|
|
Is China's rapid rise good for the rest of the world?
|
瀏覽4,638 ｜回應10｜推薦0 |
|
|
|
Is China's rapid rise good for the rest of the world?
Or something to be feared?
Or some of each?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948422.htm?campaign_id=spr_yahoo_china-india05
Subroto Bagchi
No, I do not think anyone should be afraid of China's growth.
If 1/6th of world's population will get a better life,
it is good for the planet.
Gone are the days when
growth, hegemony, and unilateralism were synonymous.
We will increasingly live in times in which
sustainability and connectedness of things will be better understood. Consequently,
China will have to play the game, per the rules.
Subroto Bagchi
Chief operating officer, MindTree Consulting
U.S. and India
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Straszheim
China is more opportunity than threat.
The best assurance of global growth and geopolitical stability
is for increasing globalization and interdependence.
[The thinking should be] I cannot afford to attack my partner.
This is the fundamental reason for
favoring China's WTO entry on Dec. 11, 2001.
China is far from a market economy,
but they are making great progress, with more to come.
Donald H. Straszheim
Chairman & CEO, Straszheim Global Advisors
U.S.
--------------------------------------------------
Oded Shenkar
China's rapid rise is good for China and for the rest of the world.
However from a business perspective,
China is both a threat and an opportunity.
Many companies
will not be able to meet "the China price"
and will have to restructure or exit the market,
while others will benefit from opportunities in the Chinese market
and from China outsourcing.
The bottom line is that
companies should rethink their business model
so as to develop and sustain a competitive advantage
in a global environment where China is a major player.
Oded Shenkar
Professor of management and human resources,
Ohio State University Fisher College of Business
U.S.
--------------------------------------------------
Viveca Chan
China's growth is certainly good for the world.
There has been concern
in both developed and less developed countries over "the China price"
as a threat to taking away jobs from their countries.
This is like seeing a glass that is half empty instead of half full.
From a positive perspective,
China offers consumers goods at more affordable prices
and encourages consumption.
It also forces less developed countries
to improve their competitiveness
and more developed ones to move upstream.
China's growth will not pose a threat
because the Chinese culture is about harmony.
As a superpower, China is very tolerant
and does not impose its values or standards on other countries.
It has a history of working comfortably with other nations,
as long as they do not interfere with Chinese domestic policies
or affect their economic interests.
So China's growth is good for the world.
Viveca Chan
Group chairman & CEO, Grey Global Group
Hong Kong
--------------------------------------------------
Jiang Li
China's rise is certainly good for the rest of the world.
A better life for 1.3 billion people
is the biggest contribution to the stabilization of the whole world.
The so-called "China price"
is not due to China being developed but to its being not developed.
In long term, the rise of China
will finally put China on the same [plane as] developed countries
and therefore
eliminate any threat in product prices.
The rise of China is also benefiting the economy of the rest of the world.
Take tourism.
Tremendous [numbers of] Chinese people v
isited neighboring countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Now the huge Chinese tourist army
is expanding to Japan, Australia, and Europe.
Besides tourism,
Chinese people are also spending wealth
on their children's education overseas.
This spending directly stimulated the economy of the related countries
and in some sense
returned the wealth to those countries.
China still has many things to do [to become a] developed country.
Efforts need to be made
to popularize education [and toward] environment protection
and sustained development of industry and agriculture.
In any sense, China is not a threat to the rest of the world.
Jiang Li
Research Manager,
Media Communication Group, Microsoft Research Asia
China
--------------------------------------------------
Wang Yong
No. The world should not fear China's rise. Let me first discuss if China's rise is a threat in economic perspective.
China's economic miracle is more of a globalization story.
China's rapid development
has taken place in the global network of interdependence.
China's growth has relied upon international investment and trade
much more than any rising country ever did –
whether it was the UK, U.S., Germany, or Japan.
A post-WTO China has doubled its import and export volume
within three years, mainly because
more investment flows in
and
the Chinese markets are much more open.
Shanghai is widely [perceived as] China's economic capital
and the center of innovation,
but over half of Shanghai's export
comes from foreign-invested enterprises.
Contrary to the American perception,
China's foreign trade is generally in balance.
The American public should know this.
It means that
China is not only an export machine,
but also a tremendous market for imports
from its major trading partners --
the U.S., EU, Japan, and Southeast Asia.
[For those countries, this has meant]
jobs, profits to companies, revenue to governments,
as well as more choices to customers,
both in developed and developing countries.
That is why developing countries are not scared of China's rising,
though they are more likely to face the competition of Chinese exports.
Wang Yong
Associate professor,
School of International Studies
Director, Center for International Political Economy,
Peking University
China
--------------------------------------------------
Saurav Adhikari
China's rise is to be feared as much as India's,
should India become a global economic power.
That is the natural corollary to this question.
Frankly "with great power comes great responsibility,"
and I think so far China has used it well
with saber (both military and economic) rattling
more than any visible manifestation.
Another contrarian view is that
as China grows so must its ability to deal with other lower-cost nations.
So rather than fear China
I think the world must learn to accept its power and respond to it.
Saurav Adhikari
Corporate vice-president for strategy, HCL Technologies
India
--------------------------------------------------
Subir Gokarn
The general tone of the comments is that
Chinese economic ascendancy is not something to be afraid of
but it does have implications for global governance mechanisms.
I tend to agree with this view.
From an Indian perspective,
with some expectation that
India will also somewhere along the line
approach China's share of world GDP,
the rigidity of global institutions is a cause for concern.
The UNSC is perhaps the most visible manifestation of this,
but generally speaking,
history is a far more important determinant of global influence.
For growing economic power
to translate into more significant contributions to global solutions,
institutions have to adapt.
They don't show too many signs of doing this at the moment.
The danger, going forward, is that
emerging economic powers will look outside collective mechanisms
to exercise and expand their influence.
This will be harmful to both individual and collective interests.
Subir Gokarn
Chief economist, Crisil Ltd. debt-rating agency
India
--------------------------------------------------
Wenran Jiang
Overall, the world has responded positively to the rise of China.
While the U.S. has shown anxiety over
growing Chinese strength from military to commercial,
the rest of the world seems to think differently.
As demonstrated by a number of cross-nation opinion polls,
most countries, including most industrialized countries,
view China more favorably than [they do] the U.S.
In fact,
most fear the U.S., not China.
Furthermore,
most developing countries prefer a stronger China
to balance the U.S. in world affairs,
although most Western countries don't want that.
Now the question of "what ought to be."
China's rapid economic expansion raises serious questions
about the sustainability of traditional development paradigms.
It is good that
China is improving its living conditions for most of its people,
and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.
The Chinese people also have every right
to enjoy greater wealth and consumption
just as people in rich countries do.
But let's look at the facts:
If every Chinese person's daily consumption of oil
is the same as that of people in the U.S. ,
China alone will require some 80 million barrels of oil per day –
the daily oil consumption of the entire world.
That is difficult to sustain, if possible at all.
Moreover, we have not even considered
the impact of India
and others who are catching up fast in their energy consumption.
The West, especially the U.S., must confront this fact
not as a China threat but as a common development problem.
The world has to work on solutions
to alternative and renewable energy,
with possibly a change of paradigm
on our lifestyle and energy consumption patterns.
Another concern about China's development
is the tremendous cost of its modernization program.
Even the Chinese themselves
have realized this and
are currently engaged in a heated debate on this topic.
In producing about 4% of the world's annual GDP,
China consumes 10% of the world's electricity,
20% of its copper, 31% of its coal, and some 40% of its cement.
In generating every ton of iron and steel,
major Chinese iron and steel producers
consume 40% more energy than the world average.
And there is the damage to the environment,
an issue I would like to see as a question from Peter
and more attention from this panel.
China's rivers are now running black.
China is also the second-largest contributor to global warming,
not on a per-capita basis but that does not matter.
So the world should be fearful about these developments
when it comes to the environment and resources,
because we are one and the earth replaces nation-state borders.
That being said,
the solution does not lie in preventing China or India
or the developing world from becoming economically strong
or depriving them of the right to "happiness."
The U.S.,
if it really wants to maintain its lead position as a great power,
has to do more to facilitate the efficient use of energy and resources
in China, India, and other developing countries.
Of course, the challenge is to start at home.
Wenran Jiang
Associate professor and associate chair
Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Madhav Bhatkuly
China's rise through the productivity growth of its people
should not be feared.
However, what perhaps should be
is China's rise through the pricing of some of its products.
Increasingly, most China watchers believe that
neither financing costs nor infrastructure costs
are being passed on to buyers.
This has perhaps translated into China's banking system.
The extent of the impact that
a messy banking system straddled with bad loans will have,
when this perceived anomaly is corrected, remains unclear still.
The correction itself is inevitable.
China will have to raise prices at sometime,
and Chinese banks will have to cleaned up at some time.
Until then, the pace of Chinese growth
through subsidized financing and infrastructure
is already impacting the world in the short run --
either though a greater dislocation of global manufacturing
than there ought to have been and/or through prices of commodities.
This aspect of Chinese growth needs to be fearfully watched.
Madhav Bhatkuly
Managing partner, New Horizon Investments
India
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal (2)> Pékin: Oh, yes.
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal (2)> Pékin: Oh, yes.
相應於昨日前文
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal > Moi: Oh, yeah?
https://city.udn.com/3446/1346686?tpno=0&raid=2989909&cate_no=0#rep2989909
恰有下錄新聞〔北京官員：中國進入能源預警期〕
該新聞的結語
算是對付了前文所引美國ＦＥＤ 達拉斯主席 Fisher 氏的指摘
＞一九七三年石油危機期間，日本採取科技興國戰略，
＞減少對高耗能產業的依賴，向高附加價值產品發展，
＞使能源消費彈性係數從一九六二年至一九七二年的平均一點一四，
＞下降至一九七二年至一九七七年的零點四一。
不過呢 我個人以為
中國科學院路甬祥院長的〔日本對策〕其實是不太切合實際
中日經濟格局結構大不一樣 答案不能這樣套
中國絕大多數的地方尚未進入富裕或小康
物質層面的建設 乃至民風日阜所需的種種資生
都代表中國做為製造業導向的實業方面 還有很長的一條路要走
如果產業外移 抑或是日前不看外在條件的勞工政策所造成的產業外移
都將使得中下層民眾
無以靠澎湃的就業市場 胼手胝足地賺取較佳的生活水準
換言之 即使中國不再需要靠血肉磨坊賺取外匯
也需要實業來應付國內市場日益高昇的需求
故而 以〔產業外移〕以換取對〔能源依賴〕的對策是說不通的
反過來說 我在前文的表達 簡言之 我對核電的鼓勵
勢將成為中國未來三五十年的務實方向
國務院等主事者莫再以〔與曾大川唱反調〕去誤國了
渠等以奧運後要救房市 便是誤國主張
正本清源地說 把百姓的生活搞起來了 還怕房子賣不掉嗎？
現在要救房市 在我看來 根本是拿國庫的錢賠給高幹撐腰的倒爺
不管海峽哪邊 官崽都是同樣地混帳 都是貪得無厭的狼豕之輩
這再說下去 我又要回到下錄前文兩則的語意了
＞ 『中國政治民主化』(28-4) 回應 郭崇倫的[戈登史略]
https://city.udn.com/3446/1431402?tpno=0&raid=2971211&cate_no=0#rep2971211
＞ On delivery (32) 『中國政治民主化』(28)
呼應《炎黃春秋》民主階段論的折衷辦法
https://city.udn.com/3446/1431402?tpno=0&raid=2803735&cate_no=0#rep2803735
https://city.udn.com/3446/1888673?tpno=0&raid=2836408&cate_no=0#rep2836408
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
北京官員：中國進入能源預警期
http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,130505+132008082000832,00.html
* 2008-08-20
* 今日晚報
* 【中央社】
中國科學院院長路甬祥近日在蘭州舉辦的一次學術年會上表示，二零零七年中國石油對外依賴度達到百分之五十，已進入能源預警期。
新華網報導，路甬祥說，因應能源安全挑戰是中國可持續發展的戰略重點。中國人口多，資源相對不足，許多重要資源人均佔有量遠低於世界平均水準。中國石油資源最終可採儲量僅約世界總量的百分之三，多數重要礦產資源人均佔有量不到世界平均水準的一半。
路甬祥認為，國內生產總值 (GDP)對能源的彈性係數顯示，靠能源的投入增長保證經濟大幅成長的難度很大，能源在經濟發展中仍將是重要的制約因素。
數據顯示，中國能源消費彈性係數是日本的七倍。二零零七年中國平均能源消費成長速度較高，能源消費彈性係數近零點七；製造業規模較大的日本，二零零六年能源消費彈性係數僅零點一。
一九七三年石油危機期間，日本採取科技興國戰略，減少對高耗能產業的依賴，向高附加價值產品發展，使能源消費彈性係數從一九六二年至一九七二年的平均一點一四，下降至一九七二年至一九七七年的零點四一。
|
|
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal > Moi: Oh, yeah?
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal > Moi: Oh, yeah?
https://city.udn.com/3446/1346686?tpno=0&raid=2989909&cate_no=0#rep2989909
Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher
以日本人均用油為例 指出中國若用這個比例 加上其他新興經濟體
那全球消費量不得了...
"Japan consumes 14 barrels of oil a year per capita," noted Fisher, ... "If China used the same amount per capita as parsimonious Japan, Chinese consumption would total more than 18 billion barrels a year, an amount that dwarfs our country's 7.5 billion barrels." ... "Add that to new demand for oil stemming from India, the newest members of the European community, an increasingly prosperous Brazil and so on. For those trying to discern the long-term future of oil prices, this is considerable food for thought," blablat-il.
反正就是不合時宜地 放了個〔油價有天會大漲〕的屁
有關及此 我的前文
＞ 給上海市委書記習近平先生的最速件__有關自來水權的問題 (2) 補述
https://city.udn.com/3446/1615335?tpno=0&raid=2433272&cate_no=0#rep2433272
＞ 水資源系列（23）致西山兵學論壇諸君：
〔大西北水利計劃〕若不儘早開工 那麼糧食問題很快就是天大地大的問題了！
https://city.udn.com/3446/1615335?tpno=0&raid=2688793&cate_no=0#rep2688793
就在對糧食與石油問題提解決方案
我的重點就是透過前文所在之欄位中 所提到的造水計劃
使乾旱的大西北能有〔多到用不完的淡水〕可供農工與民生使用
也許西涼之地的大西北並不適合種甘蔗以提煉酒精汽油
但是種小麥與馬鈴薯以提煉酒精汽油還是可以的
更不用說中研院的新技術＿牧草以提煉酒精汽油
種花生以提煉生質柴油 更是不成問題
我們所有需要的是 有更多的核電來完成引海水造淡水計劃
畢竟 將多到足以造海的海水量從華東華南運往大西北 甚至是中亞五國
這可需要許多專屬的核電廠 才能夠辦到
在這個理解基礎上
油價會因全球消費量大增而上漲的可能太低了
而這也是近月油價跌不停的理由
因為這個法子可為全世界所用
到那個時候 說不定石油的消費量甚至低於此刻此時
油價還想漲？ 難囉～！
反過來說 我們可以作一合理推斷就是：
之前油價爆漲 就是Ｆｅｄ與英日歐洲央行的炒作之道
為何他們不繼續這招當年搞垮凱因斯的油價舊招了呢？
很簡單
他們發現這招在搞垮中國之前 自己本國的經濟就會先垮掉
所以油價大幅回跌 以免自己先死掉
所以你放心
油價絕對在年底之前見到８０美元以下的價位 甚至６０美元
所有油價回彈的時候 就是放空石油期貨的好時機
反過來說
當初他們以油價原物料與糧價三管並濟對付凱因斯主義的我
這比祖師爺凱因斯所面對的實務挑戰理論的局面更為兇惡
當時的油價也沒有近月前的油價高
可是非但打不敗我的理論 反而望風而逃
資本主義的宰制 至此初嘗決定性的大敗
林毅夫先生當初不服氣
後來看出來了我將打敗油價的本領
所以現在對我相當客氣
美國佬呢 還是不服氣 故有 Fisher 作如是說
不過他也沒有完全說錯
至少大陸那批學自芝加哥學派的匪類學官 寧服洋奴 不服家人
也就是說
那批以人民銀行為主的匪類 會為了與我唱反調而寧有錯誤政策
所以呢
中國將出現不必要的經濟成本 來自比貪污更可怕的錯誤政策
對我來說
唯有他們繼續惡搞 才能夠反向證明我的理論與直觀的可貴
要不然
我怎麼服十三億人的心？怎麼換成我作中國的主宰？
相信我
我其實沒那麼有興趣作公眾人物 那太浪費我的思考閱讀寫作的時間
我也不是為了要變成錢多多的陳水扁 夠用就是富足
但是我要給天下人的公道
卻必須得拼上一條命 不知擋了全世界多少牛鬼蛇神的財路與宦途
更尤其是其他所有的人都在作壁上觀
我好似在羅馬競技場中與獅子老虎陣搏命的單槍俠
地藏菩薩說：我不入地獄 誰入地獄
我的處境 實與地藏菩薩相去無多
====================================
Reuters
Fed's Fisher: China growth a clear oil price signal
Monday August 18, 9:01 pm ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080818/usa_fed_fisher_china.html
ASPEN, Colorado (Reuters) - Chinese economic growth can deliver a potentially massive boost to global energy demand with clear implications for long-term oil prices, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher said on Monday.
Fisher, speaking at a closed-to-the-press dinner hosted by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, made no reference to the U.S. economy or monetary policy in his prepared remarks.
A copy of the speech was made available to the media.
"Japan consumes 14 barrels of oil a year per capita," noted Fisher, a former deputy U.S trade representative who helped negotiate China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
"If China used the same amount per capita as parsimonious Japan, Chinese consumption would total more than 18 billion barrels a year, an amount that dwarfs our country's 7.5 billion barrels," said Fisher,
"Add that to new demand for oil stemming from India, the newest members of the European community, an increasingly prosperous Brazil and so on. For those trying to discern the long-term future of oil prices, this is considerable food for thought," he said.
Oil prices surged to a record above $140 a barrel this year before dropping sharply in recent weeks to below $113. But specialists say the long-term outlook for the market is strong owing to the factors that Fisher cited.
Referencing British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's advice that Russia was "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" that could only be unlocked by identifying its national interest, Fisher suggested doing the same for China.
"In contemplating China, we need to look past carefully crafted images and deepen our understanding of her national interest. Failure to do so will be perilous," he said.
(Reporting by Alister Bull, Editing by Neil Stempleman)
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
AP: China's Influence Spreads Around World
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
AP: China's Influence Spreads Around World
https://city.udn.com/3446/1346686?raid=2392803#rep2392803
"In some ways, it will be integrating us into a new international order in which democracy as we've known it or the right to open organized political activity is no longer considered the norm," said James Mann, author of "The China Fantasy," a book about China and the West.
Response of cathy20048: "I am doing that for sure."
===================================
AP
China's Influence Spreads Around World
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070902/china_global_impact.html?.v=1
Sunday September 2, 12:44 am ET
By William Foreman, Associated Press Writer
China's Influence Now Extends From Australian Desert to Sahara to Amazonian Jungle and Beyond
KARRATHA, Australia (AP) -- For nearly three decades, Chinese peasants have left their villages for crowded dormitories and sweaty assembly lines, churning out goods for world markets. Now, China is turning the tables.
ADVERTISEMENT
Here in the Australian Outback, Shane Padley toils in the scorching heat, 2,000 miles from his home, to build an extension to a liquefied natural gas plant that feeds China's ravenous hunger for energy.
At night, the 34-year-old carpenter sleeps in a tin dwelling known as a "donga," the size of a shipping container and divided into four rooms, each barely big enough for a bed. There are few other places for Padley to live in this boomtown.
Duct-taped to the wall is a snapshot of the blonde girlfriend he left behind and worries he may lose. But, he says, "I can make nearly double what I'd be making back home in the Sydney area."
The reason: China.
For years, China's booming economy touched daily life in the West most visibly through the "made-in-China" label on everything from clothes to computers. But now, economic growth is giving rise to something more that can't be measured just by widgets and gadgets -- a shift in China's balance of power with the rest of the world.
China's reach now extends from the Australian desert through the Sahara to the Amazonian jungle -- and it's those regions supplying goods for China, not just the other way around. China has stepped up its political and diplomatic presence, most notably in Africa, where it is funneling billions of dollars in aid. And it is increasingly shaping the lifestyle of people around the world, as the United States did before it, right down to the Mandarin-language courses being taught in schools from Argentina to Virginia.
China, like the United States, is also learning that global power cuts both ways. The backlash over tainted toothpaste and toxic pet food has been severe, as has the criticism over China's support for regimes such Sudan's.
To understand why China's influence is increasingly pushing past its borders, just do the math.
When 1.3 billion people want something, the world feels it. And when those people in ever increasing numbers are joining a swelling middle class eager for a richer lifestyle, the world feels it even more.
If China's growth continues, its consumer market will be the world's second largest by 2015. The Chinese already eat 32 percent of the world's rice, build with 47 percent of its cement and smoke one out of every three cigarettes.
China's desire for expensive hardwood to turn into top-quality floorboards for its luxury skyscrapers has penetrated deep into the Amazon jungle. For example, in the isolated community of Novo Progresso, or New Progress in Portuguese, one of the biggest sawmills was started by the mayor with financing from Chinese investors.
China accounts for 30 percent of the wood exported from logging operations in remote towns across Brazil's rain forest, where trucks carry the finished product hundreds of miles along muddy roads to river ports, said Luiz Carlos Tremonte, who heads an influential wood industry association. Many Chinese purchasers now travel to Brazil to clinch deals, and are almost always accompanied at business meetings by friends or relatives of Chinese descent who live there.
"Ten years ago no one knew about China in Brazil; then the demand just exploded and they're buying a lot," Tremonte said. "This wood is great for floors, and they love it there."
The Bovespa stock index in Brazil has climbed more than 300 percent since 2002, riding the China wave.
China is buying coal mining equipment from Poland and drilling for oil and gas in Ethiopia and Nigeria. It has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Zambia's copper industry. It is the world's biggest market for mobile phones, headed for 520 million handsets this year. The list goes on.
Along with looking to other countries for goods for its people, China is also going far and wide in search of markets for its products.
In war-torn Liberia, where electricity is hard to come by, Chinese-made Tiger generators keep the local economy humming. Costlier Western brands, favored by aid agencies and diplomats, are beyond the reach of small business owners such as Mohammed Kiawu, 30, who runs a phone stall in the capital, Monrovia.
A used Tiger generator costs around $50, he said over the steady beat of his generator. "But even $250 is not enough to buy a used American or European generator. They are not meant for people like myself."
The Chinese generators are more prone to break down, Kiawu said. When the starter cable snapped on one, he replaced it with twine. But by making items for ordinary people, he predicted, China "will take control of the heart of the common people of Africa soon."
China is having to make up for decades of economic stagnation after the communist takeover in 1949.
When Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping began dabbling in economic reforms in 1978, farmers were scraping by. By 2005, income had increased sixfold after adjusting for inflation to $400 a year for those in the countryside and $1,275 for urban Chinese, according to China's National Bureau of Statistics.
"The Chinese don't want war -- the Chinese just want to trade their way to power," said David Zweig, a professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. "In the past, if a state wanted to expand, it had to take territory. You don't need to grab colonies any more. You just need to have competitive goods to trade."
If China stays on the same economic track, it would become the world's largest economy in 2027, surpassing the United States, according to projections by Goldman, Sachs & Co., a Wall Street investment bank. And unlike Japan, which rose in the 1980s only to fade again, China still has a huge pool of workers to tap and an emerging middle class that is just starting to reach critical mass. Many development economists believe China still has 20 years of fairly high growth ahead.
But the transition to a larger presence on the global stage comes with growing pains, for China and the rest of the world.
As Beijing plays an ever bigger role in the developing world, some Western countries fear it could undermine efforts to promote democracy. In its attempt to secure markets and win allies, China is stepping up development aid to Africa and Asia. Chinese President Hu Jintao pledged last year to double Chinese aid to Africa between 2006 and 2009, promising $3 billion in loans, $2 billion in export credits and a $5 billion fund to encourage Chinese investment in Africa. China has also promised Cambodia a $600 million aid package and agreed to loan $500 million to the Philippines for a rail project.
But China also extends aid to states such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Sudan whose human rights records have lost them the support of the West. Actress Mia Farrow has labeled next year's Beijing Olympics -- a point of pride for China -- the "genocide Olympics" because of China's support for Sudan, at a time when the West seeks to punish it for its military actions in Darfur. China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil output.
"In some ways, it will be integrating us into a new international order in which democracy as we've known it or the right to open organized political activity is no longer considered the norm," said James Mann, author of "The China Fantasy," a book about China and the West.
China is also facing some of the unease that powers before it have encountered. In Africa and Asia, some complain that massive China-funded infrastructure projects involve mostly Chinese workers and companies, rather than create jobs and wealth for the local population. And Moeletsi Mbeki, a political commentator and brother of South African President Thabo Mbeki, likens the trade of African resources for Chinese manufactured goods to former colonial arrangements.
"This equation is not sustainable," Mbeki said at a recent meeting of the African Development Bank in Shanghai. "Africa needs to preserve its natural resources to use in the future for its own industrialization."
The backlash is also coming on the consumer front, with Chinese goods earning a dubious reputation for quality. In the United States, there is a furor over the standard of Chinese imports. In Bolivia, vendors peel off or paint over any indication that their wares were "Hecho en China," Spanish for "Made in China."
A woman selling bicycles in El Alto, a poor city outside the capital, La Paz, insisted they were made in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or even India. With some prodding, she acknowledged the truth. "They're all Chinese," she said, declining to give her name lest it hurt her business. "But if I say they're Chinese, they don't sell."
Even those who benefit from China's growth express some wariness. Aerospace giant Boeing expects China to be the largest market for commercial air travel outside the United States in the next 20 years, buying more than $100 billion worth of commercial aircraft, U.S. trade envoy Karan Bhatia said in a recent speech.
"Right now, we're hiring every week," noted Connie Kelliher, a union leader. "Things couldn't be better."
Yet Boeing workers remain wary of China's ambitions to build its own planes. next year China plans to test-fly a locally made midsize jet seating 78 to 85 passengers. It also has announced plans to roll out a 150-seat plane by 2020.
"It's kind of a double-edged sword," Kelliher said. "You want the business and we want to get the airplane sales to them, but there's the real concern of giving away so much technology that they start building their own."
That's what happened to Western and Japanese automakers, which made inroads in the Chinese market only to see their designs copied and technologies stolen. Already, China's vehicle manufacturers are venturing overseas, exporting 325,000 units last year -- mostly low-priced trucks and buses to Asia, Africa and Latin America.
"We're taking a bigger piece of the pie," said Yamilet Guevara, a sales manager for Cinascar Automotriz, which has opened 20 showrooms in Venezuela in the past 18 months, offering cars from six Chinese makers. "They ask by name now. It's no longer just the Chinese car. It's the Tiggo, the QQ."
China's biggest car company, Chery Automobile Co., just announced a deal with the Chrysler Group to jointly produce and export cars to Western Europe and the United States within 2 1/2 years.
Given the speed of China's ascent, it's perhaps not surprising that China itself is trying to calm some of the fears. Its slogan for the Beijing Olympics: "Peacefully Rising China."
AP correspondents Jonathan Paye-Layleh in Monrovia, Liberia; Alan Clendenning in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Dan Keane in La Paz, Bolivia; and Ian James in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
有關軍武攻擊長江大壩之二
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
有關軍武攻擊長江大壩之二
[前言]
本文所探討之內容接續本欄前文
新加坡外長楊榮文最近在一次訪談中說：「如果我們不陷入瘋狂並且互相攻打，那麼我相信，世界文明的重心將在本世紀內轉移到亞洲。」 如是我云...
以及聯合報的新聞(下錄之)
三峽大壩防轟炸 措施完備
我在此要指出
大陸在此新聞當中隱而未言的是
若是以核武攻擊長江大壩
有[輻射塵]與[放射性物質污染]的問題沒談到
首先
每逢夏季
華南就吹起[青海長雲暗雪山]的西風
一旦外國核武攻擊長江大壩
輻射塵經由西風向東海吹
那是怎樣的畫面?
所有長江流域的居民都不用呼吸了嗎?
其次
核武的放射性物質污染長江水源
這灘水要何時才能清除乾淨可以飲用?
所有長江流域的居民都不用喝水了嗎?
所以說
核武不必神準到把壩體擊毀造成長江流域大水災
只要核子彈頭落入大壩集水區
上述問題就可以造成高達二億人死亡的重大傷亡
所以可以知道大陸專家的說法
基本上是
放屁安狗心 屁放狗安心
==========================================
三峽大壩防轟炸 措施完備
大陸新聞中心／綜合報導
三峽總公司副經理曹廣晶表示，三峽大壩是一座混凝土重力壩，具有相當的安全係數。他表示，常規武器難以撼動大壩，至於核武攻擊，大壩事先也有防範措施。大陸專家已做過三峽大壩潰壩試驗，結果表明，潰壩對下游影響區域有限。
新華社報導，三峽大壩將於五月二十日全線澆築到頂，針對大壩可能成為恐怖擊或外國轟炸目標，曹廣晶日前表示，三峽大壩是按千年一遇洪水設計，同時也考慮各種可能的最不利情況，如地震等因素在內。大壩本身安全是非常可靠，常規武器想使大壩潰決，幾乎是不可能，除非是核武攻擊。不過，核武攻擊通常都預兆，大壩已有相關預案。
曹廣晶指出，三峽大壩在設計、論證過程，已模擬過大壩潰決的試驗，試驗證明，即使大壩突然潰決，影響的僅是大壩下游部分區域，並不像人們想像的從宜昌到長江中下游平原地區都會淹沒。
此外，長江三峽大壩有每秒十一萬立方公尺的泄洪能力，即便假設一秒鐘泄洪五萬立方公尺，一天就可泄掉四十三億立方公尺的庫容，正常運用狀態下，在一百四十五公尺的水位以上，三峽大壩庫容大約是二百二十億立方公尺，四五天時間就可以全部泄完，即便大壩瞬間被毀，也不會造成大的影響。
今年五月二十日，三峽工程右岸大壩將全線達到海拔一百八十五公尺設計高程，這意味著三峽大壩已基本完工，大壩總體構架已經建起來，剩下的收尾工作還有不少。諸如，上游圍堰拆除工作、右岸發電機組安裝、導流底孔封堵、地下電站建設和船閘完建、升船機的施工等。
【2006/05/17 聯合報】
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
世界日報:[星戰續集？美將試太空武器]其中美國軍方所針對的是個人本欄前文[新加坡外長楊榮文最近在一次訪談中說：...]一文的內容
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
星戰續集？美將試太空武器
本報系編譯呂理甡綜合報導
http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR6/3213815.shtml
波士頓地球報14日報導，五角大廈正要求國會撥款數億美元，以測試太空武器。這是冷戰時期雷根總統的「星戰計畫」停擺以來，美國向太空戰場邁出的最大一步。
地球報指出，國防部在10月1日開始的新年度預算中列出包括測試各種攻擊及防禦武器的經費，內含由軌道小衛星發射的一種飛彈，以測試能以20倍音速飛行並消滅武器的小型太空船，並確定高能陸基雷射是否能有效摧毀敵方衛星。預算案正由國會審議。
美國軍方說，軍方的航太科技值得投入數億元，因為這些科技還可供民用，例如收回失能的衛星或為其添加燃料。但限武專家擔心，這些測試會使軍方未經公開辯論，就比雷根的「戰略防衛方案」更接近武器太空化的目標。
華府國防資訊中心主任哈欽斯說，「這些東西有的會進行測試，這可能跨過紅線」，建立真正的太空武器系統。
武器管制協會執行長金波爾警告說，美國若在太空部署武器，「會導致其他國家追求反制措施。美國在跨過門檻前，應與其他國家共同探討在太空部署物件的指導原則或限制」。
預算案所陳述的項目，只有軍方太空戰計畫中大眾已知的部分。專家相信，預算機密部分幾乎一定包含與太空有關的計畫。
監督飛彈防禦計畫的飛彈防禦局發言人李納說，沒有在太空部署武器的計畫。他指出，今後五年打算用於飛彈防禦的480億元經費中，只有5億7000萬元會用在與太空有關活動。
他說，軍方只是想做一些有關太空武器科技的實驗。
布希總統統轄的白宮強調所謂「太空宰制」觀念，也就是美國為保衛國家，必須控制太空。軍方已有偵察及通訊衛星，但五角大廈說，部署在太空的武器系統也能保護商用衛星。
2004年美國空軍發表報告，概述未來的太空武器，包括空射反衛星飛彈、瞄準低軌道衛星的陸基雷射，以及可從太空攻擊目標的「超高速武器」。
報告指出，美國必須阻止敵國戰略性進入太空，為達此目的，需在海上、陸上及太空部署攻擊性反太空系統。但這次提出預算，意味布希已由實驗室理論步向具體實現。
【2006/03/15 世界日報】
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
新加坡外長楊榮文最近在一次訪談中說：「如果我們不陷入瘋狂並且互相攻打，那麼我相信，世界文明的重心將在本世紀內轉移到亞洲。」 如是我云...
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
新加坡外長的這番話
我同意一半
理由是美國絕不會如此輕易的放下[唯我獨尊]的地位
中國若想要重新站回世界中心的地位
這個失去五百年的地位
絕不能只靠經濟力
任何人對於政治經濟學有所認識
都知道非打仗不可
而未必與美國直接開戰
美國人打的是代理戰爭
用以一次次地消耗光中國的國力
先是以暗中資助台灣獨立來試探解放軍的國防動員力
但是即使台灣獨立
大陸會先忍著滿腔怒火 給盡面子
在獨立之後約一年以後才開打
時間點約在2011-2013年間
2011年下半年獨立 2013年上半年攻台
以閃電戰(Blitzkrieg)解決 開戰後4-6小時內 台灣整體軍力瓦解
然後觀察十年十五年 加上無數小動作
看看共產黨有沒有辦法管得了台灣
共產黨秋後算帳完了 台灣的生活一往如昔
然後美國再慫恿日本與中國開戰
很不幸的是 日本結局與台灣差不多
理由是日本早就進入文明國家 揚棄戰爭
其國內反對江戶政權的軍事計畫
這將是以關西地方為主
中日開戰可能於2023-26年間
實際戰爭期間不到百日
日本皇室會因而遷回京都或是關西某處
最後一場戰
有可能打 有可能不打
要打就是人類史上最大傷亡的戰爭
能不打 就要看大陸官方是以多大的關注
來看待個人前文的提案:
>>最高機密隨便告訴你中國時報? 胡扯一堆 竟然你中國時報也看不出來!
>>中華民國高等政策會祕書長楊念祖的屁話
https://city.udn.com/v1/city/forum/article.jsp?aid=1312078&tpno=0&raid=1430533&no=3446&cate_no=0#rep1430533
以及
>>神舟六號について[之三>從美國國會對太空戰相關分析進行聽證談到一個更重要的危機]
https://city.udn.com/v1/city/forum/article.jsp?aid=1312084&tpno=0&raid=1438132&no=3446&cate_no=0#rep1438132
這個仗打不打 也就是前文當中
有關中印關係
導火線將是印度對於自中國竊佔的西藏領土
印度非常心虛 但是絕不願還
此事將成為中印之間的[釣魚台事件]
不過這個遭印度竊佔的地方很大
是台灣的三倍面積
若是打的話
最有可能的是印度以核武攻擊長江大壩
中國最富庶的地方都完蛋了
四川兩湖江西乃至江浙
整個長江中下流
大概會有2-4億人死亡
五十年難以恢復元氣
這時候中國才會以核武後發對等攻擊
但是仍然不會打恆河流域
最大的可能是印度西部濱海大都會加爾各答
理由是印度會手下留情 沒有以核武打北京都會區
所以中國會投桃報李 不摧毀印度文明中心_恆河流域
時間點是在2045-2054這十年間
實際戰爭時間不到200日
為了防止印度沒有理性
中國固然不會令印度亡國
但是目前印度四國的疆界將會有所改變
也就是巴基斯坦 孟加拉 斯里蘭卡
會從印度分得更多的土地
印度將會只保留北部的恆河流域與中部高原
經過該場戰役
美國才會怕到了
因為美國打不起這樣大的戰爭
中國才會正式成為世界盟主
所要加一句話的是
台灣到那個時候 可以為助力
也可能又變成游離獨立狀態
端視共產黨有沒有按照我的提議來做:
消滅台獨匪類五百萬人
然後再從大陸移民五百萬人
到台灣來坐鎮實邊
這件[殺機儆猴]的事很重要
只要殺了台灣立威
隨後日本以及任何想對中國有所不軌的國家
都會知道厲害
以至於之後的戰爭[中日][中印]
說不定都可以因此免了
至少規模會因而縮小許多
台灣一如當年李鴻章割台予日的奏摺
[男無義 女無情 花不香 鳥不語]
套句黃巢的千古名言
[天生萬物以養人 人無一徳以報天 殺 殺 殺 殺 殺 殺 殺]
解放軍 甭客氣了!
==================================
2005.11.14 中國時報
世界的重心 正向東移動
楊明暐
http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110504+112005111400073,00.html
美國布希政府現正忙著對抗國際恐怖主義威脅。
而就在此時，一股遠比恐怖主義安靜的勢力
也正挑戰著美國在全球的影響力，
那就是：增長中的亞洲經濟力量。
若干國家和東亞的商業關係發展快速，突然間，
美國不再是維持它們經濟活絡的唯一保證，
也非它們尋求政治保護者時的唯一選擇。
一個顯著的例子出現在維也納的「國際原子能總署」。
外交人士說，美國為首的一些國家向伊朗施壓，
希望能迫使它放棄發展核子武器計畫，然而伊朗卻逐漸瞭解到，
中國、印度和日本將是其原油和天然氣的重要市場，
這就使得情勢變得複雜。
亞洲經濟 快速擴張中
中國消耗的原油已有一四％來自伊朗，
去年它又和德黑蘭簽訂價值數百億美元的能源協議。
北京方面曾威脅，必要時將動用在聯合國安全理事會的否決權，
以保護伊朗免於受到美國推動的制裁。
一名熟悉維也納談判的外交人士指出，
儘管德黑蘭無法忽視西方，但它和東方的距離已明顯拉近。
伊朗並非單一的個案。在哈薩克和中亞其他地區，
美國致力推動的民主改革遇到阻礙，部份原因是
美國不再是它們對抗俄羅斯時唯一能仰仗的對象，
北京在當地也扮演了一個角色。
一條數千公里長、從哈薩克油田通往中國的巨大輸油管正在施工中，
這在過去是天方夜譚。
在南韓，中國已取代美國，
成為首爾最大的貿易夥伴和最大的海外投資對象。
在勸阻北韓發展核武的六方會談期間，
南韓一直向北京所設下的立場靠攏，而不是向來支持它的盟友華府。
華府「國際經濟研究所」（ＩＩＥ）
亞洲專家拉迪（Nicholas Lardy）說：
「當各國檢視它們的真正利益所在時，
整個政策規畫所參照的條件都改變了。」
美國眾議院國際關係委員會成員蘭托斯認為這問題很嚴重。
今年七月，蘭托斯才支持美國與印度簽署核子合作協議，
兩個月後，蘭托斯卻發現，自己居然得勸說印度支持美國
反對伊朗發展核武的強硬立場。
印度之所以會裹足不前，一個重要因素是
它正在和伊朗討論鋪設天然氣輸送管線的計畫，
這項計畫將供應印度發展經濟迫切需要的能源。
印度最終還是在國際原能總署理事會議
決譴責伊朗核子活動時支持了美國，但事情並未結束。
印度總理辛赫自華府返國後，忙著為印度和伊朗打交道作解釋，
他說：「我們有權讓我們的進口來源多樣化。
就（天然氣）輸送管線一事而言，
這是我們和伊朗之間所做出的決定。」
中取代美 成強勢盟友
蘭托斯和一些外交事務專家認為，要對抗亞洲的挑戰，
布希政府必須在最高層次上更積極參與亞洲事務。
若干批評者指出，布希總統以處理卡崔娜風災為由，
推遲了中國國家主席胡錦濤九月間訪問華府的行程，
國務卿萊斯又決定去非洲
而不參加七月舉行的「東協區域論壇」會議，
這些舉動都是對這一地區發出錯誤的訊息。
挑戰臨門 美國慢半拍
他們也示警說，布希政府過度專注於國際恐怖主義威脅
而漠視貿易和發展方面的問題，結果往往產生反效果。
前美國國務院亞太事務副助理國務卿薛瑞福說：
「比賽已經開始。你不能靠要求中國人停手來擊敗他們，
你要打敗他們必須靠更好的政策。」
無論美國如何做出政策回應，專家們都認為
亞洲的挑戰只會越來越強大。
對全球經濟成長的各項預測
大多認為亞洲經濟的擴張速度仍將超過其他地區。
由於印度和中國一樣，
有可能成為聯合國安全理事會常任理事國，
亞洲在外交方面的影響力預料只會增加，不會減少。
華府「戰略暨國際研究中心」能源專家、
曾擔任白宮顧問的維拉斯卓認為，
從安理會的可能變化以及全球人口和經濟增長重心來看，
所謂「世界中心正在向東移動」之說有其根據。
在亞洲，大家也同意這項看法。
新加坡外長楊榮文最近在一次訪談中說：
「如果我們不陷入瘋狂並且互相攻打，那麼我相信，
世界文明的重心將在本世紀內轉移到亞洲。」
|
|
中國與印度[之五]>亞銀總裁黑田的看法與如是我云
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
亞銀總裁黑田東彥表示，
即使目前油價頻頻緊敲七十美元每桶的大門，且沒有下滑的跡象，
黑田強調(油價)對於亞洲經濟衝擊如此有限
到令他吃驚的地步，促使亞銀維持對於亞洲經濟前景的預測。
如是我云
理由我已經一再強調
是因為全世界目前在使用一個新的測量基準
叫做[Relative EPS Equation]
請見前文
>>>If you do not invest any, just ignore this.
https://city.udn.com/v1/city/forum/article.jsp?aid=1317233&tpno=1&raid=1338855&no=3446&cate_no=0#rep1338855
以[Relative EPS Equation]來判斷
資金放在銀行或是購買公債公司債
都比不上提領出來買股票或是從事資本財投資
所以美國的國庫劵[公債]
不因FED提高利率而等幅提高
反而一直在下挫:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5ETNX&t=3m&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=
各先進國家就是因為
按照[Relative EPS Equation]來判斷
不斷投入資金
以至於景氣不墬
甚至會持續走揚
但是若干高價股的榮景可就未必是如此了
旁的不說
任何一本初級個體經濟學第二章
都會談到[彈性]問題
價格高的商品
其需求彈性必然很高
以至於未來走跌的中長期趨勢至為明顯
但是至今還可以看出
若干高價股昧於趨勢
還在試圖拉抬自家股票
這可以說他們個別資本家的悲哀
但是同時也可以說
市場資金對經濟前景有信心
這意味的是
其他低價股 傳產股更是值得投資
假如有所提醒的話
那就是注意台股中的新股王即將誕生
衡量基準可能要從目前的[茂迪]
在不久的將來改為以[宏達電]為基準
至於對島內資本家的提醒是
還不改現行投資策略
還在以哄抬股市騙錢
就準備等死吧!
我已經號令全世界的資本
不論其為國家資本或是私人資本
準備買進低價股了
這些都是長期資金
等他們都進台灣來了
等到他們全面掌控住島內資本市場優勢的時候
我看你們還用混嗎!?
所以說
我怕你們這些綠色資本家
當解放軍在解放台灣時
故意弄壞經濟情勢嗎?
我所引進的外資會把你們的經濟勢力地盤
統統吃掉!
尤其是王永慶與許文龍你們兩個老小子
給我安分點
許文龍你不要以為率先表態個屁
然後又在背後搞台獨
還可以換得不死!
王永慶
你最好給我把FORMOSA這塊招牌拆下來
否則你就等著看
我要不要誅你九族!
不信?看看我的前文
由不得你不信!
>>>柯俊雄登門求見日本黑道的真正原因在此
https://city.udn.com/v1/city/forum/article.jsp?aid=1319569&tpno=0&raid=1365898&no=3446&cate_no=0#rep1365898
===================================
2005.09.03 工商時報
亞銀：中印帶動 亞洲經濟成長將達6.5％
連雋偉/外電報導
亞洲開發銀行週五表示，在中國大陸與印度的帶動之下，將推升亞洲地區今年平均成長率達到六．五％，雖然油價高漲，但對於印度與中國大陸的影響卻十分有限，相對於不少分析師認為大陸經濟出現放緩，亞銀則認為大陸今年經濟仍可成長九．○％以上。
然而，亞銀總裁黑田東彥警告說，每桶逼近七十美元的原油價格如持續居高不下，將成為亞洲國家經濟發展計畫的最不確定性最具殺傷力的因素。他還說，強勁的美國經濟、呈現復甦跡象的日本經濟，及略現反彈的歐元區經濟，在今年下半年皆逃不過高油價的衝擊。
黑田表示，面對燃油價格在亞洲節節高升的情況，印度與中國大陸的承受能力要比東南亞國家來得強。對於亞洲的發展中國家而言，亞銀預期平均經濟成長率六．五％基本上能夠維持。
即使目前油價頻頻緊敲七十美元每桶的大門，且沒有下滑的跡象，黑田強調對於亞洲經濟衝擊如此有限到令他吃驚的地步，促使亞銀維持對於亞洲經濟前景的預測。
「我們認為，在明年及後年，一般來說，亞洲經濟仍將加速成長」。黑田說，一般來說，高油價將讓亞洲地區經濟放緩，因為大多數國家是石油淨進口國。但有趣的是，當前並未如預期出現顯著影響，印度與中國經濟仍將持續成長。但某些地區則呈現下滑，如泰國，
黑田說，印度與中國大陸並未出現經濟成長減速的任何跡象。他指出，亞銀原本預期中國大陸經濟成長將自去年九．六％下滑到今年的八．五％，但目前評估這難以發生，所以他們預期大陸今年經濟成長九．○％以上，印度則可望逼近七．○％。
|
|
|
|
2005.08.25 工商時報
大陸與印度兩大新興股市走勢何以背道而馳
工商社論
http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,120514+122005082500576,00.html
中國大陸與印度是全球人口最多的國家，
兩國近年經濟表現也十分亮麗。但其股市表現卻「背道而馳」。
印度股市迭創歷史新高，
但大陸股市表現卻極疲弱，何以致之？
印度孟買股價指數在上周四（十八日）的盤中，曾創下七九二一點空前紀錄，
與二○○三年初三千餘點相較，上漲逾一五○％。這也使得印度基金炙手可熱。
現今國內投信募集，以新台幣計價的印度基金，已達六檔之多。
亦有證券集團擬赴印度，併購當地券商。
但由於印度股市漲幅已大，此時進場風險偏高。
印度近年經濟表現頗佳，去年經濟成長率高達八．二％，
只比中國大陸的九．五％略低。今年該國經濟成長率估計仍可達七％。
印度盧比近年小幅升值，在二○○二年底一美元可兌換四八盧比，
現已升至四三．七價位，盧比對美元升值約一成。
由於股市漲且匯率升，外資獲利頗豐，流入印度股市金額亦擴大，
去年達八十七億美元。其中有部分資金來自台灣。
印度政府近年積極改善對外關係，致力發展經濟，大力吸引外資，
推動各項制度與國際接軌。該國電腦軟體業頗具國際競爭力。
歐美各國大型跨國企業，如ＩＢＭ、花旗、匯豐銀行等，
近年大舉將軟體開發及客服業務「委外」，印度是最大受益者。
過去印度將社會平等置於經濟發展之上，因此公營事業角色吃重。
印度近年跟隨國際潮流，外資與民營事業比重增加；
由於該國所得與勞工成本仍遠較他國為低，
因此只要開放貿易與投資，很容易發揮「後進國的利益」。
印度近年來經常帳收支接近平衡，通貨膨脹溫和，銀行利率走低，
對股市繁榮大有助益。目前印度人口接近十一億，
推估廿年後印度人口將超過中國大陸。有許多機構預測，
印度豐富的勞動供給，將使其經濟扮演更吃重角色。
惟貧富不均、財政赤字龐大且公共建設落後，
是印度政府面臨的重大挑戰。
與印度相較，中國大陸的經濟表現，尤有過之。
現今大陸是全球第三大外貿國，外匯存底居全球第二，
吸收的外人投資居全球第一。但大陸股市卻不漲反跌。
以大陸Ａ股指數而言，二○○一年最高曾達二千三百餘點，
但今年六月，一度跌至一千點。
大陸政府迫不得已頻頻推出各種「救市」措施。
從六月迄今，大陸股市回升逾一成，但與其他亞太國家相較，
或有「金磚四國」之稱的印度、巴西、俄羅斯等作對照，
大陸股市表現極為疲弱。
大陸「經貿超強、股市超弱」，有其根深柢固原因。
大陸在一九九○年前後開始發展股市，股價曾數度大漲，
獲准上市者，若非國有企業，就是有特殊背景、具特權者。
但這些國有企業公司治理不佳，會計帳目不清，獲利能力薄弱，
導致其本益比偏高，不具投資價值。
而且股權分置問題存在已久，政府持有的「國有股」數量很多（約占六成）。
在市場上的「流通股」股價，則較國有股帳面值高數倍。
只要政府釋出國有股消息見報，流通股股價即告大跌，
股民反覆受打擊，信心大失。
現在大陸當局推出諸多救市、試點措施，
構想之一是把不能流通的國有股，
配給買到流通股且持有一段時間的股民，
達到逐步釋出國有股目標。
另由於大陸防堵熱錢炒作人民幣，對外人投資股市限制仍嚴，
這也是大陸股市國際化程度低、表現欠佳的重要原因。
值得重視的是，由於大陸股市不振，欠缺籌資能力，
因此許多大型公、民營企業，近年積極赴香港及美國交易所掛牌上市。
據統計，現今香港上市公司總市值六兆餘港幣，
其中有三分之一是大陸企業，業績與股價表現不錯。
香港近年大型ＩＰＯ案都來自內地。
另最近大陸網路股百度在美國那斯達克上市，
股價大漲，這類案例越來越多。
大陸上市公司似呈「強股出走、弱股內銷」的局面。
對投資人而言，「復歸平均」仍為有用原則，
印度股市既已大漲，自不宜追高；反而大陸股市走低已逾四年，似較有機會。
|
|
Are India and China rivals for world markets and resources?
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
Are India and China rivals for world markets and resources, or will they tend to be business partners?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948423.htm?campaign_id=spr_yahoo_china-india05
Donald Straszheim
China and India are natural business partners to each other
and to every one else in the world.
Any country in the world that neglects China and India does so
at their economic peril.
India has caught the growth bug --
and they caught it from China.
It is obvious to all observers that
China's economy and society are dramatically better off
than in the past,
and that
there are benefits of this to the society
as a whole and to the governing parties.
To the extent
they compete for resources, fine.
Each will use these resources to some economic end
that will make us all better off.
--------------------------------------------------
Oded Shenkar
Yes, China and India are competitors
but also natural business partners.
The complementarities between the two,
e.g.,
China's competitiveness in computer hardware
and India's competitiveness in software and IT services
drive rapidly growing reciprocal trade and investment
which is likely to outpace global averages in the years to come.
This is also a reminder to the rest of us
not to apply a narrow bilateral lens
to recent economic and geopolitical developments
but rather prepare for the coming global realignment.
--------------------------------------------------
Viveca Chan
China and India are ideal business partners
more so than competitors.
I agree with Oded that
the two are complementary.
China has the hardware and production capability
and India the software and technology edge.
If these strengths can be combined by
more bilateral cooperation and mutual investments,
it will increase competitiveness of both countries.
China and India also have a lot of similarities
so they can share experience and knowledge.
Both have great diversity in income
between the rich and the poor, the have and the have-nots.
Both have a big rural population
who are still living at subsistent level.
Both are big countries
with multiple dialects, climates, regional cuisines, and tastes.
In China,
we find Indian expertise is often more applicable
than that from developed western worlds.
This may be why we see
a lot of Indian planners who do well in China.
They tend to have a better grasp of the complex market dynamics. China entrepreneurs and businesses
are also very interested in selling to and sourcing from India.
Haier for example, has a big presence and organization in India.
From both the macro perspective and talent perspective,
India and China can benefit by working closely as partners
--------------------------------------------------
Subroto Bagchi
I do not think China and India are "natural" business partners.
There is a social memory in India that
[inspires a] lingering trace of caution about China.
It goes back to the perplexing military
move China made against India during the Nehru days.
What perplexes two generations of Indians is why and how
Chinese leadership decided to surprise India.
It shook up a whole nation that was espousing "non-alignment."
In 1962, in a sense, Indians were shaken up
from a state of innocence.
This followed a long spell during which,
though conflict did not take place,
there was continued suspicion of geopolitical motives.
China has always militarily supported Pakistan
and India gave shelter to the Tibetan cause.
As a result,
the climate for cooperation has always been overshadowed
by clouds of non-understanding.
Only in the last few years
have a few Indian businesses gone ahead and started exploring China
and Chinese merchandise has started getting into India.
I would call two countries "natural partners" only when there is
wider people-to-people contact and comfort.
Both nations have a long way to go to achieve that.
But, the reason for establishing such a relationship
has long existed -- the problem is the [climate] has not.
The future seems to point toward a time
when we may see the two coming together.
--------------------------------------------------
Manoj Singh
The answer has to be yes.
India and China could be business partners, surely!
Let's look at it on three levels:
historical, entrepreneurial, and economic compatibility.
Historically
India and China have a number of similarities.
Both are ancient civilizations, have led the world
as its richest point in civilization at different times –
only to fall down in the second half of the second millennium.
Both kickstarted their re-entry into modernity
in the middle of the last century.
India and China accounted for
more than 50% of world gross domestic product in the 18th century
and to my mind, there is no doubt this will be repeated.
Trade synergies will emerge over the next few years
as India and China continue to exert their muscle.
From an entrepreneurial standpoint,
Indian businessmen and corporations are already looking at China
and at cooperation at the enterprise level.
A large number of business leaders and corporations
have already established a base in China
and are looking to grow and leverage
the advantages that China offers.
There is a natural "partnership"
between the Indian spirit of entrepreneurship
and the Chinese desire to create wealth,
and their socio-cultural similarities
will make this partnership easier.
Economic compatibilities exist with Indian companies
in the IT, pharmaceutical,
and auto-component manufacturing industries
already setting up plants in China.
And China could look at India among other markets
for glass, ceramics, electronic components, plastics,
and other materials.
There are definite synergies
around India's software and China's hardware capabilities --
and both countries need look not only at joining forces
and increasing their strength in the global economy
but at the captive market of 2.5 billion consumers they share.
Both governments need to look at
their natural economic compatibility
and their growing influence on the world economy
and use this advantage to create a sustainable economy
and start the process of creating wealth
for the needy that still exist in both countries.
--------------------------------------------------
Rajni Bakshi
A somewhat tangential observation,
not a direct response to the question posed:
Out there in the everyday bustle of the bazaar
there doesn't seem to be a "China" and "India"
in any monolithic sense.
An example:
This last week shops in Mumbai
have been besieged by demand for a Funskool toy called "Bay Blade,"
which is out of stock.
Some retailers are now selling a Chinese-made look-alike
at a premium.
Mumbai shopkeepers, their unseen suppliers in China,
and several link-agents in between are making money.
Meanwhile Funskool India is presumably losing out.
Perhaps the partnerships and competition
will take shape not so much between nation-states
but between entrepreneurs of differing scale, speed, and savvy.
--------------------------------------------------
Subir Gokarn
There is a body of evidence that supports
a "gravity" theory of trade between any pair of countries.
This means that trade volumes are directly correlated to
the combined size of the economies
and inversely to the distance between them.
By this yardstick,
China and India have enormous potential
for trade and current volumes
are just a fraction of that potential.
Of course,
when we get down to the level of specific commodities and services,
the picture may get a little blurred.
China's and India's comparative advantages
in manufacturing overlap significantly;
at this point,
China has achieved greater competitiveness in most, if not all,
of the overlapping sectors.
Language barriers make trade in services a lot more difficult
than it has been for India
with the U.S. and other English-speaking countries.
Nevertheless,
from a macro perspective,
the combined size of the economies a
nd their relative proximity do make them "natural partners"
and their economic diplomacy must take this into account.
--------------------------------------------------
Saurav Adhikari
I do not think India and China are "natural" business partners.
The needs of the two countries are different.
However statistics show growing trade
and a favorable trade balance for India!
Given India's increasing services trade
and China's trade in manufactured goods
there is an asymmetry here.
But each one is trying to move in the other direction --
India toward manufactured goods and China toward services.
So there will some conflict here till a balance is found.
Till then
both will focus on their natural directions.
That seems to be more natural for the next decade.
--------------------------------------------------
Wenran Jiang
As I see it
there is a difference between
whether India and China are NATURAL business partners
and whether they will TEND TO BE business partners
in the coming years.
I beg to differ from the polarized positions
that see the two either as natural business partners or as not.
I doubt if there is a set of factors that we can put together
to measure any two countries or two peoples
as natural business partners.
The arguments put forward so far to support one view or the other
are mainly pick-and-choose type of emphases
that do not necessarily share the same variables.
The U.S. and China have a huge trade volume.
Are the two peoples therefore natural business partners?
The EU as a whole has now surpassed
both the U.S. and Japan in terms of trade with China,
and continues to grow.
Are Europeans and Chinese natural business partners?
In fact,
if we measure by the intensity of economic activities,
China would be a natural business partner with everyone now.
But that was not the case 30 years ago.
Some factors of history, language, religion, geographic proximity,
culture, and political system may play a role,
but business partnerships in today's world
are primarily socially acquired, humanly constructed, market-regulated, profitability-driven and historically conditioned.
In this sense,
it is not whether India and China are NATURAL business partners
but rather under what conditions
they can BECOME business partners.
Looking at the development stages of the two countries
and the international environment surrounding them,
India and China are and will continue to be both competitors
and business partners in the foreseeable future.
It is quite obvious that
the two are competing for low-end manufacturing jobs
that tend to flow from higher-wage places to lower ones
in a globalizing marketplace.
When more FDI goes to China, the rest of the world will get less.
Even when the wage-level is similar,
many other factors come into play.
So far, China has proven to be very innovative
in certain manufacturing sectors,
outperforming others not just by cheap labor cost
but also by efficient management
from materials supply to production
to distribution to international marketing.
But India is catching up fast.
It is also clear that
when rapid growth is projected
for the economies of these two giants over the next few decades,
they will have to compete for energy and other natural resources.
On a per capita basis, both countries are energy and resource poor,
and there are already indications that
high energy prices are hurting both.
Whereas China may absorb some of these high costs
from its $600 billion and growing foreign reserves,
the same cannot be said about India.
Beijing and New Delhi have certainly recognized that
and so some initiatives,
especially from India,
have been taken to strengthen India-China
(plus Japan and South Korea) cooperation in the energy area.
They hope is to form a buyers' bloc to have some influence
over OPEC policy and the international oil market.
Although the Chinese rhetoric about "South-South cooperation"
used to have a strong political tone,
it is now more about real business partnerships
based on market and profit calculations.
The majority of Chinese enterprises are totally market driven
and they do cut-throat capitalistic operations with a ruthless attitude.
So whenever they find it complementary with Indian enterprises,
they will be ready to do business as they do with others.
And there are many opportunities emerging.
A China-India business partnership
can [result in] a particular competitive advantage
over the U.S. and other industrialized countries
that have high labor cost.
That could be a particular challenge for the rest of the world
in the years to come.
So a mixture of competition and cooperation in all areas
will be the likely pattern of India-China relations.
The Participants
Saurav Adhikari
Corporate vice-president for strategy, HCL Technologies
India
Subroto Bagchi
Chief operating officer, MindTree Consulting
U.S. and India
Rajni Bakshi
Activist and author
India
Madhav Bhatkuly
Managing partner, New Horizon Investments
India
Viveca Chan
Group chairman & CEO, Grey Global Group
Hong Kong
Subir Gokarn
Chief economist, Crisil Ltd. debt-rating agency
India
Wenran Jiang
Associate professor and associate chair
Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Canada
Jiang Li
Research Manager, Media Communication Group, Microsoft Research Asia
China
Arun Maira
Chairman, Boston Consulting Group (India)
India
Oded Shenkar
Professor of management and human resources, Ohio State University Fisher College of Business
U.S.
Manoj Singh
CEO, Deloitte, Asia-Pacific Region
Hong Kong
Donald H. Straszheim
Chairman & CEO, Straszheim Global Advisors
U.S.
Wang Yong
Associate professor, School of International Studies
Director, Center for International Political Economy, Peking University
China
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
Will India ever grow as rapidly as China?
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
Will India ever grow as rapidly as China? If so, how might that occur?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948421.htm?campaign_id=spr_yahoo_china-india05
Subroto Bagchi
I do not think India should try to "grow as rapidly as China." Growth is not just an economic issue. Growth has to be aimed within a relevant country context. India has its own unique past, a very different present, and will chart her own version of the future. In that future, the most crtical component is to keep democracy safe.
The average Indian has, over the last almost 50 years, learned to value freedom. That requires India to socialize many actions before they get taken -- this has its own effect on speed. In matters of growth, one has to take a long view of time, and I see India making overall wholesome progress over time. Will that match China's current rate of growth? Probably not. Does not have to. There is a price to everything. We got to be aware of that.
--------------------------------------------------
Oded Shenkar
At least in the next few years, India is unlikely to grow as fast as China. China leads India in foreign investment, a key contributor to economic growth, by a margin of 10 to 1, because foreign investors, who can place their money anywhere, see more opportunities and less obstacles in China.
Ironically, Indian democracy is viewed as a hindrance vis-a-vis the stability of China's authoritarian regime on its liberalizing market and docile unions. India also lacks a Hong Kong and a Taiwan, next-door technology, and capital hubs that when combined with the mainland's abundant, cheap, and productive human resources create powerful complements. India has a long way to go before it catches up with China.
--------------------------------------------------
Viveca Chan
India is waking up and catching up fast. I will not be surprised to see India having a higher rate of growth. However, it will be hard for India to catch up with China on the size of its market and the absolute size of its growth. China dominates in manufacturing and has the market size and spending power domestically. India is strong in technology/IT services, which may be high value but not high volume. However, this can change as India starts to get into production and as Chinese companies start to buy Indian companies and set up production in India.
If India were to grow faster than China, it must increase its attractiveness to investing companies in terms of its market size and potential for luxury products. Indian consumers are more frugal and rational in spending. Chinese consumers are much more willing to pay for branded and luxury goods, a dream for marketers. This is evidenced by ubiquitous presence of luxury brands from Starbucks to Louis Vuitton in China vs. India.
So if the India market is to grow faster than China, Indian consumers need to be encouraged to buy things they do not need and pay prices that have no relation to the cost of goods. After all, market growth is about the growth of brands.
--------------------------------------------------
Arun Maira
Will India ever "grow" as fast as China? The first question is grow "what" or "in what terms?" As another participant has pointed out, growth in the size of the economy alone may not be enough. Other facets of India must change and grow along, and he suggests that, in a balanced scorecard approach, lesser growth in the size of the economy may be O.K. if there is growth in other dimensions.
However, let me focus on economic growth for now. The constraints on the growth of India's GDP appear to be insufficienct investments according to most economists--investments include FDI and investments in infrastructure. The most commonly cited constraints on investments is the confusion and slowness of policy change as well as confusion and tardiness at the bureacratic levels, as contrasted with the "single mindedness" on the Chinese side.
Therefore, if this constraint could be eased and there was more alignment in the Indian system, India would attract more investment, including investments in the infrastructure, according to this view, and thus would grow much faster than otherwise--perhaps matching China's rates of GDP growth. Therefore, if processes for creating adequate alignment on key requirements for growth are strengthened, India will grow faster.
To obtain alignment, it will be necessary to face up to and resolve issues regarding the goals of development as have been mentioned. Alignment obtained by raising and resolving issues will create less fragile and more enduring alignment (even if the process of obtaining that alignment seems tough and confusing).
Therefore, I am of the view that the current debates in India about the goals of development and about the appropriate models for growth are good for enabling the alignment that we need to accelerate (even) economic growth. In fact they make me more, not less hopeful that we will grow in a more rounded way and faster over the next couple of decades.
--------------------------------------------------
Rajni Bakshi
The key question, as Arun Maira has said, is growth in what terms? The competition between India and China over higher and higher GDP is a short-term concern. However, the fate of planet earth may depend on both India and China's ability to redefine growth itself and create new, ecologically sustainable patterns of consumption.
Both India and China have a knowledge base to move in the direction of sustainability. Whether they can deploy this in a significant way will depend on their decision makers' ability to marry a wide range of work on alternatives with innovative market mechanisms.
India has the advantage of having a vibrant, energetic and creative NGO [nongovernmental organization] sector that is now more and more willing to work in tandem with market energies to push for economic democracy, i.e level playing fields at many levels.
China seems to have a greater coherence in its policies. While the big challenge for India is to turn its trial and error muddling into an advantage.
--------------------------------------------------
Saurav Adhikari
India can grow as rapidly as China if some critical macro (policy) and micro (at the firm and individual level) initiatives are taken.
First the macro initiatives. It has only been 14 years since the 1991 reforms were unleashed, a good decade or so after China's Deng-era reforms. The political pendulum has now moved so far to the middle that these initiatives cannot be stopped or opposed by even the political left. So India should see solid macro initiatives under any government. This should lead to much better external perceptions while internal reforms take place. FDI- and infrastructure-fueled growth will inevitably follow.
Second, a little understated (and understood) but key element of the initiatives that make me confident that India can match or even exceed China's growth is the micro-level changes. India's middle class is well-educated, increasingly more demanding of better services, products, and governance at all levels. This has ensured a "market/consumer/individual" level revolution of sorts which is not state-led. This will propel growth in a very significant way.
Yes, I am very confident that the next few decades the Indian story of growth will be as compelling as China's, even given statistical nuances that are part of the hazy interpretation of growth.
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Straszheim
India will continue to lag until governmental leaders further open their eyes to the lesson of China and accelerate the economic reform process. That is happening, but it takes time. India must further the reforms in order to attract foreign direct investment. They are far behind. That FDI brings in talent and technology and expertise, easily as important as the capital itself.
One major advantage that India has is the existence of a functioning democracy and the economic "soft infrastructure," or what I would describe as "institutional capital" that those in developed economies accept as standard -- rule of law, commercial code, veracity of the data, evenhanded treatment of all parties, root out corruption, property rights (intellectual and otherwise), bankruptcy procedures, monetary and fiscal policies that work and are understandable, etc.
--------------------------------------------------
Madhav Bhatkuly
India has not grown as fast as China, but it appears as if India might grow faster over the next decade. There are two key differences in the growth of these two nations. First, China has seen significant investment in infrastructure and FDI, while India's growth has been without any meaningful investment in infrastructure and FDI. Second, India's growth has emerged through an era of capital defficiency, while China's growth been the result of flinging increasing amounts of capital at it.
In power, telecom, and to some extent roads/highways and ports, India appears to be addressing the issue of infrastructure. On FDI too, foreign ownership is now less of an issue except in a few sensitive sectors. As infrastructure expands, so will the India's growth. So far it was restricted to a handful of sectors such as IT and pharma, which were relatively less affected by lack of infrastructure. Thus, India now appears set for multisector growth.
For example, new and large opportunities have emerged in textiles where India was thwarted because of quotas despite being the largest yarn producer of the world. Quotas have now been abolished. The auto sector could be another driver. Development costs in India are among the lowest in the world. India already has a large home base in two-wheelers with three of the world's top 10 manufacturers of the world. In passenger cars too, India is fast becoming an export centre. Though unlike the past decade which was led by services, the next 10 years may see India being driven by growth in manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------
Subir Gokarn
China has been growing at roughly 9% a year with an investment/GDP ratio of around 40%. India has been clocking about 6% a year with an investment/GDP ratio of about 25%. This indicates that India is using capital more efficiently, in the sense that it gets more growth bang for the investment buck. The reason for this disparity is quite simple: India's growth drivers have been services, which typically are far less capital-intensive than manufacturing, on which China has relied to a greater extent.
India can accelerate its growth rate if its manufacturing sector makes a larger contribution. For this to happen, several policy changes have to be made. The two key ones, to my mind, are labor market reforms -- labor market regulations currently hobble manufacturing, while leaving services relatively unscathed -- and the facilitation of investment in infrastructure, particularly power and transport.
The political will to go ahead with labor market reforms is not visible. There is some, but extremely slow, progress in infrastructure. Without these, the ratcheting up of investment, both in infrastructure and in manufacturing capacity, which is required to accelerate growth in manufacturing, simply will not happen.
India can grow as fast as China, but it needs to break through some rather imposing barriers to do so. The good news is that these are man-made and can be dismantled by the right policy interventions.
--------------------------------------------------
Wang Yong
China and India will keep the position of growth stars in the future. China may be a bit faster than India. There are reasons to bet that China could keep a rapid growth of over 7% at least within the next 10 or 20 years. The reasons China will have a stable and fast growth, are like this:
The prospect of rapid development will be built on the country's weakness, that is, uneven development between the coastal east and the hinterland west. That [will allow for] China's keeping advantage in labor-intensive export while seeking industrial upgrading in the east. The double engines will give Chinese economy more power.
China has a development-oriented state system. China is still a one-party constitutional system. But the ruling party is very flexible and open to the demands of an increasingly pluralistic society. Economic freedom is more [assured]. The country is moving very quickly toward rule of law as well as rule by law, and a more investor-friendly environment will be more real in next several years. The country is able to sustain political and social stability while it is experiencing tremendous transition and uneven development.
--------------------------------------------------
Wenran Jiang
India is picking up the pace, not far behind from the lower to below-average growth rates of China in the past 25 years (6% to 9%). Although India's potential higher rate may rest on a different set of factors than the ones that have driven China so far, it is important to look at China's experiences and to what extent India can create similar conditions.
The first is to confront the so-called "peasant question." With all the talk of the high-tech industry, software, and IT nowadays, let's not forget that China's economic reform and the subsequent takeoff began from the countryside.
From the late 1970s to the mid 1980s, it was not the cities but the rural areas that prospered. It was the redistribution of land that unleashed so much energy in 70% of the Chinese population at the time and formed the basis of the later urban reform. Then again, from the mid 1990s, Chinese peasants lagged behind and were left behind, and the income gap between the cities and the countryside widened.
The so-called "sannong" crisis -- crisis in the agrarian sector, in the agrarian regions and among the agrarian population -- has caused serious problems for China's overall development. India may have to deal with some of its own fundamental problems in the vast rural areas if it wants to produce its own sustainable miracle of growth.
The second is to pursue high GDP figures at the expense of equal distribution. Deng Xiaoping's famous sayings are: "To get rich is glorious," and "We should allow a portion of the population to get rich first." China used to be poor but equal. That is no longer the case. The "trickle-down" magic has so far not worked in China. Today, China is a more unequal society than India.
Will India push ahead for higher speed and make itself an even more unequal society? While China has hundreds of millions of peasants, India has a 160 million "untouchables" that are seriously oppressed. One way for rapid growth to occur seems to be leaving them behind -- for the moment if not forever.
The third is to create favorable environments to attract FDI, joint ventures, and trade partners, with a lot of preferential treatment. There is only so much domestic capital available, so for sustainable long-term growth, it is crucial to have an "open-door" policy with social stability. China has done well -- much better than its predecessors like Japan and South Korea and is way ahead of India in the game. Even today, it continues to provide better incentives to foreign capital. It is impossible for India to grow as fast as China unless India can do better in this area.
There is one even more fundamental issue: None of the above could be accomplished in the Chinese case without a strong state. And the Chinese state is both nondemocratic and totally committed to growth at the same time. While there is no convincing correlation between an authoritarian strong state and a high growth rate, neither is there clear evidence linking democracy with strong economic performance. It is obvious that there are some lessons that India can learn from China, but there are also factors in China that cannot be emulated by India.
The Participants
Saurav Adhikari
Corporate vice-president for strategy, HCL Technologies
India
Subroto Bagchi
Chief operating officer, MindTree Consulting
U.S. and India
Rajni Bakshi
Activist and author
India
Madhav Bhatkuly
Managing partner, New Horizon Investments
India
Viveca Chan
Group chairman & CEO, Grey Global Group
Hong Kong
Subir Gokarn
Chief economist, Crisil Ltd. debt-rating agency
India
Wenran Jiang
Associate professor and associate chair
Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Canada
Jiang Li
Research Manager, Media Communication Group, Microsoft Research Asia
China
Arun Maira
Chairman, Boston Consulting Group (India)
India
Oded Shenkar
Professor of management and human resources, Ohio State University Fisher College of Business
U.S.
Manoj Singh
CEO, Deloitte, Asia-Pacific Region
Hong Kong
Donald H. Straszheim
Chairman & CEO, Straszheim Global Advisors
U.S.
Wang Yong
Associate professor, School of International Studies
Director, Center for International Political Economy, Peking University
China
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：
