Which Country Is More Stable – China or US?
Excellent post by Will Lewis on governance issues. The discussion stems from some World Bank rankings, but Will muses about what factors a Chinese government official would most value. No surprise that stability is the first thing that pops into his mind (me too).
This gets much more interesting when Will decides to make comparisons, particularly when he talks about China vs. US:
China has proven much more stable over the past 30 years than many countries of Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, several of which have had violent, military, or major but peaceful transfers of power in that same time frame. And that is impressive on China’s part. But when we start using the stability indicator to compare China with representative democracies we get caught on some snags.
A straightforward comparison of stability between the US and China is not so easy, but it is fun. A more exhaustive discussion would have to deal with what “stability” actually means, but for blogging purposes, changes in governments and major shifts in policy are good places to start.
One issue Will raises is that the CPC has been in power here in China for a very long time, with no jarring succession issues since the 1970s. Now that’s certainly what I call stable. Moreover, since Deng Xiaoping implemented 改革开放 (China’s opening up) economic development policy in the late 70s, things have been on a fairly straight trajectory.
I’m not sure that I fully agree with Will that the US two-party system is such a major source of instability. Sure, the Chinese government would prefer to avoid the annoyance of US elections and the uncertainties of new leaders, but from a policy standpoint, does it really matter?
Many cynics have concluded that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Although I disagree with respect to certain policy areas, there is certainly a vast political middle ground in the US within which it is difficult to distinguish between these folks. To that extent, there is not always such a huge policy shift from one administration to the next.
Moreover, when it comes to China policy, US administrations have been remarkably consistent since Nixon. Rhetoric aside, US presidents have engaged China, supported free trade, and kept Taiwan at a distance. If I’m a China government official, the US government looks very stable to me.
Will also discusses federalism issues and the ability of these two governments to implement policy. Gotta leave that one for another day.
US is infinitely more stable than China…our government in its basic form has survived over 200 years of almost constant war, economic disasters, racial tensions, class tensions etc. Through all this, our government has proved adaptable to change without actually dissolving into violent anarchy. Leading parties, ideologies, strategies have changed, but change itself is not instability. We have institutionalized revolution to the point that political change does not necessitate the type of instability it did in the past. This is the true under-appreciated genius of democracy.
The recent financial crisis is proof enough, if ground zero had happened in China I believe that it would result utter chaos…in terms of stability we are just incomparable at this point.
If the Chinese system can last another 140 years without serious failure I will be happy to call their system stable…
Yes, all true. However, when the World Bank and other institutions study political stability, I think they deal with current conditions and very recent history. China’s 30-year run is remarkably long for a single political party/government on that time scale.
If you can silent all oppositions without considering human rights and legallity issues, or any pressure from the international community, and have complete control of the media. I think you can make any political party stable until Judgement Day!
There are plenty of violents in China, you just don’t know about it that’s all.
AndyR:
That is not a fair comparison.
The US, in its current form, is a young country. China has had imperial governments for around 2000 years. Over that period of time, there have been several periods where the Chinese government system has been as stable as the current US system.
From the 1600’s onwards, Europe and the US (later) outgrew the Chinese economy, and aggressively expanded across the globe. Their violence and aggression was a major contributing factor in the collapse of the Chinese imperial system.
The US, due to a fortunate geographical position and economic strength, has not had any serious external threat in the past 200 years. Japan was never a serious threat to mainland US, neither was Germany and neither was the USSR. The US government has never had to face severe external pressure while undergoing internal reform.
If ground zero had happened in China, the Chinese government would have weathered the storm just as well as the US government did. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. What do you expect, that the Chinese people would overthrow their government because of a terrorist attack by religious extremists?
While you may not subscribe to this view, it would be very easy to read a “US is the best” sentiment into your comment. It would be good for you to re-think that.
Even with a relatively dry, esoteric topic like political stability, nationalism rears its ugly head.
@ Stan
On stability in the US, I think there’s a difference between stability of the governmental system and the stability of our governors. There is the distinct possibility that my fondness for what made George Washington great, his opposition to becoming a monarch and his relinquishment of power, is clouding the weight I should ascribe to the broad similarities in party policy objectives. 148 years and 27 peaceful transitions of executive power through voluntary inter vivos transfer based on tradition, excepting a Roosevelt, is stability in government but I’ll only partially concede on the stability of governors. Presidents FDR through Obama, excepting Ford who I just don’t know enough about, have each clearly broken with their predecessor. And I’m starting with FDR because I don’t know enough about how Hoover and Coolidge relate to each other and to Harding.
@ AndyR
I’d stay from the 1789 thing: a civil war ignited by a Republican victory and in which 3% of the unified US population were casualties must be a break in US stability.
No need for debate, the US.
Difference is in rule of law and a process to vent ones’ grievances. What is happening in Urumqi is handy proof for it. China is trailing the US by 50 years in this as what happened to the US in the 60’s is still happening here. This is the soft-rib of the Chinese state, where education plays a significant role as well and rule of law needs to be established.
In 2005 if one could hardly see that in 2008 AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & Citi all combined together would be worth less than a Chinese SOE bank — weren’t they supposed to be the role models for the Chinese banks? — why would you be so sure about the future?
If you have some CA tax refund in IOUs, you may already see what a black swan in the US would be like. Do yourself a favor and look around the quality of 6th to 12th grades in the US and compare that to China, then go to NYC and ponder why 8 years later the old WTC is still a hole on the ground while in the meantime the interstate mileage in China has doubled.
@Stan I’m even giving them credit for 60 years of basically the same government/party in control! The fact that the CCP has remained on top through the GLF, the CR, and Reform and Opening up is amazing. They are very stable, but can they withstand political transition without falling to pieces? (So far only tested at TS, and we know how that ended) They survived the passing of Mao and a complete re-vamp of the economic system in the 80s and 90s, so I’m not not giving credit where credit is due. I just think that given the US’s track record (admittedly longer) our system of government is more stable, especially since it can change without revolution or devolving into violent anarchy (most of the time).
@Chris I really don’t know how to respond to your wacky take on this question, yes there has been a place called “Zhonguo” for 1000s of years. But it has experienced 1000s of political transitions and instabilities as well over that time. Even if we want to narrow it down to the discussion of the stability of a modern “Chinese nation-state” which technically didn’t really come into existence until the fall of the Qing, China has been an unstable mess.
Therefore, I’m actually doing China a favor by limiting my analysis to the last political consolidation that took place here in 1949. This is the only fair way to discuss it, as it’s difficult to compare a piece of land to a system of government. If you really want me to look at the stability of “China” over a 5000 year history, then China actually looks even worse compared to the US.
I never said the US was the best (why whenever someone praises the US a little, they are automatically read as rabid America-lovers?), I said that (in my opinion) it’s governing structure is more stable when compared to China at this point in time (I don’t think I ever made the comparison between the US and all other governments), if you learned to read, rather than project your own politics onto my words, maybe you wouldn’t be so quick to get snarky and make crazy arguments.
You want snark? In order to narrow things down even more, let’s look at the last week as an example of which country is more stable. Race riots in the US=0, China=1. Potential for race riots in the near future in the US=10%, potential for China=85% (I’m being generous).
Why? Because people who feel they are being treated unfairly in the US have a government to complain to without being punished, in China they would apparently rather bash innocent people’s heads in than peacefully complain to the government. Why? Because you’re going to get harsh retribution whether you complain peacefully or violently here, so why not make a larger statement with blood? On the surface, yes China is good at projecting an image of stability and the CCP has gone through some tough transitions, but they still have not proven able to deal with political issues without resorting to violence, in this way the system actually promotes instability, despite their claims to the contrary. It’s just a question of how long such a system can contain things, and as I said if it lasts another 140 years, I’ll be glad to throw China a bone.