Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • So, can we dare to be optimistic?

    那麽,我們還能繼續覺得樂觀嗎?

  • Well, the thesis of "The Bottom Billion"

    “在底層的10億人”是指

  • is that a billion people have been stuck living

    有10億人的生活

  • in economies that have been stagnant for 40 years,

    陷於40年如一日停滯不前的經濟裏

  • and hence diverging from the rest of mankind.

    所以和其他人們的生活完全隔離。

  • And so, the real question to pose is not, "Can we be optimistic?"

    真正的問題不是“我們還能覺得樂觀嗎?”

  • It's, "How can we give credible hope to that billion people?"

    而是,“我們如何才能給這10億人確切的希望?”

  • That, to my mind, is the fundamental challenge now of development.

    在我心裏,這才是現在發展最基本的挑戰。

  • What I'm going to offer you is a recipe,

    我想提出的是一套方案

  • a combination of the two forces that changed the world for good,

    結合兩股力量,而能永久地改變這世界

  • which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest.

    也就是,結合對他人的慈悲和有正識的自我利益這兩股力量。

  • Compassion, because a billion people are living in societies

    要有慈悲,因爲有10億人住在

  • that have not offered credible hope.

    沒有確切希望的社會裏。

  • That is a human tragedy.

    這是個人類大悲劇。

  • Enlightened self-interest, because if that economic divergence

    有正識的自我利益,要去看清楚

  • continues for another 40 years,

    要是這樣的經濟差異再繼續個40年

  • combined with social integration globally,

    跟全球社會的整合結合起來的話

  • it will build a nightmare for our children.

    這將會是我們下一代的噩夢。

  • We need compassion to get ourselves started,

    我們需要藉由慈悲心使我們起而行

  • and enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious.

    想到這牽涉自我利益,才會使我們認真地看待這件事。

  • That's the alliance that changes the world.

    這兩股力量的結合才能改變這世界。

  • So, what does it mean to get serious about providing hope for the bottom billion?

    所以,認真地提供希望給這10億人是什麽意思?

  • What can we actually do?

    我們能做什麽?

  • Well, a good guide is to think,

    有個思考方式不錯,就是去問

  • "What did we do last time the rich world got serious

    “上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地

  • about developing another region of the world?"

    思考世界其他區域的發展問題,是什麽時候?”

  • That gives us, it turns out, quite a good clue,

    答案通常可以給我們很多啓示

  • except you have to go back quite a long time.

    可惜的是,你必須回溯到很久以前。

  • The last time the rich world got serious

    上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地

  • about developing another region was in the late 1940s.

    思考世界其他區域的發展問題,是1940年代末的時候了。

  • The rich world was you, America,

    這個有錢國家就是你們,美國

  • and the region that needed to be developed was my world, Europe.

    這個需要發展的區域是我住的地方,歐洲。

  • That was post-War Europe.

    那是戰後的歐洲。

  • Why did America get serious?

    爲什麽美國要認真地幫忙?

  • It wasn't just compassion for Europe, though there was that.

    這不只是對歐洲的憐憫慈悲,雖然也有一部分是如此

  • It was that you knew you had to,

    那主要是因爲,大家知道那是必須做的事

  • because, in the late 1940s, country after country in Central Europe

    在40年代末期,在中歐的國家

  • was falling into the Soviet bloc, and so you knew you'd no choice.

    一個接一個地陷入蘇聯的鐵幕後,所以當時你們沒有選擇。

  • Europe had to be dragged into economic development.

    必須拉歐洲一把來發展經濟

  • So, what did you do, last time you got serious?

    所以上一次認真時,你們做了什麽?

  • Well, yes, you had a big aid program. Thank you very much.

    你們發展了一個大的援助計劃。十分感謝

  • That was Marshall aid: we need to do it again. Aid is part of the solution.

    那就是馬歇爾援助計劃。我們必須再來一次。援助是解決方案的一部分。

  • But what else did you do?

    但是除此以外,你們還做了什麽?

  • Well, you tore up your trade policy, and totally reversed it.

    你們改寫了貿易政策,作了180度的大轉變。

  • Before the war, America had been highly protectionist.

    在大戰前,美國是十分盛行保護主義的

  • After the war, you opened your markets to Europe,

    而戰後,你們對歐洲開放了市場

  • you dragged Europe into the then-global economy, which was your economy,

    你們將歐洲帶入當時的國際市場,也就是你們的經濟

  • and you institutionalized that trade liberalization

    並建立機構來監督當時的貿易自由

  • through founding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

    成立了關稅暨貿易總協定(GATT)。

  • So, total reversal of trade policy.

    所以是跟保護主義完全不同的貿易政策。

  • Did you do anything else?

    你們還作了什麽?

  • Yes, you totally reversed your security policy.

    是的,你們完全改變了安全政策

  • Before the war, your security policy had been isolationist.

    在戰前,在安全政策上你們奉行獨立主義

  • After the war, you tear that up, you put 100,000 troops in Europe

    在戰後完全改變,你們派遣了10萬部隊到歐洲

  • for over 40 years.

    還延續了40年以上。

  • So, total reversal of security policy. Anything else?

    所以在安全政策也有180度的轉變。還有呢?

  • Yes, you tear up the "Eleventh Commandment" --

    還有,你們放下了“第十一戒”

  • national sovereignty.

    國家主權。

  • Before the war, you treated national sovereignty as so sacrosanct

    在戰前,你們把國家主權當作是至高無上的

  • that you weren't even willing to join the League of Nations.

    美國甚至不願意加入國際聯盟。

  • After the war, you found the United Nations,

    到了戰後,美國變成聯合國的發起國

  • you found the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

    還成立了“經濟合作與發展組織”

  • you found the IMF, you encouraged Europe to create the European Community --

    “國際貨幣基金組織”,鼓勵歐洲成立“歐洲經濟共同體”

  • all systems for mutual government support.

    這些各國政府相互支援的系統。

  • That is still the waterfront of effective policies:

    有效的政策項目基本上還是這幾樣:

  • aid, trade, security, governments.

    援助、貿易、安全、政府。

  • Of course, the details of policy are going to be different,

    當然,實際政策的内涵是會不同的

  • because the challenge is different.

    因爲挑戰跟以往不同了。

  • It's not rebuilding Europe, it's reversing the divergence

    現在不是歐洲的重建,而是使得經濟差異

  • for the bottom billion, so that they actually catch up.

    能夠縮小,使貧窮的人能夠趕上。

  • Is that easier or harder?

    那麽這是比較簡單還是困難?

  • We need to be at least as serious as we were then.

    我們至少要跟以前一樣認真。

  • Now, today I'm going to take just one of those four.

    現在,我要用這四個其中一個來舉例

  • I'm going to take the one that sounds the weakest,

    我要用聼起來最脆弱的來做例子

  • the one that's just motherhood and apple pie --

    這個讓大家都感受到溫馨慈愛的一項

  • governments, mutual systems of support for governments --

    那就是:政府,互相扶持政府的系統

  • and I'm going to show you one idea

    我要跟大家分享一個主意

  • in how we could do something to strengthen governance,

    看我們能做什麽來加強政府的管理

  • and I'm going to show you that that is enormously important now.

    我也要讓大家看看,現在這是十分重要的。

  • The opportunity we're going to look to

    接下來我們要看的

  • is a genuine basis for optimism about the bottom billion,

    一個真正能帶給底層的10億人的樂觀希望的

  • and that is the commodity booms.

    是天然資源的需求大增。

  • The commodity booms are pumping unprecedented amounts of money

    對天然資源潮需求正在把前所未見的大量的金錢

  • into many, though not all, of the countries of the bottom billion.

    灌進 (雖然不是所有的國家) 大部分的底層的窮人。

  • Partly, they're pumping money in because commodity prices are high,

    原因一方面是因爲天然資源的價格高

  • but it's not just that. There's also a range of new discoveries.

    但不只是如此,還有其他一系列新的發現。

  • Uganda has just discovered oil, in about the most disastrous location on Earth;

    烏干達剛在大概是全球最淒慘的地方發現了石油;

  • Ghana has discovered oil;

    加納也發現了石油;

  • Guinea has got a huge new exploitation of iron ore coming out of the ground.

    幾内亞剛開挖了幾個大的鐵礦。

  • So, a mass of new discoveries.

    所以有一大批新的發現。

  • Between them, these new revenue flows dwarf aid.

    跟這些新產生的盈餘比起來援助金額顯得微不足道。

  • Just to give you one example:

    我擧個例子:

  • Angola alone is getting 50 billion dollars a year in oil revenue.

    安哥拉光靠石油每年可賺進500億美元

  • The entire aid flows to the 60 countries of the bottom billion last year were 34 billion.

    而去年援助60國底層10億人的總金額才340億。

  • So, the flow of resources from the commodity booms

    所以靠天然資源需求增加

  • to the bottom billion are without precedent.

    正給底層的10億人帶來前所未有的收入。

  • So there's the optimism.

    所以這是讓人樂觀的地方。

  • The question is, how is it going to help their development?

    問題是,這如何能幫助他們的發展呢?

  • It's a huge opportunity for transformational development.

    這是個提供轉型發展的大機會

  • Will it be taken?

    人們會好好把握嗎?

  • So, here comes a bit of science, and this is a bit of science I've done

    這裡需要些科學根據,這是我出了書(在底層的10億人)之後

  • since "The Bottom Billion," so it's new.

    所做的科學研究,所以還挺新的。

  • I've looked to see what is the relationship between

    我查了一下看看天然資源價格的提高

  • higher commodity prices of exports,

    和天然資源出口國經濟成長

  • and the growth of commodity-exporting countries.

    之間的關係。

  • And I've looked globally, I've taken all the countries in the world

    我把全球的國家過去40年的資料

  • for the last 40 years,

    都列入參考

  • and looked to see what the relationship is.

    要看看之間的關係是什麽。

  • And the short run -- say, the first five to seven years -- is just great.

    就短期來看,起先的5到7年,結果是很好的。

  • In fact, it's hunky dory: everything goes up.

    事實上,是超棒的,所有的指標都向上。

  • You get more money because your terms of trade have improved,

    因爲貿易條件改善了,所以得到更多錢

  • but also that drives up output across the board.

    這也進一步帶動產出。

  • So GDP goes up a lot -- fantastic! That's the short run.

    所以國内生産總值向上提升了很多--太棒了!這是短期的效應。

  • And how about the long run?

    那麽,長期呢?

  • Come back 15 years later.

    再看看15年後

  • Well, the short run, it's hunky dory,

    在短期來看,結果是超棒的

  • but the long run, it's humpty dumpty.

    但是在長期來看,卻是十分遜。

  • You go up in the short run, but then most societies

    在短期間,經濟是往上爬,但是從歷史上看來

  • historically have ended up worse than if they'd had no booms at all.

    大部分國家長期的經濟,卻比資源需求熱潮前更糟糕。

  • That is not a forecast about how commodity prices go;

    這不是天然資源價格的預測

  • it's a forecast of the consequences, the long-term consequences,

    而是天然資源價格上揚

  • for growth of an increase in prices.

    在長期上帶來的結果的預測

  • So, what goes wrong? Why is there this "resource curse," as it's called?

    那麽,到底是哪裏出錯了?爲什麽會有這所謂的“天然資源的詛咒”?

  • And again, I've looked at that, and it turns out

    我再一次地檢視這個問題

  • that the critical issue is the level of governance,

    結果發現關鍵在於管理的層級

  • the initial level of economic governance,

    在於當資源需求熱潮初期的

  • when the resource booms accrue.

    初級階層的經濟管理。

  • In fact, if you've got good enough governance,

    事實上,如果你有夠好的管理

  • there is no resource boom.

    那麽根本不會有資源需求的熱潮。

  • You go up in the short term, and then you go up even more in the long term.

    在短期間經濟往上爬,而在長期更是會一直成長

  • That's Norway, the richest country in Europe. It's Australia. It's Canada.

    像歐洲最有錢的國家挪威,像澳洲、加拿大

  • The resource curse is entirely confined to countries

    天然資源的詛咒完全只限於

  • below a threshold of governance.

    管理層級低於某個水準的國家

  • They still go up in the short run.

    雖然在短期他們還是有成長

  • That's what we're seeing across the bottom billion at the moment.

    這也是目前正發生在這10億人身上的事

  • The best growth rates they've had -- ever.

    到目前他們有過最好的經濟成長率。

  • And the question is whether the short run will persist.

    問題是短期的成長能否持續

  • And with bad governance historically, over the last 40 years, it hasn't.

    從過去40年的不良管理的歷史來看,答案是否定的。

  • It's countries like Nigeria, which are worse off than if they'd never had oil.

    在像奈及利亞這樣的國家,沒有石油的話可能今天的發展還更好。

  • So, there's a threshold level above which you go up in the long term,

    所以,能不能長遠發展,要看管理有沒有達到一定的程度

  • and below which you go down.

    不到一定程度的話長期會走下坡。

  • Just to benchmark that threshold,

    這管理的門檻在哪裡呢?

  • it's about the governance level of Portugal in the mid 1980s.

    差不多是葡萄牙在80年代中期的程度

  • So, the question is, are the bottom billion above or below that threshold?

    所以,問題是,底層的10億人是活在這個門檻之上還是之下?

  • Now, there's one big change since the commodity booms of the 1970s,

    在1970年代的資源需求熱潮以後有一個大改變

  • and that is the spread of democracy.

    那就是民主體制的散佈

  • So I thought, well, maybe that is the thing

    所以我想,可能就是民主

  • which has transformed governance in the bottom billion.

    改變了這底層10億人的管理

  • Maybe we can be more optimistic because of the spread of democracy.

    因爲民主體制的散佈,我們或許還可以樂觀。

  • So, I looked. Democracy does have significant effects --

    我做了研究,民主有一些顯著的影響

  • and unfortunately, they're adverse.

    但很不幸的,影響是負面的。

  • Democracies make even more of a mess of these resource booms than autocracies.

    資源需求的熱潮在民主體制下,比專制下的結果還糟糕

  • At that stage I just wanted to abandon the research, but --

    看到這裡我都想放棄這項研究了,但是

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • -- it turns out that democracy is a little bit more complicated than that.

    民主看來是還要複雜一些。

  • Because there are two distinct aspects of democracy:

    因爲民主有兩個很不一樣的面向

  • there's electoral competition, which determines how you acquire power,

    一個是競選,這決定權力的取得

  • and there are checks and balances, which determine how you use power.

    另一個是監督制衡,這決定權力的使用。

  • It turns out that electoral competition is the thing

    現在看起來是競選

  • that's doing the damage with democracy,

    給民主帶來破壞

  • whereas strong checks and balances make resource booms good.

    相反地,有監督制衡的資源需求熱潮,則是好的。

  • And so, what the countries of the bottom billion need

    所以,在底層10億人的國家需要的

  • is very strong checks and balances.

    是強而有力的監督制衡。

  • They haven't got them.

    這是他們所欠缺的。

  • They got instant democracy in the 1990s:

    他們在1990年代瞬間達到民主

  • elections without checks and balances.

    有了選舉權卻沒有監督制衡的力量。

  • How can we help improve governance and introduce checks and balances?

    我們該怎麽改善管理並導入監督和制衡呢?

  • In all the societies of the bottom billion,

    在這底層10億人的社會裏

  • there are intense struggles to do just that.

    光要這麽做就引起不小的抗爭。

  • The simple proposal is that we should have some international standards,

    比較簡單的提議是我們該有一些國際標準

  • which will be voluntary, but which would spell out the key decision points

    這些標準是非強制性的,但規定了一些

  • that need to be taken in order

    在管理天然資源收益時

  • to harness these resource revenues.

    該考慮的重要決策點。

  • We know these international standards work

    我們很確定這些國際標準是有效的

  • because we've already got one.

    因爲我們的手邊就有一套

  • It's called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

    叫做“工業透明化提議摘要”

  • That is the very simple idea that governments should report

    背後的主意是很簡單的,也就是說政府

  • to their citizens what revenues they have.

    應該向人民公佈利益所得。

  • No sooner was it proposed

    這份提議一提出來

  • than reformers in Nigeria adopted it, pushed it and published the revenues in the paper.

    在奈及利亞的改革者就立即推行這套提議,並發佈利益所得

  • Nigerian newspapers circulations spiked.

    該國的報紙發行量也激增

  • People wanted to know what their government was getting

    人民都想知道他們的政府

  • in terms of revenue.

    到底得到了多少收入。

  • So, we know it works. What would the content be of these international standards?

    所以我們知道這是可行的。那麽這個國際標準的内容該有什麽呢?

  • I can't go through all of them, but I'll give you an example.

    我沒辦法一一敍述,只能給你們擧一個例子

  • The first is how to take the resources out of the ground --

    一開始談到了如何開發地底的天然資源

  • the economic processes, taking the resources out of the ground

    經濟過程,將資源從地底挖出來

  • and putting assets on top of the ground.

    並在地上設置開採設備。

  • And the first step in that is selling the rights to resource extraction.

    第一步是採礦權的出售

  • You know how rights to resource extraction are being sold at the moment,

    你知道採礦權在現在、在過去的40年内

  • how they've been sold over the last 40 years?

    是怎麽出售的?

  • A company flies in, does a deal with a minister.

    一個公司跑過來,跟一個部長交易就成了

  • And that's great for the company,

    這對公司來説很好

  • and it's quite often great for the minister --

    通常對這個部長來説也很好

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • -- and it's not great for their country.

    但是對國家很不好。

  • There's a very simple institutional technology

    有個很簡單的機構科技

  • which can transform that,

    可以改變這個行爲

  • and it's called verified auctions.

    叫做“確認拍賣”。

  • The public agency with the greatest expertise on Earth

    這地球上最業有專精的公共機構

  • is of course the treasury -- that is, the British Treasury.

    當然是國庫,也就是英國財政部。

  • And the British Treasury decided that it would sell the rights

    英國財政部當初要將第三代手機的

  • to third-generation mobile phones

    營業執照出售的時候

  • by working out what those rights were worth.

    想算清楚到底值多少錢。

  • They worked out they were worth two billion pounds.

    按照他們的估算值20億英磅

  • Just in time, a set of economists got there and said,

    這時候一群經濟學家來了說

  • "Why not try an auction? It'll reveal the value."

    “爲何不試試拍賣呢?這才能顯示出真正的價值。”

  • It went for 20 billion pounds through auction.

    拍賣結果以200億磅賣出。

  • If the British Treasury can be out by a factor of 10,

    如果連英國財政部都低估10倍了

  • think what the ministry of finance in Sierra Leone is going to be like.

    那麽試想獅子山的財政部會錯估多少倍?

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • When I put that to the President of Sierra Leone,

    當我跟獅子山的總統談到這件事以後

  • the next day he asked the World Bank to send him a team

    隔天他就請世界銀行派一組人

  • to give expertise on how to conduct auctions.

    來提供他進行拍賣的專業知識。

  • There are five such decision points;

    像這樣的決策點有五個

  • each one needs an international standard.

    每一個都需要有國際標準。

  • If we could do it, we would change the world.

    如果我們能夠做到,那麽我們就能改變世界。

  • We would be helping the reformers in these societies,

    我們就能幫助在這些國家裡

  • who are struggling for change.

    為改革而奮戰的改革者。

  • That's our modest role. We cannot change these societies,

    這是我們至少可以做到的。我們無法改變這些國家

  • but we can help the people in these societies

    但是我們可以幫助這些國家的人民

  • who are struggling and usually failing,

    這些命運多舛

  • because the odds are so stacked against them.

    必須奮戰但又常常失敗的人民。

  • And yet, we've not got these rules.

    然而,我們還是沒有這些規範

  • If you think about it, the cost of promulgating international rules

    如果你想想,公佈這些國際規範的費用

  • is zilch -- nothing.

    是微不足道的

  • Why on Earth are they not there?

    那,爲什麽還是不見這些規範呢?

  • I realized that the reason they're not there

    我認爲缺少這些規範的原因在於

  • is that until we have a critical mass of informed citizens in our own societies,

    在我們的社會裏,要是有很多有知識、敢批評的人民

  • politicians will get away with gestures.

    那麽政治人物就不會只作表面功夫。

  • That unless we have an informed society,

    在我們有一個有知識的社會之前

  • what politicians do, especially in relation to Africa, is gestures:

    所有政治人物的所作所爲,特別是在非洲,都是表面功夫

  • things that look good, but don't work.

    表面好看但實際沒用。

  • And so I realized we had to go through the business

    所以我體會到了,我們必須透過商業

  • of building an informed citizenry.

    來建立一群有知識的公民

  • That's why I broke all the professional rules of conduct for an economist,

    這也是爲什麽我打破了所有經濟學家的職業規範

  • and I wrote an economics book that you could read on a beach.

    我寫了一本你可以在躺椅上輕鬆閲讀的書。

  • (Laughter).

    (笑聲)