MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文

时间:2019-05-14 19:37:08下载本文作者:会员上传
简介:写写帮文库小编为你整理了多篇相关的《MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文》,但愿对你工作学习有帮助,当然你在写写帮文库还可以找到更多《MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文》。

第一篇:MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文

MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文

爱德华.罗伯茨:

非常高兴能到清华大学来演讲。我和我的夫人来自麻省理工学院(MIT)。

两年前,当朱熔基总理到麻省来访问时,他谈到他在清华度过的求学岁月,他总是把清华大学说成时中国的麻省理工学院。他对麻省理工学院的校长说,他希望某一天,他能到真正的麻省理工学院来学习并获得学位,但不是要一个名誉上的学位,而通过真正在麻省理工学院学习。他谈到清华是中国的麻省理工学院,而麻省理工学院是麻省的剑桥大学。

我一直在想有一天能够到清华来演讲,谈谈我对麻省理工学院和剑桥大学的独特性的认识和理解,以及北京的清华大学应该考虑的一些挑战。

所以,今天我想谈的是麻省理工学院独特性,演讲的题目是企业家诞生的环境,他们是新兴的公司的建立者,特别是一些高科技的公司的创建者。

今天我在演讲中会以麻省理工学院历史的视角,来看待为什么在麻省理工学院这样一个科技和学术性的机构会源源不断地有大量的大学生、研究生、教员离开大学创建令人兴奋的新公司,在各个领域作出贡献。我演讲的目的是给你们提出一种挑战:清华是否,能否将会出现类似的现象。在演讲完后,会有半个小时的提问时间。在麻省理工学院,教授接受具有挑战性的提问是一件通常的事情。

首先,学校必须有一种开放的和赞许的政策,对创业机制给予完全的支持,要让人们知道学校与创业挂钩不仅是一个合法的事情,而是一个受人尊敬和称羡的事情。学校应该与企业建立密切的关系,学校的教授应该被允许与公司和企业建立密切的工作关系,经常进行咨询。

1年前,当我在研究高科技企业家的时候,我参加了英国的一个巡回讲座。在英国一所著名理工大学(相当于英国的清华大学,或英国MIT),我拜见了该校的校长,在谈到学生创业时,他说他的学校也有着相类似的事情。我就问他这样的事情发生的频率高吗?他说很难讲,但确存在。我就问他,学校的教职员工与各行业联系紧密吗?他说有联系。我又问他们花在与企业的咨询上的时间是怎样的?他说很难知道学校的教授与公司的在一起的时间有多少。我说在MIT,教授每周有一天的时间与工业公司在一起,给公司担任顾问。校长感到很惊讶,他说怎么可以让教员这样做?要在学术上负责的话,我们决不会让这样的事情发生在英国皇家院校里。这样真会损害我们一流的教学和研究的能力的。

我要告诉你们的是在MIT的与众不之处,那就是在MIT,教员每周有一天或更多的时间是与企业在一起工作,这不仅不会威胁到我们的教学和研究,相反会很有裨益。它会确保我们的的教学和研究处于现实世界令人振奋的项目的最前沿阵地;它会确保我们的师生不仅仅在课堂和实验室的学习,而且在工业的前沿学会如何发现问题;它会确保一旦在实验室学到东西会很快的转移运用到企业中去。MIT是一个年轻的学院,自1860创立以来,她就倡导一种不同的理念,那就是MIT是一个注重实践的地方。教师的职责是从事教学和研究并将知识应用到企业中去,解决科技中的难题。从130年以来沿袭的优良传统所遵循的科学态度是和企业的紧密融合,师生不仅是作作咨询而已,他们可以自己行动自己创业。这已经是学校政策的一部分,学校行政处赞同师生可以和其他人一起开新公司,而不仅仅是给老的公司做顾问。开始是赞同进行与公司紧密相连的项目,到现在是更加灵活鼓励的政策,让教员和行政官员自己成为他人效仿的典范。在MIT的历史上,你会发现层出不穷的成功创业的范例。他们从MIT出去后不紧是进行咨询工作,而是把MIT的科技带到外部世界。

在MIT有许多学术与企业紧密融合的创业传奇,在当代有一个公司的成功事例可堪称典范。三个学院的成员成立一个专攻音效设备领域的公司(BBMN),而这个领域是竞争激烈的行业,许多问题急待解决,比如音效设计、设备优化等,他们需要成为行业的领导者。今天,BBMN业务转向网络领域,他们创造三个教授走出校园闯荡商业社会的成功范例。

所有的MIT的事例说明那些高级教授和行政官员作出校园,利用他们的头脑和精力进行创业。他们在学术界受到尊敬,声名大震。这些地位和名声受到尊敬的人们树立一个评判标准--教授不仅要在学术研究和咨询上卓有建树,而且要有领导团队进行创业的能力。这就是高度合法性和高度荣誉感的事例在创建公司需要作什么的重要参数。

我想谈的是MIT学术机构本身。在最近的几年,MIT学术机构支持和鼓励新公司的建立。有许多我个人参与的工作,首先是有22年历史的MIT企业家论坛。该论坛是为了鼓励和指导企业之间的合作。它担当了一个实地教练角色,每个月有两个小公司登上讲堂的讲台进行演讲,一些年轻人可以陈述他们的想法,并接受评选团的评判和审定,指出他们存在的一些问题,比如急于攒钱的问题。

十年前当我们创立企业家中心时,我们只有一门课程:新企业,讲述撰写商业计划要考虑的一些要素。这一学期,我们新开始了5个学科。现在共有14个科目。我们新增加了3个教研组,金融、科技管理、人力资源,所有都是为企业家开设的。下学期我们开始“设计和领导企业组织”,有人力资源的的教授主讲。从人的角度如何创建企业的风格。此外还有金融管理课程。让学生融入到企业的运作当作去。这要提到相关的一个有奖创业项目(50K Competition)。这一项目开始于10多年前的10Kcompetition,就是在学生当中开展商业计划的比赛,第一名奖励1万美金(10K)现在第一名是5万美金(50K)。学生的创业公司商业计划是由风险投资专家、创业者和校园外的有关人士评定,而不仅是学院人士打分,第一名获胜者将获得5万美金的奖励,第二名则获得2万5,第三名1万,每一个取得资格的选手则每人有几百美元。在50K创业比赛中,我们至少有500名学生拟定自己建公司的计划,而他们都知道哪些计划仅仅因为趣味,哪些真正带来财富,这样为他们在以后开办自己的企业打好基础。在过去的一年中发展最快的领域是互联网技术方面的企业,都是50K计划中的赢家和学校的其他成员。

这儿还有一个学术机构鼓励创业的事例。在过去的10年中有一个长足发展的事情是技术许可办公室的发展。学校一直对许可技术持有疑虑,而10年里在许可技术方面的发展有许多摇摆,在后来因为发展大公司的需要,有所变化,他们将注意力转向如何为MIT带来技术。MIT持有一些开发许可技术的企业小部分股权,因此其许可技术方面得到优化,其所占的百分之一的股份带来2亿美元资金的运作。

MIT不仅是投资自己的风险投资基金,而且还积极给外面的风险投资基金投资,其结果是他们不仅广泛地进行投资,而且还吸引许多风险投资专家进入大学。

现在我们将从学院机构鼓励创业的讨论转向一个严肃的话题,那就是政府的角色。MIT地处Cambridge市,马萨诸塞洲,美利坚合众国。美国政府在技术创新的发展中起到很大的作用。这里我要用历史的视角简要说明政府角色的问题。在美国的历史上,从来没有出现过阻碍和打击企业发展的政府,而是积极的鼓励支持创业。有许多不同的机制,它们全都属于鼓励机制,被美国和许多国家采用,因为这些国家已经意识到对高科技创业进行鼓励将使全社会受益,没有人遭受失败。通过支持创建先进技术企业,随着最先进的技术发展,全社会居民将得到利益,新的工种产生,尖端行业萌芽。

我以美国产生的此种政府行为作为事例说明。首先,政府对待创业前瞻性的鼓励态度。在美国,规章制度给予那些刚创建的公司带来的阻碍甚少,当创业者建立公司时,政府不予阻拦,而相对在中国,在互联网、电信和其他一些行业方面有待完善。这是非常重要的一点,我很难表达我是多么严肃的看待这个问题。然后,政府在建立鼓励创业机制的过程中的有效联结。美国有非常严密的机制,虽然并不是每一个都有成效,但都是有益的尝试。其中有一种机制叫“小企业创新研究工程”(SBIRS),每一个政府机构一年花费2亿美元,其中百分之二的基金投给那些小公司,因此这些小公司获得政府研究基金资助的优惠条件,尤其是对于那些想建立和发展高科技的企业来说。从这层意义上讲,政府就象是一个商业公司鼓励创业一样。

这儿我要举一个成功典范,这个典范对于在座的各位启发是恰到好处的,因为这个典范现在就坐在我的旁边,他就是张朝阳。我之所以要将Charles作为范例说明,是我想谈一谈搜狐是怎么产生的,我还想提一个问题,如果Charles在清华大学继续攻读博士,而不是去MIT读PH.D.,搜狐是否能够产生?Charles是清华本科毕业生,他在这里是同一个人,同样的智慧,同样的热情和同样的成绩,而这里我要建议的他是在MIT获得的思想转型提供了一种非常重要的能力转向,即对能力、批准、机会等问题准确的理解。我反复重申的是MIT自100多年来一直鼓励创业者出去开办公司,尝试做事,给予配合,使其合法化,获得成功,从而成为与这个社会紧密融合的一部分。

众所周知,Charles获得MIT的博士学位,很清楚他是一个相当聪明的人,受过正规的教育。而他在MIT获得的还有他对生活方式的方向和定位,他积极参与各种创立新公司的激烈竞争中。有一天,Charles出现在我的办公室,跟我谈他的理想和向往,他没有跟我讲:“罗伯特教授,我想回国成为清华大学的教授”,而是讲:“罗伯特教授,我想回国,建立一个互联网公司。”我对他讲:“你能跟我讲你想做什么吗?”他还是说:“我想回国,建立一个互联网公司。”我们的讨论从此开始,这次讨论持续了好几周,见了好几次面,我开始更多的了解他,他的动力,他的眼光,他的热情,他真正想干的事情:他想在自己的国家,一个完全不同的地域,运用他在MIT学到的知识和精神在中国建立高科技互联网企业。我与Charles接触开始于1996年,经过几番谈论,我最终决定成为他创建公司的投资第一人,并将与Charles一起成为公司董事会的成员。顺便说一句,在最初的两年里,事实上整个董事会就只有Charles一人。另外一个的投资人是MIT的一个研究生,他出生于一个富裕的企业家庭,父亲是一个生物科技公司的CEO。主持着MIT的媒体实验室的尼格罗庞帝,早已在你们之间耳熟能详的著名教授,成为投资搜狐的第三人,我问他为什么投资搜狐,他把我当作是他投资的一个理由,说因为我投资了,我知道我为什么选择搜狐,所以他就投资搜狐了。到现在他一直“盲目”。Charles带着180000美元回到中国,白手起家创建公司;他没有带回280000美元,因为我们在1996年用尽办法也难以筹集到另外的100000美元。我们无法说服别人在当时中国有机会去创建互联网公司。他们疑虑重重,不能说服他们给我们划支票。Charles 回到中国建立搜狐,你们都知道后面的历史了。随着搜狐收购中国人(ChinaRen.com),搜狐在页读数和用户数量上都成为中国互联网公司的领头羊,而且我们将会一直保持这种势头。

我的观点不在中国的互联网,而是建立具有企业家精神的高科技的公司,MIT给中国带来了一件重要的礼物,那就是树立了一种教育的榜样和模式来鼓励Charles能够回国创业,开始为你们的国家作出重要的贡献。我要告诉你们的是我被称为与中国互联网公司工作的人。MIT有很多美国籍的中国人和中国籍的中国留学生,他们很多人给我发e-mail和给我商业计划,说他们要去中国,建立互联网公司。今天当然想法更多,有的还想创建无线通讯公司或可视网络公司,我把很多的想法都转给了Charles,我想他能帮我遴选。

今天我试图提供一种历史的视角,来谈在很多方面与清华类似的一个学院,我们是美国的清华,你们是中国的MIT。在科技和商业学院方面,我们两个院校都有很密切的合作关系。我们的斯隆(Sloan)商业学院正和清华和复旦大学合作MBA的项目。我想让你们理解的是在MIT一种重要的独特性培育了MIT的一种文化,就是让许许多多的有才华的学生、教师、甚至行政人员会考虑在他们的人生当中下一步会去根据自己的愿望创办公司。我想要提出的关于体制的、超出两国政府的差异的问题是:中国可否让清华大学仿效我们在美国成功营造的环境,如果可能,我们都会享有变革给双方社会带来益处。

我的演讲到此结束,现在回答大家提出的问题。谢谢!

附录记者有关采访: 问:软银公司董事长孙正义目前说中国将出现第二次风险投资浪潮,他们计划收购200家互联网公司,请问您对这个问题怎么看?

答:绝对正确,而且还会出现第三第四次浪潮。中国发展的机会非常大,有许多创业者在中国的互联网市场上成功发展,象我在演讲结束举到的搜狐创始人张朝阳的事例。他们真正了解市场发展战略,因此,许多重大进展只是时间问题,可能在一年中两三个月之内,从而会掀起新一轮的互联网投资风潮,中国的机会非常大,浪潮不只一次,有许多次。

问:在目前NASDAQ股市普遍下跌的情况下,你对搜狐的信心建立在什么基础之上?

答:股市不能更多反映公司的发展状况,我们需要寻求股市和公司实际发展情况之间的吻合,搜狐公司比其在7月份上市时又有了许多新的业绩,新的成功,比如从公司内部发展上看,我们有了在访问量、注册用户、EMAIL用户以及网络广告销售方面都有了显著的进步。现在,我们成功的收购CHINAREN,增加新的功能,新的员工,新的技术,和新的内容频道。因此,我对搜狐的信心不是基于股票市场,而是实际考察公司本身的发展状况。股票市场其实也就是一种市场,在市场上,人们自然会进行买卖活动,有人今天想买东西,有人今天想卖东西,这很正常,而我们要做的是先把事情做好,吸引更多的人来对我们的产品感兴趣,购买我们的股票。(摘编自搜狐)

第二篇:2018清华经济管理学院王珺教授情况知多少

2018清华经济管理学院王珺教授情

况知多少

王珺

金融系副教授

清华大学经济管理学院院长助理

办公室伟伦楼204

个人简介 研究成果 研究项目

王珺,清华大学经济学博士。1998年加入清华大学经济管理学院,现任副教授。主要研究领域为保险经济学、风险管理与保险、人寿与健康保险、公司财务。主要教授《保险经济学》、《风险管理与保险》、《人寿与健康保险》、《公司财务》等课程。于国内外期刊发表多篇论文。

期刊论文(国内)

王珺,高峰,最优免赔额定价分析,保险研究,8期,51-56页,2009-08-24 王珺,宋逢明,预算软约束下的银行高管薪酬机制分析,运筹与管理,3期,18卷,105-110页,2009-06-25 王珺,高峰,发展森林保险的政策研究,保险研究,3期,66-70页,2009-03-24 王珺,我国森林保险的市场失灵与政策建议-基于福建森林保险工作的研究,林业经济,11期,2008-11-24 王珺,廖理,股权分置改革中的“实惠效应”与“未来效应”,中国工业经济,2008年第11期期,2008-11-16 王珺,高峰,宋逢明,保险市场逆向选择的模拟研究,保险研究,1期,2008-01-01 王珺,宋逢明,国外森林保险制度综述及对我国的启示,林业经济,11期,2007-11-01 王珺,个人和公司对财产保险需求的经济学比较分析,保险研究,5期,39-43页,2007-05-01

期刊论文(国际)

FengGao,JunWang,AdverseSelectionorAdvantageousSelection?RiskandUnderwritinginChinasHealth-InsuranceMarket,InsuranceMathematicsandEconomics,No.44p505-510,2009-04-2 译著

王珺,保险从业人员的职业伦理,中国人民大学出版社,2005-09-30 王珺,人寿保险代理人市场行为规范,中国人民大学出版社,2005-09-01 陈秉正,王珺,风险管理与保险(第二版),清华大学出版社,2005-01-31

第三篇:复旦大学兼MIT教授黄亚生英文演讲Yasheng Huang Does democracy stifle economic growth

MBA handouts for English interactions Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth? http:// About this talk Economist Yasheng Huang compares China to India, and asks how China's authoritarian rule contributed to its astonishing economic growth--leading to a big question: Is democracy actually holding India back? Huang's answer may surprise you.About the speaker Yasheng Huang

Yasheng Huang asks us to rethink our ideas about China and other large emerging economies.Lately he’s been asking, Does democracy hinder or promote economic growth?

Transcript My topic is economic growth in China and India.And the question I want to explore with you is whether or not democracy has helped or has hindered economic growth.You may say this is not fair, because I'm selecting two countries to make a case against democracy.Actually, exactly the opposite is what I'm going to do.I'm going to use these two countries to make an economic argument for democracy, rather than against democracy.The first question there is why China has grown so much faster than India.Over the last 30 years, in terms of the GDP growth rates, China has grown at twice the rate of India.In the last five years, the two countries have begun to converge somewhat in economic growth.But over the last 30 years, China undoubtedly has done much better than India.One simple answer is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai.Look at the skyline of Shanghai.This is the Pudong area.The picture on India is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai in India.The idea there behind these two pictures is that the Chinese government can act above rule of law.It can plan for the long-term benefits of the country and in the process, evict millions of people--that's just a small technical issue.Whereas in India, you cannot do that, because you have to listen to the public.You're being constrained by the public's opinion.Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees with that view.In an interview printed in the financial press of India, He said that he wants to make Mumbai another Shanghai.This is an Oxford-trained economist steeped in humanistic values, and yet he agrees with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth, that emphasizes the following features for promoting economic development: infrastructures, airports, highways, bridges, things like that.And you need a strong government to do that, because you cannot respect private property rights.You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion.You need also state ownership, especially of land assets, in order to build and roll out infrastructures very quickly.The implication of that model is that democracy is a hindrance for economic growth, rather than a facilitator of economic growth.Here's the key question.Just how important are infrastructures for economic growth? This is a key issue.If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth, then you would argue a strong government is necessary to promote growth.If you believe that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe, then you will put less emphasis on strong government.So to illustrate that question, let me give you two countries.And for the sake of brevity, I'll call one country Country 1 and the other country Country 2.Country 1 has a systematic advantage over Country 2 in infrastructures.Country 1 has more telephones, and Country 1 has a longer system of railways.So if I were to ask you, “Which is China and which is India, and which country has grown faster?” if you believe in the infrastructure view, then you will say, “Country 1 must be China.They must have done better, in terms of economic growth.And Country 2 is possibly India.” Actually the country with more telephones is the Soviet Union, and the data referred to 1989.After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones, the country collapsed.That's not too good.The picture there is Khrushchev.I know that in 1989 he no longer ruled the Soviet Union, but that's the best picture that I can find.(Laughter)Telephones, infrastructures do not guarantee you economic growth.Country 2, that has fewer telephones, is China.Since 1989, the country has performed at a double-digit rate every year for the last 20 years.If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union other than the fact about their telephones, you would have made a poor prediction about their economic growth in the next two decades.Country 1, that has a longer system of railways, is actually India.And Country 2 is China.This is a very little known fact about the two countries.Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage over India.But for many years, until the late 1990s, China had an infrastructure disadvantage vis-a-vis India.In developing countries, the most common mode of transportation is the railways, and the British built a lot of railways in India.India is the smaller of the two countries, and yet it had a longer system of railways until the late 1990s.So clearly, infrastructure doesn't explain why China did better before the late 1990s, as compared with India.In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide, the evidence is more supportive of the view that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth.The economy grows, government accumulates more resources, and the government can invest in infrastructure--rather than infrastructure being a cause for economic growth.And this is clearly the story of the Chinese economic growth.Let me look at this question more directly.Is democracy bad for economic growth? Now let's turn to two countries, Country A and Country B.Country A, in 1990, had about $300 per capita GDP as compared with Country B, which had $460 in per capita GDP.By 2008, Country A has surpassed Country B with $700 per capita GDP as compared with $650 per capita GDP.Both countries are in Asia.If I were to ask you, “Which are the two Asian countries? And which one is a democracy?” you may argue, “Well, maybe Country A is China and Country B is India.” In fact, Country A is democratic India, and Country B is Pakistan--the country that has a long period of military rule.And it's very common that we compare India with China.That's because the two countries have about the same population size.But the more natural comparison is actually between India and Pakistan.Those two countries are geographically similar.They have a complicated, but shared common history.By that comparison, democracy looks very, very good in terms of economic growth.So why do economists fall in love with authoritarian governments? One reason is the East Asian Model.In East Asia, we have had successful economic growth stories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.Some of these economies were ruled by authoritarian governments in the 60s and 70s and 1980s.The problem with that view is like asking all the winners of lotteries, “Have you won the lottery?” And they all tell you, “Yes, we have won the lottery.” And then you draw the conclusion the odds of winning the lottery are 100 percent.The reason is you never go and bother to ask the losers who also purchased lottery tickets and didn't end up winning the prize.For each of these successful authoritarian governments in East Asia, there's a matched failure.Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't.Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't.Burma didn't succeed.The Philippines didn't succeed.If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide, there's really no support for the idea that authoritarian governments hold a systematic edge over democracies in terms of economic growth.So the East Asian model has this massive selection bias--it is known as selecting on a dependent variable, something we always tell our students to avoid.So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi.The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution.It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP.So that's when China was mad.The whole country went mad.It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution.The advantage the country had was human capital--nothing else but human capital.This is the world development index indicator data in the early 1990s.And this is the earliest data that I can find.The adult literacy rate in China is 77 percent as compared with 48 percent in India.The contrast in literacy rates is especially sharp between Chinese women and Indian women.I haven't told you about the definition of literacy.In China, the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write 1,500 Chinese characters.In India, the definition of literacy, operating definition of literacy, is the ability, the grand ability, to write your own name in whatever language you happen to speak.The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy is much more substantial than the data here indicated.If you go to other sources of data such as Human Development Index, that data series, go back to the early 1970s, you see exactly the same contrast.China held a huge advantage in terms of human capital vis-a-vis India.Life expectancies: as early as 1965, China had a huge advantage in life expectancy.On average, as a Chinese in 1965, you lived 10 years more than an average Indian.So if you have a choice between being a Chinese and being an Indian, you would want to become a Chinese in order to live 10 years longer.If you made that decision in 1965, the down side of that is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution.So you have to always think carefully about these decisions.If you cannot chose your nationality, then you will want to become an Indian man.Because, as an Indian man, you have about two years of life expectancy advantage vis-a-vis Indian women.This is an extremely strange fact.It's very rare among countries to have this kind of pattern.It shows the systematic discrimination and biases in the Indian society against women.The good news is, by 2006, India has closed the gap between men and women in terms of life expectancy.Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge over Indian men.So India is reverting to the normal.But India still has a lot of work to do in terms of gender equality.These are the two pictures taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province and garment factories in India.In China, it's all women.60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women in the coastal part of the country, whereas in India, it's all men.Financial Times printed this picture of an Indian textile factory with the title, “India Poised to Overtake China in Textile.” By looking at these two pictures, I say no, it won't overtake China for a while.If you look at other East Asian countries, women there play a hugely important role in terms of economic take-off--in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle associated with East Asia.India still has a long way to go to catch up with China.Then the issue is, what about the Chinese political system? You talk about human capital, you talk about education and public health.What about the political system? Isn't it true that the one-party political system has facilitated economic growth in China? Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that.It depends on a distinction that you draw between statics of the political system and the dynamics of the political system.Statically, China is a one-party system, authoritarian--there's no question about it.Dynamically, it has changed over time to become less authoritarian and more democratic.When you explain change--for example, economic growth;economic growth is about change--when you explain change, you use other things that have changed to explain change, rather than using the constant to explain change.Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change, but a fixed effect only explains changes in interaction with the things that change.In terms of the political changes, they have introduced village elections.They have increased the security of proprietors.And they have increased the security with long-term land leases.There are also financial reforms in rural China.There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China.To me, the pace of political changes is too slow, too gradual.And my own view is the country is going to face some substantial challenges, because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms.But nevertheless, the system has moved in a more liberal direction, moved in a more democratic direction.You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India.In fact, when India was growing at a Hindu rate of growth--about one percent, two percent a year--that was when India was least democratic.Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975.The Indian government owned and operated all the TV stations.A little-known fact about India in the 1990s is that the country not only has undertaken economic reforms, the country has also undertaken political reforms by introducing village self-rule, privatization of media and introducing freedom of information acts.So the dynamic perspective fits both with China and in India in terms of the direction.Why do many people believe that India is still a growth disaster? One reason is they are always comparing India with China.But China is a superstar in terms of economic growth.If you are a NBA player and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan, you're going to look not so impressive.But that doesn't mean that you're a bad basketball player.Comparing with a superstar is the wrong benchmark.In fact, if you compare India with the average developing country, even before the more recent period of acceleration of Indian growth--now India is growing between eight and nine percent--even before this period, India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth among emerging economies.This is a very impressive record indeed.Let's think about the future: the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant.Which country has the growth momentum? China, I believe, still has some of the excellent raw fundamentals--mostly the social capital, the public health, the sense of egalitarianism that you don't find in India.But I believe that India has the momentum.It has the improving fundamentals.The government has invested in basic education, has invested in basic health.I believe the government should do more, but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in is the right direction.India has the right institutional conditions for economic growth, whereas China is still struggling with political reforms.I believe that the political reforms are a must for China to maintain its growth.And it's very important to have political reforms, to have widely shared benefits of economic growth.I don't know whether that's going to happen or not, but I'm an optimist.Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal that political reforms will happen in China.Thank you very much.(Applause)6

第四篇:中国政法大学政治与公共管理学院丛日云教授在2013届毕业典礼上的演讲

中国政法大学政治与公共管理学院丛日云教授在2013届毕业典礼上的演讲

2013届的同学们:

今天是你喜庆的日子,是你们的成人礼,是你们人生的一个新的开端。

你们将披戴上一副庄重的桂冠和礼袍,那表示你们成为了“学士”。在中国传统的语言中,成为“士”,那就是获得了一种与众不同的身份。“学以居位曰士”,“以才智用者谓之士”。士有各种,而 “学士”,就是以学问和才智获得“士”的资格,受人尊重的人。

所以,我衷心地祝贺你们,祝贺你们十几年求学终成正果!

你们今天毕业走出校门,明天就是社会大学的开学典礼。人生就是一次次的毕业与开学,但是,只有这次毕业与开学是人生最重要的转折点。

与今后的漫长旅程相比,你以前的学习生活只是学步而已;与即将开场的人生大戏相比,此前的学习生活只是序幕而已。

你们即将进入的这个社会,是一个丰富而精彩的人生舞台,你们将在那里实现自己的价值,享受你们的人生。但同时,它也是一个险恶的江湖,污浊的泥潭。

这江湖深不可测,远非你们所能想像。你从此闯荡江湖,就像你当初学步一样。这江湖重新塑造你们的力量,你们可能还没有足够的估计。你如今要义无返顾地闯进去了,却不知道它意味着什么。

这些天,怀着几分激动几分惆怅的你们,都在憧憬着自己灿烂的未来,美好的人生。你们听到的,都是美好的祝福和高调的期待与嘱托。

但作为家长,作为老师,作为你们的丛大大,我却怀着几分忐忑,只能讲些适合大多数同学的低调的临别赠言。

先秦时代有一个思想家杨朱,有感于人生歧路重重,歧路之中还有歧路,人很容易迷失,于是放声大哭。竹林七贤之一的阮籍也曾面对歧路,大哭而返。

人生多歧路,这是人的宿命。如果严肃对待人生,不得不一次次面对歧路面前的困惑与焦虑。人生就是无数的选择。从人生终极目标的选择,大的发展方向的规划,直到日常生活中每一个细节的选择、迈出每一步的选择。你的选择构成你的一生。

正确的一生,还是错误的一生。

以往,家长、社会、学校几乎为你规划了一切。从今以后,你要独立选择你的生活道路。

人生之路只能一个人走下来,没有依傍,没有导师。哪怕你一直在随大流,那也是你的选择。

存在主义哲学家萨特曾在80年代的中国风行一时,如今很少有人关注他了。但他有一句话还是需要提起的,“人是自我选择的”。人选择成为自己所是的,并且要对自己的选择负全部责任。

在这世界上,每个人都是独一无二的。你在这个世界上的价值,就在于你与众不同。所以,每个人首要的选择,是应该成为你自己。

不要别人做梦你也跟着做梦,被别人忽悠着做梦,做与别人同样的梦。每个人都有自己的梦。

要选择成为你自己,意味着不断地超越自己。你需要不断地反思自己,拷问自己,为自己树立至高的标准,追求最高的境界。

我们的人生与这个社会的命运息息相关。

一代人有一代人的命运。你们这代人有过一个安宁的童年和青少年时代,但你们的未来可能面对着中国社会的重大变革。

你们如果关注社会动态,就能看到天边在积聚着乌云,就能听到乌云中酝酿的风暴。

敏锐的人都能看到,风云变幻,暗潮涌动,前途莫测。

最近北大一位教授在毕业典礼上致词时向同学们提出几个严肃的问题:本拉登到底是恐怖主义分子,还是神圣的殉道者?金日成究竟是流氓还是政治家?斯诺登究竟是叛国者还是人权卫士?人们都知道这位教授的答案。

你们该如何回答这几个问题呢?在我看来,如果在第三个问题上有所困惑尚可原谅,但前两个问题竟然还是问题,这本身就是令人担忧的大问题。

面对可能到来的社会大变局,你将如何选择?

当你做出选择的时候,你是不是一个明白人?

龙应台女士在《大江大海——1949》里,记录了无数人在那一刻的选择:走还是不走?走,是一辈子;不走,也是一辈子。无数人的悲剧就从那一刻所做出的选择开始。

国家走了一段弯路,对你来说,就是毁了一生。

面对一些小人物被命运所裹挟的无奈处境,龙应台感慨地说:“一滴水,怎么会知道洪流的方向呢?”

但我想,你们是政法大学的毕业生,是政管院毕业的学士,你们应该比普通人更有能力识别洪流的走向。

人们感叹,一片漂零的树叶,无法阻挡汹涌而来的大潮。

但即使是一片树叶,你是否有过挣扎?你向哪个方向挣扎?

如果中国再来一次义和团或红卫兵运动,如果重庆模式成为中国模式,你们能不能清醒地说不?如何你没有这个见识或勇气,能不能至少做个无害的逍遥派?

面对滚滚而来的浊流,如果你不能总是抗争,你是否可以选择偶尔抗争;

如果你不敢积极的抗争,你还可以选择消极地抗争;

如果你不能勇敢地表达,你可以选择含蓄地表达;如果你也不敢含蓄地表达,你可以选择沉默。

如果你没有选择沉默而是选择了配合,但你还可以把调门放低一些。在你主动的或被迫地干着坏事时,能不能内心里还残留一点不安和负罪感。这一点儿不安或负罪感,仍是人性未泯的标记。

即使你不去抗争,但对其他抗争者,要怀着几分敬重,即使没有这份敬重,也不要在背后放冷箭,使绊子,助纣为虐。

我希望,你们在大潮袭来时,选择站在理性一边,文明一边,选择站在人民一边。

当你们走出校园的时候,你们面对着一个特殊的社会。这个社会,已经是一个高效率的大染缸。

当年,墨子看见人家染布,白的进去,五颜六色的出来。他哭了。

你们应该理解,我们今天看着尚有几分天真纯洁的你们,走进这个大染缸时的心情。

告别母校,意味着告别了纯净的生活,投入滚滚红尘,滔滔江湖。

以后你们一次次受伤时,会念起母校,不管在这里经历过多少不快,这已经算是一方净土。

面对着这样的社会环境,你能不能做到举世皆醉,惟我独醒;举世混浊,惟我独清?

我对此不抱多大希望,我自己也做不到。如果坚持那样的处世准则,也只好随着屈原投入汩罗江。

但佛教的一个处世原则却可以给我们一些指引:那就是“随缘不变,不变随缘”。既有随缘,也有不变。不变是原则,随缘是通融。我想这应该是大多数人能够实践的准则。

在个人生活领域,我希望你们选择健康向上的人生,选择做一个有良知的文明人。

当然,坦率地告诉你们冷酷的现实,并不是让你们应该选择消极和放弃。人们常说,我们虽然长着黑色眼睛,却用它寻找光明。没有光明和希望,那是不可能继续下去的绝望的人生。

你内心的一片净土只属于你,只要你守护着它,任何外部力量都无法进入。曾有一位西方人面对放弃的忠告时说,我不是要改变世界,我只是不想改变自己。也就是说,“你不能决定明天的太阳几点升起,但你能决定几点钟起床。”

同学们,你们就要远走高飞了。今天,我们注视着你们离开的背影,而追随着你们脚步的,是我们永久的牵挂!

不论你们是聪明乖巧,还是鲁钝耿直,不论你们是否高富帅和白富美,你们都是我们的学生。

我们关注你们的成功,关注你们的幸福,更关注你们是否走在正路上。

愿上苍眷顾你们!

再见了,同学们!

下载MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文word格式文档
下载MIT斯隆管理学院教授爱德华罗伯特清华演讲全文.doc
将本文档下载到自己电脑,方便修改和收藏,请勿使用迅雷等下载。
点此处下载文档

文档为doc格式


声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:645879355@qq.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

相关范文推荐