So, can we dare to be optimistic? Well, the thesis of "The Bottom Billion" is that a billion people have been stuck living in economies that have been stagnant for 40 years, and hence diverging from the rest of mankind. And so, the real question to pose is not, "Can we be optimistic?" It's, "How can we give credible hope to that billion people?" That, to my mind, is the fundamental challenge now of development.
那麽,我們還能繼續覺得樂觀嗎? “在底層的10億人”是指 有10億人的生活 陷於40年如一日停滯不前的經濟裏 所以和其他人們的生活完全隔離。 真正的問題不是“我們還能覺得樂觀嗎?” 而是,“我們如何才能給這10億人確切的希望?” 在我心裏,這才是現在發展最基本的挑戰。
What I'm going to offer you is a recipe, a combination of the two forces that changed the world for good, which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest. Compassion, because a billion people are living in societies that have not offered credible hope. That is a human tragedy. Enlightened self-interest, because if that economic divergence continues for another 40 years, combined with social integration globally, it will build a nightmare for our children. We need compassion to get ourselves started, and enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious. That's the alliance that changes the world.
我想提出的是一套方案 結合兩股力量,而能永久地改變這世界 也就是,結合對他人的慈悲和有正識的自我利益這兩股力量。 要有慈悲,因爲有10億人住在 沒有確切希望的社會裏。 這是個人類大悲劇。 有正識的自我利益,要去看清楚 要是這樣的經濟差異再繼續個40年 跟全球社會的整合結合起來的話 這將會是我們下一代的噩夢。 我們需要藉由慈悲心使我們起而行 想到這牽涉自我利益,才會使我們認真地看待這件事。 這兩股力量的結合才能改變這世界。
So, what does it mean to get serious about providing hope for the bottom billion? What can we actually do? Well, a good guide is to think, "What did we do last time the rich world got serious about developing another region of the world?" That gives us, it turns out, quite a good clue, except you have to go back quite a long time. The last time the rich world got serious about developing another region was in the late 1940s. The rich world was you, America, and the region that needed to be developed was my world, Europe. That was post-War Europe.
所以,認真地提供希望給這10億人是什麽意思? 我們能做什麽? 有個思考方式不錯,就是去問 “上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地 思考世界其他區域的發展問題,是什麽時候?” 答案通常可以給我們很多啓示 可惜的是,你必須回溯到很久以前。 上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地 思考世界其他區域的發展問題,是1940年代末的時候了。 這個有錢國家就是你們,美國 這個需要發展的區域是我住的地方,歐洲。 那是戰後的歐洲。
Why did America get serious? It wasn't just compassion for Europe, though there was that. It was that you knew you had to, because, in the late 1940s, country after country in Central Europe was falling into the Soviet bloc, and so you knew you'd no choice. Europe had to be dragged into economic development.
爲什麽美國要認真地幫忙? 這不只是對歐洲的憐憫慈悲,雖然也有一部分是如此 那主要是因爲,大家知道那是必須做的事 在40年代末期,在中歐的國家 一個接一個地陷入蘇聯的鐵幕後,所以當時你們沒有選擇。 必須拉歐洲一把來發展經濟
So, what did you do, last time you got serious? Well, yes, you had a big aid program. Thank you very much. That was Marshall aid: we need to do it again. Aid is part of the solution. But what else did you do? Well, you tore up your trade policy, and totally reversed it. Before the war, America had been highly protectionist. After the war, you opened your markets to Europe, you dragged Europe into the then-global economy, which was your economy, and you institutionalized that trade liberalization through founding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So, total reversal of trade policy.
所以上一次認真時,你們做了什麽? 你們發展了一個大的援助計劃。十分感謝 那就是馬歇爾援助計劃。我們必須再來一次。援助是解決方案的一部分。 但是除此以外,你們還做了什麽? 你們改寫了貿易政策,作了180度的大轉變。 在大戰前,美國是十分盛行保護主義的 而戰後,你們對歐洲開放了市場 你們將歐洲帶入當時的國際市場,也就是你們的經濟 並建立機構來監督當時的貿易自由 成立了關稅暨貿易總協定(GATT)。 所以是跟保護主義完全不同的貿易政策。
Did you do anything else? Yes, you totally reversed your security policy. Before the war, your security policy had been isolationist. After the war, you tear that up, you put 100,000 troops in Europe for over 40 years. So, total reversal of security policy. Anything else? Yes, you tear up the "Eleventh Commandment" -- national sovereignty. Before the war, you treated national sovereignty as so sacrosanct that you weren't even willing to join the League of Nations. After the war, you found the United Nations, you found the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, you found the IMF, you encouraged Europe to create the European Community -- all systems for mutual government support. That is still the waterfront of effective policies: aid, trade, security, governments. Of course, the details of policy are going to be different, because the challenge is different. It's not rebuilding Europe, it's reversing the divergence for the bottom billion, so that they actually catch up. Is that easier or harder? We need to be at least as serious as we were then.
你們還作了什麽? 是的,你們完全改變了安全政策 在戰前,在安全政策上你們奉行獨立主義 在戰後完全改變,你們派遣了10萬部隊到歐洲 還延續了40年以上。 所以在安全政策也有180度的轉變。還有呢? 還有,你們放下了“第十一戒” 國家主權。 在戰前,你們把國家主權當作是至高無上的 美國甚至不願意加入國際聯盟。 到了戰後,美國變成聯合國的發起國 還成立了“經濟合作與發展組織” “國際貨幣基金組織”,鼓勵歐洲成立“歐洲經濟共同體” 這些各國政府相互支援的系統。 有效的政策項目基本上還是這幾樣: 援助、貿易、安全、政府。 當然,實際政策的内涵是會不同的 因爲挑戰跟以往不同了。 現在不是歐洲的重建,而是使得經濟差異 能夠縮小,使貧窮的人能夠趕上。 那麽這是比較簡單還是困難? 我們至少要跟以前一樣認真。
Now, today I'm going to take just one of those four. I'm going to take the one that sounds the weakest, the one that's just motherhood and apple pie -- governments, mutual systems of support for governments -- and I'm going to show you one idea in how we could do something to strengthen governance, and I'm going to show you that that is enormously important now. The opportunity we're going to look to is a genuine basis for optimism about the bottom billion, and that is the commodity booms. The commodity booms are pumping unprecedented amounts of money into many, though not all, of the countries of the bottom billion. Partly, they're pumping money in because commodity prices are high, but it's not just that. There's also a range of new discoveries. Uganda has just discovered oil, in about the most disastrous location on Earth; Ghana has discovered oil; Guinea has got a huge new exploitation of iron ore coming out of the ground. So, a mass of new discoveries. Between them, these new revenue flows dwarf aid. Just to give you one example: Angola alone is getting 50 billion dollars a year in oil revenue. The entire aid flows to the 60 countries of the bottom billion last year were 34 billion. So, the flow of resources from the commodity booms to the bottom billion are without precedent. So there's the optimism.
現在,我要用這四個其中一個來舉例 我要用聼起來最脆弱的來做例子 這個讓大家都感受到溫馨慈愛的一項 那就是:政府,互相扶持政府的系統 我要跟大家分享一個主意 看我們能做什麽來加強政府的管理 我也要讓大家看看,現在這是十分重要的。 接下來我們要看的 一個真正能帶給底層的10億人的樂觀希望的 是天然資源的需求大增。 對天然資源潮需求正在把前所未見的大量的金錢 灌進 (雖然不是所有的國家) 大部分的底層的窮人。 原因一方面是因爲天然資源的價格高 但不只是如此,還有其他一系列新的發現。 烏干達剛在大概是全球最淒慘的地方發現了石油; 加納也發現了石油; 幾内亞剛開挖了幾個大的鐵礦。 所以有一大批新的發現。 跟這些新產生的盈餘比起來援助金額顯得微不足道。 我擧個例子: 安哥拉光靠石油每年可賺進500億美元 而去年援助60國底層10億人的總金額才340億。 所以靠天然資源需求增加 正給底層的10億人帶來前所未有的收入。 所以這是讓人樂觀的地方。
The question is, how is it going to help their development? It's a huge opportunity for transformational development. Will it be taken? So, here comes a bit of science, and this is a bit of science I've done since "The Bottom Billion," so it's new. I've looked to see what is the relationship between higher commodity prices of exports, and the growth of commodity-exporting countries. And I've looked globally, I've taken all the countries in the world for the last 40 years, and looked to see what the relationship is. And the short run -- say, the first five to seven years -- is just great. In fact, it's hunky dory: everything goes up. You get more money because your terms of trade have improved, but also that drives up output across the board. So GDP goes up a lot -- fantastic! That's the short run. And how about the long run? Come back 15 years later. Well, the short run, it's hunky dory, but the long run, it's humpty dumpty. You go up in the short run, but then most societies historically have ended up worse than if they'd had no booms at all. That is not a forecast about how commodity prices go; it's a forecast of the consequences, the long-term consequences, for growth of an increase in prices.
問題是,這如何能幫助他們的發展呢? 這是個提供轉型發展的大機會 人們會好好把握嗎? 這裡需要些科學根據,這是我出了書(在底層的10億人)之後 所做的科學研究,所以還挺新的。 我查了一下看看天然資源價格的提高 和天然資源出口國經濟成長 之間的關係。 我把全球的國家過去40年的資料 都列入參考 要看看之間的關係是什麽。 就短期來看,起先的5到7年,結果是很好的。 事實上,是超棒的,所有的指標都向上。 因爲貿易條件改善了,所以得到更多錢 這也進一步帶動產出。 所以國内生産總值向上提升了很多--太棒了!這是短期的效應。 那麽,長期呢? 再看看15年後 在短期來看,結果是超棒的 但是在長期來看,卻是十分遜。 在短期間,經濟是往上爬,但是從歷史上看來 大部分國家長期的經濟,卻比資源需求熱潮前更糟糕。 這不是天然資源價格的預測 而是天然資源價格上揚 在長期上帶來的結果的預測
So, what goes wrong? Why is there this "resource curse," as it's called? And again, I've looked at that, and it turns out that the critical issue is the level of governance, the initial level of economic governance, when the resource booms accrue. In fact, if you've got good enough governance, there is no resource boom. You go up in the short term, and then you go up even more in the long term. That's Norway, the richest country in Europe. It's Australia. It's Canada. The resource curse is entirely confined to countries below a threshold of governance. They still go up in the short run. That's what we're seeing across the bottom billion at the moment. The best growth rates they've had -- ever. And the question is whether the short run will persist. And with bad governance historically, over the last 40 years, it hasn't. It's countries like Nigeria, which are worse off than if they'd never had oil.
那麽,到底是哪裏出錯了?爲什麽會有這所謂的“天然資源的詛咒”? 我再一次地檢視這個問題 結果發現關鍵在於管理的層級 在於當資源需求熱潮初期的 初級階層的經濟管理。 事實上,如果你有夠好的管理 那麽根本不會有資源需求的熱潮。 在短期間經濟往上爬,而在長期更是會一直成長 像歐洲最有錢的國家挪威,像澳洲、加拿大 天然資源的詛咒完全只限於 管理層級低於某個水準的國家 雖然在短期他們還是有成長 這也是目前正發生在這10億人身上的事 到目前他們有過最好的經濟成長率。 問題是短期的成長能否持續 從過去40年的不良管理的歷史來看,答案是否定的。 在像奈及利亞這樣的國家,沒有石油的話可能今天的發展還更好。
So, there's a threshold level above which you go up in the long term, and below which you go down. Just to benchmark that threshold, it's about the governance level of Portugal in the mid 1980s. So, the question is, are the bottom billion above or below that threshold? Now, there's one big change since the commodity booms of the 1970s, and that is the spread of democracy. So I thought, well, maybe that is the thing which has transformed governance in the bottom billion. Maybe we can be more optimistic because of the spread of democracy. So, I looked. Democracy does have significant effects -- and unfortunately, they're adverse. Democracies make even more of a mess of these resource booms than autocracies.
所以,能不能長遠發展,要看管理有沒有達到一定的程度 不到一定程度的話長期會走下坡。 這管理的門檻在哪裡呢? 差不多是葡萄牙在80年代中期的程度 所以,問題是,底層的10億人是活在這個門檻之上還是之下? 在1970年代的資源需求熱潮以後有一個大改變 那就是民主體制的散佈 所以我想,可能就是民主 改變了這底層10億人的管理 因爲民主體制的散佈,我們或許還可以樂觀。 我做了研究,民主有一些顯著的影響 但很不幸的,影響是負面的。 資源需求的熱潮在民主體制下,比專制下的結果還糟糕
At that stage I just wanted to abandon the research, but -- (Laughter) -- it turns out that democracy is a little bit more complicated than that. Because there are two distinct aspects of democracy: there's electoral competition, which determines how you acquire power, and there are checks and balances, which determine how you use power. It turns out that electoral competition is the thing that's doing the damage with democracy, whereas strong checks and balances make resource booms good. And so, what the countries of the bottom billion need is very strong checks and balances. They haven't got them. They got instant democracy in the 1990s: elections without checks and balances.
看到這裡我都想放棄這項研究了,但是 (笑聲) 民主看來是還要複雜一些。 因爲民主有兩個很不一樣的面向 一個是競選,這決定權力的取得 另一個是監督制衡,這決定權力的使用。 現在看起來是競選 給民主帶來破壞 相反地,有監督制衡的資源需求熱潮,則是好的。 所以,在底層10億人的國家需要的 是強而有力的監督制衡。 這是他們所欠缺的。 他們在1990年代瞬間達到民主 有了選舉權卻沒有監督制衡的力量。
How can we help improve governance and introduce checks and balances? In all the societies of the bottom billion, there are intense struggles to do just that. The simple proposal is that we should have some international standards, which will be voluntary, but which would spell out the key decision points that need to be taken in order to harness these resource revenues. We know these international standards work because we've already got one. It's called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. That is the very simple idea that governments should report to their citizens what revenues they have. No sooner was it proposed than reformers in Nigeria adopted it, pushed it and published the revenues in the paper. Nigerian newspapers circulations spiked. People wanted to know what their government was getting in terms of revenue.
我們該怎麽改善管理並導入監督和制衡呢? 在這底層10億人的社會裏 光要這麽做就引起不小的抗爭。 比較簡單的提議是我們該有一些國際標準 這些標準是非強制性的,但規定了一些 在管理天然資源收益時 該考慮的重要決策點。 我們很確定這些國際標準是有效的 因爲我們的手邊就有一套 叫做“工業透明化提議摘要” 背後的主意是很簡單的,也就是說政府 應該向人民公佈利益所得。 這份提議一提出來 在奈及利亞的改革者就立即推行這套提議,並發佈利益所得 該國的報紙發行量也激增 人民都想知道他們的政府 到底得到了多少收入。
So, we know it works. What would the content be of these international standards? I can't go through all of them, but I'll give you an example. The first is how to take the resources out of the ground -- the economic processes, taking the resources out of the ground and putting assets on top of the ground. And the first step in that is selling the rights to resource extraction. You know how rights to resource extraction are being sold at the moment, how they've been sold over the last 40 years? A company flies in, does a deal with a minister. And that's great for the company, and it's quite often great for the minister -- (Laughter) -- and it's not great for their country. There's a very simple institutional technology which can transform that, and it's called verified auctions. The public agency with the greatest expertise on Earth is of course the treasury -- that is, the British Treasury. And the British Treasury decided that it would sell the rights to third-generation mobile phones by working out what those rights were worth. They worked out they were worth two billion pounds. Just in time, a set of economists got there and said, "Why not try an auction? It'll reveal the value." It went for 20 billion pounds through auction. If the British Treasury can be out by a factor of 10, think what the ministry of finance in Sierra Leone is going to be like. (Laughter) When I put that to the President of Sierra Leone, the next day he asked the World Bank to send him a team to give expertise on how to conduct auctions.
所以我們知道這是可行的。那麽這個國際標準的内容該有什麽呢? 我沒辦法一一敍述,只能給你們擧一個例子 一開始談到了如何開發地底的天然資源 經濟過程,將資源從地底挖出來 並在地上設置開採設備。 第一步是採礦權的出售 你知道採礦權在現在、在過去的40年内 是怎麽出售的? 一個公司跑過來,跟一個部長交易就成了 這對公司來説很好 通常對這個部長來説也很好 (笑聲) 但是對國家很不好。 有個很簡單的機構科技 可以改變這個行爲 叫做“確認拍賣”。 這地球上最業有專精的公共機構 當然是國庫,也就是英國財政部。 英國財政部當初要將第三代手機的 營業執照出售的時候 想算清楚到底值多少錢。 按照他們的估算值20億英磅 這時候一群經濟學家來了說 “爲何不試試拍賣呢?這才能顯示出真正的價值。” 拍賣結果以200億磅賣出。 如果連英國財政部都低估10倍了 那麽試想獅子山的財政部會錯估多少倍? (笑聲) 當我跟獅子山的總統談到這件事以後 隔天他就請世界銀行派一組人 來提供他進行拍賣的專業知識。
There are five such decision points; each one needs an international standard. If we could do it, we would change the world. We would be helping the reformers in these societies, who are struggling for change. That's our modest role. We cannot change these societies, but we can help the people in these societies who are struggling and usually failing, because the odds are so stacked against them. And yet, we've not got these rules. If you think about it, the cost of promulgating international rules is zilch -- nothing. Why on Earth are they not there? I realized that the reason they're not there is that until we have a critical mass of informed citizens in our own societies, politicians will get away with gestures. That unless we have an informed society, what politicians do, especially in relation to Africa, is gestures: things that look good, but don't work. And so I realized we had to go through the business of building an informed citizenry.
像這樣的決策點有五個 每一個都需要有國際標準。 如果我們能夠做到,那麽我們就能改變世界。 我們就能幫助在這些國家裡 為改革而奮戰的改革者。 這是我們至少可以做到的。我們無法改變這些國家 但是我們可以幫助這些國家的人民 這些命運多舛 必須奮戰但又常常失敗的人民。 然而,我們還是沒有這些規範 如果你想想,公佈這些國際規範的費用 是微不足道的 那,爲什麽還是不見這些規範呢? 我認爲缺少這些規範的原因在於 在我們的社會裏,要是有很多有知識、敢批評的人民 那麽政治人物就不會只作表面功夫。 在我們有一個有知識的社會之前 所有政治人物的所作所爲,特別是在非洲,都是表面功夫 表面好看但實際沒用。 所以我體會到了,我們必須透過商業 來建立一群有知識的公民
That's why I broke all the professional rules of conduct for an economist, and I wrote an economics book that you could read on a beach. (Laughter). However, I have to say, the process of communication does not come naturally to me. This is why I'm on this stage, but it's alarming. I grew up in a culture of self-effacement. My wife showed me a blog comment on one of my last talks, and the blog comment said, "Collier is not charismatic -- (Laughter) -- but his arguments are compelling." (Laughter) (Applause) If you agree with that sentiment, and if you agree that we need a critical mass of informed citizenry, you will realize that I need you. Please, become ambassadors. Thank you. (Applause)
這也是爲什麽我打破了所有經濟學家的職業規範 我寫了一本你可以在躺椅上輕鬆閲讀的書。 (笑聲) 然而,我必須說,對我而言,溝通的過程 並不是輕而易舉的。 這也是爲什麽我會站在這裡,但蠻令人擔憂的 我成長在一個自我消滅的文化裏。 我太太給我看了一篇,我上個演講的批評 在這篇網誌裏寫道:“科利耶並不是很有魅力 (笑聲) 但是他的論點是很令人信服的。” (笑聲) (掌聲) 如果你也有這樣的感想 如果你也同意,我們需要一群敢批評、有知識的人民 那麽你就會明白,我需要你 請加入行動大使的行列吧! 謝謝大家。 (掌聲)