Not having read your book I am basing my comments soley on your article in which there appears to me to be one question unanswered: that of the moral imperitives which will function in our brave new world.

You attribute China's fundamental weakness to a self-serving bureaucracy which you see as the mother of corruption. I agree wholeheartedly that self-serving interests do not benefit a nation. Yet it seems to me that punishing 200,000 corrupt officials after the fact does not address the issue: - what needs urgently to be both acknowledged and reformed is the way in which conditions in China since the early '80's have led to a generation that has been encouraged to consider itself only in terms of selfhood and/or with moral obligation only to the small family unit to which it belongs.
Under such conditions the current generation of young adults are destined to be as open to corruption as their predecessors.

Without doubt the one child policy has worked as an excercise in mathmatics and, combined with globilisation and sharing of resources, is helping to place China in the brave new world of which you write. But the spoilt and pampered products of this policy will never be able to make a united effort for the good of China unless ethics and morality are given as prominent a place in their education as are economics and computer technology.

George's comments about how wonderful multinationals undermine wicked national governments and arrogant civil service put me in mind of the long standing example of the agony of the oil rich Nigerian delta. An alliance of corrupt multinationals and local thugs has produced exquisite agony for the locals, some of the poorest in the world in one of the world's richest regions.
As for China "moving forward", it is ironic that in this age of emerging climate change they have just abandoned their public transport and cycles, for the western fetish for freeways, cars and air pollution, in the name of conspicuous consumption.
But what a blessing the one child policy has been. Can you imagine the poverty emerging now, especially given current trends, had not farsighted leaders instigated this policy a couple of generations ago?

“Despite all the changes, China's fundamental weakness is still the overextended, self-appointed bureaucracy, which is inherently self-serving. Moreover, countless government officials employ the unchallenged state power to enrich themselves. In the past five years alone, about 200,000 corrupt officials have been arrested. Unlimited bureaucratic power is the mother of corruption.”

Couldn’t agree more (and Romany makes a good point) because it seems, to do business with any developing or third world country, it is commonly accepted you need to bribe the officialdom – Iraq was no exception. Our new world order may not be all that rosy or egalitarian. Instead of the spread of capitalism the effects of poverty may well spread a little more 'evenly' to western countries.

George,

Whom are the entrepreurs? Would their genaelogies be Shang? Herein, Confucianism would be diluted. Historically, in China, the business classes have been marginalised.

How independent will the central government allow businesses to operate from central control? Lucian Pye notes, with China, its not a matter of left or right in politics, rather, its control, phases of release, threat, and, return to control.

Would China accept two suns in the sky? The West is going to lay down die.

ERROR:

Would China accept two suns in the sky? The West is NOT going to lay down die.

"Today, most developing nations are extremely limited in resources and strengths. Hence, for them, this cost gap is a survival gap. In fact, other than cheap labor and hard work, they have few advantages. However, it turns out that low labor cost and hard work do make a difference."
Where will the advantage be when the standard of living in these "developing" nations equalizes and the cost of transporting the necessary raw resources out weights the rising cost of labour. Instant social crash or the horror of slowly watching every thing you have worked for slowly devalue? Today globalization looks good to the big manufactures as a boon of masses of cheap labour and no social benefit package to interupt the flow of profits, and the lesser industrialized countries overnight jump in GNP and GDP makes a few new millionaires and an increased cost of living. There is no free ride here and the lesser industrial countries ought nought to fall blindly into the arms of big manufacturing with out building on and improving the base of their long term employment supporting traditional jobs ie. agriculture or aquaculture. Tomorrow food and potable water are going to compete with the latest fashion. So will housing. World population aint shrink'n.