China in Between Varieties of Capitalism and Communism

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

This paper analyzes China's political economy through the lens of the varieties of capitalism approach as formulated by . It presents the current state of knowledge about China in each of the five spheres of the political economy included in the varieties of capitalism model. It concludes that China in many respects resembles a liberal market economy (LME). In addition to providing an empirical basis for further discussion of the world's second-largest economy within the varieties of capitalism approach, the analysis raises questions for future research in three areas: the existence of multiple varieties of capitalism within the same national boundary; actual practice versus formal structure; and the nature and extent of social capital.

Asian Perspective

This article explores the dynamics of capitalist development in the three political economies of Greater China. We have two purposes in mind. First, we hope to produce a fresh understanding of Mainland China's economic rise, interpreting it as associated with the process of late capitalist development. Second, we use a comparison with Taiwan and Hong Kong to examine whether China has converged with or diverged from four salient aspects of late capitalist development: the character of state ruler incentives, or the "will to develop"; the nature and structure of state-society relations; the role of business enterprises and business networks in supporting initial capitalist accumulation; and the transition of state-business interactions over time from mutual distrust to engagement and cooperation. In so doing, we hope to use comparative analysis to integrate the crucial case of China into broader inquiries on the nature and logic of capitalist development.

2023

This work is in copyright. It is subject to statutory exceptions and to the provisions of relevant licensing agreements; with the exception of the Creative Commons version the link for which is provided below, no reproduction of any part of this work may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

Critical Asian Studies, 2019

This article contributes to the debate on the role of the Chinese state in economic transition by shedding light on the relationship between the state and a Chinese domestic capitalist class. The formation of this new class has been a two-way movement between the state and new elites' forces. This two-way movement remains a prominent feature of the relationship between the state and the new class. This relationship has evolved with the dynamics of capital-labor conflicts and contradictions within a regime of accumulation and transitioned from a stage of "great compromise" to a stage of "strained alliance." ARTICLE HISTORY

This article examines critically the application of the developmental state concept to China. A conjuncture of specific political, socio-economic and institutional processes, both internal and external, undermines the case for China as a developmental state. Against a back-drop of intensifying global economic competition, intense rivalry between local economic actors for markets, resources and foreign investment not only produces contradictory developmental outcomes but also undermines the political and administrative capacity for fundamental social and economic transformation. The Chinese state is best understood as polymorphous, assuming multiple, complex forms and behaviours across time and space, and defying reduction to a unitary actor.

Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2009

Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues

The subject of the study is economic relations between USA and China. The aim of the study is to characterize the dynamics of the world-system status of China in the XX-XXI centuries and the economic characteristics of its mode of production at present. The main idea of the article is to substantiate the untenability of considering the real state of the economic system of China as "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Currently, China is integrated into the world-system according to the Beijing Consensus model. The model of China is a specific Asian capitalism, in which a special mode of capital accumulation is formed-with a higher role of the state in the process of capital accumulation than in the fourth cycle of capitalist accumulation. Its world-system status can be characterized as a strong semi-periphery, which entered the competition for hegemony in the next system cycle of capitalist accumulation. If the motion path leads China to the goal, it will be for the first time a specific non-Western hegemony. This research result allows determining the prospects for changing relations in the world economy as a result of the completion of the fourth system cycle of capitalist accumulation.

SPERI Political Economy Blog http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/10/17/revisiting-the-developmental-state-4-the-beijing-consensus-and-prospects-for-democratic-development-in-china-and-beyond/, 2017

A controversial issue in the longstanding debate on the developmental state concerns the relationship and the possible compatibility of rapid economic and industrial transformation with a democratic form of governance. Many scholars contributing to the debate were more concerned about how highly centralised and cohesive states with significant 'embedded autonomy' were able to facilitate rapid industrialisation based on highly selective and strategic industrial policy tools. The central focus was to explain how a limited subset of East Asian developmental states were able to outperform other late-industrialising countries in Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere. Japan was the prototype case of successful industrial transformation in the early part of the postwar period. Its experience was subsequently duplicated by the phenomenal rise of South Korea and Taiwan. Whilst the Japanese miracle occurred in a democratic environment, the successful state-driven export-oriented growth of South Korea and Taiwan were accomplished in highly authoritarian settings. It was only at a later stage in their development experience that these two countries were able to make a successful transition to democratic forms of governance during the second half of the 1980s. In the current context, the rise of China and the growing challenge offered by the appeal of the 'Beijing Consensus' together raise deep questions concerning the relationship between successful industrial transformation under what we might term 'strategic capitalism' and the achievement of democracy. Although in its specific form the Chinese brand of capitalism differs from the experience of the original trio of East Asian developmental states, it still sits very much in the tradition of developmental states in respect of the active role of the state promoting industrial transformation. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe China as a 'post-developmental state' given its greater openness to foreign direct investment right from the very beginning of its opening-up to the global economy in the early 1980s. It's important to emphasise, however, that Chinese openness to transnational investment was always based on an active bargaining process focused on aligning the terms of entry with its broader strategic priorities. This is fundamentally different from a neoliberal, open-door approach to foreign investment. As everyone knows, China's state-driven industrial transformation over the course of the past few decades has been quite remarkable and has undoubtedly given a predominantly benign