Cross-strait Competitiveness ≠ Global Competitiveness
By Joyce Yen
From CommonWealth Magazine
Published: May 15, 2014 (No.547)
Can competitiveness cultivated in China really compete? Apart from a select minority that has managed to expand operations globally, most Taiwanese companies have found their success limited to China alone.
am sure many readers did not see eye to eye with my previous column, where I asserted, "There is no such thing as cross-strait competitiveness, only global competitiveness."
It is quite likely that more factories shut down in Guangdong Province in one month alone than in all of Taiwan over a period of five years. Taiwanese managers working in China often work seven days a week, fearing to take a break because five locals are waiting to take their place. Such a pressure cooker of an atmosphere naturally brings out a certain competitiveness, so why is there no such thing as cross-strait competitiveness?
The question should be, rather: when placed in the context of the global stage, is this sort of competitiveness really competitive?
Naturally, with her large population and rapidly growing GDP, China has grown in stature to rank among the world's most important nations in recent years. Her fickle market tests businesses' capacity for taking on challenges, and several domestic Chinese enterprises have managed to successfully move from China to the global stage, including Haier, Lenovo, and Huawei.
Given the limited space available, I will discuss the specifics of these cases in another essay, and in the meantime wish to emphasize here that: when these special cases are removed from consideration, success is nearly always limited to China and extremely difficult to translate further afield.
The first reason is excessive industry protectionism, which not only makes adapting to conditions outside China difficult for domestic winners, but also essentially encourages copycats. For instance, Baidu is a Google clone that is given free rein, whilst Google itself comes up against myriad roadblocks. Taobao's magnificent success can also similarly be credited to China's blocking eBay from her borders.
The second reason is cheap labor. People tend to presume this is China's big advantage, yet over the long term it impedes competitiveness, as it will reduce incentives to upgrade the production process and stand in the way of technical improvement.
The third reason is that China leverages the weight of her large market to demand technology transfers from foreign enterprises. While this lets China rapidly upgrade industry at minimal cost, it also feeds laziness. When no one is around to transfer technology, China will be at a loss for ways to continue upgrading.
The most important reason of all is excessive government meddling, further colored by subjective individual rule (as opposed to the rule of law). The impact of this is very broad. I will look at the television industry as an example, as it is the industry that has attracted the most talent away from Taiwan.
First, content censorship removes any notion in the creative person's mind of taking on reality, thereby eliminating the possibility of such shows as House of Cards or Oshin. Think about it for a moment: could a Chinese version of House of Cards be produced without making any references to power struggles within the party? And how could a Chinese take on Oshin avoid showing the plight of China's farmers?
Second, competitiveness in an atmosphere where everyone is trying to figure out how to please the boss does not allow new ideas to win out, so that everyone follows what is popular. Imperial court dramas are always set in the late Qing dynasty and early Republican period, and war dramas are always about fighting the Japanese. If creativity has no outlet, how can there be any global competitiveness?
A Truly Globalized Nation
The rush of Taiwan's talent across the strait is reflected in its television programming, with the dumbing-down and poorer production quality of Taiwanese-produced content. This applies not only to Taiwan, but also to Hong Kong, which will no longer be the cradle of superstars once its talent heads north to China. The problem is that after these talents have gone to China and triumphed over stiff competition there, they do not go on to prominence at the global level.
Only Korea has truly taken on the world on a global scale. Due to the language barrier, Korea's talent has been forced to apply itself at home. This is why, starting with Jewel in the Palace, it has come out with a whole string of productions that have taken Asia by storm, commanding top ratings. And Korean megastar Kim Soo Hyun is more popular than Scarlet Heart star Nicky Wu, not just in Korea and Japan, but even in China.
Global competitiveness certainly encompasses cross-strait competitiveness, but this is clear proof that cross-strait competitiveness cannot be transformed into global competitiveness.
(Author Joyce Yen is director of Ars Longa Press)
顏擇雅：兩岸競爭力 難成全球競爭力
2014-05-14 天下雜誌 547期 作者：顏擇雅
在中國大陸養成的競爭力，放到國際舞台上，真的算競爭力嗎？除了極少數企業，在中國打下的一片天往往只限於中國，絕難擴展到海外。
筆者在前一篇專欄主張：「沒有兩岸競爭力，只有全球競爭力。」許多讀者一定不以為然。
廣東省一個月內倒閉的企業可能比台灣五年加起來還多。年輕人到對岸做台幹，往往一週七天都不敢休息，因為位子隨時有五個陸幹要搶。如此你死我活，當然能激出某種競爭力，怎麼說沒有兩岸競爭力呢？
該問的是：這種競爭力放到全球舞台，還算不算競爭力？
當然，中國大陸因為人口最多，多年來GDP增速又一直在全球數一數二，市場當然千變萬化，最能考驗企業迎向挑戰的能力，多年來也不乏贏家成功走向世界，像海爾、聯想、華為。
限於篇幅，筆者將以另文討論這些實例的特殊之處，此文僅能強調：撇開這些例外，在中國打下的一片天往往只限於中國，絕難擴展到海外。
第一個原因，是保護太多產業。這不只會讓贏家離開中國就水土不服，也會變相鼓勵山寨，百度是山寨版Google，正版被百般刁難，山寨版才可以通行無阻。淘寶網大成功，也要歸因於它山寨的對象eBay被屏擋在外。
第二個原因，是人力便宜。大家總以為這點是中國的優勢，長遠看卻有礙競爭力，因為它會減少製程升級的誘因，有礙生產技術進步。
第三個原因，是中國大陸挾其市場廣大之優勢，多年來總強勢要求外商移轉技術。這雖讓中國能以最低成本達到產業最快升級的目的，但也容易養成怠惰，等到沒人要移轉技術，就不知該如何升級了。
而最重要的原因，則是政府管太多，人治色彩太強，這點的打擊面非常廣。我舉電視產業為例，因為這正是對岸磁吸台灣人才最多，對我們競爭力之斲傷也最明顯的產業。
首先，內容審查會打消創作者碰觸現實的一切念頭，這就排除了《紙牌屋》、《阿信》的可能。試想，中國版《紙牌屋》怎麼可能不影射黨內鬥爭？中國版《阿信》怎麼可能不呈現農民困境？
二來，揣摩上意變競爭力，新意就很難勝出，造成跟風鼎盛，興邦劇清一色是清末民初，戰爭全是抗日。創意出不來，怎能有全球競爭力？
台灣人才競相西進，反映在頻道上，就是台製節目全面弱智化、粗製化。也不只台灣，一旦香港人才紛紛北遷，港劇就不再是巨星搖籃了。然而，這些人才並沒有因為逐鹿中原，在劇烈競爭勝出，進而透過中國走向全球。
真正走向全球的，是韓國。因為語言隔閡，他們人才只能留在韓國打拚，因此才能創作出《大長今》以降，一串收視橫掃亞洲的作品。韓星金秀賢不是在韓國、日本比《步步驚心》男主角吳奇隆紅而已，就連在中國，他也比吳奇隆紅。
全球競爭力一定包含兩岸競爭力，兩岸競爭力卻不能轉化為全球競爭力，這就是明證。（作者為雅言出版社發行人）
留言列表
高普考補充資料 (3)
