In Chinese academia, what is the significance of the corresponding author, beyond 'public relation'? I am a PhD candidate currently preparing a manuscript for journal submission in the environmental modelling and engineering field. One of my authors is from China, and contributed some data and ideas for the methodology that I found quite useful. 

This person wants to be the corresponding author for the study with the argument that being the corresponding author is the only way to secure future funding for the study in China/from Chinese sources. Yet he is no way in a position to explain and defend the study, as he wasn't really involved in modelling, analysis and writing, and has limited understanding regarding the main model functioning. 

I have so far refused to let him be the corresponding author, but he is really putting pressure on me to be the corresponding author.

Can someone give me some pointers on why it is so important for a Chinese academic to be the corresponding author? Does his argument about funding generally hold true?
I have been doing research in China for 10 years now, and hopefully I can answer your question. When a candidate is being considered for a faculty job here, only those papers where he/she was a first author or corresponding author are counted. This is because there is a rampant abuse of honorary authorships, namely colleagues and students are added even though their contribution was minimal or none at all. As usual, instead of cracking down on the abusers, more rules and regulations are put in place. This is why in most papers published from China, there are around three to four first co-authors (whom contributed equally) along with four to six corresponding authors. The consensus is currently being upped another level where some institutions are not counting corresponding authors.