Another example of this recently - imprisoning your top entrepreneurs is a great way to ensure that your tech industry completely dies, but only over a long time frame as nobody comes up to replace the current companies (they all leave if they can). In the short term it offers great opportunities to enrich the leadership at the expense of all that wealth generated in previous decades, and at the expense of course of the country's future wealth.
So long term a disastrous decision for the country, short term it pays out for the current leaders if their cover up domestically is sufficiently thorough and there are other events to distract the populace (e.g. expansion through war).
It isn't either in a democracy.
In a way it's even more insidious in a democracy because the corruption is hidden better by one or a few layers of indirection. In the end however corruption and interests of the powerful is king.
The government listens carefully to top bosses describing in which way it can help them. The major challenge is for them to align their various plans.
The government also acts as a referee, crushing quarrels they cannot tackle themselves, in a brutal way (this may be an approach adopted in order to entice them into rather solving it by themselves, letting the referee act as a last resort).
As a Chinese (entrepreneur or not) if you stay away from politics and, as a big fish boss, play by those "let's cooperate in order for the gov to help all of us" rules I doubt the gov will annoy you.
> imprisoning your top entrepreneurs
Jack Ma (Alibaba) was AFAIK playing at best solo, and at worse against most other entrepreneurs in his sector, and didn't abide to numerous warnings. Then he directly publicly and harshly criticized the financial sector, and announced that his company will become more and more of a direct competitor for banks. The gov then took care of his case.
I like J. Ma, however it seems to me that his style, probably forged through his personal history, isn't compatible with the way things are done in China.
Was another top entrepreneur imprisoned?
This approach is way more efficient than my own government (the European Union and France's government) way: acting as the boss of bosses by devising its own strategy with at best vague (and often neglected) inputs from experts (most chosen among friends or lobbyists) then burning huge amounts of money into void projects (often nurturing cronies), taxing everything in sight, promulgating laws framing any new thing...
As to unofficial disappearances, here's a short list of the most prominent, imprisoned and threatened for becoming popular and/or critical of the regime:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/china-disappea...
Many foreign companies have been threatened too - leading to Google for example leaving the country, Apple's supplier is currently under threat:
https://www.ft.com/content/e6abcb86-1c80-4914-ae54-c7df94d7a...
Finally, they also insert CCP members at board level in companies to control their direction directly: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
As to saying China is more efficient than France, France is a terrible example for efficiency, so that's a very low bar, but at least France isn't a dictatorship and has rule of law, I know where I'd feel safe investing.
My point was only about business (relationship between companies and the gov).
> unofficial disappearances
Apart from Jack Ma (I proposed an explanation), this list isn't about business: artist, actor, Interpol chief, and "A Hong Kong-based publisher who specialised in sometimes gossipy books about China’s political elite".
> foreign companies have been threatened
Indeed, my point was only about Chinese entrepreneurs and bosses, sorry for having neglected to state it.
> they also insert CCP members at board level in companies to control their direction
"The party doesn’t habitually micromanage their day-to-day operations. The firms are largely still in charge of their basic business decisions"
Also: "But pressure from party committees to have a seat at the table when executives are making big calls on investment" may be in line with my hypothesis: the gov enforces respect of a strategy defined by all (AFAIK the Japanese MITI also acted this way).
My point isn't about the Party's ways to enforce the strategy of a sector but about the method used to define this strategy: it seems to me that it mainly is defined by companies' bosses.
There also is a real will to strictly control the political side of things, which may explain some actions, which aren't the usual way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67186745
'For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law'
China does not have rule of law, the law is used to intimidate rivals for power and applied very selectively. This is not just for people at the top, businesses at all levels feel this danger. It’s also not just for business people but anyone prominent. These are all hallmarks of a dictatorship.
I wish that was a problem only in dictatorships.
> long term a disastrous decision for the country, short term it pays out for the current leaders if their cover up
Dictators will remain in charge long term. To that extent their interests are better aligned with those of the country. I decision that will be bad in the medium term can be quite good for the ruling party in a democracy if they lose the next election and can persuade the electorate to blame whoever is in charge at the time.
Coincidentally, things could align, but they often don't.
IMHO most Chinese citizens remember that whenever they fight each other (civil war...) disasters happen, and therefore the most important mission of the government is to squash any growing quarrel. Everything else is ancillary.
