Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a word - no.
Why? Because these other countries do not have the unique political, cultural, and economic elements in place as existed right before China's economic boom (late 70s). Why China during that period? In the late 1970s the government introduced economic reforms that change China from more authoritative to less centralized, from agricultural to industrial from more sheltered to accepting foreign investment. It always was a sleeping giant, it was just a matter of unleashing it's potential.
You should say "China's success in the 1980s to 2010". While still an economic giant, they have been sliding down the last decade or so. One would have to both try to replicate it's success but avoid it's failures (and we have yet to see how far down they will go).
my amateur observation is, only japan came close to the economic power of china, but japan fizzled out after 30 years. S Korea is still at the peak of its late run, dont know yet what will be the outlook. All others seem to have just flash successes... Taiwan has been stagnant for 15-20 years now, Indonesia and Malaysia showed some promise in the 90s but did not go anywhere. SG has produced miracle but the size is just too small. India has the population but has not even started.
my amateur observation is, only japan came close to the economic power of china, but japan fizzled out after 30 years. S Korea is still at the peak of its late run, dont know yet what will be the outlook. All others seem to have just flash successes... Taiwan has been stagnant for 15-20 years now, Indonesia and Malaysia showed some promise in the 90s but did not go anywhere. SG has produced miracle but the size is just too small. India has the population but has not even started.
Are these all just coincidence? Or is it destiny?
Those countries stagnated earlier than China, because they started earlier than China. Japan started to grow in the 50s, and Taiwan and South Korea started to grow in the 60s. If they were to keep growing, they would be richest countries in the world. China's growth only started in the 80s, and there are clear signs that China is slowing down.
If you think about size, then yes China is pretty much the only one. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are too messed up. Indonesia has some potential but its too spread out. Brazil is an overregulated mess, Nigeria is hopelessly corrupt and people are uneducated. The rest have too few people to be even remotely close to the economic power of China.
my amateur observation is, only japan came close to the economic power of china, but japan fizzled out after 30 years. S Korea is still at the peak of its late run, dont know yet what will be the outlook. All others seem to have just flash successes... Taiwan has been stagnant for 15-20 years now, Indonesia and Malaysia showed some promise in the 90s but did not go anywhere. SG has produced miracle but the size is just too small. India has the population but has not even started.
Are these all just coincidence? Or is it destiny?
Japan was a better China than China. By the 1990s Japan had already become one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita. Its GDP per capita in the 90s was close to Switzerland and Norway and well above the US. Its economy size was 2/3 of the US with 1/3 of the population. Even after nearly 3 decades of stagnation it's still in the same league as other developed countries and an extremely prosperous and stable society with strong institution in place. Yes it is lagging behind in certain areas and the population keeps declining, but quality of life will remain high.
Today China's economy size is also 2/3 of the US, but it's got 5 times the population. The vast majority of the population is still poor and it's already showing signs of stagnation. With all the corruption, the non-existent civil society, the gigantic wealth gap and all the other crazy policies, the prospect is not optimistic at all in the long run.
Japan was a better China than China. By the 1990s Japan had already become one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita. Its GDP per capita in the 90s was close to Switzerland and Norway and well above the US. Its economy size was 2/3 of the US with 1/3 of the population.
Altough I agree with the premise, please do not make up numbers.
If you try to claim that you actually meant nominal numbers for 1995, the year when Japans currency was extremly overvalued, then it is still wrong, because it was 50% larger not 100% and it was not close to Norway.
Average gdp per capita (nominal) in the 90s
Switzerland: 41,558
Japan: 34,478
Norway: 32,378
United States: 28,584
Average gdp per capita (ppp) in the 90s
Norway: 36,309
Switzerland. 33,098
United States: 28,496
Japan: 23,282
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
