保罗·巴蒂斯塔：通过观察拉美的战略失误，中国明白了哪些事不该做

本文为作者10-11月在中国考察期间所思所想，有修改。原标题为《From China, With Evy》 (中国所至，艳羡相随)，典故出自电影《From Russia, With Love》

【文/观察者网专栏作者 保罗·巴蒂斯塔 】

“智者从别人经验中汲取智慧” 中国是这条格言的忠实追随者

“当中国觉醒时，世界将为之震动”。这句据说是拿破仑的名言，已经传遍了全世界。

如今，中国已经完全觉醒，而其他国家，特别是西方国家，尤其是美国，不知如何应对中国崛起所带来的挑战。在西方，由于中国和俄罗斯被视为美欧大西洋轴心国的强大竞争对手，因此受到极大关注。

读者朋友们，人类的羡慕分为两种：一种是恶性的，即来自美国和欧洲的羡慕，这导致他们总是试图阻止中国的进步；另一种是良性的，这种羡慕是钦佩中国的进步，并希望在可能的情况下，加以必要的变通，向中国学习，并将其发展过程中遵循的一些要素融入自身。

写作本文时我正在中国，我正利用此次在中国的旅行机会，更多地了解这个伟大的国家。

俾斯麦曾说：“愚者从自身经历总结经验，智者从别人经验中汲取智慧。”即便很多中国人可能未曾听过这句话，但他们是这条格言的忠实追随者。例如，中国人从拉丁美洲的经历中汲取的是负面教训。通过观察我们的战略失误，他们明白了哪些事不该做。

如果要用一句话来总结中国之于拉美的成功，我会说：与拉丁美洲不同，中国摒弃了所谓“华盛顿共识”的建议。她独立思考，并非常成功地构建了适合本国国情的解决方案。中国在方便时借鉴，在必要时创新。

在开始评论中国成功模式之前，有一点需要说明。我不想假装基于几周的旅行，就能对如此复杂且与巴西差异巨大的国家有深入的了解。确实，我曾在上海居住过两年多，当时我担任金砖国家新开发银行的副行长（2015-2017）。但我离开该银行已有八年，自那以后中国已经发生了巨大变化。

此外，当八年前我在上海的时候，我全身心投入到这家新的多边银行（一个雄心勃勃的金砖国家项目）的创建工作中，以至于没有太多时间来熟悉这个国家的独特性——正如亨利·基辛格所写，中国不是一个民族国家，而是一个自成体系的文明。

保罗·巴蒂斯塔（Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr.）

中国过去40年的非凡成功

中国在20世纪末已然觉醒，并且绝不会再倒退到历史上其他时代的深眠状态。中国的经济模式取得了非凡的成功，但世界其他地区对其理解尚不充分。如何概括其特性呢？或许可以从它“不是什么”管窥一二。

它并非纯粹简单的市场经济，也就是说，它不是经典或传统的资本主义体系。甚至像西方学术和新闻媒体中那样，称其为“国家资本主义”也未必恰当。国家在经济和社会中占据着如此压倒性的地位，以至于这种表述容易产生误导。

需要指出的是，采用“国家资本主义”这一说法，会不当地将中国成功的功劳归之于资本主义——即便是“国家的”资本主义——而这一体制对中国成功所起的作用并非如其所指，中国也未曾有过这样的“国家的”资本主义。

同样显而易见的是，由邓小平于1978年开创的中国模式，与中央计划经济时期的苏联模式及当时中国的模式都截然不同。

中国所寻求的是重构经济，为市场和私营部门腾出空间，但同时避免重蹈戈尔巴乔夫在20世纪80年代推行“改革”和“公开性”（政治自由化）时所犯的错误。

在审慎评估了苏联最后十年及1990年代俄罗斯的发展轨迹后，中国做了（以及没做）什么？主要有两点。

首先，中国的“经济改革”更为谨慎和渐进。没有像俄罗斯那样采取经济“休克疗法”、大规模私有化和急剧自由化。经济开放是逐步进行的，没有瓦解国家结构，并保持了对经济战略部门的控制。

第二点：中国没有推行“政治自由化”。中国共产党仍然是一个单一的、具有广泛影响力的政党，对社会和经济能施加巨大影响。中国有亿万富翁和实力雄厚的私营企业家，但他们不扮演政治角色，也不被允许主导公共政策。

这与美国等国家所见的情景完全不同，在美国，金钱的拥有者即是权力的拥有者，因而所谓的民主已经演变为富豪统治。

另一个重要事实是：反腐败斗争在中国呈现出雷霆之势，并在必要时触及显要和权势人物。与美国和许多其他国家不同，中国的亿万富翁很难收买政治人物和官员。因此，窃贼统治（由窃贼执政）受到严格的屏蔽。

在中国，我们也没有看到欧美典型的那种“最坏者执政”。在西方，政治体系通常遵循一种“逆向选择”的逻辑，奖赏那些最为平庸、最不致力于公共利益的人。任何对此有疑问的人，都可以审视一下美国和欧洲当前及近期的政治领导人。或者再考虑一下巴西的政治阶层作为另一个例子。

在中国，实行的是一种相对封闭的体系，领导者是基于才能选拔出来的。因此，这是一种精英统治（贤能政治）。可以想见，它并非完美无缺，但足以避免形成“最坏者执政”的风险。

当然，中国人也是凡人，同样面临着需要对抗超级富豪的支配、腐败以及平庸之挑战。但在应对这些尼采所言“人性的”挑战方面，中国相比世界其他地区取得了更大的成功。

中国模式

那么，究竟何为“中国模式”？且让我们倾听中国人自己的声音——他们将其模式界定为“中国特色社会主义”。

他们特意使用“社会主义”一词，而非苏联式或毛泽东时代的“共产主义”。那又为何强调“中国特色”呢？这是因为，尽管市场力量在此扮演重要角色，但它们是在由国家及国家机构与制度严格控制的框架内运行的。我在上海参与的一场辩论中，上海交通大学的文一教授引用了一句在中国广为流传的俗语，恰如其分地反映了这一点：“国家搭台，经济主体唱戏”。

试举两例简要说明。中国的银行体系几乎完全由国有银行主导。这里没有像巴西占主导地位的大型私人银行，如布拉德斯科银行、伊塔乌银行或桑坦德银行。中国人不了解也不愿了解这类私人主导的金融机构。在中国，从宏观经济角度看，银行业是战略性部门，始终处于公有银行的控制之下。另一方面，一个重要之处在于，在政府和中央银行制定的规则范围内，这些国有银行彼此之间相互竞争，这有助于提高效率。

另一个关键例子。中国经济的稳定依赖于封闭的资本账户，即严格实施资本流入和流出的管制。近期虽有所放宽，但中国仍然不愿让本国经济暴露于资本大进大出所带来的风险之下——这种风险对拉丁美洲造成了巨大伤害。这是在众多议题上，中国对“华盛顿共识”的建议置若罔闻的其中一点。他们以俾斯麦的精神，从我们拉丁美洲的不幸经历中吸取了教训。倘若当初他们听从了西方的建议，就不可能取得如今的成就。

对祖先和历史传统的尊崇

最后，简要谈谈中国一个至关重要但可惜难以复制的独特之处。人们很少考虑到，中国数千年的历史拥有非凡的连续性。世界各大洲的其他多数古老文明，并未拥有中华文明那样长达四五千年的悠久历史，且未曾中断过。今天的埃及，与法老和金字塔时代的古埃及，即便不能说毫无关联，其联系也已非常遥远甚至近乎虚构。当下的希腊人与古希腊关系也不大。今天的意大利人与古罗马帝国也相去甚远。阿兹特克和印加文明则完全被西班牙殖民者所湮灭。俄罗斯的文明延续性大约有一千年。

中国则是一个非常特殊的案例。数千年来，她历经多次动荡、外敌入侵、对外战争、内战，但尽管如此，她仍成功维系了一条共同的文化脉络。在我看来，这体现在中国发展轨迹的某些核心方面，对于理解该国的成功至关重要。

其中之一就是对祖先和历史传统的尊崇，乃至敬畏。然而，这种对传统的尊重并未阻碍新一代的创新和创造力。对新事物的追求无处不在，但这并不意味着要抛弃过去。

延安窑洞时期的毛泽东，《孙子兵法》是他最爱和熟读的书籍之一

即便是像毛泽东这样的马克思主义革命家，也经常引用中国古代思想家如老子和孙子的言论。另一方面，当毛泽东思想被邓小平及其继任者直至现任领导人习近平的理论所继承时，也并未对毛泽东本人进行全盘否定。他的形象至今仍出现在所有面值的人民币纸币上；他的著作仍在被广泛阅读和流传。

相比较而言，在巴西，我们不够尊重，甚至常常不了解我们的过去。这种无知又助长了系统性贬低我们自身历史的倾向。而这正是拉低我们民族自尊心的众多因素之一。

向中国学习，我们大有可为

最后有一点需要申明的是：对中国成就的钦佩，并不应妨碍我们看到该国当下面临的困难。

其中之一是经济增长的放缓，这源于出口和投资动能一定程度的减弱。针对中国的保护主义日益抬头，主要在美国和欧洲，导致重要市场不断收窄甚至关闭，并威胁到其他市场。中国经济的某些部门出现了过度投资，从而形成闲置产能，而中国已无法像以往那样轻松地将这些产能导向海外市场。

经济放缓对劳动力市场造成了负面影响。例如，青年失业率高企，便是一个首要的社会和政治问题。

此外，总体消费水平仍然很低，这反映了民众正在经历的若干困难，如果这些问题得不到解决，可能会削弱对政府的支持。私人消费被抑制的原因之一在于养老金体系和医疗卫生服务的不足。中国政府已经充分意识到这一问题，并正寻求完善全国性的养老金和医疗卫生体系。

然而，随着人口老龄化，由于对退休金、养老金、医疗服务及药品需求的增加，这一问题将变得更为严峻。因此，人们继续大量储蓄，以尽力确保晚年的生活水准。

由此可见，政府长期追求的目标——即扩大消费者市场，使中国经济减少对出口动能的依赖——实现起来并非易事。

即便如此，中国在前行的道路上，每逢重要转折点，都曾面临类似甚至比这更严峻的困难：从1949年、1978年到2008年， 中国人最终都能从容应对。这背后必定有某种特别的韧性，推动中国人民奋发图强，最终克服困难。

奥斯卡·王尔德曾说：“爱自己，是一场终生浪漫的开始”。这种自爱，对于个人和国家的成功都至关重要。而中国人恰恰深谙此道。但读者们请注意，这里说的自爱，并非蔑视他人；是自豪感，而非虚荣或傲慢；是对自身及近亲的尊重，但绝不会堕入西方社会那般典型的自私个人主义。

基于这些以及其他诸多原因，我们需要更多地研究中国，增加与中国人民的交流互动。即便需要付出努力去克服语言、文化和地理上的障碍，这也是值得的。我们不必陷入盲目的模仿，始终充分考量我们自身的历史和政治条件，但确实能从中方汲取大量有益经验。

（翻页请看英文版）

From China, with envy

Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr.

A phrase attributed to Napoleon went around the world: “When China awakens, the world will tremble.” Well, China is totally awake and the other countries, especially the West, and within the West especially the United States, don’t know how to deal with the challenge that it poses. In the West, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia are viewed with great concern as powerful rivals for the North Atlantic axis.

There are two types of envy, reader. The evil one, which is that of the US and Europe, leads them to try to stop China’s progress all the time. The benign one admires this progress and wants, as far as possible, and mutatis mutandi, learn from the Chinese and incorporate elements of the process they have been following. I’m taking advantage of a trip to China, where I write from, to get to know this great country a little more.

Bismarck said: “I do not learn from experience – only from that of others.” The Chinese are faithful followers of this maxim, even if they may not have heard of it. The Chinese have learned, for example, from the Latin American experience, unfortunately in a negative way. By observing our strategic mistakes, they saw what not to do. If I could sum up the issue in one sentence, I would say: China, unlike Latin America, has solemnly ignored the recommendations of the so-called Washington Consensus. It thought on its own and built with great success its own solutions, adapted to national circumstances. The Chinese copied when convenient, innovated whenever necessary.

Before proceeding to comment on the successful Chinese model,  a caveat is in order: I do not pretend to possess in depth knowledge of a country so complex and so different from ours based on a trip of a few weeks. It is true that I lived for more than two years in Shanghai, when I was vice president of the New Development Bank (better known as the BRICS Bank), now headed by former President Dilma Roussef. But it’s been eight years since I left the bank, and China has changed a lot since then. Moreover, at the time I lived here, I was so involved in the creation of the new multilateral bank, an ambitious BRICS project, that I had less time than I wanted to familiarize myself with the singularities of a country that, as Henry Kissinger wrote, is not a nation, but a civilization in itself.

China’s extraordinary success over the past 40 years

China woke up at the end of the 20th century and will not return to the deep slumber of other historical eras. The Chinese economic model has been extraordinarily successful and is not well understood in the rest of the world. How to characterize it synthetically? Maybe starting with what it is not. It is not a pure and simple market economy, that is, it is not a classic or traditional capitalist system. It is not even appropriate to designate it as “state capitalism”, as is often done in Western media, both academic and journalistic. The State has such an overwhelming presence in the economy and society that this expression is misleading. It should be noted that, by adopting it, capitalism is unduly credited, even if “of the State”, a merit that it did not have and does not have for China’s success.

It is also clear that the Chinese model pioneered by Deng Xiao Ping in 1979 is quite different from the Soviet and Chinese models of the time of the centrally planned economy. What was sought in China was to restructure the economy, making room for the market and the private sector, without repeating, however, the mistakes made by Gorbachev in the 1980s, with Perestroika (economic restructuring) and Glasnost (political liberalization).

What did China do (and did not do), based on a careful assessment of the trajectory of the Soviet Union in its final decade and of Russia in the 1990s? Two things, basically. First, the Chinese Perestroika was much more cautious and gradual. There was not, as in Russia, shock treatment in the economy, mass privatizations and abrupt liberalization. The economic opening was done step-by-step, without dismantling state structures and maintaining control over the strategic sectors of the economy. Second thing: there was no Glasnost in China. The Chinese Communist Party remains a single, all-powerful party with great influence on society and the economy. There are billionaires and powerful private entrepreneurs, but they have no political role and are not allowed to dominate public policies. A totally different scenario from what is seen, for example, in the United States, where the owners of money are the owners of power, converting the so-called democracy into a plutocracy (the government of the wealthy).

Another important fact: the fight against corruption takes on fierce proportions in China and reaches prominent and powerful figures when necessary. Unlike in the United States and many other countries, Chinese billionaires have a hard time buying politicians and officials. Therefore, a kleptocracy (the government of thieves) is not established.

Nor do we have in China the kakistocracy (the government of the worst), typical of the United States and Europe. In the West, the political system generally obeys a logic of adverse selection that rewards the most mediocre and those least committed to the public interest. Anyone in doubt about this, can review current and recent political leaders in the United States and Europe. Or consider, another example, the Brazilian political class. In China, a closed system prevails in which leaders are selected based on merit. A meritocracy, therefore. Imperfect, as one can imagine, but enough to ward off the risk of forming a kakistocracy.

The Chinese are human beings, of course, and they also face the need to fight against the domination of the super-rich, corruption and mediocrity. But they have been more successful than the rest of the world in addressing these “human, all too human” challenges, as Nietzsche would say.

The Chinese model

So, what is the Chinese model? Let’s give voice to the Chinese themselves. They characterize their model as “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” They symptomatically use the term “socialism” in place of Soviet or Maoist “communism.” And why do they say “with Chinese characteristics”? This is because, although market forces have great weight here, they operate within a framework strictly controlled by the State and by state agencies and institutions. A popular maxim in China, quoted by Professor Wen Yi in a debate in which I participated here in Shanghai, reflects this well: “the State sets the stage and economic agents perform”.

Two examples, briefly explained. China’s banking system is almost entirely dominated by state-owned banks. Here there are no Bradescos, Itaús or Santanders, nothing like the dominant large Brazilian private banks. The Chinese do not know and do not want to know this type of institution. The banking sector is strategic from a macroeconomic point of view and has always been under the control of public banks. On the other hand, an important aspect is that, within the rules established by the government and the central bank, these state-owned banks compete with each other, which favors greater efficiency.

Another crucial example. The stability of the Chinese economy rests on a closed capital account, that is, the strict application of controls on the inflow and outflow of capital. There has been some loosening of controls in the more recent past, but China remains reluctant to expose its economy to the surges in capital inflows and outflows that do so much harm in Latin America. This was one of the many points on which China turned a deaf ear to the recommendations of the Washington Consensus. They learned from our unfortunate experience, in the spirit of Bismarck. If they had been guided by Western advice, they would not have achieved what they did.

Continuity in China’s millennial civilization

To conclude, a few remarks on a singularity of China that is crucial, but unfortunately inimitable. It is rarely taken into account that China’s millennial history is marked by extraordinary continuity. The great majority the other ancient civilizations of the various continents did not have the long and uninterrupted duration, of four or five millennia, that characterizes the Chinese civilization. The Egyptians have a remote, not to say fictitious, relationship with the Egypt of the pharaohs and their pyramids. The present-day Greeks have little to do with ancient Greece. Today’s Italians have little to do with the Roman Empire. The Aztecs and Incas were totally obliterated by Spain. Russia also has a continuous civilization, but on the order of 1000 years.

China is a very special case. It has suffered, over millennia, several turbulences, invasions, foreign wars, civil wars, but it has managed, despite this, to preserve a common cultural thread. This is reflected in some aspects of China’s trajectory that are, in my view, central to understanding the country’s success. One of them is respect, more than that veneration of ancestors and historical traditions. This respect for tradition does not, however, block the innovation and creativity of the new generations. The search for the new omnipresent, but it does not imply discarding the past.

Even a Marxist revolutionary, such as Mao Zedong, often quoted China’s classical thinkers such as Lao Tse and Sun Tzu. He considered the latter’s main work, “The Art of War”, almost like a second communist manifesto. On the other hand, when Maoism was inherited and carried forward by Deng Xiao Ping and his successors up to the current leader, Xi Jinping, there was no outright rejection of the figure of Mao. It appears to this day on all banknotes. His works are read and circulate widely.

Compare this with Brazil. We do not respect and often do not even know our past. This ignorance feeds the tendency to systematically depreciate our history. And this is one of many factors that bring down our self-esteem.  

We have a lot to learn from the Chinese

Lastly, it should be clarified that admiration for China’s performance should not prevent us from seeing the difficulties that the country faces. I will briefly highlight some of the main macroeconomic challenges, without intending, of course, to exhaust the issue.

One of them is the slowdown in the growth of the economy, resulting from a certain loss of dynamism in exports and investment. Protectionism against China has grown, narrowing or even closing important markets, mainly in the United States and Europe, and threatening to narrow others. In some sectors of the Chinese economy, there has been overinvestment, resulting in unutilized capacity, which China can no longer direct to foreign markets as easily as before.

This slowdown in the economy takes its toll in terms of the labor market. The high rate of youth unemployment, for example, is a social and political problem of the first order. In addition, aggregate consumption is still very low, which reflects several difficulties that the population experiences and that, if not addressed, can erode support for the government. Among the reasons that limit private consumption are the insufficiencies of the pension system and health services. The Chinese government is fully aware of the problem and seeks to improve the national pension and health systems. With the aging of the population, however, the problem becomes more serious, as the demand for retirements, pensions, medical services and medicine increases. Therefore, people continue to save a lot to try to ensure the standard of living in old age. Thus, it is not easy to achieve the government’s long-standing goal of increasing the consumer market and making the Chinese economy less dependent on the dynamism of exports.

Nevertheless, at every critical juncture in its forward journey, China has faced similar or even more severe difficulties: from 1949 and 1978 to 2008. Each time, the Chinese people have ultimately managed to navigate these challenges with resilience. Behind this lies a unique kind of tenacity that drives the Chinese people to forge ahead with determination and ultimately overcome adversities.

Oscar Wilde said: “Self-love is the beginning of a long life romance”. This self-love is central to individual and national success. The Chinese have this in abundance. But, you see, reader: self-love, and not contempt for others; pride, not vanity or arrogance; respect for oneself and one’s immediate family, yes, but without falling into the selfish individualism so typical of Western societies.

For these and other reasons, we need to study China more and increase our interactions with the Chinese. It is worth the effort to overcome linguistic, cultural and geographical barriers. Without falling into slavish imitation, always taking into account our historical and political conditions, we can learn a great deal from them.

***

The author is an economist and writer. He was vice president of the New Development Bank, established by the BRICS in Shanghai, from 2015 to 2017, and executive director at the IMF for Brazil and 10 other countries in Washington, from 2007 to 2015. He published the book O Brasil não cabe no quintal de ninguém, second edition 2021, by Editora Contracorrente, and by Editora Contracorrente the book Estilhaços, in 2024.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。