Martin Jacques argues that as China gets rich, it will not become westernized, but it will become a hegemonic power, using its economic might for political, military and cultural purposes. This, he says, will lead to a “different kind of world”, in which economic and political progress are no longer identified with “western” liberal democracy.
There are, though, several reasons to doubt this. For one thing, Jacques contrast between illiberal China and the liberal west is overdrawn. As Amartya Sen has pointed out, freedom is not a peculiarly western ideal. And Jonathan Mirsky adds that Jacques’ image of China as a nation with 5000 years of unbroken history is rather simplistic.
There is, though, a bigger problem - China’s economic dominance will, for our lifetimes at least, be merely a function of its size, not its ingenuity.
The World Bank estimates that China’s GDP per head is still under $6000 a year, and that there are 254 million Chinese (equal to the combined populations of the UK, France Germany and Spain) living on less than $1.25 a day.
This means that even if China can grow 8% a year - its average rate since 1981 - it will take almost a decade for the average Chinese to rise above the US’s current (low) poverty line.
And if the relationship between GDP growth and poverty reduction remains the same as it was between 1981 and 2004, then even 20 years of 8% growth will still leave over 50 million living below $1.25 a day, and leave the average Chinese only four-fifths as rich as the average Englishman is today.
China, then, will remain a poor country for a long time. This, will, surely, greatly dampen its hegemony. A nation’s influence arises, in large part, from foreigners’ willingness to learn from it. If a nation or business wanted to succeed in the early 20th century, it had to adopt American innovations, such as mass production, Taylorism and hierarchical companies - hence the US’s hegemony. But it is not the case that success in the 21st century will require us to learn from China.
There’s another reason why China might not become as important as Jacques thinks - its lack of democracy. Jacques is right to say that democracy is not necessary for economic growth; if we count women as people, Britain did not become a democracy until 1928, 150 years after its economic take-off began.
But democracy might be necessary for a nation to become hegemonic. I say this not just because democracy is a source of moral authority (a shining city on a hill) but because of the effects of the democratic spirit. The US’s hegemony for the last century has rested in large part upon its creativity not just in business but in the arts and intellectual activities. For a long time, film, TV, popular music, philosophy and economics have been, for practical purposes, American creations. As a result, non-Americans see their world through American eyes - a fact which, in turn, has enormous economic effects insofar as it helps the US borrow cheaply.
But the creativity which gave rise to this hegemony is a democratic creation. A people with the spirit of democracy look for their betterment not to governments but to themselves. And this inspires them to work, create and innovate. As de Tocqueville wrote:
There are, though, several reasons to doubt this. For one thing, Jacques contrast between illiberal China and the liberal west is overdrawn. As Amartya Sen has pointed out, freedom is not a peculiarly western ideal. And Jonathan Mirsky adds that Jacques’ image of China as a nation with 5000 years of unbroken history is rather simplistic.
There is, though, a bigger problem - China’s economic dominance will, for our lifetimes at least, be merely a function of its size, not its ingenuity.
The World Bank estimates that China’s GDP per head is still under $6000 a year, and that there are 254 million Chinese (equal to the combined populations of the UK, France Germany and Spain) living on less than $1.25 a day.
This means that even if China can grow 8% a year - its average rate since 1981 - it will take almost a decade for the average Chinese to rise above the US’s current (low) poverty line.
And if the relationship between GDP growth and poverty reduction remains the same as it was between 1981 and 2004, then even 20 years of 8% growth will still leave over 50 million living below $1.25 a day, and leave the average Chinese only four-fifths as rich as the average Englishman is today.
China, then, will remain a poor country for a long time. This, will, surely, greatly dampen its hegemony. A nation’s influence arises, in large part, from foreigners’ willingness to learn from it. If a nation or business wanted to succeed in the early 20th century, it had to adopt American innovations, such as mass production, Taylorism and hierarchical companies - hence the US’s hegemony. But it is not the case that success in the 21st century will require us to learn from China.
There’s another reason why China might not become as important as Jacques thinks - its lack of democracy. Jacques is right to say that democracy is not necessary for economic growth; if we count women as people, Britain did not become a democracy until 1928, 150 years after its economic take-off began.
But democracy might be necessary for a nation to become hegemonic. I say this not just because democracy is a source of moral authority (a shining city on a hill) but because of the effects of the democratic spirit. The US’s hegemony for the last century has rested in large part upon its creativity not just in business but in the arts and intellectual activities. For a long time, film, TV, popular music, philosophy and economics have been, for practical purposes, American creations. As a result, non-Americans see their world through American eyes - a fact which, in turn, has enormous economic effects insofar as it helps the US borrow cheaply.
But the creativity which gave rise to this hegemony is a democratic creation. A people with the spirit of democracy look for their betterment not to governments but to themselves. And this inspires them to work, create and innovate. As de Tocqueville wrote:
On passing from a free country into one which is not free the traveler is struck by the change; in the former all is bustle and activity; in the latter everything seems calm and motionless…Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders.
The Chinese government is trying to confine this superabundant force only to a narrow economic realm. But if it is to become as hegemonic as Jacques believes, mightn’t this have to change? It is when American high school students aspire to study at Chinese universities, and when the brightest Americans migrate to China that China will become truly hegemonic. How likely is this?
Jacques is, in the words of Confucious, a complete bell end. I'm not sure about the democracy/creativity/hegemony axis, though. One of the slightly depressing things about the way China is developing internally is how much "creativity" is entirely compatible with dictatorial rule. The proximate barrier to hegemony here is really language. There's also the fact that a)China isn't particularly interested in spreading cultural influence outside the Chinese speaking world on any mass level and b) there isn't a Chinese ideal that is designed to serve as a beacon to others. Beijing isn,t saying "you should all do it like us", Jacques is saying it. That's what makes him such a bell end. It's transferred nationalism, in Orwell's phrase.
Posted by: jamie | August 13, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Martin Jacques argues that as China gets rich, it will not become westernized, but it will become a hegemonic power, using its economic might for political, military and cultural purposes.
This is so and the name of my blog is drawn directly from this. They are utilizing the market economy while it behoves them to.
Posted by: jameshigham | August 13, 2009 at 05:32 PM
An interesting talk on what life might be like in an Era of Chinese Hegemony
http://fora.tv/2008/03/12/Eamonn_Fingleton_Discusses_In_the_Jaws_of_the_Dragon
Posted by: John Terry's Mum | August 13, 2009 at 07:52 PM
"the creativity which gave rise to this hegemony is a democratic creation"
The US was a democracy at the time of de Tocqueville? Not if we count Blacks as people.
Posted by: Phil | August 13, 2009 at 08:33 PM
Not if you count prisoners (blacks) now. Can vote in Canada (and Maine and VT I think). Give them the vote and a lobby may just develop to end this vestige of slavery.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan | August 15, 2009 at 11:25 PM
In my view, democrasy can be manipulated like any other political system. We are lead to belivieve that globalisation created by democrasy is good for the whole world population. Is It? I think that globalisation = capitalism = jiant corporation = more super millioner and thefore little people has to slave to make a living. China survived in the past! The future depend on smart and cosciencious leader! not on a political nomination system.One day China rule the world and the world will rule China.
Posted by: Bruno Vartuli | August 16, 2009 at 03:42 AM
Quote: "And if the relationship between GDP growth and poverty reduction remains the same as it was between 1981 and 2004, then even 20 years of 8% growth will still leave over 50 million living below $1.25 a day, and leave the average Chinese only four-fifths as rich as the average Englishman is today."
-- Comparing the income level between China and US might give Americans a bit hope, but this generally is not a good way to think about how China will grow. For example, let's take a look of McDonald's Big Mac and use that as a fair price indicator, which translates into an 80% undervalued Yuan. That leads us to the following 2 items:
1. PPP - Purchasing Power Parity
It's hard to get a precise number but you can tell that the real income difference between mid-class Chinese and Americans are actually a lot smaller than we know.
2. Dollars' position as world reserved currency is in danger. The only reason why it is still holding up is because this unique role, while Chinese have realized it and they are seriously challenging it. If its position is replaced, the rise of Yuan and Asian currency will further close the income gap between China and U.S.
The author of this review is making the same mistake that Jacques actually pointed out in his book - I hope he'll read it again, is to assume and think in a widely accepted western thought process, while overlooking some of the most important factors - whether by ignorance or by intention, however either makes little difference to support an already weak argument.
Posted by: John | August 18, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Quote: "....It is when American high school students aspire to study at Chinese universities, and when the brightest Americans migrate to China that China will become truly hegemonic. How likely is this?"
---- When China's economy grows, its citizen's income will grow, and business opportunity will grow.. all these will attract young professionals, be them Chinese or foreigners. In return, they will get to experience the 5000 years Chinese history and its culture. How likely is this? oh very likely, just ask the millions of foreigners who already live and work in China.
Posted by: John | August 18, 2009 at 08:10 PM
China isn't this cohesive, well organised state that people think it is...
this is from a journal article wot I wrote:
THE CHALLENGES FACING CHINA’S ECONOMY
Managing diversity. We often think of China as coherent nation with a strong central government, but China is very diverse. The population is huge (1.3 billion) but not uniform – there are 7 major dialects spoken, and 80 languages in use. Despite the appearance of a strong centralized state power – in reality decision making is highly decentralized as there are 31 provinces, 656 cities, and 48,000 districts.
A lack of private sector and capitalist ‘soft infrastructure’. China is overwhelmingly a state led economy. Half of the productive capacity of China is in state hands, and all 11 of China’s Fortune 500 companies are state controlled and owned. Some commentators (such as Hutton, 2006) argue that China lacks much of the ‘soft infrastructure’ of market-led economies. An example of this is preparing graduate and professional skills. McKinsey Global Institute estimated that China and India have more than twice the young professionals in fields such as engineering, finance and life sciences than the US – but only 1 in 8 of these workers would make suitable candidates for employment in a multinational corporation.
Uneven economic growth and development. Economic growth in China is uneven, in terms of the distribution amongst its population and the provinces. Out of China’s 31 provinces, 8 of these are responsible for three quarters of economic growth since 2000. China has achieved levels near 10 per cent GDP growth per annum, but only 1 per cent employment growth. China needs to create 24 million new jobs per year for migrants leaving the countryside, students leaving schools and colleges, and the newly unemployed from rationalizing state enterprises. It is estimated that hidden and official unemployment comprises 23 per cent of the workforce and totals 170 million.
Social and institutional barriers to commerce. China faces many problems to undertaking commerce such as bureaucracy, transparency of law and regulations, an under-developed financial and accounting system, social unrest, the inconsistent application of laws and regulations locally, and corruption.
Posted by: Glenn | August 19, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Quote: "....We often think of China as coherent nation with a strong central government, but China is very diverse. The population is huge (1.3 billion) but not uniform – there are 7 major dialects spoken, and 80 languages in use. "
Glenn, I think you meant 80 different dialects, as a matter of fact, there are probably more than 80, in the province of Fujian, a villager will not be able to understand what people are talking about if he travels, lets say 80 miles. There are hundreds of dialects spoken in China, Cantonese is just one of them. The city where I was born - Xian, the local dialect is called Shaanxi Hua, presumably has the similar tone when the first emperor -QingShiHuangDi spoke to his people.
However that's not the point I am trying to prove, the matter of fact is that all Chinese speak Mandarin, they all use the same characters, that's what unifies them, about 94% of them think they are Han Chinese - the majority in China. But you can tell the physical difference among them, from the northern part of China, like Xian, people are taller and stronger, like me they mostly have a square face and rigid jaws. Going down to the south, people are much smaller, but faster, they tend to have a round face.
The majic of all these is they all think they are Han Chinese, that's why China - as the world oldest civilization, went through ups and downs, but never broke up, and going ever strong.
I admire Jacques's work, apparently he did some serious study and really understands the root of Chinese culture. or you can say that he is "civilized" - in Chinese people's eyes. That is the fearsome power of Chinese civilization.
Posted by: John | August 20, 2009 at 01:50 AM