The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (Greater Bay Area) is a visionary master plan announced by the Chinese Central Government to orchestrate and develop on the incredible potential of one of the country’s most productive geographical areas, and grow it into a world-class urban technological, innovation, medical, education and financial cluster. Hong Kong and Shenzhen, two vibrant cities in the Greater Bay Area, will act as powerful dual growth engines to connect China and the world to the exciting new opportunities. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are paragons of globalisation and economic miracles brought about by an open, interconnected world. The two cities, on the two sides of the Shenzhen River, are thriving in their own ways. There are, indeed, more similarities than differences on their paths to prosperity. Both have had the best of two worlds and complement each other. Shenzhen’s proximity to Hong Kong has helped it become the most successful of the five special economic zones created under the open door policy started in 1979; meanwhile, Hong Kong has ascended to new heights with its financial and professional services, thanks to the mainland’s explosive growth. In merely 40 years, Shenzhen's GDP has grown nearly 10,000-fold, while Hong Kong skyrocketed to become a global financial centre on par with London and New York. Today, Shenzhen has the largest numbers of checkpoints, inbound/outbound passenger and vehicular flow in the mainland, and accounts for 10% of China’s total imports. Hong Kong-Shenzhen has one of the busiest traffic flows in the world, with a daily average of over 640,000 passenger trips crossed the border via land crossings each day in 2018. In 2019, Shenzhen has the largest number of international PCT patent applications in China for 16 consecutive years and accounting for 30 per cent of the national total, according to a white paper by the city’s authority . Its container port has the world’s third largest throughput, after Shanghai and Singapore. I have had the privilege of witnessing the full course of the spectacular trajectories of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, as well as the deep and close relationship between the two cities in many areas: in trade, culture, tourism, and exchanges of information and talent, to name just a few. Their paths and destinies are intertwined. Shenzhen has now taken up an expanded role – to lead the way in advancing China’s economic and financial reforms as well as to power the growth and prosperity of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (‘Greater Bay Area’). In a recent speech on the 40th anniversary of the special economic zone, President Xi called for a ‘greater miracle’ from Shenzhen, directing that the city become a hub of innovation and a model for the country. He affirmed that ‘all-embracing openness’ and reform, led by ‘ice-breaking thoughts’ would be the recipe for success. As the mainland’s most open and tech-savvy city, this is a natural progression for Shenzhen. Hong Kong indeed has an indispensable role to play in the Greater Bay Area, alongside Shenzhen. Hong Kong has always been a major source of foreign investment projects in Shenzhen. In the first three quarters of 2019, funding from Hong Kong accounted for about 80% of the total FDIs in Shenzhen. Thanks to its openness, free exchanges of information, capital and talents, rule of law, top-tier educational institutions, medical services and legal systems, world-beating efficiency as well connection with the world, ensured under the ‘One country, two systems’ arrangement, Hong Kong will continue to serve as an efficient and trusted intermediary between Shenzhen and the rest of the world. Together, the two cities will take the Greater Bay Area to world stage. The land of opportunities and possibilities The world-class bay area, with a total population of over 72 million and an estimated GDP of approximately US$1.7 trillion , is the land of opportunities and possibilities. It has a very diversified economy, and has a wealth of dynamic enterprises in fintech, technological innovation, auto-manufacturing, electronics and real estate. The Greater Bay Area is one of the most productive and richest regions in China by per capita ranking, contributing nearly 12 per cent of GDP. Twenty-one companies from the Greater Bay Area have entered the 2020 Fortune Global 500 list , in which eight are based in Shenzhen and seven in Hong Kong. The Central Government has formulated the 14th Five-Year Plenary Plan, which stresses global vision and promotes economic development with a new model featuring the dual domestic and international economic network complementing each other. This will enable Hong Kong to participate directly in China’s ‘dual circulation’ strategy, with domestic consumption as well as international trade and investment playing crucial roles. As the only Common Law jurisdiction in China, Hong Kong enjoys dual advantages of both Common law and Civil Legal systems, which cements Hong Kong’s status to be the global offshore Renminbi (RMB) business hub and the centre for international legal and dispute resolution and mediation services in the Greater Bay Area and Asia Pacific. In addition, qualified legal practitioners in Hong Kong can soon obtain qualification to practise civil and commercial law in nine Greater Bay Area cities under the pilot scheme announced by the State Council earlier this month. In June 2019, the Central Government introduced 16 policy measures which would benefit Hong Kong, facilitating deeper integration as well as broader cooperation and exchange of various sectors. The Central Government had further introduced several tax incentives to attract talents and investments to the Greater Bay Area, including Individual Income Tax exemption for subsidies of overseas high-level and executives working in sectors in urgent need of talents, and the Corporate Income Tax incentives applicable to designated free trade zones/ports in the Greater Bay Area. One good example is Qianhai District in Shenzhen. The establishment of Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone and the array of preferential policies has opened up new opportunities. In addition to facilitating property purchases by Hong Kong and granting tax concessions for Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area, more favourable policies have been introduced such as housing quota for eligible Hong Kong enterprises and talents. At end-2019, Qianhai was home to 12,102 Hong Kong-funded companies, up 420 per cent from the 2015 figure of 2,313. Combining finance and technology Innovation and technology are driving the rapid transformation in financial services, with fintech reshaping the global financial landscape and the delivery model of financial services. Shenzhen, widely known as the Silicon Valley of China, shines in entrepreneurship, innovation, traditional and next-generation technologies; meanwhile, Hong Kong is a compelling listing and fundraising venue with a long-established position as a global financial centre. The path to the future is paved with technology, and this is the case for the financial sector. New technologies such as blockchain, cryptocurrency and virtual wallets are shaping the future of finance. The HKSAR Government is implementing measures to further lever the development of Fintech ecosystem, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has also issued eight licences for virtual banks. Hong Kong’s financial regulations and policies have caught up with the development of fintech. The combination of prowesses in these two sectors will make the Greater Bay Area a powerhouse of the global banking and financial industry. Combining art and technology In addition to finance, technology is revolutionising the arts scene and creative industries too. Art tech is the next mega trend, it will open up to new horizons and enormous opportunities through changing the way people access arts and wider applications of interactive media and new technologies. The convergence of arts and technology spells fresh opportunities for the entire arts sector and the broader cultural and creative industries. It will enable Hong Kong’s world-class arts scene to keep pace with the world, and at the same time bring talents from around the globe. Some of the sectors, like interactive media, software, computer games will benefit immediately from the use of applications like virtual reality, augmented reality, personalised art tour guides, creation of interactive and immerseive artwork that can be viewed online, gallery-style streaming, as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. It will bring about a new dimension to the already vibrant creative industries. In April 2019, five relaxation measures were introduced to further facilitate entry of Hong Kong films and film practitioners into the mainland market, including the removal of restriction on the number of Hong Kong people participating in mainland film productions, as well as waiving the fees for establishing Mainland-Hong Kong co-production projects, with a view to deepening exchanges between the two cities in creative industries and to developing Asia’s creative hub. On a city level, the West Kowloon Cultural District, one of the world’s largest cultural complexes blending art, design, architecture, education, heritage, performance and public space, will cement Hong Kong’s position as a world-class culture hub, where local and international arts scene interact and collaborate. Opening in mid-2022, the Hong Kong Palace Museum will feature an exquisite collection of artefacts and master works from the Palace Museum, bringing national treasures to Hong Kong. Hong Kong shall leverage its expertise in creative industries to promote exchanges and soft power in the Greater Bay Area. World-class health care and education Hong Kong's healthcare system is consistently ranked the most efficient in the world, it took the top spot among the 56 economies covered in a study conducted by Bloomberg in 2018, thanks to the quality healthcare services and dedicated professionals. Since June 2019, eligible Hong Kong elders have been able to use health care vouchers to pay for outpatient services provided by designated clinics/departments of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (HKU-SZ Hospital), as a facilitation measure for Hong Kong residents in the Greater Bay Area. The HKU-SZ Hospital, wholly invested by the Shenzhen Government and managed by the University of Hong Kong, is a good example of Hong Kong standards being implemented across the border. Education and scientific research collaboration between Hong Kong and mainland has also entered a new phase. The HKSAR Government supports post-secondary institutions of Hong Kong to offer education services in the Greater Bay Area and to give full play to the characteristics of Hong Kong's higher education sector and their strength in terms of internationalisation. Following the establishment of Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College by the Hong Kong Baptist University and Beijing Normal University in Zhuhai in 2005, and the establishment of Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Shenzhen University in 2014, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is in active preparation of its new campus in Guangzhou, which is expected to commence operation in September 2021. A magnet for talents Human capital holds the key to a productivity cluster, this is particularly important for knowledge-based industries such as innovation, technology and financial services. Governments in the Greater Bay Area are ramping up efforts to attract and nurture talents. Shenzhen has one of the youngest and educated population in China with an average age of 32.1 . Its population is currently about 13.4 million , and is poised to grow to 15 million by 2035. Shenzhen has been a magnet for talents who want to jumpstart their careers or pursue their dreams, and it will continue to attract businesses and talents from throughout the country and the world, in particular those who appreciate cosmopolitan living. In June 2019, HKSAR Government signed the Letter of Intent on Qualifications Framework Co-operation between Guangdong and Hong Kong with the Department of Education of the Guangdong Province, with an aim to explore the mutual recognition of credits in different categories of education and training in the Greater Bay Area, and the promotion of talent exchanges in the Greater Bay Area. In November 2020, the Ministry of Education announced that the number of mainland higher education institutions participating in the Scheme for Admission of Hong Kong Students to Mainland Higher Education Institutions will increase to 127, providing Hong Kong students with multiple study pathways and opportunities to connect with the country's development. On the other hand, Hong Kong youths shall bring with them their international exposure and perspectives, fully leveraging the composite advantages of cities and facilitating in-depth integration within the first-class bay area. Right on the doorstep of Hong Kong, there is a plan for an innovation and technology heartland in the Lok Mau Chau Loop, three times the size of the Hong Kong Science Park, to incubate start-ups and foster creativity in key industry areas, namely medical science and technology, big data and artificial intelligence, robotics, new materials, semiconductors, fintech as well as cultural and creative industries. Hong Kong people, the quintessential global citizens, are well versed in international lingua franca, style and thinking. This can be put into good and practical use in the vast and dynamic marketplace of the Greater Bay Area, then onto the entire mainland. This is where talents receiving education overseas and international exposure will find themselves at home. Support for a brighter future Our youth can take advantage of the cross-border internship and exchange programmes supported by the Hong Kong Government. An average of 60,000 local young people each year are already benefiting from these schemes. Seed funding and experience sharing are crucial during start-up process. The HKSAR Government established the Youth Development Fund to help youngsters start their own business in the form of a matching subsidy in collaboration with non-governmental organisations. Last but not least, the Youth Development Commission rolled out two funding schemes to provide more relevant start-up support and incubation services to Hong Kong’s youth. At the Greater Bay Area Homeland Youth Community Foundation, of which I serve as chairman, we seek to identify opportunities for our young people and prepare them for career opportunities in the Greater Bay Area and beyond. We have raised HK$100 million in secured commitments to further our young friends’ dreams. In the past year, the Foundation has approved funding for 38 projects supporting the Hong Kong youth. We have worked primarily with non-governmental organisations to fund youth-related programmes grooming creative designers, computer animators, social-media influencers, new media vloggers, urban planners, baristas and entrepreneurs. We have also supported study and exchange tours in agriculture, art, education, technology, as well as sports and outdoor adventure. Some of the notable projects include For a Better Future – Hong Kong Youth Animator Development Programme, Dream Brewer – Pacific Coffee×HKCT @ GBA Entrepreneurship Training Programme, Me&MyCity: Vocational Education Development Programme for Hong Kong Youth, Travel ‘Vlogger’ New Media Training Project and Greater Bay Area Creative Design Talent Incubation Programme. In addition, The Foundation has initiated programmes to empower young generations. The ‘For Our Future Scholarship’ provides assistance for students to pursue their academic aspirations. The ‘GenRobo’ programme, through collaboration with community partners, provides 2,000 placements for F1-F3 students from underprivileged families in the New Territories to learn AI and robotics, with the opportunities to advance study and enter a nation-wide competition. In this enhanced confluence of endeavours, opportunities beckon our young people. Innovations, inspirations, and a launchpad to successful careers are all accessible. Our younger generation is full of creative ideas and global aspirations. Now, with the wind at their backs, it’s time for them to step forward and embark on a ground-breaking journey. (This article was published with the permission of the author.)
2020-11-11華為、Tik Tok、微信等事件已經表明中國企業在進入國際市場的時候,地緣政治的因素非但已不可忽略,而且往往成為企業國際化的一個重大障礙。 在過去較長一段時期裡,不少中國企業受到全球化趨勢的驅動,逐漸從國內到海外去發展。不少企業紛紛“出海”,而一部分企業更是要“國際化”,甚至是“全球化”,儼然要與西方的跨國企業一較高下。 中國企業的崛起是過去30年左右的事情,在這過程中,中國企業從無到有,從對市場經濟、國際准則的一竅不通,到一部分企業起碼在規模或市值方面已經走上了全球商業世界的前列。一方面這是非常令人驕傲的表現,但另一方面,卻容易令一部分人低估了全球發展的難度。 中國企業過去幾十年的崛起,恰好是與全球比較優勢主導的全球化進程同步進行的。以美國專欄作家托馬斯·弗裡德曼(Thomas Friedman)“世界是平的”理論作為主要思想根據,以及不少其他參與者(如管理咨詢公司、學者、智庫等)在旁的搖旗吶喊,加上一些流行的“管理心靈雞湯“,鼓吹著一個從簡單觀點出發的企業戰略和全球化發展進程。這讓不少中國企業家以為全球化隻需要注重內部條件方面的建設,隻要建立良好的價值觀、管理方法、組織架構、擁有相關能力和適當人才,就算全球化不一定能一蹴而就,但若能朝著既定的方向去做,總有一天會成為成功的跨國企業。這是簡單的理想主義想法。 近期,一些中國科技企業在西方,尤其是在美國,所遭受的待遇給中國企業家們一個嚴重的教訓。那就是無論你的內在條件做的多麼好,來自於外部環境,特別是其他國家的行為可以是非常殘酷、現實和具有巨大殺傷力的。 而自從中興、華為以及最近Tik Tok和微信事件后,中國企業家突然發現原來其他國家可以以國家安全或者地緣政治作為理由來干預某些外國企業在當地發展的自由度。 以我過去接觸過的中國企業來說,可能除了華為之外,絕大部分要到海外發展的中國企業在因為地緣政治和國家行為所帶來的風險的認知可以說是非常之低,甚至可以說是完全缺乏。 就算以華為來說,盡管任正非先生在2000年底已經提出了“華為的冬天”這個警示,並在之后似乎無時無刻地將“我們如何可以活下去”這句話作為口邊最常講的忠告。同時在這次地緣政治因素暴露之前,華為已經做了不少深具前瞻性的工作,但在某些問題上,它仍然沒有完全解決最棘手的問題。當然這是一件很難的事,考驗的是企業領導者的洞察能力和對於問題認知的復雜性和批判能力。 在2017年之前,全球經濟和社會在全球化主義和科技發展方面正在朝著一個無所不在、互聯互通的世界(interconnected world)和數字經濟一體化的趨勢發展。這個發展有著它的強大理論基礎和邏輯性,符合全球發展整體利益的趨勢和具人性化的一面,但隨著粗野的地緣政治的橫空出世,突然之間人為地干預了人類社會於這方面的整體發展。 盡管如此,數字經濟和互聯互通的基本邏輯事實上仍然存在,而在這個過程中,數字經濟讓這世界產生了巨大的“數字鴻溝”,而且這數字鴻溝還在擴大。 獲得數字經濟鑰匙的國家和地區在當下和今后的數字經濟裡將都是得益者。但相對而言,得不到鑰匙的,都隻能在“數字鴻溝”的另一面遙遙觀望。數字化的差距正在不斷和無情地擴大,而今天我們所看到的某些地緣政治舉措事實上是某些國家地區在不知不覺地延遲了他們在數字經濟的發展,而其他已經取得鑰匙和並未被人為地緣政治舉措干預的國家地區反而會在數字經濟上繼續前進。這是典型的“此消彼長”,但很可惜,不少國家地區的領導人並看不到這一點,而隻能用狹隘的觀點來設計他們的政策。 對於企業而言,這些因素的影響是什麼?我在2020年 6月份的《亞布力觀點》中發表的《在不確定時代裡有什麼不確定?》之文中提到,企業在業務邊界、客戶、標准、價值鏈重構和全球分工和商業模式方面都會全面面臨巨大的不確定性。 而如何能將這些不確定性的確定性提高,企業必須加強對於外在問題,例如地緣政治和國家風險等問題方面的認知,同時他們也要知道未來應以更現實和更具全局觀的角度來觀察事情的改變,結合所有相關的力量,讓其在與對方進行博弈的時候能夠取得最佳的優勢和最好的結果。 展望未來,這一股地緣政治的力量會不會隨著美國總統11月大選而改變仍然是一未知之數。但從全球政治經濟情況來看,可以預測在可見的未來,中國企業在海外和全球發展仍然將會面臨嚴峻挑戰。這些挑戰不單隻是來自於市場上的競爭,非市場競爭干擾因素也將較長時間存在,而且它對企業的影響程度甚至比市場因素更為重要。對於企業來說,如何將地緣政治的干擾因素減到最低,將會是企業領導者的一個重要課題。 這需要領導者不單隻是理想主義者,也需要是現實主義者。他必須兼容兩者,並不斷在兩者之中取得動態平衡。正如牛頓力學的第三定律所說“相互作用的兩個物體之間的作用力和反作用力總是大小相等“,世界上所有事物都不會是單方面線性地發展,而是一個系統性地互相牽連的非線性和多維的發展。 企業領導者必須具備操縱大棋盤、整體系統的洞察和執行能力。你應該知道今天走了一步棋,將會影響明天對手將會如何回應,而后天你又會走哪一步棋? 大棋局、大變化。這個場景加速著中國企業家的認知、學習和實踐,亦是一個進步和蛻變的過程。 本文來自香港國際金融學會,經作者授權轉載
2020-09-22在深圳經濟特區建立40周年之際,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院(簡稱“綜研院”)於9月7日發布《新40年·新40企——深圳未來發展的新力量》報告。報告認為,特區未來40年是屬於新消費和新科技的40年。該領域內已涌現諸如騰訊、華為、海思、大疆、樂信等一批明星企業及創新之星,將在未來40年為深圳經濟增添新活力、新動力。 報告認為,在新消費和新科技企業帶動下,未來5年,深圳GDP增速預計達到6.5%,到2025年總量人均GDP達3.5萬美元,超過高收入經濟體中位數。期間,新經濟增速預計保持9%,佔GDP比重達50%,創造近500萬工作崗位;到2025年,深圳最終消費率有望達到50%,最終消費規模達2.2萬億,實現翻番,僅次於北京、上海。 據悉,該報告由著名經濟學家樊綱、郭萬達擔任首席顧問,綜研院新經濟研究所執行所長曹鐘雄及其團隊執筆,報告採用具有客觀、無偏、實時和大樣本特點的大數據評價方法,對包含200萬家深圳企業、以及超300個維度指標的數據庫進行綜合分析得出,數據主要來源為全網公開數據、政府機構公布的數據以及合作方提供的數據等。 深圳未來40企及10大“創新之星”發布 過去四十年,深圳實現了世界500強“從0到8”的跨越,涌現出華為、騰訊等跨時代的企業。報告認為,隨著雙循環國家戰略的推進和新基建、新消費的興起,智能經濟、消費經濟、健康經濟、數字經濟將成為深圳經濟關鍵的增長點和發力點,這些行業的企業也將成為特區未來 40 年發展的生力軍。 課題組通過構建包含研發實力指數、發展態勢指數、業態創新指數、治理指數、以及估值等級指數的新經濟企業評價模型,對企業進行大數據畫像和客觀評價,篩選出100家候選長名單。之后再次邀請十幾位權威專家、以及企業、政府相關人士進行二次評選,確立了能夠代表深圳未來40年發展的40家新經濟企業。 上述40家企業分布在芯片、新治理、新消費、新金融、新材料、新硬件、新連接、人工智能、雲計算、生命健康十大創新領域,課題組進一步對深圳2000年以后成立的優秀新經濟企業通過行業潛力/市場規模、企業市值/估值規模、經營態勢、技術能力、治理情況等維度的定量打分和專家評價,評出了未來這些領域的十大創新企業之星。 著名經濟學家、中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院院長樊綱表示,創新是深圳特區發展根本動力,也是凝聚在深圳這座城市的基因。特區再啟程,持續激發澎湃的創新創業活力,更需要迭代出如海思半導體、大疆、樂信等一批能夠真正代表中國未來新力量的企業。 未來新經濟佔半壁江山 經濟增長與城市發展新邏輯 報告認為,深圳未來40年將是消費紅利和科技紅利進一步凸顯的40年。在新科技和新消費驅動下,經濟將迎來新一輪快速增長,產業結構進一步優化,具體表現在4個方面: 一是新經濟佔據半壁江山:2021-2025年,隨著政策的深入布局和企業的持續創新,深圳新經濟增速仍將保持9%的平均增速。到2025年,深圳市新經濟規模預計將突破2萬億,佔GDP比重預計將達50%,預計能夠創造近500萬的工作崗位。 二是GDP超過4萬億:2021-2025年,受戰略性新興產業穩定高速增長的驅動,深圳GDP增速預計6.5%左右,到2025年實現名義GDP總量4.2-4.5萬億元的規模,直追瑞士等國家2019年的經濟規模。人均GDP有望超過到3.5萬美元,超過高收入經濟體中位數。 三是消費規模全國第3:預計到2025年,深圳最終消費率將達到50%,最終消費規模預計將達到2.2萬億,實現翻番,僅次於北京和上海。預計到2030年,深圳最終消費規模有望突破3萬億,逐步向消費型社會轉型。 四是躋身全球城市TOP50:預計到2025年,深圳世界500強企業數量將超過10家,獨角獸企業將超過30家。深圳有望成為全球經濟樞紐與創新樞紐,突出創新策源地和國際創新要素集聚,突出金融科技、產融結合和跨境金融創新,突出新消費,躋身全球城市TOP50。 缺少本土綜合性消費平台 國際國內雙循環的新格局下,消費是城市生活的活力指標。報告認為,深圳作為一線城市中對外貿易依存度最高的城市,未來將從“出口-創收-消費”的增長循環向“消費-培育創新-培育新企業-創造新產品-對外輸出”轉型。 在消費領域,深圳目前仍有短板,“一小一低”(社消零規模小,最終消費率低)是主要問題深圳社消零規模長期排名靠后,不到上海的一半,消費對經濟的拉動作用有待提升。 此外,互聯網消費平台也制約深圳發展國內大循環。當前深圳互聯網消費平台僅樂信、環球易購等為數不多的幾家。未來深圳本土需要培育更多“阿裡式”、“京東式”、“拼多多式”綜合性消費平台龍頭,在建設國際消費中心城市、暢通國內大循環板塊方面有更多政策布局。 作為深圳新消費領軍平台,樂信推行新消費平台戰略,服務超過1億用戶,旗下三大品牌——開創中國分期購物消費模式的分期樂,首創數字化全場景分期消費模式的樂花卡以及會員制消費服務APP樂卡,全都開創或引領了新的消費模式。 專家表示,在新科技領域,深圳已走在全國前列,在新消費領域,深圳的潛力還很巨大。作為全國最年輕的一線城市,未來還有數百萬的“逐夢新青年”落戶深圳,這些新力量對生活有著新態度,他們既要有“體面的勞動”,更要有“體面的生活”。大量擁有高消費能力和高消費意願的人口不斷沉澱,新興消費群將進一步打開城市消費空間。深圳應大力發展新消費、快時尚,通過消費引領促進制造業、科技創新等高質量發展;支持本土綜合互聯網平台引領消費創新,促進本地消費升級,打造深圳品牌,依托平台向全國乃至全球輻射。
2020-09-15通過在岸與離岸兩個循環,人民幣國際化步伐可以加快。內循環的關鍵是做大做強以人民幣為核心的上海在岸國際金融中心,應鼓勵(甚至法定要求),跨境的貿易、債券、及股權市場盡可能用人民幣計價及交易,但同時開放合規的外匯交易市場,以大幅提升對人民幣交易的需求,以及人民幣資產的流動性。 外循環的關鍵是防範美元體系被濫用的風險。可以考慮在中國的離岸經濟圈(港澳、上海臨港幣、海南自由港、各自貿區)、「一帶一路」、及其他國際項目減少使用以美元計價的金融產品,鼓勵用港幣及與SDR掛鈎的數字貨幣作為(除外匯市場之外的)貿易與金融活動的計價與交易貨幣,目的是防範美國濫用美元體系實施長臂管轄。中國需要在計價、交易、及價值儲備三個方面盡可能避免使用美元。如果港幣或SDR數字貨幣可以在中國的離岸經濟圈流通,這些地區經濟主體的資產與負債就可以在全球市場定價、交易、及配置。中國在岸經濟體的貿易順差及外匯儲備的一部分就可安全地存在中國的離岸經濟圈,從而減少持有其他具有地緣政治風險的外匯儲備資產(如美國國債),並推動多元外匯儲備及人民幣國際化。
2020-09-04Efforts to turn an effective institutional response to the pandemic into a political or ideological battleground are misguided, at best. As the late Nobel laureate Ronald H. Coase showed, regardless of ideology or politics, each society must develop institutional arrangements that constrain individual freedom. HONG KONG – In 1960, the Nobel laureate economist Ronald H. Coase introduced the “problem of social cost”: human activities often have negative externalities, so individual rights cannot be absolute. Institutions must intervene. There is no better example of this dynamic than the COVID-19 crisis. While virtually every country has suffered as a result of the pandemic, some have done much better than others. Whereas some have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero, others have had steadily climbing infection and death rates for months. As McKinsey & Company has noted, economic activity associated with discretionary mobility has returned to normal for the former group. Among the latter, such activity remains about 40% below the pre-pandemic level. Not everyone is suffering equally. Low-paid workers with inferior access to medical care and less opportunity to stay home – say, because their jobs are classified as “essential” – are bearing the clinical and economic brunt of the crisis. This puts everyone at risk. After all, even if a country contains the first wave of COVID-19 infections, it will remain vulnerable, as the virus continues to be imported from worse-performing countries. In other words, the social costs of inadequate institutional arrangements in some countries are spilling over to those with well-functioning institutions. The first step toward addressing this problem is to identify which institutional arrangements are most effective for reducing the social costs of the COVID-19 crisis. This is not, as one might assume, just a matter of having strong institutions. The United States and the United Kingdom are institutionally robust, and both had weeks, if not months, to prepare before their outbreaks began, but both have had among the world’s highest infection and mortality rates. By contrast, East Asian countries were the first to be infected, meaning they had little, if any, time to prepare. And yet many of them are among the countries that have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero. The difference comes down to attitudes: what role and responsibilities each society attributes to government, and to what extent it expects the community to act as a collective agent of the common good. In the US, there is a long-standing emphasis on personal freedom. “Small government” is a commonly heard refrain, with many arguing that individuals acting as self-interested participants in markets and in social and political processes will naturally produce positive outcomes. Government intervention – even in the event of a pandemic – infringes on individual rights and, indeed, on the very meaning of being an American. Protests over shelter-in-place orders and mask mandates reflect this view. This is very different from the prevailing mindset in East Asia. For example, many Western observers have attributed China’s success in containing COVID-19 to its authoritarian regime, which supposedly infringed on individual freedoms, privacy, and economic efficiency in a way no democratic government ever could. Coase’s theory shows why that logic is flawed. As he explains, the market may be able to minimize social costs if all actors have full information and face near-zero transaction costs. But those conditions are unrealistic even in normal times. During a pandemic, no individual can possibly receive comprehensive and current information on the virus. In fact, the very existence of asymptomatic carriers precludes the possibility of “full information.” And, because the transaction costs of mask wearing, quarantining, testing, and contact tracing are high, making compliance a matter of individual choice will never be enough to contain the virus. But Soviet-style centralized intervention is not feasible: agents of the state cannot observe every move every person makes and enforce every precautionary behavior at all times. And, contrary to popular belief, that is not what China has done. Instead, recognizing that fully voluntary action was inadequate, the state provided comprehensive and mandatory rules to facilitate individual and communal compliance, as well as fiscal and logistical support for implementation. To illustrate, upon arriving in Shenzhen from Hong Kong, one of us headed to a designated hotel – equipped with medical staff conducting tests and monitoring temperatures – for a 14-day mandatory quarantine. On the way to the hotel, both the landlord and a community contact person got in touch, having been informed by the authorities to prepare for a new arrival from abroad. From the airport to the quarantine hotel to home, every single individual – immigration officers, bus drivers, security screeners, medical personnel, and hotel staff – wore full personal protective equipment. Common areas were regularly disinfected. The state provided all needed resources. Of course, a traveler would prefer to go home, rather than stay in a quarantine hotel for two weeks. But ostensibly high compliance costs for individuals do not outweigh the overall social costs of partial interventions. So, with institutional support and clear guidance – delivered via many channels, including social media – people have taken the necessary precautions. Responsibility for implementation has also been clearly delineated across government agencies. The results – sharply reduced COVID-19 infections and deaths – speak for themselves. Other East Asian countries – such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam – have achieved similar success, using very similar institutional approaches. In every case, the government intervened early, devised comprehensive rules and guidance, and provided the resources needed to apply relevant measures. And in every case, society was receptive to government intervention aimed at advancing the common good. Crucially, these countries have very different cultures and political systems. Attempts to turn an effective institutional response to the pandemic into a political or ideological battleground are thus misguided, at best. The Coasian lesson is that, regardless of ideology or politics, each society must develop institutional arrangements that minimize social costs. After all, those suffering the consequences of others’ decisions are unlikely to revel in their “freedom.” (This article was published on Project Syndicate on Aug 26, 2020, and was reprinted with the permission of the authors.)
2020-08-31香港 – 諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得者羅納德·科斯(Ronald H. Coase)在1960年提出了“社會成本問題”:人類活動通常具有負面的外部性,因此個人權利不能是絕對的。社會組織必須出面干預。新冠疫情危機正是反映這種個人與社會互動關系的最好案例。 盡管幾乎每個國家都因大流行而遭受痛苦,但有些國家的表現要好於其他國家。 雖然有些國家已經將新冠病例減少到接近於零,但另一些國家的感染和死亡率卻穩步上升了幾個月。 正如麥肯錫公司指出的,前者受疫情而中斷的人員自由流動及其相關的經濟活動已恢復正常。而后者的此類活動仍比大流行前的水平低約40%。 並非每個人都遭受同樣的痛苦。 低薪工人獲得醫療服務的機會較少,而且很少有機會居家工作,因為他們的職業往往屬於最基本但必要的輔助崗位。他們在疫情中受到醫護保障及經濟收入的雙重打擊。 這使全球所有人處於危險之中。 畢竟,即使某一個國家已經控制了第一波新冠病毒感染,由於該病毒可以繼續從抗疫表現較差的國家輸入,這個抗疫成功的國家將仍然面臨病毒重新流行的威脅。 換句話說,一些國家抗疫機制安排不當導致的疫情社會成本正在分攤擴散到那些抗疫機制運作良好的國家。 解決此問題的第一步是確定哪種抗疫機制安排對降低新冠疫情的社會成本最有效。 正如人們可能會想到的,這不僅僅是擁有強健醫療與公共衛生體制的問題。 美英的體制相對其它國家更健全,而疫情在其本國爆發前都有數周,甚至數月,的預警准備時間,但兩國的感染率和死亡率均位居世界前列。 相比之下,東亞國家是第一波被感染的,這意味著它們幾乎沒有預警與准備時間。 然而,東亞許多國家已將新冠案例降到接近零。 這個差異歸因於政府與社會對抗疫的態度與機制:每個社會對政府的作用和責任是什麼,以及在為公共利益採取集體行動方面,它期望社區組織在多大程度上扮演主角。 美國長期以來一直強調個人自由。 “小政府”是一個流行的說法,認為在市場以及社會和政治活動中,追求個人利益的參與者自然會產生積極的社會效果。而 政府干預(即使是在疫情大流行的情況下)也會侵犯個人權利,甚至違反了成為一個美國人的意義。 抗議戴口罩及就地隔離避難的政府命令反映的正是這種觀念與態度。 這與流行於東亞的觀念與態度截然不同。 因此,許多西方觀察家將中國成功遏制新冠疫情歸功於其集權體制,認為其限制了個人自由、隱私和經濟效率,而這是民主體制的政府無法做到的。 科斯的理論表明為什麼這種邏輯是有問題與缺陷的。 正如他所解釋的,如果所有參與者都擁有完整的信息並面臨接近零的交易成本,那麼市場也許能夠將社會成本降至最低。 但是,即使在正常情況下,這些條件也是不現實的。 在新冠疫情大流行期間,任何人都不可能獲得有關該病毒的全面而最新的信息。 實際上,無症狀攜帶者的存在排除了獲得“完整信息”的可能性。 而且,由於執行佩戴口罩、隔離、測試、和追蹤密切接觸者的交易成本很高,因此僅憑個人自願選擇來遵守這些必要的流行病預防規則是不足以有效遏制新冠病毒的。 但是,蘇聯式的集中干預也是行不通的:隻靠政府官員是無法始終觀察每個人的一舉一動,也無法保証每個人都可以做到各種預防行為。 與流行的看法相反,這並不是中國所做的。 相反,中國政府認識到靠完全個人自願的行動是不夠的,因此國家提供了全面強制性的規則來幫助、促進、確保個人和社區的合規,並為實施合規行為提供了財政和后勤支持。 本文作者之一從香港去深圳的經歷有助於理解中國的抗疫機制。從香港到達深圳后,從海外入境人員便被送往指定的旅館進行14天強制性隔離檢疫,而該旅館配備了醫務人員監測體溫及執行相應的檢測。 在前往旅館的途中,當局已經與房東和社區聯絡人取得聯系,為稍后迎接入境人員進入社區做好准備。 從口岸到檢疫酒店再到家,每個邊防海關官員、公共汽車司機、安檢人員、醫務人員和旅館工作人員都穿戴全套個人防護設備,而公用區域都有定期消毒。 政府也提供了所有需要的抗疫資源。 一個旅行者當然願意回家,而不是在隔離酒店呆兩個星期。但是這些因抗疫合規而產生的個人的高成本,其實遠遠低於因抗疫干預機制不健全不徹底而導致的總體社會成本。 因此,在一個完善清楚的抗疫機制支持和指導下,包括利用社交媒體等多種渠道進行溝通,中國的居民都能夠採取必要的預防措施。中國的各類政府機構之間也明確界定了實施抗疫措施的責任。 不言而喻的結果是,中國迅速而且大幅度減少了新冠病毒的感染和死亡。 其它東亞國家,包括日本、新加坡、韓國、和越南,也使用了非常相似的機制與方法,並取得了類似的成功。 在每種情況下,政府都盡早進行了干預,並制定了全面的規則和指南,也提供了實施相關干預措施所需的資源。 在每種情況下,社會都普遍接受了旨在促進共同利益的政府干預。 至關重要的是,這些東亞國家的文化和政治體制截然不同。 因此,不去學習東亞抗疫的有效機制與實踐,反而將抗疫模式轉變成地緣政治或意識形態領域抗爭的問題,是錯誤的。 科斯理論給我們的啟示是,撇開意識形態與政治因素,每個社會都必須制定使社會成本最小化的制度安排來規范有外部效應的個人行為。 畢竟,如果一些個人的“自由”決策與行為可以嚴重傷害大眾的整體利益的話,大眾是不太可能享受到“自由”的。 本文來自Project Syndicate,經作者授權轉載
2020-08-31“深圳經濟特區為什麼能成功,有沒有可復制的經驗?” 這是全球調研中,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院副院長曲建常被各國代表問及的“高頻問題”。 2015年,英國《經濟學人》曾發文稱,全球4000多個經濟特區中,頭號成功典範莫過於“深圳奇跡”。2019年,深圳GDP首次超越香港,這一年,當曲建在參加世界銀行有關會議上介紹這組數據時,眾多發展中國家代表現場鼓掌。 深圳,正被視為全球經濟特區探索的“先遣部隊”。在深圳特區40周年之際,南方日報、南方+對話曲建,探討特區“發展密碼”。 來深圳30年,曲建見証特區發展歷程,將全球特區發展作為深入研究領域。 從1/2500 變成1/1,短短40年間,由中國人自己規劃設計的經濟特區深圳完成了一次重大超越,在中國內地“再造一個香港”,引起全球關注。 在非盟總部所在地——埃塞俄比亞首都亞的斯亞貝巴,政治家塞尤姆先生曾和曲建探討,1980年撒哈拉以南地區的人均GDP是476美元,是中國的3倍,深圳的6倍;經過40年發展,當地人均GDP僅為1200美金。 《科學》雜志在創刊125年之際,在總結人類最前沿待解密的125個科學問題中,提出的第119個問題也是,“為什麼努力改變撒哈拉地區貧困狀態的努力幾乎全部失敗?” 這位非洲政治家很關心,“究竟中國人干了什麼,有沒有可復制的深圳經驗?” “你們都想復制深圳的結果,你們不一定想復制深圳的過程,深圳的成長過程來之不易。”曲建回答道。 然而特區建設之初,全國處於經濟資源短缺時期,缺少資源、資金、資本支持,深圳隻有殺出一條血路。通過把香港資本和深圳本地勞動力結合,形成加工貿易發展模式,形成增加值的一部分以工繳費方式返還地方,一部分以工資方式發給老百姓,還有一部分中資參股后分得紅利。完成“第一桶金”積累后,深圳開始大規模投資建設,利用境內外貸款將深圳推到經濟增長的快車道上。 因此,“不平衡發展模式+資本盈利水平的保障”是深圳發展的核心經驗。將這兩個因素結合,又必須通過市場經濟。“計劃經濟隻能將兩個元素中其一加以保障,通過壟斷實現資本收益率,或是通過壟斷實現某一地區的率先發展,必須靠市場力量的作用,讓兩個因素相互配合,可持續推進。”曲建說。 在全球調研過程中,曲建常和海外代表談到深圳的兩個重要價值觀。 第一是“來了就是深圳人。” 大家以為這是說深圳不排外,實際是一種包容。深圳不僅包容外地人,更重要是包容失敗者。這個城市沒有人歧視失敗的人,隻歧視不努力的人。比如,深圳的民營企業家是一群很努力的人,當一個把全部家當都壓上去創業,旁邊的人都願意幫他一把。深圳的國企也從這種環境中迸發出來,不斷改革創新,與城市兼容。 第二句話更重要,“讓投資人賺到錢。”深圳隻有一條道路,想盡辦法把投資人留下來,想辦法讓他們掙到錢,否則這座城市就會被迅速抹掉,所以營商環境是深圳“最后一根救命稻草”。 資本是推動經濟發展的一股力量,所以我們發現深圳很多行業在全國利潤水平是偏高的。資本力量集中到哪裡,哪裡就有可能發展起來,而這股力量是圍繞利潤流動。“一些城市想著在投資者身上’宰一刀’,不是宰在別人身上,而是自己的未來。”曲建說。 從廣義上說,經濟特區指所有特殊經濟區,從功能上發展經濟,從政策上有不同於國內其他地區的政策設計。 在全球調研中,曲建發現,成功的區域開發都有123知識體系,即“一法規、二規劃、三報告。” 特區必先立法,不能一事一議。在此基礎上,做好特區功能規劃和空間布局規劃,必須研究清楚經濟特區要干什麼、形成一個什麼功能、並且形成體系。 三報告則是指開發建設盈利模式報告、投融資報告和管理運營報告。 以深圳為例,從最早的勞動力驅動,到積累資本,從全國招聘藍領農民工,到招聘全國大學生,再到舉城市之力辦好26所大學,深圳逐步發動了5個經濟增長動力:勞動力-資本-技術創新-教育-制度創新。 投融資報告則是要解決一個核心問題“錢從哪裡來”。曲建說,盈利和投入差距如何補,要有精細化測算,謀而后動。“很多地方’現吃現抓’,等著錢斷了檔了之后才想著錢從哪來,這是很多園區失敗的重要原因。” 而管理運營報告強調特區建設與運營的重要性。“如果把特區比作一座房子,那麼買房前就應考慮好維護房子的費用,通過制度設計把這筆資金預留好。” 站在先行示范區的全新起點上,曲建談到,40歲的深圳留下成功的經驗,也應該留下失敗的教訓。 曲建觀察到,在世界綜合競爭能力的城市排行榜中,領先城市都是創新、創業、創意“三創”均強的城市,如何在創新領先的情況下,推動創業、創意領先,是深圳需要面對的重要課題。 近年來,深圳不斷將資源、資金更多向社會文化領域投放。 在深圳開始發展后,我國陸續建設了200多個經濟技術開發區,包括高新技術園區、海關特殊監管區等,其中不少雛形都在深圳。未來,深圳作為特區“先遣部隊”要做什麼? 曲建認為,向前看,深圳要和世界一流水平競爭;向后看,要把自己的“親兄弟”拉一把。 跟世界最前端城市競爭,是深圳另一個使命。“40歲的城市,不能過20歲的日子。隨著城市要素價格的不斷上升,深圳唯一的出路,就是向世界一流城市看齊時,提升自己的競爭力。”曲建說,應讓一部分人代領深圳向一流城市邁進,把領先人才的稅負降下來,讓他們輕裝上陣,獲得高額回報。 如今深圳正通過深港創新合作區、前海自貿區等創新政策設計,再探開放新路。曲建提出,繼制造業融入全球鏈條之后,讓我國服務鏈和全球服務供應鏈融合,是前海的破題使命。 “在逆全球化的大潮中,深圳對外開放的窗口作用更為重要。”曲建說。從過去做臉盆到如今做5G,深圳為什麼一直都行?其重要因素在於,深圳和國際產業持續保持供應鏈鏈接,以國外需求帶動深圳發展,深圳配套為全世界服務。例如,如今全球手機中95%的微型螺絲都在深圳生產,全世界有需求,深圳就能跟上供給。 無論逆全球化趨勢如何發展,中國產業鏈一定要跟國際產業鏈結合在一起,絕不能拖鉤。曲建說,“深圳的窗口作用,是想盡一切辦法融入全球供應鏈體系之中,這是一場博弈,也是鍛煉深圳的關鍵時刻。” (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-08-14As the US-China rivalry escalates, the growing emphasis on national security will undermine global trade and investment, leaving fewer resources to finance social policies, address inequality, and tackle climate change. This is a global tragedy of the commons, and there is no guarantee that recognizing it will change the outcome. HONG KONG – By disrupting the world’s interconnected economic, social, and geopolitical spheres, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed just how fragile and inequitable the institutions that govern them really are. It has also highlighted how difficult it is to address systemic fragility and inequity amid escalating national-security threats. In 2007, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik proposed an “impossibility theorem” for the global economy, according to which democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration are fundamentally incompatible. “We can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.” To see how social, economic, and national security policies are entangled in this trilemma, consider Hong Kong’s experience. Since British colonial rule, a policy of “positive non-interventionism” has enabled the city’s economic growth. Hong Kong’s colonial administrators knew that a relatively small market, manufacturing sector, and trade volume meant that a commitment to openness, rather than a targeted development strategy, was the surest route to prosperity. They were right. Today, Hong Kong possesses one of the world’s busiest ports, and has long permitted capital, information, and people to move freely. Near-zero tariffs and ultra-low taxes have enabled the city to become a global financial hub, and one of the world’s biggest markets for equity and debt financing. And, from the start, China’s process of “reform and opening up” included deeper economic engagement with Hong Kong, which reinforced the city’s dynamism. Yet, as in the advanced economies, the globalization-fueled economic boom masked deepening social problems. As manufacturing shifted to mainland China, many jobs were lost, not only on the factory floor, but also in logistics and back-office services. The result was a hollowing-out of the middle class. Today, the territory’s Gini coefficient – in which zero represents maximum equality and one represents maximum inequality – stands at 0.539, compared to 0.411 in the United States (the highest among major developed countries). There was a time when Hong Kong’s non-interventionist economic approach was accompanied by a similarly hands-off social policy. But the 1967 riots – a labor dispute that grew into large-scale demonstrations against British rule – forced the government to build low-cost public housing to alleviate worker discontent. The approach, however, was flawed. Today, nearly 45% of Hong Kong’s residents live in public rental or subsidized housing. In China, by contrast, 90% of households own at least one home. Addressing these social problems will not be easy, not least because of rising national-security risks. Hong Kong’s economic development was enabled by near-zero national-security costs – a by-product of peaceful Sino-US engagement. This began to change with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which highlighted the asymmetry between low-cost weapons and high-cost anti-terrorist defenses – and the need to implement such defenses, anyway. The risks posed by the more recent proliferation of digital technologies are marked by a similar asymmetry. Cyberattacks are cheap to mount, but they can topple entire financial, information, or defense systems. As Rodrik’s trilemma suggests, such risks force governments to make tradeoffs. National-security concerns must shape economic policy. But the result may not necessarily advance the imperative of delivering the resources needed to address social inequities. When economic policy fails to deliver reasonable social equity – reflected in, for example, widespread home ownership and quality jobs – internal security risks rise. And, indeed, in Hong Kong, as in the US and other democracies, many workers and young people have rejected the political establishment, embraced localist and populist ideologies, and protested against state institutions. Such trends often lead to chaos and violence, inviting tough action to restore order. The challenge is all the more complicated for Hong Kong, because of its position as a financial gateway between China and an increasingly hostile US. As Rodrik has noted, the Sino-American rivalry is shaped largely by national-security concerns, to the point that economics is at risk of becoming “hostage” to geopolitics or, worse, reinforcing and amplifying the strategic rivalry. America’s weaponization of finance exemplifies this risk. Since the so-called War on Terror began, the US has been leveraging the private sector and banks to isolate particular actors from the international financial system. In recent years, the US has relied so extensively on secondary sanctions that even France and Germany have been considering how to sidestep its financial dominance, including by creating an alternative global payment system or a European fund that could allow trade to continue with US-sanctioned countries. As the US has imposed financial sanctions on a growing number of Chinese enterprises and individuals, China has become concerned that Hong Kong could serve as a kind of Trojan Horse, which the US could use to destabilize China’s polity, including its national-security initiatives. After all, the US national security strategy explicitly aims not only to protect Americans and their way of life, but also to advance “American influence in the world.” (This article was published on Project Syndicate on July 29, 2020, and was reprinted with the permission of the authors.)
2020-08-12香港–新冠病毒危機通過顛覆相互聯系的全球經濟、社會、和地緣政治,暴露了全球治理的脆弱與不公。在不斷升級的國家安全威脅形勢下,疫情也彰顯了系統處理治理脆弱和不公有多難。 哈佛大學的丹妮·羅德裡克(Dani Rodrik)在2007年就提出了全球經濟的“不可能定理”。根據該定理,民主、國家主權和全球經濟一體化三者在本質上並不相容。 “我們可以將這三個中的任何兩個結合起來,但決不能同時完全地將所有三個結合在一起。” 要了解社會、經濟和國家安全這三個相互糾纏的政策如何印証“不可能定理”中的三難,請看香港的經驗。自英國殖民統治以來,“積極不干預主義”的政策使這座城市的經濟得以發展。殖民地官員非常清楚,本地相對較小的市場、制造業、和貿易量意味著對開放的承諾,而不是有針對性的發展戰略,是實現香港繁榮的最可靠途徑。 確實,今天香港擁有世界上最繁忙的港口之一,就是因為長期以來這裡一直允許資本、信息和人才的自由流動。 接近零的關稅和超低的收入稅使香港成為全球金融中心,並且是全球最大的股票及其它融資市場之一。中國的“改革開放”過程從一開始就包括了與香港的更深入的經濟接觸,這對增強香港的活力至關重要。 然而,與發達經濟體一樣,全球化推動的經濟繁榮掩蓋了日益嚴重的社會問題。 隨著制造業向中國大陸轉移,香港失去的不僅是生產線,而且也包括物流和后台服務的崗位,導致中產階級空洞化。 如今,香港的基尼系數為0.539,比美國更不平等,基尼系數為零代表最平等,1則代表最不平等,美國為0.411,在大的發達國家中最高。 曾經有一段時間,香港的不干預主義經濟方針與類似的放手不管社會政策並存。 但1967年的騷亂,一場由勞資糾紛演變成反對英國統治的大規模示威活動,迫使殖民地政府不得不建造大批廉價的公共住房,以減輕工人的不滿。 然而,這種被動敷衍的社會政策是有缺陷的。 如今,香港近45%的居民仍然居住在政府補貼的住房中。 相比之下,中國有90%的家庭擁有至少一間自己的房屋。 解決這些社會問題並非易事,尤其在國家安全風險上升的時候。 而國家安全成本幾乎為零隻是中美之間在過去40年和平交往互動的一個副產品,但它是推動香港經濟發展的一個關鍵因素。隨著2001年9月11日發生在美國的恐怖襲擊,這種情況開始改變,突顯了低成本恐怖襲擊與高成本反恐防御之間的不對稱性,特別是實施反恐防御成為必須的長期選項與成本。類似的不對稱性也提醒我們數字技術的最新發展將帶來的風險。網絡攻擊的成本非常低廉,但卻可以推翻整個金融、信息、及國防系統。 正如羅德裡克(Rodrik)的三難困境所暗示的那樣,此類不對稱風險迫使政府做出權衡。 國家安全問題不可能不影響經濟政策。但結果可能並不是能夠有效動員更多資源來解決社會不平等的問題。 當經濟政策未能提供諸如居者有其屋及優質崗位等恰當的社會公平時,內部的社會穩定風險就會上升。 的確,與美國和其它民主社會一樣,香港的許多工人和年輕人表現出對現有體制不滿,轉而擁抱地方和民粹主義,少部分甚至抗議國家駐港機構。而這種趨勢通常會導致混亂和暴力,並觸發政府採取嚴厲行動來恢復秩序。 對香港而言,挑戰更為復雜,因為香港是中國與日益敵對的美國之間的重要金融門戶。 正如羅德裡克(Rodrik)所指出的那樣,中美競爭在很大程度上受到國家安全問題的影響,以至於經濟有可能成為地緣政治的“人質”,甚至更糟糕地加劇和擴大兩者的戰略競爭。 美國將其金融主導地位武器化的趨勢就是這種國家安全風險上升的例証。 自從所謂的反恐戰爭開始以來,美國一直在利用私營部門和銀行將其認定的特定行為者與國際金融體系隔離。 近年來,美國過度依賴二次制裁,以至於法國和德國也開始考慮如何回避其金融主導地位武器化的威脅,包括建立繞過美元的全球支付系統以及歐洲基金,以允許與受美國制裁國家繼續做貿易。 隨著美國對越來越多的中國企業和個人實施金融制裁,中國開始擔心香港可能會成為特洛伊木馬,美國可能會利用它來破壞中國的政治穩定,包括維護國家安全的計劃。 畢竟,美國的國家安全戰略明確地規定,不僅旨在保護美國人及其生活方式,而且還旨在促進“美國在全球的影響力”。 中國正在經歷這種恐懼過程。美國最近通過了《香港自治法》,該法允許“對出於對香港及其它目的,參與推卸中國應有義務的外國人”實施金融制裁。 換句話說,美國正在利用其金融系統做武器,來懲罰參與制定與實施新的港版國家安全法的中國官員。 美國總統唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的政府還考慮過破壞港元與美元挂鉤的匯率制度。 幸運的是,美國領導人最終想清楚了,香港作為世界第四大外匯交易中心,它的崩潰可能會威脅到整個美元支付系統。 考慮到美中對抗的軌跡,美國的這些決策思維過程讓人感到不安。 對國家安全的擔憂日益加劇將進一步破壞全球貿易和投資,導致用於實施社會公平政策、解決不平等、和應對氣候變化的資源減少。這正是一場全球公地悲劇,而我們不能保証意識到這個悲劇就可以改變未來的悲劇結果。 本文來自Project Syndicate,經作者授權轉載
2020-08-12當前疫情持續在全球蔓延,並對世界經濟和金融格局產生了深刻影響。全球各大金融中心如何攜手應對因疫情引發的一系列問題?如何實現全球金融市場的振興與復蘇?未來全球金融中心建設將面臨哪些新機遇?在此背景下,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院和英國智庫Z/Yen集團於7月15日聯合舉辦“全球金融中心線上研討會”。來自倫敦、法蘭克福、米蘭、盧森堡、都柏林、莫斯科、惠靈頓、東京、首爾、阿布扎比、卡薩布蘭卡、香港、上海、深圳、廣州、成都、西安等金融中心的政府和企業代表,以及智庫專家針對上述議題展開了交流與討論。 [加強合作直面疫情沖擊] 針對本次疫情對全球經濟造成的影響,與會代表均認為,疫情對全球生產和需求造成全面沖擊,范圍之廣,前所未有。從全球經濟形勢看,自疫情發生以來,金融市場持續動蕩,多數國家的股票指數接連受挫,國際原油價格異常下行,消費信貸市場也出現萎縮。同時,出於管控原因,往來於各國間的航班運營減少,國際投資和商品貿易均處於低迷狀態,這給全球金融中心建設以及金融機構的業務開展提出了不少挑戰。因此,如何加強各大金融中心城市的宏觀經濟政策溝通與協調就尤為重要。 [科技進步催生新的金融服務方式] 面對疫情,傳統的金融業務模式該如何化危為機?與會專家紛紛以在各自國家金融市場上市的部分公司業務為例,指出科技手段讓各大金融中心城市能夠更加從容地應對疫情所帶來的挑戰。他們認為,受社交隔離影響,相關的金融活動已實現“線上化”,大多數金融業務在疫情期間並沒有停頓。線上經濟也成為替代線下經濟的優先選擇。特別是有相當一部分行業在疫情下不但沒受影響,反而逆市迎來發展。如倫敦証券交易所、東京証券交易所這種無需物理場所的交易市場,從設計之初就較好地契合了特殊時期相關經濟活動的解決方案,並在疫情期間轉而為企業提供線上交易服務,以確保企業的正常運營。科技的創新突破讓各大金融中心有更多的選擇去應對風險和挑戰。 [疫情下數字普惠金融已成為趨勢] 針對疫情當下企業運營面臨的困難,與會專家特別指出,小微企業融資難、融資貴是全球性難題。在疫情擾亂全球經濟的背景下,普惠金融的作用進一步凸顯。各金融中心城市需要通過數字化手段,著重解決小微企業金融服務相對不足的狀況。此外,可考慮發起建立區域金融創新網絡,支持各區域新興市場的數字普惠金融發展,為金融機構和金融科技公司提供合作的平台。在該平台上,全球各大金融中心可實現金融數據的開放共享,加強數字普惠金融的國際合作,並分享彼此的成功經驗和做法。 [金融創新與風險管控二者並舉] 在談及金融科技創新會給金融體系帶來哪些風險時,與會專家認為,創新和風險猶如硬幣的正反面。金融科技發展應在促進創新和應對風險之間找到適當的平衡。這些風險包括消費者信息保護不足、網絡安全威脅、利用數字基礎設施的渠道不平等。對此,各國監管機構應跟上金融科技快速變革的步伐,以確保消費者數據保護、網絡安全以及金融活動跨國界的正常運作。另外,還需通過國際協議和信息共享來解決洗錢和網絡風險,包括通過反托拉斯法來確保公平競爭。 [綠色復蘇成為振興經濟的主旋律] 圍繞該議題,與會專家強調,疫情給全球經濟帶來了巨大沖擊,也促使人們更深刻地理解可持續發展對於經濟和社會發展的重要意義。隨著更多企業在可持續運營技術、設施和服務方面加大投資,綠色金融創新活力將被進一步激發。未來,各大金融中心城市一方面應發揮自身金融行業的優勢,建立綠色金融系統,驅動其能源及相關產業不斷優化升級,在推動疫后經濟復蘇的同時,也能創造更多就業機會。另一方面,應積極尋求國際合作,推動更多金融機構雙向合作及投資項目落地,共同推進全球經濟的可持續發展。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-08-05美方近日將所謂“香港自治法案”簽署成法。中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院常務副院長郭萬達接受中新網記者採訪時表示,美方此舉進一步印証香港問題受到外部勢力干預的嚴重性,香港國安法的訂立實施正當其時。 郭萬達指出,美方簽署所謂“香港自治法案”是對中國內政的粗暴干涉,是其遏制中國戰略的步驟之一。近一段時間,美國在涉港、涉疆、涉台以及南海問題上動作頻頻,這些均是基於當前美國內外交困形勢、尤其是美國總統特朗普本人選情的需要所進行的政治操作,一系列舉動都成為美方限制中國發展的有力証明。 他認為,該法案的簽署不會影響香港國安法的落實,相反更加証明了涉及香港問題確實存在外部干預,美國的插手是明目張膽的、並不像某些人所說是“是想象中的干預”,香港國安法更有必要實施好、執行好。 伴隨法案的簽署,特朗普還簽署行政命令結束給予香港特殊待遇。早在當地時間6月29日,美商務部已發布聲明稱取消對香港的特殊相關待遇,包括暫停出口許可証豁免等。內地有學者已作出過分析,認為由於受影響的出口貨物量小,香港的貿易遭沖擊是有限的。 郭萬達認為,所謂香港“特殊待遇”,最主要體現在貿易方面。香港的單獨關稅區不是美國給予的,而是根據基本法的規定並經中央政府認定的。除了出口到美國的部分產品會被提高關稅,香港與其他經濟體之間的貿易並沒有受影響。而美方對於技術產品出口到香港的管制措施,近年在逐步加強,此次進一步進行管制其實際效果有限,“這部分產品的量本來就不大”。 “特殊待遇的取消,不能說完全沒有影響。”在他看來,金融機構、金融市場或因此出現一定波動,甚至一些國際炒家可能會見機炒作,但受影響范圍及時間長度都是相對有限的。香港的國際金融中心地位及聯系匯率機制同樣不是美國給予的,不會因為美方的舉動而損失其地位和作用。 郭萬達提到,香港金融市場的持續繁榮要靠“一國兩制”得以保障。當前,該市場有相當一部分是在為內地提供服務,包括近期中概股的回歸、IPO(首次公開募股)融資的70%是內地企業、約七成內地對外投資是通過香港走出去。相當多的案例、數據均可說明,香港的金融中心地位是與內地緊緊關聯在一起的。 “我們要有底線思維,短期來看要防風險。長遠觀察,國安法對香港市場帶來的穩定和安全,將為香港整體經濟發展起到定海神針的作用。對此,我們應該要有信心。”他說。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-07-187月12日南開金融首席經濟學家論壇線上開講。本期,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院常務副院長郭萬達開講的主題是:海島與灣區齊飛——海南自貿港“牽手”大灣區前景解讀。 郭萬達表示,海南自由貿易港是一個重大機遇,特別對大灣區的企業,包括各個行業,包括旅游、物流、金融、跨境電商、高科技都是機遇。 此外,他還指出,海南自由貿易港、粵港澳大灣區、深圳先行示范區都不能替代香港,都是要支持香港融入國家發展大局,都是要“豐富”“一國兩制”新實踐。 郭萬達強調,海南自由貿易港要成為國家重大戰略服務保障區,粵港澳大灣區是“一帶一路”的重要支撐。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-07-14The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (Greater Bay Area) is a visionary master plan announced by the Chinese Central Government to orchestrate and develop on the incredible potential of one of the country’s most productive geographical areas, and grow it into a world-class urban technological, innovation, medical, education and financial cluster. Hong Kong and Shenzhen, two vibrant cities in the Greater Bay Area, will act as powerful dual growth engines to connect China and the world to the exciting new opportunities. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are paragons of globalisation and economic miracles brought about by an open, interconnected world. The two cities, on the two sides of the Shenzhen River, are thriving in their own ways. There are, indeed, more similarities than differences on their paths to prosperity. Both have had the best of two worlds and complement each other. Shenzhen’s proximity to Hong Kong has helped it become the most successful of the five special economic zones created under the open door policy started in 1979; meanwhile, Hong Kong has ascended to new heights with its financial and professional services, thanks to the mainland’s explosive growth. In merely 40 years, Shenzhen's GDP has grown nearly 10,000-fold, while Hong Kong skyrocketed to become a global financial centre on par with London and New York. Today, Shenzhen has the largest numbers of checkpoints, inbound/outbound passenger and vehicular flow in the mainland, and accounts for 10% of China’s total imports. Hong Kong-Shenzhen has one of the busiest traffic flows in the world, with a daily average of over 640,000 passenger trips crossed the border via land crossings each day in 2018. In 2019, Shenzhen has the largest number of international PCT patent applications in China for 16 consecutive years and accounting for 30 per cent of the national total, according to a white paper by the city’s authority . Its container port has the world’s third largest throughput, after Shanghai and Singapore. I have had the privilege of witnessing the full course of the spectacular trajectories of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, as well as the deep and close relationship between the two cities in many areas: in trade, culture, tourism, and exchanges of information and talent, to name just a few. Their paths and destinies are intertwined. Shenzhen has now taken up an expanded role – to lead the way in advancing China’s economic and financial reforms as well as to power the growth and prosperity of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (‘Greater Bay Area’). In a recent speech on the 40th anniversary of the special economic zone, President Xi called for a ‘greater miracle’ from Shenzhen, directing that the city become a hub of innovation and a model for the country. He affirmed that ‘all-embracing openness’ and reform, led by ‘ice-breaking thoughts’ would be the recipe for success. As the mainland’s most open and tech-savvy city, this is a natural progression for Shenzhen. Hong Kong indeed has an indispensable role to play in the Greater Bay Area, alongside Shenzhen. Hong Kong has always been a major source of foreign investment projects in Shenzhen. In the first three quarters of 2019, funding from Hong Kong accounted for about 80% of the total FDIs in Shenzhen. Thanks to its openness, free exchanges of information, capital and talents, rule of law, top-tier educational institutions, medical services and legal systems, world-beating efficiency as well connection with the world, ensured under the ‘One country, two systems’ arrangement, Hong Kong will continue to serve as an efficient and trusted intermediary between Shenzhen and the rest of the world. Together, the two cities will take the Greater Bay Area to world stage. The land of opportunities and possibilities The world-class bay area, with a total population of over 72 million and an estimated GDP of approximately US$1.7 trillion , is the land of opportunities and possibilities. It has a very diversified economy, and has a wealth of dynamic enterprises in fintech, technological innovation, auto-manufacturing, electronics and real estate. The Greater Bay Area is one of the most productive and richest regions in China by per capita ranking, contributing nearly 12 per cent of GDP. Twenty-one companies from the Greater Bay Area have entered the 2020 Fortune Global 500 list , in which eight are based in Shenzhen and seven in Hong Kong. The Central Government has formulated the 14th Five-Year Plenary Plan, which stresses global vision and promotes economic development with a new model featuring the dual domestic and international economic network complementing each other. This will enable Hong Kong to participate directly in China’s ‘dual circulation’ strategy, with domestic consumption as well as international trade and investment playing crucial roles. As the only Common Law jurisdiction in China, Hong Kong enjoys dual advantages of both Common law and Civil Legal systems, which cements Hong Kong’s status to be the global offshore Renminbi (RMB) business hub and the centre for international legal and dispute resolution and mediation services in the Greater Bay Area and Asia Pacific. In addition, qualified legal practitioners in Hong Kong can soon obtain qualification to practise civil and commercial law in nine Greater Bay Area cities under the pilot scheme announced by the State Council earlier this month. In June 2019, the Central Government introduced 16 policy measures which would benefit Hong Kong, facilitating deeper integration as well as broader cooperation and exchange of various sectors. The Central Government had further introduced several tax incentives to attract talents and investments to the Greater Bay Area, including Individual Income Tax exemption for subsidies of overseas high-level and executives working in sectors in urgent need of talents, and the Corporate Income Tax incentives applicable to designated free trade zones/ports in the Greater Bay Area. One good example is Qianhai District in Shenzhen. The establishment of Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone and the array of preferential policies has opened up new opportunities. In addition to facilitating property purchases by Hong Kong and granting tax concessions for Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area, more favourable policies have been introduced such as housing quota for eligible Hong Kong enterprises and talents. At end-2019, Qianhai was home to 12,102 Hong Kong-funded companies, up 420 per cent from the 2015 figure of 2,313. Combining finance and technology Innovation and technology are driving the rapid transformation in financial services, with fintech reshaping the global financial landscape and the delivery model of financial services. Shenzhen, widely known as the Silicon Valley of China, shines in entrepreneurship, innovation, traditional and next-generation technologies; meanwhile, Hong Kong is a compelling listing and fundraising venue with a long-established position as a global financial centre. The path to the future is paved with technology, and this is the case for the financial sector. New technologies such as blockchain, cryptocurrency and virtual wallets are shaping the future of finance. The HKSAR Government is implementing measures to further lever the development of Fintech ecosystem, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has also issued eight licences for virtual banks. Hong Kong’s financial regulations and policies have caught up with the development of fintech. The combination of prowesses in these two sectors will make the Greater Bay Area a powerhouse of the global banking and financial industry. Combining art and technology In addition to finance, technology is revolutionising the arts scene and creative industries too. Art tech is the next mega trend, it will open up to new horizons and enormous opportunities through changing the way people access arts and wider applications of interactive media and new technologies. The convergence of arts and technology spells fresh opportunities for the entire arts sector and the broader cultural and creative industries. It will enable Hong Kong’s world-class arts scene to keep pace with the world, and at the same time bring talents from around the globe. Some of the sectors, like interactive media, software, computer games will benefit immediately from the use of applications like virtual reality, augmented reality, personalised art tour guides, creation of interactive and immerseive artwork that can be viewed online, gallery-style streaming, as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. It will bring about a new dimension to the already vibrant creative industries. In April 2019, five relaxation measures were introduced to further facilitate entry of Hong Kong films and film practitioners into the mainland market, including the removal of restriction on the number of Hong Kong people participating in mainland film productions, as well as waiving the fees for establishing Mainland-Hong Kong co-production projects, with a view to deepening exchanges between the two cities in creative industries and to developing Asia’s creative hub. On a city level, the West Kowloon Cultural District, one of the world’s largest cultural complexes blending art, design, architecture, education, heritage, performance and public space, will cement Hong Kong’s position as a world-class culture hub, where local and international arts scene interact and collaborate. Opening in mid-2022, the Hong Kong Palace Museum will feature an exquisite collection of artefacts and master works from the Palace Museum, bringing national treasures to Hong Kong. Hong Kong shall leverage its expertise in creative industries to promote exchanges and soft power in the Greater Bay Area. World-class health care and education Hong Kong's healthcare system is consistently ranked the most efficient in the world, it took the top spot among the 56 economies covered in a study conducted by Bloomberg in 2018, thanks to the quality healthcare services and dedicated professionals. Since June 2019, eligible Hong Kong elders have been able to use health care vouchers to pay for outpatient services provided by designated clinics/departments of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (HKU-SZ Hospital), as a facilitation measure for Hong Kong residents in the Greater Bay Area. The HKU-SZ Hospital, wholly invested by the Shenzhen Government and managed by the University of Hong Kong, is a good example of Hong Kong standards being implemented across the border. Education and scientific research collaboration between Hong Kong and mainland has also entered a new phase. The HKSAR Government supports post-secondary institutions of Hong Kong to offer education services in the Greater Bay Area and to give full play to the characteristics of Hong Kong's higher education sector and their strength in terms of internationalisation. Following the establishment of Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College by the Hong Kong Baptist University and Beijing Normal University in Zhuhai in 2005, and the establishment of Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Shenzhen University in 2014, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is in active preparation of its new campus in Guangzhou, which is expected to commence operation in September 2021. A magnet for talents Human capital holds the key to a productivity cluster, this is particularly important for knowledge-based industries such as innovation, technology and financial services. Governments in the Greater Bay Area are ramping up efforts to attract and nurture talents. Shenzhen has one of the youngest and educated population in China with an average age of 32.1 . Its population is currently about 13.4 million , and is poised to grow to 15 million by 2035. Shenzhen has been a magnet for talents who want to jumpstart their careers or pursue their dreams, and it will continue to attract businesses and talents from throughout the country and the world, in particular those who appreciate cosmopolitan living. In June 2019, HKSAR Government signed the Letter of Intent on Qualifications Framework Co-operation between Guangdong and Hong Kong with the Department of Education of the Guangdong Province, with an aim to explore the mutual recognition of credits in different categories of education and training in the Greater Bay Area, and the promotion of talent exchanges in the Greater Bay Area. In November 2020, the Ministry of Education announced that the number of mainland higher education institutions participating in the Scheme for Admission of Hong Kong Students to Mainland Higher Education Institutions will increase to 127, providing Hong Kong students with multiple study pathways and opportunities to connect with the country's development. On the other hand, Hong Kong youths shall bring with them their international exposure and perspectives, fully leveraging the composite advantages of cities and facilitating in-depth integration within the first-class bay area. Right on the doorstep of Hong Kong, there is a plan for an innovation and technology heartland in the Lok Mau Chau Loop, three times the size of the Hong Kong Science Park, to incubate start-ups and foster creativity in key industry areas, namely medical science and technology, big data and artificial intelligence, robotics, new materials, semiconductors, fintech as well as cultural and creative industries. Hong Kong people, the quintessential global citizens, are well versed in international lingua franca, style and thinking. This can be put into good and practical use in the vast and dynamic marketplace of the Greater Bay Area, then onto the entire mainland. This is where talents receiving education overseas and international exposure will find themselves at home. Support for a brighter future Our youth can take advantage of the cross-border internship and exchange programmes supported by the Hong Kong Government. An average of 60,000 local young people each year are already benefiting from these schemes. Seed funding and experience sharing are crucial during start-up process. The HKSAR Government established the Youth Development Fund to help youngsters start their own business in the form of a matching subsidy in collaboration with non-governmental organisations. Last but not least, the Youth Development Commission rolled out two funding schemes to provide more relevant start-up support and incubation services to Hong Kong’s youth. At the Greater Bay Area Homeland Youth Community Foundation, of which I serve as chairman, we seek to identify opportunities for our young people and prepare them for career opportunities in the Greater Bay Area and beyond. We have raised HK$100 million in secured commitments to further our young friends’ dreams. In the past year, the Foundation has approved funding for 38 projects supporting the Hong Kong youth. We have worked primarily with non-governmental organisations to fund youth-related programmes grooming creative designers, computer animators, social-media influencers, new media vloggers, urban planners, baristas and entrepreneurs. We have also supported study and exchange tours in agriculture, art, education, technology, as well as sports and outdoor adventure. Some of the notable projects include For a Better Future – Hong Kong Youth Animator Development Programme, Dream Brewer – Pacific Coffee×HKCT @ GBA Entrepreneurship Training Programme, Me&MyCity: Vocational Education Development Programme for Hong Kong Youth, Travel ‘Vlogger’ New Media Training Project and Greater Bay Area Creative Design Talent Incubation Programme. In addition, The Foundation has initiated programmes to empower young generations. The ‘For Our Future Scholarship’ provides assistance for students to pursue their academic aspirations. The ‘GenRobo’ programme, through collaboration with community partners, provides 2,000 placements for F1-F3 students from underprivileged families in the New Territories to learn AI and robotics, with the opportunities to advance study and enter a nation-wide competition. In this enhanced confluence of endeavours, opportunities beckon our young people. Innovations, inspirations, and a launchpad to successful careers are all accessible. Our younger generation is full of creative ideas and global aspirations. Now, with the wind at their backs, it’s time for them to step forward and embark on a ground-breaking journey. (This article was published with the permission of the author.)
2020-11-11華為、Tik Tok、微信等事件已經表明中國企業在進入國際市場的時候,地緣政治的因素非但已不可忽略,而且往往成為企業國際化的一個重大障礙。 在過去較長一段時期裡,不少中國企業受到全球化趨勢的驅動,逐漸從國內到海外去發展。不少企業紛紛“出海”,而一部分企業更是要“國際化”,甚至是“全球化”,儼然要與西方的跨國企業一較高下。 中國企業的崛起是過去30年左右的事情,在這過程中,中國企業從無到有,從對市場經濟、國際准則的一竅不通,到一部分企業起碼在規模或市值方面已經走上了全球商業世界的前列。一方面這是非常令人驕傲的表現,但另一方面,卻容易令一部分人低估了全球發展的難度。 中國企業過去幾十年的崛起,恰好是與全球比較優勢主導的全球化進程同步進行的。以美國專欄作家托馬斯·弗裡德曼(Thomas Friedman)“世界是平的”理論作為主要思想根據,以及不少其他參與者(如管理咨詢公司、學者、智庫等)在旁的搖旗吶喊,加上一些流行的“管理心靈雞湯“,鼓吹著一個從簡單觀點出發的企業戰略和全球化發展進程。這讓不少中國企業家以為全球化隻需要注重內部條件方面的建設,隻要建立良好的價值觀、管理方法、組織架構、擁有相關能力和適當人才,就算全球化不一定能一蹴而就,但若能朝著既定的方向去做,總有一天會成為成功的跨國企業。這是簡單的理想主義想法。 近期,一些中國科技企業在西方,尤其是在美國,所遭受的待遇給中國企業家們一個嚴重的教訓。那就是無論你的內在條件做的多麼好,來自於外部環境,特別是其他國家的行為可以是非常殘酷、現實和具有巨大殺傷力的。 而自從中興、華為以及最近Tik Tok和微信事件后,中國企業家突然發現原來其他國家可以以國家安全或者地緣政治作為理由來干預某些外國企業在當地發展的自由度。 以我過去接觸過的中國企業來說,可能除了華為之外,絕大部分要到海外發展的中國企業在因為地緣政治和國家行為所帶來的風險的認知可以說是非常之低,甚至可以說是完全缺乏。 就算以華為來說,盡管任正非先生在2000年底已經提出了“華為的冬天”這個警示,並在之后似乎無時無刻地將“我們如何可以活下去”這句話作為口邊最常講的忠告。同時在這次地緣政治因素暴露之前,華為已經做了不少深具前瞻性的工作,但在某些問題上,它仍然沒有完全解決最棘手的問題。當然這是一件很難的事,考驗的是企業領導者的洞察能力和對於問題認知的復雜性和批判能力。 在2017年之前,全球經濟和社會在全球化主義和科技發展方面正在朝著一個無所不在、互聯互通的世界(interconnected world)和數字經濟一體化的趨勢發展。這個發展有著它的強大理論基礎和邏輯性,符合全球發展整體利益的趨勢和具人性化的一面,但隨著粗野的地緣政治的橫空出世,突然之間人為地干預了人類社會於這方面的整體發展。 盡管如此,數字經濟和互聯互通的基本邏輯事實上仍然存在,而在這個過程中,數字經濟讓這世界產生了巨大的“數字鴻溝”,而且這數字鴻溝還在擴大。 獲得數字經濟鑰匙的國家和地區在當下和今后的數字經濟裡將都是得益者。但相對而言,得不到鑰匙的,都隻能在“數字鴻溝”的另一面遙遙觀望。數字化的差距正在不斷和無情地擴大,而今天我們所看到的某些地緣政治舉措事實上是某些國家地區在不知不覺地延遲了他們在數字經濟的發展,而其他已經取得鑰匙和並未被人為地緣政治舉措干預的國家地區反而會在數字經濟上繼續前進。這是典型的“此消彼長”,但很可惜,不少國家地區的領導人並看不到這一點,而隻能用狹隘的觀點來設計他們的政策。 對於企業而言,這些因素的影響是什麼?我在2020年 6月份的《亞布力觀點》中發表的《在不確定時代裡有什麼不確定?》之文中提到,企業在業務邊界、客戶、標准、價值鏈重構和全球分工和商業模式方面都會全面面臨巨大的不確定性。 而如何能將這些不確定性的確定性提高,企業必須加強對於外在問題,例如地緣政治和國家風險等問題方面的認知,同時他們也要知道未來應以更現實和更具全局觀的角度來觀察事情的改變,結合所有相關的力量,讓其在與對方進行博弈的時候能夠取得最佳的優勢和最好的結果。 展望未來,這一股地緣政治的力量會不會隨著美國總統11月大選而改變仍然是一未知之數。但從全球政治經濟情況來看,可以預測在可見的未來,中國企業在海外和全球發展仍然將會面臨嚴峻挑戰。這些挑戰不單隻是來自於市場上的競爭,非市場競爭干擾因素也將較長時間存在,而且它對企業的影響程度甚至比市場因素更為重要。對於企業來說,如何將地緣政治的干擾因素減到最低,將會是企業領導者的一個重要課題。 這需要領導者不單隻是理想主義者,也需要是現實主義者。他必須兼容兩者,並不斷在兩者之中取得動態平衡。正如牛頓力學的第三定律所說“相互作用的兩個物體之間的作用力和反作用力總是大小相等“,世界上所有事物都不會是單方面線性地發展,而是一個系統性地互相牽連的非線性和多維的發展。 企業領導者必須具備操縱大棋盤、整體系統的洞察和執行能力。你應該知道今天走了一步棋,將會影響明天對手將會如何回應,而后天你又會走哪一步棋? 大棋局、大變化。這個場景加速著中國企業家的認知、學習和實踐,亦是一個進步和蛻變的過程。 本文來自香港國際金融學會,經作者授權轉載
2020-09-22在深圳經濟特區建立40周年之際,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院(簡稱“綜研院”)於9月7日發布《新40年·新40企——深圳未來發展的新力量》報告。報告認為,特區未來40年是屬於新消費和新科技的40年。該領域內已涌現諸如騰訊、華為、海思、大疆、樂信等一批明星企業及創新之星,將在未來40年為深圳經濟增添新活力、新動力。 報告認為,在新消費和新科技企業帶動下,未來5年,深圳GDP增速預計達到6.5%,到2025年總量人均GDP達3.5萬美元,超過高收入經濟體中位數。期間,新經濟增速預計保持9%,佔GDP比重達50%,創造近500萬工作崗位;到2025年,深圳最終消費率有望達到50%,最終消費規模達2.2萬億,實現翻番,僅次於北京、上海。 據悉,該報告由著名經濟學家樊綱、郭萬達擔任首席顧問,綜研院新經濟研究所執行所長曹鐘雄及其團隊執筆,報告採用具有客觀、無偏、實時和大樣本特點的大數據評價方法,對包含200萬家深圳企業、以及超300個維度指標的數據庫進行綜合分析得出,數據主要來源為全網公開數據、政府機構公布的數據以及合作方提供的數據等。 深圳未來40企及10大“創新之星”發布 過去四十年,深圳實現了世界500強“從0到8”的跨越,涌現出華為、騰訊等跨時代的企業。報告認為,隨著雙循環國家戰略的推進和新基建、新消費的興起,智能經濟、消費經濟、健康經濟、數字經濟將成為深圳經濟關鍵的增長點和發力點,這些行業的企業也將成為特區未來 40 年發展的生力軍。 課題組通過構建包含研發實力指數、發展態勢指數、業態創新指數、治理指數、以及估值等級指數的新經濟企業評價模型,對企業進行大數據畫像和客觀評價,篩選出100家候選長名單。之后再次邀請十幾位權威專家、以及企業、政府相關人士進行二次評選,確立了能夠代表深圳未來40年發展的40家新經濟企業。 上述40家企業分布在芯片、新治理、新消費、新金融、新材料、新硬件、新連接、人工智能、雲計算、生命健康十大創新領域,課題組進一步對深圳2000年以后成立的優秀新經濟企業通過行業潛力/市場規模、企業市值/估值規模、經營態勢、技術能力、治理情況等維度的定量打分和專家評價,評出了未來這些領域的十大創新企業之星。 著名經濟學家、中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院院長樊綱表示,創新是深圳特區發展根本動力,也是凝聚在深圳這座城市的基因。特區再啟程,持續激發澎湃的創新創業活力,更需要迭代出如海思半導體、大疆、樂信等一批能夠真正代表中國未來新力量的企業。 未來新經濟佔半壁江山 經濟增長與城市發展新邏輯 報告認為,深圳未來40年將是消費紅利和科技紅利進一步凸顯的40年。在新科技和新消費驅動下,經濟將迎來新一輪快速增長,產業結構進一步優化,具體表現在4個方面: 一是新經濟佔據半壁江山:2021-2025年,隨著政策的深入布局和企業的持續創新,深圳新經濟增速仍將保持9%的平均增速。到2025年,深圳市新經濟規模預計將突破2萬億,佔GDP比重預計將達50%,預計能夠創造近500萬的工作崗位。 二是GDP超過4萬億:2021-2025年,受戰略性新興產業穩定高速增長的驅動,深圳GDP增速預計6.5%左右,到2025年實現名義GDP總量4.2-4.5萬億元的規模,直追瑞士等國家2019年的經濟規模。人均GDP有望超過到3.5萬美元,超過高收入經濟體中位數。 三是消費規模全國第3:預計到2025年,深圳最終消費率將達到50%,最終消費規模預計將達到2.2萬億,實現翻番,僅次於北京和上海。預計到2030年,深圳最終消費規模有望突破3萬億,逐步向消費型社會轉型。 四是躋身全球城市TOP50:預計到2025年,深圳世界500強企業數量將超過10家,獨角獸企業將超過30家。深圳有望成為全球經濟樞紐與創新樞紐,突出創新策源地和國際創新要素集聚,突出金融科技、產融結合和跨境金融創新,突出新消費,躋身全球城市TOP50。 缺少本土綜合性消費平台 國際國內雙循環的新格局下,消費是城市生活的活力指標。報告認為,深圳作為一線城市中對外貿易依存度最高的城市,未來將從“出口-創收-消費”的增長循環向“消費-培育創新-培育新企業-創造新產品-對外輸出”轉型。 在消費領域,深圳目前仍有短板,“一小一低”(社消零規模小,最終消費率低)是主要問題深圳社消零規模長期排名靠后,不到上海的一半,消費對經濟的拉動作用有待提升。 此外,互聯網消費平台也制約深圳發展國內大循環。當前深圳互聯網消費平台僅樂信、環球易購等為數不多的幾家。未來深圳本土需要培育更多“阿裡式”、“京東式”、“拼多多式”綜合性消費平台龍頭,在建設國際消費中心城市、暢通國內大循環板塊方面有更多政策布局。 作為深圳新消費領軍平台,樂信推行新消費平台戰略,服務超過1億用戶,旗下三大品牌——開創中國分期購物消費模式的分期樂,首創數字化全場景分期消費模式的樂花卡以及會員制消費服務APP樂卡,全都開創或引領了新的消費模式。 專家表示,在新科技領域,深圳已走在全國前列,在新消費領域,深圳的潛力還很巨大。作為全國最年輕的一線城市,未來還有數百萬的“逐夢新青年”落戶深圳,這些新力量對生活有著新態度,他們既要有“體面的勞動”,更要有“體面的生活”。大量擁有高消費能力和高消費意願的人口不斷沉澱,新興消費群將進一步打開城市消費空間。深圳應大力發展新消費、快時尚,通過消費引領促進制造業、科技創新等高質量發展;支持本土綜合互聯網平台引領消費創新,促進本地消費升級,打造深圳品牌,依托平台向全國乃至全球輻射。
2020-09-15通過在岸與離岸兩個循環,人民幣國際化步伐可以加快。內循環的關鍵是做大做強以人民幣為核心的上海在岸國際金融中心,應鼓勵(甚至法定要求),跨境的貿易、債券、及股權市場盡可能用人民幣計價及交易,但同時開放合規的外匯交易市場,以大幅提升對人民幣交易的需求,以及人民幣資產的流動性。 外循環的關鍵是防範美元體系被濫用的風險。可以考慮在中國的離岸經濟圈(港澳、上海臨港幣、海南自由港、各自貿區)、「一帶一路」、及其他國際項目減少使用以美元計價的金融產品,鼓勵用港幣及與SDR掛鈎的數字貨幣作為(除外匯市場之外的)貿易與金融活動的計價與交易貨幣,目的是防範美國濫用美元體系實施長臂管轄。中國需要在計價、交易、及價值儲備三個方面盡可能避免使用美元。如果港幣或SDR數字貨幣可以在中國的離岸經濟圈流通,這些地區經濟主體的資產與負債就可以在全球市場定價、交易、及配置。中國在岸經濟體的貿易順差及外匯儲備的一部分就可安全地存在中國的離岸經濟圈,從而減少持有其他具有地緣政治風險的外匯儲備資產(如美國國債),並推動多元外匯儲備及人民幣國際化。
2020-09-04Efforts to turn an effective institutional response to the pandemic into a political or ideological battleground are misguided, at best. As the late Nobel laureate Ronald H. Coase showed, regardless of ideology or politics, each society must develop institutional arrangements that constrain individual freedom. HONG KONG – In 1960, the Nobel laureate economist Ronald H. Coase introduced the “problem of social cost”: human activities often have negative externalities, so individual rights cannot be absolute. Institutions must intervene. There is no better example of this dynamic than the COVID-19 crisis. While virtually every country has suffered as a result of the pandemic, some have done much better than others. Whereas some have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero, others have had steadily climbing infection and death rates for months. As McKinsey & Company has noted, economic activity associated with discretionary mobility has returned to normal for the former group. Among the latter, such activity remains about 40% below the pre-pandemic level. Not everyone is suffering equally. Low-paid workers with inferior access to medical care and less opportunity to stay home – say, because their jobs are classified as “essential” – are bearing the clinical and economic brunt of the crisis. This puts everyone at risk. After all, even if a country contains the first wave of COVID-19 infections, it will remain vulnerable, as the virus continues to be imported from worse-performing countries. In other words, the social costs of inadequate institutional arrangements in some countries are spilling over to those with well-functioning institutions. The first step toward addressing this problem is to identify which institutional arrangements are most effective for reducing the social costs of the COVID-19 crisis. This is not, as one might assume, just a matter of having strong institutions. The United States and the United Kingdom are institutionally robust, and both had weeks, if not months, to prepare before their outbreaks began, but both have had among the world’s highest infection and mortality rates. By contrast, East Asian countries were the first to be infected, meaning they had little, if any, time to prepare. And yet many of them are among the countries that have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero. The difference comes down to attitudes: what role and responsibilities each society attributes to government, and to what extent it expects the community to act as a collective agent of the common good. In the US, there is a long-standing emphasis on personal freedom. “Small government” is a commonly heard refrain, with many arguing that individuals acting as self-interested participants in markets and in social and political processes will naturally produce positive outcomes. Government intervention – even in the event of a pandemic – infringes on individual rights and, indeed, on the very meaning of being an American. Protests over shelter-in-place orders and mask mandates reflect this view. This is very different from the prevailing mindset in East Asia. For example, many Western observers have attributed China’s success in containing COVID-19 to its authoritarian regime, which supposedly infringed on individual freedoms, privacy, and economic efficiency in a way no democratic government ever could. Coase’s theory shows why that logic is flawed. As he explains, the market may be able to minimize social costs if all actors have full information and face near-zero transaction costs. But those conditions are unrealistic even in normal times. During a pandemic, no individual can possibly receive comprehensive and current information on the virus. In fact, the very existence of asymptomatic carriers precludes the possibility of “full information.” And, because the transaction costs of mask wearing, quarantining, testing, and contact tracing are high, making compliance a matter of individual choice will never be enough to contain the virus. But Soviet-style centralized intervention is not feasible: agents of the state cannot observe every move every person makes and enforce every precautionary behavior at all times. And, contrary to popular belief, that is not what China has done. Instead, recognizing that fully voluntary action was inadequate, the state provided comprehensive and mandatory rules to facilitate individual and communal compliance, as well as fiscal and logistical support for implementation. To illustrate, upon arriving in Shenzhen from Hong Kong, one of us headed to a designated hotel – equipped with medical staff conducting tests and monitoring temperatures – for a 14-day mandatory quarantine. On the way to the hotel, both the landlord and a community contact person got in touch, having been informed by the authorities to prepare for a new arrival from abroad. From the airport to the quarantine hotel to home, every single individual – immigration officers, bus drivers, security screeners, medical personnel, and hotel staff – wore full personal protective equipment. Common areas were regularly disinfected. The state provided all needed resources. Of course, a traveler would prefer to go home, rather than stay in a quarantine hotel for two weeks. But ostensibly high compliance costs for individuals do not outweigh the overall social costs of partial interventions. So, with institutional support and clear guidance – delivered via many channels, including social media – people have taken the necessary precautions. Responsibility for implementation has also been clearly delineated across government agencies. The results – sharply reduced COVID-19 infections and deaths – speak for themselves. Other East Asian countries – such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam – have achieved similar success, using very similar institutional approaches. In every case, the government intervened early, devised comprehensive rules and guidance, and provided the resources needed to apply relevant measures. And in every case, society was receptive to government intervention aimed at advancing the common good. Crucially, these countries have very different cultures and political systems. Attempts to turn an effective institutional response to the pandemic into a political or ideological battleground are thus misguided, at best. The Coasian lesson is that, regardless of ideology or politics, each society must develop institutional arrangements that minimize social costs. After all, those suffering the consequences of others’ decisions are unlikely to revel in their “freedom.” (This article was published on Project Syndicate on Aug 26, 2020, and was reprinted with the permission of the authors.)
2020-08-31香港 – 諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得者羅納德·科斯(Ronald H. Coase)在1960年提出了“社會成本問題”:人類活動通常具有負面的外部性,因此個人權利不能是絕對的。社會組織必須出面干預。新冠疫情危機正是反映這種個人與社會互動關系的最好案例。 盡管幾乎每個國家都因大流行而遭受痛苦,但有些國家的表現要好於其他國家。 雖然有些國家已經將新冠病例減少到接近於零,但另一些國家的感染和死亡率卻穩步上升了幾個月。 正如麥肯錫公司指出的,前者受疫情而中斷的人員自由流動及其相關的經濟活動已恢復正常。而后者的此類活動仍比大流行前的水平低約40%。 並非每個人都遭受同樣的痛苦。 低薪工人獲得醫療服務的機會較少,而且很少有機會居家工作,因為他們的職業往往屬於最基本但必要的輔助崗位。他們在疫情中受到醫護保障及經濟收入的雙重打擊。 這使全球所有人處於危險之中。 畢竟,即使某一個國家已經控制了第一波新冠病毒感染,由於該病毒可以繼續從抗疫表現較差的國家輸入,這個抗疫成功的國家將仍然面臨病毒重新流行的威脅。 換句話說,一些國家抗疫機制安排不當導致的疫情社會成本正在分攤擴散到那些抗疫機制運作良好的國家。 解決此問題的第一步是確定哪種抗疫機制安排對降低新冠疫情的社會成本最有效。 正如人們可能會想到的,這不僅僅是擁有強健醫療與公共衛生體制的問題。 美英的體制相對其它國家更健全,而疫情在其本國爆發前都有數周,甚至數月,的預警准備時間,但兩國的感染率和死亡率均位居世界前列。 相比之下,東亞國家是第一波被感染的,這意味著它們幾乎沒有預警與准備時間。 然而,東亞許多國家已將新冠案例降到接近零。 這個差異歸因於政府與社會對抗疫的態度與機制:每個社會對政府的作用和責任是什麼,以及在為公共利益採取集體行動方面,它期望社區組織在多大程度上扮演主角。 美國長期以來一直強調個人自由。 “小政府”是一個流行的說法,認為在市場以及社會和政治活動中,追求個人利益的參與者自然會產生積極的社會效果。而 政府干預(即使是在疫情大流行的情況下)也會侵犯個人權利,甚至違反了成為一個美國人的意義。 抗議戴口罩及就地隔離避難的政府命令反映的正是這種觀念與態度。 這與流行於東亞的觀念與態度截然不同。 因此,許多西方觀察家將中國成功遏制新冠疫情歸功於其集權體制,認為其限制了個人自由、隱私和經濟效率,而這是民主體制的政府無法做到的。 科斯的理論表明為什麼這種邏輯是有問題與缺陷的。 正如他所解釋的,如果所有參與者都擁有完整的信息並面臨接近零的交易成本,那麼市場也許能夠將社會成本降至最低。 但是,即使在正常情況下,這些條件也是不現實的。 在新冠疫情大流行期間,任何人都不可能獲得有關該病毒的全面而最新的信息。 實際上,無症狀攜帶者的存在排除了獲得“完整信息”的可能性。 而且,由於執行佩戴口罩、隔離、測試、和追蹤密切接觸者的交易成本很高,因此僅憑個人自願選擇來遵守這些必要的流行病預防規則是不足以有效遏制新冠病毒的。 但是,蘇聯式的集中干預也是行不通的:隻靠政府官員是無法始終觀察每個人的一舉一動,也無法保証每個人都可以做到各種預防行為。 與流行的看法相反,這並不是中國所做的。 相反,中國政府認識到靠完全個人自願的行動是不夠的,因此國家提供了全面強制性的規則來幫助、促進、確保個人和社區的合規,並為實施合規行為提供了財政和后勤支持。 本文作者之一從香港去深圳的經歷有助於理解中國的抗疫機制。從香港到達深圳后,從海外入境人員便被送往指定的旅館進行14天強制性隔離檢疫,而該旅館配備了醫務人員監測體溫及執行相應的檢測。 在前往旅館的途中,當局已經與房東和社區聯絡人取得聯系,為稍后迎接入境人員進入社區做好准備。 從口岸到檢疫酒店再到家,每個邊防海關官員、公共汽車司機、安檢人員、醫務人員和旅館工作人員都穿戴全套個人防護設備,而公用區域都有定期消毒。 政府也提供了所有需要的抗疫資源。 一個旅行者當然願意回家,而不是在隔離酒店呆兩個星期。但是這些因抗疫合規而產生的個人的高成本,其實遠遠低於因抗疫干預機制不健全不徹底而導致的總體社會成本。 因此,在一個完善清楚的抗疫機制支持和指導下,包括利用社交媒體等多種渠道進行溝通,中國的居民都能夠採取必要的預防措施。中國的各類政府機構之間也明確界定了實施抗疫措施的責任。 不言而喻的結果是,中國迅速而且大幅度減少了新冠病毒的感染和死亡。 其它東亞國家,包括日本、新加坡、韓國、和越南,也使用了非常相似的機制與方法,並取得了類似的成功。 在每種情況下,政府都盡早進行了干預,並制定了全面的規則和指南,也提供了實施相關干預措施所需的資源。 在每種情況下,社會都普遍接受了旨在促進共同利益的政府干預。 至關重要的是,這些東亞國家的文化和政治體制截然不同。 因此,不去學習東亞抗疫的有效機制與實踐,反而將抗疫模式轉變成地緣政治或意識形態領域抗爭的問題,是錯誤的。 科斯理論給我們的啟示是,撇開意識形態與政治因素,每個社會都必須制定使社會成本最小化的制度安排來規范有外部效應的個人行為。 畢竟,如果一些個人的“自由”決策與行為可以嚴重傷害大眾的整體利益的話,大眾是不太可能享受到“自由”的。 本文來自Project Syndicate,經作者授權轉載
2020-08-31“深圳經濟特區為什麼能成功,有沒有可復制的經驗?” 這是全球調研中,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院副院長曲建常被各國代表問及的“高頻問題”。 2015年,英國《經濟學人》曾發文稱,全球4000多個經濟特區中,頭號成功典範莫過於“深圳奇跡”。2019年,深圳GDP首次超越香港,這一年,當曲建在參加世界銀行有關會議上介紹這組數據時,眾多發展中國家代表現場鼓掌。 深圳,正被視為全球經濟特區探索的“先遣部隊”。在深圳特區40周年之際,南方日報、南方+對話曲建,探討特區“發展密碼”。 來深圳30年,曲建見証特區發展歷程,將全球特區發展作為深入研究領域。 從1/2500 變成1/1,短短40年間,由中國人自己規劃設計的經濟特區深圳完成了一次重大超越,在中國內地“再造一個香港”,引起全球關注。 在非盟總部所在地——埃塞俄比亞首都亞的斯亞貝巴,政治家塞尤姆先生曾和曲建探討,1980年撒哈拉以南地區的人均GDP是476美元,是中國的3倍,深圳的6倍;經過40年發展,當地人均GDP僅為1200美金。 《科學》雜志在創刊125年之際,在總結人類最前沿待解密的125個科學問題中,提出的第119個問題也是,“為什麼努力改變撒哈拉地區貧困狀態的努力幾乎全部失敗?” 這位非洲政治家很關心,“究竟中國人干了什麼,有沒有可復制的深圳經驗?” “你們都想復制深圳的結果,你們不一定想復制深圳的過程,深圳的成長過程來之不易。”曲建回答道。 然而特區建設之初,全國處於經濟資源短缺時期,缺少資源、資金、資本支持,深圳隻有殺出一條血路。通過把香港資本和深圳本地勞動力結合,形成加工貿易發展模式,形成增加值的一部分以工繳費方式返還地方,一部分以工資方式發給老百姓,還有一部分中資參股后分得紅利。完成“第一桶金”積累后,深圳開始大規模投資建設,利用境內外貸款將深圳推到經濟增長的快車道上。 因此,“不平衡發展模式+資本盈利水平的保障”是深圳發展的核心經驗。將這兩個因素結合,又必須通過市場經濟。“計劃經濟隻能將兩個元素中其一加以保障,通過壟斷實現資本收益率,或是通過壟斷實現某一地區的率先發展,必須靠市場力量的作用,讓兩個因素相互配合,可持續推進。”曲建說。 在全球調研過程中,曲建常和海外代表談到深圳的兩個重要價值觀。 第一是“來了就是深圳人。” 大家以為這是說深圳不排外,實際是一種包容。深圳不僅包容外地人,更重要是包容失敗者。這個城市沒有人歧視失敗的人,隻歧視不努力的人。比如,深圳的民營企業家是一群很努力的人,當一個把全部家當都壓上去創業,旁邊的人都願意幫他一把。深圳的國企也從這種環境中迸發出來,不斷改革創新,與城市兼容。 第二句話更重要,“讓投資人賺到錢。”深圳隻有一條道路,想盡辦法把投資人留下來,想辦法讓他們掙到錢,否則這座城市就會被迅速抹掉,所以營商環境是深圳“最后一根救命稻草”。 資本是推動經濟發展的一股力量,所以我們發現深圳很多行業在全國利潤水平是偏高的。資本力量集中到哪裡,哪裡就有可能發展起來,而這股力量是圍繞利潤流動。“一些城市想著在投資者身上’宰一刀’,不是宰在別人身上,而是自己的未來。”曲建說。 從廣義上說,經濟特區指所有特殊經濟區,從功能上發展經濟,從政策上有不同於國內其他地區的政策設計。 在全球調研中,曲建發現,成功的區域開發都有123知識體系,即“一法規、二規劃、三報告。” 特區必先立法,不能一事一議。在此基礎上,做好特區功能規劃和空間布局規劃,必須研究清楚經濟特區要干什麼、形成一個什麼功能、並且形成體系。 三報告則是指開發建設盈利模式報告、投融資報告和管理運營報告。 以深圳為例,從最早的勞動力驅動,到積累資本,從全國招聘藍領農民工,到招聘全國大學生,再到舉城市之力辦好26所大學,深圳逐步發動了5個經濟增長動力:勞動力-資本-技術創新-教育-制度創新。 投融資報告則是要解決一個核心問題“錢從哪裡來”。曲建說,盈利和投入差距如何補,要有精細化測算,謀而后動。“很多地方’現吃現抓’,等著錢斷了檔了之后才想著錢從哪來,這是很多園區失敗的重要原因。” 而管理運營報告強調特區建設與運營的重要性。“如果把特區比作一座房子,那麼買房前就應考慮好維護房子的費用,通過制度設計把這筆資金預留好。” 站在先行示范區的全新起點上,曲建談到,40歲的深圳留下成功的經驗,也應該留下失敗的教訓。 曲建觀察到,在世界綜合競爭能力的城市排行榜中,領先城市都是創新、創業、創意“三創”均強的城市,如何在創新領先的情況下,推動創業、創意領先,是深圳需要面對的重要課題。 近年來,深圳不斷將資源、資金更多向社會文化領域投放。 在深圳開始發展后,我國陸續建設了200多個經濟技術開發區,包括高新技術園區、海關特殊監管區等,其中不少雛形都在深圳。未來,深圳作為特區“先遣部隊”要做什麼? 曲建認為,向前看,深圳要和世界一流水平競爭;向后看,要把自己的“親兄弟”拉一把。 跟世界最前端城市競爭,是深圳另一個使命。“40歲的城市,不能過20歲的日子。隨著城市要素價格的不斷上升,深圳唯一的出路,就是向世界一流城市看齊時,提升自己的競爭力。”曲建說,應讓一部分人代領深圳向一流城市邁進,把領先人才的稅負降下來,讓他們輕裝上陣,獲得高額回報。 如今深圳正通過深港創新合作區、前海自貿區等創新政策設計,再探開放新路。曲建提出,繼制造業融入全球鏈條之后,讓我國服務鏈和全球服務供應鏈融合,是前海的破題使命。 “在逆全球化的大潮中,深圳對外開放的窗口作用更為重要。”曲建說。從過去做臉盆到如今做5G,深圳為什麼一直都行?其重要因素在於,深圳和國際產業持續保持供應鏈鏈接,以國外需求帶動深圳發展,深圳配套為全世界服務。例如,如今全球手機中95%的微型螺絲都在深圳生產,全世界有需求,深圳就能跟上供給。 無論逆全球化趨勢如何發展,中國產業鏈一定要跟國際產業鏈結合在一起,絕不能拖鉤。曲建說,“深圳的窗口作用,是想盡一切辦法融入全球供應鏈體系之中,這是一場博弈,也是鍛煉深圳的關鍵時刻。” (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-08-14As the US-China rivalry escalates, the growing emphasis on national security will undermine global trade and investment, leaving fewer resources to finance social policies, address inequality, and tackle climate change. This is a global tragedy of the commons, and there is no guarantee that recognizing it will change the outcome. HONG KONG – By disrupting the world’s interconnected economic, social, and geopolitical spheres, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed just how fragile and inequitable the institutions that govern them really are. It has also highlighted how difficult it is to address systemic fragility and inequity amid escalating national-security threats. In 2007, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik proposed an “impossibility theorem” for the global economy, according to which democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration are fundamentally incompatible. “We can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.” To see how social, economic, and national security policies are entangled in this trilemma, consider Hong Kong’s experience. Since British colonial rule, a policy of “positive non-interventionism” has enabled the city’s economic growth. Hong Kong’s colonial administrators knew that a relatively small market, manufacturing sector, and trade volume meant that a commitment to openness, rather than a targeted development strategy, was the surest route to prosperity. They were right. Today, Hong Kong possesses one of the world’s busiest ports, and has long permitted capital, information, and people to move freely. Near-zero tariffs and ultra-low taxes have enabled the city to become a global financial hub, and one of the world’s biggest markets for equity and debt financing. And, from the start, China’s process of “reform and opening up” included deeper economic engagement with Hong Kong, which reinforced the city’s dynamism. Yet, as in the advanced economies, the globalization-fueled economic boom masked deepening social problems. As manufacturing shifted to mainland China, many jobs were lost, not only on the factory floor, but also in logistics and back-office services. The result was a hollowing-out of the middle class. Today, the territory’s Gini coefficient – in which zero represents maximum equality and one represents maximum inequality – stands at 0.539, compared to 0.411 in the United States (the highest among major developed countries). There was a time when Hong Kong’s non-interventionist economic approach was accompanied by a similarly hands-off social policy. But the 1967 riots – a labor dispute that grew into large-scale demonstrations against British rule – forced the government to build low-cost public housing to alleviate worker discontent. The approach, however, was flawed. Today, nearly 45% of Hong Kong’s residents live in public rental or subsidized housing. In China, by contrast, 90% of households own at least one home. Addressing these social problems will not be easy, not least because of rising national-security risks. Hong Kong’s economic development was enabled by near-zero national-security costs – a by-product of peaceful Sino-US engagement. This began to change with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which highlighted the asymmetry between low-cost weapons and high-cost anti-terrorist defenses – and the need to implement such defenses, anyway. The risks posed by the more recent proliferation of digital technologies are marked by a similar asymmetry. Cyberattacks are cheap to mount, but they can topple entire financial, information, or defense systems. As Rodrik’s trilemma suggests, such risks force governments to make tradeoffs. National-security concerns must shape economic policy. But the result may not necessarily advance the imperative of delivering the resources needed to address social inequities. When economic policy fails to deliver reasonable social equity – reflected in, for example, widespread home ownership and quality jobs – internal security risks rise. And, indeed, in Hong Kong, as in the US and other democracies, many workers and young people have rejected the political establishment, embraced localist and populist ideologies, and protested against state institutions. Such trends often lead to chaos and violence, inviting tough action to restore order. The challenge is all the more complicated for Hong Kong, because of its position as a financial gateway between China and an increasingly hostile US. As Rodrik has noted, the Sino-American rivalry is shaped largely by national-security concerns, to the point that economics is at risk of becoming “hostage” to geopolitics or, worse, reinforcing and amplifying the strategic rivalry. America’s weaponization of finance exemplifies this risk. Since the so-called War on Terror began, the US has been leveraging the private sector and banks to isolate particular actors from the international financial system. In recent years, the US has relied so extensively on secondary sanctions that even France and Germany have been considering how to sidestep its financial dominance, including by creating an alternative global payment system or a European fund that could allow trade to continue with US-sanctioned countries. As the US has imposed financial sanctions on a growing number of Chinese enterprises and individuals, China has become concerned that Hong Kong could serve as a kind of Trojan Horse, which the US could use to destabilize China’s polity, including its national-security initiatives. After all, the US national security strategy explicitly aims not only to protect Americans and their way of life, but also to advance “American influence in the world.” (This article was published on Project Syndicate on July 29, 2020, and was reprinted with the permission of the authors.)
2020-08-12香港–新冠病毒危機通過顛覆相互聯系的全球經濟、社會、和地緣政治,暴露了全球治理的脆弱與不公。在不斷升級的國家安全威脅形勢下,疫情也彰顯了系統處理治理脆弱和不公有多難。 哈佛大學的丹妮·羅德裡克(Dani Rodrik)在2007年就提出了全球經濟的“不可能定理”。根據該定理,民主、國家主權和全球經濟一體化三者在本質上並不相容。 “我們可以將這三個中的任何兩個結合起來,但決不能同時完全地將所有三個結合在一起。” 要了解社會、經濟和國家安全這三個相互糾纏的政策如何印証“不可能定理”中的三難,請看香港的經驗。自英國殖民統治以來,“積極不干預主義”的政策使這座城市的經濟得以發展。殖民地官員非常清楚,本地相對較小的市場、制造業、和貿易量意味著對開放的承諾,而不是有針對性的發展戰略,是實現香港繁榮的最可靠途徑。 確實,今天香港擁有世界上最繁忙的港口之一,就是因為長期以來這裡一直允許資本、信息和人才的自由流動。 接近零的關稅和超低的收入稅使香港成為全球金融中心,並且是全球最大的股票及其它融資市場之一。中國的“改革開放”過程從一開始就包括了與香港的更深入的經濟接觸,這對增強香港的活力至關重要。 然而,與發達經濟體一樣,全球化推動的經濟繁榮掩蓋了日益嚴重的社會問題。 隨著制造業向中國大陸轉移,香港失去的不僅是生產線,而且也包括物流和后台服務的崗位,導致中產階級空洞化。 如今,香港的基尼系數為0.539,比美國更不平等,基尼系數為零代表最平等,1則代表最不平等,美國為0.411,在大的發達國家中最高。 曾經有一段時間,香港的不干預主義經濟方針與類似的放手不管社會政策並存。 但1967年的騷亂,一場由勞資糾紛演變成反對英國統治的大規模示威活動,迫使殖民地政府不得不建造大批廉價的公共住房,以減輕工人的不滿。 然而,這種被動敷衍的社會政策是有缺陷的。 如今,香港近45%的居民仍然居住在政府補貼的住房中。 相比之下,中國有90%的家庭擁有至少一間自己的房屋。 解決這些社會問題並非易事,尤其在國家安全風險上升的時候。 而國家安全成本幾乎為零隻是中美之間在過去40年和平交往互動的一個副產品,但它是推動香港經濟發展的一個關鍵因素。隨著2001年9月11日發生在美國的恐怖襲擊,這種情況開始改變,突顯了低成本恐怖襲擊與高成本反恐防御之間的不對稱性,特別是實施反恐防御成為必須的長期選項與成本。類似的不對稱性也提醒我們數字技術的最新發展將帶來的風險。網絡攻擊的成本非常低廉,但卻可以推翻整個金融、信息、及國防系統。 正如羅德裡克(Rodrik)的三難困境所暗示的那樣,此類不對稱風險迫使政府做出權衡。 國家安全問題不可能不影響經濟政策。但結果可能並不是能夠有效動員更多資源來解決社會不平等的問題。 當經濟政策未能提供諸如居者有其屋及優質崗位等恰當的社會公平時,內部的社會穩定風險就會上升。 的確,與美國和其它民主社會一樣,香港的許多工人和年輕人表現出對現有體制不滿,轉而擁抱地方和民粹主義,少部分甚至抗議國家駐港機構。而這種趨勢通常會導致混亂和暴力,並觸發政府採取嚴厲行動來恢復秩序。 對香港而言,挑戰更為復雜,因為香港是中國與日益敵對的美國之間的重要金融門戶。 正如羅德裡克(Rodrik)所指出的那樣,中美競爭在很大程度上受到國家安全問題的影響,以至於經濟有可能成為地緣政治的“人質”,甚至更糟糕地加劇和擴大兩者的戰略競爭。 美國將其金融主導地位武器化的趨勢就是這種國家安全風險上升的例証。 自從所謂的反恐戰爭開始以來,美國一直在利用私營部門和銀行將其認定的特定行為者與國際金融體系隔離。 近年來,美國過度依賴二次制裁,以至於法國和德國也開始考慮如何回避其金融主導地位武器化的威脅,包括建立繞過美元的全球支付系統以及歐洲基金,以允許與受美國制裁國家繼續做貿易。 隨著美國對越來越多的中國企業和個人實施金融制裁,中國開始擔心香港可能會成為特洛伊木馬,美國可能會利用它來破壞中國的政治穩定,包括維護國家安全的計劃。 畢竟,美國的國家安全戰略明確地規定,不僅旨在保護美國人及其生活方式,而且還旨在促進“美國在全球的影響力”。 中國正在經歷這種恐懼過程。美國最近通過了《香港自治法》,該法允許“對出於對香港及其它目的,參與推卸中國應有義務的外國人”實施金融制裁。 換句話說,美國正在利用其金融系統做武器,來懲罰參與制定與實施新的港版國家安全法的中國官員。 美國總統唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的政府還考慮過破壞港元與美元挂鉤的匯率制度。 幸運的是,美國領導人最終想清楚了,香港作為世界第四大外匯交易中心,它的崩潰可能會威脅到整個美元支付系統。 考慮到美中對抗的軌跡,美國的這些決策思維過程讓人感到不安。 對國家安全的擔憂日益加劇將進一步破壞全球貿易和投資,導致用於實施社會公平政策、解決不平等、和應對氣候變化的資源減少。這正是一場全球公地悲劇,而我們不能保証意識到這個悲劇就可以改變未來的悲劇結果。 本文來自Project Syndicate,經作者授權轉載
2020-08-12當前疫情持續在全球蔓延,並對世界經濟和金融格局產生了深刻影響。全球各大金融中心如何攜手應對因疫情引發的一系列問題?如何實現全球金融市場的振興與復蘇?未來全球金融中心建設將面臨哪些新機遇?在此背景下,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院和英國智庫Z/Yen集團於7月15日聯合舉辦“全球金融中心線上研討會”。來自倫敦、法蘭克福、米蘭、盧森堡、都柏林、莫斯科、惠靈頓、東京、首爾、阿布扎比、卡薩布蘭卡、香港、上海、深圳、廣州、成都、西安等金融中心的政府和企業代表,以及智庫專家針對上述議題展開了交流與討論。 [加強合作直面疫情沖擊] 針對本次疫情對全球經濟造成的影響,與會代表均認為,疫情對全球生產和需求造成全面沖擊,范圍之廣,前所未有。從全球經濟形勢看,自疫情發生以來,金融市場持續動蕩,多數國家的股票指數接連受挫,國際原油價格異常下行,消費信貸市場也出現萎縮。同時,出於管控原因,往來於各國間的航班運營減少,國際投資和商品貿易均處於低迷狀態,這給全球金融中心建設以及金融機構的業務開展提出了不少挑戰。因此,如何加強各大金融中心城市的宏觀經濟政策溝通與協調就尤為重要。 [科技進步催生新的金融服務方式] 面對疫情,傳統的金融業務模式該如何化危為機?與會專家紛紛以在各自國家金融市場上市的部分公司業務為例,指出科技手段讓各大金融中心城市能夠更加從容地應對疫情所帶來的挑戰。他們認為,受社交隔離影響,相關的金融活動已實現“線上化”,大多數金融業務在疫情期間並沒有停頓。線上經濟也成為替代線下經濟的優先選擇。特別是有相當一部分行業在疫情下不但沒受影響,反而逆市迎來發展。如倫敦証券交易所、東京証券交易所這種無需物理場所的交易市場,從設計之初就較好地契合了特殊時期相關經濟活動的解決方案,並在疫情期間轉而為企業提供線上交易服務,以確保企業的正常運營。科技的創新突破讓各大金融中心有更多的選擇去應對風險和挑戰。 [疫情下數字普惠金融已成為趨勢] 針對疫情當下企業運營面臨的困難,與會專家特別指出,小微企業融資難、融資貴是全球性難題。在疫情擾亂全球經濟的背景下,普惠金融的作用進一步凸顯。各金融中心城市需要通過數字化手段,著重解決小微企業金融服務相對不足的狀況。此外,可考慮發起建立區域金融創新網絡,支持各區域新興市場的數字普惠金融發展,為金融機構和金融科技公司提供合作的平台。在該平台上,全球各大金融中心可實現金融數據的開放共享,加強數字普惠金融的國際合作,並分享彼此的成功經驗和做法。 [金融創新與風險管控二者並舉] 在談及金融科技創新會給金融體系帶來哪些風險時,與會專家認為,創新和風險猶如硬幣的正反面。金融科技發展應在促進創新和應對風險之間找到適當的平衡。這些風險包括消費者信息保護不足、網絡安全威脅、利用數字基礎設施的渠道不平等。對此,各國監管機構應跟上金融科技快速變革的步伐,以確保消費者數據保護、網絡安全以及金融活動跨國界的正常運作。另外,還需通過國際協議和信息共享來解決洗錢和網絡風險,包括通過反托拉斯法來確保公平競爭。 [綠色復蘇成為振興經濟的主旋律] 圍繞該議題,與會專家強調,疫情給全球經濟帶來了巨大沖擊,也促使人們更深刻地理解可持續發展對於經濟和社會發展的重要意義。隨著更多企業在可持續運營技術、設施和服務方面加大投資,綠色金融創新活力將被進一步激發。未來,各大金融中心城市一方面應發揮自身金融行業的優勢,建立綠色金融系統,驅動其能源及相關產業不斷優化升級,在推動疫后經濟復蘇的同時,也能創造更多就業機會。另一方面,應積極尋求國際合作,推動更多金融機構雙向合作及投資項目落地,共同推進全球經濟的可持續發展。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-08-05美方近日將所謂“香港自治法案”簽署成法。中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院常務副院長郭萬達接受中新網記者採訪時表示,美方此舉進一步印証香港問題受到外部勢力干預的嚴重性,香港國安法的訂立實施正當其時。 郭萬達指出,美方簽署所謂“香港自治法案”是對中國內政的粗暴干涉,是其遏制中國戰略的步驟之一。近一段時間,美國在涉港、涉疆、涉台以及南海問題上動作頻頻,這些均是基於當前美國內外交困形勢、尤其是美國總統特朗普本人選情的需要所進行的政治操作,一系列舉動都成為美方限制中國發展的有力証明。 他認為,該法案的簽署不會影響香港國安法的落實,相反更加証明了涉及香港問題確實存在外部干預,美國的插手是明目張膽的、並不像某些人所說是“是想象中的干預”,香港國安法更有必要實施好、執行好。 伴隨法案的簽署,特朗普還簽署行政命令結束給予香港特殊待遇。早在當地時間6月29日,美商務部已發布聲明稱取消對香港的特殊相關待遇,包括暫停出口許可証豁免等。內地有學者已作出過分析,認為由於受影響的出口貨物量小,香港的貿易遭沖擊是有限的。 郭萬達認為,所謂香港“特殊待遇”,最主要體現在貿易方面。香港的單獨關稅區不是美國給予的,而是根據基本法的規定並經中央政府認定的。除了出口到美國的部分產品會被提高關稅,香港與其他經濟體之間的貿易並沒有受影響。而美方對於技術產品出口到香港的管制措施,近年在逐步加強,此次進一步進行管制其實際效果有限,“這部分產品的量本來就不大”。 “特殊待遇的取消,不能說完全沒有影響。”在他看來,金融機構、金融市場或因此出現一定波動,甚至一些國際炒家可能會見機炒作,但受影響范圍及時間長度都是相對有限的。香港的國際金融中心地位及聯系匯率機制同樣不是美國給予的,不會因為美方的舉動而損失其地位和作用。 郭萬達提到,香港金融市場的持續繁榮要靠“一國兩制”得以保障。當前,該市場有相當一部分是在為內地提供服務,包括近期中概股的回歸、IPO(首次公開募股)融資的70%是內地企業、約七成內地對外投資是通過香港走出去。相當多的案例、數據均可說明,香港的金融中心地位是與內地緊緊關聯在一起的。 “我們要有底線思維,短期來看要防風險。長遠觀察,國安法對香港市場帶來的穩定和安全,將為香港整體經濟發展起到定海神針的作用。對此,我們應該要有信心。”他說。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-07-187月12日南開金融首席經濟學家論壇線上開講。本期,中國(深圳)綜合開發研究院常務副院長郭萬達開講的主題是:海島與灣區齊飛——海南自貿港“牽手”大灣區前景解讀。 郭萬達表示,海南自由貿易港是一個重大機遇,特別對大灣區的企業,包括各個行業,包括旅游、物流、金融、跨境電商、高科技都是機遇。 此外,他還指出,海南自由貿易港、粵港澳大灣區、深圳先行示范區都不能替代香港,都是要支持香港融入國家發展大局,都是要“豐富”“一國兩制”新實踐。 郭萬達強調,海南自由貿易港要成為國家重大戰略服務保障區,粵港澳大灣區是“一帶一路”的重要支撐。 (資料來源:中國深圳綜合開發研究院)
2020-07-14