風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
中國模式的魅力 - 觀點 - 國際先驅論壇報
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/opinion/01iht-edafrica.3357752.html
張維為 2006 年 11 月 1 日
北京——許多來華出席中非峰會的非洲領導人不僅被援助和貿易機會所吸引，也被中國的發展模式所吸引。
他們知道，僅僅三十年前，中國還和馬拉維一樣貧窮。 但盡管後者仍然是世界上最貧窮的國家之一，但中國的經濟卻增長了九倍。 事實上，中國模式在很多方麵挑戰了西方關於如何消除貧困和確保善政的傳統智慧。 其主要特點是：
人很重要。 1978年以來，中國堅定不移地實施現代化戰略，緊緊圍繞解決人民最迫切的需要。 中國改革的總設計師鄧小平指出，中國隻能“實事求是”，不能教條主義，一切改革都必須因地製宜、帶來實實在在的好處。
不斷的實驗。 中國的所有變革，首先要經過小範圍試錯的過程，隻有證明有效後，才會推廣到其他地方。
漸進式改革，而不是大爆炸。 中國拒絕“休克療法”，對現有的、不完善的製度進行改造，並逐步改革它們，調整它們的方向，為現代化服務。
一種發育狀態。 中國的變革是由一個強大且有利於發展的國家領導的，該國家有能力形成關於現代化的全國共識，並確保總體政治和宏觀經濟穩定，從而進行廣泛的國內改革。
選擇性學習。 中國保留了“選擇性文化借鑒”的悠久傳統——包括美國新自由主義模式，特別是對市場作用、創業精神、全球化和國際貿易的強調。 將中國模式描述為“北京共識”與“華盛頓共識”是不準確的。 中國經驗的獨特之處在於，北京在何時、何地以及如何采納外國思想方麵維護了自己的政策空間。
正確的順序和優先級。 1978年後中國的變革有一個明顯的規律：先易改革，後難改革； 首先是農村改革，其次是城市改革； 首先是沿海地區的變化，其次是內陸地區的變化； 首先是經濟改革，其次是政治改革。 好處是第一階段獲得的經驗為下一階段創造條件。
過去25年裏，我去過100多個國家，其中大部分是發展中國家，其中18個在非洲。 我的結論是，在消除貧困、幫助窮人和邊緣化群體方麵，中國模式無論多麽不完美，都比以國際貨幣基金組織設計的結構調整計劃（SAP）為代表的所謂美國模式有效得多。 ）針對撒哈拉以南非洲地區，以及針對俄羅斯的“休克療法”。
美國模式很大程度上是意識形態驅動的，重點是大眾民主化。 它很少考慮當地條件，將撒哈拉以南非洲或其他欠發達國家視為成熟社會，西方製度將自動在其中紮根。 它在安全網建立之前就實行了自由化； 在建立監管框架之前實現私有化，在建立政治寬容和法治文化之前實現民主化。 最終的結果往往令人沮喪，甚至是毀滅性的。
大多數發展中國家的首要任務是如何消除貧困，這是衝突和各種形式極端主義的根源。 他們通常需要的不是一個自由民主的政府，而是一個能夠消除貧困、提供基本服務和基本安全的好政府。
此外，大多數貧窮國家根本不具備自由民主政府的條件——法治、規模龐大的中產階級、受過良好教育的人口、政治寬容的文化。 對他們實行過早的民主化往往會導致法裏德·紮卡裏亞所說的“非自由民主”，或更糟糕的是，導致種族和宗派衝突。
隻要美國模式仍然無法帶來預期的結果（從海地到菲律賓再到伊拉克的失敗就清楚地表明了這一點），中國模式就會對世界貧困人口更具吸引力。
我清楚地記得1985年9月鄧小平對來訪的加納總統傑裏·羅林斯說：“請不要照搬我們的模式。如果說我們有什麽經驗的話，那就是根據自己的國情製定政策。”
也許態度決定一切。 中國被別人認為是謙虛的，美國被認為是傲慢的； 中國以身作則，美國以身作則, 如果不是導彈，也可以通過教訓和製裁來實現。
歸根結底，最重要的是找到解決人類麵臨的眾多挑戰的最佳方法。 中國模式雖然不完美，但豐富了世界的政治話語和智慧，擴大了政策選擇。
The allure of the Chinese model - Opinion - International Herald Tribune
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/opinion/01iht-edafrica.3357752.html
Wei-Wei Zhang
BEIJING — Many of the African leaders coming here for the Chinese-African summit meeting are attracted not only by opportunities for aid and trade, but also by the Chinese model of development.
They know that only three decades ago, China was as poor as Malawi. But while the latter remains among the world's poorest, China's economy has expanded nine-fold. Indeed, the Chinese model has in many ways challenged the conventional wisdom in the West on how to fight poverty and ensure good governance. Its key features are:
People matter. Since 1978, China has pursued a down-to-earth strategy for modernization, and has focused on meeting the most pressing needs of the people. The architect of China's reform, Deng Xiaoping, argued that China could only "seek truth from facts," not from dogmas, and all reforms must take account of local conditions and deliver tangible benefits.
Constant experimentation. All changes in China first go through a process of trial and error on a small scale, and only when they are shown to work are they are applied elsewhere.
Gradual reform, not big bang. China rejected "shock therapy" and worked through the existing, imperfect institutions while gradually reforming them and reorienting them to serve modernization.
A developmental state. China's change has been led by a strong and pro-development state that is capable of shaping national consensus on modernization and ensuring overall political and macroeconomic stability in which to pursue wide-ranging domestic reforms.
Selective learning. China has retained its long tradition of "selective cultural borrowing" - including from the neoliberal American model, and especially its emphasis on the role of the market, entrepreneurship, globalization and international trade. It is inaccurate to describe the Chinese model as the "Beijing consensus" versus the "Washington consensus." What makes the Chinese experience unique is that Beijing has safeguarded its own policy space as to when, where and how to adopt foreign ideas.
Correct sequencing and priorities. China's post- 1978 change has had a clear pattern: easy reforms first, difficult ones second; rural reforms first, urban ones second; changes in coastal areas first, inland second; economic reforms first, political ones second. The advantage is that the experiences gained in the first stage create conditions for the next stage.
Over the past 25 years, I've traveled to more than 100 countries, most of them developing countries, including 18 in Africa. I have concluded that in terms of eradicating poverty and helping the poor and the marginalized, the Chinese model, however imperfect, has worked far more effectively than what can be called the American model, as represented by the IMF-designed Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) for sub-Saharan Africa and the "shock therapy" for Russia.
The American model is largely ideology driven, with a focus on mass democratization. With little regard to local conditions, it treats sub-Saharan Africa or other less developed countries as mature societies in which Western institutions will automatically take root. It imposed liberalization before safety nets were set up; privatization before regulatory frameworks were put in place, and democratization before a culture of political tolerance and rule of law was established. The end result has often been discouraging or even devastating.
The paramount task for most developing countries is how to eradicate poverty, a root cause of conflicts and various forms of extremism. What they usually need is not a liberal democratic government, but a good government capable of fighting poverty and delivering basic services and basic security.
Furthermore, conditions for a liberal democratic government - rule of law, a sizable middle class, a well-educated population, a culture of political tolerance - are simply absent in most poor countries. Enforcing premature democratization on them often leads to what Fareed Zakaria has called "illiberal democracies," or worse, ethnic and sectarian conflicts.
So long as the American model remains unable to deliver the desired outcome, as shown so clearly in failures from Haiti to the Philippines to Iraq, the Chinese model will become more appealing to the world's poor.
I well remember Deng telling the visiting president of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings, in September 1985: "Please don't copy our model. If there is any experience on our part, it is to formulate policies in light of one's own national conditions."
Perhaps attitude makes all the difference. China is viewed by others as modest, America as arrogant; China leads by example, America by lectures and sanctions, if not missiles.
At the end of the day, what matters most is finding the best ways to tackle the many challenges facing mankind. The Chinese model, however imperfect, has enriched the world's political discourse and wisdom and hence expanded the policy options.
