Watching China Watching
不出戶，知天下
不窺牖，見天道
China Heritage launched the series Watching China Watching in January 2018. In it we offer essays and reflections on studying the Chinese world and approaches to understanding the Chinese People’s Republic. Our method is underpinned by New Sinology.
The men and women who taught us to engage with the Chinese world and to appreciate things Chinese in a holistic fashion were motivated and inspired by many things: their personal histories, a diverse range of interests, as well as a pressing necessity to watch (and to watch out for) China. For many of them, Chinese and non-Chinese alike (after all, some of the greatest China Watchers are from China), China was not a distant subject for study but an essential part of lived reality. Their insights were generally based not on some crude social science or anthropological approach to observing The Other, or the result of dissecting an object rich in possibility as part of some ambitious career trajectory. Their understanding was based as much on entanglement, fraught questioning, a spirit of self-discovery and personal enrichment as the result of a lifelong effort to approach what is in fact an all-encompassing cultural-political world from a broad humanistic perspective.
***
An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. I like this, because I am happy to be both halves, the watcher and the watched.
— Albert Camus
In Watching China Watching we are interested in the professional China Watchers, a once nearly-defunct claque of people working in government for national political ends, journalists, academics, ne’er-do-wells, as well as the talented curious and literary dilettantes. In the ‘New Epoch’ of Chairman of Everything Xi Jinping, the long-overlooked, or underestimated, skills of being able to read, listen to and understand the bloviations of the Chinese party-state are, perhaps, in vogue once more.
In producing Watching China Watching we also want to leave some material from the past for those who are engaged with the Chinese multiverse and who would watch, learn, imbue and develop their own approach to China and its world as part of their personal human struggle in what is a world of contentious ideas, ideological fabrications, conflicted interests and strained emotions.
For more on the topic of ‘The China Expert’ 中國通, or ‘Old China Hand’, see Jao Tsung-I on 通 tōng — 饒宗頤與通人 (China Heritage, 23 June 2017).
***
Desmond Shum (沈棟, 1968-) is a businessman and commentator who is best known for Red Roulette: An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, Corruption, and Vengeance in Today’s China, a business memoir ghostwritten by John Pomfret. Shum credits Bill Browder and his book Red Notice as inspirations. The following essay is reprinted from Desmond Shum’s Substack.
See also The Case for a New, Integrated Study of China (China Thought Express, 4 October 2026), which advocates a ‘New National Learning’ 新國學 approach to the study of China that in many respects chimes with our advocacy of New Sinology 後漢學 since 2005.
***
The Chinese rubric of this chapter in Watching China Watching is taken from Chapter 47 of the Tao Te Ching.
— Geremie R. Barmé
Editor, China Heritage
5 October 2026
***
Also in Watching China Watching:
- The Possible and the Probable
- Something In The Air
- One Decent Man
- Resistance and the Ethical China Watcher
- Lessons from the black box of Chinese politics
***
Why Chinese and Western Analysts See China Differently
Desmond Shum
3 October 2026
On a regular basis, I probably review ten Chinese-language podcasts or pieces of writing on China for every two from Hong Kong and one in English.
Over time, I have noticed a consistent difference among them. Hong Kong analysis often sits somewhere between the two, but broadly speaking there are two largely separate worlds of China watching: the Chinese-language world and the English-language world.
They study the same country, often with the same objective—understanding what is happening to China—but frequently focus on different subjects, notice developments at different speeds and approach them through different analytical routes.
Language explains some of this. But I increasingly think these are better understood as two different knowledge systems studying the same object.
The distinction is not that Chinese commentators observe while Western analysts theorise. Both worlds contain sophisticated analysts working with broad political, economic and historical frameworks.
The deeper differences lie in audience, information flow, source selection, analytical incentives and sensory distance from China.
Different audiences create different China stories
A large part of English-language China analysis is produced for governments, universities, think tanks, financial institutions, corporations and international media in Washington, New York, Brussels and elsewhere.
Those audiences have particular needs. They want to know what developments in China mean for Western industry, technology, security, financial markets and foreign policy.
What does Chinese industrial policy mean for European manufacturing? What does China’s semiconductor development mean for American technological leadership? What does the PLA mean for Taiwan and U.S. military planning? What do Chinese EV exports mean for Western carmakers? What does China’s slowdown mean for commodity prices, multinational earnings or geopolitical power?
This naturally gives English-language China analysis a strong outward-facing dimension.
The Chinese-language world generally has a different centre of gravity. Its audience is more directly interested in what is happening within China and what those developments reveal about China’s economy, politics and society.
That does not mean Chinese-language analysis is confined to local or micro issues. Many Chinese podcasters routinely discuss China’s growth model, demographics, political structure, fiscal system, foreign relations, industrial policy and long-term trajectory.
The difference is that their analysis tends to be fed much more directly by the Chinese information environment itself.
The result is something like:
China viewed largely from within its own information system versus China viewed partly through its consequences for the outside world.
This matters because analysts do not choose questions in a vacuum. Their audiences help determine which questions are important, what evidence gets assembled and which conclusions are most relevant.
Take China’s EV industry.
A Western analyst may naturally be drawn toward market share, European industrial decline, tariffs, supply-chain dependence and Chinese technological competitiveness.
A Chinese analyst studying exactly the same industry may give more attention to profitability, price wars, employment, supplier finances, government subsidies, excess capacity and whether the industry’s expansion is economically sustainable.
Both may be conducting macro analysis. Both may be looking at the same companies.
But the question determines the evidence sought, and the evidence sought can influence the conclusion reached.
A Chinese industry can therefore look extraordinarily formidable when viewed from the standpoint of its impact on European competitors while looking considerably less sustainable when viewed from the standpoint of returns on capital inside China.
Both can be true at the same time.
Different information supply chains—and different attitudes toward official information
This may be one of the most important distinctions.
English-language China analysis tends to rely heavily on sources that are formal, accessible and citable: official statistics, government documents, official statements, major media, corporate filings, academic research and established institutional reports.
There are good reasons for this. Such sources appear authoritative and are professionally defensible.
But this also gives the information entering the Western analytical system a particular slant.
A significant portion ultimately originates from the Chinese state itself, or from an information environment shaped by what the Chinese state chooses to publish, measure and make accessible.
Official information is indispensable. But in China it is not produced in a politically neutral environment. What is measured, how it is measured, what is released, how it is described, what is omitted and when information appears can all matter.
Chinese-language analysts also read official documents.
The difference is that many are more instinctively cynical and suspicious of official information as a complete description of reality.
They are therefore more likely to complement it with unofficial sources: industry contacts, business conversations, social media, independent commentators, local information, brokerage research, employment data, property transactions, court cases, leaked material and specialist sources that may never enter mainstream English-language discussion.
So the distinction is not:
Western analysts use official sources; Chinese analysts do not.
It is one of weighting and presumption.
A Western analyst may begin with an official document and ask:
What does this document tell us?
A Chinese analyst may read the same document and ask:
How was this described historically? What has changed? What are they not saying? And does what we are seeing elsewhere fit this account?
That difference in prior assumptions can matter enormously.
It means the two sides often construct their understanding from different mixtures of official and unofficial evidence.
That alone can lead intelligent analysts toward substantially different interpretations.
Immediacy creates a different analytical problem
The Chinese information ecosystem also tends to deliver information faster.
Something happens during the day on Monday. By that evening, Chinese commentators may already be debating why it happened, whether it is appearing elsewhere and what larger trend it represents.
The advantage is obvious: shorter latency.
But the problem with very immediate information is not necessarily that it is unreliable. The problem is that not all the layers of the situation may yet be visible.
The initial facts may be entirely accurate while their broader significance remains unclear. Other actors may not yet have responded. Implementation may not yet have unfolded. The scale of the phenomenon may still be unknown.
You may know what happened before you know exactly what it means.
English-language analysis often arrives later, after more data, reporting and institutional evidence have accumulated. That gives it an advantage in context and corroboration.
But the price is latency. A development may have been discussed extensively in the Chinese-language world long before it becomes a major subject in English-language analysis.
So the trade-off is not simply speed versus accuracy.
It is:
earlier information with fewer visible layers versus later information with more accumulated context.
One special problem: CCP personnel politics
There is one category in the Chinese-language podcast world where the information problem becomes much more severe: CCP personnel movements.
Chinese-language commentators devote substantial attention to disappearances, appointments, factional relationships, military promotions, purges and unexplained absences.
Personnel movements are among the few visible indicators of political developments inside an extraordinarily opaque system.
But the combination is dangerous: the importance of the subject is extremely high while reliable information is exceptionally scarce.
An official misses a meeting. A photograph changes. A name disappears from a website. Someone is absent from an event.
Very quickly, elaborate explanations can emerge involving investigations, factional struggles or impending personnel changes.
Some eventually prove accurate. Many do not.
This area therefore contains a disproportionate amount of speculation and misinformation.
But this should be treated as a topic-specific problem, not as a general weakness of Chinese-language analysis.
Different intellectual ecosystems
The two communities also have surprisingly little crossover.
Someone can be influential among serious Chinese-language commentators yet almost unknown in the West. Conversely, a prominent Western China analyst may barely register in Chinese intellectual discussions.
They listen to different podcasts, read different writers and operate within different prestige systems.
Over time, each world becomes somewhat self-referential.
The result is that two groups can spend their careers studying China yet still encounter different evidence, different debates and different assumptions about what matters.
Language is more than translation
Words such as 编制、城投、烂尾楼、维稳、远洋捕捞、窗口指导、专项债、化债 can all be translated into English. But translation does not necessarily convey the institutional meaning accumulated around them.
Someone deeply familiar with the Chinese system may infer a great deal from changes in bureaucratic language, institutional behaviour or terminology that appear insignificant to an outside reader.
The English-language analytical world has its own conceptual vocabulary—“de-risking,” “overcapacity,” “civil-military fusion,” “structural rebalancing,” “strategic competition”—which likewise shapes what questions are asked and what relationships analysts look for.
Language therefore does more than transmit information.
It helps organise perception.
The strengths and weaknesses
I would describe the two systems this way.
Chinese-language China watching generally has greater proximity, higher information bandwidth and shorter latency. It draws heavily on both official and unofficial information and often approaches official narratives with greater scepticism, and often provides more historical context. That can make it particularly effective at detecting discrepancies between policy statements and behaviour on the ground.
Its principal challenge is that immediacy means interpretation may start before every layer of the story has become visible. On especially opaque subjects such as CCP personnel politics, that information deficit can produce substantial speculation.
English-language China watching generally works with more formalised, citable information and strong comparative frameworks. It is particularly good at examining China’s impact on the international economy, Western industry, technology, national security and geopolitics.
Its weakness is greater sensory distance. Heavy reliance on official and institutionally acceptable sources can mean that its initial information set partially inherits the priorities, categories and omissions of those sources. Meanwhile, Western audience demand can pull analysis toward China’s consequences for the West while underweighting China’s internal condition.
Joining the two systems
The obvious improvement is not to choose one world over the other.
It is to connect them.
Use the Chinese-language information universe for proximity, discovery, early detection and triangulation beyond the official narrative. Then test emerging interpretations against data, company evidence, historical experience, international comparison and subsequent developments.
At the same time, use Western analysis for something Chinese commentary often gives less attention to: how developments inside China transmit outward into global markets, Western industry, technology, security and politics.
The two systems can be highly complementary.
Two analytical worlds, two sets of incentives, two different information filters. Neither has a monopoly on reality. The real advantage comes from moving between them—using each to expose the blind spots of the other.
***
Source:
Desmond Shum, Why Chinese and Western Analysts See China Differently, 3 October 2026