Mo Ziyun: "The debater will distinguish between right and wrong, judge and cure the discipline of chaos, clarify the similarities and differences, and detect the truth." "A meaningful debate, a wise and far-sighted debater, can not only broaden people's horizons and distinguish between truth and wrong, but also help the country and society to reflect and progress."
In today's China, when it comes to debate and debaters, the first thing people think of is Lin Yifu and Zhang Weiying. One of them was a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank; the other was the dean of the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University and a well-known professor of economics.
They are all figures at the forefront of economic research, but they have completely different views on economics and On China's reform and development. From the beginning of the "Peking University Firefight Incident" between the two people around the direction of state-owned enterprise reform in the 1990s to the present, the two people have launched many debates and air dialogues, each time full of points of view and full of gunpowder.
Even the november 2016 debate between the two about "industrial policy" was hailed as the "debate of the century," a debate that can go down in Chinese history. So what is this "entanglement of grievances" that has lasted for more than twenty years, and what is the debate that has attracted the attention of countless people?
The first disagreement between Lin Yifu and Zhang Weiying, which is considered to go down in history, is the definition of industrial policy. In Lin Yifu's eyes, industrial policy encompasses a wider range, as long as it is a conscious policy measure taken by government agencies for the development of the region.
For example, tariffs, trade protection and development policies, tax incentives, industrial parks and import and export processing zones, scientific research subsidies in research and development work, monopolies and concessions, government procurement and mandatory regulations, etc. should all fall within the scope of industrial policy.
In Zhang Weiying's view, Lin Yifu's view is too general and has no focus, and he believes that industrial policy is particularly reflected in two points, one is "private intervention" and the other is "selective intervention", and the universal policies that are applicable to the public, such as unified corporate taxes, should not belong to it.
So which of these two people is more accurate? It is difficult to identify from their narratives and arguments alone, but combined with the work attributes and past experiences of the two people, we can have a more accurate judgment.
First of all, this professor Zhang Weiying, who has "focus" and "selectivity", in fact, his life is very similar to the trajectory of ancient readers.
First in the college entrance examination with excellent results into the national "211" key universities Northwest University to pursue undergraduate and graduate studies, and then went to the world-famous Oxford University to study for a doctorate, and then returned to China to work, becoming a highly sought after returnee scholar in the 80s.
Because it was in the early stage of reform and opening up, the state cherished and valued talents, especially those who returned from studying abroad. Soon after returning to China, he joined the State Economic System Reform Commission to engage in theoretical research and policy research on reform, and later entered Peking University to engage in teaching and research.
It can be said that since he went to school, all research on economics has stayed at the theoretical level, and most of the articles published and the views put forward are theoretical possibilities, and the gold content in terms of feasibility is not very high.
On the contrary, in addition to the enviable super high education and the aura of returnees, his rich work history and practical work experience are the advantages that he cannot ignore.
He has not only served as senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank, but also served as vice chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and is one of the 191 counselors of the State Council in China.
In other words, in addition to studying policy and theory, Lin Yifu also plays the role of a consultant and decision-maker, and many of the theoretical ideas he put forward have been adopted and practiced by the government. Compared with Zhang Weiying's "novelty", he is closer to the masses and close to actual life.
Just like everyone defines these two people, Zhang Weiying is a scholar who studies the possibility of the development of things; while Lin Yifu is an expert, and he values the inevitability of the development of events. Therefore, although the two people are in the same field of economics, their identities and choices are completely different.
Zhang Weiying's interpretation of industrial policy is from a more idealistic and absolute perspective, which cannot be said to be wrong, but is too precise, but loses universality. Lin Yifu's view is relative to the market and the national environment, which may sound like many inaccuracies at first glance, but a closer taste will find that there is no better view to replace.
Therefore, in the understanding of academic concepts similar to the definition of "industrial policy", most of the people engaged in theoretical research follow Zhang Weiying's point of view, and the actual decision-making and work will be more biased towards Lin Yifu.
In addition, the two men debated and discussed the effectiveness of industrial policy, whether the government should encourage the "first crab eaters", and how to use comparative advantage. However, if you look at the integration of the research, you will find that the essence of these many issues that the two people argue about is actually what kind of attitude the government should take toward industrial policy.
In Zhang Weiying's view, what we call industrial policy is the "planned economy in a vest."
He even put forward a very fresh theory: "ignorance and shameless theory", because in Zhang Weiying's view, industrial policy is doomed to failure for two reasons: one is human ignorance, and the other is human shamelessness.
The most important thing is in Zhang Weiying's cognition: "natural selection, survival of the fittest". The real entrepreneur, the "first to eat crab" is definitely not because of the government's relevant policy subsidies and preferences, but in order to be able to stand out in the peer competition, to seek better development and the future, the government does not introduce industrial policies with little effect.
Lin Yifu's view is just the opposite, in his view, the government to introduce industrial policy is a very necessary thing, today's failure of industrial policy is not equal to the problem of industrial policy itself, but in the process of exploration and implementation of problems, especially in developing countries, too eager to achieve quick success, but played a role in "seedlings to promote growth" effect, but since the problems have been found, only need to solve these problems, to improve the reform, its effect is still not to be underestimated.
And many industries have a high investment threshold, such as the aerospace industry, if the government does not subsidize, then basically no one will touch. If the government introduces policies that can support and protect their interests, many people will be willing to try, and if one person succeeds in eating crabs, then a wave will form.
Therefore, in Lin Yifu's point of view, we can see that industrial policy has drawbacks, but it is definitely more beneficial than harmful, and the government should actively formulate research, rather than simply letting it go as Zhang Weiying said.
These two views have their own truths, but if you have to choose one to believe, then it is undoubtedly Lin Yifu's more convincing. Because for enterprises, especially emerging industries, the introduction of this industrial policy not only means that more preferential treatment and care can be obtained, but also represents an affirmation from a national perspective, so that they see the hope of development.
Zhang Weiying's view is too negative, although it seems to be very sharp and sharp, but it is not necessarily a good thing for the development of China's economy. After all, a positive social environment will make people have a higher morale, only when they see the forest trees in front of them, they are willing to believe that there are more beautiful scenery in distant places; if everything in sight is naked, who is willing to carry the weight forward.
After analyzing all the problems and viewpoints of this "debate of the century", we can easily find out through their claims what they have been fighting for in the past two decades, but in fact, there are no more than two words: "free market" and "government for purpose."
In the last century, we finally made a bold decision of epoch-making significance - reform and opening up, changing the original planned economic system into a socialist market economy, and officially entering the vision of the Chinese.
Compared with the solidification and rigidity of the planned economy, the vitality of the market economy is obviously greater and more sufficient, and in just a few decades, China has taken on a new look and successfully restarted the road to rejuvenation.
The "free market" is not the wrong line, but it does not necessarily apply to Today's China; the "promising government" may continue to make mistakes, but there must be no problem in controlling the overall direction.
Take the simplest example, china's pork prices have grown to nearly 40 yuan a catty in the past two years, and many people's tables have become very vegetarian. If placed in Western countries with a predominantly free market, perhaps pork will become a new luxury, and perhaps the price of pork will be lowered to zero because of the manipulation of some big capitalist.
But in any case, it is always the people who are injured, the former will make the people unable to eat meat, and the latter will make countless pigs and related industries lose their money. However, in China, these two situations have not appeared, under the orderly regulation of the government and pork release, the meat price that has been reduced for 20 consecutive weeks has gradually returned to normal levels, and farmers have also stopped losses in time after receiving the national signal, avoiding a new round of price surge.
In fact, there are many things that the government does, from the price of vegetables to the investment, and all aspects of our lives have been affected. Compared with everything that relies on market dominance, such a government-involved economy is what China needs most today.
Of course, this can not completely negate Zhang Weiying's views, because whether it is him, Lin Yifu or other scholars and experts or the government, they are all discussing, constantly improving their views and decision-making in the process of exploration, and constantly seeking better development concepts and directions.
As long as the times are developing and the country is advancing, the debate between Lin Yifu and Zhang Weiying will not stop, and their differences will continue to arise, but this is exactly what we are happy to see and are willing to see.
Because of their debates, his disputes are not only the collision of personal academic views, but also a kind of exploration and reflection of human beings on society and the current situation of life. We are willing to enjoy the splendid spring day with a hundred flowers, and we are willing to listen to the sound of the times, because time will prove everything and will give the most appropriate and suitable answer.