USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom.
China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary). As long as people are given economic opportunities, the rest will evolve around it, systems and laws will adapt and be in sync with the development. That is, it is willing to offer lots of infrastructure and development opportunities to very poor countries, and it is up to those countries to take the opportunity to exploit it.
As someone who enjoys studying economics, I think we're at one of the most important points in time. USA & China, under two diametrically different systems have been able to grow extremely large economically - that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.
It seems to me that China is following the framework that the US has set to become a superpower.
Politics: When the US was developing, only rich, educated white men could vote. In China right now, only those who are eligible to join the CCP can be involved in politics.
Slavery: While China doesn't have de facto slavery, their province/city registration system places migrants in extremely disadvantaged positions. As for the US, well, I'm sure we all know.
Protectionism & IP Theft: During the Industrial Revolution, the US was extremely active in stealing tech from Europe. And only when the US started to develop their own tech, did they start caring about intellectual property. This is also the case in Japan and South Korea, so I can see China following this path as well.
Other issues, like eminent domain, limitations on free speech, and violating the rights of individuals as long as it's in the national interest are things that a developing superpower does.
It was only after the US became a superpower, that we start to see a really big difference in the behavior of both nations.
Though I do agree that the rhetoric of both nations was vastly different from the start. The US always espoused American values, even if those privileges only applied to a subset of people. While China keeps on emphasizing a harmonious society, they really mean that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
No doubt it is politically, economically and militarily an unpopular notion in the current climate that seeks a tougher stance on China policy. Steve Bannon, in particular, explicitly views American policy of the last 60 years as creating a "tributary state" to the PRC here in the USA.
But an intense negotiation. With lots of concessions for American enterprises in energy, aerospace, engineering, telcom, and transportation across the Silk Road region. And even partial funding coming directly from China's dollar reserves. This could end up being the "Deal of the Century" ;)
> Although increasing trade with China might have contributed to the decline in demand for production workers, it clearly wasn't the primary force behind the trend. [3]
It is merely politically convenient to exclaim "China" when talking to the public like during the Zambian elections with Sata. "Michael Sata called Chinese “infesters” rather than “investors,” threatened to kick out Chinese workers, and pledged to implement foreign exchange controls that would prevent Chinese firms from repatriating their profits [...] One month later, Sata told the Chinese ambassador to Zambia and a group of Chinese businessmen, "My dear sisters and brothers from China, you are very welcomed in Zambia because we are all-weather friends." During a one-week visit to China in April 2013, Sata signed several investment agreements and requested that Chinese companies invest in railways, agriculture, and mining. On his return, he proudly announced to residents of a rural district that Chinese companies would develop Zambian wetlands for rice production." [4]
Same with American politics, we just shot nebulous words and concepts like, "Freedom", "democracy", etc. without understanding the underlying implications. The press highlights the any negative news about China, but how often do you hear things like this from American leadership in the mainstream media:
> “I want everybody playing in Africa,” President Obama stated during a press conference in South Africa in late June 2013. “The more, the merrier. I think that’s good. . . . It gives Africans leverage” to ensure that such economic interactions are “good for Africa.” [4] (pg. 106)
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/impact-ch... [2] https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-g... [3] https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/us-needs-invest-minds-not... [4] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR521.html
I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ...
No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.org/node/32107
Edit: There's a sample down from the page heading "416 A Mencken Chrestomathy" in https://biblio.wiki/wiki/A_Mencken_Chrestomathy . Other books had much fuller accounts of several conventions he reported on.
Rather than immediately following american "style", it is conjectured that you need to be given america's blessing and be allowed in our international world order.
> China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary).
Britain, Japan, Germany, France, etc all modernized when they weren't a democracy. If we are talking post ww2, south korea, taiwan, singapore, etc all modernized while they weren't real democracies.
You could be a dictatorship and still be part of the american world order - saudi arabia, kuwait, SK/taiwan for most of their history.
> that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.
Modernization doesn't require data points. It's simply a political choice. As long as a major power isn't actively preventing you from modernizing, any country can modernize. It's simply a matter of political stability and investing in education and industry.
What makes china unique is that they are building institutions outside of the US world order ( AIIB, RCEP, BRICS, SCO and of course the belt and road initiative ).
https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-emerging-instituti...
But world order doesn't necessarily have anything to do with modernization.
I've long felt that the EU should have been doing something similar: instead of barriers around the EU market, they should have offered free trade with any developing country, as long as they follow certain basic values like free press, human rights, and at least some degree of democracy. Economic development in exchange for European values. If handled right, I think that could have done a lot of good in the world. Now China seems to beat us to it.
Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries.
(Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).
If the US is the yard-stick for good governance, then we're all in big trouble.
I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point), but there is certainly an element of shaping developing countries to accept American ideals. However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism. [1], [2]
Free-markets is a big topic that the American government likes to complain about with regards to China. Ironically, Americans seem to think protectionism doesn't exist in America. "For example, from 2008 to 2016, the US implemented over 1,000 discriminatory trade policy measures, followed by India and Russia, with both implementing nearly 600 similar policies each. Trade-impeding measures have also increased at a much faster pace than measures to liberalize trade." [3], [4], [5]. A little hypocritical if you ask me.
> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
* Modern: Just to reiterate, my previous spiel was that China views modernization as independent to other society structures. Their experience has proven that to be the case. Without a doubt, cities like Shenzhen are modern.
* Pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance: Ultimately, the purpose of a democracy is to get the voices of citizens heard. Note that surveys show almost 90% of citizens in China are satisfied with their government while in the West, we are perpetually annoyed at them. Democracy is not a panacea for stability, success, etc.
* Sane judicial systems: That depends how you view it. In America, look at the amount of people locked up for minor drug crimes. I call that insane. In China, the law is more flexible and based on circumstances. "Despite the tough laws, authorities have usually turned a blind eye to farmers growing their own low-THC varieties because they were an important source of income for some farmers." [6] It's also important to note westerners and easterners look at the concept of Law very differently. "Easterners and Westerners have fundamentally different understandings of the nature of contracts. In the West, a contract is unalterable; in the East a contract is continually renegotiable in the light of changed circumstances (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). This drastic difference of view has often resulted in conflict and bitterness between Eastern and Western negotiators." [7]
[1] PDF Warning: http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/PMR-15-Politique-Develop... (pg 38 and in French)
[2] "...free market approaches have not proven to be 'very effective' in helping countries achieve this." http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[3] http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[4] Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot https://piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/china-most-prote...
[5] http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/blog/AllInfogra...
[6] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2108347/green...
[7] Richard Nisbett, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, Ara Norenzayan - 2001 - Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs. Analytic Cognition
> I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
No, I'm saying the US is not a pluralist democracy with good governance etc. Obviously, China isn't either. If you're trying to find a modern democracy, look at some EU countries, to a lesser extend Canada, maybe New Zealand, Australia. I think those countries are becoming a guide on what to emulate, while the US is becoming more and more dysfunctional.
I think attributing this to protectionism is not really helpful. There are many protectionist states (or states with a "strong industrial policy") that don't develop at all economically.
The examples of Europe before the early 20th Century and Far Asia in the late 20th century are certainly prominent but what about the other protectionist countries during that time or today?
You can find the "most protectionist" (by some measure) countries here:
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore (Click on "Trade Freedom" and then check the top vs bottom of the list)
So we have examples and counter examples, not a strong case in favor of protectionism IMO.
in fact, after WWII, not any country modernised itself after becoming a democracy. South Korea was in a military dictatorship, Singapore is run by a single family.
I agree that American ROI on military spending is negative, though the degree to which this is true is debatable. (The American defense industry doubles as a federal jobs and R&D program.) I do not see how China building an expensive, low-throughput transportation mode that is uncompetitive, even without a traversable Arctic Ocean, is productive.
And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.
No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures.
The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend itself but that's a different (also kinda dicey) sea - they could only really go on offence in cooperation with the USA. China's main military threats are on land and come from its western borders - Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and of course India. With the possible exception of India I don't see any of them picking a fight anytime soon.
[1] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201...
If all but one of those (i.e., Russia) are "friendly" (i.e., most would say China v US is unlikely given the shared financial interests), who / what exactly is the USA so heavily armed for? Is military force as a proxy for diplomacy wise?
So regardless, of the percentage of X or Y it's pretty clear these weapons are an enabler. Yet infrastructure is crumbling? Schools not as competitive? Etc.
also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighters, military grade satellite navigation system on its own, india can not even build self-propelled artillery on its own.
Both nations know this full well, that is why there will be long lasting peace in the region/border.
But I do agree that neither will risk a major confrontation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_borde...
This is a topic I've discussed quite extensively with my Chinese friends and my impression is that while Taiwan remains a sore point, that ship has sailed for the time being. The fact that it's independent and not a colony helps - Hong Kong was a different story. And there's no pressing national security need for the territory like Tibet.
The feeling towards Taiwan (amongst my circle anyway) is a bit like a wayward child - to be held in check, and encouraged to return, but certainly not warranting military action with its accompanying loss of life. And the politburo's main goals are stability and its own continued reign. So long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to threaten those, China may rattle its sabre every once in a while, but it's probably safe for now.
My personal prediction for Taiwan (as a white layperson, mind) is that as the mainland prospers and stabilises, and gets over its remnant paranoia from the bad old days - and as the island gets over its own adolescence - the emnity and restrictions will gradually dissipate and the countries will move closer together naturally. It might not be a Chinese territory again like HK, but it's hard to imagine too many restrictions being in place in 50 or even 30 years' time. In the end, Taiwan needs China a lot more than the other way round, and will inevitably gravitate towards it.
That's assuming China doesn't collapse spectacularly, of course. Then all bets are off!
It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.