“一带一路”倡议的理论建构——从新自由主义全球化到包容性全球化

Discursive construction of the Belt and Road Initiative:From neoliberal to inclusive globalization

中国政府提出的"一带一路"倡议正在成为世界上越来越多国家共同探索国际经济治理新机制的一个平台。与此同时,以新自由主义为旗帜的经济全球化已经走到"十字路口",逆全球化的声音不绝于耳,如何推动全球化进一步发展已成为世界性挑战。在此背景下,越来越多的政治精英和学者认为"一带一路"将引领新型全球化道路,其中一个重要的探索方向就是包容性全球化。本文在简要剖析经济全球扩张的历程及其机制并揭示新自由主义全球化局限性的基础上,结合"一带一路"的实践活动,提出了包容性全球化的核心内涵,包括国家应发挥好"调节者"的角色、解决资本市场"期限错配"的问题、选择适合国情的发展道路、保障各方平等地参与全球化,以及在经济全球化过程中保护文化多元性。尽管这些内涵还不足以精确地定量刻画包容性全球化,但可为后续研究提供一些借鉴的方向,也为"一带一路"建设提供了理论思考的方向。

There is an increasing international consensus that the Belt and Road Initiative（BRI） affords a platform for increasingly more countries to explore new international economic governance mechanisms and new development paths. In the meantime, neoliberal globalization has arrived at a crossroads, while antiglobalization voices are louder and practices more frequent since the 2008 global financial crisis, challenging the future of globalization at the scale of the world as a whole. Against this background, political elites and scholars increasingly see the BRI as a possible alternative and new globalization path and, in particular, as a path towards inclusive globalization. Based on a brief review of the process and mechanisms of global economic expansion,and a critique of neoliberal globalization, this article tries to use the vision and actions proposed by the BRI to develop the concept of inclusive globalization. The article suggests that inclusive globalization involves at least the following dimensions： a better and more powerful role of state as a mediator to ensure social justice and stability; correcting the duration mismatch in financial markets and provision of more patient capital to finance infrastructure development, productive activities, and real services in economically less-developed countries and regions; encouraging countries to choose and experiment with development paths that best fit their national conditions and values; enabling all stakeholders to participate equally in globalization; and protecting cultural diversity while promoting economic globalization. Although these dimensions are not sufficient to delineate in detail inclusive globalization, they at least point to several directions for future research on the topic and may offer some support for discursive construction of the BRI.