Our ability to create and sustain economic growth is the defining challenge of our time.
我們創造及維持經濟成長的能力 是我們這個世代的關鍵性挑戰。
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.
當然還有其他挑戰-- 衛生保健、疾病負擔、流行病、 環境變遷的挑戰、 當然,還有激進的恐怖主義。 然而, 以我們實際上能解決 經濟成長挑戰的程度而言, 若要解決我剛剛說明的那些挑戰, 我們還有很長的路要走。
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, 除非直到我們解決 並創造了穩定、永續的經濟成長, 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, 不管是衛生保健、教育或經濟發展。
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?
最基本的問題是: 我們要如何 在高度發達的經濟體,像美國和歐洲, 在他們經歷金融危後, 現仍持續掙扎的狀況下, 還可以繼續創造經濟成長呢?
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.
他們持續表現得不如預期, 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: 資本、勞動力、生產力。 特別是, 那些發達的經濟體中, 持續有負債、財政赤字、 勞動力質量與數量上的下降與侵蝕、 同時也看到生產力停滯現象。
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.
同樣的脈絡下, 我們要如何在 擁有 90% 世界人口居住的地方 且 70% 人口平均年齡在 25 歲以下 的新興市場中 持續創造經濟成長? 在這些國家中, 至少要 7% 的年增長率 才能減少貧困現象 以及讓人均資本所得可在 一個世代的時間內加倍成長。 但如今, 最大的新興經濟體 --人口至少5000萬的國家-- 仍在為那 7% 的「魔法數字」掙扎著。 更糟的是, 像印度、俄羅斯、南非、 巴西,甚至是中國這些國家, 現今已低於 7% 這個數字, 而且,很多國家實際上正在倒退。
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.
經濟成長是十分重要的。 有了經濟成長, 國家及社會才會進入一個良性循環, 包含社會經濟地位的上升、 就業機會及改善生活水平。 沒有增長,國家會緊縮與衰退, 不僅是年度經濟統計數字, 還包括生命的意義與生活的品質。 經濟成長對個人也十分的重要。 一旦成長的趨勢衰退, 人類進步的風險、 以及政局和社會不穩定的風險就會上升, 而社會就會更加黑暗、動盪與渺小。
The context matters. And countries in emerging markets do not need to grow at the same rates as developed countries.
環境條件很重要。 新興市場的國家, 不需要像已開發國家那樣的成長率。
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.
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。 這裡有些人, 會轉身過去不理會 並對世界周遭發生的事情 不抱任何希望, 且基本上,還把罪怪在經濟成長上。 你擔心地球上人口過剩, 並看著聯合國最近的統計及規劃, 了解到地球會在公元 2100 年以前 來到 110 億的人口數量, 你擔心這對自然資源 會造成甚麼樣的衝擊-- 可耕種的土地、 可飲用的水資源、能源、礦產。 你也擔心環境的惡化。 你也會擔心, 人們在支持企業全球化的體現, 怎麼變得這麼貪婪與腐敗。
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.
但我今天要告訴各位, 經濟成長已經成為 全世界好幾百萬人 改變生活水平的骨幹。 而且更重要的是, 經濟成長並不是 只被資本主義所主導。
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.
資本主義的定義,簡單的說, 就是那些生產力因素, 像是,貿易、工業、資本和勞動力, 掌握在私人企業而非國家手上的部分。
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.
在這裡很重要的一點,我們要知道, 基本上應該被指責的 不是經濟成長本身, 而是資本主義出了甚麼問題。 所以若考量到我們長期 需要創造經濟成長率的廣度, 我們就要用比較好的 經濟角度方式去追尋它。
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.
經濟成長需要資本主義, 但要好好地進行。 正如我稍早提過的, 資本主義系統的核心已被定義為 以私人企業所主導。 然而,即使這只是很簡單的二分法。 資本主義:好;非資本主義:不好。 但以實務操作而言, 資本主義像是個光譜。 (資本的分配有很多種方式) 我們有像是中國這類的國家, 實施的資本主義 較傾向於「國家」主導。 也有像美國這類的國家, 實施的資本主義 較傾向於「市場」主導。
Our efforts to critique the capitalist system, however, have tended to focus on countries like China that are in fact not blatantly market capitalism.
然而,我們對資本主義的批評 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。
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,我們有一個真正的理由 及真正要注意的地方就是 現在要把注意力放在 有較單純架構的資本主義上面, 特別是那些由美國 體現出來的資本主義。 這真的很重要, 因為這類的資本主義, 它正在孳生腐敗, 批判的聲音不斷地增加, 而更糟的是, 收入不公平的現象一直在持續擴大-- 也就是少數人享受著 多數人勞動成果的問題。
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.
有兩個真正的關鍵 我們需要解決, 就是,我們要如何修正資本主義, 讓它可以幫助創造經濟成長, 同時幫助解決社會弊端。
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.
為了要思考這個架構, 我們必須問我們自己, 現今的資本主義是如何運作的? 非常簡單, 資本主義是架構在 個人利益最大化上-- 讓一個謀私利的個體 去追尋他或她想要的。 也唯有在他們的利益獲得最大化後, 他們才會去認真思考, 提供援助履行「社會契約」的重要性。 當然,在這系統下,政府會抽稅, 然後再用部分的稅收 來提供社會福利, 為的是讓人民知道,政府的角色 不是只有立法管理, 同時也扮演了社會福利仲裁者的角色。 但儘管如此, 這個框架結構-- 這兩個階段的框架結構-- 是我們現在必須開始思考 要如何改善資本主義模式的基礎。
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.
我認為這個挑戰有兩方面。 首先, 我們可以借鑒右翼政策, 去看看對我們有甚麼利益 去思考如何改善資本主義。
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.
特別是, 右傾的政策 已經傾向專注於像是 「條件式補助」的事情上, 就是我們支付並獎勵人民進行 那些我們認為可以 幫助經濟成長的事。 例如, 送小孩上學, 父母可以得到補助酬賞, 或者讓他們的孩子注射疫苗, 父母可以因此得到酬賞,
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.
現在,不用去爭論 我們是否應該提供酬賞 支付給父母親做他們 本來就應該做的事, 真正重要的事實是, 這種酬賞的實行 已經產生一些正向的結果, 像是在墨西哥這個地方、 在巴西, 以及在紐約試辦的計畫。
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.
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。 他們的論點是: 政府應該擴大它的角色及責任, 讓它不再是那麼狹隘地 被舊思維所定義, 而是要讓政府扮演生產力要素的 仲裁者角色, 而這些論點在中國已經是 司空見慣的成功模式。 但同時我們也要開始辯論 有關於私人企業該扮演的角色 應該跳脫只顧營利的動機, 而真正地更加投入社會計畫。 像是企業的社會責任計畫, 即使規模不大, 也是往正確的方向在進行。 當然,左傾政策也已經模糊了, 政府與非政府組織及私人企業的界線。
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.
這個概念有兩個很好的例子, 一個是 19 世紀的美國, 當時推出的基礎設施計劃 真的就是「公辦私營」的夥伴關係。 更近一點,當然, 網際網路的出現,已經向世界證明 公眾與私人是可以一起合作改善社會。
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.
我要給各位傳達的基本訊息就是: 我們不能藉由固執己見或 堅持不必要的意識形態來 繼續嘗試並解決世界經濟成長的挑戰。 為了創造穩定長期的經濟成長, 並解決挑戰與現今 持續瀰漫在全球的社會問題, 我們必須要有更包容的心胸 了解甚麼是可行的。
Ultimately, we have to recognize that ideology is the enemy of growth.
最後, 我們必須要認清 意識形態是成長的敵人。
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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 Giussani: 我想要問一些問題,丹碧莎, 因為有人可以對你最後一句話做回應, 就是,成長的本身也是一種意識形態, 它可能就是我們這一世代 最主要的意識形態, 如果有人這麼回應,你要怎麼回答?
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:好的,我認為這完全合理, 我認為我們已經討論過, 針對幸福這件事還有很多工作要做, 而且,還要其他的測量方式 可以衡量人們的成功, 以及生活水平的改善。 所以,我認為我們應該敞開心胸, 討論做甚麼事可以增進人類的生活水平, 並且持續減少世界上的貧窮現象。
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,你是在為 「回復成長」辯護, 但是唯一 能帶領我們走向 不犧牲掉地球利益的 長期發展之路, 就是要讓經濟成長 與某一種「資源的潛在利用方式」脫鉤。 你認為這會發生嗎?
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:恩,我認為我對人類的能力與智慧 是持比較樂觀的看法。 我想,如果我們開始 約束自己使用我們今日所知道的 有限、稀有、耗盡中的資源, 我們就會變得相當負面 (對經濟成長) 而且相當擔心世界會變如何。
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.
然而,我們已經看到羅馬俱樂部, 我們已經看到之前的聲明, 全世界的資源會被消耗殆盡, 不用去爭論這些事情不可能。 但我想,我們可以用智慧 去慢慢減少資源的使用。 我想,我們可以再投資到能源上面, 如此我們就可以得到更好的結果。 所以在這概念底下, 對人類可以怎麼做, 我是持比較樂觀的看法。
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:有件事讓我印象深刻, 就是有關於妳對回複經濟成長的提議, 裡面提到了一個不一樣的方向, 你好像建議用更多的資本主義 去修正資本主義, 像是,在「好的行為」上 放上一個價格標籤做為誘因, 或者在社會議題上, 讓企業扮演一個更大的角色, 這是妳建議的嗎?
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:我是建議,我們必須要開闊心胸。 我想這絕對是一個問題, 就是,傳統的經濟成長模式 已經無法達到我們要它達成的目標。 我想,這並不意外, 現今,世界最大的經濟體,美國, 有民主、 自由民主,作為它的核心政治立場, 它還有自由的市場資本主義-- 某種程度上,它是自由的-- 自由的市場資本主義是它的經濟立場。 第二大經濟體是中國。 它有民主非優先順位的發展制度, 它有國家資本主義, 完全是不一樣的模式。 這兩個國家,是完全不同的政治模式, 完全不一樣的經濟模式, 當然,他們一樣有收入 不平等的現象 是根據基尼係數所量測出來的。
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.
我想,這些就是我們應該要辯論的地方, 因為我們仍不清楚, 該採取哪一種模式, 我想,仍需有更多不同論述, 以及更多的謙卑之心來面對 我們所了解及或不了解的事情。
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:最後一個問題, 聯合國氣候變化大會即將在巴黎舉行。 如果妳可以傳送一條推特訊息 給在那邊的所有國家領袖 及代表團團長, 妳會跟他們說甚麼?
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:我在說明一次, 我很希望大家敞開心胸討論。 你應該知道的, 圍繞在關懷環境的議題上 已經在議程上被提出來很多次-- 72年在哥本哈根,斯德哥爾摩, 舉辦的聯合國人類環境大會-- 我們持續關注這些議題, 部分原因是,根本沒有基本的共識協議, 事實上,仍有分歧的意見, 介於已開發國家的信仰與希望 及新興市場國家的希望。 新興市場國家想要持續的經濟成長, 這裡面我們沒有 政治不確定性的國家。 已發展國家承認, 它們真的有很重大的責任, 要負責二氧化碳排放量的管理、 還有扛起他們對全世界 所造成破壞的責任, 但也包含帶領全球研發的潮流。 所以,他們也必須要上桌討論。 但大體上,不會有一種狀況就是... 我們一開始就歸咎新興市場的政策 卻不討論已開發國家本身的政策, 然後還猛烈抨擊他們在已開發市場的 供需問題上所做的一切。
BG: Dambisa, thank you for coming to TED. DM: Thank you very much.
BG:丹碧莎,謝謝妳來 TED , DM:非常謝謝你。
(Applause)
(掌聲)