How "Liberal" can "Neoliberalism" be in Contemporary China?

A Roundtable Discussion with Professors Li Qiang, Wang Shaoguang and Zhang Weiying.

12 January 2009, 3-5 pm at St. Hughs College, University of Oxford.

 

Summary

The convener of the discussion, Dr. Patricia Thornton, of Merton College, invited the three speakers to consider the question of what Liberalism and Neoliberalism mean in the Chinese context.

Professor Li Qiang began the discussion. According to Li Qiang, Neoliberalism is a term created by the left in the 1990s to discredit economic liberal policies and market reforms in China. Many Chinese scholars are hesitant to consider themselves Neoliberals. Liberalism is a far broader concept than Neoliberalism. Since 1978 until the 1990s consensus existed among Chinese intellectuals regarding a new enlightenment of Liberalism. This consensus began to breakdown in the 1990s following three main challenges to Liberalism: the New Left, which criticised liberal economic policies and certain philosophical tenants of Liberalism; Conservative elements in China; and a strong revival of Confucianism in China at grassroots, popular culture, and academic levels. In essence, for Professor Li, Neoliberalism has an economic agenda and was developed in opposition to China's reforms of the 1980s. Liberalism is a much broader term that refers to a dominant set of ideas and discourse concerning the direction of China and its reforms.

 

Professor Wang Shaoguang spoke next on Liberalism in the context of international discourse. For Professor Wang, the debate in China is small, representing a 'tempest in a teacup'. Terms like Neoliberalism and the New Left are difficult to define and apply. They are subject to revision in meaning and considered bad terms. Professor Wang provided an historical overview of Liberalism from the 19th Century, highlighting the second decade of the 20th Century as a golden period for Liberalism. However, in China, Woodrow Wilson's famous 14 points were met with academic disappointment. A division soon emerged in China between Communists, Rightists and Social Democrats. In the Republican era, all academic camps in China embraced at least some elements of Socialism, and rejected Capitalism. For 30 years, China experienced almost no Liberalism. This changed in the 1980s, and Liberalism fully re-emerged in China in the 1990s. Professor Wang identifies two main camps of Liberalism in China: an economic and political camp. The political Liberals are concerned with growing social and economic disparities in China. Overall, for Professor Wang, Liberalism in China cannot be clearly categorised thus it is better to speak about specific issues like land user rights.

 

The last discussant, Professor Zhang Weiying, spoke as an economist on Liberalism in China. For Professor Zhang, Liberalism in China is not an academic concept; it means anything the government is against. Labelling someone as a Liberal has become an important political instrument. Neoliberalism was imported by the New Left to highlight how economic reform had failed in China. Professor Zhang confesses to not knowing whether he considers himself a Neoliberal, but outlines three tenants of Neoliberalism: an emphasis on private property rights over state authority; a free market; and private entrepreneurship. Professor Zhang ends his discussion looking at efficiency and equality, issues of great concern for Neoliberals and the New Left. According to Professor Zhang, the market can do better than the government in improving efficiency and equality in China. If the government spends and intervenes less, then competition will increase, driving profit.

 

A discussion between the speakers followed on the importance of and decline in trust within China. Professor Wang pointed to surveys that suggest a serious decline in trust in China; while Professor Zhang added that China has historically enjoyed a high level of trust but that state ownership has eroded this trust. For Professor Li, equality is the key issue, and how people benefit from the market economy. Often money destined for the poor does not reach the intended targets. Professor Li expressed doubt the Chinese government could achieve equality. Whatever the solution, Professor Li cautioned that one needs to think practically about how to implement policies to improve equality, like universal healthcare. One must not assume, as the New Left do, that the government will act impartially in the implementation of policies. Professor Wang then referred to regional disparities, noting that they have been narrowing since 2003. Professor Zhang ended the discussion by calling for less state intervention in the economy.

 

Q&A Session

 

Ten questions and comments were posed to the discussants. The first question was asked by Professor Vivienne Shue on whether a social debate existed in China on liberal ideas and issues like land use, the labour law and economic regulation. Professor Zhang responded that New Left scholars and the public are united in their opposition to reform. The debate takes place on the internet, but the New Left, though political, is not academic. For Professor Li, the debate has significant ramifications for society and government in China. The New Left appeal particularly to the poor, young and powerless. For Professor Wang, it is less a debate and more a one-sided war. The New Left is not against all reform as such but their views are only expressed via the internet, where terms like the New Left and Liberalism are blurred.

 

The second question was posed by a graduate student, concerning the role of the internet in bringing about a more participatory and egalitarian society in China; and the efficiency of China's e-government, for example in terms of online petitions from peasants in rural China. Professors Zhang and Wang concluded that the internet is important. The central government use the internet to monitor and control local officials. For Professor Wang, one needs to focus not only on censorship issues but also the change that the internet has brought about in China. Professor Li argued that the government should control the internet in terms of its content; and that overall the government is happy to let the internet damage society but not its authority.

 

The third question, posed by Professor Christine Wong, referred to the impact of the global economic situation on the future of Chinese liberal thinking. Professor Zhang explained that the government should do more but also let the private sector have a role in the provision of education. Professor Wong commented that perhaps the disagreement here revolves around the nature of government intervention, on the kind of government it ought to be, to which Professor Zhang agreed. Professor Li pointed to a relevant debate on the nature of government manifest in its transformation over time from totalitarianism to a half-state form.

 

The fourth and fifth question were taken together: whether there was any evidence that the private field is better suited to provide social services than the government; and whether the debate on Liberalism in China can be applied to the environmental sphere. Professor Wang responded that the government is increasingly investing in pollution control measures. In relation to accountability, Professor Wang argued that the government are already quite responsive to social issues like healthcare but that the government does not encourage private sector charity. Professor Zhang noted that companies need to become more environmentally friendly (using new technology). There are also too many restrictions imposed by the government on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and charities. Professor Li considered the government responsive to public opinion but also noted the need for major political reforms in the future.

 

An additional question was posed by Professor Wong regarding a free press and Professor Karl Garth commented on whether economic liberation would lead to more trust in China. The last set of questions focused on public dividends, the Beijing Consensus, a question by Professor Garton Ash on whether a debate on terms should be pursued in China, and question by Dr. Rachel Murphy on expectations related to the 30 year rule on land reform in China, to which Professor Wang responded that villagers want to have rights but also a more flexible arrangement. In response to the comments made by Professor Ash that Liberalism is difficult to label, Professor Wang said it would be better to stop the debate on terms and talk about issues instead.