If our enterprises want to achieve long-term sustainable innovation and development, obtain sustained high profits, and avoid the dilemma of "rolling up at home and going abroad", we need to consider how to effectively promote local industrialization and how to help the local people start the process of industrialization, rather than just treating the local area as a place for cheap labor and raw materials. Author丨Feng Kaidong** Sino-foreign management media (ID: zwgl1991).
In 2023, there will be a surge of Chinese companies going overseas. From electric cars in China, to 99 of coffee and milk tea, more and more Chinese brands are accelerating their going overseas. Compared with European and American multinational companies going to China thirty or forty years ago, what is the difference in the logic of Chinese enterprises going overseas?The competitiveness of Chinese enterprises going overseas is in the first placeIn the new era of globalization, how should companies understand today's situation?
Going overseas is not a matter of a single enterpriseLooking at the issue of Chinese enterprises going overseas from the perspective of independent innovation, we need to put the discussion in the context of changes in the international environment after 2017. The innovation transformation that we emphasized after 2017 is actually a make-up lesson to the great transformation of innovation policy (the transformation to independent innovation) that occurred in 2005: this timeChina needs to reshape the entire innovation system。From the perspective of what should be, the new first-class system is actually to promote the formation of a local-centered innovation community. In other words, we need to gradually build a system in all walks of life. The system should facilitate the definition, dissection, and follow-up of the problem to be done as much as possible in China, rather than in the United States or other Western countries. If we have the ability to define technology issues and shape the technology agenda, we can maintain a very high degree of openness and not care whether the participants are state-owned or private, Chinese or foreign, American or African, ......So when it comes to the issue of Chinese companies going overseas, the first very important thing isWe must firmly grasp the leading power in the entire industrial innovation community- The right to define the problem, generate a technology roadmap, divide the labor and collaborate, and compete on the basis of the division of labor. When it comes to policy discussions, I often cite the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) in the United States. Although the IEEE is mainly oriented to scientific and technological issues as far as the industrial innovation community is concerned, the IEEE has a very large impact on the entire electronic and electrical industry. It is formally a civil organization, but a large number of technical standards and new technology adoption schemes are voted on by the IEEE. The IEEE has helped the United States better grasp the power to define industries, determine the future direction of technology, and even set standards in many areas, although it is not necessarily a U.S. person or a U.S. entity that participates in the IEEE voting and corresponding activities. In fact, there are similar platform organizations in various industries. Therefore, when it comes to Chinese enterprises going overseas, we should first think clearly about what the long-term competitive advantage of Chinese enterprises should rely on after going overseasNow our country wants to build a system with the domestic cycle as the main body, and the domestic and international dual cycles promote each other, so what is the internal cycle of innovation for innovation?Only when we solve the problem of internal circulation of innovation, that is, build a set of innovation system centered on China, can we have a competitive foundation for the output of industrial capacity. But I don't think this work has been done well yet, and we are still in the process of transformation. That's why I'm very supportive of the new *** system at the level of what should be. Because the problem of enterprises going overseas is obviously not a strategic problem of a single enterprise, but a problem of collective action of a large number of enterprises in the entire industry. It's like the relationship between Huawei and SMIC and Shanghai Microelectronics. Before 2017, these companies were rarely related, because Huawei wanted to pursue the world's best advanced processes, while SMIC wanted to pursue the world's best lithography machines. The problem is that if the relationship between these companies does not occur locally, then it will be difficult for us to grow our local ability to develop advanced lithography machines and develop advanced process manufacturing. The core of innovation lies in the transmission of a large amount of complex information through the interaction between different collaborators in the industrial chain through the interaction of supply and demand, and constantly discovering and solving problems in the process of technology and product development. The changes in 2017 have made us sober, because the phenomenon of key core technologies being "stuck" makes us realize that this innovation system is much more important than a single technology and a single product. So the key question now is not what a single business should do, but what a group of businesses should do as a whole. The premise of going overseas to gain competitive advantage is that we can form a set of innovation communities based on China's local market, we grasp the agenda that defines the problem, and we develop the technology roadmap. 
Overseas enterprises cannot just become multinational companies of the yearThe other side of the question is, when we go overseas, our goal is just to become a new multinational company, which is what Western companies were when they entered China?This is similar to the phrase that is currently popular among young people: hate multinationals, understand multinationals, be multinationals. Personally, I'm skeptical. From a macro perspective, China's innovative development is a new proposition for the world: very simply, our population is very large, 1.4 billion has far exceeded the total population of the entire G7 developed countries before, so we have no way to achieve the transition of the Chinese population from middle income to middle and high income by replacing the existing developed countries. First of all, it is unrealistic for us to completely replace the share of the existing developed countries. Judging from historical experience, even if we surpass the United States in overall scientific and technological strength in the future, the United States, as a very important industrial economy in the world, will still be an important player in the world pattern. That is, it will be difficult for us to completely kick it out and take the entire share of the United States. From this point of view, simply by imitating the model of the original American multinational corporations, we cannot support us in making the leap of 1.4 billion people to the level of today's developed countries. We have to develop new models. Second, today's model of transnational corporations is limited in terms of logic or in terms of the distribution of benefits. The existing multinational corporation model is equivalent to building a global pyramid structure, with Western countries at the top, with core technologies, exporting management, capital and some production equipment to the outside world for layer by layer controlAt the bottom are developing countries, which are more likely to provide resources and cheap labor for relatively meager gains. The high profits were taken away by the developed countries at the top. The fatal flaw of this model is that cheap labor, who can only earn a small income, cannot become a consumer of the complex technical products it produces. Ordinary workers from developing countries, who make up the majority of the population, can consume the shirts, shoes, and small goods produced by this world system, but when it comes to complex technology products (such as new energy vehicles, smart grids, cloud computing services), the original multinational model is a failure, because ordinary workers with meager incomes cannot afford to consume. When we first engaged in "three to one supplement" and relied on "market for technology" to produce products through the joint venture model, a large part of our population could not afford to buy complex products produced locally in China. Only a relatively in-depth push for industrialization can change this situation. I'll give you a not-so-appropriate example: Henry Ford was a social icon in American history because in the early 20th century, he not only created the system of mass production technologically, but also made a pioneering move: raising workers' wages from $2 a day to $5 a day. Because he "not only produced mass-produced products, but also produced consumers of those products", that is, created a relatively stable and decent wage earner. Therefore, if we want to promote the continuous increase in the income of the vast majority of China's population, we need to create a new model of globalization. If our enterprises want to achieve long-term sustainable innovation and development, obtain sustained high profits, and avoid the dilemma of "rolling up at home and going abroad", we need to consider how to effectively promote local industrialization and how to help the local people start the process of industrialization, rather than just treating the local area as a place for cheap labor and raw materials. 
Create a new model of globalizationThe two issues mentioned above are actually two into one: one is from the perspective of long-term international competition, that isFrom the perspective of new globalization, China's competitive advantage is in the first place。I believe that this is the problem of the internal circulation of innovation, and the construction of the internal circulation of innovation requires the active action of the state and the collective action of enterprises. The other is what we should do in order to open up a larger market. This is a problem for the market. But this market is not just a matter of population, but needs to be systematically formed in the countries of the SouthThrough the development of deep industrialization, a larger market will be created。How to promote local industrialization in the local area of our overseas enterprises is a new proposition. How to effectively promote the development of local engineering technology itself, and at the same time integrate them into the system of internal circulation and external circulation centered on China, is a very important task in our future or long-term development. This problem is actually quite prominent today. For example, in the field of new energy vehicles, today's enterprises going overseas are not only a matter of selling products, but also involve the construction of infrastructure, including a series of construction such as charging networks, smart grids and corresponding smart cities. Only after these supporting facilities are built, and the local society has a certain economic capacity and relatively active economic activities, can we sell complex products of the highest value to these countries and regions. The above two problems, whether it is the construction of an innovative internal circulation and internal and external dual circulation system, or the orderly start of the industrialization process in the southern countries through Chinese enterprises going overseas, are difficult for a single enterprise to accomplish independently. I believe that China's industrial practitioners and policymakers will gradually realize the problem, try to solve the problem, and finally find the answer. Just like the feats they have accomplished in the past two or three decades of independent innovation. The challenge for Chinese industrialists is not over. China's policymakers, entrepreneurs, engineers, and industrial workers may have to gnaw on the hard bones of another generation or two. But this wave may give us more ground, and we may create a new model of globalization. For us and many people in late-developing countries and regions, it is a new world. end
Zhixue Benchmark links global cross-border study tours and global famous teachers, delivers the latest problem-solving-oriented business knowledge and experience, and aggregates action and innovation orientation to promote the rapid growth of customersFocus on cross-border study tours, red study tours, college study tours, famous enterprises and famous teachers, president class set affairs, etc. Help enterprise training Xi enhance core competitiveness!