Font size: 
Representatives of some 300 renowned think tanks around the world have been invited, as well as business leaders from the world’s top 500 enterprises. Their task will be to suggest remedies for the global financial crisis and predict the future of the world economy, one report said.
The China Center for International Economic Exchange was established in Beijing in March. This drew considerable attention, as it was announced just as public awareness of the global financial crisis was emerging. It was reportedly initiated by Premier Wen Jiabao, and its leadership is composed of retired and current top officials from political, business and academic circles.
The CCIEE’s Director-General Zeng Peiyan, 71, retired last year from the post of vice premier, while Hong Kong’s former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa serves as one of its consultants. Members of the board of directors include former or current first or second players from the Development Research Center of the State Council, the State Assets Administration Committee, the National Development and Reform Commission, the China Development Bank, China Investment Corp, the National Social Security Fund, China National Petroleum Corporation, as well as several former top officials from the central or local government.
Also, the names of 80-year-old economist Prof. Li Yining from Beijing University and Professor Lawrence J. Lau from Chinese University of Hong Kong are found among the few academic representatives on the board.
Proud of the CCIEE’s leadership line-up, its standing vice director-general Zheng Xinli, former deputy director of the Central Office of Policy Research of the Chinese Communist Party, claimed that it would be devoted to a monographic study on international economy and strengthen its exchanges with internationally well-known think tanks on an equal basis, in order to expand China’s power in the international community and strive to make China a significant center for policy discourse in Asia.
Furthermore, Zheng told the media that the CCIEE would export its intelligence to developing countries in order to promote the “China model,” disseminate China’s development experience and increase China’s soft power. “We can organize a group of experienced official experts and officials to assist the developing nations with various development plans, ranging from national strategies to local development zones,” he optimistically claimed.
The new think tank is located less than 100 meters from Zhongnanhai, headquarters of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government. Surrounding its senior leadership with the halo of high officials guarantees the high stature the think tank is expected to enjoy.
However, the same factors – in addition to the “special situation” and “Chinese characteristics” that its leaders always invoke – raise doubts as to whether this “super” think tank can perform as a professional, influential think tank and fulfill its objective of increasing China’ s “power of discourse” in the world.
First of all, Zheng declared that the CCIEE would be sponsored by nongovernmental funds, like many mainstream think tanks overseas that enhance their countries’ influence through the appearance of nongovernmental bodies. He anticipated that the CCIEE would strengthen its “equal exchanges” with senior foreign think tanks, convey China’s voice to mainstream international society and enhance China’s international “discourse power.” China lacked “authoritative” think tanks as a channel to expand its international discourse power, he said.
Nevertheless, a key element for the success of an authoritative think tank lies in its essential independence and professionalism. Its credibility and reputation are mainly earned through its valuable, objective and professional research – not through the “authority” of its personnel.
According to Zheng, the state has allocated 5 million yuan (US$730,000) in start-up funds for the CCIEE, and will not entertain requests for additional funds. The institute’s board of directors will have to handle their own fundraising; they have already attracted some 20 central enterprises to their cause.
Zheng said this shows that China’s domestic enterprises now have both the passion and the capability to support nongovernmental think tanks. He said the CCIEE is expected to diversify its income sources so that its research will not be affected by its sponsorship. In addition, its personnel are to be drawn from different institutional backgrounds and different parts of the country to avoid cronyism.
But the reality within the CCIEE now is that its 25 leaders all hail from within the state system. Those with financial backgrounds are all current or former employees of government bodies or state-run enterprises. The only four academics are also officials – one is from Hong Kong, with many public duties, while the other three mainland scholars are within the state system.
Moreover, those 20 “central enterprises” expected to contribute funds are most likely state-owned, too. In this sense, it will not be easy for the CCIEE to be free of official influence in the short term.
As for professionalism, Zheng told the media the new think tank has more than 100 full-time or part-time workers and researchers, 20 study projects have been put forth for bidding and several research reports and publications have been published, which are valued by the central authorities.
But no further information about these research reports and publications is available online, let alone their actual content. Even on its official website, the CCIEE offers only a list of titles for its 2009 study projects, without identifying which projects are currently under way. A detailed organizational structure is also missing on the website.
The site briefly outlines the two-day schedule of the upcoming global think tank summit set for July 3 and 4 – but only in Chinese. The English version is not yet ready. The site does not convey the impression of a top institute with 100 professionals working for it.
As Zheng noted, many think tanks worldwide have personnel that switch between public positions and independent research posts, and many receive partial funding from their own governments. But if a think tank pursues credibility in generating powerful or influential ideas, a mindset which does not submit to the authorities remains essential.
Until now, Chinese regulations have made it difficult for truly independent think tanks to legally register as institutes, due to strict limitations on nongovernmental organizations. Judging from the previous performance of various players in China's market of ideas, those who stay afloat inevitably carry the stamp of approval from the Chinese authorities.
