Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

China targets quality growth in 2026 and beyond amid weakening global economy

Blog

China targets quality growth in 2026 and beyond amid weakening global economy
Blog

Blog

China targets quality growth in 2026 and beyond amid weakening global economy

2026-03-06 15:06 Last Updated At:15:06

China's economic growth target for 2026 is proactive and pragmatic, reflecting a broad assessment of domestic conditions and shifts in the external environment.

The 15th Five-Year Plan marks a pivotal stretch in China's modernization drive, and its ambitions reach well beyond domestic growth metrics. By directing capital into frontier technologies, deepening trade and investment linkages, and advancing green development, the blueprint is poised to affect the global economy across multiple dimensions, from the tempo of the energy transition to the landscape of advanced manufacturing worldwide.

For a global economy straining under the weight of trade tensions, geopolitical fragmentation and weak growth, China's dual pledges -- to sustain its own steady expansion and to open its vast market further to the world -- offer a rare note of predictability.

China on Thursday set an economic growth target of 4.5 to 5 percent for 2026, aiming for a good start to the new five-year plan that charts the course for high-quality development and offers much-needed certainty to a troubled world economy.

The GDP growth target is well aligned with China's long-range objectives through the year 2035 and broadly in line with the long-term growth potential of China's economy, said a government work report submitted to the country's top legislature for deliberation.

China's economic growth target for 2026 is proactive and pragmatic, reflecting a broad assessment of domestic conditions and shifts in the external environment, said Shen Danyang, head of the group responsible for drafting this year's government work report.

The projected pace would also be among the highest for major economies globally, Shen said.

"The signal this target sends to the international community is clear that China is no longer pursuing growth speed alone," said Zhang Ying, associate dean of the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, in an interview with Xinhua. "This year's target reflects China's firm commitment to high-quality development."

The country has made it clear that it will strive for better in practice regarding this year's growth target, and favorable conditions for achieving this target are in place, according to the report.

The government work report outlined this year's major tasks, including building a robust domestic market, fostering new growth drivers at a faster pace, and moving faster to achieve greater self-reliance and strength in science and technology.

To achieve these goals, China will continue to implement a more proactive fiscal policy and apply an appropriately accommodative monetary policy. The orientations highlight policy continuity and offer further assurance to a global economy unnerved by trade and geopolitical tensions.

China's global economic heft means its policy moves are pivotal to the world economy. Over the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025), China saw its economy grow at an average annual pace of 5.4 percent, well above the global average, and contributed around 30 percent of global growth.

The country has remained the world's second-largest importer for 16 consecutive years, has cemented its position as the world's largest trader of goods, and has become a major trading partner of more than 160 countries and regions.

The weight of the role is only set to grow. According to a World Bank forecast, global growth is projected to ease to 2.6 percent in 2026. If the forecast holds, the 2020s are on track to be the weakest decade for global growth since the 1960s.

"What we achieved in 2025 was indeed hard won," according to the government work report. "Rarely in many years have we encountered such a grave and complex landscape, where external shocks and challenges were intertwined with domestic difficulties and tough policy choices."

In a sign of assurance to the troubled global economy in the longer term, China on Thursday unveiled a slew of development priorities for the 15th Five-Year Plan period (2026-2030).

The 15th Five-Year Plan sets a clear anchor: doubling China's 2020 per capita GDP by 2035 to reach the level of a moderately developed country. Getting there will require navigating a middle stretch that China has chosen not to over-prescribe, as annual growth targets will be set year by year, a flexibility that reflects both confidence in the trajectory and awareness of the uncertainties ahead.

The 15th Five-Year Plan marks a pivotal stretch in China's modernization drive, and its ambitions reach well beyond domestic growth metrics. By directing capital into frontier technologies, deepening trade and investment linkages, and advancing green development, the blueprint is poised to affect the global economy across multiple dimensions, from the tempo of the energy transition to the landscape of advanced manufacturing worldwide.

Simon Smith, director and general manager of Taikoo Engine Services (Xiamen) Co., Ltd., an engineering branch of the multinational company Swire Group, said long-term policy clarity changes the calculus for multinationals operating in China.

"The five-year plan transforms investment decisions from probabilistic bets to calculated strategic positioning," Smith told Xinhua in an interview. "Without the plan, the company may hesitate on a specific capability expansion or investment, uncertain whether regulatory support, skilled labor availability, or customer demand will materialize."

That strategic positioning comes with a concrete roadmap. According to China's technology agenda, the country will nurture emerging industries and industries of the future. During the 2026-2030 period, China will foster new drivers of economic growth such as quantum technology, biomanufacturing, hydrogen and nuclear fusion power, brain-computer interfaces, embodied artificial intelligence, and 6G mobile communications.

Hu Jinbo, a national political advisor and head of the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, said the next five years represent a critical window for China's economic transition from high-speed growth to high-quality development, and sci-tech innovation will serve as the core engine of this transformation.

As China continues to achieve sci-tech innovation breakthroughs, developing countries can draw on China's experience to accelerate their own industrialization, while developed countries will also gain broader opportunities for collaboration in advanced manufacturing and frontier technologies, Hu said.

For the rest of the world, what may matter most in the longer run is not the pace of growth, but its composition. China has set an explicit goal of raising household consumption as a share of GDP over the next five years.

For a global economy straining under the weight of trade tensions, geopolitical fragmentation and weak growth, China's dual pledges -- to sustain its own steady expansion and to open its vast market further to the world -- offer a rare note of predictability.

A more balanced Chinese economy underpinned by stronger domestic demand would generate far-reaching spillover effects globally, according to a recent Bloomberg article citing Robin Xing, chief China economist at Morgan Stanley.

"Chinese and foreign companies alike would benefit from the depth and scale of the China market, which would help cushion today's geopolitical challenges," Xing was quoted as saying.

According to the government work report, China will deepen reform of the institutional framework for promoting foreign investment this year. It will open wider to the outside world, with efforts to expand market access and open up more areas, particularly in the service sector.

Zhang Ying highlighted three aspects of China's opportunities for global investors: a massive unified market with rising purchasing power of residents, highly efficient and cost-effective supply chains, and an increasingly open, pro-investment regulatory environment.

"Against a backdrop of global volatility and macroeconomic headwinds, these fundamentals offer significant appeal to international investors and corporations," Zhang said.




InsightSpeak

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The United States today is undeniably far less impressive than it was 40 years ago.

Back in 1983, when I was in college, a political science class focused specifically on the US government’s successful decision-making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Harvard professor Graham Allison, later renowned for his theory of Thucydides Trap - The Rise of Great Powers, published a detailed article analyzing how the US managed to resolve this severe crisis so swiftly.
 
In 1962, at the height of the US-Soviet Cold War, the Soviets planned to deploy ballistic missiles in Cuba, right next to the US, in response to America’s missile deployments in Italy and Turkey. Then-President John F. Kennedy boldly imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, showing extraordinary courage and resolve. His actions ultimately forced the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles. Allison praised the US decision-making in that episode as a model of democracy combined with high efficiency.
 
Those were truly America’s golden years. Kennedy became president at 43, successfully defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was assassinated just a year later at the age of 45. The prevailing US view then was that socialist regimes produced only aging leadership and could never match the youthful energy and efficiency of the capitalist system.
 
Time has marched on. The country once led by young leaders is now locked in the hands of elders. President Donald Trump is 79, older than Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev when he died at 75—someone the US once criticized fiercely. Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran is widely judged by scholars at home and abroad as a costly misstep.
 
Bloomberg reported on April 8 that Trump’s military action against the Iranian regime proved "a serious strategic failure." Rather than weakening rivals, it bolstered China and Russia, eroded America’s advantages, and ultimately positioned Iran as the strategic winner. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains intact, Iran keeps control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the US "failed to achieve any military objectives."
 
The New York Times published a detailed feature on April 7 titled "How Trump Pulled the US Into a War With Iran." The report uncovers the inner workings of the decision and shows how, amid internal disagreements and repeated warnings, Trump ultimately chose war based largely on intuition. White House reporters Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman tracked this process closely. They highlight a pivotal moment on February 11, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House and aggressively pitched the plan to attack Iran in the White House Situation Room.
 
During a one-hour briefing, Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea pressed Trump hard. They argued Iran was vulnerable to regime change and that a combined US-Israeli strike could topple the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu outlined what they saw as near-certain conditions for victory, including:
 
1. Destroying Iran’s ballistic missile program within weeks;
 
2. Weakening the Iranian regime enough to prevent it from blockading the Strait of Hormuz;
 
Third, the chance of Iran hitting US interests through neighboring countries was judged extremely low;
 
Fourth, street protests within Iran would flare again, and with Israeli intelligence agencies stirring things up, intense bombing could create an opening for Iranian opposition forces to topple the regime;
 
Fifth, Israel also suggested that Iranian Kurdish armed groups might cross from Iraq into Iran to open a ground front.
 
Trump responded at the time, saying, "Sounds good."
 
The day after the meeting—February 12—a briefing was held in the White House Situation Room with only US officials attending, who divided Netanyahu's proposals into four parts:

First, a decapitation strike—the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei;
 
Second, to weaken Iran's missile projection capabilities and its threats to neighboring countries;
 
Third, to spark large-scale protests among the Iranian people;
 
Fourth, regime change, with a secular leader taking control of Iran.
 
US officials judged that the first two objectives could be achieved through American intelligence and military power. However, the third and fourth goals promoted by Netanyahu—mass protests and regime change—are divorced from reality.
 
CIA Director Ratcliffe called the "fantasy of regime change" absurd and laughable. Secretary of State Rubio bluntly dismissed it as "complete nonsense." The top military leader, Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine, told Trump, "In my experience, this is basically Israel’s usual play—they tend to exaggerate, but their plans aren’t always flawless."
 
However, Trump remained interested in the first two objectives: a decapitation strike and weakening Iran's military strength.
 
In the days that followed, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine presented Trump with a stark military assessment. He warned that a large-scale strike against Iran would severely deplete US weapons stockpiles, including interceptor missiles already strained by support for Israel and Ukraine. Caine also highlighted the risks of Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz and the enormous challenges the US would face in securing the Gulf region.
 
Trump dismissed these warnings, convinced the Iranian regime would surrender before such consequences materialized. He was likely influenced by the previous year's US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, expecting this war to be just as brief.
 
Nevertheless, Trump was increasingly resolved to strike Iran. Meanwhile, peace talks between the US and Iran were still underway. The turning point came in late February, when new intelligence from US and Israeli agencies revealed that Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei and other senior officials would soon meet in a ground-level building. This would leave Khamenei fully exposed to an airstrike—an opportunity US and Israeli officials believed was fleeting and unlikely to recur.
 
On February 26, the White House Situation Room convened for a final discussion. Many expressed doubts about going to war, including Vice President Vance, who told Trump, “You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine withheld clear endorsement and focused on risk warnings. The strongest advocate was Defense Secretary Esper, who argued if the Iran issue is going to be resolved sooner or later, better to do it now. Ultimately, Trump made the strike decision impulsively, relying on his gut instinct.

The New York Times report exposes critical flaws in decision-making at the highest levels of the United States government. Although most advisors believed striking Iran was unwise, no one dared truly oppose Trump’s imperial-style leadership. Trump behaved like a stubborn, glory-seeking elder focused only on immediate gains—much like a retail investor chasing quick profits in the stock market. His choice dragged the US into a deep quagmire it still struggles to escape. Forty years ago, the US criticized socialist countries for flawed decision-making; today, those same issues have surfaced within America itself.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles