Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
我们需要共同反思一个问题 金钱和市场 在社会上应该扮演什么角色?
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.
现在极少东西 是金钱买不到的 如果你被判刑 在加州圣巴巴拉入监 你应该知道 如果不喜欢标准牢房 可以花钱升级 没错!你们猜要花多少钱? 猜猜看? 500美元? 监狱可不是丽思卡尔顿酒店 82元一晚 每晚收费82美元 如果你去游乐园 不愿为了热门游乐设施 大排长龙 现在有办法解决 许多主题公园,你只要多付钱 就可以不用排队 这叫快速通道或VIP票
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.
这种现象不限于游乐园 在华盛顿特区 偶尔也要大排长龙 才能参加重要的国会听证会 可是有些人不喜欢排长队 可能是彻夜排队,甚至会淋雨 游说者和一些人 非常想参加听证会 但不想排队,有公司因应而生 这叫排队公司 你可以找他们 只要付合适的价钱 公司就雇用游民或需要工作的人 这个队需要排多久他们就等多久 游说者只要在听证会开始前 取代排在最前面的人 就可以坐在会场的前排 这是付费排队服务
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? 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.
市场机制运用技巧 市场思维方式和市场解决方案技巧 在更大舞台也看得到 例如我们的作战方式 你知不知道,在伊拉克和阿富汗 私营军事承包商的数量 多于美国军队人数 并非因为我们公开辩论过 是否要外包战争 给私人公司 但这是既成事实
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. 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.
过去三十年 我们经历了一场宁静革命 几乎未察觉我们已经 从市场经济 渐渐变成市场社会 二者差别在于:市场经济是工具 一种有用、有效的工具 用于组织生产活动 但是市场社会 几乎凡事都可以出售 市场社会是一种生活方式 市场的思维和价值开始主导 生活的每个层面: 私人关系、家庭生活、健康、教育 政治、法律、公民生活
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.
为什么要担心?我们何必担心 变成市场社会? 我认为原因有两个 原因之一是不平等 钱能买到的东西越多 富裕与否就越重要 如果钱只能让人 买游艇、宝马或是享受豪华假期 不平等就没那么重要 但是当金钱越来越能够支配 美好生活的要素-- 像样的医疗服务,优良的教育 选举中的政治话语权和影响力-- 当金钱完全支配了这些要素 不平等就事关重大 因此,全面市场化 使不平等及其社会和公民效应 刺痛更为尖锐 不平等只是原因之一
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.
另一个原因 也令人担心 那就是 有些社会商品和常规 一旦被市场思维和价值介入 那些常规的意义可能因此会改变 值得我们关心的态度和规范 也可能被排挤
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. 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.
我想举一个 运用市场机制而受争议的例子 即金钱奖励机制,看看你们怎么想的 许多学校面临严峻挑战 怎样才能鼓励孩子用功读书 尤其是来自弱势背景的孩子 怎样才能表现良好,努力向上 一些经济学家提出市场解决方案 提供金钱奖励,只要孩子成绩好 或考试分数高 或阅读书籍 事实上他们尝试过这个办法 在美国一些主要城市 他们做过实验 在纽约、芝加哥、华盛顿特区 他们的做法是:成绩A给50美元 B则给35美元 德州达拉斯有这样一个计划 八岁的学童每读一本书奖励两美元
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.
有些人支持这个方法 有些人反对利用金钱 鼓励学生向上 我想知道你们的看法 假设你是一个主要学区的主管 有人向你提出这种建议 假设是基金会的提议,他们出钱 学校不用出钱 有多少人会赞成 多少人会反对对此进行尝试 请举手回答
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
认为至少值得一试的人 请举手
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
反对的人有多少?
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?
看来多数人反对 但赞成的也不少 我们讨论一下 从反方开始 你们连试都不愿意试 理由何在? 谁愿意起个头?你?
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.
Heike Moses:大家好,我是Heike 我认为那会抹杀内在的动力 如果学童想要读书 钱只会驱除内在的动力 给钱只能改变行为 Michael Sandel:驱除内在的动力
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
内在的动力是什么?应该是什么?
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
HM:内在动力嘛 应该是学习
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:学习 HM:为了认识世界 要是停止给钱,结果会怎样? 他们会不会停止阅读?
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
MS:现在看看有没有赞成的 谁认为值得一试
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.
Elizabeth Loftus:我是Elizabeth Loftus 你问是否值得一试,试试看又何妨 何妨做做实验,衡量结果 MS:衡量。衡量什么? 你要衡量有多少... EL:他们读了多少书 停止给钱之后 又继续读了多少书
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
MS:哦,不给钱以后读了多少 行,这可以嘛?
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
HM:老实说,我认为 我无意冒犯,这非常美国作风
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑声)(掌声)
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?
MS:好,这个讨论 点出了一个问题: 金钱奖励会不会驱除或败坏 或排挤更高层次的动力? 我们希望传达的内在动力 就是培养对学习的热爱 以及为阅读而阅读 市场机制的效果,大家意见不同 但这似乎是问题之所在 市场机制或金钱奖励 似乎是错误的教学 如果真的错了,学童将来会怎样?
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.
我应该告诉你们实验的结果 用钱奖励好成绩,毁誉参半 大体上不会导致更佳的成绩 读一本书给两美元 学童确实读更多书 也因此看页数较少的书
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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?
但真正的问题是 这些孩子将来会怎样 会不会认定阅读是苦差事 是按件计酬的工作,那就令人担心 也可能他们开始或许动机不正 但日后会爱上阅读的乐趣
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.
连这小小的辩论也指出了 许多经济学家疏忽之处 经济学家通常认为 市场是钝化的 不会影响或污染其交易的商品 他们以为市场的交易 改变不了 商品的意义和价值 这种假设可能成立 如果指的是物质商品 例如你卖给我平面电视 或是送给我当礼物 东西质量都一样好 功能怎么都一样 但未必事事如此 如果是非物质商品 例如执教和学习等社会常规 或是共同参与公民生活 在这些领域引进市场机制 和金钱奖励可能会破坏 或排挤我们该关心的 非市场价值和态度 一旦我们了解 市场和交易 跨越物质领域的时候 可以改变商品本身的特质 可以改变社会常规的意义 执教和学习就是例子 我们就要问,哪些地方适合市场 哪些地方不适合 哪些地方其实可能会破坏 我们该关心的价值和态度 但是要辩论 就必须去做我们不太擅长的事 那就是一起公开讨论 我们珍惜的社会常规 其价值和意义 从自己的身体到家庭生活 从私人关系到健康 从执教和学习到公民生活
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.
这些问题都有争议 所以我们较易退缩 事实上过去30年来 市场论据和市场思维 已经凝聚力量并且受到尊崇 同时我们的公共谈话 却已空洞化 缺乏更宏大的道德意义 因为害怕争论,我们避而不谈 不过一旦我们了解 市场会改变商品的特质 我们就必须讨论 这些更大的问题 关于商品价值的问题
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.
凡事标价 很严重的腐蚀了 我们的共性 也就是同舟共济的感觉 在不平等激增的背景下 把生活各层面市场化 导致富裕的人 和资源有限的人 日益分道扬镳 无论生活、工作、购物、娱乐 都在不同的地方 子女进入不同的学校
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.
这对民主是不利的 也不是令人满意的生活方式 即使我们能够花钱 排在队列最前,也不例外 原因是 民主虽然不必完全平等 但必要的是 公民能分享共同的生活 重要的是 不同社会背景的人 不同身分的人 互相接触 碰到一起 而且是在日常生活之中 因为这样我们才能学会 协商以及容忍差异 这样我们才会关心共同利益
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?
所以到头来市场的问题 主要不是经济问题 关键是我们要如何共同生活 我们想要凡事标价的社会? 或者某些道德和公民商品 是市场不重视 金钱买不到的?
Thank you very much.
非常感谢
(Applause)
(掌声)