“These local growth machines and the competition between them are what drives China’s stunning economic success, and what the Western world must embrace to keep up.”
I really enjoyed this article and learned a lot from it about how the Chinese economy works. But the underlying assumption, embodied by the quote above, that this model is self-evidently worth emulating in the West, is a bit like missing the forest for the trees. As if China was already richer and offering a better quality of live, thus the West has to “keep up”.
It is not clear to me that this model of economic governance would have the same results in a more developed country, nor that Western citizens would appreciate the implied well-being trade-offs. It could be, but it was not really argued for properly in the text. Perhaps the US really needs its “old economic model” from the article’s conclusion, or perhaps this model has outgrown its usefulness as the country got richer.
This is a very interesting article. I would be interested in the cascade of reforms one would need to get this done in the UK. I would also be worried about some very negative environmental spillovers of this kind of cutthroat pursuit of growth. What happens to Chinese air quality, its rivers, forests, native species? I think we know the answer. I hope the Chinese central government does something about it.
Interesting take to praise politicians who "bulldozed through historic parts" of a city "against vigorous opposition", and to set Houston, Texas of all places as a potential role model. Growth growth growth.
We in the West should not be so dismissive of China's methods of moving their economy forwards.
We can adapt some of their best ideas to fire up our moribund ways of doing things.
“These local growth machines and the competition between them are what drives China’s stunning economic success, and what the Western world must embrace to keep up.”
I really enjoyed this article and learned a lot from it about how the Chinese economy works. But the underlying assumption, embodied by the quote above, that this model is self-evidently worth emulating in the West, is a bit like missing the forest for the trees. As if China was already richer and offering a better quality of live, thus the West has to “keep up”.
It is not clear to me that this model of economic governance would have the same results in a more developed country, nor that Western citizens would appreciate the implied well-being trade-offs. It could be, but it was not really argued for properly in the text. Perhaps the US really needs its “old economic model” from the article’s conclusion, or perhaps this model has outgrown its usefulness as the country got richer.
This is a very interesting article. I would be interested in the cascade of reforms one would need to get this done in the UK. I would also be worried about some very negative environmental spillovers of this kind of cutthroat pursuit of growth. What happens to Chinese air quality, its rivers, forests, native species? I think we know the answer. I hope the Chinese central government does something about it.
Interesting take to praise politicians who "bulldozed through historic parts" of a city "against vigorous opposition", and to set Houston, Texas of all places as a potential role model. Growth growth growth.