Book Reviews for Global Media and China

Abstract

China’s developmental miracle is a recurring puzzle in contemporary Asian studies: Why did China manage to transform from an impoverished economy to a global superpower in just four decades? In The Global Rise of China, Alvin Y. So and Yin-wah Chu, re-examine the puzzle from a perspective that integrates economic, social, political, global and historical considerations.

So and Chu’s project is to transcend the ideological fault line between the proponents and opponents of the China Model and advocate a return to understanding its underlying causes and consequences based on historical evidence. They define the China Model as constituting the features of rapid economic growth, export-led industrialization, innovation and technological upgrading, poverty reduction, and independent and autonomous development.

The key argument is two-fold. First, China’s development miracle was the result of not a single factor, but rather the interplay between multiple factors in the market, society and the globe. Second, the Chinese state played a crucial role in shaping the country’s developmental trajectory and handling a number of developmental challenges. Such state-centered explanation is, as the authors argue, more viable than other competing explanations that overemphasize the world systems, market or society but pay little attention to the state.

“State neoliberalism” is a central idea that penetrates through all the nine chapters. The term, albeit seemingly paradoxical, is coined to describe the hybrid, zig-zag developmental path of China in which the state utilized both socialist and neoliberal instruments for guiding and facilitating the country’s development. On the one hand, it was the state rather than capitalists who occupied the driver’s seat for pursuing neoliberalism. On the other hand, the state pursued neoliberalism with the façade of socialism, together with decentralization policies, local initiatives and gradualist strategies. This generated not only persistent policy changes and reversals but also acute tensions among social groups as well as between state and society.

The text is composed of two major parts. The first part discusses the historical process through which China transformed from socialist to post-socialist development. It demonstrates how state socialism in the 1950s and 1960s laid the foundation for the emergence, deepening and consolidation of state neoliberalism after 1978. The second part examines four challenges for realizing state neoliberalism in China, including technological upgrading, regime survival, environmental sustainability, and global rivalry. It illustrates that the communist party-state offered satisfactory responses to all the four challenges, which in turn balanced the goals of economic development and political stability.

Toward the closing of the text, So and Chu ask whether the China Model can ever be copied. Their answer is thought-provoking: The notion of “China Model” is indeed misguided because China’s developmental path is not easily identifiable, and it consists of a “flexible process of adaptation.” With the absence of any prescribed policy for diffusion, the authors are not optimistic that there are developing countries whose states can be as capable as the Chinese state in exercising such flexibility, hence rendering the China Model to be unlikely replicable. This conclusion resonates with Cooper Ramo’s (2004) views on the ‘Beijing Consensus’—“it is flexible enough that it is barely classifiable as a doctrine” (p. 4).

So and Chu’s discussions of the China Model invite us to consider three research questions regarding the future of China’s development in the global political economy.

Hegemonic Struggles: According to So and Chu, it is hard for developing countries to mimic entirely the practice of China’s development. Even so, however, the China Model might still serve as an ideological tool to counteract the hegemony of neoliberal development. Since the global financial crisis in 2008, faith in the mainstream development model, the Washington Consensus, has been challenged by various social groups and movements. At the same time, the recent rise of populism also contributed to the retreat of democracy and the revival of authoritarianism in many parts of the world. Under the current context, the China Model, which brings the state back in and connects authoritarian one-party rule with neoliberal capitalism, can appear to be an appealing alternative to the Washington Consensus. To what extent can the China Model produce a counter-hegemonic consent to unite countries that are skeptical of Western hegemony? This question might be of interest to scholars in international relations.

Relationships with the Periphery: So and Chu suggest that the survival of China’s one-party rule hinges on the fine management of social conflicts, while intensified social conflicts can destabilize the authoritarian regime. Such conflicts, however, exist in not only the mainland territory but also its periphery. Over the past decade, as China progressively incorporated the periphery regions into the orbit of national development, societal resistance and antagonism have become increasingly visible, challenging the legitimacy of the one-party Chinese state. Remarkable examples include Hong Kong’s anti-extradition protests in 2019 and Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement in 2014, both of which were under the spotlight of global media. In what ways do the developmental relationships between China and its periphery shape the stability of the one-party rule? This question might be relevant to scholars in, for instance, Hong Kong and Taiwan studies.

Enhancement of the China Model: While it is commonplace to focus on what lessons the China Model offers to the world, there is no reason to assume that the vice versa does not happen. As pointed out by So and Chu, the China Model emphasizes less on rigid policy prescriptions but flexible adaptation, implying that there is space for modification and enhancement. In fact, recent research demonstrates that Chinese officials have been setting their sights on the so-called “Singapore Model” and drawing lessons on how a country can put together authoritarian rule, elections, good governance and diversity (e.g. Ho, 2018; Ortmann & Thompson 2020). To what extent do the developmental experiences of Singapore offer a potential for enhancing the China Model? This question might be of interest to scholars in comparative politics and policy.

In sum, So and Chu’s The Global Rise of China provides an enlightening perspective into the developmental miracle of China as well as a concrete foundation for thinking about the future of the China Model. Written in clear and easily accessible language, this text will suit the taste and need of not only academics but also non-academic readers generally.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

James K Wong

References

B. T. E.

(2018). Power and populism: What the Singapore model means for the Chinese dream. The China Quarterly, 236, 968–987.

Ortmann

Thompson

M. R.

(2020). China’s “Singapore model” and authoritarian learning. Routledge.

Ramo

J. C.

(2004). The Beijing consensus. Foreign Policy Centre.