Chinese-Path Modernization Provides Experience and Insights for Global South Development

Chinese-path modernization is a major force driving China’s third academic transformation. It means that researchers in the New Era must transcend the “center-periphery” dependency in the traditional global knowledge landscape, observe China’s dynamic development practices with a new subjective consciousness and problem awareness, and actively participate in setting international academic agendas and engaging in dialogue on new academic theories. Specifically in the field of development studies, Chinese-path modernization offers useful insights for resolving three classic dilemmas in global development theory. These three dilemmas are: first, how to seek a balance between a country’s independent development and its integration into the international community; second, how to handle the relationship among government, market, and society within a country, so as to form synergy while maintaining mutual tension; third, how to break out of the dilemma of both “going global” to participate in development cooperation and transcending colonial and hegemonic paradigms to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial development community.

中国式现代化是推动中国第三次学术转型的重要力量。它意味着新时代研究者们需要超越传统全球知识版图中“中心-边缘”的依附状态，以全新的主体自觉和问题意识关照中国发展的生动实践，并积极主动地参与国际学术议程的设定和新型学术理论的对话。具体到发展研究领域，中国式现代化为破解全球发展理论中的三重经典困境提供有益启示。这三重困境分别是：第一，如何在一国独立发展与融入国际社会之间寻求平衡；第二，如何处理一国内部政府、市场与社会的关系，既形成合力又保持彼此张力；第三，如何破解既要“走出去”参与发展合作，又超越殖民范式和霸权范式，建立一种更为平等互利的发展共同体的困境。

The three classic dilemmas mentioned above are scenarios frequently encountered by late-developing countries when, facing an international order marked by structural inequality and uneven distribution of benefits, they seek their own development and provide public goods to the world. As the world’s largest developing country, China’s explored plans and pathways “have expanded the pathways for developing countries to achieve modernization, offering a new choice for those countries and nations that wish to accelerate development while maintaining their independence.” This helps global development scholars continuously broaden the knowledge boundaries and intellectual map of human understanding, advancement, and measurement of development, innovate existing development knowledge systems, and promote practical innovation and theoretical exploration of the Global Development Initiative.

上述三重经典困境是后发国家面对结构不平等、利益分配不均的国际秩序时，谋求自身发展并为全球提供公共产品时经常遭遇的场景。作为世界上最大的发展中国家，中国探索的方案与路径“拓展了发展中国家走向现代化的途径，给世界上那些既希望加快发展又希望保持自身独立性的国家和民族提供了全新选择”，有助于全球发展学者不断拓宽人类理解、推进和衡量发展的知识边界和思想版图，创新既有发展知识体系，推动全球发展倡议的实践创新和理论探索。

Integrating into the International Order While Adhering to Independent and Self-Reliant Development

融入国际秩序并坚持独立自主发展

For the vast majority of developing countries, the international order formed after World War II manifests in the economic sphere as imbalances in technology, talent, and markets, and in the political sphere as imbalances in military, organizational, and discursive power. This imbalanced international order often makes developing countries prone to falling into “structural lock-in,” forming path dependence in a peripheral position. Consequently, they either adopt isolationism or integrate into the international system at the cost of sacrificing sovereignty, constituting a classic binary dilemma in development studies. Dependency theory and structuralism, originating in Latin America, are theoretical responses to this dilemma, while the “import substitution” policies widely implemented in developing countries during the 1960s were practical attempts. Since the end of the 20th century, discussions on the aid trap and global value chains (GVCs) have further reflected developing countries’ deep reflection on this dilemma. Guided by this thinking, many poor countries hold a skeptical attitude toward the international order system, adhere to conservative concepts of international cooperation, and even adopt a cautious mentality toward investment, trade, and aid from emerging countries, including China, making them prone to missing development opportunities.

对于广大发展中国家而言，二战后形成的国际秩序在经济领域表现为技术、人才、市场等多方面的不平衡，在政治领域则体现为军事、组织与话语力量的不均衡。这种不平衡的国际秩序往往使发展中国家容易陷入“结构封锁”，形成边缘位置的路径依赖，因而他们要么推行孤立主义，要么以牺牲主权为代价融入国际体系，这构成了发展研究中的经典二元困境。源起于拉丁美洲的依附理论和结构主义正是对这一困境的理论回应，而20世纪60年代在发展中国家广泛推行的“进口替代”政策则是实践层面的尝试。自20世纪末以来，有关援助陷阱和全球价值链（GVC）的相关论述则进一步反映出发展中国家对这一困境的深刻反思。在此思想的指引下，许多贫困国家对国际秩序体系持怀疑态度，秉持保守的国际合作理念，甚至对包括中国在内的新兴国家的投资、贸易和援助也持谨慎心理，导致其易失去发展机遇。

The process of Chinese-path modernization shows that the opposition between integrating into the international system and losing development sovereignty can be transcended. As long as they firmly advance sustained and deepening reform and opening up, focus on designing and utilizing effective institutional and policy tools, and adhere to the concept of “selective learning,” developing countries can, while actively integrating into the international community, combine their own national conditions, absorb elements suited to themselves, and continuously accumulate their own development resources and momentum through the international practice of two-way socialization, transforming from a fragile dependent type to an independent development type.

中国式现代化的进程表明，融入国际体系与丧失发展主权之间的对立是可以被超越的。只要坚定推进持续深入的改革开放，注重设计和利用有效的制度和政策工具，秉持“选择性学习”理念，发展中国家便可在积极融入国际社会的同时，结合自身国情，汲取与自身相适应的因素，在双向社会化的国际实践中不断积累自身的发展资源和发展动力，从脆弱依附型向独立发展型转变。

Looking back at the course of China’s modernization, enhancing its own capacity to effectively transform international experience has always been the core essence of reform and opening up. The core elements of this capacity include pragmatic, gradual learning and mastering the leading power over one’s own development process; the former is the method of integrating into the international system, and the latter is the value upheld during integration. In the 1980s, Comrade Deng Xiaoping, when meeting with the President of the World Bank, stated, “China is determined to achieve modernization and develop its economy. With the help of the international community, China will achieve these goals faster and more efficiently; without it, we will still do it.” In actual cooperation, China fully utilized the strategic opportunities brought by economic globalization, expanding opening up from rural to urban areas, from the east to the central and western regions, and from technology to management. At the same time, it always insisted on basing the foothold of development domestically, grasping the initiative in the development process. Through mechanisms such as incorporating the focus of international cooperation into the national Five-Year Plan, closely aligning the priority of cooperation with national development strategic deployments, and integrating the incentives for implementing entities into the government administrative system, China autonomously guided the localization of international resources, achieving “use for my own purposes.”

回顾中国现代化的发展历程，增强自身有效转化国际经验的能力一直是改革开放的核心要义。这一能力的核心要素包括务实的渐进式学习和掌握自身发展进程的主导权，前者是融入国际体系的方式，后者则是融入过程中所坚持的价值。20世纪80年代，邓小平同志在会见世界银行行长时表示，“中国下决心要实现现代化、发展经济，有国际社会的帮助，中国实现这些目标会更快、更有效率；没有，我们也照样要做”。在实际合作中，我国充分利用经济全球化带来的战略机遇，从农村到城市、从东部到中西部、从技术到管理，不断扩大对外开放，同时始终坚持把发展立足点放在国内，把握发展进程的主动权，通过将国际合作重点纳入国家五年发展规划，将合作优先顺序与国家发展战略部署紧密结合，以及将执行主体激励纳入政府行政体系等机制，自主地引导国际资源本土化转变，实现“为我所用”。

After entering the new stage of development, China has focused on building a new development paradigm, promoting the construction of a unified national market, establishing a new system for a higher-standard open economy, facilitating better linkages between the domestic and international markets, and fully utilizing both domestic and international markets and resources. At the same time, China actively participates in global economic governance, enhancing its ability to allocate resources globally and its capacity to benefit from value chains, striving for strategic initiative in open development, thereby avoiding the trap of aid dependency and foreign direct investment dependency.

进入新发展阶段后，中国着力构建新发展格局，推动全国统一大市场建设，建设更高水平开放型经济新体制，促进国内市场和国际市场更好联通，充分利用国内国际两个市场、两种资源。同时，中国积极参与全球经济治理，提升在世界范围内配置资源的能力和价值链中的受益能力，争取开放发展中的战略主动，从而避免陷入援助依赖和外商直接投资依附的困境。

Many developing countries often fall into a dilemma in choosing between effective integration into the international order and maintaining independent and self-reliant development. Taking African countries as an example, in the nearly 70 years of development since independence, the choice and practice of their development strategies have always been constrained by multiple domestic and international factors. From the 1960s to the 1970s, over 30 countries on the African continent were in the early stages of pursuing independent development and attempted to directly copy mainstream Western development economics theories and industrialization strategies to achieve nation-building goals. However, these strategies relied too heavily on the “trickle-down effect,” often neglecting fundamental issues such as improving the welfare of the poor and the integrated development of industries like industry and agriculture. From the 1970s to the 1980s, the deterioration of the international economic environment plunged African countries further into severe economic crises and inflation. To escape the crisis, in 1980, the Organization of African Unity launched the Lagos Plan of Action, emphasizing self-reliance, autonomous development, and economic cooperation, pointing out that reducing external dependence was key for African countries to escape economic difficulties. Although the plan focused on areas such as human resource development, agricultural self-sufficiency, scientific and technological self-reliance, and local industrial development, reflecting the collective wisdom and common vision of African countries’ economic development strategies, it was difficult to implement effectively due to enormous financial pressure. Therefore, to obtain external financial aid and loan support, African countries had to accept the Structural Adjustment Programs proposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and carry out economic construction according to international rules, standards, and plans dominated by developed countries. This led most African countries to implement reforms such as privatization of state-owned enterprises, economic marketization, and trade liberalization, relax government controls, oppose various forms of government intervention, and carry out structural adjustments in fiscal, financial, agricultural, industrial, and foreign trade areas.

许多发展中国家在有效融入国际秩序与保持独立自主发展之间往往陷入选择困境。以非洲国家为例，自独立以来近70年的发展历程中，其发展战略的选择与实践始终受到国内外多种因素制约。20世纪60年代至70年代，非洲大陆有超过30个国家处于追求独立发展的探索初期，曾试图直接复制西方主流发展经济学理论和工业化战略，以实现国家建设目标。然而这些战略过于依赖“涓滴效应”，往往忽视了贫困人口的福利改善和工农业等产业之间的融合发展等根本性问题。20世纪70年代至80年代，国际经济环境恶化，使非洲国家进一步陷入严重的经济危机和通货膨胀。为摆脱危机，1980年，非洲统一组织推出《拉各斯行动计划》，强调自力更生、自主发展与经济合作，指出减少对外部的依赖是非洲国家走出经济困境的关键。尽管该计划重点关注人力资源开发、农业自给自足、科技自立以及本土工业发展等领域，体现了非洲国家经济发展战略的集体智慧和共同愿景，但由于巨大的资金压力，该计划难以有效落地。因此，为获取外部资金援助和贷款支持，非洲国家不得不接受世界银行和国际货币基金组织提出的《结构调整方案》，并按照发达国家主导的国际规则、标准和方案进行经济建设。这导致大多数非洲国家推行国有企业私有化、经济市场化和贸易自由化改革，放松政府管制，反对各种形式的政府干预，并在财政、金融、农业、工业和外贸等方面进行了结构调整。

However, the actual results of implementing structural adjustment programs were far from satisfactory. The African economy did not undergo fundamental improvement; on the contrary, it experienced the most widespread and severe economic crisis since independence. This is manifested in the following aspects: First, after being drawn into the wave of capitalist globalization, constrained by the influence of the international economic environment, Africa’s traditional agriculture and national industries lost their comparative advantage and competitiveness. For example, Nigeria’s economic growth had been highly dependent on the world oil market since the 1960s, and it pursued a development strategy of deindustrialization and de-agriculturalization. As the oil industry entered a downturn from the 1980s to the 1990s, the country’s economic growth began to slow, even turning negative, with a typical “Dutch disease” phenomenon becoming prominent. Second, after the implementation of structural adjustment, the debt of African countries increased rather than decreased. According to statistics from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the debt of the African continent surged from US$126.92 billion in 1980 to US$271.9 billion in 1990. Third, with the advancement of structural adjustment, the fiscal budgets of African countries became increasingly dependent on international aid. Relevant statistics show that in the 1960s, Africa received an average of US$3 billion in external aid annually, while by the early 1990s, this figure had climbed to US$18 billion. Africa’s population accounts for only 13% of the world’s population, yet in 1993, Africa accounted for 45% of the aid provided by international financial institutions and the United Nations, and 64% of the aid provided by the European Union. Finally, structural adjustment also triggered numerous social instability factors. The government’s anti-poverty function was weakened, even sparking social and political crises such as “urban riots.” According to statistics, due to the implementation of privatization reforms, the unemployment rate in African countries rose by 15%, further exacerbating social unrest and poverty in these countries.

然而，结构调整方案实施的实际效果并不理想，非洲经济并未得到根本性改善，反而遭遇了独立以来最为广泛和严重的经济危机。具体表现在以下几个方面：首先，在卷入资本主义全球化浪潮后，受制于国际经济环境的影响，非洲的传统农业和民族工业丧失了比较优势和竞争力。如尼日利亚的经济增长自20世纪60年代以来就高度依赖世界石油市场，推行了去工业化和去农业化的发展战略。随着20世纪80年代至90年代石油产业进入萧条期，该国经济增长开始放缓，甚至出现负增长，典型的“荷兰病”现象凸显。其次，结构调整实施后，非洲国家的债务不减反增。据联合国非洲经济委员会统计，非洲大陆的债务从1980年的1269.2亿美元激增至1990年的2719亿美元。再次，随着结构调整的推进，非洲国家的财政预算愈发依赖国际援助。相关统计显示，20世纪60年代，非洲接受外部援助年均30亿美元，而到20世纪90年代初，该数据已攀升至180亿美元。非洲人口仅占世界人口的13%，但在1993年国际金融机构和联合国提供的援助中，非洲占比达45%；在欧洲联盟提供的援助中，非洲占比达64%。最后，结构调整还引发了诸多社会不稳定因素。政府的反贫困职能被削弱，甚至引发了“城市暴动”等社会政治危机。据统计，因推行私有化改革，非洲国家的失业率上升了15%，进一步加剧了非洲国家的社会动荡和贫困。

Under the influence of the “decoupling” strategy, some developing countries chose an isolationist development path, easily falling into the predicament of “deglobalization.” Unlike Western modernization theories, dependency theory is primarily based on the development experience of the Third World, especially Latin America. This theory holds that the root cause of the economic backwardness of the Third World lies in the unequal political and economic structure of the world and the external environment. It advocates breaking away from the binary “center-periphery” structure and calls for “decoupling” to escape the hegemonic control of developed countries in the current world system, resisting the unjust international order, in order to achieve national independence, self-reliance, and innovative development. At the practical level, many developing countries gradually explored and implemented “import substitution” policies, aiming to replace the import of manufactured goods with domestically produced industrial products to achieve economic autonomy.

部分发展中国家在“脱钩”战略的影响下，选择孤立主义的发展道路，容易陷入“逆全球化”的困境。与西方现代化理论不同，依附理论主要基于第三世界尤其是拉丁美洲的发展经验提出。该理论认为，第三世界经济落后的根源在于不平等的世界政治经济结构和外部环境，主张摆脱“中心-边缘”的二元结构，并倡导通过“脱钩”摆脱发达国家在现行世界体系中的霸权控制，反抗不公正的国际秩序，以实现民族独立、自力更生和创新发展。在实践层面，许多发展中国家逐步探索实施“进口替代”政策，旨在通过本国工业产品替代制成品的进口，实现经济自主。

In the early stages of development, this strategic model, by means such as restricting imports and raising tariffs, enabled some developing countries to reduce their external dependence and achieve preliminary industrialization. However, with the extreme implementation of the “decoupling” policy, some developing countries believed that only by severing ties and completely breaking away from the world market dominated by developed countries could they achieve autonomous economic development. This view runs counter to the historical trend of economic globalization and simultaneously overlooks the drawbacks of the “import substitution” model, such as low efficiency, lack of international competitiveness, and the propensity to trigger geopolitical crises, thus questioning its sustainability. For instance, from the 1950s to the 1980s, Mexico adopted the strategy of import-substitution industrialization, transforming from an agricultural country into a newly industrialized country with a relatively complete industrial system, a phenomenon known as the “Mexican Miracle.” However, as import-substitution industrialization deepened, its drawbacks gradually emerged: Mexico’s foreign trade and balance of payments fell into massive deficits; the United States’ interest rate hikes triggered a debt crisis in Mexico; the local currency depreciated, capital fled, and the inflation rate soared to 131.8% in 1987, making it difficult to completely escape high dependence on the US economy. In contrast, the conflict between Venezuela and the United States was more intense. To achieve the nationalization of oil and break free from US economic control, former Venezuelan President Chávez adopted radical measures such as severing diplomatic relations with the United States, implementing enterprise nationalization, and cracking down on foreign capital and international trade. However, faced with US economic sanctions and the international oil crisis, Chávez’s populist economic ideas plunged Venezuela into a prolonged period of hyperinflation, severe economic fluctuations, and social unrest.

在发展初期，这一战略模式通过限制进口、提高关税等手段使得部分发展中国家降低了外部依存度，实现了初步的工业化。然而，随着“脱钩”政策的极端化实施，一些发展中国家认为只有切断联系并完全摆脱发达国家主导的世界市场，才能实现经济上的自主发展。这种观点违背了经济全球化的历史发展趋势，同时忽视了“进口替代”模式带来的效率低下、缺乏国际竞争力以及易引发地缘政治危机等弊端，其可持续性受到质疑。如20世纪50年代至80年代，墨西哥采取进口替代工业化建设的方针，实现从农业国到拥有相对完整工业体系的新兴工业国的转变，被称为“墨西哥奇迹”。然而，随着进口替代工业化的深入，其弊端逐渐显现：墨西哥外贸和国际收支出现巨额赤字，美国提高利率导致墨西哥债务危机爆发，本币贬值、资本外流，1987年通货膨胀率飙升至131.8%，难以完全摆脱对美国经济的高度依赖。相较之下，委内瑞拉与美国的冲突更为激烈。为实现石油国有化并摆脱美国的经济控制，委内瑞拉前总统查韦斯采取了与美国断交、推行企业国有化、打击外资和国际贸易等激进措施。然而，面对美国的经济制裁和国际石油危机，查韦斯的民粹主义经济理念导致委内瑞拉陷入长期超级通货膨胀、经济大幅波动和社会动乱的困境。

In summary, the vast number of developing countries should take adhering to independent development as their core goal, neither comprehensively negating the existing international order in a radical manner nor actively seeking to integrate into the world system through self-reliance and flexible, pragmatic approaches. In terms of development direction, they should firmly integrate into the existing international system. Isolationism can hardly enhance national strength, especially at a time when the fourth scientific and technological revolution is brewing. Nationalism and populism can easily lead to complacency and stagnation, thereby missing strategic opportunities for national development. In terms of strategic choice, they should adhere to independence and self-reliance, while simultaneously formulating development strategies and plans suited to their national conditions based on their own development stage and advantages. They should clearly articulate their specific demands for the local transformation of international resources, proactively align needs with aid providers or investors, seize the initiative in development, and conduct well-prepared international development cooperation. In terms of practical pathways, they should proceed step by step and allow for trial and error. They should clarify the priorities and sequences of international cooperation with different countries at different development stages, accumulate experience in pilot areas, and only promote on a large scale when the time is ripe. This will strengthen bottom-line management and explore smart, flexible new models of open cooperation.

综上所述，广大发展中国家应将坚持独立自主发展作为核心目标，既不以激进的方式全面否定现有国际秩序，也积极寻求通过自力更生、灵活务实的方式融入世界体系。在发展方向上，应坚定地融入现有国际体系。孤立主义难以提升国力，尤其在第四次科技革命蓄势待发的当下，民族主义和民粹主义容易导致故步自封，从而错失国家发展的战略机遇。在战略选择上，应坚持独立自主，同时根据自身发展阶段和发展优势，制定符合国情的发展战略和规划，明确国际资源本土转化的具体诉求，主动与援助方或投资方进行需求对接，掌握发展的主动权，开展有准备的国际发展合作。在实践路径上，应循序渐进，允许试错。明确不同发展阶段与不同国家开展国际合作的重点和优先顺序，在试点区域积累经验，待时机成熟后再大规模推广，从而加强底线管理，探索智慧灵活的开放合作新模式。

Synergistic Development of Government, Market, and Society

政府、市场和社会多方协同发展

Chinese-path modernization provides exploratory experience for establishing a new model of synergistic development among government, market, and society. In classical development studies, the roles of different forces such as government, market, and society in driving development are often separated, forming different theoretical paradigms such as neoliberalism, the developmental state theory, and structuralism. These paradigms more often reflect antagonism between different forces. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, Western Europe and the United States experienced early stages of industrial policy and trade protection, gradually forming an economic system centered on the free market, a political system centered on democratic politics, and a social system centered on civil society. These three elements are mutually independent and check and balance each other, becoming a typical model of Western modernization and spreading to non-Western regions with globalization, forming global development norms. However, over the past 70-plus years, the possibility for non-Western countries and regions to achieve development by relying on the separation or even antagonism of government, market, and society has been extremely limited.

中国式现代化为建立政府、市场和社会三者协同发展的新模式提供探索经验。在经典发展研究中，政府、市场和社会等不同力量在推动发展中的作用常被割裂，形成新自由主义、发展型国家理论、结构主义等不同理论范式，这些范式更多体现不同力量之间的对立。自18世纪工业革命以来，西欧和美国经历了早期的产业政策和贸易保护阶段，逐渐形成了以自由市场为主体的经济制度、以民主政治为核心的政治制度以及以市民社会为支柱的社会制度。这三者相互独立、相互制衡，成为西方现代化的典型模式，并随着全球化扩散至非西方地区，形成了全球发展规范。然而，过去70多年来，非西方国家和地区依靠政府、市场、社会三方分离甚至对立机制获得发展的可能性极为有限。

Chinese-path modernization provides new ideas for a development model that integrates the three forces of government, market, and society. As a late-developing country, China faces the dual challenge of limited resources and diverse development needs: on the one hand, resources such as financial capital, human capital, and social capital are relatively scarce; on the other hand, the country faces numerous tasks in areas such as infrastructure construction, market development, education investment, and health and environmental protection. In this context, an integrated leadership force is needed to anchor the overall direction of development and determine the priority order of development within a certain period, so as to coordinate limited resources. Late-developing countries must also continuously improve market mechanisms to promote multi-stakeholder collaboration and innovation at the micro level, gradually solving problems in development. Thus, the process of Chinese-path modernization is filled with pilot demonstrations and organized grassroots innovation, forming a pattern of vertical integration and checks and balances, horizontal competition and collaboration, and fostering a development model where government, market, and society work in synergy, co-evolve, and interact as one.

中国式现代化为整合政府、市场、社会三重力量的发展模式提供了新思路。作为后发国家，中国面临资源有限与发展需求多样的双重挑战：一方面，金融资本、人力资本和社会资本等资源相对匮乏；另一方面，国家在基础设施建设、市场发育、教育投资、卫生环保等领域面临诸多任务。在此背景下，需要整合性的领导力量锚定发展总体方向，确定一定时期内发展的优先顺序，以便统筹有限资源。后发国家还须通过不断完善市场机制，促进微观主体的多方协作与创新，渐进式地解决发展中的问题。由此，中国式现代化进程中充满了试验示范和有组织的基层创新，形成上下整合与制衡、左右竞争与协作的格局，促成政府、市场和社会协同发力、共生演进、互动合一的发展模式。

A typical representative of this model is China’s poverty reduction process. Since the founding of New China, the Party Central Committee has always attached great importance to poverty alleviation and reduction work. From early institutional poverty alleviation to relief-oriented poverty alleviation and development-oriented poverty alleviation after reform and opening up, and then to targeted poverty alleviation in the 21st century, China’s poverty reduction governance has undergone a process of gradual refinement from regional targeting to county, village, and household targeting, fully leveraging the multiple forces of government, market, and society. Especially in targeted poverty alleviation, through governance methods such as “five-level secretaries grasping poverty alleviation” [6]6 “Five-level secretaries grasping poverty alleviation” refers to the Party secretaries at the province, city, county, township, and village levels each taking direct responsibility for poverty alleviation work, ensuring top-down accountability and resource allocation., resources were ensured to sink to the most grassroots level, effectively solving the “last mile” problem of poverty reduction. The three forces of government, market, and society are embedded in each other rather than separated; this often serves as a substitute mechanism to cope with constraints such as capital shortages and technological deficiencies. As the level of development continuously improves, the interaction model among the three will also undergo organic adjustments.

这一模式的典型代表是中国的减贫进程。新中国成立以来，党中央始终高度重视扶贫减贫工作，从早期的制度性扶贫到改革开放后的救济式扶贫、开发性扶贫，再到21世纪的精准扶贫，中国减贫治理经历了从区域瞄准到县、村、户瞄准的逐步细化过程，充分发挥政府、市场和社会的多方力量，尤其在精准扶贫中，通过“五级书记抓扶贫”等治理方式，确保资源下沉到最基层，有效解决了减贫“最后一公里”的难题。政府、市场和社会三方力量相互嵌入而非分离，往往是应对资本短缺、科技不足等局限条件的一种替代机制，随着发展水平的不断提高，三者之间的互动模式也会进行有机调整。

In some developing countries, the relationship among the three forces of government, market, and society is not one of effective synergy and cooperation, but rather presents a state of opposition and tension. The market, as the primary means of resource allocation, can promote the efficient use of resources and rapid economic development. However, the market is not a naturally formed modern institution; it requires active guidance and cultivation by the government. Especially in the construction of hardware infrastructure such as roads and transportation, and software infrastructure such as information exchange, laws and regulations, and management systems, government intervention and support are crucial. An effective market presupposes the governance of a capable government. If “big market, small government” is overemphasized, neglecting the government’s regulatory and coordinating role, the profit-seeking nature of the market will run rampant, leading to uneven resource distribution, widening gaps between rich and poor, and even potentially triggering social unrest. For example, Argentina, with its unique natural resources, vigorously developed agriculture, animal husbandry, and aquaculture, earning the title “world’s granary.” Its economic growth rate once exceeded 6% for 43 consecutive years, and in the early 20th century it briefly became the seventh richest country in the world. However, today Argentina has lost its former glory, with a domestic poverty rate exceeding 40% and an inflation rate as high as 142%, deeply mired in the middle-income trap. The root of Argentina’s decline lies in the inability of free market development to be effectively guaranteed by the political system. The country lacks a strong government, suffers from frequent military coups and regime change crises, and has explored almost all possible political options for developing countries: from the initial liberal democracy under oligarchic rule, to Perón’s populism, anti-democratic bureaucratic authoritarianism, and then to liberalism and even anarchism. Political disorder leads to a lack of coherence and stability in economic policy, with economic development oscillating back and forth between Peronism and liberalism, trapping the country in a pendulum-like cycle of development, continuously exacerbating real crises such as the gap between rich and poor, class differentiation, fiscal deficits, and inflation.

在有的发展中国家中，政府、市场和社会三方力量之间的关系并非有效协同合作，而是呈现对立紧张的态势。市场作为资源配置的主要手段，能够推动资源的高效利用和经济的快速发展。然而市场并非天然成形的现代建制，而是需要政府的积极引导和培育。特别是在道路交通等硬件基础设施和信息交换、法律法规、管理体制等软件基础设施建设方面，政府的干预与支持至关重要。有效市场的前提是有为政府的治理。若过度强调“大市场、小政府”，忽视政府的监管和统筹作用，市场的逐利性就会泛滥，导致资源分配不均、贫富差距扩大，甚至可能引发社会动荡。如阿根廷凭借得天独厚的自然资源，大力发展农牧养殖业，被誉为“世界粮仓”，经济增长率曾连续43年高于6%，并在20世纪初期一度发展成为世界第七富有的国家。然而，如今的阿根廷失去了昔日辉煌，国内贫困率超过40%，通胀率高达142%，深陷中等收入陷阱。阿根廷衰落的根源在于自由市场的发展无法得到政治制度的有效保障。该国缺乏强有力的政府，频繁发生军事政变和政权更替危机，几乎探索了发展中国家所有可能的政治选择：从最初的寡头统治下的自由民主制，到贝隆的民众主义、反民主的官僚威权主义，再到自由主义甚至无政府主义。政治的失序导致经济政策缺乏连贯性和稳定性，经济发展在贝隆主义和自由主义之间反复横跳，国家陷入钟摆式发展的怪圈，不断加剧贫富差距、阶级分化、财政赤字、通货膨胀等现实危机。

In addition to the imbalance in the relationship between politics and economy, and between government and market, some developing countries also suffer from insufficient synergy between government and social forces. In these countries, traditional forces and social organizations are relatively active and exert significant influence on policy formulation and implementation. However, due to a lack of institutionalization and systematization, these social forces find it difficult to bear the heavy responsibility of maintaining national order on their own. Many African countries are merely fragmented collections of hundreds of different ethnic groups or tribes, and most power institutions have failed to thoroughly penetrate the management level of grassroots villages. The power of tribal chiefs, armed guerrilla groups, separatist forces, and a large number of non-governmental organizations is very strong, leading to the fact that African people have not truly formed a holistic national identity. Some African countries also suffer from insufficient state functions. Under the influence of the decentralization theory of the 1980s, central-local relations have become increasingly fragmented, governments lack authority, governance efficiency is low, and they struggle to guarantee basic security order and provide a strong tax system and social welfare. Meanwhile, a large number of social organizations are active, such as South Africa’s “African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes,” Kenya’s “African Initiative Programme,” Zimbabwe’s “Rural Collaborative Progress Agency,” “Egyptian Human Rights Organization,” “Ethiopian Peace and Development Committee,” and 3,776 other influential local African social organizations spread across 45 African countries. These social organizations play a certain role in safeguarding the rights and interests of local people and promoting the democratization of society. However, in African countries that have not yet completed nation-state building, if they follow a concept of “state-society” opposition and conflict rather than complementarity and cooperation, it can easily affect the national development process. Objectively, if social organizations play an adversarial role in the early stages of a country’s development, it will, to some extent, weaken the people’s identification with government authority or central order, which is not conducive to the formation of a developmental state and the implementation of specific public policies, and may even bring about a series of problems such as unbalanced economic development and widening gaps between rich and poor.

除了政治和经济、政府和市场之间的关系失调外，有的发展中国家还存在政府和社会力量协同不足的问题。在这些国家中，传统力量和社会组织较为活跃，对其政策制定和执行发挥着重要影响，但由于缺乏建制性和系统性，这些社会力量难以独自承担起维护国家秩序的重任。许多非洲国家只是千百个不同种族或部落组成的碎片化集合体，大部分的权力建制未能彻底渗透到基层村社的管理层面。部落的酋长、武装游击队、分裂势力和大量非政府组织力量非常强大，导致非洲人民并未真正形成对国家的整体认同。有的非洲国家还存在国家职能不足的问题。在20世纪80年代分权理论的影响下，央地关系日趋分裂，政府缺乏权威，执政效能低下，难以保障基本安全秩序，并提供强有力的税收制度以及社会福利。而大量的社会组织则呈现活跃状态，如南非的“非洲争端创造性解决中心”、肯尼亚的“非洲倡议计划”、津巴布韦的“农村协作进步机构”“埃及人权组织”“埃塞俄比亚和平与发展委员会”等3776个有较大影响的非洲本土社会组织，遍布非洲45个国家。这些社会组织在维护当地民众权益、推动社会民主化进程方面具有一定作用，但在尚未完成民族国家建设的非洲国家中，若其遵循“国家-社会”对立和冲突型理念，而非互补和协作型理念，就容易影响国家发展进程。客观上，社会组织在一国发展早期若发挥对抗性力量，则会在一定程度上削弱民众对政府权威或中心秩序的认同，不利于发展型国家的形成和具体公共政策的落实，甚至可能带来经济发展不平衡、贫富差距扩大等一系列问题。

Therefore, achieving synergistic cooperation among the three forces of government, market, and society is key for developing countries to move towards stability and sustainable development. This requires the state to strengthen its own capacity for overall planning and coordination, actively leverage the synergistic force of the three, and seek common development and co-evolution in the dynamic balance of the three forces. Specific experience and insights include: breaking through traditional development concepts, reconstructing the integrated relationship among the state, market, and society, establishing a developmental government or developmental society suitable for oneself, setting development goals that unite all parties, and finding the greatest common denominator that unites various forces. In the practice of modernization development, centering on the “priorities” of specific development stages, promote the mutual collaboration of various forces to form an overall pattern of a capable government, an effective market, and a strong society. In advancing the modernization process, special attention should be paid to the introduction, digestion, and absorption of new ideas, new technologies, and new management experiences; value expert wisdom and scientific strength; and focus on cultivating new-type modernization talents and professional teams, thereby establishing a capacity system that aligns with the national development stage and is inherently sustainable.

因此，实现政府、市场和社会三方力量的协同合作，是发展中国家走向稳定和可持续发展的关键。这需要国家加强自身的统筹协调能力，积极发挥三者的协同合力，在三方力量的动态平衡中谋求共同发展和协同进化，具体经验启示包括：突破传统发展理念，重构国家、市场和社会三者之间的整合关系，建立适合自身的发展型政府或发展型社会，设立凝聚各方的发展目标，找到团结各种力量的最大公约数。在现代化发展实践中，围绕特定发展阶段的“优先事项”，促进各种力量相互协作，形成有为政府、有效市场、有力社会的整体格局。在推进现代化进程中，尤其要注重新思想、新科技与新管理经验的引进与消化吸收，重视专家智慧和科学力量，注重新型现代化人才培养和专业化队伍建设，从而建立起符合国家发展阶段、内在可持续发展的能力体系。

Building a New Type of Global Development Governance Mechanism Based on Extensive Consultation, Joint Contribution, and Shared Benefits

构建共商共建共享的新型全球发展治理机制

Different from traditional colonial and hegemonic development cooperation paradigms, Chinese-path modernization provides a new model for building a new type of global development governance mechanism based on extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. Since the 1990s, a binary distinction between “big development” and “small development” has gradually formed in classical development studies. Among them, “big development” mainly refers to developed countries using development aid as an intervention tool to guide developing countries to achieve modernization according to the standards and models of developed countries; while “small development” generally refers to the long-term process of internal political, economic, social, and cultural change within a country or society, especially developing countries. This division highlights the emergence of a conceptual distinction between the “self” and the “other” in the development subject, reflecting a critique and transcendence of Western-centrism. However, the definition of the intrinsic attributes of both still presupposes European and American modernity. The norms of today’s global development governance also still take Western liberal democratic systems and free market economies as the core logic. Conducting transnational cooperation and entering the world of the “other” under this logic means the overseas expansion of the liberal order. Under the guidance of traditional modernization theory, the diverse cultures and systems of different regions and countries in the world system will increasingly tend towards uniformity.

与传统的殖民和霸权发展合作范式不同，中国式现代化为构建共商共建共享的新型全球发展治理机制提供了新示范。20世纪90年代以来，经典发展研究中逐渐形成了“大发展”与“小发展”的二元区分。其中，“大发展”主要指发达国家以发展援助为干预手段，引导发展中国家按照发达国家的标准和模式实现现代化；而“小发展”则泛指一国或一个社会，尤其是发展中国家内在政治、经济和社会文化等方面的长期变迁进程。这种划分方式凸显出发展主体开始出现“自我”和“他者”的区分概念，体现出对西方中心主义的批判和超越。然而，两者的内在属性界定仍然以欧美现代性为前提假设。当今全球发展治理的规范也仍以西方自由民主制度和自由市场经济为核心逻辑，在此逻辑下开展跨国合作、走入他者的世界，意味着自由主义秩序实现海外拓展，在传统现代化理论的指引下，世界体系中不同区域和国家的多样文化和体制将不断趋向一致性。

A notable feature of Chinese-path modernization is its emphasis on “harmony in diversity,” highlighting peaceful development, upholding the new global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, and striving to transcend the historical Western colonialist and “strong countries are bound to seek hegemony” development paradigm. China continuously advocates for peace, development, cooperation, and win-win outcomes in the international community, adheres to a mutually beneficial and win-win opening-up strategy, focuses on sharing opportunities and seeking common development with other countries, advocates for building a more just and better world order, acknowledges differences and diversity, and resolves issues through peaceful means.

中国式现代化的显著特征在于注重“和而不同”，强调和平发展，秉持共商共建共享的全球新治理观，致力于超越西方历史上的殖民主义和“强国必霸”的发展范式。中国在国际社会持续倡导和平、发展、合作、共赢，坚持互利共赢的开放战略，注重与其他国家共享机遇、共谋发展，主张构建一个更加公正、美好的世界秩序，承认差异和多元性，通过和平方式解决问题。

As China gradually moves to the center of the international stage, the development process of a new paradigm of South-South cooperation continues to advance. Currently, China has become a major trading partner for over 140 countries and regions, and has promoted the establishment of multiple "1+N" regional cooperation platforms, such as those with Africa, Latin America, the Arab states, ASEAN, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. In addition, China has established new development institutions such as the China International Development Cooperation Agency, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the New Development Bank of the BRICS, and has further promoted international cooperation through newly created cooperation platforms and financial instruments such as the Global Development Promotion Center, the Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund, the Silk Road Fund, and the China-Africa Development Fund, as well as by building platforms for mutually beneficial cooperation like the China International Import Expo and the China International Fair for Trade in Services. In recent years, on the basis of the Belt and Road Initiative, China has successively proposed the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, focusing on advancing cooperation and dialogue in areas such as poverty reduction, food security, climate change, green development, peace, and civilization. These initiatives respond to the needs of the international community, help address global development dilemmas, security dilemmas, and trust dilemmas, contribute Chinese wisdom from the top-level design of global governance to resolving the deficits in development, governance, trust, and peace, provide new ideas and elements for the world's development knowledge base, promote interaction and coordination among multiple actors in the international community, including developing countries and international multilateral organizations, and advance the establishment of a shared global development knowledge system.

随着中国逐渐走向国际舞台的中心，新型南南合作范式发展进程不断推进。当前，中国已成为140多个国家和地区的主要贸易合作伙伴，并推动建立了中非、中拉、中阿、中国—东盟、中国-中东欧、中国-中亚等多个“1＋N”的区域合作平台。此外，中国还设立了国家国际发展合作署、亚洲基础设施投资银行和金砖国家新开发银行等新型发展机构，并通过新设全球发展促进中心、全球发展与南南合作基金、丝路基金、中非发展基金等合作平台和金融工具，以及打造进博会、服贸会等促进互利合作的平台，进一步推动国际合作。近年来，中国在共建“一带一路”倡议基础上，陆续提出了全球发展倡议、全球安全倡议与全球文明倡议，重点推进减贫事业、粮食安全、气候变化、绿色发展、和平与文明等领域的合作与对话，顺应国际社会需求、助力解决全球发展困境、安全困境和信任困境，从全球治理顶层设计上为解决发展赤字、治理赤字、信任赤字、和平赤字贡献中国智慧，为世界发展知识库提供新思路和新要素，促进广大发展中国家、国际多边组织等国际社会多方主体的互动与协调，并推动建立共享的全球发展知识体系。

Based on principles of equality, mutual benefit, mutual respect, and non-interference in internal affairs, China advocates joint discussion, joint construction, and shared benefits with partner countries, and follows a gradualist development methodology of "learning by doing" and "gradually improving through practice," as well as a "parallel experience sharing" theory of two-way modernization, continuously promoting a pragmatic learning process of co-evolution. This is specifically manifested as follows: first, the shared experiences are practical, attainable, and aligned with the local development stage, rather than being ahead of that stage, highly abstractly constructed, or value-driven; second, the sharing model is generated through interactive joint discussion and joint construction between both parties, encompassing a process of mutual learning and inspiration, rather than a unilateral provision of a fixed model or template; third, the sharing parties form an equal, mutually beneficial, and mutually empowering partnership, rather than a one-way giving-and-receiving relationship, respecting the autonomy and sense of ownership of the cooperating partner, and emphasizing innovation and win-win outcomes.

中国基于平等互利、互相尊重、不干涉内政等原则，倡导与合作国共商共建共享，并遵循“边干边学”“在实践中逐步完善”的渐进式发展方法论和“平行经验分享”的双向现代化理论，不断推动共同进化的务实主义学习进程。具体表现为：一是分享的经验是符合当地发展阶段的、务实的、可及的，而非超前于其发展阶段的、高度抽象建构的、价值观主导的；二是分享的模式是双方共商共建互动产生的，蕴含双方互相学习与启发的过程，而非单方提供固定模式和模板；三是分享双方形成平等互利、互相成就的伙伴关系，而非单向的给予和接受关系，尊重合作方的自主性与拥有感，注重创新与共赢。

Currently, the status and role of Global South countries in the global governance system are gradually rising. Emerging countries have a dual identity as both recipients and providers of aid within the international system. This dual identity gives them unique experience in handling the provision of development resources abroad, enabling them to deeply understand the challenges and considerations recipient countries face when accepting external resources, thereby better maintaining independent and equal relations, achieving mutual economic benefit and win-win outcomes, and enhancing sensitivity to shared cultural identity. However, due to numerous constraints within the international system, some developing countries still lack sufficient impetus when "going global" and actively participating in global governance. For instance, when addressing global challenges such as climate change, environmental crises, financial crises, and global health, some developing countries, lacking necessary technical, financial, and human resources, find it difficult to formulate and implement effective global public policies, and thus cannot actively shape a situation favorable to themselves. Although South-South cooperation has as long a history as North-South cooperation, for a long time it has not formed unified platforms for consultation and dialogue, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, resulting in relatively limited influence and exhibiting volatility and fragility.

当前全球南方国家在全球治理体系中的地位和作用逐渐上升，而新兴国家既是国际体系中的受援者，也是援助者，这种双重身份使其在处理对外提供发展资源时具备独特经验，能够深刻理解受援国在接受外来资源时所面临的挑战和考量，从而更好地保持独立自主的平等性，在经济上实现互利共赢，在文化上增强对共同身份的敏感性。然而，由于自身在国际体系中受到诸多限制，一些发展中国家在“走出去”并积极参与全球治理的过程中仍缺乏足够的动力。如在应对气候变化、环境危机、金融危机和全球卫生等全球性挑战时，一些发展中国家由于缺乏必要的技术、资金和人力资源，难以制定和实施有效的全球公共政策，从而无法积极引导形成有利于自身的局面。尽管南南合作与南北合作的历史同样悠久，但长期以来，南南合作尚未形成诸如经济合作与发展组织等统一的协商对话平台，导致其影响力相对有限，并呈现波动性和脆弱性。

Thus, China's exploratory experience in conducting new international development cooperation practices provides important insights for other Global South countries: First, it is necessary to recognize the coexistence of multiple values and norms in global governance, and especially to leverage the development opportunities brought by concepts advocated in South-South cooperation, such as "no political conditions attached," "mutual benefit and win-win," and "harmony in diversity." At the levels of concept and strategy alignment, policy and public management dialogue, and specific economic and technical project cooperation, more targeted cooperation plans and organizational systems should be established to enhance the effectiveness of new development cooperation. Second, emphasis should be placed on parallel experience sharing and alignment, focusing on dimensions inherent in South-South cooperation such as the concession of development space, the companionship in the development process, and the mutual benefit of development outcomes, continuously improving one's own organizational management, coordination, and action capabilities for participating in joint discussion, joint construction, and shared benefits, both domestically and internationally. At the same time, attention should be paid to referencing and selecting development experiences suitable for one's own development stage, and strengthening localized application. Third, as an important force in the international community, Global South countries should inherit and carry forward the historical tradition of "uniting for self-strengthening" and shoulder contemporary missions. While exploring independent development paths, they should use their own development experiences and international cooperation forces to resolve intensifying geopolitical conflicts, becoming a powerful force for promoting world peace and development. In recent years, many countries, including China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, and Colombia, have established international development cooperation agencies and strengthened the theoretical construction and policy practice innovation of South-South cooperation. This fully reflects that Global South countries are actively shaping an external environment conducive to their own development and global regional stability through international development cooperation.

由此可见，中国开展新型国际发展合作实践的探索经验为其他全球南方国家提供重要启示：首先，应认识到全球治理中多重价值与规范共生，尤其要注重利用南南合作所倡导的“不附加政治条件”“互利共赢”“和而不同”等理念所带来的发展机遇。在理念与战略对接、政策与公共管理对话、具体经济技术项目合作等层面，建立更具针对性的合作计划和组织体系，从而提升新型发展合作的有效性。其次，应注重平行经验分享与对接，重点关注南南合作中蕴含的发展空间的让渡性、发展过程的陪伴性和发展结果的互利性等维度，不断提升自身参与共商共建共享的国内外组织管理、协调与行动能力。同时，应注重参考与筛选适合自身发展阶段的发展经验，并加强本土化运用。再次，作为国际社会的重要力量，全球南方国家应继承和发扬“联合自强”的历史传统，肩负起当代使命。在探索自主发展道路的同时，以自身发展经验和国际合作力量化解日益加剧的地缘政治冲突，成为促进世界和平发展的强大力量。近年来，包括中国、印度、巴西、土耳其、泰国、哥伦比亚在内的许多国家纷纷设立国际发展合作署，并加强南南合作的理论建设与政策实践创新，这充分体现了全球南方国家正通过国际发展合作积极塑造有利于自身发展和全球区域稳定发展的外部环境。

(The authors are, respectively, Dean of the College of International Development and Global Agriculture, China Agricultural University; and Senior Distinguished Chair Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences, China Agricultural University)

（作者系中国农业大学国际发展与全球农业学院院长；中国农业大学文科资深讲席教授）

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁