Broadly speaking, two trends are visible even within capitalist-leaning reforms in most countries. Well-known economic analyst Kawaljit Singh researched the comparative picture of the two. Due to the fundamental differences between China’s economic reforms and other reforms, Kawaljit distinguished it from the ‘Washington Consensus’ and called it the ‘Beijing Consensus’.
Looking at all the facts and figures, the characteristics of the China Model can be identified as follows:
First, by the time China began economic reforms in 1978, it had already established a strong foundation. Earlier, China’s extreme poverty had declined significantly after the revolution. There were significant successes in education and health care, communications, institutions, etc. Instead of completely eliminating these successes, reform programs were built upon them.
Secondly, in many other countries, such as India, Pakistan or Brazil, these reforms started during various financial crises (debt, devaluation, transactions, etc.). Reforms were adopted as a means to get ourselves out of these crises. But China did not adopt the reforms because of any financial pressure, but entirely of its own volition to accelerate its development with the ambition of becoming a global power. Other countries did not have their own plans and authority when it came to reforms. That is why, unlike other countries, the World Bank or the IMG did not exercise its authority here. That is why there was no discrepancy in their plans, pace or priorities.