[blindwatchmaker]

China succeeded because it was in the prime position to take advantage of western manufacturing looking to move production facilities elsewhere for wage arbitrage. Right place, right time to reap massive export surpluses - and they were smart enough to use the opportunity to have built up a domestic market/technical knowledge base when wages inevitably started to raise and manufacturers began to move elsewhere again. You're going to see a lot less 'liberalization', and probably some reversals, in China in the coming years.

[rvern]

Rather mostly China succeeded because it had a population larger than any other country. Production depends primarily on resources and human labor is one of the most valuable resources. It is no surprise that population count is strongly correlated with nominal GDP.

This should be completely obvious.

It also refutes the author’s argument. Why has a market economy directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?! Would Friedman find it hard to explain why China, run by a Communist Party, has emerged as central to the global capitalist economy!? China has 19% of the world population but roughly 10% of the world GDP. It is 79th in GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. We should not evaluate a country’s economic policies by looking at its nominal GDP without also looking at its population—this is nothing Friedman would have difficulty explaining.

[jvm]

> Rather mostly China succeeded because it had a population larger than any other country

…is that also why India "succeeded"?

[rvern]

Yes, at least in the sense of succeeding the article talks about. India is the third country in the world by GDP at purchasing power parity, which is consistent with its population being second largest.

[jvm]

I am very confused by this explanation. Why was it right place right time? Why not India? Why not Kenya? Why has Bangladesh followed the same strategy but been so much less successful, with wages much lower than in China?