In terms of comparing developing and developed, a CAGR of 0.8% is anemic by any standard, particularly when you have the world's premier R&D centers, rule of law, etc. It is just not the case that poorer nations grow faster than richer nations -- most poor nations do not experience catch up growth at all. That the East Asian nations managed to do it really is a miracle, and they did it on the back of nationalism. It's not to be expected, and it's not the typical experience of low and middle income nations:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/o...
It's worth noting that East Asian nations are not clones of each other. In the one I grew up in, I don't think nationalism played much of a role.
The government actively tries to foster a national identity but I don't think all that many people are buying into it - party due to the modus op of the government in my opinion; being a small nation the government has opted "being a leaf on the wind" pragmatism as its guiding principle and I believe it has rubbed off on (a significant percentage of) the people.
Raw pragmatism that involves toss aside anything that "doesn't work" isn't particularly compatible with dogmatic ideals of nationalism - i.e. people noticed the government isn't practicing what they preach.
The Chinese people who have the freedom to express their views, in Taiwan and formerly in Hong Kong, weren't so nationalistic. Can you back up your assertion about the rest?
Also, nationalism is global trend; there is no correlation with whatever China does.
> It is just not the case that poorer nations grow faster than richer nations
I think you know that's not what anyone was saying.
I don't think this has nothing to do with anything really.
And frankly, India has been taking a harder nationalist/populist line in the last 20 years.
India and China are completely different places.
China is authoritarian, and ordered, there is reasonably effective central policy.
India is from a civic perspective a mess of inanity and corruption.
The relative 'openness' as measured in flow of goods, capital, information etc. isn't anything really. If India could magically impose the same constraints as China it would probably hurt them.
In fact, the argument could be made that those constraints actually hurt China as well.
A pretty small sample size!
> the largest protests in human history
What's wrong with protests? That is not political instability, unless you are a dictator.
> China contained COVID-19 spread and is politically very stable.
You have no idea, because there is no freedom to report otherwise.
> China took a hard nationalist route
Only under Xi. Before that, China spent decades opening up (since Deng), and much of China's growth came from adopting capitalism and free international trade. And before Deng, Mao was a hardline Communist, working with international Communists (though not always agreeing with Stalin).
It's primarily a qualitative comparison, not a statistical analysis. 1/3 the human population also.
> You have no idea, because there is no freedom to report otherwise.
You have to be intentionally obtuse to not glean that China has effectively contained COVID-19 at this point. Not only are 1.4B Chinese and tens of millions of foreigners on the conspiracy, but the entire global economic system as well!
> Only under Xi.
GFW started in 1997 as globalization was accelerating. Try again.
Instead, compare China with India. Two huge developing nations with similar post-colonial timelines. But their post-2020 fortunes could not be more different. India was racked with the largest protests in human history last year, and then got hit hard by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. China contained COVID-19 spread and is politically very stable. What happened in the last 20 years? Simplification is that China took a hard nationalist route and sought to protect its sovereignty. See GFW. India remained very open.