In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”
Andrey Pertsev
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Economy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Failure to contain endemic corruption among Chinese officials poses one of the most serious threats to the nation’s future economic and political stability.
WASHINGTON, Oct 9—Failure to contain endemic corruption among Chinese officials poses one of the most serious threats to the nation’s future economic and political stability, says a new report from the Carnegie Endowment. Minxin Pei, an expert on economic reform and governance in China, argues that corruption not only fuels social unrest and contributes to the rise in socioeconomic inequality, but holds major implications beyond its borders for foreign investment, international law, and environmental protection.
In Corruption Threatens China’s Future, Pei paints a sobering picture of corruption in China, where roughly 10 percent of government spending, contracts, and transactions is estimated to be used as kickbacks and bribes, or simply stolen. He examines the root causes for China’s rampant corruption—partial economic reforms, lax enforcement efforts, and reluctance by the Communist Party to adopt political reforms—and the ensuing economic losses and jeopardized financial stability.
Key Findings:
"Corruption has not yet derailed China’s economic rise, sparked a social revolution, or deterred Western investors. But it would be foolish to conclude that the Chinese system has an infinite capacity to absorb the mounting costs of corruption,” writes Pei. “Eventually, growth will falter.”
###
Notes:
Carnegie 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.
In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”
Andrey Pertsev
Two divergent trends—Putin’s hardline vision of how to prosecute the war in Ukraine, and a growing desire for change in Russia—could tear the regime apart.
Tatiana Stanovaya
Ultimately, Zelensky sided neither with the reform camp nor with the military establishment as such, but with political control.
Balázs Jarábik
Tokayev’s predecessor, Nursultan Nazarbayev, outlined arrangements for a power transition too soon and in too much detail, ultimately losing control over the process. Tokayev is determined not to meet the same fate.
Temur Umarov
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin