The China Model

[amberjack1234]

Why is this just propaganda? The main points of the article are all true ¨C China¡¯s policies over the past decades have increased its political standing, made its people economically better off, and have caused other developing countries to seek its input and cooperation. Not only are these points all true but the article states them with more caveats and less exaggeration than they usually get in international press.

 

To understand the article's repeated claims of being ¡°peaceful¡± you have to realize that the author is implicitly contrasting China with what Chinese see as imperialist countries like the US and England. In this article the author¡¯s definition of peace and co-existence is ¡°not interfering in what another country is doing internally.¡± By this standard China has indeed been peaceful so far in how it has developed. For example, it cooperates economically with countries regardless of their internal politics and it doesn¡¯t attach political strings to loans and other agreements that are meant for economic development. For Chinese readers the comparison with µÛ¹úÖ÷Òå would be implicit in the issue and this interpretation of ¡°peaceful¡± would be more obvious.

For the 3-4 Hundred Million folks that live in the cities but not much has been done for the 1 Billion that live down on the farm but I do think that it will trickle down in another 20-30 years.

 

Larry

What is ¡°not much?¡± Taking consumer price indexes into account, annual per capita disposable income in rural areas increased by 5.61% per year from 1989 to 2003, while in urban areas it increased by 7.4% per year. In other words, rural income went up quickly and urban income went up extremely quickly. If you look at the annual increase in per capita consumption in rural areas for the same period this is about 4.4% per year which, although again about 2 percentage points below that for urban residents, is still ¡°a very high rate of increase by comparison with other developing countries¡± according to the Princeton researcher who did these analyses. The difference between the two rates of increase explains the growing inequality in China which was probably the motivation behind your comment.

 

If you just look at the situation of the worst of the worst in China, the percentage of rural people making less than 600 yuan (in 2003 prices) went from 12.2% in 1985 to 3.5% in 2003. How is that ¡°not much?¡± If you use the World Bank cut-off of $1.25 per day as the poverty line, the poverty rate (according to Wikipedia) went down from 64% in the late 70s to 10% in 2004, which means that hundreds of millions of Chinese got out of poverty in a period of 30 years. According to the World Bank the absolute number of people in poverty went from 250 million in the late 70s to 29 million in 2001.

 

If you break consumption down by province, you find that even the provinces with the slowest rates of increase in per capita consumption (e.g., Gansu, Guizhou) still made steady headway.

 

Poverty is still pervasive in China and it¡¯s not fair that anyone should have to endure it, especially when it stems from local corruption and institutionalized preferential treatment by government. But to say that ¡°not much has been done¡± for rural Chinese (or especially "not much for 1 billion Chinese"?) is just not correct.

I admit that you have made a valid rebuttal to what I have said the fact is that the rural area are about 20-30 years behind their urban counterparts given that they have had recent increases in their standard of living they have a long way to go especially if they are kept 2% a year behind their urban cousins. The farmers should be getting about a 14% increase per year and their urban counterparts the 5% until they catch up. Look at the price that urban people pay for produce compared tho urban people here. I just came from the grocery store and a bell pepper cost $1.65 each. It was not long ago that I could buy them for 25 cents each. Now I don't know but in China you could probably buy one for 1-2 pennies. That is not a 7-1 ration. My wife always complains that in China meat is only a little higher than produce and here in America produce in much more in comparison.

 

China has a reputation of poping up and spouting off about how well China is doing and it's their goal to forge ahead of Western countries but when it comes to their rural people they like to kind of sweep them under the rug. I am sure that China will come on line as a first world country, even surpassing the US but where will their 1 billion poor people be I wonder. Using your own figures they stay about 2% behind even in today's economy, 2% IS a lot for them. As far as money coming in to the government is concerned the bulk of any govenments' income is from taxes from the multitudes not the few rich people that seem to always know how to circumvent the tax laws and many don't even pay taxes through tax shelter, cheating and finding loopholes in the tax laws to reduce having to pay their fair share.

 

I think that it is pretty well understood how government people operate in China. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that it don't happen here in the good ole USA but it's the exception and not the rule here. How many farmers have some kind of retirement program, quality health care programs as opposed to their urban counterparts. Have you ever visited a truly rural area in China to see how they live or are you one of the ones that take the fantasy trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Tiainjin or Nanning. I am not talking about some of the few well connected farmers either. Some of them do indeed live very well but if you dig into their family you will find there is a relative that is in the government that is looking out for their interest.

 

Larry

[weiaijiayou]

Everything you said this time I completely agree with. Annual per capita disposable income in rural areas today is at about the level it was for urban residents in the early 90s (hence the ¡°20-30 years behind¡±). Moreover the difference between rates of increase of 5% and 7% annually is a BIG difference when it¡¯s compounding and when the urban residents were already better off to start with (343 yuan to 133 yuan for urban and rural residents respectively in 1978, with the gap widening to 8472 yuan to 2622 yuan in 2003). My point wasn¡¯t that the government¡¯s policies have done enough for rural people -- only that most Chinese people¡¯s economic situations have improved, which the data support.

 

I also think you¡¯re totally right that the rural are disadvantaged because of many policies of the government ¨C for example, exactly like you said, agriculture has been heavily taxed so the government could subsidize industry in the cities, and then rural dwellers have been discouraged by the residential permit system (and all its related rights and privileges) from moving to cities to pursue these opportunities. Completing the cycle, the fiscal decentralization policies that started in the 80s have meant that local governments in rural places have been given primary responsibility for developing their schools, which has meant that areas with better economies and higher tax revenues have had more money to build and improve schools, while in rural townships kids are apparently attending class in run-down shacks with no books or pencils (that is, if the parents decide it isn¡¯t more worthwhile to put them straight to work). These systemic issues are I think one of the most interesting parts of China today, and my feeling that the government actually does have concern for solving them makes it even more fascinating. In the news in August China was ¡°spouting off¡± about how the central government had just provided 17.8 billion yuan in subsidies for primary schools in rural areas. You have to wonder if it is only just ¡°spouting off,¡± though, because if you look at reports of the official budget you see that allocations for higher education (where the government probably believes they can get more bang for their buck) are just about as high as those for compulsory education in rural areas. Then you hear about the relaxation of the hukou system for wealthier and more educated rural residents and, on the one hand, you¡¯re excited about whether it could help those from the countryside and, on the other hand, you fear that it¡¯s just going to add to the ¡°brain drain¡± and could make the countryside even worse off economically.

 

Have you ever visited a truly rural area in China to see how they live or are you one of the ones that take the fantasy trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Tiainjin or Nanning.

 

I haven¡¯t had the opportunity to visit people at their home in the countryside (only people I¡¯ve met in places like trains), but I also wouldn¡¯t say my experiences in China have been ¡°fantasy trips.¡± The people I know personally are regular Chinese folks ¨C they run the gamut from labor-loving people with a modest small business to college students whose fathers give them coal-stained pocket change when they come back to the university from family visits. To go to one of these rural places (or to marry someone from one of these places and be able to learn about the experiences, as some here surely have) I don¡¯t doubt would shed a light on a part of China that you have to really experience first-hand to understand.

[amberjack1234]

Everything you said this time I completely agree with. Annual per capita disposable income in rural areas today is at about the level it was for urban residents in the early 90s (hence the ¡°20-30 years behind¡±). Moreover the difference between rates of increase of 5% and 7% annually is a BIG difference when it¡¯s compounding and when the urban residents were already better off to start with (343 yuan to 133 yuan for urban and rural residents respectively in 1978, with the gap widening to 8472 yuan to 2622 yuan in 2003). My point wasn¡¯t that the government¡¯s policies have done enough for rural people -- only that most Chinese people¡¯s economic situations have improved, which the data support.

 

I also think you¡¯re totally right that the rural are disadvantaged because of many policies of the government ¨C for example, exactly like you said, agriculture has been heavily taxed so the government could subsidize industry in the cities, and then rural dwellers have been discouraged by the residential permit system (and all its related rights and privileges) from moving to cities to pursue these opportunities. Completing the cycle, the fiscal decentralization policies that started in the 80s have meant that local governments in rural places have been given primary responsibility for developing their schools, which has meant that areas with better economies and higher tax revenues have had more money to build and improve schools, while in rural townships kids are apparently attending class in run-down shacks with no books or pencils (that is, if the parents decide it isn¡¯t more worthwhile to put them straight to work). These systemic issues are I think one of the most interesting parts of China today, and my feeling that the government actually does have concern for solving them makes it even more fascinating. In the news in August China was ¡°spouting off¡± about how the central government had just provided 17.8 billion yuan in subsidies for primary schools in rural areas. You have to wonder if it is only just ¡°spouting off,¡± though, because if you look at reports of the official budget you see that allocations for higher education (where the government probably believes they can get more bang for their buck) are just about as high as those for compulsory education in rural areas. Then you hear about the relaxation of the hukou system for wealthier and more educated rural residents and, on the one hand, you¡¯re excited about whether it could help those from the countryside and, on the other hand, you fear that it¡¯s just going to add to the ¡°brain drain¡± and could make the countryside even worse off economically.

 

Have you ever visited a truly rural area in China to see how they live or are you one of the ones that take the fantasy trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Tiainjin or Nanning.

 

I haven¡¯t had the opportunity to visit people at their home in the countryside (only people I¡¯ve met in places like trains), but I also wouldn¡¯t say my experiences in China have been ¡°fantasy trips.¡± The people I know personally are regular Chinese folks ¨C they run the gamut from labor-loving people with a modest small business to college students whose fathers give them coal-stained pocket change when they come back to the university from family visits. To go to one of these rural places (or to marry someone from one of these places and be able to learn about the experiences, as some here surely have) I don¡¯t doubt would shed a light on a part of China that you have to really experience first-hand to understand.

Very well and informed response. It does look like we are after all on the same page. I can see that the "fantasy trips" quip that I made does not apply to you but it certainly does some here. If the opportunity arises for you to visit some very rural area you should take advantage of it.

 

My-the-was my wife is not from the country side and use to have great disdain for anything rural. She now conceive a much different viewpoint of rural people. I am very proud of her change of heart.

 

Larry

[knloregon]

"...Have you ever visited a truly rural area in China to see how they live or are you one of the ones that take the fantasy trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Tiainjin or Nanning...."

 

Yeah, well, I have..... And I can tell you, weiaijiayou's remarks on this subject are so right on the mark, that it really doesn't need re-enforcement from me.

 

I like GZBILL but I do wonder how far west he has actually been.

 

The fact that the countryside lags the big eastern cities of China is immaterial to the condition in the countryside. The reality is that progress---relative to what was before---in the west is stunning.

 

Sure, you can cite all the stats you want about the disparity between the rich east, and the poor west, but you talk to the people, (west) you get a different story, they love the improvements in their lives. And from an American point of view, that might not seem like much----electricity and TV, but not perfect sanitation---still, its huge considering the starting point. Plus, MUCH better food (meat) on a regular basis, and a return to a food culture (daily) which was reserved for special occasions in the past. The feeling that your children actually DO have a future.

 

And here is the big difference between America and China. America's stimulus ---- now predicted to top out at close to one trillion dollars----has been pure pork. Very little to show for the effort----certainly, not in job growth----political pay-offs to 'favorite son' projects across the country.

 

Meanwhile, China's stimulus (about 600 billion) has gone to essential infrastructure projects------much of it in the west-----and the people of these provinces are busting with pride----sure, its not the individual, but for the first time, they are seeing roads, and rail which will link them to all of China, and they are truly excited by the prospect, and the opportunities that will surely follow...

[GZBILL]

"...Have you ever visited a truly rural area in China to see how they live or are you one of the ones that take the fantasy trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Tiainjin or Nanning...."

 

Yeah, well, I have..... And I can tell you, weiaijiayou's remarks on this subject are so right on the mark, that it really doesn't need re-enforcement from me.

 

I like GZBILL but I do wonder how far west he has actually been.

 

The fact that the countryside lags the big eastern cities of China is immaterial to the condition in the countryside. The reality is that progress---relative to what was before---in the west is stunning.

 

Sure, you can cite all the stats you want about the disparity between the rich east, and the poor west, but you talk to the people, (west) you get a different story, they love the improvements in their lives. And from an American point of view, that might not seem like much----electricity and TV, but not perfect sanitation---still, its huge considering the starting point. Plus, MUCH better food (meat) on a regular basis, and a return to a food culture (daily) which was reserved for special occasions in the past. The feeling that your children actually DO have a future.

 

And here is the big difference between America and China. America's stimulus ---- now predicted to top out at close to one trillion dollars----has been pure pork. Very little to show for the effort----certainly, not in job growth----political pay-offs to 'favorite son' projects across the country.

 

Meanwhile, China's stimulus (about 600 billion) has gone to essential infrastructure projects------much of it in the west-----and the people of these provinces are busting with pride----sure, its not the individual, but for the first time, they are seeing roads, and rail which will link them to all of China, and they are truly excited by the prospect, and the opportunities that will surely follow...

 

In 14 years there are very, very few places I have not been on an extended basis. I have seen the poorest of the poor -- Guizhou Province -- and everything in between.

 

Yes, people in these marginal areas have seen major improvements, but their life is still a struggle. Try not to believe the happy facade; the reality is that they have a very hard life and they see their personal future as bleak. Yet, they are realistic and know that at best their children may -- with a hell of a lot of luck -- have a better life.

 

Ask any one of these people and, if they are honest with you, they will tell you that they are working almost 24/7 so they can send their child out of these poor areas so they can get an education and then help pull the rest of the family out of poverty and misery. If they can't send their children out and the father has no discernible skills of value in the bigger cities, they send the mother off to work as maids for middle class Chinese families in Guangzhou, Beijing or Shanghai.

 

All this bull$hit about the happy peasant is what special ed first-graders believe when they watch those Chairman Mao era (or Kim Jong Il) propoganda films.

Edited October 5, 2009 by GZBILL (see edit history)

[knloregon]

"....All this bull$hit about the happy peasant is what special ed first-graders believe when they watch those Chairman Mao era (or Kim Jong Il) propoganda films...."

 

Everything you say is true about the hardships, but you don't need to be a: ' happy peasant' to see that your life is improving. And it didn't before, for several generations of your family----in the same village, and likely, in the same house.

 

All things are relative.

 

And for the first time---actually, in the last 20 years, you have family who has freely traveled in China, and family members who have gone to work in the east and sent back real money (real relative to money made in the past).

 

And even in the remote villages, there is the belief that your country-----China-----is doing a better job of working for, and protecting you, and your future, and your children's future, than, say....... the US is doing for its own people..

 

These beliefs aren't just superstition, or propaganda-----you see the concrete proof as modern infrastructure comes closer to your village every month..