兰德公司对中国的研究
航空武器技术美国兰德公司70年发展启示
航空武器技术美国兰德公司70年发展启示美国兰德公司（RAND Corporation）成立于1948年11月，是一家致力于通过研究与分析来改善政策和决策的非营利性研究机构，是世界上享有盛名和影响力的综合性智库之一。
70年来，兰德公司在国际关系、军事战略、科技装备等领域取得了一系列高水平研究成果，对二战后美国国际政治军事政策产生了重大影响，特别是兰德公司正确预测了美苏争霸历史进程中的多项重大事件，研究成果影响了朝鲜战争、越南战争的军事决策过程，围绕中美关系正常化向美国政府提出了灵活可行的措施建议。
同时，在精确制导武器应用研究、全球卫星监控与通信、无人机侦察与打击系统等武器装备层面，为美国军方提供了至关重要的决策服务，经常性地引领着学术研究的潮流。
美国兰德公司究竟为什么能够取得如此令人瞩目的成就？其发展运行有何独到之处？近些年又有哪些重量级的研究成果？在新的历史时期，这一系列问题值得深入思考。
本文从兰德公司的選题立题、聚能选才、方法工具、组织文化、前沿创新等多维度进行研判分析。
通过思考，希冀能对国内武器装备长远发展带来一些启示。
1 兰德公司的历史RAND是英文“Research and Development”（研究与发展）的缩写。
1946年3月1日，兰德计划依托道格拉斯飞机公司正式启动，其章程中写道：“兰德是永久性维持科技领域开发和制作工作的新生机构，旨在为美国空中作战领域开展广泛的科学研发，并为空军提供战略分析及战术储备”。
1948年11月，由福特基金会捐助，在兰德计划基础上正式成立了兰德公司。
兰德公司成立之后第一份研究报告是《实验性绕地空间飞行器的早期设计》，报告建议制造人造地球卫星，描述了今天看起来习以为常的空间活动，但这一研究成果当时被认为完全脱离现实。
1957年苏联发射了人类历史上第一颗人造卫星。
这一次，兰德再次发挥了“神预测”，其发布的研究报告详细预测出苏联发射第一颗人造卫星的具体时间，与苏联实际发射时间相差不到两周，预测能力震惊世界，从此确立了兰德作为高端智库的地位。
全球顶级智库兰德公司（RAND）发展经验与启示
全球顶级智库兰德公司（RAND）发展经验与启示核心提示：兰德公司的研究分析具有彻底性、独立性、长期持续性，这是兰德公司在世界范围内广受好评的主要原因。
在研究分析阶段主要需要做的是:搜集资料和数据、进行系统研究、作定性定量分析、对提出的多种方案进行优化和比较。
兰德公司的发展可以为中国智库的建设提供有益的参考借鉴。
（一）兰德公司的发展历程1.兰德公司的创始与起步1939年第二次世界大战爆发，美国为摧毁日本帝国主义，研制了世界上第一颗原子弹，摧毁日本广岛、长崎，日本随即宣布投降。
这让美国人看到了原子弹的破坏能力和威慑力量，充分显示了开发新技术和科学技术的重要性。
其他国家拥有原子弹只是时间的问题。
因此，“必须有使用核武器进行作战的准备” ①。
在战后的和平形势下，美国空军上将亨利"M诺德担心战时军队中的精英科学家等人才会流失，他建议成立一个“介于官民之间进行客观分析的研究机构”，通过建立一个新型的科学机构，把在二战期间的科学家和军事家集中，这些高级人才可以在和平时期继续为国家效力，这就是兰德公司工程的雏形。
根据这一建议，阿诺德、科尔博姆、道格拉斯和雷蒙德等人于1945年10月1日进行了会议，会议思想是建立一种从事远程导弹技术研发的新型机构，并同道格拉斯飞机公司签订了 1000万美元的研究合同。
此项项目被雷蒙德命名为“兰德公司工程”。
1945年12月，李梅加入兰德公司工程，兰德公司工程计划有了明确的定义和目标，他被任命为兰德公司工程的副参谋长。
在李梅及其机构成员的努力下，1946年3月1日，兰德公司计划终于正式启动。
兰德章程清楚地写道:“兰德工程是一个持久的科学研究和发展项目，对空战领域展开广泛的科学研究，旨在为空军提供参考战略、战术和设备。
”2.兰德公司的重组之路1948年11月兰德公司工程正式成为兰德公司，兰德的科学家认为，想要真正的实现独立性，必须脱离道格拉斯工厂。
随后进行了公司重组，重组后的兰德公司成立理事会，公司所有的盈利都归兰德公司。
美国兰德公司发展及对中国智库建设的启示
美国兰德公司发展及对中国智库建设的启示
赵蓉英;郭凤娇;邱均平
【期刊名称】《高等学校文科学术文摘》
【年(卷),期】2016(000)003
【摘要】兰德公司的发展经验对中国智库的建设有着重要的借鉴作用。
中国智库
未来发展可以努力的方向是：坚守自身独立性；坚持非营利性原则，拓宽资金筹措渠道；人才选拔注重多样性，重视人员流动；积极推广研究成果，扩大智库影响力；有效利用社会资源，加强跨单位、跨地域甚至是跨国间的合作交流；立足中国国情，提升智库研究质量。
【总页数】1页(P189-189)
【作者】赵蓉英;郭凤娇;邱均平
【作者单位】武汉大学世界一流智库评价研究中心,湖北武汉430072
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】F275.1
【相关文献】
1.日本智库发展对中国特色新型智库建设在机制创新方面的启示
2.美国智库的发展及其对中国智库建设的启示
3.美国智库发展经验对中国特色新型智库建设的启示r——专访华盛顿发展绩效研究所高级研究员r雷蒙德·J.斯特鲁伊克博士
4.美国智
库发展经验对中国特色新型智库建设的启示——专访华盛顿发展绩效研究所高级
研究员雷蒙德·J.斯特鲁伊克博士5.美国兰德公司发展及对中国智库建设的启示
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。
兰德公司运行机制及对我国新型智库建设的启示
我国智库首先不能只是关注我国自身发展问题， 局限于国内相关政策研究，很少研究国际事务，要有全 球研究视野，扩展研究领域，提升国际影响力。其次智 库研究要从服务决策的角度去选题。中国智库不仅要 研究现实问题，还要研究长远问题，可通过具体数据和 案例分析等方法，向相关决策层提出能够解决问题的、 可操作的项目成果。既要加强研究政府短期和长期需 要解决的问题，又要密切跟踪企业运行及发展中面临 的各种现实问题；既要善于观察社会，了解市场需要， 又要从政治、经济、文化、社会发展等多个领域考虑选 题。而我国目前智库主要擅长纯理论研究，难以深入调 研，做到从实践中来到实践中去。仅是从理论出发，泛 泛而谈，没有可操作性。或者是阐释领导人的讲话和解 读已有的政策而已。因此，加强学术界和政界、企业界 的充分交流至关重要。以前是政府卸任官员到智库去 工作，在智库未来的发展中，将有更平衡的“旋转门”， 智库中年轻的专家会持续地到政府、企业等其他社会 部门任职，像王沪宁、刘鹤就是成功的例子。深入了解 政府、社会或者企业目前或者未来发展会遇到或需要 解决什么问题，智库研究的项目就具有实效性、针对性 和可行性，进而有效服务决策。与此同时，智库也可以 吸收政府、企业或者社会其他部门的人员参与到智库 中来。比如鼓励官员到智库担任客座研究员，多举办学 界、政界、媒介和企业界的交流和讨论活动等，将各方 面的资源和信息整合起来。智库研究就能做到理论和 实践紧密地结合，研究出既有理论分析、又有案例佐 证、讲数据、有经验支撑的高质量政策建议。
收 稿 日 期 ：2015-04-01 基金项目：温州市决策咨询委员会年度重大课题 ：“建设温州特色新型智库四大体系相关问题研究 ”（编号：20150118）阶段性研究
成果。 作 者 简 介 ：孙 桂 琼 （1974-），女 ，安 徽 庐 江 人 ，滁 州 职 业 技 术 学 院 讲 师 ，哲 学 硕 士 ，主 要 研 究 方 向 :思 想 政 治 教 育 。
美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档3篇
美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档3篇The evaluation document of American Rand Company t o Chinese people编订：JinTai College美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档3篇小泰温馨提示：自我评价是自我意识的一种形式，是主体对自己思想、愿望、行为和个性特点的判断和评价。
本文档根据自我评价内容要求展开说明，具有实践指导意义，便于学习和使用，本文下载后内容可随意修改调整及打印。
本文简要目录如下：【下载该文档后使用Word打开，按住键盘Ctrl键且鼠标单击目录内容即可跳转到对应篇章】1、篇章1：美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档2、篇章2：美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档3、篇章3：美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档美国兰德公司作为世界第一智库，那么他们对中国人的评价是怎么样的呢?下面是小泰为大家带来范文，相信对你会有帮助的。
篇章1:美国兰德公司对中国人的评价文档1.中国人缺乏诚信和社会责任感。
中国人不了解他们作为社会个体应该对国家和社会所承担的责任和义务。
普通中国人通常只关心他们的家庭和亲属，中国的文化是建立在家族血缘关系上而不是建立在一个理性的社会基础之上的。
中国人只在乎他们直系亲属的福祉，对与自己毫不相关的人所遭受的苦难则视而不见。
毫无疑问，这种以血缘关系为基础的道德观势必导致自私、冷酷，这种自私和冷酷已经成为阻碍中国社会向前发展的最关键因素。
2.中国从来就没有成为一个法制社会，因为中国人的思维方式与守法行为格格不入。
中国人老想走快捷方式。
他们不明白这样一个事实：即成就来自于努力工作和牺牲。
中国人倾向于索取而不是给予。
他们需要明白一个道理：生活的真谛不在于你索取多少而在于你能给予社会和你的人类同胞多少。
3.大多数中国人从来就没有学到过什么是体面和尊敬的生活。
中国人普遍不懂得如何为了个人和社会的福祉去进行富有成效的生活。
潜意识里，中国人视他们的生活目的就是抬高自己从而获得别人的认知。
兰德公司评价中国与全球化
TESTIMONYChina and GlobalizationWILLIAM H. OVERHOLTCT-244May 2005Testimony presented to the U.S.-China Economic and Security ReviewCommission on May 19, 2005This product is part of the RANDCorporation testimony series.RAND testimonies record testimonypresented by RAND associates tofederal, state, or local legislativecommittees; government-appointedcommissions and panels; and privatereview and oversight bodies. TheRAND Corporation is a nonprofitresearch organization providingobjective analysis and effectivesolutions that address the challengesfacing the public and private sectorsaround the world. RAND’s publicationsdo not necessarily reflect the opinionsof its research clients and sponsors.is a registered trademark.Published 2005 by the RAND Corporation1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516RAND URL: /To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@Statement of William H. Overholt1Asia Policy ChairDirector, Center for Asia Pacific PolicyThe RAND CorporationBefore the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review CommissionMay 19, 2005SummaryChina has transformed itself from the world’s greatest opponent of globalization, and greatest disrupter of the global institutions we created, into a committed member of those institutions and advocate of globalization. It is now a far more open economy than Japan and it is globalizing its institutions to a degree not seen in a big country since Meiji Japan. Adoption of the rule of law, of commitment to competition, of widespread use of English, of foreign education, and of many foreign laws and institutions are not just updating Chinese institutions but transforming Chinese civilization.All of China’s economic successes are associated with liberalization and globalization, and each aspect of globalization has brought China further successes. Never in world history have so many workers improved their standards of living so rapidly. Thus popular support for globalization is greater than in Japan, where postwar recovery occurred in a highly managed economy, or with the former Soviet Union, where shock therapy traumatized society. In consequence, China has effectively become an ally of U.S. and Southeast Asian promotion of freer trade and investment than is acceptable to Japan, India and Brazil.____________1 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this testimony are the author’s alone and should not be interpreted as representing those of RAND or any of the sponsors of its research. This product is part of the RAND Corporation testimony series. RAND testimonies record testimony presented by RAND associates to federal, state, or local legislative committees; government-appointed commissions and panels; and private review and oversight bodies. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Nonetheless, rapid Chinese globalization has required stressful adjustments. State enterprise employment has declined by 44 million. China has lost 25 million manufacturing jobs. 125 car companies are expected to consolidate rapidly into 3 to 6.China’s globalization successes are profoundly influencing its neighbors. India has learned from China the advantages of a more open economy. Asians schooled in antipathy to foreign investment and Latin Americans with protectionist traditions are going to have to be more open to foreign investment and less dependent on loans in order to compete with China. This will transform third world strategies of development and create broader global opportunities for our companies.Contrary to early fears, China’s rise has stimulated neighbors’ trade and foreign investment rather than depriving them. Indeed China’s recent growth spurt revived Japan’s economy and saved key neighbors from recession, possibly averting a dangerous global downturn.Chinese growth has brought American companies new markets. The flow of profits from China to the U.S. is as disproportionate as the flow of goods. Inexpensive products have substantially improved the living standards of poorer Americans. Inexpensive Chinese goods and Chinese financing of our deficit have kept U.S. inflation and interest rates down and prolonged our economic booms. At the same time, it has caused trade deficits and social adjustments. Chinese misappropriation of intellectual property creates losses for many of our companies. A manic construction and transportation boom has raised global raw materials prices, to the great benefit of producers and a great cost to consumers.China’s success is one of the most important developments of modern history, but projecting from current growth to Chinese global dominance or threats to our way of life is just wrong. Unlike the old Soviet Union, reformist China does not seek to alter any other country’s way of life. Its economy faces world history’s most severe combination of banking, urbanization and employment challenges, and by 2020 a demographic squeeze that will have few workers supporting many dependents. The best outcome for us would be a China that is eventually like Japan, prosperous, winning in some sectors, losing in others. Signs that China is making rapid progress in that direction should be welcomed, not feared.China and GlobalizationBefore reform, China was the world’s most important opponent of globalization. It had an autarkic economy. It opposed the global economic order. It opposed the global political order and the major global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. It believed that global disorder was a good thing, and under Mao Zedong it actively promoted disorder throughout the world, including promotion of insurgencies in most of China’s neighbors, in much of Africa and Latin America, and even in our universities.Accompanying foreign policy disaffection was domestic cultural despair on a scale the world has seldom witnessed. In the Cultural Revolution, 1966-1976, China’s students and others, under the guidance of Mao Zedong’s peasant chiliasm, humiliated a majority of senior government and party leaders, attacked the country’s major educational, social and political institutions, destroyed much of China’s cultural heritage, and in general tried to smash the country’s establishment.For two centuries Chinese had tried a range of ways – socialism, capitalism, empire, republic, warlords, religious fundamentalism, and others. All failed. Alienation was so severe that, along with students, much of the country accepted that the world economic and political order, and the Chinese economic and political order, were so stacked against them that any path to success had to start with destruction of the existing order.The Cultural Revolution was actually just one small episode in the problems that Chinese impoverishment and political division created for the world and specifically for us. Had China been prosperous and unified throughout the twentieth century, we would have had European War II rather than World War II and World War I would have been quite different. China would have been able to deter or defeat Japanese aggression. The cost of those conflicts to the U.S. would have been radically smaller because Pearl Harbor and much else would not have happened. We and the world, not to speak of a billion Chinese citizens, have paid a horrible price, over more than a century, for China’s weakness. The world needs a healthy China.Because of China’s successful globalization we no longer have such problems. China is no longer a vacuum that sucks the world’s great powers into gigantic conflicts. China nolonger sponsors insurgencies in Southeast Asia and Africa and Latin America. China no longer seeks to undermine the global financial institutions. We obtain benefits from a China that supports stable capitalist democracy in Thailand and the Philippines; that joins the IMF, World Bank, and WTO; and that counsels its neighbors about the benefits of political stability, free trade, and free investment.From the beginning of the Cold War, it has been the central tenet of U.S. foreign policy that, if we could engage as much of the world as possible in successful economic growth, through domestic reform and what came later to be called globalization, we could stabilize Europe and Asia, win the Cold War, and create a stable global order. Our military protected this process, but from the Marshall Plan to our aid missions in Asia and Africa, the core long-run strategy of our country has been to engage the world and stabilize it by enmeshing other countries in a web of institutions and successful economic practices that constitute the kind of world we want.This strategy has proved to be one of the most successful geopolitical strategies in human history, so much so that it has entangled our former enemies as well as our allies in the web we wove. Throughout, it has stimulated many controversies, and occasional waves of fear in this country. Key industries, including especially textiles and shoes, have successively opposed liberal trade with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, China and Latin America. We had a wave of panic over whether Japan was going to take over all manufacturing and buy all our most important assets; after all, if they could triumph in steel, cars, and televisions, and buy Rockefeller Center, wasn’t everything in our economy at risk? Elsewhere, weren’t we sponsoring horrible dictatorships by encouraging the development of Taiwan and South Korea? Each time, our fears have proved excessive, and each time our strategy triumphed. The results have been good for our security, good for our prosperity, good for political liberalization overseas, and good for the people of our trading partners. Our concerns about China are the same.China’s globalizationWhat we never expected from our strategy was that it would entice our former adversaries, including China, into our web of economic institutions and our commitment to geopolitical stability.Although joining late, China has joined the globalized system much more enthusiastically than Japan. China’s economy is much more open than Japan. China’s trade in 2004 was equal to 70% of its GDP, Japan’s to 24%. China received $60.6 billion of foreign direct investment in 2004, while Japan, with an economy several times larger and in a phase of restructuring that should have attracted disproportionate foreign investment, received only $20.1 billion.China’s globalization is not confined to opening the economy but more importantly to globalization of institutions. Here the development strategy of contemporary China bears a striking resemblance to that of early Meiji (mid-nineteenth century) Japan, when the Japanese government was sending missions around the world to choose for emulation the best foreign navy (Britain), the best foreign education system (Germany), and so forth. In the intervening century and a half, Japanese practice has become more inward-looking, while China has evolved from Qing defensiveness and Maoist peasant xenophobia to an assimilative cosmopolitanism.Today China is the country that sends missions throughout the world seeking best practice. It adapts not just foreign technology and foreign corporate management techniques but also a wide variety of foreign institutions and practices: international accounting standards; British, U.S. and Hong Kong securities laws; French military acquisition systems; a central bank structure modeled on the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank; Taiwan-style regulations for foreign portfolio investment; an economic development strategy adapted from South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan; and many others. Among the most important of these changes are the decision to adopt the Western concept of rule of law; adoption of competition as a centrally important economic practice; and adoption of English language as virtually a second language for the educated Chinese population. Today I can lecture in Peking University and interview senior officials in Beijing and Shanghai without a translator. Perhaps most importantly, China has sent its elite youth abroad for education in an exercise of internationalism comparable to the Romans turning over their children to the Greeks.Of course, such changes occur gradually; you can’t instantly introduce Western accounting or Western law in a country that starts with no professional accountants or lawyers. But the changes are startlingly fast compared with what other countries do. More importantly, these are not technical adaptations in the manner of the old dynasticefforts to pursue “Western technology, Chinese culture.” These are transformative processes that in cases like rule of law and promotion of competition repudiate core aspects of traditional Chinese civilization that go back for millennia.China is also experiencing globalization of tastes. The exposure of the Chinese population to foreign brands has been incorporating them into global culture. To take one example, I spent many months studying the Chinese car industry. One of the questions we were asked was whether China might develop indigenous car models in a closed-off market like that of South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s. What we discovered was that the Chinese people have been so much more exposed to global culture than South Koreans of a generation ago that no car could succeed in China unless it incorporated global designs and prestigious foreign technologies. Ten to thirty years ago, when South Korea was at a phase of car industry development more comparable to China today, one virtually never saw a European or American car on the road, and they are still very rare today. But in China the roads are packed with Volkswagens and Buicks.China has come to believe in globalization more than most third world countries and many first world countries. China’s successes have all coincided with “reform and opening,” that is, with globalization. In contrast, Japan’s and South Korea’s successes occurred in an era when, although they were globalizing, they employed far stricter controls on trade, foreign investment, and domestic economic activity than today’s China.Globalization has required extremely painful adjustments by China. Employment in the state enterprises has declined from 110 million at the end of 1995 to 66 million in March 2005. Those who think there has been a simple transfer of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China will be surprised to know that manufacturing jobs in China have declined from over 54 million in 1994 to under 30 million today. Even these striking numbers understate the adjustments China has had to accept due to greater competition and lately from WTO membership. For instance, while employment in the car industry has remained relatively constant, the number of car manufacturers is expected to decline from 125 at the peak to somewhere between three and six. Meanwhile, foreign joint ventures have come to dominate much of the market.It is hard to overstate the social adjustment Chinese are experiencing. But because China has been willing to accept such adjustments, no large country in human history has ever experienced such rapid improvements in living standards and working conditions. When reform began, workers in Shanghai all wore the same clothes, looked tired and listless, and seldom owned basic appliances like televisions or even watches. In the countryside malnutrition was widespread. Today Shanghai workers wear colorful clothes and look confident and energetic. Today the average Chinese family owns slightly more than one television. Malnutrition has vanished. As a result, Chinese overwhelmingly support further globalization.China’s globalization and other countriesChina’s globalization has of course strongly influenced other countries too. The most important impact has been on India’s economic policy and performance. Since independence India’s economy had been hobbled by extremely protectionist trade policies, an antagonistic stance toward foreign direct investment, and a remarkable network of domestic socialist economic controls called the license raj, combined with strong foreign economic and political ties to the old Soviet Union. A 1991 foreign exchange squeeze and neighboring China’s success shocked India and also showed that abandoning the old hostility to globalization could lead to prosperity. While India started later than China and moved more slowly, India’s economic growth rates have doubled. The number of people in absolute poverty has declined sharply. Exports have boomed and foreign exchange reserves are ample for the first time in modern history. Visit India today, as I did last month, and you find the kind of hope and confidence and energy that once seemed confined to East Asia.As happened earlier with China, India’s newfound economic dynamism has shifted the balance of leaders’ priorities from conflictful geopolitical goals to mutual economic interests. India’s relations with its neighbors, sometimes including even Pakistan, and most notably with both China and ourselves, are much better than previously. Indeed, Indian-Chinese relations are better than at any time since the conflicts of the 1960s, and India’s business community has shifted from terror about competition with China to confidence in India’s competitive advantages and even some celebration of India’s recent trade surplus with China.China’s influence on India’s economic policies is just one example of a much wider phenomenon that is probably just beginning. Until recently, most of the third world plus Japan has taken a relatively hostile attitude toward foreign direct investment. Difficult licensing requirements, high taxes, unfair judicial treatment and an negative opinion climate have faced direct investors from Japan and South Korea to the Philippines and Thailand to India, not to mention most of Latin America. Instead of accepting foreign ownership, countries typically relied on foreign loans (South Korea, Southeast Asia, Latin America) or domestic loans (Japan), frequently creating an excessive burden of debt. Thailand imposed very high taxes and then reduced them for selected foreign investors; Indian groups attacked Kentucky Fried Chicken with distorted hygiene allegations. Now such tactics are waning.The success of China at balancing debt with equity, building upon the previous successes of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, is gradually changing the way much of the world manages economic development. This Chinese influence is going to be transformative, particularly in Asia. The old pattern has been to avoid dependence on foreign investment by taking domestic and foreign bank loans. Governments then controlled the development of industry by channeling the bank loans. This made companies and countries overly dependent on banks, leading to periodic financial crises. It gave governments too much control over industries, encouraging mismanagement and corruption. It gave unfair advantages to large, politically favored companies over smaller companies and foreign companies. Importantly for us, it limited the opportunities for our own companies. Now competition with China will force most companies to open themselves to foreign investment. American companies will benefit not just in China but throughout the world.At the beginning of this decade, there were widespread fears that China’s success would suck the trade and investment away from its Asian neighbors, impoverishing them. In the event, the opposite has happened. Wherever rules have been changed to welcome foreign direct investment, as in India, South Korea, and Japan, such investment has boomed. China has taught others to attract foreign investment, and in response the total pool of foreign investment has greatly expanded.Amid the global slowdown following the tech bust, countries like South Korea and the Philippines found themselves saved from recession by Chinese demand. Mostimportantly, Chinese demand provided the stimulus that lifted Japan out of recession. It is difficult to overstate the risk the world economy faced from the Japanese situation, where mountainous debt created the risk of a domino-like collapse inside Japan and subsequent rippling collapses around the world. That risk seems to have passed, helped by a critical margin of stimulus from China. Few books are written about global depressions that never happened, but it is quite possible that China’s globalization saved us from beginning the new century with a drastic global economic squeeze.Many other peoples have benefited from Chinese demand that rose just as the world economy was slowing. Raw materials producers had become inured to terms of trade that deteriorated inexorably year after year. Suddenly our ally Australia found that its terms of trade have improved to the best in its entire history, largely because of Chinese demand. Many of the world’s poorest countries, including Laos, Papua New Guinea, and much of Africa, benefited just when they needed it most. No aid programs, no IMF gold sales could have come close to providing the improved livelihoods that resulted from increasing, sustained demand for their products.In short, the most important results of China’s rise are the same as the results for the world of America’s rise or of the recoveries of Japan and Europe: you are always better off with a rich neighbor than with a denizen of the slums.Benefits and costs for the U.S.China’s globalization has had numerous impacts on the U.S. Most obviously, China has become a vast market for U.S. goods. Arguments that this is a mythic “China Dream” have proved false. Coca Cola has long since surpassed the fabled goal of selling a billion Cokes. General Motors, once ridiculed by the China Dream theory, sells many Buicks in China, and, despite a current cyclical pause, profits from China have been a critical margin for GM during a difficult time. We gain from billions of dollars of profits remitted back to our country and from the improved health of our most successful companies as they compete against other foreign companies.Lower prices for basic goods have contributed significantly to American standards of living, particularly for our less prosperous citizens. While we do not yet have definitive studies, indications are that lower-income Americans achieve improvements in theirstandards of living of perhaps 5% to 10% as a result of being able to buy lower-priced imports from China. That impact is undoubtedly expanded by the fact that competition from China drives other countries to produce less expensive goods for our consumption.Inexpensive Chinese goods have kept down our inflation rates and enabled us to prolong the upswings of our business cycles because the Fed doesn’t have to raise interest rates so quickly in order to slow inflation. Similarly, Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds have helped to finance our budget deficits. Without those Chinese purchases we would either have to raise interest rates, slowing our growth, or we would have to run comparable trade deficits with other countries so that they could buy our bonds.We are just beginning to see another layer of benefits. The Chinese are beginning to invest here. Haier is now manufacturing refrigerators in this country. When China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s personal computer business, it saved jobs in a moribund division, freed IBM to move up into higher-tech markets, and helped finance that IBM move up. So far, this trend is small, but it will grow quickly. China’s goal for this year is to spend $30-40 billion buying resource and distribution companies.We also benefit indirectly from China’s boost to foreign economies like Japan and Australia. Having a prosperous partner is invaluable to the U.S. economy. We spent the 1980s fretting about Japan taking over the world, but we spent the 1990s worrying that Japan wasn’t doing its share to boost global growth. Those who worry about China’s success would have far more to worry about if China’s growth slowed drastically.Adjustment problemsChina’s globalization and growth also cause stresses for us. Some of these are politically eternal but economically and strategically tired. As countries get rich, the manufacture of textiles, and shoes, furniture and basic consumer electronics mostly migrates elsewhere. The manufacture of socks migrated from here to Japan, from Japan to South Korea and Taiwan, and thence to Southeast Asia and now China. That adjustment will continue. It has been gradual over many decades. We have had ten years to get ready for the current round of textile adjustments. We knew what was coming and we agreed to it, in return for China so stressful that they are virtually beyond Americans’ imagination. Our own adjustments are smaller than those of virtually any other country.These adjustments are smaller than we tend to believe, because China gets blamed for much that it does not cause. Virtually all of our job loss has been caused by productivity improvements. In fact, productivity gains have been sufficiently large that we should have experienced more job losses than we have. It is conceivable that our job losses have been smaller than they “should” have been because China has helped us adapt. We don’t know, because no lobby has been interested in paying for the research to find out how many jobs have been saved by partial moves to China decreasing the costs of endangered companies. And China is, of course, just part of a global readjustment caused by China, India, and the former Soviet Union joining our economic system.A more serious policy problem is hyper-competition created by cheap financing in China. The irrationalities of the Chinese financial system mean that in key sectors like steel China builds too many factories, and props up too many moribund companies, causing massive overcapacity. In recent years Chinese financial vagaries have led to excessive construction and huge demand for steel, aluminum, cement and others. For a while this has buoyed the global steel industry, including ours. But it has also led to construction of so many steel factories in China that soon China will have half of all world capacity. That means overproduction and eventually a steel price bust.This cycle creates problems for our industry, just as our Internet mania and tech bubble created problems for much of the world. It is fair for us to complain about such problems. It is fair to pressure the Chinese to reform their financial practices. It may be fair in some cases to view Chinese bank lending practices as constituting an inappropriate subsidy. The tone of our complaints and the substance of our policies needs, however, to reflect three facts. First, the Chinese are trying to reform their banks and put them on a market basis. Second, our financial vagaries cause them problems too. Third, the biggest price for their financial mismanagement will eventually be paid by them, because inappropriate lending eventually makes troubled banks much more troubled. China making steel today looks like Japan buying Rockefeller Center two decades ago; if you project their excesses indefinitely into the future, first the Japanese and now the Chinese look as if they are about to take over everything in the world. But when you look at their underlying finances, you see a black hole. The Japanese spent the 1990s in their black hole and are still trying to climb out. China will feel the pain of its recent spree for many years. Having said these things, some excesses may require a policy response by us.。
论文 中国的经济发展之道读《兰德公司论当下中国人》有感
中国的经济发展之道——读《兰德公司论当下中国人》有感摘要：《兰德公司论当下中国人》一文诚然存在一定的偏激，但细想之下，文中所提及的有些内容仍是我们不可否认的事实。
但从另一方面考虑，美国人凭什么对我们指手画脚，究其根本原因，还是因为目前的中国与世界先进国家存在在着很大的差距，故提升经济实力才是解决此问题的根本之道，本文就我国经济发展与法律阐述了一些个人的的观点。
《兰德公司论当下中国人》一文中提到“如果20世纪的中国是一个富裕和统一的国家，我们会有一个完全不同的第一次世界大战，我们就不会有第二次世界大战而是第二次欧洲大战。
我们和整个世界，更不用说10亿中国人，一个多世纪以来，已经为中国的弱小付出了惨重的代价。
世界需要一个健康的中国。
”兰德公司竟然将第二次世界大战的的起因归结到了作为受害国的中国身上，相信这是作为每个中国人都无法容忍的，如果真是如此，那么按照蝴蝶效应，每个国家都有责任，如果美国独立战争没有爆发，如果日本明治维新没有成功，如果印度刚被英国压迫时就起来反抗，那所谓的二战是不是也有可能不会爆发呢？……但另一方面，中国在它的落后中已经失去了太多了，我们呼唤一个强盛的中国，世界更需要一个健康的中国！怎样才能建立一个强盛的中国呢？本人就以下方面谈一下对目前国内经济的一些看法。
一，科技与经济。
近代以来，科技进步与经济发展之间的联系越来越密切，尤其是知识经济的到来将使经济发展主要建立在科技进步的基础上。
正如有学者指出的，当今世界，科技进步、经济繁荣，作为人类的共同追求，越来越紧密地联系在一起，成为衡量一个国家综合国力和文明程度的重要标志。
科学技术是生产力，而且是第一生产力。
科技是适应时代的需要诞生和发展的，它已成为社会生产力，并显示出巨大的社会功能。
20世纪中叶以来，随着新科技的产生和发展，人类开始迈向信息社会和知识经济的时代，科学技术对社会的影响、科技发展的社会条件和社会需求发生了根本性的变化。
科学技术从传统的以个体或小规模方式从事的小科技，发展为以信息科技、生物科技、空间科技为核心的高科技；包括复杂系统科学在内的一系列交叉学科的兴起，显示了科技的不确定性、非线性、混沌和自组织性的特点，以及自然科学与社会科学融合的强大趋势。
兰德公司：“世界智囊的开创者”
兰德公司：“世界智囊的开创者”作者：宋玮贾周来源：《领导文萃》2009年第11期兰德公司是美国最大、最重要的以军事为主的综合性战略研究机构,被誉为世界智囊的开创者,与美国军方的关系密切,有“超级军事学院”之称。
它正式成立于1948年,总部设在美国加州的圣莫尼卡。
历史沿革:以战争起家,与五角大楼共生第二次世界大战是美国现代思想库迅速发展的重大推动因素,这在兰德公司的身上体现得尤其直接和典型。
大战当中,美国政府集合起大批科学家从事军事问题,特别是在与空军装备与作战有关问题的研究领域,取得了卓越的成效。
但是战争结束后,军事部门里却没有他们合适位置,而军队又离不开他们高超的能力。
于是,由空军上将阿诺德发起,1946年空军(当时还是美国陆军航空队)和道格拉斯飞机公司订立合同,建立“兰德研究工程”。
两年后,福特基金会提供的开业资金使兰德研究工程改组成“独立的、非赢利的兰德公司”。
兰德公司在章程中规定,其宗旨是“一切为了公共福利与美国的安全”,但是在成立之初,它的活动基本上只有“安全”没有“福利”。
主要是完成空军交给的一些研究任务,负责“研究非地面的、洲际战争的广泛课题”,为此,它获得了90%的收入。
20世纪60年代,兰德公司开始真正大规模地“为公共福利”而开发非军事领域。
它的“主顾”扩大到国家卫生署国际开发署以及当时的卫生教育和福利部,后来扩大到为美国的州政府和地方政府服务。
20世纪70年代以后,兰德公司进入稳定和均衡的发展时期。
它转变为一个在卫生住房教育能源和通讯等方面,进行新的社会计划的实验中心。
另外,它兴办了“兰德研究生院”,培养“公共政策分析”专业的博士,不久又设立了数额庞大的“兰德资助基金”。
20世纪80年代,由于里根政府提出重振国威、军威的口号,兰德公司的研究重点转到国家安全领域。
冷战结束后,兰德公司的研究再度向国内问题倾斜。
据其最新的公司章程所述,兰德公司的研究领域包括:儿童政策、民事刑事司法、社区及地区研究、毒品政策、教育、健康保健、基本设施、国际关系、方法论、国家安全、人口与老龄化、科技、恐怖主义等。
美国兰德公司评估中国造船工业
中 国 造 船 工 业 组 织 结 构 和 运 行 机 制
原 文 作 者 认 为 ， 中 国 造 船 工 业 是
按 照 典 型 的 计 划 经 济 模 式 建 立 组 织 结
改 革 开 发 过 程 中提 高 了其 质 量 和 效 率 。 上 述 趋 势 反 映 在 ９ 年 代 末 以 来 交 付 的 ０ 作 战 舰 艇 不 断 提 高 的 性 能 以 及 正 在 实 施 的 多 个 新 型 舰 艇 项 目上 。过 去 ５ 年 来 明 显 趋 势 是 ， 中 国 造 船 工 业 已 采 用 序 列 化 建 造 方 式 研 制 了一 系列 新 型海 上 作 战 平 台 ， 并 正 在 同 时 研 制 几 种 型 号 的 新 型 舰 艇 ， 这 种 情 况 在 中 国 已 有 数 十 年 未 曾出现 ！ 原 文 作 者 同 时 也 认 为 ， 中 国 造 船 工 业 仍 然 存 在 一 些 技 术 和 制 造 方 面 的 薄 弱 环 节 。 中 国 仍 需 从 国 外 引 进 关 键 零 部 件 。 对 进 口 子 系 统 的 依 赖 对 系 统
文 时鉴 别 。
中 国造 船 工 业 是 一个 规 模 庞 大 、 分 布 地 域 广 泛 及 现 代 化 程 度 不 断 提 高 的 行 业 ， 它 处 于 中 国 蓬 勃 发 展 的 经 济 与 国 防 工 业 的 交 汇 点 。 在 中 国 努 力 建
该 军种 的需 求 ？
原 文 作 者 认 为 ， 中 国 造 船 工 业 在
制 造 厂 和 ３７ 机 构 。 １ ９ 个 ７月 ， ９ ９年 Ｃ Ｓ 被 分 拆 为 两 个 企 业 ： 中 国 船 舶 工 ＳＣ 业 集 团 公 司 （ Ｓ ） 中 国 船 舶 重 工 ＣＳ 和 Ｃ 集 团 公 司 （ Ｓ ）。 Ｃ Ｓ 的 分 拆 是 中 ＣＩ Ｃ Ｓ Ｃ
美智库兰德公司发布研究报告阐述如何在大国竞争和战争中利用复杂性
美智库兰德公司发布研究报告阐述如何在大国竞争和战争中利用复杂性安 文美智库兰德公司空军项目组近日发布《在大国竞争和战争中利用复杂性》系列研究报告，就复杂自适应系统思维塑造机遇和挑战的方式展开了初步探索。
报告着眼现代战争所面临的跨域复杂作战环境，按照提出假设、选定方法、展开研究、得出结论、给出建议的逻辑脉络，重点研究了如何在空军环境下定义复杂性、如何在作战环境中运用复杂性，以及如何在战争复杂性方面发挥科技作用等具体问题，深入分析了如何将复杂自适应系统思维应用于大国竞争和战争，以帮助美国建立针对对手的优势。
主要观点1.美空军应通过掌握指挥控制复杂性，具备在不断变化的战场空间快速规划和遂行大规模多域作战的能力。
掌握指挥控制复杂性，是有效构建、协调和运用全域力量的前提。
鉴于此，美国应当从松散耦合、人为生成多域计划和评估的现有状态，向相互交织、持续完善计划、执行和评估的未来状态过渡。
掌握指挥控制复杂性需要理解和量化向对手施加复杂性的预期结果。
无论是战术、战役还是战略层面，在战场上实施欺骗和混淆（例如战争迷雾）的案例比比皆是。
而对敌人发动复杂性攻击可能会加剧战争迷雾，因为此举会引发认知不足、自身（和对手）实力及状态的不确定、预性为对手制造更具挑战性的条件，从而使美国获得优势。
要做到这一点，首先要学会利用复杂自适应系统的属性。
为更好理解复杂性这一概念在战争中的实际运用，有必要将战争以及全部人员、机构、装备、地形和其他相关要素统称为复杂自适应系统。
这类所谓的复杂自适应系统由动态和彼此相适应的组件或部分构成，能够帮助规划、作战和分析人员透过复杂性视角去思考战争。
复杂自适应系统的核心该系统包含的嵌套层级具有重要意义。
复杂自适应系统能够随着时间推移而不断自适应。
系统内部工具对其他工具做出的决策进行回应，并对持续变化的环境条件进行回应。
其结果是实现自发组织，即系统各部分在没有中心协调的情况下共同应对挑战。
对手的指挥控制组织会随着许多领域的变化而变化，包括战略优先级、美国的战术、技术装备、资源水平、过往表现和其他驱动因素等，这掌握指挥控制复杂性需理解和量化向对手施加复杂性的预期结果造有利于“蓝方”的条件。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
孙孝仁. 孙孝仁.兰德公司及其对中国的研究，中国 信息导报，1997（ 信息导报，1997（4） / 中国科技情报网 /
RFID(Radio Frequency Identification 射频识别，俗称电子标签。 的)，射频识别，俗称电子标签。 RFID在图书馆的应用前景 RFID在图书馆的应用前景
要求
充分利用公开资料：“剪刀和浆糊” 充分利用公开资料：“剪刀和浆糊” ？ 研究题目自选； 撰写研究计划； 呈交研究报告。
研究计划
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 研究对象（Topic 研究对象（Topic ），即研究题目 研究此题目的意义（Significance） 研究此题目的意义（Significance） 研究状况或背景情况（Background） 研究状况或背景情况（Background） 研究方法（Methodology 研究方法（Methodology） Methodology） 研究进度（Schedule） 研究进度（Schedule） 参考文献（Bibliography） 参考文献（Bibliography）
兰德公司对中国的研究 （2000-2010） 2000究内容
兰德公司研究中国的特点和趋势 涉及领域：政治、军事、经济、科技、文化、环境、和社会等领域。政策
科学、人口、教育、能源、住房、通信卫星、军事战略和战术、城市问题、水资源、 中美关系等。
研究热点 主要人物 采用的技术和方法 成果形式及方案效果