Comments on: Stern Hu and the Chinese steel industry – Weekly editorial http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/20/weekly-editorial-stern-hu-and-the-chinese-steel-industry/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:12:37 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Richard Broinowski http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/20/weekly-editorial-stern-hu-and-the-chinese-steel-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-43581 Richard Broinowski Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:55:43 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=5803#comment-43581 It is ironic (pun hard to avoid) that chaos and disorganization in China’s steel industry has led among other things to the security clamp-down in the industry of which Stern Hu’s arrest has been a consequence. Contrast this with the discipline the Japanese steel industry showed during the 1960s and 1970s in negotiating iron ore and coking coal prices with Australian mines. The Japanese were so disciplined that they could pick off one state, or one supplier, against another in forcing down prices in annual negotiations. Their tactics prompted the Australian government to request Ken Myer to produce the Myer Report, which in turn recommended machinery designed better to coordinate Australia’s strategies among miners and bureaucrats, both state and federal - the Standing Committee on Japan (SCJ), Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan (CCRJ), a Commonwealth-States Committee, and the Japan Secretariat. As a result, I believe Australian suppliers worked better together in pricing negotiations with the Japanese. We’ve all moved on from those years, but in some respects a thoughtful look at the machinery and whether it could usefully be adapted to trading with China might make sense. It is ironic (pun hard to avoid) that chaos and disorganization in China’s steel industry has led among other things to the security clamp-down in the industry of which Stern Hu’s arrest has been a consequence. Contrast this with the discipline the Japanese steel industry showed during the 1960s and 1970s in negotiating iron ore and coking coal prices with Australian mines. The Japanese were so disciplined that they could pick off one state, or one supplier, against another in forcing down prices in annual negotiations. Their tactics prompted the Australian government to request Ken Myer to produce the Myer Report, which in turn recommended machinery designed better to coordinate Australia’s strategies among miners and bureaucrats, both state and federal – the Standing Committee on Japan (SCJ), Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan (CCRJ), a Commonwealth-States Committee, and the Japan Secretariat. As a result, I believe Australian suppliers worked better together in pricing negotiations with the Japanese.

We’ve all moved on from those years, but in some respects a thoughtful look at the machinery and whether it could usefully be adapted to trading with China might make sense.

]]> By: Lincoln Fung http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/20/weekly-editorial-stern-hu-and-the-chinese-steel-industry/comment-page-1/#comment-43496 Lincoln Fung Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:37:38 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=5803#comment-43496 The recent world financial and economic crisis and the roles different economies have played in dealing with the challenges posed by the crisis suggest that the world is in a verge of a significant reshape of international economic order, or a new framework of economic governance. Developing economies are increasingly having more economic weight or clout, while the relative weight of industrialised economies are on the decline. The relative shift of economic weight between the two camps and the current international institutions governing international economic affairs in which the past powers dominate the say requires reconciliation and realignment to reflect the changed and changing world reality. In that broad context, it seems that the Australia China economic relations are a small part of it in a strange and interesting sense, i.e. equality (or inequality) and respect in dealing with each other. The Stern Hu case has the feature of coincidence in that context, although many commentators and the public have made all sorts of speculations and comments, based on limited information and own systems of thinking. How much are correct and relevant remains to be seen for a long time. The comments or demands by some politicians in Australia on the case reflect a deep rooted misunderstanding or contempt of another country and its system. That is where inequality and disrespect were shown and could be felt by others. Of course, information through official channels was also strangely scarce. But it requires good analysis to see whether it was the beginning of a new process, or it was a response in a process. But it is important for any new international economic order and governance to be fair to all, irrespective the past justice or injustice, equality or inequality, as well as sizes of the economy. It should be a new beginning to reflect universal justice and equality. The international community needs to work in that direction. The recent world financial and economic crisis and the roles different economies have played in dealing with the challenges posed by the crisis suggest that the world is in a verge of a significant reshape of international economic order, or a new framework of economic governance.
Developing economies are increasingly having more economic weight or clout, while the relative weight of industrialised economies are on the decline. The relative shift of economic weight between the two camps and the current international institutions governing international economic affairs in which the past powers dominate the say requires reconciliation and realignment to reflect the changed and changing world reality.
In that broad context, it seems that the Australia China economic relations are a small part of it in a strange and interesting sense, i.e. equality (or inequality) and respect in dealing with each other.
The Stern Hu case has the feature of coincidence in that context, although many commentators and the public have made all sorts of speculations and comments, based on limited information and own systems of thinking. How much are correct and relevant remains to be seen for a long time.
The comments or demands by some politicians in Australia on the case reflect a deep rooted misunderstanding or contempt of another country and its system. That is where inequality and disrespect were shown and could be felt by others.
Of course, information through official channels was also strangely scarce. But it requires good analysis to see whether it was the beginning of a new process, or it was a response in a process.
But it is important for any new international economic order and governance to be fair to all, irrespective the past justice or injustice, equality or inequality, as well as sizes of the economy. It should be a new beginning to reflect universal justice and equality.
The international community needs to work in that direction.

]]>