Exporting the Chinese model of development
Edward Wong has a good article in today’s New York Times about how the use of Chinese labor to build and run Chinese foreign investments is generating a lot of anger in those countries. Because China is investing in a lot of poor countries where jobs are hard to find, the anger is understandable. I think this gets to the central idea of why China’s model of capitalism is not a good one to export. While many have praised China for its no-strings-attached model of foreign aid, this misses the danger the model presents. Minxin Pei recently pointed out that despite China investing and exporting all over the world, China plays a very small role in international institutions. Pei argues the reason for this is because the Chinese government is more concerned about domestic politics, specifically maintaining economic growth, than solving international problems.
I think this gets to the central problem of the Chinese model of development. China is perfectly happy to provide no-strings-attached-aid to get natural resources, for example. The reason for this is not because the Chinese are benevolent. Rather, its because access to the resources is important for China’s domestic policy. Exporting labor has the same effect: it creates jobs for Chinese workers. China’s model is not new; in fact its very old and it did not end well. It’s essentially economic colonialism. In the 19th century, all the Great Powers in Europe basically had China’s policy today and the result was World War I. The international institutions we have today – imperfect as they are – are based on the premise that coordination of foreign policy is necessary to avoid the problems that uncoordinated self-interested policy tends to create. If all countries followed China’s policies today, global war would be far more likely than global peace and prosperity.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org




Barak,
I agree with you on this. There was an article in the Jan-Feb 2008 edition of Foreign Affairs that highlited this issue by comparing international operations methods of China and India. China was seen as a vertical operator and India a horizontal one, providing jobs for locals and paying as much respect to local traditions and culture as possible. The Chinese, on the otherhand, come in and set up shop, often to the detriment of the local citizenry, creating local resentment reminiscent of imperial backlash. Also, less than 2% of the Chinese in Africa attain citizenship in their country of employment, while over 25% of Indians do. I think this dichotomy is a possible indicator of the kind and style of international activity and relations that these two countries will pursue. What is your take?
I agree and I think a big part of the difference is the domestic political context. The Chinese Communist Party’s entire legitimacy relies on delivering a rising standard of living. Politics in India does not revolve around this issue nearly as much. Also, the Government of India is not nearly as much involved in foreign investment decisions as the Government in China. I think for both of these reasons, India plays a much more constructive role in global governance than China.