A public, Dewey long ago observed, is constituted through discussion and debate. If we are to call the tyranny of assumptions into question, and avoid doxa, the realm of the unquestioned, then we must be willing to subject our own assumptions to debate and discussion. It is in this spirit that I join into a discussion of one of the critical issues of our time, namely, how to mobilize different forms of capital for the project of state building.
很早以前,杜威就觀察到一國的民眾, 是通過相互討論、辯論聯繫在一起的。 如果我們討論專制政權存在的問題, 避免歌頌那些毋庸置疑的, 我們就必須樂意提供我們的議題 來討論和辯論。 這是本著這種精神,我參與到一個 本時代最重要的事件, 即,如何動員各種資本 參與到政權建設項目中來。
To put the assumptions very clearly: capitalism, after 150 years, has become acceptable, and so has democracy. If we looked in the world of 1945 and looked at the map of capitalist economies and democratic polities, they were the rare exception, not the norm. The question now, however, is both about which form of capitalism and which type of democratic participation. But we must acknowledge that this moment has brought about a rare consensus of assumptions. And that provides the ground for a type of action, because consensus of each moment allows us to act. And it is necessary, no matter how fragile or how provisional our consensus, to be able to move forward.
爲了清楚的討論這個設想, 資本主義,在存在了150年之後,已經被大眾所接受, 民主亦是如此。 如果我們回顧到1945年, 看看當時世界上資本主義經濟和民主政體的地圖, 它們在當時是極少數的例外,不是常態。 然而,到現在問題變成 是什麽樣的資本主義, 以及什麼樣的民主參與形式。 我們必須承認 現在這個時代 人們很難達成共識。 這就為某類的行為 提供了舞臺, 因為每一刻達成的共識 都允許我們去行動。 這是非常必要的,無論 我們的共識多麼脆弱或者不完整, 難以向前推進。
But the majority of the world neither benefits from capitalism nor from democratic systems. Most of the globe experiences the state as repressive, as an organization that is concerned about denial of rights, about denial of justice, rather than provision of it. And in terms of experience of capitalism, there are two aspects that the rest of the globe experiences. First, extractive industry. Blood diamonds, smuggled emeralds, timber, that is cut right from under the poorest. Second is technical assistance. And technical assistance might shock you, but it's the worst form of -- today -- of the ugly face of the developed world to the developing countries. Tens of billions of dollars are supposedly spent on building capacity with people who are paid up to 1,500 dollars a day, who are incapable of thinking creatively, or organically.
但是,世界上絕大多數人口 既沒有從資本主義受益 也沒有從民主政體中受益。 大部份人認為 國家是用來鎮壓民眾的, 認為國家是關於 否認人們權利的組織, 是否定正義 而非提供正義的組織。 至於資本主義體驗, 有兩個方面 是被全世界的人感受到了。 一是,精工業。 血汗鑽石,走私的綠寶石, 木材 正是從最貧窮的國家砍伐的木材。 二是技術支持。 聽到技術支持可能你會感到吃驚, 但是它是 當今發達國家呈現給 發展中國家最醜惡的一面。 千百億美元 花在積累財富上 這些人一天掙1500美元, 卻缺乏 創新的 和全面的思考。
Next assumption -- and of course the events of July 7, I express my deep sympathy, and before that, September 11 -- have reminded us we do not live in three different worlds. We live in one world. But that's easily said. But we are not dealing with the implications of the one world that we are living in. And that is that if we want to have one world, this one world cannot be based on huge pockets of exclusion, and then inclusion for some. We must now finally come to think about the premises of a truly global world, in relationship to the regime of rights and responsibilities and accountabilities that are truly global in scope. Otherwise we will be missing this open moment in history, where we have a consensus on both the form of politics and the form of economics.
下一個設想 是7月7號發生的事件, 我為之表示最深切的同情,之前,911 已經提醒過我們 我們並非生活在三個不同的世界。 我們生活在一個世界上。 但是這說起來容易。 但是我們並未提到 生活在一個世界上的意義。 這個重點是,如果我們想共同擁有一個世界, 這個世界不是建立在 把大多數人排除在外, 只包含一些人。 現在,我們必須最後 設想真正全球化 的基礎, 與真正全球化的政權 責任、義務 的關係。 不然,我們就錯過了 這一歷史性的開放時代, 我們在 政權形式和 經濟形式上都達成了共識。
What is one of these organizations to pick? We have three critical terms: economy, civil society and the state. I will not deal with those first two, except to say that uncritical transfer of assumptions, from one context to another, can only make for disaster. Economics taught in most of the elite universities are practically useless in my context. My country is dominated by drug economy and a mafia. Textbook economics does not work in my context, and I have very few recommendations from anybody as to how to put together a legal economy. The poverty of our knowledge must become the first basis of moving forward, and not imposition of the framework that works on the basis of mathematical modeling, for which I have enormous respect. My colleagues at Johns Hopkins were among the best.
這些國家會選擇什麽樣的形式呢? 我們又三個關鍵詞: 經濟、 公民社會 和政權。 我不講前兩個方面,只說一句 當情境不同時, 如果觀念沒有進化, 只會帶來災難。 經濟 雖然最著名的大學都在開設這門課程, 但是在我的語境中式完全無用的。 我的祖國北 毒品貿易和黑手黨控制。 書本上的經濟學在我的家鄉沒有用處, 我沒有得到任何人的建議, 告訴我如何建設法治經濟。 我知識的貧乏 是我前進的 第一步, 而非在數學模型基礎上 建立的框架, 雖然我很尊重這樣一個模型。 我在約翰霍普金斯的同事在這方面做的最好。
Second, instead of debating endlessly about what is the structure of the state, why don't we simplify and say, what are a series of functions that the state in the 21st century must perform? Clare Lockhart and I are writing a book on this; we hope to share that much widely with -- and third is that we could actually construct an index to measure comparatively how well these functions that we would agree on are being performed in different places.
第二, 與其無休止地討論 政權結構的是什麼 為什麼我們不簡化一下 考慮哪些功能是 21世紀,政權必須執行的? 克萊兒‧洛克哈特和我正在寫本有關這主題的書, 我們希望和更多的人分享 第三,我們實際上可以製作一個索引, 測量出相對來說, 這些我們達成共識的政府功能 在世界各地開展的情況如何
So what are these functions? We propose 10. And it's legitimate monopoly of means of violence, administrative control, management of public finances, investment in human capital, provision of citizenship rights, provision of infrastructure, management of the tangible and intangible assets of the state through regulation, creation of the market, international agreements, including public borrowing, and then, most importantly, rule of law.
都有哪些功能呢? 我們假設有10個。 包括合法化地壟斷暴力,唯一合法使用暴力的機構, 行政控制,管理公共經濟, 投資人力資源,保障人權, 建設國家基礎設施, 管理國家的有形和無形資產 通過制定規範,建立市場和 達成國際認同-包括公共借貸- 最重要的,建立法律秩序。
I won't elaborate. I hope the questions will give me an opportunity. This is a feasible goal, basically because, contrary to widespread assumption, I would argue that we know how to do this. Who would have imagined that Germany would be either united or democratic today, if you looked at it from the perspective of Oxford of 1943? But people at Oxford prepared for a democratic Germany and engaged in planning. And there are lots of other examples.
這些功能我就不詳述了。 我希望這些問題能夠給我一個機會。 這是一個可以實現的目標, 根本上是因為,與大多數人持有的假定意見不同, 我認為我們其實知道如何實現這個目標。 誰能想到德國 今日是民主體制或是聯邦體制呢, 如果你是從1943年的英國牛津人的角度考慮的話。 但是牛津人準備迎接的是民主的德國 已經開始籌畫。 還有一些其他例子。
Now in order to do this -- and this brings this group -- we have to rethink the notion of capital. The least important form of capital, in this project, is financial capital -- money. Money is not capital in most of the developing countries. It's just cash. Because it lacks the institutional, organizational, managerial forms to turn it into capital. And what is required is a combination of physical capital, institutional capital, human capital -- and security, of course, is critical, but so is information.
爲了實現這些目標-正是因為相信這一點才有了我們今天這樣一群人- 我們必須重新考慮資本的概念。 這個項目中最不重要的資本形式是 經濟資本,也就是錢。 金錢在大部份發展中國家算不上是資本。 僅僅是現金。 因為它缺乏制度上、 組織上和管理上的形式 來把它變成資本。 需要的是 物理資本, 制度資本和人力資本三者的結合 安全性當然是重要的, 信息也同樣重要。
Now, the issue that should concern us here -- and that's the challenge that I would like to pose to this group -- is again, it takes 16 years in your countries to produce somebody with a B.S. degree. It takes 20 years to produce somebody with a Ph.D. The first challenge is to rethink, fundamentally, the issue of the time. Do we need to repeat the modalities that we have inherited? Our educational systems are inherited from the 19th century. What is it that we need to do fundamentally to re-engage in a project, that capital formation is rapid? The absolute majority of the world's population are below 20, and they are growing larger and faster. They need different ways of being approached, different ways of being enfranchised, different ways of being skilled. And that's the first thing.
在此我們需要考慮的問題是 這也是我 想給在座各位提出的挑戰-- 重述一遍就是, 你的國家花了16年時間, 把某個人培養成碩士。 花20年時間 把有些人培養成博士。 需要各位重新考慮的第一個挑戰是, 也是最根本的, 就是時間。 我們有必要去重複 那些我們繼承來的特質? 我們的教育體制是從19世紀傳過來的。 根本上,我們必須做的是 重新做個項目, 資本形成很快嗎? 世界上絕大多數的人 小於20歲, 這個數字在迅速變大, 這些年輕人需要 不同的對待方式。 需要新的方式實現自治。 需要新的獲得僅能的方式。 這是第一個問題。
Second is, you're problem solvers, but you're not engaging your global responsibility. You've stayed away from the problems of corruption. You only want clean environments in which to function. But if you don't think through the problems of corruption, who will? You stay away from design for development. You're great designers, but your designs are selfish. It's for your own immediate use. The world in which I operate operates with designs regarding roads, or dams, or provision of electricity that have not been revisited in 60 years. This is not right. It requires thinking.
第二個,你是問題解決者, 但是你並沒有承擔你全球性的責任。 你遠離那些 有關貪污腐敗的問題。 你只想在純潔無污染的環境中行動。 但是如果你不考慮貪污腐敗考慮的問題, 那誰來考慮呢? 你不參與設計發展方案。 你是一個偉大的設計師, 但是你設計的作品是自私的。 是為了自己當前的需求。 我管理的這個世界 是通過設計 道路,水壩, 提供電力 這些60年來都沒有得到更新。 這有問題,需要我們去思考。
But, particularly, what we need more than anything else from this group is your imagination to be brought to bear on problems the way a meme is supposed to work. As the work on paradigms, long time ago showed -- Thomas Kuhn's work -- it's in the intersection of ideas that new developments -- true breakthroughs -- occur. And I hope that this group would be able to deal with the issue of state and development and the empowerment of the majority of the world's poor, through this means. Thank you. (Applause)
但是,尤其是, 我們這群人更需要做的是 發揮你們的想像力, 設想 米姆(文化傳播的最小單位)是如何起作用的。 很多年前,有關範式的研究就顯示 托馬斯庫恩做的這項研究 正是在思想交匯的地方 得以出現新的發現 真正的突破 我希望這個組織 能夠處理這些政府間事務, 使世界上的窮人擁有權利,得到發展, 通過這種方式。 謝謝。 (掌聲)
Chris Anderson: So, Ashraf, until recently, you were the finance minister of Afghanistan, a country right at the middle of much of the world's agenda. Is the country gonna make it? Will democracy flourish? What scares you most?
克里斯‧安德森: 所以,阿什拉夫, 之前你一直是阿富汗的財政大臣, 阿富汗正處於 世界事務的中心。 這個國家能夠做到上面所說的嗎? 民主能夠得以實現嗎?你最擔心的是什麽呢?
Ashraf Ghani: What scares me most is -- is you, lack of your engagement. (Laughter) You asked me. You know I always give the unconventional answer. No. But seriously, the issue of Afghanistan first has to be seen as, at least, a 10- to 20-year perspective. Today the world of globalization is on speed. Time has been compressed. And space does not exist for most people. But in my world -- you know, when I went back to Afghanistan after 23 years, space had expanded. Every conceivable form of infrastructure had broken down. I rode -- traveled -- travel between two cities that used to take three hours now took 12. So the first is when the scale is that, we need to recognize that just the simple things that are infrastructure -- it takes six years to deliver infrastructure. In our world. Any meaningful sort of thing. But the modality of attention, or what is happening today, what's happening tomorrow.
阿什拉夫 加尼:我最擔心的就是-你, 怕你不參與進來。 (笑) 你剛才那麼問我。要知道,我總是會給出的非同尋常的答案。 不,嚴肅的說, 阿富汗要做的事情, 首先, 需要以最近10-20年的眼光來看。 當今,世界全球化的程度 越來越快。 時間被壓縮了。 對大部份人來說,生存的空間很有限。 但是,在我看來, 要知道,23年後,當我回到阿富汗, 我發現我們的空間變大了。 所有能夠想到的基礎設施都被摧毀了。 我騎車旅行 過去需要三個小時到達的另外一個城市, 現在需要花12個小時。 所以首先, 我們需要意識到, 最簡單的基礎設施 在我們國家,也需要 6年時間來建成。 任何事情都是有意義的。 但是,人們關注的方式, 是說當前發生了什麽,明天會怎樣。
Second is, when a country has been subjected to one of the most immense, brutal forms of exercise of power -- we had the Red Army for 10 continuous years, 110,000 strong, literally terrorizing. The sky: every Afghan sees the sky as a source of fear. We were bombed practically out of existence. Then, tens of thousands of people were trained in terrorism -- from all sides. The United States, Great Britain, joined for instance, Egyptian intelligence service to train thousands of people in resistance and urban terrorism. How to turn a bicycle into an instrument of terror. How to turn a donkey, a carthorse, anything. And the Russians, equally. So, when violence erupts in a country like Afghanistan, it's because of that legacy. But we have to understand that we've been incredibly lucky. I mean, I really can't believe how lucky I am here, standing in front of you, speaking. When I joined as finance minister, I thought that the chances of my living more than three years would not be more than five percent. Those were the risks. They were worth it.
第二個, 當一個國家被 最強大、蠻不講理的權利機構所控制- 我們被“紅軍” 連續控制了10年, 他們有11萬之多。 聽起來就很恐怖。 天空: 每一個阿富汗人 都會害怕天空。 我們被轟炸的很慘, 幾乎被夷為平地。 之後,成千上萬的人處於恐怖主義之中- 來自世界各地。 例如,美國、英國合伙, 埃及的情報機構 訓練了數千人 來抵抗,實行城市恐怖主義。 如何把自行車改裝車 實施恐怖襲擊的工具。 如何改裝驢車、馬車等。 俄國人也這麼做。 所以,當暴力發生在 像阿富汗這樣的國家, 這是因為它的資源豐富。 但是我們必須承認 我們是非常幸運的、 我的意思是,我感到無比的幸運, 站在這裡,站在你們面前,演講。 當我當選財政大臣時, 我想,我能活過3年的機會 不超過5%。 我冒了很大的險,但,是值得的。
I think we can make it, and the reason we can make it is because of the people. You see, because, I mean -- I give you one statistic. 91 percent of the men in Afghanistan, 86 percent of the women, listen to at least three radio stations a day. In terms of their discourse, in terms of their sophistication of knowledge of the world, I think that I would dare say, they're much more sophisticated than rural Americans with college degrees and the bulk of Europeans -- because the world matters to them. And what is their predominant concern? Abandonment. Afghans have become deeply internationalist.
我認為我們可以成功, 成功的原因就是 我們有這些人。 因為--- 我可以給你們展示一些數據。 阿富汗人中91%的男人, 和86%的女性, 每天聽至少三個電臺的節目。 就所聽的內容而言, 就他們對世界知識的瞭解, 我想我敢說, 他們的見識 遠比具備大學學歷的鄉下美國人多 也超過很多歐洲人。 因為世界對他們來說非常重要。 他們最關心的是什麽呢? 放棄。 阿富汗人變得非常國際化。
You know, when I went back in December of 2001, I had absolutely no desire to work with the Afghan government because I'd lived as a nationalist. And I told them -- my people, with the Americans here -- separate. Yes, I have an advisory position with the U.N. I went through 10 Afghan provinces very rapidly. And everybody was telling me it was a different world. You know, they engage. They see engagement, global engagement, as absolutely necessary to the future of the ordinary people. And the thing that the ordinary Afghan is most concerned with is -- Clare Lockhart is here, so I'll recite a discussion she had with an illiterate woman in Northern Afghanistan. And that woman said she didn't care whether she had food on her table. What she worried about was whether there was a plan for the future, where her children could really have a different life. That gives me hope. CA: How is Afghanistan going to provide alternative income to the many people who are making their living off the drugs trade?
當我2001年12月份返回阿富汗時, 我根本不想與阿富汗政府工作人員一起工作。 因為我一直是個民族主義者。 我告訴他們-我的民族,和這裡的美國人- 是不同的。 我在聯合國也擔任顧問。 我很快走遍了阿富汗其中10個省。 每個遇到的人都跟我說,形勢不同了、 要知道,他們參與進來了。 他們把全世界人的參與, 視為對普通阿富汗人的未來所不可缺少的。 普通阿富汗人最關心的是 -- 克萊兒‧洛克哈特在這裡 -- 我重複她和阿富汗北部 不識字的女性的討論 這個女人說她不在意 飯桌上是否有食物。 她最關心的是未來是否有計劃, 她的孩子們是否會有不一樣的生活。 這給我了希望。 CA:阿富汗如何 為那些靠販賣毒品 的人們 提供別的收入來源?
AG: Certainly. Well, the first is, instead of sending a billion dollars on drug eradication and paying it to a couple of security companies, they should give this hundred billion dollars to 50 of the most critically innovative companies in the world to ask them to create one million jobs. The key to the drug eradication is jobs. Look, there's a very little known fact: countries that have a legal average income per capita of 1,000 dollars don't produce drugs.
AG:當然,首先, 與其花10億美元 消除毒品 花到幾個保全公司裡, 他們會把這成千億美元 花到50個 全世界最具革新精神的公司 讓這些公司的人,創造出一百萬個工作。 消除毒品最重要的是,要有工作提供給人們。 這裡有一個很少人知道的事實: 每人平均合法收入超過1000美元的國家裡 是不生產毒品的。
Second, textile. Trade is the key, not aid. The U.S. and Europe should give us a zero percent tariff. The textile industry is incredibly mobile. If you want us to be able to compete with China and to attract investment, we could probably attract four to six billion dollars quite easily in the textile sector, if there was zero tariffs -- would create the type of job. Cotton does not compete with opium; a t-shirt does. And we need to understand, it's the value chain. Look, the ordinary Afghan is sick and tired of hearing about microcredit. It is important, but what the ordinary women and men who engage in micro-production want is global access. They don't want to sell to the charity bazaars that are only for foreigners -- and the same bloody shirt embroidered time and again. What we want is a partnership with the Italian design firms. Yeah, we have the best embroiderers in the world! Why can't we do what was done with northern Italy? With the Put Out system? So I think economically, the critical issue really is to now think through.
第二個,紡織品。 貿易是關鍵,而非幫助。 美國和歐洲 與我們貿易是零關稅的。 紡織品交易時非常靈活的。 如果想讓我們與中國競爭,吸引投資, 我們大概可以吸引到 40-60億美元 在紡織品領域這是非常容易的, 如果關稅為零的話 就會帶來此類的工作崗位。 棉花無法與鴉片競爭; 但是T恤可以。 我們必須瞭解價值鏈。 看,普通的阿富汗人 已經聽煩了小額貸款計劃。 這很重要, 參與小作坊生存的男人和女人們想要的是 接觸世界市場的機會。 他們不想把東西賣給慈善機構, 而是打算賣給外國人的- 同一件衣服 需要花很多時間刺繡。 我們需要和 義大利設計公司合作。 我們有著世界上最優秀的刺繡能手! 爲什麽我們不能像義大利北部所做的那樣做呢? 與資助系統? 所以很經濟地想, 最重要的事情就是仔細思考。
And what I will say here is that aid doesn't work. You know, the aid system is broken. The aid system does not have the knowledge, the vision, the ability. I'm all for it; after all, I raised a lot of it. Yeah, to be exact, you know, I managed to persuade the world that they had to give my country 27.5 billion. They didn't want to give us the money.
我想說幫助並不起作用。 援助系統已經被破壞掉了。 援助機構沒有這樣的知識、 視野和能力。 我很支持援助,畢竟我募款了很多。 更準確的說, 我成功地說服了各國 讓他們給我們國家275億美元。 他們不想給我這個錢。
CA: And it still didn't work?
CA:仍然沒有成功嗎?
AG: No. It's not that it didn't work. It's that a dollar of private investment, in my judgment, is equal at least to 20 dollars of aid, in terms of the dynamic that it generates. Second is that one dollar of aid could be 10 cents; it could be 20 cents; or it could be four dollars. It depends on what form it comes, what degrees of conditionalities are attached to it. You know, the aid system, at first, was designed to benefit entrepreneurs of the developed countries, not to generate growth in the poor countries. And this is, again, one of those assumptions -- the way car seats are an assumption that we've inherited in governments, and doors. You would think that the US government would not think that American firms needed subsidizing to function in developing countries, provide advice, but they do. There's an entire weight of history vis-a-vis aid that now needs to be reexamined. If the goal is to build states that can credibly take care of themselves -- and I'm putting that proposition equally; you know I'm very harsh on my counterparts -- aid must end in each country in a definable period. And every year there must be progress on mobilization of domestic revenue and generation of the economy. Unless that kind of compact is entered into, you will not be able to sustain the consensus.
AG:沒有,並不僅僅是沒有成功。 私人投資的一美元, 依據我的判斷, 相當於資助的20美元, 根據它所產生的能量。 或者一美元援助可以看做10分錢, 或者是20分, 也或者是4美元。 這取決於資助的形式, 以及附加的條件是什麽。 要知道,資助系統剛開始是 為發達國家的企業服務的, 而不是爲了促進貧窮國家的發展。 這也是其中一個設想- 就像汽車裡安裝座位最初也是一種設想 我們生下來就有政府、門。 你或許會認為美國政府 美國企業不會資助 發展中國家的建設,提供服務等, 但是事實上他們這麼做了。 歷史上, 面對面資助非常重要 現在這種形式需要被重新檢視。 如果資助的目標是建立政權 能夠自力更生的政權- 我會說的儘量公平一些; 要知道我對我的對手非常嚴厲- 在一個明確的時刻, 對每個國家的資助必須停止。 每年都應該有所進步 在國內收入 以及經濟增長方面。 唯有建立正式的合約, 才能夠維持先前達成的共識。