中国国企模式值得西方借鉴
Economic policymaking in the west has developed in radical ways since the global financial crisis. When Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, the US after some hesitation allowed the Federal Reserve to intervene in the markets. Afterwards, the European Central Bank did the same in response to the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and other EU states.
全球金融危机爆发以后，西方在制定经济政策方面趋向激进。2008年雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)破产后，美国只犹豫了一阵，就允许美联储(Fed)干预市场。之后欧洲央行(ECB)也如法炮制，以类似手段应对希腊及其他欧盟(EU)国家的主权债务危机。
Since then, quantitative easing has had a real impact on western markets. So-called helicopter drops are now in vogue, and negative interest rates have gained acceptance in spite of widespread anxiety about their unknown effects. The fashion for unconventional monetary policy was highlighted yesterday with the ECB’s decision to cut interest rates in the eurozone to a record low and to expand its quantitative easing package.
从那以来，量化宽松对西方市场产生了切实的影响。所谓的“直升机撒钱”大行其道。负利率的未知影响尽管引起广泛焦虑，也还是为人们所接受。上周四欧洲央行将欧元区利率降到历史新低，并扩大一揽子量化宽松措施，凸显了非常规货币政策的盛行。
But there are other ways of stimulating demand. Why, for instance, do western governments refuse to set up state-owned enterprises that will create jobs? Are they really so much worse than QE and low or negative interest rates?
但是，要刺激需求还有其他方式。比如说，西方国家政府为何不愿设立能够创造就业的国有企业？国有企业真的比量化宽松或者低利率乃至负利率糟糕得多吗？
A number of concerns surround the state sector. First, it is less efficient than private businesses. But when private investment falls well below a desired level, the state should step in to fill the gap. In any case, it is debatable whether state-run enterprises are less efficient than welfare spending, direct subsidies, QE or negative interest rates.
人们对国有企业抱着各种担忧。首先，国有企业的效率比不上私营企业。但当私人投资远低于所希望的水平时，国家应该介入以填补缺口。无论如何，国有企业是否真的比福利支出、直接补贴、量化宽松或者负利率这些政策更低效还值得商榷。
Second, will investment by the state sector necessarily displace (or “crowd out”, as economists like to say) the private sector? Evidence is mixed. In some cases, this may happen if the state competes with private companies for financing, pushing up borrowing costs. But the west today does not have to worry about that, since it is sliding into a zero-interest rate environment.
第二，国有部门的投资是否一定会替代（或者经济学家们喜欢用“挤出”这个词）私有部门的投资？正反面的证据都有。在某些情况下，如果国有企业和私营企业竞争融资，推高了借贷成本，这种情况的确可能发生。但眼下西方无需担忧这个问题，因为西方正滑向零利率环境。
Moreover, evidence from around the world suggests that the state sector supports the operation of the private sector. It can even help to incubate new private industries by providing “patient capital” and basic infrastructure, as well as physical facilities.
此外，来自世界各地的证据表明，国有部门为私营部门的运行提供支持。况且，通过提供“有耐心的资本”(patient capital)、基本的基础设施以及实物设备，国有部门甚至会帮助孵化新的私营产业。
There is not much that China can teach the rest of the world about economic policy. Nevertheless, its experience in the past century or so can be a useful reference point for policymakers.
在经济政策方面，中国可教给世界其他地区的不多。然而，中国一个多世纪以来积累的经验可以为政策制定者提供有用的参考。
In 1911, at the end of the empire, China adopted capitalism but the experiment failed. The Nationalist government was pushed out to Taiwan 38 years later and China embarked on a disastrous communist path.
1911年，在帝制瓦解后，中国采取了资本主义，但这场实验失败了。38年后，国民党政府被赶到了台湾，中国大陆走上了多灾多难的共产主义道路。
Following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, the ideological pendulum swung back towards capitalism and the country settled on a mixed economy.
1976年毛泽东去世以后，意识形态钟摆再度摆向了资本主义，中国选择了混合制经济。
Today about two-thirds of China’s economy is still state-controlled. And, while it is debatable whether a smaller state sector would be more desirable, the chances are that the dominance of state-run enterprises will continue for the foreseeable future.
今天，国有经济在中国经济中依然占三分之二左右。尽管人们还在争论，是否收缩国有部门更可取，但在可预见的未来，国有企业仍将继续占主导地位。
If a referendum were to take place in China today on the relative merits of both sectors, I suspect a vast majority would favour the state, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with state-owned companies.
如果今天在中国就国有部门和私有部门的各自优点举行一场全民公投，我估计，尽管公众对国有企业普遍感到不满，绝大多数人还是会支持国有企业。
There is a social dimension here, too. Welfare spending and helicopter drops do not offer the satisfaction that flows to a workforce gainfully employed in the state sector.
这里面也存在一个社会层面的因素。像国有部门职工所获得的那种满意度，福利支出和直升机撒钱这些方式是无法提供的。
Staunch defenders of the free market are suspicious of SOEs on the grounds that they entrench corruption. This is a legitimate concern but one that can be mitigated by controlling the size of the state sector in a climate of public scrutiny.
自由市场之拥趸对国有企业抱着怀疑态度，理由是国有企业会滋生腐败。这种担忧是合理的，但是，通过实行公共监督、控制国有部门的规模，是可以缓解这种担忧的。
It remains true, too, that state-owned enterprises can supplement a dominant private sector and, arguably, correct market failures at least as efficiently as the policy instruments that at present are favoured by western governments.
有一点依然毋庸置疑：在私有部门占主导的情况下，国有企业能够对私有部门起到补充作用；也可以认为，对于纠正市场失灵，国有企业至少和当前西方国家政府所好的那些政策工具一样有效。
