《超级大国？中国兔和印度龟之间的神奇竞赛》(Superpower?: The Amazing Race Between China's Hare and India's Tortoise)，乔杜里•巴尔(Raghav Bahl)著，Portfolio Penguin出版社出版，零售价20英镑，242页。
几千年来，中国和印度之间素来往来稀少，这似乎有些不可思议。两国边境线绵延3500公里，隔着巍峨的喜马拉雅山脉遥遥相望。而这段日子，中印总是被相提并论——这常常令两国都感到不快，飞速的经济增长和庞大的人口，让西方将两国划上了等号。
两国加起来占全球总人口的三分之一以上，但相互之间一直不了解对方，更不用说互不信任了。就在2002年以前，两国还没有一条直飞航线。
即使在现在，两国贸易急速增长，但奇怪的是，印度商人或学者中很少有人去过中国。在中国这方面，技术官僚们往往不屑与印度进行对比，他们会指出，印度的基础设施一团糟，贫穷程度令人震惊。
尽管如此（或者因为如此），比较两国的发展模式已形成一个潮流。其中一个流派推崇这样一种观点：尽管印度看上去远远落后，但它的民主和法治传统，加上民间强大的创业基础，使其模式更加稳健，从长远来看，不无超过中国的可能。乔杜里•巴尔这本书就属于这一流派。
巴尔的论点——充满了一厢情愿的想法，尽管并非完全没有道理——并非新创。中国自1978年开始引入市场经济，比印度早13年。这种投资导向型增长模式，收获了较早、较丰厚的回报。30年来，中国一直以每年近10%的速度发展，目前经济规模是印度的4倍。
但巴尔提出，中国是脆弱的。民主的缺失，让它很容易爆发社会纷争。一旦经济脱轨——他认为，由于中国投资严重过剩，这种可能性很高——整个体制可能陷入危机。
另一方面，巴尔继续论证道，印度启动发展的时间长得多。由于各种约束（法律、民主制度、以及市场驱动的资本回报率要求），印度不能像中国那样采用强制手段推行现代化。但这些表面的弱点有望产生效益。
民主在必要时的缓冲功效相当不俗，而且随着生活水准的提高，将继续发挥吸收冲击的作用。印度正奋起直追。今年，该国经济增长将达到8.5%，距离中国两位数的增速不太遥远。
此外，印度相对较混乱的发展，培养了更具见识的企业家，打造出全球品牌的可能性也更大。印度经济结构比中国更平衡，消费占的比重更大一些，出口则小一些。
最有利的一点是，人口组成将开始有利于印度。到2020年，中国将面临人口老龄化的痛苦——这在一定程度上归因于独生子女政策；巴尔称，印度永远不会实施这种政策。印度的抚养比率仍在下降，未来10年内将有1.36亿人口加入劳动大军。
巴尔试图用坚持到底的乌龟打败骄傲的兔子这个寓言，来生动表述自己的赶超主题。但这一比喻夸张到了极度可笑的地步。印度人精通英语这一点被大做文章："一只自信的乌龟，大声哼着一支英语流行歌，轻快超过一只听不懂歌词、神情有些迷茫的兔子。"
巴尔抓住了印度的所有光明面和中国的所有阴暗面。书中几乎看不到任何独创的研究，而是有各种迹象表明，他有选择地挑选剪报和经纪公司报告，来支持自己的主张。他并不完全否认中国的强项，也并未完全否认印度存在腐败、贫穷和受种姓制度约束的社会关系等问题，但他倾向于对这些问题轻描淡写。
例如，在提到印度的个人自由——根据一项受到青睐的全球排名，印度排名第41，而中国排名第91——时，巴尔总结道，在印度，"人民得到的待遇要好得多"。
但这里的假设是：偶尔有机会参加选举，且理论上能够依靠迟缓的司法体系，就能满足人们的愿望和需求。
照此看来，印度人肯定在以该国的崇高理想为食粮。从统计学上讲，如果他们想填饱肚子，保持健康，或识字，在中国实现这些愿望的可能性更大一些，尽管中国存在种种严重的不平等和环境灾难。
作为一名指责西方人"就是不理解印度"的作者，巴尔在谈到中国时很容易套用陈词滥调。同样，他对印度的热爱，有时让他的夸张到了令人窒息的地步："高档汽车、手机和私人飞机满天飞，"他激动的说。印度汽车和手机满天飞，那可真是个奇观。
正如该书所言，未来几年内，印度发展速度超过中国是有可能的，尽管毫无把握。但基于印度落后的程度，要想赶超中国，印度必须连续几十年发展速度远远超过中国。
"印度只有一个风险，即印度领导人对本国的能力和命运缺乏信心，"巴尔写道。但危险程度不亚于此的是印度的自鸣得意，尤其是在它仍有太多地方需要证明自己的时候。
译者/陈云飞
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035340
Superpower?: The Amazing Race Between China's Hare and India's Tortoise, by Raghav Bahl, Portfolio Penguin, RRP£20, 242 pages
For thousands of years, China and India had surprisingly little contact. Separated along a 3,500km border by the mighty Himalayas, they stared in opposite directions. These days they tend to be mentioned in the same breath – often to their mutual annoyance – united in the west's perception by their blistering economic growth and massive populations.
Together they constitute well over one-third of humanity. Yet mutual ignorance, not to say mistrust, has persisted. Until 2002, there was not a single direct flight between them.
Even today, with trade skyrocketing, surprisingly few Indian businessmen and academics have been to China. For their part, Chinese technocrats are prone to scoff at any comparison, pointing to India's shambolic infrastructure and shocking levels of poverty.
Despite this – or perhaps because of it – a mini-cottage industry has sprung up comparing the two development models. A sub-genre, in which Raghav Bahl's book belongs, pushes the idea that, although India appears to be far behind, its democratic and legal traditions and its strong entrepreneurial foundation make its model more robust, giving it a chance of overhauling China in the long run.
Bahl's arguments – steeped in wishful thinking, though not entirely implausible – are not new. China embraced the market in 1978, gaining a 13-year head start on India. Its investment-led growth model has paid early and spectacular dividends. It has grown at nearly 10 per cent a year for 30 years, and its economy is now four times the size of India's.
But China is vulnerable, argues Bahl. Its lack of democracy leaves it open to social strife. If the economy comes off the rails – distinctly possible, he says, given massive overinvestment – the entire system could lurch into crisis.
On the flip side, runs the argument, India has taken much longer to get going. It could not simply bulldoze its way to modernity like the Chinese since it was constrained by the law, democracy and a market-driven requirement for a return on capital. But these apparent weaknesses could yet pay dividends.
Democratic shock absorbers have performed admirably in times of want, and will continue to do so as living standards improve. India is catching up. This year it will grow at 8.5 per cent, within tantalising reach of China's double digits.
Furthermore, India's more chaotic development has produced savvier entrepreneurs with more chance of creating global brands. Its economy is more balanced than China's, with consumption playing a bigger role and exports a smaller one.
Best of all, demography will now begin to work in India's favour. By 2020 – partly thanks to a one-child policy that Bahl says could never have been imposed in India – China will be in the throes of ageing. India's dependency ratio is still declining and 136m people will join the workforce in the next 10 years.
Bahl tries to bring his catch-up theme to life with the fable of the plodding tortoise beating the flashy hare. But the metaphor is stretched to ridiculous extremes. Thus Indians' proficiency in English is rendered: "A confident tortoise, humming a popular English tune rather loudly, breezed past a somewhat disarrayed hare who couldn't figure out the lyrics of the song."
Bahl seizes on all that is good about India and all that is bad about China. There is not much evidence of original research and every indication that he has selectively culled newspaper clippings and brokerage reports to back his premise. He is not blind to China's strengths, nor to India's problems of corruption, poverty and caste-bound social relations, but he tends to gloss these over.
For example, commenting on personal freedoms in India – ranked 41st against China's ranking at 91, according to a favoured index – he concludes that India is "giving a much better deal to people".
But that assumes people's wants and needs can be satisfied with the occasional opportunity to vote and theoretical access to a lumbering legal system.
Indians must, it seems, sup on the country's noble ideals. If they want to fill their stomachs, stay healthy or learn to read, they have a statistically better chance of doing so in China, for all its deep inequalities and environmental catastrophes.
For an author who accuses westerners of "just not getting India", Bahl also too readily trades in China clichés. Equally, his enthusiasm for India sometimes leads him into breathless hyperbole: "Fancy cars, mobile phones and private airlines took to the skies," he swoons. Indian flying cars and mobile phones must, indeed, be wondrous to behold.
As the book argues, it is possible – though by no means assured – that India will be growing faster than China within a few years. But given how far India is behind, it would take decades of vastly superior growth for it to catch up.
"There is only one risk for India, and that's the lack of confidence that India's own leaders have in its ability and destiny," Bahl writes. But equally risky is Indian complacency, particularly when it still has so much to prove.
David Pilling is the FT's Asia managing editor
没有评论:
发表评论