From Cover, issue no. 347, Dec 24th 2007
Original article: [Chinese]
In her book published last year, A Year Without "Made in China", US-based business reporter Sara Bongiorni describes how she and her family search for non-China-made products. "After a year without China I can tell you this," she says, "you can still live without them, but it's getting trickier and costlier by the day. And a decade from now I may not be brave enough to try it again."
The boycott, as Bongiorni stresses in the book, "was no fault of China's", but rather was an experiment in alternative consumption in an era of globalized products, which, in her opinion, should benefit more countries than China alone. Despite such attempts to avoid subjectivity, even mentioning twice her Chinese background, the book still conveys a conflicting American mentality toward China and Chinese products.
This is not the first time Americans have shunned products from a country. The American market was once filled with Japan-made household appliances, autos, machine tools, cameras, printers and so on. What’s more, "made in Japan" equaled "good quality". Americans finally learned that they were not the best in the world at everything. In response to challenges from this island on the other side of Pacific, the US let its dollar fall.
And today history appears to have repeated.
It’s the "made in China" era. China-free living could be an option, but an unrealistic one. That said, differences remain between the two eras. When "made in Japan" flourished, Japan was developing comprehensively-- in education, research, national income, and consumption. When it comes to "made in China", cheap clothes, household appliances, toys etc. occur to most of us. While the whole world is discussing how Chinese manufacturers maintain low prices, the influence and competitiveness of China-made seem to have gone beyond even our own expectations.
Concepts like "China-made", "Chinese prices", and "Chinese capital" have, to some extent, given currency to the "China threat" theory. So is China a threat? First of all, China is still far from being powerful enough to be a threat. Secondly, China has the right to develop itself to be equally strong as other countries. But when massive foreign capital bets on China, when products surge out of the country, when both foreign trade and capital accounts balloon, and when proud high-welfare states lose to these low-welfare countries, our strength becomes an unreliable illusion.
Shortly after the Economic Observer published its first issue in 2001, China entered the World Trade Organization, and controversy flared over China’s future. Some said that, shackled by its own systems, China doomed to defeat by its competitors in the global market. Others said that global market competition would force China to adopt more generally-accepted values and international rules, which have also been the guiding principles for its opening-up policies.
Besides these possibilities, EO columnist Qin Hui sees a third one, which he says is the strongest. According to Qin, China’s participation in the world market has brought challenges to today's two dominant systems; the free market and the welfare state . "Made in China" is changing the global economic structure: all of the welfare states are being forced to lower their standards in welfare services, while free market economies are rebuilding trade barriers.
Absorbing the world’s capital, procuring materials from the world over, exporting products across the globe-- already closely linked to the global economy, the world's factory can hardly slacken its pace in the short run. Such a development pattern, in the mean time, is also changing the labor-capital relationship in many countries, and influencing world values in development and civilization. How will an opening and rising China influence the world? The question has come so soon that we don’t even know what to do.
Some will argue that as long as we are strong enough, we don’t have to make any promise. But history has taught us that in the not-so-distant past, the former Soviet Union fell apart thanks to its blind hunger for power accumulation and the neglect of civil rights and reasonable distribution of resources.
To some extent, a society’s lack of public welfare lowers trade cost and brings high productivity. If imperfect public welfare systems leads to greater absorption of global capital, is this the ultimate goal of our development? Is this all we want?
All rising countries experience growing pains. It’s the mission of statesmen as well as every responsible citizen to overcome them and assume social responsibility. This year we want to present this challenge to business people, who as beneficiaries of globalization, are intellectually invested in it. Under an open economy system, every enterprise is of significant value in the economic chain. The simply-business attitude may create profit today, but it will turn into costs in the future.
When it comes to social responsibilities and national spirit, many in the Chinese business community undertake deep commitments externally, but when it comes to fulfilling a contract, or managing their own operations, they disappoint. They should always bear in mind that activities in the market involve great social responsibilities, and that a more competitive enterprise means fulfillment of such responsibilities. A responsible enterpriser should not help out charities with money supposed to be distributed to shareholders, or haphazardly plant trees with bank loans, or spend company money on their own personal whims.
It’s understandable and reasonable for an enterprise to be profit-oriented. But it is more reasonable and desirable to put an end to commercial bribery, to provide employees better benefits and pay them salaries on time, to repay loans before they mature. Without this, it is meaningless to talk about social rights and liberty.
In our opinion, the pursuit of value should be the main engagement of a business person, but how to actually increase value remains a critical question. Reckless maximization of profits is dangerous and sure to force the public withdraw their support. While obtaining huge profits from public resources, enterprises should be responsible for addressing the negative externalities. When trade unions are not considered traps, when public interest is not an obstacle, only then are Chinese enterprises really carrying out their responsibilities.
With China's integration into the world system, as it becomes a more momentous force in restructuring the world economy, the fundamental values of human beings—democracy, law, liberty, human rights, fairness, humanity--should always be cherished. We should find a common attitude as how to maintain healthy, sustainable development, so that there will be better returns in the future. Only losers confine themselves to their own space; only the weak cling to old ways and let their persistence devolve into arrogance.
But a problem concerning every last citizen cannot be solved with the only efforts of a certain group. What shall we do as our country rises? How shall we use our strength from globalization? These are the questions for every Chinese.
Welcome to 2008.
