Changing Labour Regulations and Labour Standards in China

By Chris King-Chi Chan and Khalid Nadvi 

Image by Stuart Miles,
FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Chris Chan and Khalid Nadvi introduce a special issue of International Labour Review, Vol. 153, No. 4, that highlights key dynamics and upcoming challenges around labour regulations and labour standards in China.

Cheap clothes, shoes, toys, electronics… - China’s exports of cheap manufactures have contributed substantially to its reemergence as a global economic power over the past three decades. This model of economic growth has largely been based on low wages, keeping production costs low and making exports competitive. However, more recently this picture is changing. Workers are going on strike for higher pay and better working conditions, international NGOs are putting pressure on multinationals to abandon sweatshop production, and the Chinese government is trying to safeguard a ‘harmonious society’ by protecting workers through stricter labour laws. 

How do these dynamics reflect broader debates on public and private regulation? The contributions in this special issue illustrate the limits of voluntary private regulation through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities, which have been described by researchers interested in labour standards in Global Value Chains and Global Production Networks. Further, in line with the literature on labour in China, the articles in this collection underline the importance of ‘hard’ public regulation by the state, but also show the complexity of effectively implementing such labour laws. 

The individual articles in this issue shed light on different aspects of labour issues in China. First, Lüthje finds an increasing segmentation between high- and low skilled workers in the Chinese automobile industry, who face very different working conditions and wages. Further, Ngok and Zhuang highlight difficulties in implementing new labour laws in China, and make suggestions to increase the efficiency of the labour inspection regime. Hui and Chan document the role of multinationals in lobbying against stricter labour legislation in China through Hong Kong based business associations, which highlights links between global and local pressures around labour regulation. Finally, Wu and Sun critically analyse the practice of collective consultation, in which workers are represented through the All China Federation of Trade Unions. Their findings point to the need for further analysis of trend towards collective bargaining in China. 

Overall, the articles show strong dynamics of changing labour conditions in China, primarily based on increased worker activism and the state’s efforts to respond to these. More research is needed to grasp these changes, in particular as significant differences are emerging across economic sectors and across regions in China. Analysing these requires moving away from the perception of the Chinese state as a homogeneous actor and recognizing different dynamics at local level. Further, in a context of global production arrangements, combining research on labour relations in China with perspectives on labour standards in global production networks appears to be a fruitful approach that should be pursued further. 

For more details, please refer to: Chan, C. K. and K.Nadvi (2014), 'Changing labour regulations and labour standards in China: Retrospect and challenges', International Labour Review, Vol. 153, No. 4, 513-534.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00214.x

The individual articles in this special issue can be accessed here: International Labour Review, Vol. 153, No. 4, Special Issue: LABOUR REGULATIONS AND LABOUR STANDARDS IN CHINA

China and Brazil in African Agriculture: 2 new policy briefs

http://www.future-agricultures.org/images/ca2.jpg

The School of Advanced International Studies’ China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS-CARI) has published two new policy briefs on Chinese agricultural engagement in Africa.

The papers are written by Sérgio Chichava and Henry Tugendhat, members of the Rising Powers in African Agriculture project.

They report initial research results from the SAIS-CARI conference "Agricultural Investment in Africa: 'Land Grabs' or Friendship Farms'?" held on 16 and 17 May 2014.

Chinese Agricultural Investment in Mozambique: the Case of Wanbao Rice Farm
Sérgio Chichava, SAIS-CARI Policy Brief No. 2, November 2014

China’s largest agricultural investment in Africa is reported to be the Hubei Gaza Friendship Farm, established in 2007 in Mozambique and now managed by a private Chinese firm, Wanbao Africa Agriculture Development Limited (WAADL). While officials have welcomed external investment as a source of employment and development, local communities have decried the project as a “land grab”. Tensions among local activists, the government and the Chinese investors continue to run high, posing a challenge to the future of agricultural investment in the country.

Chinese Training Courses for African Officials: a “Win-Win” Engagement?
Henry Tugendhat, SAIS-CARI Policy Brief No. 3, December 2014

Some 30,000 African public officials have participated in Chinese training courses, yet little is known about their goals, structure, or content. Henry Tugendhat observed classroom trainings, interviewed trainees and reviewed publicly available course content. He argues that while China’s training courses do promote technology and knowledge transfers, they are also clearly organized to increase trade opportunities for Chinese firms, develop better political ties, and offer a positive image of China. This report, based on interviews and classroom observation, is the first study of its kind.

Read more about the conference: China’s Agricultural Investment in Africa: ‘Land Grabs’ or ‘Friendship Farms’?

This blog post was originally published at the Future Agricultures website

Making Choices: Health Consumers, Regulation and the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market

Global Medical Discovery highlights a recent article by Brian Salter, Yinhua Zhou and Saheli Datta as a feature article for this month's issue. The excerpt below highlights the article's key findings.

The general reticence to engage with the reality of the global market of stem cell therapies serves to perpetuate the present neglect of consumer demand-led medical innovation and the forms of governance it requires. It is a reticence that has both supporters and opponents and is unlikely to remain politically unchallenged for long, and bioethicists are beginning to acknowledge the issues posed by medical innovation in the stem cell field [14]. It is important, also, that the present governance vacuum surrounding practice-based medical innovation is addressed by the medical profession itself through changes in its normal systems of self-regulation and professional guidance. Commenting on the ‘sclerotic’ qualities of the established drug innovation model traditionally sponsored by the USA and EU, Joyce Tait observes of China and India that ‘these increasingly powerful components of the bioeconomy may see a competitive advantage in leading regulatory reform so as to encourage more innovative health care sectors to develop, initially for their large and increasingly wealthy home markets, and perhaps also to encourage change in the United States and European regulatory systems’ [15]. Given the market benefits that may accrue from the association of these emerging economies with stem cell medical innovation as documented in this paper, it would be irrational of them to do otherwise.

For more details please refer to Global Medical Discovery.

The full article can be found at: Salter, Brian, Yinhua Zhou, and Saheli Datta. (2014). "Making Choices: Health Consumers, Regulation and the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market." BioDrugs: 1-4.  

Renewable energy in Mozambique: fieldwork impressions of a FUNAE mini-hydro system

Visit on 25 August, 2014 I recently spent four weeks observing several small-scale renewable energy projects in Mozambique. As part of the Rising Powers project, I accompanied two consultants from the Harare office of the NGO Practical Action and the...

Nanotechnology Research and Innovation in Russia: A Bibliometric Analysis

By Philip Shapira

Image by Victor Habbick
FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Researchers with the Rising Powers and Interdependent Futures project on Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development have published a new working paper on Nanotechnology Research and Innovation in Russia. This working paper presents findings from analyses of Russian nanotechnology outputs in publications and patents focusing on developments over the period 1990 through to 2012. The investigation draws on bibliometric datasets of scientific journal publications and patents and on available secondary English-language and Russian sources.

The working paper is authored by Maria Karaulova, Oliver Shackleton, Abdullah Gök, Maxim Kotsemir, and Philip Shapira. Kotsemir is a researcher with the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow – the project’s principal international partner in Russia. The other authors are researchers with the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at the Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. The research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/J012785/1] as part of the project Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development in China and Russia.

For further details, please refer to:

Karaulova, M., Shackleton, O., Gök, A., Kotsemir, M. and Shapira, P. (2014) 'Nanotechnology Research and Innovation in Russia: A Bibliometric Analysis', Project on Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development in China and Russia, Working Paper, October 2014.

Creating social value in 'bottom of the pyramid' markets: What can multinationals learn from businesses in rural India?

image by africa/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

By Noemi Sinkovics, Rudolf Sinkovics and Mo Yamin

In a recent article published in International Business Review, 23(4), 692-707, Noemi Sinkovics, Rudolf Sinkovics and Mo Yamin explore the role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid and the implications for MNEs.

'Bottom of the pyramid' markets in Rising Powers
Within International Business, Rising Power countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia are not only important as home countries of emerging multinational enterprises (MNEs), but their large populations also present huge markets for MNEs from other countries. However, despite growing middle classes in the Rising Power countries, significant parts of their populations still live on low incomes at the bottom of the economic pyramid. In fact, the majority of people belonging to the 'bottom of the pyramid' (BOP) worldwide can be found in emerging economies. Thus, understanding how BOP markets work can be an important advantage for MNEs to be successful in Rising Power markets.

Creating social value at the bottom of the pyramid
Discussions on MNE strategies in BOP markets often centre around the notion of creating social value, in addition to making profits for the business. Social value creation can be defined as contributing to sustenance, self-esteem and freedom of servitude (Todaro & Smith 2011)1, which ranges from basic necessities such as food and shelter to issues such as dignity and personal freedom to make choices in life.

To better understand the phenomenon of social value creation, this paper looks at how social value is created by entrepreneurs within the bottom of the pyramid, and what MNEs entering BOP markets can learn from these businesses.

Five examples of social value creation: businesses in rural India
For this purpose, we interviewed the owners of five businesses in rural India, who are not only targeting BOP markets but also themselves come from a low-income background. Two of these explicitly created their business to create social value, in order to overcome specific difficulties experienced in the local community: A company selling traditional paintings was founded to stop dependence of local artists on middlemen, who were selling their artwork at high margins. In a more modern sector, an IT entrepreneur founded a rural business process outsourcing firm in response to high unemployment among skilled workers in the area. Three other companies did not explicitly see community benefit as their mission, but nevertheless created social value through their operations in a variety of ways. Two companies producing bangles and incense sticks both have a positive impact on the community by providing education and employment opportunities to people from disadvantaged social groups, such as physically handicapped or slum-dwellers. Similarly another company that grows and processes amla (Indian gooseberry) and grew out of a women's self-help group has not only improved incomes for its members and employees. It has also acted as an example for other entrepreneurs to start similar businesses lifting them out of poverty.

On the whole, these case studies illustrate that social value can be created independently of whether this is a stated objective of the business or not. Further, for those businesses that do explicitly aim to create social value, this tends to be in response to a very specific 'trigger constraint', i.e. a local constraint that entrepreneurs experience and try to overcome.

On top of this, all five businesses show that in order to make a difference for communities, a business model at the bottom of the pyramid needs to be closely linked to specific needs and constraints experienced by members of this community. All business models studied addressed such needs as part of their core business, no matter whether they consciously aimed to create social value or not.

What can MNEs learn from this?
For MNEs, this means that in order to be successful in BOP markets connecting to local communities is key, but also that they will likely find it difficult to do this. In practice, it may be hard for MNEs to establish close links in social networks at the bottom of the pyramid to find out about the needs experienced locally. This puts them at a disadvantage over local companies. Further, long term engagement is important to understand the local situation - again, this is unlikely to happen for many MNEs. MNEs originating from Rising Power countries may nevertheless have an advantage in understanding of BOP markets over Western MNEs, based on cultural or spatial proximity.

The question of how MNEs can know about and respond to the needs of BOP customers is important to find ways of creating social value by responding to local constraints, as practised by businesses originating from the BOP.


For more details, please refer to: Sinkovics,N., Sinkovics,R.R. & M.Yamin (2014) The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid – Implications for MNEs?, International Business Review, 23(4), 692-707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.12.004


----
1 Todaro, M.P., & Smith, S.C.(2011). Economic development (11th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Researchers at Risk: Debating the Dilemmas of Research in Authoritarian Societies

By Catherine Owen

Marking the 100th day since the arrest of Alexander Sodiqov in Khorog, Tajikistan, staff and students in the Universities of Exeter, Sciences Po and Toronto met to debate the wider implications for conducting fieldwork in potentially dangerous or rapidly changing societies. On 16th June 2014, Sodiqov, a PhD student at the University of Toronto, was detained by Tajik security officials in Khorog, capital of the autonomous province of Gorno-Badakhstan, while conducting research for the University of Exeter into conflict resolution in the region. He was subsequently accused of collecting information that undermined national security and of working for a foreign intelligence service. The Tajik government soon charged him with high treason, a crime that carries a punishment of 20 years in prison. After spending more than a month behind bars, Sodiqov was released but was required to remain inside the country. Finally – and although the charges are still to be formally dropped – Sodiqov was allowed to return to his studies in Canada on 12 September.

Clearly, these events, and others like them, have serious implications for scholars. The questions driving the meetings were: what implications does the arrest of Sodiqov have for the future of ethnographic research in changing political contexts around the world? And how can we, as an academic community, prevent such events from happening in the future? In Exeter, the packed meeting was organised jointly by the undergraduate Politics and Amnesty International societies, and drew both undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as faculty and management. Questions were raised about the specifics of the Sodiqov case before developing into a broader discussion about how to protect researchers conducting fieldwork in authoritarian states. In Paris, the meeting draw researchers from a variety of institutions, who discussed whether the flurry of events similar to the Sodiqov case indicates the development of a broader trend towards greater hostility regarding foreign researchers in authoritarian states and, if so, how the academic community can and should protect those researchers.

A number of ideas were discussed that could potentially alert those planning research trips to authoritarian states to emergent dangers or changing perceptions of foreign researchers. In particular, the creation of a website to which posts detailing any difficulties encountered in various locations could be anonymously uploaded, thereby alerting the academic community to the current situation ‘on the ground’. This idea, a project of John Heathershaw and Edward Schatz, and currently in the planning stage, could serve as an important resource for researchers working in potentially turbulent areas. Ideally, such a site could allow scholars and their institutions to make informed decisions about whether or not to risk conducting research in these areas. Indeed, a similar body had been mooted by the French academic community in 2011, but alas was not pursued.

While a website that collates information about the political risks to researchers conducting work in authoritarian societies is an excellent idea in theory, there are, perhaps, a number of problems in practice. The following is not meant to be taken as pessimistic or cynical, but rather as a contribution to the on-going discussion about how to prevent the imprisonment of another researcher while also being unafraid to ask challenging research questions.

My primary concern is that the widespread use of such a site would create a culture of fear among researchers working on these countries. Would the collation of stories of arrest, imprisonment, harassment or persecution discourage scholars, particularly junior or post-graduate scholars, from pursuing their ideal object of study? Secondly, and following on from this, would such a site inflate the dangers of working such places? It could be that many hundreds of researchers conduct successful projects in a particular region, but five cases of state harassment were uploaded to the site, thus creating the impression of severe repression. In other words, it may end up exaggerating rather than reflecting potential risks. Furthermore, if individuals were uploading their own stories, they would be less likely to admit their own errors that perhaps partially precipitated their problems. It would be hard to know whether a region was genuinely risky, or whether researchers had somehow been insensitive, naïve or otherwise foolhardy. In short, would such a site inadvertently ‘shoot itself in the foot’, having been founded through a commitment to academic freedom but resulting in scholars’ self-censorship? While an online tool that collates researchers’ experiences conducting fieldwork evidently an important and much-needed resource, the big question, in my view – as someone who has also confronted the authoritarian state’s boundary of ‘appropriate’ research – is how to ensure that such a site is used to empower, not discourage, pioneering research.

Are these issues resolvable? I cannot pretend to know the answer. The most important thing is to continue a broad discussion about how to protect scholars from state persecution arising from their commitment to the furtherance of academic knowledge.

This blog post was originally published by the Exeter Central Asian Studies Network at  http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/excas/2014/10/03/researchers-at-risk-debating-the-dilemmas-of-research-in-authoritarian-societies/ on 3 October 2014