{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1161865,
        "msgid": "lessons-from-the-dragon-1447893297",
        "date": "2005-05-14 00:00:00",
        "title": "Lessons from the dragon",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "Lessons from the dragon B. Nicodemus Brussels \"Get the knowledge, even from China\". The question is, \"What can we learn from China?\". As China is becoming a major player in the world economy, the question can be slightly rephrased: \"What does China teach in economy?\" One of my colleagues argues that Indonesia should learn a lot from China, from their economic textbooks if necessary. He might be right.",
        "content": "<p>Lessons from the dragon<\/p>\n<p>B. Nicodemus<br>\nBrussels<\/p>\n<p>\"Get the knowledge, even from China\". The question is, \"What <br>\ncan we learn from China?\". As China is becoming a major player in <br>\nthe world economy, the question can be slightly rephrased: \"What <br>\ndoes China teach in economy?\"<\/p>\n<p>One of my colleagues argues that Indonesia should learn a lot <br>\nfrom China, from their economic textbooks if necessary. He might <br>\nbe right. Unlike other developing countries, such as Chile with <br>\nits Chicago Boys or Indonesia with its Berkeley Mafia, we've <br>\nnever heard about some technocrat graduating from China and <br>\nlearning about its remarkable economic performance.<\/p>\n<p>China is indeed a phenomenon. The dragon enjoyed economic <br>\ngrowth at an average of 9 percent per year from 1980 to 2003. <br>\nIncome per capita increased three-fold during that time. In 2003, <br>\nChina was the world's fourth-largest exporter of merchandise and <br>\nthe ninth-largest of commercial services. (Martin Wolf, Financial <br>\nTimes, Feb. 23, 2005).<\/p>\n<p>Based on these facts, China is too important to be ignored. <br>\nThe fact that Indonesia has made new and more vigorous <br>\ncooperation agreements with China is unsurprising. A move that is <br>\nvery strategic according to the Post in its editorial column. <br>\n(Indonesia-China partnership, The Jakarta Post, April 27).<\/p>\n<p>However, a closer look into China's experience will give some <br>\ninsight that could also benefit Indonesian development.<\/p>\n<p>Firstly, the role of government is very important in the <br>\nChinese economy. It was Deng Xiaoping who started economic reform <br>\nin 1978. The most significant step was to open the Chinese <br>\neconomy. Foreign investment was invited to push the <br>\nindustrialization process. Infrastructure was built at breakneck <br>\npace. As the economy was more open to the world, China started <br>\nadopting modern management methods.<\/p>\n<p>China's experience has challenged conventional wisdom on the <br>\nrole of government in the economy. From Adam Smith with his <br>\ninvisible hand to the famous Washington Consensus, all are <br>\npreaching a minimalist role for government.<\/p>\n<p>In economic textbooks, the role of government is very limited. <br>\nThey will be needed normally to fix the so-called market failures <br>\nas we have in public goods case or externalities problem.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Asian Tigers as well as China now, have confirmed <br>\nthat the real world is not always a mirror of the textbooks. As <br>\nthe World Bank says in The East Asian Miracle, the government <br>\nplays a significant role behind the remarkable economic <br>\nperformance across East Asian countries. It is very surprising <br>\nsince the World Bank is a Washington Consensus loyalist.<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, China is growing under an authoritarian regime. In <br>\nChina, there is only one big, powerful party, The Communist Party <br>\nand there is no general election. It seems that, whether we like <br>\nit or not, democracy is not the one and only way to foster <br>\neconomic development.<\/p>\n<p>Theoretically, as proposed by Ersson and Lane (1996), there <br>\nare two models made about democracy and its impact on economic <br>\ndevelopment namely the Compability Model and the Conflict Model. <br>\nThe first one says that economic development will take place <br>\nunder a system respecting civil liberties. The system then is <br>\nmore familiar under the name democracy.<\/p>\n<p>On the other side, the Conflict Model says the opposite. <br>\nDemocratic countries, newly established ones in particular, will <br>\nhave difficulties in building a stable government. As a result, <br>\nthe country will be engulfed in political instability and <br>\ninconsistent policies, which will eventually hamper the process <br>\nof economic development.<\/p>\n<p>The Conflict Model has been justified again by East Asian <br>\ncountries and indeed by China recently. It is widely known that <br>\ncountries across the region, such as Indonesia and Singapore, <br>\nenjoyed high economic growth under undemocratic governments.<\/p>\n<p>Despite being undemocratic, China is very successful in <br>\nproviding political stability. The succession in Chinese <br>\nleadership, from Chairman Mao to Deng Xiaoping, then to Jiang <br>\nZhemin and now Hu Jintao, has been very smooth without political <br>\nturmoil.<\/p>\n<p>Does China have any problems at all? The answer is very clear, <br>\nno. China is still facing pressure due to human rights violations <br>\nin Tiananmen Square, a tragedy that led to an arms embargo by the <br>\nEuropean Union.<\/p>\n<p>In 2004, Transparency International ranked China 71st in the <br>\nworld for corruption. It means the country is still having big <br>\nproblems with their institutions.<\/p>\n<p>Despite these facts, China is increasingly attractive to <br>\ninvestors. Foreign companies continue to pour money into Shanghai <br>\nand Beijing. A booming economy and a competitive business climate <br>\nare more important all those other problems to most investors.<\/p>\n<p>Indonesia could learn a lesson here. Bad perceptions due to <br>\npolicy in the past as well as corruption should not prevent the <br>\ncountry from moving forward.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, concerning the market or investors, we can also see <br>\nthat their primary concern is profit. As long as a country can <br>\nprovide a high rate of return, no matter if it is democratic or <br>\nnot, they will go there.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the government and also the people should be <br>\nabove the market. What we have in Indonesia is the opposite. We <br>\nhave all heard this over-repeated mantra, particularly prior to <br>\nelections: \"The next president must be a market-friendly person\" <br>\nor \"The Cabinet should be accepted by the market\". Why not the <br>\nopposite? It is the market that follows the government, as is the <br>\ncase in China. The market is very opportunistic. Why should the <br>\ngovernment live under its command?<\/p>\n<p>Compared to China, Indonesia is one step ahead. We are already <br>\na democratic country, but we still can not provide political <br>\nstability, rule of law or consistent policies. As the first <br>\ndirectly elected president, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono <br>\nhas more than enough legitimacy to provide all of them. Like <br>\nChina, those three things are also very crucial for Indonesia. <br>\nWithout them, there is no chance to reap the benefits of <br>\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n<p>The writer is a postgraduate student in social science at <br>\nKatholieke Universiteit Brussels. He can be reached at <br>\nBarlevNicodemus.Marh@student.kubrussel.ac.be<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lessons-from-the-dragon-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}