[转帖] [Book] [2012.03.10]Creating economic wealth The big why 创造财富的大问号

showcraft

http://www.ecocn.org/thread-64945-1-1.html
Creating economic wealth

创造财富

The big why

大问号

Nations fail because their leaders are greedy, selfish and ignorant of history

那些国家之所以失败原因在于它们的领导人贪婪、自私，同时还对历史一无所知

Mar 10th 2012 | from the print edition   



Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. By Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Crown; 529 pages; $30. Profile; ￡25. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

　　《为什么那些国家遭遇滑铁卢：权力的根源，繁荣与贫困》，作者：Daron Acemoglu、 James Robinson，王冠出版社，页数：529，售价30美元或25欧元，可从Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk
网站购得此书。

THE rich world’s troubles and inequalities have been making headlines for some time now. Yet a more important story for human welfare is the persistence of yawning gaps between the world’s haves and have-nots. Adjusted for purchasing power, the average American income is 50 times that of a typical Afghan and 100 times that of a Zimbabwean. Despite two centuries of economic growth, over a billion people remain in dire poverty.

　　目前，发达国家面临的困境和不平等已数次成为新闻头条。然而，更应引人们关注的是发达国家和发展中国家长久存在的鸿沟。按购买力计算，美国人的平均收入是阿富汗人的50倍，津巴布韦的100倍。尽管经历了两个世纪的经济增长，但（全球）超过10亿人仍处在极端的贫困线下。

This conundrum demands ambitious answers. In the late 1990s Jared Diamond and David Landes tackled head-on the most vexing questions: why did Europe discover modern economic growth and why is its spread so limited? Now, Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT, and James Robinson, professor of government at Harvard, follow in their footsteps with “Why Nations Fail”. They spurn the cultural and geographic stories of their forebears in favour of an approach rooted solely in institutional economics, which studies the impact of political environments on economic outcomes. Neither culture nor geography can explain gaps between neighbouring American and Mexican cities, they argue, to say nothing of disparities between North and South Korea.

　　这个猜不透的难题要求有足够说服力的答案。上世纪90年代晚期，Jared Diamond与David Landes曾正面解决大多数让人恼火的难题：为什么欧洲发现现代经济增长的秘诀，但是这种增长扩散的有限？这个猜不透的难题要求有足够说服力的答案。上世纪90年代晚期，Jared Diamond与David Landes曾正面解决大多数让人恼火的难题：为什么欧洲发现现代经济增长的秘诀，但是这种增长扩散的有限？Daron Acemoglu和James Robinson分别是麻省理工学院经济学家和来自哈佛的政府专家。他们以《为什么那些国家遭遇滑铁卢》一书沿着（Jared Diamond与David Landes）的足迹前进。他们拒绝接受前辈们文化和地理层面的解释。后者的理论唯一根源来自制度学派经济学。这一理论研究政治环境对经济的影响。他们强调，无论是文化还是地理原因都无法解释美国与墨西哥这两个邻居之间和南北韩悬殊的差距的原因。

They offer instead a striking diagnosis: some governments get it wrong on purpose. Amid weak and accommodating institutions, there is little to discourage a leader from looting. Such environments channel society’s output towards a parasitic elite, discouraging investment and innovation. Extractive institutions are the historical norm. Inclusive institutions protect individual rights and encourage investment and effort. Where inclusive governments emerge, great wealth follows.
　　他们随之提供一个让人耳目一新的结论：一些政府在某些目的下使它走上歧途。在容易被击溃的环境和跟风的习俗作用下，那些领导人很难抵住诱惑不去从事掠夺。这样的社会氛围的结果有利于滋生寄生阶层，而不是鼓励投资和创新。掠夺型制度是一个历史标准。包容型制度则保护个人权利和鼓励投资和奋斗。一旦包容型的政府出现，财富也随之而来。

Britain, wellspring of the industrial revolution, is the chief proof of this theory. Small medieval differences in the absolutism of English and Spanish monarchs were amplified by historical chance. When European exploration began, Britain’s more constrained crown left trade in the hands of privateers, whereas Spain favoured state control of ocean commerce. The New World’s riches solidified Spanish tyranny but nurtured a merchant elite in Britain. Its members helped to tilt the scales against monarchy in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and counterbalanced the landed aristocracy, securing pluralism and sowing the seeds of economic growth. Within a system robust enough to tolerate creative destruction, British ingenuity (not so different from French or Chinese inventiveness) was free to flourish.

　　作为工业革命的摇篮，英国是该理论的主要样板。在中世纪，英国和西班牙两者君主专制的统治下。但在历史机遇的作用下，两国细小的差距被进一步扩大。当欧洲探险开始之时，英国限制王权让贸易在（持有政府委任状、战时获准使用的，尤指用于俘获商船）武装民船控制下，然而西班牙热衷政府控制下的海外贸易。新世界的财富巩固了西班牙的暴政，但在英国就培育了工商阶层。这些工商阶层使天平倾向于反对君主专制的发生在1688年的光荣革命，抑制拥有大量土地的贵族，使多元社会进一下稳定下来，同时播下经济增长的种子。在足够宽容，能够容忍创造性破坏的系统下，足智多谋的英国（与法国或者中国的创造力并没有那么大的差别）自然而然地走向繁荣。

This fortunate accident was not easily replicated. In Central and South America European explorers found dense populations ripe for plundering. They built suitably exploitative states. Britain’s North American colonies, by contrast, made poor ground for extractive institutions; indigenous populations were too dispersed to enslave. Colonial governors used market incentives to motivate early settlers in Virginia and Massachusetts. Political reforms made the grant of economic rights credible. Where pluralism took root, American industry and wealth bloomed. Where it lapsed, in southern slaveholding colonies, a long period of economic backwardness resulted. A century after the American civil war the segregated South remained poor.

　　此等好事很难被复制。在中南美洲，欧洲探险者发现当地为数巨大的居民都在为抢劫（他们）作了充分的准备。他们建立非常利于剥削的国家。与此相对照，英国的北美殖民地则没有为掠夺型的制度提供相应环境。土著则被驱散而避免成为奴隶。殖民地政府运用市场激励机制鼓励在维吉尼亚和马萨诸塞州的早期移民。政治改革使那些已作许诺的经济权利变得可信。当多元文化扎根，美国变成工业和社会财富均走向繁荣。反之，在南方的蓄奴的殖民地则在相当长的时期内导致经济向后退。美国内战后的一个世纪南部诸州依旧贫困。

Extractive rules are self-reinforcing. In the Spanish New World, plunder further empowered the elite. Revolution and independence rarely provide escape from this tyranny. New leadership is tempted to retain the benefits of the old system. Inclusive economies, by contrast, encourage innovation and new blood. This destabilises existing industries, keeping economic and political power dispersed.

　　掠夺型规章制度是自主地发展的。在西班牙的新大陆，精英分子被授权去掠夺。革命和独立极少能够逃离暴政。新的领导层被诱惑去保留旧体制的利益。与此相对照，包容型的经济体制鼓励创新和新生力量。这破坏了现存的工业体系，致使经济和政治力量被驱散。

Failure is the rule. Here, Venice provides a cautionary tale. Upward mobility drove the city-state’s wealth and power. Its innovative commenda, a partnership in which capital-poor sailors and rich Venetians shared the profits from voyages, allowed those of modest background to rise through the ranks. This fluidity threatened established wealth, however. From the late 13th century the ducal council began restricting political and economic rights, banning the commenda and nationalising trade. By 1500, with a stagnant economy and falling population, Venice’s descent from great power was well under way.

　　失败的是制度本身。这方面有威尼斯的反面教材。上进心驱动城邦的财富和政治力量。威尼斯值得称赞的部分是它的伙伴关系允许那些具有一定背景士兵获得升职应。在这种伙伴关系里，首都贫穷的水手们和富裕的威尼斯人共同分享航海的收益。然而，这种流动性威胁着已有的财富。从13世纪晚期，这些公爵委员会开始限制各种政治和经济权利。他们颁布委任状将贸易收归国有。到了1500年，伴随着萧条的经济和不断下降的人口，威尼斯已从强国走向衰落。

Moves towards greater inclusivity are disappointingly rare. The French revolution provides an example, but also demonstrates the authors’ unfortunate habit of ignoring historical detail. Revolution put paid to absolutism and led, after a long and messy struggle, to the creation of an enduring republic. Institutions, in the form of a fledgling merchant class, provided momentum for reform, making the difference between the successful French revolution and failed uprisings elsewhere. But the authors give short shrift to the presence and meaning of Enlightenment ideals. It is difficult to believe this did not matter for the French transition, yet the intellectual climate is left out of the story. History is contingent, the authors apologise, but history is what they hope to explain.

　　朝着更加包容的社会前进（的国家）极之罕有。法国大革命提供了一个这样的例子，但也同时显露了作者忽视历史细节的不幸习惯。经历漫长和艰辛的斗争，革命结束了专制主义，建立了持久的共和国。制度以初步成形的商人阶层的形式为改革提供了动力使法国革命取得了成功，与其他地区起义的失败形成对比。但作者对启蒙时期存在和重要性显得漠不关心。“启蒙时期与法国的转变没有关系”显然很难让人信服。更有甚者，知识分子也没有被考虑在内。作者致歉道说历史是有条件的，但是历史正是他们希望加以阐释的部分。

The story of Botswana is also unsatisfying. There, a co-operative effort by tribal leaders secured the protection of the British government against the marauding imperialism of Cecil Rhodes. Despite its considerable diamond wealth, which might have spawned a corrupt and abusive elite, Botswana became a rare success in Africa, assisted by the benevolence of its leaders and by having a tiny population. At times the authors come dangerously close to attributing success to successfulness.

　　此外，博茨瓦纳(位于南非共和国内,于1966年独立)的案例也没有取得让人满意的解释。在这个国家，部落领袖得到了英国政府的保护以对抗到处洗劫的Cecil Rhodes帝国。尽管这个国家拥有可观的钻石矿，而这些财富可能造成一个贪赃舞弊和腐朽的阶层，但博茨瓦纳在仁爱的领导层和极少的人口的促进下成为非洲少有取得成功的国家。有时候，作者轻率地将成就归因于成功。

The intuition behind the theory is nonetheless compelling, which makes the scarcity of policy prescriptions frustrating. The book is sceptical of the Chinese model. China’s growth may be rooted in the removal of highly oppressive Maoist institutions, but its communist government remains fundamentally extractive. It may engineer growth by mobilising people and resources from low-productivity activities, like subsistence agriculture, toward industry. But without political reform and the possibility of creative destruction, growth will grind to a halt.

　　隐藏在该理论背后的知识仍然引人入胜，它让那些不足的政策处方无地自容。该书对中国模式持怀疑态度。中国经济的增长可能是在于移除极其不公平的毛泽东主义体制，但中国的共产主义政府仍是它赖以为生的根本的存在。中国或许能够通过将动员人民和各种资源从少有余粮农场经营等低效率的事情转向工业。但是没有政治改革和创造性破坏（注：这里所说的“创造性破坏”并没有带有贬义，譬如雅虎由于经营不善被极具创新性的谷歌所取代。）的可能性的帮助，（中国经济的）增长将会逐步停下来。

Rich countries determined to nudge along the process of institutional development should recognise their limitations, the authors reckon. The point is well taken. It is hard to ignore the role of European expansion in the creation of the underdeveloped world’s extractive institutions which, in self-perpetuating fashion, continue to constrain reform and development. Evidence nonetheless hints that contagious ideals, propitious leadership and external pressure matter. The promise of European Union membership encouraged institutional reform in central and eastern Europe. America eventually eradicated extractive southern institutions and placed the South on a path toward economic convergence. There is no quick fix for institutional weakness, only the possibility that steady encouragement and chance will bring about progress.

　　作者认为，发达国家在决定推进由来已久的发展进程的时候应承认当中的局限性。这一观点是可取的。我们很难忽略欧洲在发展中世界的掠夺型制度的角色仍在限制改革和发展。而这种掠夺型制度仍在持续流行。各种迹象仍在暗示有感染力的理想、合适的领导阶层和外围压力事件。欧盟全体成员承诺鼓励中东欧制度改革。美国最终摧毁南方掠夺性体制，并设计让它们朝着经济整合的方向发展。要快速地改变由来以久的弱势是不可能的，因为只有不间断的激励机制的可能必和机遇能够带来进步。