Uhlas' argument ('China's growth', lbo-talk Digest, Vol 19, Issue 205) that expatriate Chinese capital re-locating to the mainland is just foreign capital makes sense from a 'capital-logic' point of view. And I sympathise with the argument that one oughtn't see the ethnicity of the investors as decisive.
But I would like to turn that around and argue that the ethnic traits of the expatriate Chinese traders arise out of the prospects for development in the region. The clannish loyalty, thrift, high savings etc. that expatriate Chinese traders in East Asia are said to exhibit are not intrisically Chinese characteristics, they are intrinsically mercantile characteristics.
The relocation of expatriate Chinese capital back to the mainland is the personification of the transformation of China's turn to capitalist production. That there are funds for investment in Chinese hands is important to the country's development. And a cursory scan of the Forbes List of Chinese entrepreneurs shows a preponderance of expatriate Chinese taking advantage of the new conditions.
The relation that these investors have to the mainland is quite different from that of American investors, for whom China is just one of many places to put your money. More that that, it is not overaccumulation that is driving the expatriate Chinese to look at China, as Lenin saw the dynamic behind capital export.
But read it for yourself - I might well have got it all wrong, and would be interested to hear so.
James