制造业才是秘诀 | 毛克疾

关注风云之声提升思维层次导读

从世界500强管理层访问印度时的恭维话语，到印度“营商便利指数”或“全球竞争力”排名的快速上升，人们对印度前景的乐观情绪呈现出前所未有的高涨态势。尤其随着中国经济增长速度逐渐放缓，特别是中美贸易摩擦所带来的冲击，印度不仅被视为与中国比肩的另一个新兴市场，更被描绘成继中国之后的又一个超级经济“发动机”。

然而，从印度经济增长的数据上看，其经济表现仍明显逊色于中国。因此，对于印度而言，与其过度关注某些似是而非的发展排行和指标数据，不如更多着眼于如何切实提升工业化发展水平，这将更有利于印度经济增长和两国经贸关系发展。

注：风云之声内容可以通过语音播放啦！读者们可下载讯飞有声APP，听公众号，查找“风云之声”，即可在线收听~

【中文版】

从世界500强管理层访问印度时的恭维话语，到印度“营商便利指数”或“全球竞争力”排名的快速上升，人们对印度前景的乐观情绪呈现出前所未有的高涨态势。尤其随着中国经济增长速度逐渐放缓，特别是中美贸易摩擦所带来的冲击，印度不仅被视为与中国比肩的另一个新兴市场，更被描绘成继中国之后的又一个超级经济“发动机”。

然而，从印度经济增长的数据上看，其经济表现仍明显逊色于中国。因此，对于印度而言，与其过度关注某些似是而非的发展排行和指标数据，不如更多着眼于如何切实提升工业化发展水平，这将更有利于印度经济增长和两国经贸关系发展。

中印经济差距或在扩大

中印两国之间的经济差距可以从其迥异的发展道路中窥见一斑。尽管在上世纪90年代之前很长一段时期内，两国经济总量大致相当，然而时至今日，中国的GDP已是印度的近5倍。因此，即使印度经济增长率偶尔接近或超过中国，但两国绝对经济规模差距却在不断扩大。鉴于此，如果印度真的想赶上中国，它不仅需要实现更快的增长率，而且还需至少在长达几十年的时间内保持这样的高速增长。然而，印度能否在这么长时间里一直保持这么高的增长率仍是个未知数。

如果说中国过去40年非凡的经济增长背后有什么秘诀的话，那便是制造业的蓬勃发展。自上世纪70年代末改革开放以来，大量农村劳动力源源不断地转移到效率更高的制造业部门。在大规模工业化进程中，中国国内生产力大幅增长。与印度相比，中国制造业更为强大，不仅雇佣了更多的劳动力（29.3%），还贡献了更多的GDP增加值（39.5%）。得益于其强大的制造业基础，中国经济现代化成果得到巩固，并开始进入创新驱动发展阶段。

2018 年7 月8 日，客商在印度中央邦城市印多尔考察柳工印度工厂新落成的总装线。当天，广西柳工集团印度工厂在印多尔开业投产。这是中国制造企业在印度正式投入运营的首个生产基地，也是柳工的首个海外工厂。（摄影/ 新华社记者王晔）

可以说，正是劳动力分配结构的不同导致了中印两国经济发展的巨大差距。印度虽说有着不俗的经济增长表现，但在工业化进程上却远远落后于中国。例如，印度农业只占GDP的15.4%，却雇佣了高达47%的劳动力，相比之下，工业占GDP的23%，仅雇佣了22%的劳动力。

印度服务业之所以脱颖而出，是因为它仅利用31%的劳动力人口创造了61.5%的经济产出。因此，印度经济呈现出一种奇怪的现象：它具备了后工业化经济的一些特征，像英美等发达国家一样服务业处于主导地位，然而其低下的生产力水平则暴露出其不发达的尴尬现实。

工业化发展的不理想导致印度如今面临方方面面的问题。由于缺乏一个强大的制造业，印度无法大幅提高劳动生产率，进而提高人均收入。当中国成为世界工厂，创造了数以千万计的中产阶级就业机会时，印度的大多数劳动力却在非正规部门辛劳地从事效率低下的工作。

此外，如今的印度经济几乎被所有主要金融和宏观经济风险所困扰，包括过度依赖外资、外汇汇率不稳、易受油价上涨以及季风影响。这些风险主要是由于印度制造业不发达或缺乏竞争力造成的，它们只能通过释放巨大的制造业潜力加以缓解。

现在，印度是时候考虑通过加强经济竞争力来一劳永逸地解决这些问题了，而不是像以往那样仅采取一些救急措施，如资本管制、非必要的进口限制和提高利率等。正如一位外汇专家一针见血地指出，“没有人能够永远靠别人的钱生活。”印度经济发展的长期解决方案在于大力推动自身的工业化。

工业化发展的不同路径

幸运的是，印度决策者已经看到了推进工业化的重要性，尤其是自2014年莫迪上台以来，已将“印度制造”上升为国家战略。然而，印度到目前为止还没有制定明确的工业化发展路线图。在这方面，仔细研究印度和中国工业化发展的不同路径很有必要。

作为世界上仅有的两个人口数量超过10亿的发展中大国，中国和印度同样具有三个最重要的优势：一是规模大、成本低的劳动力；二是规模巨大的国内消费市场；三是拥有大量高素质人力资本，即专业技术人才。然而，两国对其优势利用方式的不同导致了经济发展的迥然相异。

中国按照合理的顺序采取了“三步走”策略。它首先利用其庞大的劳动力人口，率先发展劳动密集型和出口导向型产业，如低端的服装、玩具和家具制造业。随着专业知识、资本的逐渐积累，它又利用巨大的国内需求来培育企业，使这些企业在全球电子、机械、家用电器等中端产业的激烈竞争中脱颖而出。

而现在，中国正以庞大的人才储备为基础，主攻研发领域，从而向全球价值链高端跃升。这样，中国有望从集成电路、制药和航空等尖端产业中获得高附加值。

正是通过这样的“三步走”策略，中国才能根据其不断变化的比较优势，最有效地配置和调动其掌握的资源。中国不仅因此发展成为世界最大的工业品产出国，而且逐渐向全球价值链最顶端迈进。然而，尽管同样具备上述三个优势，印度的做法却完全不同。

与中国从低端、中端再到高端产业的发展路径不同，印度实际上采取了一种“逆行”的模式。几十年来，印度一直以其极具竞争力的制药和IT服务业等技术和资本密集型产业而著称。尽管印度手机和汽车零部件等中端产业近年来也取得了重大进展，但在国际竞争力和产业生态系统方面仍然相对落后。最令人不解的是，印度的劳动密集型产业发展很不均衡，大量劳动力资源尚未开发。

这种扭曲的工业发展路径让印度经济付出了重大代价，它既忽视了印度消费者对工业制成品的巨大需求，使得其不得不依赖进口；同时也不能提供足够的就业机会来满足国内劳动力不断增长的工作需求，使就业问题成为困扰历届印度政府的噩梦。

中印经济合作的现实需求

如果加强中印经济合作，将会产生意想不到的效果。印度新兴的手机产业或许就是最好的例子。截至2017年，印度已超过越南成为全球第二大手机生产国，占全球产量的11%。

截至2014-2015财年，印度销售的手机中仍有78%为进口整机，仅三年后，该比例就大幅下降至18%。这个巨大的改变主要归功于小米、Vivo、Oppo和华为等中国手机巨头纷纷在印度设厂。这些品牌共同占据了印度手机市场60%以上的份额。

然而，印度于2018年4月再次提高手机及其零部件的关税，中国主要手机企业开始考虑将整个手机生态系统迁移至印度，并鼓励其供应商跟随其去印度发展。

图为2018 年7 月31 日，在位于印度维沙卡帕特南的姚明织带印度工厂里，女工在生产线上编织。近年来，金砖国家间经贸往来日益密切， 2014 年，中国姚明织带饰品有限公司在印度建立工厂，开展出境加工业务，解决了数百名当地人的就业问题。（摄影/ 新华社记者毕晓洋）

随着印度垂直供应链和水平产业集群的迅速发展，一个强大的手机生态系统正在印度市场形成，并必将大幅降低当地生产成本。一旦这样一个生态系统建立起来，它将反过来吸引更多的业务，从而打造一条自我强化的产业生态系统，印度的手机产业发展由此终于步入正轨。

到目前为止，在印度的所有中端产业中，这种发展模式似乎表现得最好，而这些产业发展大多是由当地需求驱动的，如电子产品、工程设备和汽车零部件等。巨大的当地需求加上印度政府的保护性关税措施及专门的产业政策，使得在当地投资办厂发展商业的方法具备可行性。

尽管这些产业发展态势喜人，但它们在创造就业机会和扩大出口方面的带动力却不如服装、文具和家居用品等低端产业。鉴于日本、韩国、中国，甚至最近越南的经验，正是这些看似低端的产业通过吸收大量的农业劳动力，在竞争激烈的全球出口市场能够迅速博得出位，从而引领国家的工业化腾飞。

这样看来，如果印度能够在劳动法规和土地征收等领域进行彻底改革，那么劳动密集型和出口导向型产业将是最有前景的产业，它们可以充分利用印度丰富的劳动力资源，为中国疲软的产业资本带来新的市场投资机遇。

如果工业化发展是印度迈向真正的全球经济强国之路上不可逾越的一环，那么中国作为同样人口数量超过10亿并在工业化方面领先于印度的国家，可以发挥更重要的作用。考虑到这一点，两国的学者可能会更务实一些，与其沉迷于龙象攀比的陈词滥调，倒不如看看双方能够真正携手做些什么，来实现这两个大国的共同发展和繁荣。

【英文版】

Realistic Attitude Furthers Cooperation

From the flattering words of the Fortune 500 chief executive upon visiting India to the rocketing ranking of India in indices like “Ease of Doing Business” or “Global Competitiveness,” optimism about India is on the rise like never before. As China’s economic growth somewhat flags, especially among the shocks caused by the Sino-U.S. tariff disputes, India is not only seen as the other poster child for the emerging market on an equal footing with China, but also depicted as the successor apparent to China as the next economic powerhouse.

However, a closer examination ruthlessly reveals that India’s economic performance still lags significantly behind China. So, instead of indulging in rosy anecdotal evidence and high-sounding albeit distorted indices concerning itself, it is more helpful for India’s growth prospects and bilateral economic relations to focus on whatit can do to improve its industrialization level.

GAP BETWEEN CHINA AND INDIA LIKELY WIDENING

The disparity between China and India can be best illustrated by their respective economic trajectories. Although they were of similar economic volume for most of the time before the 1990s, China’s economy has strikingly grown to be almost five times bigger than that of India. So, even if India occasionally registers a growth rate close to or exceeding that of China, the difference in their absolute size is actually widening. Given this, if India really wants to catch up with China, it not only needs to achieve a much faster growth rate, but also needs to maintain such a rate for at least a few decades. So, the real question is, how can India maintain such a rate of growth for such a long period of time?

If there is any secret behind China’s extraordinary growth record in the past 40 years, it is China’s booming manufacturing sector. Since the reform and opening up in the late 1970s, a huge part of the agricultural labor force has been continuously reallocated into the more productive manufacturing sector. China successfully harvests great productivity growth in this process of massive industrialization. So, in comparison to India, China boasts a much stronger manufacturing sector hiring a lot more (29.3 percent) and contributing a lot more (39.5 percent). Thanks to a strong manufacturing base, the Chinese economy has consolidated its economic modernization and pioneered its way into innovation-driven development.

It is the labour allocation pattern that largely explains the diverging economic growth trajectories between the two countries. India, in spite of its decent growth record, lagged far behind in industrialization. Agricultural sector makes up 15.4 percent of India’s GDP, but hires as much as 47 percent of its labour force, while its industrial sector contributing 23 percent of GDP only employs 22 percent of workers.

India’s service sector stands out as it contributes 61.5 percent to the economic output by using only 31 percent of the labour inputs. India thus presents an odd economic landscape –even though it shows characteristics of a post-industrialized economy with the service industry assuming a dominant position like that of the U.S. or the U.K., its low level of productivity exposes its awkward reality of underdevelopment.

The unsatisfactory industrialization record is the cause of many issues that India is facing today. The absence of a robust manufacturing sector prevents India from achieving a massive improvement in its labour productivity and hence, per capita income. While China created tens of millions of middle-class jobs as it became the workshop to the world, most of workforce in India could only toil in woefully unproductive jobs in the informal and unregulated economy.

Moreover, almost all major financial and macroeconomic risks that haunt the Indian economy today—overreliance on foreign capital inflows, fragile foreign exchange rate, vulnerability to oil price hikes as well as susceptibility to a fickle monsoon—are either caused by its underdeveloped or uncompetitive manufacturing sector, and can be greatly relieved by materializing its huge manufacturing potential.

It’s time for New Delhi to ponder long-term solutions to these issues by strengthening its economic competitiveness, rather than resorting to ad hoc fire-fighting policies like capital controls, non-essential import restrictions, and interest rate hikes. As a foreign exchange expert insightfully puts, “nobody can live forever on somebody else’s money,” the long run solution for India lies in industrialization.

DIFFERENT PATH TO INDUSTRIALIZATION

Fortunately, Indian decision-makers have highlighted the role of industrialization, especially since Modi rose to premiership in 2014 and “Make in India” was made a national strategy. However, India so far has yet to present a clear roadmap for its odyssey into industrialization. In this regard, a close examination of India’s and China’s different paths to industrialization can be very helpful.

As the world’s only two members of the “one billion population club,” China and India share three important advantages: a large and lowcost labor force, a huge domestic consumption market, and a great supply of high-quality human capital known for professional services and science-engineering talents. However, it is the two countries’ opposite approaches to these advantages that have determined their contrasting performance.

China unfolded the three-step model in an optimized sequence. It first pioneered into labor-intensive and export-oriented industries like apparel, toys and furniture at the low end by tapping into its huge workforce. With initial capital and expertise accumulated, it then exploited the huge domestic demand to cultivate local industrial players, so they could navigate through the fierce global competition in intermediate industries like consumer electronics and machinery.

After these, China is now climbing the value chain by working on research and development based on its large talent reservoir. In this way, China expects to reap high added value from the cutting-edging industrials like integrated circuit, pharmacy and aviation industries.

It was through such a three-step model that China could allocate and mobilize its resources most efficiently according to its changing comparative advantages. By doing so, China has not only risen to have the largest industrial output in the world, but also marched towards the top of the global value chain. With exactly the same three advantages, however, India’s approach was totally different.

Instead of working from the low end, through the intermediate tier and then to high-end industries like China did, India has pursued a completely reversed sequence. For decades, India has been famous for its highly competitive technology- and capital-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals and IT services. While India’s intermediate tier industries—like mobile phone and automobile parts manufacturing industries, have made major progress in recent years, they still lag behind in terms of international competitiveness and industrial ecosystem. Most counterintuitively, India’s labor-intensive industry is disproportionally underdeveloped, leaving its huge workforce largely untapped.

Such a distorted industrial development practice is taking a heavy toll on the Indian economy. It does not take care of India’s huge domestic demand for manufactured products, which means Indian consumers have to rely on imported goods. Neither does it provide enough employment opportunities for India’s ever-growing workforce, making job creation a haunting nightmare for successive Indian administrations.

A MORE REALISTIC APPROACH TO SINO-INDIAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION

More nuanced Sino-Indian economic cooperation can definitely make a difference. India’s emerging mobile phone industry perhaps is the best example. By 2017, India had bypassed Vietnam to be the world’s second-largest mobile phone producer by volume, occupying 11 percent global production.

As late as the 2014-15 fiscal year, 78 percent of the mobile phones sold in India were still imported as completely made units, while only three years later, the percentage had been dramatically reduced to 18 percent in 2017-18. Such an amazing achievement was only made possible by Chinese mobile phone tycoons like Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo and Huawei which dominate the Indian market with a combined market share of more than 60 percent.

However, when India again raised customs duties on mobile phones and their components in April 2018, major Chinese companies began considering relocating the entire mobile phone ecosystem to India by encouraging their affiliated suppliers to follow in their investment footprints there.

With vertical supply chains and horizontal industrial clusters burgeoning in India, a robust mobile phone ecosystem is in the making and will for sure cut local production costs dramatically. Once such an ecosystem is put in place, it in turn will attract more business, kicking off a self-reinforcing process. In this regard, India’s mobile phone industry has finally progressed onto the right track.

So far, such a pattern seems to fare best in intermediate tier industries in India that are driven by local demand, such as consumer electronics, engineering equipment as well as automobile parts. This is largely because these industries’ huge local demand combined with Indian government’s protectionist tariffs as well as its industrial policies have made investing in local factories commercially viable.

Although these tech-savvy industries seem to be prospering, their ability to create jobs and generate exports is actually dwarfed by the low-end industries like apparel, stationery and household items. Given the experience of Japan, South Korea, China and even lately Vietnam, it was these seemingly primitive industries that led the industrialization boom by absorbing massive agricultural labour and quickly making a dent in the highly competitive global export market.

In this regard, labor intensive and export-oriented industries, which tap into India’s abundant labor endowment and bring about new market opportunities for fatigue Chinese capital, are the perfect candidates, if India can thoroughly reform itself in areas like labour regulation and land acquisition.

If India’s industrialization is inevitable in its journey towards becoming a real global economic powerhouse, China – as the only other member in the billion-people club and a forerunner in industrialization – must play a more important role. Bearing this in mind, instead of obsessing over the cliché of the dragon-elephant comparison, scholars from both countries need to be more realistic and see what they can best do to achieve shared prosperity between the two giants.

更多毛克疾的文章：

---

背景简介：本文作者为毛克疾，科技与战略风云学会会员，南亚问题专家，微博@公文包携带者克疾，知乎@穆克疾。毛克疾原文为英文，中文版为中印君翻译。文章2019年2月22日发表于微信公众号 中印对话（https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Wd77TwW8zzev-x7nn8Skvg），风云之声获授权转载。

责任编辑：吴啟然