I guarantee that everyone won’t be wrong about China

Tyler Cowen has an excellent Bloomberg piece on China, entitled “What if Everyone’s Wrong About China.” Here’s one observation:

It was also conventional wisdom, circa 2010, that China was due for an economic crack-up. That didn’t happen, either.”

Well, not everyone was wrong about that! In fairness, I didn’t expect China to turn in a more authoritarian direction during the 21st century, so I was wrong about that. But then I didn’t expect that to happen in Russia either. Or in India. Or Turkey. Or Hungary. Or Brazil. Or the Philippines. And of course I didn’t expect Trump. So I missed the entire global turn toward authoritarian nationalism.

Tyler asks us to consider whether the now fashionable pessimism about prospects for Chinese democracy will also prove to be wrong. I certainly expect so.  Pundits are always excessively swayed by current trends.  In 2015 and 2016, I recall reading all sorts of left leaning pundits telling us about Obama’s enduring legacy.

Here’s Tyler:

Or consider Hong Kong. Not long ago it was practically a cliché that Hong Kong was a territory of apathetic, spoiled wealthy people, not very committed to self-rule or democracy. That too has been shown to be false, as 1.7 million people took the risk of participating last weekend in a peaceful anti-government march.

I don’t know if I ever posted on that point, but I certainly did argue against the more general claim that East Asians were not interested in democracy, citing hotly contested elections in places like Taiwan and South Korea—areas that pundits used to tell us would never be democratic.  Of course Taiwan is 98% Han Chinese.  So Hong Kong doesn’t surprise me at all.  Actually, Mainland China has thousands of demonstrations each year, mostly focused on local grievances.  This is nothing new.

I also recall being told that certain Latin American dictators were “popular”, only to find out that they weren’t so popular when they finally did have elections.

I still think Fukuyama’s “End of History”, or utilitarianism, or liberalism, or democratic capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, is the megatrend, and all these forays into socialism, nationalism, etc. are mere epicycles.  Democracy seemed to be dying in the 1930s, and in the 1980s not many predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Here’s something I’m really confident in predicting:

In one hundred years, either China and Russia will be democratic or the US and UK and Japan will be nondemocratic.  Two completely different political regimes in these big countries is not a long run equilibrium. In one hundred years, democracy will be seen as clearly the way to go, or clearly not the way to go. Here’s another prediction.  The US/China trade war will eventually be seen as being just as misguided as the Japan-bashing of the 1980s now seems. 


Tags:

 
 
 

22 Responses to “I guarantee that everyone won’t be wrong about China”

  1. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    21. August 2019 at 05:49

    Very good post.

  2. Gravatar of Salem Salem
    21. August 2019 at 05:54

    One hundred years ago, the US and the UK and Japan were democratic, and China and Russia were not. Two hundred years ago, the US and the UK were democratic, and China and Russia were not. What makes the next century special?

  3. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    21. August 2019 at 06:29

    I am optimistic about the prospects for Chinese democracy in the long run. The lack of Chinese democracy thus far is not due to some essentialism of Asian values or Han ethnicity, but what you’d expect from a country facing similar levels of education, income, internal inequality, and external threats as China. As China becomes more developed, it will also democratize. This will happen gradually (just as the UK gradually extended the franchise over hundreds of years) and there will be setbacks, but we should not force the issue. Democratization works much better when it comes from within in an environment of economic growth and low geopolitical threat (like South Korea or Taiwan), then when it is forced by economic collapse and threats of separatism and foreign encroachment (like Russia—the way the collapse of the Soviet Union was handled and the resulting economic and political performance of Russia in the 90s is probably the biggest cautionary tale that deters democratization in Russia and China).

  4. Gravatar of George George
    21. August 2019 at 08:34

    I can guarantee the blog author is wrong about China.

    https://i.imgur.com/Z67qZgI.jpg

  5. Gravatar of George George
    21. August 2019 at 08:35

    And wrong about race relations

    https://i.imgur.com/qMCYIT9.jpg

  6. Gravatar of GEORGE GEORGE
    21. August 2019 at 09:22

    I can’t think of a single major mainstream media outlet that has admitted to its audience that it has examined how it ended up presenting the Trump–Russia collusion hoax as real news for more than two years, figured out what went wrong, and made the necessary corrections to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

    Isn’t that a telling sign? They can’t bring themselves to admit it was all a hoax, because that would mean exposing the role they themselves played in creating and sustaining it for more than two years, as they relentlessly gaslighted the entire country.

    FAKE NEWS IS A REAL ACTUAL FOREIGN CONTROLLED ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

  7. Gravatar of George George
    21. August 2019 at 09:30

    To the blog author: There’s still time before your credibility goes from fringe to completely discredited.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/you-are-watching-the-last-days-of-the-fake-news-media_2977534.html

    I would HIGHLY recommend EVERYONE here to completely reject MSM now.

    There, now none of you have any excuses.

  8. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    21. August 2019 at 10:35

    I’m looking into a way of creating a filter website to view themoneyillusion through. It would automatically strip out the spam comments from identified nuisance commentators. Any interest in that?

  9. Gravatar of George George
    21. August 2019 at 13:03

    Yes Tom, it’s called fake news.

    You can watch and watch and they’ll ensure you never see treasonous crimes of Demokkkrats so you can stay in your nice bubble of ignorance.

    https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1164279149256695809

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. August 2019 at 13:41

    Salem, The next century is special because China will be rich for the first time ever. Almost all rich countries (excluding petro-states) are democratic.

  11. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    21. August 2019 at 15:17

    So in other words: Almost all rich countries are democratic, excluding all rich countries that are not.

    Not to mention Singapore, flawed democracy at best.

  12. Gravatar of P Burgos P Burgos
    21. August 2019 at 20:41

    I think that lumping China and Russia may be an analytical mistake. The CCP as an organization has different politics than whatever parties exist in Russia. Also, the CCP does have politics in a way that it appears Russia does not; Chinese leaders do have to convince other high level party members that they deserve to be in charge, and not someone else.

  13. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    21. August 2019 at 21:38

    Christian List,

    you are making a joke out of this, but it’s not that hard to identify the marker that separates undemocratic rich countries from democratic ones.

    Countries that got rich through pure resource extraction / rent seeking, tend not to be democratic. This has mostly to do with fights over monopolizing the resources. It’s also known as the resource curse. Note, some resource rich countries end up with so much infighting over resource control that they don’t even get rich in the first place.

    Countries that got rich through industrious behavior of its people, tend to become democratic much more quickly. It’s a basic consequence of higher participation, economically, that bleeds into demands for higher participation, politically. Let’s not forget that this only happened in Europe either once there was a sizeable urban middle class (those “bourgeois” revolutions mid 19th Century mainly).

  14. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    21. August 2019 at 22:11

    I do not think Anglo democracy is an external contagion. That is, it arose out of the inheritance of British institutions, not because of some general trend that we caught from other countries. So, I don’t think what happens to Russia or China has much to do with what happens in the Anglosphere.

    Who controls what about of surplus and how seems to matter. Resource polygynous societies are a very, very bad basis for democracy. The state controls the surplus and polygyny is not good for stable bargaining politics. (Though importing the extra women to ensure all in-group men can get married definitely helps, but not the societies the women get imported from: the polygyny of the oil rich states is a destabilising factor in the Islamic Middle East.)

    Chattel slavery was essential to Greek city states and Rome being elections-matter polities–it meant the citizens controlled a significant amount of surplus and, along with marital monogamy, largely eliminated sexual competition within the citizen in-group.

    China has not been a good prospect for democracy until the citizens gain control a significant amount of surplus, which they now do. It then becomes a race between a regime using technology every more innovatively for social control and the spread of mass prosperity. Once the future of technology becomes a key factor, prediction becomes even more fraught because, as Karl Popper pointed out, few things are inherently less predictable than the future of technology.

  15. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    21. August 2019 at 22:15

    It should read “along with marital monogamy, sufficiently muted sexual competition within the citizen in-group”.

    I have a publishers contract for a book on marriage. I just drafted the chapter on monogamy in the classical world, so these things are on my mind.

  16. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    21. August 2019 at 22:26

    China’s Warning to Global CEOs: Toe the Party Line on Hong Kong

    By Angus Whitley , Iain Marlow , and Jinshan Hong, Bloomberg
    August 21, 2019, 9:32 PM GMT+7
    Updated on August 22, 2019, 10:07 AM GMT+7

    Beijing scrutinizes how companies, workers respond to protests

    Clampdown on airline Cathay Pacific sent a chilling message

    As anti-government protests in Hong Kong intensified this month, KPMG issued a directive to its employees in the city: Don’t speak on behalf of the company in public. It went on to say that the firm supports China’s policy for governing Hong Kong.

    PwC, another Big Four accounting giant, sent a similar message to staff telling them to avoid disclosing anything about the company on social media platforms, according to emails seen by Bloomberg.

    —-30—-

    Maybe China will democratize, hard to tell. Not soon, for sure. Going backwards since Tiananmen Square, and now rapidly.

    China dictators have something new also: An unprecedented ability to snuff out even mild dissent in the crib. Well beyond 1984-ish surveillance technologies.

    China has also converted the most powerful commercial interests in the West—-the BlackRocks, the Apples, the Walmarts, the GMs—-into quislings.

    Can anyone tell the difference between DC globalists and foreign-policy gurus, and completely compromised multinationals? Are they one and the same?

    Who spoke up for Hong Kong demonstrators? Tim Cook? Mary T. Barra? Larry Fink? Doug McMillon? The US Chamber of Commerce?

    No. Donald Trump said a trade deal would be imperiled if Beijing sent the hobnailed boots into Hong Kong.

    Sure, maybe Trump is insincere. At least he said something.

  17. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    22. August 2019 at 02:11

    China is probably too big to understand, but this article in the FT points out China infrastructure spending has slowed, thus slowing their economy. Why China, a developing country, would want to slow infrastructure spending is curious.

    https://www.ft.com/content/1eb6d9ac-be6e-11e9-b350-db00d509634e

  18. Gravatar of Al Al
    22. August 2019 at 10:33

    I think the key question is whether China, under the current regime, will manage to approach first world living standards. This the basis of legitimacy for the Party and the State. If it does, and it keeps corruption to a manageable level, and I would argue that the cultural norms that has historically characterized Han Chinese civilization tends to favor this outcome, I see no reason why that the status quo will not be stable 100 years from now.

    We are blinded by the fact that since the start of the industrial revolution, countries on the technical frontier have tended to be more democratic. Those that were not, as they became rich, have become democratic. This was the source of optimism in the west after the cold war. But I believe that China is different, in the same way that Japan and Germany were different. What we often forget is that democracy was imposed on them externally. My view is that where authoritarian regimes have legitimacy that extends far beyond the current despot, governs in a fairly efficient manner, and is sustained by a strong ethos/culture, then it can prosper indefinitely, short of being overthrown by an external power.

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. August 2019 at 13:34

    mbka, Trying to explain things to Christian is like talking to a horse.

    Lorenzo, I look forward to the book.

    Al, You said:

    “But I believe that China is different, in the same way that Japan and Germany were different. ”

    Not sure if those are the best examples to use today. . . .

  20. Gravatar of Dwarkesh Patel Dwarkesh Patel
    23. August 2019 at 08:12

    Excellent post!
    I’m curious as to why democracy and authoritarianism can’t share a long term equilibrium. I really hope that it’s true.

  21. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    23. August 2019 at 11:31

    Cowen’s piece is incredibly dumb in every single respect.

    It was also conventional wisdom, circa 2010, that China was due for an economic crack-up.

    It most definitely was not, at least, not in any way that has been falsified in succeeding years. I was alive in 2010 as well; people did not predict convergence would suddenly stop.

    I didn’t expect China to turn in a more authoritarian direction during the 21st century

    Did it? The Communist Party has become more focused on self-preservation, but is China really more authoritarian now than in, say, 2000?

    I recall reading all sorts of left leaning pundits telling us about Obama’s enduring legacy.

    Those pundits weren’t wrong.

    That too has been shown to be false, as 1.7 million people took the risk of participating last weekend in a peaceful anti-government march.

    In fact, this claim itself is false. The real number is 128 thousand. The vast majority of Hong Kongers are apathetic towards the extradition law and aren’t Anglophilic LARPers.

    I still think Fukuyama’s “End of History”, or utilitarianism, or liberalism, or democratic capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, is the megatrend, and all these forays into socialism, nationalism, etc. are mere epicycles.

    Democracy (and, to a lesser, but still real extent, capitalism) are megatrends. Liberalism might be or might not be. Nationalism certainly has its epicycles, but seems to be rather lasting.

    In one hundred years, either China and Russia will be democratic or the US and UK and Japan will be nondemocratic.

    In what way is Russia less democratic than Japan?

    This is nothing new.

    Disagree; the extent of the protests really is new, and quite significant.

    @Al

    You are wrong. Look at South Korea and Taiwan.

  22. Gravatar of xu xu
    25. August 2019 at 03:29

    well written, but very wrong.

    1) Democracy or Authoritarianism is not important at all to a countries success. Singapores prime minister served for over 30 years (basically a dictator) and that country rose from the grave while under his leadership, and became one of the wealthiest places in the world. It also scores well in happiness indexes. The philippines has been a democracy for the last 40 years (since marcos left) and for twenty years before marcos, and they have always been poor. Many african countries are democracies and are poor. Greece is a democracy, and is bankrupt. Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, gosh the list goes on and on….

    2) In one hundred years, americans will look back at this moment and say Donald Trump was an antihero. He was the knight in shining armor – however imperfect he is – that saved america from total and utter humiliation. The idea that you would ship all your jobs abroad, brain-drain your country by offshoring and outsourcing everything – then replace the rest with artificial intelligence, strain your social benefit programs, and all to benefit the rich under this theory of “comparative advantage” (comparative advantage IN WHAT!, LOL) will absolutely be considered the most bonehead theory in history. David Ricardo was living in a totally different time. He was wrong then, and he is wrong today!

Leave a Reply