论文部分内容阅读
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s visit to China in early April， his first since being elected to office last September， was widely seen as a success. While there was no signing of the long-awaited free trade agreement， nor was there much clarity about what the two countries would talk about in their high-level dialogue set up during the visit of his predecessor Julia Gillard a year before， there were at least signs that negotiations were moving forward， and the timetable he had set himself for having something in place by the end of the year looks on track. But the cooperation on the complex ongoing hunt for the missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 showed that even in sensitive operations like this the two countries can work together， and that in the end is the more important outcome.
Tightening belts
Back in Australia， however， things have not gone well for the prime minister， who rules at the head of a national coalition. The budget， announced in mid-May， came like a sharp gust of unexpected cold air on a sunny day. Austerity has been the default for the rest of the world， from Europe to America. But Australia， with almost a quarter century of good growth， is unique in escaping the woes of 2008 and 2009， and being able to motor forward with 3-4 percent growth. The consensus on the reasons for this is simple： China. Being a major commodities supplier to China meant that the fiscal stimulus package that kept things positive by China’s Central Government during the worst of the economic downturn in 2008 when overseas export markets collapsed also bailed out Australia.
The environment now has become tougher. Part of this is that in Australia very little of the wealth created during the fat years has been saved. There is a small sovereign fund， but nothing like the vast amounts in the Norwegian or Abu Dhabi ones， or the Chinese for that matter. Australians have lived the good life， with low costs for education and， on the whole， social welfare. It is a society of laudable civic values， one where there is on the whole a classic diamond-shaped social structure with a large， urban middle class， a tiny elite of the super wealthy on the top， and a group of less well off at the bottom. The vast majority are in the middle.
Abbott made clear in the messages sent out before the budget that the current levels of government spending were unsustainable. Growth is falling. There is nothing like a recession on the cards immediately， and a generation has grown up with no memory at all of the last bad downturn in the early 1990s. But the hint of austerity similar to that which occurred in Europe four years ago is in the air. Public debt is rising， and the outgoings of government at state and federal levels are creeping up. For these reasons， Abbott and his Treasurer， Joe Hockey， constructed a “tightening-our-belts” budget， in which， among other things， taxes were raised for those earning in the top bracket， healthcare costs for some services were introduced and， most contentious of all， university tuition fees for students raised. This has not gone down well. Part of the problem has been that this was not something the prospective government said much about before coming to power in September 2013. On the contrary， promises were made then about not raising these sorts of costs. Abbott has used the explanation that he has been forced to introduce these ideas because of the perilous state in which Gillard and Kevin Rudd left the account books before they left power. But even so， the sharpness of the budget came as a shock， carrying an immediate impact on people’s pockets.
Demonstrations took place across Australia in mid-May， with the foreign minister heckled and jostled during a visit to universities， and Abbott himself cancelling visits because of the fear of safety. Abbott will have a great battle in his lower and upper house of parliament in getting the budget approved， with plenty of signs of opposition. His popularity has also collapsed， although he himself has stated he expected this. It is， he has said， a matter of principle to get the finances of the country right rather than continue marching into deeper deficits.
This might seem remote from China， but for all its domestic dynamics， the simple fact is that the Australian Government is wrestling with a very similar problem to Premier Li Keqiang—how to find growth when the overall GDP figure becomes more modest each year. China’s 7.5 percent is now accepted as the macroeconomic benchmark for the coming few years. But it is， of course， lower than the figures which were achieved through the late 2000s into 2010 and 2011. The challenge is the same—how to distribute less overall wealth among a greater percentage of the populace and how to make the government and industry more efficient.
Three pillars
For Australia， there is the added link that so much of the growth has been on the back of supplying industry in China with raw materials like copper， iron， and other resources. Now the growth here is more modest in China， it has an instantaneous impact on Australia. The vast mines of Western Australia are significantly quieter than they were a year ago， with the problem that stockpiles of goods in China mean that it is no longer possible to ship vast new quantities of goods there.
Whereas the United States has been addressing its deficit by exporting more goods and services to China， meaning that in 2013 the deficit increased in China’s favor by only $1 billion， despite rising in overall volumes by almost$80 billion， for Australia once the commodity boom ends there is a big question mark about what replaces it. Even worse， Australia has no easy second market to look at. China was so vast a customer that no other country， not even India， comes close to it. But just as China figures in some of the causes of this new more challenging economic context， so too does it figure in the solutions. There are three pillars here， and they all come to the fore in the discussions over the free trade agreement. The first is that services have to replace some of the commodity flows between Australia and China. Here oddly enough the huge numbers of Chinese students that have gained degrees in Australia over the last decade or so become significant. There is a vast new group of young people in China rising up the career ladder now who have a very tangible and strong link with Australia， and having these as a basis on which to build better finance and service links is important. As a service provider， Australia is creative and important， but often parochial. Making a concerted effort， through the many linkages that Chinese graduates from Australia supply， to be a better and creative services provider is now critical.
The second is a much more imaginative approach to Chinese investment into Australia， with a more strategic vision about the ways in which those investing in Australia in turn supply partners for investments from Australia back into the vast emerging middle-class domestic market across China. Liberalization of investment protocols is in the cards for Chinese coming into Australia， and there have been healthy increases of foreign direct investment year on year over the last decade. But overall， Chinese investment is still relatively small， and there needs to be a more concerted and structured effort to work with Chinese companies in diverse sectors， from infrastructure and services to manufacturing， to come into Australia. It is now not just about mining. There is a new narrative emerging in this area—one that the free trade agreement， when it is signed， needs to support.
Finally， Australia as a food and agribusiness partner for China is a natural fit. This links with investment. Attitudes toward Chinese investment—or any non-local investment for that matter—in the agricultural sector are wary， verging on hostile. Chinese investment in this area， however， for all the public controversy， makes up only 1 percent of total investment. This figure will certainly increase. Politicians like Abbott need to lead the public debate in this area. Chinese investors in this sector are important， and the needs in China for good quality and more diverse food， from livestock to grain， is going to rise as diets change. The opportunities here are big， but so is the potential public unease， because of the almost mythical status of rural land and its ownership in the Australian psyche.
Australian politicians often talk fatalistically about the rising importance of China for their economy， as though it were a negative thing they can do little about. That mindset needs to change. It is clear what Chinese investors and businesses might want in Australia， and certainly less complicated than for Europe or America， where the political and economic drivers of the relationship are more varied. Australia should be happy with this simplicity and work hard to create a pragmatic framework to let it prosper.
Tightening belts
Back in Australia， however， things have not gone well for the prime minister， who rules at the head of a national coalition. The budget， announced in mid-May， came like a sharp gust of unexpected cold air on a sunny day. Austerity has been the default for the rest of the world， from Europe to America. But Australia， with almost a quarter century of good growth， is unique in escaping the woes of 2008 and 2009， and being able to motor forward with 3-4 percent growth. The consensus on the reasons for this is simple： China. Being a major commodities supplier to China meant that the fiscal stimulus package that kept things positive by China’s Central Government during the worst of the economic downturn in 2008 when overseas export markets collapsed also bailed out Australia.
The environment now has become tougher. Part of this is that in Australia very little of the wealth created during the fat years has been saved. There is a small sovereign fund， but nothing like the vast amounts in the Norwegian or Abu Dhabi ones， or the Chinese for that matter. Australians have lived the good life， with low costs for education and， on the whole， social welfare. It is a society of laudable civic values， one where there is on the whole a classic diamond-shaped social structure with a large， urban middle class， a tiny elite of the super wealthy on the top， and a group of less well off at the bottom. The vast majority are in the middle.
Abbott made clear in the messages sent out before the budget that the current levels of government spending were unsustainable. Growth is falling. There is nothing like a recession on the cards immediately， and a generation has grown up with no memory at all of the last bad downturn in the early 1990s. But the hint of austerity similar to that which occurred in Europe four years ago is in the air. Public debt is rising， and the outgoings of government at state and federal levels are creeping up. For these reasons， Abbott and his Treasurer， Joe Hockey， constructed a “tightening-our-belts” budget， in which， among other things， taxes were raised for those earning in the top bracket， healthcare costs for some services were introduced and， most contentious of all， university tuition fees for students raised. This has not gone down well. Part of the problem has been that this was not something the prospective government said much about before coming to power in September 2013. On the contrary， promises were made then about not raising these sorts of costs. Abbott has used the explanation that he has been forced to introduce these ideas because of the perilous state in which Gillard and Kevin Rudd left the account books before they left power. But even so， the sharpness of the budget came as a shock， carrying an immediate impact on people’s pockets.
Demonstrations took place across Australia in mid-May， with the foreign minister heckled and jostled during a visit to universities， and Abbott himself cancelling visits because of the fear of safety. Abbott will have a great battle in his lower and upper house of parliament in getting the budget approved， with plenty of signs of opposition. His popularity has also collapsed， although he himself has stated he expected this. It is， he has said， a matter of principle to get the finances of the country right rather than continue marching into deeper deficits.
This might seem remote from China， but for all its domestic dynamics， the simple fact is that the Australian Government is wrestling with a very similar problem to Premier Li Keqiang—how to find growth when the overall GDP figure becomes more modest each year. China’s 7.5 percent is now accepted as the macroeconomic benchmark for the coming few years. But it is， of course， lower than the figures which were achieved through the late 2000s into 2010 and 2011. The challenge is the same—how to distribute less overall wealth among a greater percentage of the populace and how to make the government and industry more efficient.
Three pillars
For Australia， there is the added link that so much of the growth has been on the back of supplying industry in China with raw materials like copper， iron， and other resources. Now the growth here is more modest in China， it has an instantaneous impact on Australia. The vast mines of Western Australia are significantly quieter than they were a year ago， with the problem that stockpiles of goods in China mean that it is no longer possible to ship vast new quantities of goods there.
Whereas the United States has been addressing its deficit by exporting more goods and services to China， meaning that in 2013 the deficit increased in China’s favor by only $1 billion， despite rising in overall volumes by almost$80 billion， for Australia once the commodity boom ends there is a big question mark about what replaces it. Even worse， Australia has no easy second market to look at. China was so vast a customer that no other country， not even India， comes close to it. But just as China figures in some of the causes of this new more challenging economic context， so too does it figure in the solutions. There are three pillars here， and they all come to the fore in the discussions over the free trade agreement. The first is that services have to replace some of the commodity flows between Australia and China. Here oddly enough the huge numbers of Chinese students that have gained degrees in Australia over the last decade or so become significant. There is a vast new group of young people in China rising up the career ladder now who have a very tangible and strong link with Australia， and having these as a basis on which to build better finance and service links is important. As a service provider， Australia is creative and important， but often parochial. Making a concerted effort， through the many linkages that Chinese graduates from Australia supply， to be a better and creative services provider is now critical.
The second is a much more imaginative approach to Chinese investment into Australia， with a more strategic vision about the ways in which those investing in Australia in turn supply partners for investments from Australia back into the vast emerging middle-class domestic market across China. Liberalization of investment protocols is in the cards for Chinese coming into Australia， and there have been healthy increases of foreign direct investment year on year over the last decade. But overall， Chinese investment is still relatively small， and there needs to be a more concerted and structured effort to work with Chinese companies in diverse sectors， from infrastructure and services to manufacturing， to come into Australia. It is now not just about mining. There is a new narrative emerging in this area—one that the free trade agreement， when it is signed， needs to support.
Finally， Australia as a food and agribusiness partner for China is a natural fit. This links with investment. Attitudes toward Chinese investment—or any non-local investment for that matter—in the agricultural sector are wary， verging on hostile. Chinese investment in this area， however， for all the public controversy， makes up only 1 percent of total investment. This figure will certainly increase. Politicians like Abbott need to lead the public debate in this area. Chinese investors in this sector are important， and the needs in China for good quality and more diverse food， from livestock to grain， is going to rise as diets change. The opportunities here are big， but so is the potential public unease， because of the almost mythical status of rural land and its ownership in the Australian psyche.
Australian politicians often talk fatalistically about the rising importance of China for their economy， as though it were a negative thing they can do little about. That mindset needs to change. It is clear what Chinese investors and businesses might want in Australia， and certainly less complicated than for Europe or America， where the political and economic drivers of the relationship are more varied. Australia should be happy with this simplicity and work hard to create a pragmatic framework to let it prosper.