Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
現在有個問題需要我們一起反思 金錢和市場在我們的社會中 該扮演什麼角色?
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.
現今,還有幾樣東西 是金錢買不到的 如果你在加州聖巴巴拉 被判處有期徒刑 你該知道 如你不喜歡標準規格的住宿設施 可花錢把牢房升級 這是真的,你們認為需要多少錢? 你猜猜看? 500 美元? 這可不是麗思卡爾頓飯店。 這是監獄! 每晚 82 元 每晚 82 元 如果你去遊樂園 不想為了熱門的遊樂設施 排隊等候 現在有解決辦法了 在許多主題公園,你能花多點錢 搶到前頭 這叫快速通關走道或 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.
這不僅發生在遊樂園 在華盛頓特區 往往也要大排長龍 才可出席重要的國會聽證會 現在部分人不喜歡排長隊 也許是通宵的,甚至淋雨 所以現在那些極渴望 參與聽證會的說客和其他人 又不喜歡排隊的,有一些公司 排隊公司 你可找他們 你只須向他們支付若干金額 他們就雇用一些無家可歸人士 或需要工作的人 排隊等候,要等多久就多久 說客只須在聽證會開始前 取代排在前面的人 並坐在會場的前排位置 付費排隊
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.
在更大的舞臺上,仰賴市場機制 行銷思維和行銷解決方案 這是正在發生的事 看看我們的作戰方式 在伊拉克和阿富汗,你知否 私營軍事承包商的數量 較美國軍隊人數還要多。 現在並非因我們曾公開辯論 是否要將戰爭外包 給私人公司 而是這已是既成事實
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.
過去三十多年來 我們度過了一場靜靜的革命 我們幾乎難以察覺到 經已由市場經濟漸漸 快要成為市場社會 二者的分別在於:市場經濟是一種工具 一種有價值和有效益的工具 用以組織生產活動 但是市場社會是一處地方 那裏差不多所有物件也可供出售 這是一種生活方式 行銷思維和市場價值開始主導 生活各個層面 個人關係、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.
現在為什麼要擔心? 為何要擔心我們的社會 變成市場社會呢? 我認為有兩大原因 其中一個原因是不平等 錢能買到的東西越多 富裕程度就變得越重要 如果錢只能讓人決定是否 購買遊艇、豪華假期或寶馬 那麼不平等就沒那麼重要 但當金錢越來越能夠支配 美好生活的元素-- 高品質的醫療保健、最好的教育 選舉中的政治發言權和影響力-- 當金錢支配了一切 不平等就變得非常重要 因此,所有事物被市場化後 凸顯出不平等的問題 及其社會和公民效應 這只是一個需要擔心的原因
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.
除了對不平等的擔心 第二個原因 就是 某些社會商品和常規 當行銷思維和市場價值介入時 或會因此改變那些常規的意義 擠掉值得我們在意的 態度和規範
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.
給大家舉個例子 關於市場機制運用的爭議 金錢獎勵,看看你們怎麼想的 許多學校面臨怎樣鼓勵孩子的挑戰 尤其是 來自弱勢背景的孩子,用功讀書 表現良好、努力向上 有些經濟學家建議出一套市場解決方案 提供金錢獎勵,鼓勵孩子爭取好成績 或高分 或閱讀書籍 他們也真的試過這方法 他們在美國一些主要城市 進行過實驗 紐約、芝加哥、華盛頓特區 他們的做法是: 成續 A 等給 50 美元 成續 B 等給 35 美元 德州達拉斯有這樣一個計畫 八歲學童每讀一本書就獎 2 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.
讓我們來看看 -- 有些人支持 有些人則反對使用錢 鼓勵學生取得成就 讓我們來看看這裡的人的看法 假設你是一個主要學區的主管 有人向你提出這建議 假設是一個基金會,他們將會出錢 學校無須負擔費用 有多少人會贊成 又多少人會反對試一試? 透過以舉手方式表決,讓我們來看看
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
首先,多少人認為值得一試 看看是否有效?請舉手
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
有多少人反對?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?
這裡多數人反對 但相當一部分的少數也贊成 我們來討論一下 由反對的開始吧 你們甚至在嘗試之前已排除這可能 你的理由會是什麼呢? 誰願意帶頭討論?你喔?
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.
海克摩西:大家好,我是海克 我認為它只會抹殺學習的內在動機 所以在這方面,如果學童喜歡讀書的話 你只要把奬勵誘因拿走 只給錢,這樣就會改變行為 邁可‧桑德爾:把內在的奬勵誘因拿走
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
內在動機是什麼,或該是什麼?
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
HM:內在動機嘛 該是學習吧
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:去學習 HM:為了認識世界 然後如果你停止給他們錢, 會發生什麼事? 他們會否停止閱讀?
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
MS:現在讓我們看看有沒有人贊成 誰認為值得試試
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.
伊莉莎白‧羅芙特斯:我是 伊莉莎白‧羅芙特斯 (Elizabeth Loftus) 你說值得一試,所以為何不試試 來做個小實驗並估量一下? MS:估量。你會估量些什麼? 你要估量有多少... EL:他們讀了多少本書 而當你不給錢後 又繼續讀了多少本書
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
MS:噢,你不再給錢以後 好,那又如何?
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
HM:老實說,我只認為 我無意冒犯任何人, 這是非常美式的作風
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑聲) (掌聲)
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,這次討論 出現了以下問題 金錢獎勵會否侵蝕或擠掉 或排擠更較高層面的動機 我們希望表達的心聲 即是要培養他們學習和閱讀的興趣 是要為他們自己著想? 大家對產生什麼樣的效果持不同意見 但這似乎就是問題所在 不知何故市場機制或金錢獎勵 是錯誤的教導 如果真的錯了,學童未來會變成怎樣?
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.
我該告訴你們這些實驗發生了什麼事情 用錢鼓勵學生取得好成績, 得出了不同的結果 大部分學生的成績不會更好 閱讀一本書就給兩美元 確實使那些學童讀更多書 也使他們看頁數較少的書
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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?
但真正問題是 未來這些孩子會變成怎樣? 會否認為閱讀是件苦差事 一項按件計酬的工作,那就令人擔心 或許引領他們開始閱讀時動機不正 但日後引領他們愛上閱讀, 因興趣而讀?
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.
現在這簡短的辯論也指出 很多經濟學家忽略的地方 經濟學家時常假設 市場是沒有生命的 不會碰到或沾染進行交易的商品 他們假設市場交易 不會改變要進行交易的商品 其意義和價值 這或者是千真萬確的 如果我們談的是物質產品 如果你賣給我一部平面電視 或送一部給我當禮物 兩者都是同樣的產品 兩種運作方式也一樣 共同處就並不是正確的 如果我們談的是非物質產品 社會實踐如教學和學習 或共同參與公民生活 在那些領域,引進市場機制 和金錢獎勵或會削弱 或擠掉我們該關心的 非市場價值和態度 一旦我們了解到 當市場和貿易 超越物質領域時 就可改變商品本身的特性 就可改變社會實踐的意義 即如教學和學習的例子 我們必須問,哪裡是屬於市場的 哪裡不屬於市場 哪裡事實上破壞了 值得我們關心的價值和態度 但是透過此辯論 我們必須去做一些不擅長的事情 就是一起公開理性的辯論 我們所珍視的社會實踐 其價值和意義 從我們的身體到家庭生活 到私人關係到健康 到公民生活的學習和教學
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.
這些都是具爭議的問題 所以我們傾向退縮 事實上過去 30 年來 當市場論據和行銷思維 凝聚起力量且贏得到聲望 這段期間我們的公共討論 變得蕩然無存 缺乏更深遠的道德意義 因為害怕爭論,我們避而不談 不過一旦我們了解到 市場會改變商品的特性 我們就必須討論 這些更重要的問題 怎樣給予商品評價
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.
把每樣東西標價 其中最具腐蝕作用之一 就是共通性 也就是我們全都混在一起的感覺 在不平等情況與日俱增的背景下 把生活各個層面市場化 導致一個情況,富裕的人 和過著節制生活的人 逐漸地過著不同的生活 我們生活、工作、購物和娛樂 在不同的地方 我們的子女就讀不同的學校
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.
這對民主毫無益處 也並不是令人滿意的生活方式 即使我們能夠花錢 搶到前頭 原因如下 民主不須要完全平等 但必須要的 就是公民可享有共同的生活 重要的是 不同社會背景的人 不同身分的人 互相接觸 在日常生活中 彼此相遇 因為這樣才教我們 學習協商及容忍彼此間的差異 這樣我們才會關心共同利益
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?
因此,到最後,市場問題 主要並不是一項經濟問題 而是我們到底想怎樣一起生活的問題 我們是否想要一個所有物件 也可出售的社會 或是否存在某些德行和公民利益 市場不重視 而金錢買不到的?
Thank you very much.
非常感謝大家
(Applause)
(掌聲)