China
Farms to fame: How China’s rural influencers are redefining country life
In Yunnan, influencer Dianxi Xiaoge redefines rural China’s image, showcasing pastoral life, bridging cultural gaps between urbanites and rural communities, and sparking interest through nostalgic content and government support.
In the quiet backwaters of Yunnan, Dong Meihua – though her followers know her by the public alias Dianxi Xiaoge – has done something remarkable: She’s taken the pastoral simplicity of rural China and made it irresistible to millions. In her hands, a village kitchen becomes a stage, and the rhythms of farm life become a story as compelling as any novel. She is one of many rural influencers returning to their roots.
In a digital revolution turning established narratives on their head, China’s countryside is emerging as an unlikely epicenter of viral content. Xiaoge is one of thousands of influencers redefining through social media how the countryside is perceived.
Upending preconceptions of rural China as a hinterland of poverty and stagnation, this new breed of social media mavens is serving up a feast of bucolic bliss to millions of urbanites. It is a narrative shift encouraged by authorities; the Chinese government has given its blessing to influencers promoting picturesque rural images. Doing so helps downplay urban-rural chasms and stoke national pride. It also fits nicely with Beijing’s rural revitalization strategy.
Hardship to revival
To fully appreciate any phenomenon, it’s necessary to first consider the historical context. For decades, China’s countryside was synonymous with hardship and backwardness. The Great Leap Forward of the late 1950s and early 1960s – Communist China’s revered founder Mao Zedong’s disastrous attempt to industrialize a largely agrarian country – devastated rural communities and led to widespread famine that saw tens of millions die.
The subsequent Cultural Revolution, in which Mao strengthened his grip on power through a broad purge of the nation’s intelligentsia, further disrupted customary rural life as educated youth were sent to the countryside for “reeducation.” These traumatic events inflicted deep scars on the rural psyche and economy.
Meanwhile, the “hukou” system, which since the late 1950s has tied social benefits to a person’s birthplace and divided citizens into “agricultural ” and “nonagricultural” residency status, has created a stark divide between urban and rural citizens.
The reform era of Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, beginning in 1978, brought new challenges. As China’s cities boomed, the countryside lagged behind.
Millions of rural Chinese have migrated to cities for better opportunities, abandoning aging populations and hollowed-out communities. In 1980, 19% of China’s population lived in urban areas. By 2023, that figure had risen to 66%.
Government policies have since developed extensively toward rural areas. The abolition of agricultural taxes in 2006 heralded a major milestone, demonstrating a renewed commitment to rural prosperity. Most recently, President Xi Jinping’s “rural revitalization” has put countryside development at the forefront of national policy. The launch of the Internet Plus Agriculture initiative and investment in rural e-commerce platforms such as Taobao Villages allow isolated farming communities to connect to urban markets.
Notwithstanding these efforts, China’s urban-rural income gap remains substantial, with the average annual per capita disposable income of rural households standing at 21,691 yuan (about US$3,100), approximately 40% of the amount for urban households.
Enter the ‘new farmer’
Digital-savvy farmers and countryside dwellers have used nostalgia and authenticity to win over Chinese social media. Stars such as Li Ziqi and Dianxi Xiaoge have racked up huge numbers of followers as they paint rural China as both an idyllic escape and a thriving cultural hub.
The Chinese term for this social media phenomenon is “new farmer.” This encapsulates the rise of rural celebrities who use platforms such as Douyin and Weibo to document and commercialize their way of life. Take Sister Yu: With over 23 million followers, she showcases the rustic charm of northeast China as she pickles vegetables and cooks hearty meals. Or Peng Chuanming: a farmer in Fujian whose videos on crafting traditional teas and restoring his home have captivated millions.
Since 2016, these platforms have turned rural life into digital gold. What began as simple documentation has evolved into a phenomenon commanding enormous audiences, fueled not just by nostalgia but also economic necessity. China’s post-COVID-19 economic downturn, marked by soaring youth unemployment and diminishing urban opportunities, has driven some to seek livelihoods in the countryside.
In China’s megacities, where the air is thick with pollution and opportunity, there’s clearly a hunger for something real – something that doesn’t come shrink-wrapped or with a QR code. And rural influencers serve slices of a life many thought lost to China’s breakneck development.
Compared with their urban counterparts, rural influencers carve out a unique niche in China’s vast social media landscape. Although fashion bloggers, gaming streamers and lifestyle gurus dominate platforms such as Weibo and Douyin, the Chinese TikTok, rural content creators tap into a different cultural romanticism and a yearning for connection to nature. In addition, their content capitalizes on the rising popularity of short video platforms such as Kuaishou and Pinduoduo, augmenting their reach across a wide demographic, from nostalgic retirees to eco-conscious millennials.
But this is not simply digital escapism for the masses. Tourism is booming in once-forgotten villages. Traditional crafts are finding new markets. In 2020 alone, Taobao Villages reported a staggering 1.2 trillion yuan (around $169.36 billion) in sales.
The Chinese government, never one to miss a PR opportunity, has spotted potential. Rural revitalization is now the buzzword among government officials. It’s a win-win: Villagers net economic opportunities, and the state polishes its reputation as a champion of traditional values. Government officials have leveraged platforms such as X to showcase China’s rural revitalization efforts to international audiences.
Authenticity or illusion?
As with all algorithms, there’s a catch to the new farmer movement. The more popular rural influencers become, the more pressure they face to perform “authenticity.” Or put another way: The more real it looks, the less real it might actually be.
It raises another question: Who truly benefits? Are we witnessing rural empowerment or a commodification of rural life for urban consumption? With corporate sponsors and government initiatives piling in, the line between genuine representation and curated fantasy blurs.
Local governments, recognizing the economic potential, have begun offering subsidies to rural content creators, causing skepticism about whether this content is truly grassroots or part of a bigger, state-led campaign to sanitize the countryside’s image.
Yet, for all the conceivable pitfalls, the new farmer trend is an opportunity to challenge the urban-centric narrative that has dominated China’s development story for decades and rethink whether progress always means high-rises and highways, or if there’s value in preserving ways of life that have sustained communities for centuries.
More importantly, it’s narrowing the cultural disconnect that has long separated China’s rural and urban populations. In a country where your hukou can determine your destiny, these viral videos foster understanding in ways that no government program ever could.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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.
- Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
- Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
- China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
- HSBC Chairman to Head Key UK Business Delegation to China
- China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges
- Ukraine war: 10% of Chinese people are willing to boycott Russian goods over invasion – new study
