Salamasina Fitisemanu

Professor P. Gutaj

POLS 2200

March 26, 2017

The Origins and Economic Development of Russia and China

For many years, China and Russia have been recognized as two of the most influential

societies, civilizations and nations throughout the world. Though these two countries share

similarities especially in striving to maintain a strong, concentration of power in their

governments, they are, however, slightly distinct in regards to the development of their

respective political economies. Through greater understanding of these origins and the

foundations of these developments, the connections and reasons for the existence of these

institutions, as presently constituted, are clearly manifest.

First and foremost, in order to better understand the foundational and determining factors

that have influenced the maintenance of such a strong, concentrated power in government, one

must examine the political history of the two nations. Since about 2000 BC and throughout the

succeeding centuries that constitute the history and civilization of China, there is an established

pattern of strong dynastical rule that had left minimal room for any fundamental reform in

regards to a form of government. These dynasties, involving long lines of hereditary empirical

rule, have followed a conceptual cyclical theory known as the Dynastic Cycle. This theory,

characterizing the unified rise based on a Mandate of Heaven, an eventual strike of disaster,

and the final fall in disbelief and disdain of these dynasties, ultimately describes the thousands of

years of governing that took place up until the 20th Century. Though these dynastic rulers may

have varied in their intents, policies or visions for China, the form of government and the
strength embodied within such rulers did not change much at all, and thus, accounts for the

continuous need or demand for a strong governing entity. It is also for this reason that the

Chinese government, centralized in the Communist Party, restrains from applying full rule of law

amongst its people. In the case of Russia, the similar strong, centralized form of government

existed in the form of autocracy. Epitomized by the rule of tsar Ivan the Terrible, in the 16th

Century, this autocracy thrived throughout Russian history for various reasons. It allowed for the

tsar to maintain almost complete control and influence over socio-economic organization,

including the fact that there were no hierarchical social classes (as in Britain or France) and the

lack of an independent role of the nobility regarding any economic endeavors. It is because of

this autocratic foundation that the Russian Federation has continued in maintaining the

nationalist strength of their extreme socialist ideals, as well. It is also important to note that in a

manner similar to China, these ideals and origins have led to the minimal institution of rule of

law in Russia. In analyzing the politically historical origins of these two nations, it is clear to see

why they have chosen to continue in sustaining such strong, central institutions of government.

Finally, in regards to the economic development of Russia and China, the fundamental

origins and historical patterns have contributed immensely to the current situations. In both of

these cases, these origins have inhibited the institution of rule of law. Because the foundations

and basis of their economies vary significantly, their effect on economic growth and

development is different, as well, but nonetheless generates the same degree of intense impact. In

regards to China, it is no surprise that there has been tremendous economic growth, development

and benefit within the last few centuries. On account of their strong and growing work force as

well as favorable legislation and facilitation for foreign direct investment, China has been able to

reap unprecedented gain. However, because of the lack of strong implementation of rule of law,
they are not able to create nor sustain a strong consumer-based economy. Furthermore, the

Communist Party is still very hesitant to give away any of its power, in any magnitude. On the

other hand, Russia has a distinct economy due to the fact that it is based in their resources.

Because of this resource-based economy, the smaller work-force and the almost immediate

dissolution of much privatization among Russian companies and entities, this country has not

experienced the benefits and gains anywhere near the extent of China. In addition, Russias

resistance to applying rule of law directly affects their potential for economic development, as

resources and companies are still owned and controlled by the state, leaving minimal room for

improvement and gain on many economic fronts such as individual advances, development,

increased specialization and core competencies, access to greater opportunities in foreign direct

investment and capitalization by way of comparative advantage. Through the applications of

these historical tendencies and patterns, the current political-economic confines and

circumstances are established.

In conclusion, through the examination of the political history and origins of the post-

Communist nations of Russia and China, as well as the nature of the development of their

respective economies, the connections with regard to direct contributions and impact of their

historically-established ideals on their current economic limitations and circumstances become

evident. As a result, these widely-acknowledged and acclaimed countries, though they have been

able to see drastic changes in economic progress and capabilities, cannot expand their economic

institutions enough to experience nor benefit from the same systems established and embodied

by other capitalistic countries, with further distribution of power and active implementation of

rule of law.