虽
然中国和墨西哥都实行了经济开放、大规模开展了对外贸易并取消了一党执政带来的很多约束，但就经济增长而言，中国在过去三十年早已把墨西哥远远地甩在了身后。而实际上，墨西哥在破除限制方面，其大刀阔斧的程度远比中国更甚，早在上世纪90年代中期，墨西哥就已成为了一个名副其实的民主国家，而此前几十年则一直属于一党统治。美国明尼苏达大学(University of Minnesota)的经济学家卡霍(Timothy Kehoe)和纽约大学(New York University)的经济学家鲁尔(Kim Ruhl)在一篇论文中探讨了这样一个问题，即一个国家要从世界银行(World Bank)所谓的"中等收入"之流一跃加入发达国家之列到底有多难。韩国与新加坡几乎是绝无仅有的实现了这一转变的两个国家。而所有其它的贫穷国家，无论外界如何称呼它们──"第三世界"也好，还是"发展中"或"新兴市场"国家也好，多半都被卡在了墨西哥式的第二阶段，动弹不得。
卡霍和鲁尔坚持认为，若不继续改革，中国的增长可能会大幅减速，从而可能困在一个比墨西哥还不如的位置。对于那些把中国视作未来的人们，这样的结果可谓是当头棒喝。
虽然墨西哥和中国的情况看起来大不相同，但卡霍和鲁尔还是指出了两者之间很多类似之处。从积极角度来说，两国都曾集中精力进行对外贸易，把外贸当作经济增长的引擎，也都减少了中央政府对经济的控制。而如果看负面情况，两国的金融系统效率不高，通讯、运输及类似的非贸易性产业缺乏竞争，僵化的劳动法规不利于企业扩招全职员工。
卡霍和鲁尔坚持认为，尽管存在种种阻碍，但随着发展中国家向美国等发达国家奋起直追，它们在经济增长上可以实现质的飞跃。在1953年至1981年期间，墨西哥经济实现突飞猛进的增长，而中国自1980年前后就开始保持飞速发展。国际货币基金组织(International Monetary Fund)的统计数据显示，墨西哥人均国内生产总值(GDP)目前约是中国的两倍。
然而一旦这个奋起直追的阶段宣告结束，这些国家为保证政府职能的正常运转、金融体系的持续高效以及科学技术的稳步前进，就要继续对本国的体制和政策进行改革，这样才能保持一种事半功倍的增长。没有几个国家能实现如此完美的转型，也正因如此，它们与欧美等国家还有着望尘莫及的距离。
卡霍和鲁尔在论文中写道：发展中国家还要经过怎样的"修炼"才能成为行业领导者，这取决与它们本身的体制和经济政策。这些因素依然是发展中国家面临的最大障碍。
Bob Davis
（本文版权归道琼斯公司所有，未经许可不得翻译或转载。）
During the past 30 years, China's growth has left Mexico's in the dust, even though both countries have liberalized their economies, vastly turned to foreign trade and shed many of the constraints imposed by one-party rule. Indeed, Mexico has gone much further than China in the latter area, turning itself into a genuine democracy in the mid-1990s after decades of single-party control.
Economists Timothy Kehoeof the University of Minnesota and Kim Ruhlof New York University explore in a paper ( PDF) just how difficult it is for a country to leap from what the World Bank calls 'middle income' status to the ranks of advanced nations. South Korea and Singapore are nearly alone in having made that transition. Most every other poor nation--whether one calls them 'third world,' 'developing' or 'emerging'--gets stuck in second-tier, Mexican-style status.
'Absent continuing reforms,' the economists argue, 'Chinese growth is likely to slow down sharply, perhaps leaving China at a level less than Mexico's' â ' an outcome that would be a hard slap to the China-as-future crowd.
While Mexico and China seem very different, the economists point out a number of similarities. On the positive side, the two nations focused on foreign trade as a growth engine and they eased central government control of the economy. On the negative side, their financial systems are inefficient, their non-tradable industries (communications, transportation and the like) lack competition; and their rigid labor rules discourage employers from adding full-time workers.
The economists argue that despite the handicaps, developing nations can make big leaps in growth as they catch up with countries like the U.S. Mexico made its big leap forward in growth from 1953 to 1981; China has been making its move since around 1980. Mexico's GDP per-capita is now about twice China's, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Once that catch-up period is over, however, the countries need to continue to reform institutions and policies to produce a well-functioning government an efficient financial system and a steady increase in knowledge so it can continue to grow smartly. Few countries manage that transition, which leaves them well behind the U.S. and Europe.
'How far short of the industrial leader the (developing) country levels off depends on its institutions and economic policies,' the economists write. The biggest hurdles remain.
Bob Davis
Economists Timothy Kehoeof the University of Minnesota and Kim Ruhlof New York University explore in a paper ( PDF) just how difficult it is for a country to leap from what the World Bank calls 'middle income' status to the ranks of advanced nations. South Korea and Singapore are nearly alone in having made that transition. Most every other poor nation--whether one calls them 'third world,' 'developing' or 'emerging'--gets stuck in second-tier, Mexican-style status.
'Absent continuing reforms,' the economists argue, 'Chinese growth is likely to slow down sharply, perhaps leaving China at a level less than Mexico's' â ' an outcome that would be a hard slap to the China-as-future crowd.
While Mexico and China seem very different, the economists point out a number of similarities. On the positive side, the two nations focused on foreign trade as a growth engine and they eased central government control of the economy. On the negative side, their financial systems are inefficient, their non-tradable industries (communications, transportation and the like) lack competition; and their rigid labor rules discourage employers from adding full-time workers.
The economists argue that despite the handicaps, developing nations can make big leaps in growth as they catch up with countries like the U.S. Mexico made its big leap forward in growth from 1953 to 1981; China has been making its move since around 1980. Mexico's GDP per-capita is now about twice China's, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Once that catch-up period is over, however, the countries need to continue to reform institutions and policies to produce a well-functioning government an efficient financial system and a steady increase in knowledge so it can continue to grow smartly. Few countries manage that transition, which leaves them well behind the U.S. and Europe.
'How far short of the industrial leader the (developing) country levels off depends on its institutions and economic policies,' the economists write. The biggest hurdles remain.
Bob Davis
没有评论:
发表评论