-
【神州学人】欧美同学会举办《留学生》杂志创刊95周年座谈会
10月9日，“历史不会忘记——《留学生》杂志创刊95周年纪念座谈会”在欧美同学会举行。中央统战部六局副局长张明，全国政协委员、中央音乐学院教授、《留学生》杂志社编委主任郑荃，国务院参事、欧美同学会副会长、中国与全球化研究中心主任王辉耀，欧美同学会副秘书长、《留学生》杂志社社长许睢宁等出席座谈会并讲话。座谈会由《留学生》杂志副主编周娟娟主持。 2015年10月10日是辛亥革命104周年纪念日，而这次伟大革命的领导者孙中山先生，曾为创刊于1920年的《欧美同学会丛刊》（《留学生》杂志前身）第一卷的卷首题词：“指导国民”。 此次座谈会主要是为纪念孙中山先生为《留学生》杂志题词95周年，贯彻落实习近平总书记在欧美同学会成立100周年庆祝大会和中央党的群团工作会议上的重要讲话精神，进一步加强组织建设，加大宣传工作力度，更好地服务广大留学归国人员。 座谈会上，欧美同学会副秘书长、《留学生》杂志社社长许睢宁向参会嘉宾介绍了杂志发展的过程、发挥的作用以及面临的现状，他讲到，《留学生》杂志是由中共中央统战部主管、欧美同学会主办的刊物，是留学人员与欧美同学会之间联系的平台，面临新形势和新发展，杂志要运用新媒体平台，通过与现代科技接轨，增强网上互动性，进一步加强杂志宣传工作的力度，更好地为广大留学归国人员服务。 中央统战部六局副局长张明表示，《留学生》杂志应从95年的历史中汲取营养，发扬并继承优良传统，成为海内外学生沟通的桥梁，提升留学生之间的凝聚力，扩大中国的核心竞争力。 “现在是互联网+的时代，传统的纸媒受到以手机软件为首的新兴体的强烈冲击，杂志也应跟上潮流，走上手机终端并弥补在国外宣传上的不足。”全国政协委员、中央音乐学院教授、《留学生》杂志社编委主任郑荃建议。 国务院参事、欧美同学会副会长、中国与全球化智库（CCG）主任王辉耀指出，当前，中国已有超过百万的留学生群体，欧美同学会各分会遍布全国各地，这是杂志发展的黄金时期，也是一个巨大的机遇，必须把握好机会，挖掘留学生优势，帮助提高国家软实力。 随后，中国社会科学院世界历史研究所研究员、欧美同学会妇女委员会主任端木美，浙江中科领航汽车电子有限公司董事长、中国科学院杭州汽车电子工程中心主任、欧美同学会常务理事金星，花木兰（北京）投资基金管理有限公司合伙人、欧美同学会留美分会副会长王悦， 国家“千人计划”专家、北京全景赛斯科技发展有限公司董事长兼CEO、欧美同学会企业家联谊会常务副会长陈忠苏等参会嘉宾和学长，分别对《留学生》杂志今后的发展提出了意见和建议，共同探讨了杂志下一步发展、以及传统媒体与新媒体如何融合发展等。 据悉，1913年，为探讨学术、交流思想、寻求救国救民之路，一群曾经远离祖国、饱尝异国求学艰辛的归国学者在北京成立了欧美同学会。1920年，由中华欧美同学总会创办的《欧美同学会丛刊》（《留学生》杂志前身）在上海出版。1982年4月19日，欧美同学会恢复组织活动后，1987年5月，邓小平同志为本刊题写了刊名《欧美同学会会刊》。2002年5月，为更好地服务广大出国留学人员，《欧美同学会会刊》更名为《留学生》杂志。2013年1月，《留学生》杂志由月刊扩展为半月刊。2015年2月，《留学生》杂志由半月刊扩展为旬刊。文章选自《神州学人》，2015年10月10日
2015年10月13日 -
【China Daily】US students in China: challenging, but no regrets
In Matt McFetridge’s words, his two-and-half year stint in China was the "time of his life".The American student, a native of the Finger Lakes region, New York, became fascinated by the ancient country after meeting his first Chinese friend Andi, a classmate in his undergraduate class.In the fall of 2010, McFetridge arrived in China to study abroad for the first time. In the picturesque southwestern city of Kunming, his Chinese friend’s hometown, he had an "amazing and warm experience," and he realized the six-month program "was simply not enough".When he returned to the United States, he began applying for graduate programs and in 2012 began a two-year master’s course in international relations at Tsinghua, one of China’s most prestigious universities."Coming to China was the best decision I have made," he said.McFetridge is one of American students who have studied in China since the two countries began an educational exchange program 36 years ago.China has since seen a steady flow of American students, increasing from 8,480 in 2004 to 24,203 in 2014, according to China’s Ministry of Education. They became the second biggest group of international students in 2008, with South Korea the largest.As McFetridge was enjoying the sunshine of Kunming, his fellow countryman Eric Schafer moved to Beijing from California two years after getting a bachelor’s degree in political science from Berkeley.Unlike McFetridge, whose connection with China began with a friendship, the Berkeley graduate chose Beijing because he saw "the substantial influence China had on the world", even though he could barely speak Chinese back then."I couldn’t shop at the store, I couldn’t go to the bank, I couldn’t order food, I couldn’t do anything!" Schafer said, recalling the beginning of his journey in China.The frustration brought by the language barrier did not last long as he began a three-year intensive Chinese-language program at the Beijing Language and Culture University.Looking back, Schafer, who just recently completed his master’s degree in international relations and is now a faculty member at the Peking University, said, "I have no regrets at all. My life in China has been fulfilling, and I’m very happy to be here.""At times, living in China can be challenging, but living here has been very beneficial and the challenges have made me a better and stronger person."Deeper understandingThe more time a person spends in a foreign country, the more they understand it. After spending years in China, McFetridge’s impression of China had changed, "but mostly positively.""The country has some obvious room for improvement in certain sectors, but that being said I applaud the development the country has made in such a short amount of time."For Elyse Ribbons, studying Peking Opera at the National Academy of Chinese Theater Arts, her view on China has changed a lot since she came to Beijing in 2001."China only meant three things to me when I first arrived: the Great Wall, Pandas and Kung Pao Chicken, but now I am an old hand, I am often invited to introduce Chinese culture to native children," said Ribbons, a radio host, playwright and entrepreneur who is known in China by the name Liu Suying.Life in China also helps American students understand that Chinese and Americans "have a lot of common ground."Schafer said that many people living abroad compare "my people to their people", but he tries to think of people as "people" not "Chinese" or "American.""I think in this way I can be more objective and better understand the world around me," he explained.Culture in fact is superficial, as different cultures have different manifestations, said Frank Hawke, one of the first eight American students to study in China in February 1979.After spending more than three decades in China, Hawke, now the China director for the Stanford Graduate School of Business, said he always suggests that students who study in China should not focus on the superficial differences between Chinese and Americans."Chinese and Americans may eat differently, speak differently, deal with things in different ways, but why is that? In the process of answering that question, you will find that they are fundamentally the same," said Hawke.Friendly tiesPeople-to-people exchanges, of which student exchanges are a large part, are a crucial tool for country relations."Students who have studied in each other’s countries are the best envoys between China and the United States," said Ruan Zongze, a senior expert on China-U.S. relations.They know both the different countries and they understand both cultures so play a unique role helping eradicate differences, said Ruan, vice president of the China Institute of International Studies.According to the 2014 Open Doors Report by the Institute of International Education, China remains the fifth largest host destination for American students following Britain, Italy, Spain and France.The increase in students shows China’s international influence and market potential is recognized by the United States, said Wang Huiyao, president of the Center for China and Globalization（CCG）."Both governments and the public attach importance to more U.S. students choosing to study in China," Wang said.Helping the numbers are two of the largest exchange programs ever created between two governments. Part of the China-U.S. high-level consultation on people-to-people exchange (CPE) created in May 2010, China’s "Three Ten-Thousands" project will see 10,000 Chinese students sponsored to study in the U.S. for doctoral degrees, 10,000 U.S. students will be admitted to study in China and another 10,000 U.S. students will be given scholarships.The American "100,000 Strong" initiative, led by the U.S. State Department, aims to send 100,000 students to study in China, which it achieved last year.China and the U.S. have formed a stronger link through their students. The number of Chinese students in U.S. colleges grew by 17 percent during the last full school year, hitting a record-breaking 274,000.More favorable policiesWhile McFetridge said he would like to move to China permanently, he has to leave after graduation due to visa regulations.For many students, finding work in China immediately after graduation is tough, but this may soon change as China is exploring ways to address internship and employment restrictions."To attract more foreign students to China, it is important to help foreign students make their career plans and provide them employment guidance," the Ministry of Education told Xinhua.McFetridge, now a master’s candidate in the University of London, said he will definitely come back once the new policies are adopted, "because China suits me."From China Daily, Sep 21, 2015
2015年10月12日 -
【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
© Copyright Center for China and Globalization 2008 — 2025 京ICP备09030466号-1 京公网安备11010502027417 Site Designed by MONOKEROS