“一带一路”倡议下重大基础设施投资的文化风险评价研究
作者:
中图分类号:

F279;F125;F283;G05-F

基金项目:

对外经济贸易大学"一带一路"PPP发展研究中心研究成果;中央高校基本科研业务费(No.2020CDJSK03YJ06,2020CDJ-LHSS-007)


Cultural risk assessment of major infrastructure investment under “the Belt and Road” Initiatives
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [37]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    从"走出去"战略到"一带一路"倡议的提出,对外投资逐步成为我国刺激经济增长、推动发展转型、构建区域治理新格局的重要举措,而重大基础设施投资在其中扮演着愈加重要的角色。近年来重大基础设施投资成绩斐然,但同时也不得不正视当下沿线国家文化冲突频发、项目投资受阻的现实情况,加之投资企业国际化运营经验不足、文化风险意识淡薄、防范措施不到位等问题,投资活动面临巨大威胁。为克服上述难题,完善当前尚未形成体系的文化风险管理研究,有必要从识别文化风险的表现形式、剖析其分布特征等方面入手确保投资活动的顺利开展。文章首先通过对典型案例和重要文献的梳理从语言、民族宗教、人文环境、外交关系四个维度识别得到了21项文化风险因素。再基于国家风险评价的相关研究成果构建了重大基础设施投资的文化风险指标体系,之后运用熵权法确定它们的综合权重。最后以"一带一路"沿线的32个国家为研究对象采用TOPSIS评价模型对各个国家的风险等级进行评估,并在利用SPSS软件对评估结果进行深入分析后,制定了有针对性的风险防范策略。文章的主要结论如下:总结文化风险的主要表现形式。从维度上看,语言风险和外交关系风险对重大基础设施投资的影响最大,其次是人文环境风险与民族宗教风险;从风险要素来看,双方的项目合作基础、语言产品以及东道国的华人比重对投资活动的开展存在显著影响。衡量沿线国家的文化风险水平。从数值上看,它呈现出明显的右偏性,除新加坡、马来西亚两国贴近度明显大于其他国家,"一带一路"沿线国家的整体文化风险贴进度围绕着均值0.2左右波动。分析适宜投资国家的集聚特征。从空间分布看,这类国家有集中分布的趋势。集聚水平从东南亚到西亚、欧洲逐渐减小,其中新加坡的投资条件显著优于其他各国;文章进一步根据风险等级的划分结果绘制了沿线国家的风险地图,发现约旦、孟加拉国这类特例国家不符合上述特征,故结合聚类分析的贴近度计算结果发现文化风险分布规律可能也受历史沿革和经济水平的潜在影响。文章研究"一带一路"倡议下重大基础设施投资面临的文化风险,一方面改进了文化风险的识别与评估方法、有助于构建完整的文化风险管理流程;另一方面提出了文化风险防范的具体对策,有助于解决实际的问题、为投资企业提供决策支持。

    Abstract:

    From the "going global" strategy to "the Belt and Road" initiative, foreign investment has gradually become an important measure for China to stimulate economic growth as well as promoting development transformation and building a new pattern of regional governance, and major infrastructure investment plays an increasingly important role in it. Recent years major infrastructure investments have achieved remarkable results, however, we have to face the reality of frequent cultural conflicts and obstructed project construction along "the Belt and Road". In addition, investment companies have insufficient experience as well as inadequate preventive measures towards international operations, they even ignore the existence of cultural risks. In order to overcome the above problems and improve the current cultural risk management research that has not formed a system yet, it is necessary to identify the manifestations of cultural risks and analyze their distribution characteristics to ensure the smooth development of investment activities. The paper firstly identifies 21 cultural risk elements from four dimensions:language, ethnic religion, human environment, and diplomatic relations, through the analysis of typical cases and important documents. Based on the related research results of national risk assessment, the cultural risk index system of major infrastructure investment is constructed. Meanwhile, entropy weight method is used to determine their comprehensive weights. Then the risk levels of 32 countries along "the Belt and Road" are evaluated with TOPSIS model. After in-depth analysis of the evaluation results using SPSS software, a targeted risk prevention strategy is formulated. The main conclusions of the thesis are as follows:1) The main threat of cultural risk. From the perspective of dimensions, language risks and diplomatic relations risks have the greatest impact on major infrastructure investment, followed by humanities environment risks and ethnic and religious risks; from the perspective of risk factors, the project cooperation basis, language products, and the proportion of Chinese in the host country have a significant impact on the development of investment activities. 2) The cultural risk level of countries along the route. From a numerical point of view, it shows an obvious right-biasedness. Except for Singapore and Malaysia, the progress of posting is significantly higher than that of other countries. The overall cultural risk posting progress of countries along "the Belt and Road" fluctuates around an average value of about 0.2. 3) The agglomeration characteristics of countries suitable for investment. From the perspective of spatial distribution, such countries tend to be concentrated. The agglomeration level gradually decreases from Southeast Asia to West Asia and Europe, among which Singapore's investment conditions are significantly better than other countries; the paper further draws a risk map of countries along the route according to the classification results of risk levels, and finds that Jordan, Bangladesh and other exceptional countries do not meet the above. Therefore, combined with the closeness calculation results of cluster analysis, it is found that the distribution law of cultural risk may also be potentially affected by historical evolution and economic level. This paper studies the cultural risks faced by major infrastructure investments under "the Belt and Road" initiative. On the one hand, it improves the identification and assessment methods of cultural risks and helps to build a complete cultural risk management process; on the other hand, it proposes specific measures for cultural risk prevention. Countermeasures are helpful to solve practical problems and provide decision support for investment enterprises.

    参考文献
    [1] THOBANI M.Private infrastructure, public risk[J].Finance and Development, 1999, 36(1):50-53.
    [2] SCHABERREITER T, BOUVRY P, RÖNING J, et al.Support tool for a Bayesian network based critical infrastructure risk model[M]//EVOLVE-A Bridge between Probability, Set Oriented Numerics, and Evolutionary Computation III.Heidelberg:Springer International Publishing, 2014:53-75.
    [3] GRIMSEY D, LEWIS M K.Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects[J].International Journal of Project Management, 2002, 20(2):107-118.
    [4] 华桂宏, 黄艺."一带一路"国家经济金融风险评价[J].现代经济探讨, 2019(1):55-60.
    [5] ESCUDER-BUENO I, HALPIN E.Overcoming failure in infrastructure risk governance implementation:Large dams journey[J].Journal of Risk Research, 2018, 21(11):1313-1330.
    [6] LAWLESS R, DOUGLAS M, WILDAVSKY A.Risk and culture:An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers[J].Environmental History Review, 1983, 7(2):209-211.
    [7] WEBER E U, HSEE C.Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk[J].Management Science, 1998, 44(9):1205-1217.
    [8] BONTEMPO R N, BOTTOM W P, WEBER E U.Cross-cultural differences in risk perception:A model-based approach[J].Risk Analysis, 1997, 17(4):479-488.
    [9] 王小艳, 陈晓春.低碳视角下跨文化风险的模糊综合评价模型构建[J].统计与决策, 2011(15):57-60.
    [10] 汪权.亚洲基础设施投资的非传统风险与应对[J].国际经济合作, 2015(8):84-88.
    [11] WU X Y, ZHANG S Y.Identification of cross-cultural risk in multicultural interactions of transnational corporations[C]//Beijing:International Conference on Management & Service Science, 2009:37-52.
    [12] 周健, 杨高升.国际工程项目跨文化风险评估机制与应对策略研究[J].科技管理研究, 2014(23):104-109.
    [13] 胡丽, 张卫国, 叶晓甦.基于PPP模式的城市基础设施融资风险识别研究[J].甘肃社会科学, 2011(1):234-237.
    [14] 杨高升, 周健, 舒欢.国际工程跨文化风险与项目实施阶段绩效关系研究[J].重庆理工大学学报(自然科学), 2015(8):136-142, 154.
    [15] 马永驰.关键基础设施安全风险管理的三重困境[J].工程研究-跨学科视野中的工程, 2013(3):295-301.
    [16] KOLSTAD I, WIIG A.What determines Chinese outward FDI?[J].Journal of World Business, 2012, 47(1):26-34.
    [17] 袁竞峰, Skibniewski Miroslaw J., 邓小鹏, 等.基础设施建设PPP项目关键绩效指标识别研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2012(3):56-63.
    [18] 陈菲琼, 钟芳芳.中国海外直接投资政治风险预警系统研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2012(1):87-99.
    [19] 王颖, 马亮, 白居, 等.基于神经网络的大型国际工程财务风险控制评价[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2015(7):1104-1110.
    [20] DAVID K, SINGH H.Sources of acquisition cultural risk[M]//The Management of Corporate Acquisitions.London:Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1994:251-292.
    [21] YE C, LI S M, ZHUANG L, et al.A comparison and case analysis between domestic and overseas industrial parks of China since the Belt and Road Initiative[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(8):1266-1282.
    [22] YUAN J H, LI X Y, XU C B, et al.Investment risk assessment of coal-fired power plants in countries along the Belt and Road initiative based on ANP-Entropy-TODIM method[J].Energy, 2019, 176:623-640.
    [23] DANG L J, ZHAO J F.Cultural risk and management strategy for Chinese enterprises' overseas investment[J]. China Economic Review, 2020, 61:101433.
    [24] ZHOU N, WU Q S, HU X P, et al.Evaluation of Chinese natural gas investment along the Belt and Road Initiative using super slacks-based measurement of efficiency method[J].Resources Policy, 2020, 67:101668.
    [25] WU Y N, WANG J, JI S Y, et al.Renewable energy investment risk assessment for nations along China's Belt & Road Initiative:An ANP-cloud model method[J].Energy, 2020, 190:116381.
    [26] 刘卫东, 姚秋蕙."一带一路"建设模式研究:基于制度与文化视角[J].地理学报, 2020(6):1134-1146.
    [27] LIU H Y, TANG Y K, CHEN X L, et al.The determinants of Chinese outward FDI in countries along "One Belt One Road"[J].Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2017, 53(6):1374-1387.
    [28] 王雪梅, 邓世平."一带一路"沿线关键土著语言规划:内涵、原则与框架[J].外语界, 2020(6):63-69.
    [29] 孙频捷."一带一路"背景下多元文化交流与反恐情报融合[J].情报杂志, 2018(10):50-56.
    [30] 涂华忠, 聂姣, 王垚, 等."一带一路"倡议实施过程中的宗教风险探析:以巴基斯坦为例[J].世界宗教文化, 2018(4):13-19.
    [31] 许果, 梅林.文化差异与跨文化交际能力的培养[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2002(6):121-123.
    [32] 谭亮, 万丽娟.中国对外直接投资与进出口贸易关系的实证分析[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2010(1):59-64.
    [33] 虞晓芬, 傅玳.多指标综合评价方法综述[J].统计与决策, 2004(11):119-121.
    [34] HUSSAIN J, ZHOU K, GUO S L, et al.Investment risk and natural resource potential in "Belt & Road Initiative" countries:A multi-criteria decision-making approach[J].Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 723:137981.
    [35] 邓玲, 王芳."一带一路"建设的文化风险及其应对策略[J].广西社会科学, 2018(1):194-197.
    [36] 杨莉.宗教风险评估指标维度初探[J].世界宗教文化, 2018(2):107-112.
    [37] 黄湄.优化孔子学院布局 助力"一带一路"建设[J].中国高等教育, 2017(24):52-53.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

向鹏成,蔡奇钢.“一带一路”倡议下重大基础设施投资的文化风险评价研究[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2022,28(5):14-31. DOI:10.11835/j. issn.1008-5831. jg.2021.07.003

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:582
  • 下载次数: 1124
  • HTML阅读次数: 1611
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 在线发布日期: 2022-11-07
文章二维码