My topic is economic growth in China and India. And the question I want to explore with you is whether or not democracy has helped or has hindered economic growth. You may say this is not fair, because I'm selecting two countries to make a case against democracy. Actually, exactly the opposite is what I'm going to do. I'm going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy, rather than against democracy.
我演讲的主题 是关于中国和印度的经济增长。 并且一个我希望与你们探讨的一个问题是 民主政治 是否帮助了或阻碍了 经济增长。 你也许会说这不公平, 因为我选择了两个国家 来反对民主政治。 事实上,我要做的事 恰恰相反。 我要用这两个国家 为民主政治来做一个经济论证, 而不是反对民主政治。
The first question there is why China has grown so much faster than India. Over the last 30 years, in terms of the GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India. In the last five years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat in economic growth. But over the last 30 years, China undoubtedly has done much better than India. One simple answer is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai. Look at the skyline of Shanghai. This is the Pudong area. The picture on India is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai in India. The idea there behind these two pictures is that the Chinese government can act above rule of law. It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country and in the process, evict millions of people -- that's just a small technical issue. Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public. You're being constrained by the public's opinion. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees with that view. In an interview printed in the financial press of India, He said that he wants to make Mumbai another Shanghai. This is an Oxford-trained economist steeped in humanistic values, and yet he agrees with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.
第一个问题 是为什么中国的经济发展的 比印度快那么多。 在过去的30年中, 从国内生产总值的增长率来看, 中国是印度增长速率的两倍。 在过去的五年中, 这两个国家开始在经济增长方面 有些类似。 但是在过去的30年里, 中国毫无疑问的 发展的比印度好很多。 举一个简单的例子 中国有上海,印度有孟买。 看看上海的高楼大厦。 这是上海的浦东。 这张印度的图片 是孟买的达拉维贫民窟 在印度。 在这两张图片后 主要的想法是 中国的政府 可以在法律的制裁上行动。 这就可以为 国家长久利益与 过程设定计划, 驱逐上百万的人-- 只是一个小小的技术问题。 然而在印度,你却不能做这些, 因为政府必须听从民众。 政府被公众的意见所驱使。 即使总理辛格 也同意这样的做法。 在一次 印度金融界的采访中, 辛格说道他想让孟买 成为另一个上海。 这可是一位沉浸在人文价值中的 牛津大学毕业的经济学家, 然而他赞同 上海的高压政策。
So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth, that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructures, airports, highways, bridges, things like that. And you need a strong government to do that, because you cannot respect private property rights. You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion. You need also state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out infrastructures very quickly. The implication of that model is that democracy is a hindrance for economic growth, rather than a facilitator of economic growth. Here's the key question. Just how important are infrastructures for economic growth? This is a key issue. If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth, then you would argue a strong government is necessary to promote growth. If you believe that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong government.
所以允许我称上海模式经济增长, 为促进经济发展 有以下特点: 基础设施,飞机场, 高速公路,立交桥等等。 并且你需要一个强大的政府去做到, 因为要做到你不能尊重私人财产权。 你不能被公众的意见所驱使。 而且你要有国家公有制, 尤其是土地资产。 去快速的建设和推出 基础设施。 这种模式的含义是 民主政治 是一个经济增长的障碍, 而不会促进经济增长。 这里有个关键的问题。 那就是基础设施对经济的增长 有多重要? 这是一个关键的问题。 如果你认为基础设施对经济增长是至关重要的, 那么你就会证明一个强力的政府促进经济增长 是必须的。 如果你相信 基础设施对经济增长没那么重要的话, 那么你就不会那么着重于 强力的政府。
So to illustrate that question, let me give you two countries. And for the sake of brevity, I'll call one country Country 1 and the other country Country 2. Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in infrastructures. Country 1 has more telephones, and Country 1 has a longer system of railways. So if I were to ask you, "Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?" if you believe in the infrastructure view, then you will say, "Country 1 must be China. They must have done better, in terms of economic growth. And Country 2 is possibly India."
为那个问题举个例子, 让我给你两个国家举例。 为了简单的目的, 我就称他们为国家1 另外一个是国家2. 国家1 在基础设施方面比国家2 拥有系统的优越性。 国家1拥有更多的手机, 并且国家1有更长的铁路线。 所以如果我问你, “这俩个国家哪个是中国 哪个是印度, 并且哪个国家增长的更快?” 如果你相信那个基础设施的观点, 那么你就会说,“国家1一定是中国。 他们一定是因为基础设施更好促进了经济发展。 国家2应该是印度。”
Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to 1989. After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed. That's not too good. The picture there is Khrushchev. I know that in 1989 he no longer ruled the Soviet Union, but that's the best picture that I can find. (Laughter) Telephones, infrastructures do not guarantee you economic growth. Country 2, that has fewer telephones, is China. Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit rate every year for the last 20 years. If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than the fact about their telephones, you would have made a poor prediction about their economic growth in the next two decades.
事实上拥有较多手机国家 是前苏联, 这是根据1989年的数据得到的。 在前苏联报告了如此冷人钦佩的手机统计后, 这个国家倒塌了。 这可不是好事。 这是一张赫鲁晓夫的图片。 我知道在1989年 他已经不是前苏联的总统了, 但是这是我能找到的最好的一张图片。 (笑声) 手机,基础设施 并不能保证经济的增长。 国家2,那个拥有少数手机的, 是中国。 自从1989年, 这个国家以每年两位数字的速率 成长了20年。 如果你除了手机那件事之外 一点都不了解中国和前苏联的话, 那你就对未来20年 经济的增长 做了个错误的预告。
Country 1, that has a longer system of railways, is actually India. And Country 2 is China. This is a very little known fact about the two countries. Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage over India. But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India. In developing countries, the most common mode of transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India. India is the smaller of the two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s. So clearly, infrastructure doesn't explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India.
那个拥有更长铁路的国家1, 是印度。 国家2是中国。 这是个关于这两个国家 很少为人知的事实 是的,在今天中国比印度拥有 巨大的基础设施优势。 但是在很多年里, 直到90年代, 中国的基础设施比印度 还比印度不足 在发展中国家里, 最常见的交通工具 铁路, 并且英国人在印度建了很多铁路。 印度比这两国都小, 但是它却用更长的铁路系统 直到90年代。 所以明显地, 基础设施并不能解释 为什么中国比印度 在90年达末之前也做得好。
In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, the evidence is more supportive of the view that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth. The economy grows, government accumulates more resources, and the government can invest in infrastructure -- rather than infrastructure being a cause for economic growth. And this is clearly the story of the Chinese economic growth. Let me look at this question more directly. Is democracy bad for economic growth? Now let's turn to two countries, Country A and Country B. Country A, in 1990, had about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP. By 2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per capita GDP. Both countries are in Asia.
事实上,如果你在全球寻找证据, 证据反而会偏向显示 基础设施事实上是经济增长的结果。 在经济增中, 政府积累更多的资源, 并且政府才能投资更多的基础设施-- 而基础设施并不是经济增长 的原因。 这是个明显的 中国经济增长的故事。 让我来更直接的看这个问题。 民主政治对经济增长不好吗? 现在让我们看看这两个国家, 国家A和国家B。 国家A,在1990年 拥有300美金的人均GDP 与国际B相比较, 它有460美金的人均GDP。 在2008年, 国家A超过了国家B 国家A有700美金的人均GDP 而国际B有650美金的人均GDP。 这两个国家都在亚洲。
If I were to ask you, "Which are the two Asian countries? And which one is a democracy?" you may argue, "Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is India." In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan -- the country that has a long period of military rule. And it's very common that we compare India with China. That's because the two countries have about the same population size. But the more natural comparison is actually between India and Pakistan. Those two countries are geographically similar. They have a complicated, but shared common history. By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in terms of economic growth.
如果我问你, “这两个是什么国家? 哪一个是民主国家? 你或许会说, “恩,说不定国家A是中国 国家B是印度。” 事实上,国家A 是民主印度, 而国家B是巴基斯坦-- 一个长时间在 军事统治下的国家。 并且我们比较印度和中国 是非常常见的。 这是应为这两个国家 有用相同的人口大小。 但是更加天然的比较 其实是印度和巴基斯坦。 这两个国家在地理上是相似的。 它们拥有复杂的,但互通的历史。 在这个比较中, 民主政治在经济增长方面 看起来非常非常好。
So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the East Asian Model. In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian governments in the 60s and 70s and 1980s. The problem with that view is like asking all the winners of lotteries, "Have you won the lottery?" And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery." And then you draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent. The reason is you never go and bother to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn't end up winning the prize.
所以为什么经济学家沉迷于 独裁主义政府呢? 一个原因是东亚模式。 在东亚, 我们拥有很成功的经济增长的故事 例如:韩国,台湾, 香港和新加坡。 这些经济系统中有些 在69,70和80年代 是被专制政府 所统治的 这个观点所带来的问题 就像问一个中彩票的人, “你中过彩票吗?” 他们所有人都回答,“是,我中过彩票。” 然后你就下结论: 中彩票的几率 是百分之百。 因为你从来不去问 也不想麻烦去问那些 也同样买了彩票 但是没有中奖的人。
For each of these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there's a matched failure. Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't. Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't. Burma didn't succeed. The Philippines didn't succeed. If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there's really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over democracies in terms of economic growth. So the East Asian model has this massive selection bias -- it is known as selecting on a dependent variable, something we always tell our students to avoid.
对于这些东亚成功的 独裁政府, 他们是失败的。 韩国成功了,朝鲜没有。 台湾成功了,毛泽东领导下的中国没有。 缅甸没有成功。 菲律宾也没有成功。 如果你看看全世界的统计数据, 其实没有这个专制政府 比民主政府 在经济增长上 更有系统优势的证据。 所以东亚模式 有它巨大的选择偏差-- 它被认为是选择一个被动的变量, 这是我们一直告诉学生们要避免的。
So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that's when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital -- nothing else but human capital.
所以到底为什么中国发展的如此之快呢? 我会带你到文化大革命时期, 去比较当中国发狂的时候, 和在英迪拉·甘地带领下的印度 国家的绩效。 在这里的问题是:在那时这两个国家谁做的更好, 中国还是印度? 中国那时还处于文化大革命时期。 结果是中国即使在文化大革命时期, 在国民生产总值方面比印度 也要增长的快 将近百分之2.2每年 人均GDP。 所以当中国发狂了。 整个国家都疯狂了。 这一定意味着这个国家 在经济增长方面有一定的优势 去克服文化大革命所带来的 负面的影响。 中国当时拥有的优势是 人力资源-- 什么都没有就只有人力。
This is the world development index indicator data in the early 1990s. And this is the earliest data that I can find. The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48 percent in India. The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and Indian women. I haven't told you about the definition of literacy. In China, the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters. In India, the definition of literacy, operating definition of literacy, is the ability, the grand ability, to write your own name in whatever language you happen to speak. The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is much more substantial than the data here indicated. If you go to other sources of data such as Human Development Index, that data series, go back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast. China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India.
这是一个90年代早期的 世界发展指标数据。 而且这是我可以找到的最早的资料。 成人的识字比率在中国 是百分之77 而与之比较印度是百分之48. 中国和印度女性的 识字率的对比 是有明显的差别的。(非常锋利的) 我还没有定义什么是识字。 在中国,识字的定义 是可以读也可以写 中国1500多的字符。 在印度,识字的定义, (准确的说)识字的操作定义是 是可以去 用你会说的语言的文字 写自己名字的能力。 这两国在识字方面的差别 是比这个资料所显示的 更大的。 如果你去找另外的资料 例如人类发展指数, 这一资料系列 可以追溯的70年代早期, 你可以看到一摸一样的对比。 中国与印度相比 拥有了人力资源方面 巨大的优势
Life expectancies: as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy. On average, as a Chinese in 1965, you lived 10 years more than an average Indian. So if you have a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer. If you made that decision in 1965, the down side of that is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution. So you have to always think carefully about these decisions.
预期寿命: 最早在1965年, 中国拥有在预期寿命方面巨大的优势。 平均来看,中国人在1965年 可以比印度人 平均多活十年。 所以如果你有 成为中国人或者是印度人的选择权的话, 你肯定会想成为中国人 去多活10年。 如果你在1965年做出了这个决定, 那这个决定的副作用是 在下一年我们发生了文化大革命。 所以关于这些决定 你一定要小心考虑
If you cannot chose your nationality, then you will want to become an Indian man. Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women. This is an extremely strange fact. It's very rare among countries to have this kind of pattern. It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in the Indian society against women. The good news is, by 2006, India has closed the gap between men and women in terms of life expectancy. Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge over Indian men. So India is reverting to the normal. But India still has a lot of work to do in terms of gender equality.
如果你不能选择你的国籍的话, 那么你就会想成为印度的男人。 因为,作为印度男人, 你比印度的女人 拥有大约2年长的寿命。 这是一个非常奇怪的事实 在国家之间拥有这种模式 是非常少见的。 这显示了在印度社会中 系统对女性的 歧视和偏见。 好消息是,在2006年 印度已经没有了男性和女性的 平均寿命的 差距。 在今天,印度的女性比男性 拥有相当大的平均寿命优势。 所以印度正在回到正常的状态。 但是印度在性别平等方面 任然有很多工作需要做。
These are the two pictures taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province and garment factories in India. In China, it's all women. 60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women in the coastal part of the country, whereas in India, it's all men. Financial Times printed this picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile." By looking at these two pictures, I say no, it won't overtake China for a while. If you look at other East Asian countries, women there play a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off -- in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia. India still has a long way to go to catch up with China.
这是两张 在广东省服装厂和印度服装厂 照的照片。 在中国,都是女性。 在中国的沿海地区 百分之60至80的劳动力是女性, 然而在印度,都是男性。 金融时报印刷了这张 印度纺织工厂的照片 与之的标题是“印度的纺织品已超过中国。” 就从观察这两张图片来说, 我说不,印度在一段时间内还不会超过中国。 如果你看看别的东亚国家, 女性在经济腾飞中 起到了巨大的作用-- 在东亚创造 经济奇迹方面。 印度要赶上中国 还有很长的路要走。
Then the issue is, what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk about education and public health. What about the political system? Isn't it true that the one-party political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that. It depends on a distinction that you draw between statics of the political system and the dynamics of the political system. Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian -- there's no question about it. Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more democratic. When you explain change -- for example, economic growth; economic growth is about change -- when you explain change, you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constant to explain change. Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains changes in interaction with the things that change.
那么问题是, 中国的政治体系如何? 你谈论到人力资源, 你谈论到教育和公共健康。 那么关于政治系统呢? 一党的政治体制是不是真的 促进了中国的经济发展呢? 事实上,问题的答案要比它微妙许多。 这取决于你对区别 政治体系的静力 和动力的看法。 静止的说,中国是个一党政治的系统, 独裁主义--这点是毋庸置疑的。 动态的来说,它随着时间而改变 成为较少独裁的、更加民主的政治系统。 当你解释改变-- 例如,经济增长; 经济增长是关于改变的-- 当你解释改变, 你用别的改变过的事情来解释改变, 而不是用一个不变的事情来解释改变。 有时一个不变的作用可以解释改变, 但不变的作用仅仅解释了 在改变事物上的相互作用的改变。
In terms of the political changes, they have introduced village elections. They have increased the security of proprietors. And they have increased the security with long-term land leases. There are also financial reforms in rural China. There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China. To me, the pace of political changes is too slow, too gradual. And my own view is the country is going to face some substantial challenges, because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms. But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a more democratic direction.
在政治变化方面, 中国已经介绍了村选举。 中国增加了业主的安全。 并且中国增加了 长时间土地租赁的保障。 在中国农村也有金融改革。 在中国农村也有企业家革命。 对我来说,这种政治转变的步伐 太慢了,太循序渐进了。 并且我的观点是中国 将会面临一些实质性的挑战, 因为他们还没有在政治改革方面走得更远和更快。 然而, 这个系统已进入了一个更为自由的方向, 进入了一个更为民主的方向。
You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India. In fact, when India was growing at a Hindu rate of growth -- about one percent, two percent a year -- that was when India was least democratic. Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975. The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations. A little-known fact about India in the 1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and introducing freedom of information acts. So the dynamic perspective fits both with China and in India in terms of the direction.
你可以把一摸一样的民主观点运用在印度。 事实上,当印度经济增长率 在增长是-- 大约是百分之一,二每年的时候-- 那是印度最不民主的时期。 在1975年甘地宣布进入紧急状态。 印度的政府拥有和操作 所有的电视台。 一个在90年代鲜为人知的事实 是印度不仅 开始进行经济改革, 印度还进行了政治改革 通过引入村自治 媒体私有化 和介绍信息自由的行为。 所以从方向方面来看 动态的观点对 中国和印度都是合适的。
Why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they are always comparing India with China. But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth. If you are a NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you're going to look not so impressive. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad basketball player. Comparing with a superstar is the wrong benchmark. In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country, even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth -- now India is growing between eight and nine percent -- even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth among emerging economies. This is a very impressive record indeed.
为什么很多人相信 印度依然是个增长灾难呢? 其中一个原因是 他们总是把印度和中国相比。 但是中国在经济增长方面 是个超级巨星。 如果你是个NBA球员 而且你总是被和迈尔克乔丹相比的话, 你将会看起来没那么印象深刻。 但是这并不证明 你是个差的篮球运动员。 与超级巨星相比 是个错误的标准。 事实上,如果你把印度 和平均的发展中国家相比的话, 即使在印度加速增长 之前-- 现在印度增长百分之8到9每年-- 就是在这之前, 印度在在新兴经济国家中经济增长 是排名第四的。 这确实是一个非常令人印象深刻的记录。
Let's think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant. Which country has the growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals -- mostly the social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don't find in India. But I believe that India has the momentum. It has the improving fundamentals. The government has invested in basic education, has invested in basic health. I believe the government should do more, but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction. India has the right institutional conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms.
让我们想象未来: 巨龙和大象, 哪个国家拥有增长的势头? 中国,我相信,仍然具有 一些优秀的原始经济基本面-- 最主要的是社会资本, 公众健康, 一种你在印度找不到的 某种意义上的平等主义。 但是我认为印度拥有增长的势头。 它具有正在改善的经济基本面。 印度政府已经在基础教育, 基础健康方面投资。 我认为政府应该做更多, 然而,这个方向 已经慢慢拿成为了正确的方向。 印度拥有经济增长 正确的制度环境, 而中国仍然为政治改革 努力奋斗着。
I believe that the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth. And it's very important to have political reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth. I don't know whether that's going to happen or not, but I'm an optimist. Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal that political reforms will happen in China.
我认为政治改革是中国保持增长 必不可少的一部分。 并且这是非常重要的通过政治改革 去广泛分享经济增长的利益。 我不知道这到底会不会发生, 但我是一个乐观主义者。 但愿,五年以后,我可以在TEDGlobal上作报告 说政治改革会在中国发生。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)