Gao Xiaoyong, Wang Dingding Interview Nobel Prize in Economics Winner: Masters Debate on China's Economy and Economics

Author: Gao Xiaoyong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-07-01
Features: A few years ago, one of our journalists interviewed many Nobel laureates in economics from the United States, about eight or nine of them. They all praised China for being on the right track, including renowned masters with differing economic views like Samuelson and Friedman. The Economic Times established a unique position in China's theoretical and decision-making circles within less than two years, mainly due to the exceptional vision and organizational skills of its editor-in-chief. His qualities were once again vividly demonstrated in this interview. In these days of counterfeit and shoddy products, where everyone wants to call themselves "world-class," The Economic Times's "Nobel Quest" was a genuine world-first: It is unlikely that any other newspaper has ever concentrated on interviewing so many Nobel laureates in economics face-to-face within a single month. Eleven years have passed since that interview. News textbooks interpret and analyze this interview—as it has been regarded as a successful case of journalistic practice. But I still believe outsiders find it hard to understand this interview. More than a decade ago, in an industry far more rigidly managed than today, how did a poor and powerless newspaper accomplish such a feat? It was poor, meaning it had no financial guarantee for its publication in the coming weeks; it was powerless, meaning it had no support except for some authors, scholars, and subscribers, and still survives today under the "extralegal grace" of authorities. In fact, no other newspaper in the country has survived for over a decade in such a manner. Even more incredible is that such an academic and highly influential interview—whose content was sent to central and state leaders as a "for your reference" document by the State Council Research Office, and was specifically included in the 1995 Central Economic Work Conference documents by the then Minister of State Planning Chen Jinhua, who also instructed the China Planning Press to compile and publish the interview—was planned, organized, and executed by someone completely outside the field of economics. The idea for this interview came from his random musings. I must confess honestly that while the 12 American Nobel laureates spoke passionately during the interview, I neither understood nor was interested in what they said. During my 15 days in the U.S., I acted like a foreman, content with the smooth progress of the event—no one collapsed or took the wrong flight. At that time, many people read this book, yet I couldn’t understand it—truly a black comedy. Now, I am more like a genuine reader of this book than an interviewer or editor. I understand some of what they said, even disagree with the views of some. Take Simon, for example. He criticized the rational man assumption in economics and advocated the famous "bounded rationality." But I think Simon is making a mountain out of a molehill. Because the rationality assumed in economics is itself rationality under constraints, rationality under various constraints. If we talk about unlimited rationality, then the entire neoclassical economics framework now taught in universities worldwide would be self-refuting. If the rational man assumed in economics is not rationality under constraints, then humans would be gods—omniscient and omnipotent—and planned economies would be feasible. The reasons for its failure would then need to be reexamined. Of course, the seemingly tedious "bounded rationality" might have actually spurred the rise of research on the price of information and information economics. Today, I have some personal "biases" toward economics, but when I interviewed those Nobel laureates a decade ago, I knew nothing about economics. I did it just for fun, not intending to "stand on the shoulders of giants." Without money, power, or knowledge, I conducted an international interview that demanded money, approval, and knowledge—I don’t even know how it was accomplished. Those who analyze and interpret this must surely be gods. Writing a preface for this new edition is mainly to fulfill a lingering sense of guilt. I want to thank one person and one organization that made this interview possible. Without the diligent organization and coordination of Hai Wen, who served as the president of the China Association of Economics Scholars in the U.S. in 1994, and the efforts of scholars like Bixie, Ding Zhuanxin, Xu Xiaonian, Li Ling, and Huang He in picking me up and conducting interviews and translations in various cities in the U.S., this joyful adventure would not have been possible. Grateful for the hardships of the interview, Hai Wen, on behalf of the association, even offered to give me money, which I happily declined, perhaps out of embarrassment. Incidentally, the response to this interview in 1994 made me feel guilty. I felt unworthy of the attention, so years later, I commissioned Dr. Wang Dingding to conduct a professional interview to repay society. The outcome was far from ideal, but it was better than nothing. That’s why this new edition includes three remaining interviews by Dr. Wang Dingding. Today, eleven years later, it is also May, and multiple Nobel laureates in economics are coming to China for the "Nobel Forum." CCTV has invited me to Beijing to plan the live broadcast of this event, and I couldn’t help but laugh.