约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨：经济高效发展，需要市场和政府之间平衡
It's a real pleasure to be able to give this address to your Society. The central message of your Society is one that I very strongly support, that an effective society, an effective economy, requires a balance between the market and the government. A complex 21st century society has to decentralize. That means there have to be markets.
非常开心能向大家做这次演讲。我十分支持各位所在的学会的中心思想，即要建设高效的社会和高效的经济，需要市场和政府之间的平衡。复杂的21世纪社会需要权力下放，也就是说，必须要有市场。
But markets on their own, won't necessarily be efficient and won't necessarily be just and equitable, won't necessarily be sustainable. And their need is, accordingly, a need for government.
但是仅凭市场，效率不够高，也做不到全然公平、公正、可持续。因此相应地，市场需要政府。
Government fulfills numerous roles. It needs to regulate. It needs to invest. It needs to make sure to coordinate, make sure that society works well together. Countries that have achieved this balance between markets and government have, I think, over the long run, done better.
政府担任多重角色，它要监管、投资，要通过协调确保社会可以良好运转。我认为，那些在市场和政府之间达成平衡的国家，长期以来发展得更好。
We are going through a moment where the lessons of this balance between government and the market could not be illustrated better. COVID-19 has been a challenge to all of our societies. COVID-19 brings forth, illustrates the limits of markets, and what the government can do to both regulate and to enhance a society?
我们正在经历的时刻完美地诠释了政府和市场间平衡的必要性。新冠疫情对所有的社会来说都是挑战。它展示了市场的局限之处，而政府要如何做才能同时做到监管与促进社会发展呢？
The underlying problem, in the language of economics, the source of the market failure—why markets, on their own, are insufficient—are numerous. One of them is there's an absence of full-insurance markets.
一个潜在的问题，用经济学的语言表述，就是存在诸多导致市场失灵的根源——为什么单靠市场本身是不够的。其中根源之一就是，缺乏全面保险的市场。
When the economy plummeted, when jobs disappeared, there was no insurance that the private sector had provided to protect individuals. They were not protected against even the health risks, the health costs that they faced. So, this absence of insurance markets, which we see in many other contexts was the first market failure.
当经济下滑、人民失业，私营部门并没有提供保险来保护个体。甚至在医疗风险和花销面前，个体都没有受到保护。因此第一种市场失灵，在许多情况下是由于市场缺乏保险导致的。
The second is that COVID-19 posed a public health risk, an example of what are externalities, and markets don't handle these externalities well. Well, one person can affect others in ways that he does not fully internalize.
第二，新冠疫情造成了公共卫生风险，这是外部性的例子之一，而市场不善于应对此类外部性。所谓外部性，就是一个人的行为对他人造成的影响，可能并不完全是内化的。
Thus, if individuals walk around without masks, they can spread the disease. If individuals don't get vaccinated, they can spread the disease. So, the regulation of externalities necessitates an important role for government.
因此，如果人们不戴口罩走来走去，就可能传播疾病。如果不接种疫苗，也可能传播疾病。所以，管控外部性彰显了政府角色的重要。
The third area is what is called broadly public goods. The market will undersupply a public good. And among the public goods, among the most important of the public goods, is knowledge. In a technical sense, what we mean by a public good is something the marginal cost of which for providing it to an additional individual is zero.
第三点一般称作公共产品。市场对公共产品的供给常常不足。知识是最重要的公共产品之一。从专业上来说，为增加的个体提供公共产品，带来的边际成本为0。
And therefore, the economic efficiency means that it should be provided freely. But if it's provided freely, there will be an undersupply. That's why basic research is almost always done financed by the government.
因此，从经济效率的角度来讲，公共产品应当免费提供。但是一旦免费提供，就会造成供给不足。这就是为什么几乎所有的基础研究，都是由政府资助完成的。
In many of these areas, there are partnerships. The government may provide the finance, but the research may be done by others. But in the absence of that, there will be this undersupply of public goods, in this case, knowledge. And that undersupply of knowledge will have hard social consequences. So, these were the underlying market failures.
在上述许多领域，都存在合作关系。可能由政府提供资金，他人进行研究。但是如果做不到这一点，就会存在公共产品短缺，在此情况下，就是知识的缺乏。知识的缺乏会导致严重的社会影响。这就是一些潜在的市场失灵情况。
In the context of COVID-19, we turned to government in every respect. We turned to government to reduce the spread of the disease. We turned to government to vaccinations. We turned to government for protection against the economic aftermath.
在新冠疫情之下，我们方方面面都要依靠政府，如阻止疫情传播、接种疫苗、保护经济免受影响等。
Let me illustrate by each of the things that the government and the private sector did in helping us address the challenge of COVID-19. Many of the aspects that I've described are intertwined in complex ways.
让我逐一阐述一下政府和私营部门在帮助我们应对新冠疫情带来的挑战上，都做了哪些事情。我涉及许多的方面，都是以复杂的形式紧密相关的。
One of the reasons why in some countries, the disease spread faster than others was that there was a lack of social protection. In the United States, for instance, many workers are not covered by insurance. They don't have paid sick leave.
一些国家疾病传播较他国更快的原因之一，在于缺乏社会保护。比如在美国，许多雇员是没有保险、也没有带薪病假的。
And the absence of paid sick leave meant with so many individuals living paycheck to paycheck, they went to work even when they were sick, and that helped facilitate the spread of the disease.
这就意味着许多人靠薪水过活，即便生病了也要去上班，而这就促进了疾病的传播。
So, one aspect of policies trying to contain a health risk, of a contagious disease, is to make sure that everybody is covered by paid sick leave. But unfortunately, that did not happen. So, either the government has to provide it or the private sector. And in the United States, there was a failure on both accounts.
因此，控制卫生隐患和传染病的政策的一个重要方面，就是保证每个人都可以休带薪病假。但遗憾的是，现实并不如此。所以政府或私营部门二者之一，必须要提供这种待遇。然而在美国，两方都没有做到。
And in most European countries, almost all, there is mandatory paid sick leave paid by the private sector, but required by the government, kind of regulation that is important in preventing the spread of the disease.
几乎所有欧洲国家都有强制带薪病假，由私营部门承担费用，但是这是政府要求的，是一种对于防止疾病传播十分重要的监管方式。
A second aspect trying to prevent the spread of the disease was making sure that there was a test available and that people took the tests. Unfortunately, again, in some countries like the United States, there were weaknesses in the private sector in making sure that these tests were widely available. Many other countries did far better.
第二种控制疾病传播的方式，就是保证每个人都可以获得并进行（病毒）检测。然而现实再次令人失望，在美国等国，私营部门的力量不足以保证这类检测工具广泛可及。许多其他国家在这方面做得更好。
Within the United States, we have a law called the Defense Production Act that could have been used to force, encourage the private sector to produce more of these tests. But unfortunately, we did not until very late in both that.
在美国，我们有一部《国防生产法案》，可以推行以强制或鼓励私营部门多生产此类检测工具。但不幸的是，我们的行动太迟了。
Interestingly, some countries that were less felt did a better job in testing. When we talk about testing, we mean not only testing and tracing. We mean genetic identification, so we could see which strand of the virus was going around, and we could figure out who got the disease from whom. And especially in the early stages, we were able actually to do a better job of containing. So, this is a second area where we found a failure, at least in many countries’ private sector. In some countries, government stepped up. In others, it did not.
有趣的是，许多感染程度不是最重的国家在检测方面反而做得更好。“检测”不仅仅包括检测和溯源，还包括基因鉴定，这样我们就可以判断流行的是何种毒株、疾病是由谁传播给谁的。这些工作在疫情的早期阶段尤为重要，可以更好地帮助控制疫情传播。这就是我们发现市场失灵的第二个领域，至少一些国家的私营部门是这样的。在有些国家，政府挺身而出，但是在别的国家并非如此。
A third example is regulations of individuals’ interactions. The disease, any of the disease is spread by contact. And when one person has the disease, he can spread it to others, unless he is quarantined. And some countries took a more active role in quarantining than others did, and those that took a more active role were more successful in containing the disease.
第三个例子是对于个体间互动行为的管制。无论是新冠还是其他疾病，都是由接触传播的。如果一个人身染疾病，除非被隔离，都可能传染给他人。一些国家相比他国在隔离方面更为积极主动，而这些国家在控制疫情传播上也更为成功。
There were complaints in some countries that a quarantine, or like masking, I'll come to it in a minute, was a deprivation of individual's freedom. But one person's freedom is another person's unfreedom. One person’s right to walk around can result in another person’s lack of the right to live because they get disease and die.
一些国家对于隔离，或是我接下来会提到的佩戴口罩等手段存在不满，认为这是剥夺了个人自由。但是一个人的自由会给他人带来不自由。一个人自由行走的权利，可能导致他人因为染病而死亡，从而丧失活着的权利。
And every society always has to balance these my-called rights. And so getting a better balance of those rights is very important. Now, the management of quarantines is an example of how important it is to get public policy designed right.
而每个社会总是要平衡这些所谓的权利。因此，更好地平衡这些权利是非常重要的。进行隔离管理就是一个例子，说明正确的公共政策设计是多么重要。
Some countries didn’t manage the quarantine very well. Some countries, like India, restricted movement in ways that many people could not get food. The government couldn’t control the movements.
有些国家没有很好地进行隔离管理。印度等国家限制人员流动，使许多人无法获得食物。最终，政府无法控制人员流动。
In order to get food, people travelled long distances but increased the spread of the disease. So they while made attempts to restrict the movement, given the way the society was organized, this actually led to a greater spreading of the disease.
为了获得食物，人们长途跋涉，但也扩大了疫情的传播。所以这些政府试图限制人员流动，但是鉴于这些社会的组织方式，这实际上使疫情的传播更加广泛。
So in back the way, the government of Modi managed the disease led to millions of people are getting the disease, and probably hundreds of thousands actually die. Neither aspect of the management of disease was masks. Some countries showed that the market wasn't resilient.
因此，莫迪政府管理疫情的方式导致数百万人确诊，而且可能有几十万人死亡。疫情管理的两个方面都不涉及口罩。有些国家表明，市场并不能自我修复。
In United States, we were unable to produce simple products like masks. And even after they were produced, we had no system of standardization. So we have no way of knowing which masks were really good, and which masks weren’t. That's another important role for government: setting standards.
在美国，我们无法生产口罩这样的简单产品。即使生产了，我们也没有标准化的系统。所以我们没有办法知道哪些口罩是好的，哪些口罩是不好的。这就是政府的另一个重要作用：制定标准。
The market doesn't have necessarily the correct standards per standard, etc. Masking requirements are a low-cost way of reducing the spread of the disease. Some places impose this mask requirements. And others became politically contentious. But in my mind, this is another example of where appropriate action to contain the disease has relative little cost and enormous benefit.
而市场并不一定会有一个正确的标准。要求佩戴口罩可以以低成本方式降低疫情传播。有些地方要求佩戴口罩，而有些地区则因此出现了政治上的争议。但在我看来，这个例子也显示了采取适当行动遏制疫情成本极低，而收益极大。
So these are some of the things that were done early on and continue to be an important part of addressing the public health hazard associated with the COVID-19. Probably the most important though, response and what is played an important role in getting the disease under control was the development of vaccines.
因此，这些疫情初期所做的一些事情，一直是解决与新冠病毒有关的公共卫生危害的重要部分。疫情应对十分重要，但在控制疫情方面，更重要的可能是疫苗开发。
And here the mRNA vaccines have turned out to be extraordinary effective. And here, the role of the government as an investment in basic research and then helping finance the movement from basic research to applied research, a movement from private research to production, and that movement in coordination with the private sector was absolutely essential.
现在，mRNA疫苗已被证明非常有效。政府起到投资基础研究的作用，政府的投资帮助基础研究过渡到应用研究，再从私有研究过渡到进行生产。在此过程中，政府和私有部门的协调是绝对必要的。
We have to remember that we were able to respond to this COVID-19 so quickly because of the research that was government funded. We were able to identify the pathogen that caused the disease. We were able to develop a vaccine in record time.
我们必须记住，我们能够如此迅速地应对新冠病毒，是因为政府资助了研究。我们能够确定引起该疾病的病原体，我们能够在创纪录的时间内开发出疫苗。
To test it, to roll it out into production. These are achievements of an enormous magnitude. And had we not had that achievement, the spread of the disease and its health consequences would have been far, far worse.
对它进行测试，并将其投入生产。这些都是了不起的成就。如果我们没有这些成就，疫情的传播及其造成的健康危害会严重得多。
And so we need to congratulate ourselves, but in congratulating ourselves, we need to realize the important role that the government did. And some of that, the last part, the last mile bringing the production to scale, we have to recognize the important role of the interaction between the market and the government.
因此，我们需要祝贺自己，但在祝贺的同时，我们需要认识到政府所起到的重要作用。而其中的最后一步，实现大规模生产的最后一公里，就是必须承认市场和政府之间互动的重要作用。
There was a failure in one sense. We didn't scale it up to the global level. We are vaccine apartheid. We did not provide the vaccine and sufficient quantity to developing countries and emerging markets. The result is that we paid a very high price because while the disease raged in parts of the world, mutations developed, they came back to bite us, to came back, mutations that are more contagious, some even more vaccine-resistant. It was a foolish decision about us not to scale.
这在某种意义上讲是一个失败。我们没有进行疫苗的全球生产。疫苗在世界范围内并不是共同享有的。我们没有向发展中国家和新兴市场提供疫苗或足够数量的疫苗。结果就是，我们付出了非常高的代价，因为当疫情在世界部分地区肆虐时，病毒产生了突变，反咬我们一口，卷土重来，变异病毒的传染性更强，有些甚至对疫苗更加耐受。这个不扩大生产规模的决定是错误的。
And here the rules in the market economy, the WTO rules on intellectual property called TRIPS were a very important barrier. Fortunately, the US government was persuaded to argue it at WTO for the elimination, for the waiver, temporarily of these intellectual property protections. But unfortunately, Germany, Switzerland and few other European countries resisted. And the world has paid a very high price because of their entrenched interest.
市场经济的规则，世贸组织关于知识产权的规则，也就是TRIPS，是一个非常重要的障碍。幸运的是，美国政府被说服了，在世贸组织进行争论，以暂时地消除、放弃这些知识产权保护。但不幸的是，德国、瑞士和其他一些欧洲国家抵制这种行为。由于他们根深蒂固的利益，世界付出了非常高的代价。
I talked so far, about the health response and the role of the government and the market in this health response. I want to turn out very briefly to economic response.
现在，政府和市场在健康应对方面的角色已经得到了讨论。我想简单地谈谈经济的反应。
The COVID-19 had an enormous impact on the economy. Unemployment in the US soared. Similarly in other countries that were badly inflicted. GDP plummeted. Had we not had a strong government response at the macro-economic level and in protecting the vulnerable, the consequences, the economic consequences would have been absolutely disastrous.
新冠疫情对经济产生了巨大影响。美国的失业率飙升。在其他受到严重影响的国家也是如此。国内生产总值急剧下降。如果政府没有在宏观经济层面和保护弱势群体方面做出强有力的反应，其经济后果将绝对是灾难性的。
So here we are again. The response of the government was absolutely vital. Some countries did a better job than others. The United States spent a massive amount of money, 25% of the GDP. And that was one of the reasons why our economic downturn was much less than other countries that were similarly afflicted. But the designer of the program was not as good as many European countries. And that was why the peak of unemployment were so much greater in many ways the economic suffering to certain groups in population, were so much greater.
因此，话说回来，政府的反应是绝对重要的。有些国家比其他国家做得更好。美国花了大量的钱，占国内生产总值的25%。这也是为什么我们的经济衰退程度要低于其他受到类似影响的国家的原因之一。但该计划的设计者并不像许多欧洲国家那样优秀。这就是为什么失业的高峰要高很多，某些人群的经济损失要大得多。
Right now, there was a great deal of worry about the impact on developing countries and emerging markets. They didn't have the resources and in which to resuscitate their economy. Fortunately, the global community came together with an issuance of 50 billion dollars, SDR special drawing rights, IMF money, and that was extraordinarily potentially helpful.
现在，人们担心这对发展中国家和新兴市场造成的影响。他们没有足够的资源和能力来复苏经济。幸运的是，国际社会一同合作，拨出了500亿美元，包括SDR特别提款权和IMF的资金，这都是潜力巨大的帮助。
I still worried great deal about the consequences for a highly in-debt countries that, especially in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the soaring prices of oil and food. And they find it very difficult to meet their debt obligations, to be able to buy the food and energy that they need. But individuals on their own could not have responded adequately and needed the public effort. And in this context, we need a global public effort to protect these vulnerable countries.
我仍然非常担心高负债的国家的未来，特别是在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰之后，石油和粮食价格飙升。这些国家发现自己很难偿债，无法购买需要的食物和能源。但是，仅凭个人的力量是无法做出充分反应的，这需要公共力量。而在这种情况下，我们需要全球一同努力来保护这些脆弱国家。
So in conclusion, what I want to argue is that COVID-19, it was straight as well as almost anything else we could imagine. The importance of the balance between the market and the government in responding to the kinds of shots that the world keeps facing, and whenever we face going forward, and has many lessons.
最后，我想说的是，新冠病毒是直截了当的，和我们可以想象的任何其他事情一样。在应对世界面临的各种问题中平衡市场和政府，在前进的路上我们面临很多问题，也会学到很多教训。
Some countries did better than others. And we will provide an important area of study so that we can learn. How can we make the government in the market work better together? How can we improve public policy so that the lives of our citizens are better protected, our economy works better. Thank you.
有些国家比其他国家做得更好。而我们将提供一个重要的研究领域，以便我们学习。如何才能使政府在市场中更好地合作？如何改进公共政策，使公民的生活得到更好的保护、经济运作得更好。谢谢。
