全球化（globalization）一词，是一种概念，也是一种人类社会发展的现象过程。全球化目前有诸多定义，通常意义上的全球化是指全球联系不断增强，人类生活在全球规模的基础上发展及全球意识的崛起。国与国之间在政治、经济贸易上互相依存。全球化亦可以解释为世界的压缩和视全球为一个整体。二十世纪九十年代后，随着全球化势力对人类社会影响层面的扩张，已逐渐引起各国政治、教育、社会及文化等学科领域的重视，引发大规模的研究热潮。对于“全球化”的观感是好是坏，目前仍是见仁见智，例如全球化对于本土文化来说就是一把双刃剑，它也会使得本土文化的内涵与自我更新能力逐渐模糊与丧失。
- CCG南方国际人才研究院
- CCG北方国际人才研究院
- CCG一带一路研究所
- CCG世界华商研究所
- CCG数字经济委员会
- CCG南方国际人才研究院图片
- CCG北方国际人才研究院图片
- CCG世界华商研究所图片
- CCG一带一路研究所图片
- CCG数字经济委员会图片
- 成为系列论坛会员
- 成为系列论坛会员联系
- 概况介绍
- 兼职研究员
- 未分类
- 概况
- 全球化
- 全球治理
- 美国
- 国际人才政策
- 中美贸易
- 国际教育理念与政策
- 中国开放指数
- 新闻动态
- CCG品牌论坛
- 中国与全球化论坛
- 学术委员会专家
- 主席/理事长
- 中文图书
- 品牌论坛
- 研究合作
- 重点支持智库研究与活动项目
- 概况视频
- 主任
- 香港委员会名誉主席
- 关于
- 团队
- 国际关系
- 国际组织
- 加拿大
- 华人华侨
- 国际贸易
- 来华留学
- 区域与城市
- 媒体报道
- 二轨外交
- 中国企业全球化论坛
- 高级研究员
- 资深副主席
- 英文图书
- 圆桌研讨
- 建言献策
- 概况手册
- 副主任
- 理事申请
- 香港委员会名誉副主席
- 顾问
- 研究
- 国际移民与人才流动
- 区域合作
- 欧洲
- 中国海归
- 来华投资
- 出国留学
- 大湾区
- 活动预告
- 名家演讲
- 中国全球智库创新年会
- 特邀高级研究员
- 副主席
- 杂志
- 名家演讲
- 媒体采访
- 年报
- 秘书长
- 企业理事
- 香港委员会主席
- 国际顾问
- 国际贸易与投资
- 一带一路
- 亚洲
- 留学生
- 对外投资
- 国际学校
- 动态
- 名家午餐会
- 中国人才50人论坛
- 特邀研究员
- 理事长
- 媒体采访
- 文章投稿
- 副秘书长
- 活动支持
- 香港委员会副主席
- 国际教育
- 非洲
- 数字贸易
- 活动
- 智库圆桌会
- 常务理事
- 智库访谈
- 国际合作
- 总监
- 中国留学人员创新创业论坛
- 研究员
- 研究支持
- 香港委员会常务理事
- 国内政策
- 拉美
- 专家
- 理事
- 直播
- 捐赠支持
- 主管
- 中国国际教育论坛
- 个人捐赠
- 前瞻研究
- 澳洲
- 咨询委员会
- 企业理事
- 其他
- 捐赠联系
- 中东
- 成为理事
- 研究报告
- 建言献策
- 出版物
- 理事申请联系
- 智库研究
- 音视频专区
- 联系我们
- 观点
- 捐赠
- 工作机会
- 香港委员会
-
Laurence Brahm：Evolution of a China Solution
Editor’s note:Laurence Brahm, first came to China as a fresh university exchange student from the US in 1981 and he has spent much of the past three and a half decades living and working in the country. He has been a lawyer, a writer, and now he is Founding Director of Himalayan Consensus and a Senior International Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. He has captured his own story and the nation’s journey in China Reform and Opening – Forty Years in Perspective. China Daily is running a series of articles every Thursday starting from May 24 that reveal the changes that have taken place in the country in the past four decades. Keep track of the story by following us. As a young lawyer based in Hong Kong during the mid-late 1980s, Laurence Brahm commutes to cities across China, negotiating joint ventures. [Photo provided to chinadaily.com.cn] I will never forget that day in October 1987, reading the China Daily from my legal office in Hong Kong. On the front page black and white letters spelled the winds of change. At the 13th Chinese Communist Party congress then convening in Beijing, it was boldly declared that China was “socialist” – not communist – and remarkably only “at the first stage of socialism,” moreover adding that the “first stage” would take “a relatively long period of time”. It was a brilliant phraseology --- certainly better than us lawyers could come up with – in shifting the goal posts toward opening the state-planned economy to become a market. So back in 1987, this new message was not lost on anyone’s consciousness in Hong Kong. For the first time business elite in Hong Kong sensed the dragon awakening. With it they could smell business opportunity drifting in the air. Even the most pessimistic skeptics suddenly looked up from their stock market pages and paid attention to Chinese mainland. Looking back, it was during the Communist Party Plenum in 1978, that the leadership began bringing common sense into economics, toning down ideology. After three decades of communalism, getting everyone to think out of the state-planning framework was difficult. So by introducing market reforms that could be swallowed in dumpling-sized bites, setting a lower threshold while pushing the goal posts back. The new persuasive logic went like this: Communism is an ideal, but just a goal. Socialism is more realistic for everyone to attain, while keeping an eye on the goal. The term “communism” was then conveniently not used and “socialism” became the favored lingo. A decade later at the 1988 Communist Party Plenum, “socialism” became the new lofty goal everyone should strive for but not attain. After his 1992, the rationale was that China is an underdeveloped country, so economic development rather than ideology should take precedence. Everyone transitioned from ideology to pragmatism. During the 1960s-1970s the debate swung extreme left. During the years from 1978 to 1992, it wavered back and forth (between the “bird fly in a cage” theory and the “open the window let the fresh air in and then swat the flies” theory). After 1992 when real market reforms began, the question was how much to protect the state sector and how much to push the private. That did not change until 1998 which marked a massive five-year transformation of state-owned enterprise and introduction market reforms that mesmerized the world. There are two Chinese take-away points from the “China solution.” One, there is no one single model to be applied universally. Second, ideologically premised economics is impractical. The fortune cookie message is simple: end the socialist versus capitalist debate, dump the theory and do what works. Lets the market run its course. When it runs out of control they rein it in. If fiscal measures, taxes and interest rates don’t work, adopt administrative measures, fees and quotas. Don’t care about what you call it, as long as it gets a result. Years ago I tried to explain this way of making policy by coining the term “China Inc.” in a book called China Inc. published by Butterworth-Heinemann. My analogy was to think of China’s core policy-making body as a board of directors of a massive corporation making decisions to cope with market realities while planning their corporate strategies with a five-year horizon. Then think of the legislative bodies functioning as an annual shareholders meeting. Rather than the combative electoral politics of the west that actually forces leaders to become professional politicians working for lobbying interests. In Washington this view or description comparing the political systems was politically incorrect at the time. But eventually the term “China Inc.” became popular being picked up by politicians and journalists alike. Ted Fishman later also published a book called China Inc. By that time the term had become internationally acceptable. Eyeing the China experiment, other countries across Asia began adopting their own version of this “fusion” economics, mixing tools of market and central planning, sometimes more, sometimes less. Vietnam, Laos and Malaysia have been examples of mixed economies. Each did it their own way, based on their own local circumstances. They sought “sequenced”, step-by-step reforms not by “shock”. The BRICS and G77 take China’s approach seriously. They borrow what is useful and discard what is not. They don’t get hung up on ideology or theory. China despite all of its problems, demonstrated an alternative is possible by unabashedly using both the tools of market and planning, and transformed the economy from scarcity to over-supply, from poverty to conspicuous consumption wealth. Within two decades China pulled more people out of poverty than any other country in history. But there were also unforeseen costs. Environmental degradation and loss of culture and identity (the very roots of a people’s soul) are examples of what can go wrong when there is over-reliance on economic growth. Stuffing homes with brands did not bring happiness in China, as it did not bring happiness in America either. In both countries conspicuous consumption has created greed, social frustration and distorted values. China’s experience during the 1980s-1990s taught us that we need pragmatic holistic economics to replace theory and put an end to the dogma of theoretic fundamentalism regardless of whether it is communism or capitalism. Likewise excessiveness today in any form whether neo-liberalism or state capitalism will ultimately work against itself. There is a negative karma effect in any form of extremism – economic or political. Economics should be both pragmatic yet also holistic. We need an economic middle way. Maybe that is what the “China solution” is all about. About Author Laurence Brahm, a senior research fellow at Center for China and Globalization(CCG), an author of Zhu Rongji and the Transformation of Modern China.
2018年7月6日 -
魏建国：中国从没强迫谁转让技术
专家简介
2018年6月27日 -
徐洪才：调控政策要为资本市场保驾护航
专家简介
2018年6月26日 -
周晓晶：改革创新是搞好国有企业的成功之路
专家简介
2018年6月26日 -
傅志寰：“全球视野+立足国情”走中国特色交通强国之路
专家简介
2018年6月26日
