We are witnessing the revival of the Chinese nation, not the death throes of China’s political system. All too often, this message is lost in translation. In 2015, U.S. Professor David Shambaugh wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal titled “The Coming Chinese Crackup.” In the article, Shambaugh makes various claims in support of the so-called “China collapse thesis.” For example, he said China’s political system is badly broken; Xi Jinping’s efforts to root out corruption are tearing the Party apart and setting the country back; and the stability of Communist rule is a façade.

In the fall 2016 edition of The Washington Quarterly, Shambaugh seems to want to distance himself from the contentious article. Rather than address his previous conclusion that we are witnessing the final phase of Chinese communism, however, he takes aim at The Wall Street Journal for mudding the waters: “I do not subscribe to the ‘China collapse thesis,’ as falsely indicated by the title of my Wall Street Journal article,” he says. The title is not the problem. The problem is the broken argument that China’s system is doomed to fail, regardless of how it is worded or dressed up. Briefly touching on the root problem and then trying to move forward with the same basic logic does not fix the former or save the current.

At the core there is no difference between the two articles. Both sound the same alarm: China’s regime is destined to wither away unless Western-style political reform is carried out. Change course, or else. For Shambaugh, the key issue is the current course of the regime. His pessimistic conclusion rests on the argument that political reform should match economic reform, thus the focus on the relationship between politics and economics. If the economic system is liberal, the political system should be too. That is the only way China can move forward economically or socially, at least according to Shambaugh.

The key issue for China at this stage of development is not so much the relationship between politics and economics, but shifting the old economy to the innovation economy. The political liberalization that Shambaugh calls for will only weaken China’s governance capability and create uncertainty about China’s future. Xi has made technological innovation the pivot of development, and an innovation-driven economy is seen by China’s leaders as the country’s path forward. But the national strategy of innovation requires massive structural transformation, and this requires top-level steering. In a paper presented at the China Development Forum 2016, U.S. Professor Joseph Stiglitz rightly points out that structural transformation does not happen on its own. The state has a pivotal role to play in shifting the economy.

The China story is atypical in world history, and its policies should be tailored to China’s unique history and situation. And while China’s system is imperfect, it is not crumbling. In both articles, Shambaugh's pessimistic conclusion is not only unconvincing but unscientific, and such biased conclusions do nothing but fuel speculation about the strength and stability of China’s political system. It is simply impossible to make predictions about China’s future. All we know for sure is that China’s system works for China. Despite its shortcomings, China’s system has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty and the country is now a leading actor on the world stage. More amazing, China did all this without resorting to conquest, colonization, or territorial expansion. Strong state control has lifted China up, and it will play a central role in creating a more balanced and sophisticated economy. Simply put, China is on the correct path.