What China has in common with Australia, Taiwan and the US: local and national priorities don’t always align
- The Victorian state government recently took flak for its belt and road deal, which is at odds with Canberra’s position. But local leaders – in countries taking Chinese money, and in China itself – often prioritise provincial economic needs
Michael Shoebridge, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, clarified the Victorian government’s decision by highlighting how “the federal government’s areas of responsibility – foreign affairs, defence and national security, including the intersections between them – equip it with agencies and insights that Victoria just does not have”.
Thus, the main roles of state and municipal governments are to maintain economic prosperity and social stability. Job creation is a priority. And, to enhance local employment prospects, attracting foreign investment has become necessary.
The security, economic and social rationale of both central and municipal governments are understandable. However, this difference of interests on China between a capital and local governments is a not a new phenomenon and it exists globally. Such a split can also be seen in China itself, where local government priorities may differ from those mandated by Beijing.
“States like Michigan have increasingly wooed Chinese investment, resulting in new factories and jobs in a part of the country that has struggled to recover from the [global financial crisis of 2008]”, New York Times reporter Alan Rappeport notes. However, “the decline in investment could hurt areas that are already economically disadvantaged and that have become dependent on Chinese cash”.