哥大任教经济学家暨2001年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者约瑟夫·史蒂格雷茨(Joseph Stiglitz)应哥伦比亚大学亚太发展协会邀请月前在哥大商学院发表演讲，谈“中国经济增长的新模式”，即中国下一步的经济发展应当采取一种新模式。
/>
面对现场爆满的观众，史蒂格雷茨先是讲述了自己趁出席今年中国人大和政协两会的机会到中国内地某些偏远地区参观了一番，那里的变化同9年前他首次到访的情形相比让他感受到了中国经济增长的戏剧性，这些中国最偏远的地方如今不但用上了电，男女青少年还象世界各地的青少年一样，通过网络同自己的同龄人进行交流，或者在网上玩电子游戏。格雷茨也提到，他最近几年每年都会去参加中国的人大和政协两会。
格雷茨表示，中国经济的快速增长以任何标准来说都是史无前例，但现在一些老问题解决了，新问题又开始出现，情况发生了变化，而中国的情况也无法借用其它国家的发展模式来解决，因此中国的经济增长必须采取一种新的模式，而这也是今年中国的“两会”所讨论的主要议题。他表示，这种新增长模式主要是要解决几个方面的问题，包括社会公平、环境、教育和技术革新，以及由以出口为支柱的经济向以国内消费和投资为重点的经济。
在谈到社会公平时，格雷茨表示，可持续的经济增长必须体现在民众生活质量的改善上，但到目前为止，经济的高速增长并没有让所有人受益，高增长创造了利润，但并不一定创造更多的就业机会，而就业没有增长社会就不可能和谐。在贸易方面，格雷茨表示，由于出口市场的逐渐饱和和政治方面的压力，中国目前的出口增长速度不可能一直持续下去，因此中国应当开始培养国内的消费市场，包括设立好的借贷机制。
他并开玩笑说，就象在美国，每一个人天生就被赋予了拥有信用卡的权利，稍不留意，一万块的信用就用没了。另外，今年也是东南亚金融危机10周年，而相比当初的东南亚各国，中国目前的巨额外汇储备已经赋予了她抵御任何金融动荡的能力。
在经济由出口向国内消费转型方面，格雷茨认为，中国应当大力发展第三产业，同能源耗费比较集中的各出口产业相比，第三产业不但节省能源，而且也会减少环境污染。
格雷茨也提到了知识产权问题。他表示，各国目前的知识产权制度不是一个好制度，尤其在药物研究方面；知识是一种公共财富，而目前的知识产权体系是在赋予一些人对知识的垄断，降低了知识的使用效率。
格雷茨认为，一种以价格为基础的回报体系会好于目前的知识产权制度，发明创造者需要获得回报，而政府如果能利用政策和公共资金来协助某些产品和药物的开发，并给予发明创造者一个明确的报酬价格，这将最终让更多的人可以更容易的享用新发明创造的成果。
他举例表示，几个世纪以前在英国，人们让一些小孩子去清理烟囱，但这对清理烟囱的小孩来说有很大的健康危害；这时，如果某家公司或个人研究出一种清理烟囱的机器并获得专利，那么机器的价格将会很高，很多人会宁愿找个小孩子爬进去清理也不会去采用机器，但后来政府出了一个价码，如果某人发明了这种机器就会获得这么多钱，但其他人将都可以制造这种机器，后来这种做法果然解决了问题。
格雷茨建议中国多利用大学等公共机构进行研发，并笑称，在知识产权方面，不要太听信美国的各种利益集团。在新技术方面也应当强调环保而不是节省劳力，因为中国有的是劳力，但资源却相对不足。
对于人民币升值问题，格雷茨认为，这不是一件好事情，首先会造成农产品价格下降，而这将让中国的一些社会问题更加恶化。至于目前中美的贸易不平衡，他表示，其实从宏观角度来看，中美之间的自由贸易对双方都有好处，美国的一些政府官员也明白这个道理，但从微观层次来说，一些人丢了工作，而他们的议员代表就必须出来替他们说话，因此大家就听到了很多的反对声音。但如果人民币升值，以纺织业为例，不买中国的纺织品，难道美国的哪个州会大量生产纺织品吗？不会。进口商只会转向孟加拉和泰国这些国家，因此根本不会解决美国的问题。
格雷茨认为，美国政府的政策出了问题，减税和伊战造成了巨大赤字，去年一年美国借用他国的债务就达到8000亿以上，这种局面不可能持续下去，但最终怎样收场？没有人知道。
最后，格雷茨表示，中国“摸着石头过河”的发展策略明显起了作用，但现在河已经过了一大半，河对岸是什么已经可以看得越来越清楚，那就是各种各样的经济发展模式，中国应当采取一套适合下一步发展的新模式，这其中包括适合居住的城市，他希望中国在城市规划方面能够借鉴美国在50年代犯下的错误——大力发展高速公路，最后却造成很大的能源浪费，因为人们要花费大量时间和汽油在路上。
哥伦比亚大学亚太发展协会
【哥伦比亚大学亚太发展协会】Joseph Stiglitz关于中国的演讲
IvyLi 发表评论于
回复泼点冷水吧的评论:
You're very welcome here, but I was overwhelmed so didn't know how to make response to all your comments. :-)
I have no 讲演s/notes/powerpoints.
You're very welcome here, but I was overwhelmed so didn't know how to make response to all your comments. :-)
I have no 讲演s/notes/powerpoints.
泼点冷水吧 发表评论于
回复hls812的评论:
true, there do exist the imbalance in both economies, which is due to the biased growth. But this is another aspect of the economic problem, does not conflict with Dr.Stiglitz's arguments.
Anyway, I'd better stop here, stop messing up Ivy's blog :P Nice to talk to you guys here ：） Best wishes!
true, there do exist the imbalance in both economies, which is due to the biased growth. But this is another aspect of the economic problem, does not conflict with Dr.Stiglitz's arguments.
Anyway, I'd better stop here, stop messing up Ivy's blog :P Nice to talk to you guys here ：） Best wishes!
烟雨凄迷迷 发表评论于
回复IvyLi的评论:
同意，所以哪天美国政府想平了帐，只要一default就行了，不过世界都会很生气，后果也很严重，呵呵
同意，所以哪天美国政府想平了帐，只要一default就行了，不过世界都会很生气，后果也很严重，呵呵
泼点冷水吧 发表评论于
回复烟雨凄迷迷的评论:
oops,用错马甲了，哈哈，这些是我说的，我负责。
oops,用错马甲了，哈哈，这些是我说的，我负责。
烟雨凄迷迷 发表评论于
回复Chinus的评论:
"As for the intellectual rewarding system he mentioned in his speech, it won’t work. The reward could not be accurately measured since the potential market --because of that invention which is rewarded by government-- simply can be projected before the actual invention generate impact to the market. So, the reward to the inventor should not be deviated from the rule of market. Its value has to be measured by market. If the invention is worth of billions, the market has to reward the inventor that amount. On the other hand, the inventor might get nothing if the invention means nothing to the market. I don’t believe that the government can measure the value of an invention just based on a social needs. I’ll write other points that I don’t agree with Professor Stiglitz sometimes later."
He just gave an possible solution, yes, it is arguable whether it is feasible in real life and universally fit. What you said makes sense, but failed to beat his main arguments.
intellectual property laws and patents do have negative effect on social benefits and do create monopoly / protection /prevention. But without IP laws, there would be no incentive for invention and R&D, the solution is the government financed R&D, Non-for-profits ORGs can also play a significant role. This is his main argument, anything wrong?
FYI, I won't believe in anyone blindly, thanks for your reminder. :P
"As for the intellectual rewarding system he mentioned in his speech, it won’t work. The reward could not be accurately measured since the potential market --because of that invention which is rewarded by government-- simply can be projected before the actual invention generate impact to the market. So, the reward to the inventor should not be deviated from the rule of market. Its value has to be measured by market. If the invention is worth of billions, the market has to reward the inventor that amount. On the other hand, the inventor might get nothing if the invention means nothing to the market. I don’t believe that the government can measure the value of an invention just based on a social needs. I’ll write other points that I don’t agree with Professor Stiglitz sometimes later."
He just gave an possible solution, yes, it is arguable whether it is feasible in real life and universally fit. What you said makes sense, but failed to beat his main arguments.
intellectual property laws and patents do have negative effect on social benefits and do create monopoly / protection /prevention. But without IP laws, there would be no incentive for invention and R&D, the solution is the government financed R&D, Non-for-profits ORGs can also play a significant role. This is his main argument, anything wrong?
FYI, I won't believe in anyone blindly, thanks for your reminder. :P
IvyLi 发表评论于
回复hls812的评论:
你要从美国现行经济政策来理解美国预算赤字和贸易赤字.我觉得是一种对它极其有利的霸权政策, 通过不断发行大量美元刺激本国经济, 投资国外(既获得低价产品维持国内的通货膨胀又转移了原材料消耗和环境污染), 通过贸易赤字为杠杆逼人民币升值来降低债务,逼中国购买本国产品. 完全是双赢. 吃亏的是中国.
你要从美国现行经济政策来理解美国预算赤字和贸易赤字.我觉得是一种对它极其有利的霸权政策, 通过不断发行大量美元刺激本国经济, 投资国外(既获得低价产品维持国内的通货膨胀又转移了原材料消耗和环境污染), 通过贸易赤字为杠杆逼人民币升值来降低债务,逼中国购买本国产品. 完全是双赢. 吃亏的是中国.
Chinus 发表评论于
回复泼点冷水吧的评论:
Please don’t believe in him just because he is Nobel laureate. Some of his points are correct, but most of his points are apparently from an outsider who does not really know China’s problems even though he thought he knew China very well. I support his suggestion that China should develop and solidate an internal market. China has 1.3 billion population, and a strong internal consumption market will keep the economy grow in long term. Remember, the US prosperity is mainly because of its internal consumption, certainly it also has other factors. As for the intellectual rewarding system he mentioned in his speech, it won’t work. The reward could not be accurately measured since the potential market --because of that invention which is rewarded by government-- simply can be projected before the actual invention generate impact to the market. So, the reward to the inventor should not be deviated from the rule of market. Its value has to be measured by market. If the invention is worth of billions, the market has to reward the inventor that amount. On the other hand, the inventor might get nothing if the invention means nothing to the market. I don’t believe that the government can measure the value of an invention just based on a social needs. I’ll write other points that I don’t agree with Professor Stiglitz sometimes later.
Please don’t believe in him just because he is Nobel laureate. Some of his points are correct, but most of his points are apparently from an outsider who does not really know China’s problems even though he thought he knew China very well. I support his suggestion that China should develop and solidate an internal market. China has 1.3 billion population, and a strong internal consumption market will keep the economy grow in long term. Remember, the US prosperity is mainly because of its internal consumption, certainly it also has other factors. As for the intellectual rewarding system he mentioned in his speech, it won’t work. The reward could not be accurately measured since the potential market --because of that invention which is rewarded by government-- simply can be projected before the actual invention generate impact to the market. So, the reward to the inventor should not be deviated from the rule of market. Its value has to be measured by market. If the invention is worth of billions, the market has to reward the inventor that amount. On the other hand, the inventor might get nothing if the invention means nothing to the market. I don’t believe that the government can measure the value of an invention just based on a social needs. I’ll write other points that I don’t agree with Professor Stiglitz sometimes later.
泼点冷水吧 发表评论于
Short-run V.S long-run analysis:
Political/law reform may benefit the economy in the long run, although what form of political reform is still remain debatable. Enforcement is more tangible at present.
Considering the huge population, social welfare do need to improve for the long run, and Chinese government is doing their job on it. To increase consumption is more viable in the short/mid term.
Free mkt is not a all-rounder, government intervention needs to be in place in cases of crisis, just like HK did in 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
As for environment issue, we cannot blame China alone, think about the MNCs / outsourcing, where did those polluters go? Didn't developed countries outsourced their polluting industries to developing ones? Did they follow the "polluter pays principle" instead of blaming developing countries on this issue?
"sacrifices environment in exchange for the short prosperity can not be sustained." Correct, but environmental sacrifices are inevitable in the developing process. What China needs to do is to keep control over it, which needs the international cooperation/coordination and tech support from the developed ones.
Political/law reform may benefit the economy in the long run, although what form of political reform is still remain debatable. Enforcement is more tangible at present.
Considering the huge population, social welfare do need to improve for the long run, and Chinese government is doing their job on it. To increase consumption is more viable in the short/mid term.
Free mkt is not a all-rounder, government intervention needs to be in place in cases of crisis, just like HK did in 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
As for environment issue, we cannot blame China alone, think about the MNCs / outsourcing, where did those polluters go? Didn't developed countries outsourced their polluting industries to developing ones? Did they follow the "polluter pays principle" instead of blaming developing countries on this issue?
"sacrifices environment in exchange for the short prosperity can not be sustained." Correct, but environmental sacrifices are inevitable in the developing process. What China needs to do is to keep control over it, which needs the international cooperation/coordination and tech support from the developed ones.
天下无马 发表评论于
Steven Roach of MS wrote this topic long time ago. The suggestions are all similar - to increase internal consumptions. But it really is not possible to just increase the consumption. For people who has no basic medicare insurance and retirement welfare, people will only keep the money in the bank instead of consumption. Ok, well, not exactly bank, stock market and housing market.
Joseph said that with 1.2 trillion dollar that China has abilities to combact any crisis. Maybe, maybe not. Unless China forces currency exchange control, what goes in over the years will go out just as quickly.
The real estate and stock market may not be able to sustain the money drain.
I am not trying to paint a dim picture, as China's future will be bright. But the current economic development model that sacrifices environment in exchange for the short prosperity can not be sustained. I am afriad that unless China to address the political reform, to reform the law in all aspects, to enforce the laws, the China model will be seriously challenged.
My 2 cents.
Joseph said that with 1.2 trillion dollar that China has abilities to combact any crisis. Maybe, maybe not. Unless China forces currency exchange control, what goes in over the years will go out just as quickly.
The real estate and stock market may not be able to sustain the money drain.
I am not trying to paint a dim picture, as China's future will be bright. But the current economic development model that sacrifices environment in exchange for the short prosperity can not be sustained. I am afriad that unless China to address the political reform, to reform the law in all aspects, to enforce the laws, the China model will be seriously challenged.
My 2 cents.
泼点冷水吧 发表评论于
How can the U.S. eliminate its twin deficits? hoho~~ the best solution is a default~~~
泼点冷水吧 发表评论于
讲得非常中肯，对中国的情况很了解，对中国的经济发展，人民币汇率问题，知识产权，R&D分析得非常透彻。
好东西，不知哥大有没有提供讲演s/notes/powerpoints?能否给我一份？呵呵
好东西，不知哥大有没有提供讲演s/notes/powerpoints?能否给我一份？呵呵
登录后才可评论.
