Will the 'China Miracle' Continue?

[mike2000]

Anybody who works in the field of policy and development knows how hard won this miracle has been for China. China's growth will continue well into the future, particularly because the institutional risks that China faces are now far less significant than they were a couple of decades ago. The miracle is precisely the fact that they've managed to achieve this, despite those institutional risks. Most importantly, they've stubbornly stuck to a China centric development policy despite what a lot of experts have had to say, something that has worked out very well for them.

As for India watching from the sidelines, I don't think it will. However, we have to develop a strategy that works for India- one that will be very different from China's. In higher education, for instance, China policy has almost functioned like a draft, with people being 'slotted' in where the state found it appropriate. While this has worked, to a great extent, for China, India's political structure will never permit it.

India keeping an eye on China is good, it focuses attention on just how far we've fallen behind and how urgently we need to change things. Over the last few months, at the very least, this sense of urgency seem to be showing in the day-to-day functioning of the government.

Completely agree, India indeed is lucky to have China as a bigger neighbour/rival, since it helps keeps india on its toe and avoids it from diverting its attention from what really matters/is important i.e improving living conditions of its people/infrastructure/power/education/science etc.

Also, i dont understand why some members here(together with some ofour western intellectuals) seem to always think China will collapse or stop growing anytime soon. Since China still hasnt reached even half of its real potential eyt and several regions in its western regions are still quite poor/backward. So funny enough/as ironic as it might seem, China still enjoys the backwardness advantage. Since its relatively low gdp per capital with increasingly huge industrial base still gives it a huge room for growth before it can reach stability/saturation like Japan did during its heydays. So in this case China is very much different from Japan, in that Japan growed heathily when it was still relatively poor/backward compared with to the U.S , until it reached a developed/advanced/high living standard at par with that of the west/U.S before it started stagnating. This is different with China, stillt the country still has a longggggggg way to go before it gets to this level, hence i belive they will keep growing at at least 5-8% at least for the foreseeable future/coming decades. This has little to do with the so called 'communist party prowess/efficiency', but more to do with a natural progression/growth of the country irregardless of which party governs/rule the country, since the country already has a good industrial base/infrastructure for future growth. So we should all be realistic and keep our bais to ourselves while analysing such world issues.

 

[Keel]

Obviously, even something unprecedent in human history is something not impressive enough for certain sceptics who, at one tenth of China's success declared themselves a superpower.

China's long term advantages:

Growth potential in the Western regions
Large hydrocarbon potential
Educated and increasingly mobile workforce
Sustainable population growth
Renminbi internationalization
Successful start ups and growing entreprenourship

Good points!

I am adding some of mine a bit more specific though

• Expenditures on R & D

"Adjustments to the NBS’s accounting method will also likely lead to revisions. Research and development spending will probably be included as investment instead of as a cost."
Accounting revisions and a business census will boost China's GDP stats by about 15% for 2013-2015

• Gaining market shares in industries losing out to foreign brands like cars (overpriced imported parts); commercial airplanes and aerospace technology, engines, medical equipment, pharmaceutical products, food and dairy products, semiconductor products, programming like OSs on different platforms, camera and optical equipment and consumer products, cosmetic products, shale gas and deep sea resources exploration
• expanding programmes on vocational training
• Stock up resources on the cheap such as oil and gas, mineral ores
• rehabiltation of our environment damaged by overgrazing, industrial pollution, improper fishing
• investing and strenghthening product testing and qualtiy control
• keep investing in subsidised housing and other welfare programmes like health care etc
• raising the bar of the poverty line

 

[DoTell]

Is what I've written no longer true? It certainly was the strategy when the expansion of higher education began.

At college level, students have been free to choose any field to study since 1978, the very beginning of the post cultural revolution. Yes for a while college graduates were not allowed to choose jobs on their own. They were assigned to jobs by the government. But that was abolished in the early nineties. We are free to select any field to study and free to find job anywhere, no difference than any developed countries in the world.

 

[asquare]

At college level, enrollment has been free since 1978, the very beginning of the post cultural revolution. Yes for a while college graduates were not allowed to choose jobs on their own. They were assigned to jobs by the government. But that was abolished in the early nineties. We are free to select any field to study and free to find job anywhere, no difference than any developed countries in the world.

Thanks, I was wrong about this- one more question- do your grades determine what institution (and what discipline you study) you are admitted to?. Is this determined at the level of each institution or is it determined at the province/city/village level?

That is, do you apply to individual institutions and the top x% at each institution get in, or is there a province/city/village level list of candidates and the top y% get into the best institution (or the most sought after discipline at the top institution), the next z% get into the second best institution and so on.

 

[DoTell]

Thanks, I was wrong about this- one more question- do your grades determine what institution (and what discipline you study) you are admitted to?. Is this determined at the level of each institution or is it determined at the province/city/village level?

That is, do you apply to individual institutions and the top x% at each institution get in, or is there a province/city/village level list of candidates and the top y% get into the best institution (or the most sought after discipline at the top institution), the next z% get into the second best institution and so on.

Yes the students decide what institution and discipline to study. But, competition is also a major factor in where the students may end up. There is a national level college entrance exam that all students must take. The best colleges get to pick the best students based on the scores of that test and their past performance in high schools. There has been reforms in this aspect also. More and more colleges are now offering their own tests and therefore choose students based on their own standards. Finally, since majority of the colleges/universities are non-private, the number of institutions and quota in each discipline are mostly decided by the government.

 

[Aepsilons]

Best of Luck always to our friends in China.

ご幸運を祈ります

 

[asquare]

Yes the students decide what institution and discipline to study. But, competition is also a major factor in where the students may end up. There is a national level college entrance exam that all students must take. The best colleges get to pick the best students based on the scores of that test and their past performance in high schools. There has been reforms in this aspect also. More and more colleges are now offering their own tests and therefore choose students based on their own standards. Finally, since majority of the colleges/universities are non-private, the number of institutions and quota in each discipline are mostly decided by the government.

Thanks again! Does the government decide which the best colleges are, and therefore which college gets to pick students first? If the government does decide, is there usually agreement between what the government decides and the public's perception of which colleges are best?

 

[AgentOrange]

Anybody who works in the field of policy and development knows how hard won this miracle has been for China. China's growth will continue well into the future, particularly because the institutional risks that China faces are now far less significant than they were a couple of decades ago. The miracle is precisely the fact that they've managed to achieve this, despite those institutional risks. Most importantly, they've stubbornly stuck to a China centric development policy despite what a lot of experts have had to say, something that has worked out very well for them.

As for India watching from the sidelines, I don't think it will. However, we have to develop a strategy that works for India- one that will be very different from China's. In higher education, for instance, China policy has almost functioned like a draft, with people being 'slotted' in where the state found it appropriate. While this has worked, to a great extent, for China, India's political structure will never permit it.

India keeping an eye on China is good, it focuses attention on just how far we've fallen behind and how urgently we need to change things. Over the last few months, at the very least, this sense of urgency seem to be showing in the day-to-day functioning of the government.

I think you have some major misconceptions about Chinese universities. China's higher education is anything but a "draft." The entrance exams are some of the toughest int he world and there are no re-dos. It's a meritocracy taken to an extreme because even with a recent expansion in higher ed. institutions, China still has 1.3 billion people and only 30-35% get into college (any college) as opposed to say, 80% in Canada or the US.

Edit: The best thing the Chinese government ever did for higher ed. in China was when it started to lay off. That's probably true for everywhere.

 

[asquare]

I think you have some major misconceptions about Chinese universities. China's higher education is anything but a "draft." The entrance exams are some of the toughest int he world and there are no re-dos. It's a meritocracy taken to an extreme because even with a recent expansion in higher ed. institutions, China still has 1.3 billion people and only 30-35% get into college (any college) as opposed to say, 80% in Canada or the US.

Edit: The best thing the Chinese government ever did for higher ed. in China was when it started to lay off. That's probably true for everywhere.

Yeah sorry, draft was the wrong choice of word. I meant something along the lines of the government picks what you study (based on your rank in an exam) and which college you study it in. As some of the Chinese members have pointed out, I was wrong on that count as well.

 

[Aepsilons]

I think you have some major misconceptions about Chinese universities. China's higher education is anything but a "draft." The entrance exams are some of the toughest int he world and there are no re-dos. It's a meritocracy taken to an extreme because even with a recent expansion in higher ed. institutions, China still has 1.3 billion people and only 30-35% get into college (any college) as opposed to say, 80% in Canada or the US.

I can definitely support that. In fact, Chinese universities definitely select only those who attain high entrance exams. I've the pleasure of being friends and colleagues with Chinese foreign exchange students who are in the same Ph.D cohort as I, and many of them finished their Bachelor's and Masteral coursework in Hong Kong, Beijing, or Shanghai before coming to the U.S for doctoral coursework. Hong Kong SAR, specifically, has one of the best universities for public administration, economics, psychology and law. I've a good friend who is a graduate of The University of Hong Kong, who scored high on the 香港中學文憑, with a Master's Degree in City/ Urban Planning, he's now finishing his Ph.D in Public Policy at my university. I can vouchsafe that alumnus from UHK definitely are assets to any organization.

 

[atatwolf]

I would take China's official statistics about their growth rate and GDP with a grain of salt. Couple of weeks ago I posted an article explaining China's GDP is overrated by 30% by the Chinese government.

 

[Aepsilons]

Yeah sorry, draft was the wrong choice of word. I meant something along the lines of the government picks what you study (based on your rank in an exam) and which college you study it in. As some of the Chinese members have pointed out, I was wrong on that count as well.

In China, its based on your resources. The intellectual capital as well as the financial capital to leverage your position in a university of one's preference. Not everyone in China can afford to go to college or can compete effectively for the limited seats available.

 

[AgentOrange]

I would take China's official statistics about their growth rate and GDP with a grain of salt. Couple of weeks ago I posted an article explaining China's GDP is overrated by 30% by the Chinese government.

I would take anything you post with a grain of salt. Couple of weeks ago you proved yourself to be an anti-China troll with subsequent confirmations of that fact everytime you post in a thread about China.

 

[zeronet]

China has 45% GDP generated from manufacturing industry, which might be the highest percentage in the world, and 46% from service industry. This unbalanced economy structure alone can guarantee China's growth potential: just inflating the service sector until China reaches today's Western countries' level, around 80~90% GDP from service industry, meaning that most GDP comes from retail sales, lawyers, financing/insurance, logistics, and medical stuff of course.

For example, let's take a look at medical sector of USA and China: The US, having people's life expectation of 79.8 versus China's 76, with 0.32 billion people versus China's 1.36 billion people, just creates GDP in medical sector several times bigger than that of China. From this comparison you know China's growth potential.

At the same time China can keep its manufacturing sector competitive globally. In terms of worker's output/salary ratio, working force quality, complete industrial chain, huge domestic consumption market, excellent infrastructure, huge R&D expenditure second only to USA on technology, it is still too early to say China will lose its edge on manufacture.

So, both from manufacture and service industries, the growth will continue. Plus, don't forget China just crossed the line of 50% urbanization, far behind Japan and S Korea, and this also means great growth potential.

 

[bolo]

大家, 新年快樂!!! 好運旺旺來⊙ω⊙

Wish the best for China in 2015. Peace in the world.

Not Chinese new-year. Will wish China in February 19.

Yes, the Chinese miracle will continue.