This paper attempts to address connections between the Chinese model for development or the“Beijing Consensus”and Chinese universities.Chinese universities seem to be caught between serving governmental agendas and ...This paper attempts to address connections between the Chinese model for development or the“Beijing Consensus”and Chinese universities.Chinese universities seem to be caught between serving governmental agendas and pursuing their own goals as an academic community.Up until recently,they had become used to following the lead of the government,which often comes with rationales and approaches featuring pragmatism and utilitarianism.Drawing on the perspectives of social embeddedness and external control of organizations in higher education,we argue that the lack of dynamism and innovation that is hindering Chinese higher education’s development is largely owing to the political,social,and cultural factors prevailing in the environment in which the universities operate.Put in another way,Chinese universities are confronting a crisis,owing to the inbuilt constraints of China’s development model.展开更多
The purpose of this paper is to： （1） explain what the historical origins of the world-systems concept are; （2） present the background for building the Washington Consensus; （3） attempt to answer if the Beijing ...The purpose of this paper is to： （1） explain what the historical origins of the world-systems concept are; （2） present the background for building the Washington Consensus; （3） attempt to answer if the Beijing Consensus can be interpreted as an alternative to the Washington Consensus; （4） attempt to answer if the world- systems concept is applicable to the current engagement of China in Africa. The world-systems concept provides a useful framework for research in international relations, thanks to both its methodological and theoretical assumptions. As it urges for treating social sciences as an interconnected system, i.e. it believes there is a link between sociology, economics, anthropology and the political sciences, it enables studying the reality of current international relations. Chinese presence in Sub- Saharan Africa should be seen from different points of view, as it affects most spheres of the state： it influences the economics and societies of the African countries （e.g. employment, migration, environment）, as well as politics （e.g. elections in Zambia in 2011 BBC http：//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa- 14952240, 2011）. Thus, the multi-dimensional analysis provided by the worldsystems theory, though not free of drawbacks （e.g. lack of a detailed analysis of each variable）, allows a comprehensive and holistic look at the issue of Chinese engagement in Africa. In terms of theoretical assumptions, its focus on system as a whole （which can be both studied at domestic and international levels） provides a basis for conducting studies at a regional level, treating Sub-Saharan Africa as the study＇s object. The classic world-systems concept defines world economy as driven by the cores＇ domination on the peripheries （described also as North-South division）. Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa fit into the scheme of world-systems analysis as the peripheries, but China cannot be treated as a core state： it is a semiperiphery, as described by Wallerstein, and representative of Global South. China＇s policy towards Sub-Saharan African countries has a distinct geo-economic pattern--a pattem of South-South cooperation. China＇s relations with Sub-Saharan Africa are （at least on the rhetoric sphere） built on ＇mutual benefit＇, ＇win-win cooperation＇, and similar historical experience, though the partners are not on a similar level of economic development. The growing presence of China in Africa is, therefore, a challenge to traditional assumptions of world-systems analysis and should be further researched. The aim of this article is to answer whether the world- systems theory can be reinterpreted to serve as the framework for conducting research on Chinese engagement in the Global South, especially in Sub-Saharan African countries. The Washington Consensus regarded as the general shift from Keynesianism to neoliberal economic policies （i.e. in the broader sense than that given by Williamson in 1989） fits into the dialectic of world-systems analysis. The Washington Consensus principles provide a framework through which the core countries carry out their policies towards the peripheries. However, not only numerous scholars （Broad and Cavanagh World Policy Journal 16：79, 1999; Wal- lerstein Shall We Discuss Poverty？, 2010; Rodrik Journal of Economic Literature XLIV：973, 2006） but also politicians （As the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Washington Post 2009） declared the death of the Washington Consensus. It became even more apparent after the latest financial crisis. Joshua Ramo coined the term ＂the Beijing Consensus＂ to describe the Chinese model of cooperation, different from the Western. Is this distinction based on a reliable foundation？ Is the Beijing Consensus an alternative to the Washington Consensus？ Can the current unprecedented presence of China in Sub-Saharan Africa （as well as in other regions of the Global South） be seen as a part of the world-systems concept？ Should the China-Africa relationship be the new direction of research in the world-systems concept？展开更多
This article ties in with the research on an emerging ＂China model＂ as an alternative to conceptions of political order introduced and promoted by the ＂West＂. While the term ＂China model＂ will remain of enormous...This article ties in with the research on an emerging ＂China model＂ as an alternative to conceptions of political order introduced and promoted by the ＂West＂. While the term ＂China model＂ will remain of enormous political importance and is in need of further research, the emergence of a ＂one size fits all＂ model of Chinese policy making is rather unlikely. Instead of searching for such a model, social scientific research should analyze whether and how the fragmented Chinese polity is being impacted by such unitary ＂ideas＂ of a Chinese political order and vice versa.展开更多
Error-tolerantism developed from liberalism holds that national development generally considers four fundamental concepts,trial and error costs,trial and error competences,trial and error directions,and rights to be w...Error-tolerantism developed from liberalism holds that national development generally considers four fundamental concepts,trial and error costs,trial and error competences,trial and error directions,and rights to be wrong.China’s rise is that state-owned enterprises basically bear trial and error costs of capital intensive industries,overcoming neoliberal defects;private companies mainly bear those of labor intensive industries,and foster new markets for capital intensive industries,learning neoliberal advantages.The Government develops economy through special economic zones for limited trial and error costs;good relations maintain between Chinese higher education and foreign scientific centers of the Soviet Union,Europe,the United States,etc.,and can help China improve trial and error competences.Privatization of small state-owned enterprises solves waste and inefficiency,and also participates in global competition to recover trial and error costs.The error-tolerant market economy based on error-tolerantism emphasizes that the powers to be wrong of entrepreneurs or financial units are empowered by the people,so they should benefit the people by reasonable redistribution.Error-tolerantism regards that China’s rise has developed List’s standard model to List-Afa’s error-tolerant model.展开更多
China＇s immense achievements over the sixty years since the founding of New China, especially in the last thirty years since the institution of reform and opening up, have inspired heated debate on whether there exis...China＇s immense achievements over the sixty years since the founding of New China, especially in the last thirty years since the institution of reform and opening up, have inspired heated debate on whether there exists a ＂Chinese model of development＂ or a ＂Beijing consensus.＂ The term ＂model＂ has two layers of meaning： one refers to the uniqueness of China＇s development road, the other to its exportability and imitability. In terms of the former, China has indeed created a unique developmental model. China＇s development path was arrived at when the Chinese people finally chose Marxism in the course of their pursuit of national independence and modernization. Its essential character is the choice to follow the socialist road and reject capitalist expansion and enslavement. Globalization follows the unbounded aggrandizement of capital, which brings world politics and economy under the domination of world capitalism. It is against such a background that the uniqueness of the Chinese road of development stands out. At the same time China has no intention of exporting its own model of development. Rather, China＇s pursuit of harmony, equality and diversity among nations will allow the success of the Chinese road to change current international rules and concepts of global development. In this era of globalization, the Chinese road is of world significance.展开更多
TheChina Model, which is widelyviewed as a successful model fordeveloping countriesto reform, open up and enter the world economic system, hasreceived increasing attention and studies from all over theworld. Based on ...TheChina Model, which is widelyviewed as a successful model fordeveloping countriesto reform, open up and enter the world economic system, hasreceived increasing attention and studies from all over theworld. Based on these studies, thispaperoffers profound analysis on themain idea oftheChina Model and itscontribution to transitionaleconomic theory. It also discussesthechallengestheChinaModelwillfaceand howto maintainits sustainability.展开更多
文摘This paper attempts to address connections between the Chinese model for development or the“Beijing Consensus”and Chinese universities.Chinese universities seem to be caught between serving governmental agendas and pursuing their own goals as an academic community.Up until recently,they had become used to following the lead of the government,which often comes with rationales and approaches featuring pragmatism and utilitarianism.Drawing on the perspectives of social embeddedness and external control of organizations in higher education,we argue that the lack of dynamism and innovation that is hindering Chinese higher education’s development is largely owing to the political,social,and cultural factors prevailing in the environment in which the universities operate.Put in another way,Chinese universities are confronting a crisis,owing to the inbuilt constraints of China’s development model.
文摘The purpose of this paper is to： （1） explain what the historical origins of the world-systems concept are; （2） present the background for building the Washington Consensus; （3） attempt to answer if the Beijing Consensus can be interpreted as an alternative to the Washington Consensus; （4） attempt to answer if the world- systems concept is applicable to the current engagement of China in Africa. The world-systems concept provides a useful framework for research in international relations, thanks to both its methodological and theoretical assumptions. As it urges for treating social sciences as an interconnected system, i.e. it believes there is a link between sociology, economics, anthropology and the political sciences, it enables studying the reality of current international relations. Chinese presence in Sub- Saharan Africa should be seen from different points of view, as it affects most spheres of the state： it influences the economics and societies of the African countries （e.g. employment, migration, environment）, as well as politics （e.g. elections in Zambia in 2011 BBC http：//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa- 14952240, 2011）. Thus, the multi-dimensional analysis provided by the worldsystems theory, though not free of drawbacks （e.g. lack of a detailed analysis of each variable）, allows a comprehensive and holistic look at the issue of Chinese engagement in Africa. In terms of theoretical assumptions, its focus on system as a whole （which can be both studied at domestic and international levels） provides a basis for conducting studies at a regional level, treating Sub-Saharan Africa as the study＇s object. The classic world-systems concept defines world economy as driven by the cores＇ domination on the peripheries （described also as North-South division）. Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa fit into the scheme of world-systems analysis as the peripheries, but China cannot be treated as a core state： it is a semiperiphery, as described by Wallerstein, and representative of Global South. China＇s policy towards Sub-Saharan African countries has a distinct geo-economic pattern--a pattem of South-South cooperation. China＇s relations with Sub-Saharan Africa are （at least on the rhetoric sphere） built on ＇mutual benefit＇, ＇win-win cooperation＇, and similar historical experience, though the partners are not on a similar level of economic development. The growing presence of China in Africa is, therefore, a challenge to traditional assumptions of world-systems analysis and should be further researched. The aim of this article is to answer whether the world- systems theory can be reinterpreted to serve as the framework for conducting research on Chinese engagement in the Global South, especially in Sub-Saharan African countries. The Washington Consensus regarded as the general shift from Keynesianism to neoliberal economic policies （i.e. in the broader sense than that given by Williamson in 1989） fits into the dialectic of world-systems analysis. The Washington Consensus principles provide a framework through which the core countries carry out their policies towards the peripheries. However, not only numerous scholars （Broad and Cavanagh World Policy Journal 16：79, 1999; Wal- lerstein Shall We Discuss Poverty？, 2010; Rodrik Journal of Economic Literature XLIV：973, 2006） but also politicians （As the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Washington Post 2009） declared the death of the Washington Consensus. It became even more apparent after the latest financial crisis. Joshua Ramo coined the term ＂the Beijing Consensus＂ to describe the Chinese model of cooperation, different from the Western. Is this distinction based on a reliable foundation？ Is the Beijing Consensus an alternative to the Washington Consensus？ Can the current unprecedented presence of China in Sub-Saharan Africa （as well as in other regions of the Global South） be seen as a part of the world-systems concept？ Should the China-Africa relationship be the new direction of research in the world-systems concept？
文摘This article ties in with the research on an emerging ＂China model＂ as an alternative to conceptions of political order introduced and promoted by the ＂West＂. While the term ＂China model＂ will remain of enormous political importance and is in need of further research, the emergence of a ＂one size fits all＂ model of Chinese policy making is rather unlikely. Instead of searching for such a model, social scientific research should analyze whether and how the fragmented Chinese polity is being impacted by such unitary ＂ideas＂ of a Chinese political order and vice versa.
文摘Error-tolerantism developed from liberalism holds that national development generally considers four fundamental concepts,trial and error costs,trial and error competences,trial and error directions,and rights to be wrong.China’s rise is that state-owned enterprises basically bear trial and error costs of capital intensive industries,overcoming neoliberal defects;private companies mainly bear those of labor intensive industries,and foster new markets for capital intensive industries,learning neoliberal advantages.The Government develops economy through special economic zones for limited trial and error costs;good relations maintain between Chinese higher education and foreign scientific centers of the Soviet Union,Europe,the United States,etc.,and can help China improve trial and error competences.Privatization of small state-owned enterprises solves waste and inefficiency,and also participates in global competition to recover trial and error costs.The error-tolerant market economy based on error-tolerantism emphasizes that the powers to be wrong of entrepreneurs or financial units are empowered by the people,so they should benefit the people by reasonable redistribution.Error-tolerantism regards that China’s rise has developed List’s standard model to List-Afa’s error-tolerant model.
文摘China＇s immense achievements over the sixty years since the founding of New China, especially in the last thirty years since the institution of reform and opening up, have inspired heated debate on whether there exists a ＂Chinese model of development＂ or a ＂Beijing consensus.＂ The term ＂model＂ has two layers of meaning： one refers to the uniqueness of China＇s development road, the other to its exportability and imitability. In terms of the former, China has indeed created a unique developmental model. China＇s development path was arrived at when the Chinese people finally chose Marxism in the course of their pursuit of national independence and modernization. Its essential character is the choice to follow the socialist road and reject capitalist expansion and enslavement. Globalization follows the unbounded aggrandizement of capital, which brings world politics and economy under the domination of world capitalism. It is against such a background that the uniqueness of the Chinese road of development stands out. At the same time China has no intention of exporting its own model of development. Rather, China＇s pursuit of harmony, equality and diversity among nations will allow the success of the Chinese road to change current international rules and concepts of global development. In this era of globalization, the Chinese road is of world significance.
文摘TheChina Model, which is widelyviewed as a successful model fordeveloping countriesto reform, open up and enter the world economic system, hasreceived increasing attention and studies from all over theworld. Based on these studies, thispaperoffers profound analysis on themain idea oftheChina Model and itscontribution to transitionaleconomic theory. It also discussesthechallengestheChinaModelwillfaceand howto maintainits sustainability.
