Policing the frontiers of finance
金融有国界，仍需多管治
Apr 10th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Translation onejiang
Is foreign capital a luxury that poor countries can live without?
外资对发展中国家而言是可有可无的奢侈品吗？
WHEN Hank Paulson, America's treasury secretary, urged China to liberalise its capital markets earlier this month, he sensed a hardened reluctance in his hosts. “There's no doubt that what is happening in the US markets is clearly giving the Chinese pause,” he said. America's subprime meltdown is not, it seems, the best advertisement for unfettered finance elsewhere.
本月初，当督促中国开放资本市场时，美国财政部长汉克·保尔森感觉到他的东道主(指中国——译者注)已经变得愈发不情愿：“毫无疑问，近来美国市场上的动荡令中国人踌躇不前。” 美国的次贷危机为其他国家提供了金融自由化的反面教材。
Against this backdrop, Dani Rodrik of Harvard University and Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute, in Washington, DC, have published a timely reappraisal of financial globalisation.* They conclude that it is far from obvious that developing countries benefit much from opening up to global capital. In principle, the free flow of capital across borders makes funds available more cheaply to poor countries and, by lifting investment, boosts GDP and raises living standards. The trouble is, economists have struggled to establish a strong link between freer capital flows and speedier economic development.
哈佛大学的达尼·洛德瑞克(Dani Rodrik)和华盛顿彼得森研究所的阿芬德·萨布拉曼尼安(Arvind Subramanian)适时地对金融全球化做出了重新评估。他们的结论是，没有明显的证据表明发展中国家从国际资本开放中获益。理论上，资本在国际间的自由流动使穷国能够更加便宜地使用资金，同时通过增加投资来提升GDP和生活水平。问题是，经济学家们绞尽脑汁，也未能确定更自由的资本流动和更快速的经济增长之间的必然联系。
That has not stopped researchers from looking, and many believe a tangible connection will soon be found. Perhaps the effect is not picked up in studies because capital flows are hard to measure accurately, argue the optimists. Messrs Rodrik and Subramanian are not convinced: measurement error bedevils many studies, but that has not barred researchers from establishing that policies to improve education or trade are good for growth.
这并没有阻挡研究者们探寻的步伐，许多人相信这其中的无形联系即将被发现。乐观派认为，因为资本流动难以准确测量，所以其影响并没有被相关研究捕捉到。这一理由并不能让洛德瑞克和萨布拉曼尼安信服：许多研究都受到测量错误的干扰，但这并没有妨碍研究者得出改善教育和贸易的政策有利于经济增长的结论。
Perhaps foreign capital helps indirectly—by disciplining policymakers or by promoting reforms that improve the financial system. The authors say it is possible to make the opposite argument and find indirect costs. Plausibly, lifting restrictions on capital flows could undermine the domestic financial system because spendthrift governments can tap a larger pool of funds abroad. Also, the well-off have less incentive to lobby for reforms at home if they are free to store their wealth overseas.
也许，通过迫使政策制定者自律或者推动金融体制改革，外资发挥着间接的影响力。然而，两位作者却认为，完全可以提出恰恰相反的论据，挖掘出其中的间接成本。由于有更多来自国外的资金可供政府挥霍，因此放松对资本流动的管制可能破坏国内的金融体制。此外，如果富人们可以自由地将他们的财富转移至海外，他们便失去游说国内改革的动力。
Perhaps, then, the gains from globalised finance are latent and will be unleashed once catalysing reforms are in place? Maybe they will. But the wish list of complementary measures is difficult to tick off. Economies might reap the benefits of foreign capital more fully if property rights were stronger, contracts were more enforceable, and if there were less corruption and financial cronyism. But the authors point out that if poor countries could carry out such ambitious reforms “they would no longer be poor” and financial globalisation would be “a clearly dispensable sideshow”. With so much else to do first, liberalising capital flows would not be an obvious policy priority.
那么，是否金融全球化的成果还处于潜伏期，一旦有了改革的催化便会显现出来？但愿如此。然而，相关配套措施却很难如愿。如果财产权得到强化，合同更具效力，腐败和金融系统的裙带关系被有效抑制，该经济体将会充分享受到外资带来的好处。但是两位作者指出，如果穷国能够进行如此雄心勃勃的改革，它们就不会受穷了，金融全球化将会变成一场可有可无的客串表演。眼下有太多的事情要做，而放松资本流动管制不是政策上优先考虑的内容。
Foreign capital ought to be good for countries that have profitable ventures that lack funding because of low savings at home. But Messrs Rodrik and Subramanian argue that for many countries, it is not low savings but a shortage of good investments that is the binding constraint. Weak property rights, poorly enforced contracts and the fear that profits will be siphoned away make it hard to conceive of ventures that might generate a reliable return. When investment opportunities are scarce, capital inflows simply displace domestic savings and encourage consumption.
如果一个国家不乏有利可图的商业机会，但是由于国内储蓄率较低而缺少资金来源，外资的加入应该对该国大有裨益。然而，洛德瑞克和萨布拉曼尼反驳道，就许多国家而言，发展的瓶颈不是低储蓄率，而是缺乏好的投资项目。产权不够清晰，合同缺乏效力，担忧寻租夺利，诸如此类使得许多能够产生可靠收益的项目胎死腹中。当缺乏投资机会时，流入的资本仅仅化身为国内储蓄，促进促进消费而已。
Cheap exports, not cheap money
廉价的出口，而非廉价的货币
Whatever their misgivings about cosmopolitan capital, the authors do not deny that deeper financial markets in general help to foster prosperity. Even in economies short of good investment projects, a sturdier channel connecting domestic savers and borrowers will help growth. The more domestic savings can be put to work, the less need is there for foreign capital, and using local funds helps keep the exchange rate down and promotes export growth. By contrast, encouraging foreign capital to flood in can put upward pressure on the exchange rate, making exports less competitive. In some circumstances, capital controls may be justified if they keep the currency cheap and promote growth.
尽管对国际资本提出了诸多质疑，两位作者并不否认金融市场的深化有助于繁荣经济。一个经济体即使缺乏好的投资项目，一个健全的联系国内储蓄者和借贷者的融资渠道同样会促进经济增长。可利用的国内储蓄越多，对外资的需求就越少。而且，运用内资可以压低汇率，促进出口增长。相比之下，鼓励外资流入对汇率造成上升压力，削弱出口的竞争力。在某些情况下，如果资本管制能够压低币值，促进增长，则其应被认为是合理之举。
Why do the authors make such a strong case for export-led growth as a means to development in poor countries, even if it is at the expense of more open capital markets? First, they believe, exports are a force for institutional reform. A firm making clothes to sell abroad demands consistent state regulation, reliable transport links and enforceable contracts with suppliers to a degree that a barbershop serving the domestic market does not. Second, exporters foster skills, technology and expertise that can fruitfully spill over to other enterprises.
既然出口导向型经济增长以资本市场的管制为代价，为何两位作者还要大费周章地解释将其作为发展中国家发展模式的原因呢？第一，他们相信，出口迫使相关机构进行改革。出口服装的制衣厂需要整合一致的国家规章制度，可靠的运输链和与供货商签订的有效合同作为保证，而一家只服务于国内市场的理发店来则不需要这些。第二，出口企业培育出的技能、工艺及专长对其他企业有着很强的溢出效应。
Messrs Rodrik and Subramanian conclude that with the benefits of liberalised finance under the microscope in rich countries, it is time for more subtle thinking about the global picture. “Depending on context and country,” they write, “the appropriate role of policy will be as often to stem the tide of capital flows as to encourage them.”
洛德瑞克和萨布拉曼尼总结道，发达国家已对金融自由化的好处作过详细研究，现在该对其在全球的前景作一番敏锐思考了。两位作者写道：“根据不同的环境及国家，一套合理的政策应该在抑制和鼓励资本流动两方面发挥对等的作用。”
That bold conclusion leaves some troubling issues unresolved. As China's experience suggests, keeping the exchange rate weak in support of export-led growth becomes harder to sustain over time. Nor is it easy to keep foreign capital out. Capital controls can be evaded by adjusting trade invoices: exporters can bring funds in secretly by over-invoicing for foreign sales. The authorities can use sterilised intervention to stop inflows pushing the exchange rate up, but this imposes its own costs on the economy—in terms of higher interest rates or a distorted allocation of credit.
这个大胆的结论并未解决所有难题。中国的经历表明，随着时间的推移，通过压低币值来扩大出口的道路将越来越难以维继。并且，将外资拒之门外也决非易事。在贸易发票上做点手脚便会使资本管制形同虚设：出口商可以通过虚报发票金额暗中引入外资。官方可以运用冲销干预(sterilised intervention，又称“消毒干预“，指不改变现有货币政策的干预——译者注)抬高币值来阻止资本流入，但这一方法会提高利率，扭曲信贷配给，从而带来经济成本。
It is possible too that over time capital inflows are becoming less risky and the collateral benefits more tangible. And more stable direct investments account for an increasing share of capital inflows. Countries will ultimately have to come to terms with global capital and the choice is not only whether to embrace or resist it. There is a third option: find ways to manage it. After all, few would now argue that financial progress should not be policed at all.
资本流入的风险有可能随着时间的推移而减小，其积极的一面也将更加明显，流入的资本中相对稳定的直接投资将会占据越来越多的份额。各国最终将会接受国际资本，其选项中除了接纳和抵制，还多了第三个：设法管理它们。毕竟，没有几个人敢妄言金融的发展不应该受到任何管制。
译者小结：与美国政府督促中国开放资本市场的态度不同，这篇文章一反《经济学人》一直以来的自由主义倾向，主张在目前的情况下，发展中国家对放松资本账户管制采取谨慎态度。文中引用近来两位美国学者的研究报告，提出的几个观点值得注意：1、放松对资本流动的管制可能破坏国内的金融体制，应该加强对外资的管理。2、发展中国家要想享受放松资本管制所带来的好处，首先得完善国内的法制，做到产权清晰，权责明确，政企分开。3、加快国内金融体制改革，打通国内的融资渠道，提高内资的参与度，减少对外资的依赖。其实以上的观点，国内的学者早有论述，国家政策也基本上是朝这个方向努力的，但鉴于作者写作此文的时间恰逢美财政部长访华不久(作者文中也提及此事)，其目的也许不仅仅是阐述阐述原理那么简单吧。