I suffer badly from the "something wrong on the internet" affliction":

So pity me. A guest writer on Liberal Conspiracy has posted a long article on the Conservatives' approach to international development.  I have not read the Tories' paper - and given a sudden obsession with monetary policy and Britain's long term economic structure, am not really minded to (64 pages of blue headlines).  So, thank you, "Left Outside".

But I can't let this rest:

China and the Chinese are often treated as a political football. Those wishing to vacillate on Climate Change can use China’s pollution as an excuse to do nothing. It appears that the suffering of the Chinese people in sweatshops, mines and factories is now to be rewarded with a banner which reads “Mission Accomplished.”

Please allow me to put this move into perspective, in 1750 England’s GDP per capita (likewise measured in 1990 dollars) stood at $1,328. In 2006 China’s per capita GDP stood $128 below this. Today, on the brink of the worst global recession in a generation, China’s GDP pet capita is still only half of what the UK had achieved by the end of the 19th Century. The Tories announce that “Every life is precious” but when those live are collectively labelled “the People’s Republic of China” their well-being becomes a necessary sacrifice.

I've recently completed a degree in Global Economic History, and smell a rat, which I will pull out of the floorboards later.  But first imagine you confronted these factoids without having read much history.  Do they surprise you?  You may be aware that China has been growing at about 10% p.a. since 1980, and as its population growth is slowing, much of this is per-capita growth.  At that rate, it doubles its level ever 7-8 years.  Which means an increase of almost 8 times since 1980 - in fact, downloading IMF data you find that in 1980, GDP/head in China in terms of current international dollars was $313, and (as the above piece observes) is about $3600 now.

Working backwards, Left Outside's view that China is still struggling with GDP/head at a half of our Victorian levels suggests that in 1980, the average Chinese consumption was ONE TWENTIETH of our Victorian antecedents. Given that life expectancy, even in 1980 China, was way higher than in 1860's Britain (probably 65-70 versus 45-50), this seems extremely unlikely - almost meaningless, in fact. 

Then you take your Global History degree and find that it IS unlikely. Or rather untrue.   I start with Angus Madison's data.  In "1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars", he has China's GDP in 1800 at about $600*.  Two centuries of woe, caused by both internal and external factors, as well as the disasters of totalitarianism, mean that it is still around $600 in 1960.  There is SOME growth to 1980, bringing us to $1000, but then the new freedoms growth starts motoring from a change in ideology. By Madison's data, this puts Chinese GDP in terms of 1990 dollars at over $4000 in 2003 - in line with IMF figures. In terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has grown even faster, to $8500- reflecting, no doubt, the strengthening currency - from $248 in 1980. 

Purchasing Power Parity probably explains much of what Left Outside has Left Outside his analysis.  It is what counts in this sort of discussion: what matters is how much you can get for your buck, not the state of international markets in tradeable items. 

You don't really need figures to understand this.  Look at the volume of skyscrapers in Shanghai - a city with a population about the same as Victorian Britain.  These have been put up in the last 10 years or so.  Does Left Outside honestly believe that this is possible with 1860s-levels of economic production?

Now onto the UK's figures.   Madison thinks we had $1706 per head in 1820, rising to $3000 or so in the 1870s.  Yes, this is slow, the industrial revolution being a much slower affair than growth since the War (our supposed decline), which pushed us from $7000 to $21000 in 2003. 

In PPP terms, the last 25 years have been modest compared to China. This report suggests we have grown from $15,000 to $36000 since 1980.  It means from 60 times the typical 1980 Chinese peasant to about 4 times now: except a significant chunk are no longer peasants. 

Once you look at all the non-economic figures, and think about how non-comparable over time GDP is (think: how do you value the ability to use a mobile phone - the Chinese are the world's biggest users - across the centuries) - the notion that the UK needs to fix China because China is not yet at 1800s-level qualities of life, and cannot therefore help itself owing to economic impoverishment - is clearly boll*cks.  It is not "using it as a political football". 

[That last piece of nonsense deserves repeating for sheer incredulity value.  1.3 billion Chinese are being used as a political football by the Conservatives . . .   ]

Ignore the dull figures and just work it out: the Chinese can contemplate spending $62bn on 97 regional airports, and yet are meant to be treated as if they are in Dickensian poverty?  Jeez. 

But, perhaps worse, the section above quoted from Left Behind suggests that he/she is in fact left behind with a very Victorian/Missionary mindset. Because our GDP/head is higher than the Chinese, it is our Mission to intervene in how their political and economic systems work in order to correct the wrongs brought by their mines and sweatshops.  And if we don't, we are being complacent about our duty.  Imagine how this sounds in the ears of a Chinese official; it must ring to a rather similar tone to those British missionaries in the 19th century, or the administrators in India lecturing their subject population on how to improve matters.   Patronising imperialism is not the sole preserve of the Right, it seems.

There are numerous lessons to take from China's explosive growth since 1980.  Some might want to observe how important the State has been in this growth.  I agree - this has not been Wild West capitalism.  Others might point out how it was a liberalisation of their system that triggered it.  That is right too - they did not change their state planners, but rather withdrew explicit state planning and restore the market economy in large swathes.  But the big lesson for me, from China as well as other successful catching-up nations like Japan, Korea, etc, is that economic growth has to come from within, rather than according to the designs of external agents.   Comparing the performance of those countries less touched by genuine colonialism makes a powerful case.

*But if you take the reading of some left-leaning economists, Chinese quality of life and levels of consumption were on a par with Europe's in 1750.  The question as to why we 'diverged' - whether through happy chance or our being in possession of superior economic ideals - is too large for this post. 

** Why this phrase?  Well, I say "imperalism" because there is a definite implication that we should project our values/ways of doing things across borders.  "Left Wing" because the motivation is to equalize and redistribute, and also because of the instinctive aversion to letting people/nations do things the way they want to, rather than according to a template indicating superior values.