近期，在第二届外滩金融峰会上，美国彼得森国际经济研究所高级研究员、知名中国问题专家尼古拉斯·拉迪（Nicholas Lardy）主要就中美之间的脱钩问题发表看法。Nicholas LARDY 美国彼得森国际经济研究所高级研究员他认为，现在许多主张中美脱钩的人都严重低估了中美两国乃至中国与世界之间经济一体化的程度；也没有意识到脱钩带来的经济代价。“美国没有任何机构负责评估关税限制、科技限制等政策工具的经济代价。主张脱钩的人常常只愿意讲收益，而不愿意承认会付出代价。”他表示。据拉迪分析，在实体经济方面，尽管美国政府在倡导制造业从中国回流，但美中贸易全国委员会的调查显示，贸易战甚至新冠疫情都没有从实质上改变美国跨国公司的计划，并没有多少企业真正愿意响应美国政府的号召。即便有些公司正在考虑迁离中国，但大多是想搬去其他国家，而非回美国。此外，他还指出，过去几年，中国在金融开放领域迈出了一些重要步伐，比如股市通、债市通等，过去三年流入中国的证券投资资本呈现出急剧上扬轨迹。中国资本市场的开放和其他一些制度性改革使人民币资产对国际投资者的吸引力不断增大。此外，中国推动了金融体制的改革，放开了外资金融机构在中国的参与度和持股比例限制。已经有很多美国企业获准在中国从事新的业务领域。因此，拉迪总结表示：“从金融领域来说，即使脱钩话题讨论热度不断上升，但中国融入全球金融体系的程度实际上却在不断加深。”以下为 Nicholas Lardy 的演讲视频+文字实录，中文由CF40秘书处翻译：
首先我想感谢外滩金融峰会组委会对我的邀请。我还想说的是，很抱歉，在这样的情况下，我不能前往上海参会，很遗憾错过了这次丰富而热烈的讨论。I want to begin by thanking the organizers of the Bund Summit for inviting me to participate. And I want to also say that I'm sorry the circumstances are such that I can't be in Shanghai to participate in person, and enjoy and benefit from the rich and lively discussion.我要讲的是中美之间的经济脱钩。关于脱钩的讨论有很多。无论是在美国还是在中国，对于脱钩话题的讨论都非常常见。I'm going to talk about the economic decoupling between China and the United States. There's certainly a lot of discussion about decoupling, I would say, both in the United States and in China, it's very, very widespread.我想说两个基本观点。第一，热衷讨论脱钩的人，大部分并没有真正理解。实际上，他们大大低估了中美双边或者说中国与世界其他国家之间经济一体化的深度。换句话说，很大一部分关于脱钩话题的讨论都把问题简单化了。I want to make two fundamental points. One is that most of this discussion does not really understand, actually, substantially underestimates the depth of bilateral economic integration between China and the United States, or for that matter, between China and the rest of the world. In other words, a great deal of this discussion is fairly simplistic. 第二，我认为，在美国，也许在中国也是如此，倡导脱钩的人会忽视，在某些情况下甚至会否认脱钩将为双方带来的实际经济代价。Secondly, I think certainly in the United States, and perhaps in China as well, advocates of decoupling ignore, or in some cases even deny, that decoupling involves real economic costs for both sides.以美国为例，我们现在没有相应的政府机构和部门来负责评估各种相关政策工具。比如关税、对技术出口的限制，对外国投资流入的限制等等。我们没有任何机构去研究使用这些政策工具的成本，这些工具正被当作政策使用来执行某些层面的脱钩。And speaking of the United States, for example, we have no government agency or department that is charged with evaluating the policy tools such as tariffs, restrictions on the export of technology, restrictions on inflow of foreign investment, we have no agency that looks at what the costs of using those tools are, those are the tools that are being used as a policy matter to enforce certain types of decoupling.但他们在使用这些工具时，并不了解其潜在成本，我不知道中国的情况如何，但我可以明确地说，在美国很少有人讨论脱钩带来的成本问题。倡导脱钩的人们热衷于谈论脱钩将会为美国带来的实质收益，但他们不愿意承认，脱钩会导致美国付出重大的经济成本。But they're being used without any understanding of the underlying costs. And I'm not sure what the situation is in China, but I can say categorically in the US, there has been very little discussion about the cost of decoupling.Advocates of decoupling think that there are some substantial gains, which they talk about, but they're unwilling to recognize that are significant economic costs.请看图1，我想和大家讨论一下实体经济中的脱钩问题。首先是跨境投资，从某种意义上讲，这个领域是脱钩议题中最热门的。I want to turn to the first slide page two, and begin a discussion about a decoupling in the real economy, that is, in cross-border investment. In some respects, this is the most prominent aspect of decoupling. 当然，美国国内正在讨论这个问题，倡导制造业回流。希望跨国企业退出中国，人们对此有不同的称呼。有人称之为脱钩，有人则称为产业链重组。图1的这个调查，是美中贸易全国委员会每年都会开展的，其调查结果显示，贸易战，甚至新冠疫情全球大流行，都没有从实质上改变美国跨国公司的计划。And certainly, it's being discussed in the United States, talk about reshoring, and so forth, that multinationals would begin to withdraw from China, people have different names for this, some call it decoupling, reorganizing the supply chains, etc.
But this survey that I'm showing you in this diagram, which is conducted annually by the US-China Business Council, shows that the Trade War, or even the COVID 19 pandemic, has not really changed the plans of American multinational companies.美中贸易全国委员会是一个会员制组织，由美国约250家在华经营的规模最大的跨国公司组成，而从图1可以看出，这些年来，每当他们被问及“贵公司是否有迁离中国的打算”或“有无打算把业务迁离中国”时，每年大概90%的公司都会表态说，没有计划迁离。The US-China Business Council is a membership organization, consisting of about 250 of the largest US multinational companies operating in China. And as you can see from the diagram, when they are asked over the years, has your company moved? Or does it plan to move any operations out of China? Roughly 90% of the companies every year say no, they have no plans to move.请注意，问的不是 "你们已经迁离了吗"，而是“你们是否考虑过迁离”或者“你们打算迁离吗”。图1中较短的柱形显示，确实，有些人和有些公司正在考虑迁离。但考虑将业务迁离中国的人大多是想搬去其他国家而不是回到美国。Notice the question is not “have you moved”, but “are you even thinking about it” or “are you planning it”.The smaller little graphs/lines show that, yes, some people or some companies are thinking of moving, the ones that are thinking of moving out of China are mostly thinking of going somewhere else, somewhere other than the United States.在最近的调查中，计划将部分业务带回美国的公司，只占受访者的4%左右，看来，大多数在中国经营业务的美国大型跨国公司都打算留下，因为中国是非常大的、快速增长的市场，他们是有利可图的。即使总统要他们回流，他们也不置可否。In the most recent survey, the companies that are planning to bring some production back to the US accounts for only about 4% of the respondents. So it seems like most big American multinationals operating in China plan to stay, they are profitable, that’s a very large, rapidly growing market. And even when the President says they need to reshore, there's not very much response.在图2中，我想大致展示一下流入中国的外国直接投资的情况，不管是打了几年的贸易战也好新冠疫情也罢，外国直接投资几乎未受影响。图2上的内容，可能看起来有些费力，它向我们展示了2018年、2019年和2020年至今，有多少外国直接投资进入中国。I want to look more broadly at FDI inflows into China. And they also seem to be unaffected by either the bilateral trade war with the United States that began a couple of years ago, or affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This diagram is a little bit hard to see, because it's showing us year to date in 2018,2019 And 2020 how much foreign direct investment has come into China.图2 外国直接投资流入量
维持在经贸摩擦之前的水平
而这几条线几乎是完全重合的。换句话说，按照每月累计流入量计算，无论是2018年、2019年还是2020年至今，大致是相同的。事实上，几乎一模一样。And the lines just almost completely overlap. In other words, the monthly inflows, the cumulative monthly inflows in 2018, 2019, and so far in 2020, are roughly the same.2018年、2019年约有1380亿美元流入中国，而如果今年还能延续前8个月的趋势，那么今年进入中国的外商直接投资额大致将与往年相同。Indeed, almost exactly the same. This led to about 138 billion in inflows into China in 2018, and 2019. And if the trend of the first eight months continues, we'll have roughly the same amount of foreign direct investment going into China this year.我想强调的是，今年的情况非同寻常，因为在全球范围内，外国直接投资流入量下降得相当厉害。这是新冠疫情大流行带来的显著后果，疫情影响了全球的经济，很多公司的利润都在下滑，各家公司在国内的投资越来越少，在国外的投资也越来越少。I would underscore that this is very, very unusual this year, because globally, foreign direct investment inflows are down quite sharply. This is the obvious consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic that has affected the entire global economy, profits of many companies are down, they're investing less at home, and they're investing less abroad as well.所以今年的情况是，中国不仅仅是保持了和前几年一样的直接投资流入水平，而且中国在外商直接投资流入量中的比重在极大幅度的上升。所以总得来说，一个基本情况是外商直接投资在中国做得非常好，美国企业并没有想着撤离，并且在全球范围内，流入量依然非常强劲。这不像是美国企业与中国脱钩的迹象。So what's happening this year is not just that China is maintaining the same level of inflows as in previous years, but its share of foreign direct investment flows is rising very, very sharply. So the basic idea, in summary, is that foreign direct investment is doing very well in China, US companies are not thinking of withdrawing, and globally, inflows remained very strong. This does not look like a situation where US companies are decoupling from China.再来看图3，我想详细谈谈第二个方面，也就是中国与世界其他国家的金融一体化。Now, the next diagram, I want to start talking about the second aspect in more detail, and that is, financial integration between China and the rest of the world.图3 目前外资在中国的证券投资
已达到5万亿人民币
虽然人们都在谈论金融领域的对华脱钩，但中国其实正在日益融入全球金融体系。这一趋势既体现在证券投资上，又体现在体制改革上。And even though people are talking about decoupling in the financial sphere, China is increasingly integrated into the global financial system. This is reflected both in portfolio investment and in institutional reforms. 我们先来看看证券投资方面，从图3可以看出，中国已经迈出了一些重要步骤，例如股市通，债市通以及将中国债券纳入各种指数的计划等。我们可以看到，过去三年里流入中国的证券投资资本呈现出急剧上扬的轨迹。Now, turning first for portfolio investment, you can see in the diagram that a number of important steps have been taken, the stock connect, the bond connect program, the inclusion of Chinese bonds in various indices, then you can see that there has been a very sharp upward trajectory over the last three years in the inflows of portfolio capital into China.其中蓝色代表股票，红色代表债券。截至今年年中，资本流入总量已达5万亿人民币，所以，中国是证券资本流入的主要在岸市场。当然，除此之外，还有大量在境外上市的中国企业。特别是股权资本，所带来的巨量资本流入，无论资金来自哪里，是香港还是纽约，多达数万亿美元的外资投资于离岸股权市场。That's both stocks, which are shown in blue, and bonds, which are shown in red. And the total now is, as of the middle of this year, that is, it had reached 5 trillion RMB. So China is a major recipient of portfolio capital inflows into the onshore market. And this, of course, is in addition to the very large inflows of capital, particularly equity capital, from listings of Chinese companies offshore. Whether it's Hong Kong, or New York, there's trillions and trillions of US dollars of foreign investment in equities offshore. 图3显示的是中国在岸市场的投资增长非常迅速，这在一定程度上是中国不断推进资本市场对外开放的结果，以及其他一些制度性改革，对国际投资者来说，在中国投资股票和债券更具吸引力。This diagram is now showing that the investments in the onshore market are growing very rapidly. In part, this is a result of the reforms, the connect programs and a number of other institutional reforms that have made investing in equity and debt instruments in China more attractive for international investors. 请看图4，我想谈谈在过去的几年里中国进行的体制改革。中国已经允许外国金融机构提高在中国国内金融市场上的参与度和持股比例。Now for my final slide, the next slide, I want to talk about the institutional reforms that have occurred in China over the last couple of years, that are allowing foreign financial institutions to increase their presence and their role in China's domestic financial market.图4 享受中国当前扩大金融业开放便利条件
的美国金融机构
我想大家都很清楚这些案例。我只给大家看几个美国公司的相关案例，在已经获准从事新的业务领域以前，这些公司在合资企业中仅占有少数持股比例。I think we're all well aware of these cases, I'm just showing it a few cases focusing on US firms that have been licensed to undertake new activities. In some cases where they have been in a joint venture in a minority position.美国公司已经获准增加持股比例，成为外资控股公司。中国监管部门正在向部分外国公司发放许可证，允许这些公司作为外商独资企业运营。我想说，这是一个重大的变化。传统上，在大多数情况下，外国金融机构只能作为合资企业的小股东，并且能力受到各方面的限制，无法充分发掘中国市场的机遇。The US company has been approved to increase its ownership stake, so that it becomes a majority foreign-owned company. In some cases, the Chinese regulatory authorities are licensing new foreign companies to begin operation as wholly foreign owned companies. This is a major, major change, I would say. Traditionally, foreign financial institutions, for the most part, have been relegated to be minority partners in joint ventures and has restricted their ability to pursue the opportunities that they see in the domestic market.我们从图4中可以看出，首次扩大或批准的外资企业活动范围，包括了支付服务、投资银行、网络清算、信用评级等。As you can see from this slide, the range of activities that are being expanded or approved for the first time include payment services, investment banking, network clearing, credit rating, and so forth.如果要展示所有已经通过的审批事项并把世界各地公司的所有项目全部包括进去，就必须占用两三张幻灯片才行。数十家外资企业已经获批拥有多数股权或独资经营，其范围涵盖了金融服务的几乎所有方面。To show all of the approvals that have occurred, including those from a variety of other companies around the world, you'd have to have two or three more slides, there are a dozen or more foreign companies that have been able to get approval for majority ownership or wholly foreign owned operations in virtually all aspects of financial services.因此，尽管一些政策制定者在谈论脱钩和回流的话题，但这样的事情还没有发生，而且可能并不会大规模发生，而在某些领域，比如我们刚刚了解过的金融领域，即使脱钩话题的讨论热度不断上升，中国融入全球金融体系的程度实际上却在加深。So in summary, even as some policymakers talk of decoupling and reshoring, it is not yet happening, and may not happen on a widespread basis. And in some areas, as we've seen and talking about the financial sector, China's integration into the global financial system is actually increasing, even as the volume of talk about decoupling keeps going up.第二，我想重申我的观点，也就是美国还没有形成评估脱钩成本的机制，无法充分评估对中国进口的产品征收关税、向中国实施出口技术管制以及对中国对美投资实施管控等措施的相关后果，我对这样的处境感到非常遗憾。And secondly, I would reiterate my point that the United States has no mechanism to evaluate the costs of decoupling that are the result of tariffs on imports from China, controls on the export of technology to China, and controls on inbound investment from China. I think this is a very unfortunate position to be in.也许某些领域的脱钩会为美国带来一些好处，但这些好处必须与损失放在一起进行考量，而实际上并没有多少人进行这样的考量。Perhaps there are some gains to certain types of decoupling, but they need to be weighed against the costs. And that is simply not happening.