Students of Chinese constitutionalism and its founding ideology have been engaging in an interesting and important discussion about the nature of the character of the fundamental ideology on which the principles, operations and objectives of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC), and the state apparatus which operated under the leadership of the CPC, are based. These have significant implications for Chinese constitutionalism (for my comments see, e.g., "Chinese Constitutionalism in the 'New Era'), and the character of its influence abroad. This has become an important element of the Chinese discourse (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here).
Fundamental to that debate is a renewed interest in Marxism. This has become an important element of the Chinese discourse (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) and elsewhere (e.g., here). "Xi, who is also the state president, called on academics and party ideologues to focus equally on absorbing Marxist classics and adapting the theory to contemporary conditions" (XI JINPING: Marxism must be remade for the 21st century). That notion of absorption and adaptation appears to be fundamental to contemporary Chinese political theory. Xi Jinping has been quoted as noting: "It is perfectly right for history and the people to choose Marxism, as well as for the CPC to write Marxism on its own flag, to adhere to the principle of combining the fundamental principles of Marxism with China's reality, and continuously adapt Marxism to the Chinese context and the times." (Marx's theory still shines with truth: Xi).
Fundamental to that debate is a renewed interest in Marxism. This has become an important element of the Chinese discourse (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) and elsewhere (e.g., here). "Xi, who is also the state president, called on academics and party ideologues to focus equally on absorbing Marxist classics and adapting the theory to contemporary conditions" (XI JINPING: Marxism must be remade for the 21st century). That notion of absorption and adaptation appears to be fundamental to contemporary Chinese political theory. Xi Jinping has been quoted as noting: "It is perfectly right for history and the people to choose Marxism, as well as for the CPC to write Marxism on its own flag, to adhere to the principle of combining the fundamental principles of Marxism with China's reality, and continuously adapt Marxism to the Chinese context and the times." (Marx's theory still shines with truth: Xi).
On July 10, 2018, Zheng Yongnian (郑永年), Professor and Director of East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore, published an important contribution to that debate: Is Marxism Really Revitalized in China? 郑永年：马克思主义在中国真的复兴了吗？ The essay touches on the now much more complicated issue of resistance to Westernization within a political system that itself has roots very much in the West. The essay considers the sinification of Marxism during the three contemporary historical periods of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and lastly in the "New Era" of Xi Jinping. These he considers matters not merely of pure theory of of its authenticity through practical application. This is a critical and quite innovative element in the characterization of the naturalization of a complex and dynamic ideological system within an equally complex and dynamic culture. Sinification, here, speaks to its practical expression--an expression peculiar to the era in which it is operationalized--a form of historical form of "seeking truth form facts" (实事求是). The analysis is particularly relevant for its astute description of the dynamic evolution of Chinese engagement with Marxism, and its practical manifestation. These moved from reception to utopianism, to doctrinization, to elitism, and lastly to institutionalization.
If the major task of Marxism sinification in Mao’s era is to seize the political power and maintain national unification and the major task of Marxism sinification in Deng’s era is to get rid of poverty and develop the economy, then the major task of Marxism sinification in the new era is institution building and state governance.
That dynamic manifestation has much to say to Western engagement not only with foreign cultural influences, but also with the way in which the West retains a faith in its own fundamental values, if it continues to do so, and the form in which those receptions are now manifested. China and the West here are simultaneously walking along the same path, though whether or not that path is embedded in currents of historical materialism remains to be seen.
Both the English translation and the original Chinese version appear below. The original text--马克思主义在中国真的复兴了吗？--was first published in Chinese on Zaobao (联合早报) July 10th 2018. The English translation is the work of my excellent research assistant Dai Maioqiang (戴妙强) (Penn State School of International Affairs MIA expected 2019). Both versions are posted with permission. We welcome comments and engagement.
Both the English translation and the original Chinese version appear below. The original text--马克思主义在中国真的复兴了吗？--was first published in Chinese on Zaobao (联合早报) July 10th 2018. The English translation is the work of my excellent research assistant Dai Maioqiang (戴妙强) (Penn State School of International Affairs MIA expected 2019). Both versions are posted with permission. We welcome comments and engagement.
Is
Marxism Really Revitalized in China?
Yongnian
Zheng
Professor
and Director of East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore
Original
text first published in Chinese on Zaobao (联合早报) July 10th 2018，
accessible at https://www.zaobao.com.sg/zopinions/views/story20180710-873980,
accessed July 16th 2018.
If
the Chinese contemporary history begun
with being defeated by the west (the Opium War), everything happened in China
since then did has something to do with the west. Not only changes in thoughts
and opinions but also changes in material
and technology are direct results of western influence. But practically
speaking, developments in any aspects, especially at the institution level,
still undergo more according to the logic of China itself; some developments,
even though looks western at the first glance, are still Chinese-style in its
deep nature. Here comes a Sinification problem of things come from the west.
Ever
since the contemporary history begun,
many people regard modernization as a process of total westernization. But
total westernization only exists as a
concept in people’s minds, because at the practical level, it is impossible to
totally westernize China. Even before the CPC, there is no political figure who
claims total westernization. “Five-branch Constitution” drafted by Mr. Sun
Yat-sen is a good example. The “Five-branch Constitution” combines the western notion of three branches of power
(legislation, administrative and judicial) with two Chinese traditional
branches (examination and supervision). Even though all political powers are
influenced by the west, different political power will be influenced by
different western sources. The CPC accepted Marxism, so there is a sinification problem of Marxism.
In
the period of revolution and the early
period of construction, even though the ideology and practice of CPC both
followed the Soviet Union as a model, we
shall not totally Marxism or Sovietize China
or CPC. Revolution and construction are not pure theoretical problems, they are
more practical problems. Even the issue of Sinification of Marxism itself is
not a theoretical problem, rather, it is a problem that was raised after the
failure of foreign thoughts in practice. From Mao’s era to the current era, the
Sinification of Marxism roughly underwent three historical periods.
The
reform of Mao started with the transformation of people.
The
first historical period was the Mao Zedong period and is divided into
two periods, namely the period of revolution and the period of construction. In
the period of revolution, after the
failure of the western-style struggle
strategy of city-centered strikes, leaders of CPC including Mao raised more
practical strategy of “military struggle” and “rural areas surrounding the
cities”. Farmers’ wars in Chinese history are all examples of “military
struggle” while the strategy of “rural areas surrounding the cities” was
exactly on the opposite to that in the west where industrialization made the center of revolution to be located in
cities.
After
1949, China entered the period of construction and turned from total copy of
Soviet Union model to anti-Soviet model. This transformation is of critical
importance because researches have proven that the reason why reformation after
Mao in China could become successful is that China has already diverged from
the Soviet Union approached in Mao’s era.
The most important difference between the two is that the power of Soviet Union
regime is highly concentrated while the power Chinese system is, at least in the
economy, highly decentralized.
After
departure from Soviet model, Mao stepped onto his “Utopia Model” which also
rooted deeply in Chinese traditional elements because China has witnessed
reforms with Utopia characteristics such as Wang Mang’s reform, Wang Anshi’s
reform, and Zhu Yuanzhang’s reform in its history. Mao’s reform starts from reconstruction of people, the new elements that are
largely influenced by the west. Before Mao, Liang Qichao has raised the concept
of “new people (新民)” and re-construction
of people is always the theme from the May
4th Movement to the “Cultural Revolution”. Mao successfully sinified Marxism in the early periods but did not achieve the same success in his late
times.
Sinification of
Marxism in Deng Xiaoping’s Era
Deng’s
era is the second era in which the problem of economic development was solved
in China. The success of solve that problem cannot
happen without the concept of “socialist market economy” which is itself a
result of sinification of Marxism. In the later period of “Cultural
Revolution”, the Soviet version of Marxism, the planning economy, failed in
China because it led to a “Poor Socialism”.
The
ideology that Deng’s generation believes
in is more of a European version of
Marxism or Socialism, aiming at solving the problem of economic development and
social fairness. Even though there were also many problems, it is undoubtedly
successful in terms of economic development. It is a rarely witnessed miracle
for a poor economy before the Opening and Reform policy to climb up to the
second largest economy and lifted 7 hundred million people out of poverty.
In
this era, the western idea of the market
economy was translated into Chinese “Socialist Market Economy”. Actually, similar factors of both the element of socialism
and the market could be found in Chinese traditions, but the Soviet planning
economy model obviously made it hard for such factors to take effects. The
reason why Deng could solve this problem is that he de-ideologize the concept
of “market economy” and made clear that market economy is merely a tool to
develop the economy and this is a viable
part of toolkits of both capitalism and socialism. Such a new narration of
market economy promoted the revitalization of traditional market elements and introduced a new
western market mechanism. This has posed a revolutionary
impact on the Chinese economy.
Anyway,
the political change happened at the end of the 1980s
shows that it is hard for western democracy,
at least at the present stage, to become reality in China. The ruling party
have stepped onto a path of intra-party democracy since the 1990s, that is to say, social democracy is to
be achieved after the realization of intra-party democracy. Because of this,
some mistakenly think that China will go to a path of western social democracy that
is adopted in West Europe and North
Europe. This, of course, did not become
reality. The whole system did not turn to a western one even though the CPC did
absorb some elements of western democracy.
The drawbacks of
the sinification of Marxism
Since
Deng’s era, even though the reality of China has experienced profound changes,
there isn’t much innovation took place in terms of Marxist theories. The current status of Marxism in China is
that on the one hand, it can not explain
the changes in Chinese reality, on the other hand, it did not utilize the abundant experience of China to enrich itself
neither.
From
a superficial perspective, the research of Marxism has reached a new peak with an
enormous amount of human resources,
funding, and policy support invested in such an endeavor. But did Marxism revitalized in China? If China could ever revitalize Marxism, the
first prerequisite is the sinification of
Marxism. Marxism is the result of western histories, it could explain the
history of the west in a scientific manner, but it can not do so for Chinese
history. Marxism can explain China only
if it was sinified and at the same time, it is only in the process of Marxism sinification,
China could utilize its abundant experience of practice to enrich and develop
Marxism.
Either
in the world of a theorist or the whole
academia, Marxism in China is largely witnessing doctrinization. Holding the
banner of revitalizing Marxism, people blindly “explains” the Chinese reality
with Marxism. It better be called “mis-explaining”
rather than “explain”. The doctrinization of Marxism appeared when
Karl Marx was still alive, and it made even Marx himself claims that he was not
a “Marxist”. The spirit of Marxism is seeking
truth from facts, thoughts need to evolve itself with the changes of the time. The
lack of such a changing spirit itself is a betrayal of Marxism.
The
reason why there is a doctrinization is
not hard to understand. The core of the first generation of leaders, Mao,
himself was both a practitioner and a
theorist, there would not be much problem in sinification
of Marxism with him. At the level of practice, Mao felt the dire need for sinification
of Marxism because the lack of it would lead to total failure. On the other
hand, Mao’s expertise in theories promoted the sinification
of Marxism at the theoretical level. It is the same with Deng even though he
did not write as much as Mao. Actually, lessons learned
from Mao’s era, Deng Xiaoping was more experienced with socialist construction
and also the development of Marxism.
But
sadly, Marxism only exist in the studies of Chinese scholars. Even worse is
that Marxism became a doctrine and the only ideology, making it stagnant without new sources of thinking. Marxism
emerged and was developed in its competition with a number of other thinking.
Once it became doctrine and the standard of judging other thinking, the
exhaustion of Marxism will be unavoidable.
The focus of Marxism
Sinification in the New Era
Now
China is in a new era. Shall we place the task of sinification of Marxism high
on the list while we re-confirmed Marxism as the guiding theory of the ruling
party? This is highly urgent from both perspectives of practice and theories.
Even though there are some traditional elements revitalizing, the theoretical
legitimacy is still largely dependent on Marxism. What’s more important is that
the history of the development of the ruling party is deeply rooted in Marxism.
It
will be hard for Marxism to explain practice in China if it is not effectively sinified, and then it will lose its realistic
vitality and reduce to pure ideology. The
process to empower Marxism the ability to explain Chinese reality is the
process of Marxism sinification.
In
the new era, where’s the focus of Marxism sinification?
If the major task of Marxism sinification
in Mao’s era is to seize the political power and maintain national unification
and the major task of Marxism sinification
in Deng’s era is to get rid of poverty and develop the economy, then the major task
of Marxism sinification in the new era is
institution building and state governance. Any form of Marxism sinification will be nonsense without being aware of the fact that such a historical
logic of the development of China.
Specifically
speaking, Marxism sinification in the new era will demonstrate at
the pursuit of the institutionalization
of rule of law and social justice. This is in line with the reform and
development roadmap set after the 18th and 19th national
party’s congress. In terms of economy, this could be observed in abstinence of
capital, the mixed ownership and the check and balance among each kind of
capital. In terms of politics, this
could be observed in the political
participation of each social forces, or in another word, democracy.
Marx
has criticized capitalists’ democracy
because it is the minority’s democracy. Obviously, in Marx’s era, democracy is
indeed capitalists’ democracy. Marx did not deny the importance of democracy,
rather he was in pursuit of democracy that has a wider social foundation which is a social
democracy.
At the individual
level, it could be observed by establishing a social institution that could
help people to liberate themselves. Even though Chinese civilization itself
did not produce values like democracy and liberty, but like them or not, those
values have become a part of what the Chinese society accept and pursue or in other words, those values have become
a part of what the Chinese culture expects.
At a higher level, from the perspective of the
development of Chinese civilization, China has reached a new phase which is
absorbing the western civilization into the Chinese civilization. Traditionally
speaking, China spent thousands of years
to absorb and digest Buddhism and internalized it as an inherent part of
Chinese civilization. Today, if China can not absorb western civilization, it will
be hard to integrate traditions since the late Qing Dynasty into the greater
tradition of Chinese civilization, furthermore,
it will be even harder to govern a society which has accepted western values
such as democracy, liberty, and equality.
Anyway, Marxism itself is a product of western civilization. That is to say, the process of Chinese civilization
absorbing western civilization is the process of the sinification of Marxism.
__________
原创： 国际视野中国情怀 IPP评论 今天
0IPP评论是郑永年教授领导的国家高端智库——华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）官方微信平台。
如果中国近代史是从中国被西方打败（即鸦片战争）开始的，那近代以来中国所发生的一切确实离不开西方。无论是思想观念的变化，还是物质技术层面的变化，都是西方影响的直接产物。不过，在实际层面，很多方面的发展，尤其是制度层面的发展，则更多地是依据中国本身的逻辑在进行；有些发展即使表层看似乎是西方式的，但深层次仍然是中国式的。这里就产生一个西方事物“中国化”的问题。
自近代以来，不少人把中国的现代化，视为全盘西化的过程，但全盘西化只存在于人们的观念中，因为在实践层面，全盘西化根本就不可能。即使在中国共产党之前，政治人物也没有要全盘西化的。孙中山先生的“五权宪法”就是很好的例证。五权宪法就是想把西方的三权（即立法、行政和司法）和中国传统的“两权”（即考试和监察）结合起来。尽管各种政治力量都受西方影响，但不同政治力量接受不同的西方影响。中国共产党接受了马克思主义，所以就有一个马克思主义“中国化”的问题。
在革命时期和建设早期，虽然中国共产党的思想和实践都是以苏俄为模范，但即便如此，也不能全盘马克思主义化或者苏俄化。革命和建设并不是一个单纯的理论问题，更多的是实践问题。即使是“马克思主义中国化”，命题本身也不是理论问题，而是外来思想在实践中失败了，才提出来的。从毛泽东到当代，“马克思主义中国化”大体上已经历三个历史时期。
毛泽东的改革从改造人开始
第一个历史时期就是毛泽东时期。毛泽东时期又分为两个阶段，即革命时期和建设时期。在革命时期，早先根据西方的经验，搞以城市为中心的罢工等斗争，但惨遭失败。之后，毛泽东等领导人提出了符合中国实际的“武装斗争”和“农村包围城市”，才逆转早先失败的命运。即使是武装斗争，也不是苏俄传统，而是中国固有的传统。中国历史上经久不衰的农民战争，都是“武装斗争”的典范。“农村包围城市”则是和西方革命方式刚好相反。在西方，因为工业化发生得早，革命的重心在城市。
1949年之后，中国转入建设时期，1950年代从完全模仿苏联模式，转型到反苏联模式。这个转型很重要。很多研究表明，毛泽东之后中国的改革之所以成为可能，并且能够取得成功，和毛泽东时代已经脱离苏联模式有很大的关系。中国和苏联的主要区别在于苏联体制高度集权，而中国体制高度分权，至少在经济上如此。
告别苏联模式之后，毛泽东走上了自身的“乌托邦模式”。“乌托邦模式”也有深厚的中国传统因素，之前中国至少已经历王莽改革、王安石改革、朱元璋改革等具有浓厚乌托邦色彩的改革。毛泽东的乌托邦改革从改造人开始，这是新的因素，是受西方的深刻影响。
中国历史上从来就没有改造人一说。改造人是从近代和西方接触开始的。毛泽东之前，梁启超提出的“新民”概念，就是从改造人入手。从文化层面来改造人，一直是从五四运动到“文化大革命”的主题。当人类本身成为试验品的时候，就不可避免产生严重的后果，这是深刻的历史教训。也就是说，毛泽东早期成功进行了“马克思主义中国化”，但在后期，这个问题没有解决好。
邓小平时期的马克思主义中国化
邓小平时期是第二个时期。这个时期，中国成功解决了经济问题，即不发展的问题。经济问题的解决，与邓小平提出的“社会主义市场经济”概念分不开。而这个概念的提出，便是“马克思主义中国化”的结果。到“文革”后期，苏俄版本的马克思主义，即计划经济已经失败，因为计划经济导致改革开放之前的“贫穷社会主义”。
邓小平一代所接受的，更多的是欧洲版本的马克思主义或社会主义，意在解决经济发展和社会公平问题。尽管也产生了诸多问题，但就经济发展来说，无疑是非常成功的。中国从改革开放前如此贫穷的一个经济体，在40年之后发展成世界第二大经济体，促成近7亿人口脱贫，这是世界经济史上少有的奇迹。
在这段时期，西方的“市场经济”成了中国的“社会主义市场经济”。尽管无论是“社会主义”因素，还是“市场因素”，在中国传统中都可以找到类似因素，但外来的苏联式计划经济模式，显然人为地阻碍了这些传统因素发挥作用。邓小平之所以能够解决这个问题，主要是把“市场经济”去意识形态化，认为市场经济只是一种发展经济的工具，无论是资本主义还是社会主义都可以使用。对“市场经济”的这种新论证，促成传统市场因素的复苏和新的市场机制（西方式）的引入。这对中国经济产生了革命性的影响。
在政治上，邓小平时代也做了很多探索。总体而言，在1980年代，中国侧重于对社会民主的探索。经历“文革”之后，当时无论是政治精英层还是知识群体，都相信西方式的民主不仅是可期望的，而且是有可能的。
不过，1980年代末发生的政治事件表明，西方式民主很难成为现实，至少在现在这个阶段。1990年代以来，执政党走上一条“党内民主”路线，就是先要实现党内民主，再来实现社会民主。不过，也正因如此，一些人误认为中国会走上一条西方式的社会民主主义路线，即西欧和北欧式的社会民主党路线。这当然并没有成为现实。尽管中共也吸收消化了一些西方民主因素，但总体制度并没有演变成西方式制度。
马克思主义的中国化不足
在进入后邓小平时代的很多年来，人们对马克思主义中国化强调得不够。尽管中国的现实已经发生了巨变，但在马克思主义理论方面并没有多少创新。今天中国的马克思主义现状是：既解释不了中国现实层面所发生的变化，更没有利用中国的丰富经验来丰富自身。
从表面上看，中国的马克思主义研究已经达到一个新的高潮，很多年来有关方面投入大量人力、财力、物力，设立了众多的马克思主义学院，马克思主义研究成为官方显学。但马克思主义真的在中国复兴了吗？如果中国可以复兴马克思主义，首要条件便是马克思主义的中国化。马克思主义是西方历史的产物，它可以科学地解释西方的历史，但不能科学地解释中国历史。只有马克思主义中国化之后，马克思主义才能解释中国；同时，也只有在马克思主义中国化的过程中，中国才可以用自身丰富的实践经验，来丰富和发展马克思主义。
现阶段有哪一点可以说是马克思主义的中国化呢？在很大程度上，无论在理论界还是学术界，中国的马克思主义开始“教条化”。在复兴马克思主义的旗号下，人们机械地搬用马克思主义来“解释”中国现实。与其说是“解释”，倒不如说是“曲解”。马克思主义“教条化”，在马克思生前已经出现，以至于马克思否定自己是“马克思主义者”。马克思主义的精神是实事求是，思想必须随着时代的变化而变化，缺少这种变化精神，本身就违背了马克思主义。
当代马克思主义教条化的原因并不难理解。第一代领导人的核心毛泽东本人既是实践家，也是理论家，在马克思主义中国化方面没有太大的问题。在实践层面，毛泽东感觉到对马克思主义进行中国化的需要，因为如果不中国化，就会导致失败；而毛泽东理论上的修养，又促成了在理论层面完成马克思主义的中国化。
第二代领导人的核心邓小平也是如此。尽管在理论层面，邓小平并没有毛泽东那样的长篇论述，但在经历了毛泽东时代的经验教训之后，邓小平在建设方面具有更为丰富的经验，来拓展和发展马克思主义。
但在后邓小平时代，马克思主义只存在于中国学者的书斋里。更有甚至，马克思主义变成教条，变成唯一的意识形态，使得马克思主义缺少新的思想来源。马克思主义本来就是在众多思想中竞争、产生和发展起来的，一旦把马克思主义变成教条，变成评判其他思想的“标准”，其思想的枯竭变得不可避免。
新时期马克思主义中国化的重点
现在中国的发展进入一个新时期。在再次确立马克思主义为执政党的指导思想之余，是否应当把马克思主义中国化的任务提高到议事日程上？无论在实践还是理论层面，这无疑是当务之急。尽管一些传统文化因素在复兴，但执政党的理论合法性在很大程度上仍然依赖马克思主义。执政党本身发展的历史，更是和马克思主义不可分离。
如果马克思主义不能有效中国化，就很难解释中国的实践。如果马克思主义不能解释中国的实践，它就只能成为一种纯意识形态，会失去其现实生命力。赋予马克思主义解释中国现实的能力的过程，就是马克思主义中国化的过程。
在新时期，马克思主义中国化的重点在哪里？如果说毛泽东时代马克思主义中国化的主要任务是夺取政权和维护国家的统一，邓小平时代马克思主义中国化的主要任务是脱离贫穷和发展经济，那新时代马克思主义中国化的主要任务，便是制度建设和国家治理。如果不能认识到中国发展的这种历史逻辑，任何形式的马克思主义中国化都会表现为虚无缥缈。
具体说来，新时代的马克思主义中国化会表现在法治制度化和社会公平目标的追求上。这和中共十八大、十九大以来所确立的改革发展路线是吻合的。在经济上，表现为对资本的节制上，实行混合所有制，并且达成各种资本之间的互相制衡。在政治上，表现为各种社会力量的政治参与，即民主。
马克思批评资产阶级的民主，因为资产阶级民主是少数人的民主。很显然，在马克思时代，民主就是资本的民主。马克思不仅没有否认民主的重要性，而是追求具有更加广泛社会基础的民主，即社会民主。
在个人层面，表现为确立有助于人解放的社会制度。尽管中国文明本身并没有产生民主、自由等价值，但不管人们喜欢与否，近代以来，这些价值已经为中国社会所接受、所追求。或者说，这些价值也已经成为中国文化期待的一部分。
从更高层次来说，就中国文明发展的角度，中国已经到了一个新的阶段，即把西方文明吸收消化到中国文明中。传统上，中国花了近千年时间，吸收消化了佛教文明，使得佛教文明成为中国文明的内在一部分。到了今天，如果中国不能吸收消化西方文明，不仅很难把近代以来的传统整合到中国文明的大传统中，也更难治理一个已经接受诸如民主、自由、平等西方价值观的社会。不管怎样，马克思主义是西方文明的产物。就是说，中国文明吸收消化西方文明的过程，也就是马克思主义中国化的过程。
本文作者：华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）学术委员会主席郑永年教授。
文章首发于《联合早报》2018年7月10日。
编辑：IPP传播。
关于IPP
华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）是一个独立、非营利性的知识创新与公共政策研究平台。由华南理工大学校友莫道明先生捐资创建。IPP拥有一支以郑永年教授为领军的研究团队，围绕中国的体制改革、社会政策、中国话语权与国际关系等开展一系列的研究工作，并在此基础上形成知识创新和政策咨询协调发展的良好格局。IPP的愿景是打造开放式的知识创新和政策研究平台，成为领先世界的中国智库。
Professor Zheng received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from Beijing University, and his Ph.D. at Princeton University. He was a recipient of Social Science Research Council-MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (1995-1997) and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (2003-2004). He was Professor and founding Research Director of the China Policy Institute, the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
He is Editor of Series on Contemporary China (World Scientific Publishing) and Editor of China Policy Series (Routledge). He is also the editor of China: An International Journal and East Asian Policy.
He has studied both China’s domestic transformation and its external relations. His papers have appeared in internationally referred journals such as Comparative Political Studies, Political Science Quarterly, Third World Quarterly and China Quarterly. He is the author of a few dozens of books, including Contemporary China, The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor, Technological Empowerment, De Facto Federalism in China, Discovering Chinese Nationalism in China and Globalization and State Transformation in China, and editor of many books on China and its foreign relations including the latest volumes China Entering the Xi Era (2014), China and the New International Order (2008), and China and International Relations (2010).
Besides his research work, Professor Zheng has also been an academic activist. He served as a consultant to United Nation Development Programme on China’s rural development and democracy. He has also been advising the Chinese government at different levels on various areas of reform and development. In addition, he has been a columnist for Xinbao (Hong Kong) and Zaobao (Singapore) for many years, writing numerous commentaries on China’s domestic and international affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment