Our ability to create and sustain economic growth is the defining challenge of our time.
我们去创造和保持经济增长的能力, 是我们这个时代的标志性的一个挑战。
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.
当然, 不是说就没有别的挑战了, 医疗保健,疾病,流行病,环境问题 都是我们正在面对的挑战 当然,还有激进的恐怖主义。 然而, 要解决我刚刚说到的 这些问题的难度 远远大于 创造与维持经济增长的难度。
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.
更重要的是, 除非直到我们解决 并创造了稳定、长期的经济成长, 否则我们将不能解决 那些棘手的,如今仍散播在全球的挑战, 不论是医疗保健,教育,还是经济发展。
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?
所以根本问题是: 我们要怎样在经历金融危机后不断挣扎的 高度发达的经济体中, 例如美国和欧洲, 制造经济增长呢?
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.
这些经济体持续失常发挥, 并且使经济增长的三大要素垮下 这三个要素是:资本,劳动和生产力。 特别需要注意的是, 那些发达的经济体中, 持续有负债、财政赤字、 劳动力质量与数量上的下降与侵蚀的问题、 同时也看到生产力停滞现象。
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.
同样的脉络下, 我们要如何在 住着世界上90%的人口, 其中平均70%人口25岁以下的新兴市场里 创造经济增长呢? 在发达国家, 每年保持最低 7% 的经济增长至关重要, 以此保证贫困人口的减少, 完成人均收入在一代人的时间里翻倍的目标。 但是现在, 最大的新兴经济体-- 那些至少有五千万人口的国家 -- 仍然很难达到那百分之七的增长。 更可怕的是, 像印度、俄罗斯、南非、 巴西这些国家,甚至是中国, 经济增长远远落后于百分之七。 而且,很多国家实际上正在倒退。
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.
经济增长至关重要。 只有经济进步了, 国家和社会才可以有一个 社会经济地位上升流动性、机遇、 和高生活质量的良性循环, 假设没有了经济增长, 不仅这个国家每年的经济统计数据会缩水 同时人们的生活水平也会降低。 经济增长对个体的影响十分巨大。 一旦增长趋势平缓了, 人类发展 和社会政局动荡的风险大大提高, 这样一来,社会就变得灰暗,动乱, 脆弱。
The context matters. And countries in emerging markets do not need to grow at the same rates as developed countries.
这个背景是重要的。 而新兴市场的国家 不需要和发达国家发展的一样快。
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.
是的,我知道在场的你们中间一些人 会觉得这是一个大胆的说法。 这里的一部分人 会转过身去, 对地球上正在发生的种种坏事唏嘘不已, 并把一切归咎于经济增长。 你们会担心全球人口过多。 联合国最新的数据表明 世界人口增长在2100年会进入平稳 但那之前人口会到达110亿之多, 因此你们开始担心自然资源的问题-- 可耕种的土地,可饮用水源, 能源和矿产是否够用。 你们同样也会担心环境的恶化。 你们还会想 提倡全世界和平共处的人类 是怎么会变的这样贪婪和腐败。
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.
但是我今天在这里是要告诉你们的是 经济增长 恰恰是改善成千上万人生活的脊柱。 更要强调的是, 经济成长并不是 只被资本主义所主导。
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.
资本主义的定义,简单地说, 就是那些生产力因素, 像是,贸易、工业、资本和劳动力, 掌握在私人企业而非国家手上的部分。
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.
在这里,非常关键的一点是要知道 应被指责的不是经济增长本身, 而是资本主义的变味。 所以考虑到长期制造经济增长的需求, 我们必須用较好的 经济角度去追寻它。
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.
经济增长确实需要资本主义, 但是必须是适当运作的资本主义。 正如我之前提到的 资本主义系统的核心已经被 私人企业所定义控制住了。 然而,即使这只是很简单的二分法: 资本主义:好;非资本主义:不好。 但要知道在实践中, 资本主义像是个光谱。 (资本的分配有很多种方式) 我们有像是中国这类的国家, 是实行国家资本主义的 (国家掌控资本), 而像美国那样的国家, 是实行市场经济主义的 (资本在市场流通)。
Our efforts to critique the capitalist system, however, have tended to focus on countries like China that are in fact not blatantly market capitalism.
两个都是资本主义,但对资本主义的批评, 却基本是冲着中国那样的 不是纯市场资本主义的国家去的。
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.
然而,我们有一个真正的理由 及真正要注意的地方就是 现在要把注意力放在 有较单纯架构的资本主义上面, 特别是那些由美国 体现出来的资本主义。 这个非常之重要, 因为这一类的市场资本主义 滋养腐败的一面开始遭受 越来越多的批判, 更可怕的是 市场资本主义导致的 贫富收入差距越来越严峻 -- 也就是少数人享受着 多数人劳动成果的问题。
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.
这里有两个我们需要解决的关键性问题。 第一个是我们要怎样修正资本主义, 使它有利于经济增长 而同时又有助于铲除社会诟病。
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.
为了要思考这个架构, 我们必须问我们自己, 如今的资本主义到底是怎样运作的。 答案很简单, 资本主义是在个人效益 最大化的基础上建成的, 简而言之,人们自私地追寻自己想要的东西。 只有当最他们的效益最大化了后, 他们才会去认真思考, 提供援助履行「社会契约」的重要性。 当然,在这样一个系统里,政府也会赋税, 然后再用部分的税收 来资助社会项目, 为的是让人民知道,政府的存在 不是只有立法管理, 同时也扮演了社会福利仲裁者的角色。 但尽管如此, 这个框架结构-- 这两个阶段的框架结构-- 是我们现在必须开始思考 要如何改善资本主义模式的基础。
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.
为了实现这个蓝图, 我认为可以从两方面入手。 首先, 我们可以借鉴右翼政策, 去看看对我们有什么利益, 去思考如何改善资本主义。
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.
特别要说的是, 偏右派的政策 偏向于关注像「条件转移」这样的事, 所谓条件转移,指的就是 付钱并奖励人民做我们认为 可以帮助经济增长的事。 举个例子, 我们可以出钱 请父母送孩子去上学, 或者出钱 请他们带孩子去打疫苗,
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.
现在,不用去争论 我们是否应该付钱 给父母亲做他们 本来就应该做的事, 真正重要的事实是, 这种 付钱让人做事的效果 已经产生一些正向的结果, 像是在墨西哥这个地方、 巴西 和其他在纽约的试点项目。
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.
同时,那些 偏左派的做法也是有可取之处的。 那些阐述政府需要扩张其职责和责任, 使其不再定义狭窄, 而是更大意义上成为 生产因素仲裁者的言论 在中国已经取得了显著的成绩。 但是同时我们也要开始争论 有关于私人企业该扮演的角色 应该跳脱只顾营利的动机, 而真正参与到社会项目中去。 像社会合作责任项目这样的活动, 尽管规模比较小, 但也正在向正确的方向运作。 当然,偏左派的政策有时 也会把政府、非政府组织 和私人企业的界限模糊掉。
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.
这个概念有两个特别合适的例子, 一个是十九世纪的美国 推出的基础设施项目 真的就是公私企业的合作伙伴关系, 另一个例子更近一些, 因特网的出现也告诉了这个世界 公众与私人是可以一起合作改善社会。
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.
我最想表达的信息其实是这个: 我们不能藉由固执己见或 坚持不必要的意识形态来 继续尝试并解决世界经济成长的挑战。 为了创造长期可持续的经济发展 并且解决其他的猖狂的 危机和社会腐败问题, 我们必须要有更包容的心胸 了解什么是可行的。
Ultimately, we have to recognize that ideology is the enemy of growth.
最终, 我们必须要认清 意识形态是增长之敌。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
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?
主持人Bruno Giussani: 我想问你一些问题,丹碧莎, 因为人们可以回应你的最后一句话, 说增长本身也是一种意识形态, 它本身还可能是我们这一时代最主要的一个。 你想怎样回复这个观点呢?
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.
我得说, 这个观点是完全合理的, 我认为我们已经讨论过, 针对幸福这件事还有很多工作要做, 而且,还有其他的测量方式 可以衡量人们的成功, 以及生活水平的改善。 所以,我认为我们应该敞开心胸, 讨论做什么事可以增进人类的生活水平, 并且持续减少世界上的贫穷现象。
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?
BG:所以,基本上,你是在为 「增长恢复」辩护, 但是唯一的 不威胁到地球的 长期发展之路 就是让经济增长 以某种方式消除对资源的过度利用。 你认为这会真的发生吗?
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.
我认为我对人类的能力与智慧 是持比较乐观的看法。 我认为我们可以开始限制我们自己 对稀缺资源的滥用 毕竟现如今大家 都知道也都关心 滥用资源所产生的副作用。
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.
但是, 我们已经看到罗马聚乐部 之前宣称 世界最终还是会用尽资源, 不用去争论这些事情不可能。 但我认为拥有才智我们可以淡化这一过程, 我人认为我们可以重新利用资源, 然后我们就会有更好的结果。 所以这样一想, 我对人类可以做的事还是挺乐观的。
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?
BG:我对你所说的 恢复经济增长 并且考虑其他方向所感到震惊的是 你好像在说要用资本主义 去改变资本主义-- 给善意的行为打个标价做为诱因, 或者就是让企业在社会问题中有更大的作用。 这是你所认为的吗?
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:我是认为我们必须心胸开阔。 有一点绝对的是 我认为传统经济增长的模式 并没有像我们期待的那样有效。 我还认为 如今世界最大经济体美国 实行民主制、 自由民主,作为它的核心政治立场, 美国还实行自由的市场资本主义-- 某種程度上,它是自由的-- 自由的市场资本主义是它的经济立场。 世界第二大经济体是中国。 它有民主非优先顺位发展的政治制度, 而它的国家资本主义, 则是另一个完全不同的体质。 这两个国家,是完全不同的政治模式, 经济模式上也是完全不一样, 但是它们一样有收入不平等指数, 测量时用的是基尼系数。
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.
我认为这才是我们应有的辩论, 因为我们不清楚 应采用什么样的体制, 我们也需要再讨论, 以及更多的谦卑之心来面对 我们知道的和不知道的事物。
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?
BG:最后一个问题, 联合国气候变化大会即将在巴黎举行。 如果你可以 给在那里的所有国家代表发条推特, 你会说什么?
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:再次地,我很希望大家敞开心胸讨论。 就像你注意到的一样, 关于环境的问题 逐渐被提上日程, 在哥本哈根,72年在斯德歌尔摩。 (举办的联合国人类环境大会--) 我们会持续关注这些议题, 部分原因是,根本没有基本的共识协议, 事实上甚至 在发达国家和 发展中国家的意见上有分歧。 发展中国家需要持续的经济增长 如此,我们才不会有「政治不确定性」的国家。 发达国家认为 他们真的有责任 去管理二氧化碳的排放 及一些他们对全世界所造成的破坏, 并同时在研究和发展的事业中成为领头羊。 所以它们必须参加关于环境的讨论会。 但是基本上, 把所有政策归给发展中国家 而不涉及发达国家 在他们自己的 市场需求和供应中所做的事是不可能的。
BG: Dambisa, thank you for coming to TED. DM: Thank you very much.
BG:丹碧莎,非常感谢你来到TED. DM:谢谢。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)