美国人的梦：中国制造业有一天会撞墙

最近在美国产业界有个很流行的理论，认为在中国正兴旺的制造产业很快就会经历“撞墙期”，就像是以出口导向的日本在1990年初所遭遇的；支持该理论的人指出，中国的技术创新步伐跟不上其经济成长的速度。 但这样的理论不仅可能内容有误，还有可能威胁到美国的竞争力；其中一个原因在于，该理论支持者基本上是认为美国政府决策者不需要有所作为，美国只要在等待中国经济势力逐渐减弱的同时，持续在创新方面维持领先即可。问题是，美国的技术创新能力与大量推广并制造具附加价值产品/服务的能力之间，出现越来越大的隔阂；至少得先弭平这样的隔阂。 此外，以上“中国撞墙理论”的部分支持者，其实也是将美国制造业工作机会推向中国的始作俑者；这种毁灭性趋势掏空了美国工业的根基。那些理论支持者也指出，中国过热的房地产市场以及中国GDP成长率趋缓，是该国经济势力将减弱的其它迹象。 中国的国营企业确实拖累其经济成长，其中央政府也有一些让观察家“难以置信”的弊病；但也有专家指出，相较于中国中央政府控制型经济政策的迟滞，其省、市政府为了维持区域经济运作而投入大量资源，反而有更灵活的表现。 无论如何，就像乔治亚理工学院国际关系中心(Nunn School of International Affairs)的中国专家Dan Breznitz在最近一场美中经济与安全审查委员会(U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission)的听证会上所言：“我们不能坐等中国失败。” 美国信息科技与创新基金会(Information Technology and Innovation Foundation)主席Robert Atkinson也在上述听证会上指出，对中国创新能力不屑一顾的态度，都是由那些所谓的“华府菁英(Washington elites.)”所挑起：“他们之中有太多人抱持根深蒂固的想法──“我们一点都不需要担心，因为中国不会创新”。” “中国若进化到日本的层级，就会遭遇撞墙期；但那还有好长一段时间。”Atkinson预测，中国在遭遇经济成长瓶颈之前，还有40到50年。而 Breznitz则强调，中国不是日本；他指出，中国的省、市地方政府有清楚的目标与充裕资金，也立志要让中国经济实力超越美国：“市我们该觉醒并正视这个对手的时候了，因为他们已经在眼前。” 也许人们可以争辩，目前中国领导人所采取的策略方向是缺乏永续性思考的；北京城严重的空气污染是一个例证。此外还有中国日益上扬的劳动成本，也让部分西方企业打算将制造据点移出中国；但考量到与中国官方补贴与激励措施相关的罚则，这些企业想要另觅他地建立制造据点，恐怕不是那么容易。 与其坐等中国撞上那道理论性的高墙，美国产业界应该要重新建立自有制造产能。Atkinson所领导的基金会预定在6月份发表一份报告，计划以德国的制造工程师训练方法为蓝本，在美国设立15座“制造技术大学(manufacturing universities)”，期望藉此重振美国制造产业，弭平创新实验室与新产品/服务研发推广之间的隔阂，也为美国经济带来新动力。 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： Will China hit a (great) wall? Don’t bet on it，by George Leopold

相关阅读：
• 在世界的角度看中国这个经济体
• 中国不善自主创新，“二代创新”却很拿手
• 走出水患阴霾，泰国努力制衡中国制造业3TIesmc

{pagination} Will China hit a (great) wall? Don’t bet on it George Leopold WASHINGTON – There’s a fashionable theory making the rounds here that China’s booming manufacturing economy will soon “hit a wall” just as did the export-driven Japanese economy in the early 1990s. Relax, the hit-the-wall crowd urges, the Chinese can’t innovate much less maintain their current pace of economic growth. Not only is this view misguided, it threatens U.S. global competitiveness. One reason is that those who espouse this position are essentially arguing that policy makers do nothing but wait for China’s economy to cool off and fade while we continue to out-innovate them. Problem is, there’s a growing gap in the U.S. between technology innovation and the ability to scale up and produce new value-added products and services. At the very least, we need to close that gap. Moreover, some proponents of the hit-the-wall theory are the same Beltway insiders who enriched themselves by helping to ship U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, a ruinous trend that has effectively hollowed out the U.S. industrial base. Naysayers also point to China’s overheating real estate market as another sign of an impending slowdown, along with a declining rate of growth for China’s GDP. It’s also true that China’s state-run enterprises are a drag on economic growth, and the failings of the central government are, as one observer says, “unbelievable.” But China watchers note that the stasis created by China’s command economy is slowly being challenged by more nimble provincial and municipal governments. Regional and local officials “are doing everything in their power to make the system work, sometimes against the wishes of the central government,” Dan Breznitz, a China expert at Georgia Tech’s Nunn School of International Affairs, told a recent hearing before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “We should not rely on China failing.” Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, argues that the dismissive attitude toward China’s innovation drive is predominantly held by “Washington elites.” “There are way too many who have this deeply held view that we just don’t have to worry” because the China can’t innovate,” he told the U.S.-China commission. China “will hit the wall when they get to the stage of Japan, which is a long time from now,” Atkinson predicts. “The Chinese can go 40 or 50 years before they get to that wall.” Breznitz stresses that China is not Japan. Municipal and provincial officials, he argues, have a clear set of goals, the money and the will to transform China’s economy in hopes of surpassing ours. “It is time that we wake up and smell the jasmine or ginger [tea] because it’s coming,” Breznitz warns. One could argue that China’s current leaders are taking the nation in a direction that is unsustainable. Beijing’s air pollution is but one example. Another is rising labor costs in China, a trend that has some Western companies looking for ways to pull their manufacturing operations out of China. But penalties related to government economic and other incentives will make these manufacturing “re-shoring” efforts difficult. Rather than wait for China to hit a theoretical wall, the U.S. must rebuild its manufacturing capacity from the ground up. Atkinson’s foundation is preparing a report to be released in June that will propose the creation of 15 “manufacturing universities” that will be modeled on Germany’s approach to training manufacturing engineers. Such an initiative would augment other efforts to revive U.S. manufacturing so that we can begin the close the gap between laboratory innovation and the introduction of new products and services that can help create a new engine of U.S. economic growth.