论文部分内容阅读
THE steady growth of China’s outbound investment since the turn of the new millennium has generated mixed responses to Chinese capital. A main point of media focus， it has been both welcomed and called into question.
To put China’s outbound investment in perspective， China Today held an exclusive interview with He Zhenwei， executive deputy secretary-general of China Overseas Development Association.
He holds that the “going global” strategy operates in the context of China’s main economic policy during its 35 years of reform and opening-up of absorbing foreign investment. In his view， that China’s empowered enterprises now invest abroad and so hone their international competitiveness is an inevitable feature of the country’s drive to join the globalization trend. He moreover believes that， having greatly benefited from foreign investment， it is now time for China to venture abroad and bring benefits to humankind in general as well as improve the wellbeing of its own people.
Misconceptions
Reports in certain foreign media contend that China’s outbound investment gives preference to resources-related projects， the country’s main aim being to exploit the resources of others. He Zhenwei holds that such sensationalized media hype， as sparked off by large enterprises like China Petrochemical Corporation （Sinopec Group） and China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s acquisition of resources-related projects， misleads the public into believing that the sole aim of China’s big state-owned enterprises is to lay claim to overseas resources.
China’s outbound investment took off relatively late， standing at US $2.7 billion in 2002， rising to US $2.85 billion in 2003， and climbing to US $26.5 bil- lion in 2007. It was not until 2008 that outbound investment exceeded US $30 billion， having skyrocketed that year to a volume of more than US $55.9 million.
The steep increase in 2008 undoubtedly related to the world financial crisis. Prior to 2008 the high thresholds that Western countries set for foreign investment left few such opportunities for China’s enterprises. The world financial crisis of 2008， however， interrupted the financial supply chains of many countries， leading them to make more fields accessible to foreign investment. Chinese enterprises like Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and the Sany Group benefited from these open policies， the former thus acquiring Volvo and the latter purchasing Germany-based Putzmeister. But the manufacturing industry is the main focus of China’s new outbound investment. “I believe China’s overseas investment has boosted the economic recovery of some countries and propelled their industrial structural adjustment，” He said. Taking Russia as an example， He elucidated this point： Since Russia is in the throes of economic transition， a vast amount of capital has flowed into highprofit energy fields. Russia consequently welcomes the entry of China’s capital into its processing and manufacturing industry， because it creates jobs and impels economic restructuring. The leapfrog development of China’s overseas investment in 2008， therefore， demonstrates that the global financial crisis gave China access to certain developed countries’ manufacturing industries rather than creating opportunities for the purchase of overseas resources. China itself experienced a declining demand for resources during the crisis.
He Zhenwei further expounded on the distribution of China’s overseas investment， using the U.S. as an example. The U.S. economy had long been structurally dominated by finance and virtual economy. America has since acknowledged that it is the real economy that is now crucial to its economic recovery. This is where China’s investment has been mainly directed. It has significantly promoted the U.S.’s economic restructuring. U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke said in his speech at the 5th China Overseas Investment Fair last December that China’s total investment in the U.S. over the previous 21 months had reached US $18.5 billion – equal to the total sum over the preceding 11 years. This statistic confirms the remarkable growth of China’s investment in the U.S. But obtaining approval for investment in its resources sector is nonetheless still difficult.
“China’s overseas investment is diversified， covering almost all economic sectors， mainly concentrated on infrastructure and manufacturing. Business service heads the investment sector， and the mineral resources sector ranks fourth，” He said. Only a fraction of the 16，000 Chinese enterprises that have gone global are resource enterprises.
Contribution to World Food Security
The recent China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation is a focus of global at- tention. Certain media claim that China bought land in Ukraine to plant crops and so ensure its own food safety.
He Zhenwei’s response to such claims： “There are misunderstandings about this bilateral agricultural cooperation. No Chinese enterprise has bought land in Ukraine， because its laws prohibit such purchases by foreign entities within its boundaries. China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation is based on land leasing， but media reports have distorted this fact.” He went on， “China’s policies encourage international cooperation in agriculture. As we all know， agriculture is one of the most important industries in China and involves hundreds of mil- lions of people. This has equipped the country with ample expertise and experience in this regard. We’ve leased land in Africa， Russia and Ukraine， at the same time sharing our experience with locals.” Ukraine is an agricultural country， once dubbed the “granary of the former Soviet Union.” It has vast arable land， much of it uninhabited， and a small population. No matter grain produced in the country stays there， is transported to China or sold to another country， the leasing of uncultivated land by Chinese enterprises is a contribution to world food security.
“Whether or not grain produced in Ukraine goes to China implies nothing，”He said. Ukraine is an exporter of agricultural products whose destinations include Europe， the Middle East and now China. “Through contacts with Ukrlandfarming， one of Ukraine’s leading agricultural enterprises， I have learned that the group owns 530，000 ha. of land， much of it lying fallow. The group has expressed willingness both to cooperate with China in utilizing its idle land and to export the grain it produces to China，”He said.
China also owns plenty of unused agricultural resources， capital and laborers， which makes China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation beneficial to both sides.
“In brief， we should take a rational view of China’s overseas investment in agriculture. In spite of its large population， China can guarantee its grain supply through technology. I think that by encouraging Chinese agricultural enterprises to go global China is in a sense endeavoring to strengthen its agricultural sector by pitting these enterprises against international competitors， so making them an international force. The essence of the ‘going global’ strategy for Chinese agriculture is that it will contribute to world agricultural development，” He concluded.
SOE Autonomy
China’s state-owned enterprises（SOEs） have been under discussion among observers within the world community of these companies’ forays abroad. The general opinion is that the Chinese government’s manipulations of SOEs have quashed many of their potential acquisitions.
“Foreign observers usually have scant understanding of China’s administration system. They labor under the misconception that SOEs’ operations abroad are controlled and financially supported by China’s government. This is not the case. The government neither manipulates nor allocates funds to them，” He told China Today.
When examining and approving overseas investment projects， the National Development and Reform Commission（NDRC） raises suggestions with respect to the investment orientation to ensure investment safety， according to He. For example， approving authorities will obviously advise enterprises not to invest in countries that are embroiled in wars. But as to whether or not an investment will be profitable， this is left entirely to the enterprise concerned to decide， according to He. The NDRC checks the source of investment capital and an enterprise’s bank credit. Unless the bank is willing to issue letters of guarantee for loans to an enterprise， the NDRC will not approve that enterprise’s proposed overseas investment project.
Some overseas China watchers believe that the Chinese government is the source of SOE investment， as their loans are mainly obtained from stated-owned banks. As He explained， “State-owned banks are also enterprises whose loans must be repaid because they are not government appropriations. A bad loan， in the case of an investment going sour， means that the bank will suffer.” To avoid risks， therefore， banks make financial audits of enterprises to ensure their repayment capability prior to granting loans.
Although China’s SOEs took the lead in the “going global” campaign， private enterprises are adding robust momentum to it. In 2011， the proportion of private enterprises among the total undertaking overseas investment was around 35 percent. In 2012， the proportion rose to 40 percent.
“China’s government has repeatedly stressed its willingness to support private enterprises that go global. I personally think that private enterprises will become the main force of China’s overseas investment， and that this is an inevitable trend，” He said. “As for the rapid increase of the private share in China’s overseas investment， I think this can be attributed to their flexible mechanisms and quick decision-making. These are the strengths of private companies， as there is no need to obtain approval at various levels. Sometimes， all that is needed is a decision by the chairman of the board.”
Greater Localization
Criticism abroad of China’s enterprises with regards to corporate social responsibility has been vociferous. It includes charges that such enterprises bring Chinese workers with them rather than hiring locals； also that they have failed to protect local environment and made scant contributions to local communities.
“This might be true of some enterprises in the past，” He said， going on to explain that this could be ascribed to Chinese enterprises being new to the international arena. There are some Chinese entrepreneurs that indeed run their business abroad with a fixed Chinesestyle mindset and management mode.
“In the past， private enterprises often took their Chinese workers abroad with them. When asked why， their response would be that Chinese workers are the world’s most industrious， and that in addition to being highly efficient， they are prepared to work overtime， endure hardship and survive tough environments，”He said. From an economic perspective， this practice is seemingly defensible. But if investment is made overseas， it should include employing locals. As employment brings stability， creating more jobs is of even greater social significance than making donations towards building kindergartens and primary schools in the destination countries. Aware of the importance of corporate social responsibility， the theme of the 5th China Overseas Investment Fair held last December was “Responsibility， Investment and Cooperation.”
“To make a successful investment， it is vital to take corporate social responsibility into account. I don’t have accurate statistical data to hand， but based on my tracking of enterprises that are going global I find many of them are changing. They frame their localization policy and hire more local workers，” He said. After acquiring Volvo， Geely did not send a single Chinese employee to Sweden， instead hired more than 1，200 locals. The company’s original intention was to run its overseas business with Volvo’s original staff. More and more Chinese enterprises are acknowledging their social responsibilities abroad by building kindergartens， hospitals and schools as well as contributing to the construction of local infrastructure.
In 2012 Chinese overseas enterprises hired more than 700，000 local employees. Tax paid to destination countries that year exceeded US $22 billion， according to official data.
“After all， our enterprises have been going global for only a short period. We need time to learn about and adapt to local communities. The outside world should take into consideration the time these enterprises need to integrate with local communities rather than stereotyping them based on isolated instances，”He said.
The Facts of the Matter
Since the outbreak of the world financial crisis， world opinions on Chinese investment have been mixed. On one hand， media reports have repeatedly stated that the world welcomes China’s cash； on the other， it is clear that world media delight in reporting on rejections of Chinese enterprises’ overseas investment on the pretext of national security.
“There are restrictions on Chinese investment in some countries. For example， the U.S. turned it down for reasons of national security. Huawei and Sany Heavy Industry have both encountered the same predicament，” He said. These cases have entailed the involvement of many interest groups， including Congress and lobbying groups. “We are capable of identifying our own problems， notably a lack of awareness of our image as regards outbound investment. The inappropriate behavior of certain Chinese enterprises has damaged the overall standing of Chinese enterprises abroad，”He said. It is imperative， therefore， that Chinese enterprises investing overseas abide by local laws. This will help build a good reputation. “Encountering different concepts， practices and traditions is inevitable when investing in other countries. You can’t change them， but you can change yourself by standardizing and promoting your enterprise in ways that dispel other people’s misgivings. If the destination country declines your investment for reasons of national security， you can leave governments to deal with the matter， because it is a government-level issue，” He said.
The U.S. turning down Chinese investment on the grounds of national security is definitely the exception rather than the rule. The media sensation it causes can be ascribed to the reporting biases of foreign media that tend to exaggerate certain issues with the intent of smearing Chinese enterprises. On the other hand， certain domestic media also overreact to such instances.
“I don’t agree that failed Chinese overseas investment ventures outnumber those that succeed，” He said. He holds that media should be objective in their reports， and size up Chinese investment holistically rather than exaggerating problems in a way that signifies an overt bias against China.
To put China’s outbound investment in perspective， China Today held an exclusive interview with He Zhenwei， executive deputy secretary-general of China Overseas Development Association.
He holds that the “going global” strategy operates in the context of China’s main economic policy during its 35 years of reform and opening-up of absorbing foreign investment. In his view， that China’s empowered enterprises now invest abroad and so hone their international competitiveness is an inevitable feature of the country’s drive to join the globalization trend. He moreover believes that， having greatly benefited from foreign investment， it is now time for China to venture abroad and bring benefits to humankind in general as well as improve the wellbeing of its own people.
Misconceptions
Reports in certain foreign media contend that China’s outbound investment gives preference to resources-related projects， the country’s main aim being to exploit the resources of others. He Zhenwei holds that such sensationalized media hype， as sparked off by large enterprises like China Petrochemical Corporation （Sinopec Group） and China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s acquisition of resources-related projects， misleads the public into believing that the sole aim of China’s big state-owned enterprises is to lay claim to overseas resources.
China’s outbound investment took off relatively late， standing at US $2.7 billion in 2002， rising to US $2.85 billion in 2003， and climbing to US $26.5 bil- lion in 2007. It was not until 2008 that outbound investment exceeded US $30 billion， having skyrocketed that year to a volume of more than US $55.9 million.
The steep increase in 2008 undoubtedly related to the world financial crisis. Prior to 2008 the high thresholds that Western countries set for foreign investment left few such opportunities for China’s enterprises. The world financial crisis of 2008， however， interrupted the financial supply chains of many countries， leading them to make more fields accessible to foreign investment. Chinese enterprises like Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and the Sany Group benefited from these open policies， the former thus acquiring Volvo and the latter purchasing Germany-based Putzmeister. But the manufacturing industry is the main focus of China’s new outbound investment. “I believe China’s overseas investment has boosted the economic recovery of some countries and propelled their industrial structural adjustment，” He said. Taking Russia as an example， He elucidated this point： Since Russia is in the throes of economic transition， a vast amount of capital has flowed into highprofit energy fields. Russia consequently welcomes the entry of China’s capital into its processing and manufacturing industry， because it creates jobs and impels economic restructuring. The leapfrog development of China’s overseas investment in 2008， therefore， demonstrates that the global financial crisis gave China access to certain developed countries’ manufacturing industries rather than creating opportunities for the purchase of overseas resources. China itself experienced a declining demand for resources during the crisis.
He Zhenwei further expounded on the distribution of China’s overseas investment， using the U.S. as an example. The U.S. economy had long been structurally dominated by finance and virtual economy. America has since acknowledged that it is the real economy that is now crucial to its economic recovery. This is where China’s investment has been mainly directed. It has significantly promoted the U.S.’s economic restructuring. U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke said in his speech at the 5th China Overseas Investment Fair last December that China’s total investment in the U.S. over the previous 21 months had reached US $18.5 billion – equal to the total sum over the preceding 11 years. This statistic confirms the remarkable growth of China’s investment in the U.S. But obtaining approval for investment in its resources sector is nonetheless still difficult.
“China’s overseas investment is diversified， covering almost all economic sectors， mainly concentrated on infrastructure and manufacturing. Business service heads the investment sector， and the mineral resources sector ranks fourth，” He said. Only a fraction of the 16，000 Chinese enterprises that have gone global are resource enterprises.
Contribution to World Food Security
The recent China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation is a focus of global at- tention. Certain media claim that China bought land in Ukraine to plant crops and so ensure its own food safety.
He Zhenwei’s response to such claims： “There are misunderstandings about this bilateral agricultural cooperation. No Chinese enterprise has bought land in Ukraine， because its laws prohibit such purchases by foreign entities within its boundaries. China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation is based on land leasing， but media reports have distorted this fact.” He went on， “China’s policies encourage international cooperation in agriculture. As we all know， agriculture is one of the most important industries in China and involves hundreds of mil- lions of people. This has equipped the country with ample expertise and experience in this regard. We’ve leased land in Africa， Russia and Ukraine， at the same time sharing our experience with locals.” Ukraine is an agricultural country， once dubbed the “granary of the former Soviet Union.” It has vast arable land， much of it uninhabited， and a small population. No matter grain produced in the country stays there， is transported to China or sold to another country， the leasing of uncultivated land by Chinese enterprises is a contribution to world food security.
“Whether or not grain produced in Ukraine goes to China implies nothing，”He said. Ukraine is an exporter of agricultural products whose destinations include Europe， the Middle East and now China. “Through contacts with Ukrlandfarming， one of Ukraine’s leading agricultural enterprises， I have learned that the group owns 530，000 ha. of land， much of it lying fallow. The group has expressed willingness both to cooperate with China in utilizing its idle land and to export the grain it produces to China，”He said.
China also owns plenty of unused agricultural resources， capital and laborers， which makes China-Ukraine agricultural cooperation beneficial to both sides.
“In brief， we should take a rational view of China’s overseas investment in agriculture. In spite of its large population， China can guarantee its grain supply through technology. I think that by encouraging Chinese agricultural enterprises to go global China is in a sense endeavoring to strengthen its agricultural sector by pitting these enterprises against international competitors， so making them an international force. The essence of the ‘going global’ strategy for Chinese agriculture is that it will contribute to world agricultural development，” He concluded.
SOE Autonomy
China’s state-owned enterprises（SOEs） have been under discussion among observers within the world community of these companies’ forays abroad. The general opinion is that the Chinese government’s manipulations of SOEs have quashed many of their potential acquisitions.
“Foreign observers usually have scant understanding of China’s administration system. They labor under the misconception that SOEs’ operations abroad are controlled and financially supported by China’s government. This is not the case. The government neither manipulates nor allocates funds to them，” He told China Today.
When examining and approving overseas investment projects， the National Development and Reform Commission（NDRC） raises suggestions with respect to the investment orientation to ensure investment safety， according to He. For example， approving authorities will obviously advise enterprises not to invest in countries that are embroiled in wars. But as to whether or not an investment will be profitable， this is left entirely to the enterprise concerned to decide， according to He. The NDRC checks the source of investment capital and an enterprise’s bank credit. Unless the bank is willing to issue letters of guarantee for loans to an enterprise， the NDRC will not approve that enterprise’s proposed overseas investment project.
Some overseas China watchers believe that the Chinese government is the source of SOE investment， as their loans are mainly obtained from stated-owned banks. As He explained， “State-owned banks are also enterprises whose loans must be repaid because they are not government appropriations. A bad loan， in the case of an investment going sour， means that the bank will suffer.” To avoid risks， therefore， banks make financial audits of enterprises to ensure their repayment capability prior to granting loans.
Although China’s SOEs took the lead in the “going global” campaign， private enterprises are adding robust momentum to it. In 2011， the proportion of private enterprises among the total undertaking overseas investment was around 35 percent. In 2012， the proportion rose to 40 percent.
“China’s government has repeatedly stressed its willingness to support private enterprises that go global. I personally think that private enterprises will become the main force of China’s overseas investment， and that this is an inevitable trend，” He said. “As for the rapid increase of the private share in China’s overseas investment， I think this can be attributed to their flexible mechanisms and quick decision-making. These are the strengths of private companies， as there is no need to obtain approval at various levels. Sometimes， all that is needed is a decision by the chairman of the board.”
Greater Localization
Criticism abroad of China’s enterprises with regards to corporate social responsibility has been vociferous. It includes charges that such enterprises bring Chinese workers with them rather than hiring locals； also that they have failed to protect local environment and made scant contributions to local communities.
“This might be true of some enterprises in the past，” He said， going on to explain that this could be ascribed to Chinese enterprises being new to the international arena. There are some Chinese entrepreneurs that indeed run their business abroad with a fixed Chinesestyle mindset and management mode.
“In the past， private enterprises often took their Chinese workers abroad with them. When asked why， their response would be that Chinese workers are the world’s most industrious， and that in addition to being highly efficient， they are prepared to work overtime， endure hardship and survive tough environments，”He said. From an economic perspective， this practice is seemingly defensible. But if investment is made overseas， it should include employing locals. As employment brings stability， creating more jobs is of even greater social significance than making donations towards building kindergartens and primary schools in the destination countries. Aware of the importance of corporate social responsibility， the theme of the 5th China Overseas Investment Fair held last December was “Responsibility， Investment and Cooperation.”
“To make a successful investment， it is vital to take corporate social responsibility into account. I don’t have accurate statistical data to hand， but based on my tracking of enterprises that are going global I find many of them are changing. They frame their localization policy and hire more local workers，” He said. After acquiring Volvo， Geely did not send a single Chinese employee to Sweden， instead hired more than 1，200 locals. The company’s original intention was to run its overseas business with Volvo’s original staff. More and more Chinese enterprises are acknowledging their social responsibilities abroad by building kindergartens， hospitals and schools as well as contributing to the construction of local infrastructure.
In 2012 Chinese overseas enterprises hired more than 700，000 local employees. Tax paid to destination countries that year exceeded US $22 billion， according to official data.
“After all， our enterprises have been going global for only a short period. We need time to learn about and adapt to local communities. The outside world should take into consideration the time these enterprises need to integrate with local communities rather than stereotyping them based on isolated instances，”He said.
The Facts of the Matter
Since the outbreak of the world financial crisis， world opinions on Chinese investment have been mixed. On one hand， media reports have repeatedly stated that the world welcomes China’s cash； on the other， it is clear that world media delight in reporting on rejections of Chinese enterprises’ overseas investment on the pretext of national security.
“There are restrictions on Chinese investment in some countries. For example， the U.S. turned it down for reasons of national security. Huawei and Sany Heavy Industry have both encountered the same predicament，” He said. These cases have entailed the involvement of many interest groups， including Congress and lobbying groups. “We are capable of identifying our own problems， notably a lack of awareness of our image as regards outbound investment. The inappropriate behavior of certain Chinese enterprises has damaged the overall standing of Chinese enterprises abroad，”He said. It is imperative， therefore， that Chinese enterprises investing overseas abide by local laws. This will help build a good reputation. “Encountering different concepts， practices and traditions is inevitable when investing in other countries. You can’t change them， but you can change yourself by standardizing and promoting your enterprise in ways that dispel other people’s misgivings. If the destination country declines your investment for reasons of national security， you can leave governments to deal with the matter， because it is a government-level issue，” He said.
The U.S. turning down Chinese investment on the grounds of national security is definitely the exception rather than the rule. The media sensation it causes can be ascribed to the reporting biases of foreign media that tend to exaggerate certain issues with the intent of smearing Chinese enterprises. On the other hand， certain domestic media also overreact to such instances.
“I don’t agree that failed Chinese overseas investment ventures outnumber those that succeed，” He said. He holds that media should be objective in their reports， and size up Chinese investment holistically rather than exaggerating problems in a way that signifies an overt bias against China.