The Beijing Consensus: China's Alternative Development Model

The fact that the Chinese government relies heavily on surveys and polling reflects a dedication to “constant tinkering” vis-à-vis innovative policymaking. Some of the results have been controversial to outside observers—for instance, the One Child policy, implemented to slow population growth—however within China, such policies have been highly successful. In the case of the One Child policy, the policy has allowed China to reach goals of significant importance to its population, such as economic growth and stability. Despite appearing absurd and morally questionable to the outside world, the fact that is important—and that the BJC emphasizes—is that it works for China.

II: Pursuit of Dynamic Goals/Rejection of Per Capita GDP

In essence, the second big idea of the BJC is a “rejection of per capita GDP as the be-all and end-all” of development priorities (Leonard, 2006). This ideal serves in part as a rejection of Western policies, which are known to weigh these figures heavily. Instead, the BJC suggests an increased focus on measures such as quality-of-life and individual equity, areas that China has strongly focused its attention (Ramo, 2004: 12).

Qualitatively, the most accurate measure of quality-of-life is the UN Development Program’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI): “These standards provide ‘an alternative to the view of development equated exclusively with economic growth and help us understand that poverty is really ‘the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely… lowness of incomes’” (Ogden, 2002: 367). Examining development in this way therefore emphasize the realization of substantive results and discredits, for example, situations where income growth benefits only a small portion of the population.

The disparity between measurements of HDI and GDP can furthermore be significant. For instance, according to the UNDP’s 2007 data (published in 2009) China was ranked 102^nd out of 182 countries in terms of per-capita GDP, whereas it was ranked 56^th in measurements of adult literacy, 72^nd considering life expectancy, and 92^nd according to HDI value (UNDP). Considering GDP as the single most important factor would therefore undervalue China’s other substantive achievements.

In this sense, China’s governing elite have often emphasized the need to simultaneously pursue multiple goals: “[China’s development strategy], according to Premier Wen Jiabao, involves putting people first and promoting reform and innovation in accordance with the ‘five-balances’: balancing urban and rural development, balancing development among regions, balancing economic and social development, balancing development between man and nature, and balancing domestic development with opening wider to the outside world” (Yusuf and Nabeshima, 2006: 5). In contrast, the idea of pursuing balanced development is rarely mentioned in the framework of Western priorities. The BJC recognizes that an increasing GDP, left without other goals and serious strategies for achieving them, will not solve problems of everyday relevance to the population.

III. Self-Determination

Finally, the third point of the BJC emphasizes the need for developing countries to actively seek independence from outside pressure, as it is imposed by “hegemonic powers” such as the United States (Ramo, 2004: 12). Ultimately, this ideal can be seen both through the lens of China’s traditional animosity to foreign incursion, and by considering the fact that China has refused to submit to outside pressure and instead  pursued its own priorities.

Gresh describes this characteristic of the BJC as “valuing independence and self-determination and refusing to let other (western) powers impose their will,” emphasizing the idea that “Countries can plan their own development without having to accept the unfavorable terms of the Washington Consensus” (Gresh, 2008). Indeed, it is easy to see why the Chinese model has met with strong interest in other developing nations.

Particularly in Africa—where western countries have a long history of incursion and exploitation—the idea of self-determination being important to development, as China proposes, is highly appealing. This is evidenced by China’s increasing role in the region: Princeton Lyman, for the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, “China’s investments are attractive to Africans… because they come with no conditionality related to governance, fiscal probity or other of the concerns that now drive western donors” (Lyman, 2005). China, in other words, does not seek to impose its own priorities on partner countries, for good or ill. Regardless of if the U.S. and other Western nations agree with the ideology of self-determination, it is a key component of the BJC, and one that further underscores the “alternative value” of the BJC in relation to the Washington Consensus.

Discussion: Taking the Beijing Consensus Beyond China

One of the primary hallmarks of the Beijing Consensus is that it does not dictate finite policy points to those who may seek to use it as a model. Where the Washington Consensus clearly delineates ten relatively unambiguous recommendations, the BJC is formed, merely, around three ideas, which are in themselves less tangible and more subjective then those of the WAC. This leads to an important question: is the Beijing Consensus really useful as a development model?

Arif Dirlik, a China specialist, questions the true utility of the BJC on the basis of its broad nature and lack of specificity: Dirlik instead calls the Beijing Consensus “a notion, rather than a concept or an idea, because it does not have any of the coherence that we associate with either of those terms” (Dirlik, 2006: 1). Dirlik also brings up some of the downsides to China’s boom, addressing the fact that a large portion of the population has been “marginalized by… new development policies” (p. 4), and brining attention to the environmental challenge China now faces, describes pollution levels as so severe that they are “an additional cause of public suffering and disturbance” (p. 7). The implementation of China’s development ideals has obviously not been without flaw.