> Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

Yes I think. At least a lot of Western policymakers did buy a "change through trade/investment" story, and it wasn't pulled from nowhere because it had worked in the past.

In postwar Japan and later South Korea, integration into the West's economic system coincided with eventual democratization, closer alignment of values, and alliance.

It was reasonable to think the same thing would work in China, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also the US intentionally set China up for investment by doing things like bringing them into the WTO. All that investment wouldn't have happened without some level of government support.

▲

jzb 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it’s more accurate to say that Western policymakers sold that story to the public on behalf of the companies that bought, er, lobbied them.

	▲	varenc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'd totally believe they would have lobbied for it, but even absent lobbying I think policymakers would look at historical trends and conclude that deeper western economic times would ultimately benefit the West strategically as well. Lobbying could have further incentivized and accelerated it though.

▲

ChrisMarshallNY 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> South Korea

Didn't they have a dictatorship or two for quite a while? I think they've only been a democracy in fact, for about 35 years.

	▲	refurb 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right. They liberalized as they became more wealthy. As did Taiwan.