Pankaj Ghemawat: Actually, the world isn't flat

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

翻译人员: Zheqing Fang 校对人员: dahong zhang

I'm here to talk to you about how globalized we are,

我今天来到这里，是想谈论全球化的程度有多深，

how globalized we aren't,

或者全球化有多么遥远，

and why it's important to actually be accurate

以及，为什么全球化程度的精确评估

in making those kinds of assessments.

是如此的重要。

And the leading point of view on this, whether measured

现今对全球化主流的看法，不论源于

by number of books sold, mentions in media,

对书籍销售量，媒体提及次数的统计，

or surveys that I've run with groups ranging from

或者来自我调查，调查对象包括下至我的学生

my students to delegates to the World Trade Organization,

上至世界贸易组织代表，

is this view that national borders

持这种观点的人认为国界的限制

really don't matter very much anymore,

已经不再是那么显著了，

cross-border integration is close to complete,

跨国界的完全融合已指日可待，

and we live in one world.

所有人都会生活在地球村里。

And what's interesting about this view

尤为有趣的是，

is, again, it's a view that's held by pro-globalizers

“全球化已经趋于完成”这一观点不仅被支持全球化的人认同

like Tom Friedman, from whose book this quote is obviously excerpted,

比如托马斯·弗里德曼，他的书就引述此观点（《世界是平的》）

but it's also held by anti-globalizers, who see this giant

同时也同样得到了反对全球化的人的认同，他们普遍认为

globalization tsunami that's about to wreck all our lives

全球化将如洪水猛兽般冲毁我们的生活

if it hasn't already done so.

即便目前还没达到，但终将来临。

The other thing I would add is that this is not a new view.

此外，我得说“全球化已经快要完成”这不是最近的观点。

I'm a little bit of an amateur historian, so I've spent

我或多或少是个业余历史学家，所以花了些时间

some time going back, trying to see the first mention

去追溯前人对全球化程度的评估，看看是谁首次

of this kind of thing. And the best, earliest quote

提出这种论调。我所找到最早的完整表述

that I could find was one from David Livingstone,

是来自于大卫·利文斯顿(David Livingstone)，

writing in the 1850s about how the railroad, the steam ship,

写于1850年，谈论铁路、蒸汽船、

and the telegraph were integrating East Africa perfectly

以及电报机，正完美地将东非

with the rest of the world.

以及世界其它地方融合在一起。

Now clearly, David Livingstone

现在看来，大卫·利文斯顿

was a little bit ahead of his time,

显然是略领先于他所处的时代，

but it does seem useful to ask ourselves,

但是，我们似乎应该首先问自己

"Just how global are we?"

“我们究竟有多么全球化？”

before we think about where we go from here.

然后再去思考在此基础上我们未来要走向何方。

So the best way I've found of trying to get people

所以我发现要说服大家，

to take seriously the idea that the world may not be flat,

看清世界并没有我们想象中那么全球化，

may not even be close to flat, is with some data.

甚至并没有接近全球化，我们就得用数据说话。

So one of the things I've been doing over the last few years

我在过去几年所做的

is really compiling data on things that could either happen

实际上是收集那些相关数据，

within national borders or across national borders,

既有国内的也有国际的，

and I've looked at the cross-border component

再计算那些跨越国界的部分

as a percentage of the total.

占总量的百分比。

I'm not going to present all the data that I have here today,

我并没有打算在今天展示所有的数据，

but let me just give you a few data points.

只是向大家分享一些数据的，

I'm going to talk a little bit about one kind of information flow,

我将要谈论一些信息流，

one kind of flow of people, one kind of flow of capital,

人口的流动，资本的流通，

and, of course, trade in products and services.

当然，还包括产品与服务的贸易往来。

So let's start off with plain old telephone service.

好，那么让我们以普通老式电话业务作为开始。

Of all the voice-calling minutes in the world last year,

去年全球的语音通话时间中，

what percentage do you think were accounted for

你们认为有百分之多少

by cross-border phone calls?

会是来自跨国电话？

Pick a percentage in your own mind.

你们可以心中默想一个数据。

The answer turns out to be two percent.

真实的数据是2%。

If you include Internet telephony, you might be able

如果再将互联网电话业务包含其中，这个数值

to push this number up to six or seven percent,

可能被推高到6%或7%，

but it's nowhere near what people tend to estimate.

但这显然远低于我们心中的预估值。

Or let's turn to people moving across borders.

好，我们再来看看跨国的人口流动。

One particular thing we might look at, in terms of

我们要特别关注的是，

long-term flows of people, is what percentage

考虑长期的人口流动，

of the world's population is accounted for

在全球所有人口中

by first-generation immigrants?

第一代移民占了多少百分比呢？

Again, please pick a percentage.

一样，请大家心中默想一个数据。

Turns out to be a little bit higher.

结果比上一个答案要略高一点，

It's actually about three percent.

是大约3%。

Or think of investment. Take all the real investment

我们再来看看投资。将所有2010年开始并持续的

that went on in the world in 2010.

产权投资计算在内。

What percentage of that was accounted for

究竟有多少百分比，

by foreign direct investment?

是由外商直接投资的呢？

Not quite ten percent.

不足10%。

And then finally, the one statistic

最后，是一个统计指标

that I suspect many of the people in this room have seen:

相信在座的各位已经耳熟能详：

the export-to-GDP ratio.

“出口占国内生产总值的比例”

If you look at the official statistics, they typically indicate

如果你去看看官方的统计，他们通常给出

a little bit above 30 percent.

超过30%的结果。

However, there's a big problem with the official statistics,

然而，在官方统计中存在巨大的漏洞，

in that if, for instance, a Japanese component supplier

举例来说，如果一个日本电子元件供应商

ships something to China to be put into an iPod,

将产品运到中国加工成一个iPod，

and then the iPod gets shipped to the U.S.,

再运输到美国，

that component ends up getting counted multiple times.

那么这个元件将被重复统计。

So nobody knows how bad this bias

所以没有人能够知道官方统计与实际情况

with the official statistics actually is, so I thought I would

之间的误差究竟有多大，所以我认为

ask the person who's spearheading the effort

我应该咨询那些率先生成这方面数据的专家

to generate data on this, Pascal Lamy,

帕斯卡尔·拉米

the Director of the World Trade Organization,

世界贸易组织的总干事

what his best guess would be

他认为最佳的估计

of exports as a percentage of GDP,

“出口占国内生产总值的比例”，

without the double- and triple-counting,

在去除双重或三重计算后，

and it's actually probably a bit under 20 percent, rather than

实际上可能略低于20%，而不是

the 30 percent-plus numbers that we're talking about.

我们日常谈论的超过30%。

So it's very clear that if you look at these numbers

所以很明显，当你看到这些数据

or all the other numbers that I talk about in my book,

或者通过我写的书，

"World 3.0," that we're very, very far from

《World 3.0》，我们远远未能达到

the no-border effect benchmark, which would imply

那些由无国界效应标准所意味的

internationalization levels of the order of 85, 90, 95 percent.

85%、90%甚至95%量级的国际化水平。

So clearly, apocalyptically-minded authors

这样就很清楚了，那些怀着末日心态的作家

have overstated the case.

实际上是夸大其辞了。

But it's not just the apocalyptics, as I think of them,

然而，并非仅仅是那些带有末日心态的人

who are prone to this kind of overstatement.

才有这种夸大叙述的倾向。

I've also spent some time surveying audiences

我也花时间去做过问卷调查

in different parts of the world

在世界各地进行取样

on what they actually guess these numbers to be.

让他们猜测这些数据可能会有多少。

Let me share with you the results of a survey

让我在这与大家分享调查的结果。

that Harvard Business Review was kind enough to run

利用期刊《哈佛商业评论》的

of its readership as to what people's guesses

读者群做为样本，

along these dimensions actually were.

进行这些方面数据的读者猜测。

So a couple of observations stand out for me from this slide.

结果如图。（白色为真值，蓝色为猜测）

First of all, there is a suggestion of some error.

首先，两者之间似乎有那么一丁点儿差距。

Okay. (Laughter)

好吧。（笑声）

Second, these are pretty large errors. For four quantities

其次，大家对这四个指标的猜测都错得很离谱。

whose average value is less than 10 percent,

真实值的平均数量在10%以下，

you have people guessing three, four times that level.

但有很多人猜想值高于实际值三倍甚至四倍。

Even though I'm an economist, I find that

即使我是一个经济学家，我也能看出

a pretty large error.

这是一个相当大的误差。

And third, this is not just confined to the readers

第三点，不仅仅局限于

of the Harvard Business Review.

《哈佛商业评论》的读者群。

I've run several dozen such surveys in different parts

我也在世界其他的地方进行多次

of the world, and in all cases except one,

类似的调查，只有一项指标

where a group actually underestimated

会出现群体性低估，那就是

the trade-to-GDP ratio, people have this tendency

“贸易占国内生产总值的比例”，而剩下指标

towards overestimation, and so I thought it important

人们倾向于过高估计，所以我认为很有必要

to give a name to this, and that's what I refer to

给这种群体性特征进行命名，

as globaloney, the difference between the dark blue bars

称它为“全球胡话”，参考这深蓝色

and the light gray bars.

与浅灰色之间的差距。

Especially because, I suspect, some of you may still be

我想，你们中可能仍然有一些人

a little bit skeptical of the claims, I think it's important

对我的说法持怀疑态度，我认为这非常重要

to just spend a little bit of time thinking about

去花一点点时间来思考

why we might be prone to globaloney.

为什么我们会倾向于迷信这种“全球胡话”。

A couple of different reasons come to mind.

一系列理由从我的脑海中浮现，

First of all, there's a real dearth of data in the debate.

首先，是在这一议题上，相关数据的严重匮乏。

Let me give you an example. When I first published

我来给大家一个例子。当我在几年前

some of these data a few years ago

在一个叫《外交政策》的杂志上

in a magazine called Foreign Policy,

第一次公布这些数据时，

one of the people who wrote in, not entirely in agreement,

有一位人物来信，对此持不同意见，

was Tom Friedman. And since my article was titled

他就是托马斯·弗里德曼。他的反对是必然的，

"Why the World Isn't Flat," that wasn't too surprising. (Laughter)

因为文章标题是《为何世界不是“平”的》。（笑声）

What was very surprising to me was Tom's critique,

让我非常惊讶的是汤姆的批评内容，

which was, "Ghemawat's data are narrow."

他说，“沃特使用的数据面太窄。”

And this caused me to scratch my head, because

这使我疑惑不解，因为

as I went back through his several-hundred-page book,

我翻了他数百页的书，

I couldn't find a single figure, chart, table,

竟然找不到一张图表，

reference or footnote.

连脚注和参考文献都没有。

So my point is, I haven't presented a lot of data here

所以我的观点是，我引用的数据

to convince you that I'm right, but I would urge you

可能还不足以让你信服，但是我需要提醒你

to go away and look for your own data

回去找找你自己的数据

to try and actually assess whether some of these

试着用精确的评估方式来看看

hand-me-down insights that we've been bombarded with

这些我们一直被灌输的观点

actually are correct.

是否真的正确。

So dearth of data in the debate is one reason.

好了，相关数据的匮乏是第一个原因。

A second reason has to do with peer pressure.

第二个原因是来自于同行的压力。

I remember, I decided to write my

我记得，当我决定去写

"Why the World Isn't Flat" article, because

《为何世界不是“平”的》，是因为

I was being interviewed on TV in Mumbai,

我在孟买电视台接受采访，

and the interviewer's first question to me was,

主持人问我的第一个问题就是，

"Professor Ghemawat, why do you still believe

“沃特教授，为什么你坚持相信，

that the world is round?" And I started laughing,

这个世界是圆的呢？”我忍不住笑了，

because I hadn't come across that formulation before. (Laughter)

因为我以前还没有想过这种说法。（笑声）

And as I was laughing, I was thinking,

我在笑的同时，也陷入了沉思，

I really need a more coherent response, especially

面对这个问题我确实需要更多的回应，特别是

on national TV. I'd better write something about this. (Laughter)

全国播放的电视媒体上。我最好为此写些回应文章。（笑声）

But what I can't quite capture for you

但我无法让你们了解的

was the pity and disbelief

就是主持人提问时那怜悯和怀疑的态度。

with which the interviewer asked her question.

就是主持人提问时那怜悯和怀疑的态度。

The perspective was, here is this poor professor.

好像在说，这儿站着一个可怜的教授。

He's clearly been in a cave for the last 20,000 years.

他已经在山顶洞里住了两万年，

He really has no idea

他根本就不知道

as to what's actually going on in the world.

当今世界正在发生着什么。

So try this out with your friends and acquaintances,

如果你们愿意，也可以尝试和亲朋好友做这样的交流，

if you like. You'll find that it's very cool

你会发现当谈论的话题

to talk about the world being one, etc.

是世界一家时，那将会很酷。

If you raise questions about that formulation,

然而对这种说法提出质疑时，

you really are considered a bit of an antique.

你就会被视为老古董。

And then the final reason, which I mention,

接下来，我要提一下最后的原因，

especially to a TED audience, with some trepidation,

尤其是面对TED的观众，我诚惶诚恐，

has to do with what I call "techno-trances."

来介绍所谓的“电音入迷”

If you listen to techno music for long periods of time,

就是你长时间聆听动感强烈的电子音乐，

it does things to your brainwave activity. (Laughter)

它就会干扰你的脑波活动。（笑声）

Something similar seems to happen

那些与此现象类似的

with exaggerated conceptions of how technology

以夸张的概念来描述科技是如何

is going to overpower in the very immediate run

在短时间内以势不可挡之势

all cultural barriers, all political barriers,

冲破一切文化藩篱、政治界限、

all geographic barriers, because at this point

以及地理天堑，对于“电音入迷”这一提法

I know you aren't allowed to ask me questions,

我知道现场不允许你们向我提问，

but when I get to this point in my lecture with my students,

但是我准备了一些来自课堂上学生的提问

hands go up, and people ask me,

他们举起手来，然后质问我，

"Yeah, but what about Facebook?"

“好吧，那你是怎么看脸书 (Facebook)？”

And I got this question often enough that I thought

对于这个问题，我已经胸有成竹

I'd better do some research on Facebook.

我也对Facebook做了不少研究。

Because, in some sense, it's the ideal kind of technology

因为，从某种角度说，它是一种需要研究的理想科技

to think about. Theoretically, it makes it

理论上说，它使得

as easy to form friendships halfway around the world

跨地球两端交朋友

as opposed to right next door.

变得仿佛就住在隔壁一样。

What percentage of people's friends on Facebook

那么，究竟有多少百分比，在Facebook上的朋友

are actually located in countries other than where

是来自于另一个国家的呢？

people we're analyzing are based?

这些人在我分析了人群中占比多少呢？

The answer is probably somewhere between

这个答案大概是在

10 to 15 percent.

10%到15%之间。

Non-negligible, so we don't live in an entirely local

不可否认，我们已经不再是生活于完全本地本国的

or national world, but very, very far from the 95 percent level

孤立的世界中，但是，仍然离全球化程度达到95%

that you would expect, and the reason's very simple.

的期望值很遥远，而这一现象的原因很简单。

We don't, or I hope we don't, form friendships at random

因为我们不会，至少我希望我们不会， 在Facebook上

on Facebook. The technology is overlaid

随便乱交朋友。科技虽然覆盖了

on a pre-existing matrix of relationships that we have,

我们早就形成的人际关系，

and those relationships are what the technology

但这些人际关系恰恰是科技

doesn't quite displace. Those relationships are why

所无法替代的。正是这些既有的人际关系

we get far fewer than 95 percent of our friends

我们才没有高达95%的朋友

being located in countries other than where we are.

是来自异邦。

So does all this matter? Or is globaloney

我的这一发现是否重要？或者“全球胡话”

just a harmless way of getting people to pay more attention

只是用一种无害的方式，来让我们更多的去关注

to globalization-related issues?

全球化相关的议题？

I want to suggest that actually,

我不得不确切的指出，

globaloney can be very harmful to your health.

“全球胡话”的观点是非常有害的。

First of all, recognizing that the glass

首先，就好比有一个玻璃杯

is only 10 to 20 percent full is critical to seeing

它只被装填了十分之一左右

that there might be potential for additional gains

那么它就可能有潜力额外装得更多的东西。

from additional integration,

那么它就可能有潜力额外装得更多的东西。

whereas if we thought we were already there,

然而如果我们认为它已经被盛满，

there would be no particular point to pushing harder.

我们就没有理由去做更多的努力。

It's a little bit like, we wouldn't be having a conference

就像如果我们真的认为

on radical openness if we already thought we were totally open

我们已经很开放了

to all the kinds of influences that are being talked about

我们就不会有任何会议

at this conference.

来探讨积极开放的话题。

So being accurate about how limited globalization levels are

所以正确看待全球化程度的有限性

is critical to even being able to notice

可以让我们更深刻的认识到

that there might be room for something more,

仍然有大量进步的空间，

something that would contribute further to global welfare.

可以对全球福址有进一步的贡献。

Which brings me to my second point.

这就牵连到我的第二个观点。

Avoiding overstatement is also very helpful

避免过高评价全球化是有好处的

because it reduces and in some cases even reverses

因为它降低了，甚至扭转了那些

some of the fears that people have about globalization.

反对全球化的人心中怀有的恐惧。

So I actually spend most of my "World 3.0" book

所以我在《World 3.0》中花了大量篇幅

working through a litany of market failures and fears

来处理一连串的市场失效和担忧

that people have that they worry globalization is going to exacerbate.

人们非常担心全球化可能对市场带来的恶化。

I'm obviously not going to be able to do that for you today,

我显然已经无法在今天向大家展示这些，

so let me just present to you two headlines

所以就让我以两个标题

as an illustration of what I have in mind.

来陈述我的论点。

Think of France and the current debate about immigration.

想想目前法国针对移民的议题。

When you ask people in France what percentage

当你询问在法国人口中

of the French population is immigrants,

到底有多少百分比是移民，

the answer is about 24 percent. That's their guess.

将得到他们猜测的数字，大概是24%。

Maybe realizing that the number is just eight percent

如果意识到实际量只有8%

might help cool some of the superheated rhetoric

那可能会让那些充斥在移民议题中的

that we see around the immigration issue.

过激言论冷却。

Or to take an even more striking example,

或者，再举一个突出的例子，

when the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations

当芝加哥对外关系委员会

did a survey of Americans, asking them to guess

作了一份调查，让美国人猜猜

what percentage of the federal budget went to foreign aid,

联邦的预算中占有多少比例是用在国际援助上，

the guess was 30 percent, which is

猜测的普遍值是30%，这确实略微超过了实际水平——

slightly in excess of the actual level — ("actually about ... 1%") (Laughter) —

（真实值只有1%）。（笑声）

of U.S. governmental commitments to federal aid.

略微超过美国政府承诺的联邦政府补贴。

The reassuring thing about this particular survey was,

这一调查让我们可以宽心，

when it was pointed out to people how far

当我们向民众指出

their estimates were from the actual data,

估算值和实际数据相距甚远时，

some of them — not all of them — seemed to become

我相信会有一些人，会变得

more willing to consider increases in foreign aid.

更加愿意去增加对外援助。

So foreign aid is actually a great way

国际援助事实上很适合

of sort of wrapping up here, because

用来做今天的收尾，因为

if you think about it, what I've been talking about today

如果你回想一下，今天我一直在谈的

is this notion -- very uncontroversial amongst economists --

这个经济学家都同意的概念：

that most things are very home-biased.

许多事情都是存在着本土偏重。

"Foreign aid is the most aid to poor people,"

“国际援助是对穷人的最大帮助”

is about the most home-biased thing you can find.

就是你能想到最本土偏重的事情。

If you look at the OECD countries and how much

观察一下那些经济合作组织的成员国

they spend per domestic poor person,

将他们花在一个本国穷人身上的经费，

and compare it with how much they spend

比上他们花费在

per poor person in poor countries,

那些穷困国家的穷人身上的金额的比值，

the ratio — Branko Milanovic at the World Bank did the calculations —

这一比率——世界银行的米兰诺维奇作了计算

turns out to be about 30,000 to one.

是大约30000：1。

Now of course, some of us, if we truly are cosmopolitan,

现在当然，如果我们真是四海一家，

would like to see that ratio being brought down

我们希望看到那个比例会降到

to one-is-to-one.

1：1。

I'd like to make the suggestion that we don't need to aim

我的建议是，并不需要朝着这个目标前进，

for that to make substantial progress from where we are.

只需从目前所处的状态出发，去取得实质性进展。

If we simply brought that ratio down to 15,000 to one,

我们只要将比率改善成15000：1，

we would be meeting those aid targets that were agreed

就可以实现那些在20年前

at the Rio Summit 20 years ago that the summit

里约峰会上所制定的援助目标

that ended last week made no further progress on.

这一目标即便在上周的高峰会议中，仍无进展。

So in summary, while radical openness is great,

所以总而言之，激进的开放主义是非常好的，

given how closed we are,

它能让我们更加靠近彼此，

even incremental openness could make things

甚至渐进式的增加开放也会使事情得到

dramatically better. Thank you very much. (Applause)

显著的改善。谢谢大家！（掌声）

(Applause)

（掌声）