Views: 2483|Replies: 4

Should structural reform be a major concern in Sino-U.S. trade talks? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2019-1-30 10:45:47 |Display all floors
(CGTN) With the clock ticking on a 90-day truce, Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He's Washington trip, an occasion for the "broadest" and "deepest" talks in Sino-U.S. history, is regarded as the last hope to remove the darkest clouds hanging over the world economy.

Simmering for almost one year, the battle between the world's largest two economies is far more than about trade figures. It's, at its heart, a clash of structural differences. This is why some Westerners are pessimistic about the outcome of Liu's trip.

"It is going to be a very long haul to get the changes the U.S. considers to be required because that really would force China to fundamentally alter the way it organizes itself," The Atlantic quoted Arthur Kroeber, a founding partner at Gavekal Research, as saying.

The article further accused China of not "trusting market forces" and "wanting the state to play a more direct role in achieving the economic outcomes." For decades, the West has never ceased its criticisms against China's socialist system, deliberately turning a blind eye on the tremendous benefits that China's model of combining state-planning with the market has brought to the world.

For Western policymakers, any slight deviation from their "market economy bible" is in opposition to the openness and fairness of the business environment. This explains why the U.S. side attaches so much importance to China's structural reform in trade negotiations.

Every country has its respective national conditions. China, to recover its economy from past mistakes, advocated in the 1980s that a few people get rich first while the rest catch up. While the policy has enormously boosted China's economy and transformed the country from scarcity to oversupply, it has created enormous wealth gaps. This is where the state needs to kick in.

The market means efficiency. But when people are marginalized economically and politically, the society would only end up with unrest and even violence, of which the Occupy Wall Street movement is a typical example. Blindly following the "market economy bible" would, in most cases, do more harm than good.

A combination of state-planning and the market is China's unique solution. State control doesn't necessarily mean hostility to the open market or discrimination against foreign enterprises. China's efforts in opening its economy are recognized by the international community.

The China International Import Expo (CIIE), the world's first import-themed national-level trade fair, attracted more than 3,600 firms from over 130 countries and regions last year. China is not only playing an indispensable role in the global industrial chain with its exports ranging from auto parts to medicine, but is also a sought-after destination for exports from other countries.

If China is shutting its door to foreign enterprises as the West hypes, why did the country bother launching the CIIE? Despite structural differences from the U.S., China has been and will always be an active promoter for an open economy, and thus the U.S. side doesn't need to be too much demanding and concerned about China's structural reform during trade negotiations.

The actual implementation of the agreement is another concern of the United States. China has already approved imports of American rice, promised to review foreign investment laws and even set up an intellectual property rights court under the Supreme Court. Western accusations of China's paying lip service are unfair and unreasonable. It is the Trump administration that has been acting capriciously on the trade issue.

Political will is of the utmost importance in ending the trade war. It's high time that the world's two largest economies abandon stereotypes and take Liu's trip as an opportunity to clinch a final deal that is to the benefit of not only the two parties, but also the entire world.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-1-30 23:01:22 |Display all floors
This post was edited by GhostBuster at 2019-1-30 23:01

Like it or not, US considers itself the master. The rest is and must be enslaved.
So, Master-Slave relation exists.
The way to turn it around will attract disastrous proof of power and strength.
Sinking deep into the skin and flesh of each other to the point of eliminating the other will be the outcome for that convinces the world who the winner is!

Use magic tools Report

Medal of honor

Post time 2019-1-31 06:32:03 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-1-31 16:22:41 |Display all floors
Major difference between the two models is, that in western markets if corporations don't succeed, they go bankrupt and cease to exist. But they are separate from the state, and the implications to the state are limited to worrying about employment figures and tax income.

But when corporations are run by the state, they become extensions of state and their successes or failures fall back on the state. If the big ones fall, they may take the state with them, and that is not an option.

How do you compete against competition that is not allowed to lose? It should be understandable why the structural differences are a major concern on US side.

But many of China's SOE's are SOEs only on the outside.

For example in building railways, much of the concrete work is contracted and subcontracted from private corporations. And that's what the state falls back on, when there are reported problems with low quality work or accidents.

SOE takes all the glory, and the real makers and doers only break news to take the blame when something breaks. When the SOEs report record profits, it's off the back of those same private subcontractors.

In USA, for example NASA takes blame for having projects done by the lowest bidder, but does that happen in China? Is it allowed to happen?

Private enterprises in China are the scapegoat for a soft-skinned government that cannot afford to take cricitism toward itself or its SOEs. This role for private enterprises as a cushion is not needed elsewhere.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-2-1 15:11:40 |Display all floors
The context and background of China is very different from the rest of the Western dominated world. For China to grow and progress, China has to develope and adapt  according to such conditions. Many developing countries continue to be "developing" after many decades because they fail to realise that the Western model may not be suitable.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.