The China Vortex

Although Joseph Stiglitz’s book Making Globalization Work came out more than a year ago, I did not read the book until the past week. However, the book is so important that I must write about it for my readers.

For many people, globalization is a fairly black and white issue: either you are for it or against it. I have been a critic of globalization in its present form here, here and here. While a few who have commented on those articles believe that this meant I was against globalization, that is not in fact the case. I am just against globalization in its present form because all governments have so far acted in what they perceive to be their best national interests, when in fact they are acting in their own very narrow national and often, corporate, interests and have left most of their own citizens behind. This is especially true in the case of the US government which, as Stiglitz outlines in this book, has acted mostly as a proxy for large corporate interests, putting the interests of most Americans and everyone else behind those narrow interests, and without much regard for the consequences.

Stiglitz is very candid about how these interests, for the most part, are in fact contrary to the interests of other countries and the vast majority of US citizens. This is very admirable as Stiglitz played a major role in the US government, serving as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton administration and then in the World Bank, where he served as chief economist until January 2000. He is remarkably candid in his observations:

For much of the world, globalization as it has been managed seems like a pact with the devil. A few people in the country become wealthier; GDP statistics, for what they are worth, look better, but ways of life and basic values are threatened. For some parts of the world, the gains are even more tenuous, the costs more palpable. Closer integration into the world economy has brought greater volatility and insecurity, and more inequality. It has even threatened fundamental values.

This is not how it has to be. We can make globalization work, not just for the rich and powerful but for all people, including those in the poorest countries. The task will be long and arduous. We have already waited for too long. The time to begin is now.

These two paragraphs work for the citizens of all countries, not just the US and China.

Stiglitz comprehensively covers the problems with globalization chapter by chapter:

• Another World is Possible
• The Promise of Development
• Making Trade Fair
• Patents, Profits and People
• Lifting the Resource Curse
• Saving the Planet
• The Multinational Corporation
• The Burden of Debt
• Reforming the Global Reserve System
• Democratizing Globalization

Step by step, he looks at the current situation and its inequities, and proposes remedies so that globalization will work not just for the rich, but for the poor as well. His remedies are well thought-out and balanced, and also very well presented.

My question is: What are the chances of their adoption? I would say that I am not sanguine about the chances. There are too many variables at work, and so far, politicians have not shown the capability of national leaderships to rise above narrow interests. Even when it comes to narrow interests, they do not do the right things.

For example, let’s look at global warming, a problem which is literally becoming more serious every year. This will quickly lead to a series of cascading events which will rapidly spiral out of control, threatening the very existence of humanity as we know it. While there are very well-meaning people who want to do more to clean up the environment, they lack the basic understanding of economics to understand what needs to be done.

Essentially, we are keeping the costs of energy production artificially low by not figuring in the costs of environmental damage and healthcare upfront. This is the reason carbon emissions in China are running out of control.

Governments’ policies in pursuit of cheap energy are literally destroying future generations all over the world, since they will have to shoulder the costs of cleanup.

If there are future generations.

What is the real cost of economic development if future generations have to pay in shorter lifespans, lower quality of life, and a much more hostile environment where the people who are left are crowded into the relatively habitable parts of the planet?

Making Globalization Work shows that the future does not have to look like Mad Max. But are we smart enough to avoid it?

If you are interested in the future, then you must read this book.

Environmental experts paint a bleak picture of the future when the subject comes to global warming. Now, it turns out because of the rapid increase in energy needs in China, what were originally worst-case scenarios for global warming will now, almost surely, turn into best-case scenarios.

This is because many of the decisions for new power plants and energy have been pushed from Beijing down to the provincial levels, and simply put, the provinces have more incentive to produce more energy than to decrease carbon emissions. What was a bad situation becomes much worse, not just for China, but for the whole world. While the US has previously been the world’s worst emitter of hydrocarbons, China is on the path to replacing the US to become a hydrocarbon emitting country on a much grander scale, and in a league of its own. This will lead to much greater condemnation of China in the international press and also in China’s more vocal domestic arena of public opinion which uses the Internet as its main venue.

Richard Carson, a professor at the University of San Diego, is the leading expert on China’s carbon emissions, and he has co-authored a paper on his measurements and forecasts for carbon emissions based on his on-the-ground work in China. You can read about it here.

If there has been a major problem with the Chinese leadership, it has been its slowness to recognize that the old way of industrialization simply does not work with a population as vast as China’s. Western Europe, then later America and Japan were able to get away with industrialization because they had smaller populations and did not urbanize as quickly as China is now.

Not only does reliance on energy imports crimp China’s foreign policy in the near future, it is crimping the environment now. And the whole problem will only get worse.

This is the problem with the traditional view of industrialization and urbanization.

The tragedy for humanity and for China is that other development models are available. Using computers and virtual teams on service-related projects reduces the need for commutes and polluting transportation. Everyone will have to make some sacrifices in lifestyle, but the sacrifices are not that huge.

The trouble is that we are straddled with a bunch of old thinkers in leadership positions who can’t make the change to a new model fast enough. We are not in control of our own fate.

Several days ago I attended Urbancamp Beijing, hosted by Orange Labs in Beijing.

The purpose of the event was to explore how cities of the not-too-distant future will look like; the theme was the Chinese City 2.0. Because China is growing so rapidly in this area, it has become a sociologist’s paradise for study. Neville Mars of the Dynamic City Foundation is a Beijing-based architect who is actively studying this field, and will come out shortly with an 800-page book on the subject in January.

His presentation was presented in a very interesting and chaotic manner, as if to reflect the chaotic development of the subject he covers. He alluded to how rampant growth in China was being fostered by the government, and then in most cases, the government took over development from the artistic groups.

Another group which is studying Chinese urban growth is the Urban Forum, which is studying the effects of China’s urban development. A Chinese language magazine, Urban China, is now covering China’s development, and a speaker unveiled plans for a web version of the magazine for global distribution.

Shang Dan of Orange Labs Beijing provided a fascinating report on car clubs in China, which bring together car owners to join in social activities. Since Chinese treat cars mainly as symbols of social rank and status, it is natural for them to research the car clubs before buying the model they want. This fits well into the city landscape well because it hard to find like-minded people in a literally new city, and the car club provides a welcome activity club for the new car-owner.

I wonder what kind of car club there is for owners of black Audi A6s? (If you have lived in China for a while, you’ll get this joke.)

Kenneth Fields of Peking University spoke about how to use tagging for location data, and City8 introduced their 3D mapping software for cities.

The afternoon discussion, which was a free discussion, was about the different themes in the definitions of place and city.

One subject which was not clear to me was what is the definition of city where people spend more and more time online on the Internet? Most of us spend a good part of the day jacked into the Internet; is it really important to have cities anymore? Has the city become a state of mind instead of a physical place? When pollution and hydrocarbons and global warming become ever greater issues, why bother with physical cities anyway? What are online and offline communities, and how do they map to each other?

Are Chinese developers and the Chinese government going exactly contrary to development trends by developing physical urban cities now, when they are falling into discredit?

These are interesting questions which need to be explored further.

Sure, today it sounds like some kind of a joke.

But there are early signs that this may indeed be the case. After all, these are two huge issues which are, shall we say, pretty serious matters in China today? Yet there are early signs that point to China, or Chinese companies, possibly being able to take a lead in fixing some of the problems created by rampant development over the past thirty years.

Chinese companies have played a role in mapping out the human genome project, and have recently sequenced the first Asian genome in Shenzhen. Worldwide, 2007 has been a banner year in helping our understanding of the genome and how diseases are transmitted and/or inherited.

With its rapidly aging population, the Chinese government has a special incentive for taking care of its population and keeping them working well past retirement age. This is especially important for people with rare or special skills.

Everyone knows that the environmental situation is a mess because of massive overbuilding and inefficient industries which are manufacturing just to keep their doors open. As oil prices go up, the Chinese government has a special interest in developing new non-petroleum alternative energies which produce no or very few hydrocarbons, and do not affect the environment badly as some of the current technologies.

A few companies have already started to develop new products, but the market is still young.

On the government side, the Chinese government is already taking an active role in cleanup, as evidenced by its plan to clean up Lake Tai. I believe that in the next 10 years the government will take steps to retire or roll back the Three Gorges Dam, as the project is already being openly criticized in government publications. Premier Wen Jiabao has been the main spokesman for environmental causes in the Chinese government, and he has personally staked his reputation on cleaning up the Chinese environment.

Since the Chinese government has put its reputation behind healthcare and the environment, my belief is that these two fields will become as important to this generation as computer hardware and software were for the previous generation. Many of the breakthroughs which are now occurring in these two fields have been made possible by IT breakthroughs.

Besides, the smart money is already going there…

In an article for the Oct. 29 issue of Caijing, writer Xu Shanda (许善达) claims that Chinese corporate earnings are inflated. In the Chinese language article, Xu claims that there is an earnings bubble. The article summary says this (my translation):

The government should no longer listen to Chinese enterprises’ requests to turn their costs to social costs. It can no longer listen to their efforts to infringe on the rights of all citizens to suit only their own unreasonable and illegal corporate earnings requirements. In real terms, this means that the government must step up its own efforts to build a social welfare system, an environmental welfare system, strengthen legal enforcement, and at the same time, create a new market system for the trading of resources so that a pricing system which more realistically reflects market realities can take root.

In the article, Xu claims that corporate earnings for many Chinese companies have continued to go up because they have not had to pay for social security and environmental costs. With such low operating costs, of course they would have high corporate earnings.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Xu Shanda is not an outsider; he serves as an independent director of ICBC, one of China’s state-owned banks, and was the former vice director of the National Tax Bureau.

In effect, Xu is arguing for a social security system to protect the poor, and for increased taxes to clean up the environment during China’s high-growth phase. High-growth was a top priority during the last years of Deng Xiaoping and during the Jiang Zemin years. In contrast, the administration of Hu Jintao is recognizing the high costs of the environmental damage created by reckless growth. The person now leading the charge re environmental affairs is Wen Jiabao, who is reviewing many major engineering projects.

For many Europeans, Xu sounds like a social democrat, or what is called in US politics, a liberal.As a an American, it is very ironic to see a Chinese government official argue for the kinds of things which the Bush administration is so keen on dismantling in the US, even though US public opinion largely believes that there are serious environmental issues which need to be addressed.

For the Chinese government, the current situation is about finding the right balancing point for China. If China adopts a social welfare system like western Europe’s, they are afraid that costs will go up and so will unemployment. Chinese goods will be less competitive on the global market. However, if they do not raise them, the destruction of the environment in China will continue, and many businesses will not be held accountable. It would become like the US, where the system favors large corporations while offering lip service to the little guy. (It was not always this way in the US, but it has markedly changed because of recent US changes to the US Supreme Court and recent court rulings.)

There are early signs that the Hu administration is taking steps to bring market realities to resource pricing; yesterday the Chinese government raised oil prices by nearly 10%.

So, there is strong internal pressure in China to make corporations more accountable, just while the US is privatizing more public sector services and is making them less accountable.

For those in the US who believe that privatization is the answer to all of the country’s problems, they would do well to come to China and look at some of the effects. A lot of this damage is done by a combination of corruption, cronyism and privatization.

Ironic, isn’t it?

UPDATEIf you are interested in how the Bush administration’s proposed tort reform would largely take away from US citizens the right to sue corporations for environmental and product violations, please visit the Wikipedia entry on tort reforms. This is the kind of legislation China needs to curb corporate excesses, although the Chinese are very conscious that they want to limit misuses and abuses of the system as have occurred in the US. What the Bush administration is proposing though, is not a reform, but more or less turning the clock back and making consumers rely on the “goodwill” of large corporations to protect them. Since I am not an attorney, this may be an area Dan Harris, publisher of China Law Blog, may want to shed some light.

Richard Spencer also has an article which suggests that the western interest in China’s conditions and policies may be more tied to China’s rise as an economic power than to a true interest in those issues.

Hmmm…That’s good food for thought.