Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics
Written by Julen Madariaga on March 2nd, 2009
Today I am starting my review section with one of the books on Chinese economy that has impressed me most in the last year, “Capitalism with Chinese characteristics”, by MIT professor Huang Yasheng. It is a book that clearly stands out from the recent China books, and it might be destined to become one of the big references in the field.
There is no shortage of good China books in the last years. Many are written from a business perspective, by people with first hand experience who will tell you exactly how things are done here. Others look at the available economic data and build interesting theories to explain them. Few go deeper than this, to look into the heart of the matter: the politics behind the Chinese economy.
The problem is: it is so difficult to obtain reliable information on Chinese policy that most efforts in this field turn into circular arguments over the same limited data. Professor Huang breaks the circle by going back to the sources and questioning directly all the mainstream assumptions, leaving many of them upside down. The situation in China requires this approach, as he says in the preface:
In studies of American economy, scholars may debate about the effects of, say, “Reagan tax cuts”. In studies of the Chinese economy, the more relevant question would be, “Did the government cut taxes in the first place?
By going back to the archives of what, in his own words is “some of the world’s most medieval record keeping”, Huang Yasheng is able to come up with a whole new picture of Chinese economic policy in the last three decades. This book is the result of painstaking archival research into rarely examined files, such as a “22 volumes compilation of internal bank documents” or the archives of the Ministry of Agriculture.
A qualitative leap from the classic tea leave reading, and one that deserves some careful consideration, even if the conclusions drawn will not be to the taste of every reader.
The book
“Capitalism” is the work of an academic, it is published by the Cambridge University Press and it comes with all the scholarly bells and whistles. But the occasional reader should not let this scare him off it. It is a readable piece, with chapters drafted following the tested formula: attractive anecdote - presentation of the argument - easily skipped statistics - groundbreaking conclusion. Add to this some juicy celebrity bashing (including Nobel J. Stiglitz) for just the right spot of gore, and you get a read that you can thoroughly enjoy. Selling for a surprising 23$ (cheap for a Cambridge Uni hardcover) this is clearly a book designed to be read.
I will not do a detailed summary here, you can find some more in this excellent review posted last month on China Beat. Instead, what I will do is highlight some of the points that Huang makes that I find most relevant. These they are, as I understood them:
- China is much less capitalistic today than most observers assume it to be. The real miracle of private entrepreneurship happened in the 80s, but has since been deliberately suppressed, largely through financial repression.
- The 90s and 00s policies favour FDIs and large SOEs against privately owned Chinese companies on one hand, and the cities against rural areas on the other, with very negative effects on some aspects of the economy. These aspects, which are not represented in the sexy GDP figures, are essential to ensure the sustainability of China’s growth. They include: education, productivity, creativity, entrepreneurial spirit.
- The large developed cities, and Shanghai in particular, are Potemkin metropolis. The sparkling new infrastructure of Shanghai and Beijing, from the Maglev to the recently burnt CCTV tower, are for a good part “white elephants”. While these investments -mostly executed by SOEs- have helped boost the economy in the 90s, they have questionable returns in the long term, and their opportunity cost will have to be paid dearly.
- China is failing to develop the necessary “soft infrastructure” to ensure a sustainable economy. Worse still, it has actually regressed in this field during the last decade. This spells trouble for the future. The “soft infrastructure” - a term used in many China books and which I suspect originates from previous Huang Yasheng works - refers to those immaterial conditions such as the rule of law, open financial institutions, a civil society and entrepreneurial spirit that many consider essential for the long term development of an economy.
Wrong Shanghai: Observations on the Ground
The book opens with a statement that is sure to catch the eye of many living in China: there is something wrong with Shanghai.
Yes, no less than Shanghai, the city that has been fooling us for years with its aura of dynamism and openness. Huang Yasheng arguments, with precise data in hand, that entrepreneurship has long been eliminated from the city. Shanghai’s wealth is made of SOEs, FDIs and transfer of resources from other parts of China. It is in fact an economy of CPC members and risk averse “iron bowls”.
From my viewpoint of an observer on the ground, it is this statement that I found most exciting. I went straight to chapter 4 and then I went straight to ask all my Shanghainese friends what they though of it. The response I got almost unanimously: “No kidding, do you need to read a 300 pages book to see this?”
Which led me once again to this reflection: We continue to pay too much attention to foreign experts, and not enough to the Chinese themselves. In spite of the growing efforts of bridge bloggers and media, there is still a massive divide between the two worlds. The successful China books are mostly written by foreigners who don’t read and write Chinese. It is still too easy for an old China hand to position himself as an expert in everything China. And the circle feeds itself.
And the sheer dismalness of it all
It is always amusing to read these scholarly works in social sciences, where findings are measured against some -ism pattern, and where partisans tear each other apart mercilessly.
Reading this book one cannot help feeling that there is an underlying model in all of its arguments. A conviction -some might call it an ideology- that free markets, a small state and liberalism are the fundamental bases upon which a healthy economy is built, and that there can be no long-term “China miracle” based on exclusive “Chinese characteristics” if it doesn’t follow this model. A line of thinking that is understandably very critical of the Chinese policies in the 90s and early 00s.
On the other hand, while this partisanship may lend the book a more unscientific feel than one might like -and what is so scientific about economy anyway- , it also makes for a more compelling reading, not unlike watching a football match where the author scores a spectacular hat-trick. Should anyone be ruffled by the treatment of authors like J. Stiglitz, I would suggest a read of his own popular book “Globalisation” to get a taste of what it means to tear apart your opponent.
Of course, the problem with all this is that it makes all works very vulnerable to world fashions. “Capitalism” was written before the financial crisis developed, and unfortunately for Huang Yasheng, the winds of economics are since blowing in the opposite direction. The moment marked last year by the fall of Lehman Brothers and the crowning of some other partisans have tipped the scale to the Big State ideas. More importantly, China’s economy is still holding strong compared to the West, and this is feeding the side of those who feel that China’s miracles can save the World from the greedy free-market ideas of the Washington consensus.
While I am of the opinion that China has still a lot to offer to the World, and I certainly see some sense in the famous Beijing consensus in the field of international politics, when it comes to economic policy I tend to agree with Huang Yasheng’s point of view. Being based here and working daily with Chinese companies, it is just too difficult to believe in the soundness and “entrepreneurialness” of China’s economy.
In any case, and whatever the opinion of the reader, Huang Yasheng drives his points home with argumentative skill, and making good use of an admirable research work to shed light on some of the least understood aspects of China’s economic development. Moreover, it is to his credit that, based on the new data, Huang goes against his own previously held ideas -namely, that the 90s reforms were more far reaching than the 80s. It is always comforting for this humble, unenlightened engineer to see that, in social science too, empirical data can change a theory rather than the opposite.
Who knows, it is very possible that the economy’s Wheel of Fortune will turn again sooner than we expect. Then China’s economic system might suddenly show all its contradictions, and people will need to turn to books like “Capitalism” to try to understand what has been going on all this time.
wpolscemamymocneseo said:
wpolscemamymocneseo said:
wpolscemamymocneseo said:
wpolscemamymocneseo said:
http://amazonsuspensionned678.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/amazon-suspension-how-to-acquire-back-on-amazon/ said:
http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/837200/Change-Your-Identity said:
alibaba china company said:
2
AM
You have to like the world of blogging, where people who have few if any credentials in China Studies review the books of established authors and experts on China.
My apologies, but why should anyone care about your book review?
[Reply to this comment]
2
AM
VERY GOOD REVIEW. REALLY ENJOYED READING IT. THIS PROF HUANG IS BY FAR THE MOST RESPECTABLE CHINA RESEARCHER IN MY HUMBLE EYES…
IF POSSIBLE, I DO WISH I COULD RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO THOSE STREETSIDE BOOKSELLERS TO “PUBLISH” IT FOR A WIDER AUDIENCE.
[Reply to this comment]
2
AM
@SuoXiaoFan - I don’t usually like to insult my readers but you sound like an idiot with credentials. Thanks for commenting.
[Reply to this comment]
2
AM
@胡让之 - I agree with you. It is the same old story again: mediocre books with strong marketing campaigns get much more attention than better books published by University presses.
It is a pity because you can feel this book is meant to be read by the general public, and the author does a good job of it. With a bit more of a marketing push it would be quite a success.
On the other hand, I am not sure about “publishing” it in the daoban market. It would certaily help to boost sales, but I think the author deserves to get at least some return for all the efforts in researching archives. Besides, I think the book sells at a very reasonable price, at least for the Western standards.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
Very nice review. I have also read this book, and many of my perceptions were the same as yours. The book was well documented and argued.
Part of what adds gravity to Huang’s arguments is his use of a previously untapped set of primary resources that has been waiting for a talented scholar to come along and exploit them.
I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that “The successful China books are mostly written by foreigners who don’t read and write Chinese.”
Maybe it depends on how you define “successful”, but I’m having a hard time thinking of a recent China-related book written by a non-Chinese speaker. Jim Rogers, maybe? (Was his book even successful?)
And anyway, I’m pretty sure Michael Pettis, whose blog you recommend above, doesn’t read and write Chinese, but the guy’s a genius. I’d almost trade my Chinese ability for his knowledge of global finance.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
Please tell us your credentials then. I think we would be interested.
Thank you.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
@SXF - I don’t need to give any credentials because I don’t claim to be anything more than what I am: a humble, unenlightened engineer working in China. My credential is the value of my arguments. You take it or you leave it.
I will explain it otherwise, to see if I make myself clear. There is only one way that you can make me respect you and eventually correct my post: by writing some sound argument against any of the points I make.
Anything else that you write here will only confirm my suspicions: You are an eminent idiot, certified with solid credentials.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
@G.E. Anderson -
You are right,there are many books written by authors of Chinese descent, most of who can read/write Chinese. I just corrected the post, as I realize this section is a bit confusing. The point I wanted to make is not really about language skills, but more about positioning.
The idea is that we are not paying enough attention to the point of view from inside the system. Chinese-americans who have been years away from Chna, even if they speak perfect Chinese, they are not able to give us this valuable POV.
Of course, when I say we should listen more to the Chinese, this doesn’t imply that we should ignore foreigners. The outside point of view is just as important to balance the arguments. And there are valuable contributions from foreign experts who don’t speak a word of Chinese, like the example you give (but actually I have no idea if M. Pettis speaks Chinese or not).
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
It’s very sad to see a Chinese commenter like suoxiaofan to post such an unreasonnably impolite comment. But, alas, that is exactly the way I used to respond to some blogs written by foreigners. I got my computer one year ago and I was very happy as I could learn English by reading foreign reports and blogs. Then came the Lasa riot and the torch relay protests and all of a sudden, the mood turned ugly. Everybody was filled with wrath and sometimes we would target someone or something that had little to do with our anger. I don’t know if this is the case with sxf. I just wish he or she would not do that again. That’s too bad. And I wish this is the last time we hear ULN call a commenter “idot”.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
Mmh. Yeah. I didn’t see it from that point of view. You make me feel a bit guilty now, perhaps I shouldn’t insult my own readers after all.
On the other hand, this guy’s English seems to be pretty good, and this is not so much about political disagreement but rather about him trying to discredit me without any argument and for no apparent reason.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
So discredit me with your credentials, fairly achieved and won. Your degrees in Chinese? Your publications in Chinese Studies field?
If you are a humble engineer, what are you doing reviewing books on economics and politics on China? Your arguments should be based, one would think, on what work you have done in that field. Those of us working on Chinese politics and economics would not review a textbook on engineering.
I wish you well, and I also wish you become well-informed on China.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
CCP has a lot of theories and principles. The most important and fundamental one of them is “The only way to find out whether a principle is right or wrong is to carry it out and see what will happen.”(实践是检验真理的唯一标准） Mr Deng Xiaoping put it like this “Black or white, capable of catching mice is a good cat.” So I think we can say CCP doesn’t believe in any -ism. They only believe in pragmatism and skepticism. This attitude is a lesson they drew from the tragic Cultural Revolution and to a great extent can be ascribed to Taoism which says the only thing that will never change is change itself. Maybe the crisis will enhance such an approach. Maybe not, I don’t know.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
What’s your point, SuoXiaoFan? Why do people need to have degrees in Chinese language or publications in “Chinese Studies” to be able to review a book? How do you know he’s not well-informed on China? And even if he isn’t well-informed, why can’t you simply criticize particular facts and opinions he writes about, instead of telling him to shut up because he has no “credentials”?
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
Shanghai blows. The locals are rude. The expats are clueless. Aside from the food (xiaolongbao!) and a couple bars, I see no reason at all for anyone to ever go to Shanghai. (Unless you want a photo of yourself standing on “Longdong Ave.”) Most of the foreign “enterpreneurs” I know who set up in S’hai failed to make any money-with the notable exception of the bright fellow who was mailing daoban dvds back to the US until he got caught and tossed in the clink. Blah blah blah oh and Huang’s book rocks, you should definitely read it for yourself.
[Reply to this comment]
Michael A. Robson Reply:
November 12th, 2010 at 10:04 am
@Vinnie the P,
Where do you live these days? What do you do for work?
Shanghai is pretty rough, and I agree most of the foreigners are newbies. I might consider a move, if it was right career-wise.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
I like the review, but personally I think in the case of China at its current stage of development and its historical background it may even be necessary politically, socially and economically for it to have a mixed balance of FDI, SOEs and private entrepenurialship. Having said that, it’s always sensible to have alternatives and to avoid the pitfalls of mercurial hot money always on the lookout for margins. I’ve always thought its simple common sense not to put all your eggs in one basket, the benefit of hindsight not withstanding.
Had the US and European governments not sold off their postal banking services or encouraged the devouring of rural mom and pop banks in the American mid-West and elsewhere, Western governments could have had alternative avenues to pump liquidity back into the economies instead of having to bail out banks and financial institutions at the taxpayers’ expense in order to dodge the moral hazard question.
So either way, it seems whether East or West, the taxpayer always pay, with the exception of whether you pay before, knowing what you are paying for or afterwards and discovering too late that you’ve just been royally screwed. Like those London girly joints where you discover afterwards that you have to pay hundreds of Pounds simply for the privilege of buying a not very pretty East-European matron a watered down drink. LOL. Personally, I know which I would rather prefer and its definitely NOT the East-European matron.
Btw. is SuoXiaoFan (as in “irrelevant dinner conversation”) even Chinese or just a pretend wanabe masquerading as an angry Chinese?
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
I think the main problem with private enterprise in China is that once you become too successful (i.e. a force to be reckoned with), you’re bound to step on somebody’s feet (“somebody” usually being a SOE with good political connections), and if you don’t have sufficient connections yourself, you will encounter all sorts of problems your SOE competitor never has to face. The system is set up in a way that you’re always in violation of some regulation or other, because there’s no way to avoid it, and if somebody with sufficient clout wants you to trip up, you will.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
@Revi- Sure, the idea of the balance of FDI, SOE and private companies makes sense. And I don’t think the message of the book is to say that FDIs -or even SOEs- need to be eradicated from China. It just makes a point that in the 90s and 00s Chinese private entrepreneurs have been badly discriminated against.
@SuoXiaoFan, I don’t know if you are just a troll or what, but I like to answer when asked. Here is the answer:
If you read the article carefully, you will see that most of the information I give is just taken from the book. The only critical arguments I make on my own are those of a casual observer on the ground. They can be summarized as follows:
1- The book is enjoyable and well written, and there is a serious basis of research to back its points.
2- We need to pay more attention to the voice of the Chinese, not only to outside observers.
3- As an engineer, more than once I have thought that economists are nuts.
So, you see, if you stop for a second and think of what I just said, you will notice that these 3 arguments are easily justified with the simple credentials of (1)a reader (2)a resident of Shanghai (3)an engineer.
I don’t need to show any works in the field because I am not trying to convince anyone of my theories. I am just sharing my opinions on a book, from the point of view of an inquisitive engineer in China.
And finally, the most exciting: my Chinese qualifications. My level is enough to read books in Chinese, although I prefer to read English, French or Spanish because it goes faster. I am aiming at HSK 7, I am doing the test in April and then I will publish the results on a post here so that eminent researchers like you can be reassured and sleep at night. Thanks for visiting.
PS. I would love to read your opinion on the book. Serious.
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
@Thomas
Hmmm, perhaps, however I’ve come across my fair share of industrial and commercial espionage and dirty tricks in Europe and America, both run by firms themselves, contracted out (usually the case) or in collusion with governments.
A while back, the Saudi government was evaluating various European (German Leapord II, British Challenger, French LeClerc) and US (M1) main battle tanks for their army when it was discovered that the French secret service was actively eavesdroping on the competition and jamming the systems of rival tanks in favour of their own LeClerc MBT. Hilariously, that was when the French was caught literally with their pants around the ankles.
The moral of the story: Dirty tricks abound everywhere, ergo the American “military industrial complex” etc.
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
@Revi
Sure, but what’s different in China: If a Chinese entrepreneur is successful, his own government may turn against him in the form of the various SOEs competing for the same business. Western governments usually don’t run too many companies competing head-on with private competitors (though I suppose it does sometimes happen in certain sectors such as railways and telecommunications).
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
Thank you for the review.
Unfortunately, 90%+ of books on China, either by mainlanders, overseas Chinese or foreigners are so completely off the mark to have zero value and are worthless. This is for a variety of reasons, mainly to do with politics, editorialization, selected commercial appeal and sheer incompetence/ignorance.
The four main points you raise from the book are all quite well known and have been taught in more progressive and enlightened business courses with a China focus (which are few and far between), for most of the last decade. Without having read the book, yet, I would hope the author goes even deeper with the analysis, as the four points appear they are at least going in the correct direction.
Thank you for bringing this book to our attention, it sounds like a very rare diamond in the sea of horrid, vapid, useless China books.
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
Uln, you certainly made me want to read the book.
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
@Thomas
Sorry, I can’t resist the chuckles. I think currently the Western governments are running more “SOEs” than they’ve ever wanted to or could ever have imagined in their wildest dreams.
As for the situation in China, I think it’s alot more nuanced and varied than you’ve portrayed. Sometimes you’ve various SOEs backed by different provincial governments going after the same market along with private companies, while at other times it is also exactly as you’ve said. Fundamentally, the different provincial governments themselves are under pressure to create jobs, often leading to direct intervention. So a distinction needs to be drawn exactly what you mean by government.
However, Europe, particularly France and Germany have their own version of “SOEs” where there are substantial collusion between government and government backed companies. Prime example is VW of Germany and most absurdly, the French dairy firm Danone, famous for its joghurt, marked as a strategic company, LOL. The difference is that they are often more subtle in approach or backed by legistlations.
Frankly, I’ve seen more than my fair share of politicians and CEOs scratching each others’ back in the back room than you can shake a stick at. Why do you think we are in the situation we are in now. Just look at the defensive deal done between Porsche and VW with German government encouragement to prevent VW from falling prey to the hedge fund managers on Wall Street, to safeguard German jobs and to uphold national economic jingoism.
All I can say is different countries operate under different social/political imperatives which in turn reflect each country’s corporate and political climate. We can all bitch and moan about how its better back home because that’s what we are used to, but which we never really bothered to examine more closely until the shit hits the fan. Yet until we learn to stand back and try to understand where it comes from or why things are the way they are, we’ll never become players.
Often it is precisely Western firms’ inability to think holistically and to make long term commitment because of cultural lazy-assness, myopia and shareholders’ pressure that caused them to fail in the Far East.
Sorry, slow day and I am on a roll here.
[Reply to this comment]
3
AM
@SuoXiaoFan, I am afraid I have to agree with Uln’s response to your comments. As a reader I am happy to see thoughtful reviews done by anyone. After all, the book is not just written for experts or academics. Sometimes a thoughtful reader can provide more insights than an opinionated expert.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
@Ravi
All you say is true, but my point is slightly different:
I’m not “bitching and moaning about how it’s better back home” and how “we’ll never become players”, because I’m not talking about foreign companies in China at all. I’m talking about home-grown Chinese companies competing with Chinese SOEs.
You mention VW as an example of a “German SOE”. But the difference is: VW has no particular advantage in competing with - say - Daimler and BMW on its home turf, just because it has some state ownership. For example, VW’s CEO can’t call up a politician and ask for an extra-tough tax audit on BMW. And he can’t call the finance minister so that he instructs Deutsche Bank to give VW an extra credit-line of a couple of billion Euros, while at the same time not renewing BMW’s credit facility (ok, actually, he can do it to some extent, as there are indeed state-owned banks aplenty in Germany, and politicians are of course worried about jobs, but BMW and Daimler can do the same thing with the politicians in their home state - the state ownership stake of VW is a rather minor consideration in the overall dynamics). And yes, various Western countries (some more than others) give their local companies advantages over foreign rivals, but that’s a different topic.
Yes, there’s both provincial and central government involvement in Chinese SOEs. The dynamics are different in each case, because the power of the various political backers is different, depending on the context. And there are also private companies with political connections. Lots of different variations. And nothing is every just black and white. But one theme remains: To be successful in a big way as a privately owned local Chinese company, you better have very solid political connections if you choose to compete with the “wrong” competitor.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
“Sometimes a thoughtful reader can provide more insights than an opinionated expert.”
Really? Thoughtfulness comes from a minimum of education, exposure and linguistic competence in the field. Why would anyone read a review when the person has no background in Chinese studies? That is why referred journals and magazines ask someone who has worked in a given field to do so, and do not simply send out a copy to someone at random.
Again, this blogger would be outraged if I reviewed and commented on a book on engineering without the requisite technical skills.
It would be helpful if some knew the difference between an opinion and an analysis. Regrettably, many bloggers do not and think that the reason their views on China are not valued is because of a conspiracy, a lack of attention, or that academics are powerful but dumb. No, their views are not valued on China because they just got to China or that their chief talent in China is that they are native English speakers.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
I don’t think you should be so quick to dismiss SuoXiaoFan’s concerns. This commenter is just one of a growing contingent of blog readers working hard to make sure that English-language blogs about China adhere to strict ethical and professional standards.
At the Zhongnanhai Blog, for example, “Shen Congwen” concisely sums up the movement’s thesis: “Blogging one’s views is the right of people who have nothing else to contribute to the discussion because they lack the training and expertise.” At China Vortex, “SinaSource” blasts the post’s author for giving an opinion based on “boundless ego and imagination.” Our own site is visited by a stream of commenters who press us to reveal the fact that we’re taking credit for translations we don’t do ourselves, or who take us to task over ethical lapses such as failing to disclose the family relationship between a post author and interview subject who happen to share the same common Chinese surname.
Or, it could just be one pathetic troll needling bloggers from a laptop in some Beijing cafe. Either way, these comments tend to make the ensuing thread more about the commenter than the post content (speaking of which, I enjoyed this post and look forward to reading the book itself when I get a chance).
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
Joel, thanks for the links, I hadn’t thought of it from that perspective.
In this blog I have no problem with people coming up and questioning what I write, I actually encourage it. And when they prove some of my points wrong, I just admit my mistake and correct the post accordingly, giving the commenter due credit.
That is precisely the advantage of blogs over paper media, and that is what makes us MORE accurate, not less.
The problem with SXF is that he is rude and he comes across as a troll, therefore he cannot be expected to be taken seriously. He insists on going ad hominem instead of discussing some point in the post. He adds no value.
I follow Danwei and I think you do a great job. Granted, a blog or any medium that is updated daily cannot be expected to have the accuracy of a research book that took one year to do. But each one has its function, and I don’t see any contradiction between them.
I am interested in this whole subject, but it’s a bit off topic from Huang YS’s book. Might post something later if I manage to get some time.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
Danwei loves you and you love Danwei.
Imagine, please, our surprise.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
@Thomas
Appologies if my choice of words offended you, no insults intended, sometimes I get a bit carried away.
I suspect we are discussing a variation on the same theme with the subjects seperated by time, distance, superficial cultural differences and differing business level (ie. a-b/b-c etc). Fundamentally, at times I see Germany/Singapore as a more advanced development of what China may likely become should the Chinese central government gets its way, because both governments have strong dirigiste urges, except that in Germany’s case it happened post WWII with the Wirtschafts Wunder and with allied help because of the USSR threat, whereas China is doing it now pretty without anybody’s help. And both countries still remain very left-leaning politically and socially if one go beyond the surface.
As for Germany and the different car companies you mentioned, a crucial point you may have overlooked is that Germany is a federation of states, such that different car firms (VW-Lower Saxony, BMW-Bayern, MB-BadenWuerttemberg) can assert inordinate amount of political power on State governments/assembly which in turn affect national policies (ie. CDU/CSU-FDP-SDP: the main political parties) Similarly, in the US this rears its head as pork barrel politics.
German national and state governments too have a tendency to help different companies by policy co-ordination and pressuring German banks to maintain/extend credit facilities, etc, and in turn to uphold public/sharehold confidence. This is also why Opel, the German subsidiary of GM, is practically the only “German” carmaker to have to go publicly cap in hand to a reluctant German government for handouts.
The difference is that in Germany, being a much smaller country than China and less than the size of an average Chinese province, there is alot, alot more industrial-commercial-political co-ordination that takes place behind the scenes than meets the eye. And I can vouched for this having had some dealings with the German Chambers of Commerce and Industry where I witnessed first-hand the sort of co-ordination that can take place. And germany is not alone in this, read Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, France, Spain etc and yes even the US.
In contrast, China is currently in the process of identifying, creating and nurturing “national champions” of tommorrow’s technologies (car manufacturing is really just interim serving the simple expiedience of soaking up excess labour). At times when the process is done cackhandedly at both the private end and provincial level, it can lead to scenarios that you described, but I’ve also come across many examples, particularly involving tommorrow’s technologies and processes where public-private partnership can work and flourish.
People, irrespective of nationalities, all too often forget that ownership rights may not always equate to management rights. The trick is often simply of knowing what you want and the perspective and approach that you want to take with people and on issues.
As for home grown companies competing with SOEs, yup maybe, but what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. That’s what capitalism and “natural” selection is all about. Besides maybe this is just Capitalism with Chinese charatceristics.
[Reply to this comment]
3
PM
@suoxiaofan are we plebs then not entitled to an opinion? should we be content with the one-way transmission of THE TRUTH from experts? if someone without credentials disagrees with the sancrosanct experts and uses logic, reasoning, and examples is that critique still useless? (n.b. i am not necessarily saying that is the case here) if so,how, then, does one become an expert? are you an expert? if not, by your own logic, why should we care about your thoughts on this non-expert review?
[Reply to this comment]
4
AM
@Revi
I don’t really disagree with anything you write.
Some of the experiences I’ve had when dealing with private or semi-private Chinese companies and the way they explained their situation (and how I interpreted what they didn’t want to say too cleary) has led me to conclude that some of the “government-meddling” that is taking place is of a scale that is far bigger than in Western countries, and likely to discourage too much private entrepreneurial initiative.
But you may well be right that it depends strongly on the industry, and if/when the government concludes that private enterprise is their best recipe for success in certain sectors, they may well take an entirely different approach.
[Reply to this comment]
4
AM
Bocaj,
Of course, you have the right to an opinion. And it is good that the blogger here does not delete comments that are critical (unlike Peking Duck, who holds forth on everything from gold prices to the state of the Chinese propaganda system-which is funny given that he cannot read Chinese, but never mind).
My point here is that let us not confuse opinion (“I like this book and here is what I, as a non-China expert has to say about the book”) with analysis (“given my work in this field and the research I have done, I find the book to be useful in the following ways”).
Joel’s comments about a “movement” may be spot on, perhaps not; I do not know about that issue. What I do know is that there appears to be some folks who think that simply because you live in a country that cries out for English-language study and you get to use the fact that you are a native speaker of English and stand in front of a class does not make you a professor of whatever subject interests you to talk about; that just because you do not like the politics in China does not mean you have a clue as to how those politics operate; and that simply because you have a blog and can post your opinions does not entitle you to be taken seriously as a reviewer or an analyst.
Again, I appreciate the fact that the blogger here has allowed this thread to continue. It is unfortunate that, earlier on in the thread-indeed, at the very outset-he opted for what is becoming an all-too common response by people called to show what talent they can bring to the table: calling someone who disagreed an idiot.
Still, I suppose that is better than the usual deleting that occurs when posts question the capacity of, say, the founder of Danwei to declaim on the Chinese media and give paid speeches on China when he cannot read a daily newspaper in Beijing, except China Daily. This tendency to provide a view about China just because that is where one lives just makes the job of trying to understand China a lot more difficult. Why would one without any background seek to simplify and summarize their view about China, without even a basic understanding that one gets by studying the subject for years. I would not seek to build a bridge without an engineering degree; why is it otherwise when China is involved?
[Reply to this comment]
4
AM
I’m sorry if I made my comments needlessly opaque earlier. Let me be plain (and apologies to our host uln for continuing the derail started earlier): You, SuoXiaoFan aka SinaSource aka Shen Congwen aka Sidney aka too many other ids residing in our “unpublished comments” list, are talking out of your ass.
You rudely dismiss bloggers out of hand and whine that people aren’t respecting your “disagreement” when they tell you to get lost.
You have never provided your credentials. You hide behind an array of sockpuppets. Yet you question bloggers who dare voice an opinion about China, and on the rare occasion you actually voice an opinion of your own about China, it is invariably an unsupported, negative generalization.
You hold forth on nefarious dealings among English-language bloggers on China as if you are privvy to inside information, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
You willfully misread posts and cry foul when someone calls you on it.
More annoying to me personally is how you pollute our comment threads with an every-changing roster of sock-puppets harping on the same tired themes: cronyism (posting anything by or about anyone we’ve ever had contact with before is automatically a ploy for influence or filthy lucre), misrepresentation (we have never claimed to be journalists, and repeating the accusation umpteen times will not change that fact), ethical lapses (because everyone in China named Liu is obviously related), and misleading bylines (we’ve repeatedly told you that translations are the work of the named blogger unless otherwise noted, yet you not only accuse us of lying, you continue to claim otherwise on other blogs…right in this thread, even).
A thousand apologies, uln, for polluting your comments section with this nonsense. We’ve repeatedly tried to take our argument with this troll to email using a number of the various email addresses left behind in his comments, but they’ve all been returned as “address unknown” (which he’s called a “valid email address” with a filter that’s “too active”).
There is room for a debate about blogging and credentials, but not here, and certainly not with this joker.
[Reply to this comment]
4
PM
If I may add to my colleague zhwj’s remarks:
SuoXiaoFan:
If you had the guts to show your face instead of hiding behind dozens of pseudonyms, you would be welcome to drop by the Danwei offices in Dongcheng District for morning coffee; we could read the newspaper together so that you can discover some facts about my Chinese reading abilities.
If you do not take me up on this invitation, we will meet sooner or later anyway: You have been leaving digital footprints all over the place, and Beijing is a small place.
[Reply to this comment]
4
PM
WOW! I’m not a regular visitor, but fascinating to see a full bore cyber genital-waving pissing contest in action. Is Danwei selling tickets to the event? I’m curious to see if SXF is really even Chinese of which I have my doubts.
[Reply to this comment]
5
AM
This SuXiaoFan guy is a total muppet (like a puppet, but more ridiculous) - “why should people care about a book review?” What a stupid question.
Anyway, ULN, you’re quite right to say that there are a lot of books out there about China, many of them not really worth reading - any pointers as to ones which are worth buying is always handy.
I have to say that my heart sank when I saw the James Fallows (an author who I totally admire) came out with a series of DVDs called “How To Do Business In China”. Yes, it could be totally brilliant, but I’ll never buy it. Why? Because the title is amazingly off-putting. I’ve seen so many such books, films, TV programs, etc. centred around the same theme - “you can get rich in China”. Most of them are 95% baloney and 5% stuff you already knew. Now, if a reviewer says differently then I might give them a look-over, but not till then.
[Reply to this comment]
5
AM
Yes, I am afraid I should have intervened a bit earlier, this is getting out of control.
Thanks all for the participation, from now on no more comments about “credentials” will be allowed on this post. It is an interesting subject but it is off-topic and it is disruptive for people that come here to comment on the book. I will post in a minute an entry about the credibility issue, feel free to speak about it on that thread.
Just one last clarification in case somebody gets the wrong idea: I don’t have any connection with Danwei and I don’t even know them personally. I just respect them for the work they do, which is very useful for many of us following China news. I have myself sometimes written critical comments on their blog, and they have contributed valuable information in this one. I believe it’s that kind of comments -directed to the content, not to the author- that make a blog worth writing.
SXF: I don’t know if you are a troll but your contribution has zero value. I let people read and judge by themselves.
[Reply to this comment]
5
AM
@FOARP - Sorry, our comments just crossed. Books about China: I plan to review more, although my free time is quite limited now as I prepare the Chinese exam.
In the meantime I recommend my 2 favourite sites for China book reviews:
http://www.insideoutchina.com/
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/
[Reply to this comment]
6
AM
Best book review I’ve read in a long time. It’s a shame Sinasource ruined the thread, but that is exactly what his intention was from the very first comment. Please keep up the superb work (Chinayouren, not Sinasource).
[Reply to this comment]
4
AM
Hey. Somebody has to do something, and it’s just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
I am from Niger and also am speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Flight deals and special fares on airline tickets from cheapflights.”
THX
, Lassie.
[Reply to this comment]
2
PM
I have just reviewed the book. I thought the book is mainly calling China as a capitalist economy with its charateristics, however, it seems not. Since I have not yet had the book, can anyone help me not get confused whether the book mainly defines China as a capitalist economy with Chinese charateristics or a socialist economy with Chinese charateristics?
Cheers,
[Reply to this comment]
12
AM
” I went straight to chapter 4 and then I went straight to ask all my Shanghainese friends what they though of it. The response I got almost unanimously: “No kidding, do you need to read a 300 pages book to see this?””
This is mindblowing. Can you explain this? Shanghainese friends? Where did you find them? I’m being totally serious.
[Reply to this comment]