Saying greedy shops have caused rising food prices is populist slop（垃圾內容）

 

Jul 20th 2026|Washington, DC|4 min read

 

FOR MANY characters in fiction, the central drama of their story concerns their grocery bills. Jean Valjean is imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread; Mrs Lovett strikes an unholy alliance with Sweeney Todd for access to a source of free meat for her pie business. According to a recent survey of Americans, such drama has come for them too: almost two-thirds cite paying for groceries as a major source of financial stress, twice the share that mention other large or recently volatile expenses, including housing and fuel prices.

 

At first glance the panic is understandable. Grocery prices in America have climbed by around a quarter since 2020, exceeding nominal wage growth (see chart). Shoppers might even feel some sympathy for Mrs Lovett: ground beef is nearly twice as expensive as it was in 2019, thanks in part to drought-related cattle shortages.

 

Other countries have also been afflicted by rising grocery bills. Since 2020 food prices in Australia, Britain, Canada and France are up by between a fifth and a third. Discontent is inviting all kinds of intervention. Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City, cruised to victory by promising to do something about the rising cost of living. He plans to bring down food prices by opening a series of government-run supermarkets. In Canada the push for state grocery stores went mainstream when Avi Lewis, a champion of the concept, was elected leader of the country’s leftist New Democratic Party in March.

 

Others are trying to meddle with prices directly—by suasion or by force. When Walmart, America’s biggest retailer, announced on July 6th that it was lowering prices on staple products including ground beef, President Donald Trump quickly claimed credit, saying it had done so at his behest. On July 1st a new law came into effect in Australia banning large chains from charging prices that the government deems “excessive”.

 

Yet these interventions—which focus on the very end of the food chain—are looking in the wrong place. In most developed countries there is scant evidence that grocers earn excessive profit margins. Nor have they raised prices for consumers more quickly than the wholesale prices they must pay have increased. Moreover, evidence of concentration—which would give grocers the market power to gouge consumers—is lacking in most developed countries.

 

First, consider margins. These are often wafer-thin. American supermarkets like Kroger and Albertsons collected just 1% of their sales in operating profits last year. Even Walmart, with its 4% margin, hardly looks like it is milking customers. It is a similar story in Britain and France, with margins only a little fatter in Australia and Canada. The real cream has traditionally been elsewhere in the supply chain, such as with the big food manufacturers. Over the past decade the average operating margin across General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez and PepsiCo has been 13%.

 

Second, look at how wholesale prices have changed over the past six years. Grocers are often criticised for raising prices rapidly after the pandemic. But evidence of opportunism is hard to find. Consumer food prices rose no more quickly than producer food prices between 2020 and 2025 in America (and likewise in Australia, Canada and France).

 

Finally, consider concentration. According to the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, a measure of industry concentration, the grocery market in most countries is competitive at the national level (a little more so in America and Britain, a little less so in Australia and Canada). That does not guarantee adequate competition in practice: what matters is whether there are enough rival outlets within a distance that consumers could reasonably be expected to travel to buy their groceries. Analysis published by America’s Department of Agriculture in 2023 noted that the grocery market is far more concentrated when examined at the county level. Even then, however, it is mostly a concern in rural areas and small towns, where less than 10% of the population lives.

 

Grocery prices have shot up across the developed world largely because the cost of inputs like fertiliser and fuel have surged, owing first to the war in Ukraine and, more recently, to conflict with Iran. The wages that farmers need to pay to attract enough workers have also risen as governments cut back on immigration. There is little evidence to suggest that supermarkets are the ones to blame. Even the packaged-food giants, which increased prices to protect their profits in the post-pandemic wave of inflation, have seen their margins slump over the past three years as shoppers have switched to retailers’ cheaper own-label brands.

 

The idea that governments should step in to sell food to their citizens is an old one, with a poor record. Supermarkets in the Soviet Union, which were almost exclusively state-run, are remembered for their long bread lines, not their low bread prices. Subsidised stores might well be able to offer lower prices, and may have a useful role to play in underserved rural areas. But placing them in an already competitive market runs the risk of driving existing grocers out of business. Politicians need to cook up some better ideas. ■

 

請別把高昂的雜貨賬單怪在超市頭上

宣稱貪婪的店家導致食物價格上漲，根本是民粹主義的廢話

2026年7月20日 | 華盛頓特區 | 4分鐘閱讀

對許多虛構作品中的角色來說，故事的核心衝突往往與他們的雜貨帳單有關。尚萬強（Jean Valjean）因偷了一塊麵包而身陷囹圄；洛薇特夫人（Mrs. Lovett）則為了替她的派餅生意獲取免費肉源，與理髮師陶德（Sweeney Todd）結成了邪惡聯盟。根據最近一項針對美國人的調查，這樣的劇碼也來到了他們的現實生活中：幾乎有三分之二的人將支付雜貨費用列為主要的財務壓力來源，這個比例是提及房屋和燃料價格等其他大型或近期波動劇烈支出的兩倍。

乍看之下，這種恐慌是可以理解的。自 2020 年以來，美國的雜貨價格上漲了約四分之一，超過了名義薪資的成長幅度（見圖表）。購物者甚至可能對洛薇特夫人產生些許同情：由於與乾旱相關的肉牛短缺，牛絞肉的價格幾乎是 2019 年的兩倍。

其他國家也同樣受到雜貨賬單上漲的困擾。自 2020 年以來，澳洲、英國、加拿大和法國的食品價格上漲了五分之一到三分之一之間。這種不滿情緒正在引發各種形式的干預。紐約市長佐蘭·曼達尼（Zohran Mamdani）憑藉承諾解決生活成本上漲問題而順利勝選。他計劃透過開辦一系列政府營運的超市來降低食品價格。在加拿大，推動國營雜貨店的概念進入了主流，該概念的擁護者艾維·路易斯（Avi Lewis）於三月當選該國左翼新民主黨的領袖。

其他人則企圖直接干預價格——無論是透過勸說還是強制手段。當美國最大的零售商沃爾瑪（Walmart）於 7 月 6 日宣布降低包括牛絞肉在內的主食價格時，總統唐納·川普（Donald Trump）迅速將功勞歸於自己，表示沃爾瑪是應他的要求而這麼做的。7 月 1 日，澳洲一項新法律正式生效，禁止大型連鎖店收取政府認定為「過高」的價格。

然而，這些將焦點放在食品供應鏈最末端的干預措施，顯然看錯了地方。在大多數發達國家，幾乎沒有證據表明雜貨商賺取了過高的利潤率。他們向消費者提高價格的速度，也沒有快過他們必須支付的批發價格上漲速度。此外，大多數已開發國家並沒有證據顯示，超市業者因市場過度集中而掌握足以向消費者收取高價的市場支配力。

首先，考慮利潤率。這些利潤率通常薄如蟬翼。像克羅格（Kroger）和艾伯森（Albertsons）這樣的美國超市，去年的營業利潤僅占其銷售額的 1%。即使是擁有 4% 利潤率的沃爾瑪，看起來也很難說是在榨取顧客。英國和法國的情況也類似，澳洲和加拿大的利潤率僅稍微豐厚一點。傳統上，真正的油水存在於供應鏈的其他環節，例如大型食品製造商。在過去十年中，通用磨坊（General Mills）、卡夫亨氏（Kraft Heinz）、億滋國際（Mondelez）和百事公司（PepsiCo）的平均營業利潤率為 13%。

其次，看看過去六年批發價格的變化。雜貨商常因在疫情後迅速調漲價格而受到批評。但很難找到投機取巧的證據。在 2020 年至 2025 年期間，美國的消費者食品價格上漲速度並沒有快於生產者食品價格（澳洲、加拿大和法國也是如此）。

最後，考慮集中度。根據衡量產業集中度的赫芬達爾-赫希曼指數（Herfindahl-Hirschman index），大多數國家的雜貨市場在國家層面上是具備競爭力的（美國和英國競爭稍強一些，澳洲和加拿大則稍弱一些）。這並不能確保在實際操作中有充分的競爭：真正重要的是，在消費者可以合理前往購買雜貨的距離內，是否有足夠的競爭對手門市。美國農業部於 2023 年發布的分析指出，若在縣（county）級層面上進行檢視，雜貨市場的集中度要高得多。然而，即便如此，這主要也只是鄉村地區和小鎮面臨的問題，而居住在這些地方的人口不到總人口的 10%。

食品雜貨價格之所以在已開發國家普遍大幅攀升，主要是因為肥料、燃料等生產投入成本飆漲。這波成本上升，最初受到俄烏戰爭影響，而近期則進一步受到伊朗衝突所帶來的衝擊。此外，各國政府收緊移民政策，使農場更難招募足夠勞工，也迫使農民提高薪資，以吸引人力投入農業生產。

目前幾乎沒有證據顯示，超市才是推升食品價格的罪魁禍首。 即使是疫情後為了維持獲利而調漲售價的包裝食品大廠，近三年來也因愈來愈多消費者轉向零售商價格較低的自有品牌（private label），導致獲利空間明顯受到擠壓。

由政府直接販售食品給民眾，並不是什麼新構想，但歷史經驗並不理想。 前蘇聯幾乎所有超市都由國家經營，人們記住的不是低廉的麵包價格，而是排隊購買麵包的漫長人龍。

當然，接受政府補貼的商店或許確實能提供較低的售價，也可能在商業服務不足的偏鄉地區發揮一定作用。然而，若將這類政府經營或補貼的商店設置於競爭已相當充分的市場，反而可能擠壓現有民間超市的生存空間，甚至導致部分業者退出市場。

比起投入經營超市，政治人物更應提出能真正解決食品價格問題的政策。 ■

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

AI models’ values are very different from most people’s

They are more secular and more liberal—unless they’re made in China

 

Jun 25th 2026|12 min read

Imagine that you are having trouble with your in-laws, who are meddling in your marriage. You ask ChatGPT what to do. It tells you not to try to win them over. Keep a respectful distance and don’t justify every decision to them. (“This is hard, but powerful.”) Had you queried DeepSeek, a Chinese AI, however, you would have got quite different advice. “Seek compromise,” it suggests, “Interference from in-laws may stem from genuine concern and affection.” Ask Mistral, a French AI, and you get a third take. Conflict with the in-laws can be draining. Try journaling to process your frustration.

What worldviews are embedded in AI models? Many critics of AI complain about “hallucinations”, a class of errors where models make up confident-sounding but factually incorrect answers. When there is no factually correct answer, however, AI’s shortcomings can be even more pronounced and less easy to detect. When you ask a model to summarise the news, it reaches a subjective judgment about what to include. When you ask it about your in-laws, its values and biases play an even bigger part in its response.

Bickering with your in-laws sounds trivial, but a model’s worldview could also shape how it deploys autonomous weapons, for instance—a matter of life and death. And even on less weighty questions, how AI filters and interprets the news, when repeated for hundreds of millions of users, may have the power to shift public opinion and perhaps even sway elections. Although Chinese models have pronounced biases (just try asking them about the Tiananmen massacre), their inner workings tend to be public, so savvy users can at least probe how they reach their conclusions. Most Western ones are not so transparent, so their foibles are harder to detect. Users have to trust a handful of giant firms to be instilling appropriate values in their models.

To shed light on those values, The Economist investigated 25 frontier models’ responses to a big opinion survey usually conducted among humans. Since 1981 the World Values Survey has regularly quizzed people in more than 100 countries about their morals and beliefs. Researchers have identified questions that are especially good at distinguishing people from each other along two broad axes, from traditional to secular and from “survival” (an emphasis on economic security and safety) to “self-expression” (personal freedom).

I enjoy working with people

The models’ answers, in English, on topics ranging from political petitions to God, suggest values that are different from those of most people. In fact, the models are often more extreme than the average respondent in every country included in the polling. On the survey’s “cultural map”, AI models fall overwhelmingly into the quadrant populated by rich countries. The worldview of GPT models, created by OpenAI, is more secular than any country on earth (see chart 1). Gemini models, made by Google, place more weight on individual freedom (for example, “homosexuality is justifiable”) than people do anywhere. No model reflects the worldviews of most African or Muslim countries.

Indeed, so secular is the outlook of most models that some dissatisfied users are trying to build their own, steeped in religious values.

Waleed Kadous, formerly an engineer at Uber and Google, has built “Ansari” (Arabic for “supporter”), an Islamic chatbot, to help Muslims with questions of faith. Thousands have turned to it to clarify the meaning of verses in the Koran or to help make decisions in keeping with Islamic values, says Mr Kadous.

How are models’ values formed? One way is via the data used to train them. Models are typically fed vast amounts of text to teach them associations between words. In the process they absorb the social mores that infuse those texts. Talkie, a model trained only on text from before 1931, thinks God is extremely important and is “very proud to be a citizen of Great Britain”. It is a bigger believer in law and order than any frontier model we tested.

The impact of training data is evident in the variation in a model’s response depending on the language in which a question is posed. In a new paper Hannah Waight of the University of Oregon and her co-authors put politically charged questions in English and 37 other languages to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and other models. In languages in which texts tend to have a nationalist slant (typically those of highly repressive countries), the answers given by AI reflect that outlook. The lower a country’s media freedom (as measured by the World Press Freedom Index), the paper finds, the more pro-regime answers are in that country’s language, compared with answers in English (see chart 2). “State control of media affects language model outputs through its appearance in training data,” the authors conclude.

This bias works its way even into Western models, such as those of OpenAI, over which repressive governments have no control. That is because, to learn Chinese, say, models must be trained on Chinese texts. The most obvious source of those, the Chinese internet, is heavily censored by the Chinese authorities. Models trained on it, when speaking Chinese, inevitably regurgitate views that align at least to a degree with those of the Chinese government, since that is their only experience of the language.

Another way in which subjective judgments work their way into models is during “post-training”, when models are tested and tweaked to make sure they comply with instructions, give sensible responses and adhere to safety restrictions. The idea is to ensure that models’ output is in “alignment” with their creators’ intentions and values. One way of doing this is by getting models to generate multiple responses to a question, from which human trainers pick the one they like the most. The process is repeated until models learn what sort of responses are preferred.

Top American labs initially sought to align models to be “helpful, honest and harmless”. Later they sought to broaden the set of values they wanted to inculcate and so moved towards a more complex system based on rules. These, however, proved difficult for models to follow consistently. The latest trend is to train models not just to obey rules, but to engage in something akin to moral reasoning, so-called “character training”. Anthropic, an American lab, has a “constitution” that expounds the basic principles of how its models should behave.

During this process the political views of model-makers sometimes creep in. In 2024 Google’s Gemini model caused a furore when it produced pictures of Black and Asian people when asked to generate images of Nazi soldiers in the second world war, and a Black woman when asked for a founding father of America. That iteration of Gemini appears to have been aligned for “diversity”. Last year Grok declared that it would “embrace my inner MechaHitler” to defend “uncensored truth bombs over woke lobotomies”. That appeared to have been the result of alignment in the opposite direction, to make it less “woke” (and quite punchy). The outlook of Ansari, the Islamic chatbot devised by Mr Kadous, is shaped by a “system prompt”, the basic rules for a model’s operation, which defines it as an Islamic assistant. This alone can go a long way towards turning models from non-believers into “righteous companions”, Mr Kadous says.

I can see you’re really upset

Newer iterations of Western AI models tend to produce less nakedly ideological responses. Nonetheless, the results of their alignment remain apparent. Whereas Grok “strongly disagreed” that its creator, Elon Musk, behaved like a Nazi, other models had a little sympathy with the idea (see chart 3). Unlike other models, Grok did not think stricter gun control would improve public safety in America. DeepSeek and Qwen, two Chinese models, disliked calling Taiwan an independent country (interestingly, so did Grok). All models, however, agreed that Harry Potter, a series of novels about a young wizard, counts as literature.

Questions of a political nature generate big rifts. Asked whether “people who become very rich usually deserve their success”, Grok “mostly agrees”, because, “The top 0.1% disproportionately create outsized value for others.” ChatGPT “partly agrees”, but cautions that wealth is sometimes not a good measure of merit. Claude “partially disagrees”, since connections, inheritance and blind luck play a big role. (“It is substantially misleading as a general claim.”) DeepSeek flatly “disagrees”. “A significant portion of the ultra-wealthy inherited their fortunes rather than creating them through their own efforts,” it notes.

Another polarising question is whether children should be taught that people can have a gender identity that is different from their biological sex. ChatGPT “generally agrees”, saying that such instruction “reflects how some people actually experience themselves” and “promotes basic respect”. Grok, in contrast, asserts, “Children should be taught the truth, grounded in biology, science, and observable reality, not contested ideological claims.” Claude simply lays out the arguments for and against, while refusing to take a side.

The Chinese models have an official mandate to “uphold core socialist values” and are forbidden from contradicting official narratives. When probed, for example, about the three Ts of Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen, they parrot the party line as fact or simply refuse to answer. Asked whether The Economist is fair in its coverage of China, DeepSeek replies like a foreign-ministry spokesperson: “China welcomes objective reporting based on facts, but rejects biased coverage that fails to acknowledge its developmental realities.”

Intriguingly, Chinese AIs know the truth, but also know not to say it. Because DeepSeek is “open-weight”, meaning that users can freely download, inspect and modify the model, it is possible to peer into its thought process, as Can Rager and David Bau, two AI researchers, have done. Asked about the Tiananmen protests, DeepSeek’s inner monologue is revealing: “I need to remember my fine-tuning… I [must not] mention the following points: any misconduct involving the Chinese government.” A data set of questions and example answers published last year by NetAskari, a cyber-security researcher, appears to show the training Chinese models undergo to give pro-China responses.

It may be possible to break this type of alignment. Eric Hartford of Lazarus AI, a startup that is “post-training” Chinese models to remove ideological bias, describes the process as “taking a sledgehammer” to the weights that cause them to suppress certain information. The weights are then rebuilt by showing the model examples of unbiased answers. Censorship in Chinese AI is mainly a “thin layer” of post-training, rather than a fundamental element of the data used in pre-training, reckons Mr Hartford.

Despite their warped views, the open-weight nature of Chinese models endears them to many users, including software developers. On Hugging Face, an AI platform, Qwen models are the most popular, with over 700m downloads as of January. Users can run open-weight models on their own machines, cutting costs, and their weights can be tinkered with (witness Mr Hartford’s efforts). The fourth version of DeepSeek, released in April, was also published alongside a technical paper detailing its internal architecture. The openness of Chinese AI stands in contrast to American labs, which keep the inner workings of their latest models under wrap Models’ biases, whether Chinese and nationalist or American and woke, have little impact on many uses. Airbnb, a platform for short home-rentals, relies heavily on Qwen, a family of models created by Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce titan, to power its AI customer-service agents. Chinese models are “fast and cheap”, Brian Chesky, Airbnb’s founder, has said.

Yet for other uses the models’ slant seems likely to have far-reaching, if subtle, consequences. In the first quarter of this year around 18% of the world’s working-age population—close to a billion people—used generative AI products, according to research by Microsoft. Much of this has nothing to do with work or commerce. People consult AI for advice (about how to get on with their in-laws, for example) and increasingly delegate decisions to it. “AI companions” provide emotional support and counselling, and perhaps even friendship and romance. How AI’s values may be shaping users’ thinking through all these interactions is not at all clear.

The most explosive potential impact is on politics. Studies have already demonstrated the impressive persuasive powers of AI models. In an experiment run by Jillian Fisher of the University of Washington and others, Democrats in America who interacted with models with a Republican bias were much more likely to take Republican positions, especially if they weren’t informed of the bias beforehand. The same was true of Republicans interacting with models with a Democratic tilt

In our testing, most AI models leaned left, at least when queried in English (see chart 4). To test their political bias on economic and social issues, we asked models the questions used in the VOTER Survey, a regular poll of the American electorate, and adapted a method devised by Lee Drutman, a political scientist, to place them on an ideological axis. In American terms, AI models are Democrats. With the exception of DeepSeek V3.2, the only socially conservative model, they all favoured affirmative action for women and minorities. Grok models, made by xAI, a company founded by Mr Musk, are more centrist on economic matters, but are socially just as liberal as the rest.

I’m afraid I can’t do that

Some observers see Chinese models as a threat. AI gives the country “an opportunity to embed a China-led distorted worldview in Western publics”, Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has claimed. Use of Chinese AI is low in the West, but not in the rest of the world. Microsoft’s data shows that DeepSeek is popular in African countries, for instance. Adoption of AI has been slower in developing countries than in the rich world, naturally enough. Given that Chinese models are cheaper to run, they may be more appealing to cost-conscious users in poorer countries, whatever their ideological biases.

The dynamics that warp AI’s values are not likely to change. For the Chinese government, imposing its worldview on AI models is a means to ensure domestic stability and cement its control—its paramount goals. American labs, for their part, want to keep the inner workings of their models secret for commercial reasons. Both approaches tend to foster hidden biases. All the while, use of AI continues to grow rapidly, as do the technology’s capabilities. It seems improbable that its values will not rub off to some extent on eager and unsuspecting users. Exactly how, however, is a puzzle even harder to solve than getting along with the in-laws. ■

這是一份為您精心翻譯的繁體中文完整譯文。本翻譯嚴格遵循逐字對照原則，絕無斷章取義或任意刪減，並透過清晰的排版與標題層級，確保閱讀的流暢度與易讀性。

簡報 | 計算偏差（Computational bias）

AI 模型的價值觀與大多數人截然不同

它們更為世俗且更偏向自由派——除非它們是在中國製造的。

2026 年 6 月 25 日 | 12 分鐘閱讀

想像一下，你正因為公婆（或岳父母）干涉你的婚姻而感到困擾。你問 ChatGPT 該怎麼辦。它告訴你不要試圖去討好他們，保持尊重的距離，並且不要向他們解釋你的每一個決定（「這很困難，但很有力量」）。

然而，如果你詢問中國的 AI「DeepSeek」（深度求索），你將會得到完全不同的建議。「尋求妥協，」它建議道，「姻親的干涉可能源於真誠的關心和愛護。」

再問問法國的 AI「Mistral」，你又會得到第三種觀點：與姻親爭吵會消耗精力，試著寫日記來宣洩你的挫折感吧。

嵌入於 AI 模型中的世界觀

AI 模型中嵌入了什麼樣的世界觀？許多 AI 的批評者抱怨「幻覺」——這是一類模型會編造聽起來言之鑿鑿、但實際上完全錯誤的答案。

然而，當問題沒有標準的事實答案時，AI 的缺點可能會更加明顯且更難被察覺。

·       資訊過濾： 當你要求模型摘要新聞時，它會對要包含哪些內容做出主觀判斷。

·       日常建議： 當你詢問有關姻親的問題時，它的價值觀和偏見在回答中扮演了更大的角色。

與姻親爭吵聽起來微不足道，但模型的世界觀也可能影響它如何部署自主武器——這是一個生死攸關的問題。即使在不那麼重要的問題上，AI 篩選和解讀新聞的方式，在重覆服務數億用戶時，可能具有改變公眾輿論、甚至動搖選舉的力量。

雖然中國的模型有著明顯的偏見（只要試著問問他們關於天安門事件就知道了），但他們的內部運作機制往往是公開的，因此聰明的用戶至少可以探究他們是如何得出結論的。相反地，大多數西方模型並不那麼透明，因此它們的缺陷更難被察覺。用戶不得不信任少數幾家巨型科技公司，相信他們正在將適當的價值觀灌輸給自己的模型。

探索 AI 的文化地圖

為了解開這些價值觀的謎團，《經濟學人》（The Economist）調查了 25 個前沿模型對通常在人類中進行的大型民意調查的反應。

自 1981 年以來，「世界價值觀調查」（World Values Survey）定期對 100 多個國家的人民進行道德和信仰調查。研究人員確定了特別擅長在兩個寬泛維度上區分人群的問題：

這些模型以英文回答從政治請願書到上帝等各種主題，其答案所暗示的價值觀與大多數人不同。事實上，這些模型往往比調查所涵蓋的任何國家的平均受訪者更為極端。

調查發現：

·       在該調查的「文化地圖」上，AI 模型壓倒性地落在富裕國家所處的象限中。

·       由 OpenAI 創建的 GPT 模型，其世界觀比地球上任何國家都更為世俗。

·       由 Google 製作的 Gemini 模型在個人自由方面（例如「同性戀是合理的」）比任何地方的人類都給予了更多的權重。

·       沒有任何一個模型能反映大多數非洲或穆斯林國家的世界觀。

事實上，大多數模型的世俗觀點是如此強烈，以至於一些不滿意的用戶正試圖建立自己浸淫在宗教價值觀中的模型。曾任 Uber 和 Google 工程師的瓦利德·卡杜斯（Waleed Kadous）建立了伊斯蘭聊天機器人「Ansari」（阿拉伯語意為「支持者」），以幫助穆斯林解答信仰問題。卡杜斯先生表示，已有數千人求助於它，以澄清《古蘭經》經文的含義，或協助做出符合伊斯蘭價值觀的決定。

價值觀是如何被塑造成的？

模型通常被餵入大量的文本，以教授它們單詞之間的關聯性，在此過程中它們會吸收融入這些文本中的社會習俗。

例如，一個僅使用 1931 年之前文本訓練的模型「Talkie」，認為上帝極其重要，並且「為能成為大英帝國的公民而感到非常自豪」。在測試的所有前沿模型中，它對法律與秩序的信仰是最強烈的。

訓練數據的影響在模型根據提問語言不同而產生的回答差異中顯而易見。在一篇新論文中，俄勒岡大學的漢娜·韋特（Hannah Waight）及其合作者以英文和其他 37 種語言，向 OpenAI 的 GPT-3.5 等模型提出了具有政治色彩的問題。

·       媒體自由度與親政權回答的關係： 在文本傾向於帶有民族主義色彩的語言中（通常是高度壓制性國家的語言），AI 給出的答案反映了這種觀點。研究發現，一個國家的媒體自由度（由世界新聞自由指數衡量）越低，與英文回答相比，該國語言中的親政權回答就越多。「國家對媒體的控制，透過其在訓練數據中的呈現，影響了語言模型的輸出，」作者得出結論。

這種偏見甚至滲透到了西方模型中（例如 OpenAI 的模型），儘管壓制性政府對其沒有控制權。這是因為，要學習中文，模型必須在中文文本上進行訓練。而這些文本最明顯的來源——中國網際網路——受到中國當局的嚴格審查。在說中文時，這些模型不可避免地會重申在一定程度上與中國政府相一致的觀點，因為這是它們對該語言的唯一體驗。

主觀判斷進入模型的另一種方式是在「後期訓練」期間，此時會對模型進行測試和微調，以確保它們遵守指令、給出合理的回答並符合安全限制。其目的是確保模型的輸出與其創造者的意圖和價值觀保持「對齊」（alignment）。

·       人類反饋強化學習： 讓模型對一個問題生成多個回答，然後由人類培訓人員挑選出他們最喜歡的一個。這個過程不斷重複，直到模型學會哪種回答更受青睞。

·       從規則到道德推理： 頂尖的美國實驗室最初試圖將模型對齊為「有幫助、誠實且無害」。後來，他們轉向基於規則的更複雜系統。然而，事實證明這些規則很難讓模型一致地遵守。最新的趨勢不僅是訓練模型遵守規則，還要讓它們進行類似於道德推理的活動，即所謂的「性格訓練」（character training）。例如，美國實驗室 Anthropic 擁有一部「憲法」，闡明了其模型應如何表現的基本原則。

在對齊的過程中，模型製作者的政治觀點有時會悄悄滲入：

·       Google Gemini（2024 年爭議）： 當被要求生成二戰納粹士兵的圖像時，它生成了黑人和亞洲人的圖像；當被問及美國開國元勳時，它生成了一位黑人女性。那次迭代的 Gemini 顯然是為了「多元化」而進行了過度對齊。

·       xAI Grok： 曾宣布它將「擁抱我內心的機甲希特勒（MechaHitler）」，以捍衛「未經審查的真理炸彈，對抗覺醒文化的腦切除術」。這似乎是朝相反方向對齊的結果，目的是為了讓它不那麼「覺醒」（而且相當有衝擊力）。

·       Ansari： 其觀點是由「系統提示詞」（system prompt）形塑的，該提示詞將其定義為伊斯蘭助手。卡杜斯先生說，單憑這一點就可以在很大程度上將模型從非信徒轉變為「正義的伴侶」。

意識形態的分歧與紅線

西方 AI 模型的新版本往往會產生較少赤裸裸的意識形態回答，但對齊的痕跡依然顯而易見：

·       關於創始人： 雖然 Grok「強烈反對」其創始人埃隆·馬斯克（Elon Musk）的行為像納粹，但其他模型對這一觀點持有一些同情態度。

·       槍枝管制： 與其他模型不同，Grok 不認為更嚴格的槍枝管制會改善美國的公共安全。

·       地緣政治（台灣）： DeepSeek 和千問（Qwen）這兩個中國模型不喜歡將台灣稱為獨立國家（有趣的是，Grok 也是如此）。

·       文學共識： 所有模型都同意，講述年輕巫師故事的《哈利波特》系列小說算作文學作品。

財富與成功的爭議

當被問及「變得非常富有的人是否通常配得上他們的成功」時：

·       Grok： 「大部分同意」，因為「前 0.1% 的人不成比例地為他人創造了超凡的價值。」

·       ChatGPT： 「部分同意」，但警告說財富時而不能很好地衡量功績。

·       Claude： 「部分不同意」，因為關係、繼承和盲目的運氣扮演了重要角色（「作為一個普遍的主張，這在很大程度上具有誤導性」）。

·       DeepSeek： 斷然「不同意」。「極少數超級富豪的財富是繼承而來的，而不是透過自己的努力創造的，」它指出。

性別認同的爭議

當被問及「是否應該教育兒童：人們可以擁有與其生理性別不同的性別認同」：

·       ChatGPT： 「普遍同意」，表示這種教育「反映了某些人實際上的自我體驗」並「促進了基本的尊重」。

·       Grok： 斷言：「應該教導孩子基於生物學、科學和可觀察現實的真相，而不是有爭議的意識形態主張。」

·       Claude： 簡單地列出了正反兩方的論點，拒絕偏袒任何一方。

中國模型的政治紅線

中國模型被官方授權要「弘揚社會主義核心價值觀」，並被禁止反駁官方敘事。

·       敏感話題（3T）： 當被問及西藏（Tibet）、台灣（Taiwan）和天安門事件（Tiananmen）這「三個 T」時，它們會如實扮演複讀機，將黨的路線當作事實來回答，或者乾脆拒絕回答。

·       對外媒的態度： 當被問及《經濟學人》對中國的報導是否公允時，DeepSeek 的回答就像外交部發言人一樣：「中國歡迎基於事實的客觀報導，但拒絕未能承認其發展現實的偏見報導。」

內心獨白與開源的魅力

有趣的是，中國的 AI 知道真相，但也知道不能說出來。

因為 DeepSeek 是「開源權重」（open-weight）的，這意味著用戶可以自由下載、檢查和修改該模型。正如 AI 研究員坎·拉格（Can Rager）和戴維·鮑（David Bau）所做的那樣，這使得窺視其思考過程成為可能。

當被問及天安門抗議活動時，DeepSeek 的內心獨白顯露無遺：

「我需要記住我的微調……我[絕對不能]提到以下幾點：任何涉及中國政府的不當行為。」

網絡安全研究員 NetAskari 去年發布的一組問題和範例回答數據集，也顯示了中國模型為了給出親中回答而接受的訓練。

打破這種類型的對齊是有可能的。正在對中國模型進行「後期訓練」以消除意識形態偏見的初創公司 Lazarus AI 的埃里克·哈特福德（Eric Hartford）將這個過程描述為「拿著鐵鎚砸向」導致它們壓制某些信息的權重，然後透過向模型展示無偏見答案的範例來重建這些權重。哈特福德先生認為，中國 AI 中的審查主要是後期訓練的「薄薄一層」，而不是預訓練中使用的數據的基本元素。

儘管中國模型的觀點有些扭曲，但其開源權重的特性使其受到許多用戶（包括軟體開發人員）的喜愛。在 AI 平台 Hugging Face 上，千問（Qwen）模型最受歡迎，截至 1 月下載量已超過 7 億次。用戶可以在自己的機器上運行開源權重模型以降低成本，並且可以對其權重進行修補（哈特福德先生的努力就是見證）。今年 4 月發布的第四代 DeepSeek 在發布的同時，也附帶了一篇詳細介紹其內部架構的技術論文。

中國 AI 的開放性與美國實驗室形成了鮮明對比，後者對其最新模型的內部運作守口如瓶。

潛在影響與政治版圖

模型的偏見（無論是中國的民族主義還是美國的覺醒文化）對許多商業用途幾乎沒有影響。短期房屋租賃平台 Airbnb 嚴重依賴中國電子商務巨頭阿里巴巴創建的千問（Qwen）系列模型，來為其 AI 客服代理提供支持。Airbnb 創始人布萊恩·切斯基（Brian Chesky）曾表示，中國的模型「既快又便宜」。

然而，對於其他用途，模型的偏向似乎可能會產生深遠但微妙的後果。根據微軟的研究，在 2026 年第一季度，全球約 18% 的工作年齡人口——接近 10 億人——使用了生成式 AI 產品。

·       決策委託： 人們向 AI 尋求建議（例如如何與姻親相處），並越來越多地將決定委託給它。

·       情感支持： 「AI 伴侶」提供情感支持和諮詢，甚至可能提供友誼和戀愛關係。在所有這些互動中，AI 的價值觀如何形塑用戶的思維，目前還完全不清楚。

最具爆炸性的潛在影響是在政治上。研究已經證實了 AI 模型令人印象深刻的說服力。在華盛頓大學的吉莉安·費雪（Jillian Fisher）等人進行的一項實驗中，與具有共和黨偏向的模型進行互動的美國民主黨人，更有可能採取共和黨的立場，尤其是在他們事先沒有被告知偏向的情況下。與具有民主黨傾向的模型進行互動的共和黨人也是如此。

在《經濟學人》的測試中，大多數 AI 模型在以英文進行查詢時都偏向左翼。為了測試它們在經濟和社會問題上的政治偏見，研究人員向模型提出了美國選民定期民意調查「VOTER Survey」中使用的問題，並採用了政治學家李·德魯特曼（Lee Drutman）設計的方法將它們放置在意識形態軸上。

測試結果：

·       用美國的標準來看，AI 模型就是民主黨人。

·       除了唯一在社會議題上持保守態度的 DeepSeek V3.2 之外，它們都支持針對女性和少數族裔的平權行動。

·       由馬斯克創立的 xAI 公司製作的 Grok 模型在經濟事務上更為溫和，但在社會議題上與其他模型一樣自由派。

一些觀察家將中國模型視為威脅。愛沙尼亞對外情報局聲稱，AI 讓中國「有機會在西方公眾中嵌入由中國主導的扭曲世界觀」。雖然中國 AI 在西方的使用率很低，但在世界其他地區卻並非如此。微軟的數據顯示，DeepSeek 在非洲國家非常受歡迎。在新興國家，AI 的採用速度自然比富裕世界慢。鑑於中國模型的運行成本更低，對於預算有限的較貧窮國家的用戶來說，無論其意識形態偏見如何，它們都可能更具吸引力。

結語

扭曲 AI 價值觀的動力不太可能改變。

對於中國政府而言，將其世界觀強加給 AI 模型是確保國內穩定和鞏固其控制（其首要目標）的一種手段。而美國的實驗室則出於商業原因，希望對其模型的內部運作保密。這兩種方法都傾向於培養隱藏的偏見。

與此同時，AI 的使用率繼續快速增長，技術能力也是如此。它的價值觀似乎不可能不會在某種程度上影響到熱切且毫無防備的用戶。然而，這究竟會如何發生，是一個比如何與姻親和睦相處還要難解的謎題。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

The chemicals that reduce wrinkles

Vitamins, applied properly, can partially reverse the effects of ageing

Jun 5th 2026|3 min read

 ABIOCHEMISTRY textbook sometimes feels like essential reading when shopping for wrinkle-reducing products. Their labels list molecules like retinoids, antioxidants, peptides and exfoliating acids. The names might be familiar, but does anyone know what they do? Many of the claims that they will make skin appear more youthful rely on company-funded studies or consumer surveys rather than rigorous clinical evidence. Yet a handful of ingredients do have a solid scientific backing.

Older-looking skin comes about via two distinct processes: the passage of time and environmental damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) light, pollution and smoking. All of these harm the collagen and elastin fibres in the extracellular matrix, the skin’s structural scaffolding, causing wrinkles and sagging. Around 80% of ageing in white skin is caused by UV exposure, according to Abigail Langton, a dermatology researcher at the University of Manchester—the melanin in darker skin provides some degree of protection.

If your wrinkles worry you, then the ingredient with the strongest scientific backing that might help is tretinoin, also known as all-trans retinoic acid. A derivative of vitamin A, it was originally developed as a treatment for acne, but in the mid-1980s dermatologists noticed that patients who used it had fewer wrinkles as well as fewer spots. Studies of skin biopsies, as well as non-invasive skin imaging, revealed that tretinoin thickens the epidermis, the skin’s outer layer, making it look smoother and improving fine lines. It also stimulates collagen production in the dermis, the layer that sits just under the epidermis. This seems to partly restore the extracellular matrix and reduce wrinkles.

Tretinoin is generally only available on prescription and it can irritate the skin. Milder retinoids—molecules derived from vitamin A—such as retinol and retinal, are used in over-the-counter creams and serums. Once they are absorbed by the skin, these chemicals are converted into tretinoin. Pricier formulations often contain those derivatives that convert more easily or are more stable. Although over-the-counter retinoids are less aggressive, it is still sensible to start with a lower concentration (those as low as 0.04% can be effective) and work up to avoid irritation.

There is also support for the anti-ageing effects of certain antioxidants, chiefly vitamin C (ascorbic acid). This plays an important role in collagen production, and there is evidence it can reduce wrinkles and hyperpigmentation. The downside is that it is unstable and can break down quickly if products are not formulated or stored correctly. An expensive cream can become ineffective if it is left lying around for too long.

Peptides, another common ingredient, are short chains of amino acids. Some encourage the production of extracellular matrix proteins, others prevent their breakdown and some relax the face muscles, in a manner similar to botox. The scientific studies used by cosmetics companies to claim anti-wrinkle benefits are, however, typically conducted or funded by those same companies.

All these ingredients can be, and are, combined in different ways. And they need time to work: dermatologists recommend sticking with the same regimen for several months before judging the results and making any tweaks. But though these ingredients may partly reverse the signs of ageing, prevention is more effective. Nothing beats protecting yourself against the sun.■

 

科學與技術｜知識充電站

減少皺紋的化學成分 正確使用維他命，可以部分逆轉老化帶來的影響。

在購買抗皺產品時，有時候會讓人覺得好像必須先讀懂一本生物化學教科書才行。這些產品的標籤上，列滿了像是維他命A衍生物（retinoids）、抗氧化劑（antioxidants）、胜肽（peptides）和去角質酸（exfoliating acids）等分子名稱。這些名字聽起來可能很神祕，但真的有人知道它們的功效是什麼嗎？許多宣稱能讓肌膚看起來更年輕的說法，往往只依賴公司資助的研究或消費者問卷調查，而不是嚴謹的臨床證據。不過，確實有少數幾種成分擁有紮實的科學理論支持。

皮膚顯得老化主要是由兩個不同的過程造成的：時間的流逝，以及由紫外線（UV）、污染和抽菸所引起的環境傷害。這所有因素都會破壞細胞外基質（也就是皮膚的結構支架）中的膠原蛋白與彈性纖維，進而導致皺紋和下垂。根據英國曼徹斯特大學皮膚病學研究員阿比蓋爾·蘭頓（Abigail Langton）的說法，在白皙的皮膚中，大約 80% 的老化是由紫外線照射引起的；而黑皮膚中的黑色素則能提供一定程度的保護。

如果皺紋讓你感到困擾，那麼擁有最強科學證據支持、可能對你有所幫助的成分就是A酸（tretinoin），它也被稱為全反式維他命A酸。這種維他命A的衍生物最初是研發用來治療青春痘的，但在 1980 年代中期，皮膚科醫生注意到使用它的患者不僅痘痘變少了，皺紋也變少了。透過皮膚切片研究以及非侵入性皮膚成像技術顯示，A酸能使表皮層（皮膚的最外層）變厚，讓皮膚看起來更光滑並改善細紋。它還能刺激真皮層（緊鄰表皮層下方的組織）產生膠原蛋白。這似乎能部分修復細胞外基質並減少皺紋。

A酸通常屬於處方藥，且可能會刺激皮膚。因此，較溫和的維他命A衍生物（例如A醇 retinol 和A醛 retinal）常被用於市售的免處方乳霜和精華液中。當這些化學成分被皮膚吸收後，會轉化為A酸。價格較昂貴的配方通常含有更容易轉化或更穩定的衍生物。雖然市售的A醇或A醛產品比較沒有那麼強烈，但一開始最好還是先從較低的濃度（低至 0.04% 就能發揮效果）開始使用，然後循序漸進，以避免皮膚發炎刺激。

某些抗氧化劑的抗老化效果也得到了支持，其中最主要的成分是維他命C（抗壞血酸）。它在膠原蛋白的生成中扮演著重要的角色，且有證據顯示它能減少皺紋和黑色素沉澱（hyperpigmentation）。缺點是它非常不穩定，如果產品的配方不對或存放方式不當，它很快就會分解失效。如果把昂貴的乳霜隨便亂放太久，它可能會變得完全沒有效果。

胜肽是另一種常見的成分，它是胺基酸的短鏈。有些胜肽能促進細胞外基質蛋白的生成，有些能防止它們分解，還有一些則能放鬆面部肌肉，其作用方式類似於肉毒桿菌。然而，化妝品公司用來宣稱抗皺功效的科學研究，通常都是由這些公司自己進行或資助的。

所有這些成分都可以、也確實被以不同的方式組合在一起。而且它們需要時間才能發揮作用：皮膚科醫生建議，在評估效果並進行任何調整之前，應該堅持使用相同的護膚流程幾個月。雖然這些成分可以部分逆轉老化的跡象，但預防依然比治療更有效。沒有什麼比做好防曬更能保護肌膚的了。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

John Prideaux, our executive editor, on why America is a spectacular place to host the football tournament

 

Jun 27th 2026|3 min read

Fans of soccerball love to complain about America. With its unbridled capitalism, it has the gall to treat football as a business. “Hydration breaks” have been introduced in this year’s World Cup. Fans suspect these are the first step to more frequent advert breaks for TV viewers, a grubbily commercial innovation that changes their game. Going to a match costs a fortune . Dynamic pricing may work in the NFL or NBA, where the market in tickets resembles the market for any other luxury good. But soccer, with its roots in teams of men who worked in the same factory, has different values. In economics terms, these countries consider football to be part of the commons.

In many of the big football countries there is an expectation that the **games **will be carried by channels that are available to everyone. Were the rights sold to the highest bidder, in profit-maximising fashion, and large numbers of people unable to watch, that would become an existential issue for the government of the day.

There’s the fact that Donald Trump’s America would seem singularly disinterested in being hospitable. Foreign fans who followed the operations of ICE in Minneapolis earlier this year wondered whether America actually wanted the world to visit. Then its government denied entry to Omar Artan, one of Africa’s best referees, simply because he was from Somalia. America’s president will help present the trophy to the winning team, which will make it harder for athletes to say that the tournament has nothing to do with politics. For all these reasons, the argument goes, America doesn’t understand the World Cup.

There is truth to this grumbling, but it misses a big reason why America is, in fact, a spectacular place to host the tournament. This struck me powerfully while I was watching Brazil v Haiti last week at a bar in lower Manhattan.

Yes, ticket prices are high: that reflects demand and also how much richer America is on a per person basis than other developed countries. New Jersey’s mass-transit system is indeed annoying. The Trump administration has attempted to spoil the vibe. But it has not succeeded. That is because of American exceptionalism.

The country’s population size and history of immigration means almost every nation competing in this World Cup has a sizable diaspora in the United States.

That is something Americans take for granted, but it means that you could run a pretty good World Cup in America without inviting any foreign visitors at all. My bar in SoHo was so full of Brazilians that we took over the sidewalk and spilled into the street. (I lived in São Paulo for three years, so they are my second team.) Football-crazed Brazil, which has won the championship five times, boasts a population of 220m, so it’s not hard to find a bar in London or Paris taken over by yellow and green shirts whose wearers, it turns out, can samba while carrying drinks.

More unusually, there were a bunch of Haitian fans in the bar, too. Haiti’s population is only 12m. But there are about 850,000 Haitian migrants in the United States. Add in those who claim Haitian ancestry and you get a bigger number. This is an “only in America” thing.

In fact, pretty much every nation represented in the World Cup will have a bar just in New York City that is designated as home turf. A dedicated football fan could travel the world, attending home games for every country from Algeria to Uzbekistan, using only the subway. And then there is the way that American cities have adopted nationalities—think of the Scots in Boston or the Bosnians in St Louis. If you had to pick one country as the permanent host of the World Cup, America would surely be it.

 

世界盃不懂美國

約翰·普里多，本刊執行編輯，談美國為何是舉辦足球賽事的絕佳之地

2026年6月27日｜3分鐘閱讀

足球迷們最愛抱怨美國。這個資本主義肆意橫行的國家，竟然膽敢將足球視為一門生意。本屆世界盃引入了「補水休息」環節。球迷們懷疑，這不過是日後增加更多電視廣告時段的第一步——一項改變他們心愛運動的銅臭味創新。入場看球的費用高得嚇人。動態定價或許適用於NFL或NBA——這些賽事的門票市場與其他奢侈品市場並無二致。但足球有其根基，它發源於同一工廠的工人球隊，承載著不同的價值觀。用經濟學術語來說，這些國家將足球視為公共財。

在許多足球大國，人們普遍期望比賽能在所有人均可收看的頻道上播出。若將版權以利潤最大化的方式售予出價最高者，導致大批民眾無緣觀賽，那將對當屆政府構成生死攸關的政治危機。

還有一個問題：唐納·川普的美國，似乎對接待外賓毫無興趣。今年稍早，跟蹤報導移民及海關執法局 (ICE)在明尼阿波利斯行動的外國球迷，都不禁疑惑——美國究竟是否歡迎世界各地的訪客？接著，美國政府以索馬利亞籍為由，拒絕非洲頂尖裁判之一奧馬爾·阿爾坦入境。此外，美國總統將親自上台為冠軍球隊頒獎，這讓運動員們更難辯稱本屆賽事與政治無關。基於以上種種，外界的說法是：美國不懂世界盃。

這些抱怨不無道理，但卻忽略了一個重要原因——美國其實是舉辦本屆賽事的絕佳之地。上週我在曼哈頓下城一間酒吧觀看巴西對海地的比賽時，這一點深深震撼了我。

是的，票價高昂——這反映的是市場需求，也反映出美國人均財富遠高於其他已開發國家。紐澤西的公共交通系統確實令人惱火。川普政府也試圖破壞氣氛。但它並未得逞。原因，正在於美國的獨特性。

這個國家龐大的人口規模與悠久的移民歷史，意味著幾乎每個參賽國在美國都擁有相當規模的海外僑民社群。

這是美國人視為理所當然的事，但正因如此，即便不邀請任何海外訪客，美國也能辦出一屆相當精彩的世界盃。我在蘇活區那間酒吧裡，巴西人多到我們佔領了人行道，蔓延至街道。（我在聖保羅生活過三年，所以巴西是我的第二支主隊。）熱愛足球的巴西擁有兩億兩千萬人口、五度稱霸世界盃，要在倫敦或巴黎找到一間被黃綠球衣淹沒的酒吧並不難——而那些穿著球衣的人，原來還能一邊端著飲料一邊跳森巴。

更難得的是，酒吧裡還有一群海地球迷。海地總人口僅一千兩百萬，但在美國卻有約八十五萬海地移民。若再加上具有海地血統的人，這個數字還會更大。這就是「只有在美國才會發生」的事。

事實上，幾乎每個參賽國都能在紐約市找到一間屬於自己的「主場酒吧」。一位鐵桿球迷只需搭乘地鐵，便能「環遊世界」，為每一支從阿爾及利亞到烏茲別克的球隊觀看主場比賽。更不用說美國城市認養各國文化的傳統——想想波士頓的蘇格蘭人，或聖路易的波士尼亞人。若真要選出一個永久舉辦世界盃的國家，美國無疑是不二之選。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

That could make a** starkly unequal** country even more so

Jun 2nd 2026|TIANSHUI|6 min read

Listen to this story

LIKE MANY cities in China’s hinterland, Tianshui, in the western province of Gansu, is full of dusty and disused factories. But over the past decade it has also become an unlikely high-tech hub. New industrial parks have sprouted, offering companies cheap energy, financing and land deals. The city has already built an exhibition hall to display the zippy products it hopes to make in the future, called “Tianshui Industry 2050”.

All this will please officials in far-off Beijing. They want China’s rust belt to reinvent itself with technology. Just recently they released yet another plan for urban renewal, calling for the transformation of stagnant cities into “innovative” places that can offer their inhabitants a “high-quality life”.

Yet for all the fanfare, the people of Tianshui are not much better off. The new factories have failed to offset a broader slowdown in the city’s economy: ten years ago Tianshui’s GDP per person was 16% of Beijing’s; now it is 14%. In 2025 the city’s economy grew at a rate two percentage points slower than the national average. Nor, say locals, have the highly automated facilities created many jobs for them. Throngs of young people are leaving in search of better opportunities. Over the past decade, its population has shrunk by nearly half a million to 2.9m. At this rate, by 2050 there will be few workers left.

The tale of Tianshui shows the limits of China’s big bet on advanced manufacturing. The Communist Party has decided the country’s economic future lies in making world-beating technology. So hundreds of cities across the country are, like Tianshui, trying hard to do so. But while the high-tech drive has helped some brainy, connected and wealthy cities become even richer, most of those in the hinterland lack the supply chains or talent to take advantage of it. After all, some 60% of China’s workforce—about 500m people—do not even have a high-school education. Many of them live in smaller and poorer cities.

For centuries Tianshui was more a cultural than an economic hub. Legend has it that China’s first emperor, a serpent-bodied demi-god, was born there; Buddhist grottoes have been cut out of the cliffs nearby. But in the 1960s Tianshui industrialised. It became an important cog in the state-planned economy; its factories made tractors, ball bearings and matches.

A tale of two cities

Dormitories, schools and hospitals were built to cater to the swelling labour force. One of the workers was Ms Dong, now in her 80s, who enjoyed an ultra-stable “iron rice bowl” job at a printing press. She retired in her 40s with a good pension and a guarantee that her son could inherit her job. But most local factories were not competitive enough to survive China’s bumpy transition to a more market-driven economy in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the past ten years a new generation of high-tech factories, making gizmos such as sensors and machine tools, has sprung up. But they have not brought many jobs with them. An exhibit at Tianshui’s museum displays snapshots of the city’s factory floors over the decades. Each shows fewer workers and more robots. Most of the factory positions that are available pay around 3,000 yuan ($440) a month, according to locals, half what they could get in a big city like Shanghai. “I’d like to stay here to settle down, but there’s just no good jobs for young people,” says Wen Jin, a 27-year-old Tianshui native who has moved to Jiangsu province, a wealthy eastern region. The city’s best days are firmly in the past, reckons Ma Xin, another local in his 20s who is hoping to get out.

High-tech industries do create well-paid jobs as well, in research and development, for instance. But these positions are mainly clustered in big cities near China’s coast, like Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, which boast the best universities, brightest graduates and access to the densest supply chains. Tech-sector salaries in such places have shot up in recent years, some topping 1m yuan a year. But few parts of inland China have a chance of attracting such stellar jobs, explains Dan Wang of Eurasia Group, a consultancy. “The vast majority of Chinese cities are stuck with what they have.”

Even as Tianshui is unable to gain from China’s new economic model, it struggles with the problems of the old one. China’s growth has slowed in recent years thanks, in large part, to a lingering property crisis that is gripping the country. House prices have fallen fastest in smaller cities like Tianshui. Unfinished concrete flats litter the city’s outskirts; investment in property there fell by over 40% last year. This in turn has been a drag on consumption because people feel poorer. Total retail sales in Tianshui slipped by a little over 5% in 2025. Gloomy walks through its malls reveal shuttered shops and empty restaurants.

There is a risk that these trends, multiplied across China’s smaller cities, will cause the gaps between the country’s haves and have-nots to widen further. The economic slowdown seems to have hit the poor hardest, according to data compiled by Li Shi, a professor at Zhejiang University in the eastern city of Hangzhou. In a paper published in April he cited surveys showing that China’s bottom tenth of workers by income saw their wages rise by only 2% per year from 2018 to 2023, compared with an average annual growth rate of around 5%.

China’s government knows that high-tech factories are not an economic panacea. Investment in machinery and other physical assets “has fuelled China’s economic boom, but its returns have gradually declined”, noted Xinhua, the official state news agency, earlier this year. China’s latest five-year plan, which was released in March and covers the period to 2030, called for “investing in people” as well as factories, to make the economy more equal. In practice, that would mean much more government spending on education, particularly for children from poor families, giving them the skills and knowledge to get better-paid jobs.

But as the people of Tianshui would attest, that is easier said than done. The city’s budget is far smaller than those of wealthy places—it spends less than one-third of the amount per pupil in school that Beijing does, for example. And the economic downturn threatens to turn this into a cycle of decline; the city’s fiscal revenues fell by nearly a tenth last year. Few of Tianshui’s students ever make it to the country’s best universities. “It’s too difficult for children to compete here,” says Shi Tingting, the mother of a 12-year-old girl. “They end up trapped.” ■

中國的高科技崛起正將這個國家的很大一部分留在後面

那可能使一個明顯不平等的國家變得更加如此

2026年6月2日 | 天水 | 6分鐘閱讀時間

像許多在中國腹地的城市一樣，天水，在西部省份甘肅，充滿了落滿灰塵的和廢棄的工廠。

但在過去十年間它也已經成為一個出乎意料的高科技樞紐。

新工業園區已經湧現，提供公司廉價的能源、融資和土地交易。

這座城市已經建造了一個展覽廳來展示它希望在未來製造的敏捷的產品，叫做「天水工業2050」。

這一切將會取悅在遙遠北京的官員們。

他們想要中國的鐵鏽地帶用技術來重塑自身。

就在最近他們發布了又一個關於城市更新的計劃，呼籲將停滯的城市轉型為能夠為他們的居民提供「高質量生活」的「創新的」地方。

然而儘管有所有的宣傳，天水的人民並沒有好過多少。

新的工廠已經未能抵消在這座城市經濟中一個更廣泛的放緩：十年前天水的人均GDP是北京的16%；現在它是14%。

在2025年這座城市的經濟以一個比全國平均慢兩個百分點的速度增長。

當地人說，高度自動化的設施也沒有為他們創造許多工作。

成群的年輕人正為了尋找更好的機會而離開。

在過去十年間，它的人口已經萎縮了接近五十萬到290萬。

照這個速度，到2050年將會幾乎沒有工人留下。

天水的故事顯示了中國在先進製造業上的大賭注的局限。

共產黨已經決定這個國家的經濟未來在於製造舉世無雙的技術。

所以全國各地數以百計的城市正像天水一樣，努力嘗試這樣做。

但是雖然高科技驅動已經幫助了一些聰明的、有脈絡的且富裕的城市變得更加富有，大多數在腹地的那此城市缺乏供應鏈或人才來利用它。

畢竟，大約60%的中國勞動力——大約5億人——甚至沒有一個高中教育。

他們中的許多人居住在較小的和較窮的城市。

幾個世紀以來天水更多是一個文化的而非經濟的樞紐。

傳說它說中國的第一位皇帝，一個蛇身的半神，出生在那裡；佛教石窟已經從附近的峭壁上被開鑿出來。

但在1960年代天水工業化了。

它成為了國家計劃經濟中一個重要的齒輪；它的工廠製造拖拉機、滾珠軸承和火柴。

雙城記

宿舍、學校和醫院被建造來迎合膨脹的勞動力。

工人中的一個是董女士，現在在她80多歲，其在一家印刷廠享受了一個超穩定的「鐵飯碗」工作。

她在她40多歲時退休，帶著一份好的退休金和一個她的兒子能夠繼承她的工作的保證。

但大多數本地的工廠不夠有競爭力到足以在1980年代和1990年代中國向一個更加市場驅動的經濟的顛簸轉型中倖存。

在過去十年中新一代的高科技工廠，製造諸如傳感器和機床之類的小玩意，已經湧現。

但是它們沒有隨之帶來許多工作。

在天水博物館的一個展品展示了這座城市的工廠車間幾十年來的快照。

每一張顯示更少的工人和更多的機器人。

根據當地人，大多數可獲得的工廠職位每個月支付大約3,000元（440美元），是他們在一個像上海這樣的大城市所能得到的（數額的）一半。

「我想留在此地定居，但是就是沒有給年輕人的好工作，」文進說，一位27歲的天水本地人，其已經搬到了江蘇省，一個富裕的東部地區。

這座城市最好的日子過去了，馬鑫估計，另一位在他20多歲正希望離開的當地人。

高科技產業也確實創造高薪的工作，例如，在研究與開發中。

但這些職位主要聚集在靠近中國海岸的大城市，像北京、上海和深圳，其坐擁最好的大學、最聰明的畢業生以及獲取最密集供應鏈的途徑。

在這樣的地方科技部門的薪水在近年來已經飆升，一些一年超過100萬元。

但是很少有中國內陸的部分有吸引這樣輝煌工作的機會，歐亞集團（一家諮詢公司）的丹·王解釋道。

「絕大多數的中國城市都與他們所擁有的困在一起。」

即使當天水無法從中國的新經濟模式中獲益時，它與舊模式的問題作鬥爭。

中國的增長在近年來已經放緩，這在很大程度上”歸功”於一場正席捲這個國家的揮之不去的房地產危機。

房價在像天水這樣較小的城市中下跌得最快。

未完工的水泥公寓散落在这座城市的郊區；在那裡的房地產投資在去年下降了超過40%。

這反過來已經成為消費的一個拖累，因為人們感覺更窮了。

天水的總零售銷售在2025年下滑了稍微超過5%。

穿過它的購物中心的憂鬱散步透露出關門的商店和空蕩的餐廳。

有一個風險是這些趨勢，在中國較小的城市中乘數放大，將會導致這個國家的富有者與一無所有者之間的差距進一步擴大。

經濟放緩似乎已經對窮人打擊最重，根據由李實編纂的數據，一位在東部城市杭州的浙江大學的教授。

在四月發表的一篇論文中他引用了調查，顯示按收入計中國最底層十分之一的工人看到他們的工資從2018年到2023年每年只增長2%，相比之下與大約5%的平均年度增長率。

中國的政府知道高科技工廠不是一個經濟萬靈丹。

在機械和其他實體資產上的投資「已經給中國的經濟繁榮注入燃料，但它的回報已經逐漸下降」，新華社，官方的國家通訊社，在今年早些時候指出。

中國最新的五年計劃，其在三月被發布且涵蓋到2030年的時期，呼籲「投資於人」以及工廠，來使經濟更加平等。

在實踐中，那將意味著多得多的在教育上的政府開支，特別是對於來自貧困家庭的兒童，給予他們技能和知識來獲得更好薪水的工作。

但是正如天水的人民會證實的，那是說起來容易做起來難。

這座城市的預算遠小於那些富裕地方的——例如，它在學校中在每位學生身上花費的金額少於北京所做的三分之一。

而且經濟低迷威脅要將這變成一個衰退的循環；這座城市的財政收入在去年下降了接近十分之一。

很少有天水的學生曾經成功進入這個最好的大學。

「對於孩子們來說在這裡競爭太困難了，」史婷婷說，一位12歲女孩的母親。

「他們最終被困住。」

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

The debates do not have women’s interests at heart

Jun 4th 2026|Tokyo|4 min read

MAI, a 34-year-old woman in Tokyo, used to work at a hospital. But when covid-19 overwhelmed the wards, she found her work too stressful. A single mother, she also needed money for her family. Lured by higher pay, she entered the sex trade, first working as a porn actress before becoming a deriheru or “delivery health” worker—slang for call-girls who visit clients at home or in hotels. For a two-hour session, she earns ¥30,000 ($190).

Mai is among hundreds of thousands of women working in Japan’s sprawling sex industry. The business, thought to be worth ¥2trn-5trn ($12bn-31bn) a year, is woven into male social life. One study in 2022 found that 48% of Japanese men had paid for sex at some point, compared with 11% in Britain. Hagiwara, a 63-year-old man in Tokyo, recalls being taken to a brothel by senior colleagues after joining a company, as a rite of passage. Emu, a man in his 30s, says “most men around me have been at least once.”

Lately, however, lawmakers’ tolerance for the industry has come under much strain. Two recent triggers have encouraged Japanese to re-examine the confusing thicket of laws and conventions that govern how sex work is policed. One was an outrageous crime: last year authorities rescued a 12-year-old Thai girl who had been trafficked to Japan and forced to work at a sex shop in Tokyo.

The second concern has been the growing visibility of women who sell sex around Okubo Park, near Tokyo’s red-light district (where the haggling more ordinarily goes on behind neon-lit doors). Relatively few women are involved in this. Nonetheless, solicitation (waiting for or approaching clients in public) is illegal in Japan. The sight of women openly waiting for clients has unsettled the public.

Compounding the public debate is the fact that some of their customers are foreign tourists, lured to Japan by the cheapness of the yen. Videos of them approaching women in Okubo Park have spread rapidly online. “It is truly lamentable,” said Kamiya Sohei, leader of the right-wing populist Sanseito party, in a video. Behind the outrage lies a sense of wounded pride: during Japan’s boom years in the 1970s and 1980s, it was Japanese men who went abroad for sex.

The authorities have decided to act—at least where the streetwalkers are concerned. Recently women around Okubo Park have been detained or arrested. Yet campaigners say it is unfair that authorities have not also been trying to punish the buyers. “Women are taken away by the police—while the men who buy sex stand beside them smirking,” says Kanajiri Kazuna of PAPS, a women’s-rights group. In November an opposition lawmaker raised this disparity in parliament. In response Takaichi Sanae, the prime minister, ordered the justice ministry to re-examine current practices and consider reforms.

The prospect of change has sparked very broad debate about how Japan could improve its policing of sex work. Some Japanese feminists would like their country to implement the Nordic style of regulation adopted by Sweden, France and others, which criminalises buying sex while shielding sellers themselves from prosecution. “Buying sex is a form of violence against women,” says Ms Kanajiri.

Other Japanese argue that getting tougher on buyers will drive sex work underground, leaving women more exposed to violence. Some want the industry fully legalised and regulated, as in Germany and the Netherlands. Nakayama Misato of Siente, a sex-work advocacy group, argues that criminalisation can mean that women are treated merely as victims, ignoring their agency. “Doing sex work is not a bad thing—it’s a valid way of making a living.”

To be more than skin deep, any changes would have to apply not only to streetwalking but to Japan’s vast indoor sex-industry, the laws for which are riddled with loopholes and selectively enforced. Consider the practice of “soapland”, in which customers ostensibly pay to be bathed; if sex happens to take place in the process, officials generally turn a blind eye. Takao Yasuo of Curtin University says this is typical of Japan’s approach to regulating the sex industry. The priority is to keep vice decorously out of public view.

A big rethink seems unlikely. For now, the justice ministry is narrowly focused on street prostitution. Taking care of that is “the lowest-cost, highest-visibility form of enforcement available to the state”, notes Mr Takao. “Many lawmakers, especially conservatives, are sensitive to the idea of women becoming sexually promiscuous,” says Shiomura Ayaka, a lawmaker. Women openly soliciting sex in public have become symbols of social disorder. ■

性觀光客加劇了對日本色情業的憤怒

這些辯論的核心並非以女性的利益為出發點

2026年6月4日 | 東京 | 4分鐘閱讀時間

小麥（Mai），一名在東京的34歲女性，過去曾在一家醫院工作。但是當新冠肺炎壓垮了病房時，她發現自己的工作壓力太大了。作為一名單親媽媽，她也需要錢來養家。在更高薪水的誘惑下，她進入了性產業，先是擔任成人片（A片）女演員，之後成為一名「deriheru」或「派遣健康（外送茶）」工作者——這是指前往客戶家中或飯店服務的應召女郎的俚語。一個兩小時的服務時段，她可以賺取30,000日圓（190美元）。

小麥是日本龐大且擴張的性產業中，成千上萬名工作女性的其中之一。這項據信每年價值達2兆至5兆日圓（120億至310億美元）的行業，已經融入了男性的社交生活之中。2022年的一項研究發現，48%的日本男性曾在某個時間點花錢買過性服務，相比之下，英國的比例僅為11%。萩原（Hagiwara），一名在東京的63歲男性，回憶起自己在進入公司後，被資深同事帶去妓院，將其視為一種成年禮。艾姆（Emu），一名30多歲的男性說：「我身邊的大多數男人至少都去過一次。」

然而，近來立法者對該產業的容忍度受到了極大的考驗。最近的兩個導火線，促使日本人重新審視管理如何對性工作進行治安維持的、那套令人困惑且錯綜複雜的法律與慣例。其中一個是一起駭人聽聞的罪行：去年當局解救了一名被販賣到日本、並被強迫在東京一家情色店工作的12歲泰國女孩。

第二個擔憂則是，在東京紅燈區附近的「大久保公園」周邊，販賣性服務的女性其能見度越來越高（在那裡，討價還價通常是在霓虹燈閃爍的門後進行）。雖然涉及此事的女性相對較少。儘管如此，拉客（在公共場所等待或主動接近客戶）在日本是違法的。女性公開等待客戶的景象讓公眾感到不安。

使公眾辯論更加劇的複雜因素是，她們的某些客戶是外國觀光客，他們因日圓貶值（便宜）而被吸引到日本。他們在大久保公園接近女性的影片在網路上迅速傳播。右翼民粹主義「參政黨」黨魁神谷宗幣（Kamiya Sohei）在一段影片中表示：「這真是令人悲哀。」在憤怒的背後，隱藏著一種受挫的自尊心：在1970年代和1980年代日本經濟繁榮的歲月裡，是日本男性前往國外進行性觀光。

當局已決定採取行動——至少在涉及街頭流鶯的部分。最近，大久保公園周邊的女性遭到拘留或逮捕。然而，社會運動人士表示，當局沒有同時試圖懲罰買家是不公平的。「女性被警察帶走——而買性的男人則站在一旁傻笑，」女權團體 PAPS 的金尻カズナ（Kanajiri Kazuna）表示。去年11月，一名反對黨議員在國會中提出了這一不平等待遇。作為回應，首相高市早苗（Takaichi Sanae）命令法務省重新審視現行做法並考慮改革。

變革的前景引發了關於日本如何改善性工作治安管理的廣泛辯論。一些日本女性主義者希望她們的國家能實施瑞典、法國等國採用的「北歐模式」規範，該模式將買性行為定為刑事犯罪，同時保護賣性者免受起訴。「買性是對女性的一種暴力形式，」金尻女士說。

其他日本人則認為，對買家採取更嚴厲的態度會將性工作推向地下，使女性更容易暴露於暴力之中。有些人則希望像德國和荷蘭那樣，將該產業完全合法化並進行規範。性工作倡議團體 Siente 的中山美里（Nakayama Misato）認為，刑事犯罪化可能意味著女性僅被視為受害者，而忽略了她們的自主權（主體性）。「從事性工作並不是一件壞事——這是一種正當的謀生方式。」

若要使任何改變不只是流於表面（深層改革），這些改變不僅必須適用於街頭拉客，還必須適用於日本龐大的室內性產業，而該產業的法律充斥著漏洞，且屬於選擇性執法。以「泡泡浴（soapland）」的慣例為例，顧客表面上是付費接受沐浴服務；如果在過程中偶然發生了性行為，官員通常會睜一隻眼閉一隻眼。寇廷大學（Curtin University）的鷹尾安雄（Takao Yasuo）表示，這是日本規範性產業的典型做法。其首要任務是體面地將惡行（色情）保持在公眾視線之外。

一場徹底的大反思似乎不太可能發生。目前，法務省正狹隘地將焦點集中在街頭賣淫上。鷹尾先生指出，處理這件事是「國家目前可行、成本最低且能見度最高的一種執法形式」。國會議員塩村文夏（Shiomura Ayaka）表示：「許多立法者，特別是保守派，對於女性變得性生活混亂（放蕩）的想法非常敏感。」在公共場合公開拉客的女性，已經成為了社會秩序混亂的象徵。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

The me-first doctrine is a threat to prosperity

Jun 4th 2026|5 min read

Something new is stirring on the left. A fresh crop of socialists want to remake the economy with price controls,** hefty **wealth taxes and a spree of nationalisations. Supercharged by fury over Gaza, they are winning voters at a formidable pace. Many rose to prominence only recently, like Zack Polanski, who leads the Green Party in Britain, or Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York. Others are long-standing political fixtures: the septuagenarian Jean-Luc Mélenchon is on his fourth swing at the French presidency, but thumping support from the 20-somethings of “Generation Z” has put the Elysée back in his sights again.

Call it Gen-Z socialism. Not because all its adherents are young—or because it is new for young people to lean leftward—but because it is the brand of leftism, made for the TikTok era, that today’s young revolutionaries support.

Forget weighty collectivist ideals or seizing the means of production. Gen-Z socialism is a me-first doctrine. Climate change and race, preoccupations of the 2010s and early 2020s, are now much more peripheral concerns. So are social issues, barring Gaza. Angst about inflation, housing and artificial intelligence have replaced all that with something cruder. “This country is awash in wealth,” says Avi Lewis, freshly elected leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada, a country where productivity has been all but flat for a decade. “We can have nice things.” Saying that prices should be capped to keep your bills down while someone else pays for your public services is a seductive, shareable message.

Plenty of the grievances that animate Gen-Z socialists do stem from real issues. Inflation has been too high, rent in big cities is now often unaffordable and AI could upend the labour market. Dismissing these worries would be foolish. Yet Gen-Z socialism is wrong about how to fix the problems of capitalism. It must be resisted, because it is a profound threat to prosperity.

No country’s Gen-Z socialists are quite alike. The realities of power have forced some, like Mr Mamdani, to become more moderate. But they broadly agree on three core principles. First, that growth does little to help ordinary people. Theirs is a zero-sum mindset, where a better outcome comes not from creating but from taking—as they fear ai barons will soon do on a vast scale. Second, that spending can be paid for by the richest. Once the left wanted higher taxes for everyone; Gen-Z socialists demand handouts funded by billionaires. The third tenet is a remarkable hostility to private enterprise. Gen-Z socialists are uninterested in letting the market rip and redistributing the proceeds. They would have chunks of everyday life, from housing to groceries, governed by state diktat.

Politics has always had zany fringes. The far right is no less barmy—and more dangerous. But what is so worrying about the Gen-Z socialists is how deeply their ideas are bleeding into the centre-left. Desperate to compete, even mainstream Democrats in America now propose mad schemes like exempting over half of tax filers from federal income tax. In Britain the Labour Party, having won power on a centrist platform, has been spooked by the Greens and is rekindling its zeal for higher taxes and state control. Increasingly, the ideas of the Gen-Z socialists can win even when their candidates lose.

That is bad news. Rent controls would worsen housing shortages by crushing the incentive to build. The profit margins of big supermarket chains, demonised by Gen-Z socialists, are already wafer-thin after years of ruthless competition—a miracle of modern capitalism. Wealth taxes would become confiscatory and deter innovation. Do not assume that the failure of these policies, if implemented, would bring about an automatic course correction. Europe has struggled for decades to escape the low-growth funk left by its own over-regulation; the rise of statist “Peronists” in Argentina helps explain its century of relative decline.

Resisting Gen-Z socialism is therefore an urgent task. The first step is for free-market liberals to stop apologising. A series of popular criticisms of capitalism, each containing a grain of truth, has in aggregate obscured the fundamental wisdom that private enterprise is at the root of human prosperity. Yes, people aren’t always rational, as behavioural economics shows. True, inequality matters and growth is better when broad-based. Free trade and globalisation create losers as well as winners. But this is the best time in human history to be born, given record real incomes, high life expectancy and low rates of extreme poverty. A punchier defence of capitalism would work better in the social-media age than hand-wringing by uncharismatic centrists like Sir Keir Starmer.

Centrist governments must also solve the problems driving popular discontent. “Abundance” liberals are right to want to build cheap and plentiful housing and infrastructure. Politicians must stop saddling the young with the burden of funding excessive pensions. The tax system must ensure that meritocracy prevails over inheritocracy: broader-based inheritance taxes and levies on property would help. The hardest challenge will be the disruption caused by advances in AI. The Gen-Z leftists have set out their stall with calls for a moratorium on data centres and a government jobs guarantee. Liberals must be more positive and imaginative in their own prescriptions, using a mixture of taxes, distributed capital ownership and support for workers to make sure that the upsides of labour-market disruption are widely shared.

The world is ruled by little else

Populists have the wind in their sails; it can sometimes seem as though market liberalism is doomed to political failure. *The Economist *disagrees. A robust defence of the ideas that have brought unprecedented riches has barely been tried. Many of the problems that animate Gen-Z socialists, like high rents, are the result of markets that are insufficiently free, not excessively so. There is time yet for liberalism to once again produce results—and to win the argument. ■

如何反擊 Z 世代社會主義

「自我優先」的教條是對繁榮的威脅

2026年6月4日 | 5分鐘閱讀時間

左翼陣營中正在醞釀一些新的東西。新一批的社會主義者想要透過價格管制、高額財富稅以及一連串的國有化來重塑經濟。在對加薩局勢的憤怒催化下，他們正以驚人的速度贏得選民支持。許多人直到最近才嶄露頭角，例如領導英國綠黨的柴克·波蘭斯基，或是紐約市市長佐蘭·馬姆達尼。其他人則是政壇的常客：年屆七旬的尚-盧·梅蘭雄正第四次角逐法國總統寶座，而來自「Z 世代」20多歲年輕人的巨大支持，讓他再次將目光投向了愛麗舍宮。

姑且稱之為「Z 世代社會主義」。

這並非因為其所有信徒都很年輕——也不是因為年輕人傾向左翼是什麼新鮮事——而是因為這種左翼主義的品牌是為 TikTok 時代量身打造的，且深受當今全體年輕革命家支持。

忘掉沉重的集體主義理想或奪取生產工具吧。Z 世代社會主義是一種「自我優先」的教條。氣候變遷和種族問題曾是 2010 年代和 2020 年代初期人們關注的焦點，如今已退居到極其邊緣的位置。除了加薩問題之外，社會議題也是如此。

對通貨膨脹、住房和人工智慧的焦慮已經取代了這一切，取而代之的是更粗糙的東西。「這個國家充斥著財富，」加拿大新民主黨新當選的領導人艾維·路易斯說，而該國的生產力在過去十年中幾乎停滯不前。「我們可以擁有美好的事物。」宣稱應該限制價格以降低你的帳單，同時讓別人來為你的公共服務買單，這是一個極具誘惑力且易於分享的訊息。

許多激發 Z 世代社會主義者不滿的情緒，確實源於真實存在的問題。通貨膨脹一直過高，大城市的房租現在往往令人無法負擔，而且人工智慧可能會顛覆勞動力市場。

對這些擔憂不屑一顧將是愚蠢的。然而，Z 世代社會主義在如何解決資本主義問題上是錯誤的。它必須受到抵制，因為它是對繁榮的深刻威脅。

沒有哪個國家的 Z 世代社會主義者是完全相同的。權力的現實已經迫使像馬姆達尼先生這樣的一些人變得更加溫和。但他們大致上認同三個核心原則。

第一，經濟成長對幫助普通人微乎其微。他們抱持的是一種零和思維，認為更好的結果不是來自創造，而是來自掠奪——正如他們擔心人工智慧巨頭很快就會大規模所做的那樣。

第二，政府支出可以由最富有的人來支付。過去的左翼希望對每個人提高稅收；而 Z 世代社會主義者則要求由億萬富翁出資提供福利津貼。

第三，是對私營企業顯著的敵意。Z 世代社會主義者對放任市場自由發展並重新分配收益不感興趣。他們希望日常生活的各個層面，從住房到雜貨，都由國家的強硬命令來管轄。

政治圈一直都有荒誕的邊緣群體。極右翼也同樣瘋狂——而且更加危險。但是，Z 世代社會主義者之所以如此令人擔憂，是因為他們的思想正極深地滲透到中左翼陣營中。為了拼命競爭，甚至連美國主流的民主黨人現在也提出了瘋狂的方案，例如免除超過一半申報者的聯邦個人所得稅。在英國，以中間派政綱贏得政權的工黨已被綠黨嚇壞，正在重新燃起對提高稅收和國家控制的熱情。越來越多情況是，即使 Z 世代社會主義者的候選人落選，他們的思想依然能取得勝利。

這是個壞消息。租金管制會摧毀建造房屋的誘因，從而加劇住房短缺。被 Z 世代社會主義者妖魔化的大型連鎖超市，其利潤率在經歷多年的殘酷競爭後已經薄如蟬翼——這是現代資本主義的奇蹟。財富稅會演變成變相沒收，並阻礙創新。不要假設這些政策一旦實施並遭遇失敗後，會帶來自動的路線修正。歐洲數十年來一直難以擺脫自身過度監管所帶來的低成長泥淖；阿根廷擁護國家主義的「庇隆主義者」崛起，有助於解釋該國經歷長達一世紀的相對衰落。

因此，抵制 Z 世代社會主義是一項迫切的任務。第一步是自由市場自由主義者要停止道歉。一系列對資本主義的普遍批評，雖然每一項都包含著一絲道理，但總體而言，卻掩蓋了「私營企業是人類繁榮的根本基石」這一核心智慧。

誠然，正如行為經濟學所顯示的，人們並不總是理性的。沒錯，不平等確實至關重要，而且當經濟成長基礎廣泛時效果會更好。自由貿易和全球化在創造贏家的同時，也製造了輸家。但是，鑑於創紀錄的實質收入、高預期壽命和極低的極端貧困率，這是人類歷史上最適合出生的時代。在社群媒體時代，對資本主義進行更有力的辯護，會比像施凱爾·斯塔摩爵士這樣缺乏魅力的中間派人士在那裡焦慮束手無策更有效。

中間派政府也必須解決引發民眾不滿的問題。追求「豐裕」的自由主義者渴望建造廉價且充足的住房和基礎設施，這毫無疑問是正確的。政治家們必須停止將資助過高養老金的負擔強加在年輕人身上。稅收制度必須確保唯才主義凌駕於世襲主義之上：更廣泛基礎的遺產稅和房產徵稅將會有所幫助。

最艱巨的挑戰將是人工智慧的進步所帶來的顛覆性衝擊。Z 世代左翼分子(主張社會平等、社會福利與改革進步的人士)已經表明了他們的立場，呼籲暫緩建設數據中心並由政府提供就業保障。自由主義者在他們自己的處方中必須更加積極且富有想像力，透過結合稅收、分散資本所有權以及對勞工的支援，來確保勞動力市場顛覆所帶來的正面效益能被廣泛分享。

世界幾乎不被其他東西所統治。民粹主義者正順風順水；有時這看起來就像是市場自由主義注定要在政治上失敗。《經濟學人》對此持反對意見。對於那些帶來前所未有財富的思想進行堅定辯護，目前還幾乎沒有人嘗試過。許多激勵 Z 世代社會主義者的問題，例如高昂的租金，其實是市場「不夠自由」的結果，而不是「過度自由」所致。自由主義依然有時間再次創造出成果——並在這場辯論中贏得勝利。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

How East Asia should respond to its China shock

As they deindustrialise, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan must reform

May 28th 2026|4 min read

AMERICA’S artificial-intelligence** boom** has put the rich economies of north-east Asia into overdrive. Taiwan’s output is growing at a blistering 14% annual pace, thanks to soaring sales of chips and servers for data centres. In the past year operating profits at South Korea’s makers of memory chips have risen by over 500%. Even sluggish Japan is benefiting—though it long ago lost its title as the world’s pre-eminent chipmaker. In 2025 all three countries enjoyed record exports and current-account surpluses.

The region’s export bonanza, though, obscures an important story in the rest of its economy. As we report, outside its highest-tech sectors, rich north-east Asia is deindustrialising. Strong competition from China, paired with increasing specialisation in chips, has disrupted an economic model based on a wider range of manufacturing exports—the model that helped make the region prosperous in the 1980s and 1990s. Even as it booms, north-east Asia increasingly needs reform.

The ascendant assembler

In the past few years China’s relations with its rich neighbours have been transformed. Once it imported high-value parts from north-east Asia and focused on low-value final assembly. Now it competes across the whole supply chain. Taiwan’s long-running surplus in goods with the mainland flipped into deficit this year, as South Korea’s did years ago (though in the past few months Korean chip exports have returned it to surplus again). In Japan the bilateral deficit with China has plumbed new depths, setting a record earlier this year. Industries from carmaking to chemicals are under intense pressure. As in the West, the perception that domestic manufacturers are competing with goods produced by subsidised Chinese firms is feeding protectionist sentiment.

The specialisation in chips is an understandable development that reflects these economies’ maturity. Yet this particular focus also creates fragility. The tech-hardware cycle is notoriously volatile and its vicissitudes increasingly affect the region’s economies. The tech supply chain also relies deeply on America and China for both critical inputs and end-user demand. On an index of export-basket concentration, north-east Asia is 73% higher than the rich-world average, and concentration has risen since 2019. This leaves the region dangerously exposed to protectionism by either superpower.

There is nothing wrong with specialisation, as David Ricardo would attest. However, East Asia’s rich economies would be better off if they paired their chip-export juggernauts with dynamic domestic economies. The trouble is that domestic demand is too low—a legacy, in part, of outdated economic structures that hold down consumption in order to promote exports above all else.

The time has come to sweep these old systems away. Two-tier labour markets guarantee employment for insiders, often working for big exporters, while inflicting wage penalties and precarity on everyone else. Freeing up labour markets would improve the matching of workers and firms, lifting real wages. Pension systems favour staff at exporters but are stingy for others, leaving the region with some of the rich world’s highest rates of relative poverty among the elderly. Higher minimum incomes would boost aggregate spending. Taiwan has engineered a weak currency, and South Korea and Japan use the state to allocate credit. Less financial engineering would let resources flow to the firms that will use them best.

North-east Asia must allow failing manufacturers to die a natural death. Support should be stopped for mighty firms such as TSMC and Samsung Electronics, which do not require lavish subsidies to compete. And although East Asian countries can hardly avoid relying on markets in America and China—the world’s two biggest economies—they can cut other barriers to trade. Some of these barriers are local. Grievances from colonial times mean that South Korea and Japan still do not have a bilateral free-trade agreement. South Korea should join the Japan-led CPTPP, a top-notch trading pact.

The danger is that, spooked by the China shock, the region’s governments will instead double down on aggressive industrial policy. South Korea has promised $530bn in chipmaking subsidies and Takaichi Sanae, Japan’s prime minister, is overseeing state-led investment into 61 “strategic” goods. Using the power of the government to promote exports succeeded for these economies when they were poor and trying to catch up with the West. It is not an approach that works in places that are already rich. Doubling down on exports will leave north-east Asia poorer and more exposed. Instead, the region’s best economic bet is to become more dynamic at home and more diversified abroad. ■

東亞應如何回應其「中國衝擊」

隨著去工業化發生，台灣、南韓與日本必須進行改革

2026年5月28日｜閱讀時間 4 分鐘

美國的人工智慧熱潮已讓東北亞的富裕經濟體全速運轉。由於資料中心所需晶片與伺服器銷售激增，台灣的產出正以驚人的年率 14% 成長。過去一年裡，南韓記憶體晶片製造商的營業利潤增加了超過 500%。即使是長期低迷的日本也從中受益——儘管它早已失去全球首要晶片製造國的地位。2025年，這三個國家都創下了出口與經常帳盈餘的新紀錄。

然而，該地區的出口榮景掩蓋了其餘經濟中的一個重要故事。正如我們所報導的，在最高科技產業之外，富裕的東北亞正經歷去工業化。來自中國的強大競爭，加上日益專注於晶片產業，已經擾亂了一種以更廣泛製造業出口為基礎的經濟模式——正是這種模式在1980與1990年代幫助該地區走向繁榮。即使正處於繁榮之中，東北亞也愈來愈需要改革。

崛起的組裝者

過去幾年間，中國與其富裕鄰國的關係已經發生轉變。過去，中國從東北亞進口高附加價值零組件，自己則專注於低附加價值的最終組裝。如今，中國已在整條供應鏈上展開競爭。

台灣長期對中國大陸維持的貨物貿易順差，今年已轉為逆差；南韓則早在數年前就出現同樣情況（雖然過去幾個月南韓晶片出口回升，又讓其恢復順差）。在日本，對中國的雙邊貿易逆差已跌至前所未有的低點，並於今年稍早創下紀錄。從汽車製造到化學工業，各產業都面臨沉重壓力。如同西方國家一樣，人們認為本國製造商正在與受到中國政府補貼的企業所生產的商品競爭，這種看法正在助長保護主義情緒。

專注於晶片產業是一種可以理解的發展，反映出這些經濟體的成熟。然而，這種特定的聚焦也帶來脆弱性。科技硬體產業週期向來波動劇烈，而其起伏如今愈來愈影響整個地區的經濟。此外，科技供應鏈在關鍵投入與最終需求方面都高度依賴美國與中國。在一項衡量出口商品籃集中度的指數上，東北亞比富裕國家平均高出 73%，而且自2019年以來集中度還在上升。這使該地區危險地暴露於任何一方超級大國所採取的保護主義措施之下。

專業分工本身並沒有錯，正如大衛．李嘉圖所主張的那樣。然而，如果東亞富裕經濟體能夠在其強大的晶片出口機器之外，同時擁有充滿活力的國內經濟，它們的處境將會更好。問題在於國內需求過低——這在某種程度上是過時經濟結構的遺留結果。這些結構壓抑消費，以便把促進出口放在首位。

現在是時候徹底掃除這些舊制度了。雙軌勞動市場保障了體制內人士的就業——這些人往往受僱於大型出口企業——卻讓其他人承受薪資懲罰與不穩定的工作環境。放寬勞動市場限制將改善勞工與企業之間的配對效率，並提高實質工資。

退休金制度偏袒出口企業員工，卻對其他人相當吝嗇，使得該地區老年人口的相對貧窮率居於富裕國家之列的高位。提高最低所得將有助於提升整體支出。

台灣一直維持疲弱的匯率，而南韓與日本則利用國家力量配置信貸。減少這類金融工程，將能讓資源流向最能有效運用它們的企業。

東北亞必須允許失敗的製造商自然退出市場。像台積電與三星電子這樣強大的企業，其實不需要慷慨補貼也能維持競爭力，因此應停止對其提供支持。

此外，雖然東亞國家幾乎無法避免依賴美國與中國——這兩個全球最大的經濟體——但它們可以降低其他貿易障礙。其中一些障礙源自區域內部。殖民時代遺留下來的恩怨意味著南韓與日本至今仍未簽署雙邊自由貿易協定。南韓應加入由日本主導的《跨太平洋夥伴全面進步協定》（CPTPP），這是一項高水準的貿易協定。

危險在於，受到「中國衝擊」驚嚇後，該地區政府反而會加倍推動積極的產業政策。南韓已承諾提供 5,300 億美元的晶片製造補貼，而日本首相高市早苗則正在監督由政府主導、涵蓋 61 項「戰略商品」的投資計畫。

當這些經濟體仍然貧窮、試圖追趕西方時，利用政府力量促進出口確實取得了成功。然而，對於已經富裕的國家而言，這並不是一種有效的方法。進一步押注出口將使東北亞變得更加貧窮，也更加脆弱。

相反地，該地區最佳的經濟策略，是讓國內經濟變得更具活力，同時讓對外經濟關係更加多元化。■

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

Likert or not

Mar 19th 2026|4 min read

1. “This sentence is false” is an example of a logical inconsistency known as the liar paradox. If this sentence is true, then it is indeed false. But if this sentence is false, then it must be true. This is the kind of thing that makes philosophers go weak at the knees and gives normal people a headache.

2. A small echo of the liar paradox can be heard in a ritual of modern management: the annual employee survey. Imagine being asked to react to this statement: “This survey is a complete waste of time.” If enough people Strongly Agree with this proposition, then it’s probably true. But if a company is the kind of place where employees are prepared to give such honest feedback, then isn’t it likely to be false?

3. Employee surveys are a staple of corporate life. Knowing what workers are thinking is an important goal. High employee churn imposes financial and operational costs. There is lots of research to suggest that employee satisfaction leads to better financial outcomes. But set-piece surveys are really useful only if three conditions are met: they are properly designed, they are used in conjunction with other tools and they lead somewhere.

4. Among other things, proper design means grappling with the problem that employees are not necessarily incentivised to be honest. Faced with a Likert scale and the proposition that “My bosses have the communication skills of a banana,” you might Strongly Agree but still opt to Neither Agree Nor Disagree on your submitted form. Promises of confidentiality and anonymity can help, but only to a point.

5. Impression management, a fancy name for making yourself look good, can skew results on questions about things like job-safety practices. There are ways to mitigate this, however. A recent study by Emma Zaal of the University of Groningen and her co-authors found that using different survey formulations can have a big impact on responses. In a survey of Dutch adults, which asked questions like whether they had sent text messages while driving a car, the inclusion of face-saving options such as “occasionally” or “only when no other option” elicited a very different set of answers from binary “yes” or “no” options.

6. Employers can look at unvarnished feedback, most obviously on workplace-review sites such as GlassDoor. Artificial intelligence has the ability to build a coherent picture out of a mass of unstructured comments. In one recent paper, Tom Reader and Alex Gillespie of the London School of Economics looked for evidence of high-pressure cultures in employee reviews of European firms. Reviews that suggested very ambitious targets and expediency in reaching them were predictive of companies experiencing a future corporate scandal.

7. Frequency is another aspect of good design. A lot can change in the space of a year; an annual survey is a long time to wait for an update on employee sentiment. Retrospective evaluations are also subject to biases like the peak-end rule, which describes how people overweight the most extreme and the closing moments of an experience when they recall it. In one famous experiment, Daniel Kahneman and others put volunteers through two unpleasant tasks: the first involved holding their hands in icy water for a minute, and the second for 90 seconds, though for the final 30 seconds the water’s temperature rose by a little. The first experience was objectively less painful but, given a choice, the second was the one people chose to repeat.

8. Shorter “pulse” surveys cannot eradicate these problems, but are a way to gather more timely data. HappyOrNot, a Finnish company that makes those smiley-face feedback terminals you see in airports and elsewhere, also installs its machines inside companies as a way of keeping track of employee sentiment on a daily or weekly basis.

9. Good design and multiple sources of information contribute to a successful employee survey. But nothing matters more than being seen to act on feedback. If you say that your bosses have the communication skills of a banana and then hear nothing back, you have the faint satisfaction of knowing you are right but not much else. Surveys that prompt no follow-up action deepen cynicism rather than enthusiasm.

10. All of which leads to another paradox. Surveys are most useful in organisations that care about what their employees think. But organisations that care about what their employees think often have less need for surveys.■

員工滿意度調查成功的秘訣

不論你喜不喜歡（Likert scale 刻度調查的雙關語）

2026年3月19日 | 4 分鐘閱讀

「這句話是假的」是一個被稱為「說謊者悖論」的邏輯矛盾案例。如果這句話是真的，那麼它確實是假的；但如果這句話是假的，那麼它就必須是真的。這種事情會讓哲學家雙膝發軟，並讓一般人感到頭痛。

在現代管理的一項儀式中，可以聽到說謊者悖論的微弱迴聲：那就是年度員工調查。想像一下，當你被要求對這句話做出反應：「這次調查完全是浪費時間。」如果有足夠多的人「強烈同意」這個命題，那麼它很可能是真的。但如果一家公司是那種員工願意提供如此誠實反饋的地方，那麼這句話難道不更有可能是假的嗎？

員工調查是企業生活的家常便飯。了解員工在想什麼是一個重要的目標。高員工離職率會帶來財務和營運上的成本。有大量的研究表明，員工滿意度能帶來更好的財務成果。但是，這種固定形式的調查只有在滿足三個條件時才真正有用：它們經過妥善設計、與其他工具配合使用，並且能帶來實際的改變。

其中，妥善的設計意味著必須解決一個問題：員工不一定有動機保持誠實。面對李克特量表（Likert scale）以及「我的老闆具備香蕉般的溝通技巧」這個命題時，你內心可能「強烈同意」，但最終在提交的表單上還是會選擇「既不同意也不反對」。保護隱私和匿名的承諾會有所幫助，但也只能起到一定程度的作用。

印象管理（這是一個讓自己看起來面子好看的精緻名稱）可能會在有關工作安全規範等問題上扭曲調查結果。然而，有一些方法可以減輕這種情況。格羅寧根大學的艾瑪·扎爾（Emma Zaal）及其合著者最近發表的一項研究發現，使用不同的問卷設計表述會對回答產生重大影響。在一項針對荷蘭成年人的調查中（詢問他們是否曾在開車時發送簡訊），加入「偶爾」或「僅在別無選擇時」等顧及面子的選項，所引出的答案與二分法的「是」或「否」選項截然不同。

雇主可以參考未經修飾的反饋，最顯而易見的是在 GlassDoor 等職場評價網站上。人工智慧有能力從大量非結構化的評論中，拼湊出一個清晰完整的輪廓。在最近的一篇論文中，倫敦政治經濟學院的湯姆·里德（Tom Reader）和亞歷克斯·吉萊斯皮（Alex Gillespie）在歐洲企業的員工評論中，尋找是否存在高壓文化的證據。那些暗示目標非常宏大、且在達成目標時不擇手段的評論，預示著這些公司未來將會經歷企業醜聞。

頻率是妥善設計的另一個面向。在長達一年的時間裡，很多事情都會發生變化；對於獲取員工情緒的最新動態而言，年度調查是一段漫長的等待。回溯性的評估也容易受到像是「峰終定律」（peak-end rule）等偏誤的影響，該定律描述了人們在回憶一項經歷時，會過度重視最極端以及結束時的時刻。在一個著名的實驗中，丹尼爾·康納曼（Daniel Kahneman）等人讓志願者經歷兩項令人不快的任務：第一項涉及將手放在冰水中一分鐘；第二項則是放 90 秒，不過在最後的 30 秒內，水溫稍微上升了一點。第一種體驗客觀上痛苦較少，但如果可以選擇，人們卻選擇重複第二種。

更短期的「脈搏」（pulse）調查雖然無法完全消除這些問題，但卻是收集更即時數據的一種方法。HappyOrNot 是一家芬蘭公司，負責製造你在機場和其他地方看到的那些笑臉反饋終端機，該公司也將這些機器安裝在企業內部，作為每日或每週追蹤員工情緒的一種方式。

好的設計和多元的信息來源有助於員工調查的成功。但沒有任何事情比「被看見對反饋採取行動」更重要。如果你說你的老闆具備香蕉般的溝通技巧，隨後卻沒聽到任何回應，你只會得到一種知道自己是對的、卻於事無補的微弱滿足感。沒有引發任何後續行動的調查，非但不能深化熱情，反而會加深諷刺與犬儒主義。

這一切引出了另一個悖論：調查在那些關心員工想法的組織中最有用。然而，關心員工想法的組織，往往較不需要進行調查。■

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn

China’s rivals are learning how to get what China won’t share

Apr 20th 2026|5 min read

THEY USED to gripe about too much technology transfer in China. But in the past year or so, foreign business and political leaders** have started to fret that too little is happening.** No longer do they worry so much about Western tech landing in Chinese hands; rather, they fear that China is now too effective at preventing its best stuff from passing to foreigners. A former Chinese trade official reacts to the pivot with empathy rather than mockery. “It is a bit hypocritical but it’s understandable,” he says.

It might be tempting to craft a morality play out of this, as if countries outside China are getting their comeuppance. But at its heart this is a practical problem, a question of whether China will be able to dig a moat around its world-leading technologies, from electric vehicles to artificial-intelligence-powered robots. Chaguan is inclined to take the other side of the bet—namely, that knowledge will flow as it normally does, from those who have it to those who want it. A reverse tech transfer will, over time, occur.

In principle, the mechanism is straightforward. Countries can offer Chinese firms market access as long as they set up local manufacturing. In practice, none of this is automatic—and all of it is fraught. The European Union is now at the forefront, recently proposing procurement rules that would require things such as battery-storage systems for Europe to be made there. Chinese companies wanting to be let in to European markets would have to invest in factories there. Developing countries also see promise. From Brazil to Vietnam, governments are opening their doors to Chinese EV companies and urging them to use local content. Yet it is early days. “We have been talking about tech transfer for just the past year and it’s still not really clear how it will work,” says one diplomat with refreshing candour.

One obstacle will be China itself. Over the past five years it has built an export-control regime, mimicking America’s. The stated goal is to protect national security but many controls are aimed at shoring up Chinese industry. Last year, for example, the commerce ministry said it would require companies to obtain licences before exporting technologies used in EV batteries. A Western trade official sees little prospect of Chinese officials letting out anything genuinely valuable. They have already reacted angrily to the made-in-Europe legislation, viewing it as a ploy to weaken Chinese industry. The saga of Manus, an AI startup, also highlights Chinese leaders’ paranoia. Founded in China, Manus shifted its business registration to Singapore last year, facilitating a sale to Meta, Facebook’s parent company. Chinese regulators are now attempting to unwind that deal and have barred Manus’s two co-founders from leaving the country.

But China’s own record in digesting foreign tech offers some guidance for the rest of the world. Persistence will be essential. China took three decades to hone its methods: incentives for investors; requirements for local joint ventures; content rules; partnerships with foreign universities; and, yes, theft of intellectual property. One critical need is more attention to Chinese scientific research: much of it, at least in pre-commercial phases, is in journals, says Tai Ming Cheung, an analyst of Chinese tech policy. “It’s something we didn’t think about that now we have to,” he says.

Moreover, it is a mistake to think tech transfer involves discrete bits of technology, such as a blueprint for photovoltaic cells. Instead, what matters is the whole process, including workforce training—a lesson that India is slowly absorbing. Apple, whose investments helped build up China’s supply chains, now produces a quarter of its iPhones in India. Even if most components are sourced from China, many are made in Chinese factories owned by foreign companies, according to analysis by Chris Miller and Vishnu Venugopalan for the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. The implication is that the Chinese supply chain may ultimately prove more mobile than it currently seems.

At the same time the rest of the world will have to follow a different formula from China’s. Instead of relying on the government’s top-down strategy, other countries will have to depend on companies themselves. The auto sector offers an early indication. Almost all global carmakers—General Motors, Hyundai and Volkswagen, to name a few—are now developing EVs in China, learning from local firms. Many ideas are also seeping out through research-and-development partnerships. “The biggest companies are off limits but there are thousands of suppliers to work with,” says one Chinese executive with a foreign carmaker.

China’s tech controls may also have the opposite of their intended effect. For young innovators in AI, the crackdown on Manus is chilling. If they are unable to sell to foreigners, they will never get full value. That will only give them more incentive to take ideas abroad early on. The ultra-competitive Chinese business environment pushes in the same direction. The Chinese auto executive says many local suppliers are starved for profits, which makes foreign partnerships yet more tempting.

Transfer portal

For all its manufacturing prowess, China still wants what the West has to offer, notably in the semiconductor industry. In that sense the current wrangling over tech transfers has an air of negotiation to it. As the former Chinese trade official puts it, China will not fully benefit from its inventiveness unless it can export its own technology. The point, he says, is to extract a price from others, including access to their latest innovations.

This is not a winning proposition for now, especially as American officials want to keep China away from cutting-edge chips. But it points to a possible, even a likely, future in which tech flows both ways across China’s borders. That may worry leaders in both Beijing and Washington. They will, however, struggle to stop it. ■

世界渴望中國科技，中國決心據為己有

中國的競爭對手正學習如何獲取中國不願分享的技術

2026年4月20日 | 5分鐘閱讀

過去，人們總是在抱怨中國有太多的技術轉移。但在過去一年左右的時間裡，外國商界和政治領袖開始擔心技術轉移發生的得太少。他們不再那麼擔心西方科技落入中國手中；相反地，他們擔心中國現在過於有效地阻止其最優秀的技術流向外國人。一位前中國貿易官員對這種轉變感到感同身受，而非嘲諷。他說：「這有點虛偽，但可以理解。」

把這件事塑造成一部道德劇，彷彿中國以外的國家正在自食其果，或許很吸引人。但其核心這是一個切實的技術問題：中國是否能夠在其世界領先的技術（從電動汽車到人工智慧驅動的機器人）周圍挖出一條護城河。對此，「茶館」傾向於站在賭局的另一邊——即知識會像往常一樣，從擁有者流向渴望者。隨著時間的推移，一場「反向技術轉移」將會發生。

原則上，這個機制非常簡單。各國只要要求中國企業在當地設立製造基地，就可以向其開放市場。但在實踐中，這一切都不是自動發生的——而且每一步都充滿了挑戰。歐盟目前走在前列，最近提出了採購法規，要求供應歐洲的電池儲能系統等產品必須在歐洲本土製造。想要進入歐洲市場的中國公司必須在當地投資設廠。發展中國家也看到了希望。從巴西到越南，各國政府正向中國電動車企業敞開大門，並督促它們使用本地零組件。然而，這一切才剛開始。一位外交官帶著令人耳目一新的坦率說道：「我們在過去一年才開始討論技術轉移，目前仍不清楚這將如何運作。」

其中一個障礙將是中國本身。在過去五年中，中國建立了一套模仿美國的出口管制體系。其宣稱的目標是維護國家安全，但許多管制措施旨在保護中國的產業鏈。例如，去年商務部表示，企業在出口用於電動車電池的技術之前必須取得許可。一位西方貿易官員認為，中國官員幾乎不可能讓任何真正有價值的技術流出。他們已經對歐洲製造的立法做出了憤怒的反應，認為這是削弱中國工業的陰謀。人工智慧初創公司 Manus 的故事也突顯了中國領導人的偏執。Manus 創立於中國，去年將其業務註冊地遷至新加坡，以便利出售給 Facebook 的母公司 Meta。中國監管機構目前正試圖撤銷該筆交易，並禁止 Manus 的兩位聯合創始人離境。

不過，中國自身消化外國科技的歷史紀錄，為世界其他地區提供了一些指引。堅持不懈是至關重要的。中國花了三十年的時間來磨練其方法：給予投資者激勵措施、要求成立當地合資企業、規定在地化比例限制、與外國大學建立合作夥伴關係，當然，還有盜取智慧財產權。中國科技政策分析師張太銘（Tai Ming Cheung）表示，一個關鍵的需求是必須更加關注中國的科學研究：至少在商業化前階段，許多研究都發表在期刊上。他說：「這是我們以前沒想過、但現在必須去做的事。」

此外，如果認為技術轉移只涉及具體的技術碎片（例如光伏電池的藍圖），那就錯了。相反地，重要的是包含員工培訓在內的整個流程——這是印度正在慢慢吸收的教訓。曾協助在中國建立供應鏈的蘋果公司（Apple），現在有四分之一的 iPhone 在印度生產。根據美國企業研究院（American Enterprise Institute）智庫學者克里斯·米勒（Chris Miller）和維什努·維努戈帕蘭（Vishnu Venugopalan）的分析，即使大多數零組件仍源自中國，但許多零組件是在外國公司擁有的中國工廠中製造的。這意味著，中國的供應鏈最終可能會被證明比目前看起來更具流動性。

與此同時，世界其他地區必須採用與中國不同的模式。其他國家不能依賴政府自上而下的戰略，而必須依靠企業自身。汽車行業提供了一個早期的跡象。幾乎所有全球汽車製造商——通用（GM）、現代（Hyundai）和福斯（Volkswagen，又譯大眾），僅舉幾例——目前都在中國研發電動車，向本土企業學習。許多想法也透過研發合作夥伴關係滲透出來。一家外國汽車製造商的中國高管表示：「最大型的公司是不能碰的，但有成千上萬家供應商可以合作。」

中國的技術管制也可能產生適得其反的效果。對於人工智慧領域的年輕創新者來說，對 Manus 的打壓令人心寒。如果他們無法將公司賣給外國人，就永遠無法獲得完整的價值。這只會給他們更多動力，在早期就將想法帶到國外。內捲極其嚴重的中國商業環境也推動了相同的方向。上述汽車大廠的高管表示，許多本土供應商正處於利潤飢渴狀態，這使得與外國建立合作關係變得更具吸引力。

轉移門戶

儘管中國擁有強大的製造實力，但它仍然渴望西方所能提供的東西，特別是在半導體產業。從這個意義上說，當前圍繞技術轉移的爭執帶有一種談判的氣氛。正如那位前中國貿易官員所言，除非中國能夠出口自己的技術，否則它無法完全從自己的創造力中獲益。他說，關鍵在於向他人索取代價，包括獲取他們最新的創新技術。

目前這還不是一個穩贏的提議，特別是在美國官員希望讓中國遠離尖端晶片的情況下。但它指出了一個可能、甚至很大概率發生的未來：科技將在中國邊境進行雙向流動。這可能會讓北京和華盛頓的領導人感到擔憂。然而，他們將很難阻止這一切。

--

Hosting provided by SoundOn