« veterans in politics | Main | sundae bloody sundae »

March 29, 2015

Comments

Malcs

IIRC when Shambaugh's piece first appeared you remarked on Twitter that you considered he had always placed too much credence in the Party's formal processes (forgive me if I've misremembered this). This observation doesn't feature in the article in the Nation - perhaps it would have been out of place. Care to expand?

jamie

Well that was a kind of insta-response. He does take a very top down serious people talking seriously to serious people view of how China operates and works under the assumption that they're all giving him the straight dope, that they are all aware of the bigger picture and that they're broadly working towards the ends that he thinks they should be working for. It would have been hard to jam an account of how much chaos, contingency and power struggle affects into a review of responses to what he said. That's a whole different article.

Though of course Shambaugh thinks the objective of Chinese governance is reform; so does Xi, but Xi takes a very different biew of what that means. Maybe that tipped him.

James has got a good piece on Shambaugh's last book here: http://online.thatsmags.com/post/policy-wonker

Malcs

Thanks! Yes, I imagine that is at least one whole different article.

James's piece is sadly inaccessible at present - I tried numerous routes but couldn't get there. Will keep looking.

chris y

Malcs, that's odd. I just pasted the URL as supplied into the address line and up it came, a bit slow but not remarkably. Chrome under Win 7, fwiw. The article is well worth reading.

Malcs

Working for me too now thanks Chris. And certainly worth the wait! I think my copy of Atrophy and Adaptation is going to spend a little more time staring balefully at me from the shelf.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home