全球治理、国际组织、区域合作和“一带一路”是CCG全球化研究领域的重要组成部分。作为中国最早以全球化命名的智库，CCG创办了“中国与全球化论坛”并设置全球化相关国际议题；在海内外举办了“WTO改革”、“多边治理”、“一带一路”等专题研讨会，把“一带一路”这一主题首次带到国际安全与治理领域的世界高规格会议——慕尼黑安全会议。基于多年对全球化领域的全面研究，CCG发布出版了《“一带一路”的国际合作共赢方案及实现路径》，《全球化与逆全球化》、《全球化向何处去：大变局与中国策》等研究报告和图书，其中Edward Elgar 出版社出版的Handbook on China and Globalization是为数不多的由智库在国际权威学术出版社出版的全英文书籍。CCG提出的两项倡议入选首届巴黎和平论坛，为中国智库更充分参与全球治理与国际合作开拓了崭新模式。此外，CCG与WTO、UN 、经济合作国家组织（OECD）、世界银行、国际货币基金组织（IMF）等众多国际组织、国际智库和相关机构建立了良好的长效合作机制。
-
庞中英：最好的全球化讨论不是为“全球化是大势所趋”进行辩护
庞中英，CCG特邀高级研究员，中国海洋大学海洋发展研究院院长
2019年1月28日 -
Laurence Brahm: We have a smaller planet
By Laurence Brahm, a senior research fellow at CCG What are the differences between Chinese and Westerners in terms of their life attitude? I think those differences are becoming less and less, as there are more and more similarities. Those similarities are a factor of communication, trade, globalizing ideas, and the fact that we are having more global integration among more countries and cultures. You find Chinese people here drinking red wine and eating Western food. You go to America, and you find people eating Chinese food, Japanese food, Thai food and so on. You see Westerners learning traditional Asian martial arts. Now in the gyms trending across China, you see Chinese learning mixed martial arts fighting and Western boxing. The truth is that we have a smaller planet. This is a whole different era today. Chinese are all over the world. They are buying the international brands and, in many ways, driving the consumption of those brands. They have no barriers and no surprises. It’s not about seeing the foreigners, as they’ve seen the world. And they are bringing a lot of those ideas back, just like during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), when Chang’an was the melting pot and everything was coming in. In many ways, China’s major cities today, and now the second-tier cities, are melting pots. All kinds of international influences are coming in and mixing with Chinese culture in this kind of fusion complex, which has always really been the foundation of China’s own unique culture. It takes, it absorbs, it brings things together and it makes them uniquely Chinese. What’s happening is that we see more communication. With that, we will have more understanding, and a breakdown of barriers and stereotypes. You can enjoy my world, yes, and I can enjoy your world. In that sense, our world is smaller. What’s very important is if we can work together to save that world against the costs and threats of climate change, of human-induced pollution. Remember, this planet is just a little spaceship orbiting in a huge universe. We all have to work together to steer it in the right direction. While China was struggling with complete scarcity in the past, it is now one of the biggest buyers of luxury goods. Has the accumulation of wealth brought changes to the Chinese people’s value system? There’s a concept in economics called conspicuous consumption. When people suddenly have money, they want to show it. I remember when I just came to China in 1981, this was an economy of scarcity. There was nothing. You had money, but there was nothing to buy. Slowly with investment, with trade, with integration with the rest of the world, they began to have things. In the 80s, they began to have electronics, and they filled their homes with refrigerators, washing machines and things that they never had before. Previously, people had to buy their food that day to cook for that day, because there were no refrigerators. At the end of the 80s, people’s homes were filled with electronics. It was not about being able to meet their needs; it was about wanting to show others that they had accumulated their wealth. Then they began the cycle of brand buying and showing off wealth -- who has the bigger house, or who has the bigger car. But that’s not the narrative of the young generation in China today. I’ve seen more young Chinese as hippies in Nepal and India. They see the world differently from their parents. Today’s youth in China are coming up with really creative ideas and having a whole different vision of values, and of presenting those values not through conspicuous consumption, but alternative styles. The whole vision of the Chinese future is changing very rapidly with the new generation. You can’t lock onto the old conspicuous consumption and say that is China. That was China. But now with the millennial generation, and younger, it’s changing really fast. One of the things that’s happening now is that, with more and more foreign students coming to China and more Chinese students going abroad, a lot of the barriers that existed in the old generations are coming down, and they are coming down quite quickly. It’s one thing to read about China in the newspaper, or to see it on the news. It’s another thing to have gone to China to study, to work, to live, to be with people and to make friends locally. It’s this type of people-to-people communication. If it can be brought to the level of politicians, there will be no trade wars, and there will be no conflicts. It’s not a question of integrating Chinese culture with the world’s culture, or vice versa. I think it’s a question of expanding the bandwidth of understanding. The more we understand something, the less we are afraid of it. Fear arises from lack of understanding. Fear arises from the unknown. If we know, then we are not afraid. One of the things that happens to somebody when they leave their culture and live in another culture is that they evolve into that culture. You have in many ways a whole generation now of hybrid cultures and fusion cultures. I’d like to think of us as global nomads. We are international citizens who don’t necessarily belong to one culture or another. Hopefully we can embrace many cultures, and in that respect, bring our planet a little closer together. About Author Laurence Brahm, a senior research fellow at Center for China and Globalization(CCG), an author of Zhu Rongji and the Transformation of Modern China.
2019年1月16日 -
Laurence Brahm: Can Kung Fu Panda as ’Dragon warrior’ save the planet?
By Laurence Brahm, a senior research fellow at CCG The cartoon movie Kung Fu Panda portrays a character who, from his outside appearance, seems uncoordinated because of his enormous size. However, when Kung Fu Panda focuses his determination, he can become agile and swift, surprising everyone by his speed of his action. Sound familiar? At each stage of China’s economic reforms, it had to step forward away from its sheer weight carried from the past, and its massive population. When its leaders determined to achieve something, somehow the central system of the nation fell in line, and change inevitably followed. Author calls for green energy as the next business and financial mega trend at a climate conference in 2015. [Photo provided to chinadaily.com.cn] The draft policy document on ecological civilization drafted by myself and Zhu Yanlai was submitted to China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and also to Li Wei, former personal secretary to Zhu Rongji. Li was now the minister heading the State Council Economic Development Research Center, the foremost economic think tank of the premier. He endorsed the need to expand the still nascent concept of ecological civilization into an elaborated policy that could unlock the perceived contradiction between environmental protection and economic growth. With his support of this idea, the document and project was taken over by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, where I was soon appointed senior adviser. Simultaneously to the European Union’s Environmental Director General on China’s green growth policies under a China-EU Dialogues framework agreement supported research teams involving both European and Chinese energy experts. Why EU’s involvement? Europe has some of the most advanced technology on renewable energy and green finance. However, the population of most European countries is smaller than many of China’s big cities. By combining European technology with China’s scale of production and infrastructural rollout, costs of renewable energy could come down drastically. Working with the ministry of Environmental Protection Strategic Policy Research Institute, we condensed the Ecological Civilization Sixteen Measures into a five-pillar framework. This framework was not based on any Western model, but rather, on a traditional Chinese matrix called the Five Elements consisting of Metal, Wood, Water, Fire, Earth (Jin Mu Shui Huo Tu). The five pillars include 1) “Earth” state infrastructure investment into renewables and smart transport (the “Great Green Grid”), 2) “Water” fiscal and credit policy to guide businesses in adopting renewable and efficient energy, 3) “Metal” replacing GDP with a broader, more inclusive, set of measures, 4) “Wood” a macro-coordinating policy body to provide a structural framework coordinating genuine green growth among ministries, 5) “Fire” education to transition values toward conservation. Core to the success of this policy transition would be creating a fresh awareness among Chinese people that all things are connected and that we need new measures of success and pride other than material ones. At the Ministry of Finance, one official commented quite frankly. “China should use economic crisis as opportunity and get rid of outdated enterprises and push green." He then added, "The current generation of government officials knows that this needs to be done. The Great Green Grid is a bigger challenge than the reforms of 1980s and 1990s.” With carefully guided state policy, things can happen in China quickly. This requires political willpower. As a managed market, ultimately a political decision is required to put in place the right policies that can guide market forces to make wind and solar power competitive with fossil fuels. By 2013, China’s new President, Xi Jinping, had officially pronounced the concept of "ecological civilization" and called for quality rather than quantity growth. They wanted to project a non-theory-based pragmatic set of alternatives. When Rob Parenteau, an independent financial adviser based in San Francisco, heard of the green growth policy proposals underway for China, he wrote the following: "Yes, and with the banking system essentially an extension of their fiscal policy, they [China] have the capacity to drive down the unit costs of production and push out the technological frontier on green tech. Done right, they could end up owning the 21st century industries while correcting their own growth path toward one more sustainable than the current suicidal one. Meanwhile, in the US, we will be debating whether we can afford to saddle future generations with the horrible curse of public debt…which is actually an asset held by households… that can help finance the construction and implementation of public assets... that improve the profitability and prospects for the business sector as well as lower future cost trajectories. Solarize all public buildings in the southern half of the US and insulate all government buildings in the northern half, as an opening Green New Deal. Create jobs, teach skills, and scale up demand to drive down unit costs. Or wait until the Chinese own the whole thing.” Whether in North America or Europe, Asia or Africa, a plethora of renewable energy and energy saving industries will need to replace our old existing systems. With the potential to roll out a spectrum of new employment opportunities for both white and blue collar, in sectors ranging from finance, engineering, environmental science, transportation, and infrastructure. Does Washington really want change? Does it want to evolve and lead renewable and efficient energy as a mega trend and the next driver of global growth? Or will Washington politicians sit back and let others take the lead as its economy declines further because it is fossilized in old ways and ideological debates? The problem is that America is locked in a political stalemate that defies rationality. The politics have become like the economics, ideological, not pragmatic, only black and white, without any room for grey. Regardless of which side you take, Democrat or Republican, the result is that views are stagnant and entrenched--one side votes opposite the other side just for the sake of it. It is no longer logical politics, but that kind of vindictiveness that comes about when nobody has an answer but everyone wants somebody to blame. So the strategy is to blame the other side. It has just become an knee-jerk reaction, which means that any form of logic-like, let’s try to avoid a crisis rather than just react to another one-is off the game board altogether. Even NiccolòMachiavelli, if he could see this mess, would throw up his hands and tell the Prince to call it a day. There is just nothing you can do with these guys. So maybe at the end of the day, through ecological civilization, Kung Fu Panda as Dragon Warrior will save the planet. With massive programs for renewable and efficient energy, together with smart transport on a scale never before seen, green energy investments will be the next economic mega trend for the world. In Kung Fu, there’s a concept called external power (Wai Gong) and internal energy (nei gong) involving qi, which is subtle ultimate energy. Transforming the energy systems, smart environmental technology and perspectives of our planet, maybe ecological civilization will be China’s greatest soft power. About Author Laurence Brahm, a senior research fellow at Center for China and Globalization(CCG), founding director of the Himalayan Consensus.
2018年12月28日 -
《中国走向全球化——亲历开放战略与经贸政策研究》发布
2018年12月19日，全球化智库（CCG）和新华出版社联合发布了CCG高级研究员、商务部前副司长、中国国际经济交流中心前研究员李罗莎的最新著作《中国走向全球化--亲历开放战略与经贸政策研究》。该图书收录了李罗莎女士亲历改革开放四十年间，参与研究或独立研究与中国对外开放问题相关的文章，通过解读中国改革开放四十年来的经贸发展，深入分析、聚焦破解难点问题，围绕中国如何在未来提高对外开放水平提出了相关战略和政策建议。
2018年12月24日 -
庞中英：卡托维兹开启了“全球气候行动的新时期”？
庞中英，CCG特邀高级研究员，中国海洋大学海洋发展研究院院长 2018年岁末，在大国之间的竞争加剧、丑恶的地缘政治回归的情势下，多边主义居然在困难中取得了一个突出的进展。 12月16日，第24届联合国气候变化大会（COP24）终就减排细节达成协议（《卡托维兹规则》），希望让全球平均气温的升幅限制在摄氏2度（原来是1度，后来是1.5度，如今让步到了2度！）。这意味着这次波兰担任主席的气候变化谈判没有失败，而是成功了。Katowice，在走向可持续的全球气候政策方面，成为继京都和巴黎之后的又一个里程碑。关注气候变化的人们在2018年结束前松了一口气。 参加这次气候变化大会的代表来自全球195个国家和欧盟（所以，一共196个代表团）。我们知道，2015年，联合国气候变化谈判巴黎会议上达成了著名的《巴黎协定》。2018年的卡托维兹气候变化大会就是为了落实《巴黎协定》，制定《巴黎协定实施细则》。 《卡托维兹规则》（The Katowice Rules）的达成，实属不易，一共156页，载入全球治理的规则手册。 针对波兰卡托维兹气候会议，作为全球治理研究学者，我有一些感受： 第一，这怕是全球最大的“集体行动”，具有全球最难的“集体行动的问题”。每次的联合国气候变化大会，都充满了集体行动的难题。直接参与的人精疲力尽，但谈判进程还是峰回路转，柳暗花明，这是因为问题的严重性还是被认识到了。从京都到巴黎，从巴黎到卡托维兹，这一集体行动在失败中有成功，在成功中有不足。这给全人类在克服巨大的全球共同的挑战上带来了希望。 第二，这次会议如同其他的全球治理会议，许多国家在本能地竭力为其“国家利益”辩护。但是，各国代表最后都超越了“国家利益”，为地球和人类的共同命运做出承诺。协调和克服“国家利益”与全人类利益之间的矛盾是全球治理中最为困难的。 第三，在制定实施《巴黎协定》的实施细则时，涉及很多非常具体的细节和技术。为期两周的卡托维兹会议，各国代表和谈判家的显示了专业水平。这说明多少年的气候变化治理进程，政府、非政府组织、个人等学习到很多。卡托维兹会议为全球治理在做“技术决定”方面树起新的标杆。 第四，目前大国既是全球气候问题的制造者又是全球气候问题的解决者。这本身就是换一个矛盾。小国，最易受全球问题的折磨。小国所以就联合起来推动多边合作解决问题。原来，全球治理是大国充当国际领导。现在看来，最大的大国美国并不愿意解决全球气候问题，更不愿意充当这个方面的国际领导。美国不仅不如此，反而变本加厉，在气候问题上与大多数国家的共同立场对立起来。看来，在未来，小国的集体行动在全球治理中的作用变得关键起来。这次，卡托维兹会议，最活跃的是南太平洋岛国瓦努阿图外交部长Ralph Regenvanu等小国代表团的领导人。大国元首、总理和外交部长，忙于其他事务不可开交，不能出席卡托维兹会议。除了主席国波兰，这次会议就是联合国、南太平洋岛国、欧盟等唱主角了。在某种意义上，美国特朗普政府不知道是否为其在气候变化治理上的自私和狭隘而感到羞耻。 第五，气候变化治理，说实在的，并不是为我们现时代的人的，而是为了我们的子孙后代的。目前采取的措施，即使《巴黎协定》和《卡托维兹规则》都到位了，其效果也是多少年以后的事情了。可持续性的原则是人类和人类文明真正的全球规范。我们，所有的攸关方，必须坚定不移地维护全人类的共同规范。 第六，之所以叫做“全球治理”，而不仅是“国际治理”，是有重大的原因的。“全球”不同于“国际”。我们不能从“全球”退回到“国际”。参加这次卡托维兹会议的，有许多非政府组织、科学家、学生、企业，当地的波兰人以及其他欧洲人，都发挥了积极的作用。批评气候变化的，对目前的全球气候变化治理不满的，也都来了。有的参加会议的团体认为，《巴黎协定》和《卡托维兹规则》其实并不能真正减缓全球暖化。听听不同的气候变化意见，兼听则明，有则改之，这也是全球治理的一种路径。 最后，我想说的是：全球治理是过程。过程比结果更重要。过程本身就是治理。 承诺是一回事，关键是在现实世界中减少排放，也就是行动，减缓气候变化。 将于2020年生效、没有截止日期的《巴黎协定》，允许各国设定自己的排放目标。《卡托维兹规则》是每个参与气候治理的国家的共同制度。根据这个制度，各国要报告排放情况和气候目标、并测量在实现将升温幅度控制在2摄氏度之内的目标方面取得的进展。 不过，这个目标和制度不是太硬，而是太软。这就是为什么无论在巴黎还是在卡托维兹，大家都能在最后一刻达成协议的原因。 联合国气候变化治理进程仍然在继续。2019和2020年的联合国气候变化会议任务仍然艰巨，必须就2018年卡托维兹未竟之任务取得进展。随着民族主义的再次走强，《巴黎协定》及其《卡托维兹规则》将受到更多的冲击。4个产油国——美国、沙特、俄罗斯和科威特——联手不同意联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)在2018年10月发布的一份报告。该报告概述了全球升温1.5摄氏度和2摄氏度的后果。 特朗普政府在2017年已经宣布美国要退出联合国气候变化治理进程，退出《巴黎气候协定》，但本次卡托维兹大会上，美国仍然派出官方代表团。这个代表团不是来支持联合国气候治理的，而是支持带来气候变化的对化石燃料（石油等）的使用的。我们还应该看到，一些大国（几乎所有的“新兴经济”）的经济都在走弱，这可能意味着这些国家，可能不得不为了其狭隘的“国家利益”（经济增长）而放松对不算是硬约束的多边的气候协定的承诺。 文章选自华夏时报网，2018年12月17日
2018年12月19日
