【发展对话】中西方发展合作源于不同的哲学观：与李小云教授的对话
作者| 周太东
周太东，亚洲基金会项目官员，长期从事法律、治理、对外援助等领域的国际合作项目管理和相关研究。
背景| 2015年6月9-10日，由澳大利亚外交贸易部支持、亚洲基金会主办的“在‘援助以外’的世界：中国的海外发展政策”（China’s Overseas Development Policy in a World ‘Beyond Aid’）国际研讨会在曼谷召开，来自中国、英国、美国、澳大利亚、德国、日本、韩国、印度、孟加拉等国和联合国开发计划署等国际机构的近40位专家学者参加了本次会议。会议围绕中国的发展合作政策及其影响、中国的援助数据、中国的三方合作及对全球发展有效性议程的立场、中国新近的发展融资倡议（“一带一路”、亚洲基础设施投资银行、金砖开发银行）以及“2015后发展议程”等议题展开了讨论。会议期间，周太东就中国与西方在发展合作政策方面的议题与李小云教授进行了对话。
周：请您简要介绍下中国与经济合作与发展组织发展援助委员会（OECD-DAC）成员国在发展合作哲学和实践两个层面上分别有哪些差异？
李：如果你看中国政府发布的两份《对外援助》白皮书，你可能会觉得中国与OECD-DAC在对外援助方面并没有太大的差异，中国与OECD-DAC成员国在援助领域甚至是援助执行模式上都有较强的相似性。但是，从实质层面来讲，中国的发展合作与OECD-DAC成员还是很不相同。西方对待欧洲以外的社会的世界观和殖民主义的历史影响着其对外援助的行业结构。这种结构以“干预”为基础，在其援助体系的制度安排上表现尤为明显。以世界银行、英国国际发展署、德国技术合作公司等为主的主要援助机构的组织结构、以援助协调、援助统一（aid harmonization）和监督评估为主的援助工具以及具有责任要求的融资机制等均基于一种“干预主义”的模型。政治上，西方的援助项目已成为资本主义和其社会生活方式扩张的一种工具，这种扩张往往以牺牲其他传统的当地生活方式为代价。这也是为什么西方援助出现很多问题，且这些问题没有在西方制度中得到解决的根本原因。
相比而言，中国的发展合作实际上起源于不同的哲学观，并遵守着不同的原则与战略。中国对外援助开始的时候也带有政治因素，并在某种程度上考虑地缘政治和经济利益。但是，这与任何殖民思想没有关联。历史上，中华帝国的领土扩张没有遵循西方殖民主义的方式，中国不持有干预主义的世界观，更没有将自己的模式转嫁给其他社会的冲动。帝国时期，中国与其“殖民地”的关系主要基于“朝贡”制度—藩属国向皇帝进贡。中国的“互惠互利”与“个人自扫门前雪”等社会文化标准影响着中国的对外政策，中国现在援助实践中的“互惠互利”与“不干预”就是典型的例子。“互惠互利”有助于加强伙伴国的所有权和责任，有利于平等伙伴关系的构建，而单方向的给予则会创造出不平等的权力关系。“不干预”可以使伙伴国得以选择基于自身国情的发展战略。
中国的不干预援助政策部分起源于其社会文化传统，部分也源自于其自身发展经验。中国坚信，贫穷国家需要制定符合自身政治、社会经济条件的发展战略。这些政策的成功与否都有助于这些国家找到自己的发展道路，而强力的外部干预只会适得其反。
周：伴随着中国国际发展援助规模的扩大，中国政府面临哪些主要挑战？
李：在新的全球发展格局下，中国的发展合作面临着新的挑战：第一，随着中国在全球体系中的地位从先前的舞台边缘向中心转移，中国需要在其发展合作方案中纳入更多的多边视角，而不是固守双边渠道；第二，作为一个受尊敬的全球领导者，中国需要将提供全球公共产品纳入其发展合作方案，而不是过于关注自身的经济利益；第三，中国的发展合作需要进行进一步的改革，以确保责任和透明，同时应该加强监督和评估制度建设。
周：中国认为与其他双边和多边机构开展“三方合作”的价值是什么？将来是否会开展更多这方面的合作？
李：中国已经与许多国家包括美国、英国、澳大利亚和新西兰等开展了三方合作。同时，中国与许多多边援助机构如联合国开发计划署、联合国粮农组织和国际农业发展基金等也开展了类似的合作。中国认为，三方合作是向其他多、双边援助机构学习和借鉴经验的一种渠道，有利于促进合作方之间的相互理解，并将缓解传统西方援助国对中国对外援助的担忧。
但是，中国对任何形式的三方合作都非常谨慎，其原因有以下几个方面：第一，中国并不希望其他伙伴国家认为中国将与其他援助国，尤其是传统西方援助国结成同盟，将“援助或者发展有效性”议程强加给他们。许多中国的伙伴国实际上并不希望中国成为OECD-DAC的成员；第二，如果伙伴国提议或者欢迎“三方合作”，中方将会积极参与，但这种情况发生的可能性很小；第三，三方合作由于需要协调不同的制度，在时间和金钱上成本都较高，而中国作为一个发展中国家不仅受限于有限的援助预算，而且在援助管理方面也缺乏足够的人力。
周：您认为中国能从OECD-DAC成员国的发展合作历史中吸取哪些教训？
李：中国可从OECD-DAC成员国中吸取几方面的教训，包括，第一，中国需要改善中国的援助管理与责任制度，以减少决策中的随意性；第二，中国需要建立一套科学的监督评估体系，以加强援助影响和有效性；第三，中国需要在援助项目中支持民间组织的参与，以确保援助项目能惠及当地社区。
周：您认为OECD-DAC能从中国的经验中学到什么？
李：尽管OECD-DAC成员在资金总量和方法上都长期支配着国际发展援助，但是中国目前已成为一个具有较强影响的援助国，因此中国也可为OECD-DAC成员提供一些经验或教训。第一，OECD-DAC在其援助政策的演变过程中可充分借鉴中国的“互惠互利”和“互相尊敬”的原则，公开承认互惠互利的原则有助于避免现OECD-DAC成员国援助“政策话语”中的虚伪性。“互相尊敬”不仅意味着在具体的援助项目协商过程中尊重伙伴国的意见，而且包括尊重其对国家发展政策和方向的选择，这也是许多发展中国家尤其是非洲国家欢迎中国援助的部分原因；第二，中国援助也因其较高的“回应性”和效率而受到伙伴国的赞赏。中国坚持伙伴国需求主导原则，在援助决策和执行等方面效率都比较高。由于中国认为伙伴国应该肩负起项目可行性的评估责任，中国的援助也并不要求复杂的项目审评程序；第三，与前一点相关的是，由于不涉及高额的专家费用和管理成本，中国援助的成本相对更低，因此被认为是“真正的援助”。
周：展望未来，您认为中国和OECD-DAC成员在发展合作方法上将会更加趋同还是渐行渐远？
李：两种不同的方法在很多方面正表现出较强的趋同性。第一，OECD-DAC成员国越来越意识到，援助应该支持包括受援国和援助国本国的经济增长。加拿大、新西兰和澳大利亚废除独立的援助机构并将其合并到外交部或外交贸易部的做法表明，OECD-DAC部分成员的援助政策将会转向服务于本国的经济和商业利益；第二，《中国的对外援助2014》白皮书表明，中国开始为大量的发展中国家的官员提供能力培训；第三，一些OECD-DAC成员国开始逐渐增加对基础设施和经济增长项目的投资，而与此同时，中国也开始重视支持发展中国家的社会民生问题。
China and the West: a Conversation with Li Xiaoyun
June 17, 2015
By Zhou Taidong
Li Xiaoyun is a professor and former dean of China Agricultural University’s College of Humanities and Development, and president of the China International Development Research Network (CIDRN), an informal network of more than 20 Chinese research centers, institutes, and university departments that produces research, public events, policy briefings, and publications on China’s international development cooperation. Dr. Li participated in The Asia Foundation’s recent conference, China’s Overseas Development Policy in a World “Beyond Aid,” in Bangkok, where he sat down with the Foundation’s Zhou Taidong.
Can you briefly describe the key philosophical and practical differences between China’s approach to development cooperation and that of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee（OECD-DAC）?
From reading China’s two foreign aid white papers, you probably will get the impression that there is not much difference between China’s foreign aid and that of the OECD-DAC. China and OECD-DAC member countries share very similar assistance areas and even aid-delivery modalities. However, on a more substantive level, China’s development cooperation is very different from that of OECD-DAC members. The West has a world view and a history of colonialism towards non-European societies that have influenced the structure of its intervention-based aid industry. This structure is clearly evident in the institutional arrangement of aid systems dominated by the West. The organizational structures of established donors such as the World Bank, the UK’s DFID, and Germany’s GTZ; the aid instruments of donor coordination, aid harmonization, and monitoring and evaluation; and the financing mechanisms with accountability requirements are all based on an interventionist model. Politically, the West’s aid program has become an instrument for both capitalist and social lifestyle expansion at the expense of other, long-established local lifestyles. This is the fundamental reason why Western aid has so many problems and the problems have never been solved within the Western system itself.
In contrast, China’s development cooperation actually originated from a different philosophical outlook, and it has followed different principles and strategies. China’s foreign aid also started with political concerns, and to some extent with China’s geopolitical and economic interests; however, it has not been tied to any colonial ideas. The territorial expansion of the Chinese empire did not follow the European style of colonization. There is no interventionist world view, and no impulse to transfer its model tonon-Chinese societies. The relationship between China and its “colonies” during the imperial era was largely based on chaogong – tribute to an emperor from a vassal state. Chinese sociocultural norms such as “reciprocity” and “clean the snow in front of your own door” are the basic elements influencing China’s foreign policy. China’s current aid practices of “mutual benefit” and “non-interference” are typical examples. “Mutual benefit” reinforces the ownership and responsibility of the partner country, and better develops equal partnership, because one-way giving creates an unequal power relationship. “Non-interference” lets partner countries develop a homegrown development strategy.
China’s non-interventionist aid policy derives partly from this sociocultural tradition, but also from its own development experiences. China firmly believes that poor countries need to have their own development strategy under their own political and socio-economic conditions. Both success and failure in implementing their own policies will help the country find its own way of development, while strong external intervention will do the contrary.
What are some of the key challenges that the Chinese government has encountered as it expands its international development programs?
Chinese development cooperation now faces new challenges under the new global development architecture. First, as China moves from its previous, marginal status to being one of the central powers in the global system, it needs to have more multilateral perspectives for its development cooperation program, rather than sticking to bilateral channels; second, as a respected global leader, China needs to incorporate the provision of global public goods into its development cooperation program, rather than primarily focusing on its own economic interests; third, China’s development cooperation program needs to be reformed so that accountability can be ensured and transparency, monitoring, and evaluation systems can be strengthened.
What value does China see in “triangular cooperation” with bilateral and multilateral agencies? Will we see more of these initiatives from China in the future?
China has already started triangular cooperation with bilateral donors such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, and multilateral donors such as UNDP, FAO, and IFAD. China considers triangular cooperation a tool for learning from other bilateral and multilateral agencies, promoting mutual understanding among different partners, and relieving concerns about Chinese foreign aid among traditional Western donors.
However, China is very careful about any form of triangular cooperation. There are several reasons for this. First, China does not want partner countries to feel that China intends to enter any coalition with others– especially the traditional Western donors – to impose the “aid/development effectiveness” agenda. Many partner countries actually do not want China to become a member of OECD-DAC, because China often can be their leverage innegotiating with OECD-DAC donors. Second, China would certainly go for triangular cooperation if partner countries proposed and welcomed it, but this is unlikely to occur. Third, triangular cooperation, when putting different systems together, is usually more costly in time and money. China, as a developing country, is still constrained by its aid budget, and its aid management institution is short on manpower.
What lessons do you think China can learn from the history of development cooperation by the OECD-DAC?
There are several lessons that China can draw from OECD-DAC. First, China needs to improve its aid regulatory and accountability system to reduce the arbitrariness of decision-making. Second, China needs to establish a scientific monitoring and evaluation system for its aid programs to improve its aid impact and effectiveness. Third, China needs to support and involve civil society organizations in its aid programs to ensure that its aid directly benefits local communities.
What do you think the OECD-DAC can learn about development cooperation from China?
Although OECD-DAC members have long dominated international development aid, both in terms of total volume and general approach, China has become an increasingly influential donor who can offer several lessons for OECD-DAC members. First, OECD-DAC can draw from China’s principles of “mutualbenefit” and “mutual respect” in the evolution of their aid policies. An open acknowledgement of the mutual benefit principle avoids the hypocrisy of the current policy discourse by OECD-DAC members. Mutual respect means not only respect for the views of partner countries in negotiating specific aid programs, but also respect for these countries’own choices of national development policy and direction. These are part of the reason that China’s aid has been welcomed by many developing countries, especially those in Africa. Second, China’s aid is praised by partner countries for its responsiveness and efficiency. China is responsive to the demands of partner countries and has been efficient in decision-making and aid delivery. China’s foreign aid is mainly delivered through in-kind transfers. It does not require a complex project appraisal process, because China considers that the feasibility of any project should be the responsibility of the recipient country. Third, andrelated to the previous point, China’s aid is less costly. China’s foreign aid is perceived as “real aid” by partner countries, because it does not involve the high costs of consultants and the high costs of managing aid in partner countries.
Looking at the future of development cooperation, do you think China and the OECD-DAC are more likely to converge or diverge in their approaches?
There appear to be many areas where the two different aid approaches are converging. First, there is an increasing recognition from OECD-DAC members that aid should support growth, not only in partner countries, but also in their own countries. The abolishment of stand-alone aid agencies in Canada, New Zealand, and most recently in Australia, and their integration into foreign and/or trade ministries, indicate that the aid policies of these OECD-DAC members are more likely in the future to serve their economic and commercial interests. Second, the China’s Foreign Aid 2014 white paper indicated that China has significantly increased capacity building for officials from developing countries. Third, while some OECD-DAC members are increasing investment in infrastructure and economic growth programs, there is also increasing interest in China’s foreign aid to support social development in o ther developing countries.
英文原稿首发于亚洲基金会网站，经授权刊发于国际发展时报，转载请注明出处及作者。
编辑|赵梦颖
国际发展时报（IDT）孕育于全球格局转型之际，致力于发育中国本土发展知识，促进交流，推动公众对于国际发展专业的认知，期待您的关注与贡献！联系方式xxl@cau.edu.cn。