Paul Collier: 4 ways to improve the lives of the "bottom bil

譯者: Wang-Ju Tsai 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

So, can we dare to be optimistic?

那麽，我們還能繼續覺得樂觀嗎？

Well, the thesis of "The Bottom Billion"

“在底層的10億人”是指

is that a billion people have been stuck living

有10億人的生活

in economies that have been stagnant for 40 years,

陷於40年如一日停滯不前的經濟裏

and hence diverging from the rest of mankind.

所以和其他人們的生活完全隔離。

And so, the real question to pose is not, "Can we be optimistic?"

真正的問題不是“我們還能覺得樂觀嗎？”

It's, "How can we give credible hope to that billion people?"

而是，“我們如何才能給這10億人確切的希望？”

That, to my mind, is the fundamental challenge now of development.

在我心裏，這才是現在發展最基本的挑戰。

What I'm going to offer you is a recipe,

我想提出的是一套方案

a combination of the two forces that changed the world for good,

結合兩股力量，而能永久地改變這世界

which is the alliance of compassion and enlightened self-interest.

也就是，結合對他人的慈悲和有正識的自我利益這兩股力量。

Compassion, because a billion people are living in societies

要有慈悲，因爲有10億人住在

that have not offered credible hope.

沒有確切希望的社會裏。

That is a human tragedy.

這是個人類大悲劇。

Enlightened self-interest, because if that economic divergence

有正識的自我利益，要去看清楚

continues for another 40 years,

要是這樣的經濟差異再繼續個40年

combined with social integration globally,

跟全球社會的整合結合起來的話

it will build a nightmare for our children.

這將會是我們下一代的噩夢。

We need compassion to get ourselves started,

我們需要藉由慈悲心使我們起而行

and enlightened self-interest to get ourselves serious.

想到這牽涉自我利益，才會使我們認真地看待這件事。

That's the alliance that changes the world.

這兩股力量的結合才能改變這世界。

So, what does it mean to get serious about providing hope for the bottom billion?

所以，認真地提供希望給這10億人是什麽意思？

What can we actually do?

我們能做什麽？

Well, a good guide is to think,

有個思考方式不錯，就是去問

"What did we do last time the rich world got serious

“上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地

about developing another region of the world?"

思考世界其他區域的發展問題，是什麽時候？”

That gives us, it turns out, quite a good clue,

答案通常可以給我們很多啓示

except you have to go back quite a long time.

可惜的是，你必須回溯到很久以前。

The last time the rich world got serious

上一次世界上的有錢國家認真地

about developing another region was in the late 1940s.

思考世界其他區域的發展問題，是1940年代末的時候了。

The rich world was you, America,

這個有錢國家就是你們，美國

and the region that needed to be developed was my world, Europe.

這個需要發展的區域是我住的地方，歐洲。

That was post-War Europe.

那是戰後的歐洲。

Why did America get serious?

爲什麽美國要認真地幫忙？

It wasn't just compassion for Europe, though there was that.

這不只是對歐洲的憐憫慈悲，雖然也有一部分是如此

It was that you knew you had to,

那主要是因爲，大家知道那是必須做的事

because, in the late 1940s, country after country in Central Europe

在40年代末期，在中歐的國家

was falling into the Soviet bloc, and so you knew you'd no choice.

一個接一個地陷入蘇聯的鐵幕後，所以當時你們沒有選擇。

Europe had to be dragged into economic development.

必須拉歐洲一把來發展經濟

So, what did you do, last time you got serious?

所以上一次認真時，你們做了什麽？

Well, yes, you had a big aid program. Thank you very much.

你們發展了一個大的援助計劃。十分感謝

That was Marshall aid: we need to do it again. Aid is part of the solution.

那就是馬歇爾援助計劃。我們必須再來一次。援助是解決方案的一部分。

But what else did you do?

但是除此以外，你們還做了什麽？

Well, you tore up your trade policy, and totally reversed it.

你們改寫了貿易政策，作了180度的大轉變。

Before the war, America had been highly protectionist.

在大戰前，美國是十分盛行保護主義的

After the war, you opened your markets to Europe,

而戰後，你們對歐洲開放了市場

you dragged Europe into the then-global economy, which was your economy,

你們將歐洲帶入當時的國際市場，也就是你們的經濟

and you institutionalized that trade liberalization

並建立機構來監督當時的貿易自由

through founding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

成立了關稅暨貿易總協定(GATT)。

So, total reversal of trade policy.

所以是跟保護主義完全不同的貿易政策。

Did you do anything else?

你們還作了什麽？

Yes, you totally reversed your security policy.

是的，你們完全改變了安全政策

Before the war, your security policy had been isolationist.

在戰前，在安全政策上你們奉行獨立主義

After the war, you tear that up, you put 100,000 troops in Europe

在戰後完全改變，你們派遣了10萬部隊到歐洲

for over 40 years.

還延續了40年以上。

So, total reversal of security policy. Anything else?

所以在安全政策也有180度的轉變。還有呢？

Yes, you tear up the "Eleventh Commandment" --

還有，你們放下了“第十一戒”

national sovereignty.

國家主權。

Before the war, you treated national sovereignty as so sacrosanct

在戰前，你們把國家主權當作是至高無上的

that you weren't even willing to join the League of Nations.

美國甚至不願意加入國際聯盟。

After the war, you found the United Nations,

到了戰後，美國變成聯合國的發起國

you found the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

還成立了“經濟合作與發展組織”

you found the IMF, you encouraged Europe to create the European Community --

“國際貨幣基金組織”，鼓勵歐洲成立“歐洲經濟共同體”

all systems for mutual government support.

這些各國政府相互支援的系統。

That is still the waterfront of effective policies:

有效的政策項目基本上還是這幾樣：

aid, trade, security, governments.

援助、貿易、安全、政府。

Of course, the details of policy are going to be different,

當然，實際政策的内涵是會不同的

because the challenge is different.

因爲挑戰跟以往不同了。

It's not rebuilding Europe, it's reversing the divergence

現在不是歐洲的重建，而是使得經濟差異

for the bottom billion, so that they actually catch up.

能夠縮小，使貧窮的人能夠趕上。

Is that easier or harder?

那麽這是比較簡單還是困難？

We need to be at least as serious as we were then.

我們至少要跟以前一樣認真。

Now, today I'm going to take just one of those four.

現在，我要用這四個其中一個來舉例

I'm going to take the one that sounds the weakest,

我要用聼起來最脆弱的來做例子

the one that's just motherhood and apple pie --

這個讓大家都感受到溫馨慈愛的一項

governments, mutual systems of support for governments --

那就是：政府，互相扶持政府的系統

and I'm going to show you one idea

我要跟大家分享一個主意

in how we could do something to strengthen governance,

看我們能做什麽來加強政府的管理

and I'm going to show you that that is enormously important now.

我也要讓大家看看，現在這是十分重要的。

The opportunity we're going to look to

接下來我們要看的

is a genuine basis for optimism about the bottom billion,

一個真正能帶給底層的10億人的樂觀希望的

and that is the commodity booms.

是天然資源的需求大增。

The commodity booms are pumping unprecedented amounts of money

對天然資源潮需求正在把前所未見的大量的金錢

into many, though not all, of the countries of the bottom billion.

灌進 (雖然不是所有的國家) 大部分的底層的窮人。

Partly, they're pumping money in because commodity prices are high,

原因一方面是因爲天然資源的價格高

but it's not just that. There's also a range of new discoveries.

但不只是如此，還有其他一系列新的發現。

Uganda has just discovered oil, in about the most disastrous location on Earth;

烏干達剛在大概是全球最淒慘的地方發現了石油；

Ghana has discovered oil;

加納也發現了石油；

Guinea has got a huge new exploitation of iron ore coming out of the ground.

幾内亞剛開挖了幾個大的鐵礦。

So, a mass of new discoveries.

所以有一大批新的發現。

Between them, these new revenue flows dwarf aid.

跟這些新產生的盈餘比起來援助金額顯得微不足道。

Just to give you one example:

我擧個例子：

Angola alone is getting 50 billion dollars a year in oil revenue.

安哥拉光靠石油每年可賺進500億美元

The entire aid flows to the 60 countries of the bottom billion last year were 34 billion.

而去年援助60國底層10億人的總金額才340億。

So, the flow of resources from the commodity booms

所以靠天然資源需求增加

to the bottom billion are without precedent.

正給底層的10億人帶來前所未有的收入。

So there's the optimism.

所以這是讓人樂觀的地方。

The question is, how is it going to help their development?

問題是，這如何能幫助他們的發展呢？

It's a huge opportunity for transformational development.

這是個提供轉型發展的大機會

Will it be taken?

人們會好好把握嗎？

So, here comes a bit of science, and this is a bit of science I've done

這裡需要些科學根據，這是我出了書（在底層的10億人）之後

since "The Bottom Billion," so it's new.

所做的科學研究，所以還挺新的。

I've looked to see what is the relationship between

我查了一下看看天然資源價格的提高

higher commodity prices of exports,

和天然資源出口國經濟成長

and the growth of commodity-exporting countries.

之間的關係。

And I've looked globally, I've taken all the countries in the world

我把全球的國家過去40年的資料

for the last 40 years,

都列入參考

and looked to see what the relationship is.

要看看之間的關係是什麽。

And the short run -- say, the first five to seven years -- is just great.

就短期來看，起先的5到7年，結果是很好的。

In fact, it's hunky dory: everything goes up.

事實上，是超棒的，所有的指標都向上。

You get more money because your terms of trade have improved,

因爲貿易條件改善了，所以得到更多錢

but also that drives up output across the board.

這也進一步帶動產出。

So GDP goes up a lot -- fantastic! That's the short run.

所以國内生産總值向上提升了很多--太棒了！這是短期的效應。

And how about the long run?

那麽，長期呢？

Come back 15 years later.

再看看15年後

Well, the short run, it's hunky dory,

在短期來看，結果是超棒的

but the long run, it's humpty dumpty.

但是在長期來看，卻是十分遜。

You go up in the short run, but then most societies

在短期間，經濟是往上爬，但是從歷史上看來

historically have ended up worse than if they'd had no booms at all.

大部分國家長期的經濟，卻比資源需求熱潮前更糟糕。

That is not a forecast about how commodity prices go;

這不是天然資源價格的預測

it's a forecast of the consequences, the long-term consequences,

而是天然資源價格上揚

for growth of an increase in prices.

在長期上帶來的結果的預測

So, what goes wrong? Why is there this "resource curse," as it's called?

那麽，到底是哪裏出錯了？爲什麽會有這所謂的“天然資源的詛咒”？

And again, I've looked at that, and it turns out

我再一次地檢視這個問題

that the critical issue is the level of governance,

結果發現關鍵在於管理的層級

the initial level of economic governance,

在於當資源需求熱潮初期的

when the resource booms accrue.

初級階層的經濟管理。

In fact, if you've got good enough governance,

事實上，如果你有夠好的管理

there is no resource boom.

那麽根本不會有資源需求的熱潮。

You go up in the short term, and then you go up even more in the long term.

在短期間經濟往上爬，而在長期更是會一直成長

That's Norway, the richest country in Europe. It's Australia. It's Canada.

像歐洲最有錢的國家挪威，像澳洲、加拿大

The resource curse is entirely confined to countries

天然資源的詛咒完全只限於

below a threshold of governance.

管理層級低於某個水準的國家

They still go up in the short run.

雖然在短期他們還是有成長

That's what we're seeing across the bottom billion at the moment.

這也是目前正發生在這10億人身上的事

The best growth rates they've had -- ever.

到目前他們有過最好的經濟成長率。

And the question is whether the short run will persist.

問題是短期的成長能否持續

And with bad governance historically, over the last 40 years, it hasn't.

從過去40年的不良管理的歷史來看，答案是否定的。

It's countries like Nigeria, which are worse off than if they'd never had oil.

在像奈及利亞這樣的國家，沒有石油的話可能今天的發展還更好。

So, there's a threshold level above which you go up in the long term,

所以，能不能長遠發展，要看管理有沒有達到一定的程度

and below which you go down.

不到一定程度的話長期會走下坡。

Just to benchmark that threshold,

這管理的門檻在哪裡呢？

it's about the governance level of Portugal in the mid 1980s.

差不多是葡萄牙在80年代中期的程度

So, the question is, are the bottom billion above or below that threshold?

所以，問題是，底層的10億人是活在這個門檻之上還是之下？

Now, there's one big change since the commodity booms of the 1970s,

在1970年代的資源需求熱潮以後有一個大改變

and that is the spread of democracy.

那就是民主體制的散佈

So I thought, well, maybe that is the thing

所以我想，可能就是民主

which has transformed governance in the bottom billion.

改變了這底層10億人的管理

Maybe we can be more optimistic because of the spread of democracy.

因爲民主體制的散佈，我們或許還可以樂觀。

So, I looked. Democracy does have significant effects --

我做了研究，民主有一些顯著的影響

and unfortunately, they're adverse.

但很不幸的，影響是負面的。

Democracies make even more of a mess of these resource booms than autocracies.

資源需求的熱潮在民主體制下，比專制下的結果還糟糕

At that stage I just wanted to abandon the research, but --

看到這裡我都想放棄這項研究了，但是

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

-- it turns out that democracy is a little bit more complicated than that.

民主看來是還要複雜一些。

Because there are two distinct aspects of democracy:

因爲民主有兩個很不一樣的面向

there's electoral competition, which determines how you acquire power,

一個是競選，這決定權力的取得

and there are checks and balances, which determine how you use power.

另一個是監督制衡，這決定權力的使用。

It turns out that electoral competition is the thing

現在看起來是競選

that's doing the damage with democracy,

給民主帶來破壞

whereas strong checks and balances make resource booms good.

相反地，有監督制衡的資源需求熱潮，則是好的。

And so, what the countries of the bottom billion need

所以，在底層10億人的國家需要的

is very strong checks and balances.

是強而有力的監督制衡。

They haven't got them.

這是他們所欠缺的。

They got instant democracy in the 1990s:

他們在1990年代瞬間達到民主

elections without checks and balances.

有了選舉權卻沒有監督制衡的力量。

How can we help improve governance and introduce checks and balances?

我們該怎麽改善管理並導入監督和制衡呢？

In all the societies of the bottom billion,

在這底層10億人的社會裏

there are intense struggles to do just that.

光要這麽做就引起不小的抗爭。

The simple proposal is that we should have some international standards,

比較簡單的提議是我們該有一些國際標準

which will be voluntary, but which would spell out the key decision points

這些標準是非強制性的，但規定了一些

that need to be taken in order

在管理天然資源收益時

to harness these resource revenues.

該考慮的重要決策點。

We know these international standards work

我們很確定這些國際標準是有效的

because we've already got one.

因爲我們的手邊就有一套

It's called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

叫做“工業透明化提議摘要”

That is the very simple idea that governments should report

背後的主意是很簡單的，也就是說政府

to their citizens what revenues they have.

應該向人民公佈利益所得。

No sooner was it proposed

這份提議一提出來

than reformers in Nigeria adopted it, pushed it and published the revenues in the paper.

在奈及利亞的改革者就立即推行這套提議，並發佈利益所得

Nigerian newspapers circulations spiked.

該國的報紙發行量也激增

People wanted to know what their government was getting

人民都想知道他們的政府

in terms of revenue.

到底得到了多少收入。

So, we know it works. What would the content be of these international standards?

所以我們知道這是可行的。那麽這個國際標準的内容該有什麽呢？

I can't go through all of them, but I'll give you an example.

我沒辦法一一敍述，只能給你們擧一個例子

The first is how to take the resources out of the ground --

一開始談到了如何開發地底的天然資源

the economic processes, taking the resources out of the ground

經濟過程，將資源從地底挖出來

and putting assets on top of the ground.

並在地上設置開採設備。

And the first step in that is selling the rights to resource extraction.

第一步是採礦權的出售

You know how rights to resource extraction are being sold at the moment,

你知道採礦權在現在、在過去的40年内

how they've been sold over the last 40 years?

是怎麽出售的？

A company flies in, does a deal with a minister.

一個公司跑過來，跟一個部長交易就成了

And that's great for the company,

這對公司來説很好

and it's quite often great for the minister --

通常對這個部長來説也很好

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

-- and it's not great for their country.

但是對國家很不好。

There's a very simple institutional technology

有個很簡單的機構科技

which can transform that,

可以改變這個行爲

and it's called verified auctions.

叫做“確認拍賣”。

The public agency with the greatest expertise on Earth

這地球上最業有專精的公共機構

is of course the treasury -- that is, the British Treasury.

當然是國庫，也就是英國財政部。

And the British Treasury decided that it would sell the rights

英國財政部當初要將第三代手機的

to third-generation mobile phones

營業執照出售的時候

by working out what those rights were worth.

想算清楚到底值多少錢。

They worked out they were worth two billion pounds.

按照他們的估算值20億英磅

Just in time, a set of economists got there and said,

這時候一群經濟學家來了說

"Why not try an auction? It'll reveal the value."

“爲何不試試拍賣呢？這才能顯示出真正的價值。”

It went for 20 billion pounds through auction.

拍賣結果以200億磅賣出。

If the British Treasury can be out by a factor of 10,

如果連英國財政部都低估10倍了

think what the ministry of finance in Sierra Leone is going to be like.

那麽試想獅子山的財政部會錯估多少倍？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

When I put that to the President of Sierra Leone,

當我跟獅子山的總統談到這件事以後

the next day he asked the World Bank to send him a team

隔天他就請世界銀行派一組人

to give expertise on how to conduct auctions.

來提供他進行拍賣的專業知識。

There are five such decision points;

像這樣的決策點有五個

each one needs an international standard.

每一個都需要有國際標準。

If we could do it, we would change the world.

如果我們能夠做到，那麽我們就能改變世界。

We would be helping the reformers in these societies,

我們就能幫助在這些國家裡

who are struggling for change.

為改革而奮戰的改革者。

That's our modest role. We cannot change these societies,

這是我們至少可以做到的。我們無法改變這些國家

but we can help the people in these societies

但是我們可以幫助這些國家的人民

who are struggling and usually failing,

這些命運多舛

because the odds are so stacked against them.

必須奮戰但又常常失敗的人民。

And yet, we've not got these rules.

然而，我們還是沒有這些規範

If you think about it, the cost of promulgating international rules

如果你想想，公佈這些國際規範的費用

is zilch -- nothing.

是微不足道的

Why on Earth are they not there?

那，爲什麽還是不見這些規範呢？

I realized that the reason they're not there

我認爲缺少這些規範的原因在於

is that until we have a critical mass of informed citizens in our own societies,

在我們的社會裏，要是有很多有知識、敢批評的人民

politicians will get away with gestures.

那麽政治人物就不會只作表面功夫。

That unless we have an informed society,

在我們有一個有知識的社會之前

what politicians do, especially in relation to Africa, is gestures:

所有政治人物的所作所爲，特別是在非洲，都是表面功夫

things that look good, but don't work.

表面好看但實際沒用。

And so I realized we had to go through the business

所以我體會到了，我們必須透過商業

of building an informed citizenry.

來建立一群有知識的公民

That's why I broke all the professional rules of conduct for an economist,

這也是爲什麽我打破了所有經濟學家的職業規範

and I wrote an economics book that you could read on a beach.

我寫了一本你可以在躺椅上輕鬆閲讀的書。

(Laughter).

（笑聲）

However, I have to say, the process of communication

然而，我必須說，對我而言，溝通的過程

does not come naturally to me.

並不是輕而易舉的。

This is why I'm on this stage, but it's alarming.

這也是爲什麽我會站在這裡，但蠻令人擔憂的

I grew up in a culture of self-effacement.

我成長在一個自我消滅的文化裏。

My wife showed me a blog comment on one of my last talks,

我太太給我看了一篇，我上個演講的批評

and the blog comment said, "Collier is not charismatic --

在這篇網誌裏寫道：“科利耶並不是很有魅力

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

-- but his arguments are compelling."

但是他的論點是很令人信服的。”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

If you agree with that sentiment,

如果你也有這樣的感想

and if you agree that we need a critical mass of informed citizenry,

如果你也同意，我們需要一群敢批評、有知識的人民

you will realize that I need you.

那麽你就會明白，我需要你

Please, become ambassadors.

請加入行動大使的行列吧！

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）