China
China’s Pearl River Delta Development: A game changer for Hong Kong
Some leaders in the region have warned that the Pearl River Delta is becoming less important to China’s economy and may even lose its power in China’s economic development.
“Hong Kong government has to think out of the box and take initiative to lead Hong Kong to break the bottle neck in economy development,” said Dr. Fang Zhou, Research Director of One Country Two Systems Research Institute (OCTSRI), a non-government public policy think tank in Hong Kong, at a seminar organized by Lau Chor Tak Institute of Global Economics and Finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in November 2016.
In the seminar, Dr. Fang shared with the audience his insights into the development of Pearl River Delta region and the implications to Hong Kong, and how the city can be taken to the next level.
According to Dr. Fang, China’s 13th Five-Year Plan outlined several regions as the country’s major regional development engines, such as Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Yangtze River Delta region and also One Belt One Road.
But Greater Pearl River Delta, China’s long-time economic development engine in the past 20 years, is not included in this blueprint of China’s economy development for the following five to ten years.
Greater Pearl River Delta consists of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region, and the Pearl River Delta region of Guangdong Province.
Therefore some leaders in the region have warned that the Pearl River Delta is becoming less important to China’s economy and may even lose its power in China’s economic development.
“Such sense of crisis is not unfounded,” said Dr. Fang, citing Hong Kong’s GDP share of China’s GDP as an example. “In 1995, Hong Kong’s GDP was about 25% of China’s GDP, but in 2015, its GDP has shrunk to 2.7% of that of China.”
As the most dynamic region in China, Greater Pearl River Delta region, particularly Hong Kong, has long served as the bridge between China and the world, conveying trade and investment flows both ways.
“But that role has diminished in recent years as China has opened its borders and plugged itself directly into the global economy,” said Dr. Fang. “Obviously, Greater Pearl River Delta region, including Hong Kong, is less important now than in the past.”
To stay ahead of the game, Guangdong province has implemented a series of reforms, such as upgrading its economic industrial structure and enhancing urban infrastructures, aiming to maintain its economic status in China.
For example, Guangdong province used to be the world’s factory, but facing rising labor costs and intense global competition, it is upgrading its economy from a labor-intensive and high-energy consumption manufacturing industry to high-tech industries, such as telecommunications, biomedicine and new energy industries.
Meanwhile, an intercity rail transport network featuring three circular and eight outbound routes will be built by 2020. The network will connect all Pearl River Delta cities and create a “one-hour intercity circle”.
According to Dr. Fang, Guangdong province is also forging closer cooperation with Hong Kong and Macao through policies such as developing Lok Ma Chau Loop into a higher education area with supplementary R&D facilities and connecting Hong Kong and Macao via infrastructure constructions, including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Express Line between the airports of Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
As the transportation between Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta region is getting more convenient, Hong Kong will be expecting more visitors from mainland China. In light of this, Dr. Fang suggested that Hong Kong should be prepared to respond to these changes and challenges by adjusting its urban planning effectively.
He went on to share that in the past decades, Hong Kong’s urban development direction was mainly towards the south of Kowloon, but now as the connection between Hong Kong and mainland China is getting closer, the urbanization need in the north of Kowloon is imperative as well.
So for example, he suggested that Hong Kong government can build more shopping centers in New Territories near the border of Shenzhen to cater for shoppers and tourists from the mainland, leading them to explore the north of Kowloon and helping to ease the over-crowdedness on Hong Kong Island.
According to the statistics of the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, due to the rising number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong, the gross proceeds of the retail industry had grown by 1.3 times between 2002 and 2011; however, the retail floor space had increased only by 30% during the same period, leading to the rise of rents and commodity prices.
“Obviously, retail is one the major economic activities of Hong Kong and the demand far exceeds the supply. However, the government didn’t take sufficient measures to address the problem in the past decade. This has not only caused a lot of missed business opportunities for Hong Kong, but has also led to the discontent among Hong Kong people towards mainlanders,” said Dr. Fang.
Another example is the coordination among the airport authorities of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhuhai and Macao. According to Dr. Fang, Guangzhou Baiyun Airport, Shenzhen Airport, Hong Kong International Airport, Zhuhai Airport and Macao Airport have all started their constructions of new runways or terminals to enlarge air traffic capacities. Most of the constructions will be finished by mid 2020s.
By then, the air traffic among these airports will be more congested and the competition among them will also be fiercer. Hence, to fully utilize the capacities of these airports and meet the growing demand of air traffic services, Dr. Fang suggested that coordination and cooperation is the key.
He further pointed out that the runways in Shenzhen Airport and Macao Airport are vertical from north to south, whereas those of Hong Kong International Airport are horizontal from west to east, which would lead to more congested air traffic and unhealthy competitions in the region. So it is necessary for the airport authorities in these cities to coordinate with each other in advance in order to ensure the efficiency of air space and maintain a healthy competition.
“Airports in Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Macao are all close to each other geographically,” Dr. Fang said. “If we had planned and better coordinated when the airports were under construction in 1990s, we would’ve made better use of our resources in air traffic.”
“If Hong Kong government can take the initiative to seize the opportunity to cooperate with other major Pearl River Delta cities now and in the future, Hong Kong’s role as a super connector in the region will be more vital and special, which undoubtedly will also enhance the city’s competitive strength and bring Hong Kong to the next level,” Dr. Fang concluded.
By Fang Ying, Senior Writer, Chinese Business Knowledge@CUHK
This article is republished with permission by China Business Knowledge at Chinese University of Hong Kong Business School. You can access the original article here.
Business
Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
A Democrat claims Elon Musk influenced the reduction of a spending bill due to its restrictions on China, suggesting his actions impacted the legislation’s progress and funding allocation.
Allegations Against Musk
A prominent Democrat has accused Elon Musk of deliberately sabotaging a significant spending bill in response to China-related restrictions. This accusation comes amid ongoing tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly regarding technology and trade policies. The claims suggest that Musk’s influence is affecting critical legislative processes, raising concerns among lawmakers about foreign influence in American politics.
Implications for Legislation
The potential ramifications of Musk’s alleged actions could be significant. As a major player in the tech industry, his decisions can sway public opinion and impact the economy. Lawmakers fear that if influential figures like Musk oppose necessary legislation, it might hinder efforts to address vital issues such as national security and economic stability.
Political Reactions
The controversy has sparked debates among both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the intersection of technology and politics. Many are demanding greater transparency and accountability from tech giants. As the situation unfolds, lawmakers may need to reassess their strategies to ensure that essential legislation moves forward uninterrupted.
Source : Democrat accuses Musk of tanking spending bill over China restrictions – The Hill
China
Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
China promotes simplified deregistration to enhance its business environment, offering a faster process requiring fewer documents than general deregistration. Companies must meet eligibility criteria, resolve issues, and can choose procedures based on their situation, ensuring compliance for both options.
In addition to the general deregistration procedures, China has been promoting simplified deregistration as one of the key measures to enhance its business environment. This article highlights the differences between the general and simplified procedures, explains the eligibility criteria, and clarifies common misunderstandings about these processes.
Foreign investors may decide to close their business for multiple reasons. To legally wind up a business, investors must complete a series of procedures involving multiple government agencies, such as market regulatory bureaus, foreign exchange administrations, customs, tax authorities, banking regulators, and others. In this article, we outline the company deregistration process overseen by the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR), comparing the general and simplified procedures.
Before 2016, companies could only deregister through the general procedure. However, on December 26, 2016, the Guidance on Fully Promoting the Reform of Simplified Company Deregistration Procedures was released. Effective March 1, 2017, simplified deregistration procedures were implemented nationwide. Since then, there have been two options: general procedures and simplified procedures.
Companies must follow the general deregistration process if any of the following conditions apply (hereinafter referred to as “existing issues”):
Companies not facing the above issues may choose either the general or simplified deregistration process.
In summary, simplified deregistration is a faster process and requires fewer documents compared to general deregistration. Companies that meet the criteria typically would typically opt for simplified deregistration. Those that do not meet the criteria may choose this route after resolving outstanding issues. For companies with unresolved issues but seeking urgent closure, they can first publish a deregistration announcement. Once the announcement period ends and all issues are addressed, they can proceed with general deregistration. Some companies may question the legitimacy and compliance of simplified deregistration. This is a misconception. “Simplified” does not mean non-compliant, just as “general” does not imply greater legitimacy. Both processes are lawful and compliant. The AMR provides these options to enable companies ready for closure to complete the process efficiently while granting those with unsolved issues the necessary time to address them after publishing the deregistration announcement. Companies can select the most suitable process based on their specific circumstances.
This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support. |
Read the rest of the original article.
China
China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
The 2024 U.N. climate talks in Baku yielded mixed results, agreeing to increase funding for developing nations. However, challenges remained in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainable progress.
The 2024 U.N. climate talks ended in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24 after two weeks of arguments, agreements and side deals involving 106 heads of states and over 50,000 business leaders, activists and government representatives of almost every country.
Few say the conference was a resounding success. But neither was it a failure.
The central task of the conference, known as COP29, was to come up with funding to help developing countries become more resilient to the effects of climate change and to transition to more sustainable economic growth.
The biggest challenge was agreeing on who should pay, and the results say a lot about the shifting international dynamics and offer some insight into China’s role. As a political science professor who has worked on clean tech policy involving Asia, I followed the talks with interest.
Slow global progress
Over three decades of global climate talks, the world’s countries have agreed to cut their emissions, phase out fossil fuels, end inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies and stop deforestation, among many other landmark deals.
They have acknowledged since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, when they agreed to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, that greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, would harm the climate and ecosystems, and that the governments of the world must work together to solve the crisis.
But progress has been slow.
Greenhouse gas emissions were at record highs in 2024. Governments are still subsidizing fossil fuels, encouraging their use. And the world is failing to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times – a target established under the 2015 Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Extreme weather, from lethal heat waves to devastating tropical cyclones and floods, has become more intense as temperatures have risen. And the poorest countries have faced some of the worst damage from climate change, while doing the least cause it.
Money for the poorest countries
Developing countries argue that they need US$1.3 trillion a year in financial support and investment by 2035 from the wealthiest nations – historically the largest greenhouse gas emitters – to adapt to climate change and develop sustainably as they grow.
That matters to countries everywhere because how these fast-growing populations build out energy systems and transportation in the coming decades will affect the future for the entire planet.
Negotiators at the COP29 climate talks. Less developed countries were unhappy with the outcome.
Kiara Worth/UN Climate Change via Flickr
At the Baku conference, member nations agreed to triple their existing pledge of $100 billion a year to at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries. But that was far short of what economists have estimated those countries will need to develop clean energy economies.
The money can also come from a variety of sources. Developing countries wanted grants, rather than loans that would increase what for many is already crushing debt. Under the new agreement, countries can count funding that comes from private investments and loans from the World Bank and other development banks, as well as public funds.
Groups have proposed raising some of those funds with additional taxes on international shipping and aviation. A U.N. study projects that if levies were set somewhere between $150 and $300 for each ton of carbon pollution, the fund could generate as much as $127 billion per year. Other proposals have included taxing fossil fuels, cryptocurrencies and plastics, which all contribute to climate change, as well as financial transactions and carbon trading.
China’s expanding role
How much of a leadership role China takes in global climate efforts is an important question going forward, particularly with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump expected to throttle back U.S. support for climate policies and international funding.
China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the second-largest economy.
China also stands to gain as provider of the market majority of green technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.
Whether or not China should be expected to contribute funding at a level comparable to the other major emitters was so hotly contested at COP29 that it almost shut down the entire conference.
Previously, only those countries listed by the U.N. as “developed countries” – a list that doesn’t include China – were expected to provide funds. The COP29 agreement expands that by calling on “all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing.”
In the end, a compromise was reached. The final agreement “encourages developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis,” excluding China from the heavier expectations placed on richer nations.
Side deals offer signs of progress
In a conference fraught with deep division and threatened with collapse, some bright spots of climate progress emerged from the side events.
In one declaration, 25 nations plus the European Union agreed to no new coal power developments. There were also agreements on ocean protection and deforestation. Other declarations marked efforts to reenergize hydrogen energy production and expanded ambitious plans to reduce methane emissions.
Future of UN climate talks
However, after two weeks of bickering and a final resolution that doesn’t go far enough, the U.N. climate talks process itself is in question.
In a letter on Nov. 15, 2024, former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and a group of global climate leaders called for “a fundamental overhaul to the COP” and a “shift from negotiation to implementation.”
After back-to-back climate conferences hosted by oil-producing states, where fossil-fuel companies used the gathering to make deals for more fossil fuels on the side, the letter also calls for strict eligibility requirements for conference hosts “to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.”
With Trump promising to again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, it is possible the climate leadership will fall to China, which may bring a new style of climate solutions to the table.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.