Why Asia needs a more active market in ideas
One of the most surprising discoveries on moving to Asia is how little intellectual curiosity there is in the region about the dynamics of its dizzying rise and where it is leading. In spite of Asia's growing global weight, much of the most illuminating research into its affairs still originates elsewhere, mainly in the west.
Asia has no shortage of brainpower, or of self-styled think-tanks. But most produce pedestrian work that often fails to grapple with the hard questions. Many simply churn out official propaganda and few look far beyond their own backyard. In the words of Jean-Pierre Lehmann, a Swiss business school professor who knows Asia well, there is a lot of tank, but not much think.
ADVERTISEMENT
Many western think-tanks, of course, are also little more than mouthpieces for their financial backers. But the best ones dig for facts, sift them rigorously, question established policies and seek to chart new directions. Asia has no such marketplace for ideas. Stunning though China's growth is, it is impressive as a daring feat of execution, not because it is based on startlingly original development thinking.
Novel ideas are stimulated by intellectual contention and reasoned dissent. It is no accident that they tend to flow freely in countries such as the US and Britain that not only tolerate but encourage those activities as socially beneficial. In Asia, only India, home to some notably independent-minded research institutes, has a comparable tradition. Amartya Sen, the Indian-born scholar, traces it back to 7th-century Buddhist councils that sought the truth through spirited debate.
Elsewhere in the region, questioning the established order is frowned upon - even where autocratic regimes do not suppress it. Instinctive deference to authority, paternalism and reluctance to cause others to lose face inhibit overt challenge and criticism. As Professor Sen points out in his book The Argumentative Indian, heterodox opinions also tend to arouse suspicions that they are motivated by ambition for power, rather than for better outcomes.
Typically, Asia's way is to cope with the world as it is, not to try radically to change it. The approach has often paid off. Businesses' flair for turning obstacles into opportunities is the key to much of the region's dynamism. Pragmatism by governments in the region has enabled economic integration to advance, in spite of the deep mistrust that often divides them. Rather than trying to promote integration through laws and treaties, they have left market forces to take the lead.
However, a bias towards acquiescence in the status quo also has costs. It does not foster the vigorous spirit of inquiry needed to spark the innovation that many emerging Asian economies are eager to encourage. The willingness of business to rub along with political power can easily degenerate into cronyism and cosy collusion against the public interest, of which there are all too many examples in Asia.
Policymaking also suffers if governments are not urged to think the unthinkable and held regularly to account by external scrutiny. Looming problems can go undetected until it is too late, while alternatives for tackling them are ignored. As the Association of South East Asian Nations has belatedly realised, following the course of least resistance is a formula for stagnation.
Asia will need a more active market in ideas if it is to respond to the huge challenges thrown up by its future development. These extend across borders, in fields as diverse as health, migration, transport and the environment. The region's lack of common institutions and forums in which to develop joint solutions makes the need for smart thinking all the greater.
However, the biggest obstacle to harnessing it is not a shortage of good think-tanks. It is weak demand for what they offer. Hong Kong's Civic Exchange is one of the region's best think-tanks and a formidable campaigner for change. Yet its well-argued critiques of policy have not stopped the government pushing ahead with ill-considered and unnecessary proposals, such as a goods and services tax, nor caused it to get to grips with the city's appalling air pollution problem.
Hong Kong's government is not accountable to voters, either. But the story is similar in young democracies such as Taiwan or the Philippines. They are in a mess, not just because of flawed leadership, but because opposition legislators are intent less on promoting positive policy than on bringing down their governments.
All markets need buyers as well as sellers. Until more Asian policymakers are prepared to give them air time, critical voices advocating constructive change will struggle to make themselves heard.
亚洲需要“思想市场”
我
搬到亚洲后最惊奇的发现之一是，对于亚洲令人叹为观止的崛起以及它的未来发展方向，很少存在理论层面的好奇心。尽管亚洲的全球影响力日益增加，但无论是经济学、商业、社会政策，还是国际关系，该地区诸多事务方面最具启发性的研究，有许多都发源于其它地区，主要是西方。
亚洲不缺脑力人才或自封的智库。但大部分产生的是乏味的成果，往往不针对真正的难题，更别提解答了。许多成果只不过是官方宣传，而且几乎没有人看到自己的小天地之外。用熟悉亚洲的瑞士商学院教授让-皮埃尔?雷曼(Jean-Pierre Lehmann)的话来说，亚洲智库不少，但思想不多。
诚然，许多西方智库也不过是其资金赞助者的喉舌。但还是有一些最优秀的智库，深入挖掘事实，严格加以筛选，质疑现有政策，并寻求制订出新的方向。偶尔，它们能够播下革新的种子，就像对英国撒切尔夫人(Baroness Thatcher)的思想产生深刻影响的那些智库一样。
亚洲根本没有思想的市场。中国的经济增长固然令人瞠目，但令人印象深刻的是其大胆的“执行”成就，而不是独创的发展思想。约10年前，“亚洲价值观”被作为一种与众不同的哲学思想在该地区宣传，但这些价值观只是出于证明威权政府正当性的自私企图。
相比之下，新颖思想是由智力辩论与理智反驳所激发的。它们往往在英美等国大量涌现，这绝非偶然。这些国家宽容甚至鼓励这些活动，认为这些活动有益社会。在亚洲，只有印度拥有与之媲美的传统，该国有一些具备显著独立思想的研究机构。印度裔学者阿玛蒂亚?森(Amartya Sen)将这种传统追溯到公元7世纪的佛教结集会，结集会通过热烈讨论来探求真理。
在亚洲其它地区，质疑现存秩序的做法受到反对，即便威权政府并未对其压制时也是如此。对权威出自本能的顺从、家长作风以及不愿让别人丢脸的心态，抑制了公然的挑战与批评。正如森教授在《好辩的印度人》(The Argumentative Indian)一书中指出的，非正统观点往往会引起猜疑，认为这些观点是由夺权野心所激发，而不是为了获得更好的结果。
亚洲典型的处事方法是接受现状，而不是设法彻底改变现状：遇到路障就绕过，而不是推平。这种做法往往能获得丰厚回报。亚洲企业“化障碍为机遇”的本领，在很大程度上是该地区活力的关键。同样，亚洲各国政府的实用主义使经济一体化得以推进，尽管彼此间深刻的不信任常常令它们分裂。亚洲各国政府让市场力量去推动一体化，而不是通过法律与条约来推动这一这一进程。
然而，安于现状也是有代价的。它不能培育出激发创新所需的充满活力的探究精神，而创新则是许多亚洲新兴经济体热衷于鼓励的。企业与政治力量“和睦相处”的意愿，很容易堕落成任人唯亲和违背公共利益的暧昧合谋。这种例子在亚洲不胜枚举。
如果不敦促政府探索“想都不敢想的”彻底改革，并借助外部审查对政府进行经常问责，政策制定也会受到影响。隐现的问题可能不易察觉，待发现后为时已晚，而多种解决方法也被忽略。外交关系和国内事务都是如此。正如东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)认识到的那样（尽管这种认识姗姗来迟），一味遵循最小阻力路径(course of least resistance)只会导致停滞不前。
如果亚洲希望能够应对未来发展所带来的巨大挑战，它需要一个更加活跃的思想市场。这些挑战正日益跨越国界，并存在于保健、移民、运输和环境等诸多领域。亚洲缺乏可以制定共同解决方案的共有机构和论坛，这使得对高瞻远瞩的思想的需求更大了。
但利用这些思想的最大障碍并非缺乏优秀的智库，而是对智库观点的疲弱需求。香港思汇政策研究所(Civic Exchange)是该地区最好的智库之一，还是推动变革的有力参与机构。然而，它针对政府政策提出了论证有力、基于事实的批评，但这既未阻止政府加紧推行考虑不周且不必要的建议，如征收商品和服务税，也没能促使政府认真解决香港糟糕的空气污染问题。
当然，香港政府对选民也是无须负责的。但在台湾或菲律宾等年轻的民主政体中，情况也大同小异。它们都处于混乱之中，但原因并不仅仅是领导阶层无能，还因为反对党立法者们更热衷于将现任政府赶下台，而不是推动积极的政策议程。
所有市场都同时需要买方和卖方。在更多的亚洲政策制定者愿意提供言论机会之前，倡导建设性变革的批评者们，将难以让人们听到自己的声音。
