Getting at China

Besides me bringing it up in class, China has a tendency to appear in class discussions on almost every topic we have explored. To a far extent it is, I think, a consequence of China being so big – who can ignore the elephant in the room, right? And China is quite the elephant; not only is it big, it is also new; a new breed, by some accounts, of international super powers. But what is it that is so novel? Is it really novel? What are the consequences for “the west”?

The questions seem obscenely broad, but although we can only make a dent in it here or in class, I think we’d be wise to understand China. My research has revolved and evolved around China in the past year, and I would like to share some brief ideas with you, some of which are ideas of others and some of which are my own. My hope is that this might enlighten our conversation on China in the next four weeks and beyond – even if just to stir up some interest in the caveats of China’s international involvement record and more importantly our future with China. My argument will appear in a series – given the breadth it isn’t useful to publish an eight page blog post. Below here I consider authoritarianism because it was brought up in class today.  

I think we’re best off understanding the Beijing Consensus going into a conversation about China. This is no small tasks because no clear definition exists. The Washington Consensus that we discussed which includes a number of concrete policy measures advocated (read imposed) by the West on countries which received international aid or loans almost in a fashion of the Ten Commandments.

Contrarily, the Beijing Consensus is despite numerous efforts to synthesize it really just “what Beijing does”; China is the embodiment of what is understood to be the Beijing Consensus while America was never truly a model for the Washington Consensus. You might think that during the Reagan years (when the consensus largely emerged, to be coined in the early 90s) America lived the Washington Consensus, but it isn’t so. More on that on another day.

The Beijing Consensus, undefined as it is, is still an approach to understand China worth pursuing because it makes contrasting with the status quo a little easier and because of the literature has begun to be built around the concept. So, here goes…

Authoritarianism: I talked about it in class today. China has achieved under an authoritarian government the kind of growth that some observers (especially those supporting the Washington Consensus) believed were reserved for democratic countries. Although understated in this form, there was something about capitalism and democracy that seemed espoused in such a way that their combination promised the best outcome. Think of Fukuyama’s End of History argument which attempts to show this point.

But, if capitalism can be undeniably successful in an authoritarian country of China’s size that goes to show that the world’s rulers don’t have to forego authoritarian rule to bring prospering to their countries. While some authors, like John Williamson (who, incidentally, coined the Washington Consensus) are prone to ask whether the West should encourage the developing countries to adopt Beijing’s methods, a more pressing question is: will other countries want to adopt China’s methods? For the rulers those countries who have yet to achieve democracy, imitating Beijing may be quite enticing. Whether it is a good idea – which Williamson doesn’t find it to be – is nearly irrelevant to the outcome.

Let there be no doubt that I am on democracy’s side, but there are some positive consequences of the authoritarian government. In 2008 when the economy was, well, going to hell, China pushed a larger and more efficient stimulus than the American. And they did it in a matter of days, not months. Democracy, sometimes, can get in the way of itself by wanting to hear or debate most everybody’s opinion. At times, we simply don’t have the time – government with limited public involvement CAN be more efficient at times than a democratic government.

I’d be interested to know what those of you reading books on India, or have a background on India issues would have to say about this? China and India are very similar, considering how dissimilar they are from most other countries, but they have gone their separate ways. Although imperfect, India is a democracy – but how do you think this has affected the prospect for economic growth? Kane made the point that his author ascribed some of India’s lack of success was cultural, but is some of it that it has trouble “getting stuff done” democratically in such a vast and diverse country? I wonder.