China is at a crucial point today, as it was in 1978, when the market reforms launched by Deng Xiaoping opened its economy to the world – and as it was again in the early 1990's, when Deng's famous "southern tour" reaffirmed the country's development path.
Throughout this time, examples and lessons from other countries have been important. Deng was reportedly substantially influenced by an early visit to Singapore, where accelerated growth and prosperity had come decades earlier. Understanding other developing countries' successes and shortcomings has been – and remains – an important part of China's approach to formulating its growth strategy.
Like Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in their first few decades of modern growth, China has been ruled by a single party. Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) remains dominant, though that appears to be changing. The others evolved into multi-party democracies during the middle-income transition. China, too, has now reached this critical last leg of the long march to advanced-country status in terms of economic structure and income levels.
Singapore should continue to be a role model for China, despite its smaller size. The success of both countries reflects many contributing factors, including a skilled and educated group of policymakers supplied by a meritocratic selection system, and a pragmatic, disciplined, experimental, and forward-looking approach to policy.
The other key lesson from Singapore is that single-party rule has retained popular legitimacy by delivering inclusive growth and equality of opportunity in a multi-ethnic society, and by eliminating corruption of all kinds, including cronyism and excessive influence for vested interests. What Singapore's founder, Lee Kwan Yew, and his colleagues and successors understood is that the combination of single-party rule and corruption is toxic. If you want the benefits of the former, you cannot allow the latter.
Coherence, long time horizons, appropriate incentives, strong "navigational" skills, and decisiveness are desirable aspects of continuity in governance, especially in a meritocratic system managing complex structural shifts. To protect that and maintain public support for the investments and policies that sustain growth, Singapore needed to prevent corruption from gaining a foothold, and to establish consistency in the application of rules. Lee did that, with the PAP supplying what a full formal system of public accountability would have provided.
China, too, most likely wants to retain, at least for a while, the benefits of single-party rule, and delay the transition to "messier" governance influenced by multiple voices. In fact, a pluralistic system is already evolving under the umbrella of the Chinese Communist Party – a process that may eventually lead to citizens gaining an institutionalized voice in public policy.
For now, however, those representative elements that have been added incrementally are not powerful enough to overcome the growing corruption and excessive influence of vested interests. To maintain single-party legitimacy – and thus the ability to govern – those narrower interests must be overridden in favor of the general interest. That is the challenge that China's new leadership faces.
If China's leaders succeed, they can then have a sensible and nuanced debate about the evolving role of the state in their economy, a debate on the merits. Many insiders and external advisers believe that the state's role must change (not necessarily decline) to create the dynamic innovative economy that is key to navigating the middle-income transition successfully. But there remain many areas in which further debate and choice are needed.
Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore and Mao Zedong and Deng in China gained their peoples' trust as founders and initial reformers. But that trust dissipates; succeeding generations of leaders do not inherit it completely, and must earn it. That is all the more reason for them to heed the lessons of history.
China's new leaders should first reassert the Party's role as defender of the general interest by creating an environment in which narrow interests, seeking to protect their growing influence and wealth, do not taint complex policy choices. They must demonstrate that the Party's power, legitimacy, and substantial assets are held in trust for the benefit of all Chinese, above all by fostering a pattern of inclusive growth and a system of equal opportunity with a meritocratic foundation. And then they should return to the task of governing in a complex domestic and global environment.
There are times when muddling through – or, in the Chinese version, crossing the river by feeling the stones – is the right governing strategy, and there are times when a bold resetting of values and direction is required. Successful leaders know what time it is.
Feeling the stones may seem like the safest option for China's next president, Xi Jinping, and China's other new leaders; in fact, it is the most dangerous. The only safe option is a radical realignment of the Party with the general interest.
The issue, then, is whether the reformers who carry the real spirit of the 1949 revolution will win the battle for equitable and inclusive growth. The optimistic (and I believe realistic) view is that the Chinese people, through a variety of channels, including social media, will weigh in, empowering reformers to push through a progressive agenda.
Time will tell. But it is hard to overstate the outcome's importance to the rest of the world. Virtually all developing countries – and, increasingly, the advanced countries as well – will be affected one way or another as they, too, struggle to achieve stable and sustainable growth and employment patterns.
迈克尔·斯宾塞：中国新领导人的新加坡借鉴
作者 迈克尔·斯宾塞（A. Michael Spence） 2013年1月29日财经网
中国正处于关键时刻，一如1978年邓小平启动改革开放，将中国经济的大门朝世界打开，又如20世纪90年代初邓小平以著名的“南巡”确认中国的发展道路。
在此期间，来自其他国家的先例和经验起到重要作用。据说，邓小平早先的新加坡之行给他很大影响，新加坡的快速增长和繁荣程度比中国超前了几十年。了解其他发展中国家的成功和不足，一直是中国制定增长战略的重要组成部分。
与新加坡、日本、韩国和中国台湾地区在现代化增长的最初几十年一样，中国大陆也是一党执政。新加坡的人民行动党仍是第一大党，尽管情况似乎在发生变化；其他国家则在中等收入转型中发展为多党制民主国家。从经济结构和收入水平上来说，中国现在也快走完其迈向发达国家的长征之路，只差临门一脚。
新加坡可以继续成为中国的榜样，尽管其规模很小。两国的成功均反映了诸多因素，包括由精英遴选体制输送的技能熟练、教育背景良好的决策者，以及务实性、自律性、试验性、前瞻性的政策。
新加坡的另一个重要经验是，一党执政的民众合法性来自包容性增长和为多民族社会提供平等机会，以及消灭各种腐败。一党执政若与腐败相结合，将是死路一条。如果想从前者获益，就绝不能允许后者发生。
凝聚力、长期视角、适当激励、强大的“引导”能力和决断力，对治国持续性而言是可贵的品质，特别是对需要掌控复杂结构转变的精英遴选体制来说。为保护这一体制，并保持公众对维系增长的投资和政策的支持，新加坡不得不从根本上防止腐败，并建立执法的一视同仁。李光耀做到了这点，人民行动党则建立了一个完整而正规的公共问责所能提供的所有制度。
中国也是如此，至少在一段时间内，它仍希望获得一党执政的好处。事实上，多元体系已经在中国共产党大旗下展开——这可能最终使公民在公共政策中赢得制度化的发声渠道。
不过，目前这些逐渐增加的代表要素，还不足以克服腐败和利益集团的过度影响。为了维持一党执政的合法性，这些利益集团必须被推翻。这就是中国新领导层所面临的挑战。
如果中国领导人获得成功，他们可以就国家在经济中的角色演变及其优点，展开明智合理而细致入微的争论。许多建言者认为，要创建充满活力的创新型经济，成功引导中等收入转型，国家的角色必须改变。但在诸多领域，还需要做进一步的争论和选择。
新加坡的李光耀和中国的毛泽东、邓小平，作为开国领袖或开改革之先的政治家，获得了人民的信任。但后继领导人无法完整继承这种信任，他们需要靠自己争取信任。
中国的新领导人首先应重申，其作为大众利益的捍卫者，要创造一种环境，令那些试图保护其影响力和财富的利益集团无从染指复杂政策决定。他们必须证明党的实力、合法性和管理的大量资产是为全体中国人民谋福祉，其中最重要的是创造包容性增长模式，以及在精英遴选基础上的平等机会制度。接着，他们应转向在复杂国内外环境下治国的任务。
有时，渐进调整——或称摸着石头过河——是正确的治国战略；有时，则需要果断地对价值和方向改弦更辙。成功的领导人知道自己处在哪个时候。摸石头似乎是安全的选择，也可能是最危险的选择。唯一安全的选择是从严治党，使之符合大众利益。
于是问题就变为，拥有革命精神的改革者是否能够赢得公平、包容的增长之争。乐观的看法是，中国人民也将参与其中，给改革者以力量，推动改革进程。
时间会告诉我们答案，但结果对于世界其他国家的重要性怎么估计也不为过。几乎所有发展中国家都在竭力追求稳定、可持续的增长和就业模式，它们或多或少地会受到影响。
作者为2001年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者、纽约大学斯特恩商学院经济学教授
