Customer Reviews

China's Megatrends: The 8 Pillars of a New Society

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

John Naisbitt is a popular futurist who is now focusing on China, and joined by his new wife Doris in writing "China's Megatrends." After traveling numerous times throughout China, interviewing a range of professionals, and monitoring local newspapers in all of China's provinces, they offer a book built around eight 'pillars of the new system.' Unfortunately, these pillars do not translate well into concrete concepts, and are instead mostly illustrated with anecdotes and described by effusive paeans. Nonetheless, "China's Megatrends" also provides valuable perspectives and background with which to view our Asian competitor.

The Naisbitts believe China has a different ('vertical') type of democracy than western nations, and explain how the nation has a single party with local elections taking place in 680,000 some locales, with those elected approving budgets at that level and electing representatives to higher levels. The book, however, omits the key role and requirement of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) membership. The Naisbitts concede that censorship does occur, but largely in the context of the Confucian values of politeness, loyalty to the state, and saving face - euphemisms in Western eyes, at best. The good news is that dissent is much more tolerated than previously, and Confucian values also include an obligation of the leader towards his/her followers.

On the other hand, "China's Megatrends" also raises important points that deter an overly quick rush to judgment of China using our values. The Naisbitts state that they "don't feel entitled to lecture a leadership that has led millions out of poverty, has the support of the vast majority of the people, and is well aware of what needs to be done." They then ask, "Why has 'autocratic' China succeeded in making economic progress, while many democratic states have failed?" The Naisbitts believe that the CCP's constancy has allowed China's long-term direction to be set and carried out without the distractions and disruptions of western elections, and that when a nation is on the brink of collapse it cannot afford the time to discuss and vote on how to get out of the mess. Specifically, Deng Xiaoping and his successors took one billion people divided in a class struggle after Mao's death and united them behind the goal of transforming the country. When the transformation began in 1978, most any work carried on outside the state structure was illegal, and only 165,000 Chinese graduated from a university. Today, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) account for less than half of China's industrial GDP, and 4.5 million Chinese recently graduated from a university.

"China's Megatrends" also points out how its leaders often moved forward through experiments, one of the best known being designating five coastal areas as 'special economic zones' free of traditional regulations. Another was allowing small banks to sell up to 15% of themselves to western banks as a means of learning improved practices. Probably most important was the pact initiated by 18 destitute farmers in October, 1978 - agreeing to split the commune's cropland into 18 plots to be worked by the individual farmers and their families. (During the Cultural Revolutions, farmers, many owning less than an acre, had been persecuted, dispossessed, even killed.) The group of 18 were supported by the local CCP first secretary, and then Deng Xiaoping. At about the same time peasants were given drastically reduced quotas. What food they grew beyond the quota was sold on a free market at unregulated prices. This was an instant success, quickly causing one of the largest increases in standard of living for such a large number of people in such a very small space of time. This system maintained quotas, and thus, the element of socialist societies in which food and employment was ensured by the state.

The 'problem' with these new-found successes (emulated also in industrial production) was that a two-track pricing system ensued - one for state-produced goods, and a higher one for goods produced independently. This led to citizens upset over officials profiting from transferring SOE products to the private market, March, 1988 price decontrol (per recommendation of Milton Friedman, and endorsement by a citizen survey), 95% inflation the next month, government allocation of food and fuel in August, and economic growth hitting a nadir in 1989. Hundreds of thousands then gathered to mourn the death of a pro-democracy and anti-corruption former Secretary General Hu Yaobang in Tienanmen Square (more at about 400 other locations as well), and eventually began protesting for more (or less) economic and political change. After about six weeks of continued unrest, the Chinese army was called in, and arrived June 4, 1989 - despite being hampered by demonstrators and burning blockades. Ergo, tanks, troops, and tragedy in Tienanmen Square. The 'good news' is that civil war did not result (a fear acerbated by China's Cultural Revolution history), nor were the economic reforms undone.

Other reforms since then include Jian Zemin's 1997 support for SOEs having financial problems to pair up with healthy enterprises - rarely were both brought down, no longer requiring farmers to pay land tax (2005), and allowing farmers to lease their land as of 2008. Future plans include increasing China's R&D (more funds for laboratories, projects), continued recruitment of Chinese 'sea turtles' - highly educated Chinese science, management and finance professionals previously working in the U.S. that return to China for attractive research and professorial positions, having the government bear most medical expenses by 2011, increased use of non-polluting power generation, 50% college graduation rate, etc.

The importance of Confucianism in China's society is another important topic brought out by the Naisbitts. Since at least 200 B.C. it has provided the working rules and ethical precepts for Chinese to follow, stressing societal and family obligations, loyalty, and education. U.S. history, howevever, stresses personal initiative and independence - attributes that were key to our early development and economic success, but more problematic in a nation crowded with 300+ million and significant environment issues.

Interesting side-note from "China's Megatrends:" Shanghai's largest bookstore is 7 floors, each the size of a football field.

Bottom Line: "China's Megatrends" is incomplete and embarrassingly biased in some sections, and tells its story in a cumbersome, overly-anecdotal manner. On the other hand, the Naisbitts provide a significant service pointing out that we should not be so quick to criticize China's leadership,values, and culture. No other national leaders have done so well over such a short period of time. Still, we cannot forget the terrible prior record of Mao Zedong - his 'Great Leap Forward' (created widespread famine), 'Cultural Revolution,' and political purges are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people. Nonetheless, it is time to rethink our own values and problems in the light of China's recent successes vs. our own flat-lining economy and inability to resolve major problems such poor international pupil achievement rankings, high health care costs, global warming, deteriorating infrastructure, and ever-deepening deficits.

In China, the state controls the media and what people think and do. The Internet poses a big challenge for the government. But you still see how the state gradually achieved complete control of it. The western world knows about the Google's fight with state control, but few know about the fact the Chinese government employed millions of "Internet commentators". What does those "commentators" do? They spread official propaganda across the Internet. They confuse the public by creating shadow opinions everywhere. They are paid half a Chinese yuan for each comments they public online. They are known among Chinese people as the "half-yuan" or "Wumao" in pinyin.

No disrespect intended, but this book is an excellent example of half-yuan products. The authors pretend to be independent thinkers but are actually reflecting the values and concepts of the official propaganda of Chinese government. The western world may not know this; this book is published in Chinese several months before it is published in English. The Chinese government officials readily endorsed it as patriotism education materials. This fact gives me the suspicion that Chinese officials in charge of propaganda may have ghost written the whole thing. This book generates so much disgust that I cannot finish it. One of my friends who read the whole thing commented that the Naisbitts cited Chinese leaders more often than any other books, including all government propaganda materials. To a Chinese reader, the Naisbitts are so naïve that they are rare even with a Chinese standard, which is a low standard by the way, the Chinese educational system does not teach people how to think critically.

In the very first page and first paragraph, the Naisbitts claim that the Chinese people do not want democracy--it is a typical illustration by tyrannical government that any call for democracy is a call for western-style democracy! But how do the Naisbitts know? Does 1989 student movement count? After 1989 the government tightens political control in every aspects and everywhere. The Naisbitts would not know because they were too busy talking to and dining with the government officials and royal councils, while at the same time, Chinese people who were audacious enough to voice their opinions involuntarily disappeared.

The Naisbitts had lost their credibility completely by writing or rather endorsing this book. If the Naisbitts had not been paid by the Chinese government for millions of dollars for this book, they essentially had a very bad deal. That is exactly how much this book values to the tyrannical government in China. The western world would not allow the Chinese government to spread propaganda beyond Chinese borders. The Naisbitts are their only choice. The Naisbitts really did a poor job because they did not pretend enough to be independent thinkers but rather a pair of parrots with western faces that resonate with dictators, well, isn't that their intention in the beginning after all?

If you are naïve enough to believe in political statements from oppressive regimes, do not set foot on their territories. It's simply safer. It is a tragedy that you let yourselves be duped. It is a triple tragedy that you become the accomplice and/or principle in a new campaign to dupe more people, both in and outside their territories.

The extensive reviews of the historical facts and misrepresentations in this book are covered in detail by other reviewers so these ideas need not be repeated again. The problem with the book, aside from the bias and incorrect facts, is the writing style. Truthfully I could not get all the way through the book as it is written in a rather arcane fashion in terms of sentence structure. I had to keep rereading sentences to make them make sense. It most likely was written by Doris Naisbitt as she often refers to "when John was here or there or did this or that". One gets the feeling the book was written in a language other than English and then poorly translated. I finally skimmed the main concepts looking for new and potentially helpful ideas. A few are to be had but not for the effort that one has to put into reading this poorly written book, hence the 2 stars. If you are interested in the book check it out from the library, then if you like it buy it for future reference.

Long since the opium war, China has been looking for a way to meet the challenges from the west and they initially took 'Mr. Democracy' and 'Mr. Science' as their teacher. In fact, the last 150 years was a process of total westernization in China, including choosing communism which was a western idea as their guidance. Communist revolution undoubtedly was the choice of political belief for the Chinese to rise up as a nation to the western colonization 100 years ago until today.

I give 4 stars to the authors for saying all positive (biased to a typical western eye) things about the Chinese communist party. It takes guts. After all, communism was, is and will forever be evil in the western ideology.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the authors interpretation on the China story in 3 ways. First is the concept of freedom. The Chinese tradition never emphasizes on freedom. Every man and woman were bound to their family and community. The only emphasize was their responsibility and duty, yielding to one another. Being free most likely meant becoming a monk or nun or Taoist priest to escape from the earthliness. The moral disorder in modern day China can only be attributed to the communist demolition of Confucianism in the cultural revolution and followed by smashing influence of capitalism and western concept of individual rights and freedom. Based on the western philosophy that was really derived from Abrahamic religions, natural rights have nothing to do with the nature. It's given by God. To the best of my knowledge, the existence of God is yet to be proven. Where do those rights come from? Every human being born to the nature is under the mercy of nature, let alone any rights.

Second is the legitimacy of communist party ruling. 'Achievements as ligitimation' would be way too forgiving by the west and in fact self-refuting to the party and Chinese peoples past achievement, i.e., overthrowing feudalism, the decadent nationalist gov and freeing China from evil imperialism. Why not 'Mandate of heaven' for the legitimate legitimacy, the very concept which is well-known to whoever knows the Chinese history? It's time to learn from the American conservatives and fundamentalism. Go back to the old way of life. However it will probably take several more decades for those poker faced to take that leap of faith.

Third is the so-called vertical democracy (D). Are they redefining D? To my understanding, D is all about vying and competing, like the Democrats versus Republicans. It's do or die. Pelosi puts it best 'US is the marketplace for ideas'. The trick is how to get the votes for your ideas such as Democrats 'Social justice' versus Republicans 'Thou shalt not steal'. 'Top-down and bottom-up' is anything but competing. On the contrary, it's yielding. The strong (central gov) yields to the weak (local gov or the people) by giving the local more policy freedom. It's the philosophical concept taken right out of Lao Zi's Dao De Jing where yielding is his only advocated human virtue.

One needs to look into the ancient Chinese history (and philosophy) in order to understand the Chinese (cultural and political behavior) just like you need to study the ancient Greeks and Christianity and the puritans to understand the American psyche. The Chinese see the nation as a big family and no political competition and strife is permitted or has to be compromised within the family. All is supposed to be consistent and in solidarity inside and out. This mentality virtually eliminates the tendency of a multi-party politically equal system. Good or evil? It's hard to say as being debated in modern politics (and economics). Multi-party system is fair and square but the nation is deeply divided (to the extreme of mad-house politics) usually with bureaucracy (as opposed to the corruption in the 1-party system) and inconsistency in gov administration. To my understanding, communism is just a transition (In fact, it's a mere mask for China nowadays). China will eventually become a zero-party system which was the way supposed to be.

Few scholars understand the Chinese philosophy of dialectics - for the lack of an English word - it's not the western 'dialectics' defined by Hegel. To understand the Chinese dialectics is not hard. Just look into the allegory of 'sai weng shi ma' which tells how the old man sees the fortune and misfortune in life in a seemingly illogical way. Fortune and misfortune is the key words for the Chinese bible Yi Jing 'the book of change'. The ancient Chinese were taught no concept of 'good and evil' (particularly in the religious or ideological sense) by their ancestors. Of course this way of life cannot be tolerated by the religious (or religion educated) westerners and even by some of the (westernized) modern Chinese. But try to think thrice. 'Change the world' is the (religious) mantra in the west while 'adapt the world (nature)' is the Chinese way of life. This explains why the Chinese is the only surviving ancient civilization.

The Chinese dialectics was inherited by Daoism (Taoism) and Confucianism (i.e., the golden mean or the Greek-like 'moderation') that shaped Chinese culture forever. The Chinese take anything (religion, faith, political ideas) and everything with grain of salt (except during the fanatic Mao religious era), which has no resemblance with the individual heroism, faithful and assertive mentality in the western culture. Everyone knows "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice." Where did Mr Deng get his philosophy from? Check out Dao De Jing verse 2

Once everyone learns what beauty is, ugliness is born;
Learn what good (virtue) is, then there is bad (sin)...

Is the very human concept of 'good and evil' necessary? Look into the nature and universe, what is good and what is evil? Human being is just a tiny part of the nature. The Chinese success is not a story about the redemption of communism but the revival of ancient Chinese philosophy.

So much change has taken place in China in the past three decades--and is taking place at such a dazzling pace on a daily basis--that it is a daunting task for the knowledgeable, not to mention the newly curious, to grasp the picture that is China today. Using the same techniques behind his Megatrends published in 1982, Naisbitt has written a welcome book that describes today's China in broad strokes, or the "eight pillars", in his terms.

In short, a good effort from a Westerner to try to present China using a balanced approach; an informed read definitely for the newly curious.

But the book is clearly strained in certain places--hence only a four-star rating--as a result of the author's failure to truly grasp the essence of thousands-year-old Chinese culture, which surely is a fundamental force forever existent to shape China's future.

Consider this fatal misconception on pages 41-42 where the author discusses his interesting observation about China's "vertical democracy":

"Social order and harmony were central to the teachings of Confucius, who believed that only order could provide true freedom. This concept also prevails in team sports, where rules set the conditions for freedom in playing. In the same way, an orderly society establishes the context within which people can act freely. In the Chinese way of thinking, order does not oppress people but defines room to maneuver."

Ask anybody who has studied Confucius and Chinese history, he or she will tell us that at the heart of the teachings of Confucius are family ethics extended to the whole of a society--making China a "connections-based society", according to Wei Wang, author of The China Executive. In other words, it is "interpersonal relations, involving both obedience and accountability" that constitute the unique fabric of Chinese society.

And if we reflect a little upon our own society, we know that contrary to what Naisbitt says above, the concept of "team", where rules set the conditions for freedom in playing, actually lies at the very heart of a Western society, making it "rules-based".

Therefore, if the watchword for Chinese society is harmony, then the watchword for a Western society is freedom. And neither is perfect.

For me, this most fundamental difference between a Western society and Chinese society, which is thoroughly and entertainingly discussed in The China Executive (in particular, on pages 20-34; and while The China Executive is a business book, it contains many important insights into the strengths and weaknesses of Chinese culture and worldview--especially in chapters 1 and 9), has profound implications for where China is heading.

For instance, instead of saying that China is developing a vertical democracy as Naisbitt does, we could argue that China's path to democracy has to begin from the middle, i.e. at the level of an enterprise. Chinese history tells us that dramatic change at either the top or the bottom would lead to chaos or even civil wars simply because the vast majority of the Chinese people have not had sufficient training in system-wide logical thinking.

An enterprise is an appropriate "team" context, in which the Chinese can try to break away from their age-old family-oriented thinking and learn to debate in a logical way, to put forward appropriate rules, and to experience the consequences of following or not following the rules.

Put it simply, if the Chinese struggle to behave according to rules in an enterprise--we have to remember that over half of the 1.3 billion people have never had the chance to be a member of any rules-based organisation--it is hopeless to expect them to be able to understand and observe the rules of a nationwide democracy.

Read Tim Clissold's book Mr China, we will understand why even at the enterprise level, the idea of a "team" still poses such a challenge to the Chinese.

"China cannot be thoroughly understood from either a Western or a Chinese perspective. To grasp its nature requires an orbital, historical view of both the West and China," Wang says. It is also safe to say that China has risen in the past three decades as a result of its learning from the West, and there is no doubt that it will continue to learn from the West.

But by largely justifying the status quo of China, Naisbitt seems to suggest that there is no need for China to learn further from the West. (Arguably, there is even more for the West to learn from China or rather Chinese civilisation, but that is a different matter - a good place to start with is Yu Dan's Confucius from the Heart.)

Nowhere is this more clearly shown than at the beginning and the end of the book, where the author posed the question: "How did China succeed?" (Note the past tense of the sentence.)

Surely this is against Confucian spirit, which would tell us that China's road to success (if we define success as both harmony and freedom) is still "long and arduous" ("renzhong er daoyuan", The Analects, book VIII, chapter 7) - some of the challenges China will have to face are discussed by James Kynge in China Shakes the World.

My main problem with the book is that from my perspective I found it to be a magazine article masquerading as a book.

It's thesis is interesting and certainly if you came across it in a book store and were inclined to read the introduction and summary this would be time well spent.

As seen on the cover the thesis of the book is their are 8 Pillars Naisbitt believes are the foundation for a new society being constructed in China. Starting with Pillar 2 though, Balancing Top Down and Bottom Up, this literally becomes the entire book. Quite frankly, after reading the book their seemed to be three pillars; 1, 2, and 8. Pillars 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are general observations about China that are rammed into Naisbitt's general theory on the Top Down Bottom Up approach of Chinese goverance first outlined in Chapter 2.

As I read the book this repetitiveness became increasingly frustrating given how promising it seemed to start out. Unlike other reviewers I was not put off by the unrelenting positive view of China as I thought it was helpful to hear about China's strength and uniqueness from a western observer who did not feel compelled to put China's development into a western context.

Poorly edited, full of spelling mistakes especially Chinese names, places. This reallys spoils the pleasure of reading.

I have to wonder if this book was outsourced to the lowest bidder. As an avid reader, I cannot remember a book so full of typos. Really, it seemed like every 4th or 5th page. Although the acknowledgements are replete with thanks to this or that friend who reviewed drafts, advised on syntax or translations, etc., it is stunningly apparent that no one proof read the manuscript. No one with native literacy in English, anyway.

OK, that is petty, but damned annoying. You wonder if similar carelessness went into compiling the many statistics used to justify points.

All that aside, it is a thought-provoking discussion of change and values contrasting our own Western preconceptions currently trending to anarchist populist resentment of any form of government, and the high-stakes realities facing Chinese leadership and the patience and persistence they bring to the challenges. While we continue a death spiral of gridlocked, dysfunctional government, the Chinese are investing in themselves ... not only in China, but in the rest of the world. We had better get used to them running things.

This is a really good book and it makes a lot of sense during this time. The author however seems to think China is infallible and find a lot of his positive views a bit over extended.

I've read a few of Naisbitt's books and generally liked them. This one I listened to. After the first 1/2 of the book I decided I'd had enough.

Why? Because of Naisbitt's "fanboy" approach to the topic.

Naisbitt paints a rose-colored picture when it comes to how China is handling their economy. Burps and glitches to be sure, but apparently all's well if you're generally growing economically.

Perhaps the warts in the system (pollution, theft of intellectual property, trade practices, etc) were addressed in the last 1/2 of the book, but I decided I didn't want to listen anymore.

I did get a bit of a new perspective, hence the 2 stars.