美國人不理解的“原版中國”

一個美國不理解的“原版中國”

PETER COY 2023年5月18日

 

金刻羽身在西方，但並沒有西化。她精通英語和法語，曾就讀於哈佛大學，現在倫敦政經學院任教。她在高盛和世界銀行裏遊刃有餘。但她仍然是一個驕傲的中國人。在最近的兩次產假期間，她與父母住在北京。她剛剛寫了一本書，她稱之為“閱讀原版中國”。也就是說，未經過西方視角的過濾。

有時令歐洲人和美國人感到驚訝的是，中國人在目睹並享受了西方最好的東西後，仍然偏愛中國。中國不是缺乏民主嗎？對維吾爾人和藏人等少數民族的鎮壓怎麽辦？汙染問題？對台灣的威脅和在南海的進犯？

在周二出版的《新中國策略：超越社會主義和資本主義》(The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism)中，金刻羽沒有忽視中國的缺點和失敗。但是，在中美關係極度緊張之際，她講述了一個值得關注的微妙故事。

比如看這樣的數據：美國是民主國家，而中國顯然不是。但2017年至2020年進行的最新“世界價值觀調查”表明，95%的中國參與者對他們的政府充滿信心，而美國的這一比例為33%。同樣，93%的中國參與者認為安全比自由重要；隻有28%的美國人這樣想。

“中國的國民認為政府應該在社會和經濟問題上發揮更大的作用，並不認為幹預是對自由的侵犯，”金刻羽寫道。

邁向“閱讀原版中國”的第一步，是要明白存在這些巨大的文化差異，就像閱讀波德萊爾著作的法文原版或《瘋狂雜誌》(Mad)的英文原版一樣。

金刻羽在全書第一章描述了她在1990年代作為交換生在哈瑞斯曼中學經曆的文化衝撞，那是布朗克斯的一所精英私立學校。在課外，她被問到，“你感到被壓迫嗎？”她很快就參與了地方政治。“一個自豪的共青團員會發現自己沉浸在一個積極參與民主運動、大會和籌款活動的美國家庭中，看上去完全是超現實的，”她寫道。

這本書有相當一部分內容在講述中國的經濟奇跡。在最後一章《邁向新範式》中，她寫道，中國領導層“熱切希望”避免廣泛的不平等，因為那會滋生不信任和極端主義。“中國為其人民尋求橄欖形的收入分配，中間龐大，兩頭稀少。”

她寫道，中國要求本國的公司“合法、合理、合情”。中國各級政府“需要退居幕後，讓市場和企業家來發揮作用”——但實現這一目標的機製“還未成為新策略的一部分”。

幾周前采訪金刻羽時，我問她是否為了避免冒犯中國領導層而有所保留。“我不談論政治問題，”她說。“坦率地說，這是一部經濟學作品。”她還說：“要意識到在中國，絕大多數問題都在國內，這樣想或許會對美國人有所幫助。中國人並不總是想著美國。”

 

對我來說，她最新穎的一章是關於中國的“市長經濟”。中國渴望擁有賢能的官僚機構（盡管腐敗依然嚴重）。在一個級別上表現出色的官員會被提拔或橫向調動以積累經驗。相比之下，這就好比羅恩·德桑蒂斯為了讓拜登總統把他從佛羅裏達州州長提拔為加利福尼亞州州長而取悅他。

鄉鎮、市和省級的政治領導人過去把重點放在原材料產量上，依靠國有企業生產更多的鋼鐵、水泥等。但現在，在金刻羽看來，這些“市長”正專注於利用私營部門的創造力。

但是，我問金刻羽，習近平主席不是要重申政府對經濟“製高點”的控製嗎？“不要過多解讀浮誇的信息，”她回答道。“今天的現實是，私營部門完全掌握了主導權。”她說，最好的證據是中國經濟從新冠限製中緩慢反彈。“之所以不景氣，恰恰是對私營部門缺乏信心，”她說。“呼籲‘國家隊’合力進行大型基礎設施建設的老套路已經行不通了。”

我問她如何看中國領導人對置身事外的“躺平”一代的恐懼。這是真的，她說：“躺平關係到低結婚率和降低期望值。”另一方麵，她說，中國年輕人並沒有完全放棄；他們隻是不想做體力勞動或其他沒有吸引力的工作：“他們感興趣的是通過創新來解決社會問題，而不僅僅是適者生存。”

她說，中國年輕人“思想更開放，更有社會意識，更寬容，更能接受多樣性。”但這並不能使他們親美國。“他們喜歡好萊塢和NBA。他們喜歡在西方的經曆，”她說。“但這與他們選擇離家近的地方並創造當地文化並不矛盾。”

金刻羽說，回到橄欖形收入分配的比喻，對於中國人來說，“底線是避免美式資本主義。”她說，從本質上講，“中國希望成為一個更大、更明智的德國。更受控的資本主義。”

相關報道

金刻羽：美國真的能理解中國嗎？2023年3月29日

中美關係究竟哪裏出了問題？2023年4月18日

如何避免一場中美戰爭2023年4月13日

與中國的冷戰將顛覆一切 2023年3月24日

Peter Coy撰寫與商業相關的文章已有近40年，歡迎在Twitter上關注他：@petercoy。

翻譯：紐約時報中文網

What Americans Don’t Understand About China

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/opinion/china-keyu-jin.html?_ga=2.104901574.492841364.1685941503-1104406257.1683519853

May 17, 2023

 By Peter Coy

Keyu Jin is in the West but not entirely of it. She’s fluent in English and French, studied at Harvard and teaches at the London School of Economics. She knows her way around Goldman Sachs and the World Bank. But she is still a proud Chinese. She lived with her parents in Beijing during two recent maternity leaves. And she has just written a book about what she calls “reading China in the original.” Unfiltered, that is, by a Western perspective.

It sometimes comes as a surprise to Europeans and Americans that Chinese people who have seen and enjoyed the best of the West nevertheless prefer China. What about the lack of democracy and the repression of minorities such as the Uyghurs and Tibetans? The pollution? The threats against Taiwan and incursions in the South China Sea?

Jin doesn’t ignore China’s faults and failings in “The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism,” which was published on Tuesday. But she tells a nuanced story that deserves attention at a time of extreme tension between China and the United States.

Consider this, for example: The United States is a democracy, and China isn’t, of course. But the latest World Values Survey, conducted from 2017 to 2020, indicates that 95 percent of Chinese participants had significant confidence in their government, compared to 33 percent in the United States. Similarly, 93 percent of Chinese participants valued security over freedom; only 28 percent of Americans did so.

 

 

“Chinese citizens expect the government to take on larger roles in social and economic issues and do not see interventions as infringements on liberty,” Jin wrote.

Wrapping your mind around those stark cultural differences is the first step toward “reading China in the original,” just as you get more out of reading Baudelaire in the original French or Mad magazine in the original English.

In her opening chapter, Jin described her collision-of-cultures experiences as an exchange student in the 1990s at the Horace Mann School, an elite private school in the Bronx. Outside of class, she was asked, “Do you feel oppressed?” She quickly got involved in local politics. “That a proud Youth League member of the Communist Party could find herself immersed in an American family actively involved in democratic campaigns, conventions and fund-raising seemed utterly surreal,” she wrote.

Much of the book recounts China’s economic miracle. In her final chapter, “Toward a New Paradigm,” she wrote that China’s leadership “fervently wishes” to avoid vast inequality that breeds distrust and extremism. “China seeks an olive-shaped income distribution for its people, ample in the middle and narrow at the extremes.”

China, she wrote, requires that its companies be hefa, heli and heqing — that is, lawful, reasonable and empathetic. Chinese government at all levels “will need to recede to the background while letting markets and entrepreneurs do the work” — but the mechanisms for making that happen “are not yet part of the new playbook.”

 

 

When I interviewed Jin a couple of weeks ago I asked whether she had pulled punches to avoid offending China’s leadership. “I don’t talk about political issues,” she said. “To be frank, this is an economics work.” She added: “Perhaps it would be helpful for Americans to be aware that in China, the problems are overwhelmingly domestic. Chinese are not always thinking about America.”

To me, her freshest chapter is about China’s “mayor economy.” China aspires to have a meritocratic bureaucracy (although corruption remains serious). Officials who excel at one level are moved up or transferred laterally to gain experience. For comparison, imagine if Ron DeSantis tried to please President Biden so Biden would promote him to governor of California from governor of Florida.

Political leaders at the township, municipal and provincial levels used to focus on raw output, relying on state-owned enterprise to churn out more steel, cement and so on. But now, in Jin’s view, these “mayors” are focused on harnessing the creativity of the private sector.

But, I asked Jin, isn’t President Xi Jinping trying to reassert government control over the “commanding heights” of the economy? “Don’t read too much into grandiose messages,” she responded. “The reality today is that the private sector is fully in the driver’s seat.” The best evidence of that is the Chinese economy’s slow rebound from its Covid shutdown, she said. “The reason it’s sluggish is precisely that there’s a lack of confidence in the private sector,” she said. “The old playbook of calling on Team China to do large infrastructure, that is no longer working.”

I asked her about Chinese leaders’ fears of a disengaged “lying flat” generation. It’s real, she said: “Lying flat is associated with few marriages and reduced expectations.” On the other hand, she said, young Chinese aren’t exactly giving up; they just don’t want to do manual labor or other unappealing work: “They’re interested in innovating to solve society’s problems, not just survival of the fittest.”

Young Chinese “are more open-minded, more socially conscious, more tolerant, more accepting of diversity,” she said. But that does not make them pro-American. “They like Hollywood and the N.B.A. and they like their experience in the West,” she said. “But it’s not contradictory with the fact that they choose to be close to home and invent local culture.”

For the Chinese, “the bottom line is to avoid an American-style capitalism,” Jin said, coming back to the metaphor of an olive-shaped income distribution. Essentially, she said, “China wants to be a bigger and smarter Germany. More managed capitalism.”

---

Elsewhere: A Surprising Trend in College Costs

When people talk about the exorbitant cost of college, they tend to focus on rising sticker prices. But that’s wrong in two ways, as this chart based on a report by the College Board shows.

First, sticker prices haven’t risen as rapidly as the Consumer Price Index for the past two years. Second, most students don’t pay full freight because they get grants. Average net prices, adjusted for inflation, are back to 2006-2007 levels. But college is still too expensive for low-income students, Phillip Levine, a Wellesley College economist and nonresident fellow of the Brookings Institution, wrote in a report for Brookings last month. “This lack of college affordability for lower-income students, not the dramatic rise in sticker prices which only higher-income students pay, is what should capture our attention,” Levine wrote.