“美国制造”非出路 ‘MADE IN AMERICA' IS NOT THE WAY OUT OF THIS CRISIS
President Barack Obama, addressing car workers recently at a GM plant in Michigan, defended his administration's motor industry bail-out, saying that it had rescued “the heart and soul” of American manufacturing, that “has been a symbol of our economic power”. Mr Obama's words are only the latest in a new movement embraced by manufacturing chiefs and politicians alike – the new fetish for manufacturing. | 不 久前，美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)在密歇根州一家通用汽车(GM)工厂向汽车工人们发表演讲时，为政府对汽车业的纾困进行了辩护。他表示，纾困行动拯救了美国制造业的“灵魂 ”，而汽车业“已成为我们（美国）经济实力的象征”。奥巴马此番言论不过是制造业高管和政治家们投身于一场新运动的最新表现——迷信制造业。 |
Thus Jeffrey Immelt, the otherwise thoughtful chief executive of General Electric (a predominantly manufacturing company), proposed in July that the US have a new national goal to ensure “manufacturing jobs be no less than 20 per cent of total employment, about twice what it is today”. Congressional Democrats recently launched their “make it in America” agenda, passed a manufacturing enhancement act and set up a commission to promote manufacturing. | 于 是，通用电气(GE)——又一家主要从事制造的企业——素来深思熟虑的首席执行官杰弗里•伊梅尔特(Jeffrey Immelt)在7月份时建议，美国应该制定一个新的国家目标：确保“制造业岗位占总就业的比例不低于20%，即目前水平的大约两倍”。国会民主党议员最 近启动了“美国制造”议程，通过了一项制造业促进法案，并成立了一个负责促进制造业的委员会。 |
This new fascination with manufacturing is a direct consequence of the financial crisis. The crisis began on Wall Street, so many conclude that the financial services sector is socially harmful or over-expanded and needs to be restricted. By contrast, it seems logical that manufacturing is both socially useful and ought to be larger. | 这种新迸发的对制造业的迷恋，是金融危机直接造成的。本轮危机始于华尔街，许多人由此认定，金融服务业于社会有害，或是扩张过度，因而必须加以限制。相比之下，合乎逻辑的推论似乎是，制造业既有益于社会，又应当扩大规模。 |
But even if it were true that the financial sector must be curbed, it would not follow that manufacturing must be expanded. There are justifiable controversies regarding how to measure the value of the financial services sector. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, famously remarked that the only socially productive financial innovation has been the ATM. But this is a witticism, not the truth. Certainly, some financial innovations, such as credit default swaps, can cause huge downside. This does not tend to happen with non-financial innovation. But non-financial services that are also non-industrial – Fedex, for example – should be equally prominent claimants for expansion. | 但即使 金融业确实必须加以遏制，也不能得出制造业必须扩张的结论。在如何衡量金融服务业价值的问题上，存在一些合理的争议。美联储(Fed)前主席保罗•沃尔克 (Paul Volcker)有一句名言：唯一有益于社会的金融创新就是自动取款机。但这不过是一句俏皮话，并非事实。无可否认，一些金融创新会造成巨大的负面影响， 例如信贷违约互换(CDS)。非金融创新通常不会出现这种情况。但一些非工业领域的非金融服务——例如联邦快递(FedEx)——对扩张的需求应该同样明 显。 |
In framing policy, we need to take into account that, in the US, all states compete to attract manufacturing industries by offering lucrative tax holidays, free land and other subsidies. Hardly any states – except New York, which is a financial centre and wants to keep it that way vis-à-vis a potential competitor such as New Jersey – compete to attract financial groups. Yet these huge subsidies to manufacturers are rarely added to the social cost of industrial bail-outs, such as those that Mr Obama praised for GM and Chrysler even though Chrysler had been bailed out twice already in its recent history. If you do add them, and compare their sum to the total social cost of the financial crisis, the picture is no longer one of unabashed mollycoddling of the financial sector and neglect of the manufacturing sector. | 在 制定政策时，我们必须考虑到：在美国，各州通过提供有吸引力的免税期、免费土地及其它补贴，竞相吸引制造企业。除了纽约州，几乎没有哪个州在争取金融集团 ——纽约州是金融中心，并且希望对新泽西州等潜在竞争对手保持这一地位。但为制造商提供的这些巨额补贴，很少算进行业纾困的社会成本，例如为奥巴马所称赞 的对通用汽车和克莱斯勒(Chrysler)的救助，尽管克莱斯勒近年来已接受过两次纾困。如果算上这部分成本，并将其总和与金融危机的总社会成本进行比 较，情况就全然不同了，不再是金融业一味受到无耻的纵容，而制造业一再遭到忽视。 |
The flawed case for manufacturing is embellished by several subsidiary fallacies. Richard McCormack, editor of Manufacturing & Technology News, wrote at the beginning of the crisis: “Without an industrial base, an increase in consumer spending . . . will not put Americans back to work.” Yet why should the composition of output in favour of manufacturing industries matter so critically for employment creation? Increasing demand for those non-tradeable services that need suppliers and users to be close together – as, for example, with nursing and retirement homes – should have just the same effect on employment. | 一 些补充性谬论掩饰了有关制造业的有缺陷论证。Manufacturing & Technology News编辑理查德•麦克马克(Richard McCormack)在危机之初曾写道：“没有工业基础，消费支出的增加……也不会让美国回到工作岗位上。”但为何偏重制造业的产出构成，竟会对就业创造 如此关键？增加对需要提供者与用户密切配合的非贸易服务（例如护理和养老院）的需求，应该会对就业起到同样的作用。 |
Underlying the current prejudice is the unwarranted presumption that manufacturing industries are technically more innovative than both services and agriculture. Yet agriculture had hybrid corn, the seeds that (at the time of the green revolution) helped growth in developing countries, while genetically modified seeds hold the same promise today. Equally, in services, innovation has transformed the retail and communications sectors – whether at DHL or Tesco. | 造 成当前这种偏见的根本原因，是人们没有根据地假定，制造业在技术上比服务业和农业更具创新性。但农业产生过杂交玉米，在绿色革命时代，这项创新推动了发展 中国家的增长，而转基因种子如今的前途也毫不逊色。服务业也是一样。创新改变了零售业和通信业，无论是敦豪快递(DHL)还是特易购(Tesco)。 |
In policy, sometimes Gresham's Law operates – with bad policies driving away good ones. With no good argument in its favour, a preoccupation with manufacturing industries threatens yet one more example of such a perverse outcome. By promoting manufacturing of all kinds (as can be expected as the sector's lobbies get down to work) at the expense of more innovative and dynamic service sectors, precisely when America is faltering in its recovery from the crisis, this unhelpful fascination promises to inflict gratuitous damage on an economy that can ill afford new wounds. | 在政策方面，“格雷欣法则 ”(Gresham`s Law)有时也会发挥作用——坏政策驱逐好政策。在没有充分理由支持的情况下，全力扶持制造业可能会为这样一个不合理的结果提供又一个例证。就在美国复苏 势头逐渐减弱之际，以牺牲更具创新精神和活力的服务业为代价，全面促进制造业发展——随着行业游说团体开始活动，我们可以预见到这种情况——这种无益的迷 恋可能会给再也承受不起伤痛的经济造成不必要的伤害。 |
The writer is university professor of economics and law at Columbia University | 本文作者为美国哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)经济学和法学教授 |
译者/陈云飞 |
沒有留言:
張貼留言