

How China Won and Russia Lost - Rexxar
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html

======
tokenadult
"The largest number of overseas Chinese, most of whom were refugees from
China, resided in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and China’s first lesson in global
exchange was from nearby Hong Kong. Before communist rule, the inhabitants of
the capital of Guangdong (adjacent to Hong Kong), were considered city
slickers, while Hong Kong was full of country bumpkins. As Hong Kong surged,
several million Guangdongese escaped to Hong Kong, where they participated in
its economic miracle. Friends and families lined up in long queues in
Guangzhou to receive hand-me-downs from their Hong Kong friends and relatives.
Young urban women wanted to marry only men with overseas family relations.15
When the Chinese government first set up Special Economic Zones in Shenzhen
(near Hong Kong), Zhuhai (near Macau), Shantou (the hometown of Hong Kong
refugees), and Xiemen (near Taiwan), the Chinese borrowed their new rules and
regulations directly from Hong Kong. Guangdong entrepreneurs copied the Hong
Kong model of 'Front Shop, Back Factory,' while others set up joint factories
together with Hong Kong small business owners."

I watched this process occurring in the 1980s, with the later participation of
business persons from Taiwan (noted later in the submitted article). Having a
culturally similar alternative model (Hong Kong and Taiwan with different
political rules and different economic structures) was crucial in helping
China make a smoother transition to sound rather than irrational economic
policies than Russia has been able to achieve thus far.

------
bilbo0s
I upvoted this article because I think there are some neat lessons in it about
'cooperative entrepreneurship' for lack of a better term. I am surprised, for
instance, that more groups of American startups do not self organize into the
kinds of 'business cooperatives' that you see a lot in China.

Having mentioned that, I understand that this guy is cherry picking facts to
fit his particular world view, or narrative. Liberal and Conservative
academics are known to do this in their work. Especially the ones who work at
think tanks dedicated to espousing a given world view.

I think it is important, however, that we are able to read through a lot of
these works picking out useful lessons. Seeing an example of farmers
(entrepreneurs) working together, and what that model eventually morphed into
industrially in places like Ningbo is useful. I have always wished for an in
depth analysis of these formal and informal Chinese business structures. There
is probably something we can learn from that.

------
startingup
There is an interesting analogy to India too, which had a sclerotic, state-
dominated economic system for 40+ years. India had far less of a dispora than
China, but far more than Russia. And India's economic reforms have been half-
hearted, and results have been in between China and Russia.

------
hristov
Oh yes, China succeeded economicaly because it is such a free nation.

And while we should commend China for the impressive freedom of its citizens
and the resulting economic wealth, we should forget the humble messenger.
Isn't it great that we have such stalwart libertarian scholars like the hoover
institution that helpfully point out and commend nations that are truly free.
With institutions like these in the US, I bet every dictator in the world is
shaking in his boots.

~~~
Rexxar
Have you read the text ?

~~~
hristov
Yes, I read it and learned a lot. Apparently Russia lacked a diaspora. I never
knew that! In fact, I am burning all my Vladimir Nabakov books on the grounds
that he is a liar.

Also the Chinese wanted reform and the Russians did not. Gorbachev somehow
conned the entire Soviet Union to end communism when everyone wanted it to
keep going.

Basicaly a lot of lessons learned.

~~~
papersmith
Like they said in the article "A few Russians had emigrated to the United
States and Israel.", though the number is probably much smaller in comparison.

I think it's saying that Russia being more urbanized, the Russians' lives were
much better off to begin with, so there wasn't as much momentum for change. If
you compare per capita GDP, Russia is still about three times as much as
China, the margin was even bigger back then.

The reform happened mostly in the countryside, while in cities the workers
under the protective umbrella of state-owned enterprises were much more
resistant to change. It just happened that Russia had a larger portion city
workers than China.

~~~
hristov
Yes, he mentions a few Russians emigrated, which is an incredible
understatement. And he does not reconcile this fact with his theory which
assumes exactly the opposite.

Regarding your other argument you are giving the writer too much credit and
putting words in his mouth. He does not mention comparative GDP.

