重庆，一个距离中国东海岸1,500公里之遥的西南内陆城市，一个包括了3,200万城乡人口的超大城市。
这个城市在国际范围内引起广泛关注，起因于它近年来几个奇迹般的经济指标：第一、2008年，当全球各大经济体都在金融危机泥潭中挣扎，中国当年的GDP增长也因此而大幅下滑至9%时，重庆GDP增长却一枝独秀地达到了惊人的14.3%，进出口额增长28%，实际利用外资增长151%；第二、当中国经济因出口大幅下滑而面临艰难的结构调整挑战时，重庆却提前交出了成绩单——内需：国内消费占GDP的比例57%，国内投资占GDP的比例62%；外需：出口额减进口额所得净出口额占GDP的比例-19%；对应于中国全国平均的49%、42%和9%，优点赫然。
来自中国和外国的专家学者纷纷来到重庆，他们在这几个不可思议的经济指标之外又看到了更多的东西，它的“五个重庆”建设（宜居重庆Livable Chongqing、畅通重庆Smooth Chongqing、森林重庆Green Chongqing、平安重庆Safe Chongqing和健康重庆Healthy Chongqing），它的“唱红打黑”，它的“民生十条”、“缩小三个差距”…；人们看到，支撑着这个中国西部经济中心强劲经济表现的，并不是一两个特殊优势，而是一个成套的东西，一个综合体系。
于是，“重庆模式”之说不胫而走。
很多人认为“重庆模式”给出了解决中国问题的答案，指明了道路，激发了希望。《纽约时报》记者将重庆称之为“中国未来城市的范本”。
然而，对于这个其人口总数相当于整个大洋洲的巨大城市，任何问题都不会是简单的。如何理解“重庆模式”，如何解释这个经济体的成功，成为了在学界和舆论界引发热议的热点问题。
按西方通行的标准看，这个模式一定有问题。大政府、社会主义、威权、人治、红色，与自由主义所倡导的小政府、市场经济、自由、民主、法治等格格不入。既然自由主义市场经济理念至今仍占据着道义上和价值上的制高点，那么，任何与之不相符合的模式都不可能没有问题。即使表面上没有问题，内部也一定有问题；即使现在没有问题，将来也一定出问题。
批评者们通过找到一些论据来证明这个模式有问题，现在和将来都有问题，不是难事，但似乎意义不大。就像是面对着一列高速行驶的火车，说这个火车设计上不理想，说它早晚要退役，都没说错，但这些断言都不影响它当下的高速前进，所以，也就不影响它给所有的旅客带来的当下利益。
就我亲眼所见，“五个重庆”建设都有实际的绩效，最直观的两个建设：“森林重庆”和“宜居重庆”，确实名不虚传。看到重庆新城区到处郁郁葱葱的绿树和园林，可以想象，按现在的模式十年、二十年不变地发展下去，没有什么人工景观创造不出来。
暂且不论大政府、强人政治、人大于法的危险性和后遗症，也暂且不论红色文化和红色贵族在当今中国政治中的潜在含义，如果“重庆模式”的确创造了一个“国进民也进”、“贫变富、富更富”的经济发展局面，那么它实际上正在尝试着解决传统的资本主义和传统的社会主义都未能很好解决的一些根本性的问题。
当我从重庆市长黄奇帆口中听到，重庆市政府可以通过各种措施，将衡量贫富差距的基尼系数精确地控制在某个数值上，并在小数点后两位上进行调控；我的理论知识告诉我，这就是无数人心目中的所谓“科学社会主义”。
如果说当年的资本主义和社会主义，多多少少是由于不够科学、不够精细、过于放纵、过于极端而导致了各种社会灾难，那么，今天的“重庆模式”，也许至少是在尝试着加强这两种主义的科学性和可控性。
无论如何，搁置一下关于资本主义和社会主义在哲学和道德上的争论，直接面向其机制和技术上的问题，利用新的知识和手段对其进行改进，总是一个值得尝试的方向。
在我看来，这也正是重庆的人们正在做的事情。▊
这个城市在国际范围内引起广泛关注，起因于它近年来几个奇迹般的经济指标：第一、2008年，当全球各大经济体都在金融危机泥潭中挣扎，中国当年的GDP增长也因此而大幅下滑至9%时，重庆GDP增长却一枝独秀地达到了惊人的14.3%，进出口额增长28%，实际利用外资增长151%；第二、当中国经济因出口大幅下滑而面临艰难的结构调整挑战时，重庆却提前交出了成绩单——内需：国内消费占GDP的比例57%，国内投资占GDP的比例62%；外需：出口额减进口额所得净出口额占GDP的比例-19%；对应于中国全国平均的49%、42%和9%，优点赫然。
来自中国和外国的专家学者纷纷来到重庆，他们在这几个不可思议的经济指标之外又看到了更多的东西，它的“五个重庆”建设（宜居重庆Livable Chongqing、畅通重庆Smooth Chongqing、森林重庆Green Chongqing、平安重庆Safe Chongqing和健康重庆Healthy Chongqing），它的“唱红打黑”，它的“民生十条”、“缩小三个差距”…；人们看到，支撑着这个中国西部经济中心强劲经济表现的，并不是一两个特殊优势，而是一个成套的东西，一个综合体系。
于是，“重庆模式”之说不胫而走。
很多人认为“重庆模式”给出了解决中国问题的答案，指明了道路，激发了希望。《纽约时报》记者将重庆称之为“中国未来城市的范本”。
然而，对于这个其人口总数相当于整个大洋洲的巨大城市，任何问题都不会是简单的。如何理解“重庆模式”，如何解释这个经济体的成功，成为了在学界和舆论界引发热议的热点问题。
按西方通行的标准看，这个模式一定有问题。大政府、社会主义、威权、人治、红色，与自由主义所倡导的小政府、市场经济、自由、民主、法治等格格不入。既然自由主义市场经济理念至今仍占据着道义上和价值上的制高点，那么，任何与之不相符合的模式都不可能没有问题。即使表面上没有问题，内部也一定有问题；即使现在没有问题，将来也一定出问题。
批评者们通过找到一些论据来证明这个模式有问题，现在和将来都有问题，不是难事，但似乎意义不大。就像是面对着一列高速行驶的火车，说这个火车设计上不理想，说它早晚要退役，都没说错，但这些断言都不影响它当下的高速前进，所以，也就不影响它给所有的旅客带来的当下利益。
就我亲眼所见，“五个重庆”建设都有实际的绩效，最直观的两个建设：“森林重庆”和“宜居重庆”，确实名不虚传。看到重庆新城区到处郁郁葱葱的绿树和园林，可以想象，按现在的模式十年、二十年不变地发展下去，没有什么人工景观创造不出来。
暂且不论大政府、强人政治、人大于法的危险性和后遗症，也暂且不论红色文化和红色贵族在当今中国政治中的潜在含义，如果“重庆模式”的确创造了一个“国进民也进”、“贫变富、富更富”的经济发展局面，那么它实际上正在尝试着解决传统的资本主义和传统的社会主义都未能很好解决的一些根本性的问题。
当我从重庆市长黄奇帆口中听到，重庆市政府可以通过各种措施，将衡量贫富差距的基尼系数精确地控制在某个数值上，并在小数点后两位上进行调控；我的理论知识告诉我，这就是无数人心目中的所谓“科学社会主义”。
如果说当年的资本主义和社会主义，多多少少是由于不够科学、不够精细、过于放纵、过于极端而导致了各种社会灾难，那么，今天的“重庆模式”，也许至少是在尝试着加强这两种主义的科学性和可控性。
无论如何，搁置一下关于资本主义和社会主义在哲学和道德上的争论，直接面向其机制和技术上的问题，利用新的知识和手段对其进行改进，总是一个值得尝试的方向。
在我看来，这也正是重庆的人们正在做的事情。▊
Chatting with English Readers about Chongqing China
By Jerry Wen Yang / Translated from Chinese by Robert Goh
Chongqing, a provincial-level municipality in southwestern China located 1,500 kilometres from the coast, is a mega-city with an urban and rural population of 32 million.
This city has attracted international attention in recent years because of several astounding economic performance indicators:
Firstly, in 2008, while the world's major economies were struggling in the mire of a financial crisis and China's Gross Domestic Product growth that year correspondingly slowed significantly to nine percent, GDP growth in Chongqing reached a staggering 14.3 percent, its foreign trade increased by 28 percent, and foreign investment utilization by 151 percent.
Secondly, when China's economy was facing difficult structural adjustment challenges because of a steep drop in exports, Chongqing produced this report card in advance– domestic demand: domestic consumption accounted for 57 percent of GDP, and domestic investment at 62 percent of GDP; external demand: Net exports (exports minus imports) were -19 percent of GDP. The corresponding Chinese national average figures were 49, 42 and 9 percent respectively. Its leadership in this area went above and beyond.
Experts and scholars have flocked to Chongqing, having seen beyond these remarkable economic indicators, known as the "five Chongqing constructions” (Livable Chongqing, Smooth Chongqing, Green Chongqing, Safe Chongqing and Healthy Chongqing), “sing red and crackdown black”, its "ten measures about people's livelihood", and "reduction of three inequalities" programmes. From all this, people can perceive that this Western China economic centre’s robust economic performance has been propped up not by just one or two special advantages, but a full package of plans, an integrated system. This "Chongqing Model" has been forging ahead.
Therefore many people think that in this "Chongqing Model" lies the answer to solving China's problems. It points out the way and inspires hope. Indeed, the New York Times correspondent called it the "Chinese model city of the future."
However, for a city whose population is equal to that of all Oceania, any kind of problem would be not simple one. How to understand the "Chongqing Model" and how to explain this economy's success have sparked off hot debates in academic and media circles.
Prevailing Western viewpoints believe this model must come with problems. Big government, socialism, authoritarianism, rule of man, red culture etc. Not to mention it’s completely out of tune with what is advocated by liberalism – small government, market economy, freedom, democracy, rule of law etc. Since the concept of liberal market economy still holds the moral high ground any model inconsistent with it cannot be without problems. Even if on the surface there are no problems, there must be some lurking internally; and even if there are no problems now, the future will certainly bring some.
Critics comfort themselves when they try to demonize this model by digging up some dark sides as supporting arguments; they’re having this problem now – as well as in the future. It’s not difficult to go about it, but it’ll be more or less irrelevant. For instance, with regards to the problems of high-speed trains, it’s said that the train designs weren’t ideal, and sooner or later they would have to be retired. Well, that’s true of course, but these assertions won’t affect the on-going advances in high-speed travel, and they also don’t affect the immediate benefits brought to their passengers.
I myself have seen that the "five Chongqing" constructions have yielded concrete results; in particular, "Forest (Green) Chongqing" and "Livable Chongqing" indeed have earned themselves well-deserved reputations.
Looking around the new urban areas of Chongqing and seeing lush green trees and gardens everywhere, it is conceivable that if the present model is sustained without let-up for the next 10 to 20 years, there’s no wonderful landscape that can’t be created there.
Putting aside for the moment the potential implications for big government and strongman politics, the dangers of those above the law and their legacy, and also leaving aside Red culture and Red nobility in China’s politics today, if the "Chongqing Model" does indeed create an economic development scenario where "state advances while private sector advance as well (Guo Jin Min Ye Jin)", and "the poor become rich, and the rich get even richer,” then it is actually trying to solve some fundamental problems that haven’t been well addressed by both traditional capitalism and traditional socialism.
When I heard from Chongqing Mayor Huang Qifan’s say that his municipal government, through various measures, would tweak the gap between rich and poor by precisely controlling the Gini coefficient to a certain level, and furthermore, fine-tune it down to its last two decimal places, my theoretical knowledge alerted me: here’s what many people call "scientific socialism."
If the day should dawn when a spate of social disasters in old days are blamed on capitalism and socialism being, to some extent or other, insufficiently scientific or precise, or too indulgent or too extreme, then today's "Chongqing Model", is perhaps at least trying to strengthen the science and controllability of both ideologies.
In any case, setting aside the philosophical and moral debate about capitalism and socialism, and addressing directly the problems of their mechanisms and techniques by using new knowledge and means to improve them, is always an effort worth giving a go.
I believe this is just what the people of Chongqing are doing right now.
This city has attracted international attention in recent years because of several astounding economic performance indicators:
Firstly, in 2008, while the world's major economies were struggling in the mire of a financial crisis and China's Gross Domestic Product growth that year correspondingly slowed significantly to nine percent, GDP growth in Chongqing reached a staggering 14.3 percent, its foreign trade increased by 28 percent, and foreign investment utilization by 151 percent.
Secondly, when China's economy was facing difficult structural adjustment challenges because of a steep drop in exports, Chongqing produced this report card in advance– domestic demand: domestic consumption accounted for 57 percent of GDP, and domestic investment at 62 percent of GDP; external demand: Net exports (exports minus imports) were -19 percent of GDP. The corresponding Chinese national average figures were 49, 42 and 9 percent respectively. Its leadership in this area went above and beyond.
Experts and scholars have flocked to Chongqing, having seen beyond these remarkable economic indicators, known as the "five Chongqing constructions” (Livable Chongqing, Smooth Chongqing, Green Chongqing, Safe Chongqing and Healthy Chongqing), “sing red and crackdown black”, its "ten measures about people's livelihood", and "reduction of three inequalities" programmes. From all this, people can perceive that this Western China economic centre’s robust economic performance has been propped up not by just one or two special advantages, but a full package of plans, an integrated system. This "Chongqing Model" has been forging ahead.
Therefore many people think that in this "Chongqing Model" lies the answer to solving China's problems. It points out the way and inspires hope. Indeed, the New York Times correspondent called it the "Chinese model city of the future."
However, for a city whose population is equal to that of all Oceania, any kind of problem would be not simple one. How to understand the "Chongqing Model" and how to explain this economy's success have sparked off hot debates in academic and media circles.
Prevailing Western viewpoints believe this model must come with problems. Big government, socialism, authoritarianism, rule of man, red culture etc. Not to mention it’s completely out of tune with what is advocated by liberalism – small government, market economy, freedom, democracy, rule of law etc. Since the concept of liberal market economy still holds the moral high ground any model inconsistent with it cannot be without problems. Even if on the surface there are no problems, there must be some lurking internally; and even if there are no problems now, the future will certainly bring some.
Critics comfort themselves when they try to demonize this model by digging up some dark sides as supporting arguments; they’re having this problem now – as well as in the future. It’s not difficult to go about it, but it’ll be more or less irrelevant. For instance, with regards to the problems of high-speed trains, it’s said that the train designs weren’t ideal, and sooner or later they would have to be retired. Well, that’s true of course, but these assertions won’t affect the on-going advances in high-speed travel, and they also don’t affect the immediate benefits brought to their passengers.
I myself have seen that the "five Chongqing" constructions have yielded concrete results; in particular, "Forest (Green) Chongqing" and "Livable Chongqing" indeed have earned themselves well-deserved reputations.
Looking around the new urban areas of Chongqing and seeing lush green trees and gardens everywhere, it is conceivable that if the present model is sustained without let-up for the next 10 to 20 years, there’s no wonderful landscape that can’t be created there.
Putting aside for the moment the potential implications for big government and strongman politics, the dangers of those above the law and their legacy, and also leaving aside Red culture and Red nobility in China’s politics today, if the "Chongqing Model" does indeed create an economic development scenario where "state advances while private sector advance as well (Guo Jin Min Ye Jin)", and "the poor become rich, and the rich get even richer,” then it is actually trying to solve some fundamental problems that haven’t been well addressed by both traditional capitalism and traditional socialism.
When I heard from Chongqing Mayor Huang Qifan’s say that his municipal government, through various measures, would tweak the gap between rich and poor by precisely controlling the Gini coefficient to a certain level, and furthermore, fine-tune it down to its last two decimal places, my theoretical knowledge alerted me: here’s what many people call "scientific socialism."
If the day should dawn when a spate of social disasters in old days are blamed on capitalism and socialism being, to some extent or other, insufficiently scientific or precise, or too indulgent or too extreme, then today's "Chongqing Model", is perhaps at least trying to strengthen the science and controllability of both ideologies.
In any case, setting aside the philosophical and moral debate about capitalism and socialism, and addressing directly the problems of their mechanisms and techniques by using new knowledge and means to improve them, is always an effort worth giving a go.
I believe this is just what the people of Chongqing are doing right now.
