国际货币基金组织总裁拉加德在“包容性资本主义大会”上的讲话（中英对照）

英文版：Economic Inclusion and Financial Integrity.doc

中文版：拉加德在“包容性资本主义大会”上的讲话.doc

Economic Inclusion and Financial Integrity—an Address to the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism

经济包容与金融稳健

——在“包容性资本主义大会”上的讲话

 

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

国际货币基金组织总裁克里斯蒂娜·拉加德

 

London, May 27, 2014

伦敦，2014年5月27日

 

Good morning. What a great privilege to be here among such illustrious guests to discuss such an important topic.

 

上午好。很荣幸能够在这里与各位尊贵的来宾讨论这一重要的问题。

 

Let me thank Lady Lynn de Rothschild and the Inclusive Capitalism Initiative for convening today’s event. I would also like to recognize the great civic leaders here today—His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales; President Clinton, and Fiona Woolf, Lord Mayor of the City of London.

 

我感谢林恩·罗斯柴尔德夫人和“包容性资本主义倡议”举办今天的活动。我还想向今天在座的伟大的公民领袖——查尔斯王子殿下、克林顿总统，以及伦敦市长菲奥娜·伍尔夫——致以敬意。

 

We are all here to discuss “inclusive capitalism”—which must be Lynn’s idea! But what does it mean? As I struggled with the answer to that, I turned to etymology and to history.

 

我们今天在这里讨论“包容性资本主义”——这肯定是林恩的主意！但这是什么意思呢？ 为了回答这一问题，我求助于词源和历史。

 

Capitalism originates from the Latin “caput”, cattle heads, and refers to possessions. Capital is used in the 12th century and designates the use of funds. The term “capitalism” is only used for the first time in 1854 by an Englishman, the novelist William Thackeray—and he simply meant private ownership of money.

 

资本主义来自拉丁文“Caput”，即牲口的头，指拥有的财产。12 世纪使用“资本（Capital）”一词，指资金的使用。“资本主义（Capitalism）”一词在 1854 年才被英国小说家威廉·萨克雷第一次使用，仅指钱财的私人拥有。

 

The consecration of capitalism comes during the 19th century. With the industrial revolution came Karl Marx who focused on the appropriation of the means of production—and who predicted that capitalism, in its excesses, carried the seeds of its own destruction, the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, mostly focused on the accumulation of profits, leading to major conflicts, and cyclical crises.

 

资本主义一词在 19世纪被神化。随着工业革命的推进，卡尔·马克思关注生产工具的占有，他预言，在经济过剩状态下，资本主义播下了自身毁灭的种子，造成了资本在少数人手中积累（主要是利润的累积），从而导致重大冲突和周期性危机。

 

So is “inclusive capitalism” an oxymoron? Or is it the response to Marx’s dire prediction that will lead to capitalism’s survival and regeneration—to make it truly the engine for shared prosperity?

 

所以，“包容性资本主义”的提法是不是矛盾的？或者，作为对马克思可怕预言的应对之策，它是否能使资本主义生存下去并获得新生——使它真正成为人类共享繁荣的引擎？

 

If so, what would the attributes of inclusive capitalism be? Trust, opportunity, rewards for all within a market economy—allowing everyone’s talents to flourish. Certainly, that is the vision.

 

如果是这样，包容性资本主义应该具备哪些特征呢？在市场经济中，所有人都获得信任、机会和回报——使每个人的才能得到充分发挥。当然，这只是美好的愿景。

 

Most recently, however, capitalism has been characterized by “excess”—in risk-taking, leverage, opacity, complexity, and compensation. It led to massive destruction of value. It has also been associated with high unemployment, rising social tensions, and growing political disillusion – all of this happening in the wake of the Great Recession.

 

然而，近年来资本主义的特征是“过度”——体现在冒险、杠杆、不透明、复杂、薪酬等各个方面。这导致价值观遭到巨大破坏，同时，也导致了高失业、不断加剧的社会紧张局势以及人们对政治的日益失望——这些都是在“大衰退”之后发生的。

 

One of the main casualties has been trust—in leaders, in institutions, in the free-market system itself. The most recent poll conducted by the Edelman Trust Barometer, for example, showed that less than a fifth of those surveyed believed that governments or business leaders would tell the truth on an important issue.

 

受到最严重损害的一个方面是信任——对领导者的信任，对机构的信任，对自由市场体系本身的信任。例如，在爱德曼公司开展的一项最新调查中，不到五分之一的受访者相信政府或企业领导者在重要问题上会说实话。

 

This is a wakeup call. Trust is the lifeblood of the modern business economy. Yet, in a world that is more networked than ever, trust is harder to earn and easier to lose. Or as the Belgians say, “la confiance part à cheval et revient à pied” (“confidence leaves on a horse and comes back on foot”).

 

这向我们发出了警钟。信任是现代商业经济的命脉。但在比以往任何时候都更加网络化的世界中，更难赢得信任，更易失去信任。或者，正如比利时的一句格言：“在马上失去信心，但是得徒步找回信心。”

 

So the big question is: how can we restore and sustain trust?

 

所以，一个重要问题是：我们能够恢复和维持信任吗？

 

First and foremost, by making sure that growth is more inclusive and that the rules of the game lead to a level playing field—favoring the many, not just the few; prizing broad participation over narrow patronage.

 

首先是确保经济增长更具包容性，游戏规则保证公平的竞争环境——有利于很多人，而不是少数人；鼓励广泛的参与，而不是狭窄的惠顾。

 

By making capitalism more inclusive, we make capitalism more effective, and possibly more sustainable. But if inclusive capitalism is not an oxymoron, it is not intuitive either, and it is more of a constant quest than a definitive destination.

 

通过使资本主义更加包容，我们就能使资本主义更加有效，并且可能更可持续。但如果包容性资本主义不是一种矛盾的提法，它也同样不是一种凭直觉的。它是不断的探索和追求，而不是必然的结果。 

 

I will talk about two dimensions of this quest—more inclusion in economic growth, and more integrity in the financial system.

 

我来谈谈这一探索追求过程中的两个方面——让经济增长更加包容，让金融体系更加稳健。 

 

Inclusion in economic growth

1、经济增长的包容性

 

Let me begin with economic inclusion. One of the leading economic stories of our time is rising income inequality, and the dark shadow it casts across the global economy.

 

我首先来谈谈经济包容。当今时代的最重要的经济问题之一就是收入不平等的日益加剧及其对全球经济的不利影响。

 

The facts are familiar. Since 1980, the richest 1 percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data.

 

事实是我们所熟悉的。1980年以来，在我们掌握数据的 26个国家中，有 24个国家，其最富有的1%的人的收入份额继续增大。

 

In the US, the share of income taken home by the top one percent more than doubled since the 1980s, returning to where it was on the eve of the Great Depression. In the UK, France, and Germany, the share of private capital in national income is now back to levels last seen almost a century ago.

 

在美国，最富有的1%的人的实得收入份额自上世纪 80年代以来上升了一倍多，回到了“大萧条”前夕的水平。在英国、法国和德国，私人资本在国民收入中所占份额现在也回到了近一个世纪前的水平。

 

The 85 richest people in the world, who could fit into a single London double-decker, control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population– that is 3.5 billion people.

 

全球最富有的85个人，虽然只能塞满一辆伦敦双层巴士，但他们控制的财富却相当于全球穷困的一半人口（35亿人）的所有身家。

 

With facts like these, it is no wonder that rising inequality has risen to the top of the agenda—not only among groups normally focused on social justice, but also increasingly among politicians, central bankers, and business leaders.

 

因此，毫不奇怪，不平等加剧问题已成为首要议题——不仅是通常关注社会公平问题的各种团体关注这一问题，而且政治家、中央银行和商界领袖也越来越重视这一问题。

 

Many would argue, however, that we should ultimately care about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The problem is that opportunities are not equal. Money will always buy better-quality education and health care, for example. But due to current levels of inequality, too many people in too many countries have only the most basic access to these services, if at all. The evidence also shows that social mobility is more stunted in less equal societies.

 

然而，很多人会说，我们最终应关注机会的平等，而不是收入的平等。问题是，机会不是平等的。例如，金钱总是能买来更高质量的教育和医疗保健。但鉴于当前的不平等水平，在太多的国家，有太多的人即使能获得服务，也只能获得一些最基本的服务。有关证据还显示，在平等程度较低的社会里，社会阶层流动性受到较大阻碍。

 

Fundamentally, excessive inequality makes capitalism less inclusive. It hinders people from participating fully and developing their potential.

 

从根本上说，过度不平等降低了资本主义的包容性。它阻碍人们充分参与，阻碍他们实现自己的潜能。

 

Disparity also brings division. The principles of solidarity and reciprocity that bind societies together are more likely to erode in excessively unequal societies. History also teaches us that democracy begins to fray at the edges once political battles separate the haves against the have-nots.

 

差距也带来了分化。在极度不平等的社会中，将社会凝聚在一起的团结和互惠原则更有可能被侵蚀。历史告诉我们，一旦政治斗争将有产者与无产者对立起来，民主就开始受到损害。

 

A greater concentration of wealth could—if unchecked—even undermine the principles of meritocracy and democracy. It could undermine the principle of equal rights proclaimed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

更大程度的财富集中——如果不加以控制——甚至会损害精英治理和民主制度的原则。它可能损害1948年《世界人权宣言》所宣称的平等权利。

 

Pope Francis recently put this in stark terms when he called increasing inequality “the root of social evil”.

 

教皇弗朗西斯最近用了一个旗帜鲜明的术语——他把不平等加剧称作“社会罪恶的根源”。

 

It is therefore not surprising that IMF research—which looked at 173 countries over the last 50 years—found that more unequal countries tend to have lower and less durable economic growth.

 

因此，毫不奇怪，我们最近的研究（通过观察173个国家过去50年的变化）发现，在不平等程度更高的社会，经济增长更慢、更不持续。

 

So much for the diagnosis—what can be done about it? We have done some recent work on this as well. We focused on the fiscal policy dimension—which is part of the IMF’s core business. We found that, in general, fiscal policies have a good record of reducing social disparities—for example, transfers and income taxes have been able to reduce inequality by about a third, on average, among the advanced economies.

 

这就是对问题的诊断——那么应该采取什么行动呢？我们最近在这方面也做了一些工作。我们侧重于财政政策方面——这是基金组织的核心工作之一。我们发现，一般而言，财政政策能够有效地缩小社会差距——例如，在先进经济体，转移和所得税平均而言能使不平等程度下降约三分之一。

 

But it is a complex issue and policy choices need to be made carefully. Fiscal discipline is often the first victim on the political battlefield, and we obviously want to choose measures that do the most good and the least harm.

 

但是，这是一个复杂的问题，需要谨慎地做出政策选择。财政纪律往往是政治斗争的第一受害者。我们显然希望采用益处最大、害处最小的措施。

 

Some potentially beneficial options can include making income tax systems more progressive without being excessive; making greater use of property taxes; expanding access to education and health; and relying more on active labor market programs and in-work social benefits.

 

一些可能更为有益的选择包括：在不过度的情况下，提高所得税的累进程度；更多采用财产税；扩大对教育和医疗的获得渠道；更多依赖积极的劳动力市场计划和在职社会福利。

 

But we must recognize that reducing inequality is not easy. Redistributive policies always produce winners and losers. Yet if we want capitalism to do its job—enabling as many people as possible to participate and benefit from the economy—then it needs to be more inclusive. That means addressing extreme income disparity.

 

但我们必须认识到，减轻不平等并不容易。再分配政策总是有利于一些人而不利于另一些人。然而，我们如果希望资本主义发挥应有的作用——使尽可能多的人参与到经济生活中来，从中受益——那么就需要提高其包容性。这意味着，要解决收入差距极度严重的问题。