三星闪存厂选址中国，为了廉价劳工还是技术转移？

无论你是在西方市场、东方市场或是不属于这两个阵营的开发中国家，中国以及其贸易伙伴之间的关系，将会在接下来几年主导舆论与决策方向，而且我敢说，时间将长达数十年。 更进一步说，无论你是美国小镇一家小型零售商店的经营者，或是在某个偏远区域拥有机械重新装备生意，还是在香港某地为富士康(Foxconn Electronics)那样的大厂供应零件，中国与其西方贸易伙伴之间的关系，对你与你的员工来说都应该是第一优先事项。 最近宣布将于中国设置一座闪存制造厂的三星电子 (Samsung Electronics)，把这样的议题推上了火线；照理来说，这是一项无需大张旗鼓的简单业务策略宣布，但是在这个案子上，三星还需要取得政府的批准。

RMwesmc

如果这样一座工厂是要建在美国奥勒冈州或是英国伦敦郊外，并不会让人产生任何其它想法，但三星的宣布却引发了有关战略产品与制程技术转移的疑虑。 对于那些固执地认为企业是为了降低成本才将生产据点移往中国的人来说，三星的宣布提供了一个截然不同的结论。一座半导体厂需要一定水准的专门人才与营运成本，因此地点并无法带来太多的改变；当然，节省的效果还是会有，但影响程度并不高。 针对三星的这项消息，Merrill Lynch分析师Simon Dong-je Woo在一篇报告中表示，该计划：“是一个震撼弹，因为以我们的观点，在中国经营内存工厂，并无法保证可以取得任何显著的成本优势(跟工厂设置在韩国相较，只能节省一点点成本)。” 那 么，激励三星将一个重要厂房移往中国的理由何在？Woo在报告中指出，三星的目的是想在那个全球最大的PC市场中扩大自身版图：“看来三星预期新的晶圆厂 能带来新商机(为中国本地厂商提供NAND闪存)，并降低地缘政治(geopolitical)风险(将芯片制造基地分散)；此外，我们也认为有一 些来自中国政府的激励措施(土地成本与韩国相较较低)。” 以上理由解释了一切，但大量的纠结可能会搞砸三星的业务计划；西方国家的政府(以及韩国政府)一直强烈反对将尖端制造技术移往中国，因为可能会被用来强化该国的军备。这种恐惧是有效的，如果中国与韩国之间真的发生战争 (例如因为离岛归属问题)，中国本地的制造厂会被征召生产军事用品。 三星的中国闪存工厂计划应该还是会取得批准，该公司不太可能会在不曾与韩国官方或西方世界国家讨论过的情况下，就贸然做了这项宣布。美国应该会同意这个计划，不然三星恐怕就会遇到大 麻烦；我认为该座新厂 还是会取得批准，因为西方国家应该并不认为该技术在紧要关头时算得上多么“尖端”。 无论如何，三星的决定已经对于何种技术可 转移至中国的议题，产生了重大的改变；随着中国与全球经济的更进一步整合，对于世界各国来说，不批准关键技术转移至当地，是越来越难的一件事。笔者并非外 国事务专家，我不会在此评论如此发展趋势的优缺点，但我可以说，这势必将主导舆论，也会对企业营运造成冲击。 我个人认为，尽管有维护技术开发国家与寻求技术国家之间关系的考量，高阶战略技术不应该很容易地转移出去；但可以理解的是，当两国之间的关系出现不信任，将会深化争议、升高紧张情势与风险。 这 正是中国目前所处的尴尬情势，而是否要证明他们是可以信任的，取决于中国自己。制造业外包与技术转移至中国的趋势非常可期，这也将导致更多中国本土企业渗 透入全球设计与供应链；这是不可避免的，因为中国不会满足于装配工人的角色，在高科技产业领域，该国政府要求本土业者目标放远，要成为系统整合者、设计 者。他们也想做最好的工作。 技术转移问题势必会让中国与西方国家之间的关系复杂化；可预期的是，未来东西方世界的磨合将沿着三大主轴进行，那就是：利润(profit)、希望(hope)与恐惧(fear)。 编译：Judith Cheng 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文： Technology Transfer Conundrum，by Bolaji Ojo

相关阅读：
• 三星欲在中国建闪存厂，选址进行中
• 经济不景气，Globalfoundries推迟阿布达比建厂计划RMwesmc

{pagination} Technology Transfer Conundrum Bolaji Ojo Whether you are based in the West, the East, or a developing nation outside these two groups, the subject of China and its relationship with trading partners will dominate discussions and policy decisions for the next several years and, I dare say, decades. Further, whether you run a mom-and-pop retail outlet in the middle of Kansas, a machine retooling business in the Adirondacks, or supply enclosures for major vendors like Foxconn Electronics Inc. from somewhere outside Hong Kong, China's relationship with its Western trading partners should be a priority for you and your employees. (See: The Real Truth About 'Made in China'.) Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC) brought this issue back to the front burner when it announced plans to set up a flash memory manufacturing plant in China. Ordinarily, this would be a simple business announcement with no additional fanfare, but in this case, Samsung needs government approval. If it wanted to establish this plant in Oregon or somewhere outside London, the plan wouldn't merit a second thought. However, this announcement is going to set some sparks flying, because of concerns about the transfer of dual-use products and manufacturing processes. For those who still cling to the idea that companies move production plants to China to lower manufacturing costs, the Samsung proposal offers a distinctly different conclusion. (See: Things Don't Get Made in China Simply Because of Cheap Labor and Why We Manufacture in China.) A semiconductor plant requires a certain level of expertise and running costs that won't change much regardless of location. There would, of course, be some savings, but this won't amount to much. The plan "is a big surprise given operating a memory chip fab in China does not warrant, in our view, any significant cost advantage (just a little cost savings vs Korean fabs)," Simon Dong-je Woo of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. writes in a research report. What are the incentives for Samsung to move a major plant to China? Woo writes that the company wants a bigger piece of the globe's largest PC market, and that growing faster in that market involves having a local manufacturing presence, even for products as politically sensitive as semiconductors: It appears Samsung expects the new fab to offer new business opportunities (NAND chip supply to local OEMs) and to lower geopolitical risks (diversification of chip production base). Further, we expect some incentives from the China government (cheaper land cost vs Korea). That explains it all, but numerous kinks could screw up Samsung's business plans. It just happens that Western governments (along with Korea's) adamantly oppose the transfer of leading-edge manufacturing technology to China, because it could be used to advance the country's military objectives. It's a valid fear. If war were to break out between China and Korea (over disputed islands, for instance), local fabricators would be diverted to support military production. Samsung will probably get the approval it needs to proceed with the flash memory plant. It wouldn't have announced this venture without discussing it with Korean and Western officials. The United States would have to give its consent. Otherwise, Samsung could run into major problems. My conclusion is that the new plant will get approved, because Western nations probably do not consider the technology at stake so cutting-edge. However, Samsung's decision has moved the needle as to what can be located in China. As the country gets further integrated into the global economy, it will become harder for nations to withhold approval of major technology transfers. I'm not a foreign policy expert, so I won't debate here the advantages and disadvantages of such a development, but suffice it to say that this will dominate discussions and impact enterprise operations. Personally, I believe high-end, dual-use technology should never be easily transferred, notwithstanding the relationship between the nation that developed it and the ones seeking to receive it. Understandably, the controversy deepens, tensions rise, and the stakes go up when distrust dominates the relationship. That's where China finds itself today, and in many ways, it is up to the Chinese to prove they can be trusted. The trajectory of manufacturing outsourcing and transfer to China is fairly predictable. It will lead to increased penetration into the design and supply chains by Chinese enterprises. This is inevitable, because China is not going to settle for simply being everyone's assembler. In the high-tech sector, the country's political leaders are asking local companies to aim higher and become system integrators, designers, etc. They want the best jobs, too. Withholding the endorsement of technology transfers will complicate relations between China and the West, but a line must be drawn somewhere. Three other recent posts show this is a complex problem. The first calls China the real threat to the global economy. The second, from China Daily, discusses the country's need for "arduous efforts" to become a trading power. The third says General Motors can increase its share of the Chinese automotive market through attrition. The future of East-West engagement lies somewhere along the three axes of profit, hope, and fear.