-
【Washington Post】Are think tanks obsolete?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks in February during a hearing. Warren’s letter to the Brookings Institution highlighted the challenges facing think tanks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)If we think about Washington the way we think about Detroit, then the organizations that line Massachusetts Avenue are like the capital’s factories. Only in D.C.’s case, the buildings are think tanks and what are chugging out the doors are ideas, not automobiles.With their multimillion-dollar budgets, thousands of employees and access to power, it’s tempting to think of think tanks as juggernauts impregnably dominating their market, just as we once saw the automobile industry.But what if the opposite is true? What if think tanks today are more like the Detroit of the 1990s than of the 1950s? What if they, too, are facing existential threats they don’t quite understand and aren’t very well prepared to deal with? In fact, what if the think-tank establishment is like a whole host of other industries — including newspapers and television — that are struggling against forces beyond their control? What if bloggers, YouTube, sound bites, social media, TED talks, metrics, changing business models and even rogue players who create their own narratives represent the same menace to think tanks as they do to mainstream media? What if the upstarts are to think tanks what Datsun, Toyota and Hyundai were to Ford, GM and Chrysler: small, fast, annoying competitors, easy to ignore, disrespected by the establishment — and ultimately very effective guerrilla warriors?And what if, as with other idea industries such as film, broadcast and all news media, the quest for a new business model and for more robust sources of funding or revenue is — as would-be presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren charged last week — blurring once brighter lines and threatening intellectual credibility?[How Elizabeth Warren picked a fight with Brookings — and won]This being the ideas business, naturally there are think tanks whose job it is to study think tanks. Some of them think that think tanks aren’t immune to such pressures — and that not all of them are stepping up equally to the challenge.“The old adage ‘research it and write it and policy makers will beat a path to your door,’ is no longer the case,” says James McGann, director of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania, who has been following think tanks for more than 25 years. “The news and information cycle is accelerated. The time span for doing research and the traditional way of publishing it — books and journals — is totally out of synch” with the way people are getting information now, he says. "That’s the existential challenge for those involved in pushing ideas."“The marketplace of ideas has become congested,” agrees Donald Abelson, a professor at the University of Western Ontario who has written a book called “Do Think Tanks Matter?” (His conclusion is ultimately a qualified yes.) He agrees with McGann that these idea organizations are "struggling to be heard. Just because you have a multimillion-dollar budget doesn’t mean you can influence policy," he says.The concept of a “think tank” goes back to the turn of the century, when several industrialists-turned-philanthropists saw that the much leaner, less professional government of the era needed to have a sort of a brain trust. The institutions named for these benefactors, such as Carnegie and Brookings, were later joined by ones named by other founders, such as the Peter G. Peterson Institute and the Pew Charitable Trusts, or for iconic statesmen such as the Wilson Center, the Hoover Institution, or for the kinds of things they advocated — Open Society, Human Rights Watch, Center for American Security.McGann’s group at the University of Pennsylvania calculates that the United States dominates the think-tank industry with 1,830 institutions, or 28 percent of the world’s total (the next highest country is China with 429). Washington hosts nearly a quarter of U.S. think tanks. In 2013, the top 21 think tanks alone spent more than $1 billion and employed more than 7,000 people.If their principal product is ideas, their goal is influence. “Our number one goal is to have impact on policy,” says Andrew Schwartz, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. So what’s changed in think tanks’ landscapes?New competition: Where think tanks boast of social media readership in the hundred or thousands, a TED talk by Bryan Stephenson, a lawyer and founder of a fair sentencing group, on criminal justice — a hot topic right now — has been watched more than 2.5 million times. “His talk on TED is impacting policy,” says McGann. “There are non-traditional means of thinkers getting out ideas that transform policy.” Think tanks are also finding that their calling cards — research, expertise, thoughtful analysis, long and thorough arguments — are coming up against informal groups with passionate messages who can go toe to toe with big players in ways they never could before. Rand Corporation, the biggest of the American think tanks, can do a thoroughly researched paper debunking the idea that vaccines cause autism. The Council on Foreign Relations can create an interactive map of vaccine-preventable diseases around the world. Yet groups such as Educate Before You Vaccinate, with 13,000 Facebook members, keep the debate going even in the face of outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles. “There is a lot more noise out there,” says Elizabeth Boswell Rega of the German Marshall Fund. The trick is, she says, is to figure out how to break through the noise. While acknowledging the competition, some say they believe serious scholarship will triumph. The discussion is “much more open,” says Jessica Tuchman Mathews, a distinguished fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who for 18 years served as its president. “It’s also open to crummy stuff … crazy, bad, sloppy. But I think over time the quality in the think tank world does get recognized.”Social media: The future of think tanks, given the goal of influence, is rooted not in 100-page reports but in tweets, Facebook shares, video clips, slick Web sites with downloadable information and podcasts. It’s not as though think tanks are blind to these changes. Some are trying their hardest to move to the new world. CSIS, for example, boasts of a tech-company-like “ideas lab” and a fancy and soon-to-be-upgraded Web site and has created its own television and radio studio. “We have become our own media company,” says Schwartz. Former congresswoman Jane Harman saw firsthand what changing audience and changing technology could do to a once-thriving enterprise. (She and her late husband, Sidney Harman, bought Newsweek magazine for $1 in 2010, only to kill the print edition and sell it as an online-only business three years later.) When she left Congress in 2011 to head the Wilson Center, she found that the institute’s flagship publication, the Wilson Quarterly, had 67,000 subscribers, a large number of them longtime readers. “I’ve seen this movie before,” she says: “a declining, aging readership.” Wilson killed the print publication, created a new online version and now has 300,000 subscribers, more than half of them younger than 30.But if there is one lesson to be learned from the newspaper industry, it’s how hard it is to change the habits of key players — even with with locomotive speed. “We know we are moving to a social media world but our scholars and board don’t understand social media,” says one person in charge of implementing the switch. “We’re in a new world.”The culture of think tanks is still deeply rooted in reports and books. The lobbies and offices of many think tanks are jammed with books produced by their scholars. While the Brookings Institution boasts new blogs and Web offerings, its Web site still offers more than 2,800 book titles on subjects ranging from “Azerbaijan and the New Energy Geopolitics of Southeastern Europe” to “Labour Markets, Institutions and Inequality.” Yet as think tanks speed up their responses, with e-mailed newsletters and tweeted reactions, they risk losing the originality and scholarship that most pride themselves on and risk becoming lost in the blizzard of similar notifications.Threats to independence?: A decline in funding for think tanks from larger institutional sources has pushed them to seek more funding from corporations, individuals and foundations, says McGann. Alejandro Chafuen, president of Atlas Network, writes in Forbes that the 2008 financial crisis also cut into foundation funding. That has led to increasing dependence for funding on donors who have a stake in the outcome of research. That, in turn, brings threats from all sides. On the one hand, there is the threat of actual intellectual interference from donors, as a lengthy New York Times investigative piece last year charged. On the other hand, there is the additional threat of attack from those who see such funder bias. Last week Elizabeth Warren lashed out at a paper critical of her consumer protection rule, accusing its author of being influenced by his mutual-fund sponsor. The author, economist Robert Litan, denied the charge, yet resigned his unpaid post anyway. Brookings, in a statement, said that Litan’s resignation was accepted because by testifying before Congress on research done for his employer he violated a policy prohibiting nonresident scholars from using the Brookings affiliation for Congressional testimony*.Increasingly as well, even donors with no political agenda are demanding to shape the research in the name of efficiency, effectiveness and impact. “In the old days, donors gave unrestricted money to think tanks, and said ‘you guys know what you’re doing. Think the big ideas,’ ” says McGann. Now major donors have shifted away from money that can be used by the institution to do with what they like to money that is earmarked for specific programs. “Think tanks own their agenda less than they used to,” says Ellen Laipson, who recently stepping down as president of the Stimson Center to become a distinguished fellow. Even when the ideas are “worthy,” she says, the fact that funders are more interested in donating only to causes or issues they choose raises questions. “Who owns the knowledge? Who sets the agenda? How much true independence is there?”One result has been an increased push to have think tanks be more open about the sources of their funds. One organization — Transparify — publishes an annual report grading think tanks on how much information they disclose about where their money comes from.Drive for impact: Foundations’ desire to see the result of their donations puts think tanks smack in the path of a trend by funders to measure the outcome of programs. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, was part of a group that five years ago pledged $90 million to support African think tanks. The Gates Foundation has had a strong influence on a wide range of donors with its focus on quantifying and measuring goals. It’s hard to tell who did what. “Every successful policy idea has 100 mothers and fathers,” says Abelson. “The problem is that when you get into which policy came from which think tanks, in some cases, many think tanks will take credit for the same idea.”Because impact is so hard to measure in an ideas business, the drive to quantify has had two effects: One is to focus giving on smaller and smaller goals where the impact on policy discussions can be more clearly discerned. Laipson cites work Stimson did on preventing nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. Eventually, because of the desire to see impact, they focused on creating incentives for insurance companies that deal with commercial items that could be used in nuclear weapons. “It’s micro stuff,” she says, “several steps away from the big idea. Did we make the world a safer place? We can’t say.”The other is to measure the public appearance of think tanks. Where the number of books and reports and mentions in the press were once the way think tanks were evaluated, Chafuen, of Atlas, offers an analysis of which think tanks excel in Facebook likes, tweets and YouTube views.Ideological gridlock: Finally, gridlock in government makes it harder for think tanks’ ideas to get heard. Short election cycles mean what McGann calls a “policy tsunami” every two years, which also leads to a crowded field and short attention span for the officials who are natural consumers of think tanks’ analyses.The increased polarization of government reduces officials’ desire or need for deep research. When positions are increasingly hardened on an ideological basis, some members of think tanks complain that what officials are now seeking is more ammunition than analysis. “No one is interested in substance,” says an official at one big think tank. “It’s very hard to get the attention in Congress if it’s a serious idea. They see [things] in black and white.”“The business model in Congress is broken,” says Harman, herself a former member of Congress.* After the Brookings Institution wrote in to clarify their policy, we updated the text. Previously, the article stated that Litan violated a policy prohibiting ” the use of the Brookings affiliation when presenting non-Brookings work.”(By Amanda Bennett)From The Washington Post,Oct 5, 2015
2015年10月10日 -
【CRI】中美创业教育思想交流 美国前国务卿赖斯分享斯坦福创业教育经验
正值习近平主席访美之际,一场旨在加强中美创业教育交流方面的国际研讨会日前在北京举行。目前在斯坦福大学执教的美国前国务卿 赖斯 在论坛上分享了这所著名学府创业教育的经验。以下是环球资讯广播的文字实录。 近年来,越来越多的大学生在毕业后选择自主创业。不过,与发达国家相比,中国大学生自主创业的比例仍然较低。 活动主办方之一的中国与全球化智库的理事长王辉耀表示:“中国目前来看大学生的创业水平是比较低的,麦可思发布的2015年大学生就业报告,从2008年至2014年间,大学生自主创业比例从1%上升到2.9%,增长还是显著的,但是,我们和欧美发达国家的创业率相比,仍存在很大差距。中国应该大力发展创业教育,特别是大学生的创业教育,大众创业没有对大众创业的教育、研究,是很难实现的,包括创业风险教育、创业技巧、企业家创业精神、商业知识管理的训练,提高创业成功率。如果能够打造世界卓越的创业教育体系,我们也能吸引更多的国际人才到中国来创业。” 王辉耀所说的创业教育,被联合国教科文组织称为继学术教育、职业教育后,教育的第三本“护照”。 但是也有人会问,创业还需要专门教授吗?对此,美国前国务卿、斯坦福大学教授康多莉扎·赖斯在演讲中回应了外界对于创业教育的质疑。“有人质疑创业真的能够被教授吗,我想说的是我们不仅具有教授如何创业的能力,而且我们应该教育年轻人如何进行创业。就像教育学生如何写作或如何编写程序,即使他们以后不会成为作家或程序员,但通过创业教育可以使他们具有独立思考的能力,并且具有创新思维转换看待问题的方式。并不是所有人都会成为企业家,但也许未来他们会变成具有创造力的优秀的管理者。” 其实,美国在20世纪就提出了创业教育的理念,哈佛大学商学院率先开设了创业教育课程《新创企业管理》;斯坦福大学和纽约大学开创了现代的MBA创业教育课程体系;百森商学院第一个在本科教育中开设创业方向课程;南加州大学于1971年提供了有关创业的工商管理硕士学位课程。 创业教育开始在美国萌芽。以比尔·盖茨为代表的创业者们掀起了“创业革命”,大力推动了美国经济的发展。王辉耀介绍说:“人类历史上重大的经济发展和技术革命都和创新创业分不开,比如说上个世纪七十年代美国每年诞生的各种新公司大概是二十万个,到了70年代中期这个数字就翻了三倍,到了90年代美国每年创办的企业达到110-120万,从这个比例就能看出来创业对一个国家的推动。” 而斯坦福与硅谷,是高等教育与创业发展相互促进的典型案例。从上个世纪发展到现在,斯坦福已经形成了非常成熟的创新创业教学体系,将创业教育、跨学科综合素质培养和创业支持完全融入到了本科、硕士和博士生教育中,实践与理论教学有机结合,教育培养了一批批高素质创业人才,成为硅谷的人才摇篮和美国创新创业的核心基地。赖斯介绍说:“在斯坦福有一个被称为创新学院的地方,这实际上并不是所谓的学校,而是设立了各种模拟项目使学生聚集在一起,共同探讨他们所面临的问题,学生在这个过程中可以想出非常多有创意的点子,这些想法也许能够真正用于现实。我们现在有非常丰富的经验,怎样使一个点子成为一个方案,再将方案转化为消费者愿意购买的商品,我们同样拥有可以解决各种难题的技术手段,那么为什么我们不把这些经验传授给学生,让他们吸取其中的教训呢?” 随着中国经济进入新常态,产业不断优化升级,大力发展创业教育能带动并指导更多青年人成功创业,进而为经济社会发展注入新活力,而中国与美、德等发达国家在未来创业教育的国际化合作更值得期待。文章选自中国国际广播电台环球资讯,记者:杜慧琴
2015年10月10日 -
【Washington Post】For think tanks, it’s either innovate or die
James G. McGann, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer of International Studies at the Lauder Institute and director of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania.Beginning in the 1970s, public policy research institutions experienced explosive growth — today there are over 6,500 think tanks worldwide, with representation in virtually every country. The boom was driven and defined by globalization, the growth of civil society, an increasing complexity of policy issues and new demands for timely and concise analysis. In recent years, however, the surge has died down and the pace of think tank establishment has slowed. Now, think tanks face extinction unless they learn to innovate and adapt to a rapidly changing political economy.While many factors have contributed to their decline, a shortage of money and the growth of an information-rich environment are arguably the most influential. Limited private and public funding for think tanks has resulted in more short-term, project-specific funding, rather than long term institutional support. Think tanks also face competition from advocacy organizations, for-profit consulting groups, law firms and electronic media for the attention of busy policymakers and an increasingly distracted public. In today’s environment anyone can be a think tank, at least virtually.Traditional measures of impact and policy research are less relevant than ever, and the best mediums for reaching policymakers and the public are in a constant state of flux. This poses an existential challenge for think tanks — but also an incredible opportunity to increase the quality of their output and their ability to reach a larger audience.[Other perspectives: Are think tanks obsolete?]Policymakers still require reliable, accessible and useful information on the mechanics of current policies and on the costs and consequences of possible alternatives. These needs have long been central to government decision-making, but now, more than ever, the forces of globalization require analytical insight to bridge the gap between research and actually implementing policy solutions.Think tanks, however, still face an operating environment that is full of tensions and disruptions. To successfully navigate it, they must understand the threats and opportunities facing all knowledge-based organizations and adapt to meet the market’s new demands.First, research must be timely and accessible in order to effectively engage policymakers, the media and the public. Gone are the days when a think tank could operate with the motto “research it, write it and they will find it” — publishing a white paper and assuming that an influential policymaker would come across it eventually. To have meaningful effect, think tanks must place relevant analysis in the right hands, in the right format, at the right time. This means strategic use of Facebook, linkedin, infographics, and video briefs to communicate information and analysis on key policy issues. Policymakers read an average of thirty minutes a day, and they are not reading books or journals. A think tank’s objective should be to capture their attention so they direct their staff to read the 300-page book or report.Second, think tanks must adapt to the growing demand for rapid data and analysis. Our era of constant connectivity brings with it a perpetual flood of information — from television to the blogosphere, from political advocacy to social media campaigns. Think tanks must be nimble enough to adjust to the acceleration and information avalanches that technical change will bring about.Ultimately, think tanks must respond to this changing environment by collaborating and innovating. They must develop national, regional and international partnerships, and create new platforms to reach citizens, firms and policymakers with their insights. In a marketplace of ideas where everything is global, innovations, insights and influence can only be realized through strategic knowledge partnerships.With their rigorous and innovative perspectives on issues and trends, think tanks contribute evidence and quality information to help tame policy tsunamis sweeping the globe. They are uniquely positioned and skilled to critically assess the good, bad, ugly and potentially dangerous ideas and opinions that flood the Internet and airwaves every day. Increasingly, policymakers are turning to think tanks they know and trust to validate their positions on key policy issues, to check facts and sort through the flood of conflicting opinions and information that crosses their desks each day.To preserve their future, think tanks will need to adopt entrepreneurial and tech-savvy communication strategies while continuing to produce rigorous, policy relevant analysis. With a 21st-century approach, think tanks will survive and thrive for years to come. Without it, they may go the way of the eight-track.(By James McGann)From The Washington Post,Oct 6, 2015
2015年10月9日 -
【成都日报】成都举办专家学者访谈 希望出台柔性引才政策
时下大热的“大众创业、万众创新”号召已“走出”国门,“扎根”在众多海外高端人才的脑海,点燃了他们想来中国这片创新创业热土“一展抱负”的热情。四川作为中国西部开放的中心和桥头堡,当前的发展已迈上了快车道,正需广揽海内外英才。 近日,借助2015中国西部海外高新科技人才洽谈会平台,国务院侨务办公室、(四川)省委、省政府、欧美同学会在成都联合主办了中外知名专家学者高端访谈,邀请海外院士和知名学者专家同台规划、探寻西部人才发展大计,共谋创新驱动发展之路。“引力” 成都对“海归”吸引力居西部首位 “西部人才,特别是四川人才的引进培养工作这几年做得有目共睹,可圈可点。”在海外人才知名专家访谈上,国务院参事、中国与全球智库(CCG)理事长兼主任、欧美同学会副会长王辉耀在谈到西部人才发展整体发展状况和综合竞争力时表示,近几年来,西部出台与留学人才相关的政策非常迅速,根据数据统计,成都对“海归”创业就业的吸引力越来越大,“引力”居西部首位。 “长久以来,四川具有理念优势、区域优势、人才基层优势、人文优势。”在西华大学党委书记、教授,享受国务院政府特殊津贴专家,四川中长期人才发展规划编制专家组组长边慧敏看来,四川在思想理念上对人才高度重视,并一直致力于吸引海外人才,在区域优势方面,四川是中西部重要的科技中心,有大量的科研院校聚集于此,从而奠定了扎实的人才基础,以才聚才,让海外人才在四川包容的人文环境中,更好地发挥自己的才能。“环流” 人才在海外也能够服务四川 谈及四川该如何抓住吸引人才的机遇时,新加坡南洋理工大学陈嘉庚讲席教授、人文与科学院院长、南洋公共管理研究生院院长刘宏表示,机遇是流动的资源,要想吸引人才,就要把硬件建设和软件优化有机结合在一起,将人才政策深入实施。 同时,刘宏认为人才不仅可以“回流”还可以“环流”,“目前,互联网蓬勃发展,很多行业,人才不一定要在四川,在海外也能够服务四川。”他表示,协调人才引进是一个系统的工程,需要推动政府与市场之间的明细分工。 上海社会科学院副院长、经济法律社会咨询中心主任、人力资源研究中心主任王振认为,“一带一路”战略让四川成为了西部对外开放的前沿阵地,四川有创新创业的能力与活力,已进入到了创新驱动的新阶段。“柔性” 希望出台机动灵活的引才政策 “国内的‘大众创业、万众创新’非常好,让许多海外的人才都想回国开辟新事业,值得注意的是,并没有说老人除外。”在海外知名院士访谈中,美国工程院院士王兆凯以幽默的口吻表示,对于想回国创新创业的海外人才来说,年龄不是问题,不少老一辈的科学家可以利用积累多年的学识,将年轻时“创新”的成果带回国来“创业”。 值得一提的是,在场的多位知名院士均认为,出台机动灵活“柔性”的引才政策,可以吸引不同层面的高端学者。“出台个性化的引才政策,可以更全面地吸引人才,在加大人才引进的同时,也要重视本土人才的培养。”加拿大健康科学院院士宋伟宏认为,可以设立个性化的引才指标,让引进人才的方式更多样化。 文章选自《成都日报》,记者:胡清
2015年10月8日 -
【CCTV.com】Bilateral investment booming between both China & US
China and the United States are becoming more and more integrated economically, with trade, and investments booming in a vast variety of sectors. The world’s two largest economies are now interdependent and complementary to each other. Bilateral trade in 2014 rose to US$555 billion—227 times the number in 1979, when the two countries established diplomatic ties.China benefits greatly from US direct investment. China attracted more than US$75 billion by the end of 2014, with more than 64,000 investment projects established. But that trend has seen some hiccups recently. In the first eight months of 2015, US direct investment to China declined by almost 20 percent from last year.The Chinese Ministry of Commerce explains that the decrease is because of changes in both US and China markets. It comes also as China adjusts its way to leverage FDI, with more focus on higher-end industries.A 2015 AmCham China White Paper says that more than 30 percent of the organization’s member companies have no investment expansion planned this year. That is the highest rate since the recession of 2009. And more companies than ever have moved or are planning to move capacity outside of China.That is partly because of the rising costs and shrinking profits, which have a greater impact on traditional labor-intensive industries.The regulatory environment in China is another concern."Laws and regulations in China is sometimes relatively vague, different cites may have different interpretations of the same laws, same regulations, sames rules; that brings challenges for US investors," said Jessie Tang, partner of Jones Day."In transparency of China’s regulations, and also they are quite concerned about the equal market access and fair competitions in China’s market," said He Weiwen, senior research fellow of Center for China & Globalization.But experts say the quality of the investments is getting better. More investments flow to higher-tech, service industries and R&D. That is also in line with China’s strategy to deepen reforms and upgrade its economic structure."Over half of the companies in R&D industries have set up RND centers in China, for higher quality with higher technology products for China’s market a well as neighbor new emerging market," He said.But to attract more foreign investment, more effort is needed."The first thing is to open the market and to lift market access limitation. Also, I think, to simplify the approval procedure is another thing that the government can do," Tang said.And some new attempts have work out."I helped a US healthcare company set up a subsidiary in Shanghai pilot free trade zone two months ago, we obtained the business license within two weeks, but in other places, you have to wait about one and half months to obtain the business license," Tang said.With an even better investment environment created, there is clear hope that bilateral investment cooperation will step up to a new level.From CCTV.com, Sep.25, 2015
2015年10月8日 -
【环球时报】美国前国务卿赖斯:创新带来中国经济发展新动力
本文根据美国前国务卿、斯坦福大学原教务长赖斯在不久前由中国与全球化智库(CCG)、劳瑞德国际教育集团举办中国创业教育研讨会上的演讲整理而成21世纪我们必须做出改变,必须将创新、创造力和创业紧密结合。而实现这三者的结合,则需要靠创业教育。中国充满了创业者精神,而且全世界都认可这一点。像阿里巴巴、微信、腾讯等中国公司已经成为全球知名的企业。 21世纪需要创新、创造力和创业紧密结合 在1988年我就曾来过中国,当时北京的街道能看到的汽车并不多,自行车的数量非常庞大。但现在,似乎汽车更多一些,这从一个侧面反映出中国经济的发展在过去30年非常之快。我们非常清楚中国在经济发展中的重要方向在哪儿,当然在贸易、商业、教育等领域。中国的未来不仅仅依赖于经济的增长,经济的增长也不仅仅依靠低成本劳动力,也不能仅依赖于出口和投资,中国经济今后应该更多地依赖于创造力、创建企业和创新精神。 经济增长在今后会与创新紧密相关。创新能够带来经济发展的新动力,如今我们必须要理解这一点。这也是一个真理,对很多国家而言,这都是必经之路。 在19世纪,我们依靠从地下获取的资源获得了很大的成功。在20世纪,出口和加工业诞生了很多新公司,很多人通过制造业、加工业获得了成功。但在21世纪我们必须做出改变,必须将创新、创造力和创业紧密结合。而实现这三者的结合,则需要靠创业教育。 我们还需明白两个现实。首先,技术对一个国家来说非常重要。我们现在面临很多社会问题,这些问题的解决方案不再是用传统方式可以获得的。所以,社会治理问题非常严峻,环境问题也是我们必须要解决的,这些都需要依靠新技术来实现。 其次,创新对治理非常重要。民众会越来越不满意于当前,他们有越来越高的要求,希望政府解决这些问题,但如果没有高素质的人才就很难解决这些问题。我们如何利用自己的能力是非常关键的,我们必须要智慧地解决问题,这对国家的成败是关键所在。一个点子变成方案需要好的环境 思考创新和创造力,关键在于要有好的方法和点子,把它转化成解决方案,最后进入商业化运作,人们才会去购买。比如很多人会想到人们需要一个可存储信息、可听音乐又能具备金融支付功能的新终端设备,但要考虑的还包括消费者如何更加容易携带这个设备,如何进行商业化运作。最后获得成功的点子很可能就彻底地改变了我们的生活,包括政府治理的问题以及我们传统做事的方式。 现在我们遇到的一个问题是,怎样的环境才是最好的、最有利于支持创业的?当我在斯坦福当教务长时,想建立自己的公司的学生只是少数,但慢慢地这样的学生越来越多,我们的思维应包含创新理念,我们需要建立这样一个生态系统和大的环境。 现在一些创业者不愿意品尝失败的滋味,但其实不是每个点子都能够在市场中获得成功。我们经常会听到一个故事,一个人创业的第一家公司失败了,第二家公司也失败了,然后他获得了真正的成功,他创建了微软。通常在成功前,会有无数次失败。在硅谷有大量例子存在,如果你失败一次就放弃,其实是你不敢冒险,不敢冒险就不可能获得成功。 在我看来,中国充满了创业者精神,而且全世界都认可这一点。像阿里巴巴、微信、腾讯等中国公司已经成为全球知名的企业,越来越多的人们认识到,现在很多中国公司走出去,又有很多跨国企业想来到中国,成为中国创业气氛中受益的一员。而且创业创新已经得到中国国家层面的重视。 但除了融资支持外,好的点子想要真正转化成实际的财富,还必须获得政府更多的支持。首先是法治,每个人必须要相信在法律的治理下是平等的。第二是知识产权保护,这是至关重要的。创新是全球的,人们有了好的点子可以走到全球各地,到那些能够帮助他们获得知识产权保护的地方发展。所以,如果中国的机制建设更完善,知识产权保护能够帮助创建一个非常好的环境来促进创业者的发展。 创新是可以教授的 创业是不是可以被教育?创业精神是否可以被教授?类似这些问题如今被很多专家所讨论。我的观点是,不仅可以教授创业,而且应该教授创业。 我们可以看到在大的环境中,已经充满了创造力和创新的精神。我们可以看到改变人类相互沟通的渠道已经发生了巨大的变化。虽然,有了创业精神并不是说每个人最终会成为创业者,但如果一个人已经被我们发现,他有这样的创业想法,而且有这样的激情,想要找到解决方案然后进行商业化,你就可以改变一些方法,帮助他创造好的公司。 当然,创新必须要有非常好的研究来源,也就是说在好的大学进行这种创意学习非常重要。虽然中美的教育体系不同,但中国无疑有很多很好的大学,能够帮助年轻人产生这些非常好的理念和点子。 当我们一旦理解了大学在这个过程中扮演的角色,我们就能够更好地帮助有想法的年轻人。在斯坦福,除了传统的商学院,我们还有一个设计学院,这不是一个普通的学院,它是由一个个项目组成,很多学生都被鼓励参加这些项目,形成各种不同的小组,他们可以共同地来解决一些问题。我们会给学生一些建议,在必要时进行转型。 当然从更加职业的角度看,我们可以是教授一些创业的经历和经验。每年会有很多年轻公司出现在硅谷,他们拥有非常棒的科技,但他们欠缺一些能力,希望能够从技术公司转化成有内部孵化能力的公司。所以,我觉得从创业教育来说,能够尽早让他们了解到需要具有的素质,避免其他人之前犯下的错误,从一家技术型的公司转化成商业模式公司。关于如何应用技术解决问题,我们可以总结很多经验。还有很多的经验是把一个非常好的公司如何一代一代传下去,为什么我们不能把这些信息分享出去?我们可以教授创业教育,好像我们要教历史一样。 (作者是美国前国务卿、斯坦福大学原教务长,本文根据作者在不久前由中国与全球化智库(CCG)、劳瑞德国际教育集团举办中国创业教育研讨会上的演讲整理而成)文章选自《环球时报》,2015年9月29日
2015年10月8日 -
【一财网】美国前国务卿赖斯访华:不要害怕表达中美关系的复杂性
作为前国务卿,赖斯说,她把将中美关系向有利于世界繁荣与和平方向发展看做一种责任。 北京时间9月23日,在国家主席习近平抵达美国西雅图的当天,美国前国务卿、斯坦福大学教授康多莉扎·赖斯在北京表示,中美关系是非常复杂的关系,处在发展和演进的过程中。 赖斯是受中国与全球化智库(CCG)、劳瑞德国际教育集团邀请,出席当天在北京举办的“中国创业教育研讨会”上做出上述表示的。 国家主席在西雅图当地时间22日演讲中指出,中美两国要坚持构建中美新型大国关系的正确方向,正确判断彼此战略意图,坚定不移推进合作共赢,妥善有效管控分歧,广泛培植人民友谊,共同开创中美更加美好的未来。 赖斯所谓的中美复杂性就体现在两方面。一方面,中美共享重要且丰富的合作基础与合作领域。没人能够想象,没有中国经济的增长的世界经济如何持续发展。中国也不可能在不与美国合作的情况下,实现中国持续的增长。这也是美国对中国改革表示关切的原因。美国希望中国的改革能发挥作用。 另一方面,中美确实存在冲突。 赖斯建议,中美应该最大限度地扩大中美合作领域,经济、贸易、人文交流以及双边投资等。 赖斯认为,中美同时也要共担一种责任,中美不要做让世界误解和引发恐慌的事情。 作为前国务卿,赖斯说,她把将中美关系向有利于世界繁荣与和平方向发展看做一种责任。 “我会坦率地建议很多中国同行与朋友。”赖斯说。 赖斯表示,希望中美两国不要隐藏问题,而是将问题摆到桌面上。“我认为透明度对于维护两国关系是非常重要。”赖斯说。 卸任后,赖斯重回斯坦福大学任教。在23日的研讨会上,赖斯演讲和交流的内容更多关于中美教育合作,特别是创业教育。 赖斯谈到,斯坦福当前也面临挽留学生毕业后再去创业的情况。同时强调法治的环境对创业非常重要。 说到美国经济复苏与发展动力,赖斯认为,移民也成为私营经济、创新和法治之外,支撑美国经济的主要动力之一。文章选自一财网,2015年9月29日
2015年10月8日