Apropos of a recent discussion about labor markets in China, here's an interesting comment in the Guardian by Joseph Stiglitz.  Here are the first three paragraphs:

China is about to adopt its 11th five-year plan, setting the stage for the continuation of probably the most remarkable economic transformation in history, while improving the wellbeing of almost a quarter of the world's population. Never before has the world seen such sustained growth; never before has there been so much poverty reduction.

Part of the key to China's long-run success has been its almost unique combination of pragmatism and vision. While much of the rest of the developing world, following the Washington consensus, has been directed at a quixotic quest for higher GDP, China has again made clear that it seeks sustainable and more equitable increases in real living standards. China realises that it has entered a phase of economic growth that is imposing enormous - and unsustainable - demands on the environment. Unless there is a change in course, living standards will eventually be compromised. That is why the new plan places great emphasis on the environment.

Many of the more backward parts of China have been growing at a pace that would be a marvel, were it not that other parts of the country are growing even more rapidly. While this has reduced poverty, inequality has been increasing, with growing disparities between cities and rural areas, and coastal regions and the interior. This year's World Bank world development report explains why inequality, not just poverty, should be a concern, and China's plan attacks the problem head on. The government has for several years talked about a more harmonious society, and the plan describes programmes for achieving this.

and further on greenhouse gases...

Greenhouse gases, for example, are global problems. While America says that it cannot afford to do anything about it, China's senior officials have acted more responsibly. Within a month of the adoption of the plan, new environmental taxes on cars, petrol and wood products were imposed: China was using market-based mechanisms to address its and the world's environmental problems. But the pressures on local government officials to deliver economic growth and jobs will be enormous. They will be sorely tempted to argue that if America cannot afford to produce in a way that preserves our planet, how can they? To translate its vision into action, the Chinese government will need strong policies, such as the environmental taxes already imposed.

This all seems a bit sunny to me, especially since no one really understands the effects which inequalities will have within an environment of further political liberalization.  The linguist in me wants to ask to whom the agent refered to as "China" or "it" might really correspond.  The central committee?  Some sort of broader consensus?

I guess I'm particularly bothered by a quote like this:

Most people outside China do not fully appreciate the extent to which its leaders, by contrast, have engaged in extensive deliberations and consultations as they strive to solve the enormous problems they face.

Is it really the case that people in China don't "appreciate" their leaders enough?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752817,00.html

I'm currently writing my dissertation on issues involving labor reforms in Germany.  I'm curious if the "Camdessus report" in France has had much public attention.  Probably most readers of this site are aware that the "Hartz report" and the resulting "Hartz laws" have been almost unavoidable in the German press for the last three years.  But, as far as I can tell, there hasn't been a similar analogue in France.

What I am most interested in is the publicity of reform efforts.  Denmark's Zeuthen Commission is perhaps comparable to Hartz.  The assassination of the Italian labor economist Biagi is perhaps also an important point of comparison...

I'm just now reading the report, and find the style of engagement to be illuminatingly different from the German case.  Perhaps someone can give me some hints as to the public reaction in France to this kind of expert discourse?