BUILDING A MODERATELY PROSPEROUS SOCIETY IN ALL RESPECTS
- New-Type Industrialization
全面建成小康社会：新型工业化
Abstract:
After announcing the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020, the Chinese leadership also called for a new path of industrialization, putting a premium on quality and new development concepts. Unlike traditional industrialization in the broad or narrow sense, new-type industrialization features synergy between primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, integration between traditional economy and the new economy, environmental protection, technology progress, and innovation. It represents an inclusive approach to industrial development. At the fundamental level, the success of China’s new-type industrialization can be attributed to China’s inclusive learning and innovations.
Keywords:
building a moderately prosperous society, new-type industrialization, inclusive learning and innovation
JEL classification code: O14; I32P21
DOI: 1 0.19602/j .chinaeconomist.2020.01.03
1. Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects: New Requirements for Industrial Development
In a broad sense, industrialization has similar connotations with modernization. In addition to the rising share of the industrial sector in GDP and employment, industrialization also encompasses growth in per capita GDP, urbanization, and technology progress. In the narrow sense, industrialization only refers to growth in industrial output and share of industrial employment. In building a moderately prosperous society, China strives to industrialize in ways beyond the broad and narrow sense of industrialization.
When Comrade Deng Xiaoping put forward the goal of building a moderately prosperous society, he had per capita income in mind. In 1991, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) formed a task force together with personnel from 12 agencies, including planning and public finance departments, to come up with 16 indicators for a “moderately prosperous society.” Not all of them are related to industrial development.
In 2002, the Report to the 16th CPC National Congress called for uplifting people’s living standards
to a moderately prosperous level, as reflected in:
- Steady growth in urban and rural household incomes;
- Market prosperity, sufficient commodity supply, higher quality of life, and significant improvements in clothing, food, housing, daily necessities, and transportation in both cities and the countryside;
- Significant progress in the development of the social protection system;
- Completion of the Seven-Year Priority Poverty Alleviation Program to lift 80 million people out of absolute poverty.
To achieve these targets, industrial and urban development is of vital significance.
While announcing that the Chinese people’s living standards had generally reached the threshold for moderate prosperity, the Report to the 16th CPC National Congress in 2002 also stated that “the current level of prosperity is uneven and sporadic prosperity at a low level.” Therefore, the report called for building a moderately prosperous society at a higher level and linking per capita GDP growth with industrial and urban development. The report identified structural and efficiency improvements as prerequisites for achieving the goal of doubling GDP by 2020 over the level of 2000. It stressed that development towards a moderately prosperous society must follow a “path of new-type industrialization.”
The report defines new- type industrialization as “IT- driven industrialization featuring high technology content, good economic return, low resource consumption, subdued environmental pollution, and fully utilized human resources.” “Fully utilized human resources” should be interpreted in the following ways: First, China has a large working population; second, China’s labor competence is improving. These implications remind us that China’s new-type industrialization cannot discard traditional industries. The large working-age population and improving competence require China’s traditional industries to renovate and upgrade.
The Report to the 17th CPC National Congress in 2007 reviewed the achievements in building a moderately prosperous society since the 16th CPC National Congress in 2002. It announced the goal of doubling China’s per capita GDP by 2020 over the level of 2000 by improving structure and efficiency, reducing energy intensity, and protecting the environment. The report also called for ramping up indigenous innovation, integrating IT application with industrialization, creating a modern industrial system, promoting the development of new-technology industries, and enhancing the synergy of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries as drivers of economic growth.
In 2012, the Report to the 18th CPC National Congress vowed to complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020. It gave unprecedented prominence to innovation, calling for an innovation-driven development strategy. It identified the strategic adjustment of the economic structure as a key direction in transforming the pattern of economic development. Specifically, it called for policies to support the real economy, develop strategic emerging industries ( SEIs), advanced manufacturing, and modern services, upgrade traditional industries, and improve the layout of infrastructure and essential industries. Other priorities include the development of next-generation information infrastructure and the modern IT industry system, the broad application of information and internet technologies, among others.
In 2017, the Report to the 19th CPC National Congress identified the period from 2017 to 2020 as the decisive stage for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. In line with the requirements of the 16th, 17th, and 18th CPC National Congresses, we must accomplish the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects in a way that wins people’s recognition and stands the test of history. According to the Report to the 19th CPC National Congress, China’s economy has transitioned from rapid growth to a new stage of high-quality growth, characterized by the principal contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life.
Interpretations on the new development stage and principal contradiction in the Report to the 19th CPC National Congress reveal the necessity, inevitability, and urgency for China to pursue a new path of industrialization. The report unequivocally calls for modernizing our economic system, putting a premium on quality and efficiency. “Through supply-side structural reforms, we should transform the quality, efficiency, and momentum of our economic development, increase total factor productivity (TFP), and build an industrial system that promotes the synergy of the real economy, innovation, modern finance, and human resources. For the first time, TFP appeared in the Party’s official document.
From the reports to the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th CPC National Congresses from 2002 to 2017, we may draw the following conclusion regarding China’s economic and industrial development: As an essential part of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China’s industrial development must follow a new path underpinned by new development concepts. Specifically:
(1) In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China must improve its industrial structure in keeping pace with industrial development. Traditional industrialization is manifested in the falling share of agriculture and the rising share of secondary and tertiary industries. Over the years, China has persistently expanded its secondary and tertiary industries, particularly secondary industry, as manifested in technology and knowledge-based sectors crowding out resource- and labor-intensive ones. In building a moderately prosperous society, however, China should also increase synergy between primary, secondary, and tertiary industries. Industrialization does not mean reliance on the industrial or service sector at the expense of agriculture.
(2) In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China must pursue innovationdriven industrialization. As a developing country, China has followed a factor-driven path of industrial development after reform and opening up in 1978. Compared with factors like capital and labor, innovation played a less prominent role in supporting industrial growth, and TFP remained low. This phenomenon is not unique to China, but common to all developing countries in catching up with developed countries. As the economy advances to a new level, a country may experience rising factor costs, particularly labor and land costs, and diminishing late-mover advantage as its technology approaches the frontier level. As a result, the spillover effects of foreign technology dry up, and return on factor-driven growth starts to fall. At this moment, groundbreaking innovations, particularly indigenous innovations, become essential to jumpstarting the economy.
( 3) In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China must integrate the new economy with the old economy. The goal of building a moderately prosperous society was adopted when a new round of technological and industrial revolution was sweeping across the world. Back then, China was yet to complete industrialization. In the context of new technological and industrial revolutions, China could not repeat each step from the first to the fourth industrial revolution as advanced economies did over a long course of history. Without leapfrogging, China would not be able to achieve the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020 - a milestone in its long journey of development. Economic development has to follow its laws. China’s industrial development cannot discard traditional industries and rely on new industries alone. Instead, it should upgrade traditional industries while expanding new industries, and explore a new path of industrialization where old and new industries reinforce each other.
(4) In building a moderately prosperous society, China must pursue resource- and environmentallyfriendly industrialization. When investigating the relationship between economic development and environmental protection, economists often cite the Kuznets curve, i.e. the inverted U-shaped curve. The idea is that economic development initially worsens the environment until a certain point where the country reaches a specific income level. Then, the environment will start to improve. Judging by the path of developed countries, China is yet to cross the tip of the Kuznets curve and reverse environmental degradation. Over the past decades, China has achieved breakneck industrial development at the expense of natural resources and the environment. In building a moderately prosperous society, China must
embrace a new type of industrialization based on green development, efficient use of resources, and better protection of the environment. This approach not only addresses people’s need for a better life, but ensures sustainable industrial development as well.
2. China’s Industrial Progress in the Context of Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects
2.1 Improving Industrial Structure
In building a moderately prosperous society, China has persistently improved its industrial structure, as reflected in the rising share of secondary and tertiary industries and the falling share of primary industry in GDP since 2002 (Figure 1). The tertiary industry created more jobs in 2011 and valueadded as a share in GDP in 2012 than did the secondary industry for the first time. The tertiary industry contributed an additional ten percentage points to China’s economic growth in 2012 over the level of 2000 and an additional 14 percentage points in 2018 over the level of 2012 (Figure 2).
Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, China’s industrial structure has been improving, as manifested in the rising share of technology- and knowledge-intensive industries. In 2018, hightech and equipment manufacturing industries made up 13.9% and 32.9% of value-added of industries, respectively, above a designated scale, boosting technology- and knowledge- intensive production capacity (Department of Industrial Statistics of NBS, 2019).
The question is: Did industrial restructuring enhance China’s industrial competitiveness? To answer this question, we must examine China’s international comparative advantage. In 2018, China’s global market share of finished goods exceeded 17%, followed by primary goods ( 3%) and the tertiary industry ( 4.5%). Measured by revealed comparative advantage ( RCA), China’s
secondary industry has been more competitive, and the comparative advantage of the tertiary industry remained weak until 2015 (Figure 3).
In 2018, China supplied 16% of low-end finished goods and 15% of medium and high-end finished products to the global market. Measured by revealed comparative advantage (RCA), its low-end finished goods have been more competitive than medium and high-end finished goods. There is an upward trend in China’s market share and RCA for medium and high-end finished goods. A similar trend has also appeared for knowledge and technology-intensive services, including financial, IPR, and information services.
2.2 Rising Innovation Capacity
The lack of innovation, particularly original innovation, has been a drawback of China’s economic development. In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China strives to promote innovation as a driver of industrial development. In 2018, China registered the fastest growth of innovation index since 2005, the first year with available data, which exceeded 200 for the first time to reach 212.0. In 2018, China’s full-time equivalent (FTE) of R&D personnel reached 4.38 million personyears, the highest in the world. In the same year, China’s R&D spending amounted to 1,967.79 billion yuan, the second-highest in the world, and the ratio of R&D spending to GDP stood at 2.19%, exceeding the average level of 2.13% for 15 EU states in 2017 (NBS, 2019).
In 2018, the top three international science paper indexes respectively accepted 418,000, 266,000, and 59,000 science papers from China, ranking the second, the first, and the second in the world. According to the Essential Science Indicators (ESI), China ranks second in the world in terms of science paper citations (Department of Social, Science and Technology, and Cultural Statistics, NBS, 2019).
Growing R& D investments by the Chinese government and enterprises have led to a spike in China’s patent filings and authorizations, which totaled 4.32 million and 2.45 million in 2018 respectively. In 2018, China’s invention patent applications amounted to 1.54 million, or 35.7% of the world’s total patent applications. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Chinese mainland has recorded a rapid growth of patent applications and patent authorizations since 2000. In 2017, 13.72 million valid patent applications were filed globally, including 2.98 million in the United States, 2.17 million in China, and about 2 million in Japan. More than 40 million trademarks were registered globally, including 14.9 million in China, 2.2 million in the United States, and 1.9 million in Japan. China accounted for 32% of the world’s 3.75 million valid design patents for industrial goods and over 90% of valid new-type patents filed in 2017.
China ranks second in terms of patents per unit of GDP, followed by Japan, and South Korea tops the list. Numerous innovative firms have emerged in China. Among them, ZTE and Huawei are among world leaders in terms of patent filings (WIPO, 2018). With big strides in original innovation, China is increasingly catching up with and overtaking the most innovative countries.
2.3 Integration between Traditional Economy and New Economy
The world is experiencing a profound technological revolution. In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China must increase the share of the new economy based on new technology.
The concept of the new economy first appeared in the 1990s, and initially referred to a new form of IT-based economy (Zhang, 2019). Today, the new economy refers to the economy based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is spearheaded by the internet of things, digitalization, artificial intelligence, and green development ( Zhang, 2018). Based on the index method, the Study Group on China’s Industrial Competitiveness at the Institute of Industrial Economics (IIE), the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) measured the new economy competitiveness of various countries. The findings of this study will reveal the trend and international position of China’s new economy.
In 2018, the Study Group created the system of new economy indicators, which consist of six
categories of primary indicators and 38 secondary indicators. Table 1 presents the arithmetic averages of the new economy indicators for typical countries from 2015 to 2017. As can be seen from Table 1, the United States boasts an absolute advantage in new economy competitiveness, and China is in the second tier. China leads developing countries, and even some developed countries, in the three typical areas of the new economy, i.e. digitalization, the internet of things, and artificial intelligence. China’s scores far outperform its per capita GDP rankings, particularly in the two areas of digitalization and artificial intelligence (see Table 1). With rapid development in the digital economy, platform economy, cloud computing, internet of things, and artificial intelligence, China has seen an emergence of numerous competitive firms in critical areas.
According to Compass Intelligence, among the 24 top AI chipmakers in the world, six are Chinese (Deng, 2019). In 2018, China’s digital economy reached 4.7 trillion US dollars, next only to the United States (Wang, 2019). Aliyun, a subsidiary of Alibaba Group, ranks among the top five companies in the field of cloud computing and the first in terms of market share in the Asia Pacific (Hu, 2019). Among the world’s top 20 IoT firms, six are Chinese, next only to the United States (Guo, 2019). Among the world’s top 10 platform companies by market cap, two are Chinese (Yuan, 2019).
China boasts significant competitiveness in traditional industries, especially manufacturing. When it comes to the new economy, the United States still has the upper hand, but China is ahead of many other countries as well. By applying the elements of the new economy to traditional industries, China may sustain economic growth and shift growth drivers. Since the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, China has enacted a host of policies to integrate the new economy with the traditional economy and expedite “internet+” and “smart+” applications with favorable results.
By September 2018, the penetration of digital R&D design instruments and numeric control of critical processes reached 67.8% and 48.5%, respectively, in China (MIIT). By June 2018, 33.7%, 24.7%, and 7.6% of Chinese companies had adopted internet-based collaboration, service-based manufacturing,
and customization systems. Significant progress has been made in applying industrial internet in sectors like petroleum, petrochemicals, iron and steel, home appliances, apparel, machinery, and energy. There are over 50 influential Chinese industrial internet platforms with key platforms connected to an average of 590,000 devices (Department of Industrial Statistics, NBS, 2019).
2.4 Environmental Performance
In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China cannot industrialize at the expense of the environment or sustainability. China must pursue environmentally friendly industrialization and green development.
The concept of environmental protection, introduced after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, officially entered into China’s policy discourse in the 1970s. In 2012, the 18th CPC National Congress identified ecological civilization as a pillar of the “five-pronged strategy,” giving unprecedented importance to environmental protection. Rapid growth in environmental protection investments (see Table 2) has led to significant improvements in environmental quality and energy efficiency.
In 2018, 121 of 338 cities at or above prefectural level in China met air quality targets, accounting for 35.8%; 338 cities reported an average of 79.3% of good air quality days with an annual mean concentration of inhalable particles ( PM10) reaching 71 micrograms/ m3. In 2018, China’s energy consumption elasticity coefficient was 0.50, and CO2 emissions per unit of GDP dropped by 45.8% over 2005, accomplishing the goal of reducing CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40% to 45% ahead of the target year of 2020 (NBS Energy Department, 2019).
3. New-Type Industrialization: Chinese Experience
China’s economic miracle since 1978 is rooted in the success of its industrial development. Over the years, Chinese academics have attempted to explain China’s economic miracle from various perspectives, such as demographic dividend, the role of government, and the process of industrial development. While such explanations make some sense, they are all subject to certain limitations and do not coincide with the theoretical explanations offered by Western academics. At the fundamental
level, industrial development that took place in China as a developing country may have a lot to do with China’s choice of inclusive learning and innovation.
Joseph E. Stiglitz and Paul Gruenwald attributed China’s economic growth to the learning society. In their view, education and human capital investment, agricultural incentives, and the reduction of resource mismatch are not sufficient to explain China’s economic miracle. They regard learning as the key driver that sustains growth and development. Compared with agriculture, China’s industrial sectors are more efficient at learning (Stiglitz, Gruenwald, 2017). This explanation offers a new perspective on China’s economic miracle and development. However, their works did not differentiate the types of learning.
In Why Nations Fail, Gruenwald and Robinson identified two types of government, i.e. extractive and inclusive. Similarly, we may also divide learning and innovation into the same categories. Extractive learning and innovations are characterized by uniformed learning strategies, exclusion against diverse knowledge, self-isolation, and indiscriminate replication of experience from other countries. In contrast, inclusive learning and innovations embrace openness and diversity. Judging by China’s reform and opening-up experience, China’s economic miracle and industrial success are underpinned by inclusive learning and innovations.
3.1 Question of Learning from Which Countries and How to Learn
From 1949 to the dawn of reform and opening up in 1978, China had adopted a planned economic system modeled after the Soviet Union with adaptations to its national conditions. The economy was divided into two sectors of industrial and consumer goods, giving priority to heavy industries. By 1978, China had created complete industrial sectors, but was yet to emerge as a manufacturing powerhouse.
In 1978, China’s official journal Theoretical Update published an article with the title of “Practice is the sole criterion for testing the truth,” which later appeared on the front page of Guangming Daily on May 11. In December 1978, the Third Plenum of the 11th CPC Central Committee officially recognized the principle that “practice is the sole criterion for testing truth” and established the ideological guideline of “seeking truth from facts” after an extensive debate.
These decisions made it possible for China to break away from ideological dogmas and learn from all countries irrespective of their social systems. In experimenting with foreign experience, Chinese reformers followed the principle of “seeking truth from facts” by creating a pilot program to see how it works before rolling out a policy nationwide. Reflecting the principle of “practice is the sole criterion for testing the truth,” this approach allowed China to learn from other countries while avoiding costly mistakes.
3.2 Respecting People’s Initiative and the Role of Companies
The household contract responsibility system played a pivotal role in unveiling the first chapter of China’s reform and opening up. Yet this system was not inspired by theoretical dogmas or Western experience. Instead, it was a brave invention of Chinese farmers. It was this great invention, and the success of it, that led the Chinese leadership to experiment with broader reforms, such as urban economic and corporate reforms. Before the reform and opening up, Chinese enterprises had little say about how to go about their own business. Under the planned economy, they lacked the initiative to compete globally and operate productively.
“Companies are like abacus balls: they never move unless the government gives them a push,” wrote Zhou Shulian, Wu Jinglian, and Wang Haibo in an article that appeared on Economic Research Journal. At the outset of reform and opening up, Chinese academics launched a debate on the nature and status of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In their discussions about China’s industrial administrative system, Jiang Yiwei argued that as the basic unit of the modern economy, enterprises must act independently
based on their economic interests. With fresh ideas, China started to reform SOEs. In the early stage, the government granted more autonomy to SOEs with the goal to “separate government administration from enterprise management.” Later, SOE reform adopted the goal of creating a modern enterprise system, and SOEs started to enlist private capital.
Government administration over SOEs shifted towards an asset-oriented approach. In reforming SOEs, China adopted the principle that “the public sector should remain dominant, and diverse sectors of the economy must develop side-by-side.” Under this principle, China saw an emergence of individual businesses, private companies, foreign-funded companies, and Sino-foreign joint ventures, which took the initiative to compete globally and increase productivity. The private sector became an essential part of China’s socialist market economy.
3.3 Opening Wider to the Rest of the World
China’s industrial competitiveness increased hand in hand with the opening-up process. Access to domestic and international markets and resources made it possible for Chinese companies to grow more competitive in the international arena.
The global industrial division of labor underwent three stages. In the first stage, developed countries specialized in the manufacturing of industrial goods, and developing countries specialized in primary goods. In this round of globalization, China was a passive participant.
The second stage of globalization is characterized by the inter-sectoral division of labor. In this stage, developed countries relocated less competitive industrial activity to developing countries while retaining advanced industrial sectors at home. However, China’s participation in the global industrial division of labor was limited due to embargoes imposed by Western countries.
In the third round of the global industrial division of labor, intra- industry division of labor gained ground. That is to say, an industry is decomposed into various manufacturing processes that take place in different countries. In this stage, China started to play an active role in globalization. Reform and opening- up enabled Chinese companies to integrate into the global industrial chain based on China’s comparative advantage. Participation in world trade expedited China’s industrial development.
Without a doubt, China’s industrial development requires further opening-up. However, some academics and governments led by the US have a biased view of China. For instance, the US government argued that China did not open to the US as much as the US opened to China, and such an unequal treatment gave China an unfair advantage and led to the bilateral trade imbalance. Such accusations are groundless. China’s economic openness went hand in hand with fair competition, without which China’s industrial progress would not have been achieved.
Nevertheless, economic openness does not guarantee industrial prosperity. The success of China’s opening-up can be attributed to its unique characteristics: (i) China took the initiative to open up in tandem with its development stage and reform process, and was not passively involved in globalization. (ii) China opened further to the rest of the world for win-win results rather than to seek its own gains at the expense of others. (iii) China opened up to both developed and developing countries on all fronts. In a nutshell, China’s opening-up is inclusive rather than extractive.
3.4 Giving Full Play to Local Comparative Advantage
Unlike many other developing countries, China is a large country. As Professor Zhang Peigang mentioned in an article about new-type developmental economics, China as a large country differs from smaller countries in many ways, particularly in terms of regional differences. In steering industrial development, the government must give play to the advantage of regional diversity.
As Professor Lin Chonggeng recalled in his book Recollections of China’s Economic and Ideological Opening-up, Chinese scholars came to realize at the beginning of reform and opening
up that China could not copy the reform experience of Eastern Europe. Lin mentioned that after the Moganshan Conference, Eastern European scholars visited a few Chinese cities. During their field trips, it occurred to them that China lacked the professionals and material conditions to reform its economy across the board, particularly considering the regional disparities. Based on such reality, China opened up its coastal and border regions first, allowing some regions and people to prosper before assisting other regions in achieving common prosperity.
Regional differences in terms of human and natural resources and development stages significantly increase China’s economic resilience and room for maneuver. (1) Regional differences are conducive to creating a complete and diverse industrial system. Even with a complete industrial system, China will not close its doors to the outside world.
(2) Different development stages between regions allow China to allocate industries within its borders. After reaching a certain level of development, more developed regions may relocate less advanced industries to less developed regions, achieving the flying- geese paradigm of industrial upgrades domestically. To a large extent, domestic industrial relocation has prolonged the lifecycle of various industries and prevented China’s comparative advantage from diminishing.
(3) Regional differences have increased China’s economic resilience. China’s quick recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from not only government stimulus, but domestic regional differences and room for policy maneuvers. Of course, differences in regional comparative advantages provide a possibility for, but may not necessarily lead to, the advantage of diversity. To turn such a possibility into reality, the central government must coordinate regional development.
4. Concluding Remarks
In Why Nations Fail, Acemouglu and Robinson offered imaginative explanations on China’s economic success. They arbitrarily referred to China as a “extractive state” (2019). In their view, a “extractive state” is able to drive economic growth by allocating resources from one sector to another. In this process, the contribution of investment to economic growth diminishes. As a country catches up with advanced economies, innovation emerges as a key growth driver. At this moment, the “extractive state” will impede innovation and sustained economic growth (2014). Therefore, they warned that China’s economy would inevitably run into trouble (2019).
While Acemoglu and Robinson may be right in pointing out the innovation and growth effects of a extractive government, their forecast about the Chinese economy will never materialize. The reason is that their assessments about the Chinese government and institutions are groundless. As China’s industrial success reveals, China is not a “extractive state,” and China’s economic system is not a “extractive system.” The Chinese government is committed to inclusive development, and the brilliant achievements of China’s new- type industrialization would not have been made without inclusive learning and innovations.
In building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China has made substantial progress along the path of industrialization based on new development concepts. 2020 will be the final year for China to complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects. In the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025), China will unveil a new chapter of the modernization drive. China’s new-type industrialization will continue to face numerous challenges, such as synergy between manufacturing and service sectors, the integration between the traditional economy and new economy, and the changing layout of international competition. Foreseeably, China’s new-type industrialization will give play to the synergy between primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, and become more environmentally friendly, inclusive, and innovation-driven.
References:
[1] Acemoglu Daron, James A. Robinson. 2014. Why Countries Fail. Taipei: Weicheng Press.
[2] Acemoglu Daron. 2014. “China’s Future Economic Growth under an Institutional Perspective.” Comparative Studies, no.5.
[3] Deng Zhou. 2019. “Comparison of IC Industry Competitiveness between China and the US,” In Industrial Blue Paper: China Industrial Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
[4] Guo Chaoxian. 2019. “Comparison of IoT Industry Competitiveness between China and the US.” Industrial Blue Paper: China Industrial Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201907/t20190710_1675173.html.
[5] Hu Yumeng. 2019. “Comparison of Cloud Computing Industry Competitiveness between China and the US.” Industrial Blue Paper: China Industrial Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
[6] Lin Chonggeng. 2018. “Recollections of China’s Economic and Ideological Opening up.” Comparative Studies, no.11.
[7] NBS Department of Energy. 2019. “Environmental Protection Giving Rise to Ecological Civilization,” http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/
zxfb/201907/t20190718_1677012.html
[8] NBS Department of Industrial Statistics. 2018. “China: a Rising Manufacturing Powerhouse,” http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-07/10/
content_5407835.htm
[9] NBS Department of Social, Science and Technology, and Culture Statistics. 2019. “Innovation Composes a New Chapter of Advancement
in Science and Technology,” http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201907/t20190723_1680979.html.
[10] NBS. 2018. “China’s Innovation Index Reached 212.0 in 2018,” http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201910/t20191024_1704985.html. [11] Stiglitz Joseph, Bruce Greenwald. 2017. A New Approach to Growth. Beijing: CITIC Press.
[12] Wang Lei. 2019. “Comparison of Big Data Industry Competitiveness between China and the US.” Industrial Blue Paper: China Industrial
Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
[13] WIPO. 2018. IP Facts and Figures 2018.
[14] Yuan Jingzhu. 2019. “Comparison of Platform Economy Competitiveness between China and the US.” Industrial Blue Paper: China
Industrial Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
[15] Zhang Qizi, Zhang Jianying. 2019. “Estimation and International Comparison of New Economy Competitiveness.” Industrial Blue Paper:
China Industrial Competitiveness Report (2019) No.8, edited by Zhang Qizi. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press.
[16] Zhang Qizi. 2018. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Industrial Policy Transition.” Tianjin Social Sciences, no.1.
[17] Zhang Qizi. 2019. “Study on the Core Competencies for Expediting New Economy Development.” Research on Financial and Economic
Issues, no.2.
[18] Zhou Shulian, Wu Jinglian, Wang Haibo. 1979. “Value Patterns and the Self-Adjustment of Socialist Enterprises.” Economic Research,
no.9.