特朗普寻觅美国特色的产业政策_OK阅读网
双语新闻
Bilingual News


双语对照阅读
分级系列阅读
智能辅助阅读
在线英语学习
首页 |  双语新闻 |  双语读物 |  双语名著 | 
[英文] [中文] [双语对照] [双语交替]    []        


特朗普寻觅美国特色的产业政策
Trump aims for an industrial policy that works for America

来源:FT中文网    2017-05-18 06:12



        Industrial policy is a third rail term in the US. It brings to mind images of Soviet-style planned economies, or government-designated corporate winners and losers, something that has traditionally evoked fear in American conservatives as well as many liberals.        在美国,产业政策是一个禁忌话题。它让人联想起的画面是苏联式的计划经济,或者政府指定的企业赢家和输家,这类做法传统上会引起美国保守派以及许多自由派人士的恐惧。
        That may be changing, as a group of industrial chief executives, such as Dow Chemical’s Andrew Liveris, IBM’s Ginni Rometty and General Electric’s Jeff Immelt, is encouraging the Trump administration to craft a modern policy by connecting the dots between educators, job creators, regulators, consumers and workers. Working with Wilbur Ross, commerce secretary, the chief executives are weighing in on everything from how to reshape education in order to train a 21st-century workforce, to which regulations should be overturned to unleash “animal spirits”.        这种情况或许正在发生改变,因为一群实业首席执行官们——如陶氏化学(Dow Chemical)的利伟诚(Andrew Liveris)、IBM的罗睿兰(Ginni Rometty)以及通用电气(GE)的杰夫•伊梅尔特(Jeff Immelt)——正在鼓励特朗普政府制定一项现代化的政策,系统化地覆盖教育者、就业创造者、监管者、消费者和工作者。通过与美国商务部长威尔伯•罗斯(Wilbur Ross)合作,这些首席执行官们正在很多事情上出谋划策——从如何重塑教育以培养21世纪的劳动力,到哪些规定应被推翻以释放“动物精神”。
        The goal, says Mr Liveris, is profound: to move America’s economy from one based mainly on consumption and cheaper prices to something that looks a lot more German, with more vocational training programmes and higher skilled, higher paid workers churning out more upscale exports.        利伟诚表示,目标是深远的:把美国经济从主要基于消费和较低廉价格,转向更接近德国的模式:拥有更多职业培训计划,更多高技能、高收入的工人,生产更多高档出口产品。
        “The cost of free markets and lower prices was never really explained to the American people,” says Mr Liveris. He notes that, of all the jobs lost since 2008, 20 per cent were skilled positions. The only way to get them back, he says, is to start acting more like other big economies in which government and private sector work more closely together.        “自由市场和较低廉价格的代价从未被真正向美国人民说明,”利伟诚说。他指出,在美国自2008年以来流失的所有工作岗位中,20%是技术性岗位。他说,让这些工作回归美国的唯一方式,是开始更像其他大型经济体那样行事,让政府与私营部门更加紧密地合作。
        This might seem antithetical for a Republican president with plenty of laissez-faire cabinet members. Yet, ironically, Mr Trump’s icon — Ronald Reagan — tried to do industrial policy in the 1980s, as a response to what he saw as a loss of US competitiveness in a more globalised world. Reagan agreed to an initiative known as “Project Socrates” to study how subsidies, government R&D credits, non-tariff barriers and industrial intelligence gathering via government agencies were helping other nations gain market share in strategic industries, with an eye to implementing some of the same strategies in the US.        对于一个拥有很多支持自由放任政策的内阁成员的共和党总统而言,这样做似乎背道而驰。然而,具有讽刺意味的是,特朗普的偶像——罗纳德•里根(Ronald Reagan)——上世纪80年代曾试图出台产业政策,以回应在他眼里美国在一个更加全球化的世界中竞争力下滑。里根批准了一项被称为“苏格拉底项目”(Project Socrates)的倡议,研究补贴、政府研发信贷、非关税壁垒以及政府机构收集的产业情报如何帮助其他国家在战略行业获得市场份额,以便在美国实施一些相同的战略。
        The initiative was killed under his successor George HW Bush, who was a much more hands-off globalist than Reagan. But it shows that even the most fabled American conservatives have been open to government manipulation of the economy.        里根的继任者乔治•HW•布什(George HW Bush)否决了这一倡议,相比里根,老布什是一名更加信奉自由放任的全球主义者。但这件事表明,即使最富盛名的美国保守派都曾对政府操纵经济持开放态度。
        According to Mr Liveris, the administration’s seemingly random efforts at deregulation and educational reform, coupled with lots of talk about “America first” incentives for manufacturing, are starting to be shaped, under Mr Ross, into something more strategic. So far, the administration has focused mainly on deregulation for its own sake, claiming that the biggest 600 regulations passed under the Obama administration have cost US businesses at least $743bn.        利伟诚表示,特朗普政府在放松管制和教育改革方面看似漫不经心的努力,加上给予制造业“美国优先”激励措施的大量言论,正在罗斯的领导下越来越接近一套像样的战略。到目前为止,特朗普政府的主要精力集中在放宽监管本身,声称奥巴马政府时期通过的最大600项法规已至少让美国企业损失了7430亿美元。
        While rolling back such regulations piecemeal may save businesses money, it’s unlikely to change the fundamental growth picture. Selective deregulation connected to larger regional economic development strategies could be another matter. Overturning Environmental Protection Agency regulations that would allow more refinery capacity in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, could be a first step to funnelling more domestically produced energy to rust belt manufacturers that would employ workers trained in advanced manufacturing at federally funded community colleges where curriculums are shaped by local businesses.        虽然零打碎敲地废止这些法规可能会节省企业的资金,但这样做不太可能改变根本的增长格局。与更大的区域经济发展战略配合的选择性放宽监管可能是另外一回事。例如,推翻美国国家环境保护局(EPA)的规定,为增加墨西哥湾地区的炼油产能打开绿灯,可以作为第一步,向锈带制造商输送更多国产能源,让这些制造商雇用在联邦政府资助的社区大学(教学大纲由当地企业参与决定)受过先进制造培训的工人。
        Whether or not you believe any of this will happen, the ironies are rife. First, much of this is straight out of the Obama administration playbook. Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama, pushed regional economic integration and workforce retraining (minus EPA rollbacks) for years.        无论你是否相信这一幕会出现,它都充满了讽刺意味。首先,这其中大部分都是直接照搬奥巴马政府的策略。巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)总统的国家经济委员会(National Economic Council)主席吉恩•斯珀林(Gene Sperling),多年来一直在推动区域经济一体化和劳动力再培训(只是缺少废除环保法规)。
        What’s more, a shift from a consumption to an industrial economy raises questions about antitrust law and monopoly power. If you assume that the measure of what’s good for the public is no longer just lower prices, then companies such as Dow and GE, not to mention the big tech groups, might be ripe for break up, given that research shows that large companies can winnow out competition and reduce consumer choice even as they lower prices.        此外,从消费到产业经济的转变,会引发有关反垄断法和垄断势力的质疑。如果你认为衡量对公众是否有益的不再仅仅是更低廉的价格,那么,陶氏化学和通用电气(更不用说大型科技集团)等公司可能要等着被分拆,因为研究表明,大型企业可能抑制竞争,减少消费者的选择——即便它们降低价格。
        Mr Liveris predictably argues that you need big company scale to do the kind of innovation needed to keep the US at the top of the economic food chain. He may be right, in part because the Trump administration is defunding the National Institutes of Health and other public agencies that once fuelled such basic research, something that too many people in the business community have been silent about.        利伟诚不出所料地表示,你需要大公司的规模来进行必要的创新,以使美国保持在经济食物链的顶端。他或许说得没错,部分原因是特朗普政府正在减少资助曾经支撑此类基础研究的美国国家卫生研究院(National Institutes of Health)及其他公共机构,而太多商界人士对此一直保持沉默。
        The whole topic is a fascinating mix of contradictions — and possibilities — that mirror the administration and its goals. “The only thing that matters to this president is job creation in the US,” says Mr Liveris. “It’s what he wakes up every morning thinking about.” No wonder. Real economic growth is what Mr Trump desperately needs to ensure not only that Republicans keep their Congressional majority in 2018, but that he gets re-elected. The idea of a businessman president trying to achieve it via government-led industrial policy would be only one more example of the sort of contradictions we have come to expect from the new administration.        整个话题是一个引人入胜的混合体,充满了矛盾和可能性,从一个方面折射出特朗普政府及其目标的特点。“对这位总统来说,唯一重要的事就是在美国创造就业,”利伟诚说,“这是他每天早上醒来就思考的问题。”不必奇怪。特朗普迫切需要真正的经济增长,不仅确保共和党在2018年保住国会多数党地位,还要确保他获得连任。一位商人总统试图通过政府主导的产业政策来实现这一目标——这种构想只是我们已经习惯从特朗普政府看到的种种矛盾的又一例。
                
   返回首页                  

OK阅读网 版权所有(C)2017 | 联系我们