Our ability to create and sustain economic growth is the defining challenge of our time.
Naša sposobnost da stvorimo i očuvamo ekonomski razvoj je definišući izazov našeg vremena.
Of course there are other challenges -- health care, disease burdens and pandemics, environmental challenges and, of course, radicalized terrorism. However, to the extent that we can actually solve the economic growth challenge, it will take us a long way to solving the challenges that I've just elucidated.
Naravno, postoje i drugi izazovi, zdravstvo, previše bolesti i epidemije, ekološki izazovi i naravno, radikalizovani terorizam. Ipak, da zaista možemo da rešimo izazov ekonomskog razvoja, pred nama je jako dug put da rešimo izazove koje smo pomenuli.
More importantly, unless and until we solve economic growth and create sustainable, long-term economic growth, we'll be unable to address the seemingly intractable challenges that continue to pervade the globe today, whether it's health care, education or economic development.
Najvažnije, ukoliko i dok ne rešimo ekonomski razvoj i stvorimo održivi, dugoročni ekonomski razvoj nećemo moći da ukažemo na najteže izazove koji nastavljaju da prožimaju svet, bilo to zdravstvo, obrazovanje ili ekonomski razvoj.
The fundamental question is this: How are we going to create economic growth in advanced and developed economies like the United States and across Europe at a time when they continue to struggle to create economic growth after the financial crisis?
Osnovno pitanje je sledeće: kako ćemo da stvorimo ekonomski razvoj u naprednim i ravijenim ekonomijama poput Sjedinjenih Država i Evrope u vremenu gde se oni bore da stvore ekonomski razvoj posle finansijske krize?
They continue to underperform and to see an erosion in the three key drivers of economic growth: capital, labor and productivity. In particular, these developed economies continue to see debts and deficits, the decline and erosion of both the quality and quantity of labor and they also see productivity stalling.
Oni nastavljaju da posustaju i vide erozije u tri ključne stvari ekonomskog razvoja: kapitalu, radu i produktivnosti. Posebno, ove razvijene ekonomije suočavaju se sa dugovanjima i deficitima, padom kvaliteta i količine rada i takođe zastojem u produktivnosti.
In a similar vein, how are we going to create economic growth in the emerging markets, where 90 percent of the world's population lives and where, on average, 70 percent of the population is under the age of 25? In these countries, it is essential that they grow at a minimum of seven percent a year in order to put a dent in poverty and to double per capita incomes in one generation. And yet today, the largest emerging economies -- countries with at least 50 million people -- continue to struggle to reach that seven percent magic mark. Worse than that, countries like India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and even China are falling below that seven percent number and, in many cases, actually regressing.
Na sličan način, kako ćemo da stvorimo ekonomski razvoj na tržištima u razvoju, gde 90% svetske populacije živi i gde, u proseku, 70% populacije ima ispod 25 godina? U ovim zemljama, potrebno je da se oni razvijaju 7% godišnje kako bi ostavili trag u siromaštvu i da udvostruče primanja po glavi stanovnika u jednoj generaciji. A ipak, danas, najveće rastuće ekonomije zemlje sa najmanje 50 miliona ljudi, nastavljaju da se bore kako bi dostigle tu magičnu oznaku od 7%. Još gore od toga, zemlje poput Indije, Rusije, Južne Afrike, Brazila čak i Kine padaju ispod tog broja od 7%, i u mnogim slučajevima, čak i nazaduju.
Economic growth matters. With economic growth, countries and societies enter into a virtuous cycle of upward mobility, opportunity and improved living standards. Without growth, countries contract and atrophy, not just in the annals of economic statistics but also in the meaning of life and how lives are lived. Economic growth matters powerfully for the individual. If growth wanes, the risk to human progress and the risk of political and social instability rises, and societies become dimmer, coarser and smaller.
Ekonomski razvoj je bitan. Sa ekonomskim razvojem, zemlje i društva ulaze u začarani ciklus, vertikalne mobilnosti, mogućnosti i unapređenih životnih standarda. Bez razvoja, zemlje se grče i atrofiraju, ne samo u analima ekonomske statistike nego i u značenjima života i kako se živi život. Ekonomski razvoj ima veliki uticaj za pojedinca. Ako razvoj opada, rizik za ljudski napredak rizik za političke i socijalne nestabilnosti se uvećava, društva postaju mračnija, grublja i manja.
The context matters. And countries in emerging markets do not need to grow at the same rates as developed countries.
Kontekst je bitan. Zemlje u rastućim tržištima ne treba da rastu isto kao razvijene zemlje.
Now, I know some of you in this room find this to be a risky proposition. There are some people here who will turn around and be quite disillusioned by what's happened around the world and basically ascribe that to economic growth. You worry about the overpopulation of the planet. And looking at the UN's recent statistics and projections that the world will have 11 billion people on the planet before it plateaus in 2100, you're concerned about what that does to natural resources -- arable land, potable water, energy and minerals. You are also concerned about the degradation of the environment. And you worry about how man, embodied in the corporate globalist, has become greedy and corrupt.
Neki ovde smatraju ovo riskantnim predlogom. Ovde su pojedini ljudi koji će se okrenuti i postati sasvim razočarani onim što se dogodilo oko sveta i pripisati to ekonomskom razvoju. Brinete o prenaseljenosti planete. I gledajući na statistike UN-a da će svet imati 11 milijardi ljudi do 2100 godine, zabrinuti ste šta to čini prirodnim resursima, obradivoj zemlji, pitkoj vodi, energiji i mineralima. Takođe ste zabrinuti o degradaciji životne sredine. I brinete kako je čovek, otelovljen u korporativnog globalistu, postao pohlepan i pokvaren.
But I'm here to tell you today that economic growth has been the backbone of changes in living standards of millions of people around the world. And more importantly, it's not just economic growth that has been driven by capitalism.
Ja sam ovde da vam kažem da je ekonomski razvoj bio srž promene životnih standarda miliona ljudi na svetu. I što je najvažnije, nije samo ekonomski razvoj bio pokrenut kapitalizmom.
The definition of capitalism, very simply put, is that the factors of production, such as trade and industry, capital and labor, are left in the hands of the private sector and not the state.
Definicija kapitalizma, najprostije rečeno, je da su faktori produktivnosti, kao što su trgovina, industrija, kapital i rad, ostavljeni u rukama privatnog sektora, a ne države.
It's really essential here that we understand that fundamentally the critique is not for economic growth per se but what has happened to capitalism. And to the extent that we need to create economic growth over the long term, we're going to have to pursue it with a better form of economic stance.
Ovde je bitno da razumemo da fundamentalno, ne treba kritikovati ekonomski razvoj već ono što se dogodilo kapitalizmu. I kako bismo stvorili dugoročni ekonomski razvoj, moramo to da sledimo sa boljim ekonomskim stavom.
Economic growth needs capitalism, but it needs it to work properly. And as I mentioned a moment ago, the core of the capitalist system has been defined by private actors. And even this, however, is a very simplistic dichotomy. Capitalism: good; non-capitalism: bad. When in practical experience, capitalism is much more of a spectrum. And we have countries such as China, which have practiced more state capitalism, and we have countries like the Unites States which are more market capitalist.
Ekonomskom razvoju je potreban kapitalizam, ali mora da radi kako treba. I kao što sam prethodno spomenula, srž kapitalističkog sistema je definisana privatnim učesnicima. Čak je i ovo veoma jednostavna dihotomija. Kapitalizam je dobar, ne-kapitalizam je loš. U praktičnom iskustvu, kapitalizam je više spektar. Imamo zemlje poput Kine, koja je praktikovala više državnog kapitalizma i imamo zemlje poput Sjedinjenih Država koje su više tržišni kapitalisti.
Our efforts to critique the capitalist system, however, have tended to focus on countries like China that are in fact not blatantly market capitalism.
Naši pokušaji da kritikujemo kapitalistički sistem su ipak težili da se fokusiraju na zemlje poput Kine koje nisu u tržišnom kapitalizmu.
However, there is a real reason and real concern for us to now focus our attentions on purer forms of capitalism, particularly those embodied by the United States. This is really important because this type of capitalism has increasingly been afforded the critique that it is now fostering corruption and, worse still, it's increasing income inequality -- the idea that the few are benefiting at the expense of the many.
Ipak, postoji stvarni razlog i briga da obratimo pažnju na čistije forme kapitalizma, posebno one otelovljene od Sjedinjenih Država. Ovo je veoma važno, jer ovaj tip kapitalizma sve više zaslužuje kritiku da sada podstiče korupciju i još gore, povećava nejednakost prihoda - ideja da manjina uživa na račun većine.
The two really critical questions that we need to address is how can we fix capitalism so that it can help create economic growth but at the same time can help to address social ills.
Dva kritična pitanja kojima moramo da se pozabavimo, su kako možemo da popravimo kapitalizam, kako bi mogao da pomogne ekonomskom razvoju ali u isto vreme da pomogne rešavanju društvenih problema.
In order to think about that framing, we have to ask ourselves, how does capitalism work today? Very simplistically, capitalism is set on the basis of an individual utility maximizer -- a selfish individual who goes after what he or she wants. And only after they've maximized their utility do they then decide it's important to provide support to other social contracts. Of course, in this system governments do tax, and they use part of their revenues to fund social programs, recognizing that government's role is not just regulation but also to be arbiter of social goods. But nevertheless, this framework -- this two-stage framework -- is the basis from which we must now start to think about how we can improve the capitalist model.
Da bismo tako mislili, moramo da se zapitamo, kako kapitalizam danas funkcioniše? Veoma jednostavno, osnova kapitalizma je povećana korisnost pojedinca - sebičnog pojedinca koji ide za onim što želi. I tek nakon što su maksimalno podmirili svoje potrebe, odluče da je bitno da pruže podršku drugim socijalnim ugovorima. Naravno, u ovom sistemu, vlada naplaćuje porez, kako bi iskoristila prihode da finansira socijalne programe, prepoznaje da uloga vlade nije samo regulativna već i da je arbitar socijalnih dobara. Ali ipak, ovaj okvir, ovaj okvir od dva stepena, je osnova onoga od čega moramo da počnemo da razmišljamo kako možemo unaprediti kapitalizam.
I would argue that there are two sides to this challenge. First of all, we can draw on the right-wing policies to see what could be beneficial for us to think about how we can improve capitalism.
Rekla bih da postoje dve strane ovog izazova. Najpre, možemo da učimo na desničarskoj politici da vidimo šta je delotvorno za nas u razmišljanju kako da unapredimo kapitalizam.
In particular, right-leaning policies have tended to focus on things like conditional transfers, where we pay and reward people for doing the things that we actually think can help enhance economic growth. For example, sending children to school, parents could earn money for that, or getting their children inoculated or immunized, parents could get paid for doing that.
Posebno, desničarska politika je pokušala da se fokusira na stvari poput uslovljenih transfera, gde plaćamo i nagrađujemo ljude koji rade stvari koje mi mislimo da mogu da pomognu u jačanju ekonomskog razvoja. Na primer, kad deca idu u školu, roditelji mogu da zarade novac za to, ili da njihovu decu inokulišu ili vakcinišu roditelji mogu biti plaćeni za to.
Now, quite apart from the debate on whether or not we should be paying people to do what we think they should do anyway, the fact of the matter is that pay for performance has actually yielded some positive results in places like Mexico, in Brazil and also in pilot programs in New York.
Sad, pored debate da li treba ili ne plaćati ljude za ono što bi svejedno trebalo da rade, da se zaista plaća učinak donelo je pozitivne rezultate u mestima poput Meksika, u Brazilu i čak u pilot programima u Njujorku.
But there are also benefits and significant changes underway on left-leaning policies. Arguments that government should expand its role and responsibility so that it's not so narrowly defined and that government should be much more of an arbiter of the factors of production have become commonplace with the success of China. But also we've started to have debates about how the role of the private sector should move away from just being a profit motive and really be more engaged in the delivery of social programs. Things like the corporate social responsibility programs, albeit small in scale, are moving in that right direction. Of course, left-leaning policies have also tended to blur the lines between government, NGOs and private sector.
Takođe postoje beneficije i značajne promene u levičarskoj politici. Argumenti da vlade trebaju da prošire ulogu i odgovornost da ne bude usko definisana, i da bi vlade trebalo da budu više arbitar faktora proizvodnje, postalo je uobičajeno kod uspeha u Kini. Takođe smo počeli da vodimo debate o tome kako uloga privatnog sektora treba da se promeri od toga da ima motiv profita na to da bude više uključen u donošenje socijalnih programa. Stvari kao korporativni programi socijalne odgovornosti, iako, mali po obimu, kreću se u tom pozitivnom pravcu. Naravno, levičarska politika je takođe pokušala da izbledi veze između vlade, nevladinih organizacija i privatnog sektora.
Two very good examples of this are the 19th-century United States, when the infrastructure rollout was really about public-private partnerships. More recently, of course, the advent of the Internet has also proven to the world that public and private can work together for the betterment of society.
Dva odlična primera ovoga su Sjedinjene Države u 19. veku, kad je gradnja infrastrukture bila stvar javno-privatnih partnerstava. Nedavno, naravno, dolazak interneta je takođe dokazao svetu da javno i privatno mogu da rade zajedno za dobrobit društva.
My fundamental message to you is this: We cannot continue to try and solve the world economic growth challenges by being dogmatic and being unnecessarily ideological. In order to create sustainable, long-term economic growth and solve the challenges and social ills that continue to plague the world today, we're going to have to be more broad-minded about what might work.
Moja suštinska poruka vama je ovo: ne možemo da rešimo svetske izazove ekonomskog razvoja tako što ćemo biti nepopustljivi i nepotrebno ideološki. Kako bismo stvorili održivi, dugoročni ekonomski razvoj i rešili izazove i socijalne probleme koji nastavljaju da truju svet, moraćemo da budemo otvorenijeg uma u vezi s tim šta može da uspe.
Ultimately, we have to recognize that ideology is the enemy of growth.
Na kraju, moramo da shvatimo da je ideologija neprijatelj razvoja.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Bruno Giussani: I want to ask a couple of questions, Dambisa, because one could react to your last sentence by saying growth is also an ideology, it's possibly the dominant ideology of our times. What do you say to those who react that way?
Bruno Đuzani: Hteo bih da Vam postavim par pitanja, Dambisa, jer neko bi reagovao na vašu poslednju rečenicu time da je razvoj takođe ideologija, moguće i dominantna ideologija našeg vremena. Šta kažete onima koji tako reaguju?
DM: Well, I think that that's completely legitimate, and I think that we're already having that discussion. There's a lot of work going on around happiness and other metrics being used for measuring people's success and improvements in living standards. And so I think that we should be open to what could deliver improvements in people's living standards and continue to reduce poverty around the world.
DM: Mislim da je to potpuno legitimno, i mislim da već imamo tu diskusiju. Dosta posla se obavlja u vezi sa srećom i druga metrika se koristi kako bi se izračunao uspeh ljudi i poboljšanja životnih standarda. Mislim da treba da budemo otvoreni prema tome šta može da pomogne ljudskom životnom standardu i smanji siromaštvo u svetu.
BG: So you're basically pleading for rehabilitating growth, but the only way for that happen without compromising the capacity of the earth, to take us on a long journey, is for economic growth somehow to decouple from the underlying use of resources. Do you see that happening?
BĐ: Znači, bukvalno molite za rehabilitaciju razvoja, ali jedini način da se to dogodi bez ugrožavanja kapaciteta zemlje da nas dugo izdržava, jeste da ekonomski razvoj nekako razdvojimo od osnovnog korišćenja resursa. Da li to možete da vidite?
DM: Well, I think that I'm more optimistic about human ability and ingenuity. I think if we start to constrain ourselves using the finite, scarce and depleting resources that we know today, we could get quite negative and quite concerned about the way the world is.
DM: Mislim da sam optimističnija oko ljudske sposobnosti i domišljatosti. Ako počnemo sebe da ograničavamo koristeći ograničene, retke i iscrpne resurse koji su nam poznati, postaćemo krajnje negativni i zabrinuti o tome kakav je svet.
However, we've seen the Club of Rome, we've seen previous claims that the world would be running out of resources, and it's not to argue that those things are not valid. But I think, with ingenuity we could see desalination, I think we could reinvest in energy, so that we can actually get better outcomes. And so in that sense, I'm much more optimistic about what humans can do.
Ipak, videli smo u Rimskom klubu prethodne tvrdnje da će svet ostati bez resursa, i ne radi se o tome da te stvari nisu tačne. Sa genijalnošću, videli bismo desalinizaciju, možemo da reinvestiramo u energiju, kako bismo dobili bolje ishode. U tom smislu, optimističnija sam u vezi s tim šta ljudi mogu da učine.
BG: The thing that strikes me about your proposals for rehabilitating growth and taking a different direction is that you're kind of suggesting to fix capitalism with more capitalism -- with putting a price tag on good behavior as incentive or developing a bigger role for business in social issues. Is that what you're suggesting?
BĐ: Ono što me zanima, o predlogu za rehabilitaciju razvoja i pokretu u drugom pravcu je da vi predlažete da se popravi kapitalizam sa još više kapitalizma, da se stavi cena na dobro ponašanje kao podsticaj ili to da se da veća uloga firmama u socijalnim problemima. Da li to predlažete?
DM: I'm suggesting we have to be open-minded. I think it is absolutely the case that traditional models of economic growth are not working the way we would like them to. And I think it's no accident that today the largest economy in the world, the United States, has democracy, liberal democracy, as it's core political stance and it has free market capitalism -- to the extent that it is free -- free market capitalism as its economic stance. The second largest economy is China. It has deprioritized democracy and it has state capitalism, which is a completely different model. These two countries, completely different political models and completely different economic models, and yet they have the same income inequality number measured as a Gini coefficient.
DM: Predlažem da široko razmišljamo. Mislim da je zaista slučaj to da tradicionalni modeli ekonomskog razvoja ne rade na način kako bismo mi želeli. Mislim da nije slučajno to da najveća ekonomija na svetu, Sjedinjene Države, ima demokratiju, liberalnu demokratiju kao srž političkog stava i ima kapitalizam slobodnog tržišta do mere da je slobodno, kapitalizam slobodnog tržišta kao ekonomski stav. Druga najveća ekonomija je Kina. Demokratija je manjeg prioriteta i ima državni kapitalizam, koji je potpuno drugačiji model. Ove dve zemlje, potpuno drugačiji politički modeli i potpuno drugačiji ekonomski modeli, ipak imaju isti broj nejednakosti prihoda izmerenu po koeficijentu Džini.
I think those are the debates we should have, because it's not clear at all what model we should be adopting, and I think there needs to be much more discourse and much more humility about what we know and what we don't know.
Mislim da takve debate treba da imamo, jer uopšte nije jasno koji model bi trebalo da prihvatimo, i mislim da treba da bude mnogo više razgovora i više skromnosti u vezi s tim šta znamo, a šta ne.
BG: One last question. The COP21 is going on in Paris. If you could send a tweet to all the heads of state and heads of delegations there, what would you say?
BĐ: Poslednje pitanje. COP21 se održava u Parizu. Kada biste mogli da tvitujete svim šefovima države i delegacije tamo, šta biste rekli?
DM: Again, I would be very much about being open-minded. As you're aware, the issues around the environmental concerns have been on the agenda many times now -- in Copenhagen, '72 in Stockholm -- and we keep revisiting these issues partly because there is not a fundamental agreement, in fact there's a schism between what the developed countries believe and want and what emerging market countries want. Emerging market countries need to continue to create economic growth so that we don't have political uncertainty in the those countries. Developed countries recognize that they have a real, important responsibility not only just to manage their CO2 emissions and some of the degradation that they're contributing to the world, but also as trendsetters in R&D. And so they have to come to the table as well. But in essence, it cannot be a situation where we start ascribing policies to the emerging markets without developed countries themselves also taking quite a swipe at what they're doing both in demand and supply in developed markets.
DM: Opet, govorila bih o širokom razmišljanju. Kao što ste svesni, pitanja o zaštiti životne sredine, bila su na dnevnom redu više puta - U Kopenhagenu, '72. u Stokholmu - i vraćamo se na iste probleme delom zato što nema zajedničkog dogovora, u stvari, postoji raskol između toga šta razvijenje zemlje veruju i šta žele i šta zemlje sa razvojem tržišta žele. Zemlje sa razvojem tržišta treba da nastave da stvaraju razvoj da ne bismo imali političku nesigurnost u tim zemljama. Razvijene zemlje znaju da imaju stvarnu i bitnu odgovornost ne samo da održavaju emisije CO2 i neke degradacije koje pridodaju svetu, ali su vodeći u istraživanju i razvoju. Zato oni moraju da sednu za sto takođe. U suštini, to ne sme da bude situacija gde počnemo da pripisujemo politiku tržištima u razvoju, bez samih razvijenih država, koji uzimaju udeo u ponudi i potražnji tržišta u razvoju.
BG: Dambisa, thank you for coming to TED. DM: Thank you very much.
BĐ: Dambisa, hvala što ste došli na TED. DM: Hvala Vama puno.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)