The vexed question that is the Chinese challenge
Travel broadens the mind. Gordon Brown has always been fond of statistics, usually cited as evidence of how well the British economy is doing under his stewardship. But his recent trip to China provided him with some less encouraging numbers.
As he noted on his return, some 300,000 Chinese graduate in science and engineering each year, compared with 100,000 in Britain. In relative terms, given the Chinese population, that is not too bad a gap. But the disparity in absolute numbers is one of the big economic challenges facing western countries, including the UK.
Since Mr Brown never came across an economic challenge with which he did not want to grapple in minute detail, that gives him material for however long he remains chancellor. The China challenge covers a vast range of microeconomic matters, from education achievement to investment in research and development.
To the extent that a government has direct control over a country's microeconomic performance, Mr Brown seems to have sensible aims. But he is clearly in the diminishing returns phase of his chancellorship. Nothing much will compare with the government's early decisions to cede responsibility for monetary policy and invest more in education.
The first of these encouraged macroeconomic stability, one of the most important factors in encouraging long-term investment. The second one boosted Britain's effort to make up its historic deficit, compared with other countries, in the proportion of young people going into higher education. Both of the decisions have already had encouraging effects on the country's growth record and prospects.
It is no coincidence that Britain's most globally competitive companies, including BP, GlaxoSmithKline, Royal Bank of Scotland and Rolls-Royce, depend heavily on attracting skilled graduates and particularly in science and engineering postgraduates. Many of these recruits now come from
other countries but the more people complete degrees at UK universities the better.
Rolls-Royce is a good example of how a company can benefit from excellence in academic research. Its partnerships with universities not only allow it to get more from its research budget (it can encourage the kind of applied engineering research from which it will benefit) but allows it to attract the best engineering specialists. It is applying that model both in Britain and other countries where it operates. The result is a British company making the kind of products that are hardest for Chinese competitors to imitate. Both Rolls-Royce and General Electric of the US, its main competitor in civil aerospace, are confident about Chinese competition. Aircraft engines are so complex and contain such advanced technology that there is a high barrier to entry.
So far so good, but how far should any government venture beyond areas that are clearly its province education and macroeconomic policy into encouraging the creation of more Rolls-Royces and GlaxoSmithKlines? Not only does it risk wasting public money but a government policy for R&D, science or vocational education can easily turn into a covert industrial policy.
In this regard, the Budget's fine print is encouraging. Probably through lack of money, perhaps through lack of inclination, none of the industrial measures grouped under the category of “meeting the productivity challenge” were as far-reaching or ambitious as Mr Brown's Budget speech rhetoric suggested. Most of the specifics were to do with education reform.
The co-ordination of public and private research funding for science and innovation, including the UK's stem cell initiative, is sensible. After all, public investment through the National Institutes of Health is one reason why pharmaceutical companies find the US a good place for R&D. It is more questionable whether the government has a proper role in encouraging creativity and the wider use of good industrial design.
But by raising the challenge of China and India without throwing large amounts of public money at areas outside the government's competence, Mr Brown seems broadly on the right track. Once a government has contributed a strong education system and macroeconomic stability, it is up to a nation's entrepreneurs and companies to respond.
伤脑筋的中国挑战
旅行能够开阔眼界。戈登?布朗（Gordon Brown）一向喜欢数据，他经常援引数据，以证明英国经济在其领导下运转良好。但在最近的中国之行中，他却了解到一些不太令人鼓舞的数字。
正如他在回国途中所说，中国每年有大约30万科技和工程专业毕业生，而英国为10万。考虑到中国的人口总量，以相对值计算，这一差距并不悬殊。但绝对值的差距仍是英国等西方国家面临的巨大经济挑战之一。
布朗先生在所有遇到的经济挑战中，一向注重细枝末节。那无论他财政大臣一职担任多久，都会有事干。从教育成就到研发投资，中国的挑战覆盖大范围的微观经济领域。
从政府直接控制国家微观经济表现的角度来说，布朗先生似乎有着明智的目标。但他的财政大臣工作，显然已处于收益递减阶段。对于政府放弃制定货币政策的职责并增加教育投入的早期政策，能与之匹敌者寥寥无几。
第一项政策支持了宏观经济稳定，这是鼓励长期投资的最重要因素之一。第二项政策加强了英国消除历史性赤字的努力，英国青年接受高等教育的人口比例相对其他国家偏低。这两项决定已对国家经济增长情况及前景起到了促进作用。
英国最有全球竞争力的公司，包括英国石油（BP）、葛兰素史克（GlaxoSmithKline）、苏格兰皇家银行（Royal Bank of Scotland）和罗尔斯?罗伊斯（Rolls Royce）等，都严重依赖于吸引有技术专长的毕业生，特别是科技和工程专业研究生，这并非巧合。现在很多新雇员的招收都来自其他国家，但在英国获得学位的人仍是越多越好。
在企业如何从杰出的学术研究中获益方面，罗尔斯?罗伊斯堪称楷模。该公司与大学间的伙伴关系，不仅让其研究预算更加划算（它可以鼓励某种能从中获益的应用工程研究），而且使其得以吸引最优秀的工程人才。该公司正把这一模式应用到英国以及其他有业务的国家。由此一来，英国的公司就可以生产某种中国竞争对手最难以仿造的产品。罗尔斯?罗伊斯及其在民用航空业的主要竞争者――美国通用电气（General Electric），均对来自中国的竞争充满信心。飞机发动机非常精密，含有极先进的技术，以至于准入门槛很高。
到现在为止，一切都还不错。但作为政府，应该在多大程度上超越教育和宏观经济政策等明显属于自己的职权范围，以新举措支持创办更多的罗尔斯?罗伊斯和葛兰素史克呢？这不仅面临浪费国家资金的风险，而且政府有关研发、科技或在职教育的政策也会轻易变为隐秘的产业政策。
就此而言，政府预算的附属细则令人鼓舞。或许因缺乏资金，或许因缺乏意愿，在“迎接生产力挑战”这部分中汇集的产业措施与布朗先生慷慨激昂的预算演说所暗示的相比，均缺乏深远影响或雄心壮志。具体内容大多涉及教育改革。
对公共和私人科技创新研究资金进行协调，包括英国倡导的干细胞计划，均属明智之举。美国通过国家卫生研究所（National Institutes of Health）进行公共投资，毕竟是制药企业将其视为开展研发的理想地点的一个原因。在鼓励创新以及良好的工业设计的普及方面，政府是否负有适当的责任更加令人怀疑。
但布朗先生在提出中国和印度的挑战的同时，却没有把大量国家资金投入政府权限以外的领域，这总起来说似乎是正确的。一旦政府已促成强大的教育体系和宏观经济稳定，就轮到这个国家的企业家和公司采取行动了。
