China got yet another slap on the back, when it recently ranked sixth in the world in terms of compound national strength by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

A previous boost came as a result of the first national economic census, which found that the country's GDP in 2004 reached 15.99 trillion yuan (US$1.972 trillion), 2.3 trillion yuan (US$284 billion) more than the initial calculation.

That figure puts the country ahead of Italy an ranks it sixth in the entire world in terms of total worth of GDP.

But don't forget that the country's per capita GDP falls behind 100th.

In the analysis of the compound national strength, the rich human resources are listed as China's No 1 advantage.

But curiously enough, it's the rich human resources that have dragged the country down past the 100th place on the world list of GDP.

Other elements on which the analysis is based include technology, capital, natural resources, diplomacy, military capability and government ability for economic management.

Not an expert equipped with enough knowledge about how the analysis was conducted, I still must wonder to what degree the result is reliable and in what sense such an analysis is even meaningful.

How exactly can rich human resources be regarded as the top advantage of the country's national strength?

Rich human resources mean there is a great labor pool that can be drawn upon for whatever project needs to be completed. In these terms, China does enjoy a great advantage in its economic construction.

But as far as quality of human resources, the country's place may fall far behind.

Also because of oversupply of labor, the cost is cheap, which explains the made-in-China miracle.
But that is just one side of the coin.

However cheap the labor is, these workers are still humans, not robots. They need to be fed and clothed, they need to marry and then they will have children. They produce and consume as well.

That explains why China can rank sixth in terms of total amount of GDP, but when it is divided by its huge population, the country's place falls behind the 100th.

A huge population provides the country with labor, but the population's huge needs have offset the advantage.

It doesn't make sense to only factor the positive side of the rich human resources.

The academy's document lists China fourth in natural resources after Russia, Canada and the United States.

If I have it right, the conclusion is based on the total amount of natural resources and it has something to do with the size of a country.

A pitfall again.

When the amount is divided by the population of 1.3 billion, then the country's place would fall far behind. It should be seen this way because the country's natural resources are owned and used by its entire population.

Therefore, this element does not justify the overall strength of the country, either.

The country's capability of diplomacy is in fifth place among world powers, according to the academy's document.

I can't quite figure out how experts in the academy have conducted the analysis and on what criteria their research is based.

Different countries have different diplomatic policies for their own specific purposes. A diplomatic policy can be deemed as successful when it realizes its goal.

China's diplomacy aims to maintain a peaceful international environment for its domestic economic development, and to create a harmonious world, in which all countries, big or small, have equal rights to development in their own models.

The country has established partnership relations with many other countries and has successfully settled border disputes with its neighboring countries. This has proved that the country's diplomacy is quite successful.

But how can the country's capability of diplomacy be measured by such a score of 63.40? I doubt both the methodology on which it is measured and reliability of the score because the country's diplomacy should get much higher score if the criterion of diplomatic achievement is considered.

If the score is obtained in comparison with other countries, they are not comparable because they have different goals and adopt different approaches.

China receives another score of 63.40 for capability of the country's government in managing the economy.

While it is very hard to measure such capability in such an accurate manner as to give it a score, such capability of the government, either strong or weak, does not justify the strength of a nation.
 
If in the right direction, the economic management by a capable government will make the economy more prosperous and stable. But if the policy is moving in the wrong direction, the stronger a government is, the more disastrous its policy of economic adjustment would bring about to its economy.

So even if the score has a sound basis, it is only conditionally meaningful.

The Chinese Government has achieved a great deal in carrying out its policy of economic adjustment, but such an assessment should be focused on the efficiency of government policies.

We have indeed achieved a great deal in our economic reforms and opening up in the past more than two decades and the living standards of the Chinese people have greatly improved.

But we face even more difficulty before we can come closer to our goal of a better-off life for the entire population in a harmonious society.

We do not need such a shallow ranking document to shore up our morale. The country needs down-to-earth investigations and research results that can find out the problems and solutions.

(China Daily January 14, 2006)