Revisit ‘Beijing Consensus’ to navigate challenges
Yang Xuedong
Currently, economic globalization is facing strong headwinds. The “Washington Consensus,” once promoted by the US and other Western countries as the standard model for development, has not only lost its appeal among many developing nations but has also proven ineffective in addressing internal challenges within developed countries. Amid growing discussions about finding solutions that are better aligned with national realities and more responsive to domestic demands, the “Beijing Consensus” – a term that gained international attention over two decades ago – has been revisited by some observers as a possible approach to addressing today’s global challenges.
In 2004, the phrase “Beijing Consensus” was coined by Joshua Cooper Ramo of the global advisory firm Kissinger Associates to describe China’s economic development model as an alternative – especially for developing countries – to the “Washington Consensus.” Innovation, development and self-determination are the three fundamental principles of the “Beijing Consensus.” By adhering to these principles, China has effectively seized the opportunities presented by economic globalization, achieving rapid economic growth and long-term social stability. The “Beijing Consensus” encapsulates the successful experience of a late-developing nation actively engaging in globalization and achieving swift progress. The principles it outlines continue to hold unique value, especially as the process of economic globalization faces increasing challenges.
First, although economic globalization is encountering various obstacles and challenges, and the global situation remains turbulent, the overarching themes of peace and development have not changed. Only through continuous innovation can we address the various “voids” created by power transitions and institutional stagnation; only through sustained development can we be equipped to tackle the growing “deficits” brought by increasingly complex and significant challenges.
Second, new uncertainties and risks continue to emerge in the world. It is neither viable to passively wait for problems to resolve themselves, nor effective to revert to the binary thinking of the Cold War era. Only by encouraging exploration and innovation at the levels of global norms and institutions, and by allowing space for inclusive trial and error, can we find appropriate paths and workable solutions to navigate this unprecedented global transformation.
Third, as countries around the world face widespread challenges in domestic governance, it is no longer feasible to simply “leave it to the system” to self-correct the complex interplay of old and new issues. Nor should hegemonic powers be allowed to create new turmoil and division in a straightforward and domineering way, using them to mask deep-rooted structural problems. Instead, innovation and development must be integrated coherently to lay a solid foundation for easing interest fragmentation and addressing related challenges.
Fourth, the hegemonic behavior of some major powers on the international stage has become a key driver of ongoing global instability. Some may claim that this is simply the “result” of independent decision-making taken to its extreme, but the opposite is actually true. Genuine independent decision-making does not mean advancing one’s own interests at the expense of others, which only deepens existing problems. Maintaining and advancing exchanges and cooperation in various fields is the prerequisite for independent decision-making.
In today’s world, China has remained committed to high-level opening-up and promoting win-win development for all countries. China will continue to uphold genuine multilateralism and work with more partners to advance an inclusive and beneficial form of economic globalization. This position offers timely insights into what the “Beijing Consensus” might contribute to the world today.
As a major developing country, China has consistently advocated for common development and shared responsibility. In an already deeply interconnected world, there is no room for building a “small yard, high fence” centered solely on self-interest. Economic and trade issues must not be arbitrarily politicized or securitized. These actions are portrayed as measures to ensure “security.” However, the truth is that they run counter to basic economic principles and reflect a form of deglobalization that will only spark greater turmoil across the globe.
China has never separated domestic development from international development in a simplistic manner. Instead, it has consistently sought a positive and mutually reinforcing relationship between the two.
China’s successful experience vividly illustrates that economic globalization is an irreversible historical trend. Although it was initiated and long dominated by Western countries, the growing participation, both passive and proactive, of an increasing number of countries has made globalization more open and diverse.
This transformation offers late-developing countries greater opportunities and favorable conditions to independently choose their own paths to development.
The writer is a professor of political science at Tsinghua University
