Pankaj Ghemawat: Actually, the world isn't flat

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: Mei Lien Lin 審譯者: Chen-Han Hsiao

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

我要談的是：我們有多麼全球化，

how globalized we aren't,

或我們根本就不是，

and why it's important to actually be accurate

釐清我們到底是哪一種

in making those kinds of assessments.

是很重要的。

And the leading point of view on this, whether measured

現今對全球化最主要的看法，不管是從相關書籍銷售數量，

by number of books sold, mentions in media,

或是媒體持續的話題，

or surveys that I've run with groups ranging from

或者是我自己參與的團隊，

my students to delegates to the World Trade Organization,

從我的學生到國際貿易組織的代表，

is this view that national borders

都認為國與國的分界

really don't matter very much anymore,

都不再那麼重要了

cross-border integration is close to complete,

跨國間邊界協調整合也差不多完成了，

and we live in one world.

我們是個國際村了。

And what's interesting about this view

然而有趣的是，這樣的觀點

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

是由那些支持全球化的人提出的，

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

像湯瑪斯•佛里曼，從他的書中就有這樣的引述。

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

但同時反全球化的人也支持這樣的觀點，

globalization tsunami that's about to wreck all our lives

他們認為這巨大的全球化海嘯快要擊垮我們的生活了，

if it hasn't already done so.

如果我們還沒被擊垮的話！

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

另外我想說的是這並不是最近才有的看法。

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

我不算是個歷史學家，

some time going back, trying to see the first mention

所以我花了一些時間回到過去，想要知道最早是誰

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

首先提出類似的理論。

that I could find was one from David Livingstone,

我找到最早的引述是由大衛 • 李文史東提出的。

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

1850年代時他寫道，鐵路、蒸汽船還有電報

and the telegraph were integrating East Africa perfectly

如何使得西非能夠順暢的

with the rest of the world.

和世界其他的地方互動。

Now clearly, David Livingstone

現在看來顯然大衛∙李文史東

was a little bit ahead of his time,

有點超越他自己的時代。

but it does seem useful to ask ourselves,

那麼在我們思考未來的方向前，

"Just how global are we?"

先問一下我們有多麼全球化，

before we think about where we go from here.

應該是有幫助的。

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

所以我認為使人們相信世界不是平的，或者連平緩都談不上

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

最好的方法

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

是看一些數據資料。

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

在過去幾年我一直在做一件事就是：

is really compiling data on things that could either happen

彙整收集各種發生在

within national borders or across national borders,

本國內或跨國間的數據資料。

and I've looked at the cross-border component

我看的是跨國的要素，

as a percentage of the total.

在總體裡占了多少百分比。

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

今天我不會呈現全部的資料，

but let me just give you a few data points.

一些主要的數據重點。

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

我會談到一些流動變化，

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

包含資訊，人群 和 資金。

and, of course, trade in products and services.

當然還有包含產品貿易和服務業。

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

讓我們先從簡單的通話服務開始，

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

我想問大家根據我們計算

what percentage do you think were accounted for

你認為去年國際電話的秒數

by cross-border phone calls?

占所有通話秒數中多少百分比？

Pick a percentage in your own mind.

在心中選個數字吧！

The answer turns out to be two percent.

結果答案是百分之二。

If you include Internet telephony, you might be able

如果再加上網路電話，

to push this number up to six or seven percent,

可能會增加至百分之七。

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

這跟人們可能的預測結果有很大的差距。

Or let's turn to people moving across borders.

讓我們接下來看跨國的人群移動，

One particular thing we might look at, in terms of

我們特別要觀察的是

long-term flows of people, is what percentage

長期性的人口移動，

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.

再選個數字吧！

Turns out to be a little bit higher.

結果比那高一點

It's actually about three percent.

實際上是大約百分之三

Or think of investment. Take all the real investment

接下來是投資，

that went on in the world in 2010.

在2010年所有全球實際的投資裡，

What percentage of that was accounted for

直接由國外投資的到底

by foreign direct investment?

占了多少白分比呢？

Not quite ten percent.

還不到百分之十。

And then finally, the one statistic

最後有一項統計，

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

我想在座的人應該都看過，

the export-to-GDP ratio.

就是出口占國內生產毛額的比例，

If you look at the official statistics, they typically indicate

如果你看的是官方統計，

a little bit above 30 percent.

通常都是百分之三十多一點。

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

然而官方的統計有個大問題，

in that if, for instance, a Japanese component supplier

假如日本的零件供應商，

ships something to China to be put into an iPod,

出口 iPod 零件到中國組裝，

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

然後 iPod 才出貨至美國，

that component ends up getting counted multiple times.

結果這零件被重複計算了。

So nobody knows how bad this bias

所以沒人知道官方的統計偏差有多嚴重。

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

所以我想應該詢問一下

ask the person who's spearheading the effort

在這方面有研究的人，

to generate data on this, Pascal Lamy,

來進行這方面的分析，他是帕斯可∙拉米，

the Director of the World Trade Organization,

是世界貿易組織的總幹事。

what his best guess would be

他試著猜測，

of exports as a percentage of GDP,

沒有重複多次計算的話，

without the double- and triple-counting,

出口占國民生產毛額的比例

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

大概是低於百分之二十，

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

而不是我們剛說到的三十多。

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

所以如果你看這些數據，

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

或是我的書《世界 3.0》所提到的所有數據資料，

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

就會瞭解到其實我們距離

the no-border effect benchmark, which would imply

無國界的基準還很遠呢！

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

因為國際化標準應該是達到85, 90或是95的百分比。

So clearly, apocalyptically-minded authors

所以那些像先知一般的作者們

have overstated the case.

其實都言過其實了。

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

但我想

who are prone to this kind of overstatement.

不只他們認同這種看法

I've also spent some time surveying audiences

我也花了一些時間，

in different parts of the world

請住在不同的區域人們，

on what they actually guess these numbers to be.

猜猜這些數字應該是多少。

Let me share with you the results of a survey

現在讓我來談談調查的結果，

that Harvard Business Review was kind enough to run

哈佛商業評論很熱心的

of its readership as to what people's guesses

透過雜誌讀者

along these dimensions actually were.

來針對這些方面來做預測。

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

這張幻燈片中呈現幾個看法可以證明我的論點。

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

首先，這裡有些偏差。

Okay. (Laughter)

好！

Second, these are pretty large errors. For four quantities

再來，這也錯得離譜了。

whose average value is less than 10 percent,

剛剛那四個平均值不到百分之十的數據，

you have people guessing three, four times that level.

大眾的預測結果竟然高至三、四倍之多。

Even though I'm an economist, I find that

儘管我是個經濟學家，

a pretty large error.

我覺得這是個很大的誤差。

And third, this is not just confined to the readers

第三，這並不是只有哈佛商業評論讀者

of the Harvard Business Review.

這麼認為。

I've run several dozen such surveys in different parts

我也在世界其他的地方進行好幾次這樣的調查，

of the world, and in all cases except one,

在所有的調查裡，

where a group actually underestimated

只有貿易對國民生產比例這項被低估。

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

所以針對大眾這種高估的傾向，

towards overestimation, and so I thought it important

我覺得應該要有個名稱，

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

就是我認為的全球化鬼扯論，

as globaloney, the difference between the dark blue bars

指的就是藍色區塊和

and the light gray bars.

灰色區塊的中間的落差。

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

我覺得你們有些人可能

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

仍然有點懷疑這個說法。

to just spend a little bit of time thinking about

所以，我認為我們還是要花一些時間

why we might be prone to globaloney.

想想為什麼我們有這種全球化的傾向呢？

A couple of different reasons come to mind.

我想到幾個原因。

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

最主要的是在這議題上資料嚴重不足。

Let me give you an example. When I first published

我舉個例子。幾年前，當我第一次

some of these data a few years ago

在《外交政策》這本雜誌，

in a magazine called Foreign Policy,

公布其中一些數據。

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

其中一個讀者來信是湯瑪斯•佛里曼，

was Tom Friedman. And since my article was titled

他顯然不是很同意我的論點。

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

因為我的標題是“世界不是平的”，所以我一點也不訝異。

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

讓我訝異的是他的批評，

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

他說：「格曼沃特的資料範圍太小了。」

And this caused me to scratch my head, because

這實在讓我想不通，

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

因為當我回頭去看他那本好幾百頁的書，

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

我找不到任何數據圖表，

reference or footnote.

或者是參考資料或註解。

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

所以我要說的是，現在我沒有運用一大堆的數據

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

來說服你我是對的，但我鼓勵你們

to go away and look for your own data

可以去找找你們自己的數據，

to try and actually assess whether some of these

然後試著評估看看

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

是否這些我們一直被灌輸的看法

actually are correct.

真的是對的。

So dearth of data in the debate is one reason.

所以資料缺乏是個原因。

A second reason has to do with peer pressure.

另一個原因是來自同行的壓力。

I remember, I decided to write my

我記得為什麼我決定要寫

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

“為什麼世界不是平的”這篇文章，

I was being interviewed on TV in Mumbai,

那是我被邀請上孟買接受訪問，

and the interviewer's first question to me was,

主持人第一個問題就問我：

"Professor Ghemawat, why do you still believe

「格曼沃特教授，為什麼你仍然相信

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

世界是圓的？」我開始笑了起來，

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

因為我跟本沒想過那種說法。

And as I was laughing, I was thinking,

在我笑的同時，我也想到這是

I really need a more coherent response, especially

全國轉播的節目，我應該要有比較適切的回應，

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

所以我想我應該針對這個寫一些東西。

But what I can't quite capture for you

我很難跟你們說明，

was the pity and disbelief

那真是令人我覺得可悲，而且難以置信

with which the interviewer asked her question.

主持人竟會問這種問題。

The perspective was, here is this poor professor.

這好像是說，這個可憐的教授，

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

他顯然是活在兩萬年前的山頂洞人。

He really has no idea

他顯然不了解，

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

現在這個世界到底發生了什麼？

So try this out with your friends and acquaintances,

所以你可以試試看問問你的朋友，

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

或是你認識的人，你會發現談談

to talk about the world being one, etc.

世界一家的議題，其實滿酷的。

If you raise questions about that formulation,

如果你質疑那種想法，

you really are considered a bit of an antique.

你可能會被當成是一個老古董。

And then the final reason, which I mention,

最後一個原因，我是帶著戒慎恐懼的心情，

especially to a TED audience, with some trepidation,

特別要跟TED的觀眾說明，

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

那就是我所謂的電音傳腦，

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

就如你聽太久的電子音樂，

it does things to your brainwave activity. (Laughter)

會影響你的腦部運作一樣。

Something similar seems to happen

相同的效果也會產生在這時候，

with exaggerated conceptions of how technology

當我們持續誇大科技

is going to overpower in the very immediate run

將會短時間內打破

all cultural barriers, all political barriers,

所有的文化隔閡，政治藩籬，

all geographic barriers, because at this point

和所有地理上的障礙。

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

我知道現在你們不宜發問，

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

但每當我談到這個，我的學生們

hands go up, and people ask me,

就會舉手問我 ：

"Yeah, but what about Facebook?"

「那臉書代表什麼呢？」

And I got this question often enough that I thought

我常被問到這樣的問題，

I'd better do some research on Facebook.

所以我想我應該來研究一下臉書，

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

因為就某種程度上，它被看成是理想的科技型態。

to think about. Theoretically, it makes it

理論上來說，

as easy to form friendships halfway around the world

臉書使得跨越半個地球交朋友，

as opposed to right next door.

就如跟隔壁鄰居交惡一樣容易。

What percentage of people's friends on Facebook

大眾的臉書朋友到底

are actually located in countries other than where

占有多少比例是跟我們的調查對象

people we're analyzing are based?

不同國家呢？

The answer is probably somewhere between

答案大概是介於

10 to 15 percent.

百分之十至十五之間。

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

這很明顯的，我們不只與同國家的人交流

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

但距離你所期待百分之九十五，

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

還有一大段距離。理由很簡單，

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

因為我們不會，至少我希望我們不會，

on Facebook. The technology is overlaid

在臉書隨便就亂交朋友。

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

科技是基於我們早就形成的人際關係，

and those relationships are what the technology

而這些關係並不是科技可以代替的。

doesn't quite displace. Those relationships are why

就是因為這些既有的人際關係，

we get far fewer than 95 percent of our friends

我們才沒有高達百分之九十五的朋友

being located in countries other than where we are.

都來自異國。

So does all this matter? Or is globaloney

所以這些都有關係嗎？或者全球化鬼扯論

just a harmless way of getting people to pay more attention

只是一個無害的方式讓大家多注意

to globalization-related issues?

全球相關議題呢？

I want to suggest that actually,

我想要說的是，

globaloney can be very harmful to your health.

全球化鬼扯論是對你健康有傷害的，

First of all, recognizing that the glass

首先，如果玻璃杯

is only 10 to 20 percent full is critical to seeing

只有百分之十到二十滿而已，

that there might be potential for additional gains

那麼就一定還可以額外

from additional integration,

再增加其他東西。

whereas if we thought we were already there,

如果我們認為我們已經達到了，

there would be no particular point to pushing harder.

那就不可能再更進一步了。

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

就像如果我們真的認為

on radical openness if we already thought we were totally open

我們已經很開放了

to all the kinds of influences that are being talked about

我們不會有任何會議，

at this conference.

來談論積極開放的話題，

So being accurate about how limited globalization levels are

所以正確的看待全球化有限的程度

is critical to even being able to notice

是很重要的，

that there might be room for something more,

因為那表示還有更多需要做的事情，

something that would contribute further to global welfare.

比如，如何對全球福址有進一步的作為。

Which brings me to my second point.

這就牽連到我第二個要點，

Avoiding overstatement is also very helpful

避免過度高估是有好處的，

because it reduces and in some cases even reverses

因為可以減少或者是導正

some of the fears that people have about globalization.

有些人對全球化的恐懼。

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

所以我在我的書《世界3.0》裡，

working through a litany of market failures and fears

特別提到很多市場失敗的例子，

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

還有人們害怕全球化將會使之更加惡化。

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

很顯然的今天我沒辦法跟你多討論這點，

so let me just present to you two headlines

所以讓我用兩個標題，

as an illustration of what I have in mind.

來表示我的論點。

Think of France and the current debate about immigration.

想想法國和目前大家對移民話題的討論，

When you ask people in France what percentage

當你問法國人，移民占有法國人口中

of the French population is immigrants,

幾個百分比？

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

答案是大概二十四個百分比。那是他們猜的。

Maybe realizing that the number is just eight percent

也許當我們知道只有八個百分比時，

might help cool some of the superheated rhetoric

也許可以冷卻一下一些過於情緒化的

that we see around the immigration issue.

移民爭論。

Or to take an even more striking example,

講一個更令人訝異的例子，

when the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations

芝加哥外交委員會

did a survey of Americans, asking them to guess

做了一項調查，請美國人猜猜

what percentage of the federal budget went to foreign aid,

聯邦的預算裡占有多少比例是用在國外援助上，

the guess was 30 percent, which is

猜測的結果是30 %

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

這個結果稍微超出 (事實上是大約1%)

of U.S. governmental commitments to federal aid.

美國政府對各聯邦的援助預算。

The reassuring thing about this particular survey was,

這個特別調查可以確保，

when it was pointed out to people how far

當人們了解到實際的狀況，

their estimates were from the actual data,

遠不及我們所猜測的。

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

也許會有一些人，不是全部，

more willing to consider increases in foreign aid.

願意多增加對國外援助。

So foreign aid is actually a great way

國際援助事實上很適合

of sort of wrapping up here, because

用來做為今天的結論。

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

如果你回想一下，今天我一直在談的，

is this notion -- very uncontroversial amongst economists --

這個經濟學家都同意的概念：

that most things are very home-biased.

許多事情都是存在著本土偏重。

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

「國外援助是窮人最大的幫助」

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

就是你能想到最具偏見的事情。

If you look at the OECD countries and how much

觀察一下那些經濟合作組織的國家，

they spend per domestic poor person,

他們平均花了多少錢在一個本地的窮人上，

and compare it with how much they spend

和花在一個窮困國家裡的窮人的金額

per poor person in poor countries,

比較看看。

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

世界銀行的柏克･米蘭維克

turns out to be about 30,000 to one.

算出來的結果-大約是30000比1。

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

如果我們有些人認為我們真的是四海一家了，

would like to see that ratio being brought down

就會希望看到那個比例會降到

to one-is-to-one.

1:1。

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

我的建議是，

for that to make substantial progress from where we are.

我們不需要真的去追求達到那個目標。

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

假如我們只要可以把比例降到15000:1，

we would be meeting those aid targets that were agreed

我們就會達成那些早在20年前，

at the Rio Summit 20 years ago that the summit

里約高峰會時所同意的目標，

that ended last week made no further progress on.

但上週才結束的高峰會顯示未更進一步的發展。

So in summary, while radical openness is great,

總而言之，在我們目前開放的程度來說，

given how closed we are,

繼續積極開放是好的，

even incremental openness could make things

甚至持續的開放才能使這一切

dramatically better. Thank you very much. (Applause)

有更顯著的改變。謝謝大家！

(Applause)

（掌聲）