China and India pose a challenge
China and India are leading the way in the race for economic development, but their approaches are very different what China is to manufacturing, India could well be to services. Together, they could usher in a broader and more powerful strain of globalisation that will put pressure on the developed world. China's manufacturing-led impetus has been nothing short of astonishing. The industrial sector's share of Chinese gross domestic product rose from 41.6 per cent in 1990 to 52.3 per cent in 2003 accounting for fully 54 per cent of the cumulative increase in the GDP over this 13-year period. The impetus that services have given to India's growth has been equally impressive. The services portion of Indian GDP increased from 40.6 per cent in 1990 to 50.8 per cent in 2003 accounting for 62 per cent of the cumulative increase in the country's GDP.
But the strengths of China and India mask weaknesses in both economies. Industry's share of Indian GDP has been essentially stagnant at 27.2 per cent of GDP between 1990 and 2003. As a result, industrial activity has accounted for only 27 per cent of the cumulative increase in India's GDP over the past 13 years literally half the contribution evident in China. At the same time, the services share of Chinese GDP rose from 31.3 per cent in 1990 to 33.1 per cent in 2003. Over the period, the expansion of China's services economy represented just 33 per cent of the cumulative increase in overall GDP only a little more than half the contribution services made to Indian growth. China has rewritten the classic script of manufacturing-led development. Four main factors have distinguished its industrialisation a 43 per cent domestic savings rate, impressive progress in building infrastructure, surging foreign direct investment and a vast reservoir of hard-working, low-cost labour. By contrast, India's national savings rate is only 24 per cent; its infrastructure is in terrible shape; and its ability to attract foreign direct investment which ran at only $4bn in 2003 pales in comparison with the $53bn that poured into China in each of the last two years.
But these disadvantages have not stopped India. By opting for a services-led path, India has sidestepped the savings, infrastructure and FDI constraints that have long hobbled its manufacturing strategy. Its reliance on services plays, instead, to its greatest strengths: a well-educated workforce, information technology competency and English-language proficiency. The result has been a renaissance in IT-enabled services software, business process outsourcing, multimedia, network management and systems integration that has enabled India to fill the void left by chronic deficiencies in industrialisation.
China, on the other hand, is deficient in most private services especially retailing, distribution and professional services such as accountancy, medicine, consultancy and the law. Exceptions in the services sector are telecommunications and air travel. Over the next five to 10 years, China's gap in services represents a huge opportunity. In the developed world, services account for at least 65 per cent of total economic activity double China's current share. Expansion of a labour-intensive services sector could also fill an important employment need, as reforms of state-owned enterprises continue to eliminate 7m-9m jobs per year. If China's manufacturing-led growth continues and India pulls off a rare services-led development strategy, the wealthy industrial world will face big new challenges. The theory of trade liberalisation and globalisation maintains that there is little to worry about. In the long run, the income workers make as producers should show up on the other side of the ledger as purchasing power for a new class of consumers, presenting opportunities to suppliers in the developed world.
The problem is that some of these basic assumptions are in serious question. In their simplest form, “open” economic models comprise two sectors tradeables and non-tradeables. For rich, developed economies, the loss of market share in manufacturing to low-cost, developing nations is acceptable as long as there is a secure fallback to the non-tradeable services sector, which has long been shielded from international competition.
Yet now the knowledge-based content of the output of white-collar workers can be exported anywhere with a click of a mouse, the rules of the game have changed. Many services become tradeable, not only at the low end of the value chain call-centre operators and data processors but increasingly at the upper end where software programmers, engineers, accountants, lawyers, consultants and doctors work.
Services-driven development models, such as the one at work in India, broaden the global competitive playing field. As a result, new pressures are brought to bear on hiring and real wages in the developed world pressures that are not inconsequential in shaping the jobless recoveries unfolding in high-cost wealthy nations. For those in the developed world, successful services- and manufacturing-based development models in heavily populated countries such as India and China pose the toughest question of all: what about us?
The writer is Morgan Stanley's chief economist
中印经济带来的挑战
中国和印度正在经济发展竞赛中领跑，但它们的领跑方式截然不同：中国依靠制造业，印度则依靠服务业。这两个国家可能会共同开创一种更广、更有力的全球化模式，并给发达国家带来压力。中国以制造业主导的推动力绝对惊人。工业在中国国内生产总值(GDP)中的比重从1990年的41.6%，增加到了2003年的52.3%。在这13年间的GDP累计增加值中，工业产值占了整整54%。服务业对印度经济增长的推动同样令人印象深刻。印度GDP中服务业的比重从1990年的40.6%，上升到了2003年的50.8%，占同期印度GDP累计增加值的62%。
但中国和印度的这些优势掩盖了各自经济中的不足。1990年至2003年间，工业对印度GDP的贡献基本上一直在27.2%的水平徘徊。结果是，过去13年间，在印度的GDP累计增加值中，工业产值仅占27%，几乎只有中国工业对GDP贡献的一半。与此同时，服务业在中国GDP中的比重从1990年的31.3%增加到了2003年的33.1%。期间，中国服务经济的增长量在整体GDP累计增加值中所占的比例只有33%，仅为服务业对印度经济增长所作贡献的一半多一点。中国改写了制造业主导型发展的经典篇章。四个主要因素使中国的工业化过程与众不同：43%的国民储蓄率、举世瞩目的基础设施建设成就、迅猛增长的外国直接投资，以及巨大的勤劳而低成本劳动力资源。反观印度，它的国民储蓄率仅为24%，基础设施状况惨不忍睹，而该国吸引外国直接投资的能力2003年仅为40亿美元，与最近两年每年都有530亿美元外资涌入的中国相比，相形见绌。
但这些不利条件并没有阻止印度发展的脚步。通过选择一条以服务业为主导的道路，印度绕过了储蓄、基础设施和外国直接投资上的制约，而长期以来这些制约因素一直令该国的制造业战略发展步履蹒跚。该国对服务业的依赖反而令它能充分发挥它最大的优势：受过良好教育的劳动力、信息技术实力以及英语水平。结果是信息技术带动的软件、业务流程外包、多媒体、网络管理以及系统集成等服务行业的复兴。服务业的复兴使印度得以填补工业化过程中的长期缺陷留下的空白。
另一方面，中国在大多数私营服务领域存在欠缺，尤其是在零售、配送，以及会计、医药、咨询和法律等专业服务领域。但电信业和航空业是其中的例外情况。在今后5到10年间，中国服务业中的缺口意味着巨大的商机。在发达国家，服务业至少要占到总体经济活动的65%以上，是中国目前水平的两倍。劳动密集型服务行业的扩张也能满足一块重要的就业需求，因为国有企业改革继续导致每年700万至900万个职位的削减。如果中国制造业带动的增长继续，并且印度成功实现罕见的服务主导型发展战略，那么富裕的工业国家将面临巨大的新挑战。贸易自由化和全球化理论坚持认为，没有什么好担忧的。长远来看，作为生产者的工人创造的收入应会在账目的支出栏列出，成为一个新消费阶层的购买力，这将为发达国家的供应商带来商机。
问题在于，这些基本设想受到严重质疑。从最简单的形式来看，“开放”经济模式由两部分组成：可交易部分和不可交易部分。对于富有的发达国家来说，制造业的市场份额让给低成本的发展中国家是可以接受的，只要不可交易的服务业有保障。服务业长期来一直受到保护，没有向国际竞争开放。
但现在，只要点击一下鼠标，白领工人生产出来的以知识为基础的内容就可以出口到任何地方。游戏规则已经改变了。许多服务变得可以交易，不仅是位于价值链低端的呼叫中心接线员和数据处理员，而且包括越来越多处于高端的软件程序员、工程师、会计师、律师、咨询师和医生的工作。
服务业驱动的发展模式，如目前正在印度发挥作用的这种模式，扩大了全球竞争的领域。结果是给发达国家的就业和实际工资带来新的压力。高成本富裕国家目前正在出现无就业增长复苏，而对于这种复苏的形成，这种压力并非无关紧要。对发达国家的人来说，在印度和中国等人口众多的国家里，以服务和制造业为基础的成功发展模式提出了一个最棘手问题：我们怎么办？
