“I’ve seen the future and it works.” That was US journalist
Lincoln Steffers’s message after visiting the Soviet Union in the 1920s. It’s
worth remembering how wrong he turned out to be. Why? George Osborne and Boris
Johnson have just come back from China, and they’ll be tempted to use the
impressive things they’ve seen to justify huge infrastructure projects, like
HS2 and a floating airport off the Kent coast.
Already, Osborne has claimed that China, unlike Britain, has
ambition. There may be some truth in this. More uncomfortably, in conservative
circles I’ve heard some discuss “the limits of democracy” – whether seen in the
time it takes to build nuclear power stations, or the recent stand-off over the
US debt ceiling. Sometimes this implies that China’s model of so-called
political-economic “state capitalism” may be on to something.
It’s easy to see why China’s story is so appealing. The
World Bank shows average annual GDP growth between 1998 and 2012 at 9.7 per
cent. In that time, real GDP per capita rose from $821 to $6,188 – up 754 per
cent. This transformation is the most important global story of the past 35
years, and foreign politicians want a piece of the action. China’s growth
provides huge export opportunities (particularly in services – though
politicians obsess about manufacturing), so it’s right to set frameworks for
the UK to benefit. But we shouldn’t become starry-eyed about state direction of
the economy or indeed authoritarian rule.
Ronald Coase’s book, How China became capitalist, posits
that – in contrast to the state-led narrative – the transformation really
coincided with a shift towards a more market-oriented economy. Yes, powers were
devolved to state-led enterprises, and there was more investment in consumer
goods. But critical, according to Coase and Ning Wang, were the “marginal
revolutions” of private farming, village and township enterprises, private
urban business and Special Economic Zones. None of these were centrally
directed from Beijing. From 1992, tax and prices reform, and regional
competition and experimentation, helped push on the development.
Much of this is “catch-up growth”. China’s average real GDP
per capita is an eighth of the US’s figure, and it is still capitalising on the
innovations of others, leading to rapid productivity gains. This offers few
lessons for developed countries like the UK – near the technological frontier.
Ultimately, what leads to growth in countries like ours is
innovation and new ideas. And inclusive, democratic institutions are important
in creating the conditions for these to flourish. As Daron Acemoglu has noted,
the private sector can act as a brake on the state’s power, maintaining
incentives, allowing profits, and protecting intellectual property. Under these
conditions, more innovation takes place. Alan Greenspan has noted that a
Reuters study of the world’s 100 most innovative firms had no Chinese representation.
China has nine Nobel laureates, but seven live abroad.
Democracy – if constraints prevent pure majoritarianism –
allows a competition in ideas and the protection of rights. This sometimes
prevents steam-rollering projects through towns, or creates stand-offs over
healthcare reform that push countries towards their debt ceilings. But this is
a small price worth paying for the economic and political freedoms we enjoy.
Ryan Bourne is head of economic research at the Centre
for Policy Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.