论文部分内容阅读
T he rising China has been watched closely by many foreigners, including John Naisbitt, the author of the bestseller Megatrends, and his wife Doris Naisbitt. In order to know what they think about the status quo and future of China, China Business Focus (CBF) made an exclusive interview with them.
The Naisbitts are very interested in the economic pattern, government responsibility, political reform, and “soft power” of China. The two-hour interview mostly focused on these issues. The Naisbitts answered questions by CBF articulately and insightfully, showing their profound understanding of China.
Transformation of Economic Model
Too much wealth goes to fewer pockets
CBF: Generally speaking, China itself seems to be stranded in an impasse of its growth model. It’s no longer possible for China to rely on massive export and inefficient investment while our innovation capacity and private consumption lag far behind to become a new driving engine. How do you think China could adjust itself to get through current crisis?
The Naisbitts: It only took China 30 years to develop into the second economy of the world. And it’s attributable to China’s growth model in the past. This is quite an achievement unprecedented in human history. We have put your question in that perspective, not like in Portugal or Greece. China has to go through this period. Looking ahead, there is one huge shift to be done; in the past, value fortune was made from land and the money went to infrastructure and public field and of course went into pockets of developers. But it failed to distribute to lower level of the society including the migrant workers. We are not saying they have nothing to gain in this process. But the rural population has so far got the smallest share of China’s increasing wealth. About China’s economic model, I don’t think you can make judgment based on just one region.
What we have found in the rural area in China is so vast. One policy might be causing misallocation of resources or wasteful investment in the coastal region but on the other hand, it brings tremendous benefit to poverty alleviation and improves people’s livelihood in the relatively underdeveloped mid-western regions. One thing Chinese government needs to pay extra attention to is how to integrate this group of people into the local society by corresponding measures such as Hukou reform in order to give them better access to public services.
As for the economic statistics for the third quarter, I think they look quite good and prove China’s economic model can still be sustainable for a while. However, we do think they need to stress the role played by the private sector. The percentage of private sector in terms of contribution to GDP is over 90% in the US. China needs to lend more money and provide more support to the private sector especially small and medium sized enterprises. And also China needs to balance its economy by shifting more focus on development in the inland regions. I want to give you an example of our experience in Chengdu. In Chengdu, migrant workers want to stay in Chengdu because not only are there more job opportunities but also better living conditions and easier access to public service. Housing curb to be sustained CBF: Although we see state-of-art architectures and infrastructures across China, young people including middle class feel left out in the process. They are unable to afford an apartment in cities like Shanghai and Beijing. What do you think China should work on to address such issues?
The Naisbitts: As for the housing issue, Chinese government is building social housing for low rent or selling at a low price. However, most of the buildings are located far from the center and lack basic facilities. People may find it difficult to get to their offices or do some shopping. In European countries, their social housing are more spread across all city centers. They are not concentrated and isolated in one faraway place. It’s not good for daily commuting but also stifling the social equity and diversity. In Europe, rich and poor people can live happily along with each other. Property and construction sector has been expanding disproportionately in China that creates bubbles. When price keeps going up because of speculation, there will be no buyers market to support that price. And more money goes to property market rather than research and development or the innovation China badly needs. If people can make easy money from building and selling houses, they won’t bother to spend too much time on scientific research. Eventually, the market will collapse and it could bring tremendous damage to the national economy. So we think it’s wise for the government to keep reining in the housing prices.
Government Role
It’s not up to the Government to stimulate economy
CBF: It seems China is confronted with a dilemma between maintaining economic growth and shifting its growth pattern. Without enough growth, China risks social stability; but if we continue boosting economy, we risk greater“Hayekian risk” in the future. What’s your take on that?
The Naisbitts: I think Chinese government is still reluctant to make a strategic decision to fully unleash the private sector. The so-called “Hayekian risk” derives from too much investment in state-owned business. If you are a brilliant young Chinese student, it would be very hard for you to get loans from Chinese banks who only want to lend to big state-owned companies. The role of the government is not to create growth, but the environment or context in which the economic growth could take place. Deng Xiaoping knew that so he emancipated people’s mind and established the special zone where people can carry out economic activities freely. It’s up to the government to provide a context in which people can identify themselves as manufacturers or service providers etc. And also venture capital is relatively underdeveloped in China. In the industrial zone of Suzhou city, we found they did provide incentives for small start-ups, which are quite limited though. Anyway, all these efforts are made by the local or city government. We think there should be a nation-wide mechanism to fund, evaluate and promote the growth of start-ups. Social welfare is citizen’s entitlement
CBF: Economists in China voice their concerns about expanding services to underprivileged people because they don’t want China to build up a welfare state as Europe did, which has led to the sovereign debt crisis. They are afraid the same thing would happen to China if we embark on the same road. What do you think of it?
The Naisbitts: The crux of China’s problem is quite the opposite. We are not seeing too much welfare in China but a divided 2-class society. It’s attributable to the Hukou system. Under such a system, farmers and migrants are treated like second class citizens, which is both unfair and detrimental to the efficient allocation of human resources. We are glad to see Chengdu doing away with Hukou. Other cities are also looking for ways to get rid of Hukou without causing too much strain on the local public service. We think China can learn from the US, instead of Europe. The US is not a welfare state, what we provide is a safety network with minimal help in health care, education, etc.
More involvement of citizens in the political process CBF: As we know, in the past 30 years, China’s market reform has been going great length whereas its political establishment remains largely untouched. This one-leg reform has been a main contributor to the emergence of veiled interest. Many experts and those from the CPC leadership are calling for an overdue political reform. What’s your evaluation of China’s political reform?
The Naisbitts: We are interested in witnessing the development of grassroots democracy in rural China. It’s a gradual bottom-up process and also good for the comprehensive development of the whole society not just economy. In villages where people have a say in the decision-making process, money is more equally distributed, and more money goes to more pockets. So it’s slow for economy but good for ordinary people. On the other hand, in villages where there is no such grassroots democracy, money goes to few hands but they can build up the infrastructure so the economy grows more quickly.
According to our understanding of Chinese people, if Chinese leaders can open up more and become more transparent, it will give the country a boost by knowing what their leaders are planning and how the direction is set. And more importantly, they should participate and have their voice heard in the development of their own country. Of course, we are not saying China has to adopt western style democracy. There are many ways to achieve that. China could begin by getting more engaged in the politics. Right now, the system is still too closed and transparency is badly needed. China may not have the western party politics; you could still have a consultative mechanism for making economic policies. Emancipation of Mind
China needs free mind
CBF: To have a vibrant private sector, other than good funding sources and policy context, we also need to have enough talent supply. What do you think we can do in our education system in order to generate more innovation and hence upgrade our economy?
The Naisbitts: We have a Chinese friend who is from Harvard and his wife is from London school of econom- ics. They have a young smart daughter who is very lively and talkative, but in Chinese school, her teacher asked her to keep silence and be obedient. This kind of rote learning is in contradiction with fostering a creative and innovative mind. They should encourage more participation and involvement in the learning process from the part of the students. That is so important to do. For that to happen, we also believe there should be a cultural change of less respect of authority but more critical thinking. The government needs to be more tolerant of different voices. They should allow people to have a free mind. That’s what Deng Xiaoping did by emancipating people’s mind. In order to have a successful reform, you have to be mentally prepared.
Tell a Good “China Story”
CBF: In ancient China, Confucius once advocated “Harmony without uniformity” which differs from the western concept of interfering policy which tried to assimilate heretic civilization or cultures. China can utilize this concept of “Harmony without uniformity” and adopt it as the guideline in its effort in building up its soft power, what do you think about that?
The Naisbitts: Yes, we do admire China’s “Harmony without uniformity”. It makes China more welcomed by certain countries like African countries than the US. But we have to put it into a global perspective. China’s soft power still falls behind in most of the countries especially in the United States and Europe. China has been aggressive in promoting its image recently by putting ads in Times Square and so on. But it felt more like propaganda rather than soft power. China hired a very expensive agency who knew American audiences but they failed to utilize their advantage, they gave guidance and directions to the agency and that stifles the creation and misunderstood or forgot what their audience wants. When we carried out our research in China, we also ran into various problems with the local government. It’s very hard for foreigners to do a research in China. Besides, the English they used is very poor and misleading. All these are preventing outsiders from understanding China and it’s detrimental to soft power. It’s the clarity China should provide and it needs to make a good case of its point of view in English. For example, regarding the Diaoyu Islands dispute, western people don’t understand China’s point of view very well because of the lack of efficient communication.
I once had a close meeting with former president Jiang Zemin. I told him although Taiwan is a tiny island, it told a great story about itself. On the other hand, Chinese mainland has a huge story but you are doing a terrible job telling it. That’s it, China need to learn how to tell a good story about itself.
The Naisbitts are very interested in the economic pattern, government responsibility, political reform, and “soft power” of China. The two-hour interview mostly focused on these issues. The Naisbitts answered questions by CBF articulately and insightfully, showing their profound understanding of China.
Transformation of Economic Model
Too much wealth goes to fewer pockets
CBF: Generally speaking, China itself seems to be stranded in an impasse of its growth model. It’s no longer possible for China to rely on massive export and inefficient investment while our innovation capacity and private consumption lag far behind to become a new driving engine. How do you think China could adjust itself to get through current crisis?
The Naisbitts: It only took China 30 years to develop into the second economy of the world. And it’s attributable to China’s growth model in the past. This is quite an achievement unprecedented in human history. We have put your question in that perspective, not like in Portugal or Greece. China has to go through this period. Looking ahead, there is one huge shift to be done; in the past, value fortune was made from land and the money went to infrastructure and public field and of course went into pockets of developers. But it failed to distribute to lower level of the society including the migrant workers. We are not saying they have nothing to gain in this process. But the rural population has so far got the smallest share of China’s increasing wealth. About China’s economic model, I don’t think you can make judgment based on just one region.
What we have found in the rural area in China is so vast. One policy might be causing misallocation of resources or wasteful investment in the coastal region but on the other hand, it brings tremendous benefit to poverty alleviation and improves people’s livelihood in the relatively underdeveloped mid-western regions. One thing Chinese government needs to pay extra attention to is how to integrate this group of people into the local society by corresponding measures such as Hukou reform in order to give them better access to public services.
As for the economic statistics for the third quarter, I think they look quite good and prove China’s economic model can still be sustainable for a while. However, we do think they need to stress the role played by the private sector. The percentage of private sector in terms of contribution to GDP is over 90% in the US. China needs to lend more money and provide more support to the private sector especially small and medium sized enterprises. And also China needs to balance its economy by shifting more focus on development in the inland regions. I want to give you an example of our experience in Chengdu. In Chengdu, migrant workers want to stay in Chengdu because not only are there more job opportunities but also better living conditions and easier access to public service. Housing curb to be sustained CBF: Although we see state-of-art architectures and infrastructures across China, young people including middle class feel left out in the process. They are unable to afford an apartment in cities like Shanghai and Beijing. What do you think China should work on to address such issues?
The Naisbitts: As for the housing issue, Chinese government is building social housing for low rent or selling at a low price. However, most of the buildings are located far from the center and lack basic facilities. People may find it difficult to get to their offices or do some shopping. In European countries, their social housing are more spread across all city centers. They are not concentrated and isolated in one faraway place. It’s not good for daily commuting but also stifling the social equity and diversity. In Europe, rich and poor people can live happily along with each other. Property and construction sector has been expanding disproportionately in China that creates bubbles. When price keeps going up because of speculation, there will be no buyers market to support that price. And more money goes to property market rather than research and development or the innovation China badly needs. If people can make easy money from building and selling houses, they won’t bother to spend too much time on scientific research. Eventually, the market will collapse and it could bring tremendous damage to the national economy. So we think it’s wise for the government to keep reining in the housing prices.
Government Role
It’s not up to the Government to stimulate economy
CBF: It seems China is confronted with a dilemma between maintaining economic growth and shifting its growth pattern. Without enough growth, China risks social stability; but if we continue boosting economy, we risk greater“Hayekian risk” in the future. What’s your take on that?
The Naisbitts: I think Chinese government is still reluctant to make a strategic decision to fully unleash the private sector. The so-called “Hayekian risk” derives from too much investment in state-owned business. If you are a brilliant young Chinese student, it would be very hard for you to get loans from Chinese banks who only want to lend to big state-owned companies. The role of the government is not to create growth, but the environment or context in which the economic growth could take place. Deng Xiaoping knew that so he emancipated people’s mind and established the special zone where people can carry out economic activities freely. It’s up to the government to provide a context in which people can identify themselves as manufacturers or service providers etc. And also venture capital is relatively underdeveloped in China. In the industrial zone of Suzhou city, we found they did provide incentives for small start-ups, which are quite limited though. Anyway, all these efforts are made by the local or city government. We think there should be a nation-wide mechanism to fund, evaluate and promote the growth of start-ups. Social welfare is citizen’s entitlement
CBF: Economists in China voice their concerns about expanding services to underprivileged people because they don’t want China to build up a welfare state as Europe did, which has led to the sovereign debt crisis. They are afraid the same thing would happen to China if we embark on the same road. What do you think of it?
The Naisbitts: The crux of China’s problem is quite the opposite. We are not seeing too much welfare in China but a divided 2-class society. It’s attributable to the Hukou system. Under such a system, farmers and migrants are treated like second class citizens, which is both unfair and detrimental to the efficient allocation of human resources. We are glad to see Chengdu doing away with Hukou. Other cities are also looking for ways to get rid of Hukou without causing too much strain on the local public service. We think China can learn from the US, instead of Europe. The US is not a welfare state, what we provide is a safety network with minimal help in health care, education, etc.
More involvement of citizens in the political process CBF: As we know, in the past 30 years, China’s market reform has been going great length whereas its political establishment remains largely untouched. This one-leg reform has been a main contributor to the emergence of veiled interest. Many experts and those from the CPC leadership are calling for an overdue political reform. What’s your evaluation of China’s political reform?
The Naisbitts: We are interested in witnessing the development of grassroots democracy in rural China. It’s a gradual bottom-up process and also good for the comprehensive development of the whole society not just economy. In villages where people have a say in the decision-making process, money is more equally distributed, and more money goes to more pockets. So it’s slow for economy but good for ordinary people. On the other hand, in villages where there is no such grassroots democracy, money goes to few hands but they can build up the infrastructure so the economy grows more quickly.
According to our understanding of Chinese people, if Chinese leaders can open up more and become more transparent, it will give the country a boost by knowing what their leaders are planning and how the direction is set. And more importantly, they should participate and have their voice heard in the development of their own country. Of course, we are not saying China has to adopt western style democracy. There are many ways to achieve that. China could begin by getting more engaged in the politics. Right now, the system is still too closed and transparency is badly needed. China may not have the western party politics; you could still have a consultative mechanism for making economic policies. Emancipation of Mind
China needs free mind
CBF: To have a vibrant private sector, other than good funding sources and policy context, we also need to have enough talent supply. What do you think we can do in our education system in order to generate more innovation and hence upgrade our economy?
The Naisbitts: We have a Chinese friend who is from Harvard and his wife is from London school of econom- ics. They have a young smart daughter who is very lively and talkative, but in Chinese school, her teacher asked her to keep silence and be obedient. This kind of rote learning is in contradiction with fostering a creative and innovative mind. They should encourage more participation and involvement in the learning process from the part of the students. That is so important to do. For that to happen, we also believe there should be a cultural change of less respect of authority but more critical thinking. The government needs to be more tolerant of different voices. They should allow people to have a free mind. That’s what Deng Xiaoping did by emancipating people’s mind. In order to have a successful reform, you have to be mentally prepared.
Tell a Good “China Story”
CBF: In ancient China, Confucius once advocated “Harmony without uniformity” which differs from the western concept of interfering policy which tried to assimilate heretic civilization or cultures. China can utilize this concept of “Harmony without uniformity” and adopt it as the guideline in its effort in building up its soft power, what do you think about that?
The Naisbitts: Yes, we do admire China’s “Harmony without uniformity”. It makes China more welcomed by certain countries like African countries than the US. But we have to put it into a global perspective. China’s soft power still falls behind in most of the countries especially in the United States and Europe. China has been aggressive in promoting its image recently by putting ads in Times Square and so on. But it felt more like propaganda rather than soft power. China hired a very expensive agency who knew American audiences but they failed to utilize their advantage, they gave guidance and directions to the agency and that stifles the creation and misunderstood or forgot what their audience wants. When we carried out our research in China, we also ran into various problems with the local government. It’s very hard for foreigners to do a research in China. Besides, the English they used is very poor and misleading. All these are preventing outsiders from understanding China and it’s detrimental to soft power. It’s the clarity China should provide and it needs to make a good case of its point of view in English. For example, regarding the Diaoyu Islands dispute, western people don’t understand China’s point of view very well because of the lack of efficient communication.
I once had a close meeting with former president Jiang Zemin. I told him although Taiwan is a tiny island, it told a great story about itself. On the other hand, Chinese mainland has a huge story but you are doing a terrible job telling it. That’s it, China need to learn how to tell a good story about itself.