Responding to surprise: China's economic miracle as a challenge to established theory
Author
Weiler, Sarah Maria
Term
4. term
Publication year
2022
Submitted on
2022-05-24
Abstract
This thesis asks what good scholarship looks like by examining how scholars in Public Choice have responded to China’s recent economic rise. Public Choice is an approach in economics and political science that uses economic reasoning to analyze political decision-making and is often skeptical of a large, powerful state. China’s rapid growth under a strong state therefore appears to challenge the theory. Through a qualitative close reading of relevant academic publications, I map how Public Choice scholars try to reconcile their theory with developments in China. I identify five kinds of responses: (1) ignoring the challenging evidence; (2) implicitly denying there is a challenge by refusing to revisit core assumptions about how a powerful state affects growth; (3) explicitly denying there is a challenge by reinterpreting recent Chinese history and downplaying the state’s role; and adapting the framework by either (4) modifying its assumptions or (5) adding new variables, so the theory can account for developmental success in state-dominated economies under certain conditions. I conclude with a discussion of the study’s limitations and a critical normative assessment of how Public Choice researchers handle challenging evidence.
Dette speciale undersøger, hvad der kendetegner god forskning, ved at se på, hvordan forskere inden for Public Choice har reageret på Kinas økonomiske udvikling. Public Choice er en tilgang i økonomi og statskundskab, der bruger økonomisk tænkning til at analysere politiske beslutninger og ofte er skeptisk over for en stor, regulerende stat. Kinas hurtige vækst under en stærk stat opleves derfor som en udfordring for teorien. Gennem en kvalitativ nærlæsning af relevante akademiske publikationer kortlægger jeg, hvordan Public Choice-forskere forsøger at få deres teori til at passe med udviklingen i Kina. Jeg finder fem typer svar: (1) at ignorere den udfordrende evidens; (2) implicit at afvise, at der er et problem, ved ikke at genoverveje teoriens kerneantagelser om en stærk stats betydning for vækst; (3) eksplicit at afvise udfordringen ved at nyfortolke Kinas nyere historie og nedtone statens rolle; samt at tilpasse teorien ved enten (4) at ændre dens antagelser eller (5) at tilføje nye variable, så teorien kan forklare udviklingssucces i statdominerede økonomier under bestemte betingelser. Afslutningsvis diskuterer jeg undersøgelsens begrænsninger og giver en kritisk normativ vurdering af Public Choice-forskernes omgang med udfordrende evidens.
[This apstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]