pei48_FRED DUFOURAFPGetty Images_xi jinping billboard

中国思想的封闭

Apr 16, 2019 Minxin Pei

华盛顿—楼继伟这个名字在西方未必家喻户晓，但这位中国前财政部长在金融家和经济决策者中间也算得上知名且广受尊敬。但是，本月早些时候，中国政府宣布楼继伟被免去国家社保基金主席的职务。这一决定反映了中国领导层治理方针的变化，有可能给中国未来造成深远影响。

楼继伟被免职与前任的轨迹不符：他的三位前任平均在任4.5年，都在69岁退休。68岁的楼继伟只上任了两年出头。中国领导人没有为他被免职提供理由，但一种可能的解释显而易见。楼继伟最近公开批评中国雄心勃勃的产业政策日程中国制造2025，说它纯属浪费公帑。

中国制造2025引起了中国的西方贸易伙伴的怀疑。它们将该计划视为中国准备用不公平手段——即政府支持战略性行业——取代西方的先进科技领导者地位。该计划也是美国总统特朗普对中国开展贸易战的因素之一。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Apr 17, 2019

Minxin Pei says the removal of Lou Jiwei from his post as chairman of China’s national social security fund, reflects the leadership’s intolerance of criticism and dissent. Lou – a highly respected finance minister before he was dismissed in 2016 – criticised the country's flagship industrial initiative – Made in China 2025 – as a “waste” of public money. His departure in 2016 was seen as a loss, because he was a familiar face on the global stage of finances, representing a country whose economy is one of the world’s most opaque.
The author says Lou’s recent dismissal would have “profound implications for China’s future,” because it reflects the leadership’s approach to governance under Xi Jinping and its decision-making. Lou was a prominent critic of massive government subsidies to specific industries and a “hard-charging” reformer, advocating for the market to play a greater role in the economy. Yet the leadership seems more determined to exert control over it, prompting fears that economic reform may no longer be topmost on the agenda.
While decision-making in China is rarely transparent, before Xi amassed unprecedented power, the process was collective, reached mainly by consensus, which was widely seen as an important “risk-management mechanism.” The author says the Communist Party made “no catastrophic policy mistakes” under Xi’s two predecessors, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. Since Xi came to power in 2012, “decision-making processes at the top level of the Communist Party of China (CPC) have been changed beyond recognition.”
The author points out that Xi’s centralisation of power had made the collective decision-making process redundant. While “political loyalty and conformity” are widely expected, the CPC also plays a crucial role in suppressing and criminalising dissent. In the absence of “constructive opposition” and criticism, “excessively risky or inadequately considered ideas” were allowed to become “national policies.”
As a result, “several major policy mistakes” had been made on Xi’s watch in the last five years, “owing to inadequate internal debate.”
Amid the stock market turbulence in the summer of 2015, the government, without deliberation – intervened by having a state-backed financial institution buy shares and support prices. This “policy failed to stabilize prices, wasted trillions of renminbi, and weakened the credibility of China’s new leaders.“
The construction of artificial islands and the militarisation of the South China Sea had not proved “a smart strategic move.” On the contrary China’s ambition to dominate the region had contributed to “the rapid deterioration” of its relations with the US.
Xi’s $1 trillion Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to invest in the infrastructure in countries from China across Central Asia to Europe and Africa, has “stoked Western suspicions about China’s geopolitical agenda” and is widely seen as a form of debt trap diplomacy. Its targeted beneficiaries of the BRI are rethinking their own relations with China – “with deepening unease,” as the spectre of debt begins to loom.
With Xi tightening his grip on power, the CPC will not abandon this centralised decision-making process. The author fears that “more – and more calamitous – mistakes are likely,” harking back to the old days under Mao Zedong, whose disastrous mistakes were responsible for the deaths of tens of million people. Xi’s mistake would be to forcefully bring Taiwan back to Beijing’s fold, “risking a catastrophic war with the US.” Would there be a “bold figure” like Lou to stand up to him?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Apr 17, 2019

"Similarly, beyond being economically dubious, Xi’s massive Belt and Road Initiative – featuring more than $1 trillion in planned infrastructure investment in Eurasia and beyond – stoked Western suspicions about China’s geopolitical agenda. This mistake has ended up hurting relations not just with the US, but also with key allies, which view China’s involvement in developing countries – and, thus, their own relations with China – with deepening unease."

To me, the belt and road initiative is the most interesting piece of policy in a long time. I hope that it will be China's Marshall plan, resulting in a group of industrialized countries allied to China, just as the original Marshall plan resulted in a group of prosperous, industrialized countries allied to the U.S. Of course, the challenge is greater. Western Europe was already industrialized, and only needed re-building. This is an attempt to start an industrial region from scratch.

It clearly can be done, given enough determination. Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Israel are all examples of regions that industrialized with a lot of help. Of course, we cannot know how many of them would have industrialized anyway.

I wish China the best in its effort, and only hope that it will see it through. Certainly, it should pay no attention to whether the U.S. likes it or not.
- Jane Doe Apr 18, 2019
  
  Narrator: Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Israel did not "receive a lot of help."
  
  If China's BRI investments are actually Good, and not just bribing elites in countries with poor governance, we'd hear a lot about successful profitable investments -- and no 99 year treaty ports. Why is the project so lacking in transparency?
  - Wim Roffel Apr 22, 2019
    
    Those countries did receive a lot of help - mainly in the form of free market access to the US.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Apr 17, 2019

Prof. Pie , it is true, does not resort to smooth academic language of criticism of Communist China in his columns, but brings out the darker and sinister facet of communist rule in blunt language. That is what exactly needed nowadays when it’s deep pockets, force foreign leaders to self-censor their policies. PS editors ought to encourage more China scholars to express their views.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
302572875 Apr 17, 2019

sensational headline with illogical assumptions
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Donald Apr 17, 2019

With all due respect to Professor Pei, I think PS would do well to reduce his number of China articles. He is obviously a disgruntled expatriate preaching for China to turn toward California, and in this article he is essentially defending the US trade policy against China by arguing against a personnel change within the Chinese government interacting with US pressure.

The real problem with allowing these ax grinding posts against the Professor's "old country" is that they confuse some good arguments (such as the systematic dangers for China of Xi's consolidation of power) with cheap arguments (China is bad so it should change in the way that the US advises it to change). There are also some clearly false arguments, such as those regarding the construction of artificial islands, which in fact followed the 2011 US Pivot to Asia entailing large redeployment of US naval forces in the Pacific and policy changes in Japan that erupted around the Diaoyu Islands. That 'pivot' was completely unprovoked.

PS does have some very informed China commentators, such as Roach and Sheng, but it should consider adding more, with less of an ax to grind than Prof. Pei - such as perhaps the former Stanford economist and former vice chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Lawrence Lau, whose occasional editorials and academic work show a good sense for what is happening in China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Apr 16, 2019

It makes sense to dismiss Lou for being 'an outspoken critic of China’s ambitious industrial policy agenda, Made in China 2025, calling it a waste of public money.'

China 2025 is established policy and now comes under Constitutional protection: “Once a policy has been widely discussed, voted on and legislated, discussion is suspended while everyone unites to implement it.”

It's time for Lou and everyone else to focus on making the policy a success–or move aside. Endless second guessing, such as we see in the US and UK, is a waste of time.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emanuel Müller Apr 16, 2019

This might on the surface be read as an essay by a childish obsessive-compulsive doomsayer, to prevent this it would be interesting to also integrate some devil's advocate type of arguments.
- laban Yu Apr 17, 2019
  
  Dr. Pei is an absolutely invaluable resource on China. He has a pristine track record of being dead wrong for three decades. As a contra indicator, he is perfect.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- lt lee Apr 17, 2019
  
  Common problem among many China critics: To eager to criticize and to lazy to investigate/think to eliminate obvious reasons. In this case,
  
  "The removal of Lou from his post represents a break from precedent: his three predecessors served 4.5 years, on average, and all retired after reaching 69. The 68-year-old Lou served for only a little over two years. "
  
  China is lucky to have 4 predecessors retired after reaching 69. Does heaven really mandate China to have all leaders retire after reaching 69. Did Pei do anything to eliminate Lou retire for health and/or other family reasons?
  
  Anyway, there is no reason to generalize from the retirement of Lou at 68 to the closing of the Chinese mind.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/KGlvPi5/zh;

中国思想的封闭

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Asia’s Multilateral Balancing Act

The Economic Consequences of Automation

The Return of Fiscal Policy

Jerome Powell’s Dilemma

Can Direct Democracy Defeat Populism?

Strengthening Land Rights Will Curb Migration

Islands of Climate Ambition

Brexit House of Cards

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register