the.world.is.flat-第88章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
And last but certainly not least； advises the IFC study； 〃Make reform a continuous
process 。 。 。 Countries that consistently perform well across the Doing Business
indicators do so because of continuous reform。〃
In addition to the IFC's criteria； reform retail obviously has to include expanding
the opportunities for your population to get an education at all levels and investing
in the logistical infrastructure…roads； ports； telecommunications； and
airports…without which no reform retail can take off and collaboration with others
is impossible。 Many countries today still have telecommunications systems dominated
by state
322
monopolies that make it either too expensive or too slow to get highspeed Internet
access and wireless access； and to make cheap longdistance and overseas phone calls。
Without reform retail in your telecom sector； reform retail in the other five areas；
while necessary； will not be sufficient。 What is striking about the IFC's criteria
is that a lot of people think they are relevant only for Peru and Argentina； but in
fact some of the countries that score worst are places like Germany and Italy。 （Indeed；
the German government protested some of the findings。）
〃When you and I were born；〃 said Luis de la Calle； 〃our competition ＇was＇ our next…door
neighbors。 Today our competition is a Japanese or a Frenchman or a Chinese。 You know
where you rank very quickly in a flat world 。 。 。 You are now competing with everyone
else。〃 The best talent in a flat world will earn more； he added； 〃and if you don't
measure up； someone will replace you…and it will not be the guy across the street。〃
If you don't agree； just ask some of the major players。 Craig Barrett； the chairman
of Intel； said to me； 〃With very few exceptions； when you would think about where
to site a manufacturing plant； you would think about the cost of labor； transportation；
and availability of utilities…that sort of stuff。 The discussion has been expanded
today； and so it is no longer where you put your plant but now where do you put your
engineering resources； your research and development…where are the most efficient
intellectual and other resources relative to cost？ You now have the freedom to make
that choice 。。。 Today we can be anywhere。 Anywhere could be part of my supply chain
now…Brazil； Vietnam； the Czech Republic； Ukraine。 Many of us are limiting our scope
today to a couple of countries for a very simple reason： Some can combine the
availability of talent and a market…that is； India； Russia； and China。〃 But for every
country Intel considers going into； added Barrett； he asks himself the same question：
〃What inherent strength does ＇the＇ country bring to the party？ India； Russia…crummy
infrastructure； good educational level； you have a bunch of smart folks。 China has
a little bit of everything。 China has good infrastructure； better than Russia or India。
So if you go to Egypt； what unique capability ＇does that country have to offer＇？
Exceedingly low labor rates； but what is ＇the＇ infrastructure and education base？
The Philippines or Malaysia have good literacy rates…you get
to employ college grads in your manufacturing line。 They did not have infrastructure；
but they had a pool of educated people。 You have got to have something to build on。
When we go to India and are asked about opening plants； we say； 'You don't have
infrastructure。 Your electricity goes off four times a day。'〃
Added John Chambers； the CEO of Cisco Systems； which uses a global supply chain to
build the routers that run the Internet and is constantly being wooed to invest in
one country or another； 〃The jobs are going to go where the best…educated workforce
is with the most competitive infrastructure and environment for creativity and
supportive government。 It is inevitable。 And by definition those people will have
the best standard ofliving。 This may or may not be the countries who led the Industrial
Revolution。〃
But while the stakes in reform retail today are higher than ever； and countries know
it； one need only look around the world to notice that not every country can pull
it off。 Unlike reform wholesale； which could be done by a handful of people using
administrative orders or just authoritarian dictates； reform retail requires a much
wider base of public and parliamentary buy…in if it is going to overcome vested
economic and political interests。
In Mexico； 〃we did the first stages of structural reform from the top down；〃 said
Guillermo Ortiz。 〃The next stage is much more difficult。 You have to work from the
bottom up。 You have to create the wider consensus to push the reforms in a democratic
context。〃 And once that happens； noted Moises Nairn； a former Economy Minister of
Venezuela and now editor of Foreign Policy magazine； you have a much larger number
of actors participating； making the internal logic and technical consistency of the
reform policies much more vulnerable to the impact of political compromises；
contradictions； and institutional failures。 〃Bypassing or ignoring the entrenched
and defensive public bureaucracy…a luxury frequently enjoyed by the government teams
that launch initial reform measures…is more difficult in this stage；〃 Nairn said。
So why does one country get over this reform retail hump； with leaders able to mobilize
the bureaucracy and the public behind these more painful； more exacting micro…reforms；
and another country get tripped up？
324
Culture Matters： Glocalization
One answer is culture。 To reduce a country's economic performance to culture alone
is ridiculous； but to analyze a country's economic performance without reference to
culture is equally ridiculous； although that is what many economists and political
scientists want to do。 This subject is highly controversial and is viewed as
politically incorrect to introduce。 So it is often the elephant in the room that no
one wants to speak about。 But I am going to speak about it here； for a very simple
reason： As the world goes flat； and more and more of the tools of collaboration get
distributed and com…moditized； the gap between cultures that have the will； the way；
and the focus to quickly adopt these new tools and apply them and those that do not
will matter more。 The differences between the two will become amplified。
One of the most important books on this subject is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations
by the economist David Landes。 He argues that although climate； natural resources；
and geography all play roles in explaining why some countries are able to make the
leap to industrialization and others are not； the key factor is actually a country's
cultural endowments； particularly the degree to which it has internalized the values
of hard work； thrift； honesty； patience； and tenacity； as well as the degree to which
it is open to change； new technology； and equality for women。 One can agree or disagree
with the balance Landes strikes between these cultural mores and other factors shaping
economic performance。 But I find refreshing his insistence on elevating the culture
question； and his refusal to buy into arguments that the continued stagnation of some
countries is simply about Western colonialism； geography； or historical legacy。
In my own travels； two aspects of culture have struck me as particularly relevant
in the flat world。 One is how outward your culture is： To what degree is it open to
foreign influences and ideas？ How well does it 〃glocalize〃？ The other； more intangible；
is how inward your culture is。 By that I mean； to what degree is there a sense of
national solidarity and a focus on development； to what degree is there trust within
the society
325
for strangers to collaborate together； and to what degree are the elites in the country
concerned with the masses and ready to invest at home； or are they indifferent to
their own poor and more interested in investing abroad？
The more you have a culture that naturally glocalizes…that is； the more your culture
easily absorbs foreign ideas and best practices and melds those with its own
traditions…the greater advantage you will h
