Mariana Mazzucato: Government -- investor, risk-taker, innovator

翻译人员: lin piao 校对人员: Li Li

Have you ever asked yourselves why it is that

在座的各位有没有问过自己， 为什么那些

companies, the really cool companies,

很酷的公司，

the innovative ones, the creative,

那些有创意、懂创新的

new economy-type companies --

新经济型的公司 — —

Apple, Google, Facebook --

苹果、 谷歌、脸书— —

are coming out of one particular country,

都来自同一个国家

the United States of America?

美国呢？

Usually when I say this, someone says, "Spotify!

通常当我谈到这一点时，有人会说，"Spotify ！“（瑞典的提供免费音乐试听的公司）

That's Europe." But, yeah.

那是欧洲的公司。确实是的。

It has not had the impact that these other companies have had.

但这个公司远没有我提到的那几个美国公司的影响力。

Now what I do is I'm an economist,

我是一名经济学家，

and I actually study the relationship

我所研究的是

between innovation and economic growth

在公司、 行业和国家层面上

at the level of the company, the industry and the nation,

创新和经济增长之间的关系。

and I work with policymakers worldwide,

我与各国的政策制定者合作。

especially in the European Commission,

特别是为欧盟委员会工作，

but recently also in interesting places like China,

最近也为一些生机盎然的国家比如中国工作。

and I can tell you that that question

我可以告诉你，我一开始问的那一问题

is on the tip of all of their tongues:

都曾从他们的舌尖上流出来过，

Where are the European Googles?

欧洲谷歌在哪里？

What is the secret behind the Silicon Valley growth model,

硅谷经济增长模式背后的秘密是什么？

which they understand is different

他们的做法和

from this old economy growth model?

旧的经济增长模式的不同之处何在？

And what is interesting is that often,

有趣的是，通常来讲，

even if we're in the 21st century,

即使我们现在处在 21 世纪，

we kind of come down in the end to these ideas

我们会得出这样的结论，那就是

of market versus state.

市场对抗国家。

It's talked about in these modern ways,

这被认为是现代（市场运营）方式。

but the idea is that somehow, behind places like Silicon Valley,

但是这种想法却和硅谷等地的背后秘密有所不同，

the secret have been different types of market-making mechanisms,

硅谷有不同的市场开拓机制。

the private initiative, whether this be about

私人动议，不管这个动议是否

a dynamic venture capital sector

属于动态风险投资范畴，

that's actually able to provide that high-risk finance

这些创新型公司都实际上

to these innovative companies,

能够得到高风险融资。

the gazelles as we often call them,

被我们称为“羚羊企业”的这些领军公司所需要的融资

which traditional banks are scared of,

是那些传统银行所害怕接手的。

or different types of really successful

另外，不同类型的一些颇有成效的

commercialization policies which actually allow these companies

商业化政策实际上允许这些公司

to bring these great inventions, their products,

把他们绝妙的发明、他们的产品

to the market and actually get over this

直接推向市场，实际上得以

really scary Death Valley period

安然度过被称为“可怕死亡谷”的时期。

in which many companies instead fail.

其他的很多公司却在这个时期一败涂地。

But what really interests me, especially nowadays

特别是现在，

and because of what's happening politically around the world,

源于世界上的政治动向，

is the language that's used, the narrative,

真正让我感兴趣的是(商业中）使用的语言、叙述方法、

the discourse, the images, the actual words.

话语、 图像和实际使用的词汇。

So we often are presented

所以我们常常听到

with the kind of words like that the private sector

诸如私营部门之类的词汇

is also much more innovative because it's able to

都是更有新意的，因为它能

think out of the box.

跳出惯常的思维，

They are more dynamic.

他们更有活力。

Think of Steve Jobs' really inspirational speech

让我们回想史蒂夫 · 乔布斯

to the 2005 graduating class at Stanford,

于2005年在斯坦福大学给毕业生做的演讲。

where he said to be innovative,

他当时说： 一个人要创新，

you've got to stay hungry, stay foolish.

就需要保持求知欲，不断地去试错。

Right? So these guys are kind of the hungry

对吧？这些人都是些如饥似渴、

and foolish and colorful guys, right?

懵懵懂懂又个性鲜明的家伙，对吧？

And in places like Europe,

在像欧洲这样的地方

it might be more equitable,

社会更公平，

we might even be a bit better dressed

我们甚至被美国人穿得更讲究，

and eat better than the U.S.,

吃得更可口。

but the problem is this damn public sector.

但问题在于这些讨厌的公共部门。

It's a bit too big, and it hasn't actually allowed

这些部门有些太庞大了，它实际上没法让

these things like dynamic venture capital

像动态风险资本

and commercialization to actually be able to really

和商业化这样能够结出

be as fruitful as it could.

商业硕果的事物存在。

And even really respectable newspapers,

即使那些很受人推崇的报纸，

some that I'm actually subscribed to,

有些我正在订阅的报纸，

the words they use are, you know,

你知道，他们把

the state as this Leviathan. Right?

美国形容成“利维坦”。对吧？ 【译注：利维坦是霍布斯的同名政治哲学著作里虚构出来的庞然大物】

This monster with big tentacles.

有着巨大触角的怪兽。

They're very explicit in these editorials.

他们在他们的社论里非常明确地这样说。

They say, "You know, the state, it's necessary

他们说，"你知道，美国有必要

to fix these little market failures

去修复这些小小的市场失灵。

when you have public goods

当你拥有公共物资

or different types of negative externalities like pollution,

或那些负面的外部因素比如污染时。

but you know what, what is the next big revolution

你知道吗，在互联网之后

going to be after the Internet?

下一次科技革命是什么吗？

We all hope it might be something green,

我们都希望它可能是一场绿色的革命。

or all of this nanotech stuff, and in order for that stuff to happen," they say --

或者是与纳米技术有关的革命，为了让新科技革命成为可能，"他们说 —

this was a special issue on the next industrial revolution --

这是关于下一次工业革命的特殊议题 — —

they say, "the state, just stick to the basics, right?

他们说，"国家就是要专注于基础建设，对吧？

Fund the infrastructure. Fund the schools.

给基础设施和学校建设投资。

Even fund the basic research, because this is

也给基础科学研究投资，因为这是

popularly recognized, in fact, as a big public good

得到共识的。事实上，私营公司不想为

which private companies don't want to invest in,

大型的公共设施投资。

do that, but you know what?

这是国家需要做的，你知道吗？

Leave the rest to the revolutionaries."

然后把剩下的（市场）留给革新者"。

Those colorful, out-of-the-box kind of thinkers.

那些个性鲜明、不拘一格的革新家，

They're often called garage tinkerers,

通常被称为车库工匠，

because some of them actually did some things in garages,

他们中有些人确实是在车库里工作的，

even though that's partly a myth.

这些故事都被传成神话了。

And so what I want to do with you in, oh God,

所以我想和你们讲的是，天哪，

only 10 minutes,

只剩10 分钟了！

is to really think again this juxtaposition,

（我要讲的）是我们要再考量（国家和市场的）并行。

because it actually has massive, massive implications

因为这种并行有非常非常巨大的影响力，

beyond innovation policy,

超越于某些与我合作的决策者

which just happens to be the area

所在地区的

that I often talk with with policymakers.

创新政策之上。

It has huge implications, even with this whole notion

它有非常巨大的影响，甚至影响到整个国家

that we have on where, when and why

对我们在何时、何地、为何

we should actually be cutting back on public spending

要削减公共开支

and different types of public services which,

和其他公共服务部门的开支的决策。

of course, as we know, are increasingly being

我们知道，正是由于这种并行，一些公共服务部门的工作

outsourced because of this juxtaposition.

已经被更多的外包出去了。

Right? I mean, the reason that we need to maybe have free schools or charter schools

对吧？我是说，我们需要有公立学校或特许学校

is in order to make them more innovative without being emburdened

通过国民必修课程等的重拳出击

by this heavy hand of the state curriculum, or something.

无后顾之忧地把孩子们培养成为创新型人才。

So these kind of words are constantly,

所以这些词汇的出现都是有一致性的，

these juxtapositions come up everywhere,

不仅与创新政策有关，

not just with innovation policy.

这种并行简直无处不在。

And so to think again,

所以，再回过头来想，

there's no reason that you should believe me,

你们不需要相信我，

so just think of some of the smartest

就想想你口袋里的一些最绝妙的

revolutionary things that you have in your pockets

革新产品吧。

and do not turn it on, but you might want to take it out, your iPhone.

不要打开开关哟。你就拿出来看看你的iPhone吧。

Ask who actually funded the really cool,

你会问到底是谁给iPhone那些非常酷的

revolutionary thinking-out-of-the-box

革新性、突破性的

things in the iPhone.

技术投资的。

What actually makes your phone

到底是什么让你的电话

a smartphone, basically, instead of a stupid phone?

基本上成了智能手机，而不仅仅是一个粗劣的手机呢？

So the Internet, which you can surf the web

通过互联网，你可以在世界上的

anywhere you are in the world;

任何地方上网冲浪。

GPS, where you can actually know where you are

通过GPS，你可以明确地知道

anywhere in the world;

自己在世界的某个地方。

the touchscreen display, which makes it also

触摸屏显示，使手机真正变成

a really easy-to-use phone for anybody.

任何人都可以轻松学会使用的手机。

These are the very smart, revolutionary bits about the iPhone,

iPhone的这些非常巧妙的、革新性的部分

and they're all government-funded.

其实全部都是由政府资助的。

And the point is that the Internet

就是说，互联网是由

was funded by DARPA, U.S. Department of Defense.

DARPA美国国防部资助的。

GPS was funded by the military's Navstar program.

全球定位系统（GPS) 是由军方的 Navstar项目出资的。

Even Siri was actually funded by DARPA.

甚至语音控制功能(Siri) 都实际上是由 DARPA资助的。

The touchscreen display was funded

触屏显示是

by two public grants by the CIA and the NSF

由两个国家部门：中情局（CIA)和国家科学基金会（NSF）

to two public university researchers at the University of Delaware.

资助美公立大学特拉华大学的两位科研人员而开发出来的。

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, she's just said

现在，您会想，"好吧，她只不过是讲了好几遍的

the word 'defense' and 'military' an awful lot,"

'国防' 和 '军事' 什么的。"

but what's really interesting is that this is actually true

有趣的是，这些都是事实。

in sector after sector and department after department.

就是由国家的一个又一个的部门，一个又一个的直属单位来做的。

So the pharmaceutical industry, which I am personally

我个人对制药业非常感兴趣。

very interested in because I've actually had the fortune

因为我有幸比较

to study it in quite some depth,

深入地研究了这一行。

is wonderful to be asking this question

一个很有趣的问题是关于

about the revolutionary versus non-revolutionary bits,

革新型和非革新型药物的。

because each and every medicine can actually be

因为每种药物都实际上可以

divided up on whether it really is revolutionary or incremental.

被分为革新型或者改进型。

So the new molecular entities with priority rating

有优先评级的新分子实体药物

are the revolutionary new drugs,

是革新型药物。

whereas the slight variations of existing drugs --

而对原有药物进行细微改进的— —

Viagra, different color, different dosage --

比如伟哥，改变药物颜色、 改变药物剂量 — —

are the less revolutionary ones.

这就属于非革新型药物了。

And it turns out that a full 75 percent

结果呢，75%的

of the new molecular entities with priority rating

有优先评级的新分子实体

are actually funded in boring, Kafka-ian public sector labs.

都实际上是由，老掉牙的Kafkian 公共部门实验室提供资金。

This doesn't mean that Big Pharma is not spending on innovation.

这并不意味着大型制药公司不把钱花费在创新上。

They do. They spend on the marketing part.

他们也这样做。他们也往市场营销这一部分投钱。

They spend on the D part of R&D.

他们只是花钱用于开发市场。

They spend an awful lot on buying back their stock,

他们花费相当多的资金来购回自己的股票，

which is quite problematic.

这是很成问题的。

In fact, companies like Pfizer and Amgen recently

事实上，辉瑞和安进这样的大公司最近

have spent more money in buying back their shares

为了抬高他们的股票价格，花在购买他们自家股票的资金

to boost their stock price than on R&D,

远远超过他们花在研发方面的资金。

but that's a whole different TED Talk which one day

这涉及了一个完全不同的 TED 演讲主题，

I'd be fascinated to tell you about.

有一天我会很高兴讲给你们听的。

Now, what's interesting in all of this

现在，在所有新研发的例子里，最有趣的是，

is the state, in all these examples,

美国这个国家，

was doing so much more than just fixing market failures.

所做的要比单纯修复市场失灵多得多。

It was actually shaping and creating markets.

它实际上是在塑造和创造市场。

It was funding not only the basic research,

它不仅给基本研究投资，

which again is a typical public good,

那是典型的公共利益。

but even the applied research.

它而且给应用研究投资。

It was even, God forbid, being a venture capitalist.

上帝保佑吧，它甚至成了风险资本家（给风险企业投资）。

So these SBIR and SDTR programs,

这些小型企业研发资金项目（SBIR和SDTR)

which give small companies early-stage finance

给小型公司提供早期的财政支持。

have not only been extremely important

跟私人风险资本来投资比起来，

compared to private venture capital,

对于小企业这是非常非常重要的。

but also have become increasingly important.

而且变得越来越重要。

Why? Because, as many of us know,

为什么呢？因为，我们很多人都知道，

V.C. is actually quite short-term.

私人风险投资实际上是相当短期的行为。

They want their returns in three to five years.

他们想在三至五年内得到回报。

Innovation takes a much longer time than that,

可是创新需要比那更长的时间，

15 to 20 years.

通常要15 到 20 年。

And so this whole notion -- I mean, this is the point, right?

这就是整个的概念 — — 我是说，这是重点，对吧？

Who's actually funding the hard stuff?

谁实际上在给研发难题提供资金？

Of course, it's not just the state.

当然，不仅仅是国家政府。

The private sector does a lot.

私营部门也做了很多。

But the narrative that we've always been told

但是事实总是告诉我们

is the state is important for the basics,

国家对于奠定研发的基础非常重要。

but not really providing that sort of high-risk,

但是它并不是那种高风险的

revolutionary thinking out of the box.

革新性创意本身。

In all these sectors, from funding the Internet

所有这些公共部门，他们从资助互联网

to doing the spending, but also the envisioning,

到负担期间的花费。他们甚至提供预想阶段和

the strategic vision, for these investments,

战略设想阶段的资金支持。

it was actually coming within the state.

这些资金实际上都是来自于国家政府。

The nanotechnology sector is actually fascinating

纳米技术部门（的科研人员）很醉心于

to study this, because the word itself, nanotechnology,

这项研究。而纳米技术这个词汇本身

came from within government.

就是政府部门给起的。

And so there's huge implications of this.

它当然会带来巨大的影响。

First of all, of course I'm not someone,

首先，当然我不是那些，

this old-fashioned person, market versus state.

守旧的认为“国家对抗市场”的人。

What we all know in dynamic capitalism

我们对动态资本主义的理解就是

is that what we actually need are public-private partnerships.

我们确实需要“公共与私人”这样的伙伴关系。

But the point is, by constantly depicting

但问题是,政府部门通常被描述成

the state part as necessary

一个必要的存在，

but actually -- pffff -- a bit boring

但实际上 — —噗 — — 有点呆板

and often a bit dangerous kind of Leviathan,

一个通常会带来危险的利维坦。

I think we've actually really stunted the possibility

我想我们真的在阻碍，

to build these public-private partnerships

以一种真正动态的方式

in a really dynamic way.

去建立“公共-私人”伙伴关系的可能性。

Even the words that we often use to justify the "P" part,

我们经常为“P"部分辩解，

the public part -- well, they're both P's --

公共（public)部分— — 其实，如果说到去风险化，

with public-private partnerships

这可是两个 P — —

is in terms of de-risking.

公共（public)-私人(private)伙伴关系。

What the public sector did in all these examples

在我给大家的讲的这些例子里，以及其他更多的领域里

I just gave you, and there's many more,

公共部门的作用

which myself and other colleagues have been looking at,

是我和其他的同事都很关心的。

is doing much more than de-risking.

公共部门的作用不仅仅是去风险化这一点作用。

It's kind of been taking on that risk. Bring it on.

公共部门也在承担风险，勇往直前。

It's actually been the one thinking out of the box.

它实际上也成了创新科技的一部分。

But also, I'm sure you all have had experience

但同时，我确定你们都和

with local, regional, national governments,

地方级、 区域级以及国家级的政府打过交道。

and you're kind of like, "You know what, that Kafka-ian bureaucrat, I've met him."

你会说，"你知道吧，我见过那个卡夫卡式的官僚。“

That whole juxtaposition thing, it's kind of there.

整个（国家与市场）并行的关系其实一直都有的。

Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

那么，有个自我实现的预言

By talking about the state as kind of irrelevant,

是在讲国家是不相干的，

boring, it's sometimes

呆板的。有的时候

that we actually create those organizations in that way.

是我们自己把这些组织机构搞成这个样子的。

So what we have to actually do is build

所以我们现在要做的就是

these entrepreneurial state organizations.

把这些国家政府机构建成创业型机构。

DARPA, that funded the Internet and Siri,

资助互联网和语音控制系统(Siri)的美国国防部高级研究计划局（英文简称是DARPA）

actually thought really hard about this,

实际上对风险投资深思熟虑过，

how to welcome failure, because you will fail.

如何迎接失败呢，因为你总会有失败的。

You will fail when you innovative.

你如果勇于创新，肯定有失败的时候。

One out of 10 experiments has any success.

10次实验中的一次也许会有成功。

And the V.C. guys know this,

搞风险投资的人当然知道这些。

and they're able to actually fund the other losses

他们其实愿意为那些有过一次成功的

from that one success.

失败者提供资金。

And this brings me, actually, probably,

而这实际上让我觉得

to the biggest implication,

有非常大的意义。

and this has huge implications beyond innovation.

这个意义已经超过了创新科技的巨大影响。

If the state is more than just a market fixer,

国家政府不仅仅有市场修复的功能，

if it actually is a market shaper,

而且有塑造市场的功能。

and in doing that has had to take on this massive risk,

因此，政府需要在创新科技上冒大险

what happened to the reward?

那么回报是什么呢？

We all know, if you've ever taken a finance course,

如果你学过金融课，你会知道

the first thing you're taught is sort of the risk-reward relationship,

你学到的第一课就大概是风险与回报的关系，

and so some people are foolish enough

因此有些人愚蠢至极

or probably smart enough if they have time to wait,

或者说聪明至极，他们把时间花在

to actually invest in stocks, because they're higher risk

投资股票上，因为股票的风险高

which over time will make a greater reward than bonds,

所以随之而来的回报也自然高。

that whole risk-reward thing.

这就是所说的风险回报的关系。

Well, where's the reward for the state

政府在创新科技上

of having taken on these massive risks

冒了如此大的风险，那么回报在哪里？

and actually been foolish enough to have done the Internet?

政府搞什么互联网，是不是傻过了头？

The Internet was crazy.

互联网是疯狂的。

It really was. I mean, the probability of failure was massive.

确实是。我的意思说，它带来的失败可能是巨大的。

You had to be completely nuts to do it,

你一定得是个傻子采取给它投资。

and luckily, they were.

幸运的是，他们是傻子。

Now, we don't even get to this question about rewards

现在，我们还没提到回报这事儿呢。

unless you actually depict the state as this risk-taker.

除非你把美国政府描绘成冒险家（不想要回报）。

And the problem is that economists often think,

问题是经济学家们往往认为，

well, there is a reward back to the state. It's tax.

政府当然有回报呀，那些税收呀。

You know, the companies will pay tax,

你知道，公司当然会交税，

the jobs they create will create growth

他们创造就业机会，税收自然会增长。

so people who get those jobs and their incomes rise

人们得到那些工作，他们的工资得以提高，

will come back to the state through the tax mechanism.

然后通过交纳税款回报政府。

Well, unfortunately, that's not true.

可遗憾的是，事实并非如此。

Okay, it's not true because many of the jobs that are created go abroad.

是的，事实不是这样的，因为许多就业的岗位在国外。

Globalization, and that's fine. We shouldn't be nationalistic.

全球化，这没问题。我们不应该持民族主义态度。

Let the jobs go where they have to go, perhaps.

也许我们就应该让这些工作岗位安置在合适的地方。

I mean, one can take a position on that.

我是说，总有人会受雇上岗吧。

But also these companies

但这些公司

that have actually had this massive benefit from the state --

其实从政府那儿得到了巨大的好处。

Apple's a great example.

苹果就是一个很好的例子。

They even got the first -- well, not the first,

他们甚至是第一 — — 好吧，也许不是第一，

but 500,000 dollars actually went to Apple, the company,

但是他们确实通过SBIC计划

through this SBIC program,

得到了50万美元的资助。

which predated the SBIR program,

该计划早于后来的SBIR计划。

as well as, as I said before, all the technologies behind the iPhone.

同样，我交代过，iPhone背后的所有技术（也是来自政府投资）。

And yet we know they legally,

但是我们知道在法律上，

as many other companies, pay very little tax back.

和其他公司一样，苹果公司只需要上缴很少的税款。

So what we really need to actually rethink

所以我们确实需要重新思考的是

is should there perhaps be a return-generating mechanism

也许需要有一个利润回报机制

that's much more direct than tax. Why not?

让这些公司回报比税款更多的资金给政府。为什么不呢？

It could happen perhaps through equity.

也许可以通过发行股票的方式。

This, by the way, in the countries

顺便说一下，其他国家

that are actually thinking about this strategically,

实际上也在考虑使用这样的方法。

countries like Finland in Scandinavia,

比如说芬兰、斯堪的那维亚

but also in China and Brazil,

还有中国和巴西。

they're retaining equity in these investments.

他们的政府持有这些创新公司的股票。

Sitra funded Nokia, kept equity, made a lot of money,

希特拉给诺基亚投资，持有他们的股票，赚了很多钱，

it's a public funding agency in Finland,

它是芬兰的一个公共的投资机构。

which then funded the next round of Nokias.

它后来又资助了诺基亚的下一代产品。

The Brazilian Development Bank,

巴西开发银行

which is providing huge amounts of funds today

现在提供大量资金

to clean technology, they just announced

去开发保洁技术。他们刚刚宣布了

a $56 billion program for the future on this,

一个资助未来保洁技术的560 亿的计划。

is retaining equity in these investments.

他们会保有这些发明的上市股票。

So to put it provocatively,

把它说得诱人些，

had the U.S. government thought about this,

美国政府完全可以考虑

and maybe just brought back

通过一些所谓的“创新基金”

just something called an innovation fund,

得到更多的回报。

you can bet that, you know, if even just .05 percent

你知道吗，你完全可以打赌，如果仅仅 0.5%

of the profits from what the Internet produced

由互联网带来的收益

had come back to that innovation fund,

回报给“创新基金”的话，

there would be so much more money

就会有更多的钱

to spend today on green technology.

可以投资到绿色科技上。

Instead, many of the state budgets

可是正相反，许多政府预算

which in theory are trying to do that

都想这么去做的，

are being constrained.

可是资金有限。

But perhaps even more important,

但或许更重要的是，

we heard before about the one percent,

我们之前听过 1%，

the 99 percent.

99%。

If the state is thought about in this more strategic way,

如果美国政府能够更有战略眼光，

as one of the lead players in the value creation mechanism,

成为价值生成机制的主导者该有多好。

because that's what we're talking about, right?

这就是我们在讨论的重点，对吧？

Who are the different players in creating value

谁在市场经济中充当创造价值的特殊一员？

in the economy, and is the state's role,

考虑到政府的作用，

has it been sort of dismissed as being a backseat player?

政府是不是成了市场经济中的候补队员了？

If we can actually have a broader theory

实际上，如果我们有一个更广义的

of value creation and allow us to actually admit

价值生成理论，我们可以允许

what the state has been doing and reap something back,

政府对科技投资，以期回报。

it might just be that in the next round,

也许下一轮的科技创新时，我们就可以这样做。

and I hope that we all hope that the next big revolution

我希望我们期待的下一个巨大变革

will in fact be green,

会真的是绿色革命。

that that period of growth

那个时期的经济增长，

will not only be smart, innovation-led,

不仅是智能的、 创新主导的、

not only green, but also more inclusive,

不仅是绿色的，更应该是包容的，

so that the public schools in places like Silicon Valley

这样，像在硅谷的那些公立学校

can actually also benefit from that growth,

就可以从经济增长中直接受益。

because they have not.

但是他们还没有受益。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）