E-Magazine
Richard Hazenberg, Tambudzai Mangezi and Fred Seddon
The growth of China as a major economic power since 1990 has been both rapid and remarkable. In addition to having the world’s largest domestic market, China is also the world’s largest importer of minerals, and a major investor in the developed and the developing world. Computer companies in the USA, golf club manufacturers in Japan, and farms in Zimbabwe are all owned by Chinese companies. Meanwhile, under the radar, China has been investing heavily in Africa. From 2000 through 2005, China-Africa trade almost quadrupled, growing at an annual rate of at least 30 percent a year. Trade between Africa and China reportedly reached US$50 billion for 2006, with expectations of doubling that by the end of the decade. China is now Africa's second largest trading partner, behind the United States. Politically China is the new super-power, now challenging the hegemony that the USA enjoyed following the end of the Cold War. China is the power that is able to make, or break, agreements on climate change, nuclear proliferation, and North Korea.
The growing importance of China to the UK has lead to a number of government initiatives promoting ‘partnership’ with China. The second Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI2) encourages UK universities to bid for funds to establish and develop strong working relationships with Chinese Universities for the promotion of enhancing employability and entrepreneurship. To date, there have been three PMI2 bidding rounds and over 30 universities have received funding for joint projects. A GEM report places China in the top ten of all countries in terms of necessity of entrepreneurship, which is defined as those engaged in entrepreneurship because they have no other employment opportunities.
We will argue in this article that partnerships between UK and Chinese universities that are intended to promote entrepreneurship and employability are, if not a waste of money, certainly sub-optimal ways of spending tax payers’ money. We further suggest that the results of these projects are most unlikely to be effective UK – Chinese university partnerships. We realise our views may not be shared by every reader (and it is worth pointing out that we work for a university that has two PMI2 projects with Chinese universities!) but we are concerned that there seems to be an unchallenged consensus that joint Sino-UK entrepreneur and enterprise development programmes are, like motherhood and apple pie, ‘a good thing. We would like to challenge this consensus and open debate on the topic. We look forward to responses.
So, why do we feel able to challenge the cosy consensus? We will consider evidence relating to political, social, economic and cultural factors. In the political and social arena, issues surrounding personal freedom remain a concern and an obstacle. China has been accused of tightening controls on freedom of speech. It has been reported in the UK media that Beijing is considering measures to force all China’s 400m internet users to register their real names before making comments on the country's myriad chat-rooms and discussion forums. Because of these potential constraints on freedom of speech, Google has found it impossible to continue to operate in mainland China. In addition to this, alleged widespread plagiarism by Chinese scholars has resulted in at least one leading academic journal refusing to consider their submissions. As one of the aims of PMI2 is cultural exchange, it remains to be seen how effective any such exchange can be when limits are placed on what Chinese scholars can say or share with their western counterparts and when the originality of such exchanges are in question. These restrictions also run contrary to several other stated aims of PMI2 such as ‘...enhancing the quality of learning…’ and ‘…developing globally aware citizens…’.
It also questionable how keen China is for cultural exchange to be a genuinely two-way process. Beijing’s insistence on not allowing the population full access to western media and cultural products remains a problem. This is epitomised by China’s refusal to allow its internet users unrestricted access to websites such as Facebook, Youtube, Google and Twitter. In relation to successfully achieving the aims of PMI2, we are left with one main question to be asked. Is China serious about promoting genuine bi-cultural exchanges, or does it see such projects as merely a way of promoting Chinese culture whilst simultaneously restricting outside influences at home?
Aside from the academic related issues raised above, consider the wisdom of the West’s economic overreliance on China. In China, as elsewhere, the government responded to the events of autumn 2008 with a huge monetary and fiscal stimulus package. There, as in the UK, the housing market was a particular target of that package. However, in China property prices were not in freefall; they had merely paused briefly after booming in 2007. The China Index Academy reported a 54 per cent rise in prices in Beijing between January and October 2009. The government has admitted that inflation in house prices is now a serious problem. In early March, Yin Zhongqin, deputy chairman of the financial and economic affairs committee of the National People’s Congress, spoke of an ‘indisputable bubble’ in the property market. At some point, as always happens with bubbles, it will go pop. The crash may already have begun: the Beijing News recently quoted a survey by local property agencies saying that the average price of new apartments had fallen by 15.5 per cent per square foot in February 2010. If China was to suffer serious economic problems, the potential for it to continue to send the estimated 60,000 students to the UK annually, as it currently does, would be in question. China is a significant exporter of under and post-graduate students to the Western world. Universities in Australia, the USA, Canada, Europe and the UK all work hard to market themselves to young Chinese men and women as the place to study. It has been hypothesised that if all Chinese students left the UK tomorrow, the university sector would be bankrupt! Such factors make it important that UK universities don’t rely too heavily on such funding streams if they are to avoid becoming too vulnerable to Chinese economic problems.
Should these world-shaping factors influence partnerships between British and Chinese universities? We argue that economic, social, and cultural factors are all integrated to produce an environment for Higher Education that makes effective and genuine partnership problematic. We are not arguing that the UK is perfect. The use of anti-terrorism laws to stifle debate and limit freedom of action gives us nothing to be proud of or complacent about. However, we do argue that the social, economic, and academic differences that exist between the UK and China mean that even low-level, small-scale partnerships intended to promote entrepreneurship and employability could be sub-optimal if these differences and problems are not acknowledged and, where necessary, challenged. Yes, we are all global citizens now, but surely this means that we should consider wider global academic collaboration in place of ineffective bilateral partnerships?
Click here for Counter argument and debate
Richard Hazenberg, Tambudzai Mangezi and Dr Fred Seddon, University of Northampton