The Art of Dealing with Competition and Cooperation between US and China
04-01-2020
Lin Yang
(The Article was published on World Economic Forum Global Agenda as “US and China must learn to balance competition and cooperation in the coming era” on May 22, 2020)
We live in a critical time. Few world leaders could have imagined that the humanity in 2020, armed with advanced technology and unparalleled civilization, would be on pause plagued by a pandemic. The unprecedented difficulties our society is facing pose tremendous challenges for world leaders and each of us to ponder questions: from how individuals stay connected with each other to how countries co-exist with each other; from isolation to reduce human contact to maintaining the global virtual connectedness; from preparing for the pandemic with minimized disruption in economic activities to reopening the economy without risking public health; from competing for global medical supply chain security to collaborating on finding a cure or vaccine for the virus; from building up domestic solidarity (or patriotism/nationalism) to avoid the expense of dismantling international cooperation. How to balance these complexities in the uncertainties will have a massive impact on the world political, economic and societal order post-pandemic.
Headlines these days, however, are filled with war of words seeking blames for the virus. The disinformation and anti-sentiments on both sides of US and China towards each other are increasingly dangerous. Even if the Coronavirus did not awaken leaders to cooperate, it should at least demonstrate that competing efforts could not resolve the virus totally, and antagonism will not guarantee any win. Winning is leading, but not beating competitor with self loss. US and China leaders in the past decades chose the avenue of engagement, exploring complementary interests for win-win outcomes. This unprecedented new era needs visionary leaders to stand up with the new reality wisely and balance the competition and cooperation to re-calibrate for co-existence and new success despite the differences.
Many scream out predictions for post coronavirus era: “De-globalization”, “regionalization” or “localization”. The global supply chain disruption has awakened many businesses to rethink their offshore manufacturing and business partnerships. Discussions are underway on how to rebuild or diversify the supply chains. National borders and airlines have been temporarily closed which may have unintended effect on building up real walls between nations;
Co-incidentally, the current wave of technology revolution seem to enable these economic and geopolitical changes. While the internet revolution decades ago democratized information flow and made globalization trending, the new AI+5G+IoT revolution will automate or augment repetitive human labor, potentially democratizing labor and logistics costs, and leveling the playing field for global businesses. If the Coronavirus crisis will indeed accelerate the return of localization of supply chains, we may see many new smart and intelligent manufacturing facilities emerging locally, with the transmit of labor and talent from long distance globally.
These new technologies will reshape the global landscape by further revolutionizing industries more than just people’s lives, thus re-defining each country’s national competitiveness. Therefore, each country is racing for technological supremacy in this new eco-system by protecting own knowledge and self interests.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, China rejuvenated the economy by injecting 4 trillion yuan (586 Billion USD) stimulus package which went primarily to infrastructure development nationwide. This time, China has plans which are estimated around $1.4 trillion USD to build up “new digital infrastructure”, including 5G, AI, data centers, cloud computing, industrial internet, as well as new “digital transformation partnership action plan” for small and medium enterprises, in order to boost its economic recovery as well as tech self-reliance post COVID era.
These lead to new dynamics. Will China be leapfrogging again post COVID? Or will China lose its competitive advantage if multinational companies pull out their manufacturing facilities? Will the tech decoupling protect US more than it harms China?
Over the years, China built up its “Made in China” manufacturing capabilities with full value chain, but also its gigantic market. China’s industrial might provide tremendous use cases for AI, 5G and IoT adoption, for example smart manufacturing, smart cities, smart grid, etc, which then produce abundant data and further enhances these smart solutions.
The US continues to hold its leading position in advanced research in many emerging technologies, including in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries that can help treat coronavirus. These research needs to find use cases and markets to maximize their value. However, some worry that deploying US technology in China may enhance China’s industrial competitiveness further. Think about China’s gigantic urbanization process over the past decades, which has provided a vast experimental field for international architects, leading to an explosion in flamboyantly beautiful airports, stadiums and skyscrapers across China.
Additionally, the US and China have vast differences in historical heritage, culture, and values, which may impact how those technologies are utilized and governed. Further, many emerging technologies could be used in both commercial and strategic areas, leading to concerns of security ramifications.
These risks pose new dilemmas for policy makers. One, competing for supremacy. But does supremacy mean self gaining more or the other side losing more? Two, prioritizing economics and security. Clearly, there is a delicate balance between protecting security and optimizing the economic growth, and it needs to be thought out and executed with wisdom and foresight. Even though the newly released “United States Strategic Approach to China” on May 20, 2020 lays out a competitive roadmap, it did not rule out cooperation completely, but with “results-oriented” and “when interests aligned”, etc.
COVID-19 is accelerating this new round of digital transformation and industrial revolutions worldwide. Designing new frameworks to co-exist and exploring new shared interests must be key to maintain the world’s open innovation ecosystem. Competition and cooperation are not contradictory; cooperation is embedded in the very idea of competition. Robust competition leads to speedy advancement and heightened prosperity. Disengagement or building barriers could risk disintegrating of the global innovation ecosystem—or being left out of the system, harming both self interest and the eco-system as a whole.
Fortunately, technology advancement in general is a virtuous cycle, with both local and global benefit. Each country’s science and technology input could contribute value to the overall science discovery and technology advancement of the human society, as well as the global effort to address environmental, public health, natural disaster, cybersecurity challenges, etc. Defining multilateral standards around adoption, ethics and accountability for emerging technologies also need collaborative efforts to ensure global compatibility, efficiency and interoperability.
We should feel fortunate that we could witness another revolution in human history and reap its benefits in our professional and personal lives. This will only happen if our leaders can master the art of competing for prosperity while finding new common interests to collaborate. This is the art of new leadership.
TEDx Estee Lauder: Lin Yang interviewed by Jane Lauder
05-01-2017
(MoMA NYC) In April 2016, Lin Yang sat in an one-on-one interview by Jane Lauder, talking about China market growth, the new generation of China consumers, etc.
Exploring the future of Life Economy with BGI Co-Founder Wang Jian
06-05-2016
Founded in 1999, BGI is now one of the world’s premier genome sequencing centers, empowering large-scale human, plant, and animal genomics research from its modern-day headquarters in Shenzhen. BGI’s co-founder, Wang Jian, started the company while acting as the main initiator on many international research projects including the International 1000 Genomes Project, the Rice Genome Project, and the Silkworm Genome Project. On his recent visit to Boston, Lin Yang, President of Innovation Ideas Institute, had the pleasure in conversing and discovering the minds behind China’s life sciences giant.
Lin Yang: Welcome! Before our meeting, I did some online research about BGI, I first noticed that your web domain is “genomics.org.cn”, not “.com” as I presumed. Would you please explain the nature of the organization, your vision when creating it, and your future plans for theinstitution?
Wang Jian: BGI was founded as a non-profit organization. We initially set it up in order to participate in the Human Genome Project, which was a completely scientific research project. Thedomain continued since then. With our own strength and capabilities to participate in the human genome project, we considered ourselves as “global resident”. We were great! So why shall we make it .com? .com means “make money”, I think money is a “byproduct”. We are different from others, and BGI is always called “an organization”. We have both non-profit and for-profit sectors. Our core objective is to find a new way of life. We did not feel for the way a company functions. However, we also do not want to adopt a government model supported by other people, neither want to be a charity organization. We live in this world, contributing to ourselves, contributing to the society, and it is our biggest goal. That is why is .org.
Lin Yang: That is why people all call you professor Wang, rather than a boss or President?
Wang Jian: No, no. We have BGI College that has masters and PhD programs. I also have a dozen of master and PhD students, and never stop teaching, which is why they call me Professor Wang.
Lin Yang: So, in addition to research and development, there is a big education sector at BGI.
Wang Jian: We have BGI Research, with more than 1,000 people doing basic research, which has nothing to do with making money; we have BGI College, there are hundreds of Master and PhD students who are studying there; We have the China National Genebank, the first national genebank which we are responsible for its establishment and management; we also have Giga Science, a new open-access online journal. These four are completely non-profit.
Lin Yang: Nature index has put BGI in high ranking together with several other research institutes anduniversities of China, based on quality and quantity of the papers published.
Do you think that BGI is truly an innovative organization?
Wang Jian: Before we came to Shenzhen, Shenzhen seldom published Nature,
or Science papers. In the past 8 years since we moved to Shenzhen, BGI has already produced over 200 Nature and Science series publications in Shenzhen. In basic research, our contribution to China and all the society is reputable. Don’t you think it is innovation?
Lin Yang: How do you conduct your basic research and indigenous R&D?
Wang Jian: We are committed to solve the major issues and problems of development in our society which we regard as our major life goals. Whatever kind of tools we need, whatever kind of basic research we need, we are going to work on that. Our goal is clear. We are not innovating purely for innovation, not to be entrepreneurial purely for entrepreneurship.
When we are looking for a new model of life, we have to ask: what is the social significance and goal for this new model of life? If we put all these together, we are entering into a whole new realm.
Just now two MIT professors spoke about innovation and entrepreneurship, when I get on the stage, I said I disagree. Why do we pursue innovation and entrepreneurship? What do we live in the world for? For the society, what can we do when alive and what we can leave behind when we leave? This is the essence of innovationand entrepreneurship, and it has to be related to the meaning of life.
I am opposed to innovation and entrepreneurship solely for the sake of innovation and entrepreneurship. I say I was “opponent” or “rebellion” in China, also in US. We have totally different attitudes, values, and philosophy of life. BGI is unconventional.
Lin Yang: It is only been 17 years since BGI’s establishment in 1999, BGI has already grown into China’s leading institution, even well known internationally. Do you attribute BGI’s big success more toChina’s rapid economic growth over the past few decades, or to a more favorablepolicy environment, or to China’s huge market potential, or to your ownidealistic and strong leadership?
Wang Jian: BGI has two birthdays. The first one is for the establishment for HGP which was in 1999. Later on we were recruited in the government system. In 2007, we set path again into private business. So it was born first in 1999, and the second resurrection in 2007. We have always been focusing on basic scientific research and innovation, and combined with China context. So for the questions you just asked, it is a combination.
In the history of China’s social development, it is rare to have such an institution that can push the science and technology to the international forefront, but also closely related to China context. Relating to China context means to be in line with the country’s development direction, in line with China’s huge society needs, in line with China’s low middle-level income, and in line with the enormous mobilizing capacity in China society. Combining the cutting-edge technology with China’s context, we develop a unique development model at BGI. Not any individual has the strength or ability to bring BGI to today. Without the China context, there is no BGI. Without the support of the cutting edge technology, we could not enter the world.
Lin Yang: Could you objectively assess the overall level of the current China’s life sciences sector?
Wang Jian: In recent years, China has spent a lot of money and efforts in bringing talents from overseas, together with the improvement of the domestic talent, the gap is not big in some advanced sectors between China and the world. However, in terms of transferring these science and technology into industries, transferring them into something which can benefit the human society, there are still challenges in policy and regulations, the use of capital, and in the organization of production and services. We are fortunate that BGI has done a little earlier and better in terms of this.
Lin Yang: BGI’s leading position in China maybe unquestionable. Compared with international peers, whatposition do you think you are in, especially in indigenous innovation?
Wang Jian: If comparing only one specialized sector, any organizations may have their own advantages or disadvantages in some ways.
Objectively speaking, in terms of indigenous innovation and transfer, we are almost in a synchronization position with the world. The articles we published on the world’s top scientific journals can explain that. Not just by what I say myself. Our goal is clear, which is whether what I do can contribute to society development. We hope to leave something remarkable in human society.
Lin Yang: So how do you cultivate the innovation gene in your organization, and build up your own innovation eco-system within BGI?
Wang Jian: We are different from others. Whatever we do, we are required to answer do we like doing it ourselves? Is it useful to ourselves? For example, if we do genetic testing, we first asked ourselves whether we ourselves have taken it. This kind of exploration and innovation comes from our inner self, and is
closely related to ourselves. This is the driving force of our development.
Lin Yang: This is your core competitiveness?
Wang Jian: We do not like to compete with others. We just want to live better and longer. We only compete with ourselves.
Lin Yang: For all your peers internationally, institutions or commercial companies, you said they havestrength and weaknesses. In your perspective, what are the similarities and thedifferences in innovation between them and Chinese organizations? What are theadvantages and disadvantages of each? Any opportunities for cooperation?
Wang Jian: Let’s put it like this: they have many wonderful individual experts, like the Masters in martial arts. However, in terms of team work and scale, if we combine all forces together, we are the strongest.
If you go to Harvard, MIT, University of Washington, each professor’s team has their own expertise which we may not have. So BGI has been fully taken advantage of the China context.
The main challenge now is in policies and regulations. In US, a fully market economy and strict regulations have placed challenges in advanced research and technology. In addition, existing social structure and commercial interests hindered the development.
We both have strength and weaknesses. We are fully confident that we will continue to be leading in this area. Serve the human society is our priority, not competition.
Lin Yang: Could you be more specific when you mentioned the challenges of policies and regulations inthe US, and less so in China?
Wang Jian: Now the clinical application of genetic testing needs to go through a long approval process in the U.S. China used to have policy barriers too, but recently have opened up a lot for pilot experiments, which opens up opportunities. Therefore, each has advantages and disadvantages.
Lin Yang: Do you mean that some international research institutions are more specialized in certainareas, an China is good overall, esp at market application and scale itup? Is this what you mean?
Wang Jian: Yes and No. We are not saying that we are stronger than anyone else. Our value is to make remarkable contribution for human development in human historyusing advanced science and technology. For instance, can we try to eliminate all the schools for people handicapped in speech or hearing? This is possibleby early genetic testing and prevention. Can we popularize women’s “two cancer” (cervical cancer, breast cancer) testing across China and the whole world? These will benefit the wholehuman kind. We want these to be a global public welfare. It is not a charity, but it is a public welfare, with some small or minimal financial returns to support its fastcoverage around the world. Bringing these advanced tech to human society is a new mode of thinking, a new development model. We are willing to do so.
Lin Yang: What is BGI’s plan globally in the next 5 - 10 years?
Wang Jian: What I have mentioned just now, I hope that they can all rapidly cover globally. Can we popularize the “two cancer” testing around the world with low price? If we can cover all 2 to 3 billion women at the right age globally, how remarkable contribution we will make to human society? If all the world’schildren are able to receive genetic testing and prediction for deaf, eyes and relateddiseases, all these genetic diseases will never exist any more. How big an impact this will be to human kind! This is our naturalprocess of internationalization. This is a public welfare, a cause to impact the
human progress. It is also our branding, and a cause for global coverage. We do not say internationalization, we say global coverage.
Lin Yang: You mentioned several times your value of public welfare or non profit, will this value gainconsensus when doing your business development, and raising capitals?
Wang Jian: We control our own destiny. We contribute to mankind, with appropriate economic returns. We are not working for nothing. Nor are we doing charity by receiving donations from others. We not only have economic balance, but also have small profit.
I want to emphasize that we are not doing charity, we do public welfare. When applying advanced technology in society, if we do notreduce the current cost exponentially, it is not high-tech. We drop the costs, and we still keep small profits to maintain sustainable development, why not?
Lin Yang: BGI has strong R & D and Education sectors. How are you doing in commercializing these technology, such as in medical, agricultural field, or for average consumers?
Wang Jian: The first is in the early screening, prediction and diagnosis of genetic birth defects, and human genetic diseases. Our hope is not only serving Chinese people, but also serving people worldwide.
The second area which is closely related to gene is tumor. We have made similar contribution in predicting, detecting, and diagnosis of tumor in the early stages. On the one hand, there is huge social demand. It is a significant contribution to protecting people’s lives. On the other hand, it also has commercial return. We do not deny this.
We think that BGI’s growth and profit can maintain 20-30% sustainable growth. It is rare that our business development also goes well while doing basic research and serving the people. Just now some professors were saying that innovation and entrepreneurship are different concepts. Innovation should be shared, while entrepreneurship are confidential and exclusive. Innovation and entrepreneurship should be combined. BGI is not only doing innovation and entrepreneurship, but also benefiting the humanity.
Lin Yang: How do you see China’s current trend of innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as theinnovation-driven development model for the next stage of growth?
Wang Jian: China has been catching up with the world in the past 30 years. Now to get out of the middle-income trap, science and technology shall serve as the foundation, and commercializing the scientific and technological achievements is important. This is an important concept on innovation.
The professor just talked about how to connect innovation and entrepreneurship. These are two entirely different concepts. How can they be effectively combined? I think this is a challenge for China’s national policy, universities, and entrepreneurs. I think BGI has already stepped ahead. With a good understanding of all these,
China may get out of the middle-income trap faster, making people happier, and the country more prosperous. Thereare still big challenges for the national polices to support these fundamentally.
Policies and regulations are very important for a country’s development besides the innovation
and entrepreneurship by scientists and entrepreneurs. Many challenges are in policies and regulations. Innovation is something brand new, yet policies and
regulations are made based on the past productivity and technological breakthroughs. This creates conflict. BGI’s biggest challenge is its need for more policies and regulations that can provide favorable space for exploration and development, unlike the current environment where we are confined in the same place to do innovation. I think the challenges and difficulties we face today are the China’s future challenges and difficulties. If well solved, China’s future will be promising.
Lin Yang: We all know that in the past 10—20 years, innovation was led by the internet, informationtechnology advancement. China’s rapid economic development also largely benefited
from the internet development. Some say that the next round of technologicalbreakthrough will be in AI, life sciences and biotechnology sectors. What arethe innovation trends in the field of life sciences in the next 5- 10 years?
Wang Jian: I am a “rebellion”. Industrial revolution was the most glorious time in history, but surely the shortest. It is not people-oriented, but more associated with wealth. Wealth is not what you are born with, and not what you can take when die. I do not know why people want to spend so much time on that.
We are born with our gene given by our parents. When we die we leave it to future generations. Why not doing things about our lives? I can predict that the people-oriented new life sciences and life economy is coming. It will become the newest and forever-lasting model of social development, in unstoppable development scale, speed and model, after the industrial revolution. No one will be over-satisfied with their health, life expectancy and beauty. I believe in these “two quality” theory, a good health quality, no one will object; good beauty quality, no one can resist. What did all the past sovereigns and emperors do eventually after their glorious life? They all were pursuing longevity. Can we also pursue that? Therefore, the ultimate pursuit of human development is the pursuit of health, longevity, and beauty.
I am not optimistic about the industrial revolution, I believe in the life economy. Life sciences and life technology is the highest and ultimate pursuit of human kind, which will lead all other aspects of development.
Lin Yang: Do you mean that many years later, we may not have to worry about how long we live or howbeautiful we are? We can live however long we want, and however beautiful wewant? What can we imagine the meaning of our life at that time?
Wang Jian: I dare not say that we can live however long we want, however beautiful we want. We expect though. Whether it can come true or not, it will rely on the scientific development, rely on the law of nature, how much can we decode it.
What is the meaning of life? We live in this world, live a happy, healthy life. This is the meaning of life. Do we live to read books or to create wealth? No! We live to have a wonderful life journey. The most wonderful thing in life is: when you are alive, have you ever helped others? Have you left something remarkable to nextgenerations?
Lin Yang: Nowadays a lot of innovation is not only disruptive but also cross-discipline. In the future, technology advancement in life sciences may penetrate into other areas. For example, DNAsynthesis may replace the current silicon and become data storage medium, etc. Would you please share with us how the future breakthroughs in life sciencesand biotechnology will indirectly or directly impact our lives and society?
Wang Jian: Only things that are around our lives make sense. I have repeatedly stressed this. I am not optimistic about materials, which is useless. You see those who buy a pile of diamonds made of carbon? It does not make sense. So what, for what? The value of life is the most valuable.
How to maintain those that are life-related, art and people-related to replace the production in many industrial processes is something you can see and you can feel.
Gene synthesis and gene storage technologies are all important research tasks at BGI. A small tube of DNA, even the invisible amount, can replace the amount of 1T data on a hard disk. So without question, this new medium will replace silicon someday. But the cost is still high. In addition, many people have not accepted this concept. Without scale up, it seems very expensive. I believe that in the next decade or two, it will become a new development model.
Nothing will make people more excited and more look forward to than life sciences and bio technology. So I am definitely not a fan of industrialization. I must be the industrialization’s largest “rebellion”.
(Conclusion) Wang Jian: Finally, I would like to say, the era of life economy is coming. It is characterized by people-orienteddevelopment and enabling better life, rather than human competition, or fighting for resources. It is completely contrary to the industrialization and the capitalism. Hope that your innovation institute can realize that the development of human society is facing a huge turning point.
Thank you!
Copyright 2016
Innovation Ideas Institute
World Experts on China‘s New Leadership
05-07-2015
Hong Kong Commercial Daily, March 18, 2013
World Experts on China’s New Leadership
Lin Yang
中国一年一度的两会在新总理李克强的新闻发布会下落下帷幕。今年的两会由于中国10年一次的最高领导更迭而令世人瞩目,新的最高领导人的产生将决定着世界第二大经济体中国在未来十年的经济和社会走向,也将定义着中国将如何在风云变化的世界形势中扮演角色。
中国经济在持续高速发展30多年后的今天,面临着一系列政治,经济和社会领域的挑战:经济增长速度放缓,经济结构需要深层次的再改革和再调整,高速发展带来的环境恶化,财富分配不均衡,社会腐败现象严重,物质上日益富裕并被信息网络技术赋予力量的人民对于政治和社会的更高诉求,世界政治经济风云变幻等等。这些都是摆在新一代领导人面前的难题。
新的中国最高领导人习近平和李克强都出生于新中国诞生之后,曾在青年时代被下放到农村劳动,同时拥有较高的学历和与国际社会交流的经验,他们将如何定义自己的治国纲领?他们的个人经历将如何在他们的政策抱负中得以诠释?昨日李克强总理在新闻发布会上多次提到了“法制”和“人民”,把“经济转型”,”改善民生”,和“社会公正”作为工作重点,并提出了建设“创新政府”,“廉洁政府”,“法制政府”,用亲民,平和的语气展示了中国新领导的新形象。哈佛大学著名经济学家理查德.佛瑞曼认为,李克强总理提出了一些好的关于“民生”的想法和政策,比如关注低收入人口,城镇化应考虑农民利益,应使更多的农村学生接收大学教育等。他希望这些想法都能被付诸行动。 英国牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特表示,李克强看起来较从容和自信。
哈佛大学中国专家托尼.赛奇认为,新的中国最高领导人不同于以往的具有工程师背景的技术官员,他们具有更多处理社会科学的思维和方法。同时他们具有国际经验以及关于国际地缘政治的见解。但同时由于他们自己也是改革的产物,因此不会做太多冒险的改革;他们自身在文化大革命的经历,将使得他们更加重视社会的稳定;他们的家庭背景和社交网络可能会使他们的政策倾向于具有经济大国的民族自豪感。
在中国两会的国内热烈讨论的背景下,笔者在海外与数名欧美主流经济学家和中国专家也对于中国习李新政的发展方向和前景进行了深入探讨。国际上观察中国政治和研究经济发展的专家们普遍认为,加速深层次的经济和社会改革在中国当今是必须的,而如何设计和实施改革则需要新一代领导人的高度智慧。
一,中国的经济增长放缓,亟需再调整和再平衡
世界学术及政策界普遍认为,中国的下10年的经济问题存在很多挑战,根本问题就是高速增长率已无法持续。为实现经济的可持续发展,下一步中国经济转型应着眼于减少对于投资和出口的依赖,而更多的刺激国内消费。美国哈佛大学经济学家杜怀特.泊金斯认为,即使中国接受经济增长速度降为6-7%的目标,也依然需要积极采取一系列的改革才可以实现。中国大规模的投资基础设施和住房建设已经无法维持经济的高速度增长,中国的交通基础设施已经是世界一流的,继续高投入这些设施将使投资回报越来越降低。过去10年的城市住房建设速度也将不可持续。他希望中国的居民收入增长速度将高于GDP的增长速度,这样中国将逐渐更多的依赖消费来支持经济增长。
华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所国际贸易和投资高级研究员盖瑞.郝夫鲍尔认为,中国经济面临的另一个很大的内部问题是由于多年依靠投资的高速经济增长模式,导致了中国各级政府和企业都存在着很大的公共和私营债务问题乃至产生债务泡沫。有些机构数据甚至显示中国的各级债务已经相当于其GDP的200%。这种类似的债务问题曾在世界范围内很多国家造成金融危机,包括美国最近的金融危机。中国的各级地方政府能否支付和偿还这些持续增长的债务?这些债务泡沫何时会破裂?
如果未来中国的经济增速会放缓,各级财政上的挑战也会接踵而来,这就亟须进行财政改革,特别是调整中央与地方之间的财政关系。哈佛大学经济学家理查德.库柏认为,可把以前地方政府靠出让土地的财政收入转化为征收房地产税,资本利得税等来调整财政杠杆。 中国的金融体系也需要进一步深化改革。比如,中国银行业可否实行市场化汇率?可否把贷款委员会和党委会分开?中国是否可以开放债券市场,并建立良好的金融法制环境等等?但是改革财政和金融系统是巨大的工程,需要一个有强有力的改革派才可以顺利推进。
很多数据表明,中国的消费(包括政府和家庭消费)占GDP比例(2000年46.5%至2009年的34%)持续下降,同时中国的消费占GDP比率(虽然世界银行认为在2009年后出现小幅上升)与世界上任何主要经济体相比,仍然是最低的。因此说明中国存在严重的经济不平衡,需要采取纠正措施更大程度地依赖国内消费的增长。但华盛顿约翰.霍普金斯大学中国专家彼得.波特里尔却认为,中国国内消费不足的说法是有问题的:(1)按国际标准来算,中国的消费增长率是非常高的- 自2000年以来在世界主要经济体中是最高的。中国的消费占GDP比例下降的原因是投资和国内生产总值的增长速度更快,而不是因为消费的增长率低。(2)在1998-2003年期间住房市场私有化以来,中国家庭收入中住房支出所占的比例稳步增加。这些支出通常不包括在家庭消费统计中。而正如乔纳森·安德森所说,如果住房支出被列入消费统计数据,那么2000年后中国的家庭消费占GDP的比例基本维持了稳定。因此,彼得.波特里尔认为,中国的消费问题并不像表面上看上去那样。中国已经明显地成为了世界上增长最迅速的消费市场。有关家庭消费增长应该超越目前的增长水平这一说法令人存疑。考虑到未来几年的GDP增长将放缓,将消费增长保持在目前的水平上都会是一个大的挑战。而且如果消费增长进一步依靠增加信用卡的使用,中国很可能面临几年前韩国面临的家庭负债过高的问题。所以他认为中国经济的再平调整其实需要主动去接受减少投资,并接受GDP增长降低的现实。
当然,经济再平衡和再调整也并非易事。因为中国的各级地方政府仍然非常依赖拉动投资来实现经济增长;在现行改革政策中,强有力的垄断国有企业,以及进出口行业企业,房地产开发商,建筑行业以及商业银行等利益方的利益会受到损害,他们可能会没有改革的动力。正如哈佛大学中国专家教授赛奇所说,增长是可持续的,但是也是极端不公平的。中国的政策导向应当从行政动员的方式巧妙转变为有效的增长方式,即依赖市场调节和鼓励中小企业发展。华盛顿约翰.霍普金斯大学中国专家彼得.波特里尔认为,中国的经济转型,困难将更多来自于内部,而非外部,挑战更多来自政治层面而非经济本身。也就是说,以透明化,有公信力,更包容为方向的政治改革是实现经济转型的必要条件。
新上任的李克强总理是否会认识到这些问题和重点,引领中国经济走入新方向?政策制定非常重要,但是推动和执行应当更重要。牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特认为,李克强上任后的经济政策走向不会与过去有太大的不同,而是很大程度上的延续。他还说值得注意的是,许多观察者认为过去的领导人也提出过很多新政策,却在推动过程中阻力大,实施方面不够人们期望的那样有效。新上任的李克强一定看到了这一点,他会花很大的力气来保证自己有足够的权力来推动他的想法以贯彻落实他的改革和政策。
二,中国的城镇化进程继续推进 需多层面系统性改革
如何坚持可持续发展理论,稳妥地推进中国城镇化进程依然是新政府面临的重大课题。李克强在新闻发布会上提到,城镇化是农民自己的愿景。虽然城镇化可以拉动投资和消费,但其主要目的是让农民致富。并提出新型城镇化和农村现代化相辅相成等。这些都是非常好的思路和方向。华盛顿约翰.霍普金斯大学中国专家彼得.波特里尔认为,一定程度上来讲,1998年到2003年的城市住房市场化主导了中国本世纪第一个十年的经济发展,就像是1970年代末农业生产取消集体化对80年代发展的影响一样。2008年的4万亿经济刺激计划在很多方面非常有效,却也有很大的负面作用,比如东部主要城市地价、房价的迅速上升,而这有可能在将来成为威胁金融系统稳定的因素。虽然由于中国的特殊政治制度,北京政府有能力运用一系列发达市场经济体政府不能运用的行政手段来调节经济,比如说限购和最低首付金等,但中国房地产市场的投机行为远不会成为历史。政府必须采取措施保证城市化的有序进行,保证未来可能出现的信用扩张不会过度。尤其是考虑到出现了一个政府不能完全控制的、广泛的影子银行系统,防止过度的信用扩张这项任务在将来会成为一个更大的挑战。在中国最有效的避免房地产泡沫的方法应该是金融系统的市场化,自由化改革,包括放松利率管制和拓宽投资渠道。与之相似的是,最有效的减少运用影子银行系统融资的倾向的办法就是放松、取消对利率的管制。
中国城镇化进程中的主要问题有哪些呢?美国哈佛大学经济学家杜怀特.泊金斯认为,城镇化进程中第一要注意如何管理日益增多的城市人口,尤其是保证持续涌入城市的移民人口的社会福利。比如,可彻底取消不公平的户籍管理制度,开始为进入城市的新人口及家庭建设充足的公立住房。这基本上就是一个解除移民社会福利障碍的问题,同时涉及农村土地政策。第二,中国应当更有效地治理空气和水污染以解决城市人口的公共卫生问题。第三,需要探讨科学的城市化模式。 曾有许多不同的声音提出应限制大城市的发展,鼓励发展中小城市。中国是否会试图探索这种城市化模式?如果尝试这种模式,是会利用行政手段加以限制还是会制造间接的激励机制来鼓励而不是强制实施这种模式?这里面也存在许多因素和问题,包括城市基础设施的发展模式尤其是中小城市的交通设施是否具备?土地价格是根据市场机制测算,还是利用透明的办法进行拍卖,或者利用行政手段进行分配?城市住房建设应当如何选址以及如何定位等。此外,中国城市太大,人口过于密集,无法采取美国的汽车拥有和使用模式,新加坡模式或许更加适用。
英国牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特则认为如何让城镇化在广泛的民意支持下进行,如何同时解决与之相关的环境污染等问题是重点。环境污染现已成为阻碍经济发展、破坏民众健康的最大问题之一。最近北京的污染就是一个明显的例子,展示了如果城市化没有系统完善的规划,如果不加限制的发展会造成怎样的后果。另外有关中国的体制能在多大程度上做出有利于可持续城市化的绿色规划这一点,还有很多问题。如果不能,那么经济环境和自然环境都会变得危险。另一个问题就回到了刚才提到的户籍制度。如果更多的人被允许居住在城市,那么就会有一大批人从农村来到城市。城市会有足够的就业机会吸收他们吗?需要保持更大的城市人口满意吗?这些问题又牵扯到中国是否可以维持足够的经济增长来保证就业,吸纳更多的人进入到目前的经济体系。这一点现在还不能判断。总的来说城市化的问题取决于持续的经济增长,而经济增长又被一系列不受中国控制的因素所影响,包括世界经济的走向。
笔者认为,鉴于中国城镇化的现状和种种社会问题,中国新政府应当从宏观角度设计一整套系统并科学的改革方案。当务之急需要解决的重点包括:第一,城镇化的方式要更多地尊重经济规律,要尊重农民的意愿,不采取强制性的做法,尽量以民主和市场的方法使得农民的土地使用权得到保障。可考虑改革户籍制度,以及逐步改革现行的土地农村集体所有制。第二,给予进入城市的新人口基本的权利保障以及平等享受社会资源的权利。比如,城市的中小学可向新市民开放,采取更灵活的全民教育体系,让在城市长期工作和居留的农民的子女可以就近在城市的中小学上学。城市原住人口的下降,影响到城市中小学的生源,新市民子弟正好为此补充新鲜血液。第三,中国正在建立全民社会和医疗保险,可考虑允许医疗保险跨区支付,使得流动人口可以受惠于全民社会医疗保险。这也会有利于劳工的流动。
三,中国发展带来系列社会问题 改革亟需解决各种社会矛盾
中国的经济高速发展带来了一系列社会问题,比如发展不均衡,财富分配不平等,社会矛盾与冲突多现,腐败现象严重,公共卫生和社会保障需要完善等问题。如果顺应新的以拉动消费的经济结构调整,政府需要考虑一系列与之相关的社会制度改革,这将是一次巨大的调整与再平衡。哈佛大学劳动经济学家理查德.佛瑞曼认为,中国的财富分配不均衡现象类似于南非等国家。面临这些现象,中国最棘手的问题应当是考虑农村贫困人口,农民工以及社会弱势群体的待遇和社会福利问题等;加强以法制化手段来解决劳工纠纷,民间抗议和社会冲突;虽然中国政府也意识到这些问题,也制定了劳动法,但是具体实施情况需要完善。同时中国的决策者是否真正情愿重新将财富再分配给社会的低收入家庭和弱势群体?农村人口的收入偏低将如何解决?如何把社会资源均衡地分配给弱势群体,并赋予他们基本的权利?若要改变这种现状,在社会中建立自由独立的媒体体制是必须的,这样可以保证信息透明地在社会中正常传递和交流,有利于监督。
鉴于种种社会矛盾和冲突,新的中国领导人亟需努力建立一个更加平等的社会,不是说完全平等,但是比现在要平等的社会。而这种平等只有通过在政府和社会增加透明度、加强法治,开放公民社会才可以平稳地完成一系列的过渡。英国牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特认为,要在尚有经济、政治方面的余地的时候开始改革,如果中国的领导层要等到出现危机才采取行动的话,将会更加困难。
哈佛大学中国专家托尼.赛奇分析讲,在去年的十八大会议上,中共首次提出“政社分开”,这是一个很好的迹象表明中国可能会逐步开放公民社会,这将有利于建立一个更加健康的和谐社会。英国牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特认为,中国未来五年的路线在一定程度上会是延续已有的趋势。在维持社会稳定方面,中国领导人面临的最大的问题就是如何重新修订社会契约。中国社会飞速的经济发展而产生的不平等需要完善的社会保障福利体系来解决。过去的例子,比如说2009年的新型农村社会养老保险。下一步可能还会努力对一些已有的医疗保障政策进行完善。如果这些工作能做好,那么中国想要推行的经济结构调整的计划就有可能成功。
四,中国政治改革何去何从 寻找中国特色之路
中国改革开放三十多年,经济上取得了与世瞩目的成就。然而众所期盼的政治改革,宪政改革却仍然未见倪端。随着中国的中产阶级的不断壮大,使得公民对于政治和社会的诉求越来越高,加之全球化和信息网络技术赋予公民越来越大的力量,中国的政治改革迫在眉睫。哈佛大学经济学家理查德.库柏认为,中国的现有政治体制下,很难产生具有远见卓识的领导者,而更多的都是产生官僚。中国目前体制下的政府一般会走中庸型实用型路线,不会发生太多戏剧性的变革和动作。习近平主席的一些政绩看来可以说比一般官僚要好,但是需要观望其具体政治纲领和政策。中国可否或者如何实现一个既不一定需要有相互对立的两党或多党制度却又民主和透明的政府?如何提高政府的公信度?这需要中国应当有严格的法律环境以及独立的纪律检查部门以治理腐败问题,同时有科学透明的干部提拔制度等等,同时注意制度应该明晰,且注重实施。此外,独立和自由的媒体是关键。因为如果中国公开媒体行业的话,信息可以自由流通,独立发表言论,监督力量加强,可提高政府的公信度。
普世价值观都认为,加强法制建设与建立一个公正可靠的司法系统是政治改革的重点,只有法治得到落实之后,才有可能进行政治改革。英国牛津大学的中国专家热纳.米特认为,将来的某个时候,可能不是现在,全国人大会不会成为一个广泛、自由、真正的不同政见辩论的平台?这样全国人大和其它的一些国家机关就可以更好地履行它们的角色,建设性地表达和讨论中国社会中真正的问题。这就是一条很实用的改革之道。当然,这种改革并不涉及中国从来没有尝试过的事情。现在中国已经有基本的制度框架,只是需要更加自信地运用这些制度框架去建设一个更加透明的社会。此外,科技将反腐败和政改结合起来。因为让民众对任何一种政治体制感到不满的最重要的原因就是特权,而腐败就是特权的体现。当民众感觉自己没有任何权力的时候,他们就会感到愤怒。所以说反腐败应当是改革的一个中心环节。而在反对腐败的过程中,仍然是加强法治是重点。
此外,米特还认为,中国的政治改革最好的办法是学习和借鉴自己的历史。在中国近代史过去的一百年中,从清末到民国,再到抗日战争时期,一直有宪政改革。所有这些改革都失败了,不是因为改革本身不好,而是因为当时的中国太弱。而今天的中国强盛,广受国际社会的尊重;从过去一百五十年的历史的角度来看,这是前所未有的。现在对中国来讲是一个大好时机,要学习自己的历史,在现在这个自身强大,能统筹改革全局的时机进行一系列的改革。与其学习别国的经验,不如更多地学习中国自己的历史,因为在不远的过去曾经有过一系列倾向于民主的政治改革可供参考。
五,日益强大的中国与世界的关系
中国的经济实力已是世界上不可忽视的力量。新的中国领导人将如何掌舵日益崛起的中国,发挥政治智慧和领导艺术,寻求国内民族自豪感和爱国主义与国际社会不同声音和力量的平衡,以在国际社会上发挥负责任大国的作用和影响力?
总体来讲,在全球化的趋势下,中国和美国及世界的经贸关系会持续走互惠互利的道路。哈佛大学著名劳动经济学家理查德.佛瑞曼认为中美之间的双边经贸关系总体来讲会更加紧密,更加健康。由于两国关系在各方面相互依存,不可分割,已形成一种“共同经济”, 因此关系不会有大的恶化。 中国与世界的经贸关系越紧密,相互投资越频繁,世界会更繁荣和更和平。
华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所国际贸易和投资高级研究员盖瑞.郝夫鲍尔认为,中美两国的经济关系,若从未来10年的时间来看,假设中国可以保持7%的增长速度,美国以乐观的估计保持在2.5-3%的增长速度,中美贸易仍然可以期待有高速的增长,那么应当注意贸易赤字不失衡。比如,中国可抓住国际贸易的好机会,减少成本和提高生产率,保持经济发展引擎,平衡世界贸易,可将人民币继续升值,就像过去5年中所做的一样,也就是每年升值2.4%;同时中美两国之间可寻求达成某种妥协,使得中国在一些被严格限制的领域开放进口,尤其是开放进口服务业,那么在这种情况下,双边的贸易赤字将不会失衡,可避免政治矛盾的产生。
华盛顿约翰.霍普金斯大学中国专家彼得.波特里尔认为中国在全球经济中的作用日益重要的另一个因素是中国的对外直接投资的快速增长。在1990-2007年期间,中国占全球对外直接投资的1%左右,但金融危机后,在许多西方国家都限制了他们的对外直接投资的情况下,2010年中国的市场份额增加约5%。鉴于中国正在努力使外汇储备多样化,而且中国民营企业的对外投资,中国的对外直接投资预计还会继续增长。在很多非洲国家,虽然在涉及大规模的采矿业和建筑业项目(石油和其他矿产,基础设施,住房)的领域,还主要是中国的国有企业;在中小规模的制造业和服务业的领域,中国民营企业和个人的存在已经变得无处不在。
当然,伴随着中国和世界经贸关系越来越紧密,分歧和摩擦也会不断。美国哈佛大学经济学家杜怀特.泊金斯举例说中美关系中经常谈到的知识产权问题争端等,他认为这些问题的真正解决,只有通过让中国的领导人及其人民普遍认识到,缺乏知识产权会严重阻碍中国自身成为一个创新社会的能力,而创新则是中国未来实现可持续发展的必须因素。哈佛大学经济学家理查德.库柏认为,中国应当把处理每个贸易摩擦纠纷作为个案来单独具体分析,而不是把这些当作反华政策的体现,将其政治化。
关于中国和周边国家及世界的影响力,华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所国际贸易和投资高级研究员盖瑞.郝夫鲍尔认为,回忆1980年代,中国当时在亚洲地区是非常受欢迎的国家,现在却不断有争端。中国的领导人应当发挥政治智慧,采取和平的手段与邻国相处,解决争端。如果处理不恰当,将会削弱中国在世界上的经济繁荣和影响力。
新的中国领导集体已经诞生,领导人已经向世界散发出许多令人鼓舞的元素。昨天的李克强总理新闻发布会的政策阐述,习近平主席过去几个月的一系列诸如深圳行的举动,都是一些好的迹象和信号。但是这些举动是流于形势还是真正具有改革的决心?即使领导人真正具有改革的胆识和决心,在中国的现行体制下,由于他们无法单独做出各项重大政策决定,这些领导人将如何能够在新的领导集体中相互磨合,成功运作掌握足够的权力,以推进各项改革的实施?
全世界都拭目以待。
Chinese Banks in Global Market
12-01-2014
Harvard Case Study published a case study on ICBC, China’s largest commercial bank, and its growth in international market.
Establishing a Healthy Property Tax system is key to China’s Sustainable Development and Security
01-07-2013
Establishing a Healthy Property Tax system is key to China’s Sustainable Development and Security
Sen Hu
Case study on Urbanization in Zhenggezhuang village in Beijing
12-11-2012
- Case study on Urbanization in Zhenggezhuang village in Beijing
A Garden Chat with Huawei Founder
05-14-2012
北京的初秋天高气爽,2015年9月6日,创新思想研究院创办人杨林参观访问了华为公司,并在一个美丽的户外花园里,有幸与公司创始人任正非先生进行了一场开放式、轻松的交谈。
特分享如下:
杨林:今天遇见您,想与您谈谈天,想写一篇文章。机会难得,谢谢任总的信任。目前华为在海外的名声非常大,希望能藉这篇文章让海外的读者也了解真实的华为、真实的任总。
任正非:我们今天就是慢慢聊天,不一定要有什么主题,也不一定要既定方针。聊完以后,你可以根据你的理解再写文章。无论对国外读者还是国内读者,我始终坚持实事求是。
杨林:国内关于您的报道很多,我也看过很多文章,觉得任总您是这个浮躁的时代里最不浮躁的企业家。
任正非:外面的报道把我们说得太好了,我们真实也有许多缺点。很多网站在转发我的讲话文章时,有时会把标题更改了,有时会把内容改了,这样会曲解了原意。可以直接从华为内网下载,其提供给你的内容,是没有被修改过的。
另外,我们其实也很浮躁。但我们只对一个简单的目标浮躁。十几万人、几十年只对着一个目标前进,就走到世界前列了。但是没有一个广泛、可拷贝的管理经验。
杨林:中国经济发展30年,取得了很大的成绩,经济体量是全世界第二位了,但国际社会普遍认为中国没有创新。您怎么看?
任正非:改革开放三十多年,是邓小平释放了中国能量。三十多年前,中国的生活条件大概是这样的:我们不知道房间里面会有洗手间,我们不知道洗手间是可以很干净的。整个思想结构上处于一种封闭落后的状态,如热力学所说的封闭定律。
热力学讲不开放就要死亡,因为封闭系统内部的热量一定是从高温流到低温,水一定从高处流到低处,如果这个系统封闭起来,没有任何外在力量,就不可能再重新产生温差,也没有风。
第二,水流到低处不能再回流,那是零降雨量,那么这个世界全部是超级沙漠,最后就会死亡,这就是热力学提到的“熵死”。社会也是一样,需要开放,需要加强能量的交换,吸收外来的优秀要素,推动内部的改革开放,增强势能。
外来能量是什么呢?
外国的先进技术和经营管理方法、先进的思想意识冲击。但是思想意识的冲击有正面的,也有负面的,中国到底是得到了正面的还是负面的?中国这三十年的繁荣,总体来说,我们得到了正能量,虽然也有负能量进来。
常有人说和西方合作,至今没拿到技术。我们是要技术,还是要繁荣?当然我们是要繁荣。有技术更好,没有技术我们也繁荣了,人们的思想意识在改变,受教育程度也在改变,国人改变了,其实这个社会基本启动了。
现在习主席推动深化改革开放,逐渐让中国不要回到自给自足。其实这些思想意识与体制的创新,并不单单是技术。它对未来100年释放的能量是不可估量的。中国今天还不算十分强大,即使非常强大了,也要向世界开放。其实美国200多年的发展历史,就是开放的历史。
华为这28年来,坚持做一个开放的群体,始终没有停止过开放。我们以开放为中心,和世界进行能量交换。只有开放,才有今天的华为。
杨林:现在国家提出来的全民创新、全民创业,您怎么看?
任正非:创新是要有理论基础的。如果没有理论的创新,就没有深度投资,很难成就大产业。
理论上要想有突破,首先一定要保护知识产权,才会有投资的积极性,创新的动力。美国之所以这么厉害,因为它严格保护知识产权,这样美国的创新环境才特别好,所以容易出现大公司。
杨林:您也接触了这么多国际上的创新公司,您觉得中国的创新和美国的创新有什么差异?创新是开放的,有没有可能国家与国家之间协同创新,而不是保护主义?
任正非:保护知识产权要成为人类社会的共同命题。别人劳动产生的东西,为啥不保护呢?只有保护知识产权,才会有原创发明的产生。才会有对创新的深度投资及对创新的动力与积极性。
没有原创产生,一个国家想成就大产业,是没有可能的。即使就是成功了,也像沙漠上修的楼一样,也不会稳固的。
原创发明的人往往在几十年前就开始提出想法,人类社会并不理解他们真知灼见,可能还会认为莫名其妙,把他们看成异类。
科学家在创造的时候是只有少数人掌握了真理,逐渐逐渐再扩散,慢慢人类社会上有更多的人理解,然后在工艺等很多方面的进步,使梦想成为可能,通过几十年时间打好基础,才能为人类社会服务的。
科技创新,要重视教育,重视知识产权保护。特别是农村中、小学教育,给教师体面的工资和社会尊重,孩子是祖国的未来。
华为不就是耐了二、三十年的寂寞吗?我们不在非战略机会点上,消耗战略竞争力量。几十年聚焦在主航道,突破就有可能。
杨林:我曾看过一篇关于华为的文章,也不知道真假。它提到华为过去没有一项自主性的原创技术,都是从集成、工程、工艺等方面创新的。这个说法准确吗?
任正非:这是十几年前我讲的,因为那时我们还是行业的追随者,主要是以工程师为中心的创新。现在我们终于走到行列前列,有能力进行前瞻性研究。华为涌现非常多的科学家,世界各国的很多科学家也来加入华为创新。
华为在全世界有几十个能力中心,这些能力中心就是科学家在探索,包括未来十年、二十年的技术思想、数学模型、算法……,所以我们现在也正在为人类社会提供一些基础理论。
杨林:那现在是不是可以说华为在推动自主创新?
任正非:我们不强调自主创新,我们强调一定要开放,我们一定要站在前人的肩膀上,去摸时代的脚。我们还是要继承和发展人类的成果。
杨林:华为在全球的研发中心,主要靠什么样的人才来支撑全球的研发力量?如何招聘到最好的人才?
任正非:我们支持这些研发中心,没有偏狭地认为要找到一种什么模式的人才。我有一篇讲话叫《一杯咖啡吸收宇宙能量》,我们有一个长远的战略目标,这目标其实就是面对未来大数据流量,一定要疏导。
瞄准这个目标,我们是开放的。科学家们只要在这方面有理解的,都进来。这些科学家研究的内容,我们也看不懂,我们没有能力去挑选他们?
而是他们自成体系。很多伟大的突破是带有偶然性的,并非按预定计划发生。所以我们开放包容,不是狭隘地去找什么样的人才,而是比较广泛的领域里面都能吸纳很多人,不同领域带来了思想的碰撞及互相启发。这样我们在各个领域里面就是强大的。
杨林:华为在保护自己的知识产权方面有些什么举措?
任正非:我们要依靠一个社会大环境来保护知识产权。依靠法律保护创新才会是低成本。其实我们原来是保护不了的,那时,我们把软件截成一段一段的藏到我们的芯片里面,拿到美国去加工,间接地利用美国的知识产权保护来保护了我们的知识产权。
我们称这个战略,叫软件硬化。为了做这些弯弯绕的事情来保护自己,为此我们多了好几千人,每年多花几亿美金,比别人成本高。其实有时候也保护不了。随着我们越来越前沿,公司对外开放、对内开源的政策,已经进入了一个新的环境体系。
过去二、三十年,人类社会走向了网络化;未来二、三十年是信息化,这个时间段会诞生很多伟大的公司,诞生伟大公司的基础就是保护知识产权。否则就没有机会,机会就是别人的了。
杨林:在国内,大家都讲的是“互联网+”热潮,比如有的公司也在做类似的产品,硬件非常低成本,然后增加很多软件功能,您如何应对?
任正非:互联网是个实现工具,我们的目的是发展实业,解决人们的生存、幸福问题。实业是就业和社会稳定的基础。
第二,低价格、低质量、低成本,会摧毁我们未来的战略竞争力。企业必须有合理的盈利,才会去持续投资研发。没有适当的利润积累,把利润打这么低的时候,实际上是在战略上破坏这个产品。
杨林:我看很多国外的文章,说美国在发展智能硬件、机器人,中国还在做“互联网+”,方向不一样?
任正非:我们应该走进新的未来时代,这个时代叫人工智能。首先,我们要强调工业自动化。工业自动化了以后,才可能走进信息化。只有信息化后,才能智能化。中国走向信息化,我认为还需要努力。
中国的工业现在还没有走完自动化,还有很多工业连半自动化都做不到。这个时候,我们提出了类似工业4.0的方案,超前了社会实际,最后会成为夹心饼干。
所以我们国家要踏踏实实的迈过工业自动化。工业自动化以后,就不需要这么多简单的劳动者了。当前应从提高教育水平、从人的质量入手。
华为二、三十年努力向西方学习,今天也不能说信息化了,因为我们端到端的流程还打不通。我们考虑五年以后,有可能走向信息化,能达到工业3.0这个状态。
再花二、三十年,华为才有可能向世界品牌迈进,因此这个路程很漫长,太着急的口号可能摧毁了这个产业。
杨林:您能否展望一下,未来的通信事业发展的趋势?华为如何来引领这个潮流?
任正非:未来世界二、三十年内,一定会爆发一场重大的技术革命。这个革命的特征:第一,石墨烯等(黑磷\磷烯)的出现,电子技术发生换代式的改变。
但是石墨烯没有实用之前,我们其实在硅片上也是可以用叠加、并联的方案来突破物理极限。第二,人工智能的出现,造成社会巨大的分流,而人类社会也正因人工智能变化。
生产模式人工智能以后,简单重复性劳动力就不需要了,需要比较高的文化素质。所以教育很重要。当人类社会适应人工智能的时候,西方国家和中国这样的发展中国家没有工业成本差距,就这是一个新时代的改变。
我们如果要赶上新时代的改变,首先要改变教育结构,一定要孩子们都有文化有知识,懂专业、会操作。
第三,生物技术的突破,将会带来巨大的信息社会变化,而且这个边界也越来越模糊。当母语的边界也模糊的时候,连物理的边界也模糊了。
杨林:您刚才讲到华为的机制,关于华为的机制和企业文化,我看国内有很多文章进行探讨,您能不能告诉我您的看法?
任正非:其实我们的文化就只有那么一点,以客户为中心、以奋斗者为本。世界上对我们最好的是客户,我们就要全心全意为客户服务。
我们想从客户口袋里赚到钱,就要对客户好,让客户心甘情愿把口袋的钱拿给我们,这样我们和客户就建立起良好的关系。怎么去服务好客户呢?
那就得多吃点苦啊。要合理地激励奋斗的员工,资本与劳动的分配也应一个合理比例。
杨林:华为员工在非洲艰苦奋斗,也算是华为的一种精神吧。那么在国际化过程中,比如招一些外籍人才,这种精神还适用吗?
任正非:你想多赚钱,就得多干活,为客户提供有价值的服务!外籍员工怎么会不理解呢?多劳多得,这就是华为文化的本质,这也是朴实、普适的道理。
杨林:在国外,比如跟美国思科、欧洲爱立信等企业共同竞争人才的时候,你们的薪阶是否比别人高出很大一个档次?
任正非:华为给员工的好处就是“苦”,没有其他。“苦”后有什么?有成就感、自己有改善收入、看着公司前进方向有信心……,这就是新的东西,这就是吸引员工的地方。华为奋斗在非洲的各级骨干大多数是80后、90后,他们是有希望的一代。
杨林:您在这个行业接触了很多美国科技公司,比如雅虎、Google的员工很自由,有的可以在家里上班。雅虎新CEO说员工不能在家上班,还引起了很多内部反对。您觉得类似这种文化,跟我们中国艰苦奋斗的文化,哪个更好,哪个更会激励人才?
任正非:咖啡厅里坐坐,快快乐乐,喝喝咖啡就把事情做成了,这也许可能不是大发明,多数是小发明。互联网上有很多小苹果、小桃子,这也是可能的。
我们在主航道进攻,这是代表人类社会在突破,厚积还不一定能薄发,舒舒服服的怎么可能突破,其艰难性可想而知。不眠的硅谷,不是也彰显美国人的奋斗精神吗?这个突破就像奥运会金牌。我们现在跟奥运会竞技没有什么区别。
在主航道,美国公司的很多企业领袖们也是很辛苦的。真正成为大人物,付出的辛劳代价,美国人不比我们少。我和美国、欧洲公司的创始人在一起聊天,发现他们领导的文化也是艰苦的,真正想做将军的人,是要历经千辛万苦的。当然,美国多数人也有快乐度过平凡一生的权力。
杨林:您觉得未来华为的这种文化是不会变化的?
任正非:长期艰苦奋斗的文化是不会变化。这不是中国特色,这是人类特色。第一,你要成功,就要奋斗。第二,你要想吃饭,就得要做工,没人为你做马牛。凭什么你享乐的时候,让我们挣钱养活你啊。
杨林:华为取得这么大的成功,尤其在欧洲,如何蚕食了您的竞争对手,包括诺基亚、爱立信等大公司的市场份额?华为从不知名的中国小公司,如何成为今天欧洲市场数一数二的玩家?
任正非:你讲错了,你应该讲,我们怎么与这些公司合作贡献给这个世界的。
这个信息社会长大的速度,比我们的能力长大得快,不然我们也可以打打高尔夫、喝喝咖啡。我们的国际同行在这段时期也变大了,苹果大得皮都不知如何削了。是共同合作发展,满足社会需要。
我们的分享制,从二十多年来对资本与劳动的分享实践,逐步扩展到对客户、供应商分享成功。同时,与领导这个世界的先进公司合作共同制订标准、路标,一起为社会作出更大贡献。
我们没有狭隘到如何消灭别人。不断烧钱的目的,是烧到对手烧不动了,就垄断了。我们不谋求市场垄断。我们并没有蚕食它们,也从来不想蚕食他们。而是千方百计希望它们强大,它们强大。像诺基亚和阿朗的合并,我们都非常高兴。
诺基亚的奋斗精神,我认为比别的公司要强,所以诺基亚能重新回到世界舞台上。我们加强和它们的合作,共同为这个社会提供服务。
杨林:我这几年一直在美国做中国企业国际化的研究。我走访过很多中国企业在美国的基地,也采访过好几位中国大公司的领头人。很多中国的大企业在美国搞兼并收购,买一栋楼,用美国的“拿来主义”,兼并自己的市场。而华为是通过自己一步一步走出来的,踏踏实实地走到让国际企业都害怕的规模,所以大家特别崇拜华为这样的企业。我想问问,您认为华为国际化的成功秘诀是什么?
任正非:有些企业,他们的经营模式是规模和服务,因此市场需求前景是受限制的,发展是有极限的。而且,同质化竞争,别人也可以挤进来分瓢羹,缩小你的空间。
我们这个行业是高成长行业,拼实力的行业,如果今天你拿不出来先进的东西,没有前瞻性的策略,明天你就垮了。像我们这样的企业,垮了多少?
中央电视台播了一部《神秘的刚果河》的纪录片:在波涛汹涌的河面上,渔民历经九死一生去捕鱼。
我们也相当于这些在非洲河上的孤胆英雄,坚持20年才划到起跑线。但,起跑线上的突破,就是人类社会认知的突破,这有多难!
所以说,要厚积才能薄发。我们是非上市公司,高层都是着眼未来五至十年的战略构建,不会只考虑现阶段,所以我们就走得比别人快、比他们前瞻。突破是要有战略定力和耐性的。十年、二十年没有突破,甚至一生也没有突破,一生都是世界备胎。
我们现在不是靠赌哪一种技术、哪一种方向,“赌博”一种路线是小公司才会干的,因为他们的投资不够。大公司有足够的资金,在主航道里用多路径、多梯次的前进,使用投资密集型,来缩短探索方向的时间。
在多重机会的作战过程中,可能某种机会成为业界的主潮流,战线变粗,其他战线会慢慢变细了,但也不必关闭别的机会。把有经验的干部调到主线作战,把一批新干部调到支线作战去,继续进攻。
前进的人来自于多元化视角,并不是只有一条路线思想,他带来的是有失败经验的思想在前进,我们就一定会爬到顶端。美国军队要打胜仗,不计弹药量,大家以为他是浪费,其实是靠投资密集度来攻占。
此外,我们有广泛吸纳人才的机制,而且,十五万人“力出一孔,利出一孔”,我们除了胜利,已经无路可走了。
杨林:华为的全球化在欧洲、非洲比较成功,未来五年、十年的全球化计划是什么?
任正非:未来物联网、智能制造、大数据等将对管道基础设施带来海量的需求。我们的责任就是提供联接,具体就是联接的设备。这个世界的市场非常巨大,我们还做不到在所有国家都成功。我们只能努力把我们能做的国家做好,这就不简单了。
杨林:您如何看待华为在美国的发展状况、机遇和挑战?现在中美之间在进行BIT谈判(双边投资贸易谈判)。您觉得这个谈判是不是对华为有帮助?
任正非:我们要正视美国的强大,它先进的制度、灵活的机制、明确清晰的财产权、对个人权利的尊重与保障,这种良好的商业生态环境,吸引了全世界的优秀人才,从而推动亿万人才在美国土地上投资和创新,是一个创新力井喷的国家。
我们推动全面创新,要学习它的好方法、好机制。我们当然会希望在那儿投资,华为和美国没有利益冲突,我们投资也有益美国。
如果,华为成为一个议题,妨碍中美关系改善,那么我们坚持只卖低端产品。低端产品、软件是美国的,芯片是美国的,我们只是代加工而已。
杨林:您作为一位顶级的企业家,您的企业又处于通信这么一个战略行业,企业发展肯定离不开大的政治环境,那您怎么看待中美关系?
任正非:我认为中美关系,合作大于对抗,两国有许多互补的地方。暂时的冲突,最终是要互相妥协的,不可能走向对抗。
因为对抗,最后两个国家的力量都全部消耗完了,这不是美国的愿望,也不是中国的愿望。邓小平很早就讲过一句话“中美关系坏也坏不到哪儿去,好也好不到哪儿去。”它就在这个中间发展。
对华为而言,我们就避开将来会产生的冲突。不要因为华为,而影响了中美关系的改善。我们就老老实实做点事,卖点低端产品,世界那么大,也不能完全都把希望寄托在美国身上嘛。
杨林:那华为有没有刻意地去对美国的媒体、政府、企业做一些公共关系工作?
任正非:美国太大了,不是哪一个人说服得了美国政府的,浪费那精力,还不如好好服务客户。
杨林:今天机会难得,能问任总的个人问题吗?网上有很多关于您神秘的传说,我见到您以后,才发现您非常诙谐。您今天这么成功,在成长的经历中,有什么因素促成您成功?
任正非:我最大的问题就是傻、执着,这是我太太说的。我啥爱好都没有,我就是聚焦在一个窄窄的面上,不做点事,不无聊吗?
杨林:你做这么大的企业,这么成功,现在还负责公司的具体业务吗?你还去办公室吗?很好奇你的时间是怎么安排的?
任正非:如果我不去办公室,在家呆着,不是更无聊吗?在公司还能玩一下。第二,公司大量的工作,有正常的运作机制、合理的授权,并非事事都要经过我。我跟大家沟通一下,听听大家的意见,跟大家讲讲话。生活也还丰富。
杨林:中国很多民营企业现在都面临这样的问题:您的公司从零开始,发展到现在这么壮大,您是公司的精神领袖,如何把这种精神传承下去,形成企业的连续性,你是怎么考虑的?
任正非:华为文化不是具体的东西,不是数学公式,也不是方程式,它没有边界。也不能说华为文化的定义是什么,是模糊的。“以客户为中心”的提法,与东方的“童叟无欺”、西方的“解决方案”,不都是一回事吗?
他们不是也以客户为中心吗?我们反复强调之后,大家都接受这个价值观。这些价值观就落实到考核激励制上,流程运作上……,员工的行为就牵引到正确的方向上了。
我们盯着的是为客户服务,也就忘了周边有哪个人。不同时期有不同的人冲上来,最后就看谁能完成这个结果,谁能接过这个重担,将来就谁来挑。
我们还是一种为社会贡献的理想,支撑着这个情结。因此接班人不是为权力、金钱来接班,而是为理想接班。只要是为了理想接班的人,就一定能领导好,就不用担心他。
如果他没有这种理想,当他捞钱的时候,他下面的人很快也是利用各种手段捞钱,这公司很快就崩溃了。
杨林:全球所有分公司,您或者轮值CEO去都经常会去吗?
任正非:我去得不多,他们也去得很少。我们不是靠人来领导这个公司,我们用规则的确定性来对付结果的不确定。
人家问我“你怎么一天到晚游手好闲?”我说,我是管长江的堤坝的,长江不发洪水就没有我的事,长江发洪水不太大也没有我的事啊。我们都不愿意有大洪水,但即使发了大洪水,我们早就有预防大洪水的方案,也没有我的事。