风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
中国模式的魅力 - 观点 - 国际先驱论坛报
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/opinion/01iht-edafrica.3357752.html
张维为 2006 年 11 月 1 日
北京——许多来华出席中非峰会的非洲领导人不仅被援助和贸易机会所吸引，也被中国的发展模式所吸引。
他们知道，仅仅三十年前，中国还和马拉维一样贫穷。 但尽管后者仍然是世界上最贫穷的国家之一，但中国的经济却增长了九倍。 事实上，中国模式在很多方面挑战了西方关于如何消除贫困和确保善政的传统智慧。 其主要特点是：
人很重要。 1978年以来，中国坚定不移地实施现代化战略，紧紧围绕解决人民最迫切的需要。 中国改革的总设计师邓小平指出，中国只能“实事求是”，不能教条主义，一切改革都必须因地制宜、带来实实在在的好处。
不断的实验。 中国的所有变革，首先要经过小范围试错的过程，只有证明有效后，才会推广到其他地方。
渐进式改革，而不是大爆炸。 中国拒绝“休克疗法”，对现有的、不完善的制度进行改造，并逐步改革它们，调整它们的方向，为现代化服务。
一种发育状态。 中国的变革是由一个强大且有利于发展的国家领导的，该国家有能力形成关于现代化的全国共识，并确保总体政治和宏观经济稳定，从而进行广泛的国内改革。
选择性学习。 中国保留了“选择性文化借鉴”的悠久传统——包括美国新自由主义模式，特别是对市场作用、创业精神、全球化和国际贸易的强调。 将中国模式描述为“北京共识”与“华盛顿共识”是不准确的。 中国经验的独特之处在于，北京在何时、何地以及如何采纳外国思想方面维护了自己的政策空间。
正确的顺序和优先级。 1978年后中国的变革有一个明显的规律：先易改革，后难改革； 首先是农村改革，其次是城市改革； 首先是沿海地区的变化，其次是内陆地区的变化； 首先是经济改革，其次是政治改革。 好处是第一阶段获得的经验为下一阶段创造条件。
过去25年里，我去过100多个国家，其中大部分是发展中国家，其中18个在非洲。 我的结论是，在消除贫困、帮助穷人和边缘化群体方面，中国模式无论多么不完美，都比以国际货币基金组织设计的结构调整计划（SAP）为代表的所谓美国模式有效得多。 ）针对撒哈拉以南非洲地区，以及针对俄罗斯的“休克疗法”。
美国模式很大程度上是意识形态驱动的，重点是大众民主化。 它很少考虑当地条件，将撒哈拉以南非洲或其他欠发达国家视为成熟社会，西方制度将自动在其中扎根。 它在安全网建立之前就实行了自由化； 在建立监管框架之前实现私有化，在建立政治宽容和法治文化之前实现民主化。 最终的结果往往令人沮丧，甚至是毁灭性的。
大多数发展中国家的首要任务是如何消除贫困，这是冲突和各种形式极端主义的根源。 他们通常需要的不是一个自由民主的政府，而是一个能够消除贫困、提供基本服务和基本安全的好政府。
此外，大多数贫穷国家根本不具备自由民主政府的条件——法治、规模庞大的中产阶级、受过良好教育的人口、政治宽容的文化。 对他们实行过早的民主化往往会导致法里德·扎卡里亚所说的“非自由民主”，或更糟糕的是，导致种族和宗派冲突。
只要美国模式仍然无法带来预期的结果（从海地到菲律宾再到伊拉克的失败就清楚地表明了这一点），中国模式就会对世界贫困人口更具吸引力。
我清楚地记得1985年9月邓小平对来访的加纳总统杰里·罗林斯说：“请不要照搬我们的模式。如果说我们有什么经验的话，那就是根据自己的国情制定政策。”
也许态度决定一切。 中国被别人认为是谦虚的，美国被认为是傲慢的； 中国以身作则，美国以身作则, 如果不是导弹，也可以通过教训和制裁来实现。
归根结底，最重要的是找到解决人类面临的众多挑战的最佳方法。 中国模式虽然不完美，但丰富了世界的政治话语和智慧，扩大了政策选择。
The allure of the Chinese model - Opinion - International Herald Tribune
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/opinion/01iht-edafrica.3357752.html
Wei-Wei Zhang
BEIJING — Many of the African leaders coming here for the Chinese-African summit meeting are attracted not only by opportunities for aid and trade, but also by the Chinese model of development.
They know that only three decades ago, China was as poor as Malawi. But while the latter remains among the world's poorest, China's economy has expanded nine-fold. Indeed, the Chinese model has in many ways challenged the conventional wisdom in the West on how to fight poverty and ensure good governance. Its key features are:
People matter. Since 1978, China has pursued a down-to-earth strategy for modernization, and has focused on meeting the most pressing needs of the people. The architect of China's reform, Deng Xiaoping, argued that China could only "seek truth from facts," not from dogmas, and all reforms must take account of local conditions and deliver tangible benefits.
Constant experimentation. All changes in China first go through a process of trial and error on a small scale, and only when they are shown to work are they are applied elsewhere.
Gradual reform, not big bang. China rejected "shock therapy" and worked through the existing, imperfect institutions while gradually reforming them and reorienting them to serve modernization.
A developmental state. China's change has been led by a strong and pro-development state that is capable of shaping national consensus on modernization and ensuring overall political and macroeconomic stability in which to pursue wide-ranging domestic reforms.
Selective learning. China has retained its long tradition of "selective cultural borrowing" - including from the neoliberal American model, and especially its emphasis on the role of the market, entrepreneurship, globalization and international trade. It is inaccurate to describe the Chinese model as the "Beijing consensus" versus the "Washington consensus." What makes the Chinese experience unique is that Beijing has safeguarded its own policy space as to when, where and how to adopt foreign ideas.
Correct sequencing and priorities. China's post- 1978 change has had a clear pattern: easy reforms first, difficult ones second; rural reforms first, urban ones second; changes in coastal areas first, inland second; economic reforms first, political ones second. The advantage is that the experiences gained in the first stage create conditions for the next stage.
Over the past 25 years, I've traveled to more than 100 countries, most of them developing countries, including 18 in Africa. I have concluded that in terms of eradicating poverty and helping the poor and the marginalized, the Chinese model, however imperfect, has worked far more effectively than what can be called the American model, as represented by the IMF-designed Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) for sub-Saharan Africa and the "shock therapy" for Russia.
The American model is largely ideology driven, with a focus on mass democratization. With little regard to local conditions, it treats sub-Saharan Africa or other less developed countries as mature societies in which Western institutions will automatically take root. It imposed liberalization before safety nets were set up; privatization before regulatory frameworks were put in place, and democratization before a culture of political tolerance and rule of law was established. The end result has often been discouraging or even devastating.
The paramount task for most developing countries is how to eradicate poverty, a root cause of conflicts and various forms of extremism. What they usually need is not a liberal democratic government, but a good government capable of fighting poverty and delivering basic services and basic security.
Furthermore, conditions for a liberal democratic government - rule of law, a sizable middle class, a well-educated population, a culture of political tolerance - are simply absent in most poor countries. Enforcing premature democratization on them often leads to what Fareed Zakaria has called "illiberal democracies," or worse, ethnic and sectarian conflicts.
So long as the American model remains unable to deliver the desired outcome, as shown so clearly in failures from Haiti to the Philippines to Iraq, the Chinese model will become more appealing to the world's poor.
I well remember Deng telling the visiting president of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings, in September 1985: "Please don't copy our model. If there is any experience on our part, it is to formulate policies in light of one's own national conditions."
Perhaps attitude makes all the difference. China is viewed by others as modest, America as arrogant; China leads by example, America by lectures and sanctions, if not missiles.
At the end of the day, what matters most is finding the best ways to tackle the many challenges facing mankind. The Chinese model, however imperfect, has enriched the world's political discourse and wisdom and hence expanded the policy options.
