ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Yasheng Huang - Political economist
Yasheng Huang asks us to rethink our ideas about China and other large emerging economies. Lately he’s been asking, Does democracy hinder or promote economic growth?

Why you should listen

MIT and Fudan University professor Yasheng Huang is an authority on how to get ahead in emerging economies. The China and India Labs he founded at MIT's Sloan School of Management specialize in helping local startups improve their strategies. His book Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (2008) chronicles three decades of economic reform in China and documents the critical role that private entrepreneurship played in the Communist nation’s “economic miracle.”

Huang believes that China is moving away from Marxism (public ownership) but not Leninism (ideology of state control) -- and that strong social fundamentals are the key reason for its growth. He is a vocal critic of US foreign policy in China, calling on American leaders to rethink their messages, which often do not resonate with the Chinese public, and to use technology to broaden their reach, overcome stereotypes and quash conspiracy theories. He says: "For too long the US has not paid attention to an important force in the Chinese economy: the rise of indigenous entrepreneurs. This is in sharp contrast to the US approach in India."

In early 2013 Huang sparred with Eric X. Li in Foreign Affairs about the merits of China's one-party system. Li's article became the basis for his TEDGlobal 2013 talk, which Huang then responded to on the TED Blog.

More profile about the speaker
Yasheng Huang | Speaker | TED.com
TEDGlobal 2011

Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?

Filmed:
1,106,019 views

Economist Yasheng Huang compares China to India, and asks how China's authoritarian rule contributed to its astonishing economic growth -- leading to a big question: Is democracy actually holding India back? Huang's answer may surprise you.
- Political economist
Yasheng Huang asks us to rethink our ideas about China and other large emerging economies. Lately he’s been asking, Does democracy hinder or promote economic growth? Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:15
My topic
0
0
2000
00:17
is economic growth in China and India.
1
2000
3000
00:20
And the question I want to explore with you
2
5000
3000
00:23
is whether or not
3
8000
2000
00:25
democracy has helped or has hindered
4
10000
3000
00:28
economic growth.
5
13000
2000
00:30
You may say this is not fair,
6
15000
2000
00:32
because I'm selecting two countries
7
17000
3000
00:35
to make a case against democracy.
8
20000
3000
00:38
Actually, exactly the opposite
9
23000
3000
00:41
is what I'm going to do.
10
26000
2000
00:43
I'm going to use these two countries
11
28000
2000
00:45
to make an economic argument for democracy,
12
30000
3000
00:48
rather than against democracy.
13
33000
3000
00:51
The first question there
14
36000
2000
00:53
is why China has grown so much faster
15
38000
2000
00:55
than India.
16
40000
2000
00:57
Over the last 30 years,
17
42000
2000
00:59
in terms of the GDP growth rates,
18
44000
3000
01:02
China has grown at twice the rate of India.
19
47000
4000
01:06
In the last five years,
20
51000
2000
01:08
the two countries have begun to converge somewhat
21
53000
3000
01:11
in economic growth.
22
56000
2000
01:13
But over the last 30 years,
23
58000
2000
01:15
China undoubtedly
24
60000
2000
01:17
has done much better than India.
25
62000
3000
01:20
One simple answer
26
65000
2000
01:22
is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai.
27
67000
3000
01:25
Look at the skyline of Shanghai.
28
70000
3000
01:28
This is the Pudong area.
29
73000
2000
01:30
The picture on India
30
75000
2000
01:32
is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai
31
77000
2000
01:34
in India.
32
79000
2000
01:36
The idea there
33
81000
2000
01:38
behind these two pictures
34
83000
2000
01:40
is that the Chinese government
35
85000
2000
01:42
can act above rule of law.
36
87000
2000
01:44
It can plan
37
89000
2000
01:46
for the long-term benefits of the country
38
91000
2000
01:48
and in the process,
39
93000
2000
01:50
evict millions of people --
40
95000
2000
01:52
that's just a small technical issue.
41
97000
3000
01:55
Whereas in India, you cannot do that,
42
100000
2000
01:57
because you have to listen to the public.
43
102000
3000
02:00
You're being constrained by the public's opinion.
44
105000
2000
02:02
Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
45
107000
3000
02:05
agrees with that view.
46
110000
2000
02:07
In an interview
47
112000
2000
02:09
printed in the financial press of India,
48
114000
2000
02:11
He said that he wants to make Mumbai
49
116000
3000
02:14
another Shanghai.
50
119000
2000
02:16
This is an Oxford-trained economist
51
121000
3000
02:19
steeped in humanistic values,
52
124000
4000
02:23
and yet he agrees
53
128000
2000
02:25
with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.
54
130000
3000
02:29
So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth,
55
134000
3000
02:32
that emphasizes the following features
56
137000
4000
02:36
for promoting economic development:
57
141000
2000
02:38
infrastructures, airports,
58
143000
2000
02:40
highways, bridges, things like that.
59
145000
3000
02:43
And you need a strong government to do that,
60
148000
3000
02:46
because you cannot respect private property rights.
61
151000
3000
02:49
You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion.
62
154000
3000
02:52
You need also state ownership,
63
157000
2000
02:54
especially of land assets,
64
159000
3000
02:57
in order to build and roll out infrastructures
65
162000
3000
03:00
very quickly.
66
165000
2000
03:02
The implication of that model
67
167000
2000
03:04
is that democracy
68
169000
2000
03:06
is a hindrance for economic growth,
69
171000
2000
03:08
rather than a facilitator of economic growth.
70
173000
4000
03:12
Here's the key question.
71
177000
2000
03:14
Just how important are infrastructures
72
179000
3000
03:17
for economic growth?
73
182000
2000
03:19
This is a key issue.
74
184000
2000
03:21
If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth,
75
186000
4000
03:25
then you would argue a strong government is necessary
76
190000
3000
03:28
to promote growth.
77
193000
2000
03:30
If you believe
78
195000
2000
03:32
that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe,
79
197000
3000
03:35
then you will put less emphasis
80
200000
2000
03:37
on strong government.
81
202000
2000
03:39
So to illustrate that question,
82
204000
2000
03:41
let me give you two countries.
83
206000
2000
03:43
And for the sake of brevity,
84
208000
2000
03:45
I'll call one country Country 1
85
210000
2000
03:47
and the other country Country 2.
86
212000
2000
03:49
Country 1
87
214000
2000
03:51
has a systematic advantage over Country 2
88
216000
3000
03:54
in infrastructures.
89
219000
2000
03:56
Country 1 has more telephones,
90
221000
3000
03:59
and Country 1 has a longer system of railways.
91
224000
3000
04:02
So if I were to ask you,
92
227000
3000
04:05
"Which is China
93
230000
2000
04:07
and which is India,
94
232000
2000
04:09
and which country has grown faster?"
95
234000
2000
04:11
if you believe in the infrastructure view,
96
236000
3000
04:14
then you will say, "Country 1 must be China.
97
239000
3000
04:17
They must have done better, in terms of economic growth.
98
242000
2000
04:19
And Country 2 is possibly India."
99
244000
4000
04:23
Actually the country with more telephones
100
248000
3000
04:26
is the Soviet Union,
101
251000
2000
04:28
and the data referred to 1989.
102
253000
3000
04:31
After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones,
103
256000
5000
04:36
the country collapsed.
104
261000
3000
04:39
That's not too good.
105
264000
2000
04:41
The picture there is Khrushchev.
106
266000
2000
04:43
I know that in 1989
107
268000
2000
04:45
he no longer ruled the Soviet Union,
108
270000
2000
04:47
but that's the best picture that I can find.
109
272000
3000
04:50
(Laughter)
110
275000
2000
04:52
Telephones, infrastructures
111
277000
2000
04:54
do not guarantee you economic growth.
112
279000
2000
04:56
Country 2, that has fewer telephones,
113
281000
3000
04:59
is China.
114
284000
2000
05:01
Since 1989,
115
286000
2000
05:03
the country has performed at a double-digit rate
116
288000
2000
05:05
every year for the last 20 years.
117
290000
3000
05:08
If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union
118
293000
3000
05:11
other than the fact about their telephones,
119
296000
3000
05:14
you would have made a poor prediction
120
299000
2000
05:16
about their economic growth
121
301000
2000
05:18
in the next two decades.
122
303000
2000
05:20
Country 1, that has a longer system of railways,
123
305000
3000
05:23
is actually India.
124
308000
2000
05:25
And Country 2 is China.
125
310000
3000
05:28
This is a very little known fact
126
313000
3000
05:31
about the two countries.
127
316000
2000
05:33
Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage
128
318000
2000
05:35
over India.
129
320000
2000
05:37
But for many years,
130
322000
2000
05:39
until the late 1990s,
131
324000
2000
05:41
China had an infrastructure disadvantage
132
326000
2000
05:43
vis-a-vis India.
133
328000
2000
05:45
In developing countries,
134
330000
2000
05:47
the most common mode of transportation
135
332000
3000
05:50
is the railways,
136
335000
2000
05:52
and the British built a lot of railways in India.
137
337000
3000
05:55
India is the smaller of the two countries,
138
340000
3000
05:58
and yet it had a longer system of railways
139
343000
3000
06:01
until the late 1990s.
140
346000
2000
06:03
So clearly,
141
348000
2000
06:05
infrastructure doesn't explain
142
350000
2000
06:07
why China did better before the late 1990s,
143
352000
3000
06:10
as compared with India.
144
355000
2000
06:12
In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide,
145
357000
4000
06:16
the evidence is more supportive of the view
146
361000
3000
06:19
that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth.
147
364000
4000
06:23
The economy grows,
148
368000
2000
06:25
government accumulates more resources,
149
370000
2000
06:27
and the government can invest in infrastructure --
150
372000
3000
06:30
rather than infrastructure being a cause
151
375000
3000
06:33
for economic growth.
152
378000
2000
06:35
And this is clearly the story
153
380000
2000
06:37
of the Chinese economic growth.
154
382000
3000
06:40
Let me look at this question more directly.
155
385000
2000
06:42
Is democracy bad for economic growth?
156
387000
3000
06:45
Now let's turn to two countries,
157
390000
2000
06:47
Country A and Country B.
158
392000
3000
06:50
Country A, in 1990,
159
395000
2000
06:52
had about $300 per capita GDP
160
397000
3000
06:55
as compared with Country B,
161
400000
2000
06:57
which had $460 in per capita GDP.
162
402000
3000
07:00
By 2008,
163
405000
2000
07:02
Country A has surpassed Country B
164
407000
3000
07:05
with $700 per capita GDP
165
410000
3000
07:08
as compared with $650 per capita GDP.
166
413000
4000
07:12
Both countries are in Asia.
167
417000
2000
07:14
If I were to ask you,
168
419000
2000
07:16
"Which are the two Asian countries?
169
421000
2000
07:18
And which one is a democracy?"
170
423000
2000
07:20
you may argue,
171
425000
2000
07:22
"Well, maybe Country A is China
172
427000
2000
07:24
and Country B is India."
173
429000
2000
07:26
In fact, Country A
174
431000
2000
07:28
is democratic India,
175
433000
2000
07:30
and Country B is Pakistan --
176
435000
3000
07:33
the country that has a long period
177
438000
2000
07:35
of military rule.
178
440000
2000
07:37
And it's very common
179
442000
2000
07:39
that we compare India with China.
180
444000
4000
07:43
That's because the two countries
181
448000
2000
07:45
have about the same population size.
182
450000
3000
07:48
But the more natural comparison
183
453000
2000
07:50
is actually between India and Pakistan.
184
455000
2000
07:52
Those two countries are geographically similar.
185
457000
3000
07:55
They have a complicated, but shared common history.
186
460000
4000
07:59
By that comparison,
187
464000
2000
08:01
democracy looks very, very good
188
466000
2000
08:03
in terms of economic growth.
189
468000
3000
08:06
So why do economists fall in love
190
471000
3000
08:09
with authoritarian governments?
191
474000
3000
08:12
One reason is the East Asian Model.
192
477000
2000
08:14
In East Asia,
193
479000
2000
08:16
we have had successful economic growth stories
194
481000
3000
08:19
such as Korea, Taiwan,
195
484000
2000
08:21
Hong Kong and Singapore.
196
486000
2000
08:23
Some of these economies
197
488000
2000
08:25
were ruled by authoritarian governments
198
490000
2000
08:27
in the 60s and 70s
199
492000
2000
08:29
and 1980s.
200
494000
2000
08:31
The problem with that view
201
496000
2000
08:33
is like asking all the winners of lotteries,
202
498000
3000
08:36
"Have you won the lottery?"
203
501000
3000
08:39
And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery."
204
504000
2000
08:41
And then you draw the conclusion
205
506000
2000
08:43
the odds of winning the lottery
206
508000
3000
08:46
are 100 percent.
207
511000
2000
08:48
The reason is you never go
208
513000
2000
08:50
and bother to ask the losers
209
515000
2000
08:52
who also purchased lottery tickets
210
517000
2000
08:54
and didn't end up winning the prize.
211
519000
4000
08:58
For each of these successful authoritarian governments
212
523000
3000
09:01
in East Asia,
213
526000
2000
09:03
there's a matched failure.
214
528000
3000
09:06
Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't.
215
531000
3000
09:09
Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't.
216
534000
3000
09:12
Burma didn't succeed.
217
537000
2000
09:14
The Philippines didn't succeed.
218
539000
2000
09:16
If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide,
219
541000
3000
09:19
there's really no support for the idea
220
544000
3000
09:22
that authoritarian governments
221
547000
2000
09:24
hold a systematic edge over democracies
222
549000
3000
09:27
in terms of economic growth.
223
552000
2000
09:29
So the East Asian model
224
554000
2000
09:31
has this massive selection bias --
225
556000
2000
09:33
it is known as selecting on a dependent variable,
226
558000
3000
09:36
something we always tell our students to avoid.
227
561000
4000
09:40
So exactly why did China grow so much faster?
228
565000
4000
09:45
I will take you to the Cultural Revolution,
229
570000
2000
09:47
when China went mad,
230
572000
2000
09:49
and compare that country's performance with India
231
574000
3000
09:52
under Indira Gandhi.
232
577000
2000
09:54
The question there is: Which country did better,
233
579000
3000
09:57
China or India?
234
582000
2000
09:59
China was during the Cultural Revolution.
235
584000
2000
10:01
It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution,
236
586000
2000
10:03
China out-perfomed India
237
588000
2000
10:05
in terms of GDP growth
238
590000
2000
10:07
by an average of about 2.2 percent every year
239
592000
3000
10:10
in terms of per capita GDP.
240
595000
3000
10:13
So that's when China was mad.
241
598000
2000
10:15
The whole country went mad.
242
600000
3000
10:18
It must mean that the country
243
603000
2000
10:20
had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth
244
605000
4000
10:24
to overcome the negative effects
245
609000
3000
10:27
of the Cultural Revolution.
246
612000
2000
10:29
The advantage the country had
247
614000
2000
10:31
was human capital --
248
616000
3000
10:34
nothing else but human capital.
249
619000
2000
10:36
This is the world development index indicator data
250
621000
4000
10:40
in the early 1990s.
251
625000
2000
10:42
And this is the earliest data that I can find.
252
627000
3000
10:45
The adult literacy rate in China
253
630000
3000
10:48
is 77 percent
254
633000
2000
10:50
as compared with 48 percent in India.
255
635000
3000
10:53
The contrast in literacy rates
256
638000
3000
10:56
is especially sharp
257
641000
2000
10:58
between Chinese women and Indian women.
258
643000
3000
11:01
I haven't told you about the definition of literacy.
259
646000
4000
11:05
In China, the definition of literacy
260
650000
3000
11:08
is the ability to read and write
261
653000
2000
11:10
1,500 Chinese characters.
262
655000
3000
11:13
In India, the definition of literacy,
263
658000
3000
11:16
operating definition of literacy,
264
661000
2000
11:18
is the ability, the grand ability,
265
663000
3000
11:21
to write your own name
266
666000
2000
11:23
in whatever language you happen to speak.
267
668000
4000
11:27
The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy
268
672000
2000
11:29
is much more substantial
269
674000
2000
11:31
than the data here indicated.
270
676000
3000
11:34
If you go to other sources of data
271
679000
2000
11:36
such as Human Development Index,
272
681000
2000
11:38
that data series,
273
683000
2000
11:40
go back to the early 1970s,
274
685000
3000
11:43
you see exactly the same contrast.
275
688000
2000
11:45
China held a huge advantage
276
690000
2000
11:47
in terms of human capital
277
692000
2000
11:49
vis-a-vis India.
278
694000
2000
11:51
Life expectancies:
279
696000
2000
11:53
as early as 1965,
280
698000
2000
11:55
China had a huge advantage in life expectancy.
281
700000
4000
11:59
On average, as a Chinese in 1965,
282
704000
3000
12:02
you lived 10 years more
283
707000
2000
12:04
than an average Indian.
284
709000
2000
12:06
So if you have a choice
285
711000
2000
12:08
between being a Chinese and being an Indian,
286
713000
2000
12:10
you would want to become a Chinese
287
715000
2000
12:12
in order to live 10 years longer.
288
717000
3000
12:15
If you made that decision in 1965,
289
720000
2000
12:17
the down side of that
290
722000
2000
12:19
is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution.
291
724000
2000
12:21
So you have to always think carefully
292
726000
3000
12:24
about these decisions.
293
729000
2000
12:26
If you cannot chose your nationality,
294
731000
3000
12:29
then you will want to become an Indian man.
295
734000
3000
12:32
Because, as an Indian man,
296
737000
2000
12:34
you have about two years of life expectancy advantage
297
739000
3000
12:37
vis-a-vis Indian women.
298
742000
3000
12:40
This is an extremely strange fact.
299
745000
3000
12:43
It's very rare among countries
300
748000
3000
12:46
to have this kind of pattern.
301
751000
2000
12:48
It shows the systematic discrimination and biases
302
753000
3000
12:51
in the Indian society
303
756000
2000
12:53
against women.
304
758000
2000
12:55
The good news is, by 2006,
305
760000
2000
12:57
India has closed the gap
306
762000
2000
12:59
between men and women
307
764000
2000
13:01
in terms of life expectancy.
308
766000
3000
13:04
Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge
309
769000
3000
13:07
over Indian men.
310
772000
2000
13:09
So India is reverting to the normal.
311
774000
3000
13:12
But India still has a lot of work to do
312
777000
2000
13:14
in terms of gender equality.
313
779000
2000
13:16
These are the two pictures
314
781000
2000
13:18
taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province
315
783000
3000
13:21
and garment factories in India.
316
786000
3000
13:24
In China, it's all women.
317
789000
2000
13:26
60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women
318
791000
3000
13:29
in the coastal part of the country,
319
794000
2000
13:31
whereas in India, it's all men.
320
796000
3000
13:34
Financial Times printed this picture
321
799000
2000
13:36
of an Indian textile factory
322
801000
2000
13:38
with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile."
323
803000
4000
13:42
By looking at these two pictures,
324
807000
2000
13:44
I say no, it won't overtake China for a while.
325
809000
4000
13:48
If you look at other East Asian countries,
326
813000
2000
13:50
women there play a hugely important role
327
815000
4000
13:54
in terms of economic take-off --
328
819000
2000
13:56
in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle
329
821000
3000
13:59
associated with East Asia.
330
824000
2000
14:01
India still has a long way to go
331
826000
2000
14:03
to catch up with China.
332
828000
2000
14:05
Then the issue is,
333
830000
2000
14:07
what about the Chinese political system?
334
832000
2000
14:09
You talk about human capital,
335
834000
2000
14:11
you talk about education and public health.
336
836000
2000
14:13
What about the political system?
337
838000
2000
14:15
Isn't it true that the one-party political system
338
840000
3000
14:18
has facilitated economic growth in China?
339
843000
4000
14:22
Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that.
340
847000
4000
14:26
It depends on a distinction that you draw
341
851000
3000
14:29
between statics of the political system
342
854000
3000
14:32
and the dynamics of the political system.
343
857000
2000
14:34
Statically, China is a one-party system,
344
859000
3000
14:37
authoritarian -- there's no question about it.
345
862000
3000
14:40
Dynamically, it has changed over time
346
865000
3000
14:43
to become less authoritarian and more democratic.
347
868000
3000
14:46
When you explain change --
348
871000
2000
14:48
for example, economic growth;
349
873000
2000
14:50
economic growth is about change --
350
875000
2000
14:52
when you explain change,
351
877000
2000
14:54
you use other things that have changed to explain change,
352
879000
3000
14:57
rather than using the constant to explain change.
353
882000
4000
15:01
Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change,
354
886000
3000
15:04
but a fixed effect only explains changes
355
889000
3000
15:07
in interaction with the things that change.
356
892000
3000
15:10
In terms of the political changes,
357
895000
2000
15:12
they have introduced village elections.
358
897000
2000
15:14
They have increased the security of proprietors.
359
899000
4000
15:18
And they have increased the security
360
903000
3000
15:21
with long-term land leases.
361
906000
2000
15:23
There are also financial reforms in rural China.
362
908000
3000
15:26
There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China.
363
911000
3000
15:29
To me, the pace of political changes
364
914000
3000
15:32
is too slow, too gradual.
365
917000
2000
15:34
And my own view is the country
366
919000
2000
15:36
is going to face some substantial challenges,
367
921000
2000
15:38
because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms.
368
923000
4000
15:42
But nevertheless,
369
927000
2000
15:44
the system has moved in a more liberal direction,
370
929000
3000
15:47
moved in a more democratic direction.
371
932000
3000
15:51
You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India.
372
936000
4000
15:55
In fact, when India was growing
373
940000
2000
15:57
at a Hindu rate of growth --
374
942000
2000
15:59
about one percent, two percent a year --
375
944000
2000
16:01
that was when India was least democratic.
376
946000
3000
16:04
Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975.
377
949000
4000
16:08
The Indian government owned and operated
378
953000
3000
16:11
all the TV stations.
379
956000
2000
16:13
A little-known fact about India in the 1990s
380
958000
3000
16:16
is that the country
381
961000
2000
16:18
not only has undertaken economic reforms,
382
963000
3000
16:21
the country has also undertaken political reforms
383
966000
3000
16:24
by introducing village self-rule,
384
969000
3000
16:27
privatization of media
385
972000
3000
16:30
and introducing freedom of information acts.
386
975000
4000
16:34
So the dynamic perspective
387
979000
2000
16:36
fits both with China and in India
388
981000
2000
16:38
in terms of the direction.
389
983000
2000
16:40
Why do many people believe
390
985000
3000
16:43
that India is still a growth disaster?
391
988000
3000
16:46
One reason
392
991000
2000
16:48
is they are always comparing India with China.
393
993000
3000
16:51
But China is a superstar
394
996000
2000
16:53
in terms of economic growth.
395
998000
2000
16:55
If you are a NBA player
396
1000000
2000
16:57
and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan,
397
1002000
3000
17:00
you're going to look not so impressive.
398
1005000
2000
17:02
But that doesn't mean
399
1007000
2000
17:04
that you're a bad basketball player.
400
1009000
2000
17:06
Comparing with a superstar
401
1011000
2000
17:08
is the wrong benchmark.
402
1013000
2000
17:10
In fact, if you compare India
403
1015000
2000
17:12
with the average developing country,
404
1017000
2000
17:14
even before the more recent period
405
1019000
3000
17:17
of acceleration of Indian growth --
406
1022000
2000
17:19
now India is growing between eight and nine percent --
407
1024000
3000
17:22
even before this period,
408
1027000
2000
17:24
India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth
409
1029000
3000
17:27
among emerging economies.
410
1032000
3000
17:30
This is a very impressive record indeed.
411
1035000
3000
17:34
Let's think about the future:
412
1039000
2000
17:36
the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant.
413
1041000
3000
17:39
Which country has the growth momentum?
414
1044000
3000
17:42
China, I believe, still has
415
1047000
3000
17:45
some of the excellent raw fundamentals --
416
1050000
3000
17:48
mostly the social capital,
417
1053000
2000
17:50
the public health,
418
1055000
2000
17:52
the sense of egalitarianism
419
1057000
2000
17:54
that you don't find in India.
420
1059000
2000
17:56
But I believe that India has the momentum.
421
1061000
2000
17:58
It has the improving fundamentals.
422
1063000
2000
18:00
The government has invested in basic education,
423
1065000
3000
18:03
has invested in basic health.
424
1068000
2000
18:05
I believe the government should do more,
425
1070000
2000
18:07
but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in
426
1072000
2000
18:09
is the right direction.
427
1074000
2000
18:11
India has the right institutional conditions
428
1076000
3000
18:14
for economic growth,
429
1079000
2000
18:16
whereas China is still struggling
430
1081000
2000
18:18
with political reforms.
431
1083000
2000
18:20
I believe that the political reforms are a must for China
432
1085000
3000
18:23
to maintain its growth.
433
1088000
3000
18:26
And it's very important to have political reforms,
434
1091000
2000
18:28
to have widely shared benefits of economic growth.
435
1093000
3000
18:31
I don't know whether that's going to happen or not,
436
1096000
2000
18:33
but I'm an optimist.
437
1098000
2000
18:35
Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal
438
1100000
3000
18:38
that political reforms will happen in China.
439
1103000
2000
18:40
Thank you very much.
440
1105000
2000
18:42
(Applause)
441
1107000
3000

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Yasheng Huang - Political economist
Yasheng Huang asks us to rethink our ideas about China and other large emerging economies. Lately he’s been asking, Does democracy hinder or promote economic growth?

Why you should listen

MIT and Fudan University professor Yasheng Huang is an authority on how to get ahead in emerging economies. The China and India Labs he founded at MIT's Sloan School of Management specialize in helping local startups improve their strategies. His book Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (2008) chronicles three decades of economic reform in China and documents the critical role that private entrepreneurship played in the Communist nation’s “economic miracle.”

Huang believes that China is moving away from Marxism (public ownership) but not Leninism (ideology of state control) -- and that strong social fundamentals are the key reason for its growth. He is a vocal critic of US foreign policy in China, calling on American leaders to rethink their messages, which often do not resonate with the Chinese public, and to use technology to broaden their reach, overcome stereotypes and quash conspiracy theories. He says: "For too long the US has not paid attention to an important force in the Chinese economy: the rise of indigenous entrepreneurs. This is in sharp contrast to the US approach in India."

In early 2013 Huang sparred with Eric X. Li in Foreign Affairs about the merits of China's one-party system. Li's article became the basis for his TEDGlobal 2013 talk, which Huang then responded to on the TED Blog.

More profile about the speaker
Yasheng Huang | Speaker | TED.com