Der er et problem, vi nødt til at diskutere: Hvilken rolle skal penge og markedet spille i vores samfund?
Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
I dag er der meget få ting, som ikke kan købes for penge. Hvis man sidder i fængsel i Santa Barbara, Californien, skal I vide men ikke kan lide den almindelige indkvartering, kan man opgradere sin fængselscelle. Det er sandt. Hvad koster det, tror I? Hvad gætter I på? Fem hundrede dollars? Det er ikke Ritz-Carlton. Det er et fængsel! 82 dollars per nat. Toogfirs dollars per nat. Hvis man tager i forlystelsespark, og ikke ønsker at stå i de lange køer ved de populære forlystelser, er der nu en løsning. I mange forlystelsesparker kan du betale ekstra for at komme forrest i køen. De kalder dem Fast Track eller VIP-billetter.
Today, there are very few things that money can't buy. If you're sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don't like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It's true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don't want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
Og det er ikke kun muligt i forlystelsesparker. I Washington er der undertiden lange køer til vigtige kongreshøringer. Nogle mennesker kan ikke lide at vente i lange køer, måske natten over, måske i regnvejr. Så nu, for lobbyister og andre, der er meget ivrige efter at deltage i disse høringer, men ikke kan lide at stå i kø, er der stå-i-kø virksomheder, man kan gå til. Man betaler dem en vis mængde penge, de ansætter hjemløse og andre, der har brug for et job, til at stå i kø så lang tid, det tager, og lobbyisten lige før høringen begynder, kan tage hans eller hendes plads forrest i køen og få en plads forrest i salen. Betalt kø-ståning.
And this isn't only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don't like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don't like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
Brugen af markedsmekanismer, markedstænkning og markedsløsninger sker i stor stil. Se på den måde, vi kæmper vores krige. Vidste du, at i Irak og Afghanistan var der flere private militære entreprenører end amerikanske soldater?
It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops?
Vi havde ingen offentlig debat om, hvorvidt vi ønskede at outsource krig til private virksomheder. Men det var, hvad der skete.
Now this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
Gennem de sidste tre årtier har vi oplevet en stille revolution.
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution.
Vi er næsten uden at bemærke det gået fra at have en markedsøkonomi til at være et markedssamfund.
We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies.
Forskellen er, at en markedsøkonomi er et værktøj, et værdifuldt og effektivt redskab til at organisere produktiv aktivitet; men et markedssamfund er et sted, hvor næsten alt er til salg. Det er en livsstil, hvor markedsøkonomiens tænkning og værdier dominerer alle aspekter af livet: venskaber, familieliv, sundhed, uddannelse, politik, jura, borgernes dagligdag.
The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
Hvorfor bekymre sig? Hvorfor bekymre sig over at vi bliver et markedssamfund? Af to grunde, tror jeg. En af dem har at gøre med ulighed. Jo flere ting penge kan købe, jo mere betyder velstand eller mangel på samme. Hvis det eneste penge gav adgang til var lystbåde, dyre ferier eller BMW'ere, ville ulighed ikke betyde ret meget. Men når det i stigende grad koster penge at få adgang til de grundlæggende elementer i et godt liv anstændige sundhedsydelser, adgang til den bedste uddannelse, politisk indflydelse når penge styrer alle disse ting, betyder ulighed en hel del. Så markedsgørelse af alt forværrer effekterne af ulighed og dens sociale og samfundsmæssige konsekvenser. Det er én grund til at bekymre sig. Der er en anden grund end at bekymre sig om ulighed, og den er: for nogle sociale goder og praksis gælder det når markedstænkningens værdier komme ind i billedet at det kan ændre betydningen af denne praksis og fortrænge normer, der er værd at beskytte.
Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn't matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life -- decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns -- when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That's one reason to worry. There's a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it's this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
Lad mig tage et eksempel på en kontroversiel brug af en markedsmekanisme, et kontant incitament, og se hvad I synes om det. Mange skoler er udfordrede med at motivere børn, især børn fra dårligt stillede miljøer til at studere flittigt, til at klare sig godt i skolen, til at engagere sig.
I'd like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves.
Nogle økonomer har foreslået et markedsløsning: Tilbyd børn kontante incitamenter for at få gode karakterer, eller høje prøveresultater eller for at læse bøger. De har faktisk prøvet det. De har gjort forsøg i nogle større amerikanske byer. I New York, Chicago, Washington DC, har de prøvet at tilbyde 50 dollars for et A, 35 dollars for et B. I Dallas i Texas betaler de otte-årige to dollars for hver bog, de læser.
Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They've tried this, actually. They've done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A, 35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
Lad os se -- Nogle mennesker er for og nogle mennesker er imod dette kontante incitament til at motivere præstation. Lad os se hvad folk herinde mener om det. Forestil dig at du er leder af et større skoledistrikt, og nogen foreslår denne løsning. Og lad os sige det er en fond. De betaler. Du behøver ikke at sætte det på dit budget. Hvor mange ville være for og hvor mange ville være imod at give det en chance? Lad lave håndsoprækning.
So let's see what -- Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let's see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don't have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let's see by a show of hands.
Først: hvor mange tror, det i det mindste ville være et forsøg værd at se, om det kunne virke? Hånden i vejret.
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
Og hvor mange ville være imod?
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
Så de fleste her er imod, men en betydelig minoritet er for. Lad os tage diskussionen. Lad os starte med dem, der er imod og som udelukker at prøve. Hvad er begrundelsen? Hvem vil sætte diskussionen i gang? Ja?
So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let's have a discussion. Let's start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
Heike Moses: Hej alle sammen. Jeg hedder Heike, og jeg tror bare, det dræber den indre motivation, for børn der gerne vil læse, vil man bare tage denne motivation væk og betale dem for at ændre adfærd. Michael Sandel: Tager det iboende incitament væk.
Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
Hvad er, eller burde være, den indre motivation?
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
HM: Tjae, den indre motivation burde være at lære.
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
MS: At lære. HM: For at lære om verden. Hvad sker der så? Holder de så op med at læse?
MS: To learn. HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
MS: Lad os nu se om der er nogen, der er for, som tror, det er værd at prøve.
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
Elizabeth Loftus: Jeg hedder Elizabeth Loftus. Du sagde “værd at prøve”, så hvorfor ikke prøve det? Gøre forsøget og måle på det. MS: Og hvad ville du måle? Du vil måle hvor mange... EL: Hvor mange bøger de læste og hvor mange bøger de fortsatte med at læse, når man holdt op med at betale.
Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You'd measure how many -- EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
Aha, efter man holdt op med at betale. Okay, hvorfor det?
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
HM: For at være ærlig synes jeg bare det er... ikke at fornærme nogen, en meget amerikansk tanke.
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
(Latter)(Bifald)
(Laughter) (Applause)
MS: Okay. Diskussionen rejser følgende spørgsmål: Vil et kontant incitament korrumpere eller fortrænge den dybere motivation, den iboende lektie, som vi håber at formidle, som er at lære at elske at lære og at læse for læsningens egen skyld? Og folk er uenige om, hvad effekten vil være, men der synes at være den bekymring, at på en eller anden måde vil en markedsmekanisme eller et kontant incitament lære en forkerte lektie, og hvis det gør, hvad skal der senere blive af disse børn?
MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
Jeg skal sige jer, hvad udfaldet blev af disse forsøg. Kontanter for gode karakterer har haft meget blandede resultater, og har for det meste ikke resulteret i højere karakterer. De to dollars for hver bog fik børnene til at læse flere bøger. Det fik dem også til at læse kortere bøger.
I should tell you what's happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Men det virkelige spørgsmål er, hvad der skal blive af disse børn senere? Vil de have lært, at læsning er en opgave, en form for akkordarbejde det er bekymringen eller kan det få dem til at læse af en måske forkerte grund i første omgang, men så få dem til at forelske sig i læsning for læsningens skyld?
But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
Hvad selv denne korte debat bringer op, er noget, som mange økonomer overser. Økonomer antager ofte at markedet er værdifrit at de ikke rører eller påvirker de goder de udveksler. Handel, antager de, ændrer ikke betydningen eller værdien af de varer, der handles. Det kan være sandt nok, hvis vi taler om materielle goder. Om du sælger mig et fladskærms-tv eller giver mig et i gave, vil det være den samme vare. Det vil virke på samme måde uanset. Men det samme er ikke tilfældet, hvis vi taler om ikke-materielle goder og sociale praksisser så som undervisning og læring eller fællesskab i samfundslivet. På de områder kan markedsmekanismer og kontante incitamenter underminere eller fortrænge ikke markedsmæssige værdier og holdninger, der er værd at beskytte. Når vi ser, at markeder og handel, når det spredes fra det materielle domæne til andre, kan ændre karakteren af selve varen, kan ændre betydningen af sociale praksisser som i eksemplet med undervisning og læring er vi nødt til at spørge, hvor markedet hører hjemme og hvor det ikke gør det, hvor det rent faktisk kan underminere værdier og holdninger der er værd at beskytte. Men for at tage denne debat er vi er nødt til at gøre noget, vi ikke er ret gode til, og det er at ræsonnere sammen om værdien og betydningen af de sociale praksisser, vi værdsætter; fra vores kroppe til familielivet til venskaber til sundhed til undervisning og læring til borgernes hverdag.
Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn't change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we're talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we're talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don't, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we're not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
Det er kontroversielle debatter, så vi har en tendens til at undvige dem. I løbet af de seneste tre årtier, hvor markedsræsonnement og markedstænkning har samlet kraft og fået prestige, er vores offentlige diskurs blevet udhulet, tømt for større moralsk betydning. Af frygt for uenighed har vi skyet disse konflikter. Men når vi ser, at markederne ændrer karakteren af nogle varer, er vi nødt til at diskutere disse større spørgsmål om værdsættelse af varer.
Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
En af de mest nedbrydende virkninger ved at sætte en pris på alting er på fællesskabet, følelsen af at vi alle er i samme båd. I kraft af den stigende ulighed fører markedsgørelsen af alle aspekter af livet til en situation, hvor dem, der er velhavende, og dem, der har beskedne midler, i stigende grad leve adskilte liv. Vi lever og arbejder og shopper og leger forskellige steder. Vores børn går i forskellige skoler.
One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
Det er ikke godt for demokratiet. Det er heller ikke en tilfredsstillende måde at leve på selv for dem af os, der har råd til at købe en plads forrest i køen. Jeg skal forklare hvorfor. Demokrati kræver ikke total lighed, men det kræver, at borgerne tager del i et fælles liv. Det afgørende er, at folk fra forskellige sociale baggrunde og forskellige samfundslag møder hinanden, støder ind i hinanden i hverdagen, fordi det er hvad, der lærer os at forhandle og acceptere vores forskelligheder. Og det er sådan vi kommer til at drage omsorg for det fælles bedste.
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here's why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
Når det kommer til stykket er spørgsmålet om markedet er det ikke først og fremmest et økonomisk spørgsmål. Det er i virkeligheden et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi ønsker at leve sammen. Ønsker vi et samfund, hvor alt er til salg, eller er der visse moralske og samfundsmæssige goder, som markederne ikke værdsætter og penge kan ikke købe?
And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It's really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?
Mange tak.
Thank you very much.
(Bifald)
(Applause)