I think it's irrelevant what a Chinese shipyard says is the price for the PLAN in the sense that a Chinese shipyard is assigned a contract in the way so that the potential of Chinese shipbuilding industry is used AS A WHOLE in an optimal way
Oct 20, 2019
and a shipyard's director has nothing to do with was already envisioned by related ministries and of course approved by the Politburo; such a director would just have to do his/her best, with the budget scrambled accordingly and watched closely
-- a total contrast to squeezing the Pentagon for money and piling up promises by the US shipyards; involved Senators; SECNAVs; and USN brass, in the situation when none of those would face any consequences except accordingly getting extra funding; reelected; praised; and promoted, no matter how much a project was delayed and over budget (LOL I guess the more, the better) --
in short China uses a modification of the Soviet model (in which S. G. Gorshkov wouldn't mean much without B. Y. Butoma -- please don't comment if you don't know who they were)
Couple of points.
Point 1. My read is that Jiangnan and the other shipyards now producing warships aren't really assigned commercial vessels.
Remember that just 12 years ago, there were barely any military warship orders.
So the shipyards mainly lived off commercial contracts, for which they had to compete against rival shipyards inside China and also outside of China.
And in the commercial market, the vast majority of orders are placed by foreign companies - not Chinese companies.
So it would be difficult for the Chinese government to start assigning commercial contracts to specific yards and dictating prices.
But yes, for military vessels, there is a lot more government and political involvement.
After all, the military and ministry want to see a sustainable shipbuilding industry.
Point 2. Cost control and market discipline
Doing commercial work means Chinese "military" shipyards have to price ships accurately, build to budget, and produce a profit.
So there is a system in place to control and reduce costs - because of competition from other shipyards
So shipyard directors do have a lot of say in the budget.
And in general, budgets in China do not change once they have been set. Going over budget is a really, really big deal
Point 3. The Soviet model is not really relevant
With the Soviet Union, there never was a competitive civilian shipbuilding industry which had to compete on a global marketplace against shipyards in Japan and Korea for example.
Quantities and prices were fixed in most? cases in the Soviet Union.
But China's industrial input costs are predominantly set by flexible market mechanisms.
And I doubt the Chinese Politburo get involved in the minutiae of which shipyard gets which orders.
---
Summary
So I would say the relationship between the Chinese Navy and Chinese military shipbuilders is more akin to situation which exists in Sweden or Japan for example. These are countries with very collective beliefs, social structures and long-term rational planning like China.
In Sweden, Saab/Kockums is nominally a private military conglomerate, but operates so closely with the Government/Military that there isn't much difference between them.
Ditto in Japan, with nominally private shipbuilders like Mitsubishi. Plus Mitsubishi does a lot of commercial work.
And in China, the military shipyards are explicitly state-owned and do a mix of commercial and military work.