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.
我的講題 是中國和印度的經濟增長。 而我想與你們探討的問題是 民主對於經濟增長 是促進 還是阻礙? 你可能認為這並不公平。 因為我只用了兩個國家 便立論否定民主。 事實上,我要做旳 剛好相反。 我要用這兩個國家 作為經濟上支持民主的理據 而非反對民主。
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.
第一個問題是 為何中國的發展速度 比印度要快很多? 在過去的30年裡 以GDP(國內生產總值)增長率計 中國的增長是印度的兩倍。 在過去的5年, 兩國的經濟增長開始 趨向一致。 但在過去30年, 中國毫無疑問 較印度表現好很多。 一個簡單的答案是 中國有上海,印度有孟買。 看看上海的地平線 這是浦東地區。 而印度的照片則是 孟買達拉維的 貧民窟。 兩張照片背後的 想法是 中國政府可以 凌駕法治之上。 她可以根據國家長期利益 作出規劃。 而在這個過程中 遷徙以百萬計的人民 - 這只是小小的技術問題。 然而在印度,你無法這樣做 你要聽取民眾的意見。 你受到民意的制約。 即使辛格總理 認同這個看法。 在刊登於印度一份財經刊物上 的一篇訪問中, 他說過想把孟買變成 另一個上海。 這是一位在英國牛津大學受教育, 人文價值觀深厚的經濟學家, 但他還是認同 上海的高壓政策。
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.
讓我稱它為上海式的經濟增長模式吧, 它強調以下 促進經濟發展的形式: 基礎建設、機場、 公路、橋樑及類似的建設。 你需要一個強勢政府才可以這樣做, 因為你不能尊重私有產權。 你也不可以被民意約束。 你亦需要公共產權, 特別是土地資產的擁有權, 以便急速地進行及推出 基礎建設。 這個模式意味著 民主 是經濟增長的障礙, 而非經濟增長促進者。 這裡關鍵的問題是: 基礎建設對經濟增長 有多重要? 這是一個關鍵的課題。 如果你相信基礎建設對經濟增長極之重要, 那麼你應支持須要強勢政府去 促進經濟增長。 如果你相信 基礎建設並非如很多人所想那麼重要的話, 那麼你便不會那樣重視 強勢政府。
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."
要說明這個問題, 讓我用兩個國家為例, 同時為求簡單起見, 我把第一個國家稱為甲國 另一個乙國。 甲國 在基礎建設上較乙國 有系統性的優勢。 甲國有較多的電話, 和更長的鐵路系統。 如果我問你, 那一個是中國? 那一個是印度? 那一個國家增長得比較快? 我相根據基礎建設的角度, 你會說:"甲國應該是中國, 在經濟增長方面,她應表現較佳, 而乙國就可能是印度。"
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.
事實上,有較多電話的國家是 蘇聯, 這是1989年的數據。 在發表了令人印象深刻的電話統計數據後, 這個國家解體了。 這並非好事。 這是赫魯曉夫的照片。 我知他在1989年 已不再統治蘇聯了, 但這是我能找到的最好的照片。 (笑聲) 電話、基礎建設 並不保證為你帶來經濟增長。 擁有比較少電話的乙國 是中國。 1989年以來 該國在過去的20年裡 每年都表現出雙位數字的增長率。 如果你對中國和蘇聯一無所知 只知道她們電話的數字, 你便會對她們之後20年的 經濟增長 作出差勁的預測。
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.
有較長鐵路系統的甲國 其實是印度。 乙國是中國。 這是一個關於這兩個國家 罕為人知的事實。 沒錯,在基礎建設上中國目前較印度 有龐大的優勢。 但很多年來 直到90年代末期 中國在基礎建設上相對印度而言 是處於劣勢的。 在發展中國家, 最普及的交通工具是 鐵路, 英國人在印度建了很多鐵路。 印度是兩國中較小的一個, 然而在90年代末,印度仍然擁有 較長的鐵路系統。 明顯地, 基礎建設解釋不了 爲何中國在90年代後期之前 表現優於印度。
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.
事實上,如果你環顧全球的證據, 這些證據更多支持 基礎建設是經濟增長的成果這種看法。 經濟增長, 政府累積更多資源 及投資於基礎建設 - 基礎建設並非 帶動經濟增長的原因。 這明顯是 中國經濟增長的故事。 讓我更直接的分析這個問題。 民主是否不利於經濟增長? 現在再看看另外兩個國家, 丙國和丁國。 丙國在1990年 的人均GDP是300美元。 至於丁國 其人均GDP則爲460美元。 到了2008年, 丙國超越了丁國 人均GDP達700美元 相對於650美元的人均GDP。 兩個國家都在亞洲。
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.
假如我問你: "她們是那兩個亞洲國家呢?" "那一個是民主國家呢?" 你可能會認為 丙國是中國 丁國是印度。 事實上,丙國是 民主的印度, 丁國是巴基斯坦 - 該國有一段很長時期的 軍事統治。 我們時常會 拿印度與中國比較。 因為這兩個國家 擁有差不多的人口。 但更自然的比較 實際上應是印度和巴基斯坦。 這兩個國家地理位置差不多。 同時擁有複雜但相同的歷史。 比較起來, 民主對經濟增長 看來極之有利。
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.
但為何經濟學家會愛上 獨裁政府呢? 一個原因是東亞模式。 在東亞地區, 我們有一些成功的經濟增長故事 例如南韓、台灣、 香港和新加坡。 這些國家中,有些 在60和70年代, 以及80年代, 曾受獨裁統治。 這個看法的問題是 像問彩票中獎人: "你中了獎嗎?" 他們都會跟你說:"對,我中了獎。" 然後你便作出結論 中獎的機會是 百分之百。 原因是你完全沒有亦無心去 問一下那些買了彩票 但沒有中獎 而贏不到彩金的人。
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.
在東亞, 在這些每一個成功的獨裁政府背後 都有一個相應的失敗例子。 南韓成功,北韓失敗。 台灣成功,毛澤東領導下的中國失敗。 緬甸不成功。 菲律賓不成功。 如果你看看全球的統計數據, 真的找不到證據去證明, 獨裁政府 在經濟增長上較民主國家 擁有系統性的優勢。 所以東亞模式 存有重大的選擇偏差 - 即是所謂篩選因變數的做法, 一些我們經常教導學生要避免的錯誤。
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.
究竟是甚麽原因令中國增長快那麼多呢? 讓我與你們回顧一下文化大革命, 當時中國處於瘋狂狀態, 然後拿她的經濟表現與 甘地領導下的印度比較。 這裡的問題是:"那一個國家表現較好, 中國或印度?" 中國當時正處於文化大革命期間, 結果是即使在文化大革命期間, 以GDP增長計, 中國比印度有較好的表現 以人均GDP計, 中國平均每年的增長高於印度百分之2.2。 這正是中國處於瘋狂的時候。 整個國家都瘋狂起來。 這意味著這個國家 一定有一些經濟增長上的強大優勢 足以克服文化大革命 帶來的負面影響。 這個國家擁有的優勢就是 人力資本 - 沒有其他就只是人力資本。
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.
這是90年代初的 全球發展指數的數據。 這是我能夠找到的最早的數據。 中國的成人識字率 達百分之77 印度只有百分之48。 中國和印度婦女 的識字率之間的差距 更為特別顯著。 我還未告訴你識字率的定義。 在中國,識字的定義是 能夠讀和寫 1,500個中文字。 在印度,識字的定義, 操作上識字的定義, 是以你所說的語言,無論你說甚麽話, 書寫自己名字 的能力,重大的能力。 在識字水平上,兩國的差距 跟數據所顯示的 嚴重得更多。 如果你參考其他數據來源 譬如人力發展指數字, 該數據 追溯至70年代初 你可看到完全一樣的差距。 中國相對於印度, 在人力資本上 擁有鉅大的優勢。
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.
預期壽命方面: 早至1965年, 中國在預期壽命亦有龐大優勢。 平均而言,在1965年時,作為中國人 你可比一個平均的印度人 活多10年。 假如你可選擇 做中國人還是印度人, 你自然會想做中國人 得以活多10年。 如果你在1965年作出了這個決定, 弊處是 第二年爆發了文化大革命。 所以你必須小心考慮 才去作出這些決定。
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.
如果你不可選擇你的國藉, 那你將會想做印度男性。 因為,作為印度男性, 相對於印度女性, 你有長兩年預期壽命的優勢。 這是極為不尋常的事實。 在其他國家中 極為罕見的形態。 這顯示出印度社會 對女性 整體地存有歧視及偏見。 好消息是,在2006年前, 印度已消除了 男性與女性 預期壽命上的差距。 今天,印度女性較男性 有一個很大的預期壽命的優勢。 所以,印度正回歸常態。 但印度在性別平等上 還需努力。
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.
這是在中國廣東省 和印度的製衣廠 拍攝的兩張照片。 在中國,相內全是女性。 在中國沿海地區, 百分之60至80的勞動力是女性。 但在印度,則全是男性。 金融時報刊出了 這張印度紡織廠的照片, 標題是:"印度紡織業即將超越中國"。 單看這兩張照片, 我會說不,它有一段時間都不會超越中國。 如果你看看其他東亞國家, 女性在經濟起飛 - 在東亞地區 創造製造業奇蹟方面, 扮演了極為重大的角色。 印度還有一段很長的路要走 才趕得上中國。
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.
那麼,問題是, 中國的政治政度有何影響呢? 你談到人力資本、 又談到教育和公共健康。 政治制度又如何呢? 一黨政治制度足否 促進了中國的經濟增長呢? 事實上,答案比較細緻和微妙。 這要看你如何區分 政治制度的靜態和 政治制度的動態。 靜態而言,中國是一黨制度, 獨裁制度 - 這是毫無疑問的。 動態而言,它隨時間遷移而改變 變得較不獨裁和較為民主。 當你解釋改變時 例如,經濟增長; 經濟增長是關於改變 - 當你解釋改變時, 你要用其他出現了改變的東西來解釋改變, 而不是用固定不變的因素來解釋改變。 有時固定因素可解釋改變, 但固定因素只解釋改變 與其他出現改變的因素的互動。
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.
以政治改變而言, 他們引進了農村選舉。 他們加強了個體戶的保障。 以及長期土地租賃 的保障。 在中國農村也出現了財政改革。 中國亦出現了農村創業革命。 我覺得,政治改變的步代 實在太慢、太循序漸進了。 我的看法是這國家 將面對重大的挑戰, 因為他們在政治改革上走得未夠深遠和迅速。 但無論如何, 這個制度已朝更開放、 更自由的方向發展。
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.
你可把同樣的動態分析用在印度身上。 事實上,印度是依印度教的增長率 而增長 - 每年約百分之1至2 - 這是印度最不民主的時期。 甘地在1975年宣布了緊急管治。 印度政府擁有和營運 所有的電視台。 較少人知關於印度在1990年代的事實是 該國 不單只進行經濟改革, 還進行了政治改革 引入了鄉村自治 傳媒私有化 和引入資訊自由法案。 所以,動態觀點 從發展方向而言 均適用於中國和印度。
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.
為何人們相信 印度仍是一個增長的災難? 一個原因是 他們經常拿印度與中國比較。 但以經濟增長來說中國是 超級巨星。 如果你是NBA球員, 而人們經常拿你跟米高.佐敦比較, 你也難以令人刮目相看。 但這並不表示 你是一名差勁的藍球員。 與超級巨星比較 是錯誤的基準。 事實上,如果你拿印度與 一般發展中國家比較, 即使排除較近期 印度增長加速期 - 目前印度毎年增長百分之8至9 - 即使在這時期之前, 以經濟增長計,印度在新興經濟中 排名第4。 這實在是十分出色的紀錄。
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.
讓我們想想將來: 龍與象之爭。 那一個國家擁有增長勢頭? 我相信中國仍有 一些優良的原始基本因素 - 主要是社會資本、 公共衛生、 平均主義的感覺 - 這些都是印度缺少的。 但我相信印度有這個增長勢頭。 她擁有逐步改善的基礎因素。 政府對基本教育作出了投資, 對基本健康作出了投資。 我覺得政府應做得更多, 但無論如何,它發展的方向 是正確的方向。 印度擁有經濟發展 的適當體制狀況, 而中國仍在政治改革中 掙扎。
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.
我相信中國要維持經濟增長, 政治改革是必須的。 同樣十分重要的是中國需要政治改革 來使經濟增長的利益受到廣泛的分享。 我不知道會否出現這種情況, 但我是樂觀主義者。 希望5年之後,我回來向TEDGlobal報告 中國出現了政治改革。
Thank you very much.
慼謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)