Nicholas Kristof has an excellent article on the coronavirus epidemic in China:
The first known coronavirus infection in the city of Wuhan presented symptoms beginning on Dec. 1, and by late December there was alarm in Wuhan’s medical circles. That would have been the moment for the authorities to act decisively.
People often claim that the authoritarian Chinese government has a great deal of “state capacity” to deal with this sort of crisis. Let’s look at what actually happened:
And act decisively they did — not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat. A doctor who told a WeChat group about the virus was disciplined by the Communist Party and forced to admit wrongdoing. The police reported giving “education” and “criticism” to eight front-line doctors for “rumormongering” about the epidemic
Nationalists don’t like bad news about their country, and try to suppress the information. But as long as there is a free press then the government’s attitude shouldn’t be much of a problem. Unfortunately, China does not have a free press:
Partly because the government covered up the epidemic in the early stages, hospitals were not able to gather supplies, and there are now major shortages of testing kits, masks and protective gear. Some doctors were reduced to making goggles out of plastic folders.
One reason for the early cover-up is that Xi’s China has systematically gutted institutions like journalism, social media, nongovernmental organizations, the legal profession and others that might provide accountability. These institutions were never very robust in China, but on and off they were tolerated until Xi came along.
Make no mistake, Xi Jinping has played a role in making this crisis much worse than it had to be.
I conducted a series of experiments on Chinese blogs over the years beginning in 2003 and was sometimes surprised by what I could get away with — but no longer. Xi has dragged China backward in terms of civil society, crushing almost every wisp of freedom and oversight.
For the same reason that Xi’s increasingly authoritarian China bungled the coronavirus outbreak, it also mishandled a swine fever virus that since 2018 has devastated China’s hog industry and killed almost one-quarter of the world’s pigs.
Dictators often make poor decisions because they don’t get accurate information: When you squelch independent voices you end up getting just flattery and optimism from those around you. Senior Chinese officials have told me that they are routinely lied to on trips to meet local officials and must dispatch their drivers and secretaries to assess the truth and gauge the real mood.
You might wonder why I obsess about the global rise of authoritarian nationalism. This is a perfect example. Governments with the most state capacity are generally governments that allow the greatest amount of personal freedom.
Freedom isn’t just good for its own sake; it’s good for your health.
Here’s the spread of the disease as of January 3rd, when Wuhan doctors already understood that it was a serious problem:
And today:
READER COMMENTS
Alexander Turok
Jan 30 2020 at 5:23pm
One could compare it to the state of China’s government during its Maoist internationalist phase. But I’m sure there will be a reason that doesn’t count. Hits, misses, ect.
LC
Jan 30 2020 at 6:24pm
I totally agree with Nick Kristof. Using STEM (https://www.eclipse.org/stem/), I was able to model the progress of the outbreak and believe the outbreak originated earlier (Nov. 1st, 2019) and by Dec. 27th, the infection rate in Wuhan was already 2% of population. Decisive action such as quarantine should have been taken by then, but also calls into question Chinese government, specifically public health authorities’ ability to detect and report cases truthfully. I have written up my findings and have distributed them among my Chinese friends discretely. I hope this will serve as a spark for them to ask more questions of their government.
Matthias Görgens
Jan 30 2020 at 8:07pm
Deng Xiaoping was famously insistent that people tell him the truth, abs always on the lookout for reliable information.
Sendingout chauffeurs and secretaries reads like at least some of his legacy is still alive with senior officials, even if that’s only a second best compared to being able to get good information in person.
Weir
Jan 30 2020 at 9:55pm
In the American government when you want to suppress information you call it “civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information.”
Although mostly the free press will police themselves. YouTube too. The actual police, likewise, have been known to do their bit to help a politician in trouble.
There was an American government official who committed multiple felonies. She was in luck, there was no need to lean on the FBI to give her a pass. The head of the FBI volunteered his services.
So, having established that she acted with gross negligence in removing highly classified information from government servers, and transmitting that information to others not authorized to have it, she made a joke about wiping a server with a cloth. Everybody laughed, and that’s how the episode ends.
Government officials are held to account by journalists. Except when journalists are covering their own party. That’s when they provide cover for their party. Likewise when FBI officials, or IRS officials, elect to put their party first. Which is the really interesting point of agreement here.
Unaccountable, unresponsive, and unconstrained government is what Ronald Reagan was talking about in 1982: “Don’t let the Washington whirl or the Washington morass let you lose sight of why we came here and what it is that we’re all trying to do. I know it isn’t always easy. As the old saying goes, ‘When you’re up to your armpits in alligators, it’s sometimes hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp.’ That’s not why you’re here and I’m here. We’re here to cut back on waste and mismanagement; to eliminate unnecessary, restrictive regulations that make it harder for the American economy to compete and harder for American workers to find jobs; to drain the swamp of overtaxation, overregulation, and runaway inflation that has dangerously eroded our free way of life.”
Anybody who rejects unaccountable government will reject this idea that the authorities get a pass or not depending on party label. Putting your party’s interests first, centralizing power in the party’s leadership team, suppressing information embarrassing to the party. Don’t be surprised when people are going to be against all that.
Making it impossible for voters to dislodge the powers that be, or making it illegal to criticize Hillary Clinton in a film called Citizen United. This is where the idea comes from that the government and the people are in an abusive relationship.
Reagan was talking about people wanting Washington to pay attention to the American economy and to American workers. Adam Schiff is talking about Ukraine’s noble struggle against Russia.
Letting any mid-ranking FBI attorney falsify evidence, putting FBI agents above the law. Spying on journalists, just making up your own quotes when there’s already a transcript. Saying your critics are Russian agents. Pretending that your opponents are traitors and a threat to national security. If you think government officials shouldn’t get away with this stuff, then you’re a critic of authoritarian government. There are people all across the country who think American government officials shouldn’t get away with this stuff.
Thaomas
Jan 31 2020 at 8:37am
“Decisive action such as quarantine should have been taken by then.”
Just “do something”-ism in its purest from! What would Bastiat say about the “unseen” consequences? How can we trust officials to act wisely given public choice problems that Buchanan has warned us about? How can public officials pretend to aggregate enough decentralized knowledge to act wisely as Hayek would say? What about market solutions? Coasian negotiations?
🙂
TMC
Jan 31 2020 at 9:09am
Judgement call, Thaomas. If water if flowing from the ceiling from you upstairs sink, sometimes you need to shut off the water before getting 3 bids from a plumber.
LC
Jan 31 2020 at 1:22pm
Thaomas:
We certainly know the consequences of inaction today, right?
You mention market solutions but markets need transparency and honesty to operate efficiently.
Your comment also reminds me of the joke currently circulating in Chinese Social Media:
Question: If a person had the ability to travel back in time 1 month to Wuhan (in December), could that person have prevented the catastrophe?
Answer: No. He would be prosecuted as the 9th rumor monger.
Mark Z
Feb 1 2020 at 3:26am
The Chinese government did act decisively… in the interests of the Chinese government, as governments are wont to do. Which is indeed a pretty clear case of a ‘public choice’ problem. That the government would use authority given to it ostensibly to protect the people to suppress useful information in order to protect itself doesn’t sound like an example that vindicates the goal of a more powerful central authority.
P Burgos
Feb 1 2020 at 4:48pm
Is there evidence that the central government suppressed information about the virus? I have read reports pointing the finger at the provincial government. That doesn’t change the analysis, but the provincial party bodies have a bit more autonomy than is commonly recognized.
I doubt it will happen soon, but hopefully at some point in time the central party will view things like independent journalism, civil society institutions and an independent judiciary not merely as threats, but also as tools capable of disciplining the party, especially at the local and provincial level.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 31 2020 at 11:07am
An interesting take, Scott. Thanks also for bringing our attention to the NYT column. It’s a nice illustration of what economists know about dictatorship. (My EconLog post “The Autocrat and the Free Press: A Model” was along these lines and may complete the picture for our readers.)
Scott Sumner
Jan 31 2020 at 2:41pm
Very good post.
Thaomas
Feb 3 2020 at 7:43am
That centralized, authoritarian government is not good your health is beyond doubting. Senate Republicans should take note.
Comments are closed.