The “Singapore Fever” in China: Policy Mobility and Mutation

Abstract

The 'Singapore Model' has constituted the only second explicit attempt by the Communist Party of China (CPC) to learn from a foreign country following Mao Zedong's pledge to contour 'China's tomorrow' on the Soviet Union experience during the early 1950s. This paper critically evaluates policy transfers from Singapore to China in the post-Mao era. It reexamines how this Sino-Singaporean regulatory engagement came about historically following Deng Xiaoping's visit to Singapore in 1978, and offers a careful re-reading of the degree to which actual policy borrowing by China could transcend different state ideologies, abstract ideas and subjective attitudes. Particular focus is placed on the effects of CPC cadre training in Singapore universities and policy mutation within two government-to-government projects, namely the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-City. The paper concludes that the 'Singapore Model', as applied in post-Mao China, casts institutional reforms as an open-ended process of policy experimentation and adaptation that is fraught with tension and resistance.

Qujing (取经) as policy mobility with Chinese characteristics: A case study of ultralow-energy building policy in China

“…Generations of Chinese state leaders since Deng Xiaoping promoted learning from the West. The most systematic efforts include sending Chinese cadres to training programs at Harvard, Cambridge University, Copenhagen Business School, and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, among others (Lim and Horesh, 2016;Liu and Wang, 2018;Shambaugh, 2008), although the practices have significantly dwindled since Xi Jinping took power in 2013. China's learning from the West in the last four decades, however, has been selective.…”

“…Yet, the overwhelming majority of cases have focused on contemporary western polities, though the efforts of expanding the historical and geographical scope of the discussion are underway (Blok, 2012; Bunnell, 2015; Clarke, 2012a; Cook et al., 2015; Didier et al., 2012; Wood, 2015). China has been featured relatively prominently in the policy mobility literature as scholars analyze the roles of transnational experts in major urban development projects and eco-cities (Bok and Coe, 2017; Chang and Sheppard, 2013; de Jong et al., 2013; Joss and Molella, 2013; Olds, 1997; Pow and Neo, 2013), and the systematic efforts of the Chinese local official training program in Singapore (Lim and Horesh, 2016; Liu and Wang, 2018), among others. Yet, qujing as a routinized practice within the processes of Chinese policy making has not received any scrutiny.…”

“…Ong’s formulation begs the question of how Asian leaders decide what techniques to learn ( qujing ) and how such techniques are incorporated into national or local policy making. Lim and Horesh (2016) examined over two decades of Chinese cadre training in Singapore and found little concrete evidence for successful transferring of political governance. The China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park project, one of the largest state-state collaboration projects, failed as Singapore pulled out citing the vast incompatibility of “two regimes.” In contrast, Liu and Wang (2018) surveyed the 1,350 mid-level cadres who went through training in the “Mayor’s class” in Singapore and observed that cadres felt they had learned considerable lessons regarding practical governance.…”

China and the “Singapore Model”: Perspectives from Mid-level Cadres and Implications for Transnational Knowledge Transfer

“…10 Ho 2015. 11 Lim and Horesh 2016. graduates' current working status, their perceptions of the "Singapore model" and its applicability and effectiveness in China, in addition to other openended questions. The survey was carried out from September to December 2015 through emails, yielding 193 respondents out of 1,160 graduates surveyed (response rate: 17 per cent).…”

The Chongqing vs. Guangdong developmental ‘models’ in post-Mao China: regional and historical perspectives on the dynamics of socioeconomic change

“…This new zone was subsequently included as part of the third China-Singapore Government-to-Government (G-to-G) project in November 2015, a symbolic expression of its growing importance in the realm of international policy transfers and lesson drawing (ref. Lim and Horesh, 2016). By extension, the economic policies reflected the relationship between uneven development in China and the system of reciprocal accountability: just like Wang, Bo was incentivized to align what appeared to be contextually defined initiatives to a centrally approved agenda.…”