Roads to Prosperity
¿Gobernará China al mundo?
Dani Rodrik
|
|
|
|
CAMBRIDGE – Hace treinta años, China tenía muy poco peso en la economía global y escasa influencia fuera de sus fronteras, excepto unos pocos países con los que tenía estrechas relaciones políticas y militares. Hoy el país es una notable potencia económica: es el taller de manufactura del mundo, su principal financista, un inversionista importante en todo el mundo, desde África a América Latina y, cada vez más, una fuente importante de investigación y desarrollo.
El gobierno chino posee un inmenso nivel de reservas en moneda extranjera: más de 2 billones de dólares. No hay ningún área productiva en el mundo que no haya sentido el efecto de China, ya sea como proveedor de bajo coste o, lo que es más amenazante, como un formidable competidor.
China es todavía un país pobre. Aunque los ingresos promedio han aumentado muy rápidamente en las últimas décadas, todavía son entre un séptimo y un octavo de los niveles de los Estados Unidos: menores que en Turquía y Colombia, y no mucho más altos que en El Salvador o Egipto. Si bien la China costera y sus principales metrópolis muestran una enorme riqueza, grandes áreas de China occidental siguen sumidas en la pobreza. No obstante, se proyecta que la economía de China supere en tamaño a la de EE.UU. en algún momento de las próximas dos décadas.
Mientras tanto, Estados Unidos, la única superpotencia mundial hasta hace poco, sigue como un gigante debilitado y humillado por sus errores de política exterior y una enorme crisis financiera. Su credibilidad después de la desastrosa invasión de Irak está en un punto bajísimo, a pesar de la simpatía global que inspira el Presidente Barack Obama, y su modelo económico está hecho trizas. El dólar, antes todopoderoso, tiembla a merced de China y los países petroleros.
Todo esto plantea la interrogante de si China terminará por reemplazar a Estados Unidos como potencia hegemónica mundial que define y aplica las reglas de la economía global. En un fascinante libro publicado recientemente que tiene el revelador título de When China Rules the World (Cuando China gobierne el mundo), el académico y periodista británico Martin Jacques no deja dudas: si alguien piensa que China se integrará sin problemas a un sistema mundial liberal, capitalista y democrático, argumenta, le espera una gran sorpresa. China no es sólo la próxima superpotencia económica, sino que el orden mundial que construirá lucirá muy diferente al que teníamos EE.UU.
Los estadounidenses y europeos suponen ingenuamente que China se volverá más como ellos a medida que su economía se desarrolle y su población sea más rica. Jacques advierte que eso es una ilusión. Los chinos y su gobierno tienen una concepción distinta de la sociedad y la política: se centran en la comunidad más que en el individuo, en el estado más que en un sistema liberal, en el autoritarismo más que en la democracia. China tiene 2000 años de historia como civilización con características propias de los cuales sacar fuerzas. No se doblegará sencillamente bajo los valores e instituciones occidentales.
Un orden mundial centrado en China reflejará valores chinos más que occidentales, plantea Jacques. Beijing opacará a Nueva York, el renminbi reemplazará al dólar, el mandarín superará al inglés, y los niños de todo el mundo aprenderán sobre los viajes de descubrimiento de Zheng He por la costa oriental de África, en lugar de sobre Vasco de Gama o Cristóbal Colón.
Desaparecerá el evangelio de los mercados y la democracia. Es mucho menos probable que China intervenga en los asuntos internos de los estados soberanos. Sin embargo, a su vez exigirá a los estados más pequeños y menos poderosos un reconocimiento explícito de la primacía de China (igual que en los sistemas tributarios de la antigüedad).
No obstante, antes de que cualquiera de estas cosas pueda ocurrir, China tendrá que proseguir su rápido crecimiento económico y mantener su cohesión social y unidad política. Nada de eso es seguro. Bajo el potente dínamo económico chino subyacen profundas tensiones, desigualdades y brechas que bien podrían descarrilar su avance hacia a la hegemonía global. En su larga historia, a menudo las fuerzas centrífugas han empujado al país al caos y la desintegración.
La estabilidad de China depende de manera fundamental de la capacidad de su gobierno de alcanzar logros económicos constantes de los que pueda beneficiarse la mayoría de su población. Es el único país del mundo donde se cree que cualquier cifra inferior al 8% de crecimiento año tras año pude ser peligrosa por su potencial de desencadenar conflictos sociales. La mayor parte del resto del mundo no puede más que soñar con ese índice de crecimiento, lo que dice mucho sobre la fragilidad subyacente al sistema chino.
La naturaleza autoritaria del régimen político está en la raíz de su fragilidad. Sólo responde con represión cuando el gobierno enfrenta protestas y oposición fuera de los canales establecidos.
El problema es que se volverá cada vez más difícil para China mantener el tipo de crecimiento que ha tenido en los últimos años. En la actualidad, su crecimiento depende de una moneda subvaluada y un enorme superávit comercial. Esto es insostenible, y tarde o temprano precipitará una confrontación de proporciones con Estados Unidos (y Europa). No hay salidas fáciles para este dilema, y probablemente China deba adaptarse a un menor crecimiento.
Si supera estos obstáculos y termina por convertirse en la potencia económica predominante, la globalización adquirirá características chinas. Es probable que la democracia y los derechos humanos pierdan su brillo como normas globales. Esas son malas noticias.
La buena noticia es que un orden global chino mostrará más respeto por la soberanía nacional y más tolerancia a la diversidad nacional, lo que dará más espacio a la experimentación con diferentes modelos económicos.
Dani Rodrik, Profesor de Economía Política de la Escuela John F. Kennedy de la Universidad de Harvard, es la primera persona en recibir el Premio Albert O. Hirschman del Consejo de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales. Su último libro es One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
www.project-syndicate.org
Traducido del inglés por David Meléndez Tormen
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).