Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?

譯者: Kai Cheong Chan 審譯者: Diwen Mueller

My topic

我的講題

is economic growth in China and India.

是中國和印度的經濟增長。

And the question I want to explore with you

而我想與你們探討的問題是

is whether or not

民主對於經濟增長

democracy has helped or has hindered

是促進

economic growth.

還是阻礙?

You may say this is not fair,

你可能認為這並不公平。

because I'm selecting two countries

因為我只用了兩個國家

to make a case against democracy.

便立論否定民主。

Actually, exactly the opposite

事實上,我要做旳

is what I'm going to do.

剛好相反。

I'm going to use these two countries

我要用這兩個國家

to make an economic argument for democracy,

作為經濟上支持民主的理據

rather than against democracy.

而非反對民主。

The first question there

第一個問題是

is why China has grown so much faster

為何中國的發展速度

than India.

比印度要快很多?

Over the last 30 years,

在過去的30年裡

in terms of the GDP growth rates,

以GDP(國內生產總值)增長率計

China has grown at twice the rate of India.

中國的增長是印度的兩倍。

In the last five years,

在過去的5年,

the two countries have begun to converge somewhat

兩國的經濟增長開始

in economic growth.

趨向一致。

But over the last 30 years,

但在過去30年,

China undoubtedly

中國毫無疑問

has done much better than India.

較印度表現好很多。

One simple answer

一個簡單的答案是

is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai.

中國有上海,印度有孟買。

Look at the skyline of Shanghai.

看看上海的地平線

This is the Pudong area.

這是浦東地區。

The picture on India

而印度的照片則是

is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai

孟買達拉維的

in India.

貧民窟。

The idea there

兩張照片背後的

behind these two pictures

想法是

is that the Chinese government

中國政府可以

can act above rule of law.

凌駕法治之上。

It can plan

她可以根據國家長期利益

for the long-term benefits of the country

作出規劃。

and in the process,

而在這個過程中

evict millions of people --

遷徙以百萬計的人民 -

that's just a small technical issue.

這只是小小的技術問題。

Whereas in India, you cannot do that,

然而在印度,你無法這樣做

because you have to listen to the public.

你要聽取民眾的意見。

You're being constrained by the public's opinion.

你受到民意的制約。

Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

即使辛格總理

agrees with that view.

認同這個看法。

In an interview

在刊登於印度一份財經刊物上

printed in the financial press of India,

的一篇訪問中,

He said that he wants to make Mumbai

他說過想把孟買變成

another Shanghai.

另一個上海。

This is an Oxford-trained economist

這是一位在英國牛津大學受教育,

steeped in humanistic values,

人文價值觀深厚的經濟學家,

and yet he agrees

但他還是認同

with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.

上海的高壓政策。

So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth,

讓我稱它為上海式的經濟增長模式吧,

that emphasizes the following features

它強調以下

for promoting economic development:

促進經濟發展的形式:

infrastructures, airports,

基礎建設、機場、

highways, bridges, things like that.

公路、橋樑及類似的建設。

And you need a strong government to do that,

你需要一個強勢政府才可以這樣做，

because you cannot respect private property rights.

因為你不能尊重私有產權。

You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion.

你也不可以被民意約束。

You need also state ownership,

你亦需要公共產權,

especially of land assets,

特別是土地資產的擁有權,

in order to build and roll out infrastructures

以便急速地進行及推出

very quickly.

基礎建設。

The implication of that model

這個模式意味著

is that democracy

民主

is a hindrance for economic growth,

是經濟增長的障礙,

rather than a facilitator of economic growth.

而非經濟增長促進者。

Here's the key question.

這裡關鍵的問題是:

Just how important are infrastructures

基礎建設對經濟增長

for economic growth?

有多重要?

This is a key issue.

這是一個關鍵的課題。

If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth,

如果你相信基礎建設對經濟增長極之重要,

then you would argue a strong government is necessary

那麼你應支持須要強勢政府去

to promote growth.

促進經濟增長。

If you believe

如果你相信

that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe,

基礎建設並非如很多人所想那麼重要的話,

then you will put less emphasis

那麼你便不會那樣重視

on strong government.

強勢政府。

So to illustrate that question,

要說明這個問題,

let me give you two countries.

讓我用兩個國家為例,

And for the sake of brevity,

同時為求簡單起見,

I'll call one country Country 1

我把第一個國家稱為甲國

and the other country Country 2.

另一個乙國。

Country 1

甲國

has a systematic advantage over Country 2

在基礎建設上較乙國

in infrastructures.

有系統性的優勢。

Country 1 has more telephones,

甲國有較多的電話,

and Country 1 has a longer system of railways.

和更長的鐵路系統。

So if I were to ask you,

如果我問你,

"Which is China

那一個是中國?

and which is India,

那一個是印度?

and which country has grown faster?"

那一個國家增長得比較快?

if you believe in the infrastructure view,

我相根據基礎建設的角度,

then you will say, "Country 1 must be China.

你會說:"甲國應該是中國,

They must have done better, in terms of economic growth.

在經濟增長方面,她應表現較佳,

And Country 2 is possibly India."

而乙國就可能是印度。"

Actually the country with more telephones

事實上,有較多電話的國家是

is the Soviet Union,

蘇聯,

and the data referred to 1989.

這是1989年的數據。

After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones,

在發表了令人印象深刻的電話統計數據後,

the country collapsed.

這個國家解體了。

That's not too good.

這並非好事。

The picture there is Khrushchev.

這是赫魯曉夫的照片。

I know that in 1989

我知他在1989年

he no longer ruled the Soviet Union,

已不再統治蘇聯了,

but that's the best picture that I can find.

但這是我能找到的最好的照片。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Telephones, infrastructures

電話、基礎建設

do not guarantee you economic growth.

並不保證為你帶來經濟增長。

Country 2, that has fewer telephones,

擁有比較少電話的乙國

is China.

是中國。

Since 1989,

1989年以來

the country has performed at a double-digit rate

該國在過去的20年裡

every year for the last 20 years.

每年都表現出雙位數字的增長率。

If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union

如果你對中國和蘇聯一無所知

other than the fact about their telephones,

只知道她們電話的數字,

you would have made a poor prediction

你便會對她們之後20年的

about their economic growth

經濟增長

in the next two decades.

作出差勁的預測。

Country 1, that has a longer system of railways,

有較長鐵路系統的甲國

is actually India.

其實是印度。

And Country 2 is China.

乙國是中國。

This is a very little known fact

這是一個關於這兩個國家

about the two countries.

罕為人知的事實。

Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage

沒錯,在基礎建設上中國目前較印度

over India.

有龐大的優勢。

But for many years,

但很多年來

until the late 1990s,

直到90年代末期

China had an infrastructure disadvantage

中國在基礎建設上相對印度而言

vis-a-vis India.

是處於劣勢的。

In developing countries,

在發展中國家,

the most common mode of transportation

最普及的交通工具是

is the railways,

鐵路,

and the British built a lot of railways in India.

英國人在印度建了很多鐵路。

India is the smaller of the two countries,

印度是兩國中較小的一個,

and yet it had a longer system of railways

然而在90年代末，印度仍然擁有

until the late 1990s.

較長的鐵路系統。

So clearly,

明顯地,

infrastructure doesn't explain

基礎建設解釋不了

why China did better before the late 1990s,

爲何中國在90年代後期之前

as compared with India.

表現優於印度。

In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide,

事實上,如果你環顧全球的證據,

the evidence is more supportive of the view

這些證據更多支持

that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth.

基礎建設是經濟增長的成果這種看法。

The economy grows,

經濟增長,

government accumulates more resources,

政府累積更多資源

and the government can invest in infrastructure --

及投資於基礎建設 -

rather than infrastructure being a cause

基礎建設並非

for economic growth.

帶動經濟增長的原因。

And this is clearly the story

這明顯是

of the Chinese economic growth.

中國經濟增長的故事。

Let me look at this question more directly.

讓我更直接的分析這個問題。

Is democracy bad for economic growth?

民主是否不利於經濟增長?

Now let's turn to two countries,

現在再看看另外兩個國家,

Country A and Country B.

丙國和丁國。

Country A, in 1990,

丙國在1990年

had about $300 per capita GDP

的人均GDP是300美元。

as compared with Country B,

至於丁國

which had $460 in per capita GDP.

其人均GDP則爲460美元。

By 2008,

到了2008年,

Country A has surpassed Country B

丙國超越了丁國

with $700 per capita GDP

人均GDP達700美元

as compared with $650 per capita GDP.

相對於650美元的人均GDP。

Both countries are in Asia.

兩個國家都在亞洲。

If I were to ask you,

假如我問你:

"Which are the two Asian countries?

"她們是那兩個亞洲國家呢?"

And which one is a democracy?"

"那一個是民主國家呢?"

you may argue,

你可能會認為

"Well, maybe Country A is China

丙國是中國

and Country B is India."

丁國是印度。

In fact, Country A

事實上,丙國是

is democratic India,

民主的印度,

and Country B is Pakistan --

丁國是巴基斯坦 -

the country that has a long period

該國有一段很長時期的

of military rule.

軍事統治。

And it's very common

我們時常會

that we compare India with China.

拿印度與中國比較。

That's because the two countries

因為這兩個國家

have about the same population size.

擁有差不多的人口。

But the more natural comparison

但更自然的比較

is actually between India and Pakistan.

實際上應是印度和巴基斯坦。

Those two countries are geographically similar.

這兩個國家地理位置差不多。

They have a complicated, but shared common history.

同時擁有複雜但相同的歷史。

By that comparison,

比較起來,

democracy looks very, very good

民主對經濟增長

in terms of economic growth.

看來極之有利。

So why do economists fall in love

但為何經濟學家會愛上

with authoritarian governments?

獨裁政府呢?

One reason is the East Asian Model.

一個原因是東亞模式。

In East Asia,

在東亞地區,

we have had successful economic growth stories

我們有一些成功的經濟增長故事

such as Korea, Taiwan,

例如南韓、台灣、

Hong Kong and Singapore.

香港和新加坡。

Some of these economies

這些國家中,有些

were ruled by authoritarian governments

在60和70年代,

in the 60s and 70s

以及80年代,

and 1980s.

曾受獨裁統治。

The problem with that view

這個看法的問題是

is like asking all the winners of lotteries,

像問彩票中獎人:

"Have you won the lottery?"

"你中了獎嗎?"

And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery."

他們都會跟你說:"對,我中了獎。"

And then you draw the conclusion

然後你便作出結論

the odds of winning the lottery

中獎的機會是

are 100 percent.

百分之百。

The reason is you never go

原因是你完全沒有亦無心去

and bother to ask the losers

問一下那些買了彩票

who also purchased lottery tickets

但沒有中獎

and didn't end up winning the prize.

而贏不到彩金的人。

For each of these successful authoritarian governments

在東亞,

in East Asia,

在這些每一個成功的獨裁政府背後

there's a matched failure.

都有一個相應的失敗例子。

Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't.

南韓成功,北韓失敗。

Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't.

台灣成功,毛澤東領導下的中國失敗。

Burma didn't succeed.

緬甸不成功。

The Philippines didn't succeed.

菲律賓不成功。

If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide,

如果你看看全球的統計數據,

there's really no support for the idea

真的找不到證據去證明，

that authoritarian governments

獨裁政府

hold a systematic edge over democracies

在經濟增長上較民主國家

in terms of economic growth.

擁有系統性的優勢。

So the East Asian model

所以東亞模式

has this massive selection bias --

存有重大的選擇偏差 -

it is known as selecting on a dependent variable,

即是所謂篩選因變數的做法,

something we always tell our students to avoid.

一些我們經常教導學生要避免的錯誤。

So exactly why did China grow so much faster?

究竟是甚麽原因令中國增長快那麼多呢?

I will take you to the Cultural Revolution,

讓我與你們回顧一下文化大革命,

when China went mad,

當時中國處於瘋狂狀態,

and compare that country's performance with India

然後拿她的經濟表現與

under Indira Gandhi.

甘地領導下的印度比較。

The question there is: Which country did better,

這裡的問題是:"那一個國家表現較好,

China or India?

中國或印度?"

China was during the Cultural Revolution.

中國當時正處於文化大革命期間,

It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution,

結果是即使在文化大革命期間,

China out-perfomed India

以GDP增長計,

in terms of GDP growth

中國比印度有較好的表現

by an average of about 2.2 percent every year

以人均GDP計,

in terms of per capita GDP.

中國平均每年的增長高於印度百分之2.2。

So that's when China was mad.

這正是中國處於瘋狂的時候。

The whole country went mad.

整個國家都瘋狂起來。

It must mean that the country

這意味著這個國家

had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth

一定有一些經濟增長上的強大優勢

to overcome the negative effects

足以克服文化大革命

of the Cultural Revolution.

帶來的負面影響。

The advantage the country had

這個國家擁有的優勢就是

was human capital --

人力資本 -

nothing else but human capital.

沒有其他就只是人力資本。

This is the world development index indicator data

這是90年代初的

in the early 1990s.

全球發展指數的數據。

And this is the earliest data that I can find.

這是我能夠找到的最早的數據。

The adult literacy rate in China

中國的成人識字率

is 77 percent

達百分之77

as compared with 48 percent in India.

印度只有百分之48。

The contrast in literacy rates

中國和印度婦女

is especially sharp

的識字率之間的差距

between Chinese women and Indian women.

更為特別顯著。

I haven't told you about the definition of literacy.

我還未告訴你識字率的定義。

In China, the definition of literacy

在中國,識字的定義是

is the ability to read and write

能夠讀和寫

1,500 Chinese characters.

1,500個中文字。

In India, the definition of literacy,

在印度,識字的定義,

operating definition of literacy,

操作上識字的定義,

is the ability, the grand ability,

是以你所說的語言,無論你說甚麽話,

to write your own name

書寫自己名字

in whatever language you happen to speak.

的能力,重大的能力。

The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy

在識字水平上,兩國的差距

is much more substantial

跟數據所顯示的

than the data here indicated.

嚴重得更多。

If you go to other sources of data

如果你參考其他數據來源

such as Human Development Index,

譬如人力發展指數字,

that data series,

該數據

go back to the early 1970s,

追溯至70年代初

you see exactly the same contrast.

你可看到完全一樣的差距。

China held a huge advantage

中國相對於印度,

in terms of human capital

在人力資本上

vis-a-vis India.

擁有鉅大的優勢。

Life expectancies:

預期壽命方面:

as early as 1965,

早至1965年,

China had a huge advantage in life expectancy.

中國在預期壽命亦有龐大優勢。

On average, as a Chinese in 1965,

平均而言,在1965年時,作為中國人

you lived 10 years more

你可比一個平均的印度人

than an average Indian.

活多10年。

So if you have a choice

假如你可選擇

between being a Chinese and being an Indian,

做中國人還是印度人,

you would want to become a Chinese

你自然會想做中國人

in order to live 10 years longer.

得以活多10年。

If you made that decision in 1965,

如果你在1965年作出了這個決定,

the down side of that

弊處是

is the next year we have the Cultural Revolution.

第二年爆發了文化大革命。

So you have to always think carefully

所以你必須小心考慮

about these decisions.

才去作出這些決定。

If you cannot chose your nationality,

如果你不可選擇你的國藉,

then you will want to become an Indian man.

那你將會想做印度男性。

Because, as an Indian man,

因為,作為印度男性,

you have about two years of life expectancy advantage

相對於印度女性,

vis-a-vis Indian women.

你有長兩年預期壽命的優勢。

This is an extremely strange fact.

這是極為不尋常的事實。

It's very rare among countries

在其他國家中

to have this kind of pattern.

極為罕見的形態。

It shows the systematic discrimination and biases

這顯示出印度社會

in the Indian society

對女性

against women.

整體地存有歧視及偏見。

The good news is, by 2006,

好消息是,在2006年前,

India has closed the gap

印度已消除了

between men and women

男性與女性

in terms of life expectancy.

預期壽命上的差距。

Today, Indian women have a sizable life expectancy edge

今天,印度女性較男性

over Indian men.

有一個很大的預期壽命的優勢。

So India is reverting to the normal.

所以,印度正回歸常態。

But India still has a lot of work to do

但印度在性別平等上

in terms of gender equality.

還需努力。

These are the two pictures

這是在中國廣東省

taken of garment factories in Guangdong Province

和印度的製衣廠

and garment factories in India.

拍攝的兩張照片。

In China, it's all women.

在中國,相內全是女性。

60 to 80 percent of the workforce in China is women

在中國沿海地區,

in the coastal part of the country,

百分之60至80的勞動力是女性。

whereas in India, it's all men.

但在印度,則全是男性。

Financial Times printed this picture

金融時報刊出了

of an Indian textile factory

這張印度紡織廠的照片,

with the title, "India Poised to Overtake China in Textile."

標題是:"印度紡織業即將超越中國"。

By looking at these two pictures,

單看這兩張照片,

I say no, it won't overtake China for a while.

我會說不,它有一段時間都不會超越中國。

If you look at other East Asian countries,

如果你看看其他東亞國家,

women there play a hugely important role

女性在經濟起飛 -

in terms of economic take-off --

在東亞地區

in terms of creating the manufacturing miracle

創造製造業奇蹟方面,

associated with East Asia.

扮演了極為重大的角色。

India still has a long way to go

印度還有一段很長的路要走

to catch up with China.

才趕得上中國。

Then the issue is,

那麼,問題是,

what about the Chinese political system?

中國的政治政度有何影響呢?

You talk about human capital,

你談到人力資本、

you talk about education and public health.

又談到教育和公共健康。

What about the political system?

政治制度又如何呢?

Isn't it true that the one-party political system

一黨政治制度足否

has facilitated economic growth in China?

促進了中國的經濟增長呢?

Actually, the answer is more nuanced and subtle than that.

事實上,答案比較細緻和微妙。

It depends on a distinction that you draw

這要看你如何區分

between statics of the political system

政治制度的靜態和

and the dynamics of the political system.

政治制度的動態。

Statically, China is a one-party system,

靜態而言,中國是一黨制度,

authoritarian -- there's no question about it.

獨裁制度 - 這是毫無疑問的。

Dynamically, it has changed over time

動態而言,它隨時間遷移而改變

to become less authoritarian and more democratic.

變得較不獨裁和較為民主。

When you explain change --

當你解釋改變時

for example, economic growth;

例如,經濟增長;

economic growth is about change --

經濟增長是關於改變 -

when you explain change,

當你解釋改變時,

you use other things that have changed to explain change,

你要用其他出現了改變的東西來解釋改變,

rather than using the constant to explain change.

而不是用固定不變的因素來解釋改變。

Sometimes a fixed effect can explain change,

有時固定因素可解釋改變,

but a fixed effect only explains changes

但固定因素只解釋改變

in interaction with the things that change.

與其他出現改變的因素的互動。

In terms of the political changes,

以政治改變而言,

they have introduced village elections.

他們引進了農村選舉。

They have increased the security of proprietors.

他們加強了個體戶的保障。

And they have increased the security

以及長期土地租賃

with long-term land leases.

的保障。

There are also financial reforms in rural China.

在中國農村也出現了財政改革。

There is also a rural entrepreneurial revolution in China.

中國亦出現了農村創業革命。

To me, the pace of political changes

我覺得,政治改變的步代

is too slow, too gradual.

實在太慢、太循序漸進了。

And my own view is the country

我的看法是這國家

is going to face some substantial challenges,

將面對重大的挑戰,

because they have not moved further and faster on political reforms.

因為他們在政治改革上走得未夠深遠和迅速。

But nevertheless,

但無論如何,

the system has moved in a more liberal direction,

這個制度已朝更開放、

moved in a more democratic direction.

更自由的方向發展。

You can apply exactly the same dynamic perspective on India.

你可把同樣的動態分析用在印度身上。

In fact, when India was growing

事實上,印度是依印度教的增長率

at a Hindu rate of growth --

而增長 -

about one percent, two percent a year --

每年約百分之1至2 -

that was when India was least democratic.

這是印度最不民主的時期。

Indira Gandhi declared emergency rule in 1975.

甘地在1975年宣布了緊急管治。

The Indian government owned and operated

印度政府擁有和營運

all the TV stations.

所有的電視台。

A little-known fact about India in the 1990s

較少人知關於印度在1990年代的事實是

is that the country

該國

not only has undertaken economic reforms,

不單只進行經濟改革,

the country has also undertaken political reforms

還進行了政治改革

by introducing village self-rule,

引入了鄉村自治

privatization of media

傳媒私有化

and introducing freedom of information acts.

和引入資訊自由法案。

So the dynamic perspective

所以,動態觀點

fits both with China and in India

從發展方向而言

in terms of the direction.

均適用於中國和印度。

Why do many people believe

為何人們相信

that India is still a growth disaster?

印度仍是一個增長的災難?

One reason

一個原因是

is they are always comparing India with China.

他們經常拿印度與中國比較。

But China is a superstar

但以經濟增長來說中國是

in terms of economic growth.

超級巨星。

If you are a NBA player

如果你是NBA球員,

and you are always being compared to Michael Jordan,

而人們經常拿你跟米高.佐敦比較,

you're going to look not so impressive.

你也難以令人刮目相看。

But that doesn't mean

但這並不表示

that you're a bad basketball player.

你是一名差勁的藍球員。

Comparing with a superstar

與超級巨星比較

is the wrong benchmark.

是錯誤的基準。

In fact, if you compare India

事實上,如果你拿印度與

with the average developing country,

一般發展中國家比較,

even before the more recent period

即使排除較近期

of acceleration of Indian growth --

印度增長加速期 -

now India is growing between eight and nine percent --

目前印度毎年增長百分之8至9 -

even before this period,

即使在這時期之前,

India was ranked fourth in terms of economic growth

以經濟增長計,印度在新興經濟中

among emerging economies.

排名第4。

This is a very impressive record indeed.

這實在是十分出色的紀錄。

Let's think about the future:

讓我們想想將來:

the dragon vis-a-vis the elephant.

龍與象之爭。

Which country has the growth momentum?

那一個國家擁有增長勢頭?

China, I believe, still has

我相信中國仍有

some of the excellent raw fundamentals --

一些優良的原始基本因素 -

mostly the social capital,

主要是社會資本、

the public health,

公共衛生、

the sense of egalitarianism

平均主義的感覺 -

that you don't find in India.

這些都是印度缺少的。

But I believe that India has the momentum.

但我相信印度有這個增長勢頭。

It has the improving fundamentals.

她擁有逐步改善的基礎因素。

The government has invested in basic education,

政府對基本教育作出了投資,

has invested in basic health.

對基本健康作出了投資。

I believe the government should do more,

我覺得政府應做得更多,

but nevertheless, the direction it is moving in

但無論如何,它發展的方向

is the right direction.

是正確的方向。

India has the right institutional conditions

印度擁有經濟發展

for economic growth,

的適當體制狀況,

whereas China is still struggling

而中國仍在政治改革中

with political reforms.

掙扎。

I believe that the political reforms are a must for China

我相信中國要維持經濟增長,

to maintain its growth.

政治改革是必須的。

And it's very important to have political reforms,

同樣十分重要的是中國需要政治改革

to have widely shared benefits of economic growth.

來使經濟增長的利益受到廣泛的分享。

I don't know whether that's going to happen or not,

我不知道會否出現這種情況,

but I'm an optimist.

但我是樂觀主義者。

Hopefully, five years from now, I'm going to report to TEDGlobal

希望5年之後,我回來向TEDGlobal報告

that political reforms will happen in China.

中國出現了政治改革。

Thank you very much.

慼謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)