盡管不斷強調(diào)“自主創(chuàng)新”，但中國觀察家們?nèi)匀徽J為，“二代創(chuàng)新”(second generation innovation)，才是中國真正的競爭優(yōu)勢所在。所謂的“二代創(chuàng)新”，意指結(jié)合既有技術(shù)和產(chǎn)品，以及中國本身強大的制造能力，進而開創(chuàng)出的產(chǎn)品和應(yīng)用市場。 同一時間，喬治亞理工學(xué)院(Georgia Tech)的國際事務(wù)教授 Dan Breznitz 也指出，“在中國，核心技術(shù)和新穎的產(chǎn)品創(chuàng)新，仍然是相當(dāng)罕見且難以實現(xiàn)的?！?Breznitz和其它專家在稍早前的一場公聽會上就中國努力成為“創(chuàng)新社會”的議題進行了討論，專家們指出，有關(guān)中國“最終將遭遇嚴(yán)重瓶頸”的看法是全然錯誤的。中國可能需要二十至三十年的時間來“克服創(chuàng)新障礙”，但這無礙于中國持續(xù)破壞美國經(jīng)濟?！爸袊呀?jīng)來了，他們來到美國開設(shè)工廠…在美國，他們幾乎無孔不入。” 一些分析師還預(yù)測，韓國經(jīng)濟最終“將會碰壁”。“在我上一次造訪韓國時，這個國家仍然很強盛，”Breznitz說。盡管中國政府在推動創(chuàng)新時遭遇了難以置信的挫折，但我們不應(yīng)該將中國在邁向創(chuàng)新過程中所遭遇的失敗視為自己的機會。因為中國的省級和市級主管機關(guān)“正在盡一切努力推動當(dāng)?shù)氐膭?chuàng)新系統(tǒng)，有些時候，地方政府的做法還會與中央相抵觸，”他表示。 理解中國推動創(chuàng)新方法的根本之道，就在于要先了解這個國家系統(tǒng)的“結(jié)構(gòu)不確 定性”，Breznitz說。在中國，“你永遠也不會全盤了解一切，你唯一能做的事，只有不停的創(chuàng)新，”他說。“這也形成了一種獨特的情況──中國企業(yè)絕不會想去開發(fā)或許能擁有十年生命周期的產(chǎn)品，因為他們甚至不了解他們正在制造的產(chǎn)品究竟具有什么樣的意義。因此，即使他們非常專長于制造，但他們能否長久經(jīng)營一項產(chǎn)品，或是讓這些產(chǎn)品成為發(fā)展穩(wěn)定企業(yè)的基礎(chǔ)，仍然有待觀察?！?Breznitz同時也是新出版的《中國創(chuàng)新與經(jīng)濟成長》(Chinese innovation and economic growth)一書的共同作者。該書指出“分裂的生產(chǎn)體系”(fragmentation of production)正是全球化的特色之一?！斑@是史上第一次，全球的商品生產(chǎn)和服務(wù)都面臨著所有經(jīng)濟體必須高度相互依賴的分裂情況，”他說。“我們所仰賴的貿(mào)易體系已經(jīng)不再是單純地為了讓美國人更加富有而存在，現(xiàn)在，我們甚至無法僅生產(chǎn)供自己使用的產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)?！?Breznitz指出，中國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人都很了解，美國有許多新創(chuàng)太陽能面板業(yè)者，但截至目前，這些新創(chuàng)公司都不愿意在本土設(shè)廠投資，而中國則抓住了這個機會。這是很典型的市場失能情況。“盡管潔凈技術(shù)一直是美國國家安全的關(guān)鍵，但美國的金融體系對此卻遲遲沒有任何建樹?！?更糟的是，Breznitz警告道，美國“正面臨著史上最大的軍費支出，但當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)們卻不愿意在美國本土投資制造業(yè)”。 編譯： Joy Teng 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文： Despite obstacles, experts say China continues to innovate ，by George Leopold

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 在世界的角度看中國這個經(jīng)濟體
• 罕王斥資30億在遼寧撫順興建MEMS晶圓廠
• 中國人民一條“芯”：政府定義CPU架構(gòu)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)bGmesmc

{pagination} Despite obstacles, experts say China continues to innovate George Leopold WASHINGTON – Despite its emphasis on “indigenous innovation,” China’s real competitive edge remains in what China watchers call “second generation innovation” that combines existing technologies and products with growing manufacturing prowess. At the same time, experts such as Dan Breznitz, a professor of international affairs at Georgia Tech, told a congressional panel that “core technologies and novel product innovations are still rare and difficult to achieve in China.” Breznitz and other experts speaking at a hearing Thursday (May 10) on Chinese efforts to become an “Innovation Society” nevertheless warned that the perception that China eventually “will hit a wall” is misguided. China “can innovate. It may take them 20 or 30 years [to overcome barriers to innovation], but that doesn’t stop them from destroying us economically,” warned Daniel Slane, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “China is coming, they are coming here to open up their factories here in the United States…so the hole just gets deeper.” Some analysts also predicted that South Korea’s economy would eventually hit a wall. “The last time I checked, South Korea was still going strong,” Breznitz added. “We should not rely on China failing” in its innovation drive despite the “unbelievable” failures of its central government. One reason is that China’s provincial and municipal governments “are doing everything in their power to make the system work, sometimes against the wishes of the central government,” he told the commission. Fundamental to understanding the way innovation works in China is its system of “structured uncertainty,” Breznitz said. “You never really know who is answering to whom, and yet you have constant innovation” in China, he argued. “It makes absolutely no sense for a Chinese company to think about producing a product that maybe will happen in ten years because they have no real sense of whether they will make it. Then, even if they ever make it, [there is uncertainty about] whether they will actually be allowed to retain the product or [whether] it will somehow reach a stable enterprise.” Breznitz, the co-author of a new book on Chinese innovation and economic growth, identifies the “fragmentation of production” as the defining characteristic of globalization. “The rise of global fragmented production of both goods and services has led, for the first time in history, to true economic international interdependency,” he told the U.S.-China panel. “It is no longer only that we are dependent on trade in order to continue to be wealthy; we now cannot even produce ‘our’ products and services alone.” For example, Chinese leaders understood that there were many U.S. solar panel startups “yet no one here is willing to [invest in] production facilities, and they grabbed it. It’s a classic market failure,” Breznitz said. “The financial system in the United States is not built any longer to do that” despite the fact that sectors like cleantech remain critical to U.S. national security. Making matters worse, Breznitz warned, U.S. companies “are sitting on the biggest war chest [of cash] in history and yet they don’t invest” in U.S. manufacturing.