Analysis and Comparison of the Role Mechanism of Chinese and American Economics in Social Development: Impact, Opportunities and Challenges
Main Article Content
Keywords
social development, economic mechanism, institutional arrangement, China-US economic comparison
Abstract
This review paper examines how economic mechanisms shape social development through individual behaviors—consumption, labor, and education—and how institutions, markets, and social structures mediate these effects. Comparing the United States and China, the paper operationalizes Angus Deaton's tripartite framework—micro-data, institutional analysis, and historical context—to assess its applicability beyond Western settings. The American model, driven by market-based incentives, generates high efficiency and innovation but also rising inequality, financial precarity, and declining social trust. The Chinese model, combining state coordination with market mechanisms, achieves rapid poverty reduction, infrastructure expansion, and broad educational access, yet faces regional disparities, local debt, and new stratification. Social cohesion functions as both a precondition and an outcome of development. An integrated model balancing prosperity with equity and sustainability is proposed, with specific institutional design principles outlined for each policy domain.
References
- [1]Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
- [2]North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
- [3]Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
- [4]Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2022). National income and product accounts: Personal consumption expenditures. U.S. Department of Commerce.
- [5]National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2023). China statistical yearbook 2023. China Statistics Press.
- [6]Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. U.S. Department of Labor.
- [7]Federal Reserve. (2023). Survey of consumer finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
- [8]Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2022). Education statistics yearbook 2022. People's Education Press.
- [9]Deaton, A. (2015). The great escape: Health, wealth, and the origins of inequality. Princeton University Press.
- [10]Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398–406.
- [11]Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
- [12]Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(3), 3–31.
- [13]Piketty, T., & Zucman, G. (2014). Capital is back: Wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700–2010. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1255–1310.
- [14]Lin, J. Y. (2012). New structural economics: A framework for rethinking development and policy. World Bank.
- [15]Naughton, B. (2021). The Chinese economy: Adaptation and growth (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
- [16]Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton University Press.
- [17]Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2), 519–578.
- [18]Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
- [19]Alesina, A., & Ferrara, E. L. (2005). Ethnic diversity and economic performance. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 762–800.
- [20]Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.
- [21]Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press.
- [22]Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. (2022). The college payoff: Education, occupations, and lifetime earnings. Georgetown University.
- [23]Fan, Y., Zhang, L., & Wang, H. (2023). Educational mobility and inequality in China: Evidence from family panel studies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 51(2), 345–362.
- [24]Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2019). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995–2015. ILR Review, 72(2), 382–416.
- [25]Hacker, J. S. (2019). The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- [26]Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury Press.
- [27]Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American Dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.
- [28]Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Health at a glance 2021. OECD Publishing.
- [29]World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). Global Innovation Index 2023.
- [30]World Bank. (2023). World development indicators 2023.
- [31]Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.
- [32]Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn't add up. The New Press.
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.