Don't Believe the Shanghype

No question about it: Shanghai, proud home of the 2010 World Expo, is one of the world's coolest cities. But it turns out that the "Shanghai Model" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

BY CHRISTIAN CARYL | MAY 3, 2010

Over the next few weeks we're going to be hearing a lot about Shanghai. Expo 2010 -- this year's version of the venerable World's Fair -- has just opened in China's biggest city. Two years ago Beijing used the Olympics to showcase China's achievements to the world; now it's Shanghai's turn. So get ready to absorb an economy-sized dose of superlatives: The world's second-busiest port. The largest stock market on the mainland. Double-digit growth since 1992. The Paris of the East.

 

Let's wish the Shanghainese all the best as they gear up for their party. The Expo looks like it will be a lot of fun, and we certainly hope that's the case. But beware. Tradition teaches us that fairs also make great occasions for hucksters and con artists. So a word of friendly advice: Should you happen to hear people assuring you how Shanghai ought to serve as a "model" for China, or even the rest of the world -- put a hand on your wallet. Somebody might be trying to pull a fast one.

Foreign business people, in particular, love to gush about Shanghai. Look at Pudong, the city's financial district, where a forest of skyscrapers has sprouted in the course of a few years. Look at the state-of-the-art hotels, the fizzy night life. Look at the awe-inspiring infrastructure, from the city's immense container port to the maglev train that whips visitors into town from the airport at 268 miles (431 kilometers) per hour. So it's easy to understand why in 2004 the World Bank, which often praises Shanghai for its strong business spirit, chose the city for a conference designed to celebrate China's success at combating poverty. Earlier this year, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman invoked Shanghai, along with Hong Kong, as the embodiment of China's vibrant new business culture, "a highly entrepreneurial sector that has developed sophisticated techniques to generate and participate in diverse, high-value flows of business knowledge."

Don't Miss

2010: Shanghai Odyssey: Images of China's long-anticipated World Expo 

But what if Friedman and the World Bank are wrong? That's one of the conclusions that emerges from Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, a new book by Yasheng Huang, a China-born economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "I never bought into the idea that Shanghai was a laissez-faire capitalist city, like Hong Kong," said Huang in an interview. "That simply wasn't true. And a lot of Shanghainese know that. They know that it's not a free market environment."

In his book, Huang argues that China's economic reforms can be divided into separate eras. In the first, which extends from Deng Xiaoping's 1978 "opening and reform" to the early 1990s, the Communist Party emphasized rural development with relatively little interference from above -- and the result was an explosion of small- and medium-sized businesses that created an enormous surge in employment and grassroots wealth. Deng created his first "special economic zones" in places along the coast -- such as Shenzhen and Xiamen -- where there was relatively little established industry. So the new companies that sprang up there were almost entirely private. Foreign investors piled in, but mostly under conditions that didn't disadvantage local entrepreneurs. Everyone got rich together.

The second phase, which started in the early 1990s and has continued more or less until the present, reversed or slowed many of these earlier reforms. Now policy concentrated on big cities. Here, Huang argues, the government played a much more active role, pouring money into showcase infrastructure projects and favoring state-owned companies over private ones. What's more, regulatory regimes and tax structures tended to privilege foreign investors over domestic businesses -- a trend that reached its apogee in Shanghai. As Huang writes: "Shanghai represents the political triumph of the Latin American path, anchored on the prominence of statist interventions, huge urban biases, and distorted liberalization in favor of FDI [foreign direct investment] at the expense of indigenous entrepreneurship."

Feng Li/Getty Images

 

 Christian Caryl is a contributing editor to Foreign Policy. His column, "Reality Check," appears weekly on ForeignPolicy.com.

TING-SHIANG LEE

12:28 PM ET

May 4, 2010

Tide in China

China is engaged in, among other policies, the following two new directives :

(1) Privatization of state owned enterprises at a fastened pace; encountering some difficulties is expected.

(2) Foreign enterprises in China will be treated as domestic/national enterprises; whereby observing Chinese laws.

Along with a tough fist reining in bubbles; to prevent bubble and bust economy.

On the ideological front, China will probably not give an inch, that is, capitalism with Chinese characteristics, or, perhaps more appropriately, socialism with Chinese characteristics.

In the financial sector nowadays, not limited to China only, "free market is not truly free", and that says a lot for its down stream activities.

The west will have to weigh and make balancing act on the advantages and disadvantages by recognizing China as a market economy, thus, allowing Chinese currency, the RMB or Yuan, to be a candidate in the future SDR basket of currencies, among other considerations.

 

IKARA

4:38 PM ET

May 4, 2010

Tide in China(?)

Sometimes I really wonder if the Chinese reader leaving such comments are at least being paid by some obscure government body to leave such comment... that are - as mine, apologize about that - totally out of context.

I think your comment is totally out of scope and doesn't really reflect about anything from this article. You just - as it becomes too common on many news website - saw an article on China and obviously thought that it was aimed at criticising your country.
Read the article again, I definitely think that this is not what the article is about: The article just states that indeed Shanghai turns out to be less of a fertile ground for launching new business than previously thought. Then it compares it with other city/region in China and simply say that these regions are far more competent for nurturing new private companies!

And I really don't understand where you ever read something about the SDR basket in this article, or where China was compared to the rest of the world... or even where in this article anybody talked about the "Ideological Front"...

It would be really time for some (in insist on the "some"... don't want to make any generality) Chinese blogger to stop behaving as if they were constantly attacked. You complain that for 50 years the World has disregarded you and now that you are on the front stage you keep feeling attacked and stick to this besieged mindset... It is time for you to discover what the price of fame is.

 

FREETRADER

4:53 AM ET

May 8, 2010

While I don't want to...

mock someone for their poor command of the English language, I have to admit this posting does read like a propaganda puff piece from Xinhua News cycled through Google Translate.

Articles such as this one seem to attract two sorts of crazy reactions - frothing-at-the-mouth anger from the foolish "any intimation that China is not destined for greatness and perfection is simply jealousy or racism" (depending on how robust the Chinese are feeling that week); which are frequently the product of overseas Chinese, and the "what the hell are they talking about?" posts that seem to eminate from the bowels of some government office in Beijing somewhere where the censors review everything written about China in the West and some young, quasi-bilingual staffer is assigned to 'rebut' them. I'd love to listen in to the meetings with the editor as they pass out the assignments to counter the foreign propaganda.

 

SONGSHU

5:22 AM ET

May 5, 2010

This article cites so many

This article cites so many disparate (and recycled) complaints about China that I don't really understand the underlying thesis. China is inefficient? China is evil? It is catering to its own? It is shunning its own in favor of FDI?
As an entrepreneur attempting to navigate the murky waters of the Shanghai business culture deconstructed above, I can confirm that it is indeed precarious. To completely oversimplify, it is simply a different (no better, no worse) culture that everyone, foreigners and mainlanders, must acclimate to and accept when doing business here. And yes, it is organic, and it evolves. In consecutive sentences, the author references the govt favoring state-owned enterprises over private, then foreign business over domestic. I have never personally heard a story in which a foreigner benefits at the expense of a local. I would have to assume that the difference in capital being offered was so disparate that it was not even a contest. In which business culture does the party with disparately more money not win out in the entire world? I've also never heard anyone complain about the govt's growing commitment to "regulatory regimes". Though people surely gripe about the added difficulty they create, everyone accepts that they are ensuring a higher level of accountability and protection for businesses here. The bank issue is also confusing. The prior complaint about lending was that, in an effort to enfranchise people and mollify a massive work force, banks gave out loans indiscriminately, which led to a lot of defaults and some uh, questionable accounting. Also the geographical issues of companies lying outside Shanghai is somewhat disingenuously presented. Zhejiang province is adjacent to Shanghai, and many businesses prefer to operate out of it. It is akin to saying that New York is losing hedge funds left and right as they flee to Greenwich/Stamford. There are a dozen other little issues along these lines that seem odd considering the author of this article must certainly live in China and possess a thorough understanding of what are fairly basic issues to most expats.

 

MEKHONGKURT

12:49 AM ET

May 7, 2010

Zhejiang Province versus Shanghai proper

You make an excellent point regarding the locating of businesses in Shanghai-adjacent Zhejiang Province, and your example of New York City versus Greenwich and Stamford is especially enlightening for us U.S. readers.

Good riposte.

 

MAOZEWRONG

2:29 PM ET

May 5, 2010

shanghai expo

Also on show in Shanghai, the brand new Obama Club!
http://chinareallysucks.com/Site/New_Stuff/Entries/2010/5/5_Shanghai%E2%80%99s_sleazy_Obama_Club.html

 

MEKHONGKURT

1:11 AM ET

May 7, 2010

Thanks for the link!

Maozewrong -- I love your screen name, by the way -- I immediately went to the chinareallysucks.com website and LOVED it. I'm and American lived in Tianjin and Beijing 1985-88, Macau 1990-94, and Shunde (between Macau and Guangzhou) 1999-2000, and I occasionally visit from my base of years, Bangkok (And I married a Han-Manchu university English teacher in Beijing in late 1987; though we later divorced, that gave me even closer ties to China.)

I do have to wonder if your site is *really* run within China, since it's the kind of thing censors have nightmares about. ESPECIALLY considering the "Mao Ze Wrong" moniker.

Hope you folks don't get raided, shut down (and maybe worse . . . Qinghai salt marshes, anyone?).

 

MAOZEWRONG

8:05 AM ET

May 9, 2010

china really sucks

MEKHONGKURT:
Glad you like www.chinareallysucks.com Yes, it is "really" run within China; also produced, researched and edited right here from Beijing. It does make you wonder about the China censors, though!
As to the latest on Shanghai Expo - China not only ripped off a Japanese song for its Shanghai Expo theme, and reworked Gumby for its mascot, but the not so iconic China Pavilion is actually a copy of the Bratislava Radio Pyramid. Details at http://chinareallysucks.com/Site/New_Stuff/Entries/2010/5/8_Did_China_steal_its_Pavilion_design.html

 

FREETRADER

11:48 AM ET

May 6, 2010

Partly correct

There is a lot to agree with in this article which is a basic mishmash of the increasing CW that China is not all it has been advertised to be. All well and good. There is a basic truth to the trends cited; which were home grown entrepreneurialism graudally stifled by the People's State (i.e., by the cronies given monopolies and other valuable assets that in theory belong to the 'people').

But one passage cited is just laughable:

"What's more, regulatory regimes and tax structures tended to privilege foreign investors over domestic businesses -- a trend that reached its apogee in Shanghai."

I literally laughed out loud when I read that. If you are willing to invest cash in China, the goverment will let you be a junior party and transfer your assets and technology to the privilged crony they partner you with. But "tax structures"? That's rich. Every Chinese business (practically) gets a 10% incentive tax rate (that they rarely actually pay) while the foreign parters are hit with every possible stamp, duty, withholding, and capital gains tax you can imagine (and try taking your profits out of the country). The idea that FDI is incentivized (except to the extent of them allowing you to invest your money) is laughable.

But the actual facts themselves serve to underscore the basic premise of the article: that the Chinese are stifling entrepreneurship with their State industry.

 

MEKHONGKURT

1:36 AM ET

May 7, 2010

The "China Market" Myth

Though I'm not a businessman, I did live a number of years in China in three stretches 1985-2000, and lost count of how many Western businessfolks I met who had bought into the "foreign-favoring" state policies and the largely nonexistent, at least back then, "China Market."

Even with the largest population on Earth and a growing middle class, that market remains largely mythical, except, perhaps, along and near the coast in larger cities, and not always there, as this article shows.

What good are 1.3 billion consumers who have little or no money ("good" in a sales sense, I mean, not in terms of human worth)?

I *have* known foreign business people who did and continue to make money. How? -- by building very, very strong local ties, especially in government, and by learning how to "think Chinese." That latter is very difficult even just to explain, much less to learn. A person can have a raft of degrees in China studies, speak Mandarin or another major dialect as well or better than even an educated native, and have lived in China an appreciable amount of time, but *still* not get it, something I've seen time and again. Actually, truly succeeding at establishing strong local ties is largely dependent on "thinking Chinese," which is *not* to be confused with "going native," something foreign firms dread (and thus their rotation policies).

All of this may change for the better, from the perspective of foreigners, as China shifts its focus into a third stage: moving development not only westward -- inland, away from the east and southern coasts -- but ti secondary and tertiary cities. However, such cities pose their own special challenge, as anyone who follows Chinese news even casually will already know.

There's an ancient saying in Chinese that captures the essence of the challenge, once it's understood: "The mountains are high and the emperor is far, far away." What that means is that the further one is from Beijing, the looser the central control is. One might be tempted to think, "Good! The Old Men of Zhongnanhai won't interfere so much in local affairs!" Well, that's true. BUT there's a downside: local business people and (more importantly) local government and party authorities can present obstacles that make those from the center look trivial.

That's most evident, perhaps, in the area of bribes. The authorities are pretty ruthless with people caught accepting bribes (and ruthless about a lot of other crimes, as well, of course), merrily executing people for crimes we wouldn't dream of killing someone for in the West. A Bernie Madoff would be a distant, and late, memory by now in China (though his sins didn't involve bribery per se, as far as I know).

In short, I have often counseled and still believe such counsel to be valid that anyone seeking to invest in China should take ONLY as much money as he (or she) can afford to lose. As in lose every last penny.

One last point: China conceivably could be in for it's own major economic crises. One disturbing sign is the greatly overheated real estate market, both in the commercial and residential sectors. Sound familiar to Americans?

 

SHANGHAISURPRISE

7:07 AM ET

May 7, 2010

Already written.

While interesting, all this was covered in our local biz magazine here back in Jan 09. Wonder if anything's changed in a very long business year and a half???

http://www.sbr.net.cn/sbrarchives/SBR01-2009.pdf