Loch Ness Monster

November 13, 2010 by Post Team 

Loch Ness Monster, Given my experience in the 4 th World Science Forum on China held in Shanghai last weekend, it seems that this myth existential not clear in the short term, as the scholars are confused about the form, meaning and power of permanence of this mode called “model.”

Scholars speak at a seminar on the “Chinese model” sounded like he was talking about completely different issues. There is no clash of opinions occurred as expected.

It was then I realized that the currency of the term “China model” has gained may conceal our true understanding of it. Rarely have we seen that are summarized in less than 100 words simple, accessible.

The problem is due in part to the fact that the “China model” buzzwords like others who came before him, was imposed by the West to China to calm the giant awakens to complacency. And unfortunately we have not made any serious attempt to resist, but readily accepted as a hard-earned prestige.

While openly praising China’s development as a “miracle”, the West to be concerned about a growth model and alien than that eclipsed during the economic crisis.

China’s success story has prompted an outpouring of praise unlikely. For example, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote immediately after the debacle on Wall Street that “all Chinese are now.”

For “We are all Chinese now”, he meant that the Western economic model, or specifically the Washington Consensus – which includes such major items as the laissez-faire capitalism, the State intervention in the economy and massive privatization – were committed blunders, because the U.S. exercised little oversight over the excesses of Wall Street.

By contrast, the Chinese government’s active intervention in the economy is the key to its strength. As a result, Westerners have come around to the notion that a certain amount of government intervention is necessary.

Hence the remarkable fact that the discussion of the “Chinese model” gained momentum during the height of the crisis.

The term is not new, but dates back to the term “Beijing Consensus” was coined by Joshua Cooper Ramo to describe the path of development than China.

Branch could not have meant as a compliment to what he called the “Beijing Consensus,” which is anathema to everything the Washington Consensus is very interested.

“Although the” China model “may exist, there is no such thing as a” Beijing Consensus, “said Yu Sui, a researcher at the Institute of Contemporary China Studies at the China Study forum last week.

Yu said the Bouquet “Beijing Consensus” is as hyperbolic as the Washington Consensus, and that “all developing countries share something in common but each is essentially unique.”

After being stuck with the thankless label of “world factory”, used in China to offer more than cheap labor and products to the world.

For some, the rise of China as an intellectual phenomenon can be recognized only if it is able to export his theory of development. Finally, found one in the “China model.”

Mixed feelings

The hard part is that the “model” suggests something to be imitated and replicated. For China, however, his “model” generates mixed feelings.

Although the “China model” is indeed very studied in the developing world, which has aroused great controversy in the country, said Sikong Zhao, a researcher at the Academy of Social Sciences of Shanghai.

Zhao argument is plausible, since a series of suicide jumps plagued Foxconn plant in Shenzhen in April and May, while labor unrest began two Honda plants in China.

Report to Team

Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


Comments are closed.