Comments on Shiro Armstrong and Tom Westland "Escaping the middle income trap", 30/03/2016
Some comments point out some unsaid issues, including what a new Asia order would look like and how to bring that peacefully.
While I am an economist as opposed to international strategist, I would venture a hypothesis that the best scenario for a new Asia order to appear peacefully would be for China to work not only for its own interests but also for the interests of all Asian countries, so that Asia is truly for all Asians as a whole, irrespective for China to confront the US or not.
The underlying assumption is that Asians will benefit from a new Asia order.
If you don’t look after your neighbours, they will not support you in your endeavours.
I think that will need China to make some hard decisions and choices, including to make some compromises and perhaps sacrifices in the process for it to rise as a true and powerful leader in Asia. America will naturally fade from Asia or its assumed uncontested leadership in Asia will be diluted, in that process.
It will be wise for China if it can do that. I think there will be enough wise people in China for it to realise that is the best option forward.
2016-03-30
Reasons beyond demographic factors behind Japan's lost decades?
Comments on Naohiro Yashiro "Is Japan caught in an upper income trap?" 30/03/2016
Although demographic factors are important factors to unleash Japan’s aggregate productivity as a whole, there would be other important factors that are equally important if more so.
For example, Japan seems to have fallen behind in the competition of contemporary technologies such as smart mobile phones, for example. Japan used to be very innovative, but it has lost much of its edge in the past two decades or so, it seems.
It would be important to understand the reasons behind those sort of issues.
Although demographic factors are important factors to unleash Japan’s aggregate productivity as a whole, there would be other important factors that are equally important if more so.
For example, Japan seems to have fallen behind in the competition of contemporary technologies such as smart mobile phones, for example. Japan used to be very innovative, but it has lost much of its edge in the past two decades or so, it seems.
It would be important to understand the reasons behind those sort of issues.
2016-03-29
China, Asian countries and new Asia order
Comments on Hugh White "Can Asia break free of great-power dynamics?" 29/03/2016
Some comments point out some unsaid issues, including what a new Asia order would look like and how to bring that peacefully.
While I am an economist as opposed to international strategist, I would venture a hypothesis that the best scenario for a new Asia order to appear peacefully would be for China to work not only for its own interests but also for the interests of all Asian countries, so that Asia is truly for all Asians as a whole, irrespective for China to confront the US or not.
The underlying assumption is that Asians will benefit from a new Asia order.
If you don’t look after your neighbours, they will not support you in your endeavours.
I think that will need China to make some hard decisions and choices, including to make some compromises and perhaps sacrifices in the process for it to rise as a true and powerful leader in Asia. America will naturally fade from Asia or its assumed uncontested leadership in Asia will be diluted, in that process.
It will be wise for China if it can do that. I think there will be enough wise people in China for it to realise that is the best option forward.
Some comments point out some unsaid issues, including what a new Asia order would look like and how to bring that peacefully.
While I am an economist as opposed to international strategist, I would venture a hypothesis that the best scenario for a new Asia order to appear peacefully would be for China to work not only for its own interests but also for the interests of all Asian countries, so that Asia is truly for all Asians as a whole, irrespective for China to confront the US or not.
The underlying assumption is that Asians will benefit from a new Asia order.
If you don’t look after your neighbours, they will not support you in your endeavours.
I think that will need China to make some hard decisions and choices, including to make some compromises and perhaps sacrifices in the process for it to rise as a true and powerful leader in Asia. America will naturally fade from Asia or its assumed uncontested leadership in Asia will be diluted, in that process.
It will be wise for China if it can do that. I think there will be enough wise people in China for it to realise that is the best option forward.
Price setter, middle income trap and China
Comments on Editors, East Asia Forum"China’s two big challenges", 29/03/2016
While I agree with almost all major points in this editorial, some points seem to be a little contentious. Firstly, the Singapore experience among those experiences points out some diversity in the road to rich, at least it is not that high degree of universality in terms of political freedom. One might argue that was an exception as opposed to a rule, but nevertheless it existed.
Secondly, while the size of the Chinese economy may present some challenges for specialisation to be an option on the road for it to be rich, it could also mean some opportunities. For example, it may mean if China can focus on it economy better, that will be probably and comparatively enough for it to go rich. In other words, a price setter, as opposed to price taker, is relatively less affected by external factors purely because of its price setter status.
So if China can manage its own economy well, perhaps modelled on those economies ahead of it (and taking into account emerging technologies and trends), it is advantageous to be a price setter.
In that context, I would recommend caution in planning too grandiose international schemes, given the difficulties for any country to make good decisions, let along many countries to make the right decisions at the same time, where China has little control of them.
Finally, the so called middle income trap is as much a challenge as a myth. Some of the countries that have fallen into that trap can perhaps all find its fundamental causes, particularly some Latin American countries which may have coincided with the Oil Crisis and subsequent change in the world economic structure including high inflation and high interest rates when those countries were having high debt associated with their exploration of their natural resources.
One should not be too pessimistic about the potentials for countries to develop and to join the ranks of the rich in the world.
Having said that the continued slowing of the Chinese economy may have reinforced the pessimism. But I hope the Chinese leaders will wake up to the potential dangers of excessively slowing of its economy.
While I agree with almost all major points in this editorial, some points seem to be a little contentious. Firstly, the Singapore experience among those experiences points out some diversity in the road to rich, at least it is not that high degree of universality in terms of political freedom. One might argue that was an exception as opposed to a rule, but nevertheless it existed.
Secondly, while the size of the Chinese economy may present some challenges for specialisation to be an option on the road for it to be rich, it could also mean some opportunities. For example, it may mean if China can focus on it economy better, that will be probably and comparatively enough for it to go rich. In other words, a price setter, as opposed to price taker, is relatively less affected by external factors purely because of its price setter status.
So if China can manage its own economy well, perhaps modelled on those economies ahead of it (and taking into account emerging technologies and trends), it is advantageous to be a price setter.
In that context, I would recommend caution in planning too grandiose international schemes, given the difficulties for any country to make good decisions, let along many countries to make the right decisions at the same time, where China has little control of them.
Finally, the so called middle income trap is as much a challenge as a myth. Some of the countries that have fallen into that trap can perhaps all find its fundamental causes, particularly some Latin American countries which may have coincided with the Oil Crisis and subsequent change in the world economic structure including high inflation and high interest rates when those countries were having high debt associated with their exploration of their natural resources.
One should not be too pessimistic about the potentials for countries to develop and to join the ranks of the rich in the world.
Having said that the continued slowing of the Chinese economy may have reinforced the pessimism. But I hope the Chinese leaders will wake up to the potential dangers of excessively slowing of its economy.
2016-03-15
What is "New Confucianism"
Comments on Niv Horesh "Understanding China’s rise", 14/03/2016
While I have apparently seen signs of China adopting some of of revival of Confucianism, I am not sure what the core concepts of the so called New Confucianism.
Yes, Confucianism played an important role for about 2000 years in the Chinese history. But there were also many crises over that period, typified by inter dynastic changes as well as intra dynastic upheavals. Those also included, from period to period, multi states at times.
The Chinese Communists, as well as the May Fourth movement, for a long period were probably against Confucianism.
Is the New Confucianism new stage in terms of reconciling the traditional Confucianism with the current Chinese Communism (Confucianism with Chinese characteristics)?
Or is the New Confucianism a blind of a number of main ancient Chinese philosophies with Confucianism as the core, then all that subject to the current Chinese Communism?
Or is the current Chinese leadership using Confucianism to present a historically and relatively prosperous, well governed Eastern (Chinese) image to facilitate its narratives of China’s rise, a return to its ancient place of a more advanced country?
While I have apparently seen signs of China adopting some of of revival of Confucianism, I am not sure what the core concepts of the so called New Confucianism.
Yes, Confucianism played an important role for about 2000 years in the Chinese history. But there were also many crises over that period, typified by inter dynastic changes as well as intra dynastic upheavals. Those also included, from period to period, multi states at times.
The Chinese Communists, as well as the May Fourth movement, for a long period were probably against Confucianism.
Is the New Confucianism new stage in terms of reconciling the traditional Confucianism with the current Chinese Communism (Confucianism with Chinese characteristics)?
Or is the New Confucianism a blind of a number of main ancient Chinese philosophies with Confucianism as the core, then all that subject to the current Chinese Communism?
Or is the current Chinese leadership using Confucianism to present a historically and relatively prosperous, well governed Eastern (Chinese) image to facilitate its narratives of China’s rise, a return to its ancient place of a more advanced country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
