印度经济增长速度高于许多国家，但该国往往发现，自己处于中国更大成就的阴影之下。不过，仔细看一下增长的质量就会发现，印度“增长机器”有一些值得中国借鉴的特色。第二季度，尽管外国直接投资减少，经常账户赤字扩大，印度经济仍取得了8.8%的同比增长。在推动经济扩张方面，印度似乎要比中国自给自足得多。
应该承认，围绕这个增长数字还存在大量不确定性：国内生产总值(GDP)支出方面的增幅比供应方面小得多。但是，几乎没有人认为印度经济的增长势头正嘎然而止。因此，鉴于该国经济的外部状况，供应方面数据所显示的强劲产出增长（增幅最大的是交通和通信业，以及制造业），必然是在满足增长同样迅猛的国内需求。
新兴经济体之间尽管存在种种类似之处，但它们并不属于同一个物种。人们往往将印度与其它初露头角的经济体归为一类。鉴于印度庞大的人口、近年推行的自由化，以及农业经济占有重要地位，将印度和中国进行比较尤其具有诱惑力。印度政界人士杰伦•兰密施(Jairam Ramesh)创造了“中印度”(Chindia)这个词，以求抓住这两个国家之间交织在一起的命运。
但是，我们决不能让流行词掩盖关键差异。印度的国内主导型增长，与中国以人民币低估为核心的出口导向型增长形成反差。印度拥有繁荣的服务业和信息技术业，而中国在制造业方面表现不凡。它们一个是民主国家，拥有活跃的媒体；而另一个则是威权国家，言论自由受到限制。印度的实践证明，将集体秩序和社会和谐置于个人自由之上的所谓“亚洲价值观”，并不是经济成功的必要条件。
这些差异给发展中国家带来一些宝贵的教益。印度可以从中国学习的成功经验包括，建设基础设施、创造制造业就业，以及培育一个盈利丰厚的企业界。但中国也可以从印度学到一、两招。目前中国经济的格局偏重于为外国消费者生产商品，由此造成了巨大的国际失衡。中国应当在提振国内需求（尤其是家庭需求）方面采取更多行动。
如果借鉴其它新兴经济体的增长模式，能够帮助中国调整经济平衡，帮助印度实现覆盖面更广的增长，那将是非常值得付出的努力。
译者/和风
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001034425
India grows faster than many countries, but often finds itself in the shadow of China’s even greater heft. Look under the hood, however, and India’s growth machine sports some features China could use. Its 8.8 per cent growth year-on-year in the second quarter came even as foreign direct investment fell and the current account deficit widened. Indians seem altogether more self-sufficient than the Chinese in fuelling their expansion.
Admittedly a cloud of uncertainty hangs over the growth figure: the expenditure measure of gross domestic output grew much less than the supply-side measure. But few think India’s economy is screeching to a halt, so the strong rise in output indicated by the supply side – the biggest gains were seen in transport and communication and in manufacturing – must be meeting domestic demand that is growing equally fast, given the economy’s external position.
For all their similarities, emerging countries are not a homogenous species. India is too often lumped in with other burgeoning economies. The comparison with China is especially tempting, given India’s sizeable population, recent liberalisation and largely agrarian economy. The politician Jairam Ramesh coined the word “Chindia” to capture the intertwined destinies of the two countries.
But buzzwords must not obscure key differences. India’s domestic growth contrasts with China’s export-orientation, centred on an undervalued renminbi. India boasts booming services and information technology sectors whereas China excels in manufacturing. One country is a democracy with a vigorous press, the other an authoritarian regime with limited freedom of speech. India proves that so-called “Asian values” that put collective order and social harmony above individual liberty are no necessary condition for economic success.
These differences furnish valuable lessons for developing countries. India can learn from China’s success in rolling out infrastructure, creating manufacturing jobs and cultivating a highly profitable corporate sector. But China can also learn a thing or two from India. China’s economy, geared towards producing goods for foreign consumers, creates massive international imbalances. It should do more to boost domestic – and especially household – demand.
If learning from the growth models of fellow emerging economies helps the Chinese rebalance their economy and the Indians achieve more inclusive growth, it would be well worth the effort.
没有评论:
发表评论