Chinese investors were taken by surprise when stock markets around the world rallied last week following rumors Beijing was poised to reveal an even bigger stimulus package at the National People's Congress.
In no time in history has China's domestic economic policies been given so much importance by international investors.
But alas, the rumored "big number" - after a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) package already introduced in November 2008 - did not materialize in Premier Wen Jiabao's report.
The goal of 8 percent GDP growth (when many other countries forecast minus growth), unprecedented deficit financing, and the many details listed unusually candidly in the documents released by the government to the NPC, fell short of the anticipated sensation anticipated. Thus market fervor died down.
Yet the influence China' s political news had cannot be easily dismissed as a short-lived illusion.
In business press and forums around the world, even some quite serious ones, discussions about China "saving capitalism" have long swirled. An image endures of China unscathed by the global crisis, sitting on tons of cash accumulated from a trade surplus that allows it to spend at will.
The reality in China is, yes, most of its banks are relatively healthy, thanks to their conservative and in many ways not-quite-modern management style, and the nation's overall debt burden is under control.
But the task ahead is by no means an easy one. It requires a comprehensive and almost instant development-model shift - from an economic machine relying heavily on exports to relying almost as much on goods and services for domestic consumers.
As export revenue dries up, requisite adjustments for such a huge economy, with half its population still living in the countryside, are bound to be clumsy. The overall strategy is yet to emerge, with many things still to be figured out in perhaps prolonged intellectual debate.
One may also ask why such a widespread yearning for a savior exists - whether it is from the old hegemony of the United States or from alleged rising stars like China and India?
Underlining that psychology is the same old scenario, played out in ancient legends of many nations, of some super-hero shielding all the little people from the attacks of a terrifying monster. Now, it's as if the designated super-hero is on sick leave, or with all his highly sophisticated ammo spent, it is the turn for some lesser good guys (Kung Fu Panda?) to take over.
Is this leadership? You are kidding. Economics is basically something for everyone to take part in. If there is a system that depends too much on one country's protection (or benevolent hegemony as some may call), it not only gives rise to general stability but also encourages free-riders seeking to capitalize on protective terms, even when the protector makes mistakes.
This is a system that allows little room for creativity or responsibility and is just waiting for a general crisis. While alternatives can be costly because they ultimately require some extra efforts, at least some precautions are needed.
If this is called leadership, then the leader, whoever it is, how strong and invincible it appears, would in the end have nothing to enjoy.
Having seen so many empires and their rivals burn themselves out in the past, many Chinese certainly don't want this.
A truly workable leadership should be based on the ability to have people working together, each acting responsibly. This crisis, in which no country is suitably equipped for bailing out the world, is perhaps lending us one rare opportunity to build something of this kind. Will the forthcoming London G20 be a start? Let's wait and see.
E-mail: younuo@chinadaily.com.cn
(China Daily 03/09/2009 page4)
