China Law Blog

First!

Those who think that it is racist to criticize the Chinese government for polluting the environment needs a cold shower.

Maybe the barbarians in the western press who don't appreciate China's greatness or respect its position as the guardian of heaven could focus on the working conditions of the migrant laborers who are building these facilities and how Beijing plans to dump them at a point that is two weeks walking distance from Beijing because they are "embarrassing".

China's pollution is unprecedented in human history, and the world's best athletes as well as countless tourists are going to be exposed to it every day while at the games. It is a global event and thus deserves that kind of coverage. Unfortunately for the CCP, the rest of the world has not yet learned to bow its head to the comb-over bums in Zhongnanhai.

RE: 3. A case study on the effects of a free press and social activism

This article is basically saying to the Chinese: our government makes mistakes too, but at least we can talk about it openly, therefore our system is better than yours.

Well, what I want to ask the author is: if your system is so much better, why couldn't it avoid making the the mistakes in the first place? And, are you sure your system deals with problems more effectively?

Let's take the Iraq war as an example (OK, the author is Canadian, but they share the same values and a similar system as Americans). Yes, people in the West have more freedom than the Chinese, CNN can show those horrible pictures, you can talk about it, you can protest it, you even have an opposition party bitching about it for you in the congress too. But did the debate do you any good? Did the bloodsheds and tortures stop? Apparently not! You may tell me things are going to change after 2008, but why wait? Polls now show the majority are against the war, right? As an ordinary citizen, I don't care whether the process of decision-making is good or bad, I only care about the result! After all, what matters is the policy itself, not the process of making it. Without having a free press and elections, the Chinese government is capable of correcting mistakes too, from the disastrous CR to reform and opening up is a good example. Now tell me why your system is better again?

From a Chinese perspective, there are legitimate reasons to suspect the overwhelming negative China reports in the Western mainstream media. Because if China succeeds (e.g. achieves modernization) under the current system, it will prove that the ideology the west is selling (i.e. in essence, democratize first, prosperity will follow) wrong! Therefore, it simply does not fit Western interests for China to succeed under the current system. It's essentially a "Washington consensus" vs "Beijing consensus" question. So every time China makes a little progress, the "Washington consensus" believers will bash the Chinese government for it's human rights abuses, corruptions, pollution problems etc. (they conveniently forget the fact that before they get where they are today, they had the same problems too, I might add). "Bad, bad China" reaffirms the "superiority" of the Western system, it sells news! Who doesn't want to read something that makes him/her feel good? So you see there is a political and finacial motive to demonize China, but it has nothing to do with race, it's all about ideology.

Will - you have just very nicely summed up all that I have been saying on this site over the past few years. I couldn't agree with you more!

Dan, I made a comment on Zhongnanhai's blog (#3 on your above list), which is pertinent here. Unfortunately, I am a dinosaur and don't know how to link to it, etc. Mea culpa.
Wod cuo.

Editor's Note, Here it is:

During the 1970's in Taiwan, I watched televised preparations for capital punishment while eating at restaurants; the actual shootings were not televised. The punitive, "educational" aspects of such televising were clear, and the viewing public generally responded with empathy for the criminals going to their deaths, but no general outcry against the purpose of (1) the executions, and (2) the televising of the preparations. On the other hand, the English-language daily in Taiwan carried articles stating that foreigners who "uglified" (their word, not mine)the government would be deported.
The government brooked no public dissent. Opinions on politics were spoken sometimes with a radio or television playing in the background.

When a government can take as well as it gives, that levels the playing field for everyone. It hardly leads to anarchy; maybe some lively chair-throwing, as in the Taiwan legislature during the heady days of the alleged new democracy, but the system survived. Openness can lead to greater respect for the system.

So Will and Mark, is the author of the first piece being a racist when he makes his negative comments about China's environment?
It seems you miss his central question, as well as the point that he's concerned about China's environment also for the sake of Chinese people, rather than because he wants to see China do badly (is he lying here?) Your response simplifies his position to the notion that it is merely a tool of 'Washington Consensus'.

@JL

I was mainly responding to #3, zhongnanhai's piece. The last sentence of my comment reads "...it has nothing to do with race, it's all about ideology."

So, no, I don't think he and the author of #1 are racists.

Will:

Your contributions was one of the shallowest I have read here for quite some time. Democracy is a process, not a fool proof way to reach the "right" decision every time. And you might want to consider the fact that there more countries in the world practicing democratic forms of government other than the US. Many politicians in Europe faced strong electoral pressure not to side with the US at the time of the Iraq war.

I think that if you live in a country it is not unreasonable or bigoted to prefer not to die of lung cancer. But I am just a simple man.

Will,

Your fourth paragraph is dangerous. You are saying that the ends justify the means? Amban is right on when he says that democracy is a process. The free press is integral to the functioning of a democratic state. The free press works to guide voters to make changes in their voting patterns to elect people who may or may not change the country in the future resulting in gradual long lasting change, not the flavor of the moment. The US Constitution was designed to ensure as best as possible that one, or even a few, election cycles would not be enough to substantially alter national policies.

China is not a democracy so it is able to implement change quickly and without the consent or knowledge of its actions by its citizens. You are right: whether this is good or bad is based on a difference in ideology. But it is a difference in ideology based on the ancient philosophies of East and West, Confucius and Socrates. If China is serious about moving towards democracy and away from bureaucratic infallibility then they should open criticism.

But then again... If no one hears about a problem, how can China change certain policies for the better and bring about the results that you so crave?

JL,

I spent a month at Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, and I was amazed that the Chinese law students I studied with thought that under the revised Kyoto Protocol China should be subject to the same requirements that developed nations are now subject to under the current Kyoto. Maybe they're just young and idealistic, but after that experience I had no problem telling Chinese people that the air quality sucks.

Will Lewis, points well taken. Open information and discussion often leads to less emphasis on face-saving and more on effecting postive results. Increasing numbers of Chinese who have been abroad to witness cleaner environments are also in the position to influence domestic decision-making. China will clean up its environment.

Is it racist to say China's air, water and land is polluted? It's less a matter of what you say than it is of how you say it. If you have the attitude of "bad, bad China," then the comments might be taken as negativistic with potential racist inclination. If you accept pollution as a phase in development, especially development on the remarkable scale extant in China, and reasonably urge minimization of pollution as valuable for China and the world, the racist element may be negated.

Will,
You say it's about ideology, not race, but your position is that that criticism of China from Westerners is all ideological.
Which means that, for practical purposes, race and ideology are inseparable. (Because of my racial identification, all my criticism of China is inherently ideological -no matter what kind of education I've had, or what my political views are.)
Which, if you ask me, is a gross simplification of the world we live in.

Will Lewis - in what, or where, does Will say or imply that the "ends justify the means"?

There is a simple fact of human nature, and that is people filter messages according to where the messenger comes from.

In the US, there have been many critics of US government policy (i.e. The Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, etc.) and by what many Americans increasingly see as infringements on US civil liberties by the current administration. Yet, when the US administration's policies are criticized by non-Americans, the instinct for many Americans is to go into a nationalist and protective mode for the US. The message is the same, but it stings when it comes from non-Americans.

The same is true for China and Chinese. The pollution is terrible and the environment is in a crisis mode; all Chinese know that. But when westerners criticize conditions, Chinese naturally suspect the motives of the westerners as people who want to China hold back,instead of questioning their own leadership's development policies.Many Chinese think exactly what the westerners say, but it stings when the message comes from non-Chinese.

To Will:

"So every time China makes a little progress, the "Washington consensus" believers will bash the Chinese government for it's human rights abuses, corruptions, pollution problems etc. (they conveniently forget the fact that before they get where they are today, they had the same problems too, I might add)."

Maybe if they weren't actual problems, then you'd have a point. Or would you rather that these abuses/problems are overlooked?

There's no conspiracy here. Negative press sells, regardless of who it's directed towards. No need to look any further than NYTimes.com to see that no one gets a free pass, not even the "Washington consensus."

@Amban

You said: "Democracy is a process, not a fool proof way to reach the 'right' decision every time."

Exactly! So you agreed, as for "making the right decision", the Western system has no obvious advantage over the current Chinese system. Then why should the Chinese take the risk by switching now?

In his piece, zhongnanhai concluded that "The longer China holds out, the slower its own progression will be." But contrary to his conclusion, in reality, China is progressing faster than any other developing countries, including democracies such as India and the Philippines. As a matter of fact, there's never been a single developing country in the world achieved modernization by adopting democracy, none! Please note I never said China should not adopt democracy. I think the question is not WHETHER China should adopt democracy, but WHEN and in WHAT form. For a democracy to function properly, you have to have a large middleclass, so that the majority all have a stake in the stability of the system. Otherwise, you will have chaos like in Pakistan, Ukraine and Georgia. This is why the growth of countries that adopted democracy at a low GDP per capita rate is slower than China's.

@Will Lewis

The US national policy changes every 4 or 8 years. Only a one-party state such as China can stick to a working policy for decades (on the macro level of course).

China listens to criticisms, more than the Western press give her credit for. China will clean up it's environment, not because the West says so, but for the sake of her people. In fact china is doing a lot, the recent FDI policy shift which is documented in this blog is a proof of that. Also, China is well on it's way to acquiring fully 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, while the US is dragging on its feet on the issue. And what is the West doing about the environment? Complaining about the bad air in China, of course.

@ Will,

I'll leave the others to debate and thrash you on China's self-defeating promotion of a system of government that few Chinese even believe in.

I'll whip in you in the environmental arena:
". Also, China is well on it's way to acquiring fully 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, while the US is dragging on its feet on the issue. And what is the West doing about the environment? Complaining about the bad air in China, of course."

China is talking big and doing little. Dams don't count as renewable energy due to their environmental damage and even Beijing officials are openly discussing the problems at Three Gorges. China doesn't have enough usable water for its ~40 nuke reactor plan. A dozen reactors at best.
What is the west doing about it? The "west" is already selling biofuel and 3rd generation hybrid cars. Fully electric sports and commuter cars are nearing development (Check out Tesla Motors and GM's revival of electric cars). Small businesses have popped up that sell kits to filter used kitchen oil for use in diesel engines. Excel Energy had to be prodded by a voter mandate in a few states, but is now pouring money into power stations in the midwest and soutwest that will generate hundreds of megawatts at each station...construction is already under way AND Excel is going to decommission several older coal plants as part of the conversion to reusable energy.

All over the US (and Canada I think), most power companies (nearly all, in fact) buy back excess power from individual homes and with hybrid and electric cars, power companies like Excel are researching buying excess energy from these cars' batteries. They can save alot of money in capital construction by buying back countless watts from each individual home and reduce their carbon footprint.

And though food based biofuel is a merely a stopgap, organic waste biofuel is already in production in places like Utah and N. Dakota (smells bad, so remote locations are needed).

All of this WITHOUT a 5 year plan from glorious leaders, all of this in spite of Darth Cheney's oil cabal and all of this with or without Bush being on board.

How can this be done? Because of the vastly superior western democratic culture, which allows local and regional governments to act independently of the central gov't, and local governments are always more subject to the whims of their constituents than the federales.

Oh, many ski resorts in the US already run on geothermal and landfill generated energy.

The West shows its vast superiority over the Chinese way by allowing natural mechanisms to take place, whereas China goes around with hat in hand begging and demanding FDI and technology.

Mark Anthony Jones,

Right here: "I don't care whether the process of decision-making is good or bad, I only care about the result! After all, what matters is the policy itself, not the process of making it." To paraphrase: Gimme the ends, I don't care about the means which a free press would have exposed.

Will,

US policy does not shift every 4-8 years. It is only when the power of the Executive and Legislative is vested in one party, say in 2001, that national policy shifts. And even then, given the voting records in Congress, did it really shift? About two decades ago the US was wrapping up a Cold War, and it still hasn't adopted its national policies to fit the modern world.

With one-party, policy can shift on a whim. Economic growth and increasing political strength are not national policies, or rather they are the policies of all nations. Just over 3 decades ago China was wrapping up a CR. About two decades there were protests about inflation, and Pudong was farmland.

A 140+ year history (and quite arguably 230) of fighting wars to create free markets v. a fifty year history of collectivization, decollectivization, and everything in between. I don't know how macro you go, but that's about as general as I can make the histories of the countries.

In this comment, a lot of sentences should have been inserted between each of the sentences and everything needs qualification.

@nanheyangrouchuan

"How can this be done? Because of the vastly superior western democratic culture, which allows local and regional governments to act independently of the central gov't, and local governments are always more subject to the whims of their constituents than the federales."

Not to forget a completely free market, which China is still years away from.

As an aside, apologies if it seems like I'm jumping into the debate here out of nowhere but I've just started reading the blog a few days ago. Very insightful reads so far.

@Will

No, I don't agree with you. Admitting that democracy is not perfect does not mean that dictatorship is better. Dictatorships do not have any self-correcting mechanisms that keep it from repeating destructive patterns of behavior. It might not be a good idea to have general elections tomorrow, but a free press in China would make it easier to fix a lot of problems, such as the collapsing environment or local government corruption.

The fact that China is seeing record rates of growth does not vitiate the fact that the current party has presided over some of the worst made-made catastrophes in recorded history, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

@Will

...and I would like to reiterate the point that there are different types of democracies. It is hard to see that a leader like Bush could have been reelected of the US had a parliamentary system of government with proportional representation. Just compare the way Blair had to answer some very uncomfortable questions about the Iraq war in the House of Commons.

@Kebab Boy

China to Lead Energy Renewables in Three Years, WorldWatch Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aua_3a2IAU9c

My arguments are based on credible sources, unlike yours, which are pulled right out of your behind.

@Will Lewis

Come on, Will. Please don't misinterpret my words. Based on your logic, elections can be seen as "End justify means" too, you decide whether to keep a guy in office by his past performances, right?

Please don't lecture me on democracy either, I live in one, for 17 years. I am fully aware of the good and bad of a democratic system, it's not perfect, we all know that. As I said, the question is not WHETHER China should adopt democracy, but WHEN and WHAT. All I'm saying is that the current Chinese system suits it's development at current stage, and it has outperformed any other developing democracies, it has even outperformed the US in renewable energy (See link above). It's also unfair to compare China with developed democracies.

@Anonymous

I totally agree. The parliamentary system is far superior than the current US system in my own opinion. All nations are run by elites, so the leaders should be chosen by elites instead of universal suffrage. It's hard to imagine a potato farmer from Idaho can have the same understanding of foreign policy, economics as a Harvard-educated elite.

@Will:

"The parliamentary system is far superior than the current US system in my own opinion. All nations are run by elites, so the leaders should be chosen by elites instead of universal suffrage."

Are these two statements logically connected? The US electoral system is arguably far more elitist than most European system, where a simple majority vote decides who will be the head of government. It is difficult to imagine a widely unpopular prime minister clinging to power for eight years in Europe. In the US, numerous single party constituencies, the electoral college, a lot of red tape for voting registration and low turn-out skews national politics. So if you want to be elitist and preserve minority rule, I think the US system should suit you better than various forms of parliamentary democracy.

@Amban

I sense that we are not going to agree on anything. Even when we do agree, you deny it, so let's just call it quits. This thread is not about democracy, it's about Western reports on China.

Think about it, discussions on China's problems (such as this one) often end up in debates about democracy. This shows you many of the opinions in these discussions are ideology-driven, which in a way proves my point.

@Will

Oh, I see. But you made some pretty outrageous and ignorant statements on democracy, so what can I say?

And your point that discussions about China are ideology-driven is pretty pedestrian to say the least. Any discussion about any discussion is ideology-driven - there is no conspiracy here.

The reason why discussions about China's particular problems tend to end up in discussion about democracy - or China's lack thereof - is the pretty obvious fact that China does not have freedom of speech, so open discussions about that particular country tend to move where discussions can be held. Like here.

Amban

I just can't help jump in. Your last statement below exactly shows what Will was trying to convey: for certain people, any discussion about China inevitably ends up about China's supposedly lack of democracy and freedom of speech, as if it proved your point.

"The reason why discussions about China's particular problems tend to end up in discussion about democracy - or China's lack thereof - is the pretty obvious fact that China does not have freedom of speech, so open discussions about that particular country tend to move where discussions can be held. Like here."

Amban, believe me, there are tons of discussion about China's problems in Chinese media and websites: environmental problems, corruption, poverty, politics, etc. You may not read anything calling for overthrowing the Chinese government in People's Daily, but that doesn't mean Chinese can not discuss various problems facing the Chinese society. The biggest difference between Mao's China and the present-day China is that during Mao's era, the country was closed and people, both inside and outside China, didn't know if any problems occurred. Today, everybody knows what kinds of problem China faces. There is not much taste for Western-style democracy among Chinese populace at this stage of the development, right or wrong, so don't try to use democracy to win points. China has a lot of problems, true, but its government and people are trying to address them; China's form of government may not be the best in the world - and they know it - but it's been the best they have for a long, long time and it's better than so many other governments in the world.

Again, why do everything about China have to end up with democracy?

@ Will:

I'd like to point out that I did not suggest China should adopt democracy in my post on Zhongnanhai, nor did I suggest that democracy is a better system.

I was trying to point out that open and honest discussions of mistakes can often prevent similar mistakes from happening in the future. Does a free press prevent catastrophic mistakes? No, as we see in Iraq, or with the taser incident in Vancouver, which I discussed. But it's still better than the alternative, which is decisions made by a clique behind closed doors, without any scrutiny or public knowledge.

As for the argument about democracy, which I do not wish to wade too deep into, I will only say that it, too, can not prevent mistakes. However I often wonder if the Bush Administration would already be at war with Iran had the Iraq debacle not happened. Because of a free and open reporting environment surrounding the Iraq war, many Americans and other nationals have seen both the human and financial cost of a tremendous catastrophe. As a result, the pressure is immense to stay out of Iran, and find a diplomatic solution (ditto for North Korea).

This shows that a free press works, and is intended to be my point.

@Greg

I have no idea where you want to take the discussion. If you read this thread carefully, you will realize that there are specific reasons for this thread concentrating on democratic liberties like the freedom of expression.

It may very well be the case that a lot of people feel that they have a better life now than they had under Mao. That does not vitiate the need to discuss the need for political reform, of which civil liberties are part and parcel. And I disagree with you on your characterization of the Mao era - there was a lot of knowledge about what was going on, albeit not as detailed as now. The main difference between the Mao era and now is that every aspect of your life was scrutinized then and there were times when a slip of the tongue could lead to the destruction of your life. That is no longer the case. How great!

If your baseline for comparisons is the Mao era, then it is hard to have any discussion about the present at all. Perhaps that is what you want. You can kill almost any discussion about any country by invoking the worst period in its history.

@Greg

Thanks for the support.

@Cam

Thank you for the response.

I didn't mention democracy anywhere in my original post either, nor did I imply you did. I agree with you that free speech is good to have and the public has the right to know what's going on inside the government. No argument there.

My point is that your conclusion was wrong, or flawed at best. You said in your piece: "The longer China holds out, the slower its own progression will be." In other words, if China allows free speech, it will progress faster than it does now. However, you failed to provide sufficient and concrete evidence that is convincing enough to back up your claim. And you overlooked the fact that in reality, China is progressing faster than many developing democracies where "open and honest discussions" are allowed and practiced. So it's fair to say that your views are based more on your own ideology instead of facts.

Your implication of that China's decisions are "made by a clique behind closed doors, without any scrutiny or public knowledge." is equally flawed. Let's take the recently introduced Property Law as an example, it took them 14 years before they put it up for a vote. Why 14 years? Because they needed to persuade and convince the hardcore leftists in the party, multiple versions of the draft had been passing around among the professionals many times to get feedbacks, compromises were made, there were even American law professionals involved in the process. Of course the process is nowhere near perfect, but it's hardly "behind closed doors, without any scrutiny or public knowledge." as you implied. The introduction of the Property Law is a concrete evidence of China's progress.

Since you mentioned Iran, I'd like to respond to that too. Bush hasn't bombed Iran not because the public are against it, he doesn't need public approval, nor does he need congress' approval (the constitution is pretty vague on that). The Iranian nuclear issue is the core interest of the US, there is no way Bush will tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, nor will Hillary Clinton! Bush hasn't bombed Iran because there is no convincing evidence that Iran is making a bomb and he doesn't have any international support . China and Russia are adamantly opposed to military action, the Europeans (particularly Germany) are reluctant to sacrifice their own interests in Iran. So at this point he is stuck on "tougher sanctions." He could have persuaded China to at least abstain which will put pressure on Russia to give in. But the congress chose to give the DL a medal, so we all know how well he is doing in that front. The precedence of the Vietnam War didn't prevent the Iraq War, so the Iraq War is not going to prevent going to war with Iran. Of course, maybe we will not go to war with Iran, but it will be for other reasons, not solely because of public opinion are against it. Besides, if they want to change public opinion, all they need to do is find some Iranian defectors and some drawings of a bomb. You can scare the public to do anything, that trick never fails.

Amban, do you think most of China's problems are caused or triggered by the lack of democracy and freedom of speech in China? Do you think once China democratizes China will get rid of most of the problems that plague her today?

Why does the US have so many problems? We are a democracy after all! We should have too many problems!

Amban,

My baseline for comparison was clearly stated in my post:

"China's form of government may not be the best in the world - and they know it - but it's been the best they have for a long, long time and it's better than so many other governments in the world."

If you want more quantitative measures, I would say the current Chinese government is the best in the last 160 years if not longer; it is also more competent than 90% of the governments in the world at comparable or slightly higher stage of development.

Is this a fair and reasonable baseline?

Like Dan Harris repeatedly points out, it's the perspective. If you quickly scan through the recent topics discussed in this blog, be it piracy, product safety, human rights, etc., China has done no worse than others when a proper perspective is applied.

Which brings us back to the original question of this thread: does the excessive China bashing have to do with racism or ideology?

If all the discussions about China's problems end up about democracy, then I'd say it's ideology.

@Greg

"...the current Chinese government is the best in the last 160 years if not longer"

If you 160 years as a baseline, I think most countries would agree that their government and economy is better now than then. The US still had slavery in 1847, and Russia had not abolished serfdom. France was poised to plunge into yet another revolution because of widespread social disparities. Marx and Engels were writing pamphlets about worker's rights and were soon forced into exile in Britain, where most people didn't have the right to vote. In Ireland, people were starving to death in the potato famine and forced to emigrate to the US, where they faced discrimination. So I guess we're doing much better now than in 1847. In other words, the comparison is quite meaningless.

"...the excessive China bashing"

What is the evidence that excessive China bashing is taking place? And where is this bashing taking place? China gets a fair share of good publicity around the world and most of the coverage centers on the economy, not on politics, which was the case a decades ago or so. Big and important countries, like the US and China, do get a lot of coverage, and given the press works, much of it is negative. You can hardly open a newspaper in Europe that does not print negative news about the US. A lot of it is accurate reporting, but that does not mean that a lot of Americans in Europe don't grind their teeth about it.

@Pfeffer

"...do you think most of China's problems are caused or triggered by the lack of democracy and freedom of speech in China?"

Well, if there was a free press in China, it would be much easier to deal with everyday problems that concern most people, such as pollution, government corruption, product safety, working conditions, lay-offs, pensions, etc. As things stand today, journalists and local activists can face severe consequences if they step on someone's toes:

http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=10593&item%5fid=9495

That does not mean that all the problems would be solved at once, but it would be easier to locate trouble spots and discuss them.

What the heck happened to my responses to Will?

Amban,

Is 160 years a meaningless baseline for China?

You've used US, Europe, Russia 's developments in the last 160 years to counter my points, but really if China's experience in the last 160 years were 20% as positive as US and Europe's, then I would readily agree with you.

If you know anything about China's history in the last 160 years, you would know that the most recent less than 30 years are the longest period when China has a stable government, continuous social and economic developments and relative prosperity - to the point that some Chinese claim that it is one of the "age of prosperity" ("ShengShi") that rivals Tang Dynasty more than 1,000 years ago. I strongly disagree and think they got carried away. But that gives you a sense of how some Chinese themselves view the state of affairs and that of more recent history. Previously, China had always been plagued with foreign invasions, civil wars, popular unrest, revolutions, famine. And the long term trend was stagnation and decline. Today, the Chinese has a sense of direction and progress. And that's important.

And you ignored the other part of my "baseline," i.e., comparing China with countries TODAY at similar development stage. I don't need to repeat that part.

I think we again come back to the thesis of "perspective." Look at the countries you picked for comparison: US, France, Ireland of the 200 plus countries in the world. I think China would love to trade their experiences as a nation and people in the last 160 years for US's and France's miserable experiences during the same period.

Amban, I think I've laid out my case clearly and I believe you understand my point. There is no need to bicker over some minor branching points.

Best.

Amban, you have a point. However, democratic countries like India have many problems too. Are China's problems more of a "third-world" issue or a "lack of democracy" issue?

Regardless of what foreigners say about China, she should figure out her own way and own future.

@Greg

I do know my Chinese history, thank you. You may recall that the era after the suppression of the Taiping rebellion was regarded by contemporaries as a era of stability and relative prosperity. Of course, I am talking about the so-called "Tongzhi restoration". But 30 years of self-strengthening failed to deliver the goods. Why? The failure of the Qing elite to carry out institutional reforms. You can draw your own conclusions.

I simply do not have the time this week to really contribute to this debate, and at any rate, the topic here on this thread very closely covers most of what Amban and I have only just finished debating, in the earlier thread titled "China: all I am saying is give perspective a chance": http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/china_all_i_am_saying_is_give.html

I would, however, just like to very briefly add my voice to the discussion. As much as I respect Amban for his intelligence and although I appreciate his perspective - regarding many of his arguments as valid - I think that he needs to develop a more nuanced, more balanced approach when assessing today's China. Greg is absolutely correct, in my opinion, when he asserts the need to compare China not to the developed world, but to those countries that fall into China's lower-middle income bracket. China scores well in comparison to almost all other lower-middle income countries throughout the world on measurements of good governance (refer to the World Bank Good Governance Indicators - 2006 is the most recent data available). Good governance is measured according to political stability (China scores comparatively well), rule of law (China scores comparatively well), Government effectiveness (China, once again, scores comparatively well), and even when it comes to tackling problems of corruption China, once again, scores comparatively well. China also scores well on most measurements of human rights when compared to most other lower-middle income countries.

This then, brings me to Will's original point: "From a Chinese perspective," he says, "there are legitimate reasons to suspect the overwhelming negative China reports in the Western mainstream media. Because if China succeeds (e.g. achieves modernization) under the current system, it will prove that the ideology the west is selling (i.e. in essence, democratize first, prosperity will follow) wrong! Therefore, it simply does not fit Western interests for China to succeed under the current system. It's essentially a "Washington consensus" vs "Beijing consensus" question. So every time China makes a little progress, the "Washington consensus" believers will bash the Chinese government for it's human rights abuses, corruptions, pollution problems etc."

Randall Peerenboom, in his book, "China Modernizes", and Colin Mackerras, in his book, "Western Images of China", both produce empirical studies of today's China, demonstrating the various ways that China is often singled out for poor governance, especially when it comes to human rights management, despite the fact that China actually performs comparatively well - extrememly well, in some areas, even on some measurements of human rights. Why then, the double standard?

Both argue along the exact same lines that Will does, empirically demonstrating the existence of an ideological bias against non-democracries. This, they say, is why countries like India are never been censured in the UN, despite the fact that the human rights situation in India is clearly considerably worse than it is in China.

All of this, I have written about in much more detail in the thread I mentioned above, when debating Amban, so I won't repeat my arguments using the same detail here.

China does have many serious problems to attend to, including in the areas of human rights, environmental management, etc., but it is not performing as badly as what many people like to imagine in these areas, and the weight of empirical evidence shows that the Chinese Central Government, for all of its faults and limitations, is generally steering the country in a positive direction.

Cam - while I appreciate your overall argument regarding the media, I think you are a little optimistic when you say that a "free and open reporting environment surrounding the Iraq war" has existed.

The intervention in Iraq has not been reported by a "free" and "open" media - there is a great deal of censorship in place, and it was with the help of the media that the US State Department and the Bush administration was able to manipulate public opinion, and to manufacture the public's consent to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place. Not everybody is easily manipulated of course, and some room for alternative viewpoints are allowed, and were provided, but the media has generally done a very poor job at informing the public about the situation in Iraq. Nowhere near enough attention has been paid to civilian deaths, the plight of Iraqi refugees, the overall costs of the occupation for the people of Iraq, etc. The fundamental questions were never adequately explored: do the means justify the ends? - especially if viewed from the point of view of the Iraqis themselves? If the answer is no, as it clearly and logically should be, then the US and its allies had no moral right to invade, let alone to occupy, regardless of how good their stated intentions may or may not have been. The continuing chaos and bloodshed is always blamed on the insurgency, rather than viewing the insurgency as itself a response to and product of the occupation, thereby allowing the "Coalition of the Willing" to distance themselves from the reality - the reality that they have created one of the world's worst human rights disasters since the end of World War II.

@MAJ

I never give much for the World Bank, especially when Wolfovitz was in charge, but I since you talk so much about I did a comparison between China and India for 2006, and this is what I came up with:

China:

Voice and accountability: 0-10th percentile
Political stability: 25-50th percentile
Government effectiveness: 50-75th percentile
Regulatory quality: 25-50th percentile
Rule of law: 25-50th percentile
Control of corruption: 25-50th percentile

India:

Voice and accountability: 50-75th percentile
Political stability: 10-25th percentile
Government effectiveness: 50-75th percentile
Regulatory quality: 25-50th percentile
Rule of law: 50-75th percentile
Control of corruption: 50-75th percentile

Now, if I got this right, India is leading over China in four indicators and only behind in one (political stability). But even in the factor where India is underperfoming China, it is not doing as badly as China is doing in its worst category, "Voice and accountability", where China belongs to the lowest percentile.

Did I miss something? I chose India, becayuse that the country that keeps popping up here most of the time. Perhaps I should have chosen Bangladesh or Nepal. Give me a hint. Perhaps Randy comes in handy?

@MAJ

"...the reality that they have created one of the world's worst human rights disasters since the end of World War II."

I agree with a lot you said in response to Cam, but this a bit of a hype, isn't it? Since China is a country I know well, I can think of a couple of events that trumps the Iraq war.

@pfeffer;

China can't figure out her own way, she has to constantly steal technology and knowledge from the west. Look what China has done to itself with all of the opportunities it has been given in the past 20 years.

@Will,
This blog seems to not like the multiple web links I've put up to back up my claims. But go ahead and check out Xcel energy's website, Tesla Motor's website and if you google biodiesel and cellulose ethanol, you'll see that the US is far, far ahead of the pack. Major ski resorts like Vail, Aspen, Steamboat Springs and Mammoth Lake all run on combinations of geothermal, waste decomposition, solar and wind power, and these are all small towns with permanent populations. They didn't need the central gov't to declare a 5 year plan and hand out cash. They did it on their own.
As for your one pathetic link, a business rag quoting Chinese officials is about as reliable as a Ford Pinto from New Orleans.

You know as well as I and everyone else that declarations of senior chinese officials are nothing more than hand waving and butt kissing ceremonies.

Amban,

I'm impressed, but didn't want to start another long discussion on the "self-strengthening" movement and why it failed. Suffice it to say, it's too different from today's China.

But back to the point: do you believe "self-strengthening" movement failed because China's lack of democracy? Or did Germany, Russia and Japan become world powers then because they had democracy and freedom of speech?

Before you answer the question, I want to remind you that China's goal and priority then were NOT to become a democracy, thus the name "self-strengthening" and in any case which Western countries were real democracies anyway - they were all imperial or colonial powers? Today, China's goal and priority are not to become another Philippine, even if ten times larger. Most Chinese, by the way, do not envy India, even with its democracy.

Amban - I said, and I maintain, that China performs well on most measures of Good Governance when compared to "most" countries in its lower-middle income bracket.

The comparisons I made with India were made ONLY in relation to human rights - India, like China, is ranked as a Level 4 on the Political Terror Scale, as compiled by the US State Department and Amnesty International, but as numerous people, like Randall Peerenboom for example, have pointed out, India's human rights record is clearly worse. China, arguably, should be ranked at Level 3.

As for my second claim, I did say "one" of the world's worst human rights disasrers, not "the" worst. Can you name one human rights disaster caused by China in the last 25 years that has been worse than Iraq? - since we are talking about China today, a product of post-1979/80 reforms.

@MAJ

So that all you have to say about the numbers after all your references to India? You were the one who brought up World Bank Good Governance Indicators. I am really disappointed, but I am not surprised. Every time I demolish your "empirically verifiable evidence," you change topic. I encourage you to click on that link and look at how the indicators for China have changed over time. In some areas, "voice and accountability," "political stability" and "control of corruption" the situation is worse today in China than it was in 1998.

So, now you have shifted the topic to the political terror scale. Yes, India has a similar PTS ranking as China, but if you look at the numbers, you have to remember that unlike China, India is a federal state and there is a great deal of regional variation in human rights violations. Most violations take place in a small number of conflict-ridden states, such as Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and Assam. No surprises here, these are the states we read about in the newspapers that allegedly are bashing China unfairly.

You are preoccupied by making fair comparisons, is it fair to let the states with the worst record represent the whole of India?

You can read more about this in Caroline Beer and Neil J. Mitchell. "Comparing Nations and States: Human Rights and Democracy in India." Comparative Political Studies 2006.

@greg

Of course the self-strengthening movement was not about democracy, I give you that. I was just responding to your rather crude historical parallels. But while political and institutional reform is not the same thing as democracy, it is a step towards more accountable government. If there is any lesson to be learned from the fall of the Qing dynasty for todays policy makers, it is that it is imperative to reform the political system if you want to maintain social stability and prosperity. But political reforms virtually halted in 1989.

@Kebab Boy

It gets your blood boiling every time the word "China" is mentioned in a positive way, doesn't it? Where did the article quote Chinese officials? The research was conducted by independent institute WorldWatch.

You can show me a thousand examples of what the US is doing, but it can not change the fact that China is doing MORE at this moment, as the WorldWatch research indicated. Hatred sometimes makes a person lose his capability of logical thinking.

Here is an interesting clip that shows wind power business is booming in China, from a business point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy93gedwAAU

@MAJ

"Can you name one human rights disaster caused by China in the last 25 years that has been worse than Iraq?"

I don't think I can, but you used WW2 as a cut-off and I responded to that. Now you changed it to 25 years. Why not change it to 5 years? I mean, in your reading, a single announcement by an official that China will restrain the death penalty and control organ harvesting can cancel out a decade of rampant human right violations. In your world it is always 7 o'clock Monday morning.

"I did say "one" of the world's worst human rights disasrers, not "the" worst. Can you name one human rights disaster caused by China in the last 25 years that has been worse than Iraq? - since we are talking about China today, a product of post-1979/80 reforms."

Well, plenty of Tibetan exiles talk about Hu's crushing of large numbers of Tibetans and the Gulja massacre in E. Turkestan.

And let's not forget that much of the opposition in Iraq is not from Iraqis but from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

"Can you name one human rights disaster caused by China in the last 25 years that has been worse than Iraq? - since we are talking about China today, a product of post-1979/80 reforms."

North Korea. Period.

As an American that has done just a smidgen of charity work in DPRK, I say you are absolutely right nanhe. Did everyone forget about Darfur? I dunno, I am old school and stubborn. I still believe in the "principles" of freedom I was taught, before Bush ran roughshod over them.

So when I see lines like this:
"I totally agree. The parliamentary system is far superior than the current US system in my own opinion. All nations are run by elites, so the leaders should be chosen by elites instead of universal suffrage. It's hard to imagine a potato farmer from Idaho can have the same understanding of foreign policy, economics as a Harvard-educated elite."

I get a little ill. I liked this blog for the first six months I was reading it, now I look a little deeper and I see a core of four or five corporate shills trying to manufacture a case for the rape of rural China and Western Enlightenment values mostly for the sake of their own egos.

The problem is the elites. As the Situationists said, "Humanity will not rest until the last beaurocrat is hung by the guts of the last capitalist." A bit of an inflammatory statement, but a bit of truth to it.

And I have to say that as a casual reader that has lurked and read dozens of threads on this site, sometimes you just have to be uneducated and give your opinion: I find MAJ's claims to be a Marxist absolutely hilarious. He's as Marxist as Hu Jintao.

Bad, bad, bad dirty China Law blog.

heh heh

Amban - with all due respect, you have not demolished my position. I have NEVER compared China to India, only in terms of human rights. The fact that India scores better on most of the Good Governance Indicators is good for India. But it hardly makes dent in my argument, does it? My argument is that China compares well to MOST countries throughout the world that are in its lower-middle income group. I stand by that. Have a closer look at the Good Goverance Indicators and you will see. Have a look at all of the other lower-middle income countries. China compares favourably - either slightly behind, or slightly ahead, depending on the country you're comparing it to, and on the particular indicator your comparing.

I really don't understand how comparing China to India demolishes my argument. It doesn't.

Where have I ever argued that India outperforms China on anything other than human rights. I compared India to China on human rights in our last debate, and in this one.

You are correct to point out that in some areas China has slipped in its performance. That is a pitty, but once again, it hardly detracts from my argument.

Looking at China's record since the reform program first began, seems to me to be a reasonable starting date, since today's China is very much a product of the reform era.

All the best,
Mark!

Amban - I will respond to your last comments in much more detail tomorrow night. It's the federal election here today, so I need to vote, and it's also my birthday, so I have social engagements.

@MAJ

By all means, go ahead. I have seen you referring to India quite a few times, always to China's favor. You can try to put up as many smoke-screens as you like, now that your comparison doesn't work no more, I do not find this back-tracking particularly credible. And as far as human rights are concerned, I do note that you have not responded to what I said about paying attention to regional disparities in India.

I compared to India, because a comparison makes a lot of sense, both countries share a lot in terms of sheer size and magnitude. Do you SERIOUSLY mean that we should compare huge China to relatively small countries like Burma, Laos or Cambodia? And that's supposed to be fair?

"It gets your blood boiling every time the word "China" is mentioned in a positive way, doesn't it? Where did the article quote Chinese officials? The research was conducted by independent institute WorldWatch."

And where do you think WorldWatch got their info? By filing a Chinese Freedom of Information Act lawsuit?

And suppose that WW did its research like the World Bank and others do regarding China, by stitching together known and gleaned info, then you'd have this kind of data disparity:

ft.com/cms/s/0/dee3a0d2-9218-11dc-8981-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

washingtonbureau.typepad.com/china/2007/11/seeking-truth-f.html#comments

These links concern China's economy being roughly 40% smaller than thought.

And here are some links about China's underground economy making the officially reported ecnomy much larger:
oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/underground/section_3.html#reform

books.google.com/books?id=P60nmWlJWEoC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=underground+economy+in+china&source=web&ots=j6dcCKZ1Bc&sig=UXDi3MoFh1qSxjOWb0RNVELKOwU

And that You tube video is just full of generalities and I really like the part about how much of China's cash for renewable energy comes from signing onto the Kyoto giveaway. Cheap, cheap cheap.

And not knowing much about how the US works, will, you'll have to look at individual state efforts and not the glorious central gov't.

Here are some more official facts to chew on. Notice that according the second website points out that India uses more windpower than China, not to mention the US.

Hey Will, here's a website for you:

iht.com/articles/2007/11/24/asia/24evaders.php

Funny how state and local gov'ts in the US take up the mantle where Bush fails and when Beijing can manage to make a half hearted attempt it is immediately under cut by local governments.

@Kebab Boy

You said: "And where do you think WorldWatch got their info? By filing a Chinese Freedom of Information Act lawsuit?
And suppose that WW did its research like the World Bank and others do regarding China, by stitching together known and gleaned info, then you'd have this kind of data disparity:"

Let me see here, you are saying the WorldWatch research is not reliable because the World Bank researches are not that reliable??? How did that work? Somebody enlighten me please!

Then you said: "Here are some more official facts to chew on. Notice that according the second website points out that India uses more windpower than China, not to mention the US."

So, China can't be leading in renewable energy in 2007 because India and the US were doing better in 2003 and 2004??? Wow! What a genius you are! It's amazing how your mind works.

To return to the original question posed in this thread, here is an interactive map of where the most CO2 is being emitted in the world:

http://carma.org/

Dear Amban -

You say that you have seen me "referring to India quite a few times, always to China's favor." Once again, each time I have referred to India by comparing it to China, it has been in the area of human rights only. I am not trying to put up any kind of smoke screen, so calm down! Nor am I back-tracking.

My argument all along, is simple: China compares favourably to most other countries that fall into its lower-middle income range on most indicators of good governance. I stand by that - no back-tracking. If you take all of the world's lower-middle income countries, and worked out the average scores for each of the categories used by the World Bank to measure good governance, you will see that China compares favourably apart on all apart from Voice and Accountability. Most East Asian countries score poorly on this category. China performs best in relation to the average lower-middle income country on the measure of Government Effectiveness, and right on average when it comes to rule of law, and slightly above the average on tackling problems of corruption. If you would like to see a graph comparing the average scores for the world's lower-middle income countries set against the performance scores of China, then turn to page 185 of Peerenboom's book, "China Modernizes".

China's performance to date has surpassed expectations. It is not, as you have claimed in the past, the "world's leader in corruption" - there are about 70 countries that perform worse. All I've been arguing is for a bit of sober fairness and balance. China has a serious problem with corruption. I have never suggested otherwise. But it is not a world leader in corruption, and it performs better than the average country in its lower-middle income bracket on tackling corruption.

As far as India goes, it does indeed, as the World Bank good governance measures indicate, have a more transparent economy and government. India's story is also impressive in many ways, but despite having a more transparent economy, and despite being a democracy, it has been unable to acheive good human rights outcomes. It's a level 4 on the Political Terror Scale, and it has been far less successful than China at acheiving macro-level human rights: it's average per capita income is much less than China's, per capita literacy levels are significantly lower, and average life spans are significantly lower too. China is also the most gender-equitable society in all of Asia - and is widely acknowledged as such. Many Indian reseachers and government bureaucrats actually look to China as a model of good governance, and have learnt numerous lessons from China, introducing Special Economic Zones, etc. China, of course, could also learn from India's developmental path.

Many India analysts, I might add, blame, at least in part, democracy for India's poor performance when it comes to economic growth, and therefore improvements in macro-level human rights. This is something that an increasing number of people are now beginning to not only realise, but to also acknowledge. As Peerenboom argues, and he bases his assessment on empirical research, China's authoritarianism has to date served it well. Many Indian analysts agree. Tonight I will quote from some of these Indian studies for you, if you like - that way you can check them for yuorself.

Amban - I respect your position, but sometimes I feel as though you are a little harsh towards me. My argument is a reasonable one, I think. I agree with many of your criticisms about China - but from my perspective, you often overstate your case.

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

Amban - sorry, one more thing I forget to mention (sorry about all of the typing errors in my last comment too, I was in a great hurry, as I'm at work) - the United Nations Human Development Index, which I often refer to as empirical evidence that China's developmental model has been working reasonably well, and beyond the expectations of most, currently ranks China as the being the 81st best country in the world - and no other country has been moving up the index as fast as China over the past 20 years. Shanghai is ranked 14th (on par with Portugal) as development is uneven, as it is in India.

India is currently ranked 126.

Tomorrow, November 27th, the latest UN Human Development Index will be released. I expect that China will have improved its ranking yet again, and I hope (and expect) that India will too. The fact that China's ranking has been fast improving every year since the UN began indexing Human Development, I take as yet further evidence of China's good governance - something that most Indian analysts also point to when referring to China as an examplary model to learn from.

To be fair on India though, one must acknowledge that it began its economic reforms (liberalisation of the economy) a good decade after China began its reforms, though China was able to make much more rapid gains in growth, and in macro human rights development. India's performance in literacy and health have to date, been somewhat disappointing, as most Indian analysts admit. Despite India's many serious problems (including its serious human rights problems) there is good reason to be optimistic about India's future, just as there is very good reason to be optimistic about China's.

Regards again,
Mark Anthony Jones.

@Will,

No one can rely on Chinese statistics, do you have anything to dispute my sidebar example of China's economy being larger than estimated and smaller than estimated by double digit percentage points within the same year?

@MAJ;

One more point you are forgetting about India and its late development. India was snubbed by the US in favor of China in the late 60s as a hedge against the Soviets (remember, we intervened on China's behalf right before India was about to use its air force on an unprotected PLA during their border war). India then sided with the USSR and after its collapse had nowhere to turn for about 10 years.

@MAJ

In all haste. When I use one of the indexes you brought up in the first place, the Good Governance Index, you say that it does not vitiate your argument about China and India, because you have only compared the two countries in terms of human rights. Really? I'll get back to that.

When I ask you to take India's regional diversity and federal political system when considering the Political Terror Index - one measure of human rights - you say nothing, except quoting Randy.

But then you bring up yet another one index, Human Development Index, which has less to do with political human rights, but more with general economic development, and where China scores significantly better than India. Aha. So as long as these indexes compare favorably to China, you have no problem making comparisons between India and China in areas other than human rights. You are not very consistent.

I never denied India has tremendous problems and that there are things China can teach India or Russia for that matter. One of them is that while China has had tremendous faith in market solutions (unlike India), it has deemed it prudent not to listen too much to what the world bank has been preaching (unlike Russia). But most Indians are wary to introduce an authoritarian one-part dictatorship like China. That would hardly improve India's human rights situation or its economic development. Amartya Sen has written about this at great length. More later.

Amban - why do you say that I have a problem comparing India and China in areas other than human rights? I have no problem comparing good governance between the two. I have already acknowledged that India scores better on most of the good governance indicators - that it has a more transparent political economy (at least in a number of aspects, as measured by the World Bank using its core indicators of measurement). But I NEVER claimed that India scored worse in these areas than China in the first place. I just don't understand the aggressiveness of your attack in this instance.

My perspective is informed by the empirically-verifiable evidence that I am aware of (World Bank Good Governance Indicators, UN Human Development Index, Shi's democracy survey, World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index, etc.) - all of the studies that I have used and mentioned since first writing my piece titled "On the Nature of Chinese Goverance and Society" a few years back. My position has not changed. I have put up no smoke screens nor have I back-tracked on any issue, apart from my now accepting the possibility that some isolated instances of cannibalism may have occured in Guangxi Province back in the late 1960s - even on that claim, I remain sceptical. It's something I'll need to research in more detail at a later date.

I did not quote Randall Peerenboom in my last comment either, despite what you say - I referred you to page 185 of his book, where you will find the average score of all of the world's lower-middle income countries for each of the Good Governance Indicators, graphed against China's score.

When it comes to human rights, ask yourself why I compared India with China. To demonstrate one example, a good example, of where many developed countries have collectively applied a double standard in the way that they approach China on human rights issues. India not only scores significantly worse on macro-level human rights achievements, but also, despite being a democracy, on micro-level human rights - scoring a Level 4 on the Political Terror Scale. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the human rights abuses occur on an even greater scale in India than it does in China, yet India is never censured for such abuses in the UN, yet China has been censured on many occasions over the years, and it continues to be singled out for human rights abuses, despite obvious improvements - improvements that even the UN Human Rights Commissioner has acknowledged.

I'm not suggesting that China should not be criticised for its human rights abuses - what I am saying though, is that China's human rights abuses are often exaggerated, and that the developed world applies a double standard in thwe way that they respond to China's human rights situation. I initially raised all of these matters on this thread in the way of a response to Will's assertion that the reason for such double standards is largely ideological. I agree with him, as do numerous others - Professor Colin Mackerras (of the Department of Asian Studies at Griffith University), Randall Peerenboom, the political scientist Zhimin Lin, Yale sociologist Deborah Davis, Michael Hockx, of the London University of Oriental Studies, et.al. The American journalist, Philip Cunningham seems to hold that view too, as does the British journalist, Kevin Sinclair.

You may disagree with such an analysis, and that's fine. Such as assessment is certainly debatable, but in my view, the weight of empirical evidence supports of such an assertion.

You say that when you ask me about India's regional diversity, I remain silent. Not true. I did acknowledge India's regional diversity, that fact that the quality of governance varies regionally, and with it, not surprisingly, human rights outcomes. I also pointed out that the exact same is true for China.

Perhaps I should hit you up with a list of YOUR silent respones:

(1) You claimed in a previous thread that China is a "world leader in repressoin" but when I pointed out that there are many other countries that score worse on Amnesty International's and the US State Department's Political Terror Scale, and on the World Bank's Voice and Accountability measure, your response was one of silence. As I said, the fact is, China out-performs the average country in its lower-middle income range on most human rights indicators and on most good governance indicators (except civil and political rights, as is generally true for other East Asian countries). I can think of many countries that are far more repressive than China: Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Russia, and yes, even India, all have Level 4 Political Terror Ratings, as do numerous other countries. The most repressive are rated Level 5 - countries like Nepal, Sudan and Afghanistan. Another study that shows China not to be a "world leader in repression" is the one titled "Leading Surveillance Societies in the EU and the World", which was released by the human rights organisation Privacy International. It found the U.K. to be the world's leading surveillance society. The U.K., followed by Singapore and Malaysia, offer citizens the world's poorest constitutional protections against surveillance, and the U.S. provides the world's least satisfactory enforcement of privacy laws. Visual surveillance is practised in the U.K. more than in any other country, followed by Singapore, Malaysia, and then China. And as far as the idea of "police states" go, the citizens of Greece are the most likely to have their private communications intercepted. China ranked as the 18th worst offender in this category, after such countries as New Zealand, the U.K., the U.S., and Italy. And which country has the world's highest incarceration per capita rate? Not China, but the U.S.

(2) You also claimed that China was a "world leader in corruption" but when I pointed out that there are roughly 70 countries that score worse on the World Bank's tackling corruption indicator, your response was once again one of silence. China is currently ranked 142 out of the 212 countries measured.

This is where you and I always come to loggerheads: it's not that I don't share in many of your criticisms and concerns about China's human rights problems, but rather, that I think you exaggerate considerably the extent of those problems. And when it comes to the question of being fair and balanced, one also needs to take a wider perspective, to include macro-level human rights achievements. When you do that, you will see that China's human rights performance on these measurements has to date been very impressive, far exceeding all reasonable expectatinos - something that even Amnesty International now acknowledges, as I pointed out in an earlier comment on an earlier thread.

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

@MAJ:

If you quote me, please quote me correctly and in context. Both my statements were specifically made in reference to China's use of capital punishment and organ harvesting. I pointed out that China that China executes more people than the rest of the world put together, I also argued that the government corruption in China makes it hard to ensure that organ donations by prisoners are not done under coercion from officials who have a tremendous material incentive to execute people under the current system.

And let's not confuse government surveillance with government repression, please? To have a CCTV watching you movements is one thing, being shot in the neck is quite another.

We can argue back and forth about the numbers, all that I have been trying to say is that if the most populous country on earth is corrupt and practices capital punishment for a wide range of crimes, that makes it a leader of sorts in those areas. Now if the government of that country choses to ignore abuses in other countries, which it gives assistance to, well, we have a problem.

"it's not that I don't share in many of your criticisms and concerns about China's human rights problems"

I sure you are concerned about human rights in China, but I haven't heard you criticize the Chinese government yet. Most of your criticism is directed towards people who are trying to do something about it, like Zheng Yi, Harru Wu and others.

Amban - one interesting article that you might like to take a look at, is the one titled "Comparing India and China Growth
Strategies: Chaotic Or Planned?", jointly written by Prabhudev Konana (Associate Professor of Management Information Systems, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas), John N. Doggett (Senior Lecturer in International Entrepreneurship & Management, also of the McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas), and Sridhar Balasubramanian (Associate Professor of Marketing for the Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina.) They conclude that: "It is important...to recognize that India’s choice of placing political freedom ahead of economic liberalization puts a cap on the pace of development. Democracy, poverty, and large agriculture-based voter base has caused Indian governments to massively subsidize agricultural sectors at the expense of industrialization. Indian policy makers have to balance between long-term growth needs and short-term social benefits – China is less constrained in this regard. China’s emphasis on economic freedom before political freedom has served it well in some areas, especially in the context of delivering sustained and methodical growth" which they acknowledge has led to impressive increases in per capita living standards. Exactly Peerenboom's and Mackerras' argument.

Even though India didn't begin its reforms until 1991, the authors of this study note that "China’s per capita GDP is now double that of India, although both nations
had similar numbers as late as 1991." They argue that in contrast to the Chinese experience, "India’s growth has been sporadic and opportunistic, with no strong central guiding policy." China’s growth, they say, is largely the product of good governance, and is "primarily the result of specific policies targeting manufacturing activities" that encourage Direct Foreign Investment so that export industries can be developed, with the second main driver of growth being "China’s ability to build successful backward and forward linkages between manufacturing activity
and the rest of its economy" - the product they say, of a "holistic approach" by government.

India scores better on the World Bank Good Governance Indicators largely because its political economy is more transparent - had the key indicators been measured using a different set of criteria, China may very well come out ahead.

India's more transparent economy, with its democracy, may serve it better in the future, and even provide it with an edge over China -as some analysts, like Samuel C. Park, Jr. Professor of Economics, Yale University - surmise. But not until India develops first. Here, we once again come to the central crux of the argument, as raised by Will at the beginning of this thread: should democracy come before development, or does development lay the foundations for democracy. I would argue for the latter, as I explained in detail in the previous thread that we debated these issues on. The weight of empirical evidence leads me to this conclusion.

India may already have a democracy, but it has not produced the desired results - the per capita improvements in macro-level and micro-level human rights conditions have to date been rather disappointing. According to Indian researchers Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu, although the proportion of poor in India did probably decline in the immediate six years after reforms began, the reduction was no higher during 1994-2000 than it was during 1987-94, with the absolute number of poor declining very little, if at all. (see Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu, “Poverty and Inequality in India: Getting Closer to the Truth.” New Delhi: Centre for Economic Studies in Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2003).

In fact, there is evidence that democracy actually exacerbates human rights problems in countries like India, in that it fractures competing commerical, ethnic and religious interests into political blocks that often take their cause to the streets when they don't succeed in parliament or in the courts, sometimes with bloody results. Such social and political instability then results in government crackdowns and increased levels of political suppression - hence India's Level 4 rating on the Political Terror Scale. There are prerequisites for democracy to be able to work effectively.

Still, as I said earlier, India is nevertheless making gains, albeit, at a somewhat slower pace than China. In many ways, India is a more complex society, especially given its democratic institutions, which, although are in some ways beneficial, can also act as fetters on economic growth, and hence on improvements in per capita living standards.

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

Amban - you say, "if you quote me, please quote me correctly and in context. Both my statements were specifically made in reference to China's use of capital punishment and organ harvesting."

OK, you wriggled out of that one! :) I accept your response!

I have criticised China's human rights problems many times, even arguing that as China develops, its people will most likely become increasingly suppressed (see my piece titled "On the Nature of Chinese Governance and Society" where I argue that increasing integration into the consumer society itself will lead to increasing repression). I also wrote quite a critical piece titled "Shenzhen - City of Kitsch" - a modified and extended version of which will be will published next year as a chapter in my book, and which takes quite a critical look at the downside of China's economic "miracle" - it's growing inequality, and the way in which the history of such development has been mythologised and distorted, divorced from reality through the use of various simulacrum.

As for people like Zheng Yi and Harry Wu - their gross exaggerations need to be challenged - and for reasons that I have already explained (see the previous thread that we debated on, or the piece I wrote that I referred you to above).

Amban, you say: "let's not confuse government surveillance with government repression, please? To have a CCTV watching your movements is one thing, being shot in the neck is quite another."

This is a fair comment, and is a criticism I accept. The instruments of surveillance are nevertheless becoming more technical and efficient, more thorough and ever-present, and this is a huge cause for concern, as they can easily be one day used as instruments of repression. Incarceration rates can certainly be used as one measurement of repression though, right?

We clearly agree that China suffers from corruption, and that its human rights situation is poor in some areas. Its shortcomings though, need to be put in perspective, by assessing them in the light of China's advances, and by placing China in comparison with the rest of those countries in the world that are of lower-middle income. When this is done, we see that China has been making reasonable overall progress, progress that far exceeds expectations in some areas, and that its developmental path is very similar to those of other East Asia Model countries - all of which experienced similar human rights situations when they were at similar levels of development.

The question here, raised by Will, and which is being debated, concerns whether China's developmental path is working or not, and if it is, then why is China singled out for so much criticism? Is it, in part at least, because of a general ideological bias among Western observers against those countries that are non-democracies? Once again, I agree with Will that it is.

All the best Amban. I've enjoyed, as usual, our exhange of views.

Regards,
Mark!

This is about the fourth Great Debate between Amban and Mark that I have read here, each one with no clear winner. Well done guys! I've enjoyed following your arguments, and look forward to the next jousting. Just one request though - how about a new topic for once?

Surely anybody who has ever travelled to both India and China will be left with absolutely no doubt as to which country is governed the more effectively. China wins easily. India is far messier, far more chaotic, far more bureaucratic and inefficient, the quality of its infrastructure far poorer. Seriously, no contest!

Amban - sorry (once again) for all of the careless typing errors in my earlier comment. I meant, for example, to say "simulacra" rather than "simulacrum". Forgive me....

@MAJ:

I do not have time to respond fully to your lengthy comment, but I note that your quotations from "Comparing India and China Growth Strategies: Chaotic Or Planned?" have been lifted not from the article itself, but most likely from this site:

http://www.chowk.com/interacts/8848/2/1/144

I will take a closer look at that later to assess the quality of their argument and the other scholars you quote.

The extent to which India's democracy has held back its development is a controversial topic among academics. One of the reasons the comparisons you make between China and India makes me feel profoundly uncomfortable is that they fail to take into account the tremendous human cost that has been paid for the establishment of the current regime in the PRC.

The reforms did not start from nowhere in 1979. The regime inherited a heavily centralized and regimented state, that had been established at an incredible human cost. Civil war 1946-9, Land reform 1949-52, the Great Leap 1958-62 and the Cultural Revolution 1966-76 costs millions of human lives and wasted incredible amounts of natural and cultural resources.

If we credit the current regime of the stability in China, we cannot leave that out of the equation, and it is not clear to me how you would translate that experience to India.

It is one thing to say that democracy came too early in India and that it may have hampered development there. I do not agree, but I understand the point. It is quite another to say that the Chinese experience is applicable to India or that China should not undertake political reform because of the way democracy has failed India.

Furthermore, to suggest that the PRC government liberalize the political climate, stop mass executions, allow free trade unions or release a handful of dissidents is not to call for democracy or to tell the Chinese to follow India. No-one expects China to turn on a dime, but it would be a step in the right direction to reverse the official verdict on June 4.

More later.

Melissa C.,

I don't choose the topics here, I merely respond to those that interest me, and only then when I have the time to do so. I understand what you mean though - Amban and I do tend to largely retrace the same ground, but sometimes this kind of repetition, whereby the same ground is covered, only in slightly different contexts, is necessary (or at least useful) in order for both conversationalists to be able to more fully develop an appreciation and respect for each other's perspectives.

I'm so pleased that you have enjoyed our "joustings" (as you put it).

regards,
Mark!

Amban - just very quickly, the quotes from that article I took straight from the article itself, which can be found at:

www.frborg-gymhf.dk/fagene/geografi/indiachina.pdf

You say that "to suggest that the PRC government liberalize the political climate, stop mass executions, allow free trade unions or release a handful of dissidents is not to call for democracy or to tell the Chinese to follow India. No-one expects China to turn on a dime, but it would be a step in the right direction to reverse the official verdict on June 4."

I can basically agree with you on this - though many would argue that Chinese society has indeed been (and is) experiencing increasing liberalisation. I certainly think this is the case, though I think you are referring to political liberalisation more than anything. Patience, I believe, is required, as I think that will eventually come too, as it did in the case of all the other EAM countries.

Regards,
Mark!

@Amban and MAJ

Please allow me to jump in for a second.

>>"The extent to which India's democracy has held back its development is a controversial topic among academics. One of the reasons the comparisons you make between China and India makes me feel profoundly uncomfortable is that they fail to take into account the tremendous human cost that has been paid for the establishment of the current regime in the PRC.
The reforms did not start from nowhere in 1979. The regime inherited a heavily centralized and regimented state, that had been established at an incredible human cost. Civil war 1946-9, Land reform 1949-52, the Great Leap 1958-62 and the Cultural Revolution 1966-76 costs millions of human lives and wasted incredible amounts of natural and cultural resources."

Amban, if you can't distinguish the Mao era from the post-Deng era, then I think you are wasting MAJ's time here. It's ridiculous to hold the current Chinese government responsible for what Mao did more than 30 years ago, just like it's ridiculous to blame the current US government for slavery and segregation.

If 2 million people have to move by accepting less money than what they wanted for a dam project that can benefit hundreds of millions people, we Chinese say so be it! We accept that collective rights are more important than individual rights. This simply can't be done in India, the Indian delegates said so after they toured China. This is the exact reason why they are lagging behind in infrastructure-building which are desperately needed for their development. It's not "a controversial topic."

MAJ, great job as always. I'm behind you 100%.

Amban - you say that "The regime inherited a heavily centralized and regimented state, that had been established at an incredible human cost. Civil war 1946-9, Land reform 1949-52, the Great Leap 1958-62 and the Cultural Revolution 1966-76 costs millions of human lives and wasted incredible amounts of natural and cultural resources."

I agree, but had the Kuomintang won the civil war instead, would China's developmental path had been any better? The Kuomintang, remember, had full intentions of invading and occupying Tibet, it was arguably every bit as corrupt and despotic as the CCP, and would most likely have remained that way had it come to power - would a Kuomintang regime had been little different from, say, the military dictatorships of South Korea, etc.? Would a Kuomintang regime have been able to achieve the same overall level of stability that the CCP was eventually able to bring about? - what type of binding discourse would they have used to help bring about cohesion? Some form of nationalism, for sure, but would this have been as successful as a "Communist" discourse? Would a nationalist discourse have been all that different in reality from a "Communist" discourse in the way that it binds people together around concepts of an imaginary community?

Nobody knows the answers to these questions, yet people often taken as a given that had the Kuomintang won, China today would be far more developed than it presently is. I doubt it.

Regards,
Mark!

Amban - you say that the Chinese experience is not necessarily "applicable to India" and that China should not necessarily decline to undertake political reform simply because of the way democracy has failed India.

I agree, but then I never claimed or suggested otherwise, other than to suggest that timing is important when introducing such reform. My point all along, is that there are prerequisites for democracy to succeed, and that China is probably better off postponing the transition to democracy until it has achieved all of the necessary preconditions. If the experiences of other East Asian societies is anything to go by, China MAY be ready to make such a transition once it reaches a per capita income of somewhere around the US$8,000 mark.

Also, I don't think that democracy has been a complete failure in India - but it certainly hasn't functioned as successfully as it should. Its overall results have to date been disappointing. In my opinion, democracy probably was introduced to India a little too soon.

As for mass executions - don't forget, that progress is being made in this area too, as I pointed out in one of our previous discussions on an earlier thread. Hopefully, the use of the death penalty will one day be phased out altogether. I certainly hope so, though I can't at this stage imagine that happening any time soon - perhaps within the next 15-20 years? It might help if the United States sets a good example, by phasing out its use of the death penalty first. This would further isolate China in this regard, and would make it one of only a few countries in the world to continue using this form of punishment. Keen to present its new, more modern face to the world, China may very well feel the need to further "normalise" its system of punishments and correctional services.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

Will - you are right that we need to distinguish between the Mao era and the reform era, as ushered in by Deng. Although the reforms were built on the general level of social stability that the Mao era achieved.

What really matters here, in terms of our comparing India's performance with that of China's, is this: both countries were roughly similar in terms of living standards when measured using indicators such as per capita literacy levels, per capita life expectancies, and even per capita incomes, at the time India first began its reform process, in 1991. China began its reforms in 1979, and its progress in achieving macro-level human rights brought it up to India's level by 1991. The comparision, then, needs to judged by what has happened since 1991. China has continued to forge ahead, whereas India has developed at a somewhat slower pace. Even when we take into account the fact that China had began its reforms a decade earlier, India's take-off was far more sluggish. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, according to Indian researchers Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu, although the proportion of poor in India did probably decline in the immediate six years after reforms began, the reduction was no higher during 1994-2000 than it was during 1987-94, with the absolute number of poor declining very little, if at all. (see Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu, “Poverty and Inequality in India: Getting Closer to the Truth.” New Delhi: Centre for Economic Studies in Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2003).

India and China are of course different countries, with different histories and different ethnic mixes, etc. They can borrow ideas from one another, but they can't borrow situations. What conclusions can be made (and yes, conclusions are always debatable) is that, judging from the weight of available existing empirically-verifiable evidence, China's develomental model (a variation of the East Asia Model) has worked impressively well for China, whereas India's developmental model has not worked so well for it - at least not as well as China's model has worked for China.

In light of this, it needs to be acknowledged that China's decision to reject much of the Washington Consensus (that part of it that insists that liberal democracies are the only valid forms of political economy) was the right one to make, and that the world needs to accept that there is more than just one valid and ethical form of political economy. Once again, the be truly Enlightened, one must remove Will from Reason - and that means removing pressure on developing countries to introduce parliamentary democracies, recognising their right to choose their own developmental paths, and their own systems of governance. This isn't to say that such nation states ought to be immune from criticisms, especially when it comes to issues of human rights, but such criticisms need to be fair and sober, based on empirically-verifiable evidence, not on exaggerations and distortions, motivated, as they often are, by ideological bias. The world should leave no room for double standards.

All the best Will,
Mark!

@MAJ

I am a bit disappointed that you reduce the question of political reform to a "transition to democracy". There is a lot the Chinese government could to reform the political system without introducing democracy. But the CCP is determined not to tolerate any opposition whatsoever. That is hardly the way you educate people for a possible transition to democracy, regardless whether you believe in a GDP per capita threshold or not. In the eyes of Beijing, not even Hong Kong qualifies for free elections. Where do you stand on that?

Counterfactuals do not really interest me and I am not sure that things would have been better if the Nationalists would have won the Civil War. They have their fair share of atrocities, to be sure, but it is hard to imagine a crack-pot like Chiang Kai-shek coming up with an idea like the Great Leap. And on Taiwan, the Nationalists have been willing to take responsibility for some of its atrocities. Not to mention the fact that they have allowed free election and the rest.

@Will

"It's ridiculous to hold the current Chinese government responsible for what Mao did more than 30 years ago, just like it's ridiculous to blame the current US government for slavery and segregation."

I do not think that a statute of limitation applies here. The German government still accepts its responsibility to atone for crimes committed during the Third Reich. The current South African government works hard to undo the legacy of apartheid.

Many of the people who committed horrendous acts during the cultural revolution are still at large, unpunished. There are things about the cultural revoltuon you can't even discuss in China. 30 years is a short time in history, but the current Chinese government never tires of reminding the Japanese government of atrocities committed 70 years ago. Do you think the Chinese government should stop asking Japan for an apology and compensation?

"If 2 million people have to move by accepting less money than what they wanted for a dam project that can benefit hundreds of millions people, we Chinese say so be it!"

Don't hide behind 1.3 billion people, are you saying this at a safe distance from the Three Gorges or not? I find it hard to believe that you would gladly accept losing your property without adequate compensation or right of redress. But I may be wrong.

Amban, sorry to disappoint you!

You say that "There is a lot the Chinese government could do to reform the political system without introducing democracy."

The Chinese government have indeed made various political reforms over the years, some of which involve limited forms of democracy (village and local government elections, for example - see my piece on "The Nature of Chinese Governance and Society" for details).

What kind of reforms to the political system do you have in mind? I'm not trying to be dismissive - I'm genuinely interested in your ideas.

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

Amban - Taiwan may very well have "free" elections, but remember, it didn't make the transition to democracy until it had reached a stage in its economic and social development where per capita incomes had reached around US$8,000.

You say: "But the CCP is determined not to tolerate any opposition whatsoever. That is hardly the way you educate people for a possible transition to democracy, regardless whether you believe in a GDP per capita threshold or not."

Maybe, but then the exact same thing was regularly said about South Korea and Taiwan and Singapore and other East Asian democracies, when they were at similar stages to China's present day level of economic development - a time when they were ruled by undemocratic military regimes, intolerant of any opposition.

Mark!

Dear Amban - the latest UN Human Development Index for 2007/2008 is now available (the report was released two days ago, but has only just been made available online).

China, much to my surprise, has, for the first time since 1990, remained stagnant. Its position has not changed since last year's index (it remains ranked 81 out of the 177 countries measured). What is more disappointing though, is that India has slipped two rankings, down from 126 to 128.

The United States has slipped from 8 to 12, and Australia remains at 3. Iceland has moved into No.1 position, with Norway slipping from 1 to 2.

Vietnam has moved improved its ranking, up from 109 to 106 - a country that has been taking lessons from the China approach, adapting the East Asia Model to suit its own unique circumstances.

Regards again,
Mark Anthony Jones

"What kind of reforms to the political system do you have in mind?"

The government could try to make sure that labor groups in China proper can give publicity to this kind of things without being molested by local officials and the mob. That would be a huge step. Right now, labor groups have to hide in Hong Kong. Given the current climate, you wonder when they will have to move overseas.

Amban - I don't see what this incident has to do with political reforms. It's a local law enforcement issue.

@ Melissa C.,

"This is about the fourth Great Debate between Amban and Mark that I have read here, each one with no clear winner."

I disagree. After reading through the entire length of this debate, I see a very clear winner: the Will/greg/MAJ camp.

"It's a local law enforcement issue."

It's not. Why is the group that published this case based in Hong Kong and not in Guangzhou?

"Taiwan may very well have "free" elections, but remember, it didn't make the transition to democracy until it had reached a stage in its economic and social development where per capita incomes had reached around US$8,000."

I am very skeptical of that kind of calculations. For starters, do you mean nominal GDP or PPP GDP? And how would you apply these standards to other countries historically?

Just a very crude comparison. I just checked the GDP per capita for the US when if introduced universal suffrage, that is around 1920. The nominal GDP per capital then was $830 in nominal dollars and $5721 in year 2000 dollars. Yes, I know that there were Jim Crow laws in the South and that the US was hardly perfect then, but would you care to comment? Do you think the US would have been better served by an authoritarian government then? There were a few alternatives available at that time, mind you.

And here come those quotation marks up again. What are "free" elections supposed to mean?

Amban - sorry, but I do not regard the case you mentioned as an example that illustrates the need for political reform. It's a clear-cut law enforcement issue in my opinion. Cases like this are reported (often in great detail) on an almost daily basis throughout mainland China. You will rarely find them reported in mainland English-language newspapers, but they literally fill the Chinese language editions. (I strongly suspect that this case has indeed been reported by the mainland media.) For a detailed discussion and analysis of such phenomena, I recommend Geremie Barme's book, "In the Red: On Contemporary Chinese Culture", New York, Columbia University Press, 1999. Barme is Professor of Pacific and Asian History at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Canberra.

I know myself, having lived in China for slightly over five years, that corruption cases, murder cases, and other violent crimes, as well as labour disputes like this one, ad infinitum, are all reported with great enthusiasm by the Chinese media (television included) - and largely for commercial interests, as Barme notes. I am not very fluent in Mandarin, but my fiancee of course is, and she very often translated newpaper and television reports for me - almost nightly, in fact.

English language versions leave most of the bad news out, and that's because they are designed for a different audience, and with a very different purpose in mind: to create a favourable impression of China. I lived in South Korea for two years (back in 1996 and 1997) and the EXACT same story applied there - rarely any bad news reported about South Korea in the English editions of their newspaper and television productions, only in the Hangul editions. Perhaps things have changed a bit since then, I don't know, though I suspect that such a reporting culture is probably pretty much still intact.

I will address the questions you raise in your second comment a little later in the day, when I get more time - the questions you raise about GDP, and your American comparison, by the way, are interesting, and deserve a thoughtful response, so please give me some time! :)

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

Amban - my understanding is that the per capita incomes referred to by Peerenboom, Rowan, Lipset, Parker and Prezeworski are all based on calculations of PPP GDP. China's present per capita PPP GDP is US$5,896.

Adam Przeworski has written numerous books that cover this topic, and a brief summary of his overall studies titled "Democracy and Economic Development" is available online at: fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2800/sisson.pdf - I mentioned his studies in one of our earlier debates, as he is widely regarded as a world authority on this. Martin Lipset has also written about this topic, as far back as 1960, in his book, "Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics".

According to Przeworski, "No democracy ever fell in a country with a per capita income higher than that of Argentina in 1975 [somewhere between US$7,000-8,000 in today's terms]. This is a startling fact given that throughout history about 70 democracies have collapsed in poorer countries. In contrast, 35 democracies spent a total of 1,000 years under more affluent conditions, and not one collapsed. Affluent democracies survived wars, riots, scandals, and economic and governmental crises."

Henry Rowen has also contributed to this line of arguing (I have also quoted him in some of my contributions to our past discussions) - he was one of the first to argue that "growing wealth is accompanied by increased education, the building of business and government institutions with some autonomy, and the formation of attitudes that enable democratic governments to survive when they have a chance at power."

In terms of applying the correlation of GDP with the success of introducing democracy, Rown notes that "If China's economic growth continues at today's rates it will reach mean incomes of $7,000 to $8,000 by 2015. Spain, Portugal, Chile and Argentina, in addition to Taiwan and South Korea, all made the transition to democracy while they were within this income range."

Randall Parker, in his piece titled "Low Per Capita Income Countries Never Remain Democracies" (2004), notes that "The probability that democracy survives increases monotonically with per capita income. Between 1951 and 1999, the probability that a democracy would fall during any particular year in countries with per capita income under US$1,000 was 0.089, implying that their expected life was about 11 years. With incomes in the range of US$1,001 to US$3,000, this probability was 0.037, for an expected duration of about 27 years. Between US$3,001 and US$6,055, the probability was 0.013, which translates into about 78 years of expected life."

Parker (rather conveniently for me, I might add), has already addressed your main question:

"You might be wondering then," he writes, "how did democracy survive in the United States in the 18th and 19th century when US per capita GDP was well below $3,000 [I assume he means if adjusted to today's value]? I think we have to do an adjustment for capital productivity. Basically, the living standards of even a messed up society can be higher than what Americans experienced in the 19th century because there are lots of cheap productivity-enhancing devices available today that will still enhance production in societies with a fair amount of corruption, less protection of property, and other shortcomings. Perhaps it is not the low per capita GDP itself that causes a democracy to fail but rather the same factors that cause the low per capita GDP also cause democracy to fail."

These last three sentences is what needs emphasising - it's the crucial point, and accounts for the anomaly that is America!

Parker again: "A democratic society in the 19th century that didn't have those problematic factors present still would have had - at least by late 20th century standards - low per capita GDP. But it would have had the right cultural elements and other elements to maintain a democracy and to utilize scientific and technological advances."

The general pattern (at least since the end of the Second World War) correlating per capita income levels with successful transitions to democracy I think has been clearly demonstrated empirically, by Przeworski and others, and I think Parker's explanation plausibly accounts for America's democratic development and survival, despite it initially having had a per capita GDP lower than that normally required for success - though of course, we need also to take into account the fact that America's democracy was developed in an earlier historical period than that studied by Przeworski, and which was able to directly inherit the democratic and jurisprudic traditions and values of its predominantly European based immigrant population). The fact that it took until 1920 before Universal Suffrage was introduced says something - it reflects a gradual change, an evolution of European-based Enlightenment thought, and one that is more easily embraced in countries like America and Australia, than in countries like Iraq, Singapore or China, where such traditions and values have been historically weak.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

@MAJ

I do read Chinese fluently, so you do not need to tell me that Chinese media reports about these kind of incidents. But that was not the question. The question was why Mainland labor advocacy groups only can operate under the relative freedom in Hong Kong and not in the mainland itself. The government's tolerance of independent groups like this is an indicator if it means business when talking about political reform. But the government is not talking about political reform.

The explanation for the US that you quoted is elegant and does have some explanatory power. There are, however, two different factors at play here. A transition to democracy simply doesn't "take place" like a chemical reaction, people introduce democracy. Is the current government prepared to carry out political reforms to prepare people for democracy or not? The answer to that question is no.

And as far as the material preconditions for democracy in China, last year, China's estimated PPP GDP per capita was $7800 in 2006 according to the CIA factbook and $7594 according to the Economist.

So clearly China is approaching a stage where you, me and those political scientists would agree that a transition to democracy is feasible. But that transition will not take place as long as the Harry Wus, Zheng Yis and Wei Jingshengs are not allowed to put forward their views in China - regardless whether what they say is true or not.

Amban - there are many NGOs and labour advocacy groups operating in China. According to Paul Mooney, of Yale Global, China's Ministry of Civil Affairs reported 280,000 registered NGOs in China back in 2005, "including some 6,000 foreign NGOs, up from a total of 4,800 NGOs in 1988. The World Bank puts the present number between 300,000 and 700,000, while Hong Kong scholar Wang Shaoguang estimates that China has more than 8 million registered and unregistered, nongovernmental and quasi-governmental organizations."

Mooney also notes that "most Chinese NGOs work in line with the goals of the central government to improve society and want to cooperate with the government," and that "the main conflicts are with local governments, who often do not advance central-government policies." This appears to be the case with the labour dispute you are referring to.

According to Fons Tuinstra, of the China Herald blog, a number of labour-related NGO's are allowed to operate, though to date their numbers have been limited, partly because "there is still this monstrum called the ACFTU, China's only allowed official trade union. They have a profound interest in halting any labour-related NGO's."

In this sense, yes, I agree, that some political legislation is needed to encourage the growth and influence of labour advocacy groups. But I'm not sure whether I'd classify such legislation or political intervention as constituting political reform. Perhaps it could be argued that such intervention would encourage a wider participation in the nation's labour affairs, and so in this sense labour issues would then be dealt with, to some degree at least, more at a grass roots level.

I have double checked the GDP issue that you raised earlier, and have discovered that I have made a serious error: the per capita GDP figures used by Przeworski, Rowan, Peerenboom, etc., are nominal GDP figures, NOT PPP figures, as I earlier claimed. The figure I cited for China was also the PPP GDP figure not for 2007/8, but for 2006. I was in a hurry earlier, commenting between lessons. My sincere apologies.

The latest UN Human Development Index, released earlier this week, puts China's per capita PPP GDP at US$6,757 - still less than what the CIA Factbook and The Economist estimate it as.

The per capita nominal GDP for 2006 was US$2,034, which is still low by world standards (105th out of 188 countries) but rising rapidly. I'm afraid I don't know the latest nominal per capita GDP figure for 2007.

It is interesting, because GDP measurements are quite politcally-charged. China argues that nominal GDP reflects more accurately the strength of its economy. According to the People's Daily, "China's economy cannot be interpreted as having a stronger purchasing power in the world market, for the payment is still settled by the official exchange rate in the international market." They have a valid point, but also a clear motive: "...setting China's per capita GDP higher in accordance with PPP will do no good to China. This is not the actual case and will exaggerate China's strength. In addition, this will give China more duty to pay fees in international organizations and will influence China's preferential treatments in international trade."

China's main competitors, however, prefer to stress China's PPP GDP, and for obvious reasons. This MAY account for the high estimates provided by the CIA Factbook and The Economist.

The UN Human Development Index figure, is, most likely, a more sober calculation.

At any rate, I think China, as Rowan suggests, still has some way to go before it will reach the stage when conditions are likely to be favourable enough for a successful transition to democracy to take place: perhaps 2015 might be a realistic date, as Rowan surmises. When you think about it, 2015, or even 2020, isn't really all that far away.

Finally, I agree that democracy don't develop out of thin air - usually they come about as a result of a combination of forces - forces operating from both within and outside of government circles and institutions. These forces, perhaps not suprisingly, have yet to fully form in China. They are, at present, merely nascent.

All the best,
Mark Anthony Jones

Sorry- the first sentence in the last paragraph of my above comment should read: "...I agree that democracies don't develop out of thin air..."

@MAJ

...so, when at the end of the day, perhaps GDP per capita - be it nominal or purchase power parity - is not a particularly reliable way of measuring the economic development of any country.

No, 2015 is not very far away, but I don't understand why you cling to this year. Beijing is not particularly interested in introducing universal suffrage anywhere, especially not in a territory which by any standard is mature for democracy: Hong Kong, where the nominal GDP per capita is similar to Spain or Greece. I have mentioned this several times, and you haven't commented on how that affects your argument.

Amban - I'm not clinging to 2015 - it's Rowan's rough estimate, based on China's current rate of economic growth, viewed in light of the income range that numerous others countries were able to make the successful transition to democracy. It's a plausible estimate in my opinion, but of course only time will tell.

Beijing obviously is in no hurry to introduce Universal Suffrage to Hong Kong, and for fear that it will influence the mood on the mainland - it wants to maintain the present status quo by keeping any nascent forces for political reform in check - including such forces that exist within the CCP itself.

The forces for democratic change in Hong Kong are my no means nascent though - they are already mature, and are constantly lobbying loudly for change. Beijing will eventually give in to these voices of change, I think, but not for a few more years.

Mainland China today is roughly where South Korea was back in the late 1970s, in terms of economic development. Remember, as I mentioned in an earlier comment on this thread, the military regime in South Korea showed no interest in allowing democratic reform back in the 1970s, and even well into the mid 1980s. The forces for change were certainly growing throughout the 80s, and the state responded by trying to keep them in check (imprisoning and even torturing many labour leaders, political reformists, journalists and student activists) - unable to contain the forces of change, they quite suddenly changed course, and allowed the transition to democracy to take place, almost immediately after the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Reformists within the military regime reinvented themselves by forming a new political party, and were able to remain in power as a democratically elected body right up until 1995. It wouldn't surprise me if China followed a similar course, but this will be unlikely to occcur until China develops all of the necessary prerequisites for democracy, and those prerequisites tend to be correlated to wealth, as I have been arguing all along.

Amban, it's not whether the glass is already half empty or half way full. It's a matter of being able to recognise that the glass is in the process of being filled, rather than emptied. Once one is able to recognise and accept this, then one can look to the future with hope, with optimism - the way most Chinese mainlanders do. Often progress involves frequent setbacks, a case of two steps forward, one step back, so to speak, but the long term pattern for China, I think, will be one of progress. That has certainly been the overall trend since Deng first began the reform process back in 1979, and I think it will continue to be the trend for many more decades to come.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

Sometimes I don't really know how to respond to these lengthy responses. Why don't you start a blog instead?

Your optimism is sometimes contagious, but I don't think you contextualize the few verifiable facts you offer us. Yes, I agree with you that China shares a number of things with South Korea in terms of economic development.

But China and South Korea have little or nothing in common when it comes to recent political history. South Korea was a fragile republic with general elections before the junta to power in 1961, so there were something to build on in the late 80s. Laws and statutes were suspended, but they were still there. Judges and lawyers were not toiling in the countryside wasting their skills. And I don't have time to dig up the hard statistics and I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I strongly suspect that the PRC repression is much more brutal today than it was in ROK then, both in absolute and relative terms.

The junta didn't just simply changed their minds in 1988, what happened then was part and parcel of a general process of democratization that took place in the world in the late 80s - Chinese students felt that they were part of that when they launched their first march on April 1989. International pressure, which is always more effective on small countries than on larger ones, played its part. The junta reinvented itself as a political party because they had no nationwide organization that is even remotely comparable to the CCP, the entity that controls the PLA instead of the civilian government.

I just don't see where the lessons are for China, except that both domestic and international forces should continue to press for reform. And it would be a good start if the CCP took responsibility for sending troops to suppress a peaceful protest in 1989 and killing a couple of hundred people.

Amban - some valid criticisms, perhaps, but I really wasn't suggesting that China has "lessons" to learn from South Korea (though it may very well have a few things to learn from the Korean example). I simply surmised that it may possibly end up following a broadly similar trajectory when it comes to making a possible transition to democracy.

You say that my optimism is "sometimes contagious" - as if being optimistic about China is some kind of disease!

Eh, this is the disease: "Surmised", "may", "possibly", "broadly", "possible".