Opposed Systems Design

Daniel Bell and Eric Li offer a full-throated defense of China's model of government. Bell and Li spend most of the article extolling the enlightenment of the Chinese meritocracy.  They even go so far as to criticize democracy for sharing the franchise too narrowly because "non-voters such as future generations and people living outside the country are also affected" by the choices of a government.  This seems like an awfully confused line of criticism; are Bell and Li really arguing that China's government better cares for the interests of non-Chinese citizens than Western countries?  They even mention climate change, which is peculiar given that it was China - not Western democracies - who blocked a stronger climate change deal in 2009.  China's neighbors in Southeast Asia certainly don't seem to think that the Chinese government takes proper account of how its policies affect them, at least when it comes to maritime issues.

What really interests me, however, is Bell and Li wrap up their article:

In practice, Chinese-style meritocracy is flawed. Most obviously, there is widespread corruption in the political system. Term and age limits help to “guard the guardians”, but more is needed to curb abuses of power, such as a more open and credible media, more transparency and an effective legal system, higher salaries for officials, and more independent anti-corruption agencies.

In other words, after all the bragging, Bell and Li reach the same conclusion as the Economist - albeit with a much different tone.  Bell and Li's bottom line is that:

The Chinese regime has developed the right formula for choosing political rulers that is consistent with China’s culture and history and suitable to modern circumstances. It should be improved on the basis of this formula, not western-style democracy.

The problem is that truly improving the Chinese regime (and addressing the abuses of power, the lack of an open media, the lack of transparency, the lack of an effective legal system and the rampant corruption) will require it to change.  Bell and Li don't seem to appreciate that if the PRC really did achieve the wishlist of improvements that it needs, then it would look a great deal more like the Western democracies that they claim are worse at governance.  In short, they don't seem to recognize the natural result of these improvements:

What will create more meritocratic government in China is continued economic development; more education for more people; open competition; moving towards a free press; an independent judicial system; and, in time, a representative political system.

We have a major case study in progress right now.  Commentators like Bell and Li argue that China's model is more effective than the existing Western model.  It is a widespread consensus among economists that China's growth model needs to be fundamentally re-adjusted.  Among these adjustments are a need for more market-oriented reforms and scaled back power for state-owned enterprises.  Investment-led growth must give way to more balanced growth (which requires an increase in the share of consumption).  The World Bank even co-authored a major report with China's Development Research Center on the changes needed [pdf].  The case study is this: will China actually implement reform?  The writing is on the wall and the need seems clear.  Will China be able to make and implement the difficult policies that it needs for sustained growth?

It is not a foregone conclusion that it will.  As I've pointed out before, the very problems that Bell and Li recognize must be address (corruption, lack of transparency, abuses of power, ...) make it difficult for leaders created by this system to change those aspects of it.  Perhaps noble, honorable and gifted technocrats will rise the challenge by shunning personal wealth in order to scale-back the role of SOEs that could enrich them and their families.  Perhaps.  But human nature is more fundamental than China's culture and history.  I'd be inclined to bet on human nature.