GCIOSGF Newsletter 會訊：
Merry reading time 悦讀匯
Host: WP
Edit: OF
Source from net
U.S. Vice President Cyrus Vance said, “The original intention of globalization was to allow wealthy countries to move to higher ends of the value chain, while poor countries engage in simpler production tasks. The goal of globalization is not to reduce global inequality, but to maintain it. However, poor countries (mainly China) are not willing to remain in the role of cheap labor forever, but are beginning to develop themselves to higher levels of the value chain.” His meaning is very clear, not to solve inequality, but to maintain inequality.
This statement is a bit direct, but it actually expresses a fact that many people know well. Globalization was originally designed to allow already wealthy countries to enjoy low-cost production through outsourcing manufacturing and further consolidate their economic advantages. For example, American and European companies moved their production lines to Asia, especially China, relying on the cheap labor there. As a result, their product costs are low and their profits are high, while China and other developing countries can only get the lowest profit in the manufacturing stage and cannot enjoy higher levels of the value chain such as technology research and development and brand building.
In other words, the "rules" of globalization have always been set by developed countries, which have pushed themselves to the high end of the value chain and left low-end, labor-intensive jobs to poor countries. In this way, the problem of global inequality has been "institutionalized." It seems that globalization allows the economies of various countries to interact with each other, but in fact it is a disguised form of exploitation.
But the problem is that over time, poor countries like China are no longer satisfied with just being "cheap factories." They have invested huge amounts of money and manpower to develop their own technology and education, and have gradually expanded from low-end manufacturing to higher-end science and technology, finance, innovation and other fields. China's Huawei, Alibaba, and even high-speed rail technology have represented a transformation from "world factory" to "innovation engine." China's economic structure is undergoing tremendous changes, and this transformation is also posing challenges to the model of globalization.
To be honest, this change has not only made those developed countries that once occupied the high end of the global manufacturing industry feel uneasy, but also made other developing countries begin to reflect on the true meaning of globalization. For example, countries such as India and Vietnam are also working hard to expand from low-end manufacturing to higher value areas. Their goal is not just to follow China's pace, but to use the platform of globalization to escape poverty and improve their own economic status.
But this does not mean that globalization itself is a bad thing. At least it makes the global economy more closely connected and provides development opportunities for some countries. But there are indeed some problems with the original intention and implementation of globalization. Without more equitable resource allocation and technology sharing, it will be difficult for those countries that remain marginalized to truly integrate into the high end of the global value chain. In other words, if globalization only makes some people rich but does not bring substantial progress to more countries, then its significance is questionable.
And, as Vance says, developed countries don't seem to want the "rules of the game" of globalization to change much. After all, it is in their best interest to maintain the existing structure. Especially when developing countries such as China begin to challenge this unequal structure, developed countries may try to prevent the development of these countries through trade barriers, technological blockades and other means, or even reshape the rules of globalization to ensure that they can continue to dominate.
This makes the future of globalization full of uncertainty. If traditional powers are unable to put aside their prejudices and accept the fact that emerging countries are gradually rising, globalization may come to a standstill. This will not only affect the further development of the global economy, but may also increase tensions between countries.
美國副總統萬斯說，「全球化的初衷是讓富裕國家向價值鏈的更高端發展，而貧窮國家則從事較為簡單的生產任務。全球化的目標並非是減少全球不平等，而是維持不平等。但貧窮國家（主要是中國）並不願意永遠保持廉價勞動力角色，而是開始自己向價值鏈的更高層次發展。」他的意思很明確，不是要解決不平等，而是要維持不平等。
這種話說得有點直接，但其實說出了很多人心知肚明的事實。全球化一開始就是為了讓那些已經富裕的國家透過外包製造業，享受低成本的生產，進一步鞏固自己的經濟優勢。比如說，美國和歐洲的公司把生產線搬到亞洲，尤其是中國，靠的是那裡的便宜勞動力。這樣一來，他們的商品成本低，利潤高，而中國和其他發展中國家卻只能拿到製造階段最低的那部分利潤，根本無法享受到技術研發、品牌建設等價值鏈的更高層次。
換句話說，全球化的「規則」一直都是由已開發國家定的，他們把自己推向了價值鏈的高端，而把低端的、勞力密集的工作丟給了那些貧窮國家。這樣一來，全球不平等的問題就被「制度化」了。看似全球化讓各國的經濟都有了互動，其實卻是一種變相的剝削。
但問題是，隨著時間的推移，像中國這樣的貧窮國家開始不再滿足於僅僅是「廉價工廠」的角色了。它們投入龐大的資金和人力，發展自己的技術、教育，慢慢從低端製造向更高端的科技、金融、創新等領域拓展。中國的華為、阿里巴巴，甚至是高鐵技術，已經代表了一個從「世界工廠」到「創新引擎」的轉變。中國的經濟結構正在發生巨變，而這種轉變，也讓全球化的模式開始面臨挑戰。
說實話，這種改變不僅讓那些曾經佔據全球製造業高端的已開發國家感到不安，也讓其他發展中國家開始反思全球化的真正意義。例如，印度、越南這些國家也努力從低端製造向更高價值的領域擴展，它們的目標不只是跟著中國的步伐走，而是希望藉助全球化這個平台，去擺脫貧窮的困境，提升自身的經濟地位。
但這也不是說全球化本身就是壞事，它至少讓全球經濟連結更加緊密，也為一些國家提供了發展機會。但全球化的初衷和實施方式，的確有一些問題。如果沒有更公平的資源分配和技術共享，那些仍然被邊緣化的國家就很難真正融入全球價值鏈的高端。換句話說，全球化如果只是讓一部分人富有，而沒有讓更多國家得到實質的進步，那麼它的意義就值得懷疑。
而且，像萬斯所說的，已開發國家似乎不想讓全球化的「遊戲規則」有太大的改變。畢竟，保持現有的結構對它們來說是最有利的。尤其是當中國等發展中國家開始挑戰這種不平等的結構時，已開發國家可能會透過貿易壁壘、技術封鎖等手段，試圖阻止這些國家的發展，甚至重新塑造全球化的規則，以確保自己能夠繼續佔據主導地位。
這就讓全球化的未來充滿了不確定性。如果那些傳統的強國始終無法放下偏見，接受新興國家逐步崛起的事實，那麼全球化可能就會陷入僵局。這不僅會影響全球經濟的進一步發展，也可能加劇國家之間的緊張關係。
