Two Sessions | Zhang Ying, Vice Dean of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University: Investing in people requires strategic patience of "if the direction is right, the distance doesn't matter"

During the 2026 National Two Sessions, a notable change drew widespread attention. The government work report set this year’s economic growth target at a range of 4.5%–5% and emphasized efforts to achieve better results in practice. What signals are being sent by setting the economic growth goal as a range? How should the tasks of “investing in people” and “advancing science and technology to build a strong nation” mentioned in the report be implemented? What kind of transformation is the logic of China’s economic growth undergoing? In response to these questions, Securities Times reporter interviewed Zhang Ying, Vice Dean of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University and Boya Distinguished Professor.

Zhang Ying stated that setting the economic growth target as a range not only provides valuable flexibility for adjusting economic structure and risk prevention but also, more fundamentally, relaxes restrictions on local governments. It guides their performance view away from obsessing over GDP growth rates toward “focusing on people’s sense of gain.”

This shift precisely connects with the keywords “investing in people” and “scientific and technological innovation” repeatedly mentioned in this year’s government work report, outlining a clear path for the transformation of China’s economic growth momentum.

Making Development More Focused on People

“Setting GDP targets as a range is like providing a flexible space,” Zhang Ying pointed out straightforwardly. This space is not only a “buffer” for dealing with international uncertainties but also offers room for structural adjustments and risk mitigation in economic development.

Zhang Ying believes that China’s economy has entered a critical period of structural adjustment, which is far more important than obsessing over a specific growth target.

“If we still set a specific growth goal, like 5%, it becomes a mandatory hard indicator for local governments. Driven by GDP, their intrinsic motivation to adjust economic structures and promote high-quality development will weaken,” he further explained. GDP only measures the “quantity” of economic growth, not the quality of development, nor does it reflect resource consumption and wealth distribution.

He argues that the current approach to setting targets essentially shifts the “command stick,” helping local governments establish a “people-centered” performance view, shifting attention from specific economic figures to the actual lives and needs of people.

This orientation aligns with the repeatedly emphasized concept of “investing in people” in the government work report. Zhang Ying told Securities Times that when local governments no longer see “GDP” growth as their sole goal, their efforts and resources will naturally flow toward areas that are difficult to quantify in the short term but are crucial for people’s livelihoods.

Investing in People Requires Focusing on Unlocking Human Potential

The 2026 government work report proposes to pay more attention to supporting consumption, investing in people, and safeguarding livelihoods, as well as strengthening fiscal management and improving the efficiency of fiscal funds. This is the second time the concept of “investing in people” appears in the government work report.

“The effect of investment depends on what the investment targets,” Zhang Ying recalled China’s development history dominated by “hardware investment,” such as large-scale infrastructure projects like railways, roads, airports, and ports, which laid a solid foundation for economic leapfrogging. However, the current economic driving force is gradually shifting from tangible assets to human assets.

He used a vivid example to explain the deep logic behind “investing in physical assets” versus “investing in people”: “We’ve built many 5G base stations, data centers, and computing centers, but without enough talent to support them, the effectiveness of these ‘things’ cannot be fully realized.” He believes that “investing in people” should focus on two aspects. First, reinvesting in skill development, especially in the context of manufacturing transformation and upgrading, where a shortage of high-skilled talent is an urgent issue.

“Many young people enter factories in their twenties, but few receive further systematic education and training afterward,” Zhang Ying pointed out. Increasing investment in vocational education and skills training can help them better leverage the “physical assets.”

The second aspect is strengthening social security to address people’s “worries about the future.” “Investments in childcare, elderly care, medical services, and urban renewal… these may not immediately translate into GDP growth, and their effects might spill over into other regions. But allowing local governments some flexibility in GDP assessments can better motivate efforts to improve people’s happiness and sense of gain,” he said. He believes that guiding society in this direction will lead to more sustainable and healthier development. Moving from “accumulating physical assets” to “releasing human potential” will also bolster the foundation for high-quality development.

When asked when the effects of “investing in people” will be visible, Zhang Ying said it is not something that can be seen in the short term, but as long as the direction is correct, the distance does not matter.

Strengthening the Deep Support for Scientific and Technological Innovation

Once human potential is activated, where will the released energy ultimately go? The answer is undoubtedly technological innovation. But the real implementation of technological innovation faces deeper challenges beyond R&D itself.

Regarding technological innovation, especially the currently popular artificial intelligence, Zhang Ying’s views are sharp and profound. He believes that the main obstacle to AI empowering the real economy is not technological maturity but the willingness and capacity of enterprises to undergo organizational change.

“Almost all companies talk about digital transformation and AI transformation, but very few can actually do it,” he pointed out. Introducing AI into enterprises is not just about adding a new production tool; it requires restructuring the organizational architecture formed during the industrial era. Without restructuring organizational structures and personnel configurations, AI’s role will be limited to efficiency gains at individual points and cannot bring about systemic change.

He used the example of the spread of steam engines and electricity to illustrate the long and difficult process of technological-driven organizational change. “With electricity, machines no longer need to be arranged around steam pipes, but factories didn’t immediately reorganize. Today’s enterprises are similar—unless top-level design actively breaks down departmental walls, cultivates versatile talents, and establishes fault-tolerant mechanisms for AI, the application of AI cannot trigger systemic efficiency improvements.” Zhang Ying judges that true efficiency gains, and even further increases in total factor productivity, are likely mainly driven by AI-native companies that have organizational structures compatible with the digital age from their inception.

Talent cultivation is crucial for technological innovation. However, current challenges remain. Zhang Ying believes that the existing education, science and technology, market, and talent systems need to change the “siloed” approach, separating market-oriented and vocational education from basic research education. In short, “professionals should do professional things.” On one hand, those who understand technology and principles should understand the market, serving as a bridge between technological and industrial innovation. On the other hand, space for pure basic research must be preserved.

Regarding the government’s mention of “establishing a future industry investment growth and risk-sharing mechanism,” Zhang Ying believes this essentially means creating a risk-sharing system for high-risk, long-cycle investments in future industries. Government guiding funds play the role of “patient capital” and leverage, through genuine investment and long-term commitment, to mobilize social capital and use institutional advantages to open application scenarios for enterprises.