Blogs > Liberty and Power > So What Exactly Is Going On in China?

Jan 8, 2007

So What Exactly Is Going On in China?




Will Hutton takes a stab here in a fascinating extract from his new book, The Writing on the Wall.

"The truth is that China is not the socialist market economy the party describes, nor moving towards capitalism as the western consensus believes. Rather it is frozen in a structure that I describe as Leninist corporatism - and which is unstable, monumentally inefficient, dependent upon the expropriation of peasant savings on a grand scale, colossally unequal and ultimately unsustainable. It is Leninist in that the party still follows Lenin's dictum of being the vanguard, monopoly political driver and controller of the economy and society. And it is corporatist because the framework for all economic activity in China is one of central management and coordination from which no economic actor, however humble, can opt out."

"The interest of the west is to help China avoid this fate and encourage a peaceful transition to a pluralist China within a legitimate system of accountability; a country that is comfortable with liberal globalisation and the international rule of law. To describe the goal of policy in this way is demanding enough; more demanding still is to execute it. The simple extrapolations of China's growth, predicting that it will eventually become a one-party, economic colossus, lead to an alarmist climate in which it is easier to justify trade protection or, in the United States, potential military activism. Such responses are naive. We have to play it long, encourage and help to co-manage the change that must come. Only thus will the world be a safer and still prosperous place."

For more about his new book, go here and here (New York: Free Press, 2006), and here and here (London: Little, Brown, 2007).


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Andrew D. Todd - 1/11/2007

Ah, well, from experience writing that kind of code, it's rather a matter of Hobson's choice. You make it simple, and you have to do a certain amount of fixing up by hand. On the other hand, if you make it complicated, it can go wrong in entirely unforeseen ways which defy understanding. On the whole, I vote for simple.


Jonathan Dresner - 1/10/2007

I've fixed it; HNN does have trouble with auto-formatting complex URLs.


Andrew D. Todd - 1/10/2007

Ah, you will have to have to cut and paste the URL. HNN didn't process some of the characters into a link.


Andrew D. Todd - 1/10/2007

Look at the following American Machinist (Practical Machinist) blogsite:

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=15;hardset=0;start_point=0;DaysPrune=0
"Welcome to the Manufacturing Forum: Manufacturing in America and Europe:"

Note: the way the system is set up, threads move up or down the page, according to date of most recent posting, but each thread does have a permanent identifier. Look at almost any thread started by either "GeneH" or "tektra." They invariably comment on eachother's posts. "GeneH" is an American, "tektra" is a Chinese, and this is a full and frank exchange of diametrically opposed views. Tektra's English is gradually improving, as one might expect.


simon humphries - 1/9/2007

The article is of some interest since in many places it seems to suggest, along with a description of the current politico-economic situation in China, that the solution to economic development might lie in something akin to laissez-faire capitalism. This would be quite a surprising development in view of Hutton's earlier statist views. I appreciate this an extract from a much larger work, which I haven't read, but there seem to be indications towards the end of the article, that such a view would be far too optimistic. The real agenda seems rather to be to suggest that capitalism is NOT the way forward for developing countries. Thus we are told that inequalities of wealth are incompatible with a well-functioning market economy, presumably suggesting the need for some sort of income redistribution policy. In addition, the thought that China is not in any way capitalist is then used to suggest a view that capitalism is not the way forward elsewhere, since the apparent success of China cannot be said to owe anything to a system which does not in reality pertain. So the thought that the recent economic success of China is due to its partial adoption of capitalism cannot be sustained. Instead we need to reform globalization so that it is no longer "heavily skewed in favour of the rich developed nations". This, I suspect, is the real agenda. He may well be right in his characteriztion of the present equilibrium in China as unstable. This is something on which I am not in a good position to comment. But it seems to me that we need to read the book with a sceptical eye.