Book Talk on Global China’s Shadow Exchange
2026-05-05
Book Talk on Global China’s Shadow Exchange
Date: May 5, 2026
Report by Serena Di Maria, Institute of Social Research and Cultural Studies, NYCU (dimaria.serena95@gmail.com)
On May 5th the Transit Asia Research Network organized a book talk on Tak-Wing Ngo’s recent publication Global China’s Shadow Exchange (2024). The event, part of the activities of the “Sub-project 1: The Geopolitics and Cultural Economy of Societal Relations in a New Greater China”, was moderated by the subproject’s convenor, Professor Allen Chun (International Center for Cultural Studies, NYCU).
Tak-Wing Ngo, professor of Political Science at the University of Macau, was invited to present his book and engage in a productive scholarly exchange with the invited discussants, Brett Neilson (Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University) and Derek Sheridan (Associate Research Fellow, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica), as well as with the larger audience that attended online.
The “shadow turn”
Ngo introduced his book by outlining its theoretical intervention into discussions on the current state of globalization, arguing for the emergence of a “shadow turn” over the past three to four decades. He characterized this turn as global in scale, transnational in operation, and organized through dense, rhizomatic networks rather than spearheaded by multinational corporations or the state. Unlike organized crime, as he further pointed out, shadow exchanges are omnipresent and often involve people from different walks of life, many of whom are participating in such processes unknowingly. Far from being secretive, these exchanges are frequently conducted openly, sometimes under the watch of border security and state authorities.
Ngo situates his use of the term “shadow turn” in contrast to other concepts frequently employed by scholars to describe similar phenomena, such as “globalization from below” or “low-end globalization”. As he explained, shadow exchanges are not limited to the circulation of “low-end” commodities, but may also involve “high-end” goods, such as computer chips. Moreover, the shadow turn is not simply driven “from below” as it also implicates corporate and institutional actors in its operations.
Ngo also discussed how his book explores the role played by Chinese actors in the shadow economy, not as centralized orchestrators, but as participants within broader global networks involving infrastructures, production and supply chains, transit points, and diaspora connections. In this context, the book examines how the shadow turn intersects with China’s increasing integration into the global economy.
Broader Implications
As concerns the broader implications, Ngo argued that the shadow turn calls for a reframing of the global value chain pointing to its increasing informalization and reliance on shadow links.
Another implication Ngo stressed is the reconfiguration of the geography of globalization. The shadow economy foregrounds new distribution hubs or link points located in remote or previously marginalized areas, such as Yiwu and Guangdong in China, Khorgos in Kazakhstan, Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, as well as other sites across Eurasia. These locations have developed in conjunction with, rather than in opposition to, traditional global centers.
Finally, Ngo highlighted how the shadow economy reshapes state power at the borders. While shadow exchanges make borders more porous, they also produce more fluid and adaptive forms of governance. States are caught between the desire to regulate all economic activity and the need to protect local economies that benefit from shadow exchanges. As a result, a symbiotic relationship often develops between smugglers and border authorities, leading not only to the informalization of global value chains, but also to the institutionalization of informality itself. In this context, unofficial practices and negotiated forms of “grey governance” become partially normalized by state institutions. Moreover, these unwritten rules may vary significantly across different border regions, adapting to local conditions and circumstances.
Q&A
At the end of Ngo’s presentation, the floor was opened for an engaging and enriching discussion. Allen Chun asked what statistical data reveal about the scale of this phenomenon. Ngo replied that estimates vary significantly depending on how “shadow exchanges” are defined—whether broadly, to include all activities that evade taxation, or more narrowly, to refer only to smuggling. Consequently, the book does not attempt to provide precise statistical estimates. Instead, it relies primarily on ethnographic research and a substantial number of case studies conducted across different border regions. Through these examples, Ngo argued that the phenomenon is highly widespread, almost omnipresent on a global scale, and increasingly central to the everyday lives of many people.
Brett Neilson commented on Ngo’s framing of the “shadow turn” as a new phase of globalization, noting how it challenges recent arguments and trends that interpret current transformations in the global economy as evidence of deglobalization. Neilson asked whether the shadow turn should be understood as a key transformation in the dynamics of globalization or rather as one process among many ongoing shifts currently reshaping the global order. He pointed to a range of contemporary developments, including war regimes, increasing competition among states for extraterritorial control over the operative infrastructures of global processes (pipelines, electrical grids, and shipping routes) as well as the growing geopolitical importance of critical commodities like computer chips and rare earth minerals. While these commodities may circulate through shadow exchanges, they are also deeply entangled in broader geoeconomic and geopolitical tensions.
Neilson further suggested that the present moment reflects an unresolved tension between chaos and nomos, visible for example in the difficulties faced by international law. On the one hand, processes such as the resurgence of sovereign claims (eg. “sovranism”) point toward a hardening of borders; on the other hand, phenomena like shadow exchanges simultaneously reveal a softening of borders. Neilson suggested looking at the current configuration of globalization through the lens of proliferating borders, echoing Étienne Balibar’s argument that borders are no longer located solely at territorial frontiers. While acknowledging shadow exchanges as a relevant dynamic of contemporary globalization, he argued that they should be understood alongside other global processes, rather than constituting a distinct turn of their own.
Ngo agreed with Brett’s view, arguing that the shadow turn is part of larger complicated global processes. He specified, however, that part of these processes is turning shadowy precisely because of the emerging constraints: ongoing transformations such as those concerning critical commodities and supply chain disruptions, state sanctions, embargos, incentivize shadow exchanges, which become crucial to bypass such obstacles.
As a case in point, Ngo referred to the Chinese embargo on Australian lobsters. Following the implementation of the embargo, imports initially declined but quickly rebounded through alternative channels. Australian lobsters continued to be transported alive to Songshan in Taipei and from there to Kinmen and Matsu Islands by air transport. They were then repackaged and transferred by boat along the southern Chinese coast, where they were sold to Chinese fishermen at designated offshore points located in areas that escape monitoring by coastal authorities. From there, the lobsters re-entered China and continued to be served in Chinese restaurants.
Ngo further observed that current production and distribution chains increasingly rely on a mix of shadow links and legal practices, which makes the whole picture more complex.
Derek Sheridan also intervened in the debate with thought-provoking reflections on the concept of the “shadow economy”. He pointed out that the definition of which transactions fall within or outside the shadow depend primarily on characterizations designed by the state or international law regimes, rather than on the nature of the transactions themselves. Furthermore, these parameters don’t remain constant but shift over time. In light of this, Sheridan raised the question of whether it is either possible or necessary to define the shadow economy as a distinct phenomenon separate from the broader economy. In some contexts, Sheridan suggested, what is labeled as the “shadow economy” may in fact constitute the economy itself. As an example, he noted that a practice like bribery can sometimes facilitate not only shadow transactions, but also formal economic exchanges.
Sheridan further inquired on the role played by the state. He raised concerns about adopting the concept of the “shadow”, which risks establishing a binary opposition with the state understood as the coherent and legitimate enforcer of law. If it is in fact the state which determines the meaning of the shadow economy, he asked, what are the analytic advantages of studying the shadow economy as a separate phenomenon rather than the economy in its totality? He suggested looking at the problem through the lens of “governmentality”, focusing on the process by which these categories are created by state or institutions. For example, there has been a growing shift away from studying the “informal economy” toward examining processes of “informalization”. Likewise, anthropologists working on migration in the United States increasingly focus on processes of “illegalization”, rather than on “illegal immigrants” as such.
Sheridan also asked what the “structural view” tells us about the significance of the shadow economy in relation to the restructuring of contemporary global capitalism. He noted that whereas the term “shadow” evokes activities that are illicit and secretive, many of the practices described in the book are in fact carried out openly even when technically illegal. This perspective becomes more complex considering that state actors may not only tolerate, but at times actively produce, spaces of ambiguity. He then proposed a series of further questions that may be worth reflecting upon in future research on the topic: Under what conditions are shadow exchanges accepted or opposed, and by whom? Should the shadow economy be understood as a form of subaltern agency and survival, or rather as a system that exploits labor and subsidizes global capital?
In response to Sheridan’s observations, Ngo agreed that the “shadow” is fundamentally defined by what the state categorizes as legal or illegal. Commodities themselves do not possess any intrinsic illegality; rather, their status depends on their relationship to the state and are tied to a particular conception of the economy. Ngo explained that his book employs the term “shadow exchange” as a heuristic concept for analyzing forms of economic exchange that operate beyond the immediate purview of the state. At the same time, he suggested that this perspective raises a broader question worth investigating: why does the modern state seek to bring all forms of economic activity under its radar, and why are we simultaneously witnessing growing trends toward informality that attempt to evade such control?
Moreover, Ngo argued that the shadow economy can be just as extractive and exploitative as the formal economy, involving similarly complex layers of labor division. Regarding the broader implications for our understanding of the nature of the state and the market, he suggested that this constitutes a crucial question—one that he hopes to explore more fully in an expanded version of the book.
Intervening from the audience, Ned Rossiter (Western Sidney University) asked if Ngo saw the shadow economy as indexing epochal changes in the organization of globalization and whether he would tie those changes to landmark events such as covid or the ongoing war regimes, which seem to precipitate an escalation in the shadow exchanges.
Ngo clarified that the shadow turn should be located before these major events, because of the longer genealogy behind the informalization of the global production itself. He further pointed to a conceptualization of the shadow turn as a continuation of the development of capitalist production, moving from fordist production to flexible production and further on to informal links within the flexible production.
Subsequently, Allen Chun challenged the denomination “shadow economy” and wondered whether the processes described in the book might be better characterized as “shady” rather than “shadowy”. Building on Sheridan’s earlier observation on the problem of defining shadow in a sort of binary opposition to the law or state as the norm, Chun asked whether it still makes sense to describe such practices as “shadow” if the state itself is implicated in corruption and informal arrangements.
From the audience, Wynston Lee asked about the relationship between the “infrastructural turn” and the “shadow turn”. Ngo responded that many shadow activities depend heavily on infrastructural environments and operate differently across border regions, even within the same country. Infrastructure shapes how these activities are organized and carried out, meaning that shadow exchanges are embedded not only in institutional structures, but also in physical and logistical ones. For this reason, he argued, the infrastructural and shadow turns should be understood together rather than separately.
近期新聞 Recent News
