How to scientifically understand "new quality productivity"?

After the "new quality productivity" was proposed, it has always been a hot topic of discussion, and it is the central topic of discussion at the 2024 China Development Forum and the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2024. Empirically, these discussions have been expanding the connotation and extension of the concept of "new quality productivity". But the various discussions also reflect many problems: one extreme is generalization, using "new quality productivity" as an adjective and applying it to almost all fields; At the other end of the spectrum is too narrow, equating "new productivity" with one or more specific industries. Because it is widely believed that the "new quality of productivity" will inevitably have a significant impact on future policies, the confusing interpretation also creates a great deal of uncertainty at the local and corporate levels.

The author believes that the interpretation of "new quality productivity" should include three levels: this is a strategic concept, that is, the development of new quality productivity is the only way to achieve Chinese-style modernization; Although the core of the new quality productivity refers to new technology, it does not specifically refer to one or several specific new technology fields, so the new quality productivity can be defined as all economic activities that can promote the improvement of the scientific and technological content and added value of a unit of product based on technological progress; The key to the development of new quality productivity lies in building a "three-in-one" innovation model of basic scientific research, applied technology transformation and financial services.

New quality productivity and Chinese modernization

The new qualitative productivity was proposed after the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2022, and this term should be discussed in conjunction with the Chinese-style modernization proposed by the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Chinese modernization has established the new mission of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to comprehensively promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in the new era and new journey. Chinese modernization is the modernization of the "five-in-one", that is, the modernization of a huge population, the modernization of common prosperity for all people, the modernization of the coordinated development of material civilization and spiritual civilization, the modernization of harmonious coexistence between man and nature, and the modernization of taking the path of peaceful development. This is undoubtedly a comprehensive and complex definition of modernization, and it is also the definition of modernization of the highest standard to date.

While we also emphasize that Chinese modernization has common characteristics with the modernization of other countries, we are clearly not satisfied with the many phenomena that have emerged in countries that have already achieved modernization. For example, the modernization of the gap between the rich and the poor, the modernization of development in a way that destroys the environment, the modernization of material development but the impoverishment of the spiritual world, and the modernization of colonialism and imperialism at the international level. The goal of Chinese modernization is to avoid these problems. But it also shows how difficult it is to achieve Chinese-style modernization. Empirically, the total population of modern advanced economies is around 1 billion, while China's population is 1.4 billion.

It is precisely because of the importance of achieving "Chinese-style modernization" that the Central Economic Work Conference held in December 2023 emphasized that "adhering to high-quality development must be regarded as the last word in the new era" and "promoting Chinese-style modernization must be regarded as the biggest politics".

How to achieve Chinese-style modernization? In this context, the discussion of new qualitative productivity is of substantive significance. Obviously, without the new quality of productive forces as a solid foundation of material and technological institutions, it is impossible to achieve Chinese-style modernization. From this point of view, we should regard the new quality of productivity as a strategic concept with national development implications. In a nutshell, the development of new quality productive forces is the only way to realize Chinese-style modernization. Therefore, the new quality of productivity does not refer to something concrete. Whether in academia or policy research, people today tend to point the new quality of productive forces to some specific technological and industrial sectors, which is undoubtedly too narrow. Although the new quality of productivity needs to be expressed or represented by specific technology and industrial sectors, the equation of the new quality of the force with these specific sectors undoubtedly makes the concept lose its due strategic meaning.

There is currently a lack of discussion on the new quality of productivity

The first and central question is what is new quality productivity?

At present, there is a lot of discussion about what the new qualitative productivity is. It is not difficult to find that there are two main sources of discussion on new qualitative productivity: looking for it from the real world; Found in science fiction literature, and the two sources are interrelated. According to their own scientific and logical imagination, people amplify and push forward the things that exist in the real world (especially technology), which becomes science fiction, and science fiction in turn affects the development of reality. In this sense, people often say that American Hollywood science fiction blockbusters are one of the representatives of future technology.

In reality, in the world, the economy can be divided into frontier economy and catch-up economy; Correspondingly, technology can also be divided into cutting-edge technology and catch-up technology. Frontier economies tend to refer to advanced economies, while catch-up economies refer to developing economies. As a result, it is customary to define new qualitative productivity in terms of the economic and social realities of advanced economies and what is happening. Judging from recent discussions, most people are looking at the development of the United States and other developed countries in the West to define and discuss the new qualitative productive forces of the mainland.

Generally speaking, people tend to define "new quality productivity" as "three new" - new manufacturing, new services and new business formats.

New manufacturing. New manufacturing involves five fields: new energy, new materials, new medicine, new manufacturing equipment and new information technology. In these areas, new qualitative productivity can be further defined. For example, some scholars believe that what can be called new quality productivity is not those ordinary scientific and technological advances, nor are they marginal improvements, but subversive scientific and technological innovations. In addition, the so-called disruptive scientific and technological innovation must meet at least one of the following five criteria - new scientific discoveries, new manufacturing technologies, new production tools, new production factors, new products and uses. In China's industrial background, new manufacturing includes a new generation of information technology, biotechnology, new energy, new materials, high-end equipment, new energy vehicles, green environmental protection, as well as aerospace, marine equipment and other strategic emerging industries, as well as the development of brain-like intelligence, quantum information, gene technology, future networks, deep-sea aerospace development, hydrogen energy and energy storage and other cutting-edge technologies and industrial transformation fields.

New services. Traditionally, the service industry has a broad meaning, but the new service is regarded as the service provided by the new manufacturing, and the focus of this service is embedded in the global industrial chain and supply chain, especially the producer service industry that has a significant controlling impact on the global industrial chain. It should be noted that the reference for services is also from developed economies. In the field of service industry, the current world economic map presents three characteristics: in various high-end equipment, the value of the service industry often accounts for 50%-60% of the added value of equipment or terminals. Global trade in services accounts for an increasing proportion of global trade. For example, 30 years ago, trade in services accounted for about 5% of the total global trade, but now it has reached 30%, the proportion of trade in goods is shrinking, and trade in services is expanding. Countries around the world, especially developed countries, account for an increasing proportion of producer services in their total gross domestic product (GDP). Comparatively speaking, the added value of the mainland's producer services accounts for about 17%-18% of GDP, which is still a relatively large gap compared with the European Union (40%) and the United States (50%).

New business format. The core of the new business format is industrial transformation and the profound adjustment of industrial organization. There are two key driving forces for new business formats - globalization and informatization.

The discussion on defining the new quality of productivity as the "three new" is largely based on the current situation or future of advanced economies. It should be emphasized that such generalizations and descriptions are very important, because they at least give us an idea of the current situation and prospects of the advanced economies. This is very important for economies that are still in a catch-up situation, at least to know what to catch up with next.

For such a concept with far-reaching strategic implications, it is far from enough to define it as "three new", and there are the following problems. One of the most critical questions that cannot be answered is, where does the new quality productivity come from? In other words, how does the new quality of productivity come about? If we do not know the source of the new quality of productivity, but only know what the new quality of productivity is, then it will be difficult to change from a catch-up economy to a frontier economy, and it will be difficult to transform from a catch-up technology to a frontier technology. Only by knowing where the new quality productivity comes from can we achieve an original breakthrough from "0" to "1" and become a cutting-edge technology and a cutting-edge economy. Too much focus on economic (technological) factors and ignore institutional ones. Although technology is at the heart of new productivity, the production of each technology is the product of a system. It does not address the relationship between existing (traditional) industries and new quality productivity. As will be highlighted below, question (3) is particularly important for the mainland, as traditional industries form the basis of the national economy.

Thinking about the new qualitative productive forces from Marx's two expositions

Whether we are trying to define the new qualitative productive forces or answering the question of where the new qualitative productive forces come from, we can go back to the two main statements put forward by Marx: one is Marx's exposition of the productive forces and the relations of production, and the other is Marx's discourse on the economic base and superstructure.

In Marx's exposition on the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces refer to the material content of production, while the relations of production refer to the social form and content of production, and the organic combination and unity of the productive forces and the relations of production constitute the "mode of production". When the relations of production are not adapted to the development of the productive forces, the productive forces will stagnate completely, and vice versa, leading to errors in the mode of production. The continuous emergence and resolution of the inherent contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces is a spiraling process, which promotes the continuous self-renewal of the entire production system.

In Marx's discourse on the economic base and superstructure, a particular human society is always composed of two parts, one is called the economic base, and the other is called the superstructure. The economic base refers to the mode of production of a society, and the superstructure refers to other relations and ideas in the society that are not directly related to production, including culture, institutions, political power structures, social roles, rituals, religion, media, state, etc. The economic base does not determine the superstructure in one direction, and the superstructure can also affect the economic base, but the economic base dominates the society.

From Marx's point of view, we can draw at least three thoughts: the importance of new qualitative productive forces. Productive forces are the material foundation of a society and the driving force for development. The relations of production must conform to the productive forces, and the superstructure must conform to the economic base, otherwise there will be two situations in a society, either the development of the productive forces will be blocked, or there will be problems in the social order. The various institutional designs of a society are also part of the new quality of productivity, which either promotes the new quality of productivity or hinders it.

Either way, technology is at the heart of the new quality of productivity, and this applies equally well in both developed and developing countries. In modern times, modernization has often been defined in terms of technological development and industrial development based on technological development. Empirically, it is industrial upgrading based on technological progress that enables an economy to transition from low-level development to a middle-income country, and then from a middle-income country to a high-income country. This is true of Europe and the United States, which were the first to modernize, and later in Asia, Japan and the "Four Tigers", and most of the economies that have not succeeded in their transformation have stayed at the level of moderate economic development. For example, many economies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, although they all experienced good development in the early stages of modernization, have not been able to make the transition from middle-income to high-income economies because of the lack of sustained technological progress. Empirically, many developing countries have so far remained at the middle-income level, while some have even regressed and are in a state of low development.

Discuss the pitfalls that need to be avoided in the new qualitative productivity

Before discussing the question of where the new quality productivity comes from, it is necessary to clarify four common misunderstandings.

It is necessary to correctly understand industrial upgrading based on technological progress. As mentioned earlier, when most people talk about new quality productivity, they will point to the frontier industries that are happening, or the potential future industries, as well as disruptive industries. We don't think so, not all new industries are necessarily new quality productivity, and it is not that traditional industries have nothing to do with new quality productivity. How long will it take for disruptive technologies and disruptive industries to emerge? Historically, it took decades or even hundreds of years. More than 250 years have passed since the British Industrial Revolution took place, and mankind has just begun the fourth industrial revolution. Empirically, disruptive technologies and industries are hard to come by. Therefore, it is too ideal and too narrow to define new quality productivity as including only disruptive technologies and industries.

Looking back on the history of economic development, there are two main ways of industrial upgrading: transforming from traditional industries to industries that are considered advanced, for example, producing shoes and hats today and electronic products tomorrow; Upgrading in the same industry, that is, constantly increasing the added value of the same product, for example, the same piece of clothing can be sold for 500 yuan, 5,000 yuan, or even 50,000 yuan. There are profound lessons to be learned in this regard. In the past, we used to advocate "vacating the cage for birds", but the "birds" that were regarded as "backward industries" were driven away, and after the "cages" were vacated, we did not attract "birds" representing advanced industries, which had a huge negative impact on the local economy. This is also happening in many countries, where industries are being transferred to other countries on a large scale, leading to a situation of "deindustrialization".

It must be emphasized that in developing new quality productive forces, we should pay attention to three points: We must absolutely not ignore or abandon traditional industries, but should improve the technological content and added value of traditional industries. This is important to us, because traditional industries form the chassis basis of the entire national economy. Establish first and then break down, and develop new industries. In fact, it is not necessary to promote the transformation and upgrading of the industry through the power of administration, but to use the power of market competition to promote this process. The emergence of new industries will naturally exert competitive pressure on old industries. It is necessary to prevent new industries from rushing to the top and turning into bubbles. On the mainland, because the government has a lot of resources at its disposal, once the government determines which areas are new productive forces and which are not, the resources will be directed to those areas that are considered to be new productive forces, and investment in those areas that are not considered new productive forces will be greatly reduced or even eliminated. Therefore, it is very important for policymakers to have a scientific understanding of the new quality of productivity. In fact, whether it is a new industry or a traditional industry, anything that can increase the added value of a unit product can be defined as a new quality productivity, at least a new quality of productivity factors.

In this regard, the lessons of the Soviet Union must be learned. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an arms race, and the Soviet Union directed all its resources to the military industrial complex, resulting in the lack of development of the people's livelihood and economy, resulting in a situation that they did not want to see in the future. To this day, Russia has not solved the problems of people's livelihood and economy. Over the past few years, we have learned lessons ourselves. Because the United States is "stuck" in China's chips, everyone has come to invest, which has resulted in a lot of waste. While investment in new technologies is important, it must be based on a scientific and rational attitude. We must take the initiative to learn from the United States, but we must not be led by the nose by the United States.

New quality productivity cannot be "one size fits all". Because of the different industrial distribution, the new quality of productivity has different meanings for the coastal and inland areas, and the new quality of productivity is not the same thing and the same model in the coastal and inland areas, but should be adapted to local conditions and developed in a differentiated manner.

The new quality of productivity should not only refer to industry, but should encompass a wider range of fields, especially agriculture. Because technology tends to happen in the industrial sector, people tend to overlook the new qualitative productivity in agriculture. Agricultural products should also increase the unit added value. All advanced economies have found effective ways to modernize their agriculture, especially in East Asia, where Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have new components of productivity in their agriculture.

New qualitative productivity is not technological determinism. Although technology is at the heart of the new productive forces, it should not be confined to the field of science and technology, but should have a broader content, including institutional arrangements and business environment, because technological innovation takes place within specific institutional arrangements and business environment.

Innovation and new quality productivity

As a strategic concept of economic development, new quality productivity can be understood as all economic activities that can assist the country to promote industrial upgrading on the basis of technological upgrading. So, one of the core questions is how to develop new quality productivity?

Since industrialization, the development of the world economy has been a continuous process of innovation, which is known as the "innovation economy". Although innovation encompasses many aspects such as institutions and technologies, the core is technological innovation. The birth of a new technology not only gives birth to new industries, but also promotes institutional innovation in other aspects. The creation of new technologies is often devastating to existing societies. The new economic benefits generated by new technologies strike at the old economic vested interests, change the existing social structure, and force the existing institutional system to be reformed. For this reason, the economist Schumpeter called this process "creative destruction".

From an empirical point of view, according to the experience of world economic development in modern times and the actual situation of the continent, the realization of innovation requires three core production factors and one effective supporting environment.

In a nutshell, in order for a country to develop new productive forces, it must have three core factors of production. There must be a large number of universities and research institutions capable of conducting basic scientific research. There must be a large number of enterprises or institutions that have the ability to transform basic scientific research into applied technology. There must be an open financial system. Whether it is basic scientific research or the transformation of applied technology, a large amount of financial support is required. These three conditions must be coordinated with each other and are indispensable. Once any one condition is missing, it will not only be difficult for technological innovation to enter a virtuous circle and achieve continuous progress, but also make technological innovation come to an abrupt end at a certain node. It is precisely because of the close connection between these three that in the West, the process of technological innovation is called a continuous "game" between the "state, the market and finance". In other words, the state is responsible for basic research, the market is responsible for applied technology, and finance is responsible for the transformation of basic research into applied technology.

1 Effective support environment is a composite system. As far as China's current situation is concerned, we believe that there are three things that need to be done well.

Under the changes in the internal and external situation, expanding institutional and high-level opening-up is a strategic guarantee for the development of new quality productive forces. An effective way to expand institutional opening-up is to make precise unilateral opening-up. It is necessary to target the key areas and key targets of unilateral opening-up according to its own development needs. The key areas and priority areas of unilateral opening-up are talent, trade in services, digital, finance, and other areas that have an overall impact on the development of new productive forces. Precise unilateral opening-up should be gradual and gradual, from point to point, to promote institutional opening-up pilots, and when mature, revise laws and regulations at the national level and promote them in an all-round way. In the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the Yangtze River Delta and other regions with a good foundation for opening up, pilot talents, unilateral institutional opening-up in the digital field, and delegate a package of powers. In the Hainan Free Trade Port, we will accelerate the process of unilateral institutional opening up in the field of trade in services. Encourage and support the 21 pilot free trade zones across the country to carry out a reasonable division of labor, combined with their own industrial advantages and characteristics, and promote differentiated pilot projects of unilateral institutional opening-up. Special economic zones are encouraged to make use of the legislative power of special economic zones to accelerate the exploration of unilateral institutional opening-up. Evaluate and summarize the experience of each pilot project in a timely manner, start the process of amending laws and regulations at the national level when conditions are ripe, and use domestic legislation to establish a "freezing mechanism" and "ratchet mechanism" for unilateral institutional opening.

An internationalized, rule-of-law, and market-oriented business environment is the environmental guarantee for the development of new quality productive forces. From the perspective of international experience, in the current era of new science and technology innovation, private enterprises have become the main body of the development of new quality productivity. Taking the technological development of generative AI as an example, the high cost of large models is shifting the traditional innovation subject from universities and research institutes to large enterprises. Companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft are pouring billions of dollars into artificial intelligence, and even the richest universities in the United States face a huge resource gap. Therefore, the development of new productive forces in China should also encourage the vigorous participation of private enterprises and platform enterprises. In view of the large-scale rectification of the private economy in China in the past few years, how can we ensure that these private enterprises do not "lie flat" but muster up all their energy to compete with the United States to develop new quality productive forces? The key point is to establish an international, law-based and market-oriented business environment for private enterprises. The business environment covers the environmental elements of the whole life cycle of enterprises from "birth" to "death", mainly including market access, access to production factors, competition policy, property rights protection, tax level, market supervision, dispute resolution, infrastructure, legal environment and other elements. Particular attention should be paid to rights, space, and means -- to solve the three core issues of business environment that entrepreneurs are concerned about. As far as rights are concerned, the core of the rights of private entrepreneurs and enterprises lies in the safety of life and property, and the primitive accumulation of capital and the involvement of officials in the relationship between government and business affect the realization of these rights. In terms of space, in a regulated market economy, there are many restrictions on the space of enterprises, and the state restricts the participation of enterprises in some economic activities that are considered unacceptable. The space of Chinese enterprises has a special background, and it is necessary to solve the relationship between state-owned enterprises, state-owned capital, private enterprises and private capital. As far as the means are concerned, it mainly refers to finance, and it should be mainly through the reform of the financial system to "loosen the bonds" for enterprises.

An open international talent system is the talent guarantee for the development of new quality productivity. The core of great power competition is talent competition, and building an open talent system is the key to winning talent competition. Through the analysis of the portraits of Nobel Prize winners in science, it is found that nearly one-third of the Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine are immigrants, and the proportion of Nobel Prize winners in economics is also more than 30%. The role of an open talent system in the development of science and technology can be seen. The open talent immigration systems of the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan are worth learning from the mainland. From a practical point of view, compared with the United States and other developed countries, the mainland has not yet established a systematic immigration system, and the current foreign talent policy still has the problems of fragmentation, high cost, and inconvenience, and is at a competitive disadvantage in attracting international talents, especially overseas high-tech talents. It is proposed to pilot the "Bay Area Skilled Migration Scheme" to attract the world's top scientific and technological talents in the nine mainland cities of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, so as to explore a talent path for the development of new quality productivity for the Greater Bay Area. The Outline Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, issued in 2019, clearly states that "we will take the lead in technical immigration and other aspects, and carry out a pilot project for foreign innovative talents to establish technology-based enterprises to enjoy national treatment", but there is little progress so far. The "Bay Area Skilled Immigration Program" is aimed at top talents in the field of high-tech and explores long-term residence visas similar to those of skilled immigrants. The nine mainland cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area should also strengthen synergy with Hong Kong and Macao in the development of talents, and actively promote flexible talent attraction methods such as "living in Hong Kong and Macao, working in the mainland", "being employed in Hong Kong and Macao, and developing their intelligence in the Greater Bay Area".

(Author: Zheng Yongnian, Qianhai Institute of International Affairs, University of Hong Kong, Chinese, Shenzhen.) Contributed by Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences)