Justin Yifu Lin, former chief economist at the World Bank and now a professor at the National Institute of Development, Peking University (PKU), participated in yet another high-profile academic debate recently. He argued that it is the late-mover advantage – late movers can observe first movers’ actions and effects, and avoid mistakes – that have contributed to China's growth. But Cai Fang, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, disagreed, attributing it to the demographic dividend, the economic growth potential brought about by a larger share of working-age population.
In an article in The Beijing News, Wan Zhe, chief economist at China Gold Group, wrote that just like some of the previous debates Lin has engaged in recently – including the 2016 industrial policies debate with PKU Professor Zhang Weiying – the recent debate also relates to the top concern; that is what kind of relationship should there be between the government and the market.
Setting aside that topic, Wan then explored whether China's economic development should have its own theories, as argued by many scholars in recent years.
The 2008 international financial crisis has led economists around the world to reflect and conclude that existing economic theoretical frameworks cannot effectively explain the issues facing economic development and needs innovations. Given this, it is highly necessary to abstract China’s own economic development experience into theories, she said.
Yet also because of this, some scholars’ arguments are labeled as either “Chinese theories” or “non-Chinese theories,” preventing arguments from being fully developed. She warned against this tendency, as it not only fails to help develop theories, but also hampers the truth from coming into existence, not to mention improving and maturing.
After noting that historical experience shows that arguments and debates have not held any party down or weakened a party, but made both develop, Wan went on to argue that there should be more academic argument within China.
For one thing, many issues in China are not well explained and understood. An extensive, in-depth debate backed by rigorous academic reasoning will comb through the issues and pinpoint the solutions. More importantly, sometimes the opposite viewpoints in a debate are not in a zero-sum relationship; they are more likely to be in mutual support, she concluded.