Well, I haven’t had time to read it but I'm assuming that the TNR article is referring to China and the four Asian Tigers. Hard to imagine how China could have achieved similar growth rates absent its export led growth model -- even if as it turns out the resultant macro imbalances have been harmful for the global economy as a whole (though on balance probably not to China’s economy), and despite the fact that it has built up a potentially dangerous exposure to the dollar -- and bearing in mind the fact that historically and geographically, China was better positioned than its Asian neighbours.
At least, that’s my reading. It seems like a no-brainer. You can dawdle along at 4% or grow at around 10% per year, but there is downside exposure to a contraction in global demand (plus foreign exchange reserve risk, natch). Oh yeah – and where might that leave us? 8% per year. Ah. Still, it doesn’t sound that bad.
And obviously there are problems, pretty definite problems (Americans don’t save enough; Chinese save too much; RMB is undervalued, yadda yadda yadda), but I fail to see why you would be so condescending about a development model that has delivered almost unprecedented growth rates, is an indigenous policy choice, and has such tight historical and geographical causal determinants. Are the policy wonks in the PRC are just not as smart as you – what gives?