投資非洲：中美之間不存在競賽

????美國公司正在大手筆下注非洲。

????在華盛頓召開的、為期3天的美非高峰論壇（U.S.-Africa summit）開幕式上，美國總統奧巴馬宣布，美國公司已承諾在“清潔能源、航空、銀行和建筑”領域新增140億美元投資。

????鑒于過去10年全球經濟增長最快的10個國家中有7個來自非洲，美國政府和公司打算投資非洲合情合理。周四的聲明代表著美國參與非洲地區建設又向前邁進了一步，但與中國相比，仍相形見絀，特別是考慮到美國經濟規模仍相當于中國經濟的兩倍。

????就在上次金融危機爆發時，中國超越美國成為了非洲最大的貿易伙伴，自那以來中非貿易持續增長。相比之下，美非貿易則停步不前，正如下圖所示。圖表來自布魯金斯學會（Brookings Institution）專注于中非關系的研究員孫云（Yun Sun）制作。

????U.S. companies are betting big on Africa.

????Kicking off a three-day U.S.-Africa summit in Washington, D.C., President Obama announced that U.S. companies have committed $14 billion in new investments in “clean energy, aviation, banking, and construction.”

????It makes sense that the U.S. government and American firms would want to invest in Africa, given that it is home to 7 of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world over the past 10 years. But while Thursday’s announcement represents a step forward for American engagement in the region, it pales in comparison to what China is doing, especially when you take into account the fact that the U.S. economy is still twice as large as China’s.

????China surpassed the U.S. as Africa’s largest trade partner right around the time of the financial crisis, and trade between China and Africa has increased ever since. Trade between Africa and the U.S., on the other hand, has stagnated, as you can see in the chart below from Yun Sun, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who focuses on China’s relations with Africa.

????考慮到中國經濟數據的質量，很難衡量中國公司通過建設基礎設施或購買資產在非洲進行了多少直接投資，但據美國政府問責局（U.S. Government Accountability Office，GAO）去年的一份報告估計，美國公司在此類投資中仍領先于中國公司，但僅略微領先。2007年至2011年，美國在撒哈拉以南非洲地區的投資僅比中國多了23%，但GAO自己也懷疑，其估算值可能低估了中國在非洲大陸的投資。

????但是，對于一些有關非洲發展的競爭說法，奧巴馬并不認可。本周接受《經濟學人》（The Economist）采訪時，奧巴馬圍繞中國在非洲的角色所給出的觀點遠比普通美國政客成熟：

????Given the poor quality of Chinese economic data, it’s more difficult to measure how much Chinese firms invest directly in Africa through building infrastructure or purchasing assets, but a U.S. Government Accountability Office report from last year estimated that U.S. firms still lead their Chinese counterparts in this kind of investment, but just barely. The U.S. only invested 23% more than China in Sub-Saharan Africa from 2007 through 2011, and the GAO suspects that even its approximation might be underestimating Chinese investment in the continent.

????Obama, however, has dismissed the notion of some sort of competition for the business of African development. In an interview this week with The Economist, the president showed a much more sophisticated view of China’s role in Africa than American politicians typically display:

????“我的觀點是多多益善。我在非洲時常常會被問到中國的問題，我的態度是，應當歡迎每一個看到投資機會并愿意與非洲各國合作的國家。但要注意確保非洲政府與任何合作方達成的是一樁好的交易。這適用于美國，也適用于中國?！?/p>

????與之產生鮮明對比的是，奧巴馬在經常談到需要“通過在教育、創新和競爭方面趕超印度人和中國人來贏得未來”時的言辭。不只是奧巴馬政府喜歡將中國描繪為競爭者而非協作者、在競選季和國情咨文（State of the Union）等備受關注的活動中，美國政客都傾向于以毫不掩飾的競爭性詞語來描述這個世界。但奧巴馬看起來明白一點：這世界要比一場經濟足球賽復雜不少。前述講話表明，他相信非洲經濟的發展有利于美國，即便不是美國公司在做這些開發，經濟充滿活力的非洲將成為極好的美國出口市場。

????中國已經接觸美國，在非洲合作建設基礎設施和開發項目。

????盡然如此，美國公司仍可以增加在非洲投資。研究顯示，進行海外投資的公司更可能在本國增加投入并創造就業崗位。而且，美國公司可能會對擁有合作歷史的國家出口更多產品。

????更為復雜的問題是，所有這些投資真的對非洲有益嗎？媒體對于中國參與非洲發展已談了很多，盡管中非關系在規模上仍比較有限。正如布魯金斯學會的孫云在最近發布的白皮書中所講：

????“中國在非洲大規模經濟投入所引發的普遍關注……似乎表明，非洲在某種程度上對于中國‘舉足輕重’。實際上，非洲僅占中國總體海外經濟活動的很小一部分：中國向非洲投資僅占其全球投資的3%，中非貿易也只占其國際貿易的5%?！?/p>

????而且，這些投資和貿易主要集中在資源開采行業。這一點對于美國也同樣適用：孫云指出，美非貿易近期下滑與美國能源產量激增更為相關。由于美國國內生產更多的石油與天然氣，它從非洲進口的需求降低。但占非洲對外貿易大部分的此類資源開采行業并非是那種通常會引領經濟發展的行業。要發展經濟，非洲國家必須把從這些行業獲得的利潤重新投入到廣泛造福于民眾的基礎設施和經濟發展中去，并且幫助緩和從農業向以制造業為基礎的經濟轉變。

????這是荷蘭研究者在去年發布的《亞洲虎，非洲獅》（Asian Tigers, African Lions）報告中提出的建議, 這項持續5年的廣泛研究調查了成功的東南亞國家和貧窮的非洲國家之間的發展差異。研究者發現，亞洲發展模式致力于逐步增加貧窮農村地區的投資，幫助民眾慢慢提高農業生產力，解放部分民眾尋求教育機會，最終離開農村到經濟更為活躍的地區。

????“My view is the more the merrier. When I was in Africa, the question of China often came up, and my attitude was every country that sees investment opportunities and is willing to partner with African countries should be welcomed. The caution is to make sure that African governments negotiate a good deal with whoever they’re partnering with. And that is true whether it’s the United States; that’s true whether it’s China.”

????This is in stark contrast with the sort of rhetoric that the president himself has used, as he has often talked about the need to “win the future” by out-educating, out-innovating, and out-competing the Indians and the Chinese. And it’s not just the Obama Administration that likes to paint China as a competitor rather than a collaborator, as American politicians tend to describe the world in stark, competitive terms during election season and during high profile events like the State of the Union. But the president appears to understand that the world is a bit more complicated than an economic football game. The above quote suggests that he believes that African economic development would be good for America even if it’s not American firms doing the development, as a vibrant Africa could be an excellent destination for American exports.

????China, for its part, has approached the U.S. to work in tandem on infrastructure and development projects in Africa.

????That being said, it would behoove Americans for U.S. companies to invest even more in Africa. Studies show that firms that invest abroad are more likely to spend money and create jobs at home as well. Furthermore, American companies are likely to export more to countries with which they already have a history of partnership.

????The more complicated question is whether all this investment is actually good for Africans. There has been much made in the press about China’s involvement with Africa, even though the relationship is still rather limited in scope. As Brookings’ Yun Sun wrote in a recent white paper,

????“The popular focus on China’s vast economic endeavors in Africa … seems to suggest that Africa is somehow ‘critical’ for China. In reality, Africa accounts for only a tiny percentage of China’s overall foreign economic activities: China’s investment in and trade with Africa represents 3 percent and 5 percent of its global investment and trade, respectively.”

????And this investment and trade is focused mainly in the resource-extraction industries. This is also true for the U.S.: Sun points out that the recent decline in trade between the U.S. and Africa has much more to do with the explosion in U.S. energy production than anything else. Since the U.S. is producing much more of its own oil and natural gas, it has less of a need to import it from Africa. But resource-extraction industries of the sort that make up most of Africa’s foreign trade aren’t the kind that usually lead to economic development. To do this, African nations must reinvest the profits coming from these industries into infrastructure and economic development that will broadly benefit its population and help ease the transition from agricultural to manufacturing-based economies.

????This is the advice that Dutch researchers offered in an extensive five-year study released last year called Asian Tigers, African Lions, which looked at the differences in development between successful Southeast Asian countries and poor African ones. The researchers found that the Asian model of development focused on making incremental investments in poor rural areas that allowed populations to slowly improve agricultural productivity, which then freed the population to seek educational opportunities and ultimately leave rural areas for more economically vibrant regions.