eChinaJOBs APP Download

Topic: news Globalization 3.0 and Beyond: What’s Next for China’s Economy?

Comment (4)
solhacehabravida
comment | 35674 | 0

The idea of consumerism is becoming unpopular. It seems to me that the real issue for developing economies, and always has been, throughout World Version 1.0, 2.0, and now 3.0, is that the developing economies get locked into a process of chasing after the trends that made the more developed economies leaders. And at the same time become deeply embroiled in contradictory comparisons of cultures, which confuse culture with universal goals. And so, it seems that in order to break that cycle the developing economies have to become true leaders. A true leader, it seems to me, is someone or, in this case, an economy, that actually leads by example. Referencing statistics about how China is beginning to outshine past leaders in various areas of economic growth show that China, as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea did before, is doing an admirable job of catching up. But will China simple surpass and then continue to target existing markers of economic growth, or will China begin to lead us all into new definitions of economic success. Consumerism, as I mentioned is beginning to ring a sour note in the west, but is hailed in developing countries as the means to the next level of development. This is both a complex issue and a simple observation: complex because it involves politics and culture and other types of face values; a simple observation because although, through it’s enormous size and the decision to finally unleash China’s potential, stagnated for years, China has done better than previous economies that relied on business outsourced from the west, the model remains the same as with those previous examples – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and as the article points out China is susceptible to the same ceilings on growth. I, personally like to look at something I call dumping second rate thinking – I use that term so as to gain a bit of traction for the idea by invoking the common occurrence of dumping second rate technologies. From this viewpoint, consumerism now a bit tarnished in the West but an undeniable driver of western economies, is an example of that ‘dumping.’ To give two other examples of dumping second rate thinking: management bonuses based on end of term profits rather than mid term growth, and growth spread across a broader spectrum, such as real asset growth – this sort of management bonus is very nearly outlawed in many western contexts but is ‘dumped’ into China by many western own businesses and second; a sort of cultural patronization, very nearly a type of affirmative action – in large part a failed western idea, which here in China sees, for the sake of profits, many western companies showing favoritism for culture in China such that they often allow Chinese forms of management to the detriment of their own performance – a real balancing act that may be part of why companies like Apple are not now achieving the same success in China where, as the society modernizes and the RMB strengthens, the value of allowing local culture to over-rule good management looses it’s value. But as with everything, this too has two sides. And it is incumbent upon us all, Chinese and western interests, to see the future now rather than later. I recall the words, though not the name, of a professor at Beijing university who suggested: that all nine world-leaders since the fall of the Egyptians have failed for one common reason: they failed to enact laws within their domestic borders which protected those outside their borders from the negative influence of what it takes to become a world leader. In this sense perhaps western countries have to recognize that short term thinking, such as dumping second rate thinking, reduces our own soft-power – the soft-power that caused western countries to be admired in the first place, because eventually the developing countries note that we are not giving them the best of what we have at home, we sell out for profits. That is one side. And from the perspective of the developing countries it seems wise that they place aside political goals – this is a very complex move, no doubt but, set aside any political goals that do not enhance their own path towards the types of societies that caused them to admire the west in the first place. And it seem equally important that developing countries examine their understandable thirst for wealth, which often caused them to welcome ‘dumped’ ideas, and be mindful of the time lag that often causes them to take up ideas as being new to them, ideas which have already become old in developed countries. That is a learning issue, for the would-be world leaders -- the developing economies, and a leadership issue, for the current leaders -- the developed economies. It’s all seems very tricky doesn’t it? I think we have to look more clearly at what we have now, how we got where we are -- in any society and in every society, and use that to better predict our futures. When I look around big cities in China, I do see fine examples of Chinese culture but more and more I see ever internationalized scenes, and some times I feel inclined to call that a sort of ‘want to be western’. Developing countries often suffer under an internal contradiction; if one listens to the political positions of many developing countries and compares that to the view on the streets there is a contradiction. Perhaps, though, we can see the future better than we believe possible. But that will take real political will and real desire to strike out into uncharted leadership territory. Think of the stalled discussions concerning global warming and environment change. Perhaps those efforts would gain momentum if developed countries truly examined their own past developmental paths and accepted that developing countries are central to future, better management of resources. Perhaps movement would increase if developing countries, which are clearly aiming for social changes and technologies already present in developed countries, accepted the present signs of their road ahead and allowed that the greater degree of pollution caused by the West was an investment and is price that we all enjoy and must pay. Perhaps that is idealistic of me. Nonetheless, there are certain contradictions for developing countries, political views versus what the people on the street seem to want, that we do seem to accepts as inherent to our current model of 3.0 Globalization – contradiction that are much less present in most western countries who rarely what to be like anyone else. However, if we use the past to anticipate the future, we see that the same contradiction existed in western countries, such as America, which copied much that was British and succeeded by doing it better, faster – though it was once unpopular to suggest this. But that method of becoming a world leader by copying and being faster, better, bigger is likely a thing of the past, for there is no longer enough un-renewable resource in the 'ancient sunlight' of our Earth (nor is there leeway to continue the rates of polluting). Perhaps the contradiction is not inherent at all, nor the predicted course of Globalization 3.0 so much a given. In any case, the contradiction I mentioned is a very normal part of change. Change is frightening because in order to change we have to change, and that always means giving up something we have. Getting what we want is often a very scary thing. In China, I think we see that played out in the frequent introduction of “Chinese Characteristics” into ideas and processes that worked perfectly well else where. From my viewpoint, this need to localize an idea results when culture is politicized – and is, may I say, a classic example of wanting to be something else but not wanting to be something else, that contradiction I referred to. Culture is a huge business these day, and is a vended product with profits and vested interest, but that also can cause 'culture' to become a political tool, and sometimes an excuse for being 'uncultured', even as that is measured by the very standards which are admired within the local culture. I think it is important to remember that culture is not a real thing, but a group of ideas that has and will change: pole the group of EFL teachers working in China and I suspect you will soon discover how development of English skills is often mistaken as a need to learn western culture rather than a need to focus on generalities of people. This can make the ‘business’ of teaching western languages a hugely politicize industry, where the students are not serviced as well as might be and companies introduce Chinese Characteristics into the teaching methods. As for corruption in China: That issue seems neatly covered by Professor He Jaihong – Remming University in Beijing, and Professor Richard Hu – Hong Kong University in Hong Kong, guests on a recent CCTV Dialogue show. Both men, in analyzing new Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s “Cage for corruption” metaphor -- for the current move to address corruption in China, referred to the Elephant in the Room. Both professors agreed that strengthening the Rule of Law in China is the only way to "cage" the use of Special Power that often corrodes imagination, motivation, and the efforts of the best and brightest thinkers and business people in China – noting that there will always be, as there always has been, a strong correlation between weakness of rule by law and the abuse of Special Power. That correlation is the often unspoken cause of events leading to cases of corrupt officials; that correlation appears in the high rate of jay-walking, cars that charge the cross-walks, and illegal parking and other forms of low level crime that are often excused by reference to “Chinese Culture.” It seems all very simple psychology if one chooses to look at the simple: when special power is valued every one wants some, everyone wants to be an emperor – even the ticket agent who sold me a ticket yesterday. When I asked her some questions, particular to my needs, rather than just answering the questions, she first demanded to know why I asked those questions; to me it felt like she was displaying her special power and not merely doing her job, answering the questions if she could. Changing this culture of "special power" thinking is not, I think, about changing culture. It is about political will, or so it seems they would agree, the professors Jaihong and Hu. Both men seemed to dismiss the question, “yes or no”, asked by the Dialogue host, “does China have a rich soil for corruption.” I believe they saw that as beside the point. All cultures change. And, indeed, universal concepts seem more appropriate in the "flat world" -- which, incidentally, the "flat world" metaphor, is one I personally am not so found of. But, yes, culture has and will change. I am just not so sure culture will change by trying to change the culture. Here I am thinking of the new “four dishes and one soup” limit, suggested as a way to combat the traditional Chinese value of lavishing benefit on friends and family, a tradition which often leads to corruption and waste. It seems more certain that if law addresses true corruption and crime, the culture will more quickly follow suit. And that need not be such a fearsome thing. In the future of China, when rule of law has more power and corruption is less, unless one actually, today, does see corruption and tolerance of crime as admirable aspects of Chinese Culture, no one will look back with melancholy at the days when Chinese culture seemed to equate with special power or tolerance for corruption. Again, the best protection of Chinese and -- with a powerful and important China welcomed in the world, the interest of all the world seems to reside in how well we see the future now, rather than later. It seems necessary to break cycles: of comparisons between East and West; break the cycle of chasing leaders, by doing more leading; and break the short term thinking that allows second rate ideas to be dumped into developing countries. These are global challenges of the 3.0 World not merely challenges for China.

Feb 06, 2013 16;00
No one has commented on this article

Add your comment

All comments are subject to moderation by eChinacities.com staff. Because we wish to encourage healthy and productive dialogue we ask that all comments remain polite, free of profanity or name calling, and relevant to the original post and subsequent discussion. Comments will not be deleted because of the viewpoints they express, only if the mode of expression itself is inappropriate. Please use the Classifieds to advertise your business and unrelated posts made merely to advertise a company or service will be deleted.

Please login to add a comment. Click here to login immediately.