I am just back from a week in China (Beijing Shanghai and Hong Kong). I have grown accustomed over the years to see the incredible pace of construction and westernization taking place in Shanghai. Hong Kong is of course a familiar and well established First World city. However what really impressed me this trip is how fast Beijing is transforming from the dull militarist capital into a thriving commercial as well as capital city. From the new financial district to the bold Olympic sites Beijing is modernizing in every sense of the word.
This lead me to ponder on the long plane ride home what must be the central question being debated in the inner sanctum of the Communist Central Party: To what extent should China embrace a market economy so as to make the pie bigger for everyone and thereby help raise the standard of living of the large rural population and to what extent should it centrally constrain that liberalizing impulse to avoid large inequalities which could foster revolt?
To me this question is immediately linked to a core socio-economic debate: Are individuals rational economic animals who respond to direct improvements in their standard of living or are we actually wired to only appreciate relative improvements in our economic status?. That is if my income goes up from $500 to $700 per month will I be satisfied with the governing system that has delivered this 40% improvement? Or will I only be happy if at the same time the gap between my income and the richest segment has not increased?
I believe the Chinese government is acutely aware of this debate made all the more immediate by the spread of television and other media across all of China showing to rural laborers for the first time the luxury consumption of the ascendant urban professionals. Is it any wonder then that Government of President Hu is so focused on stability and "social harmony" and that his government continues to go to such lengths to wall off the internet and control the media?
This is not just a philosophical debate. China has a long history of civil rebellions starting in the countryside. The government knows it is playing with fire in attempting to mould a "socialist" market economy. Without the "market" part there is no engine for economic growth and therefore no larger pie to divide. However taken to the laissez-faire extreme the resulting inequalities now beamed to every corner of China could cause great unrest.
I’ll stick to running companies.
I just wanted to mention that I saw your interview on the CCTV program Dialoge in July 2007. I was very impressed with knowledge and information you shared regarding the merger of Reuters and Thomson.I learned alot about Reuters and was able to share that information with my collegues here at Thomson. As a 20 year employee of Thomson/West in Eagaon Minnesota I am excited to have you as the company president and look forward to your leadership.
I saw your Dialog interview on CCTV while you were in China July 2007 and I was very impressed. I am a 20 year employee of Thomson/West in Eagan Minnesota. You were well informed and shared a lot of Reuters background information. We (at Thomson) are looking forward to your leadership.
I notice your blog on your China trip was dated 2007 and there were a mere two comments on it. I also came to know this morning that you were on the Council of Foreign Relations. I have read Clash of Civilisation and Dr. Nye’s Soft Power years ago: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1499/rise_of_chinas_soft_power.html I am impressed by your worldview and knowledge on societies and politics. However I am dismay with the dismal accurate knowledge or attention of most fellow Americans. These are the people who vote politicians into the U.S. Administration whom then cobble together foreign policies pertaining to China. As Sun Tzu alluded in his 2000-year-old treatise the lack of knowledge of China (the “adversary”) will lead to incoherent and erroneous policy directions. Sadly that may lead to unnecessary confrontations instead of peaceful co-existence and development in the Pacific as China reemerge as a naval power . The two comments since your 2007 tell it all — lack of interest or knowledge of a nation that will be pivotal to the outlook of America in the 21st Century. If any blogger revives the interest in this thread on China I would be glad to further expand on my above assertions and share with you my insights as a Singapore Chinese with a Shanghainese wife and as an American. Dr. Ray Wu