There can be no question that China is determined to become a - if not the - global economic superpower. It is getting there quite quickly, as the ever-more frequent comparisons with the US attest.
After decades of centrally supported growth in selected industries such as technology, China has created some major international business players and, with that, some very rich individuals. This last outcome, it seems, was not part of the plan. Money is power, and in this case, the power extends beyond Beijing, and that just won't do.
China, if nothing else, has always been decisive, determined and patriotic. But this controlled, determined, "nurtured" capitalism has led to inequality. The government has realised that, if it wants to maintain the economic and political momentum that has taken it this far, it had better spread the spoils around.
This is not a new challenge or a consequence of natural capitalism, let alone "capitalism" on a healthy diet of state-sponsored, performance-enhancing drugs. The focus has had to change to a strategy that will reduce inequality through redistribution of income, among other things. China has made up its mind, and you'd better believe that hundreds of millions of its citizens are going to be made better off - Beijing doesn't mess around when it comes to policy implementation.
Setting politics and ideology aside for a minute, this wealth disparity is regarded by some as a natural consequence of capitalism. If you want to create wealth on a global scale, let your best people get out there and fight and win - but, in the case of China particularly, you'd best not forget who backed you, and why. If you want sustained success, invest wisely rather than squander your winnings. At a global level, those decisions are part of what defines the role of the sovereign state.
Beyond safety, the rule of law and the provision of essential services, it is also the role of the state to encourage the strong and protect the vulnerable. In so doing, it provides a framework within which economic dignity becomes a possibility for all citizens. This will never be achieved through an indecisive or inept leadership, so tick those boxes for China.
It will also never be sustained if the exceptional performers are disciplined or limited . or imposed on in any way by actions or forces opposite to those that enabled them to get to the top of the pile in the first place.
No. A slap on the wrist for succeeding is hardly an incentive. Instead, the foundations of the success already achieved should be further strengthened.
A government's primary source of revenue is taxes. Don't kill or even wound the goose that lays the golden egg. The real test for a government is how to spend wisely and in the common interest. That's the virtuous circle - enable the creation of wealth, but feed it back into the system for the benefit of the next generation, recognising that this conjugate role is critical to the survival of incumbent governments.
The recognition, inclusion and encouragement of capacity outside the state will produce quite the opposite outcome to a controlling state wanting a dependent population, where failure and submission are the only meal tickets. In such an environment, the golden-egg-laying goose dies and, with it, the very spirit of the nation, as the monsters of poverty, inequality and unemployment move in for the final slaughter.
In the end, no doubt, China will find a balance between control and liberation. There is no single policy that can prevail in a changing world - economic variants won't tolerate that. It is only equations in balance that maintain ecosystems in equilibrium. We have work to do.
• Barnes is a business leader and experienced all-rounder in financial markets and corporate strategy
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.