The current crisis in liberal capitalism has coincided with the rise of a vigorous alternative system, state capitalism, in which the government offers support to "national champions" but also lists these champions on the stockmarket and subjects them to global competition.

State capitalists argue that the system is proving remarkably successful. China has grown at almost 10% for the past 30 years. State-capitalist companies such as China Telecom have come from nowhere to become mighty global companies. You really can have the best of both worlds.

State capitalism's critics reply that the system is riven with problems. State-capitalist companies are not only less efficient than their private competitors. They are also using cheap capital and political favouritism to crowd out the entrepreneurs that are the real drivers of growth. State capitalism inevitably degenerates into crony capitalism as powerful politicians extend their control over the economy.

Have China and other emerging powers really discovered a new formula for growth? Or is state capitalism a disaster in the making? Is state capitalism really a new system that combines the discipline of the market with intelligent state guidance? Or is it just a new name for the old policy of picking winners and playing favourites? Can state capitalism remain successful as economies mature? Or is it incompatible with innovation and creativity? These issues will be at the heart of politics in much of the emerging world in the coming years.