援建资金调查显示中国软实力局限

Few policymakers in the developing world trust China’s advice despite the billions it has poured into some of the poorest countries to curry favour in recent years, according to a new survey that points to the limitations of Beijing’s efforts to project “soft power”.

一项最新调查显示，发展中国家的政策制定者几乎都不信任中国的建议，尽管近年中国为讨好一些最贫穷的国家而向它们投入巨额资金，这突显出北京方面投射“软实力”努力的局限性。

Between 2000 and 2013 China provided almost $95bn in aid and other official financing to Africa alone, according to research compiled by AidData, a US-based research project that tracks flows of development assistance around the world.

总部位于美国、跟踪世界各地发展援助资金流动的研究项目AidData的研究显示，2000年至2013年期间，中国仅向非洲就提供了近950亿美元的援助和其他官方资金。

However, Beijing’s three main conduits for that money and related policy advice — the China Development Bank, the China Export-Import Bank and its local embassies — appear to struggle with credibility issues in the countries they target.

不过，北京方面提供这些资金和相关政策建议的三大渠道——中国国家开发银行(CDB)、中国进出口银行(China Export-Import Bank)以及中国驻各国使馆——在他们针对的国家似乎都遭遇棘手的可信度问题。

The survey of officials from 126 low and middle-income countries ranked the China Development Bank 75th out of 86 bilateral and multilateral development finance institutions according to the “usefulness” of its advice. The China Export-Import Bank ranked 59th while Chinese embassies finished 70th.

根据一项针对126个低收入和中等收入国家的官员的调查，就建议“有用性”而言，中国国家开发银行在86家双边和多边开发金融机构中排在第75位。中国进出口银行排在第59位，而中国驻各国使馆排在第70位。

“China was bottom of the league tables,” said Brad Parks, one of the AidData report’s authors.

“中国在这些榜单上垫底，”AidData报告的作者之一布拉德帕克斯(Brad Parks)表示。

When the officials, who included 47 heads of state or government and almost 250 ministers or heads of local agencies, were asked to rank the “agenda-setting influence” of foreign institutions on their soil, Chinese entities ended up with a similar lowly ranking.

当上述官员们（包括47个国家或政府首脑，以及近250名部长级官员或地方机构的负责人）被要求就外国机构对他们国家“设定议程的影响力”进行排名时，中国各机构得到了类似的低排名。

By contrast, the survey found traditional bodies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as specialised groups like the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, ranked highly. However, officials did not think very much of the advice of highly paid expatriate consultants often employed by international donors.

与此相反，调查发现，世界银行(World Bank)和国际货币基金组织(IMF)等传统机构，以及全球疫苗和免疫联盟(Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)等专门组织的排名很高。不过，官员们对于国际捐助机构经常高薪聘请的外籍顾问的建议评价不高。

The findings raise questions about just how effective China has been in getting traction in the developing world for what some have called the “Beijing Consensus” as a potential rival to the advice of multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and US and European aid agencies. Over the past decade there has been increasing concern in places like Washington and London that China is displacing traditional donors in the developing world.

调查结果令人不禁质疑：中国在发展中世界倡导一些人所称的“北京共识”、潜在与世行等多边机构以及美欧援助机构的建议对着干，究竟取得了多大实效？过去10年期间，华盛顿和伦敦等地有越来越多的人担忧，中国正在发展中国家取代传统的捐助机构。

However, worries about China’s expanding influence “are probably way overblown”, said Mr Parks. “That doesn’t mean that things might not change over time,” he added.

但帕克斯表示，对于中国影响力不断扩大的担忧“很可能被严重夸大了”。他补充道，“这并不意味着情况不会随着时间的推移而改变。”

Beijing’s forays into Africa and other parts of the developing world have long been characterised as being driven by commercial, economic and strategic self-interest rather than charity. It also has put a large emphasis on trade relationships and things like the ports and rail lines that are vital to trade.

北京进军非洲和发展中世界其他地区之举，早已被定性为受到商业、经济和战略利益的驱动，而非慈善。它还注重贸易关系，以及港口和铁路等关键的贸易基础设施。

The one area where China did do well in the eyes of officials in recipient countries was in trade policy, the AidData survey found.

AidData调查发现，中国在受援国官员的眼里确实做得比较好的一个领域是贸易政策。