中、印两国需要改革金融系统
中、印两国需要改革金融系统当前，亚洲经济的经济增长动力当属中国和印度。近年来，这两个国家取得了重大进步，但是还不能固步自封，沾沾自喜。美肯锡全球研究所（MGI）的最新研究强调了两国金融系统的缺陷。为解决这些问题，中国和印度需要在保持原有良好状态的同时继续深化改革。
中国必须进行解除利率管制、促进银行系统竞争以及改进贷款和风险管理等改革。除此之外，还需要发展企业债券和股票市场，并加速电子支付系统的建立。这些改革将促进GDP年增长3210亿美元。
印度的金融系统改革加上经济进一步自由化，会让国内生产总值增长480亿美元。这将使印度的人均收入提高三分之一，并将整个国家未来十年的经济年增长率从现在预计的6.5%提高到9.4%，这就与中国的发展速度持平了。
资金配置效率低是共同问题
中印两国都需要处理一个基本问题：资本配置效率低下。在印度，政府对金融中介机构的资产投向有严格限制，这样就可以引导资金支持其持续的巨额财政赤字和农业的优先投资项目。同样，中国政府确保低成本资金不断流入大量低效率的国有企业，以保障就业。
这两种政策有着相似的不幸结果：投资回报率低下；民营企业是经济的主要动力，却无法获得足够的资金；金融机构的国有化水平较高，这意味着针对消费者和企业的金融产品少得可怜。中国不缺少资金，这与其他发展中国家不同：2005年底中国大陆的资产超过5万亿美元，但大多数贷款都借给了国有企业。我们的研究发现，中国私企创造了GDP总量的一半还多，产出则是国企的两倍，但贷款比重仅为27%。他们同样被排除在中国还不成熟的证券和企业债券市场之外。
通过压低存款利率，中国人为地制造了大规模的低息贷款。这一方面导致中国家庭的存款回报率很低，另一方面导致可以轻松获得廉价资金的国有企业投资更加没有效率。上世纪90年代的前五年，中国每增加1美元GDP需要投资3.30美元，而从2001年开始，增加1美元GDP的投资就需要4.90美元。
印度的金融系统规模远远小于中国：2005年底资产规模仅为1.4万亿美元，约为GDP的172%，而中国的比例达到230%。印度活跃的私人经济包括了一些世界级企业，其生产率虽然是国有经济的两倍，但是仅获得40%的商业贷款。政府控制着金融系统，要求银行和其他金融中介机构将很大一部分资产用于购买政府债券——主要用来弥补持续不断的大规模公共财政赤字，并且要求36%的贷款要投入到政府优先发展的领域。
通过将金融系统从政府掌控中释放出来，印度可以为原本已经在健康轨道上运行的经济增长加速。这将使更多的资金用于效率最高的领域，并允许金融中介开发能够吸收更多储蓄的面向消费者的金融产品。这些改革与更广泛的经济领域的自由化一起，将共同提高印度的增长率。
未来金融改革的方向和重点
中国领导者已经开始改革金融系统。最明显的举动是，让最大的几家商业银行公开上市。这些银行首次公开发行的股票吸引了国外投资者广泛的兴趣，但需要做的还有很多。改革庞大的银行体系、发展处于初期阶段的资本市场、创建制度架构、激励机制和支持现代金融体系所需的商业思维方式等一系列工作都必须花费时间。
印度政府也在考虑一些重要的改革，包括振兴其萎靡的企业债券市场、改革养老金系统以及进一步放开资本账户等，但是立法过程痛苦缓慢。不过，印度健康的资本市场和高效率的私人银行为这些改革打下了良好基础。
在正确的政策下，印度的金融系统可以发展得非常迅速。但是印度决策者还没有普遍认识到金融自由化的意义：这种改革能够更好地服务于该国农村的贫困人口，而不是像现在那样，使资金流向浪费严重的公共工程和其他只能创造少量低薪、短期工作岗位的政府项目，从而导致金融体系的低效率。
中印两国对金融体系进行高度控制的理由都包括一些重要的社会目标，事实上，金融改革有助于更好地实现这些目标。这种改革应该是中印两国政策制定者的首要任务。
英文原文：China and India: Room for Reform
Yes, these economic dynamos are growing fast. But the McKinsey Global Institute's new study argues they must upgrade their financial systems
Mention Asia's economic powerhouses, and the first names that jump to mind are China and India. The two countries have made immense strides in recent years, but they can't sit back and enjoy their success just yet. New research by the McKinsey Global Institute （MGI） highlights the shortcomings of their financial systems. To address these, Beijing and New Delhi need to keep up the good work and continue to introduce rapid reforms.
In China's case, must-do reforms include deregulating interest rates, boosting competition in banking, and improving lending and risk management. Beijing also needs to develop its corporate bond and equity markets and speed the setup of an electronic payments system. Together, these changes could boost gross domestic product by $321 billion a year.
In India, financial system reform, coupled with further economic liberalization, could add $48 billion a year to gross domestic. This would increase per capita income levels by a third and raise the country's annual growth rate from the 6.5% forecast now to 9.4% over the next 10 years－thus matching China's rate of expansion.
Wasteful Investments To do all this, both countries have to tackle one fundamental problem: poor allocation of capital. In India, the government places restrictions on where financial intermediaries can invest their assets so it can finance its persistently large budget deficit and rural investment priorities. Similarly, the Chinese government ensures a continual flow of very low-cost funds into the country's massive, inefficient state-owned enterprises in the interest of safeguarding jobs.
These policies have similar unfortunate consequences. They lead to wasteful investments that yield negligible returns, restricted funding for the private companies that are the main drivers of growth, and high levels of state ownership of financial institutions. The result? A feeble array of financial products for consumers and corporates. Unlike some other developing countries, China is not lacking for financial capital: The mainland had over $5 trillion in assets at the end of 2005. But most of the lending is to state-owned enterprises. Our research finds that China's private companies now generate more than half of its GDP and are twice as productive as state-owned firms, but they receive only 27% of loans. They are excluded from the country's nascent equity and corporate bond markets as well.
Penalizing Savers China has artificially created an ample supply of low-interest credit by capping interest rates on deposits. This arrangement penalizes Chinese households, who earn poor returns on their savings, and breeds ever greater inefficiency at the state-owned companies that have become hooked on this cheap money. Consider this: In the first half of the 1990s, China needed to invest $3.30 for every additional $1 of GDP. Since 2001, it has had to invest $4.90 to get the same return.
India's financial system is far smaller than China's, with just $1.4 trillion in assets at the end of 2005, equal to 172% of GDP, compared to China's 230% of GDP. India's dynamic private sector, which includes world-class companies that enjoy productivity double the level of state-owned ones, gets only 40% of total commercial credit. The government dominates the financial system, requiring banks and other financial intermediaries to hold a large portion of their assets in government securities, largely to fund a persistently large public-sector deficit, and to devote 36% of their loan portfolios to the government's priority sectors.
By freeing its financial system from the government's grip, India could turbocharge its economy, which is already growing at a healthy clip. This would funnel more funding into the most productive areas of the economy, and allow financial intermediaries to develop the consumer financial products necessary to attract more savings. Along with continuing liberalization of the broader economy, these reforms could raise India's growth.
Consensus Needed Regulators in China have been moving to reform the financial system. Most notably, they are listing shares of several of the largest commercial banks. These initial public offerings have drawn considerable interest from foreign investors （see BusinessWeek.com, 10/26/06, \"The Great China IPO Haul\"）. But much more needs to be done. Transforming China's massive banking system, developing its nascent capital markets, and creating the institutional framework, incentives, and commercial mindset needed to support a modern financial system will necessarily take time.
India's government is also considering several important reforms. These include proposals to develop the moribund corporate bond market, reform the pension system, and further liberalize the capital account. But progress in enacting legislation has been painfully slow. Still, the country's sound equity markets and high-performing private banks give it a good foundation on which to build.
And, with the right policies, India's financial system could evolve quite quickly. But India's policymakers have yet to build a consensus that financial liberalization would better serve India's rural poor, rather than distorting the financial system to funnel credit into wasteful public-works projects and other government schemes that generate a limited number of temporary and low-paid jobs.
For both countries, financial reform is much more likely to achieve the social objectives that are currently used to justify government-enforced distortions of the financial system. Such reforms should be among the highest priorities for China and India's policymakers.
来源：商业周刊，2006.10.26，作者：Diana Farrell
页:
[1]