Many people in the West believe that China is already a superpower, or will quickly replace the United States to become a superpower. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center reveals that 44 percent of Americans believe that China is the top global economic power, while in reality, China’s economy is barely one-third the size of the U. S. economy. This kind of misconception has engendered many unrealistic fears about China.
The truth is that China is not a superpower, and I doubt it will ever become one.
Fareed Zakaria, CNN host and Washington Post columnist, defined in his bestselling book The Post-American World that a superpower is a country that achieves dominance in ideas or ideology, an economic system, and military power.
In terms of ideas or ideology, the Chinese are probably more confused than anyone else in the world. During the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese traditions, including Confucianism, were destroyed. Communism has proved to be disastrous, and no one believes in it anymore. In today’s China where money is king, people have become disillusioned with any notion of ideals. There has been serious moral decay in society.
In recent years, the Chinese government has called for building “a harmonious society.” Harmony is a virtuous concept deeply rooted in Chinese culture and the Confucian tradition. It could become a new ideology for China. However, it has been overly used in propaganda and has become a cliché rather than a meaningful ideal.
The United States remains the country standing for the universal ideals that people around the world aspire to – liberty and democracy. Unlike Americans who have a clear message for the world, the Chinese do not have a vision for themselves, let alone to influence the world. I have talked to Chinese officials, scholars, business people and students. None of them see China as a superpower. In contrast, many of them look up to the United States as a model and admire the “American way of life.”
Economically, China’s achievements are indeed impressive. In the past 30 years, China has sustained nearly double-digit growth. However, we need to keep in mind that China started from a very low level of GDP. Much of its growth comes from heavy investment in infrastructure. In 2009, China’s per capita GDP was only about $3,600, compared with $46,000 in the United States. Among the world’s top-10 largest companies, the United States claims five, and China has none.
With all the troubles on Wall Street, it is easy to forget that China’s economic success is actually a triumph of capitalism. In recent decades, China has been learning from the West and now primarily practices capitalism. Although China is searching for a recipe that suits the country’s unique situation, namely a “socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics,” it has been a trial-and-error exercise. China has not yet established an economic model that has proven it can withstand long-term tests.
Some people believe that China will eventually surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy. Others argue that the line between the U. S. and China may never cross. I believe that China’s economy will continue to grow rapidly over the next 10 to 15 years. After that, it will slow down when its per capita income approaches $10,000. That will make China’s economy close to the size of the U. S. economy.
Militarily, China’s military spending is only a fraction of what the U. S. spends. A 2009 Pentagon report estimated China’s total military spending at between $105 and $150 billion, compared to $719 billion by the United States. Until recently, China did not have a foreign policy or a global strategy. Even its current foreign policies are almost exclusively commercially-focused.
Harvard professor Joseph Nye has a more detailed analysis about whether China will become a contender with the United States. As he pointed out, “The fact that China is not likely to become a peer competitor to the US on a global basis does not mean that it could not challenge the US in Asia, and the dangers of conflict can never be ruled out.”
I think China’s influence in Asia will be limited. Who is China’s ally? Singapore? North Korea? India will be more likely allied with the U. S. than with China, and we know Japan’s position. As much as I love China, I have to agree with Singaporean scholar Simon Tay’s comment, “no one in Asia wants to live in a Chinese-dominated world. There is no Chinese dream to which people aspire.”
By all measures, China is not a superpower. With other major economies such as India and Russia on the rise, it is hard to see China ever becoming a superpower.
Despite all the problems the U. S. faces, I still believe that the United States has stronger long-term political and economic fundamentals than China. Many vital functions of Chinese society, including its education and healthcare systems, are far from sophisticated. China is not yet a country of the rule of law. The government still arbitrarily detains dissidents and censors the Internet. Corruption and nepotism are rampant. Chinese culture tends to reward the mediocre rather than the extraordinary. There are many uncertainties in China’s future including the ramifications of environmental degradation, an aging population, political instability, social strife and ethnic conflicts.
However, China will be a major economic power. It will probably be the second most important country in the world after the United States on many critical international issues. China’s presence as a major economic power will be good for the world as well as for the U. S., because no one wants to live in an American-dominated world either. China’s strength is that it can be assertive without being confrontational. It is crucial that the United States makes China a partner, not an enemy, because the future of the world’s prosperity and stability depends on it.
[…] Read it. Many people in the West believe that China is already a superpower, or will quickly replace the United States to become a superpower. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center reveals that 44 percent of Americans believe that China is the top global economic power, while in reality, China’s economy is barely one-third the size of U. S. economy. This kind of misconception has engendered many unrealistic fears about China. […]
I have taught international economics at Qingdao University for the last 6 years and agree with every thing you say (which is very rare). As a non-Chinese, when I say these things, I’m immediately tagged an arrogant foreigner who “looks down upon Chinese” – the very worst of crimes. I recommend a recent essay by Barry Weingast, a political scientist at Stanford,based on his forthcoming book with Douglas North, for a more thorough, scholarly analysis why you are 100% correct. (google his home web site)
no one is 100% correct. China hasn’t found out a future ‘CHINA’ value in it’s society. It is not good, but also an opportunity to find new china value that combine past and future. It’s too early to say whether china is super power or not. BUt it’s very childish to say china’s growth rate will slow down after 10-15 years.There is no proof at all.
I enjoyed your article very much and agree with most of the subtenants, but disagree to some extent with the premise. China will be a superpower, but this does not preclude America from maintaining its place atop the heap. I believe that China is on a trijectory to become the second most influential power in the world not counting the EU (or possibly counting them in their present disaray). By 2050 China will have secured itself in the three areas Fareed defines; ideology, economic, and military. I agree with you in that the US will make China a partner, but see China trying even harder to make America one. By this time the globe will likely have regional powers of America in North America, Brasil in South America, and China in Asia. I have no predictions for the Middle East or Europe. There is no doubt that China has to some extent an identity crisis and the fractured culture that remains is at times a burden with regard to property rights, human rights, and rule of law in general, but the culture is strong in education and hard work. They have a firm belief in the ability of their children to succeed, and a stronger family unit. Just as the economy exploded when held back by the chains of communism, the individual chinese person today is more driven to succeed due to these former constraints in a country that is ever changing. America was called the great experiment, and I see no other country in the world that has embraced this attitude with the exception of China with regard to capitalism. The great thing about economics is that they drag culture, law, and humanity with them. Change is slow to come, but the chinese do nothing slowly. While many fear mongers and fair weather fans see China on the rise, they still have a long way to go. But ultimately China is on track to superpowerdom, and whether it takes 30 years or 60, they will arive at their final destination.
I see China in a very dangerous place. The real estate bubble will pop soon in my opinion. Lacking of working ethics will lead the export business down drain too. Sad, but we need to be ready.
I liked your article, nothing held back. China has continued to surprise even those of us who’ve spent a significant portion of our lives here especially in the past <10 years.
I have been impressed in recent years with some of the younger men & women in the government here who have been sent abroad (interestingly most to the US) to advance their positions in the government. They are China's leaders of the future.
Will they be able to lead this country to a position where it is the envy of the world in the ideals you mentioned? Noone knows, but we are all eager & hopeful this can happen.
I see Linda's point, and agree set-backs are indeed coming. But, I don't think these will reverse the overall path to social development. I guess this begs the next question for all parties around the world with a vested interest in China: Is China too big to fail?
Bobby,
Chinese culture emphasizes education to the point of rigid. They want to send their children to Harvard. It’s more about status than wanting their children to reach their full potential. Families are falling apart because moral decay and conflicting values competing with one another.
William,
You are right that younger Chinese leaders seems all western-educated and competent.
I agree with the original author that China has relatively assured growth to $10,000 per capita GDP, but whether it can sustain growth rates beyond that is another matter. If you’ve read TFP/MFP studies on China, it has the highest total-factor productivity growth rates in the world, which means increases in production efficiency outside of additional labor and capital inputs.
The key factor in China is that its government is under stress from both internal and external sources; the United States was for a while considering regime change, and the power of the world’s hyperpower is not an inconsiderable force. Internally, it has two restive regions comprising 40% or so of its land mass (Tibet/Xinjiang) and it has to navigate the social changes caused by urbanization and industrialization without squelching its economic growth. It has a strong incentive not to screw up and to keep corruption from reaching critical levels; if it does screw up, or if corruption does eat out the party from within, it’ll lose two key geostrategic regions or efforts by foreign polities to destabilize the government will succeed.
When China DOES become a superpower and both the foreign and internal threats are controlled, then all bets are off on the fidelity of the government.
“In terms of ideas or ideology, the Chinese are probably more confused than anyone else in the world. During the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese traditions, including Confucianism, were destroyed. Communism has proved to be disastrous, and no one believes in it anymore. In today’s China where money is king, people have become disillusioned with any notion of ideals. There has been serious moral decay in society.”
This is an essential concept of why the Chinese constitution, specifically articles 33-50, are not about to mold the ideals of Chinese citizens. There has been little or no liberty over the past 100 years for the people to decide their path in life, no opportunity to experience personal decisions in every aspect of life and there remains today little belief that one has any control over their destiny.
The recent Google vs China fiasco, demonstrates the reluctance the leadership has in relinquishing control and allowing the people to have the personal liberties that are written in the constitution. Until the people believe and ferment trust in the government, and the government in them, there will be no harmony– personal or social.
The United States people had this liberty, but now with a corrupt Congress and Wallstreet greed, we have lost the potential that we would continue on the journey, and only with a quiet revolution will we regain the true path. Fortunately, we have experienced harmony and it remains a key ingredient to the successful outcome provided the government returns to the guidelines rooted in our constitution. However, with the illegal wiretaps, search and seizures and eventual over taxation, Americans are looking at many difficulties to regain liberty.
China could become an economic power, however, it remains to be seen just how well it may develop a philosophical identity that commands respect and leadership.
For about 1000 years (until around 1700) China was the biggest economy in the world.
The current pronounced growth trend is only about 20 years old. We are seeing a reversion to the mean, and reversion trends have a tendency to overshoot. We may not see it climax in the next 5, 15, or even 50 years, but to denigrate it at this point is really thinking on too small a scale, IMO.
“The United States remains the country standing for the universal ideals that people around the world aspire to – liberty and democracy”
– If only the US actually practices what it preaches, instead of going around the world on its imperial adventure and establishing military bases. Moreover, American was never a democracy to begin with, it’s a Republic. That’s what the founding fathers wanted, democracy means 51% majority wins while the other 49% loses, which is basically mob-ruled.
“In contrast, many of them look up to the United States as a model and admire the “American way of life.”
– Would that be living beyond their means and consuming 1/3 of the world’s resources? Driving gas-guzzling SUVS to malls to buy something you don’t need? Being ignorant of the world around them?
“With all the troubles on Wall Street, it is easy to forget that China’s economic success is actually a triumph of capitalism.”
– It’s actually called Mercantilism. It was used by 18th century colonial European Powers to build up their economy.
“With other major economies such as India and Russia on the rise, it is hard to see China ever becoming a superpower.”
– India can barely feed itself and nearly 50% of the population are illiterate. Their fastest train is 70 mph. Russia is sitting on a demographic time-bomb, they have a low-birth rate and the population is decreasing at a rapid-rate due to alcohol and drug related causes.You can thank the CIA/US government for that for smuggling heroin/opium from Afghanistan into their country.
“China is not yet a country of the rule of law…..Corruption and nepotism are rampant.”
– I had to laugh on this one…..the US Government is definitely not like that right? Bailing out all those wall street banks with hundreds of billions of dollars and passing the cost on to taxpayers. That’s not Capitalism, that’s called Corporate Socialism! You might as well take your order from Goldman Sachs and the international banking cartel because they’re the one running the show.
“Despite all the problems the U. S. faces, I still believe that the United States has stronger long-term political and economic fundamentals than China. ”
– The idiots in Washington long-term planning is basically two weeks. Long-term planning in China is like 50-100 years. Our national debt is approachng $13 trillion, and then you add that with the unfunded liabilities like SS and medicare. Our total debt is around $70 trillion-$90 trillion. Helicopter Ben Benanke is at the federal reserve (privately-controlled bank) right now running the printing press 24/7. You remember Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe? In Germany’s case, remember what happened when hyperinflation kicked in and where a loaf of bread cost 100,000 deutchmarks. A guy name Adolf promised that if he was elected, he would make everything better again and fixed the economy. So the majority of people elected him “democractically”.
P.S. I’m not trying to bust your bubble or discredit you in any way. I too believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and capitalism. Like you, I have Chinese ancestry and proud of my roots. I’m an American first, Chinese second. What I’m trying to point out is that our country today is not what it was in the past. Capitalism is basically dead, Corportracy is the current system right now. The majority of Americans are clueless to what’s going on right now. The middle class is being wiped out by the financial oligarchy on wall street and by the federal reserve. Nothing short of a revolution won’t bring this country back. One of my favorite quote by John Adam is this: “There are two ways to conquered and enslaved a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt”……
“Many vital functions of Chinese society, including its education and healthcare systems, are far from sophisticated.”
Paying 500USD a month for a health plan that could drop you any time or sending kids to public schools here in L.A. is nothing sophisticate either.
I agree with the author on most points but think a distinction needs to be made between mainland chinese and hong kong/taiwan/overseas chinese. Because in Hong Kong, chinese culture only rewards the spectacular.
The Chinese economy has been developed in a very unbalanced and chaotic way. Personally, I think China has done a very bad job in developing. I speak from first hand experience. The reason is simple, greed + corruption. A great portion of the government spends its time and effort making themselves + business contacts rich. Rather than serving the people. This is not socialism or capitalism.
I think the chinese miracle story stops here. China with such a huge population and lots of colonial input set up a number of system to develop. Lots of foreign investment was directed at China and the energy of the chinese people (then mainly in their 30’s) pushed the 30 year development. But a lot of energy was wasted and the focus was very limited. Being such a large country and the modern global drive to development, China was always going to come up in the ranks. This after all is globalisation in the modern era.
However we have arrived, there will be structural/economic/ho… political reform, but it will take a generation or two and a lot of soul searching to move to the next level. But for now, China has finished its upward movement. The energy of the elite and driving forces in China will start to stagnate and along with it the economy and country.
I dont expect crashes, booms, dooms and bust. Like some say.
But I think the next 5 years will be a story of stagnation and stagflation. It will be very hard for the underclass and lower class to improve their living standards unless the government can tax the rich, something that so far has eluded China.
I think the Shanghai Expo will bring lots of foreigners and culture to Shanghai. But the days of ‘frontier investing’ are pretty much over.
The protracted Cold War obviously took its toll in the USSR but it is increasingly apparent that it took a toll on the USA as well. While the US remained the one military, political, conceptual and economic superpower with the collapse of the USSR, its overarching dominance was not as secure as it first assumed. With the static alignments (in the realms of ideas, political power, and economic policy as well as military) of the Cold War past, some of the buttresses of US pre-eminence were undercut to some degree.
That said, what we see are shifts of degree over time, not rapid rises and falls of national pre-eminence. To speak in seismic terms of a decline of the US or rise of China is hyperbole. In this sense Ms. Wang is correct. It remains to be seen, however, whether her views about the long term prospects for the US and China will prove out. My sense is that the US will remain the pre-eminent power for an extended period but it will increasingly become a first among equals in many of the areas mentioned above. China and India will join Europe as nearer equals to the US.
‘That said, what we see are shifts of degree over time, not rapid rises and falls of national pre-eminence. To speak in seismic terms of a decline of the US or rise of China is hyperbole.’
I beg to differ, Bob.
Prior to WW1 the individual nations of Europe stood comparison with the US.
Apres le deluge, the US was clearly on a par with the entire continent.
Changes are often seizemic and absolute rather than gradual.
Oil shortages and the financial crisis could lead to such a change.
Hi Davewmart, nice to hear from you again.
You are quite correct that “Changes are often seismic and absolute rather than gradual’, particularly in matters of Great Power status. You may also prove correct in your concerns for US fall from power. My bet, on the other hand, is for the sort of gradual and partial leveling I tried to describe in my earlier comments.
You refer to the dramatic power transition that followed WW I. You could equally have referred to the further shifts marked by WW II. My point here is that radical shifts of this nature and extent usually are accelerated greatly and go further when a cataclysmic event such as a global scale war is directly involved. Think of the rise to pre-eminence of the UK following the Napoleonic Wars as well in this context or the relative decline of France following the Seven Years War. A truly major global deflationary depression might also serve in place of global war to this end.
Equally though, I would suggest that in the absence of such global war or deep global depression, shifts in power are generally more gradual and not as extreme. It is difficult to make a good case for this by counterfactual example but I’ll try with reference to your example of WW I. The US was clearly rising to great power status by the beginning of the 20th century and the UK’s former predominance was clearly fading. It can be argued that the UK (along with Russia, Germany and France) would not have fallen as far and as fast if WW I had been avoided. It can also be argued that the US and Japan’s emergence would not have been as marked in rapidity and extent.
Because I doubt that wars and economic upheavals of the scale evidenced by WW I will occur in the foreseeable future, I doubt that the dramatic power shifts you foresee will occur in the manner you envision.
Have I ever been wrong?
‘My point here is that radical shifts of this nature and extent usually are accelerated greatly and go further when a cataclysmic event such as a global scale war is directly involved. ‘
Unfortunately it is arguable that the wars are part of such shifts, and bring a pre-existing change in power relations to a head.
So I have heard it argued that WW1 was caused by the rise of Russia, which was rapidly overtaking Germany as the coming power in Europe, and that it occurred when population growth in Europe had slowed so it was clearly no longer in it’s dynamic phase.
A similar inflection point in World population is now occurring, and the rise of China vs the US is clear to all.
If the scepter is passed on peacefully, it would be pretty much a first.
But hey guys! We are all too grown up to fight about it, or access to oil and commodities…….aren’t we?
Seems Helen is very familiar with China but many conclusions are a little bit too arbitrary. Obviously China’s political and social troubles are rampant, however, as the people are getting more educated and westernized, we can see the need for democracy is on the rise. When you say Chinese lose their vision, it’s simply wrong because the movement in 1989 can prove it. After all, a revolution can not happen over a night. We Chinese are working on it though.
China may or may not be a superpower but I agree that the current system is not sustainable. So let’s not talk about who will be a superpower but let’s see what we can do to save and better this country.
I personally believe the rule of the communist party will end in about 10+ years or shorter by non-violent force from inside out, similar to that of the Soviet Unions. After that, China will be gradually re-united mostly under Confucianism again. The traditional value will return and people will have a new (or shall we say “old”) identity of what has supported us as the oldest civilization in the world, namely family, centralism, collectiveness, etc. It will have set backs which may be the last strew crashing the current political system. After all, China will stand up again and be stronger.
Thought-provoking post. How does America’s alarmingly high debt, and China’s purchasing of this debt, play out in this superpower analysis?
Adam,
Thanks for the comment. China’s holding of US debt is only about 10 percent of the US total government debt.
Thoughtful analysis, Helen; I follow most of your argument, but do believe China will be the most dominant of forces in East Asia, and a leader and organizer amongst developing countries around the world where its interests are served – hence, a superpower. I do think a lot of the posturing China is taking toward its neighbors – especially around resource security – will further strain relations between China, the East and the West.
Bill, thanks for the comment.
China has positioned itself as the leader of developing countries since Mao’s time. But the world is not divided by the “developed” and “developing” countries as Mao envisioned. Instead, the world is moving toward what Zakaria called “multipolar” order, with several major powers such as China, EU, Japan, etc. and the … See MoreUS as the default superpower. Unless the US keeps messing itself up, the world will still want the US to lead, because no one else can take up the job, not Paris, not London, and definitely not Beijing.
I think China’s influence in East Asia will also be limited. Who is China’s ally? Singapore ? North Korea? India will more likely to be the US’ ally than China’s, and we know Japan’s position. As you know, I love China. But I have to agree what a Singapore scholar (forgot his name) said that no one in Asia wants to live in a Chinese-dominated world, and there is no Chinese dream that people aspire to. My 2 cents.
First, I wish you had identified being a super-power is a curse well avoided if possible. Certainly, to achieve such a status requires the sacrifices of soul and resources. Then having attained the apparent exalted position, the country must continue to squander more vital resources to maintain the vainglory until it is completely exhausted by the fruitless exercise. Second, it would serve the US well, if it would be more humble and attempt to demur the temptation to be a superpower. True leaders best by example and drawing upon consensus. Third, the issue, quite frankly, may be as simple as the convergence of water, energy, and over population. Until China is able to stop its growth, it will have difficulty managing its extremely limited resources.
China, following US’s example, started with a wage-slave work environment and a callous disregard for its ecology. This is the equivalent of the old Phar More business model–sell more and don’t pay venders for products sold or their employees–as a means to jack up the company’s revenues for the purpose of inflating their stock price. As with Phar More and the US in general, as China matures, their ability to avoid paying for services rendered or for ecological improvements will lesson. In other words, their house of cards will collapse, i.e. no super-power after all.
I might quibble with the statement that the “United States remains the country standing for the universal ideals that people around the world aspire to – liberty and democracy. Unlike Americans who have a clear message for the world, …” The message has been clouded significantly over the past decade; there is a Canadian in a US jail without charges being brought who was a minor when he was arrested several years ago when he may or may not have tossed a grenade at a US serviceman during wartime Afghanistan. The (significant) difference is in degree (if you look at the US and Chinese constitutions both have rights guarantees).
Setbacks are coming but nobody will be able to say if they will come to China, to the US, or to the world at large. There are a large number of possibilities that would cause massive changes (nuclear weapons are in the hands of many more nations and any use would be catastrophic; pandemic illness may get out of hand; dramatic global warming/water level rising; volcanic eruption blacking out the sky; California, New York and Texas voting to separate); nobody saw the fall of the iron curtain or predicted the rise of China. To say that China won’t be a superpower is a certainty that I don’t have.
The lack of ideological strength abroad currently doesn’t mean that that will continue. The US’ biggest ideological export is film and TV followed by corporate identities (brands, such as Coke). The person on the street (in China or the US) can and do get outraged at injustices regardless of their countries ideological basis for their foreign policy.
In terms of military spending, the figures aren’t 100% compatible given differential labour costs. Also, given that technology will be a component of future military conflict, the experience China has with extensive state control of the internet could prove a potential advantage.
If we simply trend out education, we will find that one-child families will do everything they can to educate that one child; corruption will continue to be a problem as it is everywhere – including parts of the first world – but it might be combated (or it might not). As families get richer, many students will be sent abroad to study and those staying will demand that the quality of university education improve.
If I had to guess, I would say that in 20 years, China would have a per capita GDP of between $6,000-$24,000 (in today’s USD) per head with 70% probability; $3,000-$6,000 with 15% probability; $24,000+ with 7.5% probability; under $3,000 USD with 7.5% probability.
Now, somebody hold me to this guess!
@ Alan Hong,
Interesting perspective. With what level of certainty do you make this prediction (i.e. what is your margin of error)? Another way of putting this is, what odds would you give that within 12 years (your 10 years plus a margin of error) your prediction would come true (if you are 100% sure, you would offer any odds – I would give you odds you want that the 2010 world expo will be held in Shanghai – it’s true so the payoff for me is guaranteed and the risk is zero)?
Even more importantly (and more interestingly), what are the reasons behind your prediction? Business interests would be lined up squarely against it (they don’t want revolutionary change that could risk losses for them) – professional classes and the wealthy would similarly fear risking losses; most of the current government from top to bottom and in all sectors from military to technical bureaucrats would only stand to loose and would be opposed. The segments that might fight for such change are either abroad (and thus wield very little political weight), are natural dissidents (which need some reason for the broader public to support them), or are minorities upset at their treatment (which is why the government is concerned about the causes of dissent and does everything from pass labour laws to undertake huge public works projects in rural areas).
The potential ways I might see the current political system changing is if severe factionalism broke out within the party leading to a power struggle and eventual revolution (which, given the history of the party and experiences with factionalism, means that the players will all be acutely aware of the risks of going down such a path) or if a significant segment of the population felt strongly that the government was not acting in their interest (which is why the government is so focused on economic stability – as this is the most likely candidate for such disillusionment). I don’t judge either of these to be too likely. The communist party could decide itself that it wants to open up political competition – that would require some significantly powerful leaders to use their power to limit their future power – not impossible but not highly likely.
The Chinese people have seen enormous growth over the past three decades and see improvements like new subways, high speed trains, improved economic opportunity, rising wages, and other good things. They do see pollution, an aging population, unpopular one-child rules, corruption and other problems but I very much doubt that there is a widespread desire to risk revolution. The Confucianism and centralism you see as traditional values hardly auger for revolution – they auger more for a return to dynastic government if anything. I’m not saying that over the long term change won’t happen, I just don’t see anything that would give any support to a prediction that change will happen in any particular time-frame – particularly one a short as ten years.
Doug, thanks for your comments. You are right that neither of our Chinese people in China or abroad nor foreigners want any violent revolution any more. My point is “evolution” to a more open and free government with less or almost no party control to the economies. Yes, compared with 20 or 30 years ago, we have already witnessed huge changes in the economical system as well as political system in the rural area and grass root level. But the government (or shall we say the party behind the government) still wield decisive power especially in foreign investment, local market openness, currency control, IPR protection enforcement, frequent and abrupt policy changes, among others. It is because of all these uncertainties originated from the relics of the Soviet style system that makes doing business in China is more an art than science. My services to our US customers, believe it or not, are more on guiding them through the murky bureaucratic waters than researching on their products, especially when they want to sell in China. Lots of energy and resources are wasted here and a greater amount of risk is building up as a result in this GDP driven economy ever since. GDP is, in China, a political vehicle for party official’s promotion, a significant remnant of the old system. It is increasingly leading the country to the hardest landing it might ever experience. Therefore, I disagree that the status quo is the best way for China as well as foreign enterprises. My bet on 10+ year timeline is based on the ever mounting risk in the economy, the aftermath of the crashing landing, the coming new leadership and the wisdom of Chinese people with 5000 years of continuous civilization.
I would argue that the Chinese are far from delusional as to ideologies. Many people spit on communism for it sounds ugly. But if you think deeper communism is the extremity of socialism and socialism shares some ideologies with Confucianism, such as collectivism, distributive fairness, centralism. That intersection I would call the liberal branch of Confucianism. It serves as the underlying reason why communist party was so successful in taking over the sovereign in China in 1949. But there is the conservative branch of Confucianism which simply conflicts with communism, such as the respect for social hierarchy, constitutionalism (I mean Confucian Constitutionalism, i.e., using transcendental moral values to restrict government power, not the judicial constitutionalism), ancestor worship. What has happened in China since 1976 represents not only China’s modernization & westernization process, but also resurrection of the conservative branch of Confucianism. I personally have talked to many young and old intellectuals and they all show zeal and confidence for inheriting and modernizing Confucianism.
I am not pointing to Confucianism just because everything else has failed. Actually, Confucianism is like a hodgepodge in which all sorts of ideologies could mix and blend, rather than going separate ways to irreconcilable extremes. John Gray divides liberalists into 2 groups. One believes in the universal applicableness and supremacy of liberalist values, represented by Locke, Kant, Rawls, Hayek. The other group does not seek for a consensus of rationality, but a peaceful co-existence, represented by Hobbes, Hume, Isaiah Berlin, Michael Oakeshott. The ideas and theories of Confucianism, modernized and taken as a whole, would resemble the second group of liberalists. It’s all about tolerance, harmony, and peace. While followers of the first group of liberalists always see that the world will end up in communism v. capitalism, individualism v. collectivism, or Confucianism v. Monotheism.
Now – I’ve purposefully digressed from the superpower subject – perhaps because I dislike the idea of superpower which by itself means there exists a single best, supreme form of ideology, government, way of living. I don’t think China will become a super power, and I don’t hope it ever will.
Superpower does not necessitate a negative connotation meaning that all alternatives are inferior. The liberalism displayed in the Confucius hodgepodge seemed to indicate an American Melting Pot Pluralism which is the foundation of the US’s success. If that is what Confucianism has become then China may very well suffer from the same “superpower syndrome,” and I see nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand I am not sure that if and when Chinese Communism fails that it will be replaced by capitalism or the old Confucian ideals. In fact I would argue that many Chinese blame confucius for some problems both old and new. Additionally I think the revolution sort of walked away from Confucianism to a degree and the root of Mao’s success had a lot more to do with hiding safely in the hills while the KMT fought the Japanese.
I believe that China is not simply communist, but have created an entirely unique ideology which is still refered to as communist but it is “Chinese Communism.” It encompasses capitalism, confucianism, and many other mantras, ideas, and beliefs. I believe that Americas brand of sovereignty is the best in the world, for the time. That does not mean that another great society may not co-exist with a variety all its own, and I believe that China is on to something. It remains to be seen just how far the society evolves and whether or not the country will accept a pluralist identity. This kind of buts heads with the collectivist culture, but if anyone can harmonize the two it will be the Chinese.
As a side note I have seen nothing to indicate or even validate a prediction that the current regime will be toppled by any sort of meaningful movement. When people go from impoverished to potential world power in one generation, there is generally not much to complain about. This does not mean that things are perfect, or even great or good. But those terms are all relative, and so long as grandma and grandpa are still around to tell stories of yesterday, the chinese of today fell pretty grateful.
I tend to think that communism is socialism going too far, fascism is nationalism going too far, and capitalism is utilitarianism going too far. Any and all theories of values are antithetical when they go too far. Not going too far is called the Confucian Doctrine of the Mean. On this I shall agree with you that China is creating some new form of communism, a process I would describe as Confucianism taming the extremity of communism. In my perfect idealization – the so-called Confucius hodgepodge will be that different values co-exist and develop harmoniously (think Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism), while in an American Melting Pot Pluralism different values always attempt to take precedence over others so they clash or segregate. Although I still doubt whether Confucianism could integrate with Christianity or any other monotheism.
I agree with you that “the revolution sort of walked away from Confucianism to a degree.” The mainland history textbook describes the communist take-over as a ring of a chain of revolutions that occurred after 1839. The communists partly realized what avant-garde intellectuals had called for in 1919 – complete abandonment of old traditions and total westernization. Fortunately they didn’t go as far as to replace the Hanzi with alphabets. So yes, I agree that revolution definitely tore a piece of traditions away from today’s China, but that happened not just in mainland. Hong Kong and Taiwan also had the same revolution just not the last most radical step. Confucianism just needs its own St Augustine and Martin Luther to be revived. On the other hand, I don’t think that Mao won the civil war just by hiding from the Japanese. Mostly before the war and briefly after the war, the CCP was preaching nothing but a bi-partisan, representative democracy regime, while KMT was still sticking to the 1st or 2nd stage of Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s evolution model of military rule, political tutelage and constitutional government. That good PR won for the CCP the intellectuals. In the countryside CCP ruthlessly robbed the rich to help the poor. That won them the peasants. I would place those two reasons above anything else, such as USSR aid or Japanese invasion, to explain CCP’s civil war victory. As for topple the regime – I see the CCP split into 2 parties in the near future like the federalists and republicans. This time the revival of Confucianism is the only hope that the split won’t go too far into another civil war.
Relying on the past is a notoriously unreliable way to predict the future!
But, it keeps a lot of academics gainfully employed (& IB economists as well!…)
Bill
Bill, I love the comment that the past is a bad way to predict the future. Aside from weather forecasts and newspapers advertising showtimes for movies predictions tend to be pretty bad and the most important part of a prediction, the level of certainty (or put another way, the expected error rate), is often ignored.
The CCP has changed greatly since its founding (and has changed multiple times since). It could never rid itself of its Chinese cultural context though it could (and did) change the context significantly. Traditional religions, modern religions, and a mix of ideologies have mixed more freely in post ???? (reform) China but they’ve not mixed free of CCP controls by any stretch.
Long term, the USA (and democratic nations generally) have been much stronger and more stable due to the ability of people to throw the bums out but not without drawbacks (extremist yet democratic leaders can be war mongers like happened in Germany and Yugoslavia; compromise can lead to nothing getting done). The leaders of China, one could expect, will want to preserve their own legacies for making China strong. At some point, this calculation might include significant political reform imposed on their successors. I don’t think that the current leadership thinks the time is right and so I don’t see such reform happening in the near term.
Doug, It’s fun to have a “front row seat” and see how this all unfolds. Because “changes” probably beyond what are simple to predict are coming.
I found it mind boggling when the stock market here in China went absolutely mad during the end of 2007, with PE’s reaching nosebleed levels. Strangely enough many, many of my Chinese friends asked me for my predictions. I said only 1 thing, General comment: These PE’s are unsustainable for any length of time. Even Li Ka-shing was published in the Mainland media saying the same thing.
Everyone of my Chinese friends & colleagues, most quite mature professionals, reacted the same way saying, “The CCP won’t let the stock market crash before the Olympics.” Well, we all know what happened.
But I think it is interesting that type of “group think” can be so pervasive here, especially at a time when there are so many on-line forums for discussion around China.
It was definitely NOT a fluke that Li Ka-shing’s warning to the Chinese investors appeared in print and all over the internet at that time.
That is not to point my finger at the Chinese. We all remember the dot.com boom and bust fueled from the US and carried around the world ending in April 2000. It was called “the new economy” where revenues, profits and most of all cashflow were considered overly traditional investment criteria vs things like pageviews. When was the last time you bought a cheeseburger with your pageviews?
I won’t attempt to predict the future. But, if I were to give my assesment of the moment here, I think (in theatre terms) we are experiencing a short term intermission. With an exciting next act to follow – by no means the end of the show.
Bill
Bill, you are wiser than I for not to try to predict the future. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations.
1-USA has never been a superpower.
2-What does that mean a superpower ?
3-Does China want to be a superpower as westerner said ?
4-Does many journalist who write article know CHINA ?
China is a big country and it is normal to be in the big players this is the fact.
this fact westerner has difficulty to admit.
Few people in the western world 20years ago WOULD have say china is going to be a big player.
but predicting the future is also difficult.
Now many westerners countries hope (even wish) china will crash etc..
China has many domestic market to develop but i am sure the government leader know it is difficult to continue the trend and different aspects has to be taken care as health,food,insurance,water.
but lets forget superpower means nothing
CHINA is a huge country and has a huge potential to be a key leader in economy,diplomacy etc.. but has also as any others countries some issues to solve.
Bill – were you implying that the spreading of Li Ka-shing’s warning was orchestrated by the CCP to publicize its unwillingness not to intervene the stock market in 2008? Or that the CCP was agonized by the public belief in governmental support of stock market before Olympics and decided to act otherwise? Or that the market was doomed to crash, a destiny even CCP could not change its course and only a few (such as Li) not the internet mob could see the truth?
As for short-term intermission in a long-term process, you seem to suggest that the Europe or U.S. pattern in the past 300 or 400 years is the long-term process/solution for the whole mankind (I’m talking in general terms, social-economical-political, not just the market economy). Well, some scholars regard the whole era after Italian renaissance as a short-term intermission in the history of mankind. That latter view is interesting especially for the Chinese who take great pride in its pre-modern history. That’s also why many Chinese are so obsessed in creating some “new” form of socialism, etc., and hate the term of “total westernization”. And I admit that I am one of those. The more I study the U.S. experiences of modernization, the more I doubt the pattern could be grafted in China to succeed rather than for China to develop its own pattern. The more I observe the chaotic but flourishing status of China, the more I resonate with Solzhenitsyn’s reflections.
Donghai – Your observation that “total westernization” won’t work in China is an insightful one. Cultural context matters and frankly, the system in the West has its own problems (though it also has a whole lot of good things going for it too). I’m not sure if we are in a historical intermission or not since I don’t know what the future holds, particularly the long-term future but I wouldn’t bet against the rise of India, China and Africa – together they represent a huge portion of humanity yet also represent a relatively small portion of wealth; if they can achieve even a good fraction of the productivity of the US, the implications for world power are gigantic.
Stephanie – I would think that the US is a superpower. I don’t recall the exact definition that is used by the international relations academic community but I recall it having to do with relative dominance in political and economic relations along with the ability to project military force globally. By this definition the USSR and US qualified.
I don’t think that a lot of western countries want China to crash – the instability and economic disruption would not be good for their economies (as they are linked globally). Talk of currency adjustment, trade rule changes, environmental cooperation and the like reflect a desire for change and a strong economy offers a lot more room for leaders to engage in political change (except changes needed to respond to crises).
we wont go to superpower definition because it means nothing
USA has never won a war since 1945.
Only trying to interfere in others people business because some American strongly believe they have the right to interfere in others countries policy and life.
Or make a mess in different countries to monopolize the commodities
middle east,South America.
Is it a superpower when their country is every day on the limit of bankruptcy.
but they don ‘t to be a superpower as USA or USSR
China definitly won’t follow this trend by chance.
They balance some diplomatic issue such as Iran.
They help a lot of countries to be developed (South America,Africa).
the trend is USA will continue to decline. more countries every where will work independently than waiting USA interference.
USA will try in many ways to hide this decline.
new players will come INDIA,in AFRICA,in South America.
China will face some huge issues employment,aging population,maybe in 10-15 years some social issue will be difficult to settle than returning to a tougher regime or rigid system.
tks
Hi Donghai Xu, I was not implying anything other than I thought it was an interesting coincidence that Li Ka-shing got such broad coverage for his comment particularly at that juncture of time – uncensored.
I think you misunderstand me, I’m closer on the side of the “new” Chris Patten believing that the future roles of specifically India and China which dominated world GDP for 2,000 of the past 1,800 years are to be recognized in just that context. No, I don’t attempt to predict how it will unfold in the coming decades with any numbers or socio-political commentary based on history.
I don’t know what the future is for Europe and the US (- but I do have a short term vested interest! e.g. 20 or so years later when I am eligible for Social security, medi-care, etc in the US.) I know it’s definitely not going to be a continuation of the past, every taxi driver in Beijing agrees with me on that one. BTW, some of my best conversations about recent history and future politics between the East & West happen inside the taxis here! They’re a lot more worldly thinking than their counterparts in the US and Europe. Does that tell you anything?
Help! What is “pre-Modern history” that you refer to? Sorry, I am not really an academic. I come from the 1980’s youth where, at least in NYC, everything was called “post-modern.” And I kept asking the question: “What happens when era post-modern era ends?” Noone ever attempted to answer that question, can you?
Fondly,
Bill
Bill – I appreciate your candidness. I love it about Beijing taxi drivers! They are great chatters, and they know
everything! I just read a funny blog entry by a TV host on Beijing Taxi drivers, so if you can read Chinese: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_48b0d37b0100j8uq.html?tj=1
Many young Chinese share with me the opinion that we don’t deny, and indeed, we respect and cherish the universal values of the mankind. They are not new or foreign to China. Rather, they have roots in China’s cultral soil, despite in a different or simplistic format as compared to the modern western expressions. The key, however, is that those values often conflict with each other, and we believe that just like an individual is free to choose in what priority he should follow to act on those values, a nation is also free to choose its own priorities.
I travelled to some places in Europe and was astonished by the life quality and leisure enjoyed by the ordinary people.Then I couldn’t withhold from wondering where the national wealth comes from and how it could sustain. Is it simply a perfectly functioning democratic system that provides distributive fairness? Orthodoxy Marxism cares about two things: productivity and distributive fairness. The problem is the two conflicts. The more you mechanically distribute towards absolute fairness, the less people are motivated to increase productivity. Nowadays a lot of people would agree that a better solution is some balanced mix of capitalism and socialism. I believe that’s where China is heading. But how do you arrange priorities in a fast-changing society? The order of priorities in a socio-political system affects how people act and think, and how people act and think dictate how the next-step priorities are arranged. At this moment, I prioritize the improvement of rule of law in China rather than democracy. In childish words, I hope China to make a big cake first then worry about how to cut it. A lot of poor countries place democracy and absolute fairness above everything else. Their people quarrel and fight each day about trivial shares of wealth, and forget about working hard.
The “pre-modern” history I referred to simply means China before the Opium War. You know, China had always thought itself a “Universal Kingdom” at the center of the Universe. It lacked motivation to explore the outside world because of the arrogance and satisfaction. I’ve always fancied what would the old China become if it had encountered the West a bit earlier, still had time to slowly assimilate the western civilization and reform itself, rather than collapsed. I bet that the world would be a better place if the old China could intervene to alleviate expansionism and colonialism.
China is not a superpower economy yet, but it will be. It will not replace the U.S. as the leading economy of the world but will stand next to the U.S. as the second economic “empire. The U.S. will always remain a leading economy but will not dominate as she has been.
There are few economies that are rising-India, Brasil etc…..
I do not think that china should be underestimated…….all the foreign investments…..hi tech…..improvement of infrastructure…..car technology and many more show that china is gaining a lot of power and will posses a dominant position in the global economy.
Yoram, I’d like to pick on your comments a bit if I may (or even if I may not, after all this is a public forum!)
You say that China will achieve superpower status with respect to its economy and while it won’t ever overtake the U.S. it will reduce its dominance (if I may paraphrase slightly). What I’d like to point out is that unless China (or anybody) surpasses the U.S. economically your prediction can’t be falsified. Also, without giving a timeframe, level of confidence, and set of reasons (beyond that there has been foreign investment and improving technology – these reasons equally apply to Israel and much of the world but talking about Israel’s surpassing the U.S. economically in any reasonable timeframe is just silly – sure, it could happen, but the odds are so low as to make it silly to discuss), there isn’t much value in the prediction.
Now if you were Bill Clinton or Bill Gates and made that prediction people would listen even if you gave no reasons. But since you are Yoram Woliner and about as famous as I am (sorry if you actually are famous, I’m not!) please share with us the reasoning behind your prediction, the time-frame you think it will come true in, and how confident you are in it. Only then can we engage with your prediction and understand the quality.
To put it into a legal analogy, a promissory note for millions of dollars without a due date where the writer (not holder) had the contractual right to transfer the obligation to anybody (even a bankrupt) would be worthless. I happen to agree with you that developments in China on many fronts (education levels, social infrastructure, physical infrastructure, technology, wage levels, etc.) all point in the direction of long-term growth but without analyzing the potential pitfalls (graying population, potential for rural-urban/rich-poor split to spill out as in Thailand, pollution problems, male/female imbalance, youth unemployment, etc.) a prediction is problematic.
Hello Doug,
First, it is nice to see that people have read my comment. Second, i am not famous at all.
Well, regarding your questions, if i was able to predict when and how, i would have changed my profession.
I think that i have stated all the reasons- more and more people discover the importance of China in the economic market.
First example-Education- More and more people are interested in MBA programs in China….there is a high demand for these programs.
Second Example- There are about 200-300 chinese car manufacturers, and some are negotiating to purchase US AND European brands (volvo for example).
Third Example-Law Firms- More and more international law firms search to strenghten to asian practice, especially in China…..and there is a high demand of lawyers in China.
Fourth Example- US Bonds hold by the chinese governments- The US government owes biliions of dollars in bonds-and now it is the time to pay….and apprantly…there is no money at the moment.
Fifth example- Infrastructure, High Tech- More and more companies in china establish ROD centres around the world (in Israel too) and slowly become a serious competitor in the High Tech sector (including Israel).
Israel can not replace an economic empire such as the US- I did not say that. Israel has a great potential in certain fields…..and can be a “serious player” in the economic market-but can not be as powerful as the US or another economy.
We can continue this discussion for years…..but one step at a time…..
I hope i have answered most of your questions….. ( despite some grammatical and spelling mistakes, they can be understood)
Have a great day!
Yoram
Ha Ha yeah Richard I like your comments-who really wants that status anyhow- but I also have greatly enjoyed everyone else’s insights as well. Nonetheless, I think “Superpower Status” should include 1) Being blamed for everything bad that other people do. Ie, I don’t think China “followed the U.S’s example” of a wage-slave work environment or a callous disregard for its ecology. Unless it’s also acceptable to believe the U.S. followed someone elses example, and they followed someone elses example (etc). Perhaps people everywhere are just as potentially greedy and self centered as they are everywhere else. Or as generous and altruistic, depending on the circumstances. None of the changes that were made to either of those situations you mentioned was initiated by those who began them. All in one Country- it happens.
Kimberly, thank you for your kind thoughts. Wage-slavery and environmental shortcuts seem to be the hallmarks of early-stage industrial revolution, irrespective of its location. I erred in specifying, or perhaps suggesting, that the US was either the sole practitioner or originator of eco and economic bad behavior. China does seem to be following the US auto-oriented economy, however, which over a period of time may cost it dearly as the US seems to have more arable land to squander than China.
Richard-somehow I knew you didn’t mean it like that. Your observations are too insighful for that kind of oversight. I’m merely using your oversight to demonstrate a point. I have been delightfully enjoying everyone’s insights, but your comment about the curse of the superpower status was hilarious-frankly, I never even considered the whole Superpower paradigm until it started getting tossed around in the Media. Somehow I think they enjoy pitting the U.S. against China everywhere possible. Nonetheless, your observations regarding eco and economic bad behavior caused me to reflect that no liberty or advancement in the U.S. came without the price of someone else’s sacrifice. If left only to the hand of the initiators of “bad behaviors”, nothing would have changed. I think people tend frame the U.S. as if it sprung forth from a SuperPower Egg from Heaven, without recognizing that, albeit brief by comparison to other Nations, the U.S. has a history, and that history is rich and full of great individuals who were brave, and bold and determined to put their lives on the line and stand for greater values than were currently the norm, thereby bettering the lives of everyone else. I think that should be part of “Superpower Status”, and it’s defining terms. Every generation has a mantle of responsibility to effect the betterment of their own lives and the lives of those around them, and if that mantle is dropped, the entire Nation suffers. “Wage.-slavery and environmental shortcuts seem to be the hallmarks of early-stage industrial revolution, irrespective of its location”,might still be largely true if bold leaders and large groups of supporting individuals didn’t say “knock it off”. We suffer now in many areas that the mantle of responsibility has been taken for granted as a group of enduring inalterable rights. It’s like the curse of luxury.
Thanks Helen for this post. I thouroughly enjoyed all the comments and insights from everyone and learnt a lot reading these comments.
I find it quite interesting however that, while we are all theorising and debating about this, ultimate in the hope to find answers for a better politic system and a better world to live in, we are still using an old word like ‘superpower’. Please let’s let go of the old cold war and find new ways to discuss future trends by burying words and thoughts associated with hegemony.
The word superpower was coined in the mid 40’s but was largely popularised during US/Russia period and why we are still stuck with this I have no idea. I’m not very well read on the subject of superpowers but what I feel is that if we are going to move towards finding a better world, we need to find new words.
The problem is the world seems to be way too fixated with this idea and unless we move away this, we will never find true freedom and democracy.
Who knows whether China will gain world influence in the next 20 years. Who knows whether the US will hold it’s influence. It’s obvious China has created a hybrid system, still routed in communism. Who knows that this wont lead to something good, eventually. The West started crusades and fight for freedom of speech. Maybe in the next few generations as China’s youth becomes more educated, well off and learn the good bits from the west, China’s new generations may find a solution that isnt about being a superpower and one that might be good for the world.
I’m not counting in it. But I prefer to look at things from a different perspective. Predicting who will be the next world power is just unproductive, self indulgent and at best, guest work.
Thanks.
Woops just correcting a sentence from my post above:
The West started with crusades and nowadays fight for freedom of speech. Maybe the next …
Maintaining 10% growth for 15 years and having currency appreciation will put China at about 2-3 times the size of the US economy. Currency appreciation will be a big factor. China is still urbanizing at about 20-30 million people per year. Say 2% of the population per year. In the cities the GDP is about 3-4 times higher than the rural areas. It may take a few years but the rural people are integrated into the factories and city businesses. This is a 4-6% boost to GDP every year. China is about 50% urbanized now. Heading to 80-90% urbanized. 15+ years of urbanization gain before it slows down but still faster than the USA for another 5-10 years. Already countries moving to free trade and other agreements with China. When China is over twice as big as the USA watch how many country allies it has. Even if they are fair weather friends. They will share the same economic fate. China exported culture before and will do so again. Already the quality of movies and other culture is improving. US cultural dominance happened after it became number one and emerged from under the UK.