To enlist in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), potential recruits have to take tests. To make sure their sons and daughters pass, families pay up. At one recruitment office in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangxi, this year’s going rate, depending on your guanxi, or connections, is as much as 99,000 yuan ($16,000), says Wang, a recruitment officer in the province who asked that his full name not be used because he isn’t authorized to speak publicly. Limited openings, plus a high failure rate on the fitness exam, push parents to buy spots for their children during the annual enlistment drive that runs through September. Success offers a stable job and, for some, an escape from rural poverty.
The price varies, Wang says. His old army friends “asked me what the current price tag is, and I said ‘around 80,000 to 90,000 yuan for you guys.’ If your guanxi was really strong, it’d cost you around 50,000 to 60,000 yuan; if it was just so-so, you would have to spend 100,000 yuan at least.”
So how formidable a fighting force are they? There is more here.
Chinese army is not a fighting force for international purposes, but for quelling domestic unrest. When I visited Tibet I saw Chinese forts every couple of kilometers.
As for paying to get in, obviously it is profitable over the long run. Here in the Philippines, politicians pay about $15 to $25 a vote, because they know they will recoup their investment over the long run, from bribes, once they are in office.
First to comment. Again.
Yeah, the corruption is killing the Philippines, from top to bottom — even the guys who direct traffic live on bribes.
Unfortunately for the people there, most who really care about it just leave the country and send money back to their families from somewhere less dysfunctional. Largest remittances in the world.
There was a great piece on Acemoglu’s blog last year about how the whole system developed this way post-independence, and why the removal of the corrupt Marcos regime didn’t improve things much.
The lack of any institutional experience with external conflicts aside from that brief war with Vietnam in 1979 is probably hurting their efforts to reform the military and weed out incompetence and corruption. And as long as China’s relatively peaceful, they don’t really need the army for anything other than internal control.
Gotta get out there and intimidate the Filipinos every now and again though.
The Chinese military was not directly involved in Vietnam, but they were in Korea.
Brett is referring to a small war between China and the newly re-united Vietnam. Vietnam provoked China in various small ways, China tried to invade and failed.
In fact the war wasn’t even particularly small, but it was smaller than other wars that have happened in Vietnam.
Same here – it was brief, not small. The PLA basically made a point of blasting a way towards Hanoi, and then pulled back.
Such practices were rife in the British Army and Navy during the time that the British built their empire so it is not obviously bad. I suspect the lack of wars though as a bigger factor for potential weaknesses in the Chinese army. Wars are very good at weeding out people who are good at rhetoric and not capable. Every institution is prone to this weakness regardless of their recruiting policies.
Until the French Revolutionary Wars the English were only fighting opponents who did things this way. It did not go that well for them until about 1809 or so, the Navy never really operated along these lines and was their main force. The British system of commission purchase also broke down during wars because commissions, which were traded on the private market, could only be sold if the officer was alive. Commissions opened up by battle casualties were opened up and often given out again for meritorious action and competency. In fact ranks such as Major were only given out on modern lines, which is why so many retired veterans in Georgian and early 19th century novels and drama are give the rank of major, it was an earned rank.
Thanks. My impression is that the British Army system during the Napoleonic Wars was just barely good enough: it produced Wellington, but not much else talent. Wellington had a strong quartermaster, but most of his other direct underlings were braver than they were skilled. They tended to be foxhunting men.
It was the Indian Army that produced Wellington.
Not true. Wellington rose to Colonel, though Lt Col by purchase, in line infantry and cavalry units, he was gazetted a Colonel from the 33rd Foot, a line infantry regiment. His time in India, after this, was as a regular and he was promoted to general as a regular, though he had command of East India Company units he was never in an Indian Army.
These are good points. Before the Napoleonic Wars, the British mainly fought similarly corrupt armies. Between 1815 and 1914 they fought non-European peoples over which they had a huge technological advantage, or the absurdly corrupt Chinese army.
Its should be noted that the British army was neither very important or very good. The British had a history of struggling against anyone who could get organized. There is a long series of embarrassing defeats in the 18th and 19th centuries against the Argentines, Americans, Ashanti, Zulus, Afghans, Boers, etc. And the British relied throughout the empire hugely on non-British levies, either mercenaries, Indian soldiers, or soldiers from allied states.
There was a big push at the beginning of the twentieth century to professionalize the British army, to prepare to fight the Germans, who everyone knew were a different caliber of opponent than what the army had been fighting in the twentieth century.
You will never see a comment section about East Asians without “you (white people) did it too” responses. You always learn more about white people’s history than you do East Asians’ in comment sections for articles about East Asians.
I agree in general, but this thread is a relevant historical comparison that I don’t think has anything to do with racial grievances/nationalism. If you start talking about the effects of a major power selling positions in its army then it makes sense to look at how that’s worked out in the past.
Don’t you think that there is a fundamental difference between buying your rank legally, and doing it illegally?
Besides, remember that at the time the veniality of charges was seen as a vast improvement over just inheriting them.
Buying a rank was better that having it just because of who was your father, in the same way that having it because of merit is better than buying it.
Saying “two hundred years ago it was done that way” is completely meaningless.
Honestly I learned far more about the minutiae of European history because of Asian history than anywhere else. The nature of 18th and 19th century militaries, the actual process of government administration, and patronage networks are just not taught anymore, except in non European history, and among readers of historical fiction. If someone actually has any understanding of how the various Empires were actually run on the ground you need either someone who learns East Asian/Indian History or a devotee of Jane Austen.
Well if it makes you feel any better, you rarely see a comment thread anymore about whites without “you (non-white people) did it too” responses. Whenever slavery is discussed, for example, there are invariably comments about the Arab slave trade of black slaves. Etc.
Whenever slavery in the Americas or anything related to white people is discussed the main focus remains on white people. The same can’t be said about any comment section about East Asians which are always filled with “you (white people) did it too” responses and virtually no insight into East Asian behavior or history. It’s about deflecting and hiding.
Not sure what you mean. Most of the comments here seem to be about China.
I am always amazed that nothing about China is ever not extremely Chinese.
I am slightly relieved to find that the Chinese military is selected by bribery and cronyism.
Then this article should make you feel quite comfortable.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/16/rotting_from_within
Same goes for teachers and police officers throughout the country. I’ve heard at least 200,000 RMB to be a teacher in Shenzhen.
Yeah, the Chinese should give out promotions to promote sexual diversity like we do. Until chicks are generals in China, they are totally weaker than us.
Our female marines with one pull up will out diversify their corrupt army.
Where’s this hate from? Just a troll? Either way, it’s been a long, long time since wars were won or lost based on upper body strength. In a modern army I can’t imagine why women wouldn’t be at least as capable as men, especially as we continue to increase drone and robot use.
First of all, it was dark humor, not hate.
Second, I’m sure the vast ranks of female gamers are proof that you’re right.
Isn’t it odd that Mao invented political correctness, but it is only in America where it has taken hold? I’ll take corruption over ideology any day of the week. Perhaps that explains how China has dealt with corruption. “Hey, it’s better than Maoism.”
Are you aware of the fact that about half of the online gamers are women, and have been for many years?
If you know only male gamers, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t female gamers, just that you don’t see many women in your daily life. You should try seeing more, I’m told that they’re quite the blast.
Are you aware that what most people would consider competitive, skill-intensive games are overwhelmingly played by men, and also that the top ranks of any game that any any competitive league whatsoever is also dominated by men. Whether or not this is due to society teaching women in elementary school that they just can’t be good video game players has yet to be determined.
On a side note, ground wars fought by troops almost invariably involve troops digging, running, building, and carrying things. Women perform worse in every one of these categories. But why does that even matter? If pull-ups aren’t important then men should be required to perform just one as well. Why aren’t they?
I got the impression that one of the reasons the US Army does as well as it does is that our troops are actually disciplined enough to carry around 100 pounds of body armor and weapons. Good point about the robots though.
You know that you can carry on your back more than you can lift with your arms, right?
Whenever we went camping, I had to put her backpack on my girlfriends back. When she’s alone, she puts it on the floor against a wall or a tree, slids into the straps and then walk backwards until she’s upright.
So your point is that women are less capable at carrying things? We already knew this, and every military branches physical fitness test reflects this.
I wonder what the ROI is? All else equal, these folks are paying up for something. I doubt it’s the salary. Prestige? The opportunity for graft? Do you get access to the Chinese PX? There’s something here understood by the consumers, not clearly stated for us westerners.
I doubt that new recruits have much opportunity for graft. I found a couple of sources that PLA pay starts at about 1000 yuan per month. With a couple of pay raises, you’d be able to make the money back pretty easily over a long career, but not so much if you just stayed in a few years and got out. It’s possible that being a veteran opens the door to get better-paying state jobs (it’s true in the US). There’s no way the PLA’s prestige is worth 3x per capita GDP just to be a grunt–it doesn’t make sense that someone would pay $150,000 to join the US Army either–so that’s out.
But yeah, I agree that something tangible is being priced here that isn’t mentioned in the article.
Lots of potential for corruption. The PLA has its sticky fingers in a number of industries, as is common with military forces in poor countries where they primarily serve as a bulwark of the regime (see Egypt).
The big attraction is veteran set-asides in desirable state-owned enterprises. Most of the people doing this are going to bail as soon as their two-year commitment is over and pick up their “iron rice bowl”. That’s pretty much the reason my wife’s cousin did it. He wasn’t going to get into a decent college so his parents helped get him a spot in the PLA. Two years later he has a job at the top employer in his city (a state-owned steel company). He gets a company provided apartment, his kid(s) will get to go to the best high school in the city (which is run by the company for the children of its employees), and his job is virtually guaranteed for life.
The Chinese army is experienced at many things, but wars on foreign soil is not one of them.
I would not concern myself with their ability to project military power overseas, especially so long as they have no practice.
The US has too much practice. The threat is credible. But the world hates us.
Someone with that good guanxi can perhaps be counted on in a tight spot. But the whole things sounds mighty dodgy to me. Wonder what they’re doing to try to stop it. Not much, it seems.
Probably more important than people realize. The PLA is no longer a military so much as an aristocracy.
perhaps the recruits are trained well? If so the corruption in recruitment may be offset by good training
Comments on this entry are closed.