全球化與技術進步摧毀老工人階級

Globalisation is failing in advanced western countries, where a process once hailed for delivering universal benefit now faces a political backlash. Why? The establishment view, in Europe at least, is that states have neglected to forge the economic reforms necessary to make us more competitive globally.

在西方發達國家，全球化正在失敗。這一曾被譽爲可以帶來普遍好處的進程，如今正遭遇政治上的反彈。爲什麼會這樣？至少在歐洲，主流的看法是，這是因爲西方各國疏於推進提升我們全球競爭力所需要的各項經濟改革。

I would like to offer an alternative view. The failure of globalisation in the west is in fact down to democracies failure to cope with the economic shocks that inevitably result from globalisation — such as the stagnation of real average incomes for two decades. Another shock has been the global financial crisis — a consequence of globalisation — and its permanent impact on long-term economic growth.

我想提供另外一種看法。實際上，全球化在西方失敗的原因，在於各個民主國家未能應對好全球化必然會帶來的各種經濟上的衝擊——例如，實際平均收入20年來的停滯。另一衝擊是全球金融危機（全球化的後果）及其對長期經濟增長的永久性影響。

In large parts of Europe, the combination of globalisation and technical advance destroyed the old working class and is now challenging the skilled jobs of the lower middle class. So voters’ insurrection is neither shocking nor irrational. Why should French voters cheer labour market reforms if it could result in the loss of their jobs, with no hope of a new one?

在歐洲大部分地區，全球化與技術進步的結合已經摧毀了老的工人階級，如今又對中產階級下層的技術性工作構成了挑戰。因此，選民的造反並不令人震驚，也並不荒謬。如果勞動力市場改革可能導致法國選民失去工作（又無望獲得新工作），他們爲何還要爲此歡呼呢？

Some reforms have worked, but ask yourself why. Germany’s acclaimed labour market reforms[OF THE 2000S?] in 2003 succeeded in the short term because they raised the country’s cost competitiveness through lower wages relative to other advanced countries. The reforms produced a state of near full employment only because no other country did the same. If others had followed, there would have been no net gain.

有些改革收到了成效，但請捫心自問一下是爲什麼。德國2003年受到讚譽的勞動力市場改革在短期內取得了成功，因爲改革通過低於其他發達國家的工資水平提升了德國的成本競爭力。德國的改革之所以實現了近乎充分就業，僅僅是因爲當時沒有其他國家這樣做。如果當時有其他國家效仿這種做法的話，德國改革的結果將不會是利大於弊。

The reforms had a big downside. They reduced relative prices in Germany and pushed up net exports in turn generating massive savings outflows, the deep cause of the imbalances that led to the eurozone crisis. Reforms such as these can hardly be the recipe for how advanced nations should address the problem of globalisation.

德國的改革還有一大弊端。改革降低了德國產品的相對價格，推高了淨出口，從而引發大規模儲蓄外流（儲蓄外流是導致了歐元區危機的各種失衡的深層原因）。此類改革很難成爲發達國家解決全球化問題的良方。

Nor is their any factual evidence that countries that have reformed are performing better or are more able to cope with a populist insurrection. The US and the UK have more liberal market structures than most of continental Europe. Yet the UK may be about to exit the EU; in the US the Republicans may be about to nominate an extreme populist as their presidential candidate. Finland leads all the competitiveness rankings but the economy is a non-recovering basket case — and it has a strong populist party. The economic impact of reforms is usually subtler than its advocates admit. And there is no straight connection between reforms and support for established political parties.

也沒有任何事實證據表明，已進行改革的國家表現得更好或者更有能力應對民粹主義的崛起。美英兩國的市場結構比多數歐洲大陸國家都更自由。然而，英國可能將要退出歐盟(EU)，而美國共和黨或許將要提名一個極端民粹主義者爲本黨總統候選人。芬蘭在所有競爭力排名中都處於領先位置，但其經濟已陷入復甦無望的窘境——該國還有一個強大的民粹主義政黨。改革在經濟上的效果通常比支持改革者願意承認的還要不明顯。而且，改革與民衆對老牌政黨的支持之間沒有直接聯繫。

My diagnosis is that globalisation has overwhelmed western societies politically and technically. There is no way we can, or should, hide from it. But we have to manage the change. This means accepting that the optimal moment for the next trade agreement, or market liberalisation, may not be right now.

我的判斷是，全球化已經在政治和技術上席捲了西方社會。我們既不可能、也不應該逃避全球化。但我們必須設法控制住這種變化。這意味着我們要承認，現在或許並非締結下一個貿易協定（或者說市場自由化協議）的最佳時刻。

Over the weekend there were large protests in Germany against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership , an agreement between America and the EU. One of its more controversial aspects, is that it would reduce the legal sovereignty of its participants.

不久前，德國爆發了反對美歐之間《跨大西洋貿易與投資夥伴關係協定》(TTIP)的大規模抗議活動。該協定較具爭議的一點是，它將削弱參與國的法律自主權。

In the past two years, there has been a dramatic reversal of public opinion in Germany about the benefits of free global trade in general, and TTIP in particular. In 2014, almost 90 per cent of Germans were in favour of free trade, according to a YouGov poll. That has fallen to 56 per cent. The number of people who reject TTIP outright has risen from 25 per cent to 33 per cent over the same period of time. These numbers do not suggest that the EU should become protectionist. But the fast shift in those figures should serve as a warning signal to politicians to tread carefully.

過去兩年，針對全球自由貿易（尤其是TTIP）的好處，德國公衆輿論出現了戲劇性的逆轉。YouGov做的一項民調顯示，2014年，將近90%的德國民衆支持自由貿易。如今，這一比例已降至56%。同一時期，徹底反對TTIP的人所佔比例已從25%上升至33%。這些數字並不表明，歐盟應當實行貿易保護主義。但這些數字的快速變化應成爲提醒政客們謹慎行事的警示信號。

I do not understand why Sigmar Gabriel, leader of Germany’s Social Democrats and economics minister, is such an ardent advocate of TTIP. If he is serious about stopping the erosion of support for his party, he should be more open-minded about the political costs of this agreement. It is hardly surprising that a large number of supporters of the anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland party are former SPD voters.

我不明白德國社民黨(SPD)主席、經濟部長西格馬爾•加布里爾(Sigmar Gabriel)爲何如此熱情地支持TTIP。如果他真的希望阻止本黨支持率下滑，他應該更願意考慮TTIP協定帶來的政治代價。難怪反移民的德國新選擇黨(Alternative für Deutschland)的大量支持者原先都曾是社民黨的支持者。

A no to TTIP would at least remove one factor behind the surge in anti-EU or anti-globalisation attitudes. The marginal economic benefits of the agreement are outweighed by the political consequences of its adoption

對TTIP說不，至少可以去除導致反歐盟或反全球化情緒高漲的一個因素。該協定微弱的經濟上的好處，不足以抵消締結協定帶來的政治後果。

What advocates of global market liberalisation should recognise is that both globalisation and European integration have produced losers. Both were supposed to produce a situation in which nobody should be worse off, while some might be better off.

全球市場自由化的支持者們應該認識到的是，全球化與歐洲一體化都造就了輸家。按照設想，全球化與歐洲一體化都本應創造一種沒有人變窮、而有些人或許會變得更富的局面。

That did not happen. We are close to the point where globalisation and membership of the eurozone in particular have damaged not only certain groups in society but entire nations. If the policymakers do not react to this, the voters surely will.

這種局面並未出現。我們已經在接近這樣一個時刻：全球化——特別是歐元區成員身份——不僅對社會中的某些羣體，還對整個國家造成了損害。如果政策制定者對此無所作爲的話，選民們肯定會採取行動。