Economic Affairs
Authors
Thomas Fingar
Jean C. Oi
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This is the second part of a series leading up to the publication of Fateful Decisions. You can read the first installment here.

In the last forty years, China has reemerged as a tremendous geopolitical, economic, and technological power on the world stage. But the easy phases of China’s quest for wealth and influence are over, argue Shorenstein APARC Fellow Thomas Fingar and China Program Director Jean Oi in a new article published by The Washington Quarterly.

In this piece, drawing on the findings and insights of contributors to their forthcoming edited volume Fateful Decisions: Choices That Will Shape China’s Future (Stanford University Press, available May 2020), Fingar and Oi outline the daunting array of difficult challenges China now faces and explain why its future depends on the policy choices its leaders make in what will be seen as a watershed moment.

An excerpt from their article is available below. For the full version, visit The Washington Quarterly and download the PDF.
 


From, “China’s Challenges: Now it Gets Much Harder”

Some years ago, one of us had a running partner who wanted a bigger challenge than the dozens of marathons he had completed. When asked to describe his first 50-mile race, he replied, “The first 30 miles weren’t bad, but after that it got really hard.” China is approaching the metaphorical 30-mile mark in its developmental marathon. The challenges it encountered and managed effectively during the past 40 years were not easy, but they pale in comparison to those looming on the horizon. The way ahead will be more difficult, less predictable, and highly contingent on the content and efficacy of complex policy choices. The easy phases of China’s quest for wealth and power are over.

We begin with this cautionary note because so much of the new narrative about China’s rise posits capabilities and evolutionary trajectories that we find implausible. That China has done well in the past does not assure that it will do equally well (or better) in the future. That the Leninist party-state system adopted in the 1950s has proven sufficiently agile to manage the easier phases of modernization does not assure that it will be equally adept at meeting the more difficult challenges of a country being transformed by past successes and demographic change. The number, magnitude, and complexity of these challenges do not foreordain that China will stagnate, fail, or fall apart, but they do raise serious questions about the putative inevitability of China’s continued rise and displacement of the United States. China’s future is neither inevitable nor immutable; its further evolution will be shaped by internal economic and social developments, the international system, and above all, the policy choices of party leaders facing a daunting array of difficult challenges.

[Like what you're reading? Sign up for our newsletters to receive more stories like this.] 

We refer to China’s current approach as “back to the future” because it seeks to resuscitate institutions, methods, and rationales adopted in the 1950s and shelved during the period of reform and rapid modernization. We do not know why party leaders decided that it is in their — and thus China’s — interest to curtail or reverse policies that facilitated sustained growth and rapid improvement of living standards and China’s international image, but speculate that they hope doing so will buy time before incurring the risks (and for the elite, the costs) of fundamental reform.

Beijing has announced a number of very ambitious goals such as moving into the ranks of highly-developed countries by the centenary of the PRC in 2049, achieving global preeminence in key technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence, providing urban social benefits to most citizens, and building a number of green megacities. The likelihood of achieving all of the proclaimed goals is nil, but China will make substantial progress on some of them. It is impossible to predict which will succeed, which will fail, and which will flounder, but we can anticipate a mix of all three outcomes. Whatever the precise mix, it is likely to produce a China that is less prosperous and less powerful than predicted by the predominant narrative about where China is headed. Whether China’s leaders will risk tackling the difficult reforms that remain or continue to embrace key and thus far counterproductive structures and methods from the past remains to be seen.  Whether the party-state system is able to maintain acceptable levels of growth and public satisfaction under the new conditions is also uncertain. The only certainty is that China can no longer ride the wave that helped along its economic growth and resultant capabilities for at least ten reasons.

Read the full text of this article via The Washington Quarterly.

Hero Image
Quote from Thomas Fingar and Jean Oi from, "China's Challeges: Now It Gets Much Harder"
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

When economists, policymakers, and media commentators discuss growth or compare living standards across countries, they typically turn to a single measure: Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In layman’s terms, GDP is the monetary value of all goods and services made or exchanged in a country during a specific period of time. The calculation of a nation’s GDP is complex and takes in a multitude of country-specific caveats, but the final figure per capita is supposedly a proxy for a nation’s economic health.

Image
Amit Kapoor

Using GDP as a measure of welfare, however, has multiple problems. Just ask Dr. Amit Kapoor, an expert in economic development and business strategy, who rebuts the focus often placed on the importance of GDP. As the chair of the Shared Value Institute of India, president and CEO of the India Council on Competitiveness, and as an affiliate faulty member with the Institute of Strategy and Competitiveness of the Harvard Business School, Kapoor has spent a great deal of time and effort working with the governments of India and other countries on measuring social progress and developing living standards, performance, and progress indices. In a recent lecture as part of APARC’s South Asia Colloquia, Kapoor made his case for looking past GDP when considering the overall well-being of nations.

GDP, says Kapoor, originated in the 1940s as a wartime estimate to provide a window into a region’s economic situation and is based on the paradigm that economic objectives equal social objectives. Yet economic development doesn’t always lead to advancements in social progress and human prosperity. To gain a complete understanding of a nation’s growth, he argued, it is important directly to measure social progress, which includes indicators of human well-being such as access to education, equal opportunity, health services, sanitation and clean water, social inclusion, and even tolerance.

 Our world as we know it is facing multiple threats, Kapoor reminds us, from environmental extinction to the rise of populism and to the crisis of capitalism. We can only address these issues “by creating alternate measures of how we assess human well-being.”

Kapoor points to the apparent growing gap between economic gains and social parity as evidence that GDP-centricity gives a very pixelated, partial picture of national development. In the past 80 years, economies as a whole have gained exponentially, as indeed reflected in GDP measurements, but progress on issues such as basic human needs, personal well-being, and opportunities for individual fulfillment have seemed to lag.

Kapoor’s issue with GDP is that it fails to account for these other kinds of social, environmental, and cultural factors. To this end, he advocates considering other means of measuring success and development, such as the Human Development Index, or his research to gauge and codify “ease of living” measurements in his home country of India.

Image
Data from the Human Development Index

That research, says Kapoor, shows there exists a non-linear relationship between ease of living and per capita GDP. Therefore, the impact of economic development on a population’s ease of living will depend on where the region is placed. Moreover, if one is at a lower level of economic development, then investing in economic well-being will translate into social well-being, but after the cutoff is reached, higher economic development will lead to a fall in the ease of living.    

“In an economy with well-being at its heart, economic growth will simply be another tool to guide it in the direction that the society chooses. In such an economy, the percentage points of GDP, which are rarely connected with the lives of average citizens, will cease to take the center stage. The focus would instead shift towards more desirable and actual determinants of welfare.”

You can read more of Amit Kapoor’s perspectives and learn more about his work to redefine development in India in his Harvard Business Review article, “GDP Is Not a Measure of Human Well-Being.”

Hero Image
An ice cream vendor pushes his cart in front of Lodhi Gardens in New Delhi, India.
Daniel Berehulak / Getty Images
All News button
1
-

Many observers, and many investors, believe that young people are especially likely to produce the most successful new firms. Integrating administrative data on​ firms, workers, and owners, we study startups systematically in the U.S. and find​ that successfull entrepreneurs are middle-aged, not young. The mean age at​ founding for the 1-in-1,000 fastest growing new ventures is 45.0. The findings are​ similar when considering high-technology sectors, entrepreneurial hubs, and​ successful firm exits. Prior experience in the specific industry predicts much greater​ rates of entrepreneurial success. These findings strongly reject common hypotheses​ that emphasize youth as a key trait of successful entrepreneurs.

Speaker:

Image
dsc 0355 javier miranda

Javier Miranda, Principal Economist, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, US Census Bureau

Bio:

Javier Miranda is Principal Economist at the U.S. Census Bureau where he began his career in 1998. Javier received his Ph.D. in Economics from American University in 2004. Previous to joining the Census Javier was a research consultant at the World Bank and the Urban Institute. Javier has published papers in the areas of industrial organization, technological change, job creation, entrepreneurship and firm financing. Among his publications are articles in the American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Journal Macroeconomics, Review of Economic and Statistics, IMF Review, World Bank Economic Review, Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, and multiple books and chapters.  Javier received the Director's Award for Innovation (2007) and the U.S. Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (2011). His contributions to data infrastructure are notable. Javier Miranda is responsible for the development of the Longitudinal Business Database and the Business Dynamics Statistics and is the Synthetic Longitudinal Business Database v3. Together with the USPTO Javier has led the development the Business Dynamics Statistics of Innovative Firms a longitudinal database of firms, patents, and inventors. Javier Miranda is also President of the Board of SEM an adult education and job readiness program designed to address the root causes of poverty, illiteracy, and violence in Washington DC.

Advisory on Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)

In accordance with university guidelines, if you (or a spouse/housemate) have returned from travel to mainland China or South Korea in the last 14 days, we ask that you DO NOT come to campus until 14 days have passed since your return date and you remain symptom-free. For more information and updates, please refer to the Stanford Environmental Health & Safety website: https://ehs.stanford.edu/news/novel-coronavirus-covid-19.

 

 

Javier Miranda, Principal Economist, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, US Census Bureau
Seminars
Paragraphs

Explore our series of multimedia interviews and Q&As with the contributors to this volume: 


China's future will be determined by how its leaders manage its myriad interconnected challenges. In Fateful Decisions, leading experts from a wide range of disciplines eschew broad predictions of success or failure in favor of close analyses of today's most critical demographic, economic, social, political, and foreign policy challenges. They expertly outline the options and opportunity costs entailed, providing a cutting-edge analytic framework for understanding the decisions that will determine China's trajectory.

Xi Jinping has articulated ambitious goals, such as the Belt and Road Initiative and massive urbanization projects, but few priorities or policies to achieve them. These goals have thrown into relief the crises facing China as the economy slows and the population ages while the demand for and costs of education, healthcare, elder care, and other social benefits are increasing. Global ambitions and a more assertive military also compete for funding and policy priority. These challenges are compounded by the size of China's population, outdated institutions, and the reluctance of powerful elites to make reforms that might threaten their positions, prerogatives, and Communist Party legitimacy. In this volume, individual chapters provide in-depth analyses of key policies relating to these challenges. Contributors illuminate what is at stake, possible choices, and subsequent outcomes. This volume equips readers with everything they need to understand these complex developments in context.

Available May 2020.

This book is part of the Stanford University Press series, "Studies of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center"

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Stanford University Press
Authors
Jean C. Oi
Thomas Fingar
-

IMPORTANT EVENT UPDATE: 

In keeping with Stanford University's March 3 message to the campus community on COVID-19 and current recommendations of the CDC, the Asia-Pacific Research Center is electing to postpone this event until further notice. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and appreciate your understanding and cooperation as we do our best to keep our community healthy and well. 

 

Data-intensive technologies such as AI may reshape the modern world. We propose that two features of data interact to shape innovation in data-intensive economies: first, states are key collectors and repositories of data; second, data is a non-rival input in innovation. We document the importance of state-collected data for innovation using comprehensive data on Chinese facial recognition AI firms and government contracts. Firms produce more commercial software and patents, particularly data-intensive ones, after receiving government public security contracts. Moreover, effects are largest when contracts provide more data. We then build a directed technical change model to study the state's role in three applications: autocracies demanding AI for surveillance purposes, data-driven industrial policy, and data regulation due to privacy concerns. When the degree of non-rivalry is as strong as our empirical evidence suggests, the state's collection and processing of data can shape the direction of innovation and growth of data-intensive economies.

Image
Portrait of David Yang
David Yang’s research focuses on political economy, behavioral and experimental economics, economic history, and cultural economics. In particular, David studies the forces of stability and forces of changes in authoritarian regimes, drawing lessons from historical and contemporary China. David received a B.A. in Statistics and B.S. in Business Administration from University of California at Berkeley, and PhD in Economics from Stanford. David is currently a Prize Fellow in Economics, History, and Politics at Harvard and a Postdoctoral Fellow at J-PAL at MIT. He also joined Harvard’s Economics Department as an Assistant Professor as of 2020.

David Yang Prize Fellow in Economics, History, and Politics; Department of Economics, Harvard University
Seminars
-

President Xi Jinping is scheduled to pay a state visit to Japan this spring. How have the relations between Japan and China been evolving during the last several years? How has the U.S.-China “trade war” been affecting the Japan-China relations? What is the best way for us to address China’s trade issues? The U.S. and Japan have been promoting cooperation under the Free and Open Indo Pacific (FOIP). Will Japan cooperate with China’s Belt and Road Initiative? How can the U.S. and Japan expand the cooperation under the FOIP?

Image
shitaka headshot

Speaker:

Noriyuki Shikata, Former Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Japan in Beijing

Bio:

Noriyuki Shikata holds a B.A. in Law from Kyoto University and Master of Public Policy (MPP) from Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Most recently, he was the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Japan in China. His other prior positions include: Deputy Director General, Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau; Director, Economic Treaties Division, International Legal Affairs Bureau; and Director, Second North America Division, North America Bureau. Mr. Shikata has also been a Visiting Professor at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Law/Public Policy. He is currently at Harvard conducting research on an emerging U.S. policy toward China and the Indo-Pacific region. His Twitter handle is: @norishikata.

Noriyuki Shikata, Former Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Japan in Beijing
Seminars
-

This event is made possible by generous support from the Korea Foundation and other friends of the Korea Program.

Asia has made remarkable progress over the past decades and is now at the forefront of the global economy in growth terms. That said, there are several near-term risks that could derail Asia’s growth momentum, including trade tensions and too-low-for-long global interest rates. In this talk, Changyong Rhee will discuss the Asian economic outlook, focusing on Korea in the context of regional and global challenges.

Image
Changyoung Rhee

Rhee is the Director of the Asia and Pacific Department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where he oversees the Fund’s work on the region, including its lending operations and bilateral and multilateral surveillance of economies ranging from China, Japan, and India to the Pacific Islands. Prior to joining the IMF in 2014, Rhee was Chief Economist of the Asian Development Bank (ADB); Secretary General and Sherpa of the Presidential Committee for the 2010 G-20 Seoul Summit; Vice Chairman of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and Chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission of Korea; professor of economics at Seoul National University and the University of Rochester. He has also been a frequent policy advisor to the government of Korea, including in the Office of the President, the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the Bank of Korea, the Korea Securities Depository, and the Korea Development Institute. Rhee has published widely in the fields of macroeconomics, financial economics, and on the Korean economy. He holds a PhD from Harvard University and an undergraduate honors degree from Seoul National University, both in economics.

 

Changyong Rhee <i>Director, Asia and Pacific Department, IMF</i>
Seminars
-

Moon Jae-in administration increased South Korea’s minimum wage by nearly 30 percent in 2018 and 2019 under its political slogan of "income-led growth." The idea was that the higher minimum wage would boost low-wage earners’ earnings, thus the income inequality would be reduced while promoting economic growth with increased labor income and expenditure of low-wage workers and their households. This idea was, however, heavily criticized by those who argued that the minimum wage could not be a tool for economic growth and there could be a negative effect on employment.

Lee will discuss empirical findings from his research on the Korean minimum wage including the effect of the recent wage hikes. Using employer-employee matched data and longitudinal data on the universe of establishments, he estimated the effect of the minimum wage on net job growth and tried to decompose the effect into job creation and destruction by existing establishments as well as by establishment entry and exit. He found a significant negative effect of the minimum wage on employment growth; and also that ignoring the minimum wage’s effect on the self-employed could underestimate the adverse effect on total employment. To explain the mechanism, he focuses on the Korean labor market's unique feature—a high share of the self-employed in the workforce and their financial marginality. His findings demonstrate that the minimum wage’s effect and its channels should differ across countries depending on labor market institutions and structure.

Image
Jungmin Lee
Jungmin Lee is a professor of economics at Seoul National University in Korea, and also a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor in Germany and at the Center for Research & Analysis of Migration at University College London in UK. Previously, he was an assistant professor at University of Arkansas and Florida International University, and an associate professor at Sogang University in Korea. His current research focuses on Korean labor market and education policies, interactions between health and labor market outcomes, and North Korean refugees. He has been a member of editorial board of many economics journals in Korea. He was the chief editor for the Korean Journal of Labor Economics and he is currently a Co-Editor for the Korean Economic Review; and was a member of the committee on youth employment of the Korea Tripartite Commission. He has published more than 50 papers in academic journals, mostly about the Korean economy. He received a bachelor’s degree in international economics from Seoul National University and PhD in economics from the University of Texas at Austin.

Jungmin Lee <i>Professor of Economics, Seoul National University</i>
Seminars
-

WE HAVE REACHED VENUE CAPACITY AND ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTING RSVPS

 

Image
Portrait of Nicholas Lardy
China has grown faster for longer than any country in recorded history.  Is it market-oriented reform, state industrial policy, or some sophisticated blend of the two that explains this success?  In this talk, Dr. Nicholas Lardy will also further examine what might explain China’s slowdown of recent years.  Is China falling into the frequently fatal middle-income trap?  Or have domestic policy choices led to the slowdown?  Have trade frictions with the United States also contributed to China’s slowing growth?  In addition, what should U.S. policy stance be towards China?  Should the United States continue to ramp up restrictions on two-way flows of technology to try to further slow China’s growth?  How successful is such a strategy likely to be and what costs to the United States would be inherent in such an approach?

Nicholas R. Lardy is the Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.  He joined the Institute in March 2003 from the Brookings Institution, where he was a senior fellow from 1995 until 2003.  Before Brookings, he served at the University of Washington, where he was the director of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies from 1991 to 1995.  From 1997 through the spring of 2000, he was also the Frederick Frank Adjunct Professor of International Trade and Finance at the Yale University School of Management.  He is an expert on the Chinese economy.  Lardy's most recent books are The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China? (2019), Markets over Mao: The Rise of Private Business in China (2014), Sustaining China's Economic Growth after the Global Financial Crisis (2012), The Future of China's Exchange Rate Policy (2009), and China's Rise: Challenges and Opportunities (2008). 


Image of red flag over the Shanghai Bund

This event is part of the 2020 Winter/Spring Colloquia series, The PRC at 70: The Past, Present – and Future?, sponsored by APARC's China Program.

 

Nicholas Lardy Anthony M. Solomon Fellow Peterson Institute for International Economics
Seminars
Subscribe to Economic Affairs