中国建设银行董事长郭树清日前表示，下一个30年里中国的经济发展，将不再仅仅取决于资本、劳动和土地等传统生产要素。服务业超过制造业份额，是中国经济下一轮战略调整的实质所在。

郭树清在北京接受了《财经》杂志记者张燕冬和董欲晓的采访。

《财经》：你说过，尽管发达国家在金融危机中遭到了“阵痛”，但它们的经济转型仍在持续推进，相比之下，中国没有理由不加快经济转型。在你看来，中国存在着什么问题？

郭树清：首先，中国经济增长速度快，但我们的国民福利水平并没有同步提升。

其次，在国家竞争力上，虽然中国在改革开放后发展很快，但目前仍处于工业化中期。中国的信息化也在前进，有些尖端行业如高速铁路已经靠近世界先进技术，但国民经济的综合发展水平还差很远。

第三，从企业竞争力上看，世界500强企业中，2009年美国占比27％左右；中国大陆和港澳台总共10％多一点。而且中国的企业都是依靠市场规模和客户数量，几乎没有依靠技术创新等独特优势在业内领先的。

第四，从科技教育上看，最近英国泰晤士报评比，世界最好的200所大学里美国有72家，英国29家，德国14家，中国大陆只有6家，加上香港台湾也只有14家。英美两国占一半以上，如何赶超？这个差距恐怕不是几年或十几年就能缩小的。

第五，从社会付出的代价来看，我们面临的形势更不容乐观。中国的工业化带来的城乡分割、地区差别、城乡差别更大得多。仅就农民工一事而言，几亿人背井离乡，不少夫妻长期“两地分居”，“留守儿童”更多达四五千万。

最后，生态环境极不乐观。中国有2.5万亿美元的外汇储备。但如果要恢复到欧美国家那样的生态环境，可能要花费超过这个数额十倍的代价。

《财经》：为什么在中国这些必要地调整那么困难？难在哪里？

郭树清：第一个难点是中国工业长期处在世界产业链低端。发达国家的国际公司很有优势，而且一直在不断地向产业链高端转移，通过研发、设计、品牌等，占据有利地位。这些公司大多是跨国公司，中国、印度、非洲、拉美，包括澳大利亚等国家的经济发展，它们都能直接或间接受益。这从另一个角度说明，我们的工业还集中在低端。我们扮演的是“打工者”的角色。

第二个难点是服务业比重低，国内因素就是城乡二元制度改革太慢。近年来，农民工的工资不断提高，但是和城里人实际得到的工资、福利和社会保障比还是差很远，同样工作，只有后者的三分之一。虽然这些不平等受到了一些企业的欢迎，但总体上看并不划算。

第三，能源和环境状况令人担忧。在相当大程度上，我们的能源消费模式正在趋同于美国，不断地买车、修路、摊大城市。马路反复修，房屋不断拆迁等创造的增加值，都要计入了建筑业和GDP，但实际财富和国民福利并没有增加。

《财经》：一些问题涉及到公共政策以及政府治理社会的能力问题，你认为突破口在哪？

郭树清：现阶段的要害问题是人口的城市化，它目前明显落后于土地和就业的非农化城镇化。这需要实实在在地把农民工当市民对待，解决工资待遇、社会保障和基本公共服务的不平等。统筹城乡发展从2003年开始，已经取得很大进步，坚持下去取得实质突破，中国经济一半的问题就处理好了，增长的质量和数量就会有保障。

还有就是是教育。将来的经济增长一定要靠人才。计划经济时期遗留下了苏联式的科研管理体制也是个问题。接下来，我们站在一个新的起点上，必须创新。

《财经》：早期，你曾谈到分析中国城市化落后于工业化，这与西方史学家所认为的“中国没有经历过大规模、标准化、规范化的工业革命，虽然拥抱了后工业社会，但仍然是农业文明的心态”是否有关？

郭树清：他们说的有一定道理，但就看正确到何种程度。乡镇企业发展对中国经济体制的转轨具有根本性意义，与西方工业革命、城市化进程有很大区别，从某种程度上也延缓了中国工业化、现代化的进程。

《财经》：你多次提出过要防范城市化的盲目自发；但同时，你又谈到政府在建设中的主导性太强。这两者如何解释，即主导性强的政府怎么会出现城市化的盲目自发？

郭树清：我说的“盲目自发”是指城市化过程中政府的政策和规划没有跟上，不主动不积极，长期以来落后于实际经济需要。有3亿多农民进入城市，还有一部分进入小城镇，还有一部分在农村就地转移到了非农产业，就是说本来他们已不再是农民了，但又不把他们当市民看待。五年前，甚至三年前，还有不少人认为这是中国的优势，城里没工作就可以回农村，国家没有多少负担。一些专家学者认为，他们不需要社会保障，因为乡下有土地。但各国的历史及我们自己的经验早已证明，城市化是一个不可逆的过程，离开土地是永远离开，只要你给他留地，他就在一定程度上依赖地，但他能回去吗？退一步讲，他能回去，他的子女能回去吗？回不去的。

但是，中国很大，不同地区不同城市，约束条件不同，难以一概而论。以北京为例，这是首都，华北少有的平原地区，而且严重缺水，交通已经十分拥堵，目前人口规模已经突破2020年的控制目标。为什么总在超计划，因为企业、个人、外国投资者、党政军机构都喜欢来北京。越大的城市越容易找到工作赚钱，说得通俗些，做买卖的人多，捡破烂的地方还多呢。

以土地制度为例，我们实行最严格的耕地保护制度。但各地执行结果千差万别，用途管制并不严格。“农用”不断被通过非正式途径转变为“非农用”。首先，农民想把宅基地承包地拿出来搞经济作物，搞民俗旅游，建出租房。其次村委会想变，过去给乡镇企业开个口子，叫生产经营用地。

《财经》：其实政府的作用就应体现在这些方面，问题的实质不是“大政府、小社会”，还是“小政府、大社会”，而是政府如何以更高的效率、更低的成本去做政府应该做的事。

郭树清：政府的功能不应忽视。你看欧美，政府的调节作用很强，政府能决定大学、医院、科研机构甚至军事基地，布局都是全国布局，比如美国州政府所在地，并不总是设在最大的城市。名牌大学多数不是在大城市的。我们的好大学、好医院都高度集中在北京、上海、广州等几个城市里面。

我们整体上讲政府主导，但在某些方面却缺乏政府规划，在这方面我们没有做专门的计划。换言之，我们缺乏符合自然规律、经济规律的规划。大学办到市中心有什么意义？学生整天受商业区干扰，可能真不如盖在偏僻的地方。

《财经》：这是否与理论的缺失有关。结果导致了政府该做的不做，不该做的“乱”做。中国有没有这种现象？

郭树清：我们实行新的市场经济体制以来，政府职能转变的改革一直没有间断。政府已经提出四个方面的基本职能：宏观调控、市场监督、社会管理与公共服务。政府做的事很多，如在公共服务方面，国际上也非常肯定。

义务教育从60年来看比较慢，但最近很快。为什么说60年看就慢？上世纪50年代台湾地区、韩国经济发展水平和我们差不多，但现在教育普及程度比我们高。我们是到了很晚，义务教育还不“义务”，政府没有完全承担起来，许多农村地区学校叫民办公助。

附：原文：Next hurdle: social transformation

China’s economic development in the next 30 years, says China Construction Bank Chairman Guo Shuqing, will not rely only on traditional factors like capital, labor and land. A gradual reduction in the dominance of manufacturing and the rise of the service economy will require a social transformation.

Mr Guo spoke Zhang Yandong and Dong Xiaoyu, reporters for Caijing magazine, a business and finance publication based in Beijing.

Caijing: You say that while developed countries experienced “contractions” during the economic crisis, their economies still move forward, while China has to speed up its economic transformation. What are China's problems?

Guo Shuqing: First. China's economy is growing fast. but national welfare hasn't been improved to the same degree.

Second, though China is developing fast, it still is in the middle of its industrialized phase. High-end industries like rapid-transit railways are among the global leaders in their areas, but general development in the national economy lags far behind.

Third, from a perspective of corporate competiveness, America had 27% of the top 500 global corporations in 2009, while mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan combined for 10%. Corporations in China mostly rely on market scale and customer numbers, rarely on innovative techniques.

Forth, referring to technical education, I recently read that America has 72 out of 200 best universities in the world, England has 29and Germany has 14, while mainland China has only six. Add Hong Kong and Taiwan, and there are 14. If America and England combine for half, how is China going to catch up? I am afraid this gap is not going to narrow within a couple of years.

Fifth, in societal expenses, our situation is not positive at all. Regional differences and city-country differences have been enlarged by industrialization. Take migrant workers for example-millions of people taken away from their hometowns, couples separated and millions of children with single parents.

Last, the environment. China has foreign currency reserves of US$2.5 trillion. It might take 10 times that to restore the environment to a state similar to that of America and Europe.

Caijing: Why are the necessary adjustments hard?

Mr. Guo: One problem is that China's industry has been at the low side of the world's production chain. International companies in developed countries have an advantage, and remain at the top through research, design, branding and so on. They are transnational. so they benefit, directly or indirectly, from the development of China, India, Africa and Latin America. We play an "employee" role.

A second problem is the slow transformation of the city-country system. In recent years, migrant workers' wages have been improving, but their wages, welfare and social protection are still far behind those of city people. Migrant workers get only a third of the salary of city people with the same job. Although some corporations favor this kind of inequality, it is not beneficial as a whole.

The third problem concerns resources and the environment. To a great degree, we are consuming the resources in the same mode as America, continuously buying cars, repairing roads, enlarging cities.

The repetitive repair of roads and continuous relocation benefit the construction industry and raise the GDP. However, real wealth and national welfare hasn't been improved.

Caijing: Some issues involve public strategy and the government's ability to administer society.

Mr. Guo: The critical point in this phase is the urbanization of people, which is far behind the urbanization of land and employment. This requires fair treatment of peasants as citizens, solving problems of unequal salaries, social protections and basic public services such as medical care and education. Statistics from urban and rural development since 2003 show great improvement. Half of the problems in the Chinese economy will be resolved by sticking to original urbanization policies. The quality and quantity of growth will be guaranteed.

Then there's education. Future economic growth relies on capable people. One problem is the "Soviet" scientific-research mechanism left by the planned economy. We need to stand on a new starting point and innovate.

Caijing: Is your argument that urbanization in China lags behind industrialization related to what some Western historians say, that China hasn't experienced industrial transformation-that it has embraced post-industrial society while still in the mind of agricultural civilization?

Mr. Guo: What they said makes a certain sense; it's correct to a degree. The boom in enterprises in townships has played a fundamental role in transforming China's economy. Village industrialization is very different from the Western industrial transformation and urbanization process, and has delayed the process of Chinese industrialization and modernization to a certain degree.

Caijing: You have talked about cities avoiding blind self development, while also saying government has been too dominant in construction.

Mr. Guo: I mentioned that the government has not followed up in strategic planning of the urbanization process. The government is neither negative nor positive, and is far behind the demand of real economy. Over 300 million peasants entered cities, a small portion entered towns and another small portion transferred to nonagricultural areas in villages, which means that they are not peasants anymore but are not treated as townsmen.

Five years ago, or even three years ago, some people still believed this was an advantage in China, since people could go back to the village if they couldn’t find a job in the town, leaving less of a burden on the country. Some experts believed that peasants do not need social protection since they have land in a village. However, history in other countries and our own experience shows that urbanization is an irreversible process, and departing from land is permanent. If we reserved land for them, will peasants actually go back? They could, but will their children go back? No, they won’t.

China is huge, so it’s hard to draw one conclusion. Take Beijing, severely short of water and with a traffic congestion problem. The population already exceeds the target for 2020. Why does it always outrun the planning? Because firms, people, foreign investors and others-including the party and military-love to be to Beijing. It's easier to find jobs and earn money in larger cities. Vulgarly speaking, there is more garbage to pick up in the place with more sales.

Or take the land system. We have a strict system for protecting arable land. However, execution in different areas is distinct. Farmland is continuously turned into non-farm-land through unofficial avenues. Peasants want to use it for rental houses. Village communities want to use it for township enterprises.

Caijing: The essence of the problem is neither "big government, small society" nor "small government, big society." It is how to more effectively do business with lower costs for government.

Mr. Guo: The function of government should not be neglected. Take a look at European countries and America: It is government that decides where to build universities, hospitals, scientific research institutions and military bases. Famous universities are mostly outside big cities, while our great universities are concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and other several big cities.

We talk about "government guidance" in general, but there is a lack of government planning in some aspects. What's the point of constructing a university in a big city? Students are disturbed by business districts-perhaps they could benefit from universities in remote areas.

Caijing: Is this about the vacancy of theories? Government hasn't done a good job when it is supposed to do. but is aggressive when it isn't needed?

Mr. Guo: Government has done some wonderful jobs since we began implementing the new market-economic system. It has provided four basic functions: macro regulation and control, market supervision, society administration and public service.

Compulsory education, for example, began slowly in the 1960s, but has accelerated recently. In the 1950s, Taiwan and Korean had the same level of economic development as us, but now their educational prevalence is higher than ours. Until very lately, compulsory education was not "compulsory"-lots of village schools were DYI: pay tuitions all by yourself.