By staff reporter LUO YUANJUN

Frugal couple in Beijing Yang Guiqing (right) and He Jiamei collects rainwater for domestic purposes.

Thrift has always been considered a noble virtue within Chinese traditional ethics. China’s voracious economic development that soaks up natural resources like blotting paper now necessitates its being popularized and practiced as in all aspects of social behavior.

Wang Mengkui, director of the State Council Development Research Center, believes it is China’s time honored principle of thrifty utilization of resources that has maintained a stable rate of resource consumption. This, however, has been achieved against a backdrop of extensive economic growth and a high resource consumption base. Today, China’s actual consumption in relation to world levels is high. The Chinese government, therefore, is promoting the concept of a thrifty society and frugal economy as a matter of urgency.

This massive task depends on conscientious participation by every Chinese citizen and general acceptance of a consumption mode based on resource conservation. The government has so far made a three-pronged advance on resolving this issue:

Using the Price Leverage

Scattered leaflets at a medicine fair in Nanjing.

Northern China has always been plagued with water shortages. In recent years, water rates in northern localities have been raised to check water consumption and force consumers to reevaluate their basic resources. Price increases, however, are not an infallible solution to water shortages, and must be levied cautiously as a hike of enough magnitude even to be noticed by the affluent minority would have a detrimental affect on the lives of people on low-incomes. “To the majority of the populace who are on low incomes, frugality is a way of life,” is the opinion of Li Wu, a doctorate student at Renmin (People’s) University. He adds, “Making the wealthy minority exercise thrift is the main thrust of the frugality drive; a tiered pricing structure would seem to me to be the obvious solution.”

At a news conference last year, Beijing Municipality nonetheless announced a general rise in water prices from RMB 2.9 to 3.7 per ton, rather than the hotly debated tiered structure. Income-proportional water levies for Beijing citizens are, however, imminent. At the same news conference Zhang Wanheng, member of the Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission, confirmed: “The municipal government is accelerating creation of a tiered water price structure with a view to rapid implementation.”

Dalian in northeastern China administers a two-tier water consumption price structure in which prices for household-based monthly consumption are three yuan per ton for a consumption level of within eight tons and 10 yuan per ton beyond. Seasonal prices have also been suggested, in view of the increased levels of water consumption in the summer months.

The Price of Extravagance

Beijing bridegroom Ma Lin rented a double-decker bus for his wedding.

In 1997 the National People’s Congress passed the People’s Republic of China Law on Energy Conservation, and since 1988 ministries under the State Council and various provincial local governments have promulgated hundreds of local laws and regulations relating to energy conservation and efficient utilization. “Strengthened legal institutions are integral to a frugal society,” says Wang Liheng, academician at the Chinese Academy of Engineering adding, “A legal system that discourages waste, promotes rational and efficient utilization of resources and alters China’s economic growth mode into one geared towards conservation should be put in place.” Scholars and legal experts suggest imposition of heavy taxes or fines as a penalty for extravagance and waste, in order to discourage, for example, extravagantly excessive commodity packaging.

Chinese laws and regulations concerning energy conservation currently in operation leave a lot to be desired. They consist of theoretical principles and generalizations instead of applicable details and targets. For example, definitions of administrative obligations are woolly, citing, for example, responsibilities of “governments at the xx level,” or simply “relevant departments,” which encourages buck-passing among various government departments and avoidance of responsibility. Also, as Chen Shouyi, CPPCC National Committee member points out, “The frugality campaign has not motivated mass action because it lacks effective incentives. China should learn from more developed countries that curb resource wastages by means of state legislation, trade regulations and education.” Yet, as has been pointed out, the role of legislation in building a frugal society should not be overemphasized. Resource consumption concerns every individual and affects every aspect daily life, and the cost of legislation on such a large scale would be exorbitant.

Internalized Thrift-Consciousness

In July 2005, CCTV in conjunction with China’s three largest news websites – People.com.cn; Xinhuanet.com and Chinanews.com.cn – staged a nationwide campaign calling on the public for their suggestions as to a “Citizens’ Conservation Code.” Citizens duly sent emails and text messages expressing their opinions, many of which are to be incorporated into a civil code of conduct.

Recalls middle school teacher Yu Xiao, “A decade ago, extravagance and waste were generally despised and regarded as amoral. But during the course of China’s economic development, there was a misguided belief that waste propels consumption. I think consumption according to need is the principle that should be promoted. Waste is abhorrent under any circumstances.”

It is generally accepted that the market mechanism alone is insufficient for effective promotion of frugality. Price rises might restrain consumption of daily necessities such as water, electricity and fuel, but will not ultimately change modes of behavior or the mentality that governs them. Environmentalists believe the government should guide and educate the populace towards a thrift-consciousness that will make frugality an aspect of everyday behavior. Advocates of this so-called “moral mechanism” agree that if it could be made to work in conjunction with the market mechanism and strengthened legal institutions, the ultimate benefits of instinctive individual, collective and corporate frugal behavior in the common pursuit of resource conservation would result.