But many other countries have similar conditions, so why don't they grow equally fast?

My view is that development is fundamentally about transformation. There are at least four key elements which go very far in explaining why China has done well.

First, long-term commitment to reform and development. Quite remarkable. When Deng Xiaoping launched his reforms in the late 70s and early 80s, he foresaw a 25 to 50 year period of reform. That's a remarkably long commitment.

Most countries' governments are for four to five years. Along with the political cycles come cycles in economic markets.

This holds true for China. Rather than having a big detailed movement, China's approach was almost like a philosophy, a strategy. The government was aiming at a broad direction. Means were flexible and could keep being adjusted along the way.

Related readings:  China's economy to grow 10.9% in 2007  Central bank vows tight policy to rein in economy  EU mulls giving China market economy status: WSJ  Economy to sustain fast growth for 2 more decades

Second, pragmatism. If something was not working, China's approach was to fix it and change it. No policy since the late 70s has been carried out in China in one go. There has always been piloting and testing, following Deng Xiaoping's famous phrase to feel the stones as you cross the stream. That approach is quite unique.

Third, strong institutions changing to meet reform needs. Whenever there was a reform agenda, there were clear adjustments of institutions to deliver the agenda.

Fourth, the public good. There was strong growth in creating human capital -- education, cohesion bringing society together and a very deliberate investment in public infrastructure to open markets. In the late 70s and early 80s the public good became very important and remains very important.

Now for the role of ownership. What China has done well is to fundamentally say to every-one that Chinese development is to be led by Chinese leaders and Chinese institutions; and to believe that they may not be perfect, but they're ours. They're our objectives, our policies. And maybe they did well because they didn't listen to many outside the country. I'm talking about strategy issues as opposed to technical content.

A State elite worked to define strategies and priorities. This elite was deeply committed to improving people's lives. It had a development vision. It was not a grabbing hand. And they used the pilot project approach of scaling up.

1

2

3

4

5

6

(For more biz stories, please visit Industry Updates)