A U.S. Lawyer's Opinion of the Economic Impact of Technology and Corporate Law Developments in the USSR/Russia and China from the Mid-1970s to Today

Q2 Social Sciences
T. Shillinglaw
{"title":"A U.S. Lawyer's Opinion of the Economic Impact of Technology and Corporate Law Developments in the USSR/Russia and China from the Mid-1970s to Today","authors":"T. Shillinglaw","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.17.4.292-309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I was a lawyer for two large American companies--first for Allis-Chalmers and then for Coming--devoting a great deal of my time to the Soviet Union and Russia beginning in 1975 (including being a resident for Allis-Chalmers in Moscow for 1977 and 1978), and to China beginning in 1983. I worked with both countries until my retirement from Coming in mid-2006. As such, I was in a position to observe significant, indeed historic, changes in both countries' relative economic developments, which I believe were based in significant part on their respective corporate and related technology-law developments during that time. This paper is based on my own observations, including my interactions over this period with many Western, Soviet/Russian and Chinese lawyers, businesspeople and government officials. (1) In brief, this entire period saw China, beginning from a developmental base far inferior to that of the USSR, leapfrog the USSR/Russian Federation in economic development; today, any neutral observer could only conclude that China vastly outpaces the Russian Federation economically, using virtually any relevant indicia or means of comparison. The clearest support for my personal observations contained in this paper is whether legislative changes in areas supporting foreign trade and investment were adopted more quickly and in greater depth, continuity and clarity in China than in the USSR/Russian Federation. This indeed was the case. A very important reason for China being so comparatively successful in developing its economy, beginning with the administration of Deng Xaioping, has been its ability--indeed, its desire--to incorporate Western industrial design and manufacturing technology, and increasingly to build on this technology to develop its own sources of technology in an ever-growing number of industrial sectors. Greatly assisting China in this regard has been the country's extremely open regulatory environment in relation to foreign investment and its cultural receptivity to Western business practices, as well its extensive adoption of Western commercial law concepts, including those relating to technology. Though it is outside the scope of this paper, it must be noted that certainly important for China was the desire (if not the necessity) to be open to Western investment in order to create a rapidly growing domestic industry, making export-quality products, in order to absorb what turned out to be a rural-to-urban internal migration of a size unmatched in history. Russia did not face this problem, and hence had no corresponding need to attract foreign investment to solve it. Given China's ongoing policies and attitudes encouraging foreign investment and other forms of foreign company participation in the Chinese economy, I do not see anything in the current commercial law developments within the Russian Federation relating to foreign companies that would, in the foreseeable future, help to narrow this development gap between the two countries. Historical Background--Prior to 1972 In February 1972, the United States and China signed the Shanghai Communique. In May and October of that same year, the U.S. signed a series of trade accords with the USSR. The Shanghai Communique would (though beginning only in the late 1970s under Deng Xaioping) serve as the basis for what became expansive business cooperation between the two countries. This was in contrast to the relatively immediate implementation of the U.S.-USSR trade accords. There was not extensive Soviet or Chinese trade or commercial cooperation prior to the 1970s with the U.S., Western Europe or Japan--one reason for this was that after World War II, Western companies were severely restricted in what they could trade with both countries because of the multilateral COCOM export control structure. This structure constituted the agreement by Western governments on which products and technologies could be supplied freely to Communist-controlled countries, and which could only be supplied on the basis of an export license issued by the government of the proposed exporter. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"38 1","pages":"292-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.17.4.292-309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I was a lawyer for two large American companies--first for Allis-Chalmers and then for Coming--devoting a great deal of my time to the Soviet Union and Russia beginning in 1975 (including being a resident for Allis-Chalmers in Moscow for 1977 and 1978), and to China beginning in 1983. I worked with both countries until my retirement from Coming in mid-2006. As such, I was in a position to observe significant, indeed historic, changes in both countries' relative economic developments, which I believe were based in significant part on their respective corporate and related technology-law developments during that time. This paper is based on my own observations, including my interactions over this period with many Western, Soviet/Russian and Chinese lawyers, businesspeople and government officials. (1) In brief, this entire period saw China, beginning from a developmental base far inferior to that of the USSR, leapfrog the USSR/Russian Federation in economic development; today, any neutral observer could only conclude that China vastly outpaces the Russian Federation economically, using virtually any relevant indicia or means of comparison. The clearest support for my personal observations contained in this paper is whether legislative changes in areas supporting foreign trade and investment were adopted more quickly and in greater depth, continuity and clarity in China than in the USSR/Russian Federation. This indeed was the case. A very important reason for China being so comparatively successful in developing its economy, beginning with the administration of Deng Xaioping, has been its ability--indeed, its desire--to incorporate Western industrial design and manufacturing technology, and increasingly to build on this technology to develop its own sources of technology in an ever-growing number of industrial sectors. Greatly assisting China in this regard has been the country's extremely open regulatory environment in relation to foreign investment and its cultural receptivity to Western business practices, as well its extensive adoption of Western commercial law concepts, including those relating to technology. Though it is outside the scope of this paper, it must be noted that certainly important for China was the desire (if not the necessity) to be open to Western investment in order to create a rapidly growing domestic industry, making export-quality products, in order to absorb what turned out to be a rural-to-urban internal migration of a size unmatched in history. Russia did not face this problem, and hence had no corresponding need to attract foreign investment to solve it. Given China's ongoing policies and attitudes encouraging foreign investment and other forms of foreign company participation in the Chinese economy, I do not see anything in the current commercial law developments within the Russian Federation relating to foreign companies that would, in the foreseeable future, help to narrow this development gap between the two countries. Historical Background--Prior to 1972 In February 1972, the United States and China signed the Shanghai Communique. In May and October of that same year, the U.S. signed a series of trade accords with the USSR. The Shanghai Communique would (though beginning only in the late 1970s under Deng Xaioping) serve as the basis for what became expansive business cooperation between the two countries. This was in contrast to the relatively immediate implementation of the U.S.-USSR trade accords. There was not extensive Soviet or Chinese trade or commercial cooperation prior to the 1970s with the U.S., Western Europe or Japan--one reason for this was that after World War II, Western companies were severely restricted in what they could trade with both countries because of the multilateral COCOM export control structure. This structure constituted the agreement by Western governments on which products and technologies could be supplied freely to Communist-controlled countries, and which could only be supplied on the basis of an export license issued by the government of the proposed exporter. …
一位美国律师对20世纪70年代中期至今苏联/俄罗斯和中国技术和公司法发展的经济影响的看法
我曾是两家美国大公司的律师——先是Allis-Chalmers,后来是Coming——从1975年开始,我把大量时间花在苏联和俄罗斯(包括1977年和1978年作为Allis-Chalmers在莫斯科的常驻律师),从1983年开始,我把大量时间花在中国。我一直在这两个国家工作,直到2006年年中从康明斯退休。因此,我能够观察到两国相对经济发展的重大变化,甚至是历史性的变化,我认为这些变化在很大程度上是基于当时两国各自的企业和相关技术法律的发展。这篇论文是基于我自己的观察,包括我在这一时期与许多西方、苏联/俄罗斯和中国律师、商人和政府官员的互动。(1)简而言之,在这整个时期,中国从一个远不如苏联的发展基础开始,在经济发展方面超越了苏联/俄罗斯联邦;今天,任何中立的观察者都只能得出这样的结论:中国在经济上远远超过俄罗斯联邦,几乎使用任何相关的指标或比较手段。本文中所包含的对我个人观察的最明显的支持是,在支持对外贸易和投资的领域,中国的立法改革是否比苏联/俄罗斯联邦更快、更深入、更连续、更明确。事实确实如此。中国是一个非常重要的原因所以相对成功地发展经济,从邓Xaioping管理开始,一直的能力——实际上,它的欲望——将西方工业设计和制造技术,并且越来越建立在这个技术来开发自己的技术来源越来越多的工业部门。在这方面,中国对外国投资极其开放的监管环境,对西方商业惯例的文化接受度,以及广泛采用西方商业法概念,包括与技术有关的概念,都极大地帮助了中国。虽然这超出了本文的范围,但必须指出的是,对中国来说,重要的是希望(如果不是必要的话)向西方投资开放,以创造一个快速增长的国内产业,生产出口质量的产品,以吸收历史上规模空前的农村向城市的内部移民。俄罗斯没有面临这个问题,因此没有相应的需要吸引外国投资来解决这个问题。鉴于中国目前鼓励外国投资和其他形式的外国公司参与中国经济的政策和态度,我认为,在可预见的未来,俄罗斯联邦目前与外国公司有关的商业法律发展不会有助于缩小两国之间的发展差距。历史背景——1972年以前1972年2月,美国和中国签署了《上海公报》。同年5月和10月,美国与苏联签署了一系列贸易协定。这与美苏贸易协定相对迅速的实施形成鲜明对比。在20世纪70年代之前,苏联或中国与美国、西欧或日本没有广泛的贸易或商业合作——其中一个原因是,第二次世界大战后,由于多边COCOM出口管制结构,西方公司与这两个国家的贸易受到严重限制。这种结构构成了西方政府的协议,即产品和技术可以自由地提供给共产党控制的国家,而且只能在拟议出口国政府颁发出口许可证的基础上提供。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信