The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and China's National Development and Reform Commission recently drew similarities between China's xiaokang society, or "well-off society," and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by world leaders in New York in 2000.

In fact, the two bodies launched a scheme to further enrich China's development with UN goals.

But how would the rest of developing Asia measure its own development, as compared to China's xiaokang society and with the benchmarks set in the MDGs? How do they see China's xiaokang model for development, as compared to the Washington Consensus model, which was a la mode in the 1990s? How has the 1997-98 Asian Crisis changed the developmental thinking mode in Asia since then?

First, the xiaokang development model is "people-centred," embracing poverty-alleviation, education and health promotion and environment protection. This "well-off society" also includes basic forms of social welfare in a deliberate move at social re-distribution, so as to create a more well-rounded society, which is also what the MDGs signify.

On the other hand, the MDGs clearly stressed the importance of poverty reduction, with at least primary education for all, the elimination of gender disparities, reversing the spread of deadly diseases, urgently providing clean water, adequate sanitation and health care to the most needy.

China's xiaokang and the MDGs therefore intersect and converge philosophically and intellectually.

In this regard, China's own goals are to reach xiaokang by 2020, with per capita income of Chinese rising from US$1,000 to US$3,000 by then. The UNDP and Chinese Government hope to spend up to US$10 million in training senior Chinese officials to be fully aware of "balanced development" and its implementation. In turn, this balanced development should contribute to the building of a "harmonious society" through greater social re-distribution, as outlined by Premier Wen Jiabao and agreed upon by the National People's Congress last March.

Second, China has been building its own national development based on the tryptique of "stability, development and reforms" - in that order. That platform privileges social and economic stability first, as the main pillar of China's development and progress. Wealth accumulation must be accompanied by social stability, so that the fruits of China's economic achievement could be shared as equitably as possible across all sectors and strata of society. Only in social stability and cohesion can China progress to a developed economy status.

China's developmental model differs to a certain extent with the Washington Consensus, as developed by the United States and Western nations; the MDGs have in fact established a "useful balance" with the Washington Consensus, since it sought a balance between market economy and reforms on the one hand and all-around sustainable development and social stability on the other.

Market reforms are crucial, but they should be pursued whilst assured of social stability and cohesion. Furthermore, the development of the economy internally and regionally/globally could proceed simultaneously and not necessarily to reform completely and internally first before engaging in external interaction with the global economy.

Third, how do Asian countries stack up to this "new" developmental model after the Asian Crisis, which has since transformed the political economies of much of Asia?

Asian economies and societies are observing the emergence of the Chinese economy with interest, as they seem to have reacted with greater skepticism to the Washington Consensus after the Asian Crisis. Asians have begun to feel that liberalism could in fact be intelligently tainted with doses of socialist development, so as to ensure social stability as well as all-around development and growth. The xiaokang model could thus offer a viable alternative to developing Asia, especially if the latter could help them attain the MDGs within a more stable and sustainable framework.

Previously export-oriented economies, developing Asia used to suppress wages and provide huge fiscal incentives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), so they could maintain their exporting edge. But Thailand and Malaysia are today fostering internal demand and consumption by raising wages and consumer power, so as to sustain their economies and propel them towards developed status.

Like China, these two countries as well as Viet Nam are working on re-distributing wealth quickly so that they can have an enlarged pool of consumers with greater purchasing power to sustain demand and growth.

The tsunami disaster of December 26, 2004 further highlighted the plight of the poor and needy in the region, and should thus increase the consciousness for urgent and greater social re-distribution in these societies.

Education and health are now being developed in a big way in Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam, just as environmental concerns are on the clear upswing in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. Xiaokang society concepts are thus penetrating the rest of developing Asia in a discreet but sure way, too.

Indonesia on the other hand is embarking on a "triple-track" economic policy under President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono, whose "pro-growth, pro-development, pro-poor" policy seems to be "driving" the country, after years of economic and social lethargy. In a way, this approach is not dissimilar from Thai Premier Thaksin Shinawatra's "dual track" economic policy of privileging both growth and internal demand at the same time, so as to uplift the maximum of Thais from endemic poverty.

Critics of this development may label it as populist or nationalistic, as these developing Asian countries could put more emphasis on "national solutions" to development and growth, whilst still encouraging the market economy, liberalization and reforms. A more stringent protection of natural resources or indigenous labour would now be equally stressed, so as to quickly uplift the poor from poverty, and sustain economic development concomitant with social progress.

It remains to be seen if the developing world could better merge elements of the liberal-inspired Washington Consensus with the "more rounded" xiaokang approach, in order to create a sustainable developmental model for themselves. Post-Crisis Asia appears to be showing the way, as key economies in the region, at the behest of China, adopt a "more balanced" social development model. Perhaps, the MDGs could be effectively achieved, with xiaokang leading the way for Asia.

(China Daily April 16, 2005)