Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the last 50 years.
The last 50 years has been a sharp rise. The fall was long before.
That was only the last 20 years. Imagine what would have been possible last 50 years already.
China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
41–50 of 118 posts
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#42China has a population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass controlled by a single sovereign entity. The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. It is entirely possible that we don't know what the reason for China's rise is over the short term. I wouldn't trust any article written in English to understand the ins and outs of China's special econo…
“I wouldn’t trust any article written in English...”
What if the article was written by someone from China?
“Zhang Jun is Dean of the School of Economics at Fudan University and Director of the China Center for Economic Studies, a Shanghai-based think-tank.”
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#43Solid article, I’ve underestimated the liberalization of the Chinese economy, especially in regards to technology and advanced manufacturing. Anyone know what the proverb means?
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last 50 years has been a sharp rise. The fall was long before.
That was only the last 20 years. Imagine what would have been possible last 50 years already.
Yeah, last 20 years were rapid growth. Places like Pudong didn't really exist just 20 years ago... hard to believe now.
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#45I would have thought that that the "one child" policy played a large part, since it allowed a larger investment in fewer children by parents and society. This, coupled with an educational system that is able to spot talent and develop talented children, has produced a dramatic increase in China's human capital, without which liberalization would be ineffective. The US had a similar emphasis on developing talent in th…
Compare the crude birth rate since 1920 for Thailand and China on this Gapminder chart [1]. You'll see that Thailand started with a birth rate higher than China's. In 1967 they were at around the same level at which point they both simultaneously started trending down. Thailand maintained a smooth curve down to its present level which is lower than China's. China's downward curve was interrupted in 1979 (introduction of the One Child Policy) when it curved upward for a bit.
So, despite all the myth-making, China's One Child Policy was an authoritarian disaster that did not reduce births beyond their already downward trend. In fact, it disrupted the already established trend.
[1] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world#$state$time$star...
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass > how they managed to fall so low There are countries with even larger landmass, and countries with roughly the same population, whose economies are doing worse than China, so I'm not convinced that landmass and population are fundamental requirements for economic prosperity. I should add that I'm not an economist in any shape or form and I'm happy…
There is exactly one country with a comparable populatuon, India. It's not doing exactly bad, too. The next largest country is USA, with roughly thee times smaller a population. Most countries with larger landmass have most of its landmass barely usable due to climate: Russia, Canada, Australia, Algeria. Most others from top 10 largest countries are doing OK: USA, India, Brazil. China has a unique combination of very…
> There is exactly one country with a comparable populatuon, India. It's not doing exactly bad, too.
There are however several other large population nations. There's no reason for eg one billion to be a cut-off point or similar. There are only 14 nations with 100m or more people, a sufficiently rare group to look at the nations that fall within it.
The parent's point: "I'm not convinced that landmass and population are fundamental requirements for economic prosperity" - is spot on. They're not requirements at all (just ask Denmark, Belgium, Singapore, Israel, Austria and Ireland) and outsized population is clearly not a booster.
Among nations with at least one million people, the median is around 11.x million population wise. So 100m stands as 9x larger, a very considerable gap in size.
The majority of countries with large populations have done poorly economically. Great economic success with a very large population is a rare exception:
(shown with per capita output rank)
China #67 ($9608), 1.4b people | India #142 ($2036), 1.37b people | Indonesia #115 ($3871), 269m people | Brazil #73 ($8968), 212m people | Pakistan #148 ($1555), 204m people | Nigeria #141 ($2049), 201m people | Bangladesh #144 ($1745), 168m people | Russia #60 ($11327), 144m people | Mexico #66 ($9807), 132m people | Ethiopia #168 ($853), 110m people | Philippines #127 ($3104), 108m people | Egypt #130 ($2573), 101m people | Vietnam #131 ($2551), 97m people
Among the 15 nations with 97m+ people, there are only two standouts:
US #8 ($62606), 330m people | Japan #24 ($39306), 126m people
The poor performance doesn't stop at 100m either, it continues for most other large population nations below 100m as well. Including: Thailand, DR Congo, Turkey, Iran, Tanzania, South Africa, Myanmar, Kenya, Colombia, Uganda, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Peru, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Malaysia, Angola, Mozambique, Ghana, Nepal, Madagascar, Yemen, North Korea, Côte d'Ivoire, Cameroon
Between the 100m and 25m population line, you have around 40 nations. At least 26 of those are between very poor and moderately poor.
Here is how the highest per capita output countries rank in total territorial area:
Luxembourg (#167), Switzerland (#132), Norway (#67), Ireland (#118), Iceland (#106), Qatar (#158), Singapore (#175), US (#4), Denmark (#130), Australia (#6), Sweden (#55), Netherlands (#131), Austria (#113), Finland (#64), Germany (#62), Belgium (#136), Canada (#2), France (#42), UK (#78), Israel (#149), New Zealand (#75), UAE (#114), Japan (#61), Italy (#71), South Korea (#107)
Having a lot of territory to look after, is more often an immense burden.
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#47China has a population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass controlled by a single sovereign entity. The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. It is entirely possible that we don't know what the reason for China's rise is over the short term. I wouldn't trust any article written in English to understand the ins and outs of China's special econo…
“I wouldn’t trust any article written in English...” What if the article was written by someone from China? “Zhang Jun is Dean of the School of Economics at Fudan University and Director of the China Center for Economic Studies, a Shanghai-based think-tank.”
Yes, even then. If I'm getting my information from English-publishing Shanghai think tanks then I'm just going to assume that I'm wrong.
I mean, I know how many contradictory economic opinions are generated by universities where I speak the language and have a reasonable grasp of the economic fundamentals and understand what the various interest groups want. It would be a special form of madness to assume I know anything but the most basic facts about China from a survey of internet articles.
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#48Solid article, I’ve underestimated the liberalization of the Chinese economy, especially in regards to technology and advanced manufacturing. Anyone know what the proverb means?
> "On a journey of a hundred miles, 90 is but halfway"
The closest I could find (via googling) is this saying - "Walking 100 Miles: Stopping at 90 miles, is the same as stopping half-way" which means being 90% done with something is the same as being 50% done - you're not done!
https://www.orientaloutpost.com/shufa.php?q=walking+100+mile....
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is exactly one country with a comparable populatuon, India. It's not doing exactly bad, too. The next largest country is USA, with roughly thee times smaller a population. Most countries with larger landmass have most of its landmass barely usable due to climate: Russia, Canada, Australia, Algeria. Most others from top 10 largest countries are doing OK: USA, India, Brazil. China has a unique combination of very…
> There is exactly one country with a comparable populatuon, India. It's not doing exactly bad, too. There are however several other large population nations. There's no reason for eg one billion to be a cut-off point or similar. There are only 14 nations with 100m or more people, a sufficiently rare group to look at the nations that fall within it. The parent's point: "I'm not convinced that landmass and population…
Thank you for putting this together. It’s helpful perspective.
Re: China’s liberalization and structural reform drives growth
#50China has a population of more than a billion people, the 3rd largest landmass controlled by a single sovereign entity. The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. It is entirely possible that we don't know what the reason for China's rise is over the short term. I wouldn't trust any article written in English to understand the ins and outs of China's special econo…
> The only question is how they managed to fall so low that they weren't a competitive superpower. Well, first of all, they had two thousand years autocratic Imperial rule. This was overthrown in 1912, but then came the Japanese invasion, then WW2, then a civil war. The civil war ended up being won by a somewhat anti-intellectual group of people (the Communists) who had all sort of economic backwards programs (not to…
>The real question is: why were the Europeans the only ones to embrace it.
I haven't read Huff's book so here's my stab in the dark. Europe has a lot of mainland coastline and the Mediterranean, which favors the formation of many small nation states and trans-Mediterranean trade. Among a large number of diverse and competing states, political, military and social ideas are more likely to be employed somewhere, and if successful, will rise to prominence within the local trade cluster by the process of natural selection.
If you have a large number of independent nation states, many of which import products and ideas from the far East, one of them is likely to put together a new military innovation that gives them an edge in warfare. Since the area sees frequent competition, other nations will quickly come into contact with the new technology and be forced to adopt it, or risk swift decline. A period of rapid innovation in metallurgy, chemistry and navigation (to name only a few) would develop a political culture that values technological development over traditional ideals.
I guess this would increase the demand for scientists/intellectuals and engineers. The total fund allocated by the political elite towards academics either through patronage or universities would increase the number of scientists in Europe. Ease of communication through mail channels and access to wider array of materials, both developed due to the increased volume of trade, would allow more scientists, to do more complicated research and exchange ideas more easily than ever before.