3 ms·

The root cause is focusing on economical development over everything else, including staggering inequality, pollution, and others. The central governments' ina

The root cause is focusing on economical development over everything else, including staggering inequality, pollution, and others. The central governments' inability to enforce local municipalities to do whatever they want, is actually result of the shifting political structure from a single autocratic ruler during Mao's era to a more technocratic/autonomous style of ruling. This is a good thing, although it does create inefficiencies when central government interests conflict with local ones.

afarrell 11y ago
Was that policy decision worth it? Well according to http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world#WorldBanksPovertyEste http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-wor... """ Accounting for the increased population between 1981 and 2005, the poverty rate has, however, fallen by about 25%. While this at least sounds encouraging, it masks regional variations, and perhaps most glaringly the impact of China: China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in poverty Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10% """ There has indeed been a tradeoff with pollution here which they need to fix. However, I don't see why income inequality is a problem here. If you are starting from massive amounts of extreme poverty, then how would you possibly alleviate that without making some people wealthy?
- kctess5 11y ago
  This is an interesting dilema
  - contingencies 11y ago
    ... and precisely the sort of issue that only the Chinese government face. Hand-waving external commentators are quick to identify differences and ascribe guilt and blame, but often decisions must be made with consequences no honest and empathetic person would wish to set in motion. Look at the hydropower projects versus US military dominance of global oil... China (1.4 billion) is about 32% of Asia's (4.3b) population and 19% of the world's (7.3b). Imagine: one in five humans depends on your decision. Reply to sean as out of posties: You want transparency in decision making? The west pretends it has it, but in reality even on matters of fiscal policy it doesn't. For example, look at central bank interest rate setting. It's done by secret departments. As another example, I asked Australia's body why it didn't embrace the IBAN like Europe, Israel and a growing list of other countries. I got no reply. Pot, kettle, black.
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      We all get that the Chinese government has to make tough decisions. All we are asking for is transparency and accountability, which would lead to better (less corrupt) decisions in the long term.
Retric 11y ago
Much of this pollution has very little economic benefit in the short term and massive downsides in the long term. The real issue is corruption means it's cheaper for polluters ignore the problem than implement even cheap mitigation strategies.
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
It isn't that simple, right now it is a basic prisoner's dilemma: if factory A & B follow the law, they both have higher costs but these can be passed on; if A follows the law and B does not, then A goes out of business as their costs are higher than B; if A & B don't follow the law, then the environmental costs are passed on. Right now, the last case wins because the laws aren't enforced evenly. China is not a dictatorship, but it is definitely autocratic even if the autocracy is distributed. Local party leaders are just as autocratic as central party leaders, and generally are more corrupt (getting more for their family, for example).

afarrell 11y ago

Was that policy decision worth it? Well according to http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world#WorldBanksPovertyEste http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-wor... """ Accounting for the increased population between 1981 and 2005, the poverty rate has, however, fallen by about 25%. While this at least sounds encouraging, it masks regional variations, and perhaps most glaringly the impact of China: China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people China accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in poverty Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10% """ There has indeed been a tradeoff with pollution here which they need to fix. However, I don't see why income inequality is a problem here. If you are starting from massive amounts of extreme poverty, then how would you possibly alleviate that without making some people wealthy?

kctess5 11y ago
This is an interesting dilema
- contingencies 11y ago
  ... and precisely the sort of issue that only the Chinese government face. Hand-waving external commentators are quick to identify differences and ascribe guilt and blame, but often decisions must be made with consequences no honest and empathetic person would wish to set in motion. Look at the hydropower projects versus US military dominance of global oil... China (1.4 billion) is about 32% of Asia's (4.3b) population and 19% of the world's (7.3b). Imagine: one in five humans depends on your decision. Reply to sean as out of posties: You want transparency in decision making? The west pretends it has it, but in reality even on matters of fiscal policy it doesn't. For example, look at central bank interest rate setting. It's done by secret departments. As another example, I asked Australia's body why it didn't embrace the IBAN like Europe, Israel and a growing list of other countries. I got no reply. Pot, kettle, black.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    We all get that the Chinese government has to make tough decisions. All we are asking for is transparency and accountability, which would lead to better (less corrupt) decisions in the long term.

Retric 11y ago

Much of this pollution has very little economic benefit in the short term and massive downsides in the long term. The real issue is corruption means it's cheaper for polluters ignore the problem than implement even cheap mitigation strategies.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

It isn't that simple, right now it is a basic prisoner's dilemma: if factory A & B follow the law, they both have higher costs but these can be passed on; if A follows the law and B does not, then A goes out of business as their costs are higher than B; if A & B don't follow the law, then the environmental costs are passed on. Right now, the last case wins because the laws aren't enforced evenly. China is not a dictatorship, but it is definitely autocratic even if the autocracy is distributed. Local party leaders are just as autocratic as central party leaders, and generally are more corrupt (getting more for their family, for example).