State Security Commission to oversee the nation’s pervasive security apparatus. At first glance this seems a classic bureaucratic shuffle – appoint new committees, instead of actually doing something. But in the Chinese context, these bodies are potentially quite significant.

In the last years of the Hu Jintao era, reforms were stymied by two entrenched problems: turf battles between different ministries, and interference by security forces under a powerful and conservative boss, Zhou Yongkang. Neither Hu nor his premier Wen Jiabao was strong enough to ride herd on the squabbling ministers, or to quash the suffocating might of the security faction. By establishing these two high-level groups (presumably led by himself or a close ally), Xi is making clear that he will be the arbiter of all disputes, and that security issues will be taken seriously but not allowed to obstruct crucial economic or governance reforms.

The costs of crossing Xi have also been made clear by a determined anti-corruption campaign which over the last six months has felled a bevy of senior executives at the biggest SOE (China National Petroleum Corporation), the head of the SOE administrative agency, and a mayor of Nanjing infamous for his build-at-all-costs development strategy. Many of the arrested people were closely aligned with Zhou Yongkang. The message is obvious: Xi is large and in charge, and if you get on the wrong side of him or his policies you will not be saved by the patronage of another senior leader or a big state company. Xi’s promptness in dispatching his foes is impressive: both of his predecessors waited until their third full year in office to take out crucial enemies on corruption charges.

In short, there is plenty of evidence that Xi has an ambitious agenda for reforming China’s economic and governance structures, and the will and political craft to achieve many of his aims. His program may not satisfy market fundamentalists, and he certainly offers no hope for those who would like to see China become more democratic. But it is likely to be effective in sustaining the nation’s economic growth, and enabling the Communist Party to keep a comfortable grip on power.

Editor's Note: Arthur Kroeber is the Beijing-based managing director of Gavekal Dragonomics, a global macroeconomic research firm, and a non-resident fellow of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center. A different version of this article appears on www.foreignpolicy.com.

A year after he and his colleagues took control of China’s government, Xi Jinping has emerged as an extraordinarily powerful leader, with a clear and ambitious agenda for remaking the Chinese governance system. Economic, social and foreign policy are now on a far more clear and decisive course than they were during the drifting and unfocused last years under president Hu Jintao and premier Wen Jiabao.

Xi arguably wields more personal authority than any Chinese leader since Mao: he has subdued the fragmented fiefdoms that arose under Hu; has arrogated all key decisions to himself, unlike Jiang Zemin who delegated much economic policy power to his premier Zhu Rongji; and does not have to deal with the cabal of conservative patriarchs that often hemmed in Deng Xiaoping.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of Xi’s first year was the speed with which he consolidated his power and signaled his policy intentions. He achieved this through two big house-cleaning drives. First was an anti-corruption campaign that neutralized a powerful political enemy (former security boss Zhou Yongkang), brought to heel a powerful vested interest (state oil giant China National Petroleum Corporation, much of whose senior management was arrested) and signaled the costs of opposing his reform agenda by sweeping up 20,000 officials at all levels of government. The other was the so-called “mass line” campaign that involved party, government and military officials engaging in “self-criticism” sessions and getting marching orders from party central.

So there is no question that Xi has power. What does he intend to do with it? The Decision document that emerged last November from the Communist Party plenum made clear that his aim is comprehensive governance reform. This does not mean eroding the party’s monopoly on power; quite the reverse. The intention is to strengthen the party’s grip by improving the administrative system, clarifying the roles of the market and the state (resulting in a more market-driven economy but also in a more powerful and effective state), and permitting a wider role for citizen-led non-governmental organizations—so long as those NGOs effectively act as social-service contractors for the state and do not engage in advocacy or political mobilization.

And at the recent National People’s Congress (NPC) we got additional detail on Xi’s economic program, which is the most comprehensive structural reform agenda since the late 1990s. (Xi’s propagandists make the bolder claim that it is the most sweeping reform program since Deng’s original “reform and opening” drive of the late 1970s.) Much commentary has focused on the Plenum Decision’s emphasis on giving the market a “decisive role,” and this shift is indeed important. But Xi is not some Chinese version of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher: for him and his colleagues, the market is a tool, not an end in itself. The respective roles of state and market need to be clarified, but the state role will remain very large. Xi’s economic agenda is not just about deregulation and improving the environment for private enterprise; it is also about fixing the state-enterprise and fiscal systems so that they become more effective instruments for achieving state aims.

If Xi succeeds, the result will be a China with a more efficient economy, a better run and somewhat more transparent government—and a Communist Party with enhanced legitimacy and tighter control of all the crucial levers of power. But there are also two less rosy potential outcomes. One is that his reforms fail, and China is left with a debt ridden, slow-growing economy with an overbearing state sector and an increasingly dissatisfied population. Another is that he succeeds—but either becomes a permanent dictator himself, or establishes the belief that China only be ruled by a strongman, thereby retarding the development of a more open and participatory political system.

It’s the economy, and we’re not stupid

On the immediate economic policy questions, a gulf has opened between foreign and many non-official domestic analysts on the one hand, and the apparent stance of the government on the other. According to the prevalent outside view, China’s biggest problem is the huge increase in leverage since the 2008 global financial crisis: total non-financial credit rose from 138 percent of GDP in 2008 to 205 percent last year. Unless this spiraling leverage is brought under control, the argument goes, China risks some sort of financial crisis. To stabilize the credit/GDP ratio, annual credit growth must fall from its current rate of around 17 percent to the trend rate of nominal GDP growth, which now appears to be around 10 percent. But such a dramatic fall in credit growth must almost certainly cause a drop in real GDP growth, at least in the short run. The conclusion is therefore that if Beijing is serious about controlling leverage, it must accept significantly lower growth for at least a couple of years. If on the other hand the leaders insist on keeping economic growth at its current pace, this means they cannot be serious about controlling leverage and imposing structural reform, and a train wreck is more likely.

As far as we can tell from the agenda laid out at the Plenum and the NPC, Xi and his colleagues do not agree with this analysis. Their priorities are to restructure the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the fiscal system, and maintain real GDP growth at approximately its current rate of 7.5 percent. The leverage problem, by implication, can be sorted out over several years.

The argument in favor of this approach is that SOE and fiscal reform strike at the root causes of the debt build-up. Local governments have borrowed because their expenditure responsibilities exceed their assigned revenues, they have an implicit mandate to build huge amounts of urban infrastructure, and they face no accountability for the return on their investments. SOEs have borrowed because their return on capital has deteriorated sharply. Improving SOEs’ return on capital and cleaning up local government finance, should greatly reduce the demand for unproductive debt, and hence bring credit and economic growth back into alignment—eventually. In the meantime credit will flow at whatever rate permits real GDP to keep humming at 7 percent or more, meaning that leverage will continue to rise.

In other words, the government thinks the debt build-up is merely a symptom, and it intends to attack the underlying disease while letting the symptoms take care of themselves. One can feel comfortable with approach this on two conditions: first, that the government is right that the debt buildup does not itself pose an immediate threat to economic health; and second that the government is serious about tackling the structural problems.

Debt – what, me worry?

The safety of the current debt trajectory is a judgment call. On the plus side, the last several months have seen a steep decline in year-on-year credit growth, with very little apparent impact on economic activity. Growth in broad credit (including activity in the “shadow” financing sector) peaked at 23.5 percent in April 2013 and declined continuously to 17 percent in February, while GDP growth remained basically steady in both real and nominal terms. If this pattern holds, it suggests that leverage will continue to increase, but at a slower rate than in the past two years, so the runaway-train risk is reduced.

The government’s own case for the safety of the present debt situation implicitly rests on a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) in late December, which found the debt position of local governments to be poor but manageable. Total liabilities of local governments as of 30 June 2013 were found to be Rmb18 trn (US$3 trn), or approximately 31 percent of GDP; of these liabilities 40 percent were guarantees and contingencies (and thereby not an imminent risk to local finances). NAO’s estimate of consolidated public debt, including the central government, came in at about 53 percent of GDP, well below the levels of public borrowing in most OECD countries.

Another basis for the sanguine view on debt was an extensive national balance-sheet analysis published in December by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), the party’s main think-tank. CASS’s calculation methods differ from NAO’s, so the two sets of figures are not directly comparable. CASS found that total government debt was 73 percent of GDP in 2011, and that broad public-sector liabilities (including the debt of SOEs and policy banks) were 151 percent of GDP. This sounds scary until you inspect the asset side of the balance sheet, which comes in at a more cheerful 350 percent. This figure is almost certainly too rosy: nearly three-quarters of it represents the land holdings of local governments and SOE assets, whose reported values are probably well above their true market values. But even discounting these values substantially, it is still possible to conclude that the public sector’s assets comfortably cover its liabilities.

Whether one agrees with these estimates or not, it is clear that policy makers accept the central conclusion that the nation’s debt problem is serious but manageable, and that direct efforts to deleverage immediately are not warranted. The important question then becomes whether Beijing’s efforts to tackle the underlying structural problems are bearing fruit.

Rolling back the SOE tide

So what are those efforts? The agenda on SOE reform is now clear. SOEs will be compelled to focus on improving their return on capital, rather than expanding their assets; private capital will be permitted to enter previously restricted sectors; direct private investment in SOEs and in state-led investment projects will be encouraged; and most likely (although government officials have been coy on this point), a swathe of underperforming locally-controlled SOEs in non-strategic sectors will be privatized or forced into bankruptcy.

In essence, this revives the zhuada fangxiao (grasp the big, release the small) SOE reform strategy of the late 1990s. The idea was that the state would retain control, and try to improve the operational efficiency, of a relatively small number of very large enterprises in strategic sectors such as railways, aviation, telecoms, power and petrochemicals, while privatizing most activity in competitive consumer goods and services sectors. This strategy was successful: in the decade ending in 2008, the number of SOEs fell from 260,000 to 110,000, the private sector’s share of national fixed investment rose from less than a quarter to 58 percent, the profitability and return on assets of state firms rose dramatically and came close to matching the returns in private firms, and the proportion of SOE assets in “strategic” sectors rose to an all-time high of 62 percent.

Thanks to the Hu/Wen leadership’s lack of enthusiasm for state sector reform, and their mandate that state firms support the massive 2009 economic stimulus, some of these gains have been reversed. Crucially, the return on assets in SOEs plummeted to less than half the private-sector average, and state firms began to re-colonize sectors from which they had previously retreated: by 2011, half of SOE assets were in these non-strategic sectors.

Now the reformers are back in charge and aim to complete the zhuada fangxiao objective. This does not mean eliminating the state sector, or privatizing the core centrally-owned firms on the economy’s commanding heights. But it does mean a determined push to shed non-core SOEs and assets, abandon consumer-facing sectors in favor of private firms, and improve the operational efficiency of the remaining SOES. The headline efforts in this direction so far have been an announcement by the Guangdong provincial government that it aims to move 80 percent of provincial SOEs to a mixed-ownership structure, with no predetermined minimum state shareholding; and an announcement by petrochemicals giant Sinopec that it will seek private investment for an up to 30 percent share of its downstream gasoline and diesel distribution operations.

Funding the unfunded mandates

SOE reform was a surprisingly strong component of the Third Plenum decision; fiscal reform took center stage in the recent NPC session. China’s central fiscal problem is unfunded mandates for local governments. Localities control less than half of revenues but are responsible for 85 percent of government expenditure. In theory, the gap is supposed to be bridged by transfers from the central government, but in practice the transfers often do not match up well with localities’ actual needs. Not surprisingly, they respond to this structural deficit by resorting to a variety of off-budget funding schemes, a lot of which involve grabbing land and selling it to developers at a big markup.

A mismatch between local expenditure and revenue was a deliberate feature of the landmark 1994 tax reform (in whose design finance minister Lou Jiwei was involved as a junior official). But until the early 2000s, localities’ expenditure share was roughly stable at around two-thirds of the total; unfunded mandates and chronic deficits have grown dramatically in the past decade.

The centerpiece of Lou’s fiscal reform strategy is a recentralization of expenditure responsibility and a more flexible transfer system, reducing incentives for local-government rapacity. But in his budget speech he outlined a host of other detailed reforms, whose combined effect would be curb over-investment in real estate and heavy industry, permit fiscal policy to become more countercyclical and increase budget accountability. The main items include:

• Revenue estimates “are now seen as projections instead of tasks to accomplish.” This aims to discourage the current practice of trying to increase tax collections during economic downturns.
• Adoption of a three-year budget cycle and accrual accounting.
• Increase local government borrowing authority (from a small base), via provincial and municipal bonds.
• Make budgets at both the central and local level more open and transparent.
• Clean up the maze of local government tax breaks.
• Impose the long-delayed tax on property values, establish an environmental protection tax and hike the resource tax on coal.

Good diagnosis, but will the cure cause more harm?

All in all the reform agenda is a strong one: its diagnosis of China’s economic ills is compelling, and the proposed cures seems sensible. There are three concerns. First, there is the worry that the government has underestimated the financial risks of the burgeoning debt burden and a rapidly-changing financial system. The only clear promise of stronger financial regulation so far is Lou’s statement that a deposit insurance system will be launched later this year. This would reduce moral hazard by clarifying for investors which financial assets are guaranteed and which are risky. But more action to cut debt and restrain the “shadow banking” sector may be needed.

Second, it is possible that reforms may be thwarted by powerful bureaucratic and business interests: some reforms (like the property tax) have been proposed in the past but gone nowhere. On the whole, Xi’s success at whipping officialdom into line by the anti-corruption and mass line campaigns suggests he will be more effective than his predecessor, but there is no guarantee. Finally, there is the worry that Xi’s program succeeds, and validates highly centralized and authoritarian style of governance that could harm China’s long-term prospects for development into a more open and liberal society.

After the enthusiasm which greeted the launch of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s landmark reform blueprint at the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee in November 2013, the mood among observers of China’s economy has gradually soured. A common view is that progress on economic reforms has been slow, bogged down not only by the opposition of vested interests but also by the government’s own distraction with its endless anti-corruption campaign, and by its anxiousness to support short-term growth through easy monetary policy.

This popular take misses the mark in three respects. First, the top priority of Xi’s reform is not about economics; it is to remake China’s system of governance. Successful reform of government and administration, along with more specific market reforms, will, in turn, enable more sustainable economic growth. Second, China’s leaders clearly reject the view that to be serious about structural economic reform, they must accept a sharp cyclical slowdown. Instead, they believe that maintaining relatively rapid growth in the short term will give them more breathing room to push through their complex economic agenda. Finally, a tally of economic reform measures this year shows that progress has in fact been impressively brisk.

Governance, Not Economics, Tops the Agenda

Understanding the primacy of governance reform is essential to grasping the role of the anti-corruption campaign, which has resulted in the investigation or disciplining of over 70,000 officials at all levels of government in virtually every province, and has now spread to senior levels of the People’s Liberation Army. This campaign is often portrayed as a cynical effort by Xi Jinping to consolidate power, eliminate his enemies and curtail the influence of retired senior leaders, notably former Presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. These motives no doubt play a large role, but the campaign is too far-reaching, and has gone on for too long, for them to be a full explanation.

It is now apparent that the campaign’s central goal is to sharply reduce the system’s tolerance of corruption, which has been quite high since the beginning of economic reforms in the late 1970s. This, in turn, suggests a desire to renegotiate the basic bargain between the central and local governments that has held throughout the reform period. In essence, that bargain tasked local officials with maximizing economic growth, in exchange for which they were tacitly permitted to skim off part of the financial gains from that growth. Central authorities only cracked down when the graft reached grotesque proportions (as with smuggling scandals in Xiamen and other coastal cities in south China in the late 1990s), or when political and policy interests converged in an exemplary prosecution (as in the purge of Shanghai party Secretary Chen Liangyu in 2005, which both removed a Politburo rival to Hu Jintao and sent a message to cities to rein in property speculation).

This bargain proved effective in stimulating sustained rapid growth while China was still a low-income country. But the nation’s economy has now matured and with a per capita national income of $6,560, China now qualifies as an upper-middle income country, by the World Bank’s definition. To sustain high growth at this income level, China needs better governance, a more reliable legal system and considerably less corruption. Thus, the anti-graft campaign is not incidental to or a distraction from the main reform agenda—it is an essential part of the foundation of a more successful economic and political system.

Similarly, the legal system reform outlined at the Fourth Plenum in October, while disappointing many Western observers because it sanctified the Communist Party’s position above the laws that apply to everyone else, is in fact a significant step towards a more consistent, predictable, rules-based system. As Cheng Li has pointed out, the very act of devoting a Plenum to legal issues has made possible a discussion about how to create rule of law in China (see “Fourth Plenum Has Opened Discourse on Constitutionalism, Governance”). And the specific reforms that legal scholars believe are likely—creation of circuit courts to limit the influence of parochial interests, more consistent publication of court decisions, prohibition on Party interference in most cases and the creation of limited avenues for public-interest litigation against polluting industries—have the potential to make Chinese governance fairer, more transparent and more responsive to citizens' concerns. As with the anti-corruption drive, a key theme is to readjust the balance of power in favor of the central government at the expense of the localities.

A final element in the governance reform agenda is the important but often-overlooked fiscal program adopted by the Politburo on June 30. By 2016, China will complete its first major overhaul of the nation’s taxation and government spending system in two decades. Key items include the elimination of land-based local government financing and its replacement by provincial bond issues; restructuring of taxes to reduce local governments’ revenue shortfalls and encourage them to promote consumer services, rather than heavy industry; and stronger resource and environmental taxes to arrest environmental degradation and promote more efficient energy use. Once more, much of the focus is on redefining the core role of local governments: their main mission will shift from promotion of economic growth to effective provision of public services.

Cyclical Economic Management Supports the Reform Agenda

Once we understand the primary role of governance, the sequencing of reform measures becomes more evident, and the relative tardiness of more narrowly economic reforms becomes more understandable. But skeptics have another concern: that the government is losing sight of its long-term structural reform goals in a desperate effort to keep short-term gross domestic product (GDP) growth above seven percent. The premise of this worry is that unless the authorities are willing squeeze out inefficiencies and curb the rapid rise in debt—measures which inevitably require a sharp slowdown in growth—then the structural reforms have little chance of success. In short, the economic model cannot change unless the old, bad habits are punished by clear failure.

Two pieces of recent evidence support this view. First, early in 2014, Beijing relaxed monetary policy and started removing long-standing administrative restrictions on house purchases, in order to prop up a property market that seemed on the brink of collapse. These measures reversed the tight monetary policy of the second half of 2013, which succeeded in bringing credit growth down from 23 percent in April to around 16 percent by the end of the year. Second, the new, looser policy meant that the country’s aggregate debt-to-GDP ratio continued to rise in 2014. After rising from 145 percent of GDP in 2008 to 220 percent in 2013, this ratio continued to climb in 2014 and now exceeds 230 percent of GDP. In absolute terms, this figure is not alarming—most developed countries, including the United States, have significantly higher ratios. But the rapid increase in leverage in a short time is usually a harbinger of financial problems.

It is a mistake, however, to assume that the continued increase in leverage shows that Beijing is incurably addicted to its old debt-fueled growth model, or that the authorities have decided to prioritize growth over reform. First of all, the credit stimulus used to support the property market this year was extremely modest: the year-on-year growth rate of credit ticked up only about one percentage point for a few months, and quickly dropped again once stimulus was withdrawn. The removal of administrative restrictions on house purchases arguably played a larger role in the property stabilization than did easy credit.

More important, Beijing’s approach to deleveraging is a deliberate policy choice driven by the conviction that growth and reform are partners, rather than antagonists. A relevant comparison is the debate between U.S. and European policymakers after 2008 about the appropriate response to the global financial crisis, which left the rich economies stuck with low growth and big debts. Washington argued that policy must focus on sustaining growth (through ultra-easy monetary policy and large fiscal deficits), and that fiscal consolidation should take a back seat. European officials, especially in Germany, argued that fiscal consolidation and debt reduction had to be a top priority, even if it harmed growth. Beijing obviously favors an American-style approach to deleveraging and structural adjustment. Given the superior performance of the U.S. economy (relative to Europe) since the global crisis, this is a defensible choice.

Economic Reforms are Proceeding Smartly

The last point is that, in fact, China’s rollout of specific reform measures over the past year has been impressive. In addition to the fiscal reform package, whose significance has been severely underrated by the market-obsessed international financial media, achievements of 2014 include:

• Abolition of registered capital requirements for new firms, which caused growth in new-company registrations to surge to over 20 percent, the highest rate in a decade.

• Switching the resource tax on coal from a volume to a value basis, a long-delayed measure which should discourage excessive investment and promote energy efficiency.

• Publication of a plan to deregulate all pharmaceutical prices beginning in 2015.

• Publication by virtually all provinces of plans for “mixed-ownership” reform of state enterprises.

• A significant opening of the capital account via the Shanghai-Hong Kong Connect program which permits investors in those two financial hubs to put money directly in each others’ stock markets.

• The publication of draft rules on deposit insurance, paving the way for implementation next year, followed by full liberalization of deposit interest rates.

Clearly these are just initial steps and much work needs to be done to broaden these reforms in ways that will have material impact on China’s $8 trillion economy. But it is hard to think of another major world leader whose government has accomplished so much in such a short period of time. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for instance, came to office two years ago promising “three arrows” of monetary easing, expansive fiscal policy and deep structural reform. So far he has delivered only one—monetary easing, which has driven the yen down and the stock market up—but structural reform is missing in action and fiscal policy was disastrously captured by Ministry of Finance hawks, whose consumption-tax increase drove the country into a needless recession. The U.S. government is gridlocked and is still fighting over a health care reform law passed five years ago. Six years after the global crisis, Italy has just begun to put in place long-overdue reforms to its labor market, and France, under its last two presidents, has done nothing at all to address its structural economic malaise. Xi Jinping can certainly be criticized on many issues, but failure to deliver on his reform agenda is not one of them.

Event Information

In an era of fluid geopolitics and geoeconomics, challenges to the global order abound: from ever-changing terrorism, to massive refugee flows, a stubbornly sluggish world economy, and the specter of global pandemics. Against this backdrop, the question of whether leader summitry—either the G-7 or G-20 incarnations—can supply needed international governance is all the more relevant. This question is particularly significant for East Asia this year as Japan and China, two economic giants that are sometimes perceived as political rivals, respectively host the G-7 and G-20 summits. 

On April 18, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies and the Project on International Order and Strategy co-hosted a discussion on the continued relevancy and efficacy of the leader summit framework, Japan’s and China’s priorities as summit hosts, and whether these East Asian neighbors will hold parallel but completely separate summits or utilize these summits as an opportunity to cooperate on issues of mutual, and global, interest.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #G7G20Asia

Audio

• Japan’s G-7 and China’s G-20 chairmanships: Bridges or stovepipes in leader summitry?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160418_g7g20_transcript

Introduction

Reaching education goals in the coming years will require sharp increases in funding and better delivery. Despite a global focus on improving access to education, nearly 60 million children in developing countries remain out of primary school and increased investments have not translated to better education quality or improved learning outcomes (UNESCO 2015a). Even with an increase in domestic public expenditure, UNESCO estimates that the financing gap for delivering good quality universal education from pre-school through junior secondary levels by 2030 in low-income countries will be $10.6 billion, on average, between 2015 and 2030—over four times the level currently provided by official donors ($2.3 billion) (UNESCO 2015b).

Closing acute financing and delivery gaps that prevent access to quality education will be a major challenge, requiring all hands on deck. Domestic governments and foreign donors will need to step up their game substantially, but fiscal and capacity constraints are likely to prevent them remedying resource deficits on their own in the short term. Non-state actors—mainly religious and charitable organizations, private (“foundation”) schools, and a small number of for-profit schools—are already partially filling the gaps, although the precise extent of their services and their impact is unknown.

Determining the appropriate role of non-state actors in education is a contentious topic among specialists. Disagreements have revolved around serious normative issues, including such basic questions as whether non-state provision is consistent with the principle of education as a human right, and serious empirical questions relating to quality and equity implications. This discussion has been blurred by definitional issues (i.e., what is non-state and private education?); lack of clarity over distinctions between ownership, delivery, and financing; a lack of accurate data on current and potential provision rates; and an insufficient base of evidence from which to draw clear conclusions on the effectiveness of non-state engagement in education. These problems have made it difficult to generate comparisons across empirical studies, leading to significant variation in the interpretation of evidence. For some observers, evidence has fueled concern that non-state education is violating human rights principles (e.g., the report by the United Nations Rapporteur on Education),1 while for others it has provided encouragement that non-state engagement can help address financing and delivery challenges (e.g., Tooley 2009).

Our goal is to provide a neutral background to this debate and identify areas of common ground. Beginning with some big picture facts, this paper develops a detailed language around non-state actors in education. We then outline current issues and poles of debate around engagement of non-state actors in education and provide an assessment of the depth of available data and evidence. To close, we establish a typology and propose a framework for discussions around the role of non-state actors in basic education and how these actors can best contribute to the achievement of Education for All and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our paper refers largely to basic education, including pre-primary, primary, and lower-secondary, as this is the main focus of much recent discussion around the role of non-state actors in education and an area of strong growth in developing countries.

Downloads

• Download the discussion paper

Downloads

• Download the policy recommendations
• The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide (PDF)

BPEA co-editor Justin Wolfers describes new research that found: people dropped out of the labor force before the recession started; there are better ways to forecast unemployment; homebuyer expectations helped inflate the bubble; the U.S. is not actually as politically polarized as most people think; central banks’ recent experiments with capital controls haven’t delivered results; and the U.S. is making inroads fighting poverty.

Video

• U.S. Not Actually as Politically Polarized as Most Think
• Poverty Has Fallen Much More than Previously Thought
• New Unemployment Model Can Outperform Forecasters
• Perceptions Matter: Homebuyer Expectations Helped Inflate Bubble
• Central Banks’ Recent Experiments with Capital Controls Haven’t Delivered Results

INTRODUCTION—

Achieving universal education is a twofold challenge: to get children and youth into school and then to teach them something meaningful while they are there. While important progress has been made on the first challenge, there is a crisis unfolding in relation to learning. Around the world, there have been major gains in primary school enrollment partly due to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals and the abolition of school fees by many national governments. However in many countries, students are spending years in school without learning core competencies, such as reading and writing. To address this learning crisis, the global community and national governments need to place a much greater focus on the ultimate objective of education—to acquire knowledge and develop skills.

This shift in focus away from just enrollment to enrollment plus quality learning requires measuring learning outcomes. However, the global education community is not yet systematically using effective instruments for measuring primary school learning in low- and middle-income countries. This policy brief reviews the global efforts among the primary donors to support the measurement of learning outcomes. It then suggests steps needed to transition global education policy into a new paradigm of enrollment plus quality learning, which includes: scaling up the implementation of national education accounts and national assessment systems; increasing attention to monitoring early learning during child development to improve readiness for school; and expanding the systematic use of simple assessments of basic cognitive functions in the early grades to help teachers improve their practice.

Downloads

• Read the full paper

Event Information

With the rise of ISIS and a growing terrorist threat in the West, unprecedented attention has focused on Islam, which despite being the world’s fastest growing religion, is also one of the most misunderstood. In his new book “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World” (St. Martin’s Press, 2016), Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid offers a novel and provocative argument on how Islam is, in fact, “exceptional” in how it relates to politics, with profound implications for how we understand the future of the Middle East. Hamid argues for a new understanding of how Islam and Islamism shape politics by examining different modes of reckoning with the problem of religion and state, including the terrifying—and alarmingly successful—example of ISIS.

On June 9, Shadi Hamid and Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy Leon Wieseltier discussed the unresolved questions of religion’s role in public life and whether Islam can—or should—be reformed or secularized.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #IslamicExceptionalism

Video

• Islamic exceptionalism: How the struggle over Islam is reshaping the world - Part 1
• Islamic exceptionalism: How the struggle over Islam is reshaping the world - Part 2

Audio

• Islamic exceptionalism: How the struggle over Islam is reshaping the world

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160609_islamic_exceptionalism_transcript

During debates in Congress and in the legal battles testing its constitutionality, critics of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 imagined a host of unanticipated and debilitating consequences. The law's ban on party soft money and the regulation of electioneering advertising would, they warned, produce a parade of horribles: A decline in political speech protected by the First Amendment, the demise of political parties, and the dominance of interest groups in federal election campaigns.

The forecast that attracted the most believers — among politicians, journalists, political consultants, election-law attorneys and scholars — was the claim that Democrats would be unable to compete against Republicans under the new rules, primarily because the Democrats' relative ability to raise funds would be severely crippled. One year ago, Seth Gitell in The Atlantic Monthly summarized this view and went so far as to call the new law "The Democratic Party Suicide Bill." Gitell quoted a leading Democratic Party attorney, who expressed his private view of the law as "a fascist monstrosity." He continued, "It is grossly offensive ... and on a fundamental level it's horrible public policy, because it emasculates the parties to the benefit of narrow-focus special-interest groups. And it's a disaster for the Democrats. Other than that, it's great."

The core argument was straightforward. Democratic Party committees were more dependent on soft money — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals — than were the Republicans. While they managed to match Republicans in soft-money contributions, they trailed badly in federally limited hard-money contributions. Hence, the abolition of soft money would put the Democrats at a severe disadvantage in presidential and Congressional elections.

In addition, the argument went, by increasing the amount an individual could give to a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000, the law would provide a big financial boost to President Bush, who would double the $100 million he raised in 2000 and vastly outspend his Democratic challenger. Finally, the ban on soft money would weaken the Democratic Party's get-out-the-vote efforts, particularly in minority communities, while the regulation of "issue ads" would remove a potent electoral weapon from the arsenal of labor unions, the party's most critical supporter.

After 18 months of experience under the law, the fundraising patterns in this year's election suggest that these concerns were greatly exaggerated. Money is flowing freely in the campaign, and many voices are being heard. The political parties have adapted well to an all-hard-money world and have suffered no decline in total revenues. And interest groups are playing a secondary role to that of the candidates and parties.

The financial position of the Democratic party is strikingly improved from what was imagined a year ago. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who opted out of public funding before the Iowa caucuses, will raise more than $200 million before he accepts his party's nomination in Boston. The unusual unity and energy in Democrats' ranks have fueled an extraordinary flood of small donations to the Kerry campaign, mainly over the Internet. These have been complemented by a series of successful events courting $1,000 and $2,000 donors.

Indeed, since Kerry emerged as the prospective nominee in March, he has raised more than twice as much as Bush and has matched the Bush campaign's unprecedented media buys in battleground states, while also profiting from tens of millions of dollars in broadcast ads run by independent groups that are operating largely outside the strictures of federal election law.

The Democratic national party committees have adjusted to the ban on soft money much more successfully than insiders had thought possible. Instead of relying on large soft-money gifts for half of their funding, Democrats have shown a renewed commitment to small donors and have relied on grassroots supporters to fill their campaign coffers. After the 2000 election, the Democratic National Committee had 400,000 direct-mail donors; today the committee has more than 1.5 million, and hundreds of thousands more who contribute over the Internet.

By the end of June, the three Democratic committees had already raised $230 million in hard money alone, compared to $227 million in hard and soft money combined at this point in the 2000 election cycle. They have demonstrated their ability to replace the soft money they received in previous elections with new contributions from individual donors.

Democrats are also showing financial momentum as the election nears, and thus have been gradually reducing the Republican financial advantage in both receipts and cash on hand. In 2003, Democrats trailed Republicans by a large margin, raising only $95 million, compared to $206 million for the GOP. But in the first quarter of this year, Democrats began to close the gap, raising $50 million, compared to $82 million for Republicans. In the most recent quarter, they narrowed the gap even further, raising $85 million, compared to the Republicans' $96 million.

Democrats are now certain to have ample funds for the fall campaigns. Although they had less than $20 million in the bank (minus debts) at the beginning of this year, they have now banked $92 million. In the past three months, Democrats actually beat Republicans in generating cash — $47 million, compared to $31 million for the GOP.

The party, therefore, has the means to finance a strong coordinated and/or independent-spending campaign on behalf of the presidential ticket, while Congressional committees have the resources they need to play in every competitive Senate and House race, thanks in part to the fundraising support they have received from Members of Congress.

Moreover, FEC reports through June confirm that Democratic candidates in those competitive Senate and House races are more than holding their own in fundraising. They will be aided by a number of Democratic-leaning groups that have committed substantial resources to identify and turn out Democratic voters on Election Day.

Democrats are highly motivated to defeat Bush and regain control of one or both houses of Congress. BCRA has not frustrated these efforts. Democrats are financially competitive with Republicans, which means the outcome will not be determined by a disparity of resources. Put simply, the doomsday scenario conjured up by critics of the new campaign finance law has not come to pass.

Analysis of dozens of publicly created redistricting plans shows that map-making technology can improve political representation and detect a gerrymander.  In 2012, President Obama won the vote in Ohio by three percentage points, while Republicans held a 13-to-5 majority in Ohio’s delegation to the U.S. House. After redistricting in 2013, Republicans held 12 of Ohio’s House seats while Democrats held four. As is typical in these races, few were competitive; the average margin of victory was 32 points. Is this simply a result of demography, the need to create a majority-minority district, and the constraints traditional redistricting principles impose on election lines—or did the legislature intend to create a gerrymander?

Crowd-Sourced Redistricting Maps

In the Ohio elections, we have a new source of information that opens a window into the legislature’s choice: Large numbers of publicly created redistricting plans.

During the last round of redistricting, across the country thousands of people in over a dozen states created hundreds of legal redistricting plans. Advances in information technology and the engagement of grassroots reform groups made these changes possible. To promote these efforts we created the DistrictBuilder open redistricting platform and many of these groups used this tool to create their plans.

Over the last several years, we have used the trove of information produced by public redistricting to gain insight into the politics of representation. In previous work that analyzed public redistricting in Virginia^[1], and in Florida^[2], we discovered that members of the public are capable of creating legal redistricting plans that outperform those maps created by legislatures in a number of ways.

Public redistricting in Ohio shows something new—the likely motives of the legislature. This can be seen through using information visualization methods to show the ways in which redistricting goals can be balanced (or traded-off) in Ohio , revealing the particular trade-offs made by the legislature.

The figure below, from our new research paper^[3], shows 21 plots—each of which compares legislative and publicly-created plans using a pair of scores—altogether covering seven different traditional and representational criteria. A tiny ‘A’ shows the adopted plan. The top-right corner of each mini-plot shows the best theoretically possible score. When examined by itself, the legislative plan meets a few criteria: it minimizes population deviation, creates an expected majority-minority seat, and creates a substantial majority of districts that would theoretically be competitive in an open-seat race in which the statewide vote was evenly split.

Figure 1: Pairwise Congressional Score Comparisons (Scatterplots) - Standardized Scores

In previous rounds of redistricting, empirical analysis would stop here—unless experts were called in to draw alternative plans in litigation. However, the large number of public plans now available allows us to see other options, plans the legislature could readily have created had it desired to do so. Comparison of the adopted plans and public plans reveal the weakness of the legislature’s choice. Members of the public were able to find plans that soundly beat the legislative plan on almost every pair of criteria, including competitive districts.

So why was the adopted plan chosen? Information visualization can help here, as well, but we need to add another criterion—partisan advantage:

Pareto Frontier: Standard Criteria vs. Democratic Surplus

When we visualize the number of expected Democratic seats that was likely to result from each plan, and compare this to the other score, we can see that the adopted plan is the best at something— producing Republican seats.

Was Ohio gerrymandered? Applying our proposed gerrymandering detection method, the adopted plans stands in high contrast to the public sample of plans, even if the overall competition scoring formula is slightly biased towards the Democrats, as strongly biased towards the Republicans on any measure of partisan fairness. Moreover analyzing the tradeoffs among redistricting criteria illuminate empirically demonstrates what is often suspected, but is typically impossible to demonstrate—that had the legislature desired to improve any good-government criterion—it could have done so, simply by sacrificing some partisan advantage. In light of this new body of evidence, the political intent of the legislature is clearly displayed.

However, when politics and technology mix, beware of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”^[4] Indeed there is an unexpected and hopeful lesson on reform revealed by the public participation that was enabled by new technology. The public plans show that, in Ohio, it is possible to improve the expected competitiveness, and to improve compliance with traditional districting principles such as county integrity, without threatening majority-minority districts simply by reducing partisan advantage—this is a tradeoff we should gladly accept.

Editors’ Note: Since President François Hollande’s 2012 election, France has launched an Asia-wide initiative in an attempt to halt declining trade figures and improve its overall leverage with the region, write Philippe Le Corre and Michael O’Hanlon. This piece originally appeared on The National Interest.

On April 26, France’s defense shipbuilding company DCNS secured a victory in winning, against Japan and Germany, a long-awaited $40 billion Australian submarine deal. It may not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following France’s growing interest in the Asia-Pacific for the past five years. Since President François Hollande’s 2012 election, the country has launched an Asia-wide initiative in an attempt to halt declining trade figures and improve its overall leverage with the region.

Visiting New Caledonia last weekend, Prime Minister Manuel Valls immediately decided on the spot to fly to Australia to celebrate the submarine news. Having been at odds in the 1990s over France’s decision to test its nuclear weapon capacities on an isolated Pacific island, Paris and Canberra have begun a close partnership over the last decade, culminating in the decision by Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in power since September 2015.

Unlike its Japanese competitor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), DCNS promised to build the submarine main parts on Australian soil, creating 2,900 jobs in the Adelaide area. The French also secured support from U.S. defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, one of which will eventually build the twelve shortfin Barracuda submarines’ combat systems. Meanwhile, this unexpected victory, in light of the close strategic relationship between Australia and Japan, has shed light on France’s sustained ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region. Thanks to its overseas territories of New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia and Clipperton Island, France has the world’s second-largest maritime domain. It is also part of QUAD, the Quadrilateral Defence Coordination Group that also includes the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and which coordinates security efforts in the Pacific, particularly in the maritime domain, by supporting island states to robustly and sustainably manage their natural resources, including fisheries.

France is also attempting to correct an excessive focus on China by developing new ties with India, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries, which have all received a number of French ministerial visits. France’s overseas territories also include a presence in the southern part of the Indian Ocean, with the islands of Mayotte, Réunion and the Scattered Islands, and French Southern and Antarctic Territories, as well as the northwest region of the Indian Ocean through its permanent military presence in the United Arab Emirates and Djibouti. Altogether these presences encompass one million French citizens. This sets France apart from its fellow EU member states regarding defense and security in the Asia-Pacific, particularly as France is a top supplier of military equipment to several Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia, India and Australia. Between 2008 and 2012, Asian nations accounted for 28 percent of French defense equipment sales, versus 12 percent during 1998–2002. (More broadly, 70 percent of European containerized merchandise trade transits through the Indian Ocean.)

Despite its unique position, France is also supportive of a joint European Union policy toward the region, especially when it comes to developments in the South China Sea. Last March, with support from Paris, Berlin, London and other members, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s High representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, issued a statement criticizing China’s actions:

“The EU is committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based upon the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This includes the maintenance of maritime safety, security, and cooperation, freedom of navigation and overflight. While not taking a position on claims to land territory and maritime space in the South China Sea, the EU urges all claimants to resolve disputes through peaceful means, to clarify the basis of their claims, and to pursue them in accordance with international law including UNCLOS and its arbitration procedures.”

This does not mean that France is neglecting its “global partnership” with China. In 2014, the two countries celebrated fifty years of diplomatic relations; both governments conduct annual bilateral dialogues on international and security issues. But as a key EU state, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a significant contributor to the Asia-Pacific’s security, France has launched a multidimensional Asia policy.

All of this should be seen as welcome news by Washington. While there would have been advantages to any of the three worthy bids, a greater French role in the Asia-Pacific should be beneficial. At this crucial historical moment in China's rise and the region's broader blossoming, the United States needs a strong and engaged European partnership to encourage Beijing in the right direction and push back together when that does not occur. Acting in concert with some of the world's other major democracies can add further legitimacy to America's actions to uphold the international order in the Asia-Pacific. To be sure, Japan, South Korea and Australia are key U.S. partners here and will remain so. But each also has its own limitations (and in Japan's case, a great deal of historical baggage in dealing with China).

European states are already heavily involved in economic interactions with China. The submarine decision will help ensure a broader European role that includes a hard-headed perspective on security trends as well.

What are the greatest dangers to citizens of the world's cities, as well as its towns, villages, and rural areas? This is an important issue to understand as we approach the general election season in the United States, when candidates for the highest office in the land will have to help voters make sense of the state of violence around the world—and tell us what they would do about it.

Headlines can be deceiving. We hear about China's rise, Russia's adventures, North Korea's nuclear misbehavior, the Iran nuclear deal, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and of course ISIS and civil war in the Middle East all the time. But it is also worth taking a step back to understand the broader state of violence on the planet today. Do so, and you might be surprised.

As part of a Brookings-JPMorgan Chase project that we call Securing Global Cities, we have attempted to map these trends in violence, benefiting greatly from ongoing work at European think tanks like the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the University of Maryland, and the United Nations. Here are some of the most salient facts and figures:

• Even with Russian President Vladimir Putin's activities from Ukraine to Syria in recent years, interstate conflict remains low and mild in intensity by historical standards, thankfully. China's activities in the South China Sea, however concerning, do not presently broach the threshold of interstate war.
• Unfortunately, the picture is more muddled for civil war. It remains less prevalent and less deadly than in the worst periods of the Cold War and the 1990s. But it has ticked up considerably since the beginning of the Arab spring in 2011, especially in the broad arc from the Sahel in Africa through the Middle East and to South Asia. Worldwide, perhaps 100,000 people a year are dying in civil wars.
• Yet war and terrorism are not the primary security threats to most people on the planet today. Notably, each year, more than 400,000 people are murdered around the globe, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
• Murder rates are highest in the Americas and in Africa, at least twice the global average. They are greatest in central and southern Africa, and from Brazil and Venezuela/Colombia to Central America and the Caribbean and Mexico.
• The least violent parts of the world include most of East Asia and Western Europe, despite the terrorism threat afflicting the latter region of late. 
• The “most improved” regions in recent decades include Colombia, former war-torn African states like Angola, Mozambique, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, as well as parts of Southeast Asia and a number major U.S. cities.
• If one broadens the lens on the definition of violence, motor vehicle accidents constitute an even bigger threat. The World Health Organization estimates that 1.2 million people a year die in such accidents worldwide.
• As cities and countries think about future security, they must bear in mind not just these current realities but the potential for catastrophe—from earthquakes, droughts, pandemics, nuclear reactor disasters, and massive infrastructural failures. In a worst case, tens of millions could suddenly be put at acute risk.

There is much to celebrate about the human condition today. Despite the headlines, life has actually never been safer or more prosperous for a higher fraction of the world's population. But our progress is fragile, and it is of course incomplete. 

The next U.S. president needs a plan for Syria, Libya, and Yemen, to be sure. But he or she also needs to address the broader challenges of urban and global security for a planet that is getting healthier and more secure but which still has a very long ways to go. A good first step is to collect and study what works in key cities and countries around the world so that we can all learn from each other, on topics ranging from breaking up gangs to corralling drug traffickers to stopping terrorism. A great deal has been learned; it is time to spread the knowledge, and emulate the best practices worldwide.