援建資金調查顯示中國軟實力侷限

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”.

一項最新調查顯示，發展中國家的政策制定者幾乎都不信任中國的建議，儘管近年中國爲討好一些最貧窮的國家而向它們投入鉅額資金，這突顯出北京方面投射“軟實力”努力的侷限性。

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.

總部位於美國、跟蹤世界各地發展援助資金流動的研究項目AidData的研究顯示，2000年至2013年期間，中國僅向非洲就提供了近950億美元的援助和其他官方資金。

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.

不過，北京方面提供這些資金和相關政策建議的三大渠道——中國國家開發銀行(CDB)、中國進出口銀行(China Export-Import Bank)以及中國駐各國使館——在他們針對的國家似乎都遭遇棘手的可信度問題。

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.

根據一項針對126個低收入和中等收入國家的官員的調查，就建議“有用性”而言，中國國家開發銀行在86家雙邊和多邊開發金融機構中排在第75位。中國進出口銀行排在第59位，而中國駐各國使館排在第70位。

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

“中國在這些榜單上墊底，”AidData報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.

當上述官員們（包括47個國家或政府首腦，以及近250名部長級官員或地方機構的負責人）被要求就外國機構對他們國家“設定議程的影響力”進行排名時，中國各機構得到了類似的低排名。

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.

與此相反，調查發現，世界銀行(World Bank)和國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)等傳統機構，以及全球疫苗和免疫聯盟(Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)等專門組織的排名很高。不過，官員們對於國際捐助機構經常高薪聘請的外籍顧問的建議評價不高。

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.

調查結果令人不禁質疑：中國在發展中世界倡導一些人所稱的“北京共識”、潛在與世行等多邊機構以及美歐援助機構的建議對着幹，究竟取得了多大實效？過去10年期間，華盛頓和倫敦等地有越來越多的人擔憂，中國正在發展中國家取代傳統的捐助機構。

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，對於中國影響力不斷擴大的擔憂“很可能被嚴重誇大了”。他補充道，“這並不意味着情況不會隨着時間的推移而改變。”

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.

北京進軍非洲和發展中世界其他地區之舉，早已被定性爲受到商業、經濟和戰略利益的驅動，而非慈善。它還注重貿易關係，以及港口和鐵路等關鍵的貿易基礎設施。

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調查發現，中國在受援國官員的眼裏確實做得比較好的一個領域是貿易政策。