China As "Non-Event"
Rediff India interviewed futurist John Naisbitt on China, among other things. Naisbitt considers China a non-event, and I tend to agree. Naisbitt wrote the books, Megatrends, which spent two years on The New York Times bestsellers list and Reinventing the Corporation and Global Paradox, both also bestsellers. The article describes him as having "accurately predicted several game-changing global trends long before world economies were thinking beyond the 'First World' ' from the emergence of Asia as a world power, increasing globalization and decentralization, the sweeping spread of networking and the move from industrial to information societies."
China came up in the Naisbitt interview when he was asked about "the non-events people are worried about at present." His response is as follows:
I think, China. Two things about China are generating a lot of hype. One hype is that China is going to take over the world. Last December, China recast its GDP to almost $2 trillion. But the US GDP is moving up to $13 trillion and the US is not going to stop growing. In those terms, it will take 30-40 years for China to even catch up. Even in terms of standard of living, it's quite another matter. So it's a big hype that China is going to get you.
The other issue is the fear that China is going to break up (decentralize). The interesting news is, it is already breaking up. China is the most decentralizing country in the world. It's an old Chinese idea that the periphery is the center. That's true of China now.
Even second-tier cities in China can get foreign investment directly. Beijing pretends to rule and the provinces pretend to be ruled. But that does not stop them from building airports and competing for FDI. Of course, Beijing is letting them do that and that's a great thing.
Naisbitt is right. Despite China's explosive growth, which growth I do not see stalling for some time, we should not forget how far China still has to go before it is anywhere near to catching up with the countries like the United States, Switzerland, or Japan. There are still around 800 million people in China whose lives have been little influenced by China's economic miracle. Naisbitt is also correct in pointing out that China is far more decentralized than generally credited. I have made this same point in the posts, "Atomized China -- The Mountain Is High And The Emperor Is Far Away," and "Chinese Government Not An IPR Monolith." I also think he is right that this decentralization actually helps fuel China's growth.
