This week, the Beijing-based Unirule Institute of Economics announced that it would close after years of official pressure including the deletion of social media accounts and an eviction last summer during which the doors of its offices were welded shut, temporarily trapping staff inside. The Institute was founded by Mao Yushi, a now 90-year-old economist who is variously respected for his expertise and reviled for his liberal political views. The group’s members also include Xu Zhangrun, the former Tsinghua law professor whose suspension over a political essay published by the Institute became a focal point for concerns over declining academic freedom. From Chun Han Wong at The Wall Street Journal:

Municipal authorities in Beijing have accused the Unirule Institute of Economics of regulatory violations and issued orders to force its closure, the think tank said in a statement Monday. While Unirule intends to file legal challenges against the orders, it will cease activities under its name and start liquidating its parent company, the statement said. The Beijing-based Unirule was founded in 1993 to promote economic liberalization and democracy in China, riding on former leader Deng Xiaoping ’s push for market-style reforms after the deadly crackdown on the Tiananmen pro-democracy protests in 1989. Its work has frequently collided with Communist Party orthodoxy—clashes that have become more acute since Mr. Xi assumed leadership and pursued an increasingly authoritarian agenda. “We no longer have any space for survival,” Sheng Hong, Unirule’s executive director, said in an interview. “We have no choice but to shut down.” […] Unirule’s closure limits further the already small window for open discussion of alternative paths for China’s economy, precisely at a moment when it is much needed, said William Kirby, a professor of China studies at Harvard University. “At the moment, zealous officials can seemingly do no wrong by taking extreme measures to clamp down on debate,” he said. [Source]

A statement posted by Sheng protested the decisions to ban the Institute and revoke its parent company’s license:

We believe that the above two “decisions” seriously violate Article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, that citizens are endowed with the freedom of speaking, of publishing, …… of associating… . According to the Legislative Law, the so-called “laws and regulations” on which the two “decisions” are based have no legal effect; the two penalties have no factual basis; and they are “invalid” because they do not follow the due process described by the Administrative Punishment Law (see appendix for details). The violations of the Constitution, the Legislative Law and the Administrative Punishment Law by these two administrative organs not only harm the Unirule Institute and China-review.com, but also infringe on the general constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations and the sense of security protected by the law. We regret that the two administrative bodies did not fulfil their constitutional obligations and did not follow the principles of “rule by constitution” and “rule of law” advocated by the Communist Party of China. [Source]

Statement on the Banning of Unirule Institute of Economicshttps://t.co/75O891SYfm pic.twitter.com/kVb71wAhKP — Sheng Hong (@flourishflood) August 27, 2019

The demise of an organization that had frequently advised official departments adds new fuel to fears that, in arenas ranging from Taiwan to the trade war, China’s leadership tolerates a dangerously narrowing range of opinions, potentially increasing the chances of a serious misstep. CSIS’ Jude Blanchette told Bloomberg this week that Unirule’s closure “should finally put to rest any speculation that Xi is looking to eventually pivot to economic or political reform,” and “also raises profound questions about the direction of China’s political development. Without independent voices offering alternative viewpoints, how can China’s leaders make effective decisions?” The report’s authors, Matthew Campbell and Peter Martin, also addressed these concerns in May, in an in-depth profile of Unirule, its history and key members, and the steadily tightening restrictions placed on it. From Bloomberg: