印度能从中国的“新农村计划”学到什么

What lessons can developing nations like India learn from China's "New Rural Plan"

像印度这样的发展中国家能从中国的“新农村计划”中学到什么?

 

Quora评论翻译：

来源：三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com/46167.html    译者：Jessica.Wu

Sameer Saxena, economist unhinged

“It’s a new world for us in the city,” said Tian Wei, 43, a former wheat farmer in the northern province of Hebei, who now works as a night watchman at a factory. “All my life I’ve worked with my hands in the fields; do I have the educational level to keep up with the city people?"

  - NY Times,

43岁的田伟(音译)以前是河北省的一名麦农，现在在一家工厂当夜间保安，他说：“我一生都在田间劳动;我的教育水平能赶上城里人吗?

——《纽约时报》,

In the 1950s the communist government in China introduced the hukou system of household registration. This was done as a means for calculating the urban Chinese population for planning purposes but had a hidden agenda - to prevent internal immigration of rural China into the cities.

1950年代，中国引入了户籍制度。这是一种计算中国城市人口的方法，但有一个隐藏的目的——防止中国农村人口进入城市。

Though much relaxed since then, hukou still remains a hidden barrier. Even migrants who have lived in cities for many years, or the urban-born children of such migrants, are given far less access to government-funded health care and education than other city dwellers. This is because their rural hukou is often impossible to change.

虽然从那时起户籍制度就慢慢变宽松了，但它仍然是一个隐藏的障碍。与其他城市居民相比，即使是在城市生活多年的“移民”或他们在城市出生的子女，获得政府资助的医疗和教育的机会也要少得多。这是因为他们的农村户口往往无法更改。

Crucially, the plan does not suggest when the hukou system might be scrapped altogether. And it still allows bigger cities, which migrants prefer, to continue using hukou barriers as a way of trying to limit population growth. This boils down to the fact that even in the smallest cities only migrants with “legal and stable” work and accommodation—which many do not have—will be able to get urban hukou.

至关重要的是，该计划并未暗示户籍制度可能完全取消。而且，它仍然允许大城市继续使用户口壁垒作为限制人口增长的一种方式。这可以归结为这样一个事实:即使在最小的城市里，只有拥有“合法而稳定的”工作和住宿(很多人没有)的移民才能获得城市户口。

So what does the government do??

政府是怎么做的呢?

Instead of relaxing migrant registration in large cities they plan to strategically open up or urbanize the small towns - which is just another excuse for increasing unproductive spending to pump up the HDI indicators of a communist country with a rubber stamp parliament

他们没有放松大城市的移民登记，而是计划战略性地开放或进行小城镇城市化——这只是增加非生产性支出的另一个借口，目的是用橡皮图章式的议会来提升人类发展指数指标。

The new plan launched under the aegis of premier Li Keqiang in 2012 argues that since urban people had higher incomes and consumed more and because China was still under-urbanized when compared with developed countries, “every rural person who becomes an urbanite can increase consumption by more than 10,000 renminbi ($1,600).”

既然城市人口的收入和消费都更高，而且与发达国家相比，中国的城市化水平仍更低，“每一个农村人口转变为城市人口就可以增加10000元以上的消费(合1600美元)，”于是乎新计划在2012年启动。

However the the distinctive feature of China's urbanisation policy was that while other developing countries accumulated slums and squatter settlements around their cities, China’s policymakers did their best to make urban spaces as unwelcoming as possible to potential permanent migrants by keeping migrants’ access to local public services severely restricted (read the hukou system).

其他发展中国家在城市周围保留了贫民窟和棚户区，然而中国的城市化政策的显著特征是, 通过严格限制外来人口使用当地公共服务(即户口制度)，使城市空间尽可能不受潜在永久移民的欢迎。

The argument for growth based on urbanization is reminiscent of Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, a policy apparently based on the observation that rich countries produced a lot of steel. For China to grow rich, the thinking went, it should put all its efforts into steel production. During the Great Leap, China did indeed increase its steel production, but at the cost of the most severe man-made famine in human history. In the 21st century, we have the experience to know that this kind of central planning simply doesn’t work.

以城市化为基础的增长论调让人想起“大跃进”，这一政策显然是基于富国生产大量钢铁的观察。人们认为，中国要想致富，就应该把全部精力投入钢铁生产。在大跃进时期，中国的确提高了钢铁产量，但代价是人类历史上最严重的人为饥荒。在21世纪，我们知道这种计划根本行不通。

India

印度

India can never (stress on 'never') do major fuck ups that China has blessed its citizens with. The establishment of NITI Ayog and the union budget (FY 2015-'16) is a big indicator that India is moving towards decentralization of planning and a cooperative federal structure of governance.

印度永远不可能像中国那样给自己的公民造成这种大麻烦。改造印度国家研究院和联邦预算(2015- 16财政年度)的建立是一个重要的指标，表明印度正朝着权利下放规划和合作联邦治理结构的方向发展。

Even the least form of communist behavior by the government - Land Acquisition Ordinance - resulted in a nationwide furore from the annals of Janpath ......

即使是政府的土地征用条例——也引起了全国范围内的愤怒。

And the mandi's of Punjab...

旁遮普集市抗议……

To the streets of Gandevi...

甘德维大街上的抗议活动

Lessons for India:

印度的经验教训:

On a serious note, the government of India seems to be on the right course by devoluting more power (in terms of autonomy) and greater resources (in terms of non-planned expenditure) to the states to decide upon important HDI indicators like women safety, women and child care, panchayati raj and major infrastructural projects like the Swacch Bharat Abhiyan.

严格来说,印度政府似乎是在走正确的路线，将更多的权力(自治而言)和更大的资源(非计划方面的支出)下放给各邦，来决定重要的人类发展指数指标，比如女性安全、妇女和儿童保健、潘查亚特制度和重大基础设施项目比如清洁城市运动。

A communist system of centralized planning is something that a non-urbanized India needs but a democratic India does not want.

一个非城市化的印度可能需要中央计划体系，而敏煮的印度却不需要。

 

Siddhartha Banerjee, Middle class man in Kolkata

Centralized planning cant work in a diverse nation as India (China is also ethnically diverse but unified centrally by the spanking rod), hence states need more autonomy to implement appropriate policies in conjunction with central policy makers. Coming to China, there might be happy millionaires in the villages because of the new rural plan, but at the mercy of the state hooliganism. Any day they can be kicked out of their land if the state pleases to. So we should not compare India with China first of all.

在印度这样一个多元化的国家(中国也是一个多民族国家，但中央集权统一)，集中规划是行不通的，因此各邦需要更多的自主权，以配合中央决策者实施适当的政策。在中国，因为新农村计划，农村可能会有快乐的百万富翁，但却要受国家行为的支配。只要国家想做，可以随时把他们赶出自己的土地。所以我们首先不应该拿印度和中国比较。

But then we have to think about the urban centers of India, which are already suffering from overpopulation, pollution, and crumbling infrastructure. Also a lot of economic migrants face a tough life in the Indian cities. So it is also imperative to create self sustaining economic baskets so that the local population doesn't need to migrate to bigger cities, and this will drive growth. Now the process of creating these economic micro baskets should lie with the state governments working in tandem with the central government, as each state has its unique set of problems to address to.

For example in Calcutta there is a huge floating population consisting mainly of rural migrants from Bihar who do menial/manual work and face a life of hardship. Now if with proper planning the rural centers of Bihar are improved and semi urbanized gradually then these people wont need to migrate to Calcutta or other big cities. They can then live a life of dignity and productivity, also alleviate the stress on the bigger metros.

但接下来我们要考虑的是印度的城市中心，那里已经饱受人口过剩、污染和基础设施崩溃的折磨。此外，许多经济移民在印度城市面临着艰难的生活。因此，建立自给自足的经济篮子也是必要的，这样当地居民就不需要迁移到更大的城市，这也将推动经济增长。现在，创建这些经济篮子的过程应该由邦政府和中央政府共同努力，因为每个邦都有自己独特的问题需要解决。

例如，在加尔各答有大量的流动人口，主要是来自比哈尔邦的农村移民，他们从事体力劳动，过着艰苦的生活。现在，如果通过适当的规划，比哈尔邦的农村中心得到改善，并逐渐实现半城市化，那么这些人就不需要迁移到加尔各答或其他大城市。这样，他们就能过上有尊严、有生产力的生活，还能减轻大城市的压力。

Now as i said before implementing the policy should be more dynamic and dependent on the local situation (geographic, demographic, resources etc).

在实施之前，应该确定政策富有活力并符合当地情况(地理、人口、资源等)。

 

Nikhil Sukumar, lives in India.

First of all I want to thank you for asking such a nice question.

This is exactly what India needs RIGHT NOW!!!!!

I hope we can use the same methods in India to develop the rural areas all over India.

Well, regarding other countries like Japan and Korea I feel each country has its own way to solve their development issues.

In Japan they use lot of community help I have seen it in the lovely channel NHK World.

Japan uses concepts that does not harm them in any way.

They give lot of importance to human welfare.

Even disabled and depressed people are trained in various jobs to make them productive.

They use the famous Sato Yama concept which means living in harmony with nature.

首先我想感谢你提了这么好的问题。

这正是印度现在所需要的!!!!!

我希望能在印度以同样的方法来发展整个农村地区。

我觉得每个国家都有自己的解决发展问题的方法。在日本，他们利用社区的帮助，我在NHK频道上看到过。日本采用的概念不会对他们造成伤害。

他们非常重视人类的福利。即使是残疾人和抑郁症患者也接受过各种各样的培训，以提高他们的工作效率。他们采纳著名的佐藤山概念，即与自然和谐相处。

 

Madhukar Kasture, Associate Professor in Statistics

In the early days of independence of India, Late Mahatma Gandhi was constantly advocating to go villages as a basic need of Indias new development plan... It was quite rational because 70% of the population was residing in villages... Ample Availability of natural resources in villages.. Scope for improving in agri yield & employment generation in villages only....& there by reducing the load of towns & cities.... But unfortunately it didn't get implemented... So we can say that China took the lesson from our great national leader Mahtma Gandhiji...

在印度独立初期，已故的圣雄甘地一直主张把“到农村去”作为印度新发展计划的基本需要。这是相当合理的，因为70%的人口都居住在农村，那里有充足的自然资源。提高农业产量，在农村创造就业，进而减少城镇负担。但不幸的是，这没有得到实施。而中国从我们伟大的国家领导人甘地那学了一课。

 

Abhijit K, studied at Kendriya Vidyalaya

well , first of all India needs to IMPROVE its business atmosphere and develop some industries .

then , before land accumulation saturation level is reached , start building huge housing complexes while assuring the security there (law and order) and give them to the people who are ready to give their land in exchange for benefits

AND DO NOT BECOME A CHINA

首先，印度需要改善其商业氛围，发展一些产业。

然后，在土地积累达到饱和水平之前，开始建造大型住房综合体，同时保证那里的安全(法律和秩序)，并把它们转给那些准备以土地换取利益的人。

不要变成下一个中国。

 

Veerappan Laxman, Engineer, Gamer, Dreamer, likes History, Science, Technology and Peace. Dislikes Politics, Terrorism, Viole...

Every country decides what is the best way to help it's populace. Here houses especially such luxurious ones are considered a luxury - which is earned and built by the family.

Our Rural aid programmes concentrate on providing life essentials like food, water, power alongwith Education and business/money earning opportunities for free/subsidized costs.

每个国家都应自行决定帮助本国民众的最佳方式。在这里，房子尤其是豪华房子被认为是一种奢侈——是由每个家庭自己赚钱建造的。

我们的农村援助项目集中在提供生活必需品，如食品、水、电力，以及教育和免费或补贴成本的赚钱机会。

 

Hari Krishna, works at Accenture

I think india implemented these rural plans in early 80's. but in the form of gainst poverty and slums like vambay housing scheme's.

but now the concept holds by china current rural plans including...ecnomic aspects and smart city features...which are introduced mostly in easter coast area. this is a region for china corporate offices and major cities.making the flow of human resource... main conclusion is at what extend it ill success in india where corruption is the part in new implementations and plays key role in success of the schemes......

我认为印度在80年代早期就实施了这些农村计划，但是以反贫困和贫民窟的形式，比如孟买住房计划。但现在，中国当前的农村规划仍坚持这一理念，包括经济方面和智慧城市特色，主要在企业和主要大城市聚集的东部沿海地区实施，使人力资源流动。主要结论是，它在印度并不成功，腐败是新实施过程的一部分并在计划成功的过程中起着关键作用。

 

Koti Srinivas Jagannath, works at Accenture

If this model isa  hit in china and doing a world of good for improving the lives of chinese in rural areas then India also should take a leaf out of china's development model.And should work on how can this  be implemented in India.

如果这种模式在中国大获成功，为改善中国农村地区的生活做出了巨大贡献。印度也应该学习中国的发展模式，并且致力于如何在印度实施。

 

Vinay Kumar,

Probably not to do it that way.

This is one plan which is unfortunately likely to fail for the most part.

It's not easy to uplift a people by just building them houses. If it were many countries would be poor-free now. It takes a mindset change, and that is a real challenge

印度可能不会这样做。

不幸的是，这是一个在很大程度上很可能失败的计划。

仅仅靠建造房屋来提升一个民族没那么容易的。如果是这样的话，许多国家现在就能摆脱贫困。需要的是心态的改变，这才是一个真正的挑战。

 

Neha Krishnan, worked at Standard Chartered Bank

There are lot many things i can say china is the best in many aspects, Lets forget the trouble they give to all other countries, But when its to their country they dont give like our indian politicians. They want to be number one in the world. They want to develop all sectors in all areas. I can say a big difference.. Iam an indian but i have to accept the fact

可以说，中国在很多方面都是最好的。让我们暂时搁置他们给所有其他国家带来的麻烦，但当面对自己国家时，他们不会像印度政客那样。他们想成为世界第一，希望在所有领域发展所有行业。我可以说有中国和印度差距很大。虽然我是印度人，但不得不接受这个事实。

 

Jenna Cody

I'm not so sure this plan is going to work well, either. It seems a bit presumptuous, the assumption in the question that it is working "well" without evidence (is this a post that the Chinese government paid somebody to make? I don't know, but they do do that...be warned).

我不确定这个计划是否会奏效。这似乎有点自以为是，在没有实证的情况下，这个问题的假设“很好”(这是中国花钱请人发的帖子吗?)

 

Akash Agrawal, works at Entrepreneurs

China has a totally different way of working things out than India. So India need not learn anything form them

中国解决问题的方式与印度完全不同，所以印度不需要从他们那里借鉴任何东西。

 

Quora User

India's land belongs to private. That's why there are some private owners who have over 30 wives and over 10 to 20 story building.

Some Indian professional and journalist believe that Indian agriculture is more advanced than China and Indian farmers are richer than China's, although I personally believe India's farmers status are similar to China in 1960s (except some of the Indian land owners). For example: If you look at the victim's family conditions shown in BBC's "India's daughter" recently, you can see easily that, the Indian farmers families conditions are even worse than China's 1960s.

Indian PM has visited China many times before he become the Indian PM. India calls Indian to learn from Japan and USA, but follows China's industrial model and compete with China.

印度的土地属于私有。这就是为什么有些私人业主拥有超过30个妻子和超过10-20层的楼房。

一些印度专业人士和记者认为，印度农业比中国发达，印度农民比中国富裕，尽管我个人认为，印度农民的地位与1960年代的中国类似(除了一些印度土地所有者)。例如:如果你看看BBC最近播出的《印度女儿》中受害者的家庭状况，你很容易就会发现，印度农民家庭的状况甚至比中国1960年代还要糟糕。

印度总理在当上总理之前曾多次访问中国。印度呼吁本国人向日本和美国学习，但遵循中国的工业模式并比和中国竞争。