Government professor Jennifer Lind described China’s unique practice of “smart authoritarianism,” a governing style that focuses on “foster[ing] innovation” through a balance between freedom and control, in a Jan. 14 discussion on her new book “Autocracy 2.0: How China’s Rise Reinvented Tyranny.”
Lind joined news website Semafor managing editor Andrew Browne for a discussion about China’s position as an innovative global superpower and its impact on democracy and authoritarianism around the world. Approximately 70 people attended the event, hosted by the Political Economy Project, according to PEP program director Henry Clark.
During the event, Lind said China began technologically innovating after moving from a low-income to middle-income country in the late 20th century.
“The real interesting aspect of the China story, which only Singapore had done before, was to be able to — once you’re at that middle-income level — actually innovate,” Lind said.
According to Lind, “freedoms of information, of mobility are essential for an innovative society,” but that freedom hinders a country’s ability to remain an authoritarian state. Information is “the Achilles heel of authoritarian governments,” she added.
“When it comes to innovation … it’s a little more risky that you allow the people to have these kinds of freedoms and … information and allow them to move about the country and move about the world,” she said.
According to Lind, many authoritarian leaders choose not to have national assemblies or a parliament to avoid rival powers, which isolates the leader from information sources in the country.
However, China’s “new authoritarianism” shows that institutions benefit authoritarian leaders because they provide information about what is happening in the country. Browne added that the National People’s Congress in China is an example of a working legislative institution.
She continued to explain that authoritarian countries focus on economic stability because they require money to maintain the regime. For example, authoritarian leaders need to “stabilize the economy in terms of macroeconomics, not have wild currency fluctuations.”
Browne ended the event by asking about power transitions in a “smart authoritarian” state. Lind responded that while she does not cover that question in the book, the way to maintain regimes requires the “successful management between controls and freedoms.”
“Historically, periods of power, transition periods of succession, are very vulnerable times for a lot of authoritarian regimes, so they need to get that right,” Lind said.
In an interview after the event, attendee Luke Aloe ’27 said the conversation gave a good insight into China’s success as an authoritarian country.
“It was a really interesting conversation about how China has struck this delicate balance between maintaining authoritarian control over the economy while still allowing for explosive growth,” Aloe said.
Xavier Ow ’29 said he found the discussion to be “very informative,” adding that it challenged ideas that liberal democracies consistently “outperform” authoritarian governments.
“I think this is really groundbreaking,” Ow said.
Luke Hafermann ’25 said he attended the event out of interest because it seemed like a relevant topic to his sociology work because of how authoritarianism impacts society.
“It seems like she brought some good analysis of civil society in China,” Hafermann added.
