http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG18Ad03.html
Jul 18, 2009 Think-tanks with Chinese characteristics By Erdong Chen WASHINGTON - At the beginning of July, the four-month-old China Center for International Economic Exchanges (CCIEE) kicked off its official debut by hosting a three-day Global Think-Tank Summit in Beijing. Being praised as a "super think-tank" by Chinese media, the CCIEE has established a team containing both high-profile retired leaders and nationally pre-eminent scholars and experts. While the concept of think-tanks has prevailed in the West for decades, the development of China-based think-tanks is fairly limited in terms of both scale and influence. In recent years, decision-makers inside the Zhongnanhai Compound in Beijing have become increasingly aware that China's impressive performances in economic development during the latest three decades do not necessarily lead to a rise in terms of discourse power. The CCIEE, therefore, was created to expand China's influence in the global market of ideas. Behind the curtain: Is the CCIEE truly independent? Though firmly declaring and highlighting itself as "independent", the CCIEE still carries many features that could hardly distinct itself from the authority. First of all, it is under the supervision of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which ranks number two among central government departments following the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Such a background naturally generates a great amount of suspicion over whether the CCIEE will be able to operate truly independently. Furthermore, the CCIEE is headed by Zeng Peiyan, the former vice premier of the People's Republic of China. This appointment is not likely to become a signal of the Beijing-brand "revolving door" mechanism. Instead, it is more like a deliberate consideration to promote the authoritative weight of the CCIEE. In fact, the key element to expand a certain think-tank's influence is more based on the independence of its research, the qualification and insights of its scholars, the effectiveness of its operations, and its capability of training the next-generation policymakers, rather than how grandiose its members' past or current titles are. Geopolitical hallmarks Indeed, many Chinese think-tanks have very evident geopolitical hallmarks. Those based in Beijing are likely to access the most abundant policy resources and usually conduct researches in a more conservative way. As the national capital, Beijing is of course home to most foreign-policy related think-tanks, including the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), the China International Strategic Association, the China Foreign Affairs University, and others. Most of those think-tanks in Beijing work for the government and are within the governmental framework. Particularly, the Central Party School, which is responsible for both formulating innovative ideas and training senior Communist Party and government cadres for further promotions, is usually believed one of the most confidential think-tanks in China. Fairly speaking, Beijing is the center of Chinese think-tanks in terms of both quantity and quality, at least according to the current standards. The National Think-Tank Forum held in 2006 announced a list of the top 10 think-tanks in China. Nine of them are based in Beijing. However, those Shanghai-based groups are trying to expand their influence as well. The Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS), which is the only one on the list not based in Beijing, was ranked as the top 10 non-US-focus think-tanks by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) in 2007. Due to the more dynamic nature of Shanghai, think-tanks in this metropolis are comparatively more liberal and open-minded. Though they are not independent either and receive most of their funding from governmental agencies, Shanghai think-tanks are less dependent on the government and have been able to maintain a close partnership with business sectors. Having shipped quite a few local leaders into the central level, Shanghai should by no means play a less critical role in advancing the development of think-tanks in China. In fact, they are on the right track to extend their influence beyond the Yangtze River Delta to a broader coverage. Think-tanks in Shanghai also carry a responsibility of cooperating and competing with those in Beijing for a more prosperous and dynamic development of China's think-tank industry. It will be a great asset for China's intellectual space if the relationship between the two branches could become the China-brand inter-think-tank culture, similar as that between Washington-based think-tanks and those based in New York. Geopolitical elements of Chinese think-tanks are actually more remarkable in the city of Xiamen. Located in the Fujian province in southeastern China and frequently mistaken as the provincial capital, Xiamen is at the front line of conducting academic researches and formulating policy initiatives regarding cross-strait issues. As the most proximate university in mainland-China to Taiwan in real geographic measures, Xiamen University's Taiwan Research Institute is indeed a pioneer university-based think-tank to provide in-depth analyses for policymakers in Beijing. Lack of public characteristics Compared to those possessing inherent geopolitical advantages, most university-based think-tanks have limited accesses to the policymaking arena though their researches may go quite liberal and profound. As long as their researches are limited in ivory towers and do not go public, university-based think-tanks are able to enjoy a high degree of academic freedom. For example, the Hopkins-Nanjing Center was established as early as 1986 under the agreement between the then presidents of both the John Hopkins University and the Nanjing University. Throughout 20 years' development, the center's DC office has become one of the most pre-eminent institutions that train American China hands. However, the Nanjing office is still by no means well-known in China. Many students and teachers at the Nanjing University only know the existence of such a research center but they are unaware of what the center's background is and what it is actually doing. The Nanjing Center is not alone, most Chinese think-tanks wear confidential covers and lack essential communications with the public. In fact, few of them are able or even willing to host discussion panels for the public on a regular basis though they are usually supposed to carry the responsibility of educating citizens, explaining and elaborating policies. If policy-related researches are forever quarantined from the public, it is very likely that unaware citizens are going to hold an increasingly skeptical view of both public policies and those who formulated these policies. The crux of this problem is that think-tanks in China have little incentives to go public because they have the government as their permanent customer and funding-provider so that they could see few rewards from opening their floors. Though few official think-tanks have effective communications with the public, some business consulting firms do keep an eye on the public policy sector and provide some non-commercial-related reports. For instance, the Beijing-based Horizon Research Consultancy Group conducts public-opinion polling and policy analysis in addition to marketing researches. Victor Yuan, chairman of the Horizon Group, was educated at Harvard's Kennedy School for his MPA studies and then became the vanguard in China's public policy consultancy realm. On the other hand, the much more liberal cyberspace has significantly facilitated the process of exchanging information and ideas. Many online communities, therefore, are actually playing a role of civil think-tanks in sharing and debating public policies. As long as certain taboos are strictly eschewed, Chinese netizens are allowed to discuss a wide variety of issues and even criticize local governments. What is more, liberal media groups, particularly those in southern China, have also contributed to the boom of collective wisdom in China's civil society. All of these trends may serve as a catalyst in demanding more public characteristics of domestic think-tanks. Puzzles of the future Thousands of years ago, Chinese intellectuals were already essential figures in assisting their emperors in multiple ways, including providing policy suggestions as well as educating the general public. Though many believe that modern think-tanks were born in the US, China does have a long-standing partnership between intellectuals and policymakers that could be dated back to ancient dynasties. Due to little amount of independence granted, think-tanks in today's China are more like governmental agencies rather than bridges between the government and academia. Though decision-makers have already realized how important think-tanks could become in assisting the production of high-quality policies, they are still afraid of the risk of letting intellectuals go too far. The future development of China's think-tanks remains a question mark. After all, the basic political structure and one-party ruling system makes it hard for the authority to tolerate completely independent think-tanks. However, those that exist could actually exert more profound influence in a wider coverage of issues. Among those steps to be adopted, the first should concentrate at adding more public elements to domestic think-tanks. For less politically sensitive issues, scholars should feel free to share their insights with the public for the purpose of promoting the overall understanding and civilization of the whole society. The status of Chinese intellectuals is often not as respected as it should be, particularly under such a period when the overall atmosphere favors those who succeed in creating material wealth. The lure of not getting involved in social sciences and chasing more lucrative career options is always distracting for the younger generation in China. Therefore, the "revolving door" mechanism carries a more significant purpose in adding the practical implications for think-tanks in China. After all, almost every scholar diligently conducting academic researches in the public policy realm does possess the wish to turn their theoretical knowledge into practices. The new leadership in China has already shown the signal of a weighted emphasis on social sciences when top leadership positions, as well as provincial and local posts, are gradually occupied by those trained in economics, law and political science. The era of technocrats is inevitably on the fall, indicated by fewer engineers in the party's standing committee. The ambiguity in status and the ambition in mind keep Chinese think-tanks both confidential and promising. At least the rising awareness of the importance of think-tanks has opened a door for the further prosperity of Chinese think-tanks though they still have a quite arduous expedition to go. At this moment, it is still too early to tell how far this nation's intellectuals could push their country forward before a more full-fledged and well-rounded think-tank mechanism is established. Erdong Chen is a student and freelancer based at the American University, Washington DC. (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
