The accession of China into WTO in December 2001 highlighted its acknowledgment into the international world economy. For China, this has been a 15-year long journey and a quest that has finally ended. It also depicted a rich learning experience for China and other countries such as EU and US. This accession process surprised many since it was not easy for a country such as China to join WTO. Initially, china launched a legal challenge when EU and US became reluctant to treat it as a “market Economy” under the WTO rules.
Some of the political reasons that were presentenced were that the US argued that China had not succeeded in fulfilling its WTO obligation from the time it joined, therefore remaining far from the market economy. The US claimed that China acted like a non-market economy in many aspects more so, in their state-owned companies, especially in subsidies and dumping cases. The UE, on the other hand, urged that China had not made the necessary reforms to operate on the market principles. It is for this reason that EU and the US were set to defend the right of WTO for them to protect their citizens and firms from the damaging effects and the persistent distortion evident in the Chinese economy.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Relationship between the Market, State, and the International Realm"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The hypothesis is that there exists a real relationship between the state, market and international realm. Denial of China will ensure that it fails to have access to the international market. The structure of the society of China has dramatically changed since the introduction of the policies of “opening-up and reform.” The dualistic Chinese structure of the society made up of urban and rural citizens is adversely changing to a “pluralistic society.” The society has made cohesion regarding dependency.

Roselyn Hsueh, the author of State Capitalism, Chinese-Style highlights some of the relationship between the state and the Chinese market (Hsueh, 2012). She depicts that the aspect of participation in the international organizations has enhanced the international identification of the country. She also states that devolution of local experimentation and economic decision-making has also aided in the expansion of the Chinese market. Gallagher on her article “Reform and Openness” has also stated that democracy is a key aspect and a dependent variable towards the achievement of international realization (Gallagher, 2002).

In their arguments, Hsueh (2012) differ from Gallagher (2002) in that, Hsueh argues that decentralization of economy unleashes market reforms. In this case, of EU and US arguments on China denial entry into WTO were legitimate since it did not comply with the legal standards. Contrary, according to Gallagher, China early dynamic liberalization of the FDI and other reforms forms the key basis of why there is political delay change. This whole situation of chia denial into WTO has led to sensitive reforms of a marketizing socialist economy.

These two sources are important in the argument in that they countercheck and provide relevant evidence to cater for why China needs to be allowed or denied entry into WTO. China has been able to survive irrespective of the declining commitment to these major principles such as state ownership, which is an elevated role of the working class, the notion of the economic justice. These are core principles that faced with rejection in favour of the laws of nationalism, the Chinese industry as well as the ability of the country to compete in the global market. The country’s incorporation into the worldwide market has immensely contributed to the increased contact with the international world.

  • Gallagher, M. E. (2002). “Reform and openness”: why China’s economic reforms have delayed democracy. World Politics, 54(3), 338-372.
  • Hsueh, R. (2012). China and India in the age of globalization: sectoral variation in postliberalization reregulation. Comparative Political Studies, 45(1), 32-61.