Very interesting, but what are we left with for learning? Can we take lessons from a LLM-based paper? Also - if fiscal subsidies were the main driver, does that help african countries which may not have that tool available?
It's a good question. I suppose the first thing is what not to do. A lot of the things that are popular in African countries (banning things, high tariffs, govt procurement) have seen very little use in China. As for what to do, there is scope within fiscal subsidies for non-cash subsidies. China uses land quite effectively and that's something African countries haven't used quite well. But as I try to say in the piece, even fiscal subsidies are only 41% so while they are the most common tool, there are a lot more tools in use.
From what I know China’s development path was very far from being an exercise in technocratic governance and fiscal policy certainly was not the main driver, that was just an output of the architecture. China’s success was built on a deeply decentralized architecture, which in practice actually resembled the Old American Republic, in some key ways even more than contemporary America does.
Fun Fact!! Chinese municipal policy researchers and party school writers in places like Guangzhou and Shanghai referenced the Jacksonians and the Old Republic when designing their reform models, praising their emphasis on local experimentation, policy heterogeneity, and bottom-up capital control. These weren’t technocracies flexible, responsive, pluralistic systems with actual forms of substantial lower case "d" democratic governance structures, that deliberately embedded redundancy and local discretion.
Would have been better if the tool addressed policies from 1980. Because that's where Nigeria is still at.
Haha
Very interesting, but what are we left with for learning? Can we take lessons from a LLM-based paper? Also - if fiscal subsidies were the main driver, does that help african countries which may not have that tool available?
It's a good question. I suppose the first thing is what not to do. A lot of the things that are popular in African countries (banning things, high tariffs, govt procurement) have seen very little use in China. As for what to do, there is scope within fiscal subsidies for non-cash subsidies. China uses land quite effectively and that's something African countries haven't used quite well. But as I try to say in the piece, even fiscal subsidies are only 41% so while they are the most common tool, there are a lot more tools in use.
Thanks. Good reply.
From what I know China’s development path was very far from being an exercise in technocratic governance and fiscal policy certainly was not the main driver, that was just an output of the architecture. China’s success was built on a deeply decentralized architecture, which in practice actually resembled the Old American Republic, in some key ways even more than contemporary America does.
Fun Fact!! Chinese municipal policy researchers and party school writers in places like Guangzhou and Shanghai referenced the Jacksonians and the Old Republic when designing their reform models, praising their emphasis on local experimentation, policy heterogeneity, and bottom-up capital control. These weren’t technocracies flexible, responsive, pluralistic systems with actual forms of substantial lower case "d" democratic governance structures, that deliberately embedded redundancy and local discretion.
The paper does go into quite some detail on the decentralised nature of China. Hence why it breaks it out by municipal and central
The paper appears to examine the Rise of China from a policy-making perspective. Thanks for sharing. Hope Africa policymakers are reading. 🙂