论文部分内容阅读
中国这几年的经济改革、开放与增长，导致世界上许多人在谈论中国成为“制造业大国”的可能性，其含义就是中国有可能成国际上的一个制造业生产基地，为世界市场生产相当大一部分的制造业产品。
在我看来，中国如果真的能在今后一二十年的时间里成为“制造业大国”，那将是中国的伟大成就，是中国抓住了一个“千年大机遇”，使自己完成工业化、现代化的目标得以实现。事实上，中国只有成为制造业大国，才能实现自己现代化的目标，因为只有这样，中国才能创造出足够的非农就业机会，最终解决几亿农民脱离农业的进程，也就是工业化、城市化的进程，才能最终解决我们现在每天为之头疼的“三农”问题、城乡差距问题、就业不足问题、地区差距、贫富差距问题等等，才能最终成为一个现代化的强国。现在担心的问题仅在于：即使成了制造业大国，所创造出的就业机会还不足以满足几亿农民进城的需要（在今后40~50年中，预计会有4~5亿农村劳动力要最终脱离土地）！
但是有的中国人对制造业的前景不屑一顾，认为我们要做的是“科技大国”，要挣科技发明的大钱，而不能只挣制造业、工厂生产的那点“小钱”。可是第一，谁说成为科技大国就不能同时是科技大国？中国将来一共会有7~8亿劳动力，其中可以有1亿人去搞高科技（那将是世界上最大的科技力量），还剩下6~7亿的人，大概还是要有多数人搞制造业生产，不然怎么就业？中国这么多人，既搞高科技，又搞制造业，又搞服务业，加在一起可能还达不到“充分就业”的水平，居然有人还想不搞制造业，不想搞工厂？第二，连制造业大国都当不成，还想当科技大国？现代科学技术强国都是从制造业强国的基础上发展起来的，都经历过制造业大国的发展阶段，只不过现在世界上分成了发达国家与发展中国家，有些发达国家做制造业不再有竞争力，做不成制造业大国了（所以那里的工会组织拼命反对全球化，反对中国加入WTO），而我们正处于在这方面有竞争力的发展阶段上。第三，生产制造本身是科技应用的过程。没有发达制造业工厂，新的科学技术不能转化为最终产品、实现价值，那个高科技也是假的。再新的技术最终也要落实到产品制造上去。中国的理想应该是用我们的“自有技术”，既制造皮鞋、袜子，又制造飞船、导弹。而且再回到前面的道理上去：即便有朝一日我们成了飞船、导弹的制造业大国，我们仍然还要为世界（中国市场还不够大！）生产皮鞋、袜子，不这样那四、五亿农民的就业就没有着落！请那些唱高调的仁人志士们不是只想自己怎么挣钱，而是能经常想一想我们的几亿农民！
还有人看着我们只能挣制造业生产产品的钱、赚不到“品牌的钱”、“流能的钱”而着急，也来否定中国要当制造业大国的努力，说什么我们不要当制造业大国，而要当“品牌设计和服务业大国”。我们如果能有自己的世界名牌，如果能去主宰世界市场的流通与销售，甚至主宰世界金融市场、资本市场的服务，那当然再好不过。但是第一：在我们还没有学会那些本领之前，我们干什么？发展中国家的落后，原因之一就在于我们刚刚开始搞市场经济，刚刚走向世界市场，而不像发达国家和老牌的跨国公司那样，已经在世界市场上经营了几十年几百年，经验丰富，老奸巨猾，已经在多年积累的基础上形成了品牌、营销、市场份额等方面的优势，而我们要达到那一水平还需要很长时间的学习过程，虽然我们的这个过程在时间上可以不一定要几百年，但也不是一夜之间就能完成的。在我们还没有这些方面的能力的时候，又不生产制造，我们靠什么吃饭？我们不依靠“现实的竞争力”，我们能不能有明天的发展和提高？在说大话的时候最好关心一下我们大多数的厂家今天如何生存、如何赚钱的问题！第二，要发展在市场营销、流通服务方面的能力，为什么就不能同时搞工厂进行生产制造，搞生产制造为什么就不能发展营销能力？分明是两个并行不悖的事，为什么非要相互否定？当今世界上的营销大国，名牌厂家，又有哪个不是从生产制造起步的？第三，还是前面的那个道理——中国这么多人，将来（还不是现在！）一亿人去搞高科技，再分出一亿人去到世界市场上搞营销、服务，还有5～6亿的劳动力，当然一部分要从事国内的一般性服务（不是赚“大钱”的那种），但其中许多人不搞生产制造，你能否说明他们到何处就业？
这使人想到另一个似是而非的论调，就是这几年流行的一个概念，叫做“提升产业结构”，意思是说与发达国家相比，我们（全国或一个地区）的产业结构中，“低级”（低端、附加值低）的产业太多，应该大力发展高新科技产业和服务业，逐步增加“高级”产业，淘汰“低级”产业，把我们的产业结构向高端提升。
对于一些发达国家来说，这种提法也许是对的；对于我们的某一个地区来说，这也许也是对的；对于个别企业，也许是对的；但对于我们中国这个整体来说，在年后的几十年的时间内，这种提法却是不对的！
这是因为，我们毫无疑问要积极发展高新技术产业，提高经济当中的技术含量，但即使我们有了新的较为高级的产业，我们也仍然不能丢掉那些劳动密集型、技术含量低但仍有竞争力的所谓“低级产业”！因为我们还有几亿农民要就业！一些企业“升级”了，一些地区也许总体来说也“升级”了，但那些所谓“低级”的东西仍要由别的企业、也许是新的企业接过来、做下去，也许到别的地区去做，但是我们中国地千万不能把它们丢掉！因为那些就业机会丢不得，不能让它们流失到国外去，否则我们这个几亿农民转产、进城的问题就无法最终解决！一个企业可以不管这个就业问题，有利润可赚是主要的；一个地区、一个城市也可以不管这个“中国农民”就业的问题，只要本地区的就业满足了就行。但是作为中国这个整体，作为中央政府，不能不管这个几亿人就业的问题，因为这早晚都是我们大家的问题。从这个意义上说，一个地区可以谈论“结构升级”，中央政府却不能谈论结构升级，作为中国人，我们千万不能忘记这个几亿人就业的问题，我们不妨称它为“世纪大问题”。
正确的提法不应是“提升产业结构”，而应该是“扩充产业结构”，其含义就在于我们要发展我们现在还缺少、还薄弱的新产业，但并不丢掉、放弃已有的老产业。中国人太多了，有一部分人去搞了高精尖的新产业，仍可以有许多其他的人继续高老产业；一部分人升级了，其他的人还要源源不断地补上来。许多农民转产后的第一步可能还搞不了新产业，当不了电脑工程师，而搞那些所谓的低级产业，却正可以发挥他们的竞争优势！
“扩充产业结构”，就意味着我们中国在今后几十年中可以有也应该有十分宽广的“产业谱”，同时，也还有“充实”、“补充”产业链的含义。即使在一般制造业的领域，我们也还有许多领域没有占领市场，一些“整机”我们还无法制造，许多“零部件”的制造也还是空白。在这些领域里，我们的企业也可以一步一步地去发展，一个部件一个部件地去攻克，一个市场一个市场地去占领，把“产业谱”充实起来，这本身就可以创造出一大批就业。当前扩充产业结构的一个重要机遇是：中国加WTO和新一轮外资的增长，为我们的企业提供了大量进入世界生产网络的机会，在我们自己还无法做“整机”的领域内，我们可以立刻尽可能地为跨国公司进行部件的配套生产，逐步地扩大我们的生产领域和市场范围，一步一步地提高我们的技术水平，创造更多的就业。
总之，扩充产业结构，就是要不断地扩大经济规模和就业规模。为了解决我们增加就业的“世纪大问题”，我们必须要有一个正确的经济战略思想，必须确保一个就业机会都不丢失。
真正的挑战是我们能否扩充产业结构、成为制造业大国？经过二十多年的体制改革，中国的投资环境已大大改善，但还有许多体制方面的问题制约着我们，包括制约着我们自己储蓄转化为投资，制约着我国有活力的民营企业的成长。全世界的发展中国家都在竞相改善投资环境，吸引各方投资，提高竞争能力。我们有我们特殊的优势，如“无限供给”的低成本劳动力，但我们也有我们的特殊劣势，特别是历史上计划经济遗留下来的种种束缚生产力的各种体制，包括企业制度、金融体制、法治环境、政府行为等等。加上经济基础本身薄弱，科技水平不高，资本存量小，离制造业大国的水平还差之甚远，在世界制造业中所占的比重还非常小，所以真正的问题是我们还远不是制造业大国，还远不能称为是制造业大国。——它是我们值得为之奋斗的目标，需要我们今后几十年在各方面努力奋斗。但它还远不是我们的现实。
最后，要注意到的是，世界上不会只有中国一个发展中国家有可能成为制造业大国。许多发展中国家都在努力为此而奋斗。出于我们民族的“私利”，我们恨不得把全世界的制造业都拉到中国来搞，但从国际竞争的角度看，这既不现实，也不可能。各国总会有各自的比较优势。在国际上，自吹是“制造业大国”对我们并没有什么好处。我们要做的只是多看看我们自己的弱点，努力做好自己的事情。谈论“制造业大国”这个话题，只是要明确我们需要大力发展制造业、为几亿农民创造就业机会，而不应有任何自以为今天我们已经是制造业大国的狂妄。我们还仅仅处在发展的初级阶段！
"Manufacturing power"-an Opportunity China must Seize
By Fan Gang,Director of National Economic Research institute,Chin Reform Foundatoin
The economic growth China has achieved in recent yearsthrough reform and opening-up has prompted worldwide talkabout the possibility for China to become a "manufacturingpower". In other words, China is expected to develop into aninternational manufacturing base capable of furnishing the worldmarket with a fairly large proportion of the manufactured goodsit needs.
It would be great, in my opinion, if China could reallybecome a manufacturing power over the next ten or 20 years. Tobe specific, that would mean success of the country in seizing agreat opportunity of vital and lasting importance and attainmentby the country of the projected target of industrialization andmodernization. Only by becoming a manufacturing power willit be possible for China to truly modernize. This is the only wayfor the country to generate enough non-agricultural jobs andeventually accomplish the task of enabling farmers in theirhundreds of millions to leave the land and completing the processof industrialization and urbanization. And only in this way canwe eliminate rural poverty, the headache that bedevils us everyday, and resolve problems that stem from the disparities betweenthe urban and the rural, and between the rich and the poor. Inshort, by becoming a manufacturing power China can become amodern power in its true sense. The only thing that may beworrying is that even if China becomes a manufacturing power,the additional job opportunities thus created would still not be enough for those rural labourers that must be reallocated from the agriculture to non-farming sectors. Remember: over the next40 to 50 years, an extra 450 million rural laborers are to shift tonon-agricultural undertakings for a living!
Nevertheless, some people in the country regard as beneaththeir notice the prospect of China developing into amanufacturing power. In their opinion, China should concentrateon becoming scientifically and technologically strong so that itcan make "big money" from scientific and technologicalinventions, and it won‘t do for the country to attach too muchimportance to the "little money" yielded by the manufacturingsector or factories in the sector.
In the first place, why a country can‘t be a science andtechnology power while a manufacturing power? Or, other wayaround, why is it that a country serving as a manufacturing powercan‘t be a science and technology power at the same time? Chinais likely to have 700-800 million able-bodied people in theforeseeable future. Let‘s assume that 100 million of them workin high-tech undertakings for a living, thus forming the largestscientific and technological contingent in the world. For most ofthe others, numbering somewhere between 600 and 700 million,to go in for manufacturing will still be their choice to stayemployed. If not in manufacturing business, where can they findjobs? For a country so populous as China, it would be difficultto ensure full employment to its citizens even though it has ahighly developed manufacturing sector while sucessful indeveloping high-tech and service industries. Secondly,how can a country a science and technology power if it does not have a highly developedmanufacturing base?All science and technology powers of todayhave based themselves on manufacturing industies in seekingdevelopment. All of them, without exception, used to serve orare still serving as manufacturing bases for the world. Countriesare now divided into those developed and those developing. Somedeveloped countries have lost their competitiveness inmanufacturing industries, and that is why trade unions in thesecountries have spared no effort to oppose the process of economicglobalization and China‘s entry into the World Trade Organization(WTO). In comparison, our manufacturing industries arebecoming increasingly competitive.
Thirdly, manufacturing, in itself, is a part of the process inwhich scientific and technological achievements are applied. Asfor a developing country, manufacturing is also a way to learnthe existing technologies.That is the first step to build up its owncapacity of technological research.
It would be ideal if Chinese companies can have more andmore their own-patented technologies in producing not only shoesand socks but also high-tech things such as spacecrafts andmissiles. But the point here is that even if China has become amajor base producing aircraft and guided missiles for the world,it should still continue to produce shoes and socks for the worldmarket. If China stops producing shoes and socks, how can wefind enough jobs for the 600-700 millions peoples, of whomabout 400-500 millions are expected to leave to farming sectorsin the next 40-50 years to join the modern industries? That is thecentral issue of China‘s modernization!
There are also people who are worried about the fact thatwe now have to depend almost exclusively on manufacturing ofgoods while still unable to make much money from brandsmaking and marketing. They want China to become "brandpower", rather than a manufacturing base which seems to themnot making a big money. It would, as a matter of course, beexcellent if we are powerful enough to dominate marketing inthe world market and make big money from our own great globalbrands. And of course China will catch up in this respect. Butthe first question is how China makes money and sustains itsgrowth before it is able to become such a marketing power asthat could only be a result of long-term efforts of learning andcapacity building? One has to start with what it has. Secondly,which company or country can be a "brand-superpower" whendoes not have a great manufacturing capability? And thirdly -well, we now return to the question of employment, why theeffort to be more capable of marketing should block the way forChina to become a manufacturing base? Let us assume Chinawill be able,say in 40 years, to have 100 million people capableof doing high-tech research - that will be largest high-techresearch power in the world-- and another 100 million for brand-making and global marketing-that will be the largest force again-- and then, say another 100 millions for global financial servicewhich is also a "highly respected" big-money-making sector.Now, we may still need to find 400-500 millions jobs for the restof China‘s labor force. How about taking manufacturingindustries just for the sake of fulfilling the gap? Please just donot tell me that 400-500 millions should remain in agriculture!
All these remind us of another wide-spread policyrecommendation for China in recent years. It calls for "upgradingthe industrial structure", meaning that China should no longergo in for the low-end, labor-intensive manufacturing industries,but move up to more technology, capital intensive sectors so asto get more added value and to make the industrial structuremore like that of US and European countries.
This argument may apply to some developed regions, aswell as to some cases of companies, but on no account should itapply to the country as a whole. China must, of course, workenergetically to develop high-tech industries and make ourindustrial production more technology-intensive. Nevertheless,we may never give up those "low-end", labor-intensive, lowadded-value industries for the next 50 years, even after Chinahave built up a fairly complete system of "high-end" industries,simply for the sake of employment for the rural population. Somecompanies may succeed in "upgrading" themselves, and so willsome local economies by moving out or giving up the low-endindustries. But those industries should be, in ideal, kept in Chinaand taken up by other companies or other regions. A companymay not need to care about employment of rural labor as if seelesmarimum profits. A city or a region may not care either as longas full employment of the local residents is ensured. But thecentral government should never say "up-grading" industrialstructures in the meaning of dropping out low-end industries.What they may pursue is "expanding industrial structure",meaning to develop more high-end industries without giving upany existing industries, as the central government must beresponsible for the employment of those 400-500 million rurallaborers.
"Expanding the industrial structure" means that over theforthcoming decades, China‘s industrial structure and supplychain can, and should, be immensely broadened. Even intraditional manufacturing industries, much needs to be done toexpand the business scope. Numerous products are still beyondChina‘s capability to produce, and so are some of the parts andaccessories. By striving to seize such markets and develop such"supply chain", China may able to generate large numbers ofbadly needed jobs. China‘s accession to the WTO, which is givingrise to a new round of growth in foreign investment, affords agolden opportunity to the country in its effort to expand theindustrial structure. Chinese enterprises should seize thisopportunity to get involved in global networks of production.
To sum up, expansion of the industrial structure meanssustainability of economic growth and growth of employment.The issue of employment of rural laborers in China can beregarded as the "problem of the century" and therefore requireshighly realistic approach in strategic thinking, not just followingsome fancy fashion talks!
To us Chinese, the real challenge is actually whether or notwe could develop the country into a manufacturing power throughexpansion of our industrial structure. Thanks to the economicrestructuring over the past two decades, investment conditionsin China have immeasurably improved. Nevertheless, unresolvedinstitutional problems continue to restrict our economic growth,while all developing countries are vying with one another inimproving investment conditions, in a bid to attract more FDIand become more competitive on the world market. Ouradvantages in such competition are unique - for example, theunlimited supply of low cost labor and the potential of largestmarket in the world. Meanwhile, our disadvantages alsoextraordinary, particularly the institutional factors, such as thelegacy of a planned economy, excess government interference,the weak financial system and legal framework, as well as veryunderdeveloped social security system.
Last but not the least, we have to remember that China isnot the only developing country likely to develop into amanufacturing power. Other developing countries are, too,working hard for that. A country, in fact any country, invariablyhas some relative advantages in the global competition. The bestwe can hope is to get a large enough slice of the pie. What weneed to do is to acquire a keen understanding of our weakness,so that we can do our homework better. Our discussion of the"manufacturing power" issue is meant to enhance ourunderstanding of the need for China to develop manufacturingindustries in a big way, so that jobs can be generated for thosehundreds of millions who are expected to leave the farmlandand shift to non-agricultural undertakings.
在我看来，中国如果真的能在今后一二十年的时间里成为“制造业大国”，那将是中国的伟大成就，是中国抓住了一个“千年大机遇”，使自己完成工业化、现代化的目标得以实现。事实上，中国只有成为制造业大国，才能实现自己现代化的目标，因为只有这样，中国才能创造出足够的非农就业机会，最终解决几亿农民脱离农业的进程，也就是工业化、城市化的进程，才能最终解决我们现在每天为之头疼的“三农”问题、城乡差距问题、就业不足问题、地区差距、贫富差距问题等等，才能最终成为一个现代化的强国。现在担心的问题仅在于：即使成了制造业大国，所创造出的就业机会还不足以满足几亿农民进城的需要（在今后40~50年中，预计会有4~5亿农村劳动力要最终脱离土地）！
但是有的中国人对制造业的前景不屑一顾，认为我们要做的是“科技大国”，要挣科技发明的大钱，而不能只挣制造业、工厂生产的那点“小钱”。可是第一，谁说成为科技大国就不能同时是科技大国？中国将来一共会有7~8亿劳动力，其中可以有1亿人去搞高科技（那将是世界上最大的科技力量），还剩下6~7亿的人，大概还是要有多数人搞制造业生产，不然怎么就业？中国这么多人，既搞高科技，又搞制造业，又搞服务业，加在一起可能还达不到“充分就业”的水平，居然有人还想不搞制造业，不想搞工厂？第二，连制造业大国都当不成，还想当科技大国？现代科学技术强国都是从制造业强国的基础上发展起来的，都经历过制造业大国的发展阶段，只不过现在世界上分成了发达国家与发展中国家，有些发达国家做制造业不再有竞争力，做不成制造业大国了（所以那里的工会组织拼命反对全球化，反对中国加入WTO），而我们正处于在这方面有竞争力的发展阶段上。第三，生产制造本身是科技应用的过程。没有发达制造业工厂，新的科学技术不能转化为最终产品、实现价值，那个高科技也是假的。再新的技术最终也要落实到产品制造上去。中国的理想应该是用我们的“自有技术”，既制造皮鞋、袜子，又制造飞船、导弹。而且再回到前面的道理上去：即便有朝一日我们成了飞船、导弹的制造业大国，我们仍然还要为世界（中国市场还不够大！）生产皮鞋、袜子，不这样那四、五亿农民的就业就没有着落！请那些唱高调的仁人志士们不是只想自己怎么挣钱，而是能经常想一想我们的几亿农民！
还有人看着我们只能挣制造业生产产品的钱、赚不到“品牌的钱”、“流能的钱”而着急，也来否定中国要当制造业大国的努力，说什么我们不要当制造业大国，而要当“品牌设计和服务业大国”。我们如果能有自己的世界名牌，如果能去主宰世界市场的流通与销售，甚至主宰世界金融市场、资本市场的服务，那当然再好不过。但是第一：在我们还没有学会那些本领之前，我们干什么？发展中国家的落后，原因之一就在于我们刚刚开始搞市场经济，刚刚走向世界市场，而不像发达国家和老牌的跨国公司那样，已经在世界市场上经营了几十年几百年，经验丰富，老奸巨猾，已经在多年积累的基础上形成了品牌、营销、市场份额等方面的优势，而我们要达到那一水平还需要很长时间的学习过程，虽然我们的这个过程在时间上可以不一定要几百年，但也不是一夜之间就能完成的。在我们还没有这些方面的能力的时候，又不生产制造，我们靠什么吃饭？我们不依靠“现实的竞争力”，我们能不能有明天的发展和提高？在说大话的时候最好关心一下我们大多数的厂家今天如何生存、如何赚钱的问题！第二，要发展在市场营销、流通服务方面的能力，为什么就不能同时搞工厂进行生产制造，搞生产制造为什么就不能发展营销能力？分明是两个并行不悖的事，为什么非要相互否定？当今世界上的营销大国，名牌厂家，又有哪个不是从生产制造起步的？第三，还是前面的那个道理——中国这么多人，将来（还不是现在！）一亿人去搞高科技，再分出一亿人去到世界市场上搞营销、服务，还有5～6亿的劳动力，当然一部分要从事国内的一般性服务（不是赚“大钱”的那种），但其中许多人不搞生产制造，你能否说明他们到何处就业？
这使人想到另一个似是而非的论调，就是这几年流行的一个概念，叫做“提升产业结构”，意思是说与发达国家相比，我们（全国或一个地区）的产业结构中，“低级”（低端、附加值低）的产业太多，应该大力发展高新科技产业和服务业，逐步增加“高级”产业，淘汰“低级”产业，把我们的产业结构向高端提升。
对于一些发达国家来说，这种提法也许是对的；对于我们的某一个地区来说，这也许也是对的；对于个别企业，也许是对的；但对于我们中国这个整体来说，在年后的几十年的时间内，这种提法却是不对的！
这是因为，我们毫无疑问要积极发展高新技术产业，提高经济当中的技术含量，但即使我们有了新的较为高级的产业，我们也仍然不能丢掉那些劳动密集型、技术含量低但仍有竞争力的所谓“低级产业”！因为我们还有几亿农民要就业！一些企业“升级”了，一些地区也许总体来说也“升级”了，但那些所谓“低级”的东西仍要由别的企业、也许是新的企业接过来、做下去，也许到别的地区去做，但是我们中国地千万不能把它们丢掉！因为那些就业机会丢不得，不能让它们流失到国外去，否则我们这个几亿农民转产、进城的问题就无法最终解决！一个企业可以不管这个就业问题，有利润可赚是主要的；一个地区、一个城市也可以不管这个“中国农民”就业的问题，只要本地区的就业满足了就行。但是作为中国这个整体，作为中央政府，不能不管这个几亿人就业的问题，因为这早晚都是我们大家的问题。从这个意义上说，一个地区可以谈论“结构升级”，中央政府却不能谈论结构升级，作为中国人，我们千万不能忘记这个几亿人就业的问题，我们不妨称它为“世纪大问题”。
正确的提法不应是“提升产业结构”，而应该是“扩充产业结构”，其含义就在于我们要发展我们现在还缺少、还薄弱的新产业，但并不丢掉、放弃已有的老产业。中国人太多了，有一部分人去搞了高精尖的新产业，仍可以有许多其他的人继续高老产业；一部分人升级了，其他的人还要源源不断地补上来。许多农民转产后的第一步可能还搞不了新产业，当不了电脑工程师，而搞那些所谓的低级产业，却正可以发挥他们的竞争优势！
“扩充产业结构”，就意味着我们中国在今后几十年中可以有也应该有十分宽广的“产业谱”，同时，也还有“充实”、“补充”产业链的含义。即使在一般制造业的领域，我们也还有许多领域没有占领市场，一些“整机”我们还无法制造，许多“零部件”的制造也还是空白。在这些领域里，我们的企业也可以一步一步地去发展，一个部件一个部件地去攻克，一个市场一个市场地去占领，把“产业谱”充实起来，这本身就可以创造出一大批就业。当前扩充产业结构的一个重要机遇是：中国加WTO和新一轮外资的增长，为我们的企业提供了大量进入世界生产网络的机会，在我们自己还无法做“整机”的领域内，我们可以立刻尽可能地为跨国公司进行部件的配套生产，逐步地扩大我们的生产领域和市场范围，一步一步地提高我们的技术水平，创造更多的就业。
总之，扩充产业结构，就是要不断地扩大经济规模和就业规模。为了解决我们增加就业的“世纪大问题”，我们必须要有一个正确的经济战略思想，必须确保一个就业机会都不丢失。
真正的挑战是我们能否扩充产业结构、成为制造业大国？经过二十多年的体制改革，中国的投资环境已大大改善，但还有许多体制方面的问题制约着我们，包括制约着我们自己储蓄转化为投资，制约着我国有活力的民营企业的成长。全世界的发展中国家都在竞相改善投资环境，吸引各方投资，提高竞争能力。我们有我们特殊的优势，如“无限供给”的低成本劳动力，但我们也有我们的特殊劣势，特别是历史上计划经济遗留下来的种种束缚生产力的各种体制，包括企业制度、金融体制、法治环境、政府行为等等。加上经济基础本身薄弱，科技水平不高，资本存量小，离制造业大国的水平还差之甚远，在世界制造业中所占的比重还非常小，所以真正的问题是我们还远不是制造业大国，还远不能称为是制造业大国。——它是我们值得为之奋斗的目标，需要我们今后几十年在各方面努力奋斗。但它还远不是我们的现实。
最后，要注意到的是，世界上不会只有中国一个发展中国家有可能成为制造业大国。许多发展中国家都在努力为此而奋斗。出于我们民族的“私利”，我们恨不得把全世界的制造业都拉到中国来搞，但从国际竞争的角度看，这既不现实，也不可能。各国总会有各自的比较优势。在国际上，自吹是“制造业大国”对我们并没有什么好处。我们要做的只是多看看我们自己的弱点，努力做好自己的事情。谈论“制造业大国”这个话题，只是要明确我们需要大力发展制造业、为几亿农民创造就业机会，而不应有任何自以为今天我们已经是制造业大国的狂妄。我们还仅仅处在发展的初级阶段！
"Manufacturing power"-an Opportunity China must Seize
By Fan Gang,Director of National Economic Research institute,Chin Reform Foundatoin
The economic growth China has achieved in recent yearsthrough reform and opening-up has prompted worldwide talkabout the possibility for China to become a "manufacturingpower". In other words, China is expected to develop into aninternational manufacturing base capable of furnishing the worldmarket with a fairly large proportion of the manufactured goodsit needs.
It would be great, in my opinion, if China could reallybecome a manufacturing power over the next ten or 20 years. Tobe specific, that would mean success of the country in seizing agreat opportunity of vital and lasting importance and attainmentby the country of the projected target of industrialization andmodernization. Only by becoming a manufacturing power willit be possible for China to truly modernize. This is the only wayfor the country to generate enough non-agricultural jobs andeventually accomplish the task of enabling farmers in theirhundreds of millions to leave the land and completing the processof industrialization and urbanization. And only in this way canwe eliminate rural poverty, the headache that bedevils us everyday, and resolve problems that stem from the disparities betweenthe urban and the rural, and between the rich and the poor. Inshort, by becoming a manufacturing power China can become amodern power in its true sense. The only thing that may beworrying is that even if China becomes a manufacturing power,the additional job opportunities thus created would still not be enough for those rural labourers that must be reallocated from the agriculture to non-farming sectors. Remember: over the next40 to 50 years, an extra 450 million rural laborers are to shift tonon-agricultural undertakings for a living!
Nevertheless, some people in the country regard as beneaththeir notice the prospect of China developing into amanufacturing power. In their opinion, China should concentrateon becoming scientifically and technologically strong so that itcan make "big money" from scientific and technologicalinventions, and it won‘t do for the country to attach too muchimportance to the "little money" yielded by the manufacturingsector or factories in the sector.
In the first place, why a country can‘t be a science andtechnology power while a manufacturing power? Or, other wayaround, why is it that a country serving as a manufacturing powercan‘t be a science and technology power at the same time? Chinais likely to have 700-800 million able-bodied people in theforeseeable future. Let‘s assume that 100 million of them workin high-tech undertakings for a living, thus forming the largestscientific and technological contingent in the world. For most ofthe others, numbering somewhere between 600 and 700 million,to go in for manufacturing will still be their choice to stayemployed. If not in manufacturing business, where can they findjobs? For a country so populous as China, it would be difficultto ensure full employment to its citizens even though it has ahighly developed manufacturing sector while sucessful indeveloping high-tech and service industries. Secondly,how can a country a science and technology power if it does not have a highly developedmanufacturing base?All science and technology powers of todayhave based themselves on manufacturing industies in seekingdevelopment. All of them, without exception, used to serve orare still serving as manufacturing bases for the world. Countriesare now divided into those developed and those developing. Somedeveloped countries have lost their competitiveness inmanufacturing industries, and that is why trade unions in thesecountries have spared no effort to oppose the process of economicglobalization and China‘s entry into the World Trade Organization(WTO). In comparison, our manufacturing industries arebecoming increasingly competitive.
Thirdly, manufacturing, in itself, is a part of the process inwhich scientific and technological achievements are applied. Asfor a developing country, manufacturing is also a way to learnthe existing technologies.That is the first step to build up its owncapacity of technological research.
It would be ideal if Chinese companies can have more andmore their own-patented technologies in producing not only shoesand socks but also high-tech things such as spacecrafts andmissiles. But the point here is that even if China has become amajor base producing aircraft and guided missiles for the world,it should still continue to produce shoes and socks for the worldmarket. If China stops producing shoes and socks, how can wefind enough jobs for the 600-700 millions peoples, of whomabout 400-500 millions are expected to leave to farming sectorsin the next 40-50 years to join the modern industries? That is thecentral issue of China‘s modernization!
There are also people who are worried about the fact thatwe now have to depend almost exclusively on manufacturing ofgoods while still unable to make much money from brandsmaking and marketing. They want China to become "brandpower", rather than a manufacturing base which seems to themnot making a big money. It would, as a matter of course, beexcellent if we are powerful enough to dominate marketing inthe world market and make big money from our own great globalbrands. And of course China will catch up in this respect. Butthe first question is how China makes money and sustains itsgrowth before it is able to become such a marketing power asthat could only be a result of long-term efforts of learning andcapacity building? One has to start with what it has. Secondly,which company or country can be a "brand-superpower" whendoes not have a great manufacturing capability? And thirdly -well, we now return to the question of employment, why theeffort to be more capable of marketing should block the way forChina to become a manufacturing base? Let us assume Chinawill be able,say in 40 years, to have 100 million people capableof doing high-tech research - that will be largest high-techresearch power in the world-- and another 100 million for brand-making and global marketing-that will be the largest force again-- and then, say another 100 millions for global financial servicewhich is also a "highly respected" big-money-making sector.Now, we may still need to find 400-500 millions jobs for the restof China‘s labor force. How about taking manufacturingindustries just for the sake of fulfilling the gap? Please just donot tell me that 400-500 millions should remain in agriculture!
All these remind us of another wide-spread policyrecommendation for China in recent years. It calls for "upgradingthe industrial structure", meaning that China should no longergo in for the low-end, labor-intensive manufacturing industries,but move up to more technology, capital intensive sectors so asto get more added value and to make the industrial structuremore like that of US and European countries.
This argument may apply to some developed regions, aswell as to some cases of companies, but on no account should itapply to the country as a whole. China must, of course, workenergetically to develop high-tech industries and make ourindustrial production more technology-intensive. Nevertheless,we may never give up those "low-end", labor-intensive, lowadded-value industries for the next 50 years, even after Chinahave built up a fairly complete system of "high-end" industries,simply for the sake of employment for the rural population. Somecompanies may succeed in "upgrading" themselves, and so willsome local economies by moving out or giving up the low-endindustries. But those industries should be, in ideal, kept in Chinaand taken up by other companies or other regions. A companymay not need to care about employment of rural labor as if seelesmarimum profits. A city or a region may not care either as longas full employment of the local residents is ensured. But thecentral government should never say "up-grading" industrialstructures in the meaning of dropping out low-end industries.What they may pursue is "expanding industrial structure",meaning to develop more high-end industries without giving upany existing industries, as the central government must beresponsible for the employment of those 400-500 million rurallaborers.
"Expanding the industrial structure" means that over theforthcoming decades, China‘s industrial structure and supplychain can, and should, be immensely broadened. Even intraditional manufacturing industries, much needs to be done toexpand the business scope. Numerous products are still beyondChina‘s capability to produce, and so are some of the parts andaccessories. By striving to seize such markets and develop such"supply chain", China may able to generate large numbers ofbadly needed jobs. China‘s accession to the WTO, which is givingrise to a new round of growth in foreign investment, affords agolden opportunity to the country in its effort to expand theindustrial structure. Chinese enterprises should seize thisopportunity to get involved in global networks of production.
To sum up, expansion of the industrial structure meanssustainability of economic growth and growth of employment.The issue of employment of rural laborers in China can beregarded as the "problem of the century" and therefore requireshighly realistic approach in strategic thinking, not just followingsome fancy fashion talks!
To us Chinese, the real challenge is actually whether or notwe could develop the country into a manufacturing power throughexpansion of our industrial structure. Thanks to the economicrestructuring over the past two decades, investment conditionsin China have immeasurably improved. Nevertheless, unresolvedinstitutional problems continue to restrict our economic growth,while all developing countries are vying with one another inimproving investment conditions, in a bid to attract more FDIand become more competitive on the world market. Ouradvantages in such competition are unique - for example, theunlimited supply of low cost labor and the potential of largestmarket in the world. Meanwhile, our disadvantages alsoextraordinary, particularly the institutional factors, such as thelegacy of a planned economy, excess government interference,the weak financial system and legal framework, as well as veryunderdeveloped social security system.
Last but not the least, we have to remember that China isnot the only developing country likely to develop into amanufacturing power. Other developing countries are, too,working hard for that. A country, in fact any country, invariablyhas some relative advantages in the global competition. The bestwe can hope is to get a large enough slice of the pie. What weneed to do is to acquire a keen understanding of our weakness,so that we can do our homework better. Our discussion of the"manufacturing power" issue is meant to enhance ourunderstanding of the need for China to develop manufacturingindustries in a big way, so that jobs can be generated for thosehundreds of millions who are expected to leave the farmlandand shift to non-agricultural undertakings.