|
By Louis Mark
On October 14, 2015, Matt Ferchen, Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University, joined us for a talk about his professional life and work in America and China. As a current resident scholar at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Institute for Global Policy and a fellow Johns Hopkins University SAIS alumnus, Dr. Ferchen gave us invaluable perspective on the relative impacts policy think tanks have on decision-making, while shedding light on his own research and personal experiences in Washington, D.C. and Beijing. Dr. Ferchen’s first experiences with research institutes began in D.C. At the National Security Archive under the auspices of George Washington University, he interned for the institute’s Cuba Documentation Project. The project harnessed the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to primary US documents in order to rewrite historical foreign policy. His project came at a favorable time, coinciding with the recent end of the Cold War and the Clinton administration’ goals to expand channels with Cuba. His second internship at the Overseas Cooperative Development Council (OCDC) exposed him to congressional outreach on US relations with the developing world. There the council’s primary goals concerned income development, food security, and democracy building. |
毛克疾 供稿
2015年10月14日，清华大学国际关系学系副教授陈懋修（Matt Ferchen）来到清华–霍普金斯项目课堂，介绍他在中美两国的从业经历和智库职业生涯。作为清华–卡内基中心驻会研究员和约翰霍普金斯大学校友，陈懋修结合了他自己在北京和华盛顿的研究经历和个人经验，详述了政策智库在决策中的影响力，以及他对此的深刻洞见。 陈懋修的研究经历始于乔治华盛顿大学的国家安全档案馆。他在那里从事了该档案馆的古巴文献计划。这个计划利用美国《信息自由法案》获取美国的国家一手资料，并以此重新审视历史上的外交政策。放在当时的语境下看，他参与的这项计划处于一个非常有利的时期，因为冷战业已结束，而且美国在克林顿政府治下也着力改善与古巴的关系。陈懋修的第二份实习——海外合作发展委员会(OCDC)——使他有机会参与和见证美国和世界其他发展中国家的交往。他所在的海外合作发展委员会致力于收入提升、粮食安全和促进民主。
|
|
These initial experiences in the milieu of the DC bubble gave Dr. Ferchen keen perspective upon his arrival and continued research in Beijing. He reflected on established policy think tank culture in the US and further compared that to the drastic change China underwent since he set foot in the country. He points to the 2009 Global Think Tank Summit established by the NDRC and China Center of International Economic Exchanges (CCIEE) as representative of Chinese think tank fervor. Think tanks are increasingly becoming the main vehicles for consulting, avenues for discussion among experts, and spaces for the conferences/projects. At the Summit, he witnessed not only the most prominent international think tank invitees, but a special attentiveness to collaborative efforts in understanding how think tanks operate, what kind of research should be focused on, and how China can create high-ranking think tanks on an international scale. The 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report released by the University of Pennsylvania reports that out of a total of 6,618 think tanks in the world, 1,989 of them, or 30.05%, are American. The Chinese proportion certainly increased since Dr. Ferchen arrival. Given his comments on the think tank craze of the last 15 years, it is no surprise that China ranks second behind the US in sheer number of institutions.[i]
While American think tanks can be characterized as varied in that they tend to focus on one topic, can be bipartisan (align with a particular political party), can be independent, and do not necessarily concentrate on international relations, China’s think tank development remains open-ended. In the space of Dr. Ferchen’s own professional career, he has seen a number of unprecedented, hybrid collaborations with American and Chinese think tanks, including Brookings-Tsinghua in 2006 and Carnegie-Tsinghua in 2010. As part of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center, he researches China and Latin America relations with regards to commodity relations in oil and raw materials. He analyses the political risk and management in relation to China’s international economic initiatives and domestic political economy. His research unearths pressing questions concerning loan-for-oil contracts and the consequences of Chinese investment in unstable regions of South America. In conducting this research during what may be a Chinese policy think tank revolution, Dr. Ferchen challenges us to think critically of how his research and research in general impacts decision-making for a nation. To what extent are think tanks independent from domestic politics and how is their research output being used? Policy think tanks are on the rise in China, and Dr. Ferchen leaves us with several poignant questions we invite you to help answer: |
在华盛顿的这些经历使陈懋修具备了敏锐的洞察力，这一点对他在北京开展进一步研究时发挥了重要作用。陈懋修详述了美国智库文化，并与近年来经历了巨大变革的中国智库进行了对比。他指出，2009年由国家发改委和中国国际经济交流中心创办的的“全球智库峰会”就是这股智库热潮的一个缩影。中国的智库正在变为政策咨询的主体、专家讨论的平台和会议/项目交流的空间，这无疑是中国政府正在加以利用的方向。在一些会议上，陈懋修不仅见到一些世界著名的智库前来参会，还领会了中国智库在经营运转、目标选择和能力建设等方面体现出的独特魅力。宾夕法尼亚大学颁布的“全球智库指数报告”统计出世界上有6618家智库，美国一国就有1989家，占总数的30.05%。从陈懋修移居北京算起，中国智库所占比例上升明显——经过15年的快速发展，依据智库数量计算，中国现在已经成为仅次于美国的世界智库第二大国。
美国智库具有多样化的特点，他们往往具有倾向性并具有某种主题，比如智库可以是两党性的（和某个政党关联），可以是独立性的，也可以不关注国际关系问题。在这种情况下，中国智库的未来发展也可能会有这种多元化的发展倾向。在陈懋修自己的研究生涯中，他见证了许多史无前例的跨国智库合作，比如2006年成立的清华-布鲁金斯中心和2010年成立的清华-卡内基中心。作为清华-卡内基中心的一份子，陈懋修重点研究中国和拉丁美洲国家的关系，尤其是基于石油和原材料的货物贸易关系。他结合中国的国际经济交往实践和国内政治经济情况，分析此中的政治风险管控问题。他的研究使得中国“石油贷款”合同、对“不稳定”地区投资等一系列紧迫问题得到应有重视。 总而言之，在中国目前经历的“智库大跃进”时代，陈懋修使我们对智库研究产生了深思，思考研究如何才能影响一国决策。智库从何种程度上说是“独立”于国内政治？如何使研究成果发挥功效？随着中国智库进行多样化的发展，智库行业整体处于上升形态。有鉴于此，陈懋修也留下了几个意味深长的问题，供读者思考: 1.是智库影响决策者还是决策者影响智库？这种影响是怎样发生的？ 2. 谁应该成为智库的金主？为什么？ 3. 学术研究、政策研究和商业研究之间有怎样的关联？ 4. 国际智库的中国分部能够对中国政策产生影响，这意味着什么？ |
1 Comment