• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Yukon Huang"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Global Governance",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

China Becomes an Abnormal Great Power

Few now believe Beijing will be a passive rule-taker. Already it is becoming more assertive in challenging the existing regime.

Link Copied
By Yukon Huang
Published on May 27, 2015

Source: Wall Street Journal

Markets continue to fret over how much further China’s economy will fall. On the foreign policy front, China’s more aggressive posture has leaders across the world on edge. These twin worries mean that Beijing is becoming a more normal economy but an abnormal great power.

In the economic context, normal means that China’s double-digit growth rates are moderating to something more typical of a middle-income country. With the increasing dominance of the private sector, it is no longer immune to market forces and ever-rising debt ratios.

Part of the cost of becoming a more normal economy is increased vulnerability to global economic cycles and the Keynesian risk of lack of demand. Corporate profits are being squeezed by years of double-digit wage increases and high real interest rates.

Increasing efficiency needs to displace increasing capacity as the priority since Beijing can no longer count on ratcheting up activity with massive state-led investments. Nor can it ensure stability by controlling interest and exchange rates as bands are widened or eliminated.

Internationalizing the yuan may convey prestige, but it will also restrict macro policy options as cross-border capital flows are liberalized. In a normal economy, the state’s role is not to manage everything but to establish market-friendly regulatory institutions. Beijing still has much to learn about the running of such institutions.

Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping has broken with the more passive foreign-policy characteristic of past leaders’ collective decision making. This signals the advent of a more assertive China.

Yet Beijing’s ability to exercise influence on the global stage is limited. China’s experience in dealing with sensitive issues lags well behind its economic achievements, placing it at a disadvantage in negotiating with other major powers.

China will be an abnormal great power compared with the historic rise of Europe, the U.S. and Japan. Unlike the others, whose ascendancy represented a broadly continuous yet lengthy process, China is unique in being a returning great power—one that accounted for 30% of global production two centuries ago but saw its share fall to less than 5% by 1950. Even today, after three decades of double-digit growth, its share is only half of what it once was.

China’s ability to make it to high income levels is not a foregone conclusion. None of the others had China’s handicap of becoming old before it becomes rich. China may be the world’s second-largest economy, but it is still relatively poor, with a per capita income ranking around 90th internationally.

With a proud history to live up to and domestic problems to overcome, tensions have arisen as Beijing attempts to balance its internal struggles with an evolving international order. To the outside world, China is seen as more threatening with its demonstrative acts in the East and South China Seas.

Years ago, Washington’s self-serving hope was that China would become a “responsible global stakeholder.” Few now believe that China will be a passive rule-taker in a system that was largely established by the West and has shown little willingness to accommodate its rise. It is more likely to be a rule challenger, maneuvering through grey areas and reshaping the balance of power with respect to its expanded core interests within the Asian region.

China’s formerly reactive approach was to allay apprehensions so that others would not constrain China’s potential to develop. The concept of “peaceful development” is no longer tenable in a world where America’s Asian pivot is viewed by the Chinese as a containment strategy. The rhetoric currently used in Washington to secure support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its earlier campaign against the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank only solidify such sentiments.

That China has been willing to act more forcefully does not make it any different from other great powers. China may be dissatisfied with the global status quo, but it will push for change in a manner that does not destabilize a system that it has benefited from.

But China does differ from the other major powers in distinctive ways. Unlike other great powers, it is not clearly aligned with any one group or set of issues. Beijing’s choice of partners, structure of alliance and intentions varies depending on the issue at hand and the governance structures available.

First, China sees itself as a developing country with little in common with the political liberalism of the West. Second, it is an emerging power that shares concerns with the other BRICS countries in pushing for more influence. Third, China’s position at the United Nations and G-20 gives it a stake in the existing global power structures with its expectations of responsible behavior. Finally, it is seen as potentially part of a G-2, although realistically it will be more active as a regional power.

This is a world of overlapping, shifting and often issue-specific partnerships. China’s aim is to reform the system, not to oust it. Mr. Xi’s “Asia for Asians” and Silk Road initiatives are more about finding pragmatic solutions rather than establishing a comprehensive strategy.

This process creates the political space for China to maneuver. But as a regional power that feels constrained by the U.S. pivot, a more confident China with expanded core interests will continue to generate tensions and uncertainties that define it as an abnormal great power.

This article was originally published by the Wall Street Journal.

About the Author

Yukon Huang

Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Huang is a senior fellow in the Carnegie Asia Program where his research focuses on China’s economy and its regional and global impact.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Three Takeaways From the Biden-Xi Meeting

      Yukon Huang, Isaac B. Kardon, Matt Sheehan

  • Commentary
    Europe Narrowly Navigates De-risking Between Washington and Beijing

      Yukon Huang, Genevieve Slosberg

Yukon Huang
Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Yukon Huang
Global GovernanceForeign PolicyEast AsiaChina

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.