China’s “princelings” — the offspring of senior Chinese officials who benefit from lavish privileges in education, employment and business — are coming under scrutiny as never before. Former secretary of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Chongqing branch Bo Xilai (薄熙來), the son of one of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) comrades and a supposed “immortal” of the revolution, was recently sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges of corruption and abuse of power.
Outside China, princelings are feeling the heat as well. Not long ago, the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it was investigating JPMorgan Chase’s hiring of princelings in Hong Kong, who apparently delivered lucrative underwriting deals for the bank.
While recent scandals have put China’s princelings under a harsh media spotlight, they have been hot commodities for Western companies seeking to capitalize on their guangxi — connections — in order to secure multibillion dollar transactions. The list of financial institutions that have engaged in such hiring practices reads like a who’s who of investment banking.
It is premature to conclude that JPMorgan violated the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by employing children of Chinese officials who oversaw companies that retained the bank to underwrite their stock offerings. Nonetheless, the case highlights a broader trend: The wooing of China’s princelings by prestigious Western educational institutions and businesses for the purpose of advancing their parochial interests in the burgeoning Chinese market.
The unseemly race to recruit princelings starts at the world’s leading colleges and universities. Because China has no universities that rival the Ivy League or Oxford and Cambridge, senior Chinese officials prefer to send their children to these schools.
Given the opacity surrounding admission to these highly selective institutions, it is impossible to tell whether princelings get in on merit or because of their family background. It is notable that princelings are not found in the most prestigious doctoral programs, where professors, not administrators, make admission decisions. Likewise, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, have a dearth of princelings.
Indeed, the sheer number of princelings, including children of incumbent Chinese leaders, now attending Ivy League universities clearly points to the importance of family ties. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) daughter, for example, studies at Harvard under an assumed name, and Bo’s son has been a student at Oxford and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; he is studying at Columbia Law School.
Elite Western colleges and universities, having identified China as a top market for fund-raising and high-end network building, regard the princelings as a valuable investment. Nurturing ties with China’s political elite is good business, and they can help open doors.
However, preferential treatment for princelings at elite universities (and business schools) has real social costs. A place awarded to a less-qualified student is a place denied to a qualified applicant.
Worse still, this injustice is self-perpetuating. Western investment banks and multinationals can use elite academic credentials to justify a job offer, even if the real reason is the hope that putting a princeling on the payroll will give the company a rainmaker in China.
Defenders of this practice insist that princelings are well educated and highly qualified. Undoubtedly, some of them are; but many are not. Apologists also claim that nepotism is universal, citing examples of children of US politicians and business leaders who have graduated from Ivy League universities and secured private-sector jobs.
However, hiring Chinese princelings is not the moral equivalent of US-style nepotism. The political and social environments in which the two practices occur are completely different. In the US, nepotism is difficult to hide, and public scrutiny helps to check its most blatant manifestations. The democratic process, particularly the role played by a free press, constrains rent-seeking by children of government officials.
In China, by contrast, pervasive corruption, the absence of a free press and state capitalism mean that princelings’ conduct is unconstrained and typically shrouded in secrecy. Chinese censors methodically suppress news coverage of their business dealings.
Now, in light of the controversy over JPMorgan’s hiring of Chinese princelings, Western academic and business leaders must ask themselves a tough question: Do they want to be complicit in helping the Party perpetuate its hereditary rule?
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont
McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and