China’s path to modernization is prompting the world to rethink development logic. While some countries build barriers and impose their models, China’s open and cooperative approach provides global stability, offering not only an innovative path for itself but also a new development model for other nations.
Professor Zheng Yongnian, Founding Director of the Advanced Institute at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, has analyzed the practical path and civilizational foundations of China’s solution, covering global perspectives, regional innovation, and border governance.
How does China’s development act as a stabilizing force in the world?
China is the world’s second-largest economy with a huge market, so its openness is a major global public good. Countries have different strengths, and openness is the basis for trade and mutual benefit. China’s large market and production capacity have long been key drivers of global growth.
For the Global South, the main challenge is achieving development and modernization. Western countries often promote protectionism while attaching conditions to investment, which slows development. China takes a different path: after developing, it extends—not removes—the “ladder” for others. This is reflected in initiatives like the Belt and Road, which focus on practical needs such as infrastructure, schools, and hospitals.
Our broader aim is to build a community with a shared future. Just as we pursue common prosperity at home, we support common development globally.
How should China share its modernization model with the world?
To understand the Global South’s challenges, we must first see them in relation to the Global North. The Global South has its own structural issues, but many current problems stem from the crisis within the Global North itself. Since the Trump administration, the U.S. and Europe have struggled with internal contradictions—inequality, stagnant innovation, and welfare systems under pressure. When they cannot resolve their own problems, it is unrealistic to expect them to effectively support the Global South.
Yet this shift also creates opportunities. The core tasks for the Global South remain development and modernization. Past models—external dependency, internal dependency, or complete isolation from the West—have all failed. China’s modernization, however, offers a useful reference: “embracing the world while forging one’s own path.”
Openness is necessary, but not at the cost of identity or autonomy. The Global South must engage globally while maintaining its own direction and making full use of its comparative advantages. Losing autonomy in development leads to failure; preserving it is essential for successful modernization.
How will the “new three drivers” advance Zhejiang’s development amid current global and domestic challenges, and promote tech–industry integration for common prosperity?
Zhejiang’s development shows strong continuity, rooted in its private economy and openness—from the Wenzhou and Yiwu models to today’s digital and high-quality growth. This is the foundation of the “new three drivers.”
But continuity must adapt to change. Globally, tech containment and rising geopolitical risks challenge Zhejiang’s export-oriented economy. Domestically, growth is shifting from expanding scale to improving quality. Zhejiang leads in the digital economy but still relies on external core technologies, and private-sector investment in high-end R&D remains insufficient.
The core issue is weak coordination among the “new three drivers”: basic research, application transformation, and patient capital. Zhejiang needs to break institutional barriers, strengthen digital security and foundational technology, and better connect its dynamic private sector with long-term innovation so that strong vitality becomes real capability.
Zhejiang’s path to common prosperity relies on a clear division of roles: SOEs build the platforms; private firms drive innovation and growth. SOEs handle large, long-term infrastructure, while private enterprises lead in digital economy, logistics, and e-commerce.
In the 15th Five-Year Plan, Zhejiang will strengthen this model by developing county-specific industries and promoting fairer distribution, such as linking R&D investment with employee income and expanding employee stock ownership.
Zhejiang must also upgrade digital security (from “data storage” to “data empowerment”) and enhance supply-chain resilience, keeping core R&D at home while expanding manufacturing in ASEAN and Belt and Road regions.
With its dynamic private sector and strong ecosystem-building capacity, Zhejiang is well-positioned to become a national leader in three areas: independent digital capabilities, deeper private-sector innovation, and new mechanisms for common prosperity.
When did you start focusing on Tibet, and how do you assess its rapid changes, innovative policies, and overall development logic?
This is my first visit to Nyingchi, but I’ve studied Tibet for more than 30 years—its history, governance, border issues, and ethnic affairs. Tibet’s development offers many successful examples in poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and support policies. Few countries invest as heavily in ethnic regions as China. A clear indicator is life expectancy: before peaceful liberation it was 35.5 years; today it is 72.5. Culturally, while many minority groups in the West have disappeared, China’s ethnic groups, including Tibetans, continue to thrive thanks to strong policy support.
To describe Tibet’s transformation, terms like “tremendous change” are no longer enough. Tibet has experienced a true “leap”—a direct transition from a serf-based society to socialism, which is a change of system, not just of speed or scale.
Strategically, Tibet’s ecological role is vital. The plateau is fragile, and many major rivers originate here; protecting this environment is essential for China and the region. Economically, Tibet must align with national strategic plans—especially through major infrastructure such as high-speed rail, highways, and airports—to attract talent and resources.
Tibet should also broaden its opening-up. As both a border region and an opening-up frontier, it must deepen ties with inland provinces and neighboring countries, promoting connectivity and mutual benefit.
Finally, Tibet’s development follows China’s broader civilizational logic of inclusiveness and integration. Buddhism and Marxism both became part of Chinese culture through Sinicization. Today, regional ethnic autonomy embodies China’s approach to diversity—distinct from Western models that struggle with pluralism. We should strengthen our own narratives about Tibet, draw on its cultural resources, and tell Tibet’s story with confidence.
How can Tibet engage in deeper cooperation with neighboring countries through the Belt and Road Initiative?
The Belt and Road Initiative must start with a solid foundation. First is infrastructure—roads, railways, airports, and trade ports—to achieve hard connectivity. Then comes economic and livelihood connectivity, using border ports and comparative advantages to deepen trade and financial links. Finally, people-to-people ties foster cultural exchange.
The China-Tibet “Rim of the Himalayas” International Cooperation Forum already shows progress, especially in China–Nepal cooperation. Going forward, we should promote inclusive multilateralism, discuss regional issues openly, and make full use of Tibet’s cultural strengths. The Himalayas can become a bridge linking China with its neighbors.
Source: xzxw, zjdaily, cssn, cctv
