經(jīng)濟學家必須更努力捍衛(wèi)自由貿(mào)易秩序

Anyone taking a look at the long-term global data on trade and prosperity would struggle not to conclude that the two make perfect bedfellows. When trade growth is weak, the global economy is weak and over the past generation, trade growth has led economic growth. Over 50 years between 1960 and 2010, global economic growth averaged roughly 3.5 per cent a year with the annual growth of imports almost double that at 6.8 per cent.

任何人只要看一下長期的全球貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟繁榮數(shù)據(jù), 都很難不得出它們是完美伙伴的結論。當貿(mào)易增長疲軟時，全球經(jīng)濟也疲軟;在過去一代人時間里, 貿(mào)易增長帶動了經(jīng)濟增長。在從1960年到2010年的50年間，全球經(jīng)濟平均年增速約3.5%，而進口年增速為6.8%，幾乎是經(jīng)濟增速的一倍。

With such a record of success, trade liberalisation, globalisation and openness has traditionally been a core ingredient of advice to rich and poor countries alike. With trade growing twice as fast as an economy, increasing trade growth by 1 per cent was thought to be linked to 0.5 per cent of economic growth.

有了這樣的成功記錄，貿(mào)易自由化、全球化和保持開放性歷來備受推崇——無論是對富國還是對窮國，這幾條都被認為是非常有益的。由于貿(mào)易增速是經(jīng)濟增速的兩倍，我們認為，貿(mào)易增長1%，經(jīng)濟就會增長0.5%。

Although there were always disputes about the direction of causation, international organisations have bemoaned the more recent slowing of trade growth because it became associated with a long mediocre spell in the global economy.

盡管何為因、何為果一直存在爭議，但近來的貿(mào)易增長放緩讓各國際組織嘆息，因為它與全球經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)平庸的一段較長時期同步了。

In its September economic outlook, for example, the OECD urged countries to accelerate trade expansion to deepen global value chains and boost productivity growth. “Restoring trade intensity to its pre-crisis path, including through easing trade restrictions, would help close the shortfall of productivity growth compared with pre-crisis trends,” it said.

例如, 經(jīng)合組織(OECD)在今年9月的經(jīng)濟展望中敦促各國加快貿(mào)易擴張，以深化全球價值鏈和促進生產(chǎn)率增長。經(jīng)合組織表示：“采用放松貿(mào)易限制等措施，讓貿(mào)易強度回到危機前的軌道上，將有助于縮小現(xiàn)在的生產(chǎn)率增長與危機前趨勢的差距。”

The International Monetary Fund last month issued one of its regular warnings that “a shift toward protectionism would reduce trade and cross-border investment flows, harming global growth”.

國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)上月發(fā)出了其常規(guī)性警告之一，即“轉(zhuǎn)向保護主義將減少貿(mào)易和跨境投資流動，損害全球增長”。

But this consensus around the benefits of trade are not universally held and have been challenged in recent years. Populist politicians, Donald Trump in the US and the Leave campaign in the UK, have won elections by pledging to restrict the movement of goods and people. And even among economists, trade’s natural champions, some doubt has also crept in.

但是，這種關于貿(mào)易益處的結論并未得到普遍認同，而且在近幾年還受到挑戰(zhàn)。民粹主義政客、美國的唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)和英國退歐派通過承諾限制商品和人員流動贏得了選舉。經(jīng)濟學家是貿(mào)易的天然捍衛(wèi)者，然而即便在經(jīng)濟學家當中，也有人漸漸產(chǎn)生了一些懷疑。

Foremost among the critics has been Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at the Harvard Kennedy School. “The real case for trade is subtle and therefore depends heavily on context,” Prof Rodrik says. Noting that public opinion strongly leans towards protecting jobs and the economy through trade restrictions, he questions whether the public is really naive in its protectionist views and whether simple economics has oversold the ideas surrounding the benefits of trade liberalisation.

最主要的批評者是哈佛大學肯尼迪學院(Harvard Kennedy School)的國際政治經(jīng)濟學教授達尼•羅德里克(Dani Rodrik)。羅德里克表示：“倡導貿(mào)易的真正理由很微妙, 因此在很大程度上取決于環(huán)境。”他指出，輿論強烈傾向于通過貿(mào)易限制來保護就業(yè)和經(jīng)濟，他質(zhì)疑公眾的保護主義觀點是否真的幼稚, 以及簡單經(jīng)濟學是否過分吹噓了貿(mào)易自由化的益處。

While simple economics expounds the benefits of trade, in more advanced theories, the seemingly unquestionable benefits of trade become transformed into a statement adorned by all kinds of ifs and buts, Prof Rodrik says. “This disconnect has always bothered me,” he adds.

羅德里克說，雖然簡單經(jīng)濟學闡述了貿(mào)易的好處, 但在更高級的理論中，貿(mào)易的看似不容置疑的好處卻變成了由各種“如果”和“但是”修飾的敘述。他補充稱，“這種脫節(jié)始終困擾著我。”

He worries about losers from trade liberalisation, the fact that these losers are rarely offered compensation within a nation and the tendency of economics to ignore these difficult issues when advocating free trade to policymakers. “Why do economists’ analytical minds turn into mush when they talk about trade policy in the real world?” Prof Rodrik asks.

讓他憂心的有如下幾點：貿(mào)易自由化制造輸家; 這些輸家在一個國家里很少會得到補償;在向政策制定者鼓吹自由貿(mào)易時, 經(jīng)濟學傾向于忽視這些困難問題。羅德里克問道：“為什么經(jīng)濟學家們在談論現(xiàn)實世界中的貿(mào)易政策時，他們擅于分析的頭腦就混亂了?”

But critics of the effect of trade, particularly on certain communities, hit hard by the entry of China into the global trading system are now extremely influential in the debate. David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has made his name by describing the effect of the “China shock” on parts of the US economy, particularly the textile industries of the old South.

但是, 批評貿(mào)易的影響的人士(尤其是在某些因中國進入全球貿(mào)易體系而遭受嚴重沖擊的社會當中)現(xiàn)在在辯論中極具影響力。麻省理工學院(MIT)經(jīng)濟學教授戴維•奧特爾(David Autor)因描述 “中國沖擊”對美國部分經(jīng)濟領域(特別是舊南方的紡織業(yè)——舊南方指美國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)之前的南方)的影響而聲名鵲起。

His research shows that the adjustment in local labour markets is glacial with wages, worker numbers and unemployment rates continuing to be affected at least a full decade after the China trade shock commences.

他的研究表明, 當?shù)貏趧恿κ袌龀霈F(xiàn)深幅調(diào)整，而且至少在中國貿(mào)易沖擊開始整整十年后，工資、工人數(shù)量和失業(yè)率還在受影響。

More mainstream trade economists are not impressed by suggestions these criticisms are new. Speaking at a World Trade Organization forum in September, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning trade economist hit back.

有人認為這些批評是新事物，更主流的貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟學家對這種看法不為所動。諾貝爾獎得主、貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟學家保羅•克魯格曼(Paul Krugman)在今年9月的世界貿(mào)易組織(WTO)論壇上發(fā)表演講時進行了反擊。

“Textbook economics never said that growth in international trade was painless,” he said. “I wrote the textbooks so I know we always said there were distributional effects, there were losers, not countries, but people within countries.” He admitted that losers were never adequately compensated even though the textbooks said this was possible.

他表示：“經(jīng)濟學教科書從未說過國際貿(mào)易的增長不會伴隨痛苦。我寫的這些教科書，所以我知道我們總是說，貿(mào)易會影響收入分配，會制造輸家——不是指國家，而是指國家里的某些人。”他承認，輸家從未得到足夠的補償，即使教科書上說補償他們是可以做到的。

But Prof Krugman wanted to extinguish any idea that the solution to trade’s downsides was a return to protectionism and trade barriers. “Turn our back on trade now, that would be highly disruptive,” he said.

但克魯格曼不希望有任何人認為，解決貿(mào)易負面作用的辦法就是退回保護主義、重設貿(mào)易壁壘。他說：“現(xiàn)在拋棄貿(mào)易將會造成極大的破壞。”

“There is an old joke about the motorist who runs over a pedestrian and says, ‘I’m sorry, let me fix that and so he backs up and runs over him again.’ That’s what a move to protectionism would do.”

“有一個老段子說的是，某人駕車撞倒了一個行人，于是說，‘對不起，讓我來解決這個問題，于是他倒車，再次從行人身上碾了過去’。退回貿(mào)易保護主義的做法無異于此。”

For the future, most economists agree that there is a need to defend economies against populist political forces suggesting an easy answer in protectionism, whether it is building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the US or dismantling the North American Free Trade Agreement. But they also think that over are the days of simply saying trade liberalisation is good for you and you should take more of the medicine.

就未來而言，大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟學家認為有必要保護經(jīng)濟，反對民粹主義政治力量提出的保護主義的簡單化答案——無論是建造隔離墻以阻止墨西哥人進入美國，還是廢除《北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定》(North American Free Trade Agreement)。 但他們也認為，簡單地說貿(mào)易自由化有好處、你應該多推行這種政策的日子已經(jīng)一去不復返了。

US textile factories are not coming back, but as trade and technology threaten to disrupt many industries, there is likely to be less of a knee-jerk reaction in favour of creative destruction. Trade is still likely to grow faster than global output, but the go-go days of globalisation are probably over and substituting foreign for domestic production is unlikely to be the engine of future growth.

美國的那些紡織廠不會回來，但在貿(mào)易和技術可能顛覆許多行業(yè)之際，人們的本能反應不太可能是支持創(chuàng)造性破壞。貿(mào)易增速仍可能超過全球產(chǎn)值，但全球化迅猛發(fā)展的時代很可能已經(jīng)結束，將生產(chǎn)外包給外國工廠不太可能成為未來增長的引擎。

Economics is up for the challenge, according to Prof Rodrik. Calling for close and empirical analysis of the problem, he says: “The economics we need is of the “seminar room” variety, not the “rule-of-thumb” kind”.

羅德里克表示，經(jīng)濟學準備好了迎接這種挑戰(zhàn)。他呼吁對這個問題進行認真的實證分析，并表示：“我們需要的是‘研討型’經(jīng)濟學，而非那種‘經(jīng)驗型’經(jīng)濟學。”