Connect with us
Wise usd campaign
ADVERTISEMENT

China

Organising the post-COVID-19 world and technology

Published

on

U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres speaks while sitting next to Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus during an update on the situation regarding the COVID-19 (previously named novel coronavirus) at the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, 24 February 2020. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Pool via Reuters).

Authors: Heather Smith, Canberra and Allan Gyngell, ANU

In 1941, even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, Paul Hasluck, then a public servant and later an Australian Liberal Party foreign minister, recommended the establishment in the Australian Department of External Affairs of a Post-Hostilities Section.

That section helped coordinate Australia’s participation in the series of meetings from which emerged the multilateral institutions that have shaped the contemporary world.

These included the United Nations (UN), its specialist agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and international financial bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the predecessor to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Underpinned by American ideals and power, these institutions helped rebuild the world after World War II, manage Cold War strategic competition and facilitate a period of unprecedented global economic growth.

But even before the coronavirus struck, there were signs that the system was in trouble. Reaching global consensus has become increasingly difficult. Even the WHO has become a battleground for great power competition. From the Asian Financial Crisis of the late 1990s, China and other emerging economies wanted a greater stake in the system.

The pandemic has strengthened the reassertion of national sovereignty seen in the Trump administration’s America First policies and Brexit. Scott Morrison framed Australia’s response to the coronavirus as ‘protecting Australia’s national sovereignty’.

But in the 21st century, sovereignty is not enough.

Australia’s economic interests depend on a rules-based system that provides certainty as it works to preserve security, promote prosperity and deal with global challenges like climate change and pandemics.

As parts of the post-war order atrophied, Australian governments have helped shore up the mechanisms for international cooperation.

Australia’s Rudd government played an important role in establishing the G20 Leaders process; the Abbott government as G20 president focussed on global economic reform and resilience; the Turnbull government rescued the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement; and the Morrison government has supported measures to keep the WTO’s rules-based system operating after the United States vetoed new appointments to the Appellate Body.

Australia needs to move towards a 21st century multilateralism, balancing its dependence on open markets with the rebuilding of global resilience in the wake of the socio-economic disruption caused by COVID-19.

Multilateral cooperation significantly takes place outside formal inter-governmental decision-making, in government agencies and research institutions. These contacts are important for countries like Australia, which is a price taker for both global capital and technology. As global technological competition and decoupling intensify, it is important for government to harness this informal multilateralism.

Still, international financial institutions are arguably the best performing elements of the multilateral system. Australia has credibility on IMF reform having pushed for two decades for emerging economies to have greater voting power in line with their economic weight. China has responsibly discharged the obligations that come with this greater role.

A greater reliance on trusted partnerships will likely need to underpin approaches to reform and restructuring. Institutions like the FAO and the WHO will require more attention given their central roles in dealing with problems that require global coordination. The WTO may need the straitjacket of consensus removed to avoid its fading relevance — 30 years without an effective global trade deal is a bad report card by any reckoning.

The glaring gap in global governance is the absence of rules governing the fourth industrial revolution — the digital economy. Governments have struggled to balance the benefits of technology with social licence and national security. Norms covering data, privacy and the regulation of digital platforms are already split between the European Union, the United States and China.

The chances of a new multilateral institution emerging — say a World Technology Organisation — that sets the rules for technology, similar to the Bretton Woods system, seems unlikely.

Australia should work with regional partners to agree on norms and standards that ensure openness to supply chains, as APEC has done for trade and investment…

Read the rest of this article on East Asia Forum

China

China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges

Published

on

In November 2024, China’s economy exhibited mixed results: industrial production rose by 5.4%, while retail sales grew only 3%, below forecasts. Fixed asset investment also faltered. Policymakers are anticipated to introduce measures to stimulate domestic demand and combat deflation.


China’s economy showed mixed performance in November 2024, with industrial production and exports showing resilience, while retail sales and fixed asset investment underperformed, amid ongoing challenges in the property sector. Policymakers are expected to implement targeted fiscal and monetary measures to boost domestic demand and address deflationary pressures.

The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has released China’s economy data for November 2024, revealing a mixed performance across key indicators. Retail sales grew by 3 percent year-on-year, a significant slowdown from October’s 4.8 percent growth and well below the 4.6 percent forecast. Industrial production, however, showed resilience, rising by 5.4 percent and exceeding expectations of 5.3 percent growth.

The property sector continued to drag on the broader economy, with real estate investment contracting by 10.4 percent for the January-to-November period, further highlighting the challenges in stabilizing the sector. Fixed asset investment also fell short of expectations, growing by 3.3 percent year-to-date, down from 3.4 percent in October.

In November, China’s industrial value added (IVA) grew by 5.4 percent year-on-year (YoY), slightly accelerating from the 5.3 percent recorded in October. This modest improvement reflects continued recovery in key industries, supported by recent stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing the economy.

The manufacturing sector led the growth, expanding by 6.0 percent YoY, while the power, heat, gas, and water production and supply sector grew by 1.6 percent. The mining industry posted a 4.2 percent YoY increase. Notably, advanced industries outpaced overall growth, with equipment manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing rising by 7.6 percent and 7.8 percent YoY, respectively, underscoring the resilience of China’s innovation-driven sectors.

Key product categories showed robust output gains in November:

From January to November, IVA increased by 5.8 percent YoY, maintaining steady growth over the year despite headwinds from a slowing property market and external uncertainties.


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 ChinaHong KongVietnamSingapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support.

Read the rest of the original article.

Continue Reading

China

Ukraine war: 10% of Chinese people are willing to boycott Russian goods over invasion – new study

Published

on

Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, some Chinese citizens express dissent through potential boycotts of Russian goods, reflecting a complex relationship despite government support for Russia.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Chinese government has been criticised for its refusal to condemn the war. In 2024, the economic and diplomatic relationship between the two nations appears stronger than ever.

Because of strict censorship and repression imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is difficult to know the extent to which the general public shares their government’s support of Putin’s regime. But a newly published study I carried out with colleagues found that more than 10% of Chinese people surveyed were willing to boycott Russian goods over the war in Ukraine.

This is a surprisingly large figure, especially since existing surveys indicate that Chinese people hold a broadly positive view of their neighbour. We used a representative sample of 3,029 Chinese citizens for this research, to dig into public attitudes to Russia. The survey was done in 2022 after the Ukraine invasion.

We were aware that due to widespread censorship, our participants might not be willing to give honest answers to questions about Russia’s actions in Ukraine. They might also not feel safe to do that in a regime where disagreement with the CCP’s position is often met with harsh punishment. This is why we asked them to tell us if they would be willing to boycott Russian products currently sold in China.

We felt this question was a good indicator of how much the participants disapproved of Russian foreign policy in Ukraine. More importantly, we were also curious to find out whether Chinese citizens would be willing to take direct political action to punish Russia economically for its aggressive behaviour.

In our study, we split respondents into the three different ideological groups in China: “liberals”, who support the free market and oppose authoritarianism; “the new left”, who sympathise with the policies pursued in China under Mao Zedong; and “neo-authoritarians”, who believe the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is an extension of the rivalry between authoritarian China and the liberal United States. These groups were based on the main political beliefs in China.

We found that liberals were most likely to say they were willing to boycott Russian products. Liberals believe that China should work with, rather than against, western democracies. They also place a high value on human rights and democratic freedoms. Because of their beliefs, they are likely to think that Russia’s actions against Ukraine were unprovoked, aggressive and disproportional.

Chinese and Russian economic and diplomatic relations seem closer than ever in 2024.
American Photo Archive/Alamy

The new left and neo-authoritarians we surveyed were more supportive of Russian products. The new left see Russia as a close ally and believe that Nato’s expansion in eastern Europe was a form of aggression. Neo-authoritarians, on the other hand, believe that supporting Russia, an allied autocracy, is in China’s best interest.

Boycotting Russian goods

Asking Chinese participants if they are willing to boycott Russian products might seem like a simple matter of consumer preferences. However, our study reveals a great deal about the way in which regular citizens can express controversial political beliefs in a repressive authoritarian regime.

Boycotting products of certain companies has long been studied in the west as a form of unconventional political action that helps people express their beliefs. However, in the west, boycotting certain products is simply one of many ways people are able to take political action. In a country such as China, boycotting a Russian product might often be the only safe way to express disagreement with the country’s actions.

This is because citizens do not have to tell others they chose not to buy a product, and their actions are unlikely to attract the attention of the authorities.

Since Russian goods are readily available to Chinese consumers and China is encouraging more Russian exports to reach its market, the Russian economy could be significantly affected by an organised boycott campaign in China. The considerable level of support for a boycott expressed by some of our participants, as well as previous acts of solidarity with Ukraine in China, suggest that such a campaign could already be taking place in the country.

This could harm Russia because it regularly exports a number of different products such as meat, chocolate, tea and wine to China. These goods made up 5.1% of China’s total imports in 2023 – and this figure is likely to increase if Russia becomes more isolated from the west, and therefore more dependent on China for its trade.

While 5.1% of the Chinese market might seem like a low figure, China is home to over 1.4 billion people. In this context, even a small boycott could result in a serious loss to Russian companies.

Our research shows that Chinese citizens don’t always support the official position of the communist party. It also shows that many people there will express even the most unpopular political opinions – if they can find a safe way to do it.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

China

Australia Can Enhance China’s Credibility in the CPTPP

Published

on

In early 2024, China sought to join the CPTPP, potentially offering modest economic benefits to Australia. Key reforms include limiting state-owned enterprise subsidies, enhancing data flows, and banning forced labor.


China’s Interest in the CPTPP

In early 2024, China expressed a keen interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a trade agreement involving eleven Pacific Rim economies and the United Kingdom. This move is anticipated to yield modest economic benefits for Australia. However, it also opens the door for vital reforms in areas such as the control of subsidies for state-owned enterprises, allowing free cross-border data flows, and prohibiting forced labor practices.

Economic Implications for Australia

A May 2024 report from the Australian Productivity Commission indicated that China’s accession to the CPTPP might raise Australia’s GDP by only 0.01%. This modest gain isn’t surprising, given Australia’s existing preferential trade arrangement with China through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Nonetheless, the CPTPP encompasses more than just tariff reductions, focusing on broader trade principles and standards.

Reform Commitments Required from China

For China to become a CPTPP member, it must demonstrate adherence to high-standard rules initially developed with the country in mind. This commitment will help alleviate concerns among member nations like Japan and Canada, particularly regarding China’s economic practices and geopolitical tensions, such as those with Taiwan. Membership would necessitate reforms, including limiting SOE subsidies, enabling freer data flows, and banning forced labor, with significant penalties for non-compliance.

Source : Australia can encourage China’s credibility in the CPTPP

Source link

Continue Reading