Info Aggregator: 这个世纪，属于中国——还是印度？（印度篇：成功无压力）

Saturday, 26 November 2011

这个世纪，属于中国——还是印度？（印度篇：成功无压力）

译者江烈农

The Case for India: Free to Succeed

《这个世纪，属于中国——还是印度？》之

印度篇：成功无压力

By Michael Schuman Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011

《时代》杂志２０１１年１１月１０日特别报道

作者：迈克尔·舒曼

译者：江烈农

If I have to endure another corporate executive blindly praising China and reflexively trashing India, I might actually gag. I'm often trapped in conversations with suits that follow the same, excruciating pattern. First, they swoon over China's stellar roadways and airports, the superior wisdom of Beijing's policy mandarins and the clinical efficiency of its authoritarian regime. Then they turn 180 degrees to rail against the feebleness of India's infrastructure, the ineptitude of New Delhi's bureaucrats and the convoluted course of Indian democratic politics. How, they ask, can India ever catch up?

　　如果再碰上哪个公司经理盲目吹捧中国、本能式地骂印度“垃圾”，那我可就真要当面吐槽了。跟这帮穿西装打领带的谈话，他们总是千篇一律、陈词滥调，把我往死里绕。首先，狂赞中国一番——公路、机场高级得来几乎星光闪烁，京城高官制订政策那叫一个智慧超群，集权政府包治百病、效率无敌；然后，调转１８０度，开始狂喷印度——基础设施薄弱不堪，新德里官僚愚蠢无能、毫不称职，民主政治进程错综复杂、令人费解……印度？他们不屑地问：这国家哪万年才能赶上中国？

When comparing India and China, most economists and business folk simply look at the wrong things. Beijing's bureaucrats may be better at building roads, but government dictates and human-rights abuses won't ensure the country's economic success. The past half-century of Asian economic history tells us that sustained development ultimately depends on entrepreneurship, a strong private sector, rule of law and political openness. India, not China, possesses these crucial building blocks of economic progress. And that is why India will overtake China as the world's premier emerging economy.

　　每每拿印度同中国比较时，大多数经济学家和搞商业的家伙们从切入点就离题万里：北京政府确实更会修路，但是专政独裁以及侵害人权并不能确保一个国家的经济迈向成功。看看亚洲经济刚刚翻过的这半个世纪吧，历史告诉我们：可持续发展最终还是要靠强有力的私营经济、法律法规、大搞企业，以及政治开放——这些促使经济进步的基本要素，中国全没有，但印度全都有。这就是为什么印度将会超越中国，成为世界第一大新兴经济体的原因。

(Graphic: How the Giants Measure Up.)

　　（这里有一张图，比较了中、印两国间的人口、文盲率、网民数量、外汇储备、黄金储备、进出口量、通胀率、军费开支占国民生产总值比例等多项数据。）（点击这里，认领此篇原文开始翻译）

When I make this argument, I usually get bewildered stares — probably the same response you're having right now. Yes, I can see why many people believe India is stuck sucking fumes behind China's great industrial machine. The Indian economy hasn't been growing as quickly as China's, nor has its industry imprinted as deep a mark on the global economy. India has more than twice as many people trapped in desperate poverty, while its fractious democracy entangles policymaking in long-winded debates and ideological tussles unthinkable within China's autocratic government. Beijing and Shanghai are connected by high-speed trains; their thoroughfares are lined with modern office towers. In New Delhi and Mumbai, the dusty lanes remain lined with barefoot beggars and cluttered with soot-belching motorized rickshaws.

　　听到我这个观点，人们常常双目圆瞪、不知所措——或许你现在就是这表情吧？是，很多人都认为印度的产业化进程远落后于中国，望尘莫及，只能憋在后面吃吃屁，这一点我能理解。论经济，印度没有中国增长快；论工业，其全球影响力也难望中国项背。印度的赤贫人口是中国的两倍多，而其所谓的民主又是乖张暴戾、繁琐难驭，使得政治决策陷入烦冗的争论与意识形态斗争之中纠缠不清——这在中国独裁政府而言是无法想象的。京沪高铁开通了，两座城市宽街大道上摩登写字楼鳞次栉比；新德里和孟买呢，穷街陋巷仍是尘土飞扬，路上乱跑的是烧柴油的三轮车，尾气烟熏着沿街光脚的乞丐。

But to discover which nation will win out over the long haul, we need to dig past surface appearances, down into the guts of the two economies, to learn how they tick. China's economy appears lovely on the outside but is rotten at the core, like a brightly polished Ferrari with the innards of a Pinto. India's growth engine may occasionally get smeared with manure and lost in detours, but check under the hood, and you'll find it is much more powerful than it looks — more powerful, in fact, than China's.

　　但如果要耗，如果要长远来看，说哪个国家会赢到最后，我们就需要透过表面现象，深挖这两个经济体的实质了。中国经济金玉其外、败絮其中；若要用车来打个不恰当的比方，那就是“宝马其外、华晨其中”。印度经济增长的列车可能时不时会绕点弯路、碾点狗屎什么的，但如果掀开引擎盖往里面瞧瞧，你会发现，这国家的发动机可比看起来要强劲得多——实际上，比中国的还强。

(Read "India vs. China: Whose Economy Is Better?")

　　（点击这里，阅读《时代》另一篇文章：《印度对中国：谁的经济更好？》）（点击这里，认领此篇原文开始翻译）

Part of the reason is simple mathematics. Since the Chinese economy is more than three times the size of India's, the Middle Kingdom's growth rate will inevitably slow, allowing India to close the gap. For a developing economy, China is aging rapidly because of the distortions caused by its controversial one-child policy, giving India a demographic advantage in generating future growth. Much more important, and contrary to what many believe, India possesses a superior economic model to China's — sturdier, healthier and better equipped to maintain rapid progress over the long term.

　　要说理由，其实一部分理由是很简单的数学问题。因为中国经济规模是印度三倍以上，所以这片神州大地的经济增长速度将不可避免地趋于缓和——印度有机可乘，或可缩小差距。同时，备受争议的“计划生育”已经扭曲了中国的人口年龄结构，作为一个发展中的经济体，这国家却正迅速步入老龄化；相比之下，论及未来经济增长，印度必然具有人口年龄结构上的优势。更为重要的一点——也是大部分人都不相信的一点——印度的经济发展模式优于中国：更稳固、更健康、准备更充分、更适宜保持长期高速发展。

That's because India's economy has balanced sources of growth. Strong domestic demand drives India's GDP, offering the economy protection from external shocks. China has no such cushion. Its economy is overly dependent on investment and exports. Economists believe China needs to encourage more domestic private consumption — to "rebalance" — to promote sustainable economic growth. In other words, China has to become more Indian. That became obvious during the Great Recession. India charged through the downturn because the resilient Indian consumer propelled the economy forward. When the financial crisis hit China, however, Beijing was forced to unleash a tsunami of government stimulus and credit from state-controlled banks to keep growth going. Even though the world's economists lauded the effectiveness of China's recession-fighting methods, these were, in fact, a sign of the economy's frailties.

　　之所以如此，是因为印度的经济发展具有更均衡的动力源。强劲的内需不仅驱动了ＧＤＰ，也为印度经济提供了抵御外部冲击的保护。但中国却没有这样的缓冲带，其经济过度依赖于投资与出口。经济学家相信，中国应鼓励更多的本土消费，以“重获”经济平衡，推动可持续性经济发展；换言之，中国必须向“印度模式”靠拢。这一点，透过此前世界经济“大衰退”可见一斑。印度冲破了经济低迷，依靠其弹性的消费需求，于逆境中推动经济向前发展；而当金融危机席卷中国时，北京政府被逼无奈，只得透过国有银行海量放贷，于困境中刺激经济维持增长势头。纵使世界各地经济学家对中国应对经济危机的做法大加赞赏，但这种种“不得已”实际上则预示了中国经济的脆弱不堪。

Read "Charity Case: Do Indians Give Enough Away?"

　　（点击这里，阅读《时代》另一篇文章：《慈善问题：印度人给的还不够多吗？》）（点击这里，认领此篇原文开始翻译）

Money Talks

有钱能使鬼推磨

Beijing's stimulus effort also exposed another Chinese weakness — a faulty, immature financial system. Though the state owns large chunks of the banking sectors in both countries, China's bureaucrats interfere much more intrusively in the credit decisions of its financial institutions, turning them into little more than arms of government policy. That makes Chinese banks more vulnerable and less efficient in allocating resources. Indian banks, on the other hand, are run on a more commercial basis. They have greater expertise in risk management and credit analysis, and as a result, they tend to lend money more intelligently and have stronger balance sheets. We cannot understate how important that is for India's future performance. "Indian banks are stronger [than China's]," explains Mark Young, head of Asian banks at rating agency Fitch in Singapore. "There is a clear link between the health of the banking sector and the capability to support economic growth."

　　北京政府努力刺激经济，暴露了中国另一个弱点：一个有缺陷的、不成熟的金融体系。虽然中、印两国大部分银行部门统归国有，但以信贷决策而言，中国的金融机构受官僚强制干预却更为严重，沦为了政府政策的傀儡，充其量也就比所谓“政治手臂”强一点点。这导致中国的银行更为脆弱，资源调配效率也更为低下。然而另一方面，印度银行的操作与运行则更加商业，不仅在风险管理与信贷分析方面拥有更强的专业经验，而且也因而得以更加明智地放贷，并因此获得一张更漂亮的资产负债表。这一点对印度未来的表现具有举足轻重的意义，决不可轻描淡写一笔带过。“印度的银行（比中国的）更强劲，”新加坡惠誉信用评级有限公司亚太银行集团执行董事杨马克【注一】解释说，“银行部门是否健全，关乎一个国家支持经济增长的能力，二者联系显而易见、毋庸置疑。”

India's corporate sector beats out China's too. Indian companies are more dynamic, better managed and financially sounder than Chinese enterprises. According to data crunched by investment bank CLSA, Indian firms outperform China's, with both wider profit margins and higher returns on equity. That's not about to change. Chinese corporations are not only burdened by more debt, they are adding debt at an alarming rate. Fitch figures that at the end of 2010, bank credit represented 139% of GDP in China compared with a mere 49% in India.

　　中国的企业部门同印度一比，也悲剧了。印度的企业更有活力、管理更好、财务更健全。根据财富里昂证券公司（一家投资银行）处理的数据，印度公司的表现优于中国，不仅利润率更高，股本回报率也更高——而且这优势已成定局，不会变了。中国企业不仅背负更多的债务，而且正在以仓皇告急的速度持续增加债务。根据惠誉评级计算的数据，截止２０１０年年底，银行信贷占中国ＧＤＰ的１３９％，相比之下，印度这个数字仅４９％。

We can also make the case that India is more entrepreneurial than China. Indian firms like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro practically invented the entire offshore IT-services industry — a sector China is now attempting to copy. At their ever expanding campuses, these companies train and absorb thousands of new hires each year while extending their reach to every corner of the globe — management challenges Chinese executives would struggle to tackle. Arvind Subramanian, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., says the evidence can be found by evaluating how companies from China and India operate outside their home markets. Indian firms, he notes, not only invest more heavily overseas than China's (as a percentage of GDP), but they also tend to operate core manufacturing and service businesses in advanced economies. China, meanwhile, has focused outward investment on natural resources in Africa and other emerging economies. That, Subramanian contends, shows Indian managers can better compete head-to-head with the world's top CEOs in the most demanding markets.

　　我们还可以继续举例。比如要说创业精神的话，印度也是更胜一筹。诸如印孚瑟斯、塔塔咨询服务、威普罗等印度公司【注二】，差不多就是“发明”了整个离岸ＩＴ服务业——这个版块，中国正在试图复制。这些公司的软件园区不断扩张，每年培养、吸收的新员工数以千计，其触角正伸向全球每一个角落——这样的管理挑战，中国高管抓破脑门、疲于应对。华盛顿著名智库“彼得森国际经济研究所”的高级研究员阿文德·萨勃拉曼尼亚说，通过评估中、印企业各自如何运作国外市场，可以看出上述论点的证据。他指出，同中国相比，印度的公司对海外投资比例更重（以占ＧＤＰ比重而言），而且往往倾向于投资发达经济体的核心制造业与服务业；中国对外投资则更关注非洲及其他新兴经济体的自然资源。阿文德辩称，这表明印度经理人更善于在最严苛的市场中与世界顶级ＣＥＯ们角逐。

(See TIME's special report "India Charges Ahead.")

　　（点击这里，阅读《时代》特别报道：《印度向前冲：六十年独立史》）（点击这里，认领此篇原文开始翻译）

Such management expertise will prove decisive as China and India lose their low-cost competitiveness. The only way either economy can keep growth roaring is to develop high-tech industries and innovative companies — a difficult leap that demands the type of smartly run companies India already has. It also requires democracy and civil liberties. By censoring the Internet, controlling the press and stifling debate, Beijing is suppressing the open exchange of information and risk-taking spirit necessary for entrepreneurial innovation. Indians, enjoying full freedom of expression and association, face no such hurdles. These basic rights in India, furthermore, are protected by an independent judiciary that can be trusted to uphold the rule of law — a crucial ingredient for economic progress.

　　当中国、印度双双失去低成本竞争力后，印度所具有的管理经验将起决定性作用，届时事实将证明一切。中、印两个经济体想要保持兴旺的增长，其实殊途同归，唯一方法就是发展高新技术产业和创新型企业——这是一个艰难的“大跃进”，需要精明运作的公司支持，印度已经准备好了，中国呢？这个飞跃，还需要民主和公民自由——中国？通过审查互联网、控制新闻媒体以及压制一切相关探讨，北京镇压了信息的开放交流以及冒险精神，而这些恰恰是企业创新所必需的；印度人则享有充分的言论自由和结社自由，无需面对诸如此类重重障碍——而且，这些基本权利在印度是受法律保护的。印度有独立的司法机构，坚持法制，值得信赖——这更是经济进步的一个关键因素。

Whether you believe India or China will own the future depends on whether you think the state or the market can generate the best economic results over the decades to come. True, China's government is more competent than India's. But can China's bureaucrats take the economy into the ranks of the most advanced? History tells us the answer is no. I dare you to name one example of an authoritarian, state-dominated economy that developed creative, innovative industries and world-beating companies. China faces that risk. On the other hand, we can make a long list of democratic, market-oriented economies with well-managed private companies that have excelled. There is every reason to believe India will be one of them.

　　信中国，还是信印度——你认为未来属于龙或象，取决于你认为未来几十年到底哪种机制可以创造最佳的经济效益——国家干预，还是市场经济？诚然，中国政府比印度政府更能干，但中国官僚能否带领中国经济跻身世界最先进行列？历史告诉我们，答案是“不可能”。我敢说，你绝对讲不出历史上哪个独裁、国家主导型的经济体发展出了任何以创意、创新领先的产业或任何世界一流公司——中国面临同样的风险。另一方面，我们可以罗列出一份长长的名单，细数民主、市场导向型的经济体，细数其成就卓越不凡、管理井然有序的私营公司——有充分理由相信，印度必将位列榜单一席。

So don't be fooled by Shanghai skyscrapers and Beijing propaganda, or misled by the chaos of Mumbai's streets and India's tendency for self-deprecation. China's state may give it an edge today. But India's private economy will give it the edge tomorrow.

　　所以呢，别被上海的摩天大楼和北京的政府宣传愚弄了，也别被孟买混乱不堪的街道和印度的自嘲倾向误导了。依靠国家干预，中国今晚略胜一筹，但私营经济则会助印度笑看明朝。