波兰前副总理科沃德科：我对“一带一路”在波兰的发展感到绝望，问题出在哪儿？

liukang20241周前 (04-18)吃瓜热门745

作为中东欧区域的最大经济体，波兰早在2015年就同我国签署了一起推进“一带一路”建造政府间体谅备忘录。跟着中欧交易规划不断扩展，波兰作为欧盟的“东部门户”、中欧班列沿线重要国家的效果益发凸显。

可是，由于新冠疫情和俄乌抵触，中波联系遭到必定搅扰。到2023年，两国之间逐渐康复人文来往。6月下旬，共有6个中方代表团同期拜访波兰；一起，波方政要也活跃参加我国举办的世界论坛与会议。

7月5日，波兰前副总理兼财务部长、科兹明斯基大学经济学教授格热戈日·科沃德科（Grzegorz Kołodko）赴华参加“我国与世界：携手构建人类命运一起体”世界研讨会。在他访华期间，北京世界对话沙龙发起人、观察者网特约主持人韩桦在北京专访科沃德科。

他表明，自己是个“达观主义者”，对中波联系在“一带一路”结构下的展开前景持达观心情；他指出了其时存在问题的处理方法，并就波兰与欧盟联系、我国形式的世界含义等议题共享了自己的观点。

以下为部分采访实录，因篇幅而有所删减。

科沃德科5日在“我国与世界：携手构建人类命运一起体”世界研讨会致辞（图源：央视网）

【采访/韩桦，修改、翻译/观察者网李泽西】

观察者网：科沃德科教授，感谢您承受咱们的独家专访。首要，本年是“一带一路”主张的第10周年，您怎么点评它获得的效果？

科沃德科：我以为，在曩昔的10年间，“一带一路”为加速展开我国家的经济增速做出了巨大奉献，特别是在一些非洲、南亚和中东国家，必定程度上也为我地点的区域（欧洲）做出了奉献。

当然，全部并非一往无前。咱们的确遭受了新冠疫情的冲击，这使得各方面协作变得愈加困难，尤其是游览来往。此外，乌克兰不幸的抵触也已继续了将近一年半。

欧盟委员会和我国政府之间有一些协作和谐，但规划还不行。这几年来，我一直在着重，咱们有必要加强欧盟出资的基建项目与中方借款出资的“一带一路”出资之间的协同协作。

尽管如此，总的来说，“一带一路”的效果是活跃的。咱们有了更好的根底设施，包含桥、港口、公路和铁路。作为一名经济学家，我还特别注重其间发明的工作机会。

对全球来说，我以为“一带一路”在协助展开中的赤贫国家完成更微弱的经济增加。

观察者网：大约两周前，您在华沙参加“‘一带一路’为中波联系注入新动力”智库媒体对话会期间，说到您对“一带一路”主张在波兰的展开感到绝望。你直言不讳地说，这首要是由于波方或欧洲方面的原因。在您看来，这些问题详细是什么？

科沃德科（左）与我国公共交际协会会长吴海龙（右）到会“‘一带一路’为中波联系注入新动力”智库媒体对话会

科沃德科：我以为波兰政府对扩展与我国的经济协作持活跃心情，但其间也存在一些晦气要素。

一个大问题是俄乌抵触，俄乌两国坐落我国和波兰之间，战役给中波货物运输造成了一些物流问题；而波兰是整个欧盟的门户，因而对中欧全体交易也有所影响。

我以为，还有些问题或许是直接的：现在咱们议论的是经济状况，但两边联系当然也包含政治要素。波兰是北约的重要成员，而北约以美国为首，英国也在其间有较大影响力。美英两国在地缘政治博弈中扮演了十分重要的人物，他们最近不太愿意深化与我国的经济协作。

在英美最近的做法中，能够看到许多排外、甚至反华主义的影子，我以为这首要是出于政治原因，但也有经济原因。他们都是十分兴旺的国家，却好像惧怕我国的兴起，尤其是在要害技能方面的展开。

澳大利亚战略方针研究所（ASPI）3月发布了一份陈述，关于当今44项最重要的技能，我国在其间37项技能上位列榜首，美国落后；而美国只需7项技能位列榜首，但我国在这些项目上也紧随其后。

ASPI于3月发布的《要害技能追寻》陈述显现，我国占有较大优势

波兰这场博弈中则扮演了“非有必要人物”。但总体上，我以为波兰政府、尤其是波兰的企业和公民都十分支撑深化与我国的协作。

问题是，咱们是否在现有条件下竭尽所能深化协作？由于许多条件并不是咱们所能决议的，咱们两边都是全球化的一部分。

可是，正如我在自己写过的论文中指出，并在5日“我国与世界：携手构建人类命运一起体”世界研讨会的宗旨讲演中说到，全球化是一个不可逆转的进程。在曩昔几十年，我国是全球化世界上的最大赢家，而波兰则是中东欧区域的最大赢家。

因而，我国现在的问题是怎么运用全球化来促进自身经济利益最大化。而波兰的问题是怎么运用不可逆转的全球化促进咱们的国民经济，其间不可或缺的是与我国的联系。

我比较达观，但我也意识到，假如政治上少一些感情用事，多一些经济上的理性考虑，咱们将获得更大的成功。我看到两国联系的美好前景。

观察者网：我国说到经济全球化时，实际上与您的一些观点发生了共识。在“‘一带一路’为中波联系注入新动力”智库媒体对话会之前，我国国务院总理李强还在拜访德国。您在研讨会上说到，在波兰的中企数量远不及在德国的中企数量，波兰有80多家中企，而德国有2000多家中企。我国和波兰的商界人士详细能够怎样完成双赢？

6月19日，李强在柏林同德国工商界代表座谈交流（图源：新华社）

科沃德科：我国如此注重全球化的不可逆转性，推进其变得愈加容纳，用我国的说法，便是“互利共赢”的全球化，我以为这是一件功德。当然，有时我恶作剧说，应该是互利共赢，而不是我国“赢者通吃”。就现在而言，全球化还不行容纳，有些国家被“落下”了。

我以为中方提出全球展开主张、全球文明主张作为“一带一路”的“下一步”是很好的，咱们应加大这个方向的尽力，由于全球化假如不行容纳，或许弊大于利。接下来，我会注重这些主张怎么落到实处，在“一带一路”主张的第二个十年，怎么办理互利共赢的全球化。

波兰和德国比较，为什么会呈现中企数量不平衡？榜首，这是企业总数，但企业有大有小，光看企业数量不能阐明全部。第二，德国经济是波兰经济的四倍。此外，在某些技能方面，德国企业愈加先进，他们更简略打入我国商场，由于我国更喜爱与技能更先进的公司打交道。因而，中企参加波兰经济的程度必定不及德国，这是很天然的。

问题是，中波联系自身的趋势怎么，是否在朝着杰出的方向展开？波兰对华出口增速高于自己的全体出口增速，尽管我国对波兰的直接出资规划仍不及预期，但其增加速度也高于均匀。

此外，新冠疫情阻遏了两边联系展开，但疫情已简直曩昔了，因而中波两边经贸的趋势是先抑后扬。

我是从发明工作的视点看待两边或世界协作，有时工作才是最要害的。比方我国等国力推的高科技技能、人工智能技能或数字化技能，能够进步波兰等国的竞争力和劳动生产率，但也会在短期内削减工作机会，从长远来看，这又有利于继续经济增加。

观察者网：我国世界经济交流中心曾指出，我国在波兰曾有单个出资失利事例，如A2高速公路项目等，引起了一些欠好的反响，影响到了波兰对我国企业、我国项目甚至“一带一路”的直观感触。您怎么看？咱们怎么才干进步大众对“一带一路”的全体认知？

波兰A2高速公路建造工地（图源：AGENCJA GAZETA）

科沃德科：金无足赤，人无完人，失利时有发生，只需不干事的人才不会犯错。咱们要做的是从失利的真实原因中汲取正确的经历。就言论而言，咱们有必要愈加注重正面的比方。

为什么会存在其时的现象？大众的心情、大众的观点在很大程度上取决于媒体叙事，但媒体界往往是“功德不出门，坏事传千里”。因而，A2项目呈现在新闻上的原因是由于它失利了，是“传千里”的“坏事”。

咱们听到许多关于“一带一路”单个项目失利的比方，但基本上听不到例如我国全面脱贫的新闻，由于这是“不出门”的功德。

还有个的确存在且不无道理的问题是，有些人本来对“一带一路”预期更高。这个问题的处理办法或许需求经过实践学习。对咱们东欧人来说，与我国经商并不像与西方经商那样简略，由于社会准则不同。例如，我地点的科兹明斯基大学，咱们教授一门特别的“我国商务”课程：怎么展开“我国特色”商贸。中波协作存在的不只是口头言语的差异，还有商业或法令言语不通的问题。

这不是失利的托言，但解说了为什么有时不能获得完美成功。我再着重一次，只需“不做才不错”。

观察者网：您在波兰参加经合安排（OECD）和欧盟的进程中发挥了要害效果，代表波兰签署了参加经合安排的公约。您怎么看待波兰尔后与欧盟的联系？为什么波兰还没有用欧元？

科沃德科：的确，在我的领导下，波兰在27年前，即1996年7月11日参加了经合安排，我亲身代表波兰在经合安排巴黎总部签署了相关公约。

科沃德科（右）1996年签署波兰参加了经合安排的公约

在我最终一次担任波兰副总理兼财务部长期间，波兰参加了欧盟（2003年）。假如没有1996年参加经合安排的根底，我以为波兰在2003年就无法参加欧盟。

但由于种种原因，咱们无法参加欧元区，即便不久后也没有参加。在我脱离波兰政府后的几年内，波兰也仍然无法满意参加欧元区的马斯特里赫特规范。你不能敲了门就直接“推门而入”，有必要满意马斯特里赫特的五项规范；这些规范十分严苛，触及财务、钱银和法令监管。

后来，波兰的政治天平从自由派转向曩昔8年间的右翼政府，后者十分对立参加欧元区，宣称这会削弱波兰的竞争力，以为波兰会抛弃一个十分重要的钱银方针东西。

这是现实。用了欧元，就没有了自己的钱银，无法操作汇率或利率，由于这将由法兰克福的欧洲央行决议。但波兰运用欧元也有会一些收成，我以为总体上利大于弊，因而支撑波兰参加欧元区。

可是现在大大都波兰人以为参加欧元区将晦气于经济展开。这源于当下政府执政期间的干流媒体烘托，他们称欧元是德国主导欧盟的东西——这是在言过其实，还称欧元将使波兰经济变得不那么灵敏，在危机下将更难调整方针，而危机的确时有发生，因而最好保存本国钱银。

波兰20年前关于参加欧盟的全民公决写道：您是否拥护依照雅典公约的条款参加欧盟？我其时在雅典参加签署了公约，公约规则一旦满意马斯特里赫特规范，波兰有权利也有责任参加欧元。

2003年雅典，波兰代表团正式参加欧盟后的新闻发布会，左一为科沃德科（图源：波兰总统办公室）

77%的人在全民公决中投了拥护票，实际上也表明支撑欧元。但现在，70%的人对立参加欧元，由于言论愈加着重欧元的负面影响。已然社会上大大都人都对立欧元，咱们的确暂时不宜运用欧元。

首要，咱们有必要让人们信任，从长远来看，欧元对他们有利。咱们需求的不只仅是论据，还要有适宜的途径，将这些观点传递给公民的眼睛、耳朵和脑筋，这便是媒体的效果。

假如政府大大都人对立，运用欧元就不会发生。我以为他们态度过错，但决议权在他们而不是我。我能做的是企图诱导言论，用经济学的逻辑来证明，假如波兰兹罗提与欧元之间汇率适宜，参加欧元是有利的。

适宜的汇率，应能确保波兰经济的竞争力。波兰经济的展开在很大程度上取决于出口带动的增加，因而出口增速有必要快于总产出的增加。咱们应该参加欧元区，但不能运用汇率过高的钱银。

由于咱们现在的钱银汇率过高，此时参加将削弱咱们企业的竞争力，这是斯洛伐克和立陶宛等国此前犯下的过错。对波兰企业来说，咱们的出口或将转盈为亏，而进口将十分廉价。这对波兰经济是晦气的。

假如咱们参加时汇率过低，这对咱们出口导向的企业来说是件功德，但进口将更贵重，将加重通胀。企业缺少竞争力是欠好的，但许多的通胀也是欠好的。

波兰兹罗提/材料图

怎么办理这些复杂性、对立、彼此效果，需求深入了解经济工作逻辑。此外，还需求许多的政治权利，以确保政治逻辑遵照经济逻辑。经济逻辑依据理性，政治逻辑则往往不同，大大都时分依据心情。现在，波兰的心情对立参加欧元。让咱们等候经济逻辑再次“无可反驳”的机遇吧。

观察者网：您深入论述了问题，不只从政治视点，还从经济学家的视点，以及从中波交易的视点来看，都是十分有深度的。

科沃德科：我是一直是一名大学教授，29年前初次参加波兰政府时，我以为只需把握现实和正确常识就满足了，但我很快就了解了：在政治，在民主准则下，这还不行，你需求把握大都座位。

有时，不管我说什么，即便是简略的2×2等于4，也会有人说不对，应该是3，你说的彻底过错，答案是5。

这种状况下，我能做的便是不断测验，有必要压服其他政客、经济学家和利益集团。有时他们知道，从国家的视点来看这项方针是好的，但对我的企业或我地点的区域晦气。现在的问题是，应优先考虑哪方利益？怎么和谐当地与国家利益？

此外，咱们仍是欧盟成员国，这是功德，但也意味着咱们还有必要在欧盟的结构内和谐自己的方针。许多状况不由咱们决议，各国之间有时会存在种种经济利益抵触。

不管是什么经济和政治系统——哪怕距离有如我国系统与波兰系统——都存在存在退让概念，不能强推自己的主意，即便你是正确的，由于其他人有权不了解、惧怕、要求你再解说。

观察者网：我国系统在某种程度上也有相似的复杂性，也需求考虑您描绘的怎么和谐当地、省级与国家级的权责利益等。因而，这或许也是我国的形式，我国的现代化路途能够共享予全世界的一点。

科沃德科：毋庸置疑，各国能够学习我国的经历。在曩昔的40年间，我国获得了无与伦比的成功，这是文明的一个腾跃。问题是，其他国家能从中学到什么？咱们觉得，东欧、欧盟或美国很难学习许多经历。

科沃德科承受观察者网采访

其他展开我国家的确能够学到许多东西，但也是有危险的，由于我国的成功是两种力气的共同结合：商场这只“看不见的手”的力气与政府这只“看得见的手”的力气。

其他国家或许说，咱们也要这样做，咱们要把政府的官僚、政党和领导的力气与商场的力气结合起来。可是，这取决于履行的质量，需有十分强壮的政府。

比方，沙特阿拉伯政府不比我国政府弱，或许沙特在其国内权利更大，但却相对不太成功。为什么？各国不只需求以恰当的方法结合商场和政府的力气，还有必要结合知人善任与技能官僚准则，这样才有或许成功。

这其间还需求的，是文明。当然，我不觉得我国人必定比其他国家的人更热爱工作，在欧洲也常常有人称波兰人比其他人更有创业精神，或许咱们是有一点，但这种解说太简略了。商业文明，才对整个系统的运作有影响。

我把我国形式称为“我国主义”，以着重其特异性。假如一个小国表明要走我国路途，我会主张他们在契合当地文明的状况下，尽或许多学习我国形式，但也要考虑当地国情。对相同的问题，在穆斯林国家与新教、天主教或尘俗国家的答复是不同的。经济上，关于通胀源自进口和通胀源自国内的国家，抗击通胀的方法也是不同的。

我发起的新实用主义——你们可称之为具有“我国特色”的新实用主义——竭力对立新自由主义推广单一形式的做法。你有你的尺码，你的服装有必要量身定制，而不是依据其他人的尺度，由于他们或许有不同的尺度。每个尺度都有自己共同的漂亮，但也有各自的不同。经济和政治都是十分复杂的论题。

观察者网：耶伦女士今日上午刚刚完毕了她对我国的拜访。您怎么看待中美两边处理经贸协作联系，尤其在两国联系紧张的状况下？

科沃德科：我以为耶伦访华，并与我国经济界的政治领导人会晤是个很好的痕迹。我期望他们以一种十分务实的方法评论两边联系的问题和其全球结果。许多工作都取决于中美联系，包含在我的国家（波兰）。

8日，国务院副总理、中美经贸中方牵头人何立峰会晤耶伦

其次，我的确很赏识她的派头。她在拜访前说了一句话，这句话在美国、英国、欧盟等地的所有人都“不愿意”听到，尤其是（对华）鹰派人士。她说，由于自己是一个经济学家——一个合理、受过杰出教育的聪明人——总是议论与我国脱钩是无稽之谈。

两边彼此依存联系太深、太大，中美不能脱钩，强行脱钩等于“自杀”美国自己的经济，由于咱们在继续的全球化进程经济中深度交融，发生太多的彼此依赖，以至于现在咱们不能撤出这一进程了。

她说，现在不该进行任何脱钩，但应评论几个详细问题，例如：常识产权、信息和专利搬运、对一些职业的维护、决议哪些是战略工业而哪些不是、中止禁运——我国刚刚宣告，他们将禁运锗和另一种对高科技技能至关重要的稀土金属的出口，这是我国对美国举动的反响——征收交易关税，等等。

因而，她访华并评论这些问题是很重要的。从今日的视点来看，这次拜访或许还没有获得满足的展开，但肯定不是失利。我以为耶伦访华比布林肯访华更有成效，或许由于布林肯的思维方法是彻里彻外的“政客脑筋”，但耶伦却企图从经济学家视点考虑。

现在的问题是，回到美国，她将怎么在白宫工作人员会议上向美国总统拜登报告，并怎样与美联储主席鲍威尔交流，等等。就美中经济和金融联系而言，她的影响力有多大？我忧虑她或许“势单力薄”，尤其是面对那些对经济学了解不深的美国鹰派人士，或许即便他们了解经济学，也不满足地注重经济，在某种程度上简略忽视经济对全球的含义。他们过于注重政治，对自己担任的经济不行注重。

布林肯和耶伦（图源：AP）

我一直在尽力寻觅经济和政治之间，经济方针和非经济方针之间的彼此效果。此时咱们对咱们日子中的经济层面都明显没有予以满足的注重，不管是从个人仍是全球层面。

中美联系中政治要素太多了，过错的政治考量也常常被卷进这些争端中。它使全部变得愈加“风趣”，但一起更具挑战性。我以为自己是个达观主义者，由于我知道咱们面对的每一个问题都有处理办法，但这并不意味着它们正在被处理，也不确保它们将来会被处理。比方，咱们知道怎么应对气候变化，但咱们做得还不行。

现在是推广依据现实与常识、对未来担任的政治的时分了。这便是为什么我对政治经济学感兴趣。每逢我来到我国，或在波兰遇到我国客人时，我都很愿意评论这个问题，即便咱们有定见不合，由于不合能够进步咱们的思维。咱们有必要考虑未来该怎么做，或许全部都或许变得更好，但这将取决于咱们今日做出的挑选，不是注定的。

英文原文（部分）：

Guancha: Professor Kołodko, thanks for this exclusive interview. The very first question is, as the BRI approaches its 10th anniversary, how would you rate its success?

Kołodko: I think that it has contributed significantly over the last 10 years to acceleration of economic growth in developing countries, especially some countries in Africa, South Asia and Middle East, to a lesser degree in my part of the world.

There were some problems in the meantime. We did have Covid, which made the cooperation much more difficult, starting from travel. Now we have almost a year and a half this unfortunate conflict in Ukraine.

But there was also a little bit but not enough coordination between European Commission and the Chinese governments.

I've been saying for several years that we have to give more attention to cooperation between infrastructure projects co-financed by the European Union and Belt and Road investment co-financed by lending from China.

But having said so, in general, the evaluation is positive. We have a little bit better points of infrastructure, a bridge here, harbor over there, road or piece of railroad in another country. And I'm an economist, of course, it has created job opportunities.

But going back to the global evaluation, it is positive, I see it as an instrument of getting more robust economic growth in catching up countries, poorer countries.

Guancha: About two weeks ago in Warsaw, while attending the seminar between the Chinese and Polish intellectuals and media representatives, you mentioned your disappointment towards BRI’s progress in Poland in particular. And you said bluntly that it is mostly because of the Polish government or probably the European side. So what are these issues in particular in your opinion and how to tackle these issues or challenges, in your opinion?

Kołodko: Well, the Polish government is rather sympathetic towards expansion, continuation of the economic cooperation with China. Yet there are some problems.

One big problem is this conflict in Ukraine. If you are taking a look on the map, Russia and Ukraine is just between China and Poland. And that is causing some logistical problems with transport of goods from China to Poland and remaining part of the European Union, one must see Poland as the gates to European Union.

I think that also maybe some problems are indirect: we are talking economics, but there is also politics. And Poland is a very important member of NATO, which by all means is led by the United States with the very big strong and influential position of United Kingdom. And these two very important countries in the geopolitical game, US and UK, are somehow reluctant recently to widen and deepen economic cooperation with China.

You may see a lot of, I may say xenophobia, if not anti-China-ism, in the American and British approach, mostly I think for non-economic political reasons, but also for economic ones. These countries, which are very much advanced, they seem to be somehow afraid, scared of China's rise, especially in critical technologies.

There is the recently published report by Australian Strategic Policy Institute about 44 most important technologies in the contemporary world. And out of this 44, in as many as 37 cases, China is number one, US is number second or alternatively, only in seven cases, US is number one and China is number two.

So now we are somehow a minor player in this game.

I think that Poland, our government, but first of all our business and our people, we are very much in favor of deepening and extending our cooperation with China.

The question is, are we doing everything that is possible under the given circumstances? Because not everything depends on us, I mean as you in Beijing, in China, and us in Warsaw, in Poland, we are part of globalization.

But as I'm pointing in my papers and I pointing to this aspect also during my keynote speech at the conference hosted here in China recently by China Academy of Social Sciences, that globalization is an irreversible process.

I don't see any other country which has gained so much from globalization over the last generation as China. And I think that I can’t see any other country in East Central Europe, which gained from globalization as much as we have done in Poland.

So now the question is on the Chinese side, how to take advantage of ongoing globalization on behalf of China's people, China's economy. And our question is how to take advantage of irreversible globalization, of which an indispensable part is our relation with China on behalf of our national economy.

So I'm rather positive, but still I'm aware that much more would be accomplished if there will be less of sometimes emotionally driven politics and much more of rationality driven economic concern. I see a good future for these relations.

Guancha: Chinese President Xi Jinping actually resonated some of your observations by mentioning or proposing the economic globalization. Before our seminar in Warsaw two weeks ago, Chinese premier Li Qiang was actually visiting Germany. You observed in the seminar by mentioning that the number of Chinese companies in Poland is actually dwarfed by the number of Chinese companies in Germany, about 80+ companies versus more than 2000 companies. What specifically can Chinese and Polish business people do to make it a two-way street?

Kołodko:It's good that China's president is giving so much attention to irreversibility of globalization, presuming that it will be more inclusive. You call it in China, win-win globalization. Sometimes I'm joking that, let's have it win-win, not 2:0 for China. Definitely, for the time being, globalization has not been inclusive enough. There are some countries which are being left behind, which are being excluded, not included in the bold global process.

And now, when China's leader is coming with Global Development Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative as a certain follow up to global Belt and Road Initiative, good, let's try to go further towards this direction, because globalization, if it is not inclusive enough, can cause more problems than solve problems. Now, after the words, I'm looking for the deeds, how this win-win globalization will be managed and governed during the second decade of Belt and Road initiative.

Comparing Poland and Germany, why there is such an imbalance? This is the number of the companies, but there are some huge companies and there are some small companies.

Second point is, German economy is 4 times bigger than the Polish economy.

In certain technologies, German companies are more advanced. For that reason, they have easier access to Chinese market, because China is interested more in dealing with more technologically advanced companies.

So, it's natural that our engagement is relatively not as big as in the case of Germany. The question is, what is the dynamic? Exports to China is growing faster than average Polish exports overseas. Direct investment is still not as big as I hope they will be in the future, but they are growing above the average.

Recently, again, there was the turbulence because of Covid, but Covid is almost gone. So I think that the curve will look like this, and now it will look like that (first down then up). I’m taking a look for bilateral cooperation, international or global cooperation from the viewpoint of job creation.

Sometimes that is the question mark, because if China trade high tech technologies, artificial intelligence technology or digitalization, when it is brought to Poland or to other countries, this can push our competitiveness and our labor productivity, but is decreasing the jobs. But in the longer run, it works on behalf of sustaining economic growth.

Guancha: The China Center for International Economic Exchange had pointed out that the failure of a few high profile projects, such as the A2 Highway in Poland. This kind of projects contributed to some negative perception of the BRI in Poland. What's your take on that? How can we better inform the public of the overall positive story of the BRI.

Kołodko:Nothing is perfect, failure from time to time happens. As the proverb goes, only the one who is doing nothing is not committing mistakes.

What we have to do is we have to draw the proper lessons from the true causes of this failure. We have to focus attention, as far as the public debate is concerned, on positive examples.

There is always the question. Why? Public attitude, public perception is very much the result of public media narrative, as the other saying goes. Good news is not the news. Only bad news is in news. And for that reason, that was the news because it was a failure.

So you may hear much more about this one example of failure within the Belt and Road Initiative project, but you cannot hear that much, for instance, that recently China has erased entirely extreme poverty, because this is the good news.

There is also certain disappointment and not without justification: much more was expected.

Sometimes, the problem is process of learning by doing. It is not that easy for us in East Europe to do business with China, as it is with the West, because of difference of the social systems.

For instance, at my Kozminski University, we teach a special course program “China's business”: how to make business with Chinese characteristics. It is not only the question of language, this is the problem of lack of compatibility of business language, or law language.

And that is not an excuse. That is an explanation why sometimes there is not a firework success as it was expected. Once more, the only one who is never failing is the one who is doing nothing.

Guancha: You had played a key role in Poland’s accession to OECD and the EU, actually having signed the convention joining OECD. What do you think of Poland’s relationship with the EU since then? Why has Poland not adopted the Euro as your currency yet?

Kołodko:Indeed. Under my stewardship, Poland joined OECD exactly 27 years ago, on 11th of July, 1996, with this hand, I signed the accession treaty in OECD headquarters in Paris.

And when I was for the fourth and last time the deputy prime minister and minister of finance of the Polish government, we brought Poland to the European Union. I would say it would not have happened around 20 years ago, if not for joining OECD in 1996.

But for several reasons, at the same time, we could not, and soon after we did not join Eurozone, because the government after I left was not able to make the Maastricht criteria of currency conversions. You cannot just sign, knock knock, I want to join you. You have to meet five criteria from Maastricht, which are very tough, vis-a-vis fiscal, monetary and law regulation.

And then the political pendulum has shifted from liberal government to right wing government, which we have had for 8 years. And this government is very much against joining Euro, because this government says that it will weaken Polish competitiveness, it will deprive us of a very important instrument, which is monetary policy.

That is true. If you have Euro, you don't have your own currency, so you cannot manipulate exchange rate or interest rate, it is decided by the Central European bank based in Frankfurt. But we'll get something in exchange of that. My position is still positive. I'm in favor of joining Euro.

But now, people in Poland are convinced that would be not good for economy, because they've been told for many years during this government by mainstream media that Euro is an instrument of German dominance of the European Union, which is a great exaggeration, that Euro will make our economy less flexible, and it will be more difficult to adjust in the case of crisis, and crisis happened from time to time, better keep national currency.

During the referendum 20 years ago about accession to the European Union, there was also the point: Are you in favor of joining the European Union on the terms in Athens treaty? I was in Athens when we signed the treaty saying that Poland has a right and obligation to join the Euro pending that we meet the criteria from Maastricht.

77% of people in the referendum voted in favor. So actually they said that we are in favor of Euro. But now 70% is against joining the Euro because of public discussion on how bad Euro would be for economy. I'm saying that when majority of the society is against that kind of reform, don't do it.

First, we have to convince the people it will be on their behalf in the long run. But to do so, you need not only arguments. You have to have the channel to deliver these arguments to the people, eyes, ears, and minds. And that is going through the media.

It will never happen if the government majority are against, and I think they are wrong, but they decide, not me.

I may attempt to make an influence impact on the public opinion. I'm arguing using economic logic, why it will be good under one condition: if we will convert currency at the proper exchange rate.

What is proper exchange rate? The one which will guarantee competitiveness of Poland’s economy. Because Poland’s economic future very much depends on export led growth, exports must be growing faster than overall output. We should join Euro, but not with too strong currency.

Because our currency is too strong at the moment, that was the mistake committed, for instance, by Slovakia and Lithuania, then it will erode competitiveness of our entrepreneurship. Our exports will cease to be profitable for Polish business and import will be very cheap. That is not going to work for the Polish economy.

If we would join with too weak currency, that would be good for our export oriented sector, but import would be relatively more expensive, and that would fuel inflation. A lack of competitiveness is bad, but a lot of inflation is also bad.

How to manage all this complexity, all these contradictions, all these feedbacks, you have to know a lot about how the economy works. You need also a lot of political power to enforce the economic logic on political logic. Economic logic is based on rationality. Political logic has different rationale, and most of the time is based on emotions. Now, emotions are against joining Euro. And let's wait for a time when again, the power of economic logic will be preferred.

Guancha: I think this is a very strong argument, not only from the political perspective, but from an economist’s perspective, as well as from the Sino-Polish trade perspective, which is very strong.

Kołodko:I'm a long time university professor, when I joined for the first time the Polish government 29 years ago, I thought that it is enough to be correct, it is enough to be right, it is enough to be knowledgeable. And then I understood pretty fast: in politics, in a democratic system, it's not enough, you need a majority.

Sometimes whatever I said, even if it was almost as simple that 2×2 makes four, somebody says no, three, not at all, five.

What you do is you keep trying, as long as you can, you have to convince the other policy makers, the other economists, and the others interests. Sometimes they know that it is good from national viewpoint, but not for my business, not for my region. Now the question is, what is coming first, what is coming second? How to coordinate regional needs and ambitions and obstacles with the national one?

And now, we are the member of the European Union. Good for us, but now we have to coordinate the policies of our country within the framework of the European Union. Not everything is up to us, and there are sometimes conflict of economic interest.

Whatever the economic and political system, can be as different as the Chinese system and our Polish system, there is compromise, you cannot enforce what you wish, even if you are right against everybody else, because everybody else has the right to not understand, to be afraid, to ask again for explanation.

Guancha: China's economic landscape to some extent has similar complexity, like you describing how to manage the local, the provincial level status versus the national level status and so on, so forth. So maybe there is this China model, China's path to modernization that can be shared worldwide.

Kołodko:Countries may learn from China’s experience. There is no doubt about that. There is incomparable success in china over the last 40 years. It's a civilization leap forward. The question is, what can other countries learn from this experience? We cannot learn a lot in Eastern Europe or in the European Union or in the United States.

But other developing countries can learn a lot, but it's a risky business, because China's success is caused by unique combination of two powers: the power of the invisible hand of market, and the power of the visible hand of government.

Somebody says we will do the same, we'll combine our power of the government's bureaucracy, party, leadership with power of market. This depends on the quality of implementation. You have very powerful government.

I wouldn't say that Saudi Arabia government is weaker than Chinese government. Maybe it's even more strong, and somehow they are not successful. Why? It's not only the question of power of market and power of government to be combined in the proper way. It is also that it must be accompanied by meritocracy, by technocracy, then it may work.

What is the remaining ingredient of this recipe? It's culture. I wouldn't say that Chinese people love to work harder than other nations.

In my part of the world, we hear often that Polish people are more entrepreneurial than the others. Maybe we are a little bit, but don't make it easier by that kind of explanation that. But there is business culture, which has an influence on the working of the whole system.

I'm referring to this Chinese system as Chinese-ism in English language to stress that it's something very unique, something very specified. If I hear in a small country that we will go the Chinese way, I say, try to get as much from Chinese model as is compatible with your local culture, but also put it in the context. The same question, you answer somehow differently in the Muslim country than you do in the Protestant country or Catholic country or a secular country.

You answer how to fight inflation differently in a country where it is basically imported inflation and when it is basically domestic cost inflation.

So my new pragmatism, you may call it in China “with Chinese characteristics”, is very much against this neoliberal approach of one size fits all. You have your size, and your costume must fit in your size, not the size of each and every other person, because they may have different size. Each size is beautiful, but there are different sizes. So this is much more complex as far as economics and politics are concerned.

Guancha: Madam Janet Yellen just wrapped up her visit to China this morning. How do you see China and America handle this economic cooperation, given the tensions of the two countries?

Kołodko:I think it was a very good development that Mrs. Yellen decided to come to China and she met Chinese economic political leaders. And I hope she discussed with them in a very pragmatic way, the problems of bilateral relations with global consequences. So much depends, also in my country, upon Sino American relations.

Secondly, I do appreciate her behavior. She said before her visit and it was not liked by everybody in Washington, in London, in Brussels, especially by the Hawks circle. She said, because she is an economist, reasonable, well educated, smart, that it's nonsense to always talk about decoupling with China.

The interdependence is too deep, too large, we cannot decouple, or we may but that would be suicide for our own economy, because there is too much interdependence as the result of ongoing globalization that we cannot withdraw from this process.

She says that there is no time for any decoupling, but there is a time to discuss several issues: intellectual property, trading of information, patent, protection of maybe some industries, deciding what is strategic and what is not strategic, getting rid of embargo, China has just declared that they will actually embargo export of Germanium and another rare earth metal which is critical for high tech technology, which is China's action reaction for American action, imposing trade tariffs, etc.

So it's important that she has come, that they discuss these issues. There is not enough progress which we may see from today's perspective, but definitely it is not a failure. And I think that Ms. Yellen’s visit to Beijing has been much more productive than Mr Blinken’s visit to Beijing, maybe because his way of thinking is strictly political. And she attempted to think as an economist.

Now the question is, back to Washington DC, what she will report at the meeting of the staff of the White House, when she will be briefing President Biden, when she will call Mr Powell, the chairman of American System of Federal Reserves, etc. So the question is, how influential is she as far as US-China economic and financial relations are concerned? I'm afraid that she may be not strong enough, that American Hawks who have poor understanding of economics, or if they have, they do not appreciate it as much as it's supposed to be, they are somehow prone to neglect the meaning of economy for the global situation. They pay too much attention to politics and not enough to economics that they are at the lead.

I'm always trying to find the feedback between economics and politics, between economic policy and non-economic policy. And now there is definitely not enough attention given to the economic aspect of our life, individually and globally.

And there is too much politics, wrong politics being engaged in all these disputes. It makes everything more interesting but still more challenging. But I'm an optimist because I do know that each and every one of the problems that we are talking about are solvable, but it does not imply that they are being solved, and it does not guarantee that they will be solved. We do know how to fight with warming of the climate, but we are not doing enough.

It's time for knowledge based, accountable in the long run politics. This is where my interest in political economy are coming from. And whenever I come into China or I can meet Chinese guest in Poland, I'm happy to discuss this issue, even when we disagree, because disagreement is, if you will, for refreshing the thought. So we have to think how to act and then it may be better, but not necessarily will. It depends on us.

告发/反应