Home » Archive

Post Archive for March 2010

China, Press, U.S. Policy »

Media: BusinessWeek (Cover Story).

Clip: “A coordinated message with these leaders changes the narrative,” says Daniel Michaeli, a Sino-American relations expert who runs the Asia Ruminations blog.

Link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_14/b4172038526024.htm

China, Publications »

Date: 24 March 2010.

Publication: BusinessWeek.

Author: Daniel Michaeli.

The best strategy for dealing with Beijing’s chilly new business climate is not to copy Google’s example

No matter how tense commercial relations between the U.S. and China become, American corporations cannot afford to mimic Google’s (GOOG) mistake and give up huge growth opportunities in the world’s largest market. That’s why business leaders need to adjust their strategies quickly to stem the damage.

First, they must cultivate untapped sources of support within China, beginning with independent executives who also chafe at Beijing’s market-unfriendly policies. Coordinating a message with these leaders would change the narrative, removing the perception that greater economic openness means giving in to foreign pressure.

Some are already willing to join U.S. companies in public support of better Chinese economic policies. On Mar. 24, for instance, Bloomberg reported that Chinese executives including Yang Yuanqing, CEO of Lenovo (LNVGY), have gone public with their support of the currency realignment U.S. exporters need to be more competitive in China.

Read More »

China, U.S. Policy »

How Not to End Chinese Currency Manipulation

The Chinese Renminbi, whose largest denomination remains 100 yuan ($14.64)

In the recent hoopla about sanctioning China for currency manipulation, there are a few factors that are being overlooked. These factors suggest that sanctioning Chinese exports won’t help the United States achieve the economic results one would hope to achieve.

To begin with, the goal should be reducing the trade deficit with China not for its own sake, but to produce more jobs in the United States. (After all, this is why China’s currency manipulation matters.)

So U.S. companies need to find more demand for products they produce, either here or elsewhere around the world. Yet if the U.S. slaps a 25% tariff on Chinese goods, it might as well give up on selling much at all to China’s 1.3 billion-person market.

Read More »

China »

When the Going Gets Tough…Google Leaves

There was never a chance that the Chinese government would cave to Google’s demand that it end censorship of search results, as I argued when Google first announced its threat to leave China in January:

Read More »

China, U.S. Policy »

I’ve heard many people over the past few weeks question whether we should continue engaging with China as we have–or, even more starkly, whether we should engage with China at all.

The argument goes something like this: Engagement was supposed to produce a different kind of China than we’re seeing today, one that shares U.S. interests. Because the Chinese government is behaving increasingly aggressively against the “status quo” and has been moving backwards on political and economic reforms, engagement has failed and we need another policy.

I understand the frustration underlying this kind of argument; I, too, am deeply troubled by recent trends in China. But we should question the assumptions and reasoning above. Here are a few reasons why:
Read More »

China »

Landless Peasants and Social Stability

Petitioners Line up in Beijing (Daniel Michaeli, 11/2008)

John Garnaut of the Sydney Morning Herald says rural land disputes could lead to “revolutionary turmoil” in China, citing Yu Jianrong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. This is a very sensitive issue in China. (Indeed, imagery relating to government land-grabs led Chinese officials to stop showing versions of the film Avatar.)

But after studying these very issues in China in 2007 and 2008, I would caution readers that truly revolutionary turmoil from land disputes per se is highly unlikely.

These land disputes occur in times of economic plenty, when companies are looking to expand their operations out of cities into surrounding villages. Landless peasants are not highly destabilizing when the economy is good and they can find jobs in cities.

I would flip around Garnaut’s point: in economic hard times, land disputes are likely to become much less common as corrupt local officials have much less to gain from them; but the products of earlier land grabs–landless peasants–could prove to be a destabilizing force.

Read More »