中国模式的魅力_风闻

【文/观察者网风闻社区 张维为】

【题记：2018年中非合作论坛峰会即将在北京召开，这使我想起了12年前的首届中非峰会。那是2006年11月4～5日，中非合作论坛北京峰会隆重举行，非洲35位国家元首、6位政府首脑、1位副总统、6位高级代表以及非盟委员会主席均悉数出席。整个西方世界为之震惊，因为来中国参加峰会的非洲领导人居然超过参加非洲统一组织峰会的领导人，于是对中国的各种质疑声四起，几乎不亚于今天西方对中非关系的无端指责。

有感于此，在2006年中非峰会举行前夕，我在《纽约时报》国际版（时称《国际先驱论坛报》）发表了一篇后来被广为引用的文章，题为《中国模式的魅力》，文章概述了中国模式的主要特点，比较了中美两种模式对非洲乃至整个非西方世界的吸引力，指出两种模式的吸引力出现了此长彼消的趋势，而且这种趋势几乎不可扭转。这大概也是中国学者最早发表在西方主流媒体的关于中国模式的文章之一。12年时间不算长也不算短，但文章提出的观点和预测证明都是准确的。这也是我对做学问的要求：经得起实践的检验，经得起历史的检验。谨借《观察者网》一角发表此文，并预祝2018中非峰会取得会圆满成功！】

许多参加中非首脑会议的非洲领导人并不只是被援助和贸易的机会所吸引，他们也是为中国的发展模式所吸引。

他们知道仅仅在三十年前，中国和马拉维一样贫穷。而今天的马拉维还是世界上最贫穷的国家之一，但中国的经济规模已经扩大了九倍。确实，中国的发展模式在许多方面挑战了西方在消除贫困、实现良政善治方面的主流观点。中国模式的主要特点是：

一、 以民为本。中国自1978年以来奉行了一个高度务实的现代化战略，集中精力满足人民最迫切的需求。中国改革的设计师邓小平主张中国只能“实事求是”，而不是信奉任何教条。所有改革都必须考虑地方的具体情况，并给人民带来实实在在的利益。

8月31日，2018年中非合作论坛北京峰会新闻中心举行首场新闻发布会

二 、不断的试验。所有的变革都首先在小范围内进行试点，成功了再推广到其它地方。

三 、渐进改革，而非激进革命。中国拒绝了“休克疗法”。中国的办法是利用现有不完善的体制来运作，并在这个过程中，逐步改革这个体制本身，使之转化，为现代化服务。

四、 一个致力于发展的政府。中国的变革是由一个强有力的、致力于发展的政府所领导的。这个政府有能力凝聚全民对于实现现代化的共识，保证政治稳定和宏观经济的稳定，并在这种环境中推进大规模的国内改革。

五、 有选择的学习。中国保持了自己“有选择的文化借鉴”之传统，其借鉴的东西包括了美国新自由主义模式中的一部分内容，如市场的作用、企业家精神、全球化和国际贸易。把中国模式简单地描述为“北京共识”对抗“华盛顿共识”是不够准确的。中国经验的真正独特之处是：中国捍卫了自己制定政策的空间，由自己来决定是否借鉴和借鉴什么。

六、 正确的优先顺序。中国1978年之后的变化大致展现了一个清晰的格局：改革的顺序是先易后难；先农村改革，后城市改革；先沿海后内地；先经济后政治。这种做法的好处是，第一阶段的经验为第二阶段的改革创造了条件。

在过去的25年里，本人走访了100多个国家，其中大部分是发展中国家，包括18个非洲国家。我的结论是中国模式并非完美无缺，但是在消除贫困、帮助穷人与弱者方面，比美国模式要有效得多。美国模式包括国际货币基金组织在黑非洲实行的“结构调整方案”以及在俄罗斯推动的“休克疗法”。

美国模式的特点是意识形态挂帅，重点放在推行大规模的激进的民主化，而很少顾及一个地方的具体情况。这个模式把黑非洲和不甚发达的地方看成是西方体制可以自然生根的社会。它在社会安全网建立之前就实行自由化；在宏观管理制度形成之前就实现私有化；在宽容的政治文化和法治社会形成之前就推行民主化。其最后结果往往令人沮丧，甚至是灾难性的。

对大多数发展中国家来说，他们的头等任务是消除贫困，而贫困则是造成冲突和各种形式极端主义的根源。他们需要的一般不是一个自由主义的民主政府，而是一个能够消除贫困，提供基本服务和安全的好政府。

此外，自由主义民主政府的先决条件，如法治、相当规模的中产阶级、受过良好教育的人民、宽容的政治文化，在大多数贫穷的国家都不具备。强行在这些国家推行条件不成熟的民主化往往导致Fareed Zakaria所说的“非自由主义的民主”，甚至更糟糕，导致种族和宗派的冲突。

只要美国模式仍然不能产生它所希望的结果，正如其在海地、菲律宾、伊拉克的失败所显示的那样，那么中国模式对世界穷国的吸引力只会进一步增加。

我清楚地记得1985年9月邓小平对加纳元首杰里•罗林斯说了这样一段话：“请不要照搬我们的模式。如果说我们有什么经验的话，那就是按照自己的国情制定政策。”也许态度决定了一切。大家认为中国谦虚，美国傲慢。中国以自己的榜样来领导，而美国则以训斥、制裁、乃至导弹来领导。

1985年9月18日，邓小平会见加纳国家元首、临时全国保卫委员会主席杰里·约翰·罗林斯

但是说到底，关键的问题是要找到最好的办法来对付人类面临的诸多挑战。中国模式并非十全十美，但它已经丰富了整个世界在这个问题上的政治探索和智慧，从而也增加了可供选择的政策。

（原载2006年11月2日《纽约时报》国际版，翻页为英文版）

The allure of the Chinese model

Wei-Wei Zhang

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.

International Herald Tribune / New York Times

2 November 2006