After the remarkable progress of the past five years, China has entered its new five-year plan period, starting from 2006, aiming to further its economic and social development. Though some are still talking about “China threat,” many others consider the country’s growth a huge opportunity. In an interview with People’s Daily, Bill Fischer, former President of the Sino-European International Business School in Shanghai, comments on China’s current development and also talks about problems the country faces. His main ideas follow:
　　People’s Daily: How do you view China’s economic growth and social development? What are the great challenges ahead?
　　Fischer: I think China’s economic growth since 1979 has been extraordinary, certainly one of the greatest stories of the 20th century and likely to be one of the biggest in the 21st century as well.
　　It has not been without some serious dislocations, of course, but that has been true for most great economic successes, and China is no exception. I believe there are several major challenges ahead, but let’s not forget that overall the quality of life in China is better, and for more people than it probably has been at any other point in recent history.
　　Among the challenges, I’d include the following: China needs to be sensitive to growing disparities between the rich and the poor. There has been a lot of comment recently both in the Chinese and foreign press about China’s Gini coefficient reaching levels that some might consider alarming. This is somewhat, but not entirely, an urban-rural difference, but could be a source of continuing social problems if not addressed more effectively than it has been. Feelings of inequity, particularly in the countryside neighboring some of China’s largest and most prosperous cities, are indications of the seriousness of this problem.
　　A second great challenge is keeping the already high level of unemployment in check. China has had high levels of unemployment for some time, but this is a chronic problem that seems not to go away, and it is extremely serious.
　　A third challenge will be to continue to assure China’s integration into the world economy. Over time, this will mean that China will have to accept an increased foreign presence in its domestic economy, it will have to support the social infrastructure that leads to Chinese domestic firms becoming better prepared for international business activities, and it will have to support the development of internationally acceptable governance frameworks for business ownership/management, investment and intellectual property.
　　As you know, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has issued new strategies on a more sustainable way of developing China’s economy with a great shift in emphasis. From now on, GDP will not be the only measurement of achievement, with the environmental impact and social equality also taken into consideration. What do you think of this?
　　This is of course important, especially given what I’ve noted above, but it is much easier to announce such an action than to administer and enforce it. The story of China, like many developing countries, is that when faced with choices between ecological and social responsibility on the one hand, and employment and wealth creation on the other, they inevitably choose the latter, and who can blame them? The further one moves from Beijing and richer areas, the more difficult it is to ensure that such policies will be respected.
　　GREEN PRODUCTION: Guided by the concept of “green GDP,” Shijiazhuang Iron & Steel Co., which previously caused severe local pollution in a local area, has now developed into an environment-friendly modern company
　　What do you think of Chinese workers, employment and the impact of urbanization in China?
　　I think much of the attraction of urban areas for migrant workers is the hope of gaining wealth that would be otherwise unavailable in inland and rural areas. However, the continued construction of China’s urban areas is today dependent upon these same migrant workers. They have become “institutionalized” into the saga of China’s modern growth. This creates a bit of a conundrum, as these same migrant workers are probably the group most vulnerable to dissatisfaction over wealth inequity, since every morning they wake up in places where there are considerably more wealth and opportunities than are available to their families back home. They also live on the margins of these same urban societies that they are building and they are concentrated spatially and socially in ways they would not have been if they had remained at home. So, they pose a possible threat to social security, but they are essential if China is to continue to deliver on its promise of prosperity to the upwardly mobile urban population.
　　Many people accuse China of taking jobs not just from Europe or America, but also from such places as Indonesia and even Africa. Is this a fair complaint?
　　The reality is that along with globalization has come the opportunity for foreign buyers to source products from China, where they are cheaper than from local factories, from which they had previously bought. As a result, jobs are lost, and those jobs reappear in China. Should China be “blamed?”
　　I think, actually, the market preference for goods that are more affordable and of the same quality is the real culprit, and these products are increasingly being made in China. In other words, the reason that jobs are being in lost in Europe and North America is that we European and North American shoppers are expressing a preference for those products that happen to be made in China. We, European and North American shoppers, are the real cause of these job losses. If European and North American factories could make the same products for a lower price, we’d return to buying locally. It’s not that we’re buying Chinese or local, but that we’re trying to maximize the value we receive for the dollar or Swiss franc or pound that we spend and lately that means buying products that are Chinese made.
　　What’s your comment on the so-called “China threat?” Is China’s development really a threat to the world, or a contribution to the world in terms of alleviating poverty and maintaining stability?
　　We live at a geopolitical time when “fear” seems to be the dominant reflex, but whatever happened to “opportunity?” Despite all of its historical disappointments, China is one of the few places that actually have the potential to become a true Eldorado market: The numbers, the demographics, and increasingly the disposable income, are compelling; the opportunities are great. Besides, what really is at risk here?
　　Seventy percent to 80 percent of China’s hitech imports and exports are accounted for by foreign-invested enterprises. It is not “the Chinese” who are responsible for this intellectual property being in China, but foreign intellectual property owners. Assuming that these are bright people, not engaging in lemming-like behavior, they must see more opportunities than risks. Additionally, most of this technology involves assembly components rather than “family jewels.” Yes, there is counterfeiting; yes, there is copying; yes, there are surprising new regulations [wireless communications, retailing]; but such behavior alone, while locally troublesome, should not be a reason for “fear” on the global stage.
　　The real competitive advantage that modern complex organizations have is the knowledge of doing business, running a large, global corporation. This sort of intellectual property is tough to copy. Managing a modern, global competitor is an extremely difficult art form.
　　The truth is that nearly a quarter of the world’s population is building a new future for themselves, and by default for the rest of us as well. We should want to be a part of that. Fear only keeps us out of the game.
　　

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Seizing Opportunity Ｓｅｉｚｉｎｇ�。希穑穑铮颍簦酰睿椋簦� seizing seizing什么意思