I am a great admirer of China and its ability to adjust its economic policies to maintain rapid growth, but now that it has risen to the top of the global economy, it must adopt the necessary reforms to become fully compliant with the international rules that it accepted upon joining the WTO in 2001.
When I first went to China in 1982, it was a very poor nation governed by a thoroughly communist regime. Agriculture was completely collectivized. Because peasants had lost the right to farm their own land, agricultural output was extremely low. Beyond agriculture, individual ownership of the means of production was outlawed. A Chinese family could own a sewing machine for its own use, but it could not own two sewing machines or hire a neighbor to help produce garments.
Under Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), this began to change. Plots of land were returned to their previous owners, who were allowed to keep any output exceeding the government’s quota. As a result, agricultural output soared and farmers produced a range of additional crops, such as flowers and vegetables, to sell directly to the public. Restrictions on ownership of productive assets and on hiring workers were gradually relaxed, such that the private sector now accounts for the majority of economic activity in China.
The result was an explosion of economic growth and a rapid increase in living standards. Since 1982, China’s real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has grown at an average annual rate of more than 7 percent. Per capita real GDP is now 18 times higher, with about 800 million people having been lifted out of poverty since the start of Deng’s reforms. Although overall per capita output in China is still only one-quarter of the US level, the standard of living in China’s major cities is impressively high. To see the gleaming skyscrapers and array of shops serving affluent young people is to appreciate the change that has occurred in just a few decades.
Deng once said: “To get rich is glorious.”
China’s people have responded. Private entities flourish and a very active stock market allows widespread share ownership. China apparently has more self-made billionaires than the US.
The combination of private incentives and effective education is a key reason for China’s rapid growth. The nation has an ancient tradition of promoting the brightest students based on extensive examinations. The officials who worked for the emperors were selected based on written exams of Confucian thought. Now, literacy is universal and national examinations are used to decide who goes to the top universities. More than 1 million Chinese students have studied in the US and several of the top government economic officials have done graduate work there.
In many ways, the Chinese economy now works like a large US multinational corporation. Broad strategy is set by management at the top: growth targets, the structural shift from heavy industry to consumption, the Belt and Road Initiative (which will guide exports and foreign aid) and so on. Individual managers are tried out in regional cities and promoted based on their success in achieving the goals set by national leaders.
The goals set by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and the current government are to increase the sophistication of the economy and achieve a middle-class standard of living for the population. To succeed, China is investing large sums in research and technical education.
In its eagerness to catch up to the West, China has also stolen technology from Western firms. Under former US president Barack Obama, the US accused China of engaging in cyberespionage against US firms and stealing their intellectual property. Xi and Obama subsequently signed a communique in 2013 renouncing such cybertheft.
However, China continues to take technology from US companies. It does so by requiring foreign companies that want to do business in China to form joint ventures with Chinese firms, allowing the Chinese partners to obtain US firms’ technology. While the WTO prohibits member countries from conditioning market access on such mandatory technology transfers, the Chinese have responded that nothing is mandatory, because companies do not have to do business in China.
That is clearly disingenuous and the announcement of large US tariffs on Chinese exports is intended to encourage Beijing to comply with the WTO rule on technology transfer.
The Chinese might be getting the message. In an important speech at this year’s Boao Forum, Xi said that China would no longer require such joint ventures in the auto industry — an implicit admission that the requirement is a violation of the WTO rule.
It is time for China to extend this new policy and eliminate the joint-venture requirement completely. Although the US does not have such a requirement, it would be helpful for both countries to state openly that in the future no foreign company will be required to enter a joint venture or to transfer technology in other ways as a condition of doing business.
China can continue its rapid growth and technological development through its own efforts. Its current policy will only lead to a serious trade conflict.
Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a board director at the US Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations