中国对世界发展范式的挑战

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Joshua Rayman
{"title":"中国对世界发展范式的挑战","authors":"Joshua Rayman","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1946837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The past forty years of world development have seen multiple operational frameworks, most notably, the neoliberal Washington Consensus or structural adjustment policies (1981–2001), the international development framework guided by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG, 2000–2015), and the Chinese Economic Model or Beijing Consensus emerging from Deng Xiaoping’s reforms (1978-present). I criticize the Washington Consensus as an economic, ethical-political, and environmental failure. I cast doubt both on the novelty and efficacy of the frameworks to enact the Millennium Development Goals by showing that they largely repackage structural adjustment policies in democratic terms and contribute far less to recent global successes than alternative Chinese and Indian models. I describe the Chinese Economic Model as both a far more successful domestic economic alternative to the hegemonic Western models and a problematic export with the potential to transform as well as to destabilize developing countries. Finally, I articulate conditions for an alternative that would enact the democratic rhetoric of the Millennium Development Goals, learn from the domestic scale of infrastructure and education spending, the national focus, local implementation, and recent environmental experiments of the Chinese Economic Model, and recognize the environment’s fundamental significance to development.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"China’s challenge to world development paradigms\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Rayman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449626.2021.1946837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The past forty years of world development have seen multiple operational frameworks, most notably, the neoliberal Washington Consensus or structural adjustment policies (1981–2001), the international development framework guided by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG, 2000–2015), and the Chinese Economic Model or Beijing Consensus emerging from Deng Xiaoping’s reforms (1978-present). I criticize the Washington Consensus as an economic, ethical-political, and environmental failure. I cast doubt both on the novelty and efficacy of the frameworks to enact the Millennium Development Goals by showing that they largely repackage structural adjustment policies in democratic terms and contribute far less to recent global successes than alternative Chinese and Indian models. I describe the Chinese Economic Model as both a far more successful domestic economic alternative to the hegemonic Western models and a problematic export with the potential to transform as well as to destabilize developing countries. Finally, I articulate conditions for an alternative that would enact the democratic rhetoric of the Millennium Development Goals, learn from the domestic scale of infrastructure and education spending, the national focus, local implementation, and recent environmental experiments of the Chinese Economic Model, and recognize the environment’s fundamental significance to development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1946837\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1946837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我批评华盛顿共识是经济、道德-政治和环境方面的失败。我对制定千年发展目标的框架的新颖性和有效性表示怀疑,因为它们在很大程度上以民主的方式重新包装了结构调整政策,对近期全球成功的贡献远远小于中国和印度的替代模式。我将中国经济模式描述为一种比霸权的西方模式更成功的国内经济替代模式,同时也是一种有问题的出口模式,有可能改变发展中国家,也有可能破坏发展中国家的稳定。最后,我阐述了另一种选择的条件,即制定千年发展目标的民主修辞,从国内基础设施和教育支出的规模、国家重点、地方实施和中国经济模式最近的环境实验中学习,并认识到环境对发展的根本意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
China’s challenge to world development paradigms
ABSTRACT The past forty years of world development have seen multiple operational frameworks, most notably, the neoliberal Washington Consensus or structural adjustment policies (1981–2001), the international development framework guided by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG, 2000–2015), and the Chinese Economic Model or Beijing Consensus emerging from Deng Xiaoping’s reforms (1978-present). I criticize the Washington Consensus as an economic, ethical-political, and environmental failure. I cast doubt both on the novelty and efficacy of the frameworks to enact the Millennium Development Goals by showing that they largely repackage structural adjustment policies in democratic terms and contribute far less to recent global successes than alternative Chinese and Indian models. I describe the Chinese Economic Model as both a far more successful domestic economic alternative to the hegemonic Western models and a problematic export with the potential to transform as well as to destabilize developing countries. Finally, I articulate conditions for an alternative that would enact the democratic rhetoric of the Millennium Development Goals, learn from the domestic scale of infrastructure and education spending, the national focus, local implementation, and recent environmental experiments of the Chinese Economic Model, and recognize the environment’s fundamental significance to development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Ethics
Journal of Global Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
×
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