In the first half of this year, the topic of new quality productivity undoubtedly received the highest attention and discussion from all walks of life. At this year's National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, new quality productivity was included for the first time in the government work report and ranked first among the top ten work tasks for 2024. After the proposal of new quality productivity, a wave of enthusiasm for developing new quality productivity surged across the country. Caijing noticed that since the beginning of this year, various levels and regions across the country have proposed to accelerate the development of new quality productive forces and launched a series of measures. For example, the eastern province of Zhejiang Province has proposed to vigorously develop new quality productive forces; One Chain, One Strategy; Promote the improvement and expansion of emerging industries, and plan ahead for a number of future industries. The western province of Qinghai has proposed to inject new momentum into the high-quality development of Qinghai through the use of new quality productive forces; Four regions; It is an important battlefield for cultivating and developing new quality productive forces in Qinghai. Currently, new quality productivity has become a key focus for various regions to embrace. In the future, how should each region develop according to local conditions and avoid the challenges pointed out by General Secretary Xi Jinping; We should not rush forward and make foam, nor should we adopt a model;, Each region and department cannot rely solely on enthusiasm and rushing forward, but must base themselves on their own reality and adhere to the principle of '; One key opens one lock;, Ensure the orderly promotion of the development of new quality productive forces and achieve practical results. How to reasonably layout industries has become a focus of attention from all walks of life. At the same time, developing strategic emerging industries is a specific measure to form new quality productivity. What about traditional industries? What is the relationship between new quality productivity and traditional industries? These issues have also attracted attention and discussion within the industry. In addition, new productive forces require the construction of new production relations that are compatible with them. What are the bottlenecks and blockages in the current system and mechanism? What are the key points for further deepening reform? Recently, the“ Dialogue between New Quality Productivity and Digital Economy Development; On the forum, Caijing interviewed Wang Yiming, Vice Chairman of the China International Economic Exchange Center. Creating a good ecological environment by the government is more important than directly allocating resources Finance and Economics: Since the beginning of this year, various regions across the country at the provincial, municipal, and county levels have proposed the development of new quality productive forces and planned and laid out related industries. What suggestions do you have for the development of new quality productivity and industrial policies in various regions? What role should the government play in developing new quality productive forces? Wang Yiming: From this year's government work reports, it can be seen that almost all provinces have proposed the development of new quality productive forces, but there are also clusters of artificial intelligence, new materials, high-end equipment, biomanufacturing, low altitude economy, new energy storage, etc; Popular fields; The phenomenon of industry. There are significant differences in factor endowments, economic foundations, and other conditions among different regions, and not all places are suitable for developing these emerging or future industries. In the past few years, various regions have accelerated the layout of emerging industries, but some places are already relatively backward, with limited financial resources, and they have not considered the cost to forcefully layout industries that do not have the conditions for development. As a result, the industries have not developed, resulting in the loss of government funds and the waste of a large amount of resources. Although various sectors are emphasizing the need to prevent a rush to develop new quality productive forces, there are still signs of a rush in some regions at present.Local governments in China possess strong capabilities in resource allocation, which also leads to a situation where a significant influx of resources towards a particular sector is observed whenever the government decides to develop it. Once the government identifies certain areas as new qualitative productive forces, it often directly allocates resources to these fields, which can easily result in a "rush in" and redundant construction. This is essentially using administrative means to drive resource allocation, rather than the forces of the market. The use of administrative methods to promote industrial layout can easily lead to issues such as redundant construction and homogenized development. Therefore, in developing new qualitative productive forces, it is essential to properly manage the relationship between an active government and an effective market.

Unlike traditional industries, emerging and future industries have high technological content, rapid technological iteration, and substantial capital investment. Investing incorrectly or having redundant construction in these areas can lead to greater waste of resources. The chip industry has previously experienced such a situation, where some regions, lacking the conditions for developing the chip industry, blindly pursued it, resulting in billions of yuan of investment and, ultimately, unfinished projects. In the new round of development of new qualitative productive forces, these situations must be avoided.

Advertisement

So, what role should the government play in the development of new qualitative productive forces? I believe that fostering and creating a favorable innovation ecosystem and business environment is more important than directly allocating resources. Resources can flow, and with a good ecological environment, innovative resources will continuously converge.

To create a favorable innovation ecosystem and business environment, it is necessary to establish a fair market order, strengthen the protection of property rights and intellectual property rights, create a good innovative financial form such as venture capital and venture investment, and enhance human capital investment and the construction of the education system, gradually forming high-quality educational resources and an ample supply of talent. Once the ecological environment improves, high-tech enterprises and capital will naturally come, and the government will no longer need to rack its brains to attract investment.

Traditional industries can also "rejuvenate" and exhibit new qualitative productive forces.

"Finance and Economics": When new qualitative productive forces were proposed, it was emphasized that "developing new qualitative productive forces does not mean neglecting or abandoning traditional industries." However, in practice, some opinions believe that developing new qualitative productive forces is about developing high-tech industries. What is your view on the relationship between new qualitative productive forces and traditional industries? Can traditional industries develop new qualitative productive forces?

Wang Yiming: Traditional industries in China account for 80% of the value added of large-scale industrial enterprises, have a large scale, a complete system, and strong comprehensive supporting capabilities. They play a "basic plate" supporting role in the national economic system and have an irreplaceable role in absorbing employment and social stability. Abandoning traditional industries is equivalent to losing the "basic plate." Therefore, the idea that developing new qualitative productive forces is about developing emerging and future industries is definitely wrong.

So, what is the relationship between new qualitative productive forces and traditional industries? I believe it is the transformation and upgrading of traditional industries through cutting-edge scientific and technological means that revitalizes new qualitative productive forces. The basic method is to reshape traditional industries through digitalization, intelligentization, and green technology, empowering traditional industries in various aspects such as research and development, design, industrial production, marketing networks, and logistics distribution, forming new manufacturing models and industrial ecosystems, and thus revitalizing new qualitative productive forces.

A typical example is the automotive manufacturing industry, which is a typical traditional industry. However, domestic new energy vehicles have caught up and formed strong market competitiveness in areas such as batteries and electric control, even reaching an internationally leading level. Another typical example is the shipbuilding industry. In recent years, China's shipbuilding industry has rapidly risen, not only leading the world in ship completion, new orders, and order backlogs but also significantly improving its R&D capabilities and technological level, achieving a leap in international competitiveness. This is closely related to the digital transformation and intelligent upgrading of the shipbuilding industry.

In recent years, the deep integration of digital intelligent technology with traditional industries, "5G+Industrial Internet," has given birth to new application scenarios for intelligent manufacturing, promoting the accelerated development of smart factories, workshops, products, and equipment. All of the above examples demonstrate that traditional industries can also exhibit new qualitative productive forces.The digital economy is the main battlefield for developing new quality productivity Firstly, the digital economy has brought about revolutionary technological breakthroughs. The current new technological revolution presents a development trend of cross integration and multi-point breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and life sciences, injecting strong momentum into the development of new quality productivity. The digital economy with artificial intelligence as its core is the most active, dynamic, and cutting-edge field of the new technological revolution, which is giving birth to new industries, models, and formats, and is the main driving force for the development of new quality productivity. Secondly, the digital economy promotes innovative allocation of production factors. Currently, data has become a key new factor of production. We say that big data, big computing power, and big models are the new driving forces after the heat of the first industrial revolution and the electricity of the second industrial revolution. Algorithms and large-scale models are becoming new paths for technological progress, while data as a new factor of production is changing the traditional way of factor allocation and can significantly improve the efficiency of factor allocation. A sign of new quality productivity is a significant increase in total factor productivity. By involving data in factor allocation and changing the way factors are allocated, total factor productivity will be greatly improved. The digital economy promotes the deep transformation and upgrading of industries. Digital technology has greatly increased the added value of industries through digital transformation and intelligent transformation. Currently, the connotation of industrial structure adjustment has undergone profound changes. Previously, when we talked about industrial structure, we often referred to it as'... '; 321”& ldquo;231” This adjustment of the proportion relationship between industries. Under the conditions of the digital economy, the boundaries between industries are becoming increasingly blurred, and the deep transformation and upgrading of industries are more manifested in the increase of the proportion of high value-added links, as well as the redefinition of the industrial track and industrial ecology. Finally, how can we promote the development of new quality productivity empowered by the digital economy? The most crucial thing at present is to accelerate the innovation capability of digital technology and achieve high-level self-reliance and self-improvement. Accelerating breakthroughs in key technologies such as computing, industrial big data, and artificial intelligence, continuously promoting iterative and innovative applications in high-end chips, intelligent sensing, and software fields, and consolidating the technological foundation for the development of the digital economy, are the most prominent issues currently facing us. In the past, we were; Follow style” We must now shift our focus to the innovative mode of innovation; Leading style; The innovative model. We need to shift from the integration innovation of terminal products in the past to the innovation of intermediate platforms that carry key technologies, that is, original innovation, including key components, electronic parts, basic materials, high-end chips, and basic software. These are the key points we need to break through in the next step. To break through the bottlenecks that hinder the development of new quality productive forces through comprehensive reformWang Yiming: New productive forces require the construction of new types of production relations that are compatible with them, necessitating the transformation of traditional institutional mechanisms to adapt to the new productive forces. At present, there are still many bottlenecks and blockages in the institutional mechanisms, which require significant efforts for reform.

Firstly, in terms of the economic system, the market-oriented reform of data elements is a key area that needs reform. As I have mentioned earlier, the digital economy is the main battlefield for developing new quality productive forces, and data is the core element and foundation of the digital economy. However, the institutional mechanisms for the market allocation of data elements in China have not yet been effectively established, and issues such as data property rights, circulation and transaction, revenue distribution, and security governance have not been completely resolved. Without clear property rights definition, it is difficult for data to circulate and distribute benefits. Artificial intelligence models require large-scale data for training, and an imperfect data element market will hinder its development.

In recent years, although some domestic data exchanges have been established, their development has not been good, with very little transaction volume. The fundamental reason behind this is the lack of basic institutional establishment. If the market-oriented reform of data does not proceed, it will become a prominent bottleneck restricting the development of new quality productive forces in the future.

The second area that needs reform is the scientific and technological system. Technological innovation is the core element and key support for developing new quality productive forces. Currently, the incentive mechanisms for technological innovation are not yet perfect, especially the reform of the property rights system for scientific and technological achievements needs to be accelerated, which is also the core of the reform of the scientific and technological system.

For example, the vast majority of researchers work in state-owned institutions. It was previously believed that the equipment, funds, and laboratories used by researchers for scientific research were state-owned assets, and therefore the property rights to scientific and technological achievements should belong to the units. The current reform involves joint ownership of the property rights to scientific and technological achievements by both units and individuals. Why should individuals also have property rights? Because researchers are the dominant productive factors in technological innovation. Compared to experimental equipment and funds, the ideas of researchers are more critical and should also receive a larger share of the benefits.

There are already many places exploring a system where individuals own 70% and units own 30% of the ownership rights to scientific and technological achievements. They have found that after such reforms, the unit's revenue has actually increased because the enthusiasm of the researchers has been fully mobilized. Without a property rights incentive system, researchers might be more concerned with publishing papers and evaluating titles. With property rights, it will motivate researchers to transform scientific and technological achievements into production, as only through production can there be revenue.

The third area that needs to be reformed is the talent system. The key to developing new quality productive forces relies on talent, especially top scientific and technological talents. We need to establish a more open talent system to attract the world's top talents, promote the development of high-tech industries such as artificial intelligence and future industries, so as to gain a competitive edge in the global technological competition.

The fourth area that needs to be reformed is the financial system. For a long time, China's financial market has been dominated by the indirect financing model represented by the banking system, and the direct financing market is not well developed. Banks pursue the safety, stability, low risk, and short-term capital returns of funds, while innovation is high-risk and long-cycle. Technological innovation, from concept, research and development, to pilot testing, products, and then to large-scale production, goes through a very long cycle, which requires the accompaniment of patient capital and long-term capital.

The banking system often pursues large projects and large enterprises because the costs are low and the risks are also low. However, the scientific and technological innovation system does not need large amounts of money; it needs continuous and stable small amounts of money. The banking system's loans require collateral, but scientific and technological innovation enterprises have light assets and no collateral. Therefore, the current financial system does not match the financial system needed by new quality productive forces and needs to be adjusted and reformed.

We should vigorously develop a multi-level capital market, encourage the development of venture capital, equity investment, and angel investment funds, meet the capital needs of technology enterprises at different stages of life, and support patient capital, long-term capital, and strategic capital to invest more in technological innovation. At the same time, explore new models of credit financing to support technological innovation, expand the space for banks to directly participate in equity investment to support technological innovation, and promote the release of the banking system's ability to support technological innovation.It seems like you've accidentally included some non-text characters or formatting in your request. If you're looking to translate a specific text into English, please provide the text you'd like translated, and I'll be happy to assist you.