Not replicable, but a reference

China’s experience demonstrates that multiple pathways to modernization are both possible and legitimate

For much of the 20th century, modernization was presented as a singular path associated with Western political and economic institutions. Yet the experiences of many developing countries suggest that there is no universal formula for national development. Different societies have pursued modernization through diverse trajectories, institutional arrangements and governance models.

China’s global rise over the past four decades has become one of the most significant examples of this diversity. With its transformation from a poor agrarian society to the world’s second-largest economy, China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty, built world-class infrastructure, and emerged as a major technological and industrial power. While debates about the “China model” continue, its experience offers valuable insights into the relationship between political leadership, state capacity and modernization — particularly for countries across the Global South.

At the heart of China’s development experience is a hybrid governance system that combines Communist Party of China’s leadership, market dynamism and social cohesion. Rather than viewing the State and the market as competing forces, China’s approach seeks to integrate them within a broader developmental strategy. The market plays a central role in resource allocation and innovation, while the State provides strategic direction, long-term planning and institutional coordination. This State-market relationship is underpinned by a professional bureaucracy capable of pursuing national development goals, with State-owned enterprises serving as strategic actors and the private sector contributing entrepreneurial dynamism and economic vitality. Together, they form a coordinated framework that supports sustained economic growth, industrial upgrading and technological modernization.

A key feature of this model is the leadership of the CPC. Unlike many Western liberal systems where political parties and public administration are largely separate, and where political competition can generate frequent shifts in policy priorities, China’s integrated structure links long-term national objectives with policy implementation. This arrangement has enabled the government to pursue ambitious development goals over extended periods while maintaining policy continuity and institutional coherence. Whether in infrastructure development, poverty reduction, industrial upgrading or technological innovation, long-term policy coordination and continuity have been a defining characteristic of China’s modernization process.

In this sense, the Chinese political system possesses two distinctive strengths: the ability to pursue long-term strategic goals and the flexibility to adjust policies in response to changing circumstances. These characteristics have attracted increasing attention from scholars and policymakers worldwide. Even Francis Fukuyama, best known for his “end of history” thesis, recently acknowledged in an interview that China’s continued success has challenged some of his earlier predictions. In his work Political Order and Political Decay, Fukuyama also identifies several deficits confronting contemporary liberal democracies, including the growing influence of interest groups operating under the banner of civil society and non-governmental organizations, partisan polarization, the judicialization of governance and the tendency for economic power to be converted into political influence.

China’s experience raises important questions about the relationship between modernization and governance models. Its political system seeks to address these challenges through strong policy coordination, long-term planning and the capacity for continuous institutional adaptation and policy correction under the leadership of the CPC. For many years, development discussions were dominated by the assumption that economic modernization would inevitably lead countries toward a single political trajectory, such as multiparty systems, interest groups and the separation of power. China’s rise challenges this assumption. The China model suggests that countries may pursue modernization through different institutional pathways shaped by their own histories, cultures and social conditions.

At the same time, China’s development experience demonstrates that modernization requires more than economic growth. Education, social welfare, public administration and institutional effectiveness have all played important roles. Over the past several decades, China has invested heavily in human capital, expanded social protection programs, strengthened public services and improved administrative capacity at multiple levels of government.

These efforts have contributed to relatively high levels of public trust in government. Surveys conducted by Western institutions such as Harvard University’s Ash Center, Edelman and Ipsos have consistently found strong public confidence in Chinese governance. While political systems differ across countries, the broader lesson from China is that State legitimacy depends not only on how governments are chosen, but also on how effectively they govern and deliver economic development, social progress and improved living standards.

Many international surveys suggest that perceptions of China vary significantly across regions. While skepticism toward China remains strong in many Western countries, attitudes are generally more favorable across much of the Global South. This divergence reflects differing historical experiences, development priorities and perspectives on development and governance. Recently, global perceptions appear to be evolving. According to the latest Gallup World Poll, China’s global leadership approval rating has surpassed that of the United States, reflecting both rising approval of China’s international role and declining confidence in US leadership in many parts of the developing world, and increasingly the developed world.

China’s path to modernization does not provide a universal blueprint for development, nor should it be understood as one. Every country must find its own path based on its history, institutions and social conditions. Nevertheless, China’s experience offers several broader lessons: the importance of effective political leadership, the value of long-term strategic planning, the need to balance state and market forces, and the central role of state capacity in promoting development. Market and capital play indispensable roles in generating growth and prosperity, but they should not dictate national development objectives.

This lesson resonates strongly across the Global South. Developing countries face diverse challenges, ranging from poverty and inequality to infrastructure deficits and technological gaps. As a result, many governments are increasingly interested in policy approaches that emphasize state capacity, developmental planning and national policy autonomy. Ultimately, the most important lesson may be that modernization is not a single destination reached through a prescribed route. It is a process shaped by national circumstances, political choices and social priorities. China’s experience reinforces an increasingly important idea: successful modernization does not require following one model. It requires building structures capable of translating national aspirations into sustainable development outcomes.

The growing cooperation between China and other Global South countries is shaping the emerging global order. This strategic relationship is reflected in expanding trade, investment, infrastructure cooperation and diplomatic engagement. Organizations and mechanisms such as BRICS, the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative have expanded opportunities for South-South cooperation and development financing. At the same time, China’s calls for reform of global governance institutions increasingly reflect calls for greater representation and voice for developing countries.

As the 21st century unfolds, the debate over modernization is likely to become increasingly diverse and pluralistic. In that debate, China’s experience will remain an important reference point — not because it offers a formula to replicate, but because it demonstrates that multiple pathways to modernization are both possible and legitimate.

The author is a Yunshan leading scholar and the director of the European Research Center, Guangdong Institute for International Strategies at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, and an adjunct professor of international relations at Aalborg University in Denmark.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.