This is a good article but it contains too much bias. The bias comes from an American viewpoint of the world. There are some excellent observations but the analysis seems to be written with the conclusion pre-determined – this for me is bias.
I am privileged to have visited much of China and the economic miracle has certainly highlighted leaders and laggards. There are the super-wealthy with privileged connections and there are the masses, often with parents and grand-parents to support. But it’s necessary to take a Chinese perspective to understand these events, rather than an American perspective or that of a privileged Chinese living in America.
For me a longitudinal analysis (looking at history over time) perhaps provides a more meaningful perspective. Remember that in the 1950s under Mao, many millions died of famine. China is adjusting to a new growth trajectory, giving consumers more power.
For me, this article seems to target privileged Americans and is written to make them feel that perhaps China will not take over from the US in terms of economic power?
Another area of bias is to focus on one of China’s poorest cities. It is similar to trying to project the future from Detroit’s rust-bowl. What’s wrong with focusing on the millions of people who visit Nanjing Road in Shanghai?
Perhaps, I’m being too harsh on American journalist, Matt O’Brian?