Foreword:
China is not without high technology.
At the end of 2005, the hartson Institute, a think tank of the federal government of the United States, published a report on the scientific and technological competitiveness of China's Great Leap Forward, and concluded that China began to narrow the gap with the United States in science and technology and military affairs. Even this led to China's "threat theory of science and technology".
But how to turn high technology into productive forces is the mission of an era.
Since the implementation of 1988 Torch Plan, China has invested a lot in science and technology, but how many scientific and technological achievements have really been applied to production and served the society instead of being shelved?
On the other hand, we hope to "exchange market for technology and policy for capital" and introduce foreign capital to improve technology and management. But how much technology spillover did this get? At present, many high-tech industries are controlled by multinational companies, and the overall technological competitiveness and innovation ability of China enterprises are still not optimistic. Therefore, Professor Lang Xianping of the Chinese University declared that China's high technology was just an "illusion".
Is Professor Lang too pessimistic? or ...
There is no practical significance in discussing this problem. Diagnosing the cause and finding a way out is the right way.
The Business School of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and 265438+20th Century Business Herald jointly held the World Balance. Zheng Guohan, member of the Strategic Development Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, Yan Xu, a professor at the Business School of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Lin Zhisheng, deputy director of the IEMBA Course Coordination Center of the Business School of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Feng Hai, deputy director of the Industrial Promotion Bureau of the Beijing Municipal People's Government, Cui, assistant general manager of CITIC Group China International Economic Consulting Company, and chairman of Sichuan Zigong Changzheng Machine Tool Co., Ltd. expressed their views and had a heated discussion on (text/Ma Juan).
Our reporter Ma Juan Li Zhenhua reports from Beijing.
"Professor Lang is wrong"
Moderator: Not long ago, economist Lang Xianping said in his new book "Science Fiction-Analysis on the Development Strategy of High-tech Enterprises in China" that "there are no real high-tech enterprises in China, so there are no real high-tech enterprises in China". In fact, since the implementation of 1988 torch plan, a large number of high-tech enterprises have developed and expanded with the support of the state. How to treat Professor Lang's assertion?
Zheng Guohan: I think Professor Lang is only an expert in finance. He is bold enough to judge whether China has high technology. China and shenzhou spaceship can go into space, but only three countries in the world can. It is untenable to say that there is no high technology in China. However, compared with other developed countries, China's high-tech industry is relatively backward, which is a fact.
What is a high-tech industry? There is no clear definition abroad, which probably means that R&D investment accounts for a high proportion, or it is a technology-intensive industry. Some industries in China have entered the forefront of the world, but the scale is not large. For example, Cisco has regarded Huawei as an international rival, indicating that Huawei cannot be too far away from it. If Cisco is a high-tech enterprise, so should Huawei. Therefore, we have to admit the fact that China's high-tech industry is definitely relatively backward, but it is not too much to say that it is completely absent.
Feng Hai: Professor Lang's statement is too arbitrary. It is ok to say that China is not high-end in some areas and inferior to the United States in some areas, but it is totally not worth refuting that China has no high technology. Yuan Longping's rice cultivation technology is second to none in the world. The Chinese character laser photography technology invented by Wang Xuan also occupies 85% to 90% of the global market. China also has hydrogen bombs, atomic bombs and space technology. If these are not high-tech, you can only say that you don't know high-tech.
Yan Xu: To judge whether there is a high-tech industry, we should first look at whether there are high-tech products, because if there are high-tech products, there will be high-tech industries. As far as products are concerned, China produces and exports a large number of high-tech products such as computers and communication equipment, so high-tech industries definitely exist.
However, in high-tech industries, especially IT industries, the international division of labor is becoming more and more clear, with upstream, midstream and downstream divisions. There are intellectual property rights in the upstream and assembly in the downstream. It is meaningless to discuss whether there is a high-tech industry in itself. What we want to discuss is the position of high-tech enterprises in China in the industrial chain. Is it more focused on the low end?
What is the equation of innovation? Innovation = invention+commercialization. Commercialization requires an accurate grasp of the market, and enterprises must master two points to develop, one is knowledge about technology, and the other is knowledge about demand. China's high-tech products are constantly growing to meet the market demand, which shows that China enterprises are technically weak, but they have a deeper understanding of the demand.
Brand is the key
Moderator: There are basically two ways to acquire high technology: independent research and development and introduction. For a long time, we hope to acquire foreign advanced technology by introducing foreign capital. However, the technology flow brought by foreign direct investment has not been transformed into China's endogenous technological capability. What do you think of the relationship between foreign investment and technology? Should China change its previous strategy if it wants to develop its own high-tech industry?
Cui: Whether or not to develop independently can be explained by the development course of China optical fiber. In 1980s, the communication industry was the bottleneck industry that restricted the development of China, but at that time, China couldn't even make a light stick. If the optical fiber is imported, the international price will be very expensive. With the national strength at that time, the transformation of communication could not be put on the agenda until after 20 10. Therefore, the state has proposed independent research and development. Up to now, China has made light sticks and pulled out optical fibers, and the international average price of optical fibers has also dropped to more than RMB 0/000 per kilometer/kloc. It is said that "the price of optical fiber is equivalent to instant noodles". This shows that the acquisition of infrastructure technology cannot be transferred to you by multinational companies, and your own strategic industries must be developed on your own.
Yan Xu: Foreign enterprises' R&D investment in China may be equivalent to their investment in China. However, the technology generated by this R&D is only used within the company to serve its own company, and has no extension. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect foreign investment to transfer technology to China at the same time.
Although some of them have transfer agreements during cooperation, with China's entry into WTO, the bargaining power of China government may be less and less, so independent research and development is the most important means. Of course, we must also rely on some external forces to cooperate with multinational enterprises, join the international value chain and connect with the international community.
Tong Jie: Whether it is the introduction of capital, technology or independent innovation, there should be a distinction between the main and the auxiliary. 1995 our company cooperates with British enterprises with a history of 100 years to produce machine tools. At that time, we talked about the introduction of prototypes and technologies. In the production process, we found that he took a machine tool variety that entered the market recession. After a period of cooperation, we developed a new machine tool with a changed structure according to its technical design principle, which achieved technical transcendence, and applied for the national excellent new product development project in 2006. This shows that the introduction of cooperative projects to promote independent research and development can shorten the development cycle of new products and achieve the goal of catching up.
In addition, in the process of independent research and development, even if China's technology can't surpass the most advanced, it can also form a kind of competition and increase China's bargaining power.
Moderator: For example, in the automobile industry, we have introduced foreign capital for more than 20 years. Up to now, apart from emerging automobile factories, such as Geely, there are also several largest automobile factories supported by the state, and it is impossible for us to build our own cars. Even if you can build a car, there is not much market. What's the problem?
Feng Hai: It is still impossible to exchange technology with the market, especially in the automobile industry, so we have to admit that there is a gap between the introduction, digestion and absorption. Now, when China talks about automobile cooperation with foreign enterprises, it talks about building an R&D center and joint delivery of R&D centers, but foreign companies are resisting this article. After a hundred years of development, multinational companies have formed a set of market operation system, with a high level of technical operation and many experiences worth learning.
Yan Xu: Many technologies need to be accumulated continuously, which is a very valuable asset for enterprises with a long history. It takes more than 20 days for Nokia to get a new mobile phone version, mainly because Nokia has mastered the cumulative technology. I believe the same is true of cars. Sometimes a little improvement in technical design will have great advantages. In this respect, it is impossible for China to catch up with foreign countries in a short time.
Cui: Actually, China is constantly rethinking the road of automobile industrialization. The first is the localization rate, which is the only national regulation for the automobile industry. Localization rate is the percentage of value, and then determine the number of parts. By introducing models, we can promote the development of parts and components, and further research and development will be carried out by ourselves. There is nothing wrong with industrial policy in theory, but then the system problems led to the failure of the automobile industry to develop. Recently, the question of reflection is whether China needs to develop its own automobile industry and own its own brand. For example, Chery, the engine can be foreign, but the brand is its own. With the development of automobile industry today, the characteristics of internationalization are becoming more and more obvious, and its core is brand. If you don't cultivate your own brand, you will never have a China brand car.
Zheng Guohan: The automobile industry can no longer be said to be produced in any country, such as American and Japanese cars. Parts from beginning to end come from all over the world. As long as we master the technology and market network, China will have the strength to form its own national brand.
Yan Xu: In the past, people thought that the assembled products were very low-end, but this was not necessarily the case. Because it is very important to understand the market, design, color and so on when assembling. If an enterprise wants to survive, on the one hand, it must have technology, and at the same time, it must grasp the market demand well. In addition, the patent fees are not all expensive, and you can use them at will after the deadline. The key is how to integrate all aspects of technology and create new value.
Now is the information society, and strategic innovation is often more important than technological innovation. The state has invested a lot of money and produced many patents, but if the patents are not converted into products, it is a waste of money. Therefore, in high-tech industries, it is very important how to position science and technology, not only in terms of technological knowledge innovation, but also in terms of market knowledge innovation.
Misunderstanding of high-tech development zone
Moderator: High-tech industry is not supported by a single enterprise, but more manifested in the cooperation between enterprises. How to treat the high-tech development zones generally established nationwide? Does it play a role in integrating resources?
Cui: At present, there are 53 national high-tech development zones in our region. Now it seems that there are some problems in the development of the development zone. For example, some enterprises in the park are engaged in machine tools, and the enterprises next to them are engaged in printing. They have no industrial ties and no ecological chain. Later, the state proposed to establish a specialized park to form a production chain relationship between enterprises. Now it has been perfected a lot, such as Zhangjiang High-tech Park and Software Science Park.
Zheng Guohan: One question to consider is, where are the real conditions for setting up a development park? If this park has no conditions to be established, some fake high-tech enterprises may be created. Because the tax rate of general enterprises is 33%, while the tax rate of high-tech enterprises is only 15%, this temptation is too great. I have done some research in Shenzhen, and there are not many real high-tech enterprises in Shenzhen High-tech Park. The development of high-tech development zones in northwest China and other places has little effect, and too many parks may cause waste.
Tong Jie: In fact, in many high-tech industrial parks, the operation is particularly good, entering a virtuous circle, truly forming a high-tech eco-industrial chain and becoming an incubator. What is the reason? I think it needs to be natural. For example, Liushi Town, Zhejiang Province was once famous for its fake and shoddy goods. Now, more than 95% of low-voltage electrical appliances in China are produced in Liushi Town. There are more than a dozen factories in their factory, and the division of labor is meticulous, forming an industrial chain.
High-tech industrial parks should also have a pulling effect on the surrounding areas, pulling the surrounding enterprises into the parks and forming industrial clusters; Only by producing leading products and leading enterprises in the industrial chain can we stimulate the surrounding areas. For example, in the west, Mianyang's industrial economy is better than Chengdu's, because Mianyang has Changhong, and all the electrical accessories of Changhong can drive the surrounding areas and form an industrial chain.
Lin Zhisheng: The poor development of high-tech parks is not unrelated to policy orientation. In the early days of reform and opening up, local provincial and municipal leaders all had the task of attracting investment. Under this banner, science parks are often set up to allow landmark enterprises to enter and promise a lot of preferential policies, but in the end most of them actually become real estate projects.
Intellectual property rights do not protect monopoly.
Moderator: For China, what kind of institutional arrangement is needed for the concept of independent innovation in order to achieve a balance between intellectual property protection and enterprise innovation, which not only protects the interests of property owners, but also does not harm the creation of other enterprises?
Yan Xu: The World Bank has an index called National Innovation Index. One of the indicators is to have innovative infrastructure and innovative environment, including government policies and intellectual property protection. It has become a common sense that intellectual property rights must be protected. Property rights protection is not a unilateral matter, and it is related to this issue at home and abroad. In addition, it is probably not the most important to earn patent fees by transferring patents. What is important should be how to bundle different patents and create new value.
Zheng Guohan: In recent years, the United States has begun to reflect on its own patent system, because excessive patent protection may hinder innovation. Recently, someone spoke in the US Congress, and I quite agree with this view that the biggest problem in the United States in recent decades is the excessive issuance of patents. Some patents have no technological breakthrough in themselves, but when two patents are added together, a new patent can be obtained. There are many such examples in America. In some fields, patents at all levels are registered. As long as you enter this field, you will definitely infringe their patents. In foreign countries, many patents have become minefields, and technical barriers prevent others from using them, which involves monopoly.
Yan Xu: Technology is changing, and the laws of the past should also be changed. In the past, copying was an infringement. Now, when people use computers, they must first download the content and copy it to the computer. Strictly speaking, this is infringement. Therefore, laws should also keep pace with the times. Now Hong Kong is ready to discuss the issue of infringement and amend the copyright law.
Cui: The Patent Law was drafted and formulated by the State Science and Technology Commission. At that time, there were two views on legislation. First of all, patent law should protect inventors' creations and their rights and interests that bring benefits to society. Second, the most important significance of patent law lies in promoting the dissemination of knowledge. But for a long time, there has been a lot of talk about protection, without considering how to use patent law to promote the dissemination, promotion and utilization of technology.
Now China has established an intellectual property court, and the law enforcement team is getting stronger and stronger. This must be done, but the new problem is that intellectual property protection is no longer a communication tool, but a tool to protect technical barriers. Foreigners have now put forward a technical barrier, from technology to patents to standards, which must be met. The most terrible thing is the standard. For example, the electrical appliances processed in China, the materials used in the future are recyclable, which need degradable materials and must meet the requirements of environmental protection, but many enterprises simply can't meet the requirements. The problem facing all mankind now is how to protect intellectual property rights under the background of globalization.
Lin Zhisheng: At the National Science and Technology Innovation Conference last year, many ministries and commissions discussed a problem. China experienced a process of introduction, digestion and absorption before. According to the commitments of China and WTO, our technological innovation is very problematic, because the sources of many technologies, such as biochemical technology and communication industry, are all based on foreign technologies. It is easy to touch people's property rights.
In addition, it also involves the judicial department, including the Intellectual Property Office. What is their starting point? Whether to serve domestic enterprises or foreign countries. Many foreign companies sue for infringement when they find that China enterprises produce similar products. Many enterprises in China will find it difficult to produce if it is solved according to WTO rules. The feasible way is to drag the lawsuit down. After three or five years, the product was outdated and the lawsuit was dropped.
Zheng Guohan: Microsoft and IBM used to deal with the government in this way. The US Department sued him, and he paid for the lawsuit, which dragged on for five or six years. When the results come out, the problem is no longer a problem.
Cui: China's intellectual property protection is very backward, and it protects things that should not be protected, such as Microsoft's price discrimination. The same product of Microsoft is more expensive in China than in the United States. In this case, protection is aggression in disguise.
In fact, Microsoft's influence on China is not in consumption, but in IT manufacturing. Invisibly, an industry standard is formed. In this case, you have to match according to his standard.
Of course, after more than 20 years of reform and opening up, China has accumulated a lot of experience and learned to play international games. To protect justice, we must protect injustice, and we can use anti-monopoly law to sanction and restrain it.
System? Technology?
Moderator: American high-tech industry first developed in two areas: the 128 expressway area around Boston and the Silicon Valley area. In the late 1980s, the high-tech enterprises of 128 Expressway began to decline, while Silicon Valley was in the ascendant, constantly reaching new heights. What does this give us? What experience can you learn from?
Cui: The successful experience of American high-tech parks can be summarized in one sentence: "Industry follows talents, and capital revolves around talents". The experience of Silicon Valley in the United States is simple. As long as it attracts talents, the industry is not a problem. The most typical thing in Silicon Valley is entrepreneurial culture, but on the 128 highway, you can't see the vibrant feeling of Silicon Valley. Many small companies in Silicon Valley do not engage in industrialization, but first develop technology transfer and see how much it costs before forming an industry.
Zheng Guohan: In the United States, there is a book called Advantages of Regionalization, which mainly analyzes the different development results of these two regions, and the conclusion is the problem of business model. Early computer technology, such as
IBM, the original products were produced by itself from beginning to end, but in order to seize the market quickly, IBM introduced Intel to develop chips for itself, and Microsoft supported it. The industrial chain was thus formed. Because there are always several links where people are better than you, it is definitely not feasible for you to be a one-stop train. Many enterprises located on the 128 expressway are in the early traditional structure, while Silicon Valley is on the rise and has achieved international division of labor.
Cui: There is a saying that "R&D is in Silicon Valley and manufacturing is in the world".
Lin Zhisheng: My experience is that 128 Expressway and Silicon Valley are two bases, one is a platform built by the government, and the traditional model manages everything through a train; The other is formed by the market, which is a platform for technical exchange and talent exchange.
Zheng Guohan: I want to say one point. Silicon Valley is naturally formed, and the late-developing countries may not be spontaneously formed, and often need the behind-the-scenes promotion of the government. For example, Hsinchu in Taiwan Province Province is man-made.
Yan Xu: I think one important factor is talent and the other is capital. In the knowledge society, people themselves are the center of innovation. Nowadays, it is wrong to look at the statements of enterprises and usually regard people as costs. People are a kind of wealth, and how to give full play to their value is very important. At present, there is an unhealthy phenomenon in China, that is, many "returnees" come back and become "waiting for the sea". It should be changed to "kelp", which is a "link" between China's industry and foreign industries.
Speaking of funds, China's "863 Plan" was invested by the government. Unlike the United States, it is generally a venture fund, which is characterized by clarifying the relationship between the principal and the agent, and investors can effectively supervise the technology development. In the case of government investment, because there is no specific client, the effect of effective supervision on agents of management and development departments at all levels can be imagined.
Moderator: For a long time, China has been dominated by domestic universities and scientific research institutions. There are some university industrial parks around famous universities, but the high-tech enterprises run by universities and scientific research institutions are very poor and have not played their due role. Is the mode of running high-tech enterprises in colleges and universities simply not feasible, or is there some defect in the innovation mechanism of colleges and universities, which makes the R&D function of colleges and universities unable to give full play?
Yan Xu: Universities are a very important part in the innovation system, but their role should be to provide talents for the innovation system. At present, many scientific research projects in domestic universities are only consulting projects overseas, which can be done by general enterprises. This kind of project may well solve the problem of teachers' income for universities, but I doubt whether it can improve the research level of universities. If the teacher's level cannot be improved through research, how to improve the level of the students he trained is a problem. In my opinion, universities can run high technology, but they should emphasize commercialization and industrialization, because scholars are good at knowledge about technology, not demand.
Zheng Guohan: This involves the entrepreneurial model. Professors in universities can inspire students in science and technology, but after completing their studies, students still need to adapt to the market and learn about company operation. If there are professors and students from beginning to end, the chances of success are not optimistic. So this requires professionals such as venture funds and banks. In the United States, schools are not the mainstream of entrepreneurship, but only a small part. In the real entrepreneurial stage, the role of universities is not very important except for some professors in business schools or engineering schools.
Tong Jie: I think R&D universities don't know as much about market customers as people in the industry when they are researching and developing high-tech achievements. Perhaps the results of their hard work are far from the needs of the market and customers.
For example, according to the problem that machinery restricted industrial development at that time, the Ministry of Machinery Industry cultivated "three big and three small" research institutes, the big one was Beijing Machine Tool Research Institute, and the small one was Landian and Nanjing Micro Motor Factory, but none of them came out in the end. Because these institutions are far away from the market, when their projects are completed and handed over, it means that they have completed all the work, and they have never thought about the commercialization of the whole results. Therefore, in the past, production, learning and research must be research-achievement-product-final market, which can be called real high-tech products. The inspection of independent research and development products should ultimately take users as the end point.
Lin Zhisheng: The function of a university is basic research and solving major scientific and technological problems in the industrial chain. Industrialization is not its task. The State Council's mode of production, learning and research is affirmative, and this road is to go on.
Zheng Guohan: It is unrealistic for the government to place its hopes on the industrialization of universities. The responsibility of universities lies in cultivating talents and conducting basic research. Because universities do not have the ability to integrate, we see that the main production technologies in the world are concentrated in large enterprises, not universities or government laboratories.
Moderator: System is more important than technology. This is Wu Jinglian's view on the development of high-tech industries in China a few years ago. So, what kind of system can stimulate innovation?
Lin Zhisheng: China has gone through the road of technological innovation for 20 years. Many things in the system are very good, but the implementation process is often affected by human factors and has not received good results. For example, imported equipment enjoys a tax exemption system, which contradicts the protection of national industries. Even the domestic good equipment, because it does not enjoy the tax rebate, has greatly stifled the domestic market of national brands in the technological innovation system. How to manage the adjustment tax including high-tech personnel? Some places are internal inspections, and the first step is to retreat, but the government has no clear regulations.
Zheng Guohan: At present, China enterprises pay higher taxes than foreign-funded enterprises. I think it is unreasonable, which affects the competitiveness of domestic high-tech enterprises and should be abolished. Even for these high-tech enterprises, the government should give tax incentives and try to avoid rent-seeking behavior.
Yan Xu: I think what is more important is the innovation of business model and enterprise development strategy. When Ford introduced Model T, it completely relied on the original technology, but changed a production mode, which led to the change and revolution of the whole economic model. At present, the number of patents in China is increasing every year, but how much can be converted into productivity? The key is cultural innovation, strategic innovation, system innovation and thinking innovation. We should prevent the misunderstanding that the innovative economy will eventually become a patent economy.
Cui: Can China's technological innovation become an industry? The key lies in the construction of professional managers, which is very important for the construction of the whole innovation system. What restricts the development of China is not that there are too few scientists, but that there are too few professional managers who understand the market.
I saw it on the internet again. Is it useful?