世界需要負責任的民族主義
It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the relatively open economic policies that have been the norm in the US and Britain since the second world war.
在英國脫歐公投和唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在共和黨初選階段勝出之後，顯而易見的是，選民們開始對二戰後在英美成爲常態的相對開放的經濟政策產生反感。
Populist opposition to international integration is on the rise in much of continental Europe and has always been the norm in Latin America. The question now is what should be the guiding principles of international economic policy? How should those of us — who believe that the vastly better performance of the global system after the second world war than after the first world war is largely due to more enlightened economic policies — make our case?
在歐洲大陸的大片地區，反對國際融合的民粹主義情緒正在升溫，而在拉美，這種情緒一直是常態。目前的問題是，國際經濟政策的指導原則應該是什麼？我們這些人——相信二戰後全球體系的表現遠遠好於一戰後時期，而其主要原因在於更爲開明的經濟政策——應當如何證明自己的觀點呢？
The mainstream approach starts with a combination of rational argument and inflated rhetoric about the economic consequences of international integration. Studies are produced about the jobs created by trade agreements, the benefits of immigration and the costs of restrictions. In most cases the overall economic merits are clear. But there is a kind of Gresham’s Law of advocacy whereby bolder claims drive out more prudent ones. Over time this has caught up with the advocates of integration.
主流方法的起點是理性論證結合有關國際融合的經濟後果的誇大論證。有關方面發表研究報告，說明貿易協定創造工作崗位，以及移民的好處和限制的代價。在大多數情況下，總體的經濟好處是顯而易見的。但是，倡導方面也存在某種格雷欣法則(Gresham's Law)：更大膽的主張會驅逐更謹慎的主張。隨着時間的推移，融合的倡導者受到該法則的影響。
While there is a strong case that the US is better off than it would have been if the North American Free Trade Agreement had been rejected, the most extravagant predicted benefits have not materialised. And it is fair to say that claims that China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation would propel political liberalisation have not been borne out. The willingness of people to be intimidated by experts into supporting cosmopolitan outcomes appears for the moment to have been exhausted.
儘管有充分理由說明，相比《北美自由貿易協定》(NAFTA)如果被拒絕的情況，現在美國的日子更好過，但當初預測的最誇張好處並未兌現。同樣，可以公平地說，有關中國加入世貿組織(WTO)將推動政治自由化的說法並未成爲現實。眼下，人們似乎不再願意在專家們的威脅之下接受世界主義的結局。
The second plank of the mainstream approach is to push for stronger policies to resist inequality, cushion disruptions and support the poor and middle class, and then argue that if domestic policies are right, the pressure to resist globalisation will reduce. The logic is right and certainly measures like government assurance of mortgages and the interstate highway system were part of the political package that permitted the US to underwrite an open global system.
主流方法的第二根支柱，是推行更強力政策，以抵制不平等、爲動盪提供緩衝、支持窮人和中產階層，然後主張：只要國內政策正確，抵制全球化的壓力將會減輕。這種邏輯是正確的，當然，像政府爲房屋抵押貸款提供擔保和建設州際公路體系等措施，是允許美國支持開放全球體系的政治“套餐”的一部分。
But the last eight years have seen America at last adopt universal health insurance, expand a variety of support programmes for the poor and bring unemployment below 5 per cent with trade becoming ever less popular. It is not that strong domestic policies are unnecessary to undergird global integration. It is that they are insufficient.
但在過去8年裏，美國最終實施了全民醫療保險，擴展了大量針對窮人的支持項目，並把失業率下降至5%以內，而貿易卻變得更加不受歡迎。問題並不是強有力的國內政策對於支持全球融合是不必要的，而是這些政策的力度還不夠。
A new approach has to start from the idea that the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good. People also want to feel that they are shaping the societies in which they live. It may be inevitable that impersonal forces of technology and changing global economic circumstances have profound effects, but it adds insult to injury when governments reach agreements that further cede control to international tribunals. This is especially the case when, for reasons of law or practicality, corporations have disproportionate influence in shaping global agreements.
新辦法的起點必須是如下觀念，即政府的基本責任是推動公民福利最大化，而不是追求某些全球福祉的抽象概念。人們還希望感覺到，他們正在塑造自己身在其中的社會。技術的非人性力量力量和不斷變化的全球經濟環境或許必然產生深遠的影響，但當政府達成進一步向國際審裁庭交出控制權的協議，就會讓形勢雪上加霜。當出於法律或現實原因，企業在塑造全球協議時的影響力大得不成比例時，尤其會是這種情況。
If Italy’s banking system is badly undercapitalised and the country’s democratically elected government wants to use taxpayer money to recapitalise it, why should some international agreement prevent it from doing so? Why should not countries that think that genetically modified crops are dangerous get to shield people from them? Why should the international community seek to prevent countries that wish to limit capital inflows from doing so? The issue in all these cases is not the merits. It is the principle that intrusions into sovereignty exact a high cost.
如果意大利銀行系統的資本嚴重不足，而該國民選政府想用納稅人的錢爲銀行補充資本，爲何應當讓某些國際協議阻止這一舉動？那些認爲基因改造作物有危險的政府，爲何不應保護本國民衆遠離這類作物？有些國家希望限制資本流入，國際社會爲何應當尋求阻止它們這麼做？所有這些例子中的關鍵都不是具體的利弊，而是干擾主權會有很高代價的原則。
What is needed is a responsible nationalism — an approach where it is understood that countries are expected to pursue their citizens’ economic welfare as a primary objective but where their ability to harm the interests of citizens elsewhere is circumscribed. International agreements would be judged not by how much is harmonised or by how many barriers are torn down but whether citizens are empowered.
我們需要的是一種負責任的民族主義——按照這種理念，各方都理解，國家應把增進本國公民的經濟福利作爲首要目標，但在傷害其他國家公民利益的能力方面受到限制。對國際協議的衡量標準將不是一體化程度有多麼高，或者打破的壁壘有多少，而是公民是否被賦予了權力。
This does not mean less scope for international co-operation. It may mean more. For example, tax burdens on workers around the world are a trillion dollars or more greater than they would be if we had a proper system of international co-ordination that identified capital income and prevented a race to the bottom in its taxation. Taxes are only the most obvious area where races to the bottom interfere with the achievement of national objectives. Others include labour and financial regulation and environmental standards.
這並不意味着國際合作的空間被縮小。它或許意味着空間更大。例如，目前全球工人的稅務負擔爲1萬億美元，高於如果我們擁有恰當國際合作體系——確認資本收入，防止在對資本收入徵稅方面發生逐底競爭——的情形。稅收只是逐底競爭與實現國家目標相牴觸的最明顯領域。其他領域包括勞動力與金融監管，以及環境標準。
Reflex internationalism needs to give way to responsible nationalism or else we will only see more distressing referendums and populist demagogues contending for high office.
條件反射式的國際主義需要讓位給負責任的民族主義，否則，我們只會看到更多令人痛苦的公投和民粹主義煽動者競選要職。
