I asked and received. Thank you.

Edit:

Generalised subsidies that benefit the relatively affluent and the poor alike are to be replaced by assistance targeted at the most vulnerable – retirees, families with chronically ill children, and impoverished neighbourhoods – but the state’s responsibility for healthcare, education, social security and welfare is unchanged.

This is the main thing in my mind.

The reforms unquestionably carry risks. A property market, private banks, large firms and remittance-funded investment will tend to generate a propertied stratum, and in the Cuban case along existing fault lines of access to hard currency and family abroad. None of this should be waved away; it is the real cost of the policy. But the wager is a considered one, and it rests on a proposition that China has spent nearly 50 years testing: that a socialist state which keeps political power, public ownership of the commanding heights and the levers of planning and redistribution in its own hands can use markets and foreign capital to develop without being captured by them.

I’m unclear on property reforms. Are large swaths of land open to private ownership?