国际商会荣誉主席    冯国经

从世界产业发展趋势看，我们正在进入一个全新的后工业时代，也就是服务经济时代。几百年前的工业革命导致工业成为经济中最重要的产业。随着专业分工的深化和全球市场的一体化及迅速膨胀，全球产业发展的大趋势是服务业的崛起。

这一趋势将产生深远的影响：制造业将逐步萎缩、生活水准的差距将不断减小、生产率提高的速度将加快。中国已经开始感受到这一趋势的影响：制造业正由中国的东部沿海向中西部及东南亚转移，中国劳动力成本迅速上升，生活水平也不断提高……

随着工业革命化越来越成熟，服务业的潜力逐渐显露：无论是产值还是就业，服务业与工业的差距都在迅速缩小甚至超过工业。虽然在有些国家，如泰国、越南，其农业、工业的就业比例仍然高于服务业，但整体而言，服务业取代制造业成为最重要的行业已是大势所趋。

OECD的数据显示近三十年来，服务业占GDP的比重从58%左右增加到75%。WTO的资料显示服务业在跨国贸易中的比例也越来越高，2007年达到了33，000亿美元，即世界贸易总额的20%。
在这样的大背景下，中国，特别是北京，当然应该抓住机会，加快产业升级、发展服务业，以顺应潮流、把握先机，实现经济可持续发展。

近年来中国服务业迅速发展，2011年服务业增加值占全国GDP的比重为43.1%，提供35%的就业。然而，与发达国家相比，中国的服务业还处于初级发展阶段，服务业发展潜力巨大：发达国家服务业占GDP比重在75%以上。

2010年，服務業佔香港本地生產總值93%。四個支柱行業(金融、旅遊、貿易及物流、專業服務及其他工商支援服務)佔整體生產總值58%。

中等收入国家如韩国、波兰等都在55%到65%之间；低收入国家的服务业比重一般在50%到60%之间。可喜的是，北京的服务业已经达到75%，也就是发达国家的平均水平。

随着经济发展和人民生活水平不断提高，国内对服务业的数量及质量的要求将不断增加。其中，生产服务业（物流业、IT服务、咨询业）和商贸服务业（零售业、金融保险业）作为服务实体经济的关键部门，其服务水平对第一、二产业的发展及效率起着极为重要的作用。如物流业的相对滞后和发展不均衡将增加制造业的交易成本、限制其纵向整合及向高价值链转移的机会；金融行业的问题则可能抑制民营企业的活力；科研开发与实际投产应用的脱节会导致制造业缺乏创新能力及高增加值品牌的建立。

而生活服务业（餐饮业、酒店业、旅游业等）发展滞后造成的直接影响就是内需不畅，意味着国内巨大的消费市场开发不够，直接制约我国经济长期增长的可持续性。中国服务业发展的瓶颈主要在于一些制度的不完善和部分市场环节的缺失。服务业的发展比实物产品更需要系统完善的配套制度和规定。发达国家的服务业有一套非常清晰明确的标准、权利界定、规范、交易机制，因此他们能够用全球统一的标准提供服务，了解全球市场的偏好，以最低的交易成本实现最有效率的服务环节的整合。国内的服务业需要借鉴国际上通行的“软”制度基础设施。

发展服务业最重要的是软件配套设施，即软性的制度基础设施，如界定产权、市场准入、标准化服务规范、降低交易成本、保证自由贸易等一整套配套的制度机构等。这种软性的基础设施虽然是看不见摸不着的，却会在服务业的发展过程中起到极其重要的促进或阻碍作用。以“硬”基础设施作类比，这一套软性的制度基础设施相当于国家的高速公路系统：司机是企业家，汽车是企业，交通规则是政策法规，交警是监管机构，高速公路的质量是制度基础设施。只有高速公路平整畅通，车才能开快，产业才能平稳高速发展。在不同的制度基础设施下，企业的行为、效率差异极大。中国面临的最重要的任务，就是如何迅速建立完善这一整套的制度基础设施，为服务业发展提供良好的制度环境。
北京相比国内其他城市已经具备了比较优势。尽管北京的制度基础设施仍有待完善，但由于北京重视服务业发展，又是政治中心，相应的配套政策、制度规范比较容易得到认可和实行，能够以较快的速度和较低的成本建设完善“软”基础设施。

在这点上，香港的经验或许可以借鉴。众所周知，香港的服务业很发达，占GD93%，2011年服务业出口贸易值达到1206亿美元，约为GDP的一半，是香港最重要的支柱产业，也使得香港成为全球第十一大服务出口地区 。香港经济在上世纪的腾飞得益于向服务型经济的成功转型，而成功转型又得益于香港比较高效完善的制度。

香港法律健全，制度完善，对所有利益相关者的权力、义务、责任的界定都相当明确，并配套有健全的产权注册、界定、交易、保护等制度。这种制度基础设施是方方面面的，并不局限于政治、法律，还包括经济、金融、社会文化等。例如，政策上，香港实行低税率的自由和投资政策，大力发展转口贸易，进而带动本地运输、仓储、金融、商业、咨询等服务业的发展；管理上，政府从中介、码头、金融等领域退出，为民间资本提供发展空间，营造公开的商业环境，进行适度的监管，提供公正的法律制度，依靠法制化、规范化管理和众多行业协会、同业组织，来引导和监督服务业进行自我约束和自我管理。显然，这些软性基础设施为服务业的发展提供了理想的平台。

北京作为中国的首都和文化、科教、国际交流中心，在发展服务业上具有得天独厚的优势。北京拥有国内最多的一流高校和研发中心，在人才、科技、信息等方面优势明显。这种软实力，若充分利用，将成为北京服务业发展强有力的支撑。在硬件方面，北京也走在全国前列——作为首都，北京的硬件基础设施已经达到相当高的水准，将在未来的服务业高速发展中发挥重要作用。

北京建设成为服务业之都的进程中，当前亟需提升的是“软”基础设施。建议与香港建立长效合作交流机制，加强各层面立体化的交流合作（各层面，包括政府、企业、高校等；立体化，包括人才交流、机构合作、贸易往来等），在这个过程中參考香港的政策制度，并充分发挥北京人才、地缘等优势，快速构建起完善系统的配套制度体系，为北京服务业发展奠定坚实的基础。

国家在2011年3月公布了《十二五规划纲要》，明确表示中央支持深化内地与香港的经济合作，推进CEPA的继续实施；在此基础上，2011年8月，国务院副总理李克强在访港期间，进一步提出：争取在十二五末期，通过CEPA，基本实现内地和香港服务贸易自由化。CEPA将是京港两地进一步推进经贸合作的重要平台。我们应共同推进CEPA框架下在北京先行先试的措施，并在适当时候参照其它省区的经验，争取更多合适的CEPA先行先试措施扩展到北京市，为配合国家进一步发展服务业和提升服务业的整体竞争力而共同努力。

我相信，经过不懈努力，在不久的将来，我们必能将北京成功建设为中国、亚洲乃至世界的服务业之都！

The Future of the Service Sector in Beijing From a Global Perspective and the Experience of Hong Kong
——Victor K Fung，Honorary Chairman，International Chamber of Commerce

The world is accelerating towards economic history’s post-industrial phase. With the deepening of specialisation, integration, and expansion of global markets, the biggest trend now shaping the global economy is the rise of the service sector and, with it, the rise of incomes.
This trend will have a profound impact on all economies that are still largely dependent on manufacturing industries. The manufacturing sector will gradually shrink, the gap in international living standards between developed and developing economies will narrow and the speed of productivity growth will accelerate.

China has already begun to feel the transformation: factories are moving from China’s developed east coast to less-developed central and western regions, as well as to less-developed economies in South and Southeast Asia, while labour costs in the Mainland are rapidly increasing, living standards are rising, and so on.
As the Industrial Revolution in the developing world peaks then begins its decline, the service sector’s potential is increasingly apparent. The gap between the economic contributions of the service sector and manufacturing industries is quickly closing and, indeed, already nonexistent in many economies. In countries such as Thailand and Vietnam, agriculture and manufacturing still provide more employment than services do, but the bigger trend globally remains one of services  supplanting manufacturing.

The service sector’s contribution to GDP has also been growing across the globe. OECD data show that in the past 30 years, the service sector’s share of GDP grew from 58 per cent to 75 per cent. WTO data also illustrate that services take up a growing share of cross-border trade, reaching US$3.3 trillion – or 20 per cent – of total global trade.
Against this global backdrop, China – especially Beijing, as a leading international business centre – should seize the opportunity to ride the global wave by speeding up its service-industry development.

Let it be recognised that China, as a whole, has been making progress. In 2011, the service sector contributed 43 per cent of total GDP and 35 per cent of total employment. However, compared with developed countries, where services account for more than 75 per cent of GDP, services across the nation are still in an early stage of development. By comparison, in Hong Kong, services make up 93 per cent of GDP, with four pillar sectors – finance, tourism, trade and logistics, and professional and other business support services – alone accounting for 58 per cent. 

In middle-income countries such as Poland, the service sector contributes 55 to 65 per cent of GDP; in low-income countries, it contributes 50-to-60 per cent. By contrast, Beijing – with 75 per cent of its GDP coming from services – has already caught up with the average in developed countries.

With economic development and as people's living standards continuing to improve, the quantity and quality demanded of domestic service industries will rise. This is particularly so for producer and business services, which provide essential support networks for the real economy. They include logistics, IT services, and consulting in the former category, and retail, finance and insurance in the latter. Their levels of development, together with the efficiency of primary and secondary industries, play a key role in overall economic growth.

Conversely, outdated logistics and imbalanced regional development increase the transaction costs of manufacturing which, in turn, limits vertical integration and opportunities for manufacturers to move up the value chain. Failure to apply achievements in research and development hinders the ability of the manufacturing sector to innovate and establish high value-added brands. Meanwhile, under-development of the financial sector inevitably inhibits the vitality of private enterprises.

In a similar vein, slow progress in the development of consumer services – such as the food, beverage, hospitality and tourism industries – leads to under-development of the huge domestic consumer market. And that directly impacts the sustainability of long-term economic growth.
In any economy, the development of the service sector requires a system of supportive rules and regulations that is more sophisticated than those required for manufacturing activities. Service industries in developed countries benefit from having very clear standards, scope to define global industry norms, and trading mechanisms that enable them to use their standards competitively when exporting to the global service market. This combination of factors allows for the lowest possible transaction costs and more efficient integration of services.

The stable and rapid development of the service sector needs the support of “soft” infrastructure, such as the delineation of property rights, market access, standardisation of service requirements, lower transaction costs, and guarantees for free-trade mechanisms. This soft infrastructure, though intangible, plays an extremely important role in advancing or hindering service-industry development. One of the most important tasks facing China today is therefore how to improve its institutional infrastructure as quickly as possible so it can provide a more favourable environment for the service industry’s take-off.

In this respect, Beijing has advantages compared to other Mainland cities. It has already placed strong emphasis on developing its service industry, while its role as China’s political centre allows policies corresponding to rules and norms to be more readily understood and implemented. Beijing can thus move faster than other Mainland cities and the cost of “constructing” its soft infrastructure is relatively lower.

Hong Kong serves as a useful illustration of what an economy can achieve when its business environment is conducive to services. The value of Hong Kong’s service exports last year stood at US$120.6 billion, or about half of GDP and, despite its tiny physical size, Hong Kong today is the world's 11th-largest exporter of services.  Its economy truly took off in the past 30 years when domestic manufacturing activities migrated to the Pearl River Delta and other offshore platforms, and, in parallel, Hong Kong upgraded its institutions to facilitate an efficient transition towards a more service-dominated economy.

Hong Kong’s legal system is sound and impartial and its institutions function well through clear definition of the rights, duties and responsibilities of stakeholders. Strong foundations exist for property-rights registration and institutionally-protected transactions. Such institutional safeguards extend to all aspects of business and life in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong upholds low-taxes and free flows of trade and investment, while encouraging exports by facilitating the development of transportation, warehousing, financial, commercial, consulting, and other service sectors. The hand of government is light, allowing the market space to evolve. Professional associations and industry organisations within the service sector play a key role in exercising self-restraint and self-management and in upholding standards. This creates a flexible, open business environment operating within clearly defined, predictable legal parameters and moderated with the help of expert input and oversight.

Beijing has unique advantages for similarly developing its service industry to international standard. For example, Beijing has the Mainland’s largest number of first-class universities and research centres, all producing talent, technology, and information. Crucially, it is also a centre for the international exchange of knowledge. This soft power, if fully utilised, could be the springboard for the service sector’s next stage of development. Beijing also leads the nation with highly-developed “hard” infrastructure that can enable its service industries to function more competitively.

One way for Beijing to accelerate the development of its soft infrastructure is, I believe, through sustained co-operation with Hong Kong. Such exchanges, which are always mutually beneficial, should be stepped up at all levels within government, business and academia; and across multiple dimensions, including contact between institutions.

China’s 12th five-year plan, announced last year, made clear that the central government supports deepening economic cooperation between the Mainland and Hong Kong through the ongoing expansion of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA). Indeed, when Vice-Premier Li Keqiang visited Hong Kong last August, he proposed that – through CEPA – the Mainland and Hong Kong should achieve free trade in services within the span of the current five-year plan. CEPA is thus a key platform on which Beijing and Hong Kong can rapidly intensify economic and trade cooperation, especially in services. We should work together to promote the further development and enhancement of CEPA’s framework. We can experiment in Beijing with pilot schemes that, if they work well, can be extended to promote the development and competitiveness of service industries throughout the Mainland.

In short, there is much work to be done and the incentive to do so is huge. Beijing and Hong Kong would not be the only beneficiaries of success from such timely endeavours. They would benefit all economic partners within the Mainland and around the world who use our modern and potentially inter-locking service platforms.