專訪羅奇 破解美中經濟失衡之道

For 30 years, China has prospered thanks to a low-wage, high-investment growth model--one in which workers see only a fraction of the fruits of growth and corporate profits are plowed back into ever greater capacity. That model, though, is changing: the recent strike over unpaid social insurance payments that affected an Adidas and Nike supplier in southern China shows how workers are becoming more aggressive.

中國30年來的繁榮發展得益於一個低薪酬、高投資的增長模式。在這樣一個模式下，工人只享有一小部分經濟發展成果，企業利潤被用於不斷擴大產能的再投資。不過，這種模式正在發生變化：最近中國南方一家阿迪達斯(Adidas)和耐克(Nike)供貨商的工廠因社保支付問題發生罷工，表明中國工人正變得更加敢作敢爲。

If China successfully manages to move from an investment-focused economy to a consumption-based one, such a shift will have an impact on the rest of the world too. That's especially true for the U.S., which has long ginned up its own consumption by selling Treasury bonds and other assets to foreign investors.

如果中國能成功實現從側重投資到立足於消費的經濟轉型，這樣一個轉變也將對世界其他地區產生影響。尤其是對美國而言。長期以來，美國一直依靠向海外投資者出售國債和其他資產來支撐自己的消費。

These are the issues Stephen Roach, a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia who is now at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, examines in his book 'Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China.'

這就是摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)亞洲區前主席、目前任職於耶魯大學傑克遜全球事務研究所(Jackson Institute for

Global Affairs)的史蒂芬・羅奇(Stephen Roach)在其名爲《失衡：美國與中國的相互依附》(Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China)的書中所探討的問題。

Mr. Roach argues that both the U.S. and China need to find new ways to manage their economies. America needs to start saving more, he says, while China needs to start serving its own consumers -- starting with a better social safety net. Edited excerpts:

羅奇認爲，美國和中國都需要找到管理本國經濟的新辦法。他表示，美國需要開始增加儲蓄，而中國需要開始服務於本國消費者，首先要從改善社會保障體系入手。以下是採訪的編輯摘錄：

Why did you write the book?

你爲什麼會寫這本書？

There's a lot of misinformation and outdated views about China in the U.S. I hope I know as much as almost anybody about the intersection between the two economies, and I thought the relationship needed to be addressed from both sides.

在美國，有很多關於中國的錯誤信息和過時看法。關於美中經濟的交叉點，我所知道的和大多數人一樣多。同時，我認爲美中經濟之間的關係需要分別從兩國各自的方面探討。

What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding Americans have about China?

你認爲美國人對中國最大的誤解是什麼？

The U.S. continues to look at China through the same lens through which it sees itself. It looks at excess investment or low consumption or rising debt and concludes that China is doomed. The U.S. misses the fact that China not only has a different system but it also is at a totally different stage in its development. It's certainly facing some daunting problems, but moving from a producer model to a consumer model built on urbanization still requires very high investment ratios. It still requires an active government promoting state-directed infrastructure and real estate construction. We can't rely on our own model to assess China's progress or lack thereof.

美國仍在以看待自己的方式看待中國。美國看到中國投資過度、消費偏低以及債務增加，就認定中國經濟必將崩潰。美國忽略了一個事實，那就是中國不僅有一套不同的體系，而且處在和美國完全不同的發展階段。中國顯然正面臨一些嚴峻的問題，但從生產型向基於城鎮化建設的消費型經濟模式轉變仍需要很高的投資比例。中國依然需要積極推進政府主導的基礎設施和房地產建設。美國不能用自己的模式去評估中國的進步和不足。

How would you rate China's chances of escaping from the so-called 'middle-income trap' that other emerging economies have faced?

你認爲中國避開其他新興經濟體遇到的所謂“中等收入陷阱”的機率有多大？

I think the chances are reasonably good. Most developing economies do get caught in the middle-income trap largely because they stick with the same model that led them from early-stage development to middle income and they think it can provide the impetus for moving to higher income -- and it usually doesn't. China's changing the model, which is important, and so I'm optimistic China is on a course to escape this dreaded trap.

我認爲這一機率相當高。多數發展中經濟體確實陷入了中等收入陷阱，主要原因是沿用了幫助他們從早期階段發展到中等收入階段的模式，而且他們認爲該模式能提供進入更高收入階段的動力，而事實通常並非如此。中國正在改變發展模式，這很重要。我相信中國正走在一條能夠避開這一可怕陷阱的道路上。

What are the advantages of China's relatively centralized system of economic planning, compared with the approach in the U.S.?

與美國的做法相比，中國相對集中的計劃經濟體制有何優勢？

One word: strategy. Strategies don't always work, but all economies need some form of strategy. The United States is faced with daunting transitions right now and it has no strategy -- and it's suffering because of that. We operate on a very short-term basis. That constrains us from being proactive and planning for the future on issues like saving, U.S. competitiveness, and how to address income inequality. Politicians are afraid of having a debate because they know that when we make an effort to come up with solutions to our long-term problems there's likely to be some pain along the way. We don't have courageous leaders who are willing to take those risks.

一句話，戰略。戰略並非總能奏效，但所有的經濟體都需要某種形式的戰略。美國目前面臨着艱鉅的轉型任務，但因缺乏相應的戰略而遇挫。我們的運作着眼於極短期。這會制約我們的主動性，制約我們在儲蓄、美國的競爭力以及解決收入差異等問題方面爲未來做打算。政界人士擔心展開論戰，因爲他們知道當我們努力爲長期問題找到解決方法時，隨之而來的很可能是要受些苦。我們缺乏甘願冒險的勇敢領導人。

You argue that the U.S. will need to find ways to save more without relying on savings imported from overseas. How can this be achieved?

您說美國將需要設法在不依賴來自海外儲蓄的前提下增加儲蓄。如何實現這一點呢？

First and foremost, we need to reduce the long-term budget deficit. But families also need to get their saving rate back up. American families were duped by bubbles, especially property bubbles, into believing that they had discovered a new way to save and didn't have to save out of their income. That bubble burst and they're left with no savings.

首先，我們需要減少長期預算赤字。但家庭也需要提高儲蓄率。過去，美國家庭被泡沫所矇蔽，特別是房地產泡沫，他們以爲自己找到了一條存錢的新途徑，不必把收入存起來。泡沫破裂了，他們的積蓄也隨之付諸東流。

The saving rate now is close to 4%, versus a 30-year average of about 9.5% at the end of the last century. It's as low as it's ever been for any leading nation in modern history. We need to expand existing incentives like 401-Ks and IRAs, we need to provide savings incentives explicitly for low-income individuals. Then we need to address the current unsustainable monetary policy, in which zero interest rates have crushed returns for a generation of savers.

目前儲蓄率接近4%，而截至上個世紀末的30年平均儲蓄率約爲9.5%。美國目前的儲蓄率是現代歷史中主要國家中最低的。我們需要擴大現有的激勵計劃，比如401K和個人退休賬戶(IRA)，我們需要爲低收入個人提供明確的儲蓄激勵措施。我們還需要應對難以持續的現行貨幣政策。當前貨幣政策推行的近零利率壓縮了一代儲戶的回報。

You've been pretty critical of the Fed's loose monetary policy. Why is that?

你經常批評美聯儲的寬鬆貨幣政策。這是爲何呢？

These policies were put in place in the depths of a horrific crisis. They were emergency measures. The emergency is long over, and yet the policies are still on emergency settings. When excess liquidity gets combined with what's still a weak economy with considerable slack in labor and product markets, the odds suggest that it shows up in asset markets, either at home or abroad. It's a recipe for instability in financial markets and for potential future bubbles. Which bubbles they are, no one knows.

這些政策是一場可怕的金融危機愈演愈烈時推出的。它們是應急措施。現在應急狀態早已過去，但這些應急政策依然在使用。當流動性過剩，而經濟依然疲弱，勞動力和產品市場狀況仍不振時，可能發生的情況是，寬鬆政策的效果將在國內或者國外的資產市場得到體現。它是治療金融市場不穩定的處方，但也可能在未來催生泡沫。泡沫會出現在哪裏？沒有人知道。

You emphasize that China needs to provide more in the way of social benefits if it is to bring down its very high saving rate. Do you think America's welfare state is adequate -- or over-generous?

你強調說，如果中國想要把非常高的儲存率降下來，它需要提供更多的社會福利。你認爲美國的國家福利是否足夠，還是過於慷慨了？

It's not perfect. We have massive unfunded liabilities in both our retirement system and in healthcare. But we at least have a well-defined system of contributions and benefits. China doesn't have that. The lack of a well-funded and secure safety net, both for healthcare and retirement, is a main reason why the saving rate is excessively high for Chinese households and continues to go higher. Uncertainty translates into fear, meaning any incremental growth in income that Chinese families earn won't show up in discretionary consumption. That will impede a consumer-led transformation.

它並不完善。美國的退休系統和醫療保健系統都存在資金不足的情況。但美國至少有一個定義明確的繳付款項和享受福利的系統。中國沒有這樣一個系統。缺乏一個資金充足和安全的社保網絡爲醫療保健和退休提供保障，這是中國居民的儲蓄率居高不下而且仍在上升的主要原因。不確定性帶來恐懼，這意味着中國家庭任何新增的收入都不會用於可選擇性的消費。這將阻礙中國向以消費爲主導的經濟轉型。