研究：中國逾半基建項目導致重大浪費
牛津教授們的研究將助燃圍繞中國增長模式的可行性的辯論，但其他經濟學家認為基建項目仍是值得的。
收藏
更新於2016年9月12日06:37 英國《金融時報》吳佳柏 上海報導
牛津大學(Oxford university)研究員得出結論，中國逾半基礎設施投資項目“摧毀，而不是產生”經濟價值，因為成本比效益更大，這一研究發現將助燃圍繞中國側重於基建的增長模式的可行性的辯論。
過去35年裡，基礎設施投資是中國經濟增長的一大推動力，數億農村勞動者進城務工。今年以來中國加大了基建支出，以緩衝製造業投資放緩。
但是，以牛津大學賽德商學院(Saïd Business School)講師阿提夫•安薩爾(Atif Ansar)為首的一組牛津教授撰寫的一篇論文稱，此類投資導致重大浪費，同時加重中國令人擔憂的債務負擔。
“典型的基建投資不光遠遠不是經濟增長的引擎，而且不能提供經風險調整的正回報，”該論文發現。
“管理不善的基建投資是中國正在浮現的經濟和金融問題的一個主要解釋。我們預測，除非中國換檔至較低水平、但更高質量的基礎設施投資，否則中國將滑向一場基礎設施引領的全國金融和經濟危機。”
這篇論文的矛頭指向其所稱的經濟學家的“普遍觀點”，即較高的基礎設施投資率對於發展中經濟體是至關重要的，而中國在這方面提供了一個值得他國借鑒的榜樣。安薩爾警告，恰恰相反，巴西、尼日利亞和巴基斯坦等國不應該效仿中國的道路。中國國家主席習近平的標誌性外交政策倡議“新絲綢之路”呼籲相關國家出資建設公路、鐵路和港口，把中國同中亞、中東和歐洲連接起來。
“所謂中國增長主要歸功於大量基礎設施投資是一個錯誤觀念。中國的增長歸功於大膽的經濟自由化和製度改革，這種增長現在面臨低水平基礎設施投資過熱的威脅，”安薩爾表示。
發表於最新一期《牛津經濟政策評論》(Oxford Review of Economic Policy)的上述論文表示，中國有四分之三的項目遭遇超支，加劇了債務問題。作者們估計，中國28.2萬億美元債務負擔有三分之一可歸因於此類超支。這項研究依據的樣本是中國在1984年至2008年之間開展的95個公路和鐵路基建項目。
其他一些經濟學家不同意安薩爾的批評。他們認為，即使基礎設施項目不直接產生足夠的現金流來覆蓋其融資成本，積極的外部因素也可以刺激足夠經濟活動，使此類項目值得投資。
“在過去幾十年的大部分時間裡，中國大部分基建投資對整體經濟起到了不錯的作用。如果你對比中國和其它多數發展中國家，那些國家都巴不得置身於中國的處境，擁有所有那些基礎設施，”牛津經濟(Oxford Economics)亞洲經濟部主任、曾擔任世界銀行(World Bank)高級中國經濟學家的高路易(Louis Kuijs)表示。
但高路易承認，中國現在面臨額外基礎設施的邊際效益遞減，因為最有成效的投資已基本到位。其他分析師也認為存在過多且浪費的基建投資問題，但懷疑這將導致危機。
“論文作者們在個別基礎設施項目上的數據告訴我們，中國在管理基礎設施項目方面不好也不壞，基本上和世界其他地方差不多——就像其他地方一樣，他們往往落後於進度表，而預算超支，”北京龍洲經訊(Gavekal Dragonomics)中國研究總監白安儒(Andrew Batson)表示。
譯者/和風
China infrastructure investment model under fire
Heavy spending not key driver of Chinese growth miracle, Oxford economists argue
More than half of Chinese infrastructure investments have “destroyed, not generated” economic value as the costs have been larger than the benefits, according to researchers at Oxford university, a finding that will fuel debate over the viability of China’s infrastructure-heavy growth model.
Infrastructure investment has been a major driver of Chinese economic growth over the past 35 years as hundreds of millions of workers migrated from rural to urban areas. China has stepped up infrastructure spending this year to buffer a slowdown in manufacturing investment.
But such investment leads to significant waste while adding to China’s worrying debt load, says the paper by Oxford professors, led by Atif Ansar, a lecturer at Oxford’s Saïd Business School.
“Far from being an engine of economic growth, the typical infrastructure investment fails to deliver a positive risk-adjusted return,” the paper found.
“Poorly managed infrastructure investments are a main explanation of surfacing economic and financial problems in China. We predict that, unless China shifts to a lower level of higher-quality infrastructure investments, the country is headed for an infrastructure-led national financial and economic crisis.”
The paper takes aim at what it calls the “prevalent view” among economists that high rates of infrastructure investment are crucial to growth for developing economies and that China offers a model for others emulate. On the contrary, Mr Ansar warns that countries such as Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan should not follow China’s path. President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy initiative, the New Silk Road, calls for the country to finance road, rail and port construction to connect China with central Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
“It is a myth that China grew thanks largely to heavy infrastructure investment. It grew due to bold economic liberalisation and institutional reforms, and this growth is now threatened by over-investment in low-grade infrastructure,” Mr Ansar said.
Three quarters of all projects suffered a cost overrun, which has exacerbated the debt problem, said the paper, which appears in the current issue of Oxford Review of Economic Policy. The authors estimate that a third of China’s $28.2tn debt load is attributable to such overruns. The study is based on a sample of 95 road and rail infrastructure projects in China between 1984 and 2008.
Other economists dissent from Mr Ansar’s criticism. Even if an infrastructure project does not directly generate enough cash flow to cover its financing costs, they argue, positive externalities can spur enough economic activity that makes the project worthwhile.
“For most of the past few decades, the bulk of Chinese infrastructure investment has served the overall economy reasonably well. If you compare China with most other developing countries, they would love to be in China’s shoes in terms of having all that infrastructure,” said Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics and former senior China economist at the World Bank.
But Mr Kuijs acknowledges that China now faces diminishing returns from additional infrastructure, as the most productive investments are already largely complete. Other analysts also see problems with excessive and wasteful infrastructure investment but doubt it will lead to crisis.
“The authors’ data on individual infrastructure projects tell us that China is basically no worse and no better than the rest of the world in terms of managing infrastructure projects — just like everywhere else, they often run behind schedule and over budget,” said Andrew Batson, China research director at Gavekal-Dragonomics in Beijing.
沒有留言:
張貼留言