论文部分内容阅读
The theme of this year’s Boao Forum for Asia， the 12th since its inception at the turn of the millennium， was common prosperity. Under this overarching theme， discussions focused on food， resources， water， poverty， disease and environmental pollution. The message of the conference was positive. The ongoing economic problems since 2008 were slightly less addressed. The euro zone has not collapsed， the Western financial system has returned to very modest growth， and at least the worst of the crisis seems to be over. Even so， longerterm structural problems remain.
The Asian forum put together delegates from across the world， with a number of highranking politicians. However， political leaders were outnumbered by business representatives from food， resource and financial sector companies. In this diverse setting， trying to pin down a common vision of prosperity， and a common route to it， is immensely challenging. Countries， companies and individuals all differ. Finding the common point in the center of all their discussions is not easy.
Better development
President Xi Jinping’s opening address mentioned the “China dream，” a term he had used a number of times since becoming general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee last year and president in March. The phrase has been a topic of much debate， and the president’s declaration that stability and security in the region were critical and needed to be preserved and maintained was taken by some as an indirect message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea （DPRK）， which re- cently made a number of angry statements in the lead up to the forum， in particular about what the Korean leadership in Pyongyang interpreted as provocative behavior by the United States.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard mentioned the DPRK more explicitly. This derives from Australia now having a seat on the UN Security Council for two years. Australia also announced deeper military links with China， and a number of important economic measures for trading of the yuan and opening up the service sector for more cooperation between the two countries. One commentator at the conference， however， questioned whether her plan was ambitious enough and what sort of vision Australia had toward China and the region.
Everyone wants prosperity， but it’s an abstract concept. Some want material wealth， some want intangible cultural goods， and some crave a sense of security and strong national identity. In a diverse international gathering like Boao， the sheer variety of different perspectives around one term becomes clear. For many developing countries， just having enough food for their populations is a key objective. For others， it is delivering higher standards of public service and more sophisticated means of consulting with people. Much of the value of discussions in international forums comes through hammering out common frameworks by which to approach tough developmental questions. With the current state of technology， there are too few resources available at any given time for people. In a discussion of food security， one participant came out with the sobering fact that every day 1 billion people lacked food， many of whom were farmers. This issue of the justice of the very producers of foodstuffs themselves being some of the poorest people on the planet raises tough questions about the synergies between developing and developed countries， and the ways in which inequalities remain profoundly entrenched.
It was clear at this year’s conference that prosperity is linked in many people’s minds， across the world， with education. Education is seen as one of the clearest paths to delivering better development. Many Chinese participants were keen to excoriate the na- tional education system in China， saying that it did not encourage innovation or produce internationally recognized levels for competitive universities and qualifications. The lack of Chinese universities in global rankings of the best tertiary-level institutions in the world was a subject that came up across a number of different discussions.
Here again， however， there is a more complicated story. China produces as many talented scientists and creative figures as anywhere else. For an outside observer， the very self-critical language of some of the discussions about the educational system in China internally is well intended but probably accepts Western or external standards too readily. The elite-strong educational systems in the UK， or the United States for that matter， still fail to equip a large number of people with strong numeracy or literacy skills. Most would accept that the level of Chinese teaching in math and hard sciences is successful and produces better skilled people than in Europe or North America. What is preferable， producing a higher general standard of education without world-class elites， or worldclass elites and a lower national standard in some areas？
A common language
In the last 12 years since the founding of the Boao Forum for Asia， immense economic forces have changed the world， with forces of productivity and growth shifting from developed to developing countries. This is now seen as a historic transition. And yet， many of the profound structural issues still remain， despite the impact of the economic crisis since 2008. Americans still spend more on credit； Chinese still prefer to save. Creditor and debtor nations are as they were at the start of this process. Austerity policies have failed to cut deeply into public spending in Europe and elsewhere. Internationally， foreign direct investment is still dominated by the United States and the EU. Inequality has either remained the same over the last decade， or in some places dramatically deteriorated. Global leaders—at events like Boao， the Group of 20 or the World Economic Forum in Davos—are wrestling to create a common language of development， as well as a common understanding of the policies that might best achieve this. A shared vision starts off with very general ideas， but soon gets down to issues like per-capita GDP， access to water， food and energy. The policies， however， cause the most contention. For some， the role of the state has to be very strong， while for others， things need to be left to the market. These debates are reflected within China， where since 1978 there has been much discussion over where the boundary of the former needs to end and the latter to start. Then there are passionate discussions of what the market is， of what the best structure of the state is， of what the role of multinational organizations and companies might be， and of the impact of global movements in civil society.
One message stood out most clearly this year in Boao： Pragmatic， evidence-based policy is likely to lead to the best outcomes. The period of policies driven by ideology is over. The search for analytic methods and approaches to understanding the immensely complex amount of data available is a common one across cultures and territories. So any place where this exploration can continue is welcome. The World Economic Forum has been regarded as a Western-centric forum， wherein discussion has been weighted toward the priorities and interests of the developed world. So the perspective of countries with their very different economic and development models in the Asian region is important to hear.
One issue that Boao might need to address， however， is that there is now the need for a more generic intellectual output. The World Economic Forum produces reports that promote its often neo-liberal perspectives. Boao is less appreciated for this. It has produced some reports， but they are not associated with a specific intellectual standpoint or position. Asia as a term puzzles many， because it lacks cohesiveness. Boao might well be a place where this issue of what an Asian perspective on global development—something that is shared across the different economies and social and political models in the region—might be.
It’s clear that many of those who participated in this year’s forum remain profoundly skeptical about the models available for development in the rest of the world， with all the problems they raise about sustainability， equality and equity. By bringing people together， Boao makes the first step in trying to create consensus about what the alternative to Western capitalism might be. But to finally explore this， something more sustained is necessary. A Boao standpoint articulated through a major report would be a good way to start this.
The Asian forum put together delegates from across the world， with a number of highranking politicians. However， political leaders were outnumbered by business representatives from food， resource and financial sector companies. In this diverse setting， trying to pin down a common vision of prosperity， and a common route to it， is immensely challenging. Countries， companies and individuals all differ. Finding the common point in the center of all their discussions is not easy.
Better development
President Xi Jinping’s opening address mentioned the “China dream，” a term he had used a number of times since becoming general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee last year and president in March. The phrase has been a topic of much debate， and the president’s declaration that stability and security in the region were critical and needed to be preserved and maintained was taken by some as an indirect message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea （DPRK）， which re- cently made a number of angry statements in the lead up to the forum， in particular about what the Korean leadership in Pyongyang interpreted as provocative behavior by the United States.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard mentioned the DPRK more explicitly. This derives from Australia now having a seat on the UN Security Council for two years. Australia also announced deeper military links with China， and a number of important economic measures for trading of the yuan and opening up the service sector for more cooperation between the two countries. One commentator at the conference， however， questioned whether her plan was ambitious enough and what sort of vision Australia had toward China and the region.
Everyone wants prosperity， but it’s an abstract concept. Some want material wealth， some want intangible cultural goods， and some crave a sense of security and strong national identity. In a diverse international gathering like Boao， the sheer variety of different perspectives around one term becomes clear. For many developing countries， just having enough food for their populations is a key objective. For others， it is delivering higher standards of public service and more sophisticated means of consulting with people. Much of the value of discussions in international forums comes through hammering out common frameworks by which to approach tough developmental questions. With the current state of technology， there are too few resources available at any given time for people. In a discussion of food security， one participant came out with the sobering fact that every day 1 billion people lacked food， many of whom were farmers. This issue of the justice of the very producers of foodstuffs themselves being some of the poorest people on the planet raises tough questions about the synergies between developing and developed countries， and the ways in which inequalities remain profoundly entrenched.
It was clear at this year’s conference that prosperity is linked in many people’s minds， across the world， with education. Education is seen as one of the clearest paths to delivering better development. Many Chinese participants were keen to excoriate the na- tional education system in China， saying that it did not encourage innovation or produce internationally recognized levels for competitive universities and qualifications. The lack of Chinese universities in global rankings of the best tertiary-level institutions in the world was a subject that came up across a number of different discussions.
Here again， however， there is a more complicated story. China produces as many talented scientists and creative figures as anywhere else. For an outside observer， the very self-critical language of some of the discussions about the educational system in China internally is well intended but probably accepts Western or external standards too readily. The elite-strong educational systems in the UK， or the United States for that matter， still fail to equip a large number of people with strong numeracy or literacy skills. Most would accept that the level of Chinese teaching in math and hard sciences is successful and produces better skilled people than in Europe or North America. What is preferable， producing a higher general standard of education without world-class elites， or worldclass elites and a lower national standard in some areas？
A common language
In the last 12 years since the founding of the Boao Forum for Asia， immense economic forces have changed the world， with forces of productivity and growth shifting from developed to developing countries. This is now seen as a historic transition. And yet， many of the profound structural issues still remain， despite the impact of the economic crisis since 2008. Americans still spend more on credit； Chinese still prefer to save. Creditor and debtor nations are as they were at the start of this process. Austerity policies have failed to cut deeply into public spending in Europe and elsewhere. Internationally， foreign direct investment is still dominated by the United States and the EU. Inequality has either remained the same over the last decade， or in some places dramatically deteriorated. Global leaders—at events like Boao， the Group of 20 or the World Economic Forum in Davos—are wrestling to create a common language of development， as well as a common understanding of the policies that might best achieve this. A shared vision starts off with very general ideas， but soon gets down to issues like per-capita GDP， access to water， food and energy. The policies， however， cause the most contention. For some， the role of the state has to be very strong， while for others， things need to be left to the market. These debates are reflected within China， where since 1978 there has been much discussion over where the boundary of the former needs to end and the latter to start. Then there are passionate discussions of what the market is， of what the best structure of the state is， of what the role of multinational organizations and companies might be， and of the impact of global movements in civil society.
One message stood out most clearly this year in Boao： Pragmatic， evidence-based policy is likely to lead to the best outcomes. The period of policies driven by ideology is over. The search for analytic methods and approaches to understanding the immensely complex amount of data available is a common one across cultures and territories. So any place where this exploration can continue is welcome. The World Economic Forum has been regarded as a Western-centric forum， wherein discussion has been weighted toward the priorities and interests of the developed world. So the perspective of countries with their very different economic and development models in the Asian region is important to hear.
One issue that Boao might need to address， however， is that there is now the need for a more generic intellectual output. The World Economic Forum produces reports that promote its often neo-liberal perspectives. Boao is less appreciated for this. It has produced some reports， but they are not associated with a specific intellectual standpoint or position. Asia as a term puzzles many， because it lacks cohesiveness. Boao might well be a place where this issue of what an Asian perspective on global development—something that is shared across the different economies and social and political models in the region—might be.
It’s clear that many of those who participated in this year’s forum remain profoundly skeptical about the models available for development in the rest of the world， with all the problems they raise about sustainability， equality and equity. By bringing people together， Boao makes the first step in trying to create consensus about what the alternative to Western capitalism might be. But to finally explore this， something more sustained is necessary. A Boao standpoint articulated through a major report would be a good way to start this.