In 2008, the world watched in awe as 2,008 men pounded Fou drums in unison at the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony―a spectacle that heralded China's arrival as a global powerhouse. Yet even as China's economy skyrocketed, skeptics scoffed at its ability to lead in tech, arguing that its authoritarian institutions smother true innovation. Jennifer Lind dismantles this assumption, showing that China has not just kept pace; it has, in fact, surged ahead.
Coupling hard data with razor-sharp analysis, Lind shows that China's ascent was fueled by what she calls "smart authoritarianism": a model of governance in which autocratic leaders temper tight political control with inclusive economic measures. By balancing pro-innovation policies with tools of repression, China's leaders have obtained political control and economic growth. These smart authoritarians, Lind observes, are not the brass-knuckled dictators of the past―they are their polished Savile Row-clad progeny, and they are found not only in China but also in authoritarian regimes worldwide.
Compelling and incisive, Autocracy 2.0 is a must-listen for anyone seeking to understand China's meteoric rise and how today's autocrats are reshaping the technological frontier, governance, and the global balance of power.
- author's essential argument is that China has 'resolved' the innovation-control paradox posited by institutionalist theory (where extractive institutions limit growth beyond a certain level) - i'm not convinced that the AJR hypothesis has been disproven here - China's nominal growth has indeed slowed markedly and TFP gains have topped out at a much lower income level than other East Asian 'miracle' economies - there is a possibility that the success of Chinese innovation is simply the conclusion we'd come to from the Romer model - the huge scale of the country enables a greater flourishing of skills and ideas relative to the income level - I do buy that China is sufficiently powerful enough to be considered a player in a bipolar world order so all this is possibly moot - the analysis of the mechanisms through which 'smart authoritarianism' works (improved property rights & judiciary, pubilc goods/meritocratic civil service + inward FDI/capital markets, low-intensity repression, trade/tourism/mobility, government-controlled civil society + information flows) - I'm simply not convinced that this disproves anything. If anything the Ding (2023/24) work she cites supports the idea that diffusion shows China is behind. nonetheless a quite fair treatment of this topic.