Asian Review of Political Economy最新文献

While the recent “regulatory storm” in China has attracted attention from media, academia, and policy makers both in China and overseas, there lacks theoretical interpretation of Chinese central government’s major regulatory practices. Based on the review on global reflection of the shortcomings of the current market economy system and China’s own market economy practices, this article argues that China’s strengthening of market regulation is based on a people-centered paradigm of the state-market relationship that takes into account both efficient market and effective government and that is consistent with the international framework to improve the market economy system, in particular the stakeholder economy. To support the argument, this article illustrates China’s “regulatory storm” in terms of corporate governance, environmental goals, social impacts, adverse consequences, and employee rights with reference to cases from sectors affected by the “regulatory storm”. Moreover, China’s recent regulatory measures reflect the effectiveness of the “strong government” in rapidly rectifying market order and are in line with the global trend of building a new market system, which is worthy of reference for other Asian countries with similar political and economic contexts.

Development in Central Asia faces intensifying headwinds in various aspects. Terrorism and political instability have been the primary sources of concern for this chessboard of rivaling great powers. The US’s withdrawal from Afghanistan left a power vacuum, and the region’s future is further clouded by elevated uncertainty. The so-called ‘new Cold War’ discourse is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that contextualizes regional geopolitical maneuverings. These developments present a pressing need to evaluate development challenges in Central Asia in the context of China’s rising influence in the region through the Belt and Road Initiative and other regional frameworks, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China Pakistan Economic Corridor.

This paper seeks to examine the shifting geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape in Central Asia in the context of global ideological confrontations and the regional Great Game between China and Russia. Drawing on think tank reports, English-language media reports, and scholarly works, it argues that China’s investment and development strategy in Central Asia can be improved by giving geopolitical and geoeconomic factors full consideration. The changing political dynamics in the region have significant implications for China’s engagement with Central Asian countries, its broader Belt and Road Initiative extending through Central Asia to Europe, and development challenges that transcend the dualistic categorization of development and security.

In much of the 20th century, the welfare state was regarded as the fundamental means for Western countries to embrace economic liberalization through domestic social contracts, whereas the developmental state was credited for East Asian economies’ growth with equality. However, economic globalization and technological changes have posed serious challenges for both models with respect to containing increasing inequality and achieving inclusive growth. China’s performance in inclusive growth has demonstrated distinct features that differ from the approaches of Western welfare states and East Asian developmental states. China has relied less on conventional means of redistribution, such as taxes and transfers. Instead, it has combined growth-oriented industrial policies, public infrastructure investment, and state-mediated poverty alleviation programs. China’s development strategy reflects a “third way” perspective on inclusive growth that might be instructive for latecomer economies.

In a world that is changing dramatically, China needs a third wave of opening. This article addresses several issues, including what the third opening looks like based on the two previous openings in modern China, why a third opening is necessary, and how to open up to the outside world in the future. In particular, a new period of strategic opportunity is required to solve the problem of “being scolded” and to achieve China’s sustainable development. This period will be created more proactively and unilaterally through five approaches, namely, (1) harmonizing domestic market standards, (2) reorganizing and re-identifying existing international rules, (3) modernizing the governance system, (4) allowing local and social level openness, and (5) promoting negotiations to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and advancing the U.S.–China Bilateral Investment Agreement negotiations. With respect to internal and external circulation, China can integrate domestic and international markets and internationalize China’s rules while aligning with the international community. Ultimately, the internationalization of China’s rules will be achieved through the integration of domestic and international markets.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) promises to expand trade substantially for businesses in the agreement’s 15 members countries, but who will be more likely to capture the gains from trade liberalization? Drawing on insights from the emerging research program on the politics of global production networks and value chains, this study unpacks the differential benefits of free trade agreements as a function of a firm’s degree of supply chain linkages with partner countries, thus moving beyond traditional theories of trade that draw the distinction primarily between import-competing and export-oriented firms. Leveraging an original survey of more than 500 firms in China, the empirical analyses show that the more backward and forward supply chain linkages with RCEP countries a firm has, the greater its likelihood of anticipating positive impact from the RCEP, even among exporters. These findings enrich our understanding of the political economy of preferential trade liberalization and global supply chains and offer policy suggestions for member countries hoping to maximize benefits for their businesses from the largest trade agreement in the world today.

How to understand the relative success and institutional basis of the industrial policies implemented by the Chinese government since the reform and opening up? And, In the context of a new round of scientific and technological revolution, disruptive technologies are constantly emerging, what kind of challenges will this new situation bring to China's existing industrial policy paradigm? In this paper, I employ the method of literature and theoretical analysis, combined with a series of related studies, especially of my own, to answer the above questions. In my view, China's relatively successful industrial policy paradigm will become a trap of China under the rise of disruptive technologies. To prevent China from falling into the trap, the Chinese government need to transform from a selective industrial policy to a functional industrial policy. It should conduct a comprehensive reflection on the existing national innovation system and reshape the science policy, technology policy, talent policy and competition policy. Therefore, it is also necessary to establish an institutional foundation compatible with the new industrial policy paradigm in terms of incentives through institutional reform.