Roads to Prosperity
La Chine, prochaine superpuissance mondiale ?
Dani Rodrik
|
|
|
|
CAMBRIDGE – Il y a 30 ans, l'impact de la Chine sur l'économie mondiale était quasi inexistant, son influence hors de ses frontières minime, à l'exception de quelques pays avec lesquels elle entretenait des relations étroites sur le plan politique et militaire. A ujourd'hui c'est une grande puissance économique : l'usine du monde, son premier financier, un investisseur majeur à travers le monde, de l'Afrique à l'Amérique latine, et un acteur important en matière de recherche et développement.
Le gouvernement chinois est assis sur une masse colossale de réserves étrangères, plus de 2000 milliards de dollars ! Il n'est pas une seule entreprise, où que ce soit dans le monde, qui n'ait ressenti l'impact de la Chine - que ce soit au titre de fournisseur à bas prix, ou de manière plus menaçante, à titre de formidable concurrent.
La Chine est encore un pays pauvre. Même si le revenu moyen a augmenté rapidement au cours des dernières décennies, il ne représente qu'entre 1/7 et 1/8 de celui des Etats-Unis, il est inférieur à celui de la Turquie ou de la Colombie et guère plus élevé que celui du Salvador ou de l'Egypte. Si les régions côtières et les grandes métropoles paraissent incroyablement prospères, une grande partie de l'ouest du pays reste très pauvre. Néanmoins l'économie chinoise devrait surpasser en taille celle des USA au cours des 20 prochaines années.
Parallèlement, les USA qui étaient jusqu'à il y a peu la seule superpuissance économique de la planète ressemblent à un géant blessé. Ils sont affaiblis par leurs erreurs en politique étrangère et une crise financière massive. Leur crédibilité est au plus bas en raison de leur invasion désastreuse de l'Irak, et malgré l'élan de sympathie de l'opinion publique mondiale envers le président Obama, son modèle économique ne tient plus. Le dollar, autrefois tout puissant, chancelle à la merci de la Chine et des pays pétroliers.
C'est pourquoi se pose la question de savoir si la Chine va remplacer les USA en tant que puissance hégémonique, qui décide des règles de l'économie mondiale et veille à leur application. Dans un nouveau livre fascinant au titre révélateur When China Rules the World [Quand la Chine mènera le monde], le journaliste et universitaire britannique Martin Jacques le dit sans équivoque : si vous croyez que la Chine va s'intégrer en douceur dans un système mondial démocratique, libéral et capitaliste, vous allez avoir un choc ; non seulement la Chine est la prochaine superpuissance économique, mais l'ordre mondial qu'elle bâtira sera très différent de ce que nous avons connu sous le leadership américain.
L'Amérique et l'Europe croient naïvement que la Chine leur ressemblera de plus en plus au fur et à mesure de son développement et de l'augmentation du niveau de vie de sa population. Selon Jacques, c'est un mirage. Les Chinois et leur gouvernement ont une autre conception de la politique et de la société, reposant sur la communauté plutôt que sur l'individu, attribuant un rôle central à l'Etat plutôt que libérale, autoritaire plutôt que démocratique. La Chine a 2000 ans d'Histoire en tant que civilisation propre, et elle peut en tirer de la force. Elle ne va pas simplement se fondre dans les valeurs et les institutions occidentales.
Jacques estime qu'un ordre mondial centré sur la Chine verra les valeurs chinoises remplacer les valeurs occidentales. Pékin éclipsera New-York, le renminbi remplacera le dollar, le mandarin dépassera l'anglais et partout dans le monde ont parlera aux écoliers des voyages d'exploration de Zheng He le long de la côte est de l'Afrique, plutôt que de ceux de Vasco de Gama ou de Christophe Colomb.
L'évangile de l'économie de marché et de la démocratie aura fait long feu. La Chine interviendra probablement moins dans les affaires intérieures des autres pays, mais exigera qu'ils reconnaissent explicitement sa primauté (exactement comme dans le passé avec les systèmes tributaires).
Pour en arriver là, la Chine devra poursuivre sa croissance économique rapide et maintenir sa cohésion sociale et son unité politique. Il n'est pas sûre qu'elle y parvienne. Car les inégalités, les tensions importantes et les clivages qui couvent sous la formidable dynamo économique chinoise pourraient faire dérailler sa progression régulière vers une position d'hégémonie mondiale. Tout au long de son Histoire, des forces centrifuges l'ont souvent poussé vers le désordre ou sur la voie de l'éclatement.
La stabilité de la Chine repose entièrement sur la capacité de son gouvernement à faire bénéficier l'ensemble de la population des revenus générés par ses avancées économiques. Elle est le seul pays au monde à considérer année après année qu'une croissance inférieure à 8% est dangereuse, car susceptible de conduire à des troubles sociaux. Dans sa grande majorité, le reste du monde se contente de rêver d'une croissance aussi rapide - ce qui en dit long sur la fragilité sous-jacente du système chinois.
Au cœur de cette fragilité se trouve la nature autoritaire du régime. Elle n'autorise que la répression quand le gouvernement est confronté à des revendications ou à une opposition qui s'exprime hors des canaux établis.
Or il va être de plus en plus difficile à la Chine de maintenir le type de croissance qu'elle a connu ces dernières années, qui repose sur une devise sous-évaluée et un énorme surplus commercial. Cette situation ne pourra être maintenue à long terme, car tôt ou tard elle conduira à une confrontation majeure avec les USA (et l'Europe ). Il n'est pas facile de sortir de ce dilemme. La Chine devra probablement accepter une croissance moins importante.
Si elle surmonte ces difficultés et devient la première puissance économique de la planète, la mondialisation prendra alors une teinte chinoise. La démocratie et les droits de l'homme perdront sans doute leur rang de norme universelle. C'est le revers de la médaille.
Il y aura néanmoins un élément positif : un ordre mondial chinois sera plus respectueux des souverainetés nationales et plus tolérant à l'égard de la diversité au niveau national. Il sera plus facile d'y expérimenter différents modèles économiques.
Dani Rodrik, professeur d’économie politique à la John F. Kennedy School of Government de l’université d’Harvard, est le premier lauréat du prix Albert O. Hirschman du Social Science Research Council. Son dernier livre s’intitule One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
www.project-syndicate.org
Traduit de l’anglais par Patrice Horovitz
You might also like to read more from Dani Rodrik or return to our home page.
|
|
Nico 02:35 13 Jan 10
China's rise to a global power is certainly the event of the twenty-first century; however, will China become hegemonic is another matter entirely, one has to remember the meaning of hegemony, defined by Gramsci as 'moral and intellectual leadership'. Firstly, I think it is a bit naive to believe that China will benevolently allow countries to 'experiment' with 'different economic models' that run counter to the economic interests of the Chinese economy. We have to remember the famous dictum from List and reiterated by Chang that successful capitalist states tend to 'kick away the ladder'; ergo, for China to become hegemonic it will have to theorize a economic theory that legitimizes an economic system that is perceived, and is to some extent, in the interests of both parties, i.e., neoclassical economics for the UK and the US. Secondly, I do not think China really has to look outside its borders to create a congenial global economy, it is so vast that internal differences in income and development will create, within China, a recreated mini-global economy and the problems associated with that will take up much of the CCP's time.
Read more of my thoughts at:
http://perspectivos.blogspot.com/
SS 07:30 13 Jan 10
The Chinese will be a considerably better international partner if we are polite to them. No, I am not kidding! Though this appers difficult for many Americans, especially those on the right, concerned as they are with their own masculity, it is essential to good diplomacy. And yes, it can include bowing as the case may be.
SS
sansonj 04:42 15 Jan 10
This is a very good article. However, there is only one model that has worked. The Free Market. Hence, China will fall. Look at China as a Kingdom with a King and Queen, and peasants with little grass huts around the kingdom. We all know that model has already faired. The King cannot take all o the wealth for him. China will not become a world power. It is not them moving the cheese, but we the greedy and stupid western people looking for cheap labor. China has a ton of problems. The western societies must keep their Nukes ready and advanced. China is not a historical warring nation/people, but they have a massive number of people, so we need to be able to prevent an attack by them. I do not fear them, but I respect what they can do. Now, the western countries should be wise and move the cheese of production to other third world counties, and make China make it on its own. Why do we not see made in Mexico? I go to Target and 9 out of 10 things are made in China. Why not 1 out of 10, and then have 9 other countries showing up in Target, etc. If we move the cheese China will stumble. The GOVT will not like stumbling, but the people will not care as most of the wealth is in the GOVT and not in the people.
sansonj 04:50 15 Jan 10
The Chinese will be a considerably better international partner if we are polite to them. No, I am not kidding! Though this appers difficult for many Americans, especially those on the right, concerned as they are with their own masculity, it is essential to good diplomacy. And yes, it can include bowing as the case may be.
SS
Where did this come from? We have morals, ethics, and laws. I know with our failed regulations on the Dem Rule over the last 10 years has lead us to this point. Yes, it was not Bush running our country- it was a majority Dem power in the Senate and Congress, and now a super majority ready to come crashing. Still I say this because you speak of the Right. We should have never given China so much Cheese. We did it out of stupidity. I am sure some thought it would cause them to become western. I do not want China to become anything, but what the people china want it to be. The people know if they really want change the country does not have enough people to kill them off, so they need to take over their country. This message needs to make it on the streets of China like you know the false claims in the USA with Obama. Yes, Mr leftist look at all of his promises, and then please tell me how many has he kept in 25% of his career as President? I would stretch to say his 50% mark, because after year two he will be focusing on the election in 2012. How many things did he hold true too and how many things did he say you know what I said those things to just get in office. Be real. I am critical of both sides.
ASHEESH1963 08:24 19 Jan 10
I was planning for myself a similiar article a fortnight ago. I shall summarize my thoughts which can then be matched with this one for reaching some conclusion.
The evolutionary nature of countries and civilizations is no different from species. However it is not just survival of the fittest but also some extra evolutionary traits gained by the population over the years. Thus the Japanese ruled the electronic markets of the world, the Germans - machinery and the French - wine for years; not just a fluke. Somewhere the joie de vivre of the French matched with the Wine they produced, somewhere the urge for perfection of the Gremans compelled them to make the best machinery and small is beautiful theory of the Japanese briought the best semiconductor gadgets in the world. Of courrse the Americans gained by a mix traits of immigrant population which bought the best from around the world.
As it is known that the rise and fall of civilizations and countries is attached to thier economic growth and development China offers some good dose for thoughts. Will they ? is the paramount question raging in the most brilliant brains and strategic centers around the globe. The Chinese have reached this position because of their disciplined work force which is unmatched anywhere. No country can offer such a ideal work force for manufacturing industry and hence China has become the global manufacturer. However manufacturing is just one aspect of the the growing economic growth. The economic booom has to be followed by intellectual and other free thoughts which the country seriously lacks.
Therefore it is no one's guess that the future of China relies or rather is contrained by these factors. Does that answers the question raised by Doni Rodrik...i think so...mail me at asheesh.shah@gmail.com
aks..
Janey 06:24 22 Jan 10
A Chinese global order will not be pretty. The Chinese 'federalist' internal order is not pretty. 'Tolerance for national diversity'? Are we talking about the same China here??
The Chinese (eg: in China) believe that they are the natural rulers of humanity and that their culture and ethos is superior to any other - and to be fair, some elements are indeed superb. Make no mistake though, our British-American-Anglo notion of 'fair play' is a cultural construct; it is not shared by most other peoples - hence some of the intractable miscommunication in our Middle East adventures.... Other cultures have other (sometimes noble) values. Fair play is certainly not part of Chinese culture - which is all about hierarchy. New China will expect respect, obesiance and some form of tithing from its subjects and in the future will have the power to extract it.
As for an increased respect for 'national sovereingty': 'National sovereignty' looks good on paper but in many despotic regimes one has to probe who comprises 'the nation'. Often it is a small powerful enforcer group that makes exploitative decisions that we democratic peoples then confuse with the voice of the nation. Really, just what is the value of 'national sovereignty' without 'human rights'? At best it is a way to keep enough order so that the refugee problem doesn't land in our (Western) cities....Surely, we can aim a little higher than that...
The Chinese are in the midst of re-colonizing Africa, which is not surprising given the Chinese history of contempt toward Blacks. Mark my words: within 30 years there will be large colonies of ethnic Chinese in Africa, gradually repopulating AIDS-stricken areas and mining the continent for all its natural resources. I think the genocide in Darfur is the calling-card for China's future presence in Africa.
If you think this post is racist, talk to some African-Americans about their experiences with Chinese (émigré) landlords! Or talk to the American-Chinese grandchildren about their grandparents' views....Racism is not unique to Whites.
siburay 08:01 08 Feb 10
Chinese believe in their superiority, ergo, chinese rule will not be pretty. Americans also believe in their superiority (and believe that they are exempt from laws the mere mortals are subject to). But American rule is pretty. Ever heard the term - hypocrite!!
Oh yes, US believes in fair play. My my my. US is the only country that ever used Nuclear weapon on civilians, without any good reason. Yet, it believes that other countries do not have right to possess nuclear arms. What a comic relief!!
usersuz 11:54 10 Feb 10
I would add two thoughts: (1) What will happen when China's plans for development run smack up against its looming environmental crisis (water)? (2) What do you call 30 million young Chinese men without wives? I call that a standing army, and an expendable one, too.
miga74 12:55 17 Jan 11
There is no doubt that China is gearing up towards super powerdom. China is making manufacturing everything thing from teddy bears & junk toys for Christmas to sophisticated machinery. The chinese companies have clearly defined objectives and work on following lines
1) Priority-1 -> gain for China i.e country comes first (western multinational would not be able to interpret this since their objective is shareholders come 1st then the CEO and then the rest )
2) Priority-2 -> Gain for the organization (Internal share holding pattern and balance sheets of most of the Chinese companies are not exposed nor publicly available so no one knows the real valuation)
3) Priority-3 -> Personal gains if any ( if country dominates the world the company benefits and hence the employee gains)
The one comment which I find hard to agree is that China would respect the sovereignity of other countries across the world. Under the guise of friendship China backstabbed and militarily attacked India in 1962. Even after four decades China does not respect the Macmohan line which is supposed to the line of control and stakes claims on Indian territory of Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh.
Large sections of Indian territory were gifted by Pakistan to China and China continues to hold sections of Paskistan occupied Kashmir. Infact only last week the Chinese Army made an incursion into Ladakh and stopped work on a road project.
Tibet which was an autonomous region has been gobbled up by China and the tibetians are refugees in their own country with settling the ethinic Chinese HAN population from other parts of China into Tibet.
The Chinese have built railways & military bases in Tibet to attack India. China is supporting terror states such as Pakistan, North Korea and flexing its muscles against Japan, India, South Korea, Cambodia.
The chinese policy of "string of pearls" to strangulate India's influence in the Indian Ocean is well known fact.
The world is romantically visualising China as a shaolin monk but there is actually a dragon which is lurking beneath the garb ready to breath fire and annihilate the naive believers.
Mind my words the world would realize the real nature of Chinese after loosing their core capabilities of manufacturing & industry to the chinese under the garb of low cost manufacturing and there would be no point of return. Just remember .....Chengiz Kahn did not stop world domination out of choice but due to physical ailments......So also China would only stop when its repressed population gives rise to a new revolution .....
Pmcdonald 06:02 01 Nov 11
Remember that the US only began to advocate a free market economically liberal world order when it took over from Britain. Presumably because being the biggest economy and having the biggest companies and deepest capital pools puts you at an advantage in a system of free movement of capital and trade. Exactly as Britain had concluded before. And likely the same as China will conclude in future.
What exactly is Jaques reasoning for China reverting to its pre-modern modus operandi? Just because that's what it did before...or does he have some other compelling insight?
hsgross 04:38 12 Jan 10
An interesting conclusion. But will it come to pass? The big supposition here is that China will not have an economic crash (which Rodrik rightly states will lead to great internal turmoil, but he should also have noted that continued economic growth is the only staning pillar supporting the PRCs legitimacy to rule) and will not become embroiled in a major military crisis (there is a high possiblity for military crisis, not only given the historical conflicts with Japan and Germany, but also and especially given the PRC's stance on Taiwan and the status of various other ongoing border disputes).
In a recent article for the NYT, Chanos is quite bearish on China's economy (http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108534/contrarian-investor-sees-economic-crash-in-china;_ylt=Aq7.0P9.KR94jTY4uh.OgN.7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bjRsb25wBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjb250cmFyaWFuaW4-?sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=)
In a recent article for Project Syndicate, Mark DeWeaver points to economic overcapacity in a similar vein as Chanos, though with different conclusions (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deweaver2).
My general sense is that China will not replace the West because its model does not provide the individual with the same degree of hope and opportunity as the Western liberal model.
Ian Buruma's article from last week for Project Syndicate, "A Dissident in China" is a great follow-up read to Rodrik's column: (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/buruma33).