Read this Wall Street Journal article, China’s Long March to the Moon, and see if you can connect the dots when you hear Dr. Andrew Morris’ presentation this Friday. After he speaks to you, then come back here and let’s hear about some of your takeaways.

By the way, Dr. Morris was also kind enough to pass along the following invite:

Two films will be featured in a Taiwan Film Exhibit at Cal Poly 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007, in Room 220 in the University Union.

The featured films are “Chocolate Rap” (2006), a film about break dancing and love among twenty-something urban residents of Taipei, and “The Last Rice Farmer” (2005), a documentary about rice farming in Southern Taiwan within the sometimes-harsh realities of the globalized economy. Both films will be screened in Chinese/Taiwanese with English subtitles.

Refreshments will be served between the two films, at noon.

The Cal Poly History Department, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles, and Council for Cultural Affairs, Taiwan, are sponsoring the film exhibit. For more information, contact Andrew Morris, associate professor of history, at 756-2815.

Submitted By: Woon Lam (Justine) Wong

Here is an interesting article front page article from the Wall Street Journal titled, “News Magnate Baits Beijing By Pairing Politics and Sex “.

The media is sometimes regarded as the Fourth Estate, which indirectly influences public opinion and the three branches of a democratic government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.

But in China, no such system exists. There is no separation of powers within the central government, and the media is a tool for propaganda. Yet, in Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, freedom of press is highly advocated, and some publications even dare to challenge the Chinese government. The existence of free voices in Hong Kong creates tension for the Chinese government. The article I read talks about some interesting facts regarding this tension.

Jimmy Lai owned a company called Next Media Ltd., which publications (including daily newspaper and magazines) often bring up sensitive issues using shocking images. In 2003, Apple Daily successfully stoked anti-government rallies in Hong Kong, as people are unhappy with the leadership in the government. I was in Hong Kong at that time, and although I did not participate in the protest, I wore a black shirt to express my resentment. Many participated in the Hong Kong protest, which, unknown to me, was started by a newspaper.

The Chinese government obviously do not like the freedom of speech in Hong Kong. Some journalists feel the pressure and practice “self-censorship”, in order to gain favor with the Chinese government and advertisers. In contrast, some publications continue to utilize the freedom of press, even to the extreme, like what Apple Daily did. During our China trip, it would be interesting to compare a newspaper from mainland China with one from Hong Kong. You should be able to tell the difference merely by the images.

Personally, I do not like Apple Daily as it is very sensational and outrageous, but I also believe that journalists should not avoid criticizing the government when it is appropriate. How should the media strike a balance between abusing and practicing the press’ freedoms? In a time when the internet dominates the media, would it be possible for the media to serve as a Fourth Estate in China one day? Do you think the journalists from other countries will encounter problems when reporting news in China (during Olympics)?

I have been in Beijing the last few days for a conference and business. Those that have traveled to Beijing know that it is known for a number of good and bad things — one of the very bad being its ungodly heavy smog.

Two of the last four days here have been unbearable in this regard. The other two … not bad.

Last night we saw a heavy, heavy rain. I awoke this morning to the first complete blue sky I have ever seen in Beijing. I look out my hotel room, can see far across the city, and can even see the mountains looming to the north. I don’t want to take my eyes off it because I know that tomorrow it will likely be gone and we will again be enveloped in the usual smog.

But for now, not bad. Not bad at all.  Now this is Beijing the Chinese need to show the world.

Great article in Time this week by Lisa Takeuchi Cullen titled, The New Expatriates: Dazzling Growth and a Baffling Workplace Culture Greet U.S. Managers in China and India.

The article is well written and self explanatory. And can you give me one good reason why this could not be you?

I have nothing substantive to add to this Cullen article other than:

1. Check out some of my related previous blog posts on this very subject, and some of the semi-heated debate therein (particularly the first one):

Living and Working Abroad — Why Not?

Critical Success Qualities for Expat Mangers in China: And the Oscar Goes To ….

Do This Online Assignment!

2. I have followed some of Ms. Cullen’s work over the years. Here and there she seems to pick some unique topics to write about. See, e.g., her previous pieces on:

Japanese women who fetishize black US servicemen in Okinawa

Asia’s plastic surgery phenomenon

Japan’s pop-star machinery

Asia. How can you help but not love this place?

Later this week I will be in Beijing for the CIBE Ethics Conference. Schedule and Internet access permitting, I will try to make a post or two from the conference. While in town I will also meet with some firms for possible company visits in June. More to follow on this upon my return to SLO.

While in Beijing have also put together a reception for friends of Christine Lu and The China Business Network, friends of Lonnie Hodge and David DeGeest and The China Dreamblogue Project, and friends of the Cal Poly Orfaela College of Business. These individuals will also be in town for the CIBE conference.

If you are a friend of one of these groups (or wish to become one!), and if you will be in Beijing on Friday, October 26, I hope you will join us.

Event: Meet and Greet with Friends of China Business Network, China Dreamblogue and Cal Poly Orfalea College of Business

Date: Friday, October 26
Time: 9:30 pm to 11:00 pm
Location: Grand Hyatt Beijing — Fountain Lounge (hotel is located at 1 East Chang An Avenue)

Click HERE for the Grand Hyatt web site (which has a map and directions on it; and no, I am not staying at this plush hotel - I can assure you my hotel and budget is much more humble and low key!).

This is meant to be a low key get together and event. Just drop by and come hang out, meet some wonderful people, and have a good time. We are looking forward to seeing old friends and meeting new ones at the Fountain Lounge in the Beijing Grand Hyatt on Friday, October 26, at 9:30 pm.

Submitted By: Dena Malloy

Take a look at this Wall Street Journal article and this New York Times article.

Recently in the news, there has been a firestorm of recalls of Chinese made goods. One of the companies that was forced to make a recall was Mattel. The company has recalled approximately 18 million toys in total. About 3 million of these toys were recalled due to lead paint. Lead paint is certainly not good for the health of a child, but no harm has actually been proven to have occurred. The other toys contain small magnets that pose a hazard to children that swallow more than one of them. When the child swallows the magnets at longer intervals (20min – 1 hr), the magnets can attach to each other inside the child’s intestine and become stuck, perforating the intestine. One child died in 2005 and several have required surgery to remove the magnets. Almost all of these toys were made China, but the magnet problem is a design flaw.

Was Mattel trying to throw China under the bus? The design issue with the magnets is not new. Why recall now along with the toys containing lead paint? Did they finally have a way of making someone else seem responsible? Did they get busted and have to apologize or are they strategically apologizing just to keep on the good side of their biggest supplier? Are they now going to be sued because they have admitted to a design flaw causing harm?

I personally think that Mattel was hoping consumers would blame the magnet problem on China and I think that overall it has worked. I’m sure many of you knew that Mattel recalled a large amount of Chinese made toys, but I bet fewer numbers knew that the majority of the recall was due to a design flaw. The later apology was probably planned the whole time knowing that the recall would make headlines, but the apology would barely be noticed. The Chinese government has a right to be upset. Mattel’s profit are made by producing their toys in China.

Am I too cynical? Do you agree or disagree?

Submitted By: Brandi Eng-Rohrbach

I just read an interesting article in The Economist titled, “Missing the Barefoot Doctors”.

This article was interesting to me because it highlighted the fact that China is also facing a health care crisis like the rest of the world.

In the United States currently “47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005.” (Source: National Coalition on Health Care) .  It appears that currently neither the free-market system employed by the United States nor the universal government programs employed by the likes of countries like Canada are working.  The free market system moves health care out of the reach for many and the universal system is plagued by inefficiency and long wait times.

In this article, it appears that China has developed a novel approach. This is a system of public insurance, whereby health care is not free but paid for but insurance is sold through the government. This system would seem to be a way of creating a synergy of the two dominant systems. It encourages efficiency like the free market system by creating a system of deductibles and co-pays. This encourages people to use the system only when the necessary and this reduces unnecessary visits. This keeps waiting time and costs down. The Chinese system also features the advantages of a universal health care system. It maximizes consumer surplus because the government sells to consumers at cost. It also takes advantage of economies of scale. These two things drive down cost and make it available for more. I think this is an interesting solution to the health care crisis.

I do realize that the article, in fact, highlights why such a system is not working in rural China. First of all, the insurance is too expensive. It is the equivalent of 11 days pay. Second, the co-pays are too high. People in rural areas are forced to pay 40% of such treatments. This is equivalent to four months’ income. These prices make the insurance too cost-prohibitive to be used and do not allow the government to take advantage of the economies of scale that could be realized. Still if such a system was tweaked it could provide a novel approach to a global problem.

In addition, I think another issue highlighted in the article is quite disturbing. This is the fact that China follows the “One Country, Two Systems” policy not just in an economic sense, but also a social sense. The health care system directly discriminates against people based on their birth location. It does not allow people born in rural areas to have access to the urban health care systems even if they relocate to a city. This is a direct discrimination against people from rural areas. This is disappointing to see as much of China’s continued growth relies on the migration of people from the rural to urban areas.

I just finished reading Randall Peerenboom’s China Modernizes: Threat to the West or Model for the Rest?

Great book. I learned a lot. Not an easy read, and you will really need to focus as you read this book, but it’s worth the time and investment. This is one of the many books I have listed in your syllabus, some pro-China and others anti-China, that you can choose from to read and write one of your book reviews about China.

Randall Peerenboom is UCLA law professor. He is also the Director of China programs for the Oxford Foundation of Law, Justice and Society. With respect to his academic training he has a PhD in Philosophy (University of Hawaii), an MA in Religious Studies (University of Hawaii) and a JD from Columbia Law School. He is also a consultant to the Ford Foundation and the Asian Development Bank on legal reforms and the rule of law in China.

Rather than reinvent the wheel and write my own review of his book, the best thing I can do is to refer you to a guest appearance and book review by Australian Mark Anthony Jones over at Dan Harris’ China Law Blog. You can read Mark’s review of Peerenboom’s book by clicking HERE. Be sure to read the comments at Dan’s post and the fireworks it generated.

For me, the following quote on page173 of Peerenboom’s book nicely captures what this book tries to address:

[The US State Department] reports for China invariably start with a description of the nature of the political regime, as if that were the most significant determinant for rights in the country. [For example,] the 2004 report on China begins: ‘The People’s Republic of China … is an authoritarian state in which … the Chinese Communist Party … is the paramount source of power.’

Imagine if it began instead: ‘Human rights and other indicators of well-being across the board are highly correlated with wealth. China outperforms the average country in its lower-middle income category on every major indicator except civil and political rights (as is generally true for other East Asian countries).

The China Is Bad (CIB) camp will hate this book because it has data that they want to run from — see, e.g., the discussion thread on the China Law Blog post noted above. I expect a few cyberstalker CIB’s that circle waiting for their chance to go negative will jump in and comment here, and with the usual rant to save the rest of us from the mainland Chinese. Fine. Have at it. But said CIB’s, in advance please pause to consider the intellectual and logical possibility that when one gives a positive book review on a ‘pro-China’ book that does not mean said person has joined the Communist party or is a person who has fallen for China’s charm; it may be that it’s just a damn good book that cuts new ground, and if the CIB’s actually take the friggin’ time to read the book they will see that where appropriate and relevant, Peerenboom take’s China to task.

In summary, if you want to understand China and East Asia and their development at a deeper level, this book is a must read. This book will also help what you learn in your MBA economics classes, particularly your spring macroeconomics course, better come to life.

I came across this NY Times article and video on Grand Central Station in NYC.

Does this article and video apply to the train stations of China in Beijing and Shanghai (you will likely experience one of them)?

Well, in my view, maybe the part about feeling ‘vigorous’ and ‘hypnotic’ from a people watching standpoint.

But any ‘ballet’ comparison? In China?

Uh, I don’t think so.  My experience has been that it’s often a free-for-all with massive numbers of bodies trying to get out of the train station with their life and luggage intact, including me.

Many of you met David DeGeest on our last trip to China. Wonderful person. He is now teaching English at Zhongkai University in Guangzhou.  He was a good friend to Cal Poly by setting up some firm and university visits for us in Guangzhou and Macau.

A movement has started to try to help David become one of the few expats who will carry the Olympic torch in China.

Please take 10 seconds, click here, and vote for David. You know he will represent himself and the world well.

Run, David ….. Run!!!!