沃顿教授的中国之行:洞察中国崛起的新鲜视角

The Road to China: Fresh Insights into the World’s Fastest-growing Economy

Harbir Singh, Wharton’s vice-dean for Global Initiatives, launched a series of trips to foreign countries last summer as a way for faculty to gain a deeper understanding of international economies and then use this knowledge in their teaching and research. Six professors recently visited the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and met with executives from Lenovo, Haier and Huawei, among other companies. Knowledge@Wharton asked three of the participants – Singh, management professor Saikat Chaudhuri and health care management professor Lawton R. Burns – to share insights from their trip.

Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.   

Knowledge@Wharton: Harbir, Saikat and Rob, thanks for joining us. Saikat, you mentioned in an earlier conversation that executives you met with are interested in the globalization of Chinese companies, partly through acquisitions, partly through increased outsourcing. Can you talk a little more about this?

Saikat Chaudhuri: Certainly. Chinese companies are, of course, aspiring to become global players. And we actually see a variety of approaches that they’re taking. Haier for example, has taken more of an organic route, even though it did unsuccessfully attempt to buy Maytag. Huawei has also taken an organic route. They had attempted to buy US Robotics or take a stake [in that company], and that was unsuccessful. However, Lenovo is probably the prime example — having bought IBM’s PC business — where [a company] did successfully use the acquisition strategy. And the main reason is that, beyond quick access to markets like the United States and Europe and so forth, they need high-end technologies and also established brands. Those are the elements that the Chinese firms have been missing. And so it fits very well to combine the strong and cost-efficient back end of Chinese firms with the branding, market access and technology that Western developed firms can offer them.  

Knowledge@Wharton: Harbir, you and others have noted the role of the Chinese government in creating infrastructure for their economy and its benefit to businesses at large. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Harbir Singh: I remember in 1997, I was standing on the Bund [in Shanghai] — which was an area where all the various international communities used to be, pre-Communism — and looking across the river at a lot of construction on the other side. People were saying there will be some office towers and businesses here. I was envisioning, maybe, something the size of downtown Philadelphia. When I came back … [and went] to the Grand Hyatt in Pudong, this was a whole new city with large, modern skyscrapers. I was completely amazed at the huge contrast. I’ve been to China many times, but that’s just one illustration.

If you look at Shanghai airport, look at Beijing airport, these are truly world class airports. You have the Maglev train coming into the city. The most populous nation in the world appears to be functioning at a very high gear in these big cities. What that does is create an opportunity for businessmen and executives to develop their products and services in a world class setting. I think that’s the main benefit of infrastructure in terms of electricity, Internet communication and so on. I think that’s been remarkably impressive in China over the years.

Knowledge@Wharton: How does this compare to the situation in India?

Singh: India is a dramatic contrast. I think if you look at India, we have had much less physical infrastructure development in the same period of time. In fact, many projects are underway, but they are moving very slowly. This is something that people in India will also say — so this is, I think, an objective reality. What India has going for it is the development of soft infrastructure — the human capital, the use of the English language which allows service professionals to work with companies around the world. So you have this remarkable contrast. What’s interesting is it doesn’t have to be that one of these major developing nations chooses the hard infrastructure and one chooses soft infrastructure. But for now, that’s what the path has been.

Knowledge@Wharton: Rob, you were able to see first hand the efforts that China is making in the area of health care reform. What exactly are they doing, and are they running into the same obstacles that the U.S. is? That is, finding that you can’t do everything at once and also insure high quality at low cost?

Lawton “Rob” Burns: Yes. First, just to follow up on Harbir’s comments, China is also investing a lot in its health care infrastructure. In particular, they’re rebuilding their hospital industry, which is primarily publicly owned facilities. They’re also rebuilding their primary care system. Basically they didn’t have much of a primary care system. They relied on lower level hospitals to provide primary care, and now they’re trying to build these community health centers. So there’s a massive investment in primary, secondary and tertiary care taking place in China.

What China is discovering is that it has its own version of the “iron triangle” of health care. It’s the issue our country has dealt with for the last 70 to 80 years — trying to balance three conflicting goals of improving quality, improving access and controlling the rate of increase and cost. They’re now discovering the exact same thing. Their health care reform initiatives are designed to provide broader access to health insurance for the population. Yet at the same time, while they provide broader access to improve the level and quality of care, that expands the cost of care. They are trying to figure out ways to control the cost as they increase access to health insurance.

Knowledge@Wharton: Does their government structure make it easier to get these things done than, say, in the U.S.?

Burns: Their government structure is very similar to ours. It’s an incredibly fragmented government bureaucracy with different ministries overseeing different parts of the health care system, with different insurance plans for different segments of the population. And like us, they’re going to try to craft a universal system by basically cobbling together all these different components.

Knowledge@Wharton: By being provided with access to companies and high level executives, Saikat — you mentioned Haier, Lenovo and Huawei — you were able to get insights into things like concerns over social unrest, the pollution problem and efforts to build a knowledge-based economy. What’s the current thinking about how to deal with these issues?

Chaudhuri: Any developing country, and for that matter any developed country, will have challenges because there are inherent trade-offs that must be balanced. That is a very natural outcome of managing conflicting demands as you grow. On the point about building a knowledge-based economy, I think that’s what struck me the most: It’s very interesting because here the contrast with India also becomes apparent. China has strong infrastructure and has been able to build a very strong manufacturing-based economy, whereas India has veered towards the knowledge-based economy. Now, of course, both countries are trying to do the other [approach]. In China’s case, they’re investing a lot of money in trying to set up firms and the appropriate ecosystem to foster innovation. That means venture capital, entrepreneurship and processes which will help to further innovation, because that’s something I think China sometimes suffers from, as far as its image is concerned.

It’s not easy, because building infrastructure is a matter of capital. Building an innovative ecosystem requires several elements to come together [as well as] the exchange of ideas among the right individuals. But I’m confident that given the way China has managed its economic growth so far, this will be a step that they will successfully manage.  

Knowledge@Wharton: What about the pollution problem? I’m wondering, Rob, if you could talk about that since it is a health care issue at the same time.

Burns: Yes, it’s a huge public health issue for the Chinese. They have a number of public health challenges. One is pollution, both in the air and in the water. Then you have public health habits. There’s an enormously high smoking rate in China, with very few smoking cessation programs taking place…. What compounds the problem for China is that the public health dollars are disproportionately spent in the urban areas, whereas most of the population lives in the rural areas. So they have a problem with trying to allocate resources to where the problems are.

Singh: One thing I noticed; we were in a very high hotel, I think in Beijing, on the top floor looking out. And we were told that it was one of the clearer days. But I thought it was actually very hard to see any structures around. This is true, as Saikat was saying, for the developing world. It’s the classic problem of how do you grow rapidly and keep these greenhouse gases under control? It seems China is working very hard on it because its own population is putting pressure on the government. But at the same time, clearly there is a lot of work to be done there.

Knowledge@Wharton: Did the issue of social unrest come up in anything that you did or saw over there?

Singh: We had the party secretary of Beijing whom we met allude to that. But it was more in the spirit of one of the factors that he saw in the remote areas. So that was one place where it was specifically raised.

Burns: I think he also mentioned just how important it was to try to contain any social unrest and the importance of stability in keeping this economic engine going forward.

Chaudhuri: In one sense, you could just say it’s about managing diversity. China’s a big country with a huge population and they have many different types of people with varied interests. It’s about meeting the aspirations of those people and managing the differences, as much as it is promoting some uniformity in a standard of living.

Knowledge@Wharton: During your trip, you all indicated that Chinese officials made it very clear the U.S. is to blame for the financial crisis. They talked about providing a different model. What is that model and how successful do you think it can be?

Chaudhuri: I suppose that one way to look at the alternative model is perhaps not as unbridled capitalism, but with selective intervention and some controls. This is, of course, the debate that’s been going on around the world in countries which thought that they had perfected the model, such as the United States, but also the European countries. So it’s a wider debate. I would see it as not yet being established what is working, because we have some confounding factors here. So you could attribute the success in managing the crisis to a particular system in the emerging markets. But you could also attribute it to the inherently higher growth rates that they have been experiencing due to the rise that they’ve had over the last several years and the tremendous domestic demand and other factors driving it. I do think it’s good food for thought and should fuel the debate so that we can come up with appropriate structures globally to avoid such crises in the future. It’s not yet evident to me what exactly the model might be, though, and perhaps where the balance may lie.

Singh: Also, one of the things referred do was the impact of derivatives on the U.S. economy and the decline of many of the financial valuations and portfolios of banks and other institutions. I think because [other economies] have less exposure to derivatives and other exotic instruments, there was a sense that [not having them] … was helpful. I hear similar comments in India where people say that the central reserve bank actually had put certain limits on derivatives, so many of these mortgage-backed securities and all those exotic instruments were not allowed to be traded in India. Now does that mean that there’s a better policy? Well, that’s a whole different question. But maybe it speaks to some degree of conservatism which, in this case, was helpful.

Knowledge@Wharton: President Obama recently returned from a visit to China where he encountered efforts to restrict public access to him, and also came in for some blunt criticism over the weak U.S. dollar and low interest rates. In addition, the Chinese accused the U.S. of protectionist trade policies because of their actions against some Chinese products like steel pipes and coated paper. Do you have a response to this lecture that Obama got? And do you think it signals a worsening of relations between the two countries?

Singh: There’s a high degree of dependence between both economies. That’s absolutely clear. One of the questions that is divisive among many is the yuan and where it is pegged in the international markets. Given that China is the manufacturing hub of the world, one of the interesting questions is, if you revalue the yuan, what happens to the costs of those products in the economies where they’re being exported? This is one of the more complex issues underlying the debate, and it’s not clear what the right answer is. But the dependence is so great that this is going to be an ongoing debate.

So on one hand, perhaps, [there are] exhortations to revalue the Yuan; on the other hand, [there are] arguments that we are protecting our products. They’re both interlinked.

Burns: You know, just to add to it in the health care arena, the interesting development there is that the Chinese are undertaking health care reform at the same time we’re undertaking health care reform. I don’t think it’s any longer the case that we have lessons to offer other countries. Other countries are now saying, ‘We have lessons to offer you.’

Knowledge@Wharton: Okay, good point. Saikat, you noted that a whole generation of Chinese has seen progress now for about the last 30 years, and that a lot of overseas Chinese are, in fact, going back to China, not just senior people, but junior people, too. Do you think that will continue? And what are they going back to?

Chaudhuri: We talk about the so-called reverse brain drain — nowadays it’s known as brain gain — both in the context of China and in India. I think in China’s case it started earlier and the scale is also a bit higher. As you noted, what was particularly impressive is that it’s not only the senior people who go into senior roles, especially at multinational corporations based in China who are now taking this opportunity, but it’s also the junior people. We see this increasingly here at Wharton as well. That signals to me very, very clearly that the opportunities are there to actually build a career. Earlier I was talking about building the right ecosystem for a knowledge-based economy. The infrastructure, the people, are of course a critical element. So beyond building the hard infrastructure, to get the right mentality, mindset, it’s very, very critical for China to get back some of that talent which has gained experience abroad. Undoubtedly, they’ve become very, very attractive as a destination. So I think it’s a very, very important driver.

If I may also note, the entrepreneurs that we spoke to were, to a large extent, also of that type. They can, of course, appropriately take business models from both sides, blend them and find what is unique, both for domestic purposes but also to build new global players. So what’s happening on that front is a very, very important driver of China’s future aspirations to become an entrepreneurship and knowledge-based economy.

Singh: One thing that I noted with respect to people going back to China and to India is that the rates seem to be increasing every year; this suggests the perception of opportunity that our recent graduates see in those economies. That’s the first point, that opportunity is rising in some kind of very visceral way, because people are voting with their feet. But the second is that we met seasoned entrepreneurs who had moved 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and they saw confirmation of their projections early on. I think the idea of the ecosystem is very interesting, because they were in, some sense, the creators of the ecosystem which now these young recent graduates are getting into. Related to that, we had the Wharton Alumni Forum not too long ago in China. There were over 700 alumni, many of whom were coming from other countries.

Knowledge@Wharton: What were some of the more impressive business practices or products that you saw in the firms you visited?

Burns: I don’t know about the most impressive practices. I think the most impressive thing I’m seeing is the huge set of demand drivers that are going to accelerate the Chinese health care economy. The projections are stunning that within maybe 30 years China will be the largest pharmaceutical market in the world, eclipsing the United States. That’s stunning to everybody who studied the pharmaceutical industry. And the same thing may happen with medical devices, too.

Singh: What I found fascinating about China were two things. One was scale and the rapid rate of growth. There’s no question that it may not be a linear path, but it’s going to be a major large market in almost every industry. But the other part that I found interesting is when we went to Lenovo and the head of product development for Lenovo was talking about the role of the company’s North Carolina facility, the role of its Japan facility and the Beijing facility, and how they all work together, around the clock as it were, but with a lot of face to face interaction. So they’re trying to grapple with the issue of how to work across borders.

I was sitting in the conference room saying, “This conference room could easily be in Silicon Valley or in Raleigh, North Carolina. But it happens to be in Beijing.” And he was saying the same thing. He often doesn’t know which part of the world he is in. So Lenovo has, on the product development side, created a global organization.

Chaudhuri: To build on that a bit further, I think new forms of organization are being experimented with and being designed and promoted by these firms. Harbir mentioned Lenovo. They have interaction to allow for 24 hour development cycles, yet at the same time [allow] expertise in certain pockets to be developed and to be globally applied. I think that applies to the emerging markets.

I can’t help but be reminded of when the Korean and Japanese economies really took off and those firms rose to prominence. They also brought interesting new management practices, such as in the area of supply chain management. I believe that firms like Lenovo or Haier or Huawei will contribute at that level as well, [along with] Brazilian and Indian and other emerging market firms.

Knowledge@Wharton: Great. Thank you for joining us.

沃顿教授的中国之行:洞察中国崛起的新鲜视角

沃顿商学院负责国际合作的副院长哈伯·辛格(Harbir Singh)在去年夏天开展了系列境外旅行,让学院的教授更深刻地了解海外市场的经济状况,并将本次行程的见闻应用于教学和研究之中。六位教授拜访了中国的北京、上海和深圳,与来自联想集团(Lenovo)、海尔集团(Haier)以及华为公司(Huawei)等企业的高管进行了交流。其中的三位参与者——辛格、管理学教授赛凯特乔胡瑞(Saikat Chaudhuri)和卫生保健学教授罗顿·罗伯特·伯恩斯(Lawton R. Burns——与沃顿知识在线分享了本次旅行的见闻。以下内容是本次访谈的剪辑。

沃顿知识在线:哈伯、赛凯特、罗布(罗伯特的昵称),感谢你们接受我们的访谈。赛凯特,你在前面的交流中谈到,你会见的高管对中国公司的全球化很有兴趣,全球化过程部分会通过兼并收购来实现,部分会通过不断增加的业务外包来完成。你能就这一点详细谈谈吗?

赛凯特·乔胡瑞:确实如此。中国的公司渴望成为全球性的“选手”。我们也看到了它们在实践中的不同举措。举例来说,海尔集团就更多地采用了渐进路线,尽管并没能成功收购美泰公司(Maytag)(美泰是美国第三大家用电器制造商,2004年该公司的销售收入为47亿美元。2005年6月,一个由青岛海尔为首的财团曾向其发出以每股16美元的价格收购其全部已发行股票的要约。——译者注)。华为公司也采用了一条渐进路线。华为曾试图收购美国Robotics公司(1997年,3Com公司收购了著名的高速调制解调器厂商U.S.Robotics。2007年9月28日,贝恩资本(Bain Capital)与华为宣布双方将合组公司,斥资22亿美元全面收购3Com公司;贝恩资本将持股83.5%,华为将持股16.5%。——译者注),收购最后未能取得成功。不过,联想集团的收购则是成功实施并购战略的经典案例——公司成功收购了IBM公司的个人计算机业务。它们并购的主要动机在于,除了通过并购可以迅速进入欧美等地区的市场之外,它们还需要获取高端技术,此外,也想建立自己的品牌。这些都是中国的企业一直缺失的元素。而就中国企业强大的成本效率与西方发达企业提供给的市场准入机会和技术整合起来而言,并购也是一条合适的途径。

沃顿知识在线:哈伯,你和其他人曾谈到中国政府在创造基础设施条件,以及基建设施为企业发展所做的贡献。你能详细谈谈吗?

哈伯·辛格:记得1997年,我曾站在上海的外滩,隔河看到对岸有很多建筑工地。人们说,那里将会出现办公楼和企业。我当时想,那个区域的规模可能与费城的中心区域相当。当我再次回到这里……住在浦东的君悦饭店(Grand Hyatt)时,这个地方已经成了一个拥有大量现代化摩天大楼的新城市。鲜明的对比让我惊叹不已。我曾去过中国很多次,这还只不过是奇迹之一。

如果你看看上海的机场、北京的机场,你会发现,它们都是真正国际水平的机场。磁悬浮列车从机场直达市内。在这个世界上人口最多的国家里,这些大城市看起来正在高速运转。这些城市正在为商人和企业高管创造一个在世界级的环境中发展其产品和服务的机会。我想这就是电力、互联网通信以及其他基础设施给商业发展带来的主要好处。过去数年来,中国在这方面的发展令人难忘。

沃顿知识在线:与印度的基础设施情况相比如何呢?

辛格:与印度相比反差很大。印度的物质基础设施开发要少得多。虽然很多项目也在进行,但是进展非常缓慢。这也是在印度国内的人常常谈到的。印度一直追求的是“软基础设施”(soft infrastructure)的发展,比如,人力资源,英语的应用等,它们让印度的专业服务人员能与全世界的公司进行合作。所以,你能看到这两个国家的显著差异。虽然,在这两个主要的发展中国家中,本来不应该出现一个国家选择重点发展物质基础设施、另一个国家选择重点发展软基础设施的,可现在看来,它们的发展道路就是如此。

沃顿知识在线:罗布,你亲眼看到了中国在医疗保健领域的改革所付出的努力。他们正在做什么工作呢?他们也遇到了与美国的医改相同的障碍吗?比如无法立刻完成一切工作、无法以低成本确保高质量吗?

罗顿·罗伯特·伯恩斯:是的。首先我想接着哈伯的评述谈下去,中国在医疗保健的基础设施上也投入了很多资金。特别值得一提的是,他们正在重建以公有制为主体的医院行业。此外他们也在重建其基础医疗体系(primary care system)。目前中国主要依靠级别较低的医院来提供基础医疗服务;现在他们正在努力建设社区医疗中心。所以,他们在基础医疗、二级医疗(secondary care)以及三级医疗(tertiary care)系统上都投入了大量的资金。

在医疗保健问题上,中国也有自己版本的“铁三角”议题。我们国家在过去70,80年里也一直在应对这个问题:那就是努力在提升医疗质量、改善获取医疗服务的途径以及控制医疗成本这三个相互冲突的目标上达成平衡。中国现在也面临同样的问题。他们的医改计划旨在为人们获取医疗保险提供更为广泛的途径。然而,与此同时,医疗保健的成本也同步增加了。他们正在努力寻求在扩展医疗服务途径,提升医疗质量的同时又能控制成本的策略。

沃顿知识在线:比起美国来,中国政府能更轻松地完成这些目标吗?

伯恩斯:中国政府的结构与我们的政府结构非常相似,也是一个极为分散化的政府机构,不同的部(局)分管医疗保健体系的不同部分,不同人群拥有不同的保险计划。像我们一样,他们也在努力将所有这些分散的部分整合起来建立一个统一的体系。

沃顿知识在线:赛凯特,你刚才谈到了与海尔、联想和华为等企业高管的交流,就社会动荡、环境污染以及构建知识型经济等问题,他们是怎么想的?

乔胡瑞:任何发展中国家都会面临这些挑战,因为它们必须在某些固有的利弊上取得平衡,就这一点而言,发达国家也一样。这是你在经济增长期管理相互冲突的需求时自然产生的结果。构建知识型经济是让我最受触动的一个问题,这也是中国与印度形成鲜明对比的问题。中国拥有强大的基础设施,并据此建立了一个强大的制造业经济体系,而印度则走向了发展知识型经济的道路。当然,现在这两个国家都在努力采用对方的策略。在中国,他们投入了很多资金,以期通过创建企业和恰当的生态系统来促进创新。这就意味着风险投资、企业家精神和创业的流程有助于推进他们的创新。

完成这个目标并不轻松,因为建立基础设施只是资金的问题,而构建一个有利创新的生态系统,则需要将几个因素整合到一起,而且还需要主政者改变观念。但是,考虑到中国截止目前对其经济增长的掌控能力,我对他们达成这一目标的前景充满信心。

沃顿知识在线:污染的情况如何?罗布,因为污染问题同时也是个医疗保健问题,你谈谈看法?

伯恩斯:的确,对中国人来说,污染是个巨大的公共卫生问题,既包括空气污染,也包括水污染等等。此外,他们还面临着公众的卫生习惯问题。在中国,吸烟人群的比率非常高,但却没有实施多少戒烟计划……让问题更为严重的是,公共卫生的资金以不相称的比例投入到了城市地区,可大部分人口却是生活在农村地区的。所以他们面临着如何合理配置资源的挑战。

辛格:我们当时住在北京一家很高的酒店里。那天天气晴朗,可是当我们从酒店顶层望出去时,我很难看清远处的建筑。就像赛凯特谈到的,发展中国家的情况确实是这样的。这是个经典的难题:你怎么才能在快速增长的同时,控制温室气体的排放呢?中国正在努力解决这一问题,因为人民给政府也施加了压力。但他们还有很多工作要做。

沃顿知识在线:你们在中国考察期间,发现有社会动荡问题吗?

辛格:我们与某地方政府的党委书记会谈中,曾经间接地谈到了这个问题。不过,他主要谈的是在中国的某边远地区发生的动荡。

伯恩斯:他还谈到了为了确保国家经济引擎的正常运转,努力遏制任何社会动荡、保持社会稳定的重要性。

乔胡瑞:从某种意义上来说,你完全可以认为这是一个如何管理民族多样性的问题。中国是个大国,拥有庞大人口,而且有很多利益诉求各异的群体。所以,满足不同人群的愿望以及如何管理民族的多样性,和提高所有人的生活水平同样重要。

沃顿知识在线:你们都谈到,在你们旅行期间,中国的官员很清楚地表示,美国应该对这场金融危机负责。他们谈到了不同模式的经济发展。这是一种什么样的模式呢?你们认为这个模式如何才能成功?

乔胡瑞:我想,一个替代模式的着眼点或许在于,它不应是不受任何控制的资本主义,而应该是具有某些有选择的干预和控制手段的模式。当然,在那些自认为拥有完美模式的国家中——比如欧美国家——这种争论也没有停止过。所以说,这是一个广受争议的议题。

我认为,有效的模式尚未建立起来,因为我们现在面临着某些混杂的因素。在新兴市场中,你可以将它们成功管理危机的原因归结为某个特定的经济体系。但是你也可以将其归功于它们近年来的经济高增长率、庞大的国内需求和其他驱动力因素。我认为,这样的争论和思索非常有价值,因为有助于我们在全球范围内推出恰当的经济发展模式,以避免此类危机的再度爆发。在我看来,这种模式到底是如何、平衡点到底在哪里尚不明确。

辛格:此外,人们谈到金融衍生品对美国经济的影响以及银行和其他金融机构投资组合价值的减少。我想,因为其他经济体受衍生品和其他新型投资产品的影响较小,所以,人们形成了这样一种感觉:没有这些金融产品……大有好处。

我在印度也听到了类似的观点,在印度,人们谈到,央行对金融衍生品采取了限制措施,所以这些抵押贷款证券和所有的新奇投资产品在印度是不允许交易的。那么,这是否意味着这是一种更好的政策呢?我认为这完全是另一个问题。但是,就防范金融危机来说,或许,目前的结果表明,保守主义政策在某种程度上确实有所帮助。

沃顿知识在线:最近,奥巴马总统访问了中国。美国的弱势美元和低利率政策受到了某些直言不讳的批评。此外,中国人还因为美国对其钢管和铜版纸等产品的进口所做出的反应而对美国的贸易保护政策提出了指责(2009年12月初,美国商务部初步裁定对从中国进口的油井管征收最高达99.14%的反倾销税;美国国际贸易委员会初步裁定,对从中国进口的铜版纸征收“双反”关税,即反倾销和反补贴关税。——译者注)。你们对这些批评有什么看法?你们认为,这是两个国家的关系将会恶化的信号吗?

辛格:中美两个经济体的相互依存度很高,这是显而易见的。争论中的一个问题是人民币,以及人民币在国际市场中的定位。考虑到中国已经成了全球的制造中心,如果你把人民币升值,那么对出口国来说,产品成本将如何变化?这是个更复杂,更具争议性的话题,而正确答案何在也尚不清楚。但是,因为两个国家的经济依存度如此之大,所以,这个议题将会一直争论不休。

因此,一方面,人们或许会敦促人民币重新定价;而另一方面,则会出现我们因为保护自己的产品而引发的争论。这两个问题是相互关联的。

伯恩斯:就医疗保健领域来说,中国人和美国人都在进行医疗保健体制改革。我们可能无法为其他国家提供改革的经验,将来其他国家会告诉我们:“我们可以为你们提供经验。”

沃顿知识在线:赛凯特,你谈到,整整几代中国人都亲眼看到了过去30年来这个国家的进步,现在,很多海外中国人——不但有资深人士,也有年轻人——正在回到中国。你们认为这种趋势会继续下去吗?他们为什么要回去呢?

乔胡瑞:这就是所谓的“人才回流”(reverse brain drain)问题。在中国和印度两国都发生了这种情形。中国的人才回流现象出现得比印度更早,而且人才回流的规模也更大些。尤其引人注意的是,不但资深人士利用回到国内担纲重要角色,比如在跨国公司的中国分公司中担任高级管理职位,而且年轻人也纷纷回国。我们在沃顿商学院也越来越多地看到了这种情形。

在我看来,这个信号非常、非常清楚地表明,国内有让他们构建职业生涯的机会。我刚才谈到为知识型经济构建恰当的生态系统问题,毫无疑问,基础设施和人才就是其中的重要因素。除了建设物质基础设施以外,对中国来说,让那些拥有国外经验的人才回到国内非常重要。毋庸置疑,中国已经成了一个非常富有吸引力的目标。我想,这是人才回流的一个主要驱动因素。

我们与之交流的创业家的情况也一样。他们能恰当地整合国内外的商业模式,从而建立起既适用于国内需求,又能成为全球新竞技者的独特商业模式。这一领域的变化是使中国实现其未来抱负——建立起充满企业家精神的知识型经济——的重要驱动因素。

辛格:谈到人才回流到中国和印度这个话题,我注意到了一个现象。那就是他们回流的比率每年都在增长,这一趋势表明,近年来的毕业生看到了这些经济体中孕育的机会。这是第一个层面。第二个层面是,我们遇到了一些富有经验的企业家,他们在10年、15年前就走了,因为他们在更早期就看到了未来。生态系统的理念很有意思,这些人是这个生态系统的创建者,最近几年毕业的年轻人则走进了这个系统。另外一个层面是,不久前我们在中国举办了“沃顿商学院校友论坛”(Wharton Alumni Forum),有700多位校友到会,其中的很多人来自中国以外的其他国家。

沃顿知识在线:你们在考察期间,看到了什么令人难忘的商业实践或者产品?

伯恩斯:最让我难忘的是巨大的市场需求,这些驱动因素将会加速中国医疗保健行业的发展。或许,30年以后,中国将会成为全球最大的医药市场,其规模会让美国黯然失色。对每个从事医药市场工作的人来说,这都是令人惊异的。同样的变化也将会在医疗设备领域发生。

辛格:我在中国发现了两件让人着迷的事。一是其经济增长的规模和速度。毫无疑问,中国的经济增长不会一帆风顺,但是几乎在每个行业,中国都会成为重要的市场。另一个非常有意思的事情是,当我们去联想集团参观时,产品开发部门的负责人谈到了公司设在北卡罗来纳州、日本以及北京的开发机构扮演的角色,以及它们如何协同工作,它们的开发工作昼夜不停,也有很多面对面的互动交流。他们正在努力应对如何进行跨国界协作的问题。

我当时坐在会议室中说:“这个会议室很容易让人感觉是在硅谷或者北卡罗来纳州的罗利(Raleigh),可它却是在北京。”对方也谈到了同样的感觉。他说,自己常常不知道身处世界何处。所以,就产品开发来说,联想集团已经创建了一个全球性的组织。

乔胡瑞:这些企业正在尝试、设计并推动企业的全新形式。哈伯刚才谈到了联想集团。他们全球机构间的互动能让他们昼夜不舍地开发产品,与此同时,这种方式还能让某些地区的专业学识和技能得到开发,并在全球范围内得到应用。我想,这种方式很适合新兴市场。

这让我不禁想到了韩国和日本经济起飞的时期,以及它们的企业崛起的情形。它们当时也进行了很有意思的全新管理实践,比如,在供应链管理领域的管理实践。我相信,中国的企业将与巴西、印度以及其他新兴市场的企业一起,在管理实践方面做出自己的贡献。

沃顿知识在线:这些观点很有见地。感谢你们接受我们的访谈。

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: