Empowering State Capitalism in China: the Revival, Legitimization and Development of Private Enterprises
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Empowering State Capitalism in China: The Revival, Legitimization and Development of Private Enterprises By Zongshi Chen A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Thomas Gold, Chair Professor Neil Fligstein Professor Heather Haveman Professor You-tien Hsing Spring 2011 Abstract Empowering State Capitalism in China: The Revival, Legitimization and Development of Private Enterprises by Zongshi Chen Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Thomas Gold, Chair My research explores the interplay between the state and market in the formation of the market, and how this in turn leads to the transformation or reproduction of such structures. This is a historical examination of the revival of private enterprise in China since the late 1970s against the contemporary hostile political environment and of the current development of private enterprise. It explores three main issues: (1) how private enterprise, and generally the market economy, a political taboo under Mao’s regime, became legitimized; (2) how the state transformed in response to the development of private enterprise; (3) how private enterprise performed under such market institutions. My findings suggest that Wenzhou’s marginal position in socialist economy, culture and administration enabled Wenzhou to become the first place for experimenting with private enterprise. The findings imply that marginalized areas had great potential for engendering new institutions; this advances the theory of institutional change. My archival study also shows that three categories of people were the earliest to engage in private enterprise: those who had some work experience in a collective or state entity;those who had done business individually elsewhere; and some cadres. The findings of my project reject the prevalent decentralization model in explaining China’s institutional transition and lend partial support to the factional struggle theory. The findings suggest that the alliance between the local market model and central market-oriented leaders enhanced the legitimization of private economy. My findings also show that intellectual framing, which was rarely examined about China's transition, enhanced the gradual transition of institutional logic, the establishment of market institutions and, finally, market hegemony. In response to the development of private enterprise in the past three decades, Wenzhou transformed from a laissez faire state into a regulatory state, and then into an interventionist state. The findings reject a static view of state-society relations and advocate for an interactive approach to examining China’s transition. This study also shows that institutional isomorphism drove the convergence of developmental models among four coastal cities and suggests an empowering state capitalism in these regions. The analysis of the nation-wide survey indicate that an entrepreneur’s political connection is crucial for an enterprise’s performance in both areas, and it contributed more to the performance of coastal enterprises than to that of inland enterprises. This gap 1 may imply a stronger state intervention in the market on the coast than that in the inland and demonstrate the development of private enterprise may empower a strong state capitalism. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..ii Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2 Taking Risks in Experimenting with Private Enterprise………….…………22 Chapter 3 Conceptualizing and Legalizing Private Enterprise………………………….39 Chapter 4 Transformation of The Local States…………………………….…………..58 Chapter 5 Coastal-inland Disparity of Political Connection and Private Firm Performance ……………………………………..………………………......88 Chapter 6 Conclusion……………………….………………………………………….101 Appendix A …………………………………….………………………….…………...110 Appendix B …………………………………….………………………….…………...113 Appendix C …………………………………….………………………….…………...114 References ………………………………………………………………….…………..115 i Acknowledgements I could not have completed this dissertation without the generous support and valuable guidance from my dissertation committee members. Tom Gold has read my manuscripts for many times, from the very preliminary version to the final version. I am also deeply grateful to him for his advices and endless support in all respects of my graduate career in Berkeley. His art of encouragement and mentoring leads me all along the way. Beyond the spur by Neil Fligstein’s own work and wisdom, he also eased the at- first insurmountable task of completing a Ph.D. program by setting periodic milestones and providing realistic advice. Neil’s advice towards an organized and structured writing directed the dissertation on the right track. Heather Haveman invested countless hours in reading and commenting my chapters. I’m deeply indebted to her insightful comments which improved the research design as well as methodology and helped me hone my claims. Heather’s very organized working style also encouraged me to be disciplined in finishing my dissertation. Youtien Hsing helped me gain a deeper understanding about the political economy in China and East Asia as well. I’m thankful to my dissertation group, including Julia Chuang, Jennifer Choo, Chris Sullivan, Rongbin Han, Mark Dallas, Jonathan Hassuid, Leslie Wang, Suowei Xiao, Rachel Stern, Eli Friedman, Xia Zhang, and Kun Chen. They gave me many helpful feedback and comments. Thanks also go to those who lent great support for me to conduct the fieldwork, including Jianjun Zhang, Jian Wang, Kangdui Zhu, Xiao Ren, Yuzhao Liu, and those informants who accepted my interviews. ii Chapter 1 Introduction Since modern sociological theory grew out of the intellectual response to the rise of capitalism in the West, as reflected in the masterpieces of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, the transition to market economy in post-socialist societies may potentially have a similar intellectual impact on sociological theory. Although the Chinese government claims China as socialism with Chinese characteristics ever since 1987, scholars are increasingly calling Chinese economic structure capitalism. 1 While academia and the media are hailing China’s successful, gradual economic transition, as opposed to the shock therapy implemented by former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, some questions remain unclear in the existing literature. For example, how was capitalism constructed in China? How did the private economy revive itself under socialism? How did the private economy, once a political taboo, acquire legitimacy? How did the state, market actors and intellectuals interact with one another to form a market by defining property rights, governance structure, and rules of exchange (Fligstein 1996)? Lastly, how did the development of market institutions influence a firm’s behavior? Answering these questions would help deepen our understanding of the distinctive logic underlying the rise and development of Chinese capitalism, its features and potential developmental trend. Before situating the project into the theoretical discussion, I will briefly illustrate the development of capitalism in China using some statistical data. A prominent element in China’s transition is the rapid growth of private enterprises and the constant shrinkage of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A private economy was a political taboo under Mao’s rule; now it enjoys a considerable currency and has generated significant prosperity. According to the official definition, China’s private sector consists of five different kinds of ownership: individual, private, foreign, joint, and shareholding. Since 1985, the private sector has been the most dynamic source of industrial output growth. From 1992 to 2002, the number of private enterprises increased from 140,000 to 2.4 million; the annual growth rate was 33%. Their registered capital increased from 22.1 billion RMB to 2,475 billion RMB, growing by 60% annually, while the number of employees increased from 2.3 million to 34.1 million. 2 The persistent growth differentials have translated into a significant shift in the composition of industrial output by ownership types. Until 1990, SOEs and the collective economy accounted for more than 90% of gross industrial output; in 2000, SOEs above a designated size accounted for 47% of total industrial added value. It declined to 35% in 2004. In 1990, SOEs and the collective economy employed 70% and 24%, respectively, of the urban labor force. By 2000, these percentages declined to 35% and 6%, and to 25% and 3% by 2004 (Lin and Song 2007). In 2008, China’s private economy accounted for 1 For instance, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State by Huang (2008), Capitalism without Democracy: the Private Sector in Contemporary China by Tsai (2008), Contagious Capitalism: Globalization and the Politics of Labor in China by Gallagher (2005), Dragon in a Three-Piece Suit: the Emergence of Capitalism by Guthrie (1999), Making Capitalism in China: Taiwan Connection by Hsing (1998) 2 Quan Zhezhu. “Retrospect of the development and contribution of private economy in last three decades.” http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20080511/12134854634.shtml, Accessed on August 8, 2009. 1 65% of GDP and 56% of the tax revenue. 3 From 2004 to 2008, the shrinkage of SOEs began to slow down. In 2004, SOEs accounted for 50.9% of gross industrial