[deepVoid]

> We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee.

> We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.

> Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.

There are lots of unknowns and many if's. It is far-fetched at best that Huawei is state-owned.

[davidu]

Regardless of the legal ownership structure (I believe the SSRN perspective), it is effectively "state directed when needed." That's not a xenophobic perspective, that's a reality of being a company in China and it'd be hard for someone to push back on that based on the last 20 years of game film for Internet related businesses in China.

[chubbyrabbit]

> state directed when needed

Isn't it the same in here in the US? The president said "hey companies, you cannot trade with Huawei" and every company has to follow.

My point is every government has some degree of influence on their companies. How much is another question. However in my opinion Huawei cannot be as innovative as they are with as much influence from their government as people here often suggest.

[wolco]

No, not the same at all. You cannot escape the Chinese government if you reach any kind of national success.

In the US you can fight the government and even side with the other party and try to get the president to lose their job.

Most know it's more profitable to ride a wave rather than to fight it.

[seanmcdirmid]

You could technically do that in China also, just without an independent judiciary you wouldn’t get very far.

[steve19]

Given that most news media, and many CEOs, in the country oppose the President, with impunity, it is hard to argue the government has the same level of control.

[deepVoid]

Every company is "state directed when needed", to some degree. For instance, Google is not allowed to provide Android to Huawei (it is withheld now), even if there is no clear evidence that Huawei threatens national security. Admittedly, it would be harder for Huawei to push back on government directions. However, that still does not make Huawei "state-owned" or "state-directed" in the common sense.

[edoceo]

SSRN: Social Science Research Network

I had to search that acronym. HTH

[georgeecollins]

I disagree. I think you are used to Western Companies where the default is private ownership. All major Chinese companies began as state owned enterprises, and it is usually necessary to get investment from one to get a charter. So ostensibly private companies have a big state investment.

Plus a trade union committee implies a government structure.

[adventured]

> All major Chinese companies began as state owned enterprises

Tencent, Baidu, Alibaba, Ctrip, JD.com and dozens of other major Chinese Internet companies did not begin as state owned enterprises.

They were all born during the prime years of Deng's philosophy holding sway over how the Chinese Government implemented economic policy. At one point Yahoo and Softbank owned about 80% of Alibaba as an example. The state had very little applied control over the company until the Xi era. China's system today is not the same as China's system in 1999. There was far more freedom in the system of 20 years ago, including in regards to corporate independence and speech online.

[mytailorisrich]

Yes, Alibaba started with investments from Softbank and Goldman Sachs.

It really is a private startup story like those in the Silicon Valley.

[blahblahblogger]

To what extent do CEOs like Jack Ma, who are known in the West (at least on here), acknowledge the reality of this system?

Or do they?

[dahauns]

>I think you are used to Western Companies where the default is private ownership.

From a continental European perspective I'd contest that. Quite a few of today's multinationals here began as either wholly or partly state owned and/or today have still significant state ownership - especially in infrastructure/utility/telecommunications, but also in "strategic" industries. This includes telcos like Deutsche Telekom (with its daughter T-Mobile), former state mail companies like DHL, Airbus (and its numerous predecessors), most of the state airlines (Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, SAS etc.), and others like Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot/PSA, STMicro just to name a few.

[georgeecollins]

That is a good point. Because I am from the US I tend to think of companies as starting private. There are some really important exceptions in the US too: The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, etc.

[seanmcdirmid]

> All major Chinese companies began as state owned enterprises,

That isn’t true at all. A lot of the companies started after the late 80s were never stare owner at all.

[deepVoid]

It is not true that all major Chinese companies began as state-owned enterprises. Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu etc. are all private. They were started by their founders and funded by VC money. For instance, Alibaba was started by Jack Ma and 17 others. It is privately-owned by shareholders, none of which is state or government[1]. For some other industries such as banks, railway, oil etc., it is different. They are mostly state-owned. But tech is not one of them.

[1] https://www.marketscreener.com/ALIBABA-GROUP-HOLDING-1791667...

[coldtea]

>All major Chinese companies began as state owned enterprises

How come there are so many Chinese startup success stories then?

Those weren't "major companies" when they began...

[wolco]

They are funded by the state indirectly.

[georgeecollins]

Show me one that did not get some funding from a state enterprise. It is almost impossible to clear the bureaucratic hurdles without that. My source for this is “China’s Crisis of Success” by William H. Overholt.