is the defining challenge of our time.

我們創造及維持經濟成長的能力

Of course there are other challenges --

是我們這個世代的關鍵性挑戰。

health care, disease burdens and pandemics,

當然還有其他挑戰--

environmental challenges

衛生保健、疾病負擔、流行病、

and, of course, radicalized terrorism.

環境變遷的挑戰、

However,

當然，還有激進的恐怖主義。

to the extent that we can actually solve the economic growth challenge,

然而，

it will take us a long way

以我們實際上能解決 經濟成長挑戰的程度而言，

to solving the challenges that I've just elucidated.

若要解決我剛剛說明的那些挑戰，

More importantly,

我們還有很長的路要走。

unless and until we solve economic growth

更重要的是，

and create sustainable, long-term economic growth,

除非直到我們解決 並創造了穩定、永續的經濟成長，

we'll be unable to address

否則我們將不能解決 看起來很棘手、如今仍瀰漫全球的挑戰，

the seemingly intractable challenges that continue to pervade the globe today,

不管是衛生保健、教育或經濟發展。

whether it's health care, education or economic development.

最基本的問題是：

The fundamental question is this:

我們要如何

How are we going to create economic growth

在高度發達的經濟體，像美國和歐洲，

in advanced and developed economies like the United States and across Europe

在他們經歷金融危後， 現仍持續掙扎的狀況下，

at a time when they continue to struggle

還可以繼續創造經濟成長呢？

to create economic growth after the financial crisis?

他們持續表現得不如預期，

They continue to underperform

而且還可以看出在經濟成長 的三大要素上出現了衰敗現象：

and to see an erosion in the three key drivers of economic growth:

資本、勞動力、生產力。

capital, labor and productivity.

特別是，

In particular,

那些發達的經濟體中， 持續有負債、財政赤字、

these developed economies continue to see debts and deficits,

勞動力質量與數量上的下降與侵蝕、

the decline and erosion of both the quality and quantity of labor

同時也看到生產力停滯現象。

and they also see productivity stalling.

同樣的脈絡下，

In a similar vein,

我們要如何在

how are we going to create economic growth in the emerging markets,

擁有 90% 世界人口居住的地方

where 90 percent of the world's population lives

且 70% 人口平均年齡在 25 歲以下 的新興市場中

and where, on average,

持續創造經濟成長？

70 percent of the population is under the age of 25?

在這些國家中，

In these countries,

至少要 7% 的年增長率

it is essential that they grow at a minimum of seven percent a year

才能減少貧困現象

in order to put a dent in poverty

以及讓人均資本所得可在 一個世代的時間內加倍成長。

and to double per capita incomes in one generation.

但如今，

And yet today,

最大的新興經濟體

the largest emerging economies --

--人口至少5000萬的國家--

countries with at least 50 million people --

仍在為那 7% 的「魔法數字」掙扎著。

continue to struggle to reach that seven percent magic mark.

更糟的是，

Worse than that,

像印度、俄羅斯、南非、 巴西，甚至是中國這些國家，

countries like India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and even China

現今已低於 7% 這個數字，

are falling below that seven percent number

而且，很多國家實際上正在倒退。

and, in many cases, actually regressing.

經濟成長是十分重要的。

Economic growth matters.

有了經濟成長，

With economic growth,

國家及社會才會進入一個良性循環，

countries and societies enter into a virtuous cycle

包含社會經濟地位的上升、 就業機會及改善生活水平。

of upward mobility, opportunity and improved living standards.

沒有增長，國家會緊縮與衰退，

Without growth, countries contract and atrophy,

不僅是年度經濟統計數字，

not just in the annals of economic statistics

還包括生命的意義與生活的品質。

but also in the meaning of life and how lives are lived.

經濟成長對個人也十分的重要。

Economic growth matters powerfully for the individual.

一旦成長的趨勢衰退，

If growth wanes,

人類進步的風險、

the risk to human progress

以及政局和社會不穩定的風險就會上升，

and the risk of political and social instability rises,

而社會就會更加黑暗、動盪與渺小。

and societies become dimmer, coarser and smaller.

環境條件很重要。

The context matters.

新興市場的國家，

And countries in emerging markets

不需要像已開發國家那樣的成長率。

do not need to grow at the same rates as developed countries.

現在，我知道在場有些人 會覺得我接來說的是個大膽的論點。

Now, I know some of you in this room find this to be a risky proposition.

這裡有些人，

There are some people here

會轉身過去不理會 並對世界周遭發生的事情

who will turn around and be quite disillusioned

不抱任何希望，

by what's happened around the world

且基本上，還把罪怪在經濟成長上。

and basically ascribe that to economic growth.

你擔心地球上人口過剩，

You worry about the overpopulation of the planet.

並看著聯合國最近的統計及規劃，

And looking at the UN's recent statistics and projections

了解到地球會在公元 2100 年以前

that the world will have 11 billion people on the planet

來到 110 億的人口數量，

before it plateaus in 2100,

你擔心這對自然資源 會造成甚麼樣的衝擊--

you're concerned about what that does to natural resources --

可耕種的土地、 可飲用的水資源、能源、礦產。

arable land, potable water, energy and minerals.

你也擔心環境的惡化。

You are also concerned about the degradation of the environment.

你也會擔心，

And you worry about how man,

人們在支持企業全球化的體現，

embodied in the corporate globalist,

怎麼變得這麼貪婪與腐敗。

has become greedy and corrupt.

但我今天要告訴各位，

But I'm here to tell you today that economic growth

經濟成長已經成為

has been the backbone of changes in living standards

全世界好幾百萬人 改變生活水平的骨幹。

of millions of people around the world.

而且更重要的是，

And more importantly,

經濟成長並不是 只被資本主義所主導。

it's not just economic growth that has been driven by capitalism.

資本主義的定義，簡單的說，

The definition of capitalism, very simply put,

就是那些生產力因素，

is that the factors of production,

像是，貿易、工業、資本和勞動力，

such as trade and industry, capital and labor,

掌握在私人企業而非國家手上的部分。

are left in the hands of the private sector and not the state.

在這裡很重要的一點，我們要知道，

It's really essential here that we understand

基本上應該被指責的 不是經濟成長本身，

that fundamentally the critique is not for economic growth per se

而是資本主義出了甚麼問題。

but what has happened to capitalism.

所以若考量到我們長期 需要創造經濟成長率的廣度，

And to the extent that we need to create economic growth over the long term,

我們就要用比較好的 經濟角度方式去追尋它。

we're going to have to pursue it with a better form of economic stance.

經濟成長需要資本主義，

Economic growth needs capitalism,

但要好好地進行。

but it needs it to work properly.

正如我稍早提過的，

And as I mentioned a moment ago,

資本主義系統的核心已被定義為 以私人企業所主導。

the core of the capitalist system has been defined by private actors.

然而，即使這只是很簡單的二分法。

And even this, however, is a very simplistic dichotomy.

資本主義：好；非資本主義：不好。

Capitalism: good; non-capitalism: bad.

但以實務操作而言，

When in practical experience,

資本主義像是個光譜。 （資本的分配有很多種方式）

capitalism is much more of a spectrum.

我們有像是中國這類的國家，

And we have countries such as China,

實施的資本主義 較傾向於「國家」主導。

which have practiced more state capitalism,

也有像美國這類的國家，

and we have countries like the Unites States

實施的資本主義 較傾向於「市場」主導。

which are more market capitalist.

然而，我們對資本主義的批評

Our efforts to critique the capitalist system, however,

大部分是針對像中國那種 擺明不是純市場資本主義的國家。

have tended to focus on countries like China

然而，我們有一個真正的理由 及真正要注意的地方就是

that are in fact not blatantly market capitalism.

現在要把注意力放在 有較單純架構的資本主義上面，

However, there is a real reason and real concern

特別是那些由美國 體現出來的資本主義。

for us to now focus our attentions on purer forms of capitalism,

這真的很重要，

particularly those embodied by the United States.

因為這類的資本主義，

This is really important

它正在孳生腐敗，

because this type of capitalism

批判的聲音不斷地增加，

has increasingly been afforded the critique

而更糟的是，

that it is now fostering corruption

收入不公平的現象一直在持續擴大--

and, worse still,

也就是少數人享受著 多數人勞動成果的問題。

it's increasing income inequality --

有兩個真正的關鍵 我們需要解決，

the idea that the few are benefiting at the expense of the many.

就是，我們要如何修正資本主義，

The two really critical questions that we need to address

讓它可以幫助創造經濟成長，

is how can we fix capitalism

同時幫助解決社會弊端。

so that it can help create economic growth

為了要思考這個架構， 我們必須問我們自己，

but at the same time can help to address social ills.

現今的資本主義是如何運作的？

In order to think about that framing, we have to ask ourselves,

非常簡單，

how does capitalism work today?

資本主義是架構在 個人利益最大化上--

Very simplistically,

讓一個謀私利的個體 去追尋他或她想要的。

capitalism is set on the basis of an individual utility maximizer --

也唯有在他們的利益獲得最大化後，

a selfish individual who goes after what he or she wants.

他們才會去認真思考，

And only after they've maximized their utility

提供援助履行「社會契約」的重要性。

do they then decide it's important

當然，在這系統下，政府會抽稅，

to provide support to other social contracts.

然後再用部分的稅收 來提供社會福利，

Of course, in this system governments do tax,

為的是讓人民知道，政府的角色 不是只有立法管理，

and they use part of their revenues to fund social programs,

同時也扮演了社會福利仲裁者的角色。

recognizing that government's role is not just regulation

但儘管如此，

but also to be arbiter of social goods.

這個框架結構--

But nevertheless,

這兩個階段的框架結構--

this framework --

是我們現在必須開始思考

this two-stage framework --

要如何改善資本主義模式的基礎。

is the basis from which we must now start

我認為這個挑戰有兩方面。

to think about how we can improve the capitalist model.

首先，

I would argue that there are two sides to this challenge.

我們可以借鑒右翼政策，

First of all,

去看看對我們有甚麼利益

we can draw on the right-wing policies

去思考如何改善資本主義。

to see what could be beneficial for us

特別是，

to think about how we can improve capitalism.

右傾的政策

In particular,

已經傾向專注於像是 「條件式補助」的事情上，

right-leaning policies

就是我們支付並獎勵人民進行

have tended to focus on things like conditional transfers,

那些我們認為可以 幫助經濟成長的事。

where we pay and reward people for doing the things

例如，

that we actually think can help enhance economic growth.

送小孩上學，

For example,

父母可以得到補助酬賞，

sending children to school,

或者讓他們的孩子注射疫苗，

parents could earn money for that,

父母可以因此得到酬賞，

or getting their children inoculated or immunized,

現在，不用去爭論

parents could get paid for doing that.

我們是否應該提供酬賞

Now, quite apart from the debate

支付給父母親做他們 本來就應該做的事，

on whether or not we should be paying people

真正重要的事實是， 這種酬賞的實行

to do what we think they should do anyway,

已經產生一些正向的結果，

the fact of the matter is that pay for performance

像是在墨西哥這個地方、

has actually yielded some positive results

在巴西，

in places like Mexico,

以及在紐約試辦的計畫。

in Brazil

但在左傾政策上也有一些 福利政策及顯著的變革正在進行。

and also in pilot programs in New York.

他們的論點是： 政府應該擴大它的角色及責任，

But there are also benefits

讓它不再是那麼狹隘地 被舊思維所定義，

and significant changes underway on left-leaning policies.

而是要讓政府扮演生產力要素的 仲裁者角色，

Arguments that government should expand its role and responsibility

而這些論點在中國已經是 司空見慣的成功模式。

so that it's not so narrowly defined

但同時我們也要開始辯論

and that government should be much more of an arbiter

有關於私人企業該扮演的角色

of the factors of production

應該跳脫只顧營利的動機，

have become commonplace with the success of China.

而真正地更加投入社會計畫。

But also we've started to have debates

像是企業的社會責任計畫，

about how the role of the private sector

即使規模不大，

should move away from just being a profit motive

也是往正確的方向在進行。

and really be more engaged in the delivery of social programs.

當然，左傾政策也已經模糊了，

Things like the corporate social responsibility programs,

政府與非政府組織及私人企業的界線。

albeit small in scale,

這個概念有兩個很好的例子， 一個是 19 世紀的美國，

are moving in that right direction.

當時推出的基礎設施計劃

Of course, left-leaning policies have also tended to blur the lines

真的就是「公辦私營」的夥伴關係。

between government, NGOs and private sector.

更近一點，當然，

Two very good examples of this are the 19th-century United States,

網際網路的出現，已經向世界證明

when the infrastructure rollout

公眾與私人是可以一起合作改善社會。

was really about public-private partnerships.

我要給各位傳達的基本訊息就是：

More recently, of course,

我們不能藉由固執己見或 堅持不必要的意識形態來

the advent of the Internet has also proven to the world

繼續嘗試並解決世界經濟成長的挑戰。

that public and private can work together for the betterment of society.

為了創造穩定長期的經濟成長，

My fundamental message to you is this:

並解決挑戰與現今 持續瀰漫在全球的社會問題，

We cannot continue to try and solve the world economic growth challenges

我們必須要有更包容的心胸

by being dogmatic and being unnecessarily ideological.

了解甚麼是可行的。

In order to create sustainable, long-term economic growth

最後，

and solve the challenges and social ills that continue to plague the world today,

我們必須要認清 意識形態是成長的敵人。

we're going to have to be more broad-minded

謝謝

about what might work.

（掌聲）

Ultimately,

Bruno Giussani： 我想要問一些問題，丹碧莎，

we have to recognize that ideology is the enemy of growth.

因為有人可以對你最後一句話做回應，

Thank you.

就是，成長的本身也是一種意識形態，

(Applause)

它可能就是我們這一世代 最主要的意識形態，

Bruno Giussani: I want to ask a couple of questions, Dambisa,

如果有人這麼回應，你要怎麼回答？

because one could react to your last sentence

DM：好的，我認為這完全合理，

by saying growth is also an ideology,

我認為我們已經討論過，

it's possibly the dominant ideology of our times.

針對幸福這件事還有很多工作要做，

What do you say to those who react that way?

而且，還要其他的測量方式 可以衡量人們的成功，

DM: Well, I think that that's completely legitimate,

以及生活水平的改善。

and I think that we're already having that discussion.

所以，我認為我們應該敞開心胸，

There's a lot of work going on around happiness

討論做甚麼事可以增進人類的生活水平，

and other metrics being used for measuring people's success

並且持續減少世界上的貧窮現象。

and improvements in living standards.

BG：所以，基本上，你是在為 「回復成長」辯護，

And so I think that we should be open

但是唯一

to what could deliver improvements in people's living standards

能帶領我們走向

and continue to reduce poverty around the world.

不犧牲掉地球利益的 長期發展之路，

BG: So you're basically pleading for rehabilitating growth,

就是要讓經濟成長

but the only way for that happen

與某一種「資源的潛在利用方式」脫鉤。

without compromising the capacity of the earth,

你認為這會發生嗎？

to take us on a long journey,

DM：恩，我認為我對人類的能力與智慧 是持比較樂觀的看法。

is for economic growth

我想，如果我們開始

somehow to decouple from the underlying use of resources.

約束自己使用我們今日所知道的 有限、稀有、耗盡中的資源，

Do you see that happening?

我們就會變得相當負面 (對經濟成長)

DM: Well, I think that I'm more optimistic about human ability and ingenuity.

而且相當擔心世界會變如何。

I think if we start to constrain ourselves

然而，我們已經看到羅馬俱樂部，

using the finite, scarce and depleting resources

我們已經看到之前的聲明，

that we know today,

全世界的資源會被消耗殆盡，

we could get quite negative

不用去爭論這些事情不可能。

and quite concerned about the way the world is.

但我想，我們可以用智慧 去慢慢減少資源的使用。

However, we've seen the Club of Rome,

我想，我們可以再投資到能源上面，

we've seen previous claims

如此我們就可以得到更好的結果。

that the world would be running out of resources,

所以在這概念底下，

and it's not to argue that those things are not valid.

對人類可以怎麼做， 我是持比較樂觀的看法。

But I think, with ingenuity we could see desalination,

BG：有件事讓我印象深刻，

I think we could reinvest in energy,

就是有關於妳對回複經濟成長的提議，

so that we can actually get better outcomes.

裡面提到了一個不一樣的方向，

And so in that sense,

你好像建議用更多的資本主義 去修正資本主義，

I'm much more optimistic about what humans can do.

像是，在「好的行為」上 放上一個價格標籤做為誘因，

BG: The thing that strikes me

或者在社會議題上， 讓企業扮演一個更大的角色，

about your proposals for rehabilitating growth

這是妳建議的嗎？

and taking a different direction

DM：我是建議，我們必須要開闊心胸。

is that you're kind of suggesting to fix capitalism with more capitalism --

我想這絕對是一個問題，

with putting a price tag on good behavior as incentive

就是，傳統的經濟成長模式

or developing a bigger role for business in social issues.

已經無法達到我們要它達成的目標。

Is that what you're suggesting?

我想，這並不意外，

DM: I'm suggesting we have to be open-minded.

現今，世界最大的經濟體，美國，

I think it is absolutely the case

有民主、

that traditional models of economic growth

自由民主，作為它的核心政治立場，

are not working the way we would like them to.

它還有自由的市場資本主義--

And I think it's no accident

某種程度上，它是自由的--

that today the largest economy in the world, the United States,

自由的市場資本主義是它的經濟立場。

has democracy,