The Dynamics of Internationalization for the China in the Context of New Gramscianism

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 4 (Çin Özel Sayısı), 83 - 112, 21.08.2020

Ferdi Güçyetmez

Öz

The former Soviet Union lost the tug-of-war against the capitalist western hegemon United States of America as it got dissolved in 1991. The international system shifted dramatically from bipolarity to unipolarity for the benefit of the Pax Americana, and history was assumed to be ended in favor of it as clearly as indicated by Fukuyama in a brief account. In International Relations literature, it could be observed that there are many scholars like offensive neorealist John Mearsheimer who produced seminal studies drawing our attention on the pros and cons of rising power, China. Our main argument is to make elaborations on what Cox theoretically put forward, upon which our assumption is that China wants to achieve what the former Soviet Union failed by using different, but not surprising, methodology: Not the war of movement based on the complete material power by disregarding other configurations of power as the former Soviet Union insisted on during the Cold War between 1945 up until its break down, but the war of position to achieve counter-hegemony against the West is the strategy of China. For penetrating the idea, read Communist ideology, into the Western sphere of influence in the Third World, and on the globe in general, China put in motion the strategy of passive revolution via eco-soft power that is to be defined as an outward investment for attraction and persuasion through the material capacity to obtain consent (legitimacy).

Anahtar Kelimeler

China, New Gramsci, Internationalization

Destekleyen Kurum

İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi

Kaynakça

• Kaynakça
• Alcok McWilliams and David Siegel, Corporate social responsibility: a theory of firm perspective, Acad. Manage. Rev., 26 (1) (2001), pp. 117-127
• Alfredo Saad-Filho and Alison J. Ayers, “Production, Class, and Power in the Neoliberal Transition: A Critique of Coxian Eclecticism,” in Ayers (ed.), Gramsci, Political Economy and International Relations Theory, (2015), p. 121.
• Alvin Y. So, “Beyond the Logic of Capital and the Polarization Model: The State, Market Reforms and the Plurality of Class Conflict in China,” Critical Asian Studies 37: 3 (2005), pp. 481–494.
• Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), pp. 5-7.
• Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny, "A Theory of Privatization," mimeo., Harvard University (Massachusetts: University Press, 1993), pp. 99-101.
• Byrd, William, "Contractual Responsibility Systems in Chinese State-Owned Industry," in Advances in Chinese Industrial Studies, Vol. II (Greenwich: CT: JAI Press, 1991), p. 25.
• Byrd, William, "Contractual Responsibility Systems in Chinese State-Owned Industry," in Advances in Chinese Industrial Studies, Vol. II (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1991).
• Catherine Kingfisher and Jeff Maskovsky, “Introduction: The Limits of Neoliberalism,” Critique of Anthropology 28: 2 (2008), pp. 115–126. . Chen Kuan, Wang Hongchang, Zheng Yuxin, Gary H. Jefferson, and Thomas G. Rawski, "Productivity Change in Chinese Industry: 1953-1985," Journal of Comparative Economics, XII (London, UK: 1988), PP. 570-591.
• Chinese export growth slows to 3-year low, Jan. 2020, available at https://www.ft.com/content/39a57f14-367f-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4. (28.04.2020).
• Clark Bai and Zenit Tao, multitask theory of state enterprise reform J. Comparat. Econ., 28 (4) (2000), pp. 716-738
• Clark Bai and Zenit Tao, How does privatization work in China? J. Comparat. Econ., 37 (3) (2009), pp. 453-470.
• Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, (1981) 10 (2): pp. 126–55.
• David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 121–135.
• Dollar David, "Economic Reform and Allocative Efficiency in China's State-Owned Industry," Economic Development and Cultural Change, XXXIV (Cambridge Press, 1990), pp. 89-105.
• Dux Chen and Xuan Jian, Dividends for tunneling in a regulated economy: The case of China Pacific-Basin Financ. J., 17 (2) (2009), pp. 209-223.
• Fulong Wu, “How Neoliberal is China’s Reform? The Origins of Change During Transition,” Eurasion Geography and Economics 51:5 (2010), p. 624.
• Furter more, Growing out of the Plan: China's Economic Reform 1978-1992 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994), forthcoming.
• Groves, Theodore, Yongmiao Hong, John McMillan, and Barry Naughton, "Produc-tivity Growth in Chinese State-Run Industry," in China's State-Owned Enterprise Reforms,
• Dong Fureng, Cyril Lin, and Barry Naughton, eds. (London, UK: Macmillan, 1993), pp-134-136.
• Hong Sun. ‘‘Dynamics of Internationalization and Outward Investment: Chinese Corporations’ Strategies’’. The China Quarterly 187 (New York: Red Press, 2006), pp. 610–634.
• International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (October 2010), p.72, http:// www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/pdf/text.pdf..
• James Crotty, “Structural Contradictions of the Global Neoliberal Regime,” paper presented at Union for Radical Political Economics at the Allied Social Science Association
• meetings, Boston, MA, (January 7–9, 2000), p. 2,
• Jefferson, Gary, and Wenyi Xu, "The Impact of Reform on Socialist Enterprises in Transition: Structure, Conduct, and Performance in Chinese Industry," Journal of Comparative Economics, XV (London: 1991), 45-64.
• Jenny Chan, “Meaningful Progress or Illusory Reform? Analyzing China’s Labor Contract Law,” New Labor Forum 18:2 (2009), pp. 43–51.
• Jonathan Anderson, “Is China Export-Led?,” USB Investment Research, USB Securities Asia (2007), ,http://www.allroadsleadtochina.com/reports/prc_270907.pdf..
• Joseph Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (New York: W.W. Norton, 2010), pp. 22-23.
• Liangwei Hu, “The Basic Features and Challenges of Cross-Strait Relations in the New Era”, American Foreign Policy Interests (Vol. 32, No. 1, 2010), p. 7.
• McAfee, R, Preston, and John McMillan, "Organizational Diseconomies of Scale," mimeo, University of California, (San Diego: University Press, 1991), pp-21-23.
• McAfee, R. Preston, and John McMillan, "Organizational Diseconomies of Scale," mimeo, University of California, San Diego, 1991.
• Michael Webber, “Re-emerging China and Consequences for Economic Geography,” Eurasian Geography and Economics 51:5 (2010), pp. 583–599.
• Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts, "Bargaining and Influence Costs and the Organization of Economic Activity," in J. Alt and K. Shepsle, eds., Rational Perspectives on Political
• Economy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 1990), pp. 45-49.
• Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts, "Bargaining and Influence Costs and the Organization of Economic Activity," in J. Alt and K. Shepsle, eds., Rational Perspectives on Political
• Economy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
• Miljus, Robert C., and William M. Moore, "Economic Reform and Workplace Conflict Resolution in China," Columbia Journal of World Business, (1990), pp. 49-59.
• Miljus, Robert C., and William M. Moore, "Economic Reform and Workplace Conflict Resolution in China," Columbia Journal of World Business, XXV (1990), 49-59.
• Naughton, Barry, "Hierarchy and the Bargaining Economy: Government and Enterprise in the Reform Process," in M. Lampton and K. Lieberthal, eds., Bureaucracy, Politics, and
• Decision-Making in Post-Mao China (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1991), pp. 65-70.
• Naughton, Barry, "Hierarchy and the Bargaining Economy: Government and Enterprise in the Reform Process," in M. Lampton and K. Lieberthal, eds., Bureaucracy, Politics, and
• Decision-Making in Post-Mao China (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1991)., pp.56-75.
• Richard C. Bush,Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2005), pp. 161-162.
• Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” in Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 57–58.
• Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” in Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 57–58.
• Robert Cox, “The Way Ahead: Toward a New Ontology of World Order,” in Richard Wyn Jones (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), p. 50.
• Robert Cox, Milenium Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No 2, Gramsci, Hegemony and international relations, (1983), pp. 162-175.
• Robert Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p.29. Statistical data available from the IMF World Economic Outlook database, ,http:// www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx.. Stephen Gill and David Law, “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital,” in Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 93.
• Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp.47-55.
• Takeshi Jingu and Tetsuya Kamiyama, “China’s Private Equity Market,” (Nomura Capital Market Review 11:3 2008), pp. 24–39.
• Walder Andrew, "Wage Reform and the Web of Factory Interests," China Quarterly Journal, (1987), pp. 23-41.
• Walder, Andrew, "Wage Reform and the Web of Factory Interests," (China Quarterly, CIX: 1987), pp. 23-41
• Wang Hui, “The Historical Origin of China’s Neo-liberalism,” in Tian Yu Cao (ed.), The Chinese Model of Development (New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 74–75.
• Werner Baer,William R. Miles, and Allen B. Moran, “The End of the Asian Myth: Why Were the Experts Fooled?,” World Development 27:10 (1999), pp. 1735–1747.