"How to make China even richer" 에 대한 반론

[고니]

Personally, I have a strong concern for China, that's why I read this article, and I felt that writer's argument doesn't make sense. I regard the writer doesn't have an in-depth understanding on China's present situation. According to the article, it said China should authorize for peasants to get the private ownership of their land.

I'm calling into question that the collective land should be privatized.

Now, I am going to explain why it isn't appropriate for China's current circumstances.

Below is the main argument of writers why the government should authorize the private ownership.

Pros

0. right to mortgage their land ->raise money to boost its productivity

1. right to sell their land -> sufficient capital to start life anew in urban areas

2. accumulation of land in the fewer hand -> boost its productivity

3. Boost urban consumption

4. Encourage the migration of unproductive rural labour into the cities

This is my argument against the writer's statement.

Cons

0. Even though they have money to boost its productivity, which can buy up-to-date agricultural facilities, it is no use under small-scale farming.

1. Can they really start a new life in urban areas?

- Of course not, most of them are in serious poverty.

• They coudn't get enough capital by selling their land for urban life, because of the huge gap of the cost of living between city and country.
• Migrants typically work long hours for low pay in dirty, difficult or dangerous jobs, endure dingy accommodation without essential services.

2. Can it boost consumption?

• When it comes to their poor living condition, it is not likely. They dan't have economic ability to purchase expensive goods.

3. Accumulation of land doesn't guarantee production efficiency.

    It depends on who owes the land. If the owners don't have proper experience and know-how on large-scale farming, the result can be reverse because they couldn't handle huge land.

4. Because of high unemployment rate, cities couldn't accommodate the mass migration of rural labour.

This is the latest figures

• Urban joblessness, now averages around 8-9%, according to scholars at the Beijing-based Development Research Center, a government think tank.
• Reliable numbers aren't available, but some estimate there are at least 19 million Chinese who are out of work.
• In the next 10 years, it is predicted that 150 million farmers will move to cities looking for work; that means China must create 17 million jobs a year just to maintain its current unemployment rate.

  Under these conditions, if the authorization of ownership of land foster the migration of peasants, the result will be devastating for the country.

  Accumulation of farm land in fewer hands would need to be offset by growth of non-agricultural jobs, and employment figures suggest that growth is not happening at the requisite rate. Already, 50 million peasants have become landelss and they couldn't get the job in the city. If these people, who have nowhere to turn, would increase more and more, they could one day rise up in open revolt.

Then, what is a realistic solution to this?

In favor of the magnitude of Chines population, it really requires step-by-step stage to reform the rural area.

Suggestion

-         For the foreseeable future, therefore, the best bet for rural China lies in the promotion of diversified, smallholder agriculture that provides an adequate living-even if most farm families also supplement their incomes with local off-farm work.

-         Allow and encourage the development of autonomous farmers’ associations that can play a role in bulk buying of inputs, marketing of produce, spreading of technical knowledge, and improving access to credit for productive investments.

영어로 계속 쓰려니 너무 힘드네요^^;.. Suggestion은 제가 생각한 건

아니고.. 어떤 논문에서 본 건데..  그 논문이 기억이 안나요..

사실 이 기사를 읽으면서 Economist 지에 좀 실망했어요.  중국전반

적인 상황에 대한 이해가 없어서 그런지 이론적인 수준의 서구식

경제개발논리를 일방적으로 주장한 것 같아요. 같은 이슈를 다루면

서도 Time지는 분석이 제대로 된 것 같은데..

[Statesman]

분석하는 능력이 좋습니다 근거도 많이 제시하고 설득력도 있고 말이죠. 수고 했어요. Economist도 단점은 있지요. Time지는 단점이 더많은 잡지라고 생각합니다. Economist 만한 잡지도 없어요. 단점이 있기는 하지만 말이죠. 화요일 봅시다.