The Year Ahead 2016

输出中国模式

Jan 12, 2016 Francis Fukuyama

斯坦福—随着2016的到来，一场发展模式——即促进经济增长的战略的历史竞争已经上路。这场竞争的一边是中国，另一边是美国和其他西方国家。尽管这场竞争鲜为大众所知，但其结果将决定未来几十年欧亚大部的命运。

大部分西方人都看到，中国增长大幅放缓，从最近几十年的每年10%以上下降到现在的7%以下（也许还要低）。中国领导人并未坐以待毙，而是在试图加快从基于重型制造业的出口导向型、环境破坏型增长模式转向基于国内消费和服务的新模式的转变。

但中国的计划存在着一个规模极大的外部维度。2013年，中国国家主席习近平宣布启动一项规模巨大的工程——“一带一路”，这一工程将改变欧亚的经济核心。“一带”由从中国西部开始途经西亚、连接欧洲、中东和南亚的铁路组成。名字有些奇怪“一路”由一系列港口设施组成，以增加东亚海运量，将这些国家与“一带”联系起来，让它们能够实现商品的陆运，而不是像现在那样需要穿越两个大洋。

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 46 Comments on this article

Stuart Finlay Jul 3, 2017

It appears China wants the US on board with the One Road, One Belt Initative and Trump has been meeting with Chinese Officials in the last week regarding this
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Delia Ruhe Nov 13, 2016

No nation in the history of humankind has ever proposed or carried out such a huge and complicated project as OBOR, and no doubt China is very much aware that the project will generate countless problems, anticipated and not. But development on such a grand scale cannot help but act as a contrast to America’s destruction on a grand scale — overt and covert wars without exit strategies, a regular program of drone assassinations, a huge foreign aid package in support of the ongoing violence in Palestine and any place else in the Levant that Israel sees fit to interfere with militarily.

In other words, while China invites the world to be founding members in the AIIB for investment in people and places that have been long neglected in Asia, Washington continues to grossly over-capitalize its gigantic forces of destruction at expense of desperately needed domestic revitalisation of people and property while it whines about its vassal states that refuse to follow that example and bulk up on standing armies and war toys. Moreover, as the TPP and the TIPP illustrate, Washington does not negotiate trade deals in the spirit of economics but rather, as a weapon of “containment” in the service of shoring up its tattered hegemony.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rokon Zaman Oct 11, 2016

Is there any difference between the ways China and the USA are governed? China's policy making and implementation agencies are blended together as the Government. On the other hand, America's police making is done in a series of Think Tanks, primarily located along Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, D.C. The Government Chosen by Americans by casting votes is the implementation agency of those policies. As a result, although Government changes, but each Government keeps working on same set of broad policies prescribed by those Think tanks. As a result, both autocratic and democratic Governments of these two countries have strong parallel. Democracies with weak Think Tanks for policy research are very vulnerable to policy attacks from these two nations--as each of these nations is maximizing self interest, often at the cost of smaller nations. It's time for developing nations to invest in policy research to intelligent pick options offered by these two countries or any other party.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bing De La Vega Oct 9, 2016

The questions lingering in my mind are; Can capitalism thrive with communism? Or, can communism survive capitalism? Seems water and oil to me. Further, somewhere along that "one road-one belt" model is that no matter what peoples of the world do when accepting China's carrots it that humans just do not want to be caged such China has done to Tibet, North Korea and few ASEAN countries that has rendered themselves subservient to China's bribe-scheme model of leaders such Han Sen's Cambodia together with Laos - totalitarianism such is China's. China is being ruined by its own government when irresponsible manufacturing plants casually dump toxic waste nearby given tehre are no real oversight, watchdogs if you will to making sure the environment - the air, the soil and water pools beneath are being protected. Government agencies in China are truly reactive and often destruction, damaging results have become common. Take that massive explosion in Tinajin that bombed thousands of imported personal and industrial vehicles, demolished buildings and its port because the firms were merely front of the massive China Incorporated with meaningless monitoring controls.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emilio Zuniga Jan 20, 2016

Chinese leadership is obsessed with showing to the Western World a different model of democracy and now a model of global growth. However there is no indication that building roads, ports, railways from China to Central Asia, is much different of what in its time the World Bank did all over Latin America, Asia, India, that now continues to be built in the public-private-partnership . Also nowhere is to find Chinese investment in manufacture in the emerging economies, but a lot in resource based projects. The “Model” is the wish to be different in a world than more and more we all look alike. It appears somewhat like some Americans (Obama) that think they are “special”.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jan 19, 2016

China'S approach to its own economic development mimics the European powers' imperialistic models of the 16th through 18th centuries, and to some extent the visionary U.S. Federal-Aid Highway Program which commenced in 1916, putting in place the physical communications infrastructure needed to spur private sector investment and development, with the milestones of Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 and Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, according to Wikipedia. The Western World's appropriate development model shouldbe more democratic and creative, and should articulate all multilateral entities having to do with socioeconomic development with their governmental and private counterparts, under private sector leadership, to ensure comprehensive inclusive and environmentally friendly results that are permanent: https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999
- Enrique Woll Battistini Jan 20, 2016
  
  The need for new models for socioeconomic development would stem from the failure of governance models and the consequent widening of welfare gaps between the haves and have nots across the social strata throughout the globe, and such new models by force must creatively address the leveling of the welfare of all peoples through fiscal policy that establishes consumption safety nets that ensure fair national income distribution:
  
  https://www.academia.edu/19773066/OFA_-_At_the_Brink_of_Recovery_or_Conflagration_-_The_World_at_a_Tipping_Point_-_2011111503
  
  Further, the new models for socioeconomic development should be implemented within the context of new inclusiveness indexes that allow the optimization of such consumption safety nets that ensure the fair distribution of national incomes:
  
  https://www.academia.edu/18040396/Living_in_Peru_-_Uses_and_Limitations_of_Michael_Greene_s_Social_Progress_Index_SPI_for_Development_-_2015102202
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Florian Pantazi Jan 19, 2016

I think that your interpretation of China's "One Belt, One Road" efforts is flawed, primarily because you are approaching such megatrends with a Western intellectual frame of mind.

Whilst there definitely is a "Western model" of development (promotion of open markets, free trade and democracy mainly benefiting Western corporations), which has been imposed over the last three decades on emerging countries via the IMF, World Bank,etc, there is NO Chinese competing model. As the largest country and economy in Eurasia and the second largest economy in the world, China is naturally trying to build up rail and road links across the continent in a bid to cut transportation time and improve market access for its products and industries. China is not, however, trying to impose a specific political system on its neighbours or to attach strings other than performance-related ones to the loans it extends to Eurasian states.

The Chinese approach to the country's economic expansion is more geographically-focused than the global brand of capitalism promoted by the West so far. The Chinese are developing Eurasian infrastructure by building on the old Silk Road trade route tradition going back thousands of years. It makes both economic and geopolitical sense and, therefore, has little chance of failing.

The competition, however, is not between two different development models, but between Chinese pragmatism vs. Western ideology and adventurism applied to economic matters.

American decision-makers would do well to start regarding Eurasia as China's natural home market, not as as a continent where they can hope to compete on equal footing against its leading country. Such an approach could save American taxpayers a lot of money and the world at large a lot of trouble.
- hari naidu Jan 23, 2016
  
  @ Florian Pantazi
  It's interesting what you've to comment here; trends in history of ideas tend sometimes to collide for various reasons. American Exceptionalism is the stuff of Ivy League Schools in America ( disclosure: I graduated from Bay Area!).
  In my time, Fukuyama was a Rand Corp consultant or staff. And Rand itself grew out of strategic service to Pentagon and US Air Force....
  Mainland China is coming from a very different set of revolutionary creed (Mao's)& class orientation which literally may contradict & challenge US notion of global hegemony, since end of WWII.
  Is it good of bad that we've the emergence of a Sino-Centric thinking impacting global trade & development? I think it will be a positive contribution to a more peaceful & EQUITABLE WORLD.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Schreiner Jan 18, 2016

Joining the AIIB is a laudable goal, regardless of the rationale. Cooperation in the human endeavor with China will pay huge dividends with everyone.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Florin Pasatoiu Jan 18, 2016

Superficial and trivial analysis!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hugh Fullerton Jan 18, 2016

I found this article very helpful in understanding the recent China strategy. It would be unfair, however, to find that development strategies are indeed competing, because that suggests a zero sum game. Bringing the underdeveloped countries of Central Asia into middle class status can only be good for most of the world. It also is unfair to the Western countries to expect similar benefits from infrastructure development. The West already has reliable power, generally modern roads, etc., At present, the main need of many Western countries is to maintain facilities that are many decades hold, and in danger of deterioration. This suggests different roles for government and the private sector.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
NM Wander Jan 18, 2016

It is interesting to follow the development and expansion of the AIIB. I believe Mr. Fukayama has made some valid observations about the manuevering between China+AIIB and West+IMF+World Bank.
As I see it.........China's International Development Strategy simply means.."colonization".
China follows the time proven principals of colonization, extraction of raw materials, shipped back to China, value added products manufactured and then shipped back to expanding markets in the colonies!!
This is exactly what Europe and America have done in the past. Since WW2, when the competing colonial empires nearly collapsed due to economic exhaustion, America assumed leadership of the colonial empires.
The Post WW2 era was dominated completely by USA, as we commandeered all the British colonial outposts and attempted to control the French outposts throughout the world.
Similar to China....the USA established giant financial structures to control development of its colonies in Europe, in SouthEast Asia, in India, in Taiwan, in Japan, in the Middle East.
A new era began when two planes hit the WTC in 2001.
Since that time, the USA has been feverishly denying that the world balance has changed. We still frame the world as a clash between Capitalism/Socialism and Communism/Socialism.
We still insist on defending archaic colonial structures that no longer support the Mother Country...ie USA.
We still insist that the rest of the world secretly wants to be american.
We ignore a present need to improve and strengthen ties with our neighbors, Mexico and Cuba....insisting that any withdrawal from World Domination be shamefully called "isolationist".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Lloyd-Jones Jan 18, 2016

"As 2016 begins, an historic contest is underway over competing development models ..." writes Fukuyama, now into his second generation as a master of the witless, formulaic slogan school of universe mastery.

Uh, no. China continues for the moment with its moderately successful path of mixed economy industrialization. Like Japan in the 1960's, it faces the fact that the low hanging fruit of moving your peasantry into heavy industry is pretty much over.

Does Fukuyama hae anything to add? I don't know: why would anyone read such a silly article any further?

-dlj.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bob Bronson Jan 18, 2016

So Terrorism emerges at the supposed End of History and now we have this not-new vision as the Chinese Bubble is busting. Some people try too hard to think linearly out of the box ignoring what is cyclically developing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
edward goldberg Jan 17, 2016

Ironically the Chinese model that Professor Fukuyama describes in the American Hamiltonian/Whig /Lincoln model updated for globalization.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Manfred Nitsch Jan 17, 2016

The Chinese internal model is based on "Guanxi Economics" with its very special role of the Communist Party as a self-proclaimed one-party-vanguard institution which - in the economy - substitutes the financial system in democratic-capitalist societies. CP's Central Committee and the fledgling financial system's Central Bank are struggling for hegemony. Not really a model for other countries. Manfred Nitsch Freie Universitaet Berlin
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 17, 2016

This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The guy who claimed “The End of History” now tells us that a new social and economic model is rising in the East and challenging Western political, social, and economic hegemony. No doubt true. However, that should be a rather strong hint that history didn’t end and then endpoint of human development isn’t capitalist liberal democracy.

Of course, this isn’t exactly news and even Francis Fukuyama has recognized that the institutions of the West aren’t thriving (“America in Decay”). In this very article Fukuyama notes “At the same time, the US and other Western countries need to ask themselves why infrastructure has become so difficult to build, not just in developing countries but at home as well.”

What is missing is some rather necessary humility and remorse on Fukuyama’s part. Western elites persist with failed policies in no small measure because of an intense sense of Western superiority and triumphalism. Like it or not, Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis played a significant role in promoting the elite arrogance that wounds America and Europe. Some sense of personal shame on Fukuyama’s part should be mandatory.

It would also help if Fukuyama was a bit more blunt in stating that the core ideologies of the cosmopolitan elite don’t work. Yes, the implied criticism of

“In recent years, by contrast, US and European development strategy has focused on large investments in public health, women’s empowerment, support for global civil society, and anti-corruption measures”

is no doubt justified. However, something more direct (“the social justice agenda doesn’t work”) is badly needed. It is also helpful for Fukuyama to argue that large-scale investments in real infrastructure have worked well

“China’s infrastructure-based strategy has worked remarkably well in China itself, and was an important component of the strategies pursued by other East Asian countries, from Japan to South Korea to Singapore.”

However, something more along the lines of “financial capitalism has failed” is needed.

However, the real problem is deeper. When Fukuyama wrote the “End of History” he wasn’t simply foolishly identifying a contemporary trend as something universal and historic (although that is true). He was expressing his own personal political preferences. At the end of the day, Fukuyama can’t condemn the failed ideologies of the Western cosmopolitan elite because they are his ideologies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stefan Siewert Jan 17, 2016

Brilliant analyses, connecting the dots.
One might add: Chinese model was as much the result of technological revolution (transport and IT) and innovation of US companies, outsourcing labour-intensive, and later, capital- and environmental intensive labour. The Chinese economy is integrated into global values chains, rather part of networks than competitive.
Dumb lack plays a role, less strategic planning capacities.
Furthermore, peak manufacturing is a global phenomenon (Ethiopia might be the last country where the share was increasing until recently). No investment can revive activities if there is no demand, see the West's experience of White elephants projects in the developing world during the 1960-ies.
Additionally, the latest technological wave seems neither to benefit China's current growth model nor its transition to a consumer-let one. Finally, there was not a major institutional alignment and change in the governing elite for 70 years. While China's per capita GDP was stagnating at around 600 USD from 1700 to 1950, it increased tenfold since this time. This is impressive and record beating, but points to vulnerabilities.
To sum up, China is innovative in disseminating its growth model, and there is a certain niche to be taken. On the other hand, a lot of headwinds and limited growth potential for the economy under extreme stress. At the moment it is difficult to see a growth trajectory that allows to continue the current dynamic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ismaila A. Hassan Jan 17, 2016

It would have been wise had it been US had joined AIIB with a founding member status. China had to be checkmated as they unfolded One belt One road across Eurasia. Chinese policies do jeopardize environment and human rights, and US is in the position to police such issues against China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
C Jared Jan 17, 2016

Francis,
Good read. Very insightful. And I concede the way you approach the topic is excellent for discussion. However, I dispute the existence of a "China Model". They did not invent investing in capital projects as a development tool. The west has been doing this intermittently for centuries. Symbols of which include the Brooklyn bridge, Erie canal, and all those terrible brutalist buildings all over North America from the 70s. Remember the inflation and government deficits that resulted from that period?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vince McGinty Jan 17, 2016

The argument that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is exporting the Chinese development model is a provocative construct, but not compelling. The ultimate purpose of the AIIB is to extend China's political and economic power by building supportive regional infrastructure. The funding for these projects will come from hundreds of billions of dollars of loans made to nations that will have enormous difficulties paying them back. If the loans are paid back, China wins. If the loans aren't paid back, China gets to decide the terms by which debtor nations continue to access global financial markets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
suzanne p goard Jan 17, 2016

Fukuyama stimulated thoughtful conversation through his observations. The diverse strategies of nations is fashioned, understandably to their historical stance. 'Success' is subjective to objectives that , after all, are not commonly shared. The one indisputable factor is the destruction of our planet by pollution.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
LAXMIDHAR N BHOLA Jan 17, 2016

Unless there is a 'globally acceptable balancing model is discovered'-that "contain mulktiple currency basket" ,unexpected market crash and 'gatCrashing warfare wont last for long. How long the 'USD can manage through hide and seek and sheer manipulation to handle 'its own deficitsb and 'global policing? China is unstoppable, whatever it has achieved, ok to maneuver 'expediting /penetrating into other economies to integrate with/through its own currencies'. Singular model 'to balance 'global trading /global investment through a single currency may not last long!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lawrence Michael Jan 17, 2016

Differing perceptions based upon different cognitive realities lead to such positions. China follows a different model - hence it's structural imperatives are different. Now between development - one could follow a Arnold model or a Rocky model or a Chuck Norris model or a Bruce Lee model - to offer cinematic fare. Yet starting a Rocky model, the others move around principles closer to the Chinese culture or the Japanese culture while Arnold alone would represent the so-called western model. To put it as crudely as the broad brush strokes of the article are.
Within any model - between what seems attractive and what isn't is a more bread & butter question than cosmetics & beauty treatment questions. China self-confessedly is a developing economy as well as society. Yet by being that it's successes at its domestic front remain it's more attractive features than starving states like India that offers huge aid as an International donor. A foolishness no rational actor will undertake. It remains true that China is seeking an intelligent actor role rather than a rational actor role in world affairs. Though a futuristic concept - with discussions veering around its shape and nature, like one saw once about the European Union, China can herald a positive alternative simply because it too is a sui generis model. That is working for China even when it is at the developing stage. Already remarkable for it to present a credible alternative for growth and mutual prosperity. What Mr. Fukuyama misses is this subtle but vital shift of emphasis: from a rational to an intelligent actor in world affairs. Very interesting development with a warm sense of anticipation.
- C Jared Jan 17, 2016
  
  Micheal, you make very good points. And China certainly has progressed considerably, and must be given credit for that. However, you are giving them too much credit. Both for their economic success and foreign policy success. They do not represent a viable model, they represent an under developed western model. Look at all 8 points for reform, hukou reform is not different from mobility of labour achieved with the EU for example.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Campbell Jan 17, 2016

One more scholar who finds it easiest to adopt rote "analysis" from outdated politicians and avoid, ignore, the realities of history and culture. Even the substructure of China's foreign aid policy post-revolution puts the lie to the larger theme - "everyone has to think and act like the leading imperial power of the century".

Rail links and traffic from nation to nation are not mirrors of the nation which links military bases from nation to nation around the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
gerald sinclair Jan 17, 2016

As usual Fukuyama is spot on with his analysis. There really can only be one winner as one is concentrating on basics and the other on 'feel good' peripheries with signs of sliding into another intellectual dark age. The only potential saving grace for the West is new technology otherwise the much more pragmatic Asians will become the new benchmark.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Asif Faiz Jan 17, 2016

Prototypes of the Chinese model have been applied in several countries, notably Angola,Sudan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. It appears China has learnt some important lessons from these experiences . The next big test of the Chinese model is Pakistan with an envisaged Chinese investment of $43 billion, primarily in energy and transport infrastructure. The leading edge of this intervention is infrastructure but China is also engaged as a long-term stakeholder in the country's economic prosperity and stability.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joshua Ioji Konov Jan 17, 2016

Excellent conclusions, indeed! Influence comes with development and opportunities - even it should be no competition between the West and East - whoever brings to the underdeveloped world opportunities is going to 'win', but even further, the need for a global reduction of pollution comes hand-in-hand with the alleviation of poverty, and only by prompting controlled development such is achievable!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Leo Arouet Jan 14, 2016

Excelente artículo. Definitivamente el modelo de desarrollo impulsado por China es original. Desde hace algunos años, el modelo de desarrollo chino se ha estado internacionalizando; los ejemplos de dicha inversión son los países de África donde la nación ha invertido miles de millones y sus empresas parecen estar en todas partes. China ha prometido a América Latina 250.000 millones de dólares en inversiones directas para 2023.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jan 14, 2016

The Bretton Woods Institutions had limitations - that China Development Banks comprehended perfectly.
And they plugged the gaps with The State - Infrastructure linkages with Value creation was perhaps the key.
The consequential Real Estate wealth created rivals that created in the Stock Markets.
Global Capital destinations within China seemed limited to The Pacific Coastal Belt.
The Beijing Institutions were able to overcome this limitation of Bretton Woods Institutions too.
Democratization of wealth spread to Real Estate in Chongqing, Chengdu, Changsha, Changan, Wuhan and Zhengzhou.
Both Infrastructure Finance and its linkage to Investment Banking is now ready for export - AIIB and NDB.
China correctly foresaw the need to replicate The East India Company in building the "New Yorks" first.
The Big Apple creates more TRILLIONS than The Small Apple - both create value.
The latter can benefit from Bretton Woods, the former required The Beijing Institutions.
- jagjeet sinha Jan 14, 2016
  
  Typo : line 3
  "The consequential Real Estate wealth created, rivalled the Stock Market wealth."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Jones Jan 13, 2016

A noble idea to modernize the Silk road that will increase imports and exports over land while increasing sea based capabilities while implementing new trading agreements including a new financial clearing house. If the S. China Sea construction on the atolls, sea mounts, and islands are an example, then expansion through any means necessary with little regard for neighboring concerns or the planet is the fashion. I read today that arrests of human rights lawyers is also in high mode and banging the drum over Japan mollifies the populace...give them all a cell phone and they'll feel happily modern. I'm sure that China's population yearns for a S. Korean lifestyle, but are stuck with a N. Korean political structure.
I am impressed with the infrastructure improvements in China, but look at poisoned air and water or counterfeit products that even the Chinese use caution in buying. Add to that the disregard for the rights of citizens and, while grand in concept, and as Donny Trump might say, "it's a disaster!"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Moctar Aboubacar Jan 13, 2016

There's a little oversimplifying what the 'Chinese model' is here, and I think Mr. Fukuyama knows it. Having states finance the building of infrastructure, or developing industry, is the norm, not the tenets of some heterodox Chinese model. I think the question is all in the 'how' of state intervention. And even there, the crux of the matter seems to be less what role international finance institutions play, and more how states set up industrial policies, export processing zones, how they do policy experimentation, etc.
The idea of focusing on factor inputs before factor productivity is maybe a sort of highlight of the East Asian development experience, but it's unclear to me that this is what is being exported, either through the AIIB or the "One Road" initiative.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Leo Jan 13, 2016

I think you are missing key facts, China is not building infrastructure projects to just turn them over as gifts; these are financed by Chinese loans and local mineral rights are always at play. China is the last country to share the fruits of civilization with the objective to make the recipient richer and the Chinese products more affordable. The Chinese will keep manufacturing capacity as a key competency for many years to come and will not let go; manufacturing has proved to be the sector that benefits most from technology advancement so why turn it over, they hace seen the US example.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Jan 13, 2016

It will not be the End of History nor the end of the West nor the end of China. To talk about yesterday's weather is not easy; it is very difficult to talk about tomorrow's weather and we make it simple by taking up a few factors and drawing up a linear projection.

The comments below were very interesting to me. The economic policy of a nation cannot be separated from its culture. Western Democracy and Neoliberal Models, from Michael's comment below, should not be too harshly insisted on developing countries; it is the source of wide-spread, angry discontent with the West, and it is the source of anarchy prevailing in the Middle East.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 13, 2016

Francis Fukuyama, author of the iconic "The End of History", sees "an historic contest...underway over competing development models." There is China's "One Belt, One Road" - a grand development project that deals with global transport-infrastructure - a new Silk Road for a globalised age. There is the "US and European development strategy", which is "fashionalbe", but very different, as it has "focused on large investments in public health, women’s empowerment, support for global civil society, and anti-corruption measures".
However Fukuyama has serious doubts about "whether One Belt, One Road will succeed." While some critics have likened President Xi Jinping's pet project to a "Chinese Marshall Plan", China's foreign minister bridled at this suggestion, saying China's strategic "Belt and Road" initiatives - an ambitious project with a land route integrating continental Asia and Europe, and a sea route threading Chinese ports and bases all the way from southern China throught the Indian Ocean to the Horn of Africa and the Mediterranean - were "not a solo but a symphony of all relevant parties". To date "infrastructure-led growth has worked well in China," because state authorities could "control the political environment". Unfortunately "this will not be the case abroad, where instability, conflict, and corruption will interfere with Chinese plans." In recent years, from Africa to Latin America, where China has ecnomic interests in strategic projects, "angry stakeholders, nationalistic legislators, and fickle friends" resent China's investment policies in their countries. The author asks, how would China deal with Muslims in Pakistan or Kazakhstan, judging how the Muslims in the restive Xinjiang province are being treated - "largely through denial and repression"?
How successful China will be to "export its development model to other countries" remains to be seen. It aims to reshape the physical and diplomatic architecture of Asia, by wraping its own influence with infrastructural project westward by land and by sea. This new Silk Road project is "a striking departure" in China's previous poicy, which has mainly been "investing in commodities" and "extracting raw materials" in resource-rich countries. For the first time China will focus on developing "industrial capacity and consumer demand in countries outside of China," while "seeking to shift its heavy industry to less developed countries, making them richer and encouraging demand for Chinese products."
Along with the "One Belt, One Road" strategy, China had, with its huge foreign currency reserves, set up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), seen by the US as a rival to the World Bank and a challenge to its dominance of global financial institutions. The AIIB is intended to put China's engineering might to use, building a new regional infrastructure with Chinese masterplan, technology and influence firmly at heart. More than 50 countries including all the major European powers, have joined. Fukuyama insists, the US "should have become a founding member of the AIIB", saying it could still join to ensure that China would comply with "international environmental, safety, and labor standards." Meanwhile "the US and other Western countries need to ask themselves why infrastructure has become so difficult to build, not just in developing countries but at home as well." In case China succeeds, those who stay away from the project "risk ceding the future of Eurasia and other important parts of the world to China and its development model."
While China is expanding, Russia is keeping a wary eye on the development. Putin has his ideal greater Europe, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, but it will not take off, given Russia's aggression. In Central Asia - seen by Russia as its backyard - the world may see a clash between China and Russia, even though Beijing and Moscow had agreed on cooperating on this "One Belt, One Road" project - a greater Asia, from Shanghai to St. Petersburg.
- Alex Leo Jan 13, 2016
  
  You always have something interesting to say and it is in the last paragraph. Folks who have just read the article do not need a summary before reading your comment, you take chances of you comments not being looked at.
  
  But yes, Russia's biggest challenges will come from China, China is building infrastructure projects in Mongolia and other countries that are perceived to threaten Russian interests (e.g. hydro power station and irrigation diversion for the river that feed in he Baikal lake, etc.to name one of many.)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emanuel Müller Jan 12, 2016

China has seemingly a background of mutualism and long-termism while the West has seemingly a background of parasitism and short-termism with the colonial empires and the 3rd Reich being epic illustrations. As the population of China is nearly double the size of the whole West, and the population of Asia represent 60% of humanity vs 10% for the West it is likely that the western world will be a blitz civilization in history. To make matters more difficult for the West, the average voter in democracies can be expected to vote for his short term self-interest, not to mention that the largely held belief in the west that western scientific development is a scientific proof of racial and/or cultural superiority undermines constructive and mutually beneficially exchanges between the westerners and the non-westerners.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Art Chen Jan 12, 2016

How does "move China toward greater compliance with international environmental, safety, and labor standards" solve the problem" of overcoming "concerns about corruption and self-dealing when the state is so heavily involved." Nothing gets done. Is Africa's recent projection of 7% growth is due in part due to China's investment in it's infrastructure? Ask Africans!!!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robbie Jena Jan 12, 2016

Unfortunately China used Engineers to develop Industrial Ecosystems while rest of the West use Economists to play with Finance. So, just think....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Jan 12, 2016

The guy who invented the *end of history* now appears sanguine about mainland China's model of development, as it is based on a single political party (CPC) led by selected politburo.
Principally the model doesn't consider interfering in domestic affairs of a sovereign state; by now we've plenty of examples of it.
Strategically PRC is principally seeking to isolate US from not only Asia but, as Fukuyama suggests, may be Eurasia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 12, 2016

To live in China you need a compliant personality. Anyone who feels that the rights of individuals are above those of the state is swiftly dealt with. While it has clearly worked in China, I think it will meet with monumental failure when exported elsewhere - in the same way "Western Democracy and Neoliberal Economic Models" have basically failed outside of America and the UK.
- gerald sinclair Jan 17, 2016
  
  Why? individuaism appears dead and buried in the USA and unless a Trump type gets the reins none of the others on either side instil any confidence it will return, whereas paradoxically the Chinese have come up with a more efficient model with major decision making centralised but individuals allowed to become mini capitalists.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/FH2h8vpzh

PS OnPoint

The Year Ahead 2016

输出中国模式

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Development Finance with Chinese Characteristics?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Heroes of the Apocalypse

Greening the Crypto Revolution

Life or Debt in Ukraine

The Genocidal Identity

Log in/Register

PS OnPoint

The Year Ahead 2016

输出中国模式

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification