3 ms·

Local corruption is the defacto mechanism CCP exploited to pull 500m out of poverty. Deng's entire model is harnessing corruption with bureaucratic incentives t

Local corruption is the defacto mechanism CCP exploited to pull 500m out of poverty. Deng's entire model is harnessing corruption with bureaucratic incentives to forward development goals. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China. He notes China is the only country where increased corruption is correlated to increased growth, everywhere else corruption leads to inefficient allocation. Also discussed in depth recently in China's Gilded Age by Yuen Yuen Ang, which breaks down corruption into four categories: https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Yuen-Yuen-drugs-analogy.jpg https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Yuen-... Chinese corruption focuses on access money (steroids) to coordinate massive development projects and a cadres ability to graft is directly correlated to their projects success. The flip side is pervasive corruption is socially destabilizing as recognize in the 2000s, which is why Xi inaugurated his office with the anticorruption campaign. Yes, there was some power consolidation involved, but most of the effort was genuine - CCDI has investigated close to 2,000,000 officials, even Xi doesn't have that many enemies. Despite some terrible human rights campaigns that affect <1% of the population, this is very much the "better" timeline. The legal system is being improved, it's _not_ (<-edit) going to be modelled after the west, the most optimistic outcome is Singapore, whose political institutions has trained 50k+ Chinese officials until a few years ago. Incidentally, Singapore style single party dictatorship was about the best HK could have ever hoped for - people keep insisting HK's role as financial centre is predicated on it's western values yet in the same breath suggest HK's loss will be Singapore's gain. Authoritarianism + capitalism are absolutely compatible. Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head, western institutions are failing. They don't have to be, but as long as they are, China will be more reassured in it's model.

simonh 6y ago
I think Chinese authoritarianism may be best though if as a rent based system much like resource based economies such as the Gulf states, except that the ‘resource‘ they are extracting rent from is a capitalist market economy. It’s a strange beast for sure. One thing the Chinese authorities do not lack is competence. They make horrific, catastrophic mistakes, sure, but they are incredibly organised and disciplined. They will turn in a dime and execute whatever strategy it takes to set things ‘right’, as defined in their terms with ruthless efficiency. They must not be underestimated. I think western institutions are being underestimated. The whole point if democratic systems is their flexibility. We will simply adapt and grow new institutions. We have the dynamic systems of social discourse and public accountability to do so. Authoritarian systems find this hard to do because their top down architecture limits them to solutions envisionable by a single authority. They have no way to do public input or to generate a range of options, or try things and have them fail. It’s fine. It’s part of the process.
swordsmith 6y ago
> which is why Xi inaugurated his office with the anticorruption campaign. Yes, there was some power consolidation involved, but most of the effort was genuine - CCDI has investigated close to 2,000,000 officials, even Xi doesn't have that many enemies. Xi became president as a compromise candidate between the internal factions, so he didn't have much support or allies. CCP officials are corrupt by default, of course the effort would be genuine, even though the true intention was to consolidate his power inside the party. Re. CCP lifting 500m out of poverty -- I'd argue that the Chinese people prospered and lifted themselves out DESPITE of what CCP has done. Looking at the potential alternative and what KMT has done to develop Taiwan, I'd think that's the case. But there is no way of testing that. > Authoritarianism + capitalism are absolutely compatible. I agree with this in the case of Singapore. But when CCP is actively exporting its brand of authoritarianism to other countries and influencing the freedoms of other countries' citizens as part of an ideology war [1] using unrestricted warfare [2], then that organization becomes a threat to the world. The best case HK can hope for is the collapse of CCP. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-communist-partys-ideology-global-ambitions/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-comm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

simonh 6y ago

I think Chinese authoritarianism may be best though if as a rent based system much like resource based economies such as the Gulf states, except that the ‘resource‘ they are extracting rent from is a capitalist market economy. It’s a strange beast for sure. One thing the Chinese authorities do not lack is competence. They make horrific, catastrophic mistakes, sure, but they are incredibly organised and disciplined. They will turn in a dime and execute whatever strategy it takes to set things ‘right’, as defined in their terms with ruthless efficiency. They must not be underestimated. I think western institutions are being underestimated. The whole point if democratic systems is their flexibility. We will simply adapt and grow new institutions. We have the dynamic systems of social discourse and public accountability to do so. Authoritarian systems find this hard to do because their top down architecture limits them to solutions envisionable by a single authority. They have no way to do public input or to generate a range of options, or try things and have them fail. It’s fine. It’s part of the process.

swordsmith 6y ago

> which is why Xi inaugurated his office with the anticorruption campaign. Yes, there was some power consolidation involved, but most of the effort was genuine - CCDI has investigated close to 2,000,000 officials, even Xi doesn't have that many enemies. Xi became president as a compromise candidate between the internal factions, so he didn't have much support or allies. CCP officials are corrupt by default, of course the effort would be genuine, even though the true intention was to consolidate his power inside the party. Re. CCP lifting 500m out of poverty -- I'd argue that the Chinese people prospered and lifted themselves out DESPITE of what CCP has done. Looking at the potential alternative and what KMT has done to develop Taiwan, I'd think that's the case. But there is no way of testing that. > Authoritarianism + capitalism are absolutely compatible. I agree with this in the case of Singapore. But when CCP is actively exporting its brand of authoritarianism to other countries and influencing the freedoms of other countries' citizens as part of an ideology war [1] using unrestricted warfare [2], then that organization becomes a threat to the world. The best case HK can hope for is the collapse of CCP. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-communist-partys-ideology-global-ambitions/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-comm... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare