Dambisa Moyo: Is China the new idol for emerging economies?

譯者: Julian Liu 審譯者: Zhiting Chen

"Give me liberty or give me death."

「不自由，毋寧死」，

When Patrick Henry, the governor of Virginia,

1775年，維吉尼亞州州長

said these words in 1775,

派翠克•亨利(Patrick Henry)說這話的時候，

he could never have imagined

當時他可能無法想像，

just how much they would come to resonate

這句話在美國後代，

with American generations to come.

將要掀起的廣大迴響。

At the time, these words were earmarked

當時，這句伏筆是衝著

and targeted against the British,

英國殖民政府說的；

but over the last 200 years, they've come to embody

但200年來， 這句話恰好體現了

what many Westerners believe,

廣為西方人接受的信念:

that freedom is the most cherished value,

自由是最寶貴的價值，

and that the best systems of politics and economics

而最好的政治經濟體制，

have freedom embedded in them.

必有自由的內涵。

Who could blame them?

這是理所當然的！

Over the past hundred years, the combination

一百年來，民主自由

of liberal democracy and private capitalism

加上資本主義，

has helped to catapult the United States

讓美國

and Western countries

和西方國家

to new levels of economic development.

的經濟發展水平提升到新高度。

In the United States over the past hundred years,

美國國民收入在過去的百年間，

incomes have increased 30 times,

增長了30倍；

and hundreds of thousands of people

有數十萬美國人，

have been moved out of poverty.

擺脫貧窮。

Meanwhile, American ingenuity and innovation

同時，美國人的創新能力，

has helped to spur industrialization

帶動工業化，

and also helped in the creation and the building

也助長了創造與建設，

of things like household appliances

家電產品就是其中的例子，

such as refrigerators and televisions,

像是冰箱和電視，

motor vehicles and even the mobile phones in your pockets.

還有汽車，甚至是隨身攜帶的手機。

It's no surprise, then, that even at the depths

也難怪，即使在資本主義

of the private capitalism crisis,

深陷危機的時候，

President Obama said,

歐巴馬總統仍說：

"The question before us is not whether the market

「我們當前面臨的問題

is a force for good or ill.

不是市場機制的優劣。

Its power to generate wealth and to expand freedom

畢竟以增加財富和發揚自由來說，

is unmatched."

這種機制的效果無可匹敵。」

Thus, there's understandably

所以，不難理解西方人為何

a deep-seated presumption among Westerners

執著地認定，

that the whole world will decide to adopt

全世界都將以私人資本主義

private capitalism as the model of economic growth,

作為經濟發展的模式。

liberal democracy, and will continue

而自由民主制度中， 政治權的重要性

to prioritize political rights over economic rights.

仍會大於經濟權。

However, to many who live in the emerging markets,

然而，對許多新興市場的人來說，

this is an illusion, and even though

這不過是虛幻。而且，

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

1948年就已簽署的

which was signed in 1948,

世界人權宣言，

was unanimously adopted,

儘管已廣受採納，

what it did was to mask a schism

但當時其實是用來掩飾

that has emerged between developed and developing countries,

發達國家和發展中國家間 既有的隔閡，

and the ideological beliefs

以及政治權力和經濟利益方面

between political and economic rights.

意識形態的分歧。

This schism has only grown wider.

且這樣的鴻溝不減反增。

Today, many people who live in the emerging markets,

目前的全球人口， 超過9成生活在新興市場國家，

where 90 percent of the world's population lives,

其中有很多人認為

believe that the Western obsession

西方社會所熱衷的政治權，

with political rights is beside the point,

是無關緊要的。

and what is actually important

真正重要的是，

is delivering on food, shelter,

食物和住所有著落，

education and healthcare.

還有教育機會及醫療保健。

"Give me liberty or give me death"

「不自由，毋寧死」 是在生活無憂下，

is all well and good if you can afford it,

才有辦法談的。

but if you're living on less than one dollar a day,

若你每天的生活費 只有不到1塊美金，

you're far too busy trying to survive

為了養家餬口，

and to provide for your family

就已經忙不過來了，

than to spend your time going around

就別奢望還會有時間四處奔波，

trying to proclaim and defend democracy.

鼓吹及捍衛民主。

Now, I know many people in this room

我知道在場有很多人，

and around the world will think,

還有全世界範圍的很多人會認為，

"Well actually, this is hard to grasp,"

「說真的，這很難讓人接受。」

because private capitalism and liberal democracy

因為，私人資本主義和自由民主

are held sacrosanct.

都是不容置疑的。

But I ask you today, what would you do

我現在請教各位， 若非得選擇不可，

if you had to choose?

你會怎麼做？

What if you had to choose

如果必須選擇，

between a roof over your head

你是要有地方住，

and the right to vote?

還是寧可要投票權？

Over the last 10 years,

在過去的十年當中，

I've had the privilege to travel to over 60 countries,

我有幸造訪60多國，

many of them in the emerging markets,

其中有很多是拉丁美洲，亞洲，

in Latin America, Asia,

還有我家鄉非洲，

and my own continent of Africa.

的新興市場國家。

I've met with presidents, dissidents,

我見過總統，異議人士，

policymakers, lawyers, teachers,

政策制定者，律師，教師，

doctors and the man on the street,

醫生和平民，

and through these conversations,

跟他們訪談過後，

it's become clear to me

我明白了一件事

that many people in the emerging markets

新興市場國家中有許多人認為

believe that there's actually a split occurring

以政治和經濟來看

between what people believe ideologically

在所信奉的意識形態上

in terms of politics and economics in the West

西方國家和其他地區之間

and that which people believe in the rest of the world.

目前的確存在著分歧。

Now, don't get me wrong.

不要誤解我的意思。

I'm not saying people in the emerging markets

我不是說新興市場地區的人

don't understand democracy,

不懂民主，

nor am I saying that they wouldn't ideally

也不是說他們

like to pick their presidents or their leaders.

不想投票選出總統或領袖。

Of course they would.

他們當然想。

However, I am saying that on balance,

然而若考慮各種條件，

they worry more about

他們比較在意

where their living standard improvements are going to come from,

能改善生活水準的因素，

and how it is their governments can deliver for them,

還有政府要如何為他們带來福祉，

than whether or not the government

至於政府是否由民主選舉產生

was elected by democracy.

反倒没那麼重要。

The fact of the matter

事實是，

is that this has become a very poignant question

這樣的分歧已成為沈痛的問題

because there is for the first time in a long time

因為這是西方的政經意識型態

a real challenge to the Western ideological systems

長久以來

of politics and economics,

首度面臨真正的挑戰，

and this is a system that is embodied by China.

也就是由中國具體實現的體制。

And rather than have private capitalism, they have state capitalism.

捨私人資本主義， 採行國家資本主義。

Instead of liberal democracy, they have de-prioritized the democratic system.

降低民主制度的優先地位， 而不全然採納。

And they have also decided to prioritize

同時決定

economic rights over political rights.

先顧經濟利益， 再談政治權利。

I put it to you today that it is this system

不妨這樣說好了，

that is embodied by China

中國施行的這個體制

that is gathering momentum amongst people

在新興市場地區凝聚了不小的聲勢，

in the emerging markets as the system to follow,

還被奉為值得效仿的體制，

because they believe increasingly

因為他們越來越相信

that it is the system

這種制度

that will promise the best and fastest improvements

能在最短的時間內

in living standards in the shortest period of time.

以最快最好的方式改善生活水準。

If you will indulge me, I will spend a few moments

容我先花一些時間

explaining to you first

向你們解釋

why economically they've come to this belief.

為何人們在經濟上有這樣的結論。

First of all, it's China's economic performance

首先，過去30年來，

over the past 30 years.

中國的經濟表現。

She's been able to produce record economic growth

開創了空前的成長，

and meaningfully move many people out of poverty,

讓許多人大幅擺脱貧窮，

specifically putting a meaningful dent in poverty

尤其是改善貧窮

by moving over 300 million people

有3億多人

out of indigence.

因而脫離赤貧。

It's not just in economics,

這不只是指經濟上，

but it's also in terms of living standards.

還有生活水準也是。

We see that in China, 28 percent of people

另一項眼見為實的是， 1970年的時候

had secondary school access.

還只有28%的中國人 接受中學教育。

Today, it's closer to 82 percent.

目前，這數字逼近82%。

So in its totality, economic improvement

所以整體而言，

has been quite significant.

經濟明顯好轉。

Second, China has been able

其次，中國在

to meaningfully improve its income inequality

不改變政治結構的狀況下，

without changing the political construct.

大幅改善國民所得不均的現象。

Today, the United States and China

目前，美國和中國

are the two leading economies in the world.

是全球兩大經濟體。

They have vastly different political systems

兩國各有迥然不同的

and different economic systems,

政治經濟體制，

one with private capitalism,

一邊是資本主義，

another one broadly with state capitalism.

另一邊是國家資本主義。

However, these two countries

然而中美兩國

have the identical GINI Coefficient,

卻有非常接近的吉尼係數(Gini coefficient)，

which is a measure of income equality.

這數據是用來衡量所得分配的公平度。

Perhaps what is more disturbing

但也許更令人不安的，

is that China's income equality

是中國的所得分配

has been improving in recent times,

近來持續改善，

whereas that of the United States

反觀美國

has been declining.

情況卻持續惡化。

Thirdly, people in the emerging markets

第三，在新興市場地區

look at China's amazing and legendary

人們目睹中國驚人且聲名大噪的

infrastructure rollout.

基礎建設成果。

This is not just about China

而我要說的是，

building roads and ports and railways

中國不只在國內

in her own country --

建造道路、港灣和鐵路，

she's been able to build 85,000 kilometers

中國境內修築的道路網，

of road network in China

累計已有8萬5千公里，

and surpass that of the United States --

長度已超越美國。

but even if you look to places like Africa,

即使在其他地區，例如非洲

China has been able to help tar the distance

中國也已協助鋪設

of Cape Town to Cairo,

大約9千英里的道路，

which is 9,000 miles,

這距離相當於開普敦到開羅，

or three times the distance of New York to California.

是紐約和加州間距離的3倍。

Now this is something that people can see and point to.

這是大家有目共睹的。

Perhaps it's no surprise

或許這也難怪，

that in a 2007 Pew survey, when surveyed,

2007年的皮尤調查(Pew survey)中，

Africans in 10 countries said

來自非洲10國的受訪者中認為，

they thought that the Chinese were doing

中國做了許多驚人之舉

amazing things to improve their livelihoods

來改善他們的生計，

by wide margins, by as much as 98 percent.

而改善的幅度竟高達9成8。

Finally, China is also providing innovative solutions

最後，中國也能以創新的方式

to age-old social problems that the world faces.

解決困擾各國已久的社會問題。

If you travel to Mogadishu, Mexico City or Mumbai,

如果你到摩加迪休(索馬利亞首都)， 墨西哥城或孟買，

you find that dilapidated infrastructure and logistics

就會發現殘破不堪的

continue to be a stumbling block

基礎建設和調度系統，

to the delivery of medicine and healthcare

仍是將醫療保健物資

in the rural areas.

送往偏遠地區的一大障礙。

However, through a network of state-owned enterprises,

但靠著與國營企業通力合作，

the Chinese have been able to go into these rural areas,

中國已能夠藉著國企的力量，

using their companies

深入這些偏遠地區

to help deliver on these healthcare solutions.

協助解決當地的醫藥衛生問題。

Ladies and gentlemen, it's no surprise

女士們先生們， 這就不難理解

that around the world, people are pointing at what China is doing and saying,

中國的一舉一動為何受到全球關注，

"I like that. I want that.

到處都有人說： 「真的很棒，我也希望如此。

I want to be able to do what China's doing.

我希望可以像現在的中國那樣，

That is the system that seems to work."

看來他們的體制是行得通的。」

I'm here to also tell you

我還要告訴你們

that there are lots of shifts occurring

隨著中國的發展，

around what China is doing

對民主的觀點

in the democratic stance.

也產生了許多變化。

In particular, there is growing doubt

尤其是新興市場地區的人

among people in the emerging markets,

越來越抱持懷疑的態度，

when people now believe that democracy

目前人們開始認為，民主制度

is no longer to be viewed

不再被視為

as a prerequisite for economic growth.

經濟發展的先決條件。

In fact, countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Chile,

實際上，不只中國，

臺灣，新加坡，智利等， 都證實了這點。

not just China, have shown that actually,

it's economic growth that is a prerequisite

經濟發展才是

for democracy.

民主制度的先決條件。

In a recent study, the evidence has shown

最近有研究證據顯示，

that income is the greatest determinant

民主能維持多久，

of how long a democracy can last.

取決於國民收入。

The study found that if your per capita income

這項研究指出，年國民所得平均

is about 1,000 dollars a year,

若達到1千美金左右，

your democracy will last about eight and a half years.

大約可維持8年半的民主；

If your per capita income is between

假如平均收入落在

2,000 and 4,000 dollars per year,

美金2千到4千美元之間，

then you're likely to only get 33 years of democracy.

那麼大概會有33年的民主。

And only if your per capita income

只有當國民平均收入

is above 6,000 dollars a year

超過美金6千元

will you have democracy come hell or high water.

民主才能屹立不搖。

What this is telling us

這告訴我們，

is that we need to first establish a middle class

首先要有中產階級，

that is able to hold the government accountable.

才能讓政府對人民負責。

But perhaps it's also telling us

但這也告訴我們，

that we should be worried about going

我們最好不要

around the world and shoehorning democracy,

到處將民主強加於人，

because ultimately we run the risk

因為我們最後

of ending up with illiberal democracies,

有可能淪為非自由民主制，

democracies that in some sense

某方面來說，這樣的民主

could be worse than the authoritarian governments

比原本應該被取代的威權政府

that they seek to replace.

還要糟糕。

The evidence around illiberal democracies

談到非自由民主制的證據，

is quite depressing.

是頗令人沮喪的。

Freedom House finds that although 50 percent

自由之家(Freedom House)發現，

of the world's countries today are democratic,

儘管全球半數以上都是民主國家，

70 percent of those countries are illiberal

但其中7成的國家是不自由的，

in the sense that people don't have free speech

嚴格意義上，人們沒有

or freedom of movement.

言論自由或遷徙自由。

But also, we're finding from Freedom House

不過，自由之家

in a study that they published last year

去年發表的研究也顯示，

that freedom has been on the decline

最近七年，自由狀況

every year for the past seven years.

每年都在惡化。

What this says

這表示

is that for people like me

像我一樣

who care about liberal democracy,

關心自由民主的人，

is we've got to find a more sustainable way

必須尋求長久之計

of ensuring that we have a sustainable form

以確保我們享有

of democracy in a liberal way,

以經濟為基礎、

and that has its roots in economics.

永續的開放式民主。

But it also says that as China moves

這也說明，當中國即將如同

toward being the largest economy in the world,

部分專家所預測，

something that is expected to happen

在2016年

by experts in 2016,

成為全球最大經濟體時，

that this schism between the political

西方國家和其他地區間，

and economic ideologies of the West and the rest

政治經濟意識形態的分歧

is likely to widen.

可能會擴大。

What might that world look like?

到時候世界局勢會怎樣呢？

Well, the world could look like

全球可能更普遍的是，

more state involvement and state capitalism;

更多的國家涉入與國家資本主義；

greater protectionisms of nation-states;

和更多來自民族國家的保護主義；

but also, as I just pointed out a moment ago,

還有像我剛才提過的，

ever-declining political rights

持續衰減的政治權

and individual rights.

和個人權利。

The question that is left for us in general

我們都要面對的問題是

is, what then should the West be doing?

西方社會到時該如何因應？

And I suggest that they have two options.

我認為到時有二種可能。

The West can either compete or cooperate.

西方國家可能採取競爭或合作的態度。

If the West chooses to compete with the Chinese model,

若西方社會選擇與中國模式抗衡，

and in effect go around the world

且實際上，依然企圖

and continue to try and push an agenda

推動私人資本主義和自由民主的

of private capitalism and liberal democracy,

政治目的，

this is basically going against headwinds,

這基本上是違背時勢，

but it also would be a natural stance

但也是西方社會

for the West to take

很可能採取的立場

because in many ways it is the antithesis

因為中國模式

of the Chinese model

暫緩民主制度並施行國家資本主義

of de-prioritizing democracy, and state capitalism.

與西方政治扞格不入。

Now the fact of the matter is,

事實上，

if the West decides to compete,

若西方決心分庭抗禮，

it will create a wider schism.

將加深隔閡。

The other option is for the West to cooperate,

西方社會也可以選擇合作，

and by cooperating I mean

而我所謂的合作是指

giving the emerging market countries the flexibility

給新興市場國家一些彈性空間

to figure out in an organic way

讓他們順其自然地

what political and economic system

找出適合本身的

works best for them.

政治經濟體制。

Now I'm sure some of you in the room

我確信你們當中

will be thinking, well, this is like ceding to China,

有人會想，這好像是對中國讓步，

and this is a way, in other words,

換句話說，這不就等於

for the West to take a back seat.

讓西方退居二線。

But I put it to you

但我這樣跟你們說好了

that if the United States and European countries

如果美國和歐洲國家

want to remain globally influential,

還想保有全球影響力，

they may have to consider cooperating

他們短期內可能要考慮合作

in the short term in order to compete,

未來才能和中國競爭，

and by that, they might have to focus

若是如此，歐美可能必須更積極地

more aggressively on economic outcomes

專注於經濟成就，

to help create the middle class

促進中產階級成形

and therefore be able to hold government accountable

這樣才能保證負責任的政府

and create the democracies that we really want.

然後創造我們真正想要的民主。

The fact of the matter is that

事實是

與其在世界範圍內

instead of going around the world

and haranguing countries for engaging with China,

大聲斥責與中國交流的國家，

the West should be encouraging its own businesses

西方倒不如鼓勵本國的產業，

to trade and invest in these regions.

在這些地區進行貿易和投資活動。

Instead of criticizing China for bad behavior,

與其批評中國的不是，

the West should be showing how it is

西方國家應想辦法證明，

that their own system of politics and economics

西方的政治經濟體系

is the superior one.

是比較好的。

And instead of shoehorning democracy

與其到處強迫推銷

around the world,

民主制度，

perhaps the West should take a leaf

或許西方應該

out of its own history book

從他們的歷史汲取教訓

and remember that it takes a lot of patience

同時，請記得，西方體制 得以發展到目前的樣子，

in order to develop the models

是得要有很大的耐心的，

and the systems that you have today.

這不是一蹴可幾。

Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

的確，美國最高法院大法官

reminds us that it took the United States

史蒂芬•布雷耶(Stephen Breyer)提醒我們

nearly 170 years

美國從憲法起草

from the time that the Constitution was written

到實踐平等權

for there to be equal rights in the United States.

花了將近170年。

Some people would argue that today

時至今日，還是有人會爭辯

there is still no equal rights.

平等權仍未落實。

In fact, there are groups who would argue

實際上，部分族群聲稱

that they still do not have equal rights under the law.

他們仍未享有法律保障的平等權。

At its very best,

西方模式引以為豪的，

the Western model speaks for itself.

充其量就是

It's the model that put food on the table.

讓下一餐有著落，

It's the refrigerators.

讓人有冰箱，

It put a man on the moon.

並實現登陸月球。

But the fact of the matter is,

不過實際上，

although people back in the day

儘管那時人們

used to point at the Western countries and say,

也曾指著西方國家說：

"I want that, I like that,"

「真的很棒，我也要那樣，」

there's now a new person in town

不過現在新秀出現了，

in the form of a country, China.

也就是中國。

Today, generations are looking at China

目前觀察著中國的各個世代

and saying, "China can produce infrastructure,

都說：「中國能發展基礎建設，

China can produce economic growth,

創造經濟成長，

and we like that."

那就是我們要的。」

Because ultimately, the question before us,

因為，我們和

全球70億人口

and the question before

終究要面對的問題，

seven billion people on the planet

is, how can we create prosperity?

是我們要如何創造繁榮？

People who care and will pivot towards the model

在乎這點的人，

of politics and economics

會理性地

in a very rational way,

傾向某種政治經濟模式，

to those models that will ensure

因為這能確保

that they can have better living standards

在最短時間內

in the shortest period of time.

讓他們的生活水準獲得改善。

As you leave here today,

今天的演講結束後，

I would like to leave you

我希望留給你們

with a very personal message,

一個來自我個人的觀點，

which is what it is that I believe

我認為以個人而言

we should be doing as individuals,

我們該做的，

and this is really about being open-minded,

就是保持開放的思想，

open-minded to the fact that our hopes and dreams

開明地接受這個事實

of creating prosperity for people around the world,

我們想為全球的人創造繁榮，

creating and meaningfully putting a dent in poverty

想要幫數億人口

for hundreds of millions of people,

脫離貧窮的夢想和希望，

has to be based in being open-minded,

都要從開放的態度做起，

because these systems have good things

因為這些體制

and they have bad things.

各有優缺點。

Just to illustrate,

舉例來說，

I went into my annals of myself.

我從陳年往事中，

That's a picture of me.

找到這張自己的照片。

Awww. (Laughter)

喔。（笑聲）

I was born and raised in Zambia in 1969.

1969年我在尚比亞出生長大。

At the time of my birth,

我出生的時候，

blacks were not issued birth certificates,

黑人沒有出生證明，

and that law only changed in 1973.

直到1973年才修法。

This is an affidavit from the Zambian government.

這是尚比亞政府發的證明文件。

I bring this to you to tell you that in 40 years,

給你們看這些是要告訴你們，

I've gone from not being recognized as a human being

40年的時間，我從不被認可為人類，

to standing in front of the illustrious TED crowd today

直到今天，得以在優秀的TED觀眾面前，

to talk to you about my views.

闡述自己的觀點。

In this vein, we can increase economic growth.

這樣看來，我們可以發展經濟。

We can meaningfully put a dent in poverty.

我們可以減少貧窮。

But also, it's going to require

但是，這需要我們

that we look at our assumptions,

檢視自己的假設，

assumptions and strictures that we've grown up with

那些我們從小就被灌輸，

around democracy, around private capitalism,

關於民主和私人資本主義，

around what creates economic growth

關於如何創造經濟增長，

and reduces poverty and creates freedoms.

以及改善貧窮，創造自由的假設與限制。

We might have to tear those books up

我們可能要摒棄那些教條

and start to look at other options

並考慮其他可能性，

and be open-minded to seek the truth.

再以開放態度尋找真相。

Ultimately, it's about transforming the world

我們終究想改變這個世界，

and making it a better place.

讓它變得更好。

Thank you very much.

感謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)