An overwrought, ideologically myopic argument

THE CHINA CHALLENGE: A Shining Model of Wealth Without Liberty, By James Mann, Washington Post, May 20, 2007, Page B01

An overwrought argument from Mann, who specializes in them.

China is no "new" model or threat. It follows the model of Singapore, and before that South Korea, and before that Japan: a single-party state that bases almost all of its legitimacy on rising income and development through export-driven growth. It is a self-liquidating model: eventually the society wants more political freedom to go with that wealth. China's just so fricking huge and so poor that this process isn't going fast enough for Mann--hence the inevitable "threat."

Mann recognizes neither those past examples nor the significant economic and personal freedoms unleashed inside China over the past quarter century. His Z not having been reached fast enough, he discounts all movement from A since the bizarre depths of Mao's cultural revolution, which is no more distant politically than our Vietnam.

While China's "new" model, such as it is, appeals greatly to many authoritarian regimes in the Gap, there are scant few there that can possibly replicate it (yeah, size matters)..

I mean, name one Gap regime to date that has successfully emerged using China's model? Just interacting with China economically hardly connotes successful subversion to its model. It simply indicates recognition that external economic connectivity is a prerequisite for raising incomes at home, and yeah, if you're an authoritarian leader ruling over a stagnate economy, that's attractive.

As for our take on it, we should logically welcome any so-called model that promotes external economic connectivity, because we know where that goes historically (i.e., where Japan and South Korea finally ended up: creating political freedoms that match their system's potential--something that took us a while to achieve as well).

In short, China carries our economic model's water for us, pushing us to marry up our political model with it over time (what we seek to encourage in China, we logically seek to encourage in similar situations across the Gap). Hardly an alternative model, China's path is but a steppingstone to outcomes we naturally seek. I mean, crawling might be described as an alternative to walking, but only until you're able to walk, then it suddenly seems like a passing phase.

China's "model" will never move beyond crawling, because it's about transforming a hugely rural, impoverished, disconnected society (one-sixth of humanity) into an urban, consumeristic, connected one. Once achieved, and China is nowhere near that at this time, with well over half its population still living in very Gap-like conditions, then its model self-liquidates that all before it.

China's future leaders know this, so do our smart observers. Mann ain't one of the them. He knows his China from a long way back now, and he'll never recognize another.

Confusing China's influence-peddling with model propagation is a new academic fad in search of actual data to prove its distinctiveness, but there is none. China's model is not unique, but a copycat of something we've seen before in "rising Asia," just not on this scale. Prior to that, the USSR had its own bankrupt version. China's model will extend itself only where China extends itself, and since China's economic ties remain exceedingly mercantilistic, that won't be far.

In short, the academic tomes touting China's "victory" are arriving just as the Gap is beginning to turn on China, and just as China's starts feeling the scary blowback from its extension of trade nets deep into the Gap. As always, the academics are right on time.

Hardly a great threat, this "model," but merely a tool to be manipulated by leaders more strategically imaginative than our current crew--or the ideologically-myopic Mann.

Comments

[Matt]

Wondered what Tom thought of China's investment in Blackstone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/worldbusiness/20cnd-yuan.html

I think it's pretty smart especially given the timing with the dialogue next week and that its first investment outside of government bonds is in the US. Also, good for Blackstone given their interest in the Chinese market. Relatively small committment for China. Big amount for Blackstone (capital pool). Interesting to see how this pays off given that it's an investment in the firm rather than in a fund. Thoughts?

[farhad]

Dr barnett,i am not at all tryingto support Mann's views aboutchina.but during all this timethat i follow your comments, ihave had these questions aboutglobalization. 1) what are theultimate limits or boundries ofglobalization? is inovations ornew technologies alone are ableto solve the structural problemsof the global economy like;envirwater supply,natural resouces?3) why within last 150 yearshistory,the productions of 3rdcountries have droped from 60% globally to about 7%& why the diffrence between richcountries and poor countries has gone from 1 to 3 ratio to a1 to 75 ratio? i thank your com--ments.

[Tom Barnett]

There are no limits to connectivity, which drives globalization.

As for the rich-poor divide, I find that statistic meaningless. Keeping score by nations is a waste of time. Do we stop Singapore from moving ahead because Laos doesn't keep up? If that condition persists, people will simply vote with their feet through illegal immigration. But trying to limit one country's wealth accumulation by forcing uncompetitive transfers of resources to impoverished countries simply does not work. The history of official developmental aid proves that.

So you either bring the poor countries online and force them to upgrade their game by improving their rule sets and skill accumulation, or they remain destined to continue failing as economies, societies and governments.

[Mr. Noah]

Since when did Japan and Singapore turn into pluralistic, free societies?

Japan has been ruled by an opposition party for a grand total of 1 year since World War 2. Houses of dissidents are routinely firebombed by "rightist" groups connected to the ruling party. Criminal trials have conviction rates of 98%, and torture is frequently alleged. The constitution is now being amended to guarantee the people's rights only when those rights "do not interfere with the interests of the nation."

As for Sinapore, it rates "Partly Free" in Freedom House's ratings only by the barest of margins, rating somewhere between Yemen, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

So when, exactly, did the people of Japan and Singapore rise up and demand greater political liberty?

[China Law Blog]

Great comment on the rich-poor divide. I said something similar the other day regarding wealth within China. So often we see the media mention the growing gap between rich and poor in China, but rarely do they ever mention that the gap is increasing because of increases on the high end, not because the low end is declining. It would seem then their proposed solution is to cap the high end.

[Sean Meade]

one legitimate concern about the growth of the gap between the rich and the poor is: what are we doing to help the poor? they're the ones who are in the harder spot.

it's tempting to think we can help them by re-distributing through taxes. it's tempting to think we can help them through welfare. it's tempting to think, internationally, that we can help through ODA. but those methods have been tried and found wanting. as much as i'd rather help the poor more dramatically and more directly, capitalism and trickle down appear to work the best with the least bad side-effects.

kind of like what Churchill said about Democracy: the worst, except for every other way...

[Michael]

Mr Noah:What are things like in Japan now, as compared to before or during WW2? What are things like in China now, as compared to Mao's reign, or even Tienanmen Square?