Two dominant forms of capitalism are most evidenced in national market regimes — with the notable exception of China: Anglo-American capitalism and Social Market capitalism. In Anglo-American capitalism, markets are open with State effort aimed at the deregulation of markets with economic interactions competitive and adversarial. In Social Market capitalism, markets are open but economic transactions are collaborative and relational underpinned by government regulatory frameworks. The Chinese model differs in that it is pegged on a neo-mercantilist model, a semi-closed market with a managed central economy which subtly controls capital movement and centralises currency decisions. In addition to regulatory frameworks the State participates in the private market place through corporate State-owned enterprises.
In its engagement with neo-liberalism and free market orthodoxy, China has consistently rejected some of the West’s significantly problematic assumptions. In particular the view of trade and markets as strictly a one-sided economic benefit tool and unfettered markets. This Article seeks to grapple with the question of whether the rejection of “cowboy capitalism” particularly as epitomised by China through its “Circular Economy” model and its policy of a “moderately prosperous” level of living (“xiaokang society”)—seeks to balance wealth creation and wealth distribution through principled government regulation and investment in social infrastructure that negates the social void created by pure good and service generation sanctified by “market fundamentalism”?
|Keywords:||China, Anglo-American Capitalism, Social Market Capitalism, Neo-mercantilism, Circular Economy, Neo-liberalism, Washington Consensus, Market Fundamentalism, Regulation|
Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK
There are currently no reviews of this product.Write a Review