Why China Never Wanted Shock Therapy and Thus Needed No Escaping from It: A Critique of Isabella M. Weber’s Argument

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 AREA STUDIES
Piatkowski Marcin, Chunlin Zhang
{"title":"Why China Never Wanted Shock Therapy and Thus Needed No Escaping from It: A Critique of Isabella M. Weber’s Argument","authors":"Piatkowski Marcin, Chunlin Zhang","doi":"10.1353/chn.2022.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article reviews Isabella M. Weber’s book How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate. While in many ways a brilliant book, it can nonetheless be misleading and, in certain areas, misinformed. First, China has never really attempted shock therapy: it has almost always followed a gradual approach to reforms more akin to “acupuncture” rather than a “shock” therapy. Second, the definition of shock therapy that the book uses is deceptive, because it meant different things in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), Russia and China. Third, the importance of the 1980s debates seems to be exaggerated: China has never implemented shock therapy largely because of more fundamental forces, and not due to the fact that “dual-track reformers” had “saved” China. Fourth, while China, with its “gradualist” approach in reforms, has become the world’s growth champion, most CEE countries that underwent shock therapy did not fare badly either.","PeriodicalId":45391,"journal":{"name":"China-An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/chn.2022.0007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This article reviews Isabella M. Weber’s book How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate. While in many ways a brilliant book, it can nonetheless be misleading and, in certain areas, misinformed. First, China has never really attempted shock therapy: it has almost always followed a gradual approach to reforms more akin to “acupuncture” rather than a “shock” therapy. Second, the definition of shock therapy that the book uses is deceptive, because it meant different things in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), Russia and China. Third, the importance of the 1980s debates seems to be exaggerated: China has never implemented shock therapy largely because of more fundamental forces, and not due to the fact that “dual-track reformers” had “saved” China. Fourth, while China, with its “gradualist” approach in reforms, has become the world’s growth champion, most CEE countries that underwent shock therapy did not fare badly either.
为什么中国从不需要休克疗法,因此也不需要逃避——对伊莎贝拉·韦伯观点的批判
摘要:本文回顾了伊莎贝拉·韦伯的著作《中国如何逃脱休克疗法:市场改革之争》。虽然这本书在很多方面都很出色,但它可能会误导人们,在某些方面甚至会误导人们。首先,中国从未真正尝试过休克疗法:它几乎总是采取一种渐进的改革方式,更像是“针灸”,而不是“休克”疗法。其次,书中使用的“休克疗法”的定义具有欺骗性,因为它在中东欧(CEE)、俄罗斯和中国的含义不同。第三,20世纪80年代辩论的重要性似乎被夸大了:中国从未实施休克疗法,主要是因为更根本的力量,而不是因为“双轨改革者”“拯救”了中国。第四,尽管中国以“渐进”的改革方式成为全球增长冠军,但大多数接受休克疗法的中东欧国家的表现也不差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信