《国际政治经济学》文献资料（Overview of IPE）Globalization and the role of the state. Reflections on Chinese international and comparative political economy scholarship

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY does not mean that Chinese scholars have had no access to the literature re- lated to the general theories of globalization and the role of the state.Their access has been via translated works,such as Susan Strange's article,The Erosion of the State'(1997),and her book,The Retreat of the State (1996), and Martin Albrow's book,The Global Age (1996).Some foreign studies of the Chinese case also have been translated,such as Zheng Yongnian's book,Globalization and State Transformation in China(2004).The translated works have served as a window for Chinese scholars to observe how the relationship between globalization and the state is studied in the West. And yet,judging by how most of the literature examines the desirability and efficacy of China's response to globalization,there remains an inward focus in the scholarship,possibly driven by the imperatives to be relevant to on-going policy. Krenuef Second,the published articles and monographs we reviewed by and large follow a standard format.They begin with a description of global- S ization,go on to discuss the challenges China faces in a particular area, and end with policy recommendations.This mode of writing,called the 'challenge-response'mode(Wang,2006:364),has been a popular format in China's social science writing for the past 20 years.To put it bluntly,the work in this mode usually lacks sophistication and fails to be self-conscious about methodology and theory.Description is the general method,that is, first a description of the challenges of globalization and then a description of the policy recommendations (responses).This format lacks a theory component to link the 'challenge'to a 'response'.The result of the lack of uojoeif theory-building is lack of methodology,since there is no need to'prove'or 'test'anything.2 It is true that most PRC-based journal publishers limit ar- ticles to a range of 6,000-8,000 characters(or less),which seriously restricts rey ueyS] the space for theory development.But even monographs,in which space is not a constraint,follow this 'challenge-response'mode.Thus,this paucity in theory-building efforts cannot simply be explained by space constraints imposed by publishers.To be sure,there are a few exceptions.These in- clude the general theoretical discussion of globalization state issues in Yu papeojuMo Keping's edited book(2004b)on globalization and state sovereignty,which provides a good overview of the issue area.Xiong Wei's article(2008)on globalization and state autonomy provides a comprehensive review of related theories.However,the more general lack of theoretical debates and considerations stands out.Not only is there barely any native theory- building,but there is also a lack of innovation in using the existing theories imported from the West. Third,the literature on globalization and the Chinese state conceptual- izes globalization in a way very similar to what is discussed in the Western literature.Globalization is understood both as intensified economic,po- litical,social and cultural connections among specific countries,and as an expanding force to cover the globe.From the Chinese CPE side,the 1218

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY does not mean that Chinese scholars have had no access to the literature re￾lated to the general theories of globalization and the role of the state. Their access has been via translated works, such as Susan Strange’s article, ‘The Erosion of the State’ (1997), and her book, The Retreat of the State (1996), and Martin Albrow’s book, The Global Age (1996). Some foreign studies of the Chinese case also have been translated, such as Zheng Yongnian’s book, Globalization and State Transformation in China (2004). The translated works have served as a window for Chinese scholars to observe how the relationship between globalization and the state is studied in the West. And yet, judging by how most of the literature examines the desirability and efficacy of China’s response to globalization, there remains an inward focus in the scholarship, possibly driven by the imperatives to be relevant to on-going policy. Second, the published articles and monographs we reviewed by and large follow a standard format. They begin with a description of global￾ization, go on to discuss the challenges China faces in a particular area, and end with policy recommendations. This mode of writing, called the ‘challenge-response’ mode (Wang, 2006: 364), has been a popular format in China’s social science writing for the past 20 years. To put it bluntly, the work in this mode usually lacks sophistication and fails to be self-conscious about methodology and theory. Description is the general method, that is, first a description of the challenges of globalization and then a description of the policy recommendations (responses). This format lacks a theory component to link the ‘challenge’ to a ‘response’. The result of the lack of theory-building is lack of methodology, since there is no need to ‘prove’ or ‘test’ anything.2 It is true that most PRC-based journal publishers limit ar￾ticles to a range of 6,000–8,000 characters (or less), which seriously restricts the space for theory development. But even monographs, in which space is not a constraint, follow this ‘challenge-response’ mode. Thus, this paucity in theory-building efforts cannot simply be explained by space constraints imposed by publishers. To be sure, there are a few exceptions. These in￾clude the general theoretical discussion of globalization state issues in Yu Keping’s edited book (2004b) on globalization and state sovereignty, which provides a good overview of the issue area. Xiong Wei’s article (2008) on globalization and state autonomy provides a comprehensive review of related theories. However, the more general lack of theoretical debates and considerations stands out. Not only is there barely any native theory￾building, but there is also a lack of innovation in using the existing theories imported from the West. Third, the literature on globalization and the Chinese state conceptual￾izes globalization in a way very similar to what is discussed in the Western literature. Globalization is understood both as intensified economic, po￾litical, social and cultural connections among specific countries, and as an expanding force to cover the globe. From the Chinese CPE side, the 1218 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015

ZHU AND PEARSON:GLOBALIZATION definition of Li Jingzhi and Li Xinwei (1998:33)is typical:'since the mid- 1990s,the wave of globalization has been sweeping the whole globe,and its contents have expanded from the aspects of trade and finance to po- litical,cultural,legal and each aspect of social life.Similar to mainstream analysis in the West,most Chinese scholars regard economic integration as the main cause of globalization.Yu Keping(2004a:4),for example,notes that 'globalization is an integrated process of social and historical trans- formation,and its basic characteristic is a kind of inherent,inseparable and increasingly strong mutual connection across the globe,based on eco- nomic integration'.Indeed,the great majority of studies of the sources of globalization remain quite undifferentiated.While a few Chinese studies explain the source and rise of globalization along Marxist lines of capitalist development,arguing that the forces of capitalism require wealthy states Krenuef to push for an ever-enlarging world market(Li,2004:34;Liu,2000;Wang, 2000;Xu Lan,2007),one is hard pressed to find an author who pursues the line of the argument much further along the Marxist track.Instead of examining how transnational capitalist classes generated uneven capitalist development worldwide,most of the authors,including those working in the Marxist tradition,point to the Western states,in particular the US,and not the international capitalist class,as the main drivers and beneficiaries of globalization.Comments from Yu Zhengliang (2002:25)are illustrative of this realist-leaning analysis: The problem of today's globalization is that it is not a pure process, rather it is combined with American hegemony.American hege- uoloe!f leyueyS] mony does not simply infringe on the effectiveness of other coun- try's sovereignty in a general sense,but in particular that America fully enjoys the privileges brought on by globalization and Amer- ica's dominant position in the process of globalization,and therefore extends its hegemony effectively into the domain of other country's sovereignty.... Fourth,akin to the strong realist strands found in the dominant IR schol- papeojuMo arship in China(as pointed out in the contribution by Wang Yong and Lou Pauly in this special volume),almost all of the literature reviewed argues that the state still has an important role to play in managing both the chal- lenges and opportunities globalization presents to China (e.g.,Cai and Tang,2001;Yang,2001;He,2003;Fu,2004).Both challenges and oppor- tunities have resulted from the rapid integration of the Chinese economy into the world economy.In this process,the state is regarded as a key agent-indeed,perhaps the key agent-to help create wealth through inte- gration into world markets and to avoid problems caused by integration. Moreover,while some state functions may weaken and even be dropped, other demands arise.The state must undertake ever more complex tasks, for even as the role of non-state organizations may enter into the mix,some 1219

ZHU AND PEARSON: GLOBALIZATION definition of Li Jingzhi and Li Xinwei (1998: 33) is typical: ‘since the mid- 1990s, the wave of globalization has been sweeping the whole globe, and its contents have expanded from the aspects of trade and finance to po￾litical, cultural, legal and each aspect of social life’. Similar to mainstream analysis in the West, most Chinese scholars regard economic integration as the main cause of globalization. Yu Keping (2004a: 4), for example, notes that ‘globalization is an integrated process of social and historical trans￾formation, and its basic characteristic is a kind of inherent, inseparable and increasingly strong mutual connection across the globe, based on eco￾nomic integration’. Indeed, the great majority of studies of the sources of globalization remain quite undifferentiated. While a few Chinese studies explain the source and rise of globalization along Marxist lines of capitalist development, arguing that the forces of capitalism require wealthy states to push for an ever-enlarging world market (Li, 2004: 34; Liu, 2000; Wang, 2000; Xu Lan, 2007), one is hard pressed to find an author who pursues the line of the argument much further along the Marxist track. Instead of examining how transnational capitalist classes generated uneven capitalist development worldwide, most of the authors, including those working in the Marxist tradition, point to the Western states, in particular the US, and not the international capitalist class, as the main drivers and beneficiaries of globalization. Comments from Yu Zhengliang (2002: 25) are illustrative of this realist-leaning analysis: The problem of today’s globalization is that it is not a pure process, rather it is combined with American hegemony. American hege￾mony does not simply infringe on the effectiveness of other coun￾try’s sovereignty in a general sense, but in particular that America fully enjoys the privileges brought on by globalization and Amer￾ica’s dominant position in the process of globalization, and therefore extends its hegemony effectively into the domain of other country’s sovereignty . . . . Fourth, akin to the strong realist strands found in the dominant IR schol￾arship in China (as pointed out in the contribution by Wang Yong and Lou Pauly in this special volume), almost all of the literature reviewed argues that the state still has an important role to play in managing both the chal￾lenges and opportunities globalization presents to China (e.g., Cai and Tang, 2001; Yang, 2001; He, 2003; Fu, 2004). Both challenges and oppor￾tunities have resulted from the rapid integration of the Chinese economy into the world economy. In this process, the state is regarded as a key agent – indeed, perhaps the key agent – to help create wealth through inte￾gration into world markets and to avoid problems caused by integration. Moreover, while some state functions may weaken and even be dropped, other demands arise. The state must undertake ever more complex tasks, for even as the role of non-state organizations may enter into the mix, some 1219 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY of the new tasks can only be taken on effectively by the state.Along these lines,Wang Jinliang and Zhu Yuwei (2009:49)note that the state can no longer monopolize economic affairs,but the combination of transnational corporations and international organizations such as World Bank and In- ternational Monetary Fund also cannot fundamentally deny the governing power of the state in managing economic affairs'.Ironically,although the state is seen as key,the complexity of its evolving role in the economy and society is not well developed in the literature-a point to which we will return. Finally,most articles contain policy recommendations,in keeping with the 'challenge-response'mode of writing that stresses the description of the problems and policy recommendations to meet those problems.This feature arises from the aforementioned absence of theory in much of the Krenuef literature,and from the position of scholars in Chinese society(discussed further in the last section of the article).The policy recommendations are of- S ten excessively general or vague,difficult to operationalize,and even con- tradictory.The most frequently posed recommendations include:further integration into the world economy,creating a friendly market environ- ment for international and domestic business,keeping alert about financial flows in the world market,supporting strategic industries to strengthen [AIsIAlun China's ability to meet the challenges of globalization,building more inter- active government-business relations,and protecting China's sovereignty. These policy recommendations,despite some seeming inconsistency, are all consistent with the predominant post-Mao policy 'line'of the government. rey ueyS] THREE PROMINENT FOCI OF CHINESE SCHOLARSHIP ON GLOBALIZATION AND THE STATE Reflecting the common features discussed above,the Chinese literature on globalization and the state tends to coalesce around three main substantive papeojuMo issues:the challenge globalization presents to state sovereignty;threats to economic security under globalization;and the role of the state in economic development.That these have become the dominant focal points seems a natural result of IPE's roots in the field of IR,and the predominance of realism in IR studies,as well as of the attraction to neoclassical economics broadly writ. Globalization's challenge to state sovereignty It should not come as a surprise,given IPE's realist IR roots in China, that the issue that attracts the attention of most Chinese scholars who ad- dress globalization and the state is how a state maintains its sovereignty in 1220

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY of the new tasks can only be taken on effectively by the state. Along these lines, Wang Jinliang and Zhu Yuwei (2009: 49) note that ‘the state can no longer monopolize economic affairs, but the combination of transnational corporations and international organizations such as World Bank and In￾ternational Monetary Fund also cannot fundamentally deny the governing power of the state in managing economic affairs’. Ironically, although the state is seen as key, the complexity of its evolving role in the economy and society is not well developed in the literature – a point to which we will return. Finally, most articles contain policy recommendations, in keeping with the ‘challenge-response’ mode of writing that stresses the description of the problems and policy recommendations to meet those problems. This feature arises from the aforementioned absence of theory in much of the literature, and from the position of scholars in Chinese society (discussed further in the last section of the article). The policy recommendations are of￾ten excessively general or vague, difficult to operationalize, and even con￾tradictory. The most frequently posed recommendations include: further integration into the world economy, creating a friendly market environ￾ment for international and domestic business, keeping alert about financial flows in the world market, supporting strategic industries to strengthen China’s ability to meet the challenges of globalization, building more inter￾active government–business relations, and protecting China’s sovereignty. These policy recommendations, despite some seeming inconsistency, are all consistent with the predominant post-Mao policy ‘line’ of the government. THREE PROMINENT FOCI OF CHINESE SCHOLARSHIP ON GLOBALIZATION AND THE STATE Reflecting the common features discussed above, the Chinese literature on globalization and the state tends to coalesce around three main substantive issues: the challenge globalization presents to state sovereignty; threats to economic security under globalization; and the role of the state in economic development. That these have become the dominant focal points seems a natural result of IPE’s roots in the field of IR, and the predominance of realism in IR studies, as well as of the attraction to neoclassical economics broadly writ. Globalization’s challenge to state sovereignty It should not come as a surprise, given IPE’s realist IR roots in China, that the issue that attracts the attention of most Chinese scholars who ad￾dress globalization and the state is how a state maintains its sovereignty in 1220 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015

ZHU AND PEARSON:GLOBALIZATION the face of globalization.In the West,the question of globalization's chal- lenge to sovereignty has long been a central preoccupation,beginning with Vernon's(1971)classic argument that transnational corporations(TNCs)3 rival the authority of nation-states and force the latter to accommodate, given their mobility and control of capital and technology.In contrast,re- alist IPE scholars such as Gilpin(1976)and Krasner(1999:223)have argued against the idea of declining state sovereignty in the face of globalization, with Gilpin suggesting that TNCs are the tool of political and economic expansion for the hegemonic state and serve the interests of nation-states.5 Still other scholars argue that it is not an either/or situation;rather,the sovereignty issue has become more complicated with globalization(e.g., Agnew,2009;Smith and Naim,2000).6 In the PRC literature on the state and globalization,sovereignty is the Krenuef major focal point.It is also an area in which we can see some explicit dis- agreements among scholars,though these debates are more practical than theoretical in nature.While most scholars start from the position that glob- alization poses a challenge to China's sovereignty,a lively prescriptive LO SS:tO 1e [AISISAlun discussion has emerged around how to deal with the challenge.Schol- ars adopting a neoliberal perspective advocate a flexible approach to the sovereignty problem.As noted by other articles in this special issue,this prescription for flexibility went hand-in-hand with the PRC government's strong desire in the 1990s to join the World Trade Organization(WTO)and anticipated the potential challenge to Chinese autonomy that would result from this.Such scholars suggest a partial transfer of sovereignty,that is,a uoloe!f leyueyS] country accommodates certain demands of TNCs and/or international or- ganizations and submits to certain international conventions and treaties. These accommodations would have been considered an unacceptable com- promise of state sovereignty before the reform era.Jiang Qi and Xia Decai (2000:47)argue that partial transfer of China's economic sovereignty and of firms'management functions to TNCs is beneficial for attracting foreign investment and can speed up economic growth.Foreign writings arguing Aq papeojuMo for partial transfer of sovereignty to international conventions have also been translated(e.g.,Benda,2004).In a similar vein,while acknowledging the importance of nation-states,some scholars suggest that globalization has been bringing the world ever closer and it is inevitable for nation- states to partially transfer sovereignty,so China should also follow the trend (Wang,2000;Tang,2002;Zhang Jianying,2002). Most scholars who argue for a flexible approach to the sovereignty challenge argue that such flexibility will ultimately strengthen China eco- nomically and politically and defend its sovereignty,rather than weaken it.For example,Liu Jian and Cai Gaoqiang(2002:27)note that 'the aim of the state to partially transfer its sovereignty is to strengthen its national interests,which is more beneficial to the defense of the integrity of state sovereignty and national independence'.Similarly,Liu Zhiyun(2003:22) 1221

ZHU AND PEARSON: GLOBALIZATION the face of globalization. In the West, the question of globalization’s chal￾lenge to sovereignty has long been a central preoccupation, beginning with Vernon’s (1971) classic argument that transnational corporations (TNCs)3 rival the authority of nation-states and force the latter to accommodate, given their mobility and control of capital and technology.4 In contrast, re￾alist IPE scholars such as Gilpin (1976) and Krasner (1999: 223) have argued against the idea of declining state sovereignty in the face of globalization, with Gilpin suggesting that TNCs are the tool of political and economic expansion for the hegemonic state and serve the interests of nation-states.5 Still other scholars argue that it is not an either/or situation; rather, the sovereignty issue has become more complicated with globalization (e.g., Agnew, 2009; Smith and Na´ım, 2000).6 In the PRC literature on the state and globalization, sovereignty is the major focal point. It is also an area in which we can see some explicit dis￾agreements among scholars, though these debates are more practical than theoretical in nature. While most scholars start from the position that glob￾alization poses a challenge to China’s sovereignty, a lively prescriptive discussion has emerged around how to deal with the challenge. Schol￾ars adopting a neoliberal perspective advocate a flexible approach to the sovereignty problem. As noted by other articles in this special issue, this prescription for flexibility went hand-in-hand with the PRC government’s strong desire in the 1990s to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and anticipated the potential challenge to Chinese autonomy that would result from this. Such scholars suggest a partial transfer of sovereignty, that is, a country accommodates certain demands of TNCs and/or international or￾ganizations and submits to certain international conventions and treaties. These accommodations would have been considered an unacceptable com￾promise of state sovereignty before the reform era. Jiang Qi and Xia Decai (2000: 47) argue that partial transfer of China’s economic sovereignty and of firms’ management functions to TNCs is beneficial for attracting foreign investment and can speed up economic growth. Foreign writings arguing for partial transfer of sovereignty to international conventions have also been translated (e.g., Benda, 2004). In a similar vein, while acknowledging the importance of nation-states, some scholars suggest that globalization has been bringing the world ever closer and it is inevitable for nation￾states to partially transfer sovereignty, so China should also follow the trend (Wang, 2000; Tang, 2002; Zhang Jianying, 2002). Most scholars who argue for a flexible approach to the sovereignty challenge argue that such flexibility will ultimately strengthen China eco￾nomically and politically and defend its sovereignty, rather than weaken it. For example, Liu Jian and Cai Gaoqiang (2002: 27) note that ‘the aim of the state to partially transfer its sovereignty is to strengthen its national interests, which is more beneficial to the defense of the integrity of state sovereignty and national independence’. Similarly, Liu Zhiyun (2003: 22) 1221 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY argues that partial transfer of sovereignty against the background of glob- alization can better keep the core and integrity of state sovereignty.The keys,as Wang Jincun(2000:55-6)suggests,are two.First,partial transfer of sovereignty should be voluntary and aligned with a country's national interests.Second,partial transfer of sovereignty should be considered in terms of time span.Sometimes,in order to gain more in the long term,a country has to bear some costs in the short term. Recent studies have built on this idea of 'flexible'sovereignty and even questioned the core concept of national interests.Liu Kai(2010)argues that in the context of globalization,intensified economic interdependence among countries has transformed the notion of national interests from a closed and security-oriented one to a more open and non-material one,and this has provided a more flexible understanding of sovereignty Krenuef and more permissive environment for its partial transfer.?Liu(2006)has discussed partial submission of government's political function to in- S ternational agreements,rather than partial transfer of state sovereignty. China's entry to the WTO is an often used example to support this flexible approach. Other scholars argue in a more traditional realist fashion that,al- though China should participate in globalization,sovereignty is neither flexible nor negotiable and the Chinese state must continue to defend its sovereignty directly.Such scholars insist on the holistic integrity of sovereignty and argue that sovereignty may be constrained but cannot be partially divided or transferred(Wang and Wang,2002;Chen,2003;Lu, uojoeif 2003).The argument over sovereignty and the role of the state has gener- ated a debate in one of the leading academic journals in China,the Chinese Journal of European Studies(Ouzhou Yanjiu)(Dai,2003;Wu and Zhang,2003). rey ueyS] Some scholars contend that although globalization is a challenge to nation-states,it has actually pushed nation-states to pay even more atten- tion to defending their sovereignty,and they note that globalization itself is generated and promoted by powerful states for their own national inter- ests(Chen,2000;Che,2002).Indeed,with few exceptions,the majority of papeojuMo Chinese works on globalization and state sovereignty point to major West- ern powers-and not globalization per se-as the real challengers to state sovereignty in the developing world,including China's sovereignty(Yang 1999;Xu,2000;Liu,2000,2001;Liu,2002;Xu Xiaoming,2007).They argue that the idea of diminishing state sovereignty in the context of globaliza- tion has been promoted by the major powers of the West,and that the aim of these countries is to gain more political and economic control over the developing countries.In particular,in discussing the historical evolution of sovereignty in the West,Li Qiang(2001)argues that the idea of equal- ity among nations expressed by the notion of sovereignty means equality among Western nations,and has never included outside countries.Even for those scholars who favour a flexible approach to the sovereignty issue, 1222

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY argues that partial transfer of sovereignty against the background of glob￾alization can better keep the core and integrity of state sovereignty. The keys, as Wang Jincun (2000: 55–6) suggests, are two. First, partial transfer of sovereignty should be voluntary and aligned with a country’s national interests. Second, partial transfer of sovereignty should be considered in terms of time span. Sometimes, in order to gain more in the long term, a country has to bear some costs in the short term. Recent studies have built on this idea of ‘flexible’ sovereignty and even questioned the core concept of national interests. Liu Kai (2010) argues that in the context of globalization, intensified economic interdependence among countries has transformed the notion of national interests from a closed and security-oriented one to a more open and non-material one, and this has provided a more flexible understanding of sovereignty and more permissive environment for its partial transfer.7 Liu (2006) has discussed partial submission of government’s political function to in￾ternational agreements, rather than partial transfer of state sovereignty. China’s entry to the WTO is an often used example to support this flexible approach. Other scholars argue in a more traditional realist fashion that, al￾though China should participate in globalization, sovereignty is neither flexible nor negotiable and the Chinese state must continue to defend its sovereignty directly. Such scholars insist on the holistic integrity of sovereignty and argue that sovereignty may be constrained but cannot be partially divided or transferred (Wang and Wang, 2002; Chen, 2003; Lu, 2003). The argument over sovereignty and the role of the state has gener￾ated a debate in one of the leading academic journals in China, the Chinese Journal of European Studies(Ouzhou Yanjiu) (Dai, 2003;Wu and Zhang, 2003). Some scholars contend that although globalization is a challenge to nation-states, it has actually pushed nation-states to pay even more atten￾tion to defending their sovereignty, and they note that globalization itself is generated and promoted by powerful states for their own national inter￾ests (Chen, 2000; Che, 2002). Indeed, with few exceptions, the majority of Chinese works on globalization and state sovereignty point to major West￾ern powers – and not globalization per se – as the real challengers to state sovereignty in the developing world, including China’s sovereignty (Yang, 1999; Xu, 2000; Liu, 2000, 2001; Liu, 2002; Xu Xiaoming, 2007). They argue that the idea of diminishing state sovereignty in the context of globaliza￾tion has been promoted by the major powers of the West, and that the aim of these countries is to gain more political and economic control over the developing countries. In particular, in discussing the historical evolution of sovereignty in the West, Li Qiang (2001) argues that the idea of equal￾ity among nations expressed by the notion of sovereignty means equality among Western nations, and has never included outside countries. Even for those scholars who favour a flexible approach to the sovereignty issue, 1222 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 04:55 07 January 2015