China Dutch Workshop Report Dr14spt

China as a Global Power, Middle-Income Country, and Low-Income Country: Implications for Social Science Research Collaboration

Report of Workshop in Beijing, July 19-20, 2010

School of Social Development and Public Policy (SSDPP) Beijing Normal University, China & Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University, The Hague

Draft report, Arjan de Haan, 15 September 2010

China is rapidly (re-)emerging as a global economic and political actor, which has direct implications for research collaboration. Under the Joint-Scientific Thematic Research Programme of NWO, KNAW and MOST, ISS the Hague and Beijing Normal University hosted an international workshop on the implications of China being simultaneously a developing country, a middle-income country, and an international donor and increasingly important actor in international organisations. This workshop was organized as a dialogue, with short and informal presentations, and thus succeeded in creating a productive forum for discussion on research priorities and forms of collaboration. Our focus is the field of international development studies, with an emphasis inter-disciplinary social science research, which historically has focused on developing countries and funded as ‘aid’ activity, and is now presented with the challenge and opportunity to re-define its role in and modes of cooperation with China and other emerging economies.1

Specific objectives of the workshop were, first, to discuss the theoretical implications of the ‘rise of China’. What does its development path imply for mainstream development theories, such as modernisation, political-economy and dependency approaches? What are implications of knowledge on China for international debates on, for example, development transitions, patterns of reform, the role of research and innovation in policy making. Is the development of China historically unique, and what are parallels with the rise of South Korea, India, and Brazil? What are new patterns of South- South collaboration, the role of China in this, and new ways of engagement of Northern research institutions? Second, we aimed to formulate ideas for future research collaboration in key areas of development, and to identify comparative advantage. Themes included: the so-called Beijing Consensus and whether China’s experience of reform can unlock some of the impasses in current international debates, such as on globalisation, and state versus markets; the rapid reduction of poverty, transition to new forms of poverty and social exclusion, challenges posed by uniquely rapid ageing, and approaches to poverty and local development in remote areas; and sustainable earth, climate change, possibilities to move to a low-carbon and sustainability of current growth path, management of and governance reform of natural resources, land and water. This report is not a full record of the two days of discussion; audio-recording is available. The following focuses on the main points of discussion of the thematic sessions, and the conclusion, which we present first. Views are not attributed to specific individuals, except in relations to scheduled presentations.

Conclusion: need for an integrated research programme

While the ‘rise of China’ is not entirely unique (much of East Asia preceded China) or unexpected (as China was a global ‘power’ before 1850), the combination of China’s size and speed of development and intensity of resource use makes this rise the most important aspect of global development – across field of politics, economics, social and environment – in the beginning of the 21st Century. Our discussions made it very clear that there will be large pay- offs of integrated research, that analyses this from an inter-disciplinary perspective, and particularly focuses on the relationship between developments within China and the way its global impacts manifests themselves and are perceived.

The key question that confronts development studies and (more broadly) social sciences situated in western Europe is how to engage with China’s new global roles, from the different perspectives that mark western development studies. The rise of China inevitable has led to a polarised debate, and this polarisation is likely to remain and need be understood, as difference histories produce different entry points and sensitivities (for example, the global role of the West is challenged for the first time by a non-western and non-colonial power). Language of course remains an enormous barrier, and even the terms used to describe our overarching theme can vary: for example while in the west the presumed neutral expressions ‘rise of China’ is used, Chinese scholars and officials tend to talk about ‘peaceful development’.

The notion of a ‘Beijing Consensus’ is equally disputed, and will be discussed below, but in any case highlights the need to understand and articulate what is distinctive about China’s development path and emerging global role. Perspectives on China’s distinctiveness, predictably, are very diverse, as the burgeoning literature on ‘lessons from China’ highlights. There is a clear sense that China’s transformation is unique, perhaps particularly as it presents a new (?) pattern of a rapidly privatising economy with political control (central control over decentralised policy) and state intervention in the market. The transformation that China is contributing to is, arguably, a transformation of global capitalism, and China’s ‘impact’ need to be understood from a global perspective. This process is largely uncharted, and many questions remain, some of which are directly researchable and of high-priority: for example, how does China position itself in the ‘new geographies’, notably vis-à-vis the G2 and G20; and in the world of international development or ‘aid’, will China’s approach remain as different as it is or will we see a convergence of practices? And what is the role of aid in broader political relations?

While these questions are directly researchable, a key conclusion from the workshop is regarding the need to conceptualise the link between China’s new global role and its national

2 paths of development. What China does globally is a response to internal structures, contradictions and transformations. These links are manifold. There are direct links, for example between China’s energy-intensive economic development and its global pursuits of resources, or related to out-migration. China’s political model, of which the contours are clear but its internal dynamics deeply disputed, of course are directly related to the new manifestation of China abroad. Moreover, the norms and ideologies that underpin China’s development path(s) will also be critical for the ways China’s global role manifests itself (for example, Chinese reactions to industrial accidents abroad are directly influenced by the high incidences in China itself). Finally, there is now an official Chinese policy to internationalise its national experiences, and there is much to gain from a better understanding of what this means and the institutions responsibility for this global transfer. At the same time, as highlighted in our discussion, while China’s policy are very strongly informed by learning from others, there are still many opportunities for international experience to inform Chinese polices, including in agriculture.

This thus highlights the need for an integrated and collaborative research programme, which combines theoretical and empirical research, different disciplines, and links national and global developments, across a number of priority themes. This can be illustrated with the following matrix, as suggested by Ashwani Saith.

Figure: illustrating a research programme to understand China’s global role

Theory: China and National China’s global Reflexivity: global established development impact/transformation transfer of concepts trajectories global capitalism knowledge and practices Economic Beijing and trajectories Washington Consensus Natural resources Resource intensity and management Promotion Green Development Labour markets

Social policies

Cultural change Notions of equity and societal norms

China’s new global role: What does it mean for the rest of the world?

China’s transformation is unique in many respects, with increasing speed of transitions, high resource intensity, etc. There is a need for better understanding of these and transitions, and

3 how China manages these, the specific Chinese characteristics, its ‘internal glue’ and forms of service delivery [Zhang Xiulan]. China’s emergence at the global scene has been understood mainly in western (US) International Relations terms, in which the status quo is challenged, and China’s sociology has been formulated in concepts of western industrialization. But new forms of organisation have come to predominate, and what China offers is a different theoretical framework.

With respect to China’s global impact, the aspects of the transitions can be both a threat and an opportunity, depending on how China organises itself, and for example the notions of equity or sustainability that under-build and are articulated trough these transitions [Ashwani Saith]. Modes of engagement with China are mediated by the position of power countries or regions (notably Africa) have in the existing global system [Bram Buscher]. Besides an analysis of the ‘impact’ of China, it is equally important to conceptualise how China is used by others and domestic political purposes, for example in Latin America as alternative to the US, and in climate change discussions using China as reason for lack of action [Murat Arsel].

The term neo-colonialism has been used to describe China’s new role, and this use has been heavily criticised. It is argued that China does not intend to control Africa, and that in fact China’s entry enhances opportunities and alternatives, highlighted by a language of ‘win-win cooperation’. A key aspect of the definition of neo-imperialism/colonialism focuses on the inter-linkages between economics and politics [Ashwani Saith] and thus China’s role in general cannot be characterised as such, even though the role of indirect political control (as in the post-war US system) need further discussion [Andrew Fischer]. The relationship between investors from China and the Chinese state is complex, and the pragmatic attitude taken to state sovereignty may be characterised as “neo-concessionalism” [Pal Nyiri].

The impact of China’s recent development is unknown and contested. It is impossible to predict what the impact of China on the global order and the process of globalisation will be; the term transformation is more appropriate than transition as the outcome is unknown [Jeffrey Henderson]. There are different ways in which China’s re-emerging global role is perceived: while in the West the ‘rise of China’ is often seen as a challenge, China has emphasised a notion of ‘peaceful development’ to describe the same development. Chinese scholars also highlight the fact that China often is and feels unprepared for this new role, and experiences many barriers to engagement [Xu Weizhong], and that its not a unitary actor, neither at home nor abroad (with for example a large and increasing number of private actors). It is important to understand Chinese views on the global forums like the G-20 and the old ones like the UN which remains very important for China [Zhang Yanbing]. All this presents challenges but also opportunities for mutual learning.

Different perspectives on China’s global role manifest themselves with respect to Africa in particular. China’s relations with Africa have in fact become global issues inevitably prompting strategic responses from the traditional powers [Jing Gu]. For China this is part of a new encompassing, multi-dimensional external strategy of engagement (including as articulated in the concept ‘Harmonious World’), possibly contributing to an African Renaissance and growth experiences since 1994 [Zeng Qiang]. Of course, Africa is extremely

4 diverse, responses to China’s global role inevitably varied, and the development implications for Africa unknown (for example, will China’s investment help Africa to upgrade in global value chain?) while the entrance of China has expanded African governments space for negotiation.

Within various sectors, questions about China’s impact present themselves as well: for example, within China there is currently much emphasis on commercialisation, and it is an open question whether such an approach would work if carried over to Africa through its international cooperation. China’s role in exploiting natural resources cannot be labelled as neo-colonialism, but neither is the entirely positive assessment as in some publications in China warranted,1 and specific modes of engagement need serious attention [Bram Buscher].

In Latin America, the rise of China tends to be presented as an alternative to the (dominant) role of the United States [Miguel Salazar, Murat Arsel]. However here too important question are raised as time goes by. On the one hand there is much appreciation of the alternative that Chinese experts and companies present, being more grounded: ‘they know the chicken’, and they make things happen. On the other hand, it is questioned what China’s role as a 3rd world power entails, for example related to claims for hegemony in South East Asia (‘all under heaven’). SINOPEC is sometimes perceived as an East India Company / VOC, and the role in Ecuador for example is tied to a process of nationalisation in very complex manners (including credit provision), and initial optimism has given part way to criticism. Many plans for investment have not materialised. Finally, the question has come up in Latin America too whether China can be a policy model for other countries, and what are the implications of the exclusionary aspects of China’s model, for example, migration policies, inequalities (many aspects remind people of Brazil’s model in the 1950s, a point made also in the work of Andrew Fischer).

With respect to climate change, China’s role has very rapidly become critical, in empirical terms (China now largest CO2 emissions, heavy reliance fossil fuels; Frauke Urban), and in how China is used by others [Murat Arsel]. Its role is very complex: while China’s has huge coal reserves and use, it simultaneously has developed (and uses to increase competitiveness) low carbon technology, wind, solar and hydro power (including import hydro-electricity from the Mekong). China’s choices will make a difference, it will influence climate change negotiations (in Copenhagen it introduced voluntary reductions), and it can become a global leader in a low carbon economy [Frauke Urban].

Each of these areas of new engagement of China in the Global South are sensitive, and deeply contested. Each research programme this has to face the question of how to construct questions that can engage with China’s and it development challenges, understanding but not falling into the polarization, yet bring to the debate the critical analysis of development studies. One of the conditions for such engagement is a better understanding of China’s path, to which this report turns next.

China’s development model: focus on agriculture

1 See for example He Wenping: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/thinktank/2010-07/17/content_10119041.htm.

5 Analytically, it is impossible to propose China as a model for development (not as neo- liberal, nor as any of the other categories as we know them).2 Many aspects are unique, including for example the role of the diaspora, history including of collectivisation, the cultural revolution, size, institutions, etc. Yet China is often seen as a model, and only because of that it is important to develop a narrative of what makes China unique and what are relevant lessons for others. This is a huge future research agenda, including a need to learn the mode of Chinese discourse, and in our discussion we looked at a few of the aspect of this.

In agriculture, some of the conditions for China’s success have a long history, like in its models of irrigation and in the way it could mobilise farmers for production [Zhao Lixia]. One of the central features of the development approaches is that China’s policy has always tried to learn from other approaches and other countries’ experience. Existing China-Dutch collaboration on land management involving capacity building and exposure is a current example [Zhao Yongjun].

But China’s own transition in agriculture is facing severe problems, and China could potentially learn more from experience elsewhere [Nico Heerink]. Problems include a decline in cultivated land, land degradation, declining per capita water availability and low quality. Policies around subsidies for conversion, payment for services between governments, water pricing, Water User Associations have positive ecological benefits but experience implementation problems and government interference. China’s policy approaches are hampered by shortcomings in the political system, reforms and commitment for change, and need to focus much more strongly on farmers’ empowerment and innovation of farmers organisations [Zhang Xiaoshan]. The role of the state in land management and land conversion programs as part of China’s structural change remain a key issues for research, and aggregate data on changes and categories adopted problematic [Anirban Dasgupta and Murat Arsel].

While fundamental changes are taken place within agriculture and land ownership in China, its agriculture has started to have a large global impact, notably since its accession into WTO [Zhang Xiaoshan]. Its imports of soyabeans and –oil for a large part of world trade in these products. Given land scarcity at home it needs to lease in land elsewhere (already 13% of arable land). The entry of foreign capital can lead to monopolies, and imports can threaten local production/varieties.

Old and new poverties and vulnerabilities in China’s development

China’s rapid emergence at the global scene is taking place as the country is still marked by deep poverty of many, vulnerabilities, and new forms of poverty developing as part of its transition, and inequalities becoming more entrenched. The last is manifested for example through the links between environment and degradation, which have received too little attention [Wang Xiaoyi]. A range of environmental changes including soil erosion and ground water depletion have led to increased vulnerability of pastoralists, mediated through social

6 contexts. Environment-poverty links are evident in urban areas too. The discourse of rangeland degradation also are part of struggles over control over land use and resettlement policies [Andrew Fischer]. Levels of poverty measured by the official poverty line is low (with $1/day poverty being much higher), but this line is set at very low level, and uni- dimensional, thus neglecting for example health and education deficits [Lu Caizhen]. With China’s transformation, also, deprivation of elderly has deepened, and systems of family support have been challenged and weakened, with legislation possibly reinforcing this trend [Cui Hongzhi].

With the global financial, and China’s crisis response, the new but increasingly entrenched inequalities have come to the fore even more clearly [Sarah Cook]. Ongoing research is looking at whether China has used the crisis as a way to move towards a more equitable, balanced, sustainable strategy, linked to the concept of harmonious society. Pragmatism has dominated in the crisis response, and impressive public policy responses (of a ‘resilient’ system) s ‘late liberaliser’ (rather than ‘late industrialiser’) dismantling social systems, and diversity of policy implementation alongside strong national frameworks good but diversity in implementation, and a lack of soft infrastructure among local agencies.

Many questions about the processes that accompany or are part of China’s transformation need further research. For comparative research, a key question is whether China’s health and social security policies for example present a paradigm different from the dominant ones [Sarah Cook], and similar questions emerge in relation to process of and policy responses to ageing, demographic transition, disability, and migration [Mahmood Messkoub]. At the level of discourse, voices promoting social justice compete with policies to promote social stability, fuelled by a distrust of citizen empowerment [David Kelly]. At the theoretical level the question will be how China’s experience – as a process of primary accumulation [Ashwani Saith] – will be integrated into development theories.

7 Beyond the “Beijing Consensus” ? Internationalising China’s external experience

Much of the popular debate on China has been led by the question of a Beijing Consensus, the concept initially proposed by Nyere, and increasingly criticised but continuing to have currency.3 This inevitably leads us to consider the notion of the Washington Consensus, the political-economy model of imposed by the Washington institutions on the South during the 1980s/1990s. To some its an oxymoron, to others classic development studies/economics may be sufficient to explain much, although obviously not all, of China’s current transformation and internal and external vulnerabilities. A complete picture must be obtained from the additional insight derived from China’s revolutionary history and its journey through socialism – themes that mainstream development studies scholars in the west are loath to acknowledge [Andrew Fischer]. There is some consensus that the Beijing Consensus may refer to a particular model of policy learning [Arjan de Haan] and way of doing things, but there is no agreement on a Beijing models, not can it be replicable [Pal Nyiri]. Nevertheless, China in many respects can be regarded as a laboratory of learning experiences, including regarding how policy models gain ground in the Chinese contexts [Ashwnai Saith].

An important and promising starting point to take this debate forward is current Chinese efforts to “internationalise China’s internal experience” (guonei wenti guijihua), including that of uncertainty and reform. Certain aspects of China’s development experience may be exported, but never wholesale, and not all positive [David Kelly]. A central role for development studies institutes in Europe will be to facilitate new processes of learning that are developing with China’s emergence, and particularly regarding an understanding of China’s new global role in the context of its own development path(s). This is of necessity a process of mutual learning, incorporating and understanding distinct ways in which China learns. The discussion highlighted a range of priorities for research, both thematic and of a methodological and process nature, led by as described earlier the need for linking international processes to national development paths.

At the theoretical level, we need to get better insight into how China’s development problematise our concepts, which can ideally be achieved through comparative research. This implies deeper insight into processes of learning more generally and perception of China, and institutional transformation. This includes a wide range of topics, including participation (and how the term is used in China), gender roles, international development aid and outward investment, whether Chinese firms’ norms differ abroad from those at home, domestic consumption versus the export model and transition, social policy and care (and whether there is an East Asia model), capital markets, energy, China’s role in climate change negotiation, etc.

Chinese researchers emphasise the need to approach these questions through very specific projects with clear-cut outcomes, and focus on documenting and measuring experiences [Zhang Xiulan]. Chinese engagement with development studies has been limited, and much of it has been at practical/project levels. The ‘sea turtles’ (return migrants) have no engaged much with theoretical debates, and have become suffocated in research and databases. More collaborative research is needed, PhDs, visits, exchanges, etc., including to promote micro-

8 research, for example within a anthropology [Pal Nyiri]. Comparative research on aid and mutual learning from old and new experiences would also contribute to enhancing insights into broader comparative questions on development. Experience of collaboration in Nanjing highlights some lessons regarding collaboration [Nico Heerink], notable around the differences in concepts and ways of doing research, need for extended visits and time for collaboration, the need to define each team’s strengths, and the need to create opportunities for mutual and inter-disciplinary learning.

9 List of Participants

A. (Ton) Honders, Agentschap

Andrew Fischer, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Anirban Dasgupta, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Arjan de Haan, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Ashwani Saith, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Bram Buscher, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Chia Thye Poh, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Cui Hongzhi, Institute of Rural Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

David Kelly, China Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney

David Pho, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Frauke Urban, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex

Halima Begum, UK Department for International Development

Han Ruilian, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Hu Xiaojiang, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Jeffrey Henderson, Centre of East Asian Studies, University of Bristol

Lu Caizhen, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Mahmood Messkoub, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Miguel Salazar, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Murat Arsel, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague

Nico Heerink, Agricultural University Wageningen

Pal Nyiri, Free University Amsterdam

10 Sarah Cook, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

Wang Xiaoyi, Institute of Sociology, Chines Academy of Social Sciences

Wang Xinsong, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Xu Weizhong, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations

Yu Xiaomin, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Zeng Qiang, Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Relations

Zhang Yanbing, School of Public Policy & Management, Tsinghua University

Zhang Xiulan, School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University

Zhao Yongjun, University of Groningen

Zhao Lixia, College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University

Zhang Xiaoshan, Institute of Rural Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

11 1 In preparation of the workshop, an annotated bibliography was prepared to summarise the literature on Chinese reforms, by Dr Wang Jingzhi and Ward Warmerdam; available at http://www.iss.nl/Conferences-Seminars-Public- Debates/30-Years-Reform-in-China-July-2010. 2 See for example Suisheng Zhao, 2010, The China Model: can it replace the Western model of modernization, Journal of Contemporary China, 19: 65, 419-36. 3 Scott Kennedy (2010, 'The Myth of the Beijing Consensus', Journal of Contemporary China, 19: 65, 461-77) argues the concept is an inaccurate representation of China’s development but nevertheless “a useful touchstone to consider the evolution of development paradigms”.