I. Introduction
The current international system is undergoing a period of profound transformation. The traditional model of globalization is facing structural bottlenecks, with geopolitical tensions, supply chain restructuring, climate change, and the digital revolution all intertwined. Against this backdrop, China has proposed a global governance initiative, supported by a new development paradigm of "a domestic circulation as the mainstay, with domestic and international circulations mutually reinforcing each other." This strategy is not only an adjustment to China's own development logic but also a response at the global level to the common question of "how to achieve stable development in an increasingly uncertain world."
Europe, as an important participant in global governance, also faces challenges such as insufficient growth momentum, limited strategic autonomy, and a mismatch between governance capacity and real-world challenges. China's global governance initiative and the new development paradigm behind it provide a valuable reference point for Europe to re-examine its own development path and global role.
II. The Deep Logic of China's Global Governance Initiative: From National Development to Global Governance
1. The Contemporary Drivers of the Global Governance Initiative
China's global governance initiative is not simply an export of diplomatic ideas, but a response to the reality of global governance failures. For a long time, the global governance system has suffered from three structural problems:
First, an imbalance between the distribution of governance power and the actual balance of power. Emerging economies have an increasing share in the global economy, but their voice in international financial institutions and trade rule-making is relatively insufficient.
Second, governance tools are biased towards the interests of a few developed economies. Traditional governance mechanisms primarily serve countries with advantages in capital, technology, and finance, while the development rights of developing countries have long been neglected.
Third, insufficient supply of global public goods. In areas such as climate change, public health, and development finance, international cooperation mechanisms are severely fragmented and inefficient.
China's global governance initiative attempts to provide an alternative approach that emphasizes fairness, development, and cooperation in the face of these structural deficiencies.
2. Core Concepts and Institutional Orientation of China's Initiative
China's global governance initiative does not seek to overthrow the existing international system, but rather emphasizes "reform and improvement." Its core principles are mainly reflected in:
(1) Prioritizing multilateralism: emphasizing the central role of the United States in global governance;
(2) Development-oriented governance: viewing the right to development as a fundamental human right and opposing ideological divisions;
(3) Cooperation rather than confrontation: opposing bloc politics and confrontational alliances;
(4) Results-oriented and pragmatic approach: valuing actual results over institutional forms.
This philosophy provides a value foundation for the outward extension of the new development paradigm.
III. Structural Connotations and Institutional Innovation of the New Development Paradigm
1. The Institutional Economic Significance of the "Domestic Circulation"
The core of the new development paradigm lies in domestic circulation, which is not a short-term stimulus policy, but a long-term structural adjustment. Its institutional significance is reflected in:
(1) Demand-side restructuring: expanding the size of the middle-income group and enhancing consumption stability through income distribution reform and improvement of the social security system;
(2) Supply-side upgrading: promoting the development of high-end manufacturing, digital industries, and strategic emerging industries to improve the quality of the supply system;
(3) Optimization of factor allocation: improving the efficiency of capital, technology, labor, and other factor allocation through market-oriented reforms.
This model emphasizes "endogenous growth drivers," fundamentally improving the resilience of the economic system.
2. "Dual Circulation" is not "Deglobalization"
The new development paradigm is often misinterpreted as "inward-looking development." In fact, the essence of dual circulation is to restructure the quality and methods of opening up:
Shifting from "passively embedding in global value chains" to "actively shaping global value chains"; from a single export-oriented approach to diversified market and investment layouts; from a rule-taker to a rule-builder.
This approach to opening up places greater emphasis on the security, stability, and sustainability of external dependence.
3. The Interaction Mechanism between the New Development Paradigm and Global Governance
The new development paradigm provides a solid material foundation and institutional guarantee for China's participation in global governance: domestic industrial upgrading enhances China's ability to participate in international rule-making; the super-large market provides stable expectations for global partners; and enhanced technological innovation capabilities enable China to provide more global public goods.This makes China's participation in global governance no longer confined to the conceptual level, but possesses practical operability.
IV. Structural Dilemmas and Governance Shift Facing Europe
1. The Intrinsic Tensions of Europe's Growth Model
Europe has long relied on export-oriented growth, high-end manufacturing exports, and financial services, but this model has revealed significant shortcomings in the current environment:
(1) Fragmented internal market and underutilized consumption potential;
(2) Slower pace of industrial upgrading compared to the digital wave;
(3) Growing contradictions between the social welfare system and fiscal sustainability.
Against the backdrop of rising uncertainty in global demand, this growth model faces severe challenges.
2. The Realistic Constraints of the "Strategic Autonomy" Concept
(1) Dependence on external energy, raw materials, and key technologies;
(2) Divergent interests among member states and high costs of policy coordination;
(3) Continued significant external dependence in areas such as security and technology.
This often places Europe in a position of leading in ideas but being constrained in implementation in global governance.
3. Europe's Role Dilemma in Global Governance
(1) Europe has long positioned itself as a "rule-maker," but faces challenges in reality:
(2) Global South countries question the representativeness and fairness of European rules;
(3) Insufficient investment in the provision of global public goods;
Dialogue mechanisms are sometimes politicized by values, weakening the basis for cooperation. These issues prompt Europe to rethink its own governance model.
V. Multidimensional Insights from China's New Development Paradigm for Europe
1. The Shift from "External Dependence" to "Internal Resilience"
The Chinese experience shows that a strong internal circulation is a prerequisite for, not the opposite of, participating in globalization. For Europe:
(1) Further integration of the EU internal market and reduction of institutional barriers;
(2) Enhancing the stability of domestic demand through coordinated fiscal, industrial, and social policies;
(3) Supporting external openness with internal resilience, rather than responding to risks with protectionism.
2. A Development-Oriented Global Governance Perspective
China's initiatives emphasize development priority, which has important implications for Europe:
Paying more attention to the real needs of developing countries in global governance; combining rule-making with capacity building for development; avoiding the politicization and instrumentalization of global governance tools.
This will help enhance the legitimacy and attractiveness of Europe's global governance solutions. 3. Balancing State Capacity and Market Mechanisms
China's emphasis on "effective market + capable government" in its new development paradigm offers valuable insights for Europe:
(1) The state plays a coordinating role in strategic industries, infrastructure, and technological innovation;
(2) Market mechanisms remain the decisive force in resource allocation;
(3) Policy objectives are clear, and implementation is strong, avoiding fragmented governance.
VI. Sino-European Comparison and Cooperation Insights in Key Areas
1. Green Transition: Complementarity of Scale and Institutionalization
China has advantages in scaling up green industries, while Europe has rich experience in institutional design and standard setting. Both sides can:
(1) Strengthen coordination on new energy technology standards;
(2) Promote mutual recognition of green financial instruments;
(3) Jointly provide global green public goods.
2. Digital Governance: Integration of Efficiency and Rules
China's digital economy is developing rapidly, while Europe emphasizes data protection and fair competition. Cooperation between the two sides will help to:
(1) Build a digital governance model that balances innovation and security;
(2) Avoid fragmentation of global digital rules;
(3) Enhance the inclusiveness of digital governance.
3. Global Public Health: From Crisis Response to System Building
China emphasizes systematic public health capacity building, while Europe focuses on medical quality and governance standards. Both sides can cooperate on:
(1) Vaccine and drug production capacity planning;
(2) Disease early warning and information sharing;
(3) Global health governance reform.
VII. Strategic Implications for Europe
Overall, China's global governance initiatives and new development paradigm offer at least three strategic implications for Europe:
First, internal development capacity is the foundation of international influence;
Second, the effectiveness of global governance depends on inclusiveness and a development-oriented approach;
Third, strategic autonomy does not equal strategic isolation, but rather higher-quality openness.
VIII. Conclusion
China's new development paradigm and global governance initiatives offer a development path that seeks stability amidst uncertainty and maintains cooperation amidst competition. If Europe can draw lessons from this, combining internal resilience building with open cooperation, it will not only contribute to its own transformation but also inject new impetus into the reform of the global governance system.