原文标题:What Is China Doing Right?
As it turns out, quite a lot. The latest in an ongoing series of discussions with ChinaFile.
On a recent trip to China, meeting mostly with former colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, I got a dose of optimism and hope for one aspect of the motherland. In terms of science, or laying down a solid foundation for better science to come, things are going really well in China.
I was told that salaries for scientists have grown exponentially over the last couple of decades. Funding has reached a level competitive with Western countries and China now has a lot of big science facilities. They're colliding electrons and protons to discover new particles or creating sustained 100 million degree environments to test the nuclear fusion technology many Chinese scientists hope ultimately will solve the problem of an energy shortage for humanity.
I don't have enough scientific expertise to know whether some of these million dollar projects eventually will deliver the intended results or help solve mankind's many challenges. But the sense of optimism and confidence from this generation of scientists in China is a total facelift from a generation ago, when most of them rode bicycles to their labs, scraped by on meager salaries and dreamed about having computers and facilities of any kind to do their work. Now they dream much bigger dreams -- dreams I don't hear even from American European scientists.
Given China's rapid economic growth over the last three decades, it's no surprise that the country's scientists are working in communities flush with wealth and means. But I'm also impressed to hear many talk about becoming experts on issues not only in China, but around the world. For some time, a lot of Chinese were happy to sort out China's problems alone. Now, things are starting to change. While Chinese scientists may not compete with their counterparts in the U.S. or Europe any time soon, some of them are branching out into studies in Africa and Latin America. So many of these people speak fluent English that pretty soon they will become more prominent on the world stage.
It's more than the increased appearance of individual Chinese names in journals like Science and Nature -- it's the fact that the Chinese government has been really visionary in its long-time generous investment in science and technology. And Beijing is not really asking for a pretty quarterly earnings report. China's leaders seem to be in it to develop a long-term boost to the country's overall competitiveness that could play out in the national interest for decades to come.
It's probably true that not every dollar put into those expensive instruments will work magic. But China now is in a position where it has the luxury, at least financially, to afford to make mistakes before striking gold.
The other thing that I invariably notice every time I go back is that wherever I go in China the infrastructure is being built fast and right. I went to Xishuangbanna, in China's southwestern corner bordering Myanmar, and the airport is a 21st century marvel, though still far smaller than those in Beijing and Shanghai. Meanwhile, back in New York, where I live, when I posted a photograph of the disrepair at the subway stop where I start my daily commute to a Chinese online social network -- noting that my home station's been under construction for two years --someone jokingly replied that it'd be a good idea to import some Chinese workers to get it fixed by tomorrow.
This anecdote may not be a faultless illustration of "what's going right" in China, but I think it's important that Americans understand who their future competitors are. China's population is eager to get ahead and works really hard. They work so hard that every time I go back, I have to meet people on the weekends to get work done.
Michael Zhao makes a good case about reasons to be impressed with what the Chinese government and a wide range of specific Chinese institutions are doing in the hard sciences. This is all the more impressive for Americans who reflect on the idiotic self-inflicted damage the United States is doing to its scientific establishment through the chaos of our current budgetary process, "the sequester" and all.
I bet that other participants in this conversation can think of other specific areas where efforts from North America, Europe, Japan, etc are fitful, under-funded, or tentative, and the Chinese counterparts are by contrast surging ahead. Over the past few years I've followed Chinese and U.S.-based companies as they have pursued renewable energy and other "clean-tech" innovations. The starting level on the American side is generally much higher, and there are important breakthroughs and products coming from U.S. companies and public institutions. Still: there is simply no comparison between the bushy-tailed, can-do, let's-make-this-work, tomorrow-will-be-better spirit that typifies many of the Chinese efforts (even those that are uncoordinated or likely to fail) and the more fatalistic, age-of-limits attitude of many Western institutions.
It's this difference of tone and attitude, more than any specific contrast in investment patterns or growth percentages, that to me represents "what is going right in China." Like anyone who has been in China recently, I can give you a hundred-item list of serious problems for the country and its institutions. But so far, I've always been able to list of a hundred-plus-one strengths, assets, and ambitions expressed by individuals and organizations there. I was in Beijing again last week, and, in addition to being reminded of all the crises, I was exposed again to a sense of national movement and ambition. That may seem a vague reed on which to rest an assessment of a nation, but I think it's unignorable, it's important, and it's part of why it's foolish to bet against the Chinese system's ability to cope with its challenges.
Reading Jim Fallows' offering on "What's right with China?" left me reflecting with a surprising sense of nostalgia on a dinner that he and I -- along with Evan Osnos from The New Yorker and Ed Wong from The New York Times and our wives -- all had just had a few days ago in Beijing at the restaurant Capital M. It was a lovely balmy, smogless, spring evening and we all sat out on the terrace with other Chinese patrons (now part of China's burgeoning middle class) as the sun set behind the Front Gate and lights came on in Tiananmen Square. From this admittedly privileged vantage point, the city seemed well-ordered and together and China's progress quite stunning and miraculous. This was especially true for my wife, who grew up in Beijing, and for me -- I'd first arrived in the capital in 1975, when Mao still reigned and the Cultural Revolution still raged. All of us at the table were ink-stained wretches who have indulged in our share of fault-finding and cynicism in China. But, looking out over Beijing on this magical evening, we found ourselves suddenly, counter-intuitively, feeling nostalgic about the city. This was especially true of Evan Osnos, who is about to leave China after many years in residence for a new posting in Washington, D.C., which Jim Fallows calls home.
As we ate, we found ourselves discussing what a fickle mistress China can be, how she seduces even as she repels, creating oscillating fields of attraction and repulsion that have left all of us both exhilarated and dizzy, grasping for something solid to hold onto in what often feels like an endlessly spinning room. To say that China's progress has been a study in cognitive dissonance would be an understatement.
So, even while China offers myriad things deserving of criticism, and even though journalists often understand a situation by finding out was does not work, Jim Fallows is absolutely right about the way the better side of the Chinese government's activism deserves note. Its commitment to dealing resolutely with certain kinds of problems, such as clean energy, the building of infrastructure, supporting education, investing in scientific research, etc. have created a spirit -- "a difference of tone and attitude," says Fallows -- that, instead of conveying an air of being hemmed-in by an era of limits, conveys the feel of a society hell-bent on building a more prosperous and stronger country. It also reminds us Americans, who increasingly are being propagandized to believe that governments are the problem not the solution, that there actually can be a constructive role for government.