Fudan University – University of Sydney Forum
THE CHINA MODEL
Dimensions and impact
On 29 March, 2011, the China Studies Centre will host a one day workshop with visitors from Fudan University, Shanghai.
China’s socio-economic development over the last three decades has presented a challenge to many aspects of developmental politics, as well as to the shae and determination of various worlds of knowledge. This workshop will deal with both the dimensions and impact of socio-economic development, and the impact of a changing China for academic understanding of knowledge.
The format for each of five sessions is that a member of staff from Fudan University will make a presentation. Initial comments will then be provided by a member of staff from the University of Sydney, before there is open discussion.
The workshop is limited to twenty people.
If you would like to participate, please let Nisha Brooks (nisha.brooks@sydney.edu.au) in the China Studies Centre know as soon as possible. Acceptances will come on a first come, first served principle.
The program for the one-day workshop follows.
Living Wisdom and China Model
Presenter: Zhenglai Deng, Dean of Fudan-IAS, Distinguished Professor of Fudan University, and Director of the Contemporary China Research Center
Discussant: John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of Sydney
This talk will offer a cross-disciplinary perspective on the study of China model. I will define and explain the concept of “living wisdom,” and construct a “development model of living wisdom” based on China’s developmental experiences. I propose to conceptualize the “living wisdom” as an ideal type, which is universally present in all human societies, but culturally and historically variant—exhibiting variation and change, and thus it offers us an ideal conceptual model for explaining the China model or any other models in the world.
China Model in the post-Financial Crisis
Presenter: Sujian Guo, Associate Dean of Fudan-IAS and Distinguished Professor of Fudan University
Discussant: John Mikler, Government and International Relations
In the midst of the latest financial crisis, many analysts both inside and outside China were quick to pronounce the decline of free markets or market capitalism and the triumph of the Chinese model, and many people called for the revival of economic statism in China. This talk attempts to define the “Chinese model,” identify its strength and problems, and call for further market-oriented economic reforms that focus on efficiency, productivity, equity, and balanced development (areas of interest: political science/political economy)
Reflections on the Particularity and Universality of China Model
Presenter: Gu Su, Distinguished Professor and Research Fellow of Fudan-IAS
Discussant: David S G Goodman, Professor of Chinese Politics
My talk is about the interpretative issue of the China model—whether or not the Chinese path of development is unique or distinct. This is a heatedly debated question in the ongoing discourse on the particularity and universality of the China model. I will identify several dimensions of the particularity, such as state control over the finance, state domination in the economy, and one-party dominant rule, while in the meantime discuss those dimensions of the universality, such as free market economy, private property, social and economic pluralism, and good governance capacity, etc. I will contextualize these universal factors in comparison with the East Asian Model of Japan and the "Asian Four Little Dragons," and predict possible trends for China's future developments. (Areas of interest: political philosophy and political economy)
Hegel’s Two Faces: Some Reflections on the 'China Model' discourse
Presenter: Guan-jun Wu, Research Fellow of Fudan-IAS
Discussant: James Reilly, Government and International Relations
This talk will primarily focus on the recent intellectual discourse on the "China Model" in mainland China. By discussing several dimensions (cultural, socio-economical, as well as politico-military) embedded in this highly "nationalistic" current, I try to give a critical account of post-Maoist Chinese intellectuality "trapped" (and constantly “oscillated”) between what I call “Hegel's two faces” - teleological “face” of Universal History (the "face" shared by orthodox Marxist doctrine that is still powerfully present in today's official discourse, "modernization project" initiated in the 1980s, the "globalization (of liberal democracy)" discourse blossomed since the mid 1990s) and particularistic “face” of historically unique “characteristics” (the demand for “recognition” of China's culturo-civilizational uniqueness, socio-historical distinctiveness, as well as its specific economic, geographic, climactic, demographic conditions, etc.) The rise of the "China Model" discourse in recent years seems to demonstrate an “eventual” prevalence of the second “face”. But don’t forget, it always has the structural possibility to bianlian (face anamorphosis): is not some advocates of the “China model”, with the inflated confidence, starting to argue that this model is the “correct way” to chaoyue (go beyond) ideological disputes, the “most successful way” to achieve social control and elimination of socio-economic crises, i.e., a way to ultimate Social Harmony? (Area of interest: political philosophy)
China Model: A Theory of Transformative Justice
Presenter: Xi Lin, Research Fellow of Fudan-IAS
Discussant: Duncan Ivison, Professor of Political Philosophy
My discussion of the China Model focuses on the legal field, where I will argue that Chinese legal traditions and experiences provide us with a conception of justice that is essentially different from either the Rawlsian, contractarian version of justice or its Walzerian, communitarian counterpart. I call this Chinese legal model a ‘transformative justice’ that emphasises repairing interpersonal relationships. Fundamentally, the model is based upon two propositions: (1) when law encounters or engenders difficulty during its legislation, application or interpretation, certain non-positive legal, universal rules will have to be introduced in order to make flexible the rigidity of written law; (2) the solution is a transformative application of legal rules, rather than adherence to a literal reading of legal texts. This transformative justice helps to explain how courts in particular and the Chinese society at large have in practice successfully circumvented the rigidity of imported legal positivism. (Area of interest: law/philosophy)