Peking University, June 22, 2010: The Global Times published an article Monday on China's "economic success" by Prof. Yao Yang of PKU National School of Development. Below is the full text.
International observers frequently link China's economic success to authoritarianism. When it comes to the comparison between China and Western countries, the issue is often framed in the contrast between the Beijing Consensus and the Washington Consensus, where the former represents government intervention and the latter represents free market.
However, authoritarianism does not explain the economic success of China, or any other nation.
China's economic success is primarily the result of its three decades of market reforms. If government intervention was the key for economic growth, China would have succeeded 30 years ago, when the state was everywhere. China began economic reforms precisely because the old system of an encompassing state did not work.
Some people accept the importance of the market, but nevertheless believe that an authoritarian government is necessary for economic success because an authoritarian government can mobilize large amounts of resources and make quick decisions free of non-economic interferences such as those from labor unions. That was why some Chicago economists praised the Pinochet government in Chile in the 1980s.
However, international experiences show that none of these authoritarianism-plus-free-market regimes lasted long.
The basic reason for their ultimate failures is that their governments in the end only served the interests of a small group, often the elites who monopolized the economy and finally became a hindrance to innovation.
The Chinese government has played an important role in promoting the country's economic growth, but the root of this is not authoritarianism. Instead, it is its disinterestedness toward the society. By disinterestedness, it is meant that the Chinese government has taken a neutral stance when it comes to the contests of interests among different social and political groups.
Because of this, it is able to allocate resources according to the productive capacities of different groups, so economic growth can be made faster. However, a disinterested government can appear in both an authoritarian state and a democratic state as long as the right social conditions and political arrangements are in place.
Authoritarianism does not explain China's economic success, nor does it fully characterize the Chinese system. The Chinese political system sounds authoritarian in its outlook, but a deeper observation would find that it has a degree of flexibility and is not devoid of democratic elements.
In the West, democracy is often equated to free assembly and competitive elections. However, this view disguises the substantial values of democracy, among which accountability and responsiveness are two of the most important qualities required on the government.
While the proper institutions need to be strengthened, Chinese officials are increasingly being held accountable for their actions, either through the formal channels built in the establishment, or through popular calls floating in the media and over the Internet. In terms of responsiveness, the Chinese government has done even a better job by taking initiatives to improve the quality of life for 1.3 billion people.
Many authoritarian regimes have troubles in succession, but China has avoided them. In addition, legislation and much of the government's decision process have been institutionalized. Calling China an authoritarian state is an oversimplification.
In a sense, this simplification is a result of the dichotomist approach that has dominated the western political thinking since the cold war. There are authoritarian elements even in democratic systems.
For example, although the US Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected, no one denies that the Supreme Court is one of the cornerstones of the American system. A dichotomist approach preempts a richer understanding of human societies.
Some international observers link China's economic success to authoritarianism, and intend to discredit China's success. No one likes authoritarian rule. If China's economic success were a result of authoritarian rule, this success would not be a success at all, but instead must be a result of repression and coercion, and thus should be detested.
For unbiased minds, however, this scheme will not work, since Chinese people are enjoying many more freedoms than before.
Prof. Yao Yang is Director of the China Center for Economic Research and Deputy Dean of the National School of Development, both with Peking University.
Edited By: Jacques
Source: Global Times
