CCP China starts the year with a double change

 News on CCP

Direct translation / Editor: Fang Xun / Source: World News Network / https://www.aboluowang.com/2025/0107/2156834.html

The CCP's political and economic situation has changed at the beginning of the year: No more mention of "tight days" but starting to live a hard life? —China starts the year with a double change

The beginning of a year is about change. One week into the new year, there have been multiple new trends at the political and economic levels of the Communist Party of China. Among them, there are two things. One is that what was emphasized last year is not mentioned this year; the other is that what was not mentioned last year will be done on a large scale this year. This can be called "double changes at the beginning of the year".

At the Central Economic Work Conference at the end of last year, in order to "secure the three bottom lines of grassroots security", that is, to ensure basic people's livelihood, wages, and operation, it also emphasized that "party and government agencies must live a tight life". The Central Economic Work Conference usually clarifies the policy tone for the year and deploys specific tasks, but the National Financial Work Conference held after that meeting no longer mentioned "living a tight life". At that time, all parties were paying attention to what big moves fiscal policy would make, and this subtle change was not noticed.

But at the beginning of the year, Beijing officials noticed that, first, the term "living a tight life" disappeared in the newly issued documents; second, at the local party committee meetings or economic situation deployment meetings held in succession at the provincial level, they all stopped mentioning "living a tight life". Officials believe that this is a major policy change. In the CCP's leadership style, if a policy proposition is not mentioned, it means that the policy will not be implemented or enforced.

No longer mentioning "living a tight life" is one of these situations. There are several possibilities. One is that the fiscal policy needs to be relaxed, which cannot be combined with "living a tight life". The fiscal policy needs to spend a lot, so it is impossible to be tight. Another view is that the emphasis is now on the "bright theory" of the economy, which is different from "living a tight life". The third view is that we have already started to live a "hard life" and there is no need to mention "living a tight life".

Another major change related to not mentioning "living a tight life" is the "general increase" in wages of government agencies and public institutions. In the past two years, local governments have been in financial difficulties, and there have been constant reports that party and government agencies and public institutions cannot pay wages, or that they have reduced wages or reduced subsidies.

At the end of the year and the beginning of the year, all parties are most concerned about the wage situation, and rumors are spreading, but it is no longer about reducing wages or reducing subsidies. Instead, different places, government agencies and public institutions have reported wage increases or back pay. In theory, the document of the Central Economic Work Conference did not propose to increase the salary of party and government organs and public institutions. At that time, it only said that it was necessary to promote the increase of income and reduce the burden of the middle and low-income groups, and improve the consumption capacity, willingness and level. Appropriately increase the basic pension of retirees, etc., so this proposal to increase salary and wages is another sudden change.

While many places have reported that the party and government organs will increase their salaries, there are rumors that there will be a "general increase" within the year. The goal of increasing salaries and wages is of course to increase consumption with increased income. However, whether this will give rise to the expansion of domestic demand and drive the economy out of deflation remains to be explained by experts. As for whether this will increase social instability caused by unfair income distribution, it remains to be seen.