中國建設銀行董事長郭樹清日前表示，下一個30年裏中國的經濟發展，將不再僅僅取決於資本、勞動和土地等傳統生産要素。服務業超過製造業份額，是中國經濟下一輪戰略調整的實質所在。

郭樹清在北京接受了《財經》雜誌記者張燕冬和董欲曉的採訪。

《財經》：你説過，儘管發達國家在金融危機中遭到了“陣痛”，但它們的經濟轉型仍在持續推進，相比之下，中國沒有理由不加快經濟轉型。在你看來，中國存在著什麼問題？

郭樹清：首先，中國經濟增長速度快，但我們的國民福利水準並沒有同步提升。

其次，在國家競爭力上，雖然中國在改革開放後發展很快，但目前仍處於工業化中期。中國的資訊化也在前進，有些尖端行業如高速鐵路已經靠近世界先進技術，但國民經濟的綜合發展水準還差很遠。

第三，從企業競爭力上看，世界500強企業中，2009年美國佔比27％左右；中國大陸和港澳臺總共10％多一點。而且中國的企業都是依靠市場規模和客戶數量，幾乎沒有依靠技術創新等獨特優勢在業內領先的。

第四，從科技教育上看，最近英國泰晤士報評比，世界最好的200所大學裏美國有72家，英國29家，德國14家，中國大陸只有6家，加上香港台灣也只有14家。英美兩國佔一半以上，如何趕超？這個差距恐怕不是幾年或十幾年就能縮小的。

第五，從社會付出的代價來看，我們面臨的形勢更不容樂觀。中國的工業化帶來的城鄉分割、地區差別、城鄉差別更大得多。僅就農民工一事而言，幾億人背井離鄉，不少夫妻長期“兩地分居”，“留守兒童”更多達四五千萬。

最後，生態環境極不樂觀。中國有2.5萬億美元的外匯儲備。但如果要恢復到歐美國家那樣的生態環境，可能要花費超過這個數額十倍的代價。

《財經》：為什麼在中國這些必要地調整那麼困難？難在哪？

郭樹清：第一個難點是中國工業長期處在世界産業鏈低端。發達國家的國際公司很有優勢，而且一直在不斷地向産業鏈高端轉移，通過研發、設計、品牌等，佔據有利地位。這些公司大多是跨國公司，中國、印度、非洲、拉美，包括澳大利亞等國家的經濟發展，它們都能直接或間接受益。這從另一個角度説明，我們的工業還集中在低端。我們扮演的是“打工者”的角色。

第二個難點是服務業比重低，國內因素就是城鄉二元制度改革太慢。近年來，農民工的工資不斷提高，但是和城裏人實際得到的工資、福利和社會保障比還是差很遠，同樣工作，只有後者的三分之一。雖然這些不平等受到了一些企業的歡迎，但總體上看並不划算。

第三，能源和環境狀況令人擔憂。在相當大程度上，我們的能源消費模式正在趨同於美國，不斷地買車、修路、攤大城市。馬路反覆修，房屋不斷拆遷等創造的增加值，都要計入了建築業和GDP，但實際財富和國民福利並沒有增加。

《財經》：一些問題涉及到公共政策以及政府治理社會的能力問題，你認為突破口在哪？

郭樹清：現階段的要害問題是人口的城市化，它目前明顯落後於土地和就業的非農化城鎮化。這需要實實在在地把農民工當市民對待，解決工資待遇、社會保障和基本公共服務的不平等。統籌城鄉發展從2003年開始，已經取得很大進步，堅持下去取得實質突破，中國經濟一半的問題就處理好了，增長的品質和數量就會有保障。

還有就是是教育。將來的經濟增長一定要靠人才。計劃經濟時期遺留下了蘇聯式的科研管理體制也是個問題。接下來，我們站在一個新的起點上，必須創新。

《財經》：早期，你曾談到分析中國城市化落後於工業化，這與西方史學家所認為的“中國沒有經歷過大規模、標準化、規範化的工業革命，雖然擁抱了後工業社會，但仍然是農業文明的心態”是否有關？

郭樹清：他們説的有一定道理，但就看正確到何種程度。鄉鎮企業發展對中國經濟體制的轉軌具有根本性意義，與西方工業革命、城市化進程有很大區別，從某種程度上也延緩了中國工業化、現代化的進程。

《財經》：你多次提出過要防範城市化的盲目自發；但同時，你又談到政府在建設中的主導性太強。這兩者如何解釋，即主導性強的政府怎麼會出現城市化的盲目自發？

郭樹清：我説的“盲目自發”是指城市化過程中政府的政策和規劃沒有跟上，不主動不積極，長期以來落後於實際經濟需要。有3億多農民進入城市，還有一部分進入小城鎮，還有一部分在農村就地轉移到了非農産業，就是説本來他們已不再是農民了，但又不把他們當市民看待。五年前，甚至三年前，還有不少人認為這是中國的優勢，城裏沒工作就可以回農村，國家沒有多少負擔。一些專家學者認為，他們不需要社會保障，因為鄉下有土地。但各國的歷史及我們自己的經驗早已證明，城市化是一個不可逆的過程，離開土地是永遠離開，只要你給他留地，他就在一定程度上依賴地，但他能回去嗎？退一步講，他能回去，他的子女能回去嗎？回不去的。

但是，中國很大，不同地區不同城市，約束條件不同，難以一概而論。以北京為例，這是首都，華北少有的平原地區，而且嚴重缺水，交通已經十分擁堵，目前人口規模已經突破2020年的控制目標。為什麼總在超計劃，因為企業、個人、外國投資者、黨政軍機構都喜歡來北京。越大的城市越容易找到工作賺錢，説得通俗些，做買賣的人多，撿破爛的地方還多呢。

以土地制度為例，我們實行最嚴格的耕地保護制度。但各地執行結果千差萬別，用途管制並不嚴格。“農用”不斷被通過非正式途徑轉變為“非農用”。首先，農民想把宅基地承包地拿出來搞經濟作物，搞民俗旅遊，建出租房。其次村委會想變，過去給鄉鎮企業開個口子，叫生産經營用地。

《財經》：其實政府的作用就應體現在這些方面，問題的實質不是“大政府、小社會”，還是“小政府、大社會”，而是政府如何以更高的效率、更低的成本去做政府應該做的事。

郭樹清：政府的功能不應忽視。你看歐美，政府的調節作用很強，政府能決定大學、醫院、科研機構甚至軍事基地，佈局都是全國佈局，比如美國州政府所在地，並不總是設在最大的城市。名牌大學多數不是在大城市的。我們的好大學、好醫院都高度集中在北京、上海、廣州等幾個城市裏面。

我們整體上講政府主導，但在某些方面卻缺乏政府規劃，在這方面我們沒有做專門的計劃。換言之，我們缺乏符合自然規律、經濟規律的規劃。大學辦到市中心有什麼意義？學生整天受商業區干擾，可能真不如蓋在偏僻的地方。

《財經》：這是否與理論的缺失有關。結果導致了政府該做的不做，不該做的“亂”做。中國有沒有這種現象？

郭樹清：我們實行新的市場經濟體制以來，政府職能轉變的改革一直沒有間斷。政府已經提出四個方面的基本職能：宏觀調控、市場監督、社會管理與公共服務。政府做的事很多，如在公共服務方面，國際上也非常肯定。

義務教育從60年來看比較慢，但最近很快。為什麼説60年看就慢？上世紀50年代台灣地區、南韓經濟發展水準和我們差不多，但現在教育普及程度比我們高。我們是到了很晚，義務教育還不“義務”，政府沒有完全承擔起來，許多農村地區學校叫民辦公助。

附：原文：Next hurdle: social transformation

China’s economic development in the next 30 years, says China Construction Bank Chairman Guo Shuqing, will not rely only on traditional factors like capital, labor and land. A gradual reduction in the dominance of manufacturing and the rise of the service economy will require a social transformation.

Mr Guo spoke Zhang Yandong and Dong Xiaoyu, reporters for Caijing magazine, a business and finance publication based in Beijing.

Caijing: You say that while developed countries experienced “contractions” during the economic crisis, their economies still move forward, while China has to speed up its economic transformation. What are China's problems?

Guo Shuqing: First. China's economy is growing fast. but national welfare hasn't been improved to the same degree.

Second, though China is developing fast, it still is in the middle of its industrialized phase. High-end industries like rapid-transit railways are among the global leaders in their areas, but general development in the national economy lags far behind.

Third, from a perspective of corporate competiveness, America had 27% of the top 500 global corporations in 2009, while mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan combined for 10%. Corporations in China mostly rely on market scale and customer numbers, rarely on innovative techniques.

Forth, referring to technical education, I recently read that America has 72 out of 200 best universities in the world, England has 29and Germany has 14, while mainland China has only six. Add Hong Kong and Taiwan, and there are 14. If America and England combine for half, how is China going to catch up? I am afraid this gap is not going to narrow within a couple of years.

Fifth, in societal expenses, our situation is not positive at all. Regional differences and city-country differences have been enlarged by industrialization. Take migrant workers for example-millions of people taken away from their hometowns, couples separated and millions of children with single parents.

Last, the environment. China has foreign currency reserves of US$2.5 trillion. It might take 10 times that to restore the environment to a state similar to that of America and Europe.

Caijing: Why are the necessary adjustments hard?

Mr. Guo: One problem is that China's industry has been at the low side of the world's production chain. International companies in developed countries have an advantage, and remain at the top through research, design, branding and so on. They are transnational. so they benefit, directly or indirectly, from the development of China, India, Africa and Latin America. We play an "employee" role.

A second problem is the slow transformation of the city-country system. In recent years, migrant workers' wages have been improving, but their wages, welfare and social protection are still far behind those of city people. Migrant workers get only a third of the salary of city people with the same job. Although some corporations favor this kind of inequality, it is not beneficial as a whole.

The third problem concerns resources and the environment. To a great degree, we are consuming the resources in the same mode as America, continuously buying cars, repairing roads, enlarging cities.

The repetitive repair of roads and continuous relocation benefit the construction industry and raise the GDP. However, real wealth and national welfare hasn't been improved.

Caijing: Some issues involve public strategy and the government's ability to administer society.

Mr. Guo: The critical point in this phase is the urbanization of people, which is far behind the urbanization of land and employment. This requires fair treatment of peasants as citizens, solving problems of unequal salaries, social protections and basic public services such as medical care and education. Statistics from urban and rural development since 2003 show great improvement. Half of the problems in the Chinese economy will be resolved by sticking to original urbanization policies. The quality and quantity of growth will be guaranteed.

Then there's education. Future economic growth relies on capable people. One problem is the "Soviet" scientific-research mechanism left by the planned economy. We need to stand on a new starting point and innovate.

Caijing: Is your argument that urbanization in China lags behind industrialization related to what some Western historians say, that China hasn't experienced industrial transformation-that it has embraced post-industrial society while still in the mind of agricultural civilization?

Mr. Guo: What they said makes a certain sense; it's correct to a degree. The boom in enterprises in townships has played a fundamental role in transforming China's economy. Village industrialization is very different from the Western industrial transformation and urbanization process, and has delayed the process of Chinese industrialization and modernization to a certain degree.

Caijing: You have talked about cities avoiding blind self development, while also saying government has been too dominant in construction.

Mr. Guo: I mentioned that the government has not followed up in strategic planning of the urbanization process. The government is neither negative nor positive, and is far behind the demand of real economy. Over 300 million peasants entered cities, a small portion entered towns and another small portion transferred to nonagricultural areas in villages, which means that they are not peasants anymore but are not treated as townsmen.

Five years ago, or even three years ago, some people still believed this was an advantage in China, since people could go back to the village if they couldn’t find a job in the town, leaving less of a burden on the country. Some experts believed that peasants do not need social protection since they have land in a village. However, history in other countries and our own experience shows that urbanization is an irreversible process, and departing from land is permanent. If we reserved land for them, will peasants actually go back? They could, but will their children go back? No, they won’t.

China is huge, so it’s hard to draw one conclusion. Take Beijing, severely short of water and with a traffic congestion problem. The population already exceeds the target for 2020. Why does it always outrun the planning? Because firms, people, foreign investors and others-including the party and military-love to be to Beijing. It's easier to find jobs and earn money in larger cities. Vulgarly speaking, there is more garbage to pick up in the place with more sales.

Or take the land system. We have a strict system for protecting arable land. However, execution in different areas is distinct. Farmland is continuously turned into non-farm-land through unofficial avenues. Peasants want to use it for rental houses. Village communities want to use it for township enterprises.

Caijing: The essence of the problem is neither "big government, small society" nor "small government, big society." It is how to more effectively do business with lower costs for government.

Mr. Guo: The function of government should not be neglected. Take a look at European countries and America: It is government that decides where to build universities, hospitals, scientific research institutions and military bases. Famous universities are mostly outside big cities, while our great universities are concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and other several big cities.

We talk about "government guidance" in general, but there is a lack of government planning in some aspects. What's the point of constructing a university in a big city? Students are disturbed by business districts-perhaps they could benefit from universities in remote areas.

Caijing: Is this about the vacancy of theories? Government hasn't done a good job when it is supposed to do. but is aggressive when it isn't needed?

Mr. Guo: Government has done some wonderful jobs since we began implementing the new market-economic system. It has provided four basic functions: macro regulation and control, market supervision, society administration and public service.

Compulsory education, for example, began slowly in the 1960s, but has accelerated recently. In the 1950s, Taiwan and Korean had the same level of economic development as us, but now their educational prevalence is higher than ours. Until very lately, compulsory education was not "compulsory"-lots of village schools were DYI: pay tuitions all by yourself.