> But when growth on the basis of "catching up" started to plateau, they could make no further progress.
That's a bold statement, the Soviet Union was far too big and non-homogenous a construct to easily hand wave such generalizations. The post Soviet states are (and were) rich in natural resources and before the exodus of the last 25 or so years, had a very strong engineering and scientific base. You'll have to be a lot more specific about when "cathing up" is supposed to plateu because much, if not most of, the soviet republics had (and still have) a long way to go to catch up with the western world.
I also don't see how it applies to China. Just like it was with the Soviet Union, China's success or failure will depend on their leadership but they are in a very different situation. The Soviet Union's entire political and social structure was in upheaval in the 1980s and all sectors of government suffered as a result, especially the ones in engineering, with wildly mismanaged civil and technological projects. China, although I'll admit I have little confidence in the accuracy of media analysis of the political situation there, doesn't seem to have anywhere near the systemic instability that the USSR did since it's population, although bigger, seems far more homogenous and united under the state. Even though they aren't as resource rich relative to the size of their population, they happen to be a major economic economic partner (supplier) not only of many of its allies, but also its rivals (the US & Europe).
> You'll have to be a lot more specific about when "cathing up" is supposed to plateu because much, if not most of, the soviet republics had (and still have) a long way to go to catch up with the western world.
The plateauing process is gradual, so stagnation started long before they finished catching up (not to mention the chaos of the post-Soviet era resulted in a few steps backwards). When you've got an oppressive government that justifies its legitimacy on the basis of growth, people are going to get antsy from the slowdown long before you actually reach 1st world levels.
> I also don't see how it applies to China.
It applies to China because the authoritarian Chinese government results in the politically powerful directly benefiting from the economic growth. Like I said, innovation requires creative destruction, and this won't happen when the political (and therefore economic) system is controlled by those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.
This is not all that different from how the Japanese government and banks (many of which were nationalized) propped up the "zombie" companies for years, rather than investing that capital in newer firms.
> China, although I'll admit I have little confidence in the accuracy of media analysis of the political situation there, doesn't seem to have anywhere near the systemic instability that the USSR
Because China hasn't yet reached the state that the USSR was in in the 80s. It's still growing, even if not at the same clip that it was a decade ago.
That's a bold statement, the Soviet Union was far too big and non-homogenous a construct to easily hand wave such generalizations. The post Soviet states are (and were) rich in natural resources and before the exodus of the last 25 or so years, had a very strong engineering and scientific base. You'll have to be a lot more specific about when "cathing up" is supposed to plateu because much, if not most of, the soviet republics had (and still have) a long way to go to catch up with the western world.
I also don't see how it applies to China. Just like it was with the Soviet Union, China's success or failure will depend on their leadership but they are in a very different situation. The Soviet Union's entire political and social structure was in upheaval in the 1980s and all sectors of government suffered as a result, especially the ones in engineering, with wildly mismanaged civil and technological projects. China, although I'll admit I have little confidence in the accuracy of media analysis of the political situation there, doesn't seem to have anywhere near the systemic instability that the USSR did since it's population, although bigger, seems far more homogenous and united under the state. Even though they aren't as resource rich relative to the size of their population, they happen to be a major economic economic partner (supplier) not only of many of its allies, but also its rivals (the US & Europe).