A curious commentary popped up in China Daily today. It is a translation of a piece that ran in a Chinese magazine, Caijing, by a veteran journalist, Huangfu Ping, entitled, "The Reform of China Must Not Waiver." One thing that makes it interesting is that it had already been picked up and translated by Roland over at ESWN. It looks like this is another case of China Daily publishing a blog post; it may even be Roland's translation.
The political implications of the piece are also interesting. Huangfu Ping is clearly suggesting that within the Beijing political elite there are "leftists" who believe that economic reform in China has brought fundamental problems that can only be solved by scaling back the extent and pace of reform. What that means exactly is unclear. I cannot imagine anyone arguing for a return to a Maoist past. But there are certainly those who would like to limit the reach of market forces and strength the regulatory role of the state in the economy. Huangfu Ping is arguing forcefully against this kind of retreat, invoking the old Deng Xiaoping line that the solution for problems born of reform is more reform, not less.
I am struck, however, at the limitations in Huangfu Ping's language and analysis. Essentially, he is calling for the embrace of certain elements of a classically liberal state. But is cannot bring himself to call it that. And that is a problem, for, as Confucius told us:
Naming enables the noble-minded to speak, and speech enables the noble-minded to act. Therefore, the noble-minded are anything but careless in speech. (13.3)
If he cannot name the liberalism he is calling for, then he will not be able to act upon it and, by his own analysis, maintain the momentum of reform.
Here are a couple examples of Huangfu Ping's classical Lockean liberalism:
Using the land market as an example, the local governments have virtually completely ignored the rights of the land owners to participate in the transactions and became the main body in the market transactions themselves. This made the local governments and land developers the biggest profit-reapers, and the rights and interests of the peasants and residents who own the land are often damaged. In recent years, there have been a large number of civil disputes over urban land clearances and rural land requisitions, and this reflects the contradictions when the local government monopolize the key market in land requisitioning and selling.
Of course, the real problem here is that the "peasants and residents" do not have clear and stable property rights. The land still belongs to the state; farmer's and residents sign long-term leases with local governments to use the land. If Ping is really true to this argument, then what he is calling for is the establishment of unambiguous and unalienable property rights for individual Chinese citizens. John Locke would agree. What is curious then - actually it is not really curious, just indicative of ideological limitations in the PRC - is how Huangfu Ping still invokes a notion of socialism to defend what he advocates:
The last 30 years of practical reforms has proven an unequivocal truth: only socialism can save China and only reform can save China!
Now, there might be ways in which private property can be squared with "socialism," but that moves us away from the conventional notion of "socialism" in China. And if making that move is the best way to save reform in China, then Huangfu Ping, and other reforms, should come right out and name it: liberal private property rights. Maybe they can't bring themselves to say "capitalism." But saying "socialism" simply obfuscates the logic of their analysis.
Here's another example of Huangfu Ping's unnamed liberalism:
The important thing is to first solve the monopolization and domination of the government in the key markets in order to clear the path for the reform of those key markets and push through the market reforms fully. In terms of job function, the government should turn from an interest group in the market to a body that serves the public, distributes the public resources and goods fairly, justly and openly to the public and creates a fair competitive market environment that is useful to all the main bodies in the market.
You know: the government should not intervene in markets for its own interest, but should remain a detached and neutral arbiter of the rules of the game. If you added something here about the state's role in the enforcement of contracts and maintenance of a legal system, we would have an argument right up Adam Smith's alley. This is a classically liberal view of the state.
The more I think about it, the more fascinating the article is. It is a strong argument in favor of fundamental liberalization of Chinese political economy that cannot invoke the name "liberal." If Confucius is right, until that name can be used, we should not expect concerted action in the direction Huangfu Ping would like.
Comments