制造业作为立国之本，强国之基，创新之源，是我国国民经济的重要组成部分。制造业能否实现高质量发展，直接关乎我国现代化产业体系建设的成败，具有重要战略意义。在有关社会经济发展的思想理论方面，马克思主义者从社会有机体以及人的主体性角度出发，对产业结构、科学技术创新、世界市场、自然资源与生态环境等给予综合考察，彰显了社会经济发展应“以人为本”的核心理念。包括马克思主义经典作家、中国共产党人在内的有关社会经济发展的思想一并构成当今研究社会经济及产业发展方式问题的理论富矿。

新发展理念作为马克思主义发展观的最新理论成果，具有丰富的理论内涵，为中国经济及制造业产业发展等实践问题提供了科学指南。其中，“创新”是第一动力，“协调”是内在要求，“绿色”是重要前提，“开放”是有效路径，“共享”是根本目的。新发展理念引领下的中国制造业高质量发展，是我国全面进入工业化发展新阶段后，包括发展理念、发展模式、产业结构、发展动力、体制机制等因素在内的一次系统性变革，应具有“创新高效性”“供给结构协调性”“绿色环保性”“开放有效性”“和谐共享性”五大特性。在新发展理念引领下，中国需在“创新驱动”“需求升级驱动”“生产要素供给优化驱动”三大驱动机制作用下，进一步建立服务化、国际化、智能化、绿色化、生态化的新型制造体系。

新中国成立以来，我国制造业整体发展成效显著并呈现出鲜明的阶段性特征。其一，在1949至1977年间，实现了沿海地区工业制造产业向腹地的一次大转移，全国制造业产业布局至此初步形成。其二，在1978至2000年间，改革开放前各类生活用品和消费品相对匮乏的不利局面得到根本扭转，我国制造业也初步融入国际分工体系。其三，在2001至2011年间，我国制造业加速融入全球制造业体系，产业规模迅速扩张，逐步超越德、日、美等传统制造强国，成为名副其实的“世界工厂”。其四，从2012年至今，我国在持续保持制造业全球规模优势同时，有效推动制造业产业内部结构不断升级优化、创新能力不断增强、国际分工地位不断提高，实现了由“量”到“质”的现实飞跃。进入新时代以来，我国30个制造业细分行业，31个省份、自治区及直辖市制造业高质量发展水平指数在规模效应、经营效益、创新驱动、绿色效能、产业融合5大维度方面得分增长显著，进步明显。然而，放眼全球，我国制造业“大而不强”的状况并未得到根本改变，存在着：关键领域自主创新能力较弱，核心技术受制于人隐患凸显；供需协调发展不平衡不充分，产业结构低级形态相对突出；自然资源综合利用水平较低，绿色低碳转型发展任重道远；世界市场分工体系仍处低位，“内引外输”整体开放不够通畅；制造业“基本盘”亟待巩固夯实，共享制造品牌优势仍未确立等五大关键问题。

相比之下，美、德、日三国制造业的发展历程、政策经验与特色启示也为我国制造业未来实现高质量发展提供了有益参考。其中，美国政府推行的各类与制造业相关的产业政策均围绕“如何构建并保持美国的技术创新优势”紧密展开，其独特的创新生态系统是其保持制造产业优势进而具备国家竞争优势的核心关键。德国作为具有典型后发赶超型特征的工业化发达国家，其政府积极有为的产业扶持政策及长期营造形成的自由宽松、尊重知识和人才的环境，逐步促使德国成为当今欧洲最发达的制造强国。日本作为亚洲第一个实现工业化的国家，其特色经验在于强大的资源融合能力，无论是制造业与生物科技、信息技术等领域的融合，还是技术、组织架构、管理效能及客户资源上的一体化整合，均能有效发挥“1+1>2”的显著优势。

在新发展理念指引下，推动我国制造业高质量发展应从以下五方面入手：一是强化创新生态治理体系，着力创新生态主体扶持，推进创新生态系统构建，推动制造业“创新”发展；二是加快传统制造升级改造，深化行政体制机制改革，持续改善国内营商环境，促进制造业“协调”发展；三是推进绿色低碳技术研发，推广再生资源循环利用，健全碳排放权交易制度，驱动制造业“绿色”发展；四是提高多方资源“内引”水平，强化制造企业“外输”能力，助力制造业“开放”发展；五是优化生产要素供给效率，构建共享制造平台优势，推进制造业“共享”发展。最终，实现新发展理念在中国制造业发展过程中的全方位融入，进而实现整体制造产业的高质量发展。

As the foundation of a country, the basis for national strength, and the source of innovation, the manufacturing industry is an important component of China’s national economy. Whether the manufacturing industry can achieve high-quality development directly bears on the success or failure of the development of China’s modern industrial system and has significant strategic significance. In terms of society and economic development theories, Marxist scholars have highlighted the core concept of “putting people first” by taking into account the industrial structure, scientific and technological innovation, global market, natural resources, and ecological environment from the perspective of the social organism and human subjectivity. The theories related to society and economic development, including those of writers of Marxism classics and Chinese Communist Party members, constitute a large theoretical reserve for researching the development of the economy and industry today.

The new development philosophy, as the latest theoretical achievement of Marxist development theory, has rich theoretical connotations, which provides scientific guidance for solving issues related to China’s economic and manufacturing industrial development. Among the concepts, “innovation” is the primary drive, “coordination” is an inherent requirement, “green” is an important prerequisite, “opening up” is an effective approach, and “sharing” is the fundamental purpose. High-quality development of China’s manufacturing industry guided by the new development philosophy represents a systematic transition in development conception, development mode, industrial structure, driving force for development, systems and mechanisms after China entered a new stage of industrialization. And such development should have five features: efficient innovation, a coordinated supply structure, green and environmental-friendly trait, effective opening up, and harmonious sharing. Under the guidance of the new development philosophy, China needs to further establish a service-oriented, international, intelligent, green, and ecological new manufacturing system under the driving mechanism composed of “innovation driving”, “upgraded-demand driving”, and “optimized production factors supply driving”.

Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the overall development of China’s manufacturing industry has shown distinct phased characteristics. In the first phase, from 1949 to 1977, the central government achieved a large-scale transfer of industrial manufacturing industry from coastal areas to inland regions, forming the preliminary layout of the national manufacturing industry. In the second phase, from 1978 to 2000, the central government effectively reversed the unfavorable situation of relative scarcity of various daily necessities and consumer goods before the reform and the manufacturing industry was also initially integrated into the international division of labor system. In the third phase, from 2001 to 2011, China’s manufacturing industry accelerated its integration into the global manufacturing system, and the industrial scale rapidly expanded, gradually surpassing that of traditional manufacturing powers such as Germany, Japan, and the United States, which makes China a true “world factory”. In the fourth phase, since 2012, while maintaining its global advantage in manufacturing scale, China has effectively continuously promoted upgrading and optimization of the internal structure of the manufacturing industry, enhanced its innovation capability, and strengthened its position in international division of labor, achieving a real leap from advantage in “quantity” to that in “quality”. Since China ushered in the new era, the high-quality development level index of the manufacturing industry in 31 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government and 30 manufacturing industry sub-sectors in China has significantly increased in terms of scale effect, operating efficiency, innovation-driven development, green efficiency, and industrial integration. However, on the other hand, looking globally, the problem of “being large but not strong” has not been fundamentally changed. It should still be clear that the high-quality development of China’s manufacturing industry faces five key problems at the current stage, namely: the ability of independent innovation in key areas is weak, and the hidden dangers of core technology are prominent; the development of supply and demand is unbalanced and inadequate, with the low-level form of industrial structure being relatively distinct; the comprehensive utilization level of natural resources is relatively low, and there is a long way to go for green and low-carbon transformation and development; China is still in a disadvantaged position in the world market division of labor system and with relatively poor performance in the overall opening-up of “bringing labors into China while exporting labors abroad”; The “foundation” of the manufacturing industry needs to be consolidated, and the advantages of shared manufacturing brands have not yet been established.

By comparison, the development process, policy experiences, and characteristic inspirations of the manufacturing industries of the United States, Germany, and Japan have provided useful references for China’s future achievement of high-quality development in manufacturing. In particular, various industrial policies related to manufacturing promoted by the United States government are closely centered around “how to build and maintain America’s technological innovation advantage”. Its unique innovation ecosystem is the key to maintaining its manufacturing industry advantage and shaping national competitiveness. Germany, as a developed industrialized country with typical characteristics of catching up from a lagging position, has gradually become the most developed manufacturing power in Europe owing to its proactive industrial support policies and the free and relaxed environment formed over a long period of time where knowledge and talents are well respected. Japan, as the first industrialized country in Asia, has a characteristic experience in its strong ability to integrate resources. Whether in the integration of manufacturing and biotechnology, information technology, or the integration of technology, organizational structure, management efficiency, and customer resources, it can effectively give full play to the advantage of “1+1>2”.

Under the guidance of the new development philosophy, in order to boost the high-quality development of China’s manufacturing industry in the future, we should proceed from the following five measures: Firstly, ameliorate the innovation ecology governance system, focus on supporting innovation entities, and promote the construction of an innovative ecology, so as to drive the “innovative” development of the manufacturing industry; Secondly, accelerate the upgrading and transformation of traditional manufacturing, deepen administrative system and mechanism reforms, and continuously improve the domestic business environment, so as to drive the “coordinated” development of the manufacturing industry; Thirdly, promote the research and development of green and low-carbon technologies, increase the recycling of renewable resources, and upgrade the carbon emissions trading system, so as to drive the “green” development of the manufacturing industry; Fourthly, increase the level of “bringing in” of various resources, and strengthen the “going global” capability of manufacturing enterprises, so as to boost the “open” development of the manufacturing industry; Fifthly, increase the efficiency of production factor supply and build the advantages of a shared manufacturing platform, so as to drive the “shared” development of the manufacturing industry. With all these moves, the goal is to fully integrate the new development philosophy into the development of China’s manufacturing industry, and enable high-quality development of the entire manufacturing industry.