中国产业升级必需的制度环境: 陈志武

choi

陈志武 Zhiwu CHEN, 中国产业升级必需的制度环境. 金融时报中文网, Nov 17, 2014
www.ftchinese.com/story/001059139
(北京: FT2014中国高峰论坛 上的主题演讲)

My comment:
(a) "这就是为什么这张图也告诉我们，产业升级的前提条件是，全社会已经比较富有。如果全社会收入还是非常低的话，高增加值的产业升级就不太容易实现。"

In fact, the economics moves not by leap and bound (except Great Depression and 2008 financial crisis), but incrementally.
(b) "苏联在80年代的时候，人均GDP超过了1万美元，比中国现在的人均GDP还高很多。但是苏联的创新给今天的人类社会留下了多少东西呢？可以说很少。"

Following the collapse of Soviet Union, most of Soviet data were wiped out for lack of credibility.
(c) "一种是完全由政府主导的产业升级，还有一种是完全市场主导的，私人资本主导的创新，带来的结果非常不一样。为什么？私人出资的时候，如果是做PE基金的，或者是创投，VC基金，有人跟你说有一个很好的想法，很好的技术，请你拿出几千万美金，或者是几亿人民币来投资，给你一些股份。你作为投资职业人士，一个本能的反应就是问他，这个技术能够带来多大的市场，收入增长前景怎样。而如果不同的政府部门掌握资金安排，它关心的不一定是市场需求、增长前景，更多的是非经济的，政治的，还有其他的一些虚无缥渺的指标。因此说，国家出资和民间资本主导的创新，产业升级的结果很不一样。"

PE = private equity
www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privateequity.asp
(d) 冯仑: 现任万通集团董事局主席
(e) If what he says is correct, if a nation (not necessarily China) needs to overcome these hurdle (all of them?), then China has no hope of upgrading its economy. However, looking back in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (I am not familiar with Hong Kong or Singapore), for decades after World War II the economy of the three are similar to today’s China (at least superficially). In 1970s and 1980s, we in Taiwan also yearned for upgrading, did not know where the upgrading would come from. In retrospective, the pieces were in place already, though inchoate--yet nobody saw them, from government officials to individuals. Taiwan’s political structure was sclerotic, with many fractures (people complained a lot, about everything, because they were not allowed to change anything).