新自由主义必须宣告死亡并被埋葬。 接下来去哪里？
Neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried. Where next?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/30/neoliberalism-must-be-pronouced-dead-and-buried-where-next
作者：约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨 2019 年 5 月 30 日星期四 13.16 BST
几十年来，美国和其他国家一直追求自由市场议程，但惨遭失败。什么样的经济制度最有利于人类福祉？ 这个问题已经定义了当前时代，因为经过美国和其他发达经济体 40 年的新自由主义，我们知道什么是行不通的。
新自由主义实验 — — 对富人减税、放松劳动力和产品市场管制、金融化和全球化 — — 已经惨遭失败。 增长率低于二战后四分之一个世纪的水平，而且大部分增长已经积累到了收入规模的最高层。 在经历了几十年的收入停滞甚至下降之后，新自由主义必须被宣布死亡并被埋葬。
争夺成功的至少有三种主要的政治选择：极右翼民族主义、中左翼改良主义和进步左翼（中右翼代表新自由主义的失败）。 然而，除了进步左翼之外，这些替代方案仍然受制于某种形式的已经（或应该）过期的意识形态。
例如，中左翼代表了具有人性的新自由主义。 其目标是将美国前总统比尔·克林顿和英国前首相托尼·布莱尔的政策带入21世纪，仅对现行的金融化和全球化模式稍作修改。 与此同时，民族主义右翼否认全球化，将当今所有问题归咎于移民和外国人。 然而，正如唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的总统任期所表明的那样，它同样致力于为富人减税、放松管制以及缩减或取消社会计划——至少在美国版本中是如此。
相比之下，第三阵营主张我所说的进步资本主义，它基于四个优先事项规定了完全不同的经济议程。 首先是恢复市场、国家和公民社会之间的平衡。 经济增长缓慢、不平等加剧、金融不稳定和环境恶化是市场产生的问题，因此不能也不会由市场自身来克服。 政府有责任通过环境、健康、职业安全和其他类型的监管来限制和塑造市场。 政府还有责任去做市场不能或不会做的事情，例如积极投资于基础研究、技术、教育和选民的健康。
第二要务是认识到“国家财富”是科学探究（了解我们周围的世界）和社会组织的结果，它允许大批人为了共同利益而共同努力。 市场在促进社会合作方面仍然发挥着至关重要的作用，但只有在法治治理和民主监督的情况下才能实现这一目的。 否则，个人可以通过剥削他人、通过寻租攫取财富来致富，而不是通过真正的聪明才智创造财富。 当今的许多富人都是通过剥削途径获得今天的成就的。 特朗普的政策对他们很有好处，这些政策鼓励寻租，同时破坏了创造财富的根本来源。 进步资本主义的目的恰恰相反。
没有什么灵丹妙药可以扭转数十年新自由主义造成的损害
这给我们带来了第三个优先事项：解决日益严重的市场力量集中问题。 通过利用信息优势、收购潜在竞争对手并设置进入壁垒，占主导地位的企业能够进行大规模寻租，损害其他所有人的利益。 企业市场力量的增强，加上工人议价能力的下降，在很大程度上解释了不平等为何如此严重、增长如此不温不火。 除非政府发挥比新自由主义规定的更积极的作用，否则由于机器人化和人工智能的进步，这些问题可能会变得更加严重。
进步议程的第四个关键项目是切断经济实力与政治影响力之间的联系。 经济实力和政治影响力是相辅相成、自我延续的，尤其是在美国这样的国家，富裕的个人和企业可以在选举中无限制地花钱。 随着美国越来越接近“一美元一票”的根本上不民主的制度，民主所必需的制衡制度很可能无法维持：没有任何东西能够限制富人的权力。 这不仅仅是一个道德和政治问题：不平等程度较低的经济体实际上表现更好。 因此，进步资本主义改革必须从限制金钱在政治中的影响和减少财富不平等开始。
没有什么灵丹妙药可以扭转数十年新自由主义造成的损害。 但按照上述概述的全面议程绝对可以。 这在很大程度上取决于改革者是否像私营部门制造这些问题时那样坚决地解决市场权力过度和不平等等问题。
全面的议程必须关注教育、研究和其他真正的财富来源。 它必须像美国的“绿色新政”和英国的“反抗灭绝”一样警惕保护环境和应对气候变化。 它还必须提供公共计划，以确保任何公民都无法获得体面生活的基本必需品。 其中包括经济保障、工作机会和生活工资、医疗保健和充足的住房、有保障的退休生活以及子女的优质教育。
这个议程是非常负担得起的； 事实上，我们不能不颁布它。 民族主义者和新自由主义者提供的替代方案将导致更多的停滞、不平等、环境恶化和政治尖刻，有可能导致我们甚至不想想象的结果。
进步资本主义并不是一个矛盾的说法。 相反，它是明显失败的意识形态的最可行和最有活力的替代方案。 因此，它是我们摆脱当前经济和政治困境的最佳机会。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E Stiglitz）是诺贝尔经济学奖得主、哥伦比亚大学教授、罗斯福研究所首席经济学家。
Neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried. Where next?
By Joseph Stiglitz Thu 30 May 2019 13.16 BST
The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labour and product markets, financialisation, and globalisation – has been a spectacular failure. Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after the second world war, and most of it has accrued to the very top of the income scale. After decades of stagnant or even falling incomes for those below them, neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried.
Vying to succeed it are at least three major political alternatives: far-right nationalism, centre-left reformism and the progressive left (with the centre-right representing the neoliberal failure). And yet, with the exception of the progressive left, these alternatives remain beholden to some form of the ideology that has (or should have) expired.
The centre-left, for example, represents neoliberalism with a human face. Its goal is to bring the policies of former US president Bill Clinton and former British prime minister Tony Blair into the 21st century, making only slight revisions to the prevailing modes of financialisation and globalisation. Meanwhile, the nationalist right disowns globalisation, blaming migrants and foreigners for all of today’s problems. Yet as Donald Trump’s presidency has shown, it is no less committed – at least in its American variant – to tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and shrinking or eliminating social programmes.
By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call progressive capitalism, which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance between markets, the state and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety and other types of regulation. It is also the government’s job to do what the market cannot or will not do, such as actively investing in basic research, technology, education and the health of its constituents.
The second priority is to recognise that the “wealth of nations” is the result of scientific inquiry – learning about the world around us – and social organisation that allows large groups of people to work together for the common good. Markets still have a crucial role to play in facilitating social cooperation, but they serve this purpose only if they are governed by the rule of law and subject to democratic checks. Otherwise, individuals can get rich by exploiting others, extracting wealth through rent-seeking rather than creating wealth through genuine ingenuity. Many of today’s wealthy took the exploitation route to get where they are. They have been well served by Trump’s policies, which have encouraged rent-seeking while destroying the underlying sources of wealth creation. Progressive capitalism seeks to do precisely the opposite.
The fourth key item on the progressive agenda is to sever the link between economic power and political influence. Economic power and political influence are mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating, especially where, as in the US, wealthy individuals and corporations may spend without limit in elections. As the US moves ever closer to a fundamentally undemocratic system of “one dollar, one vote”, the system of checks and balances so necessary for democracy likely cannot hold: nothing will be able to constrain the power of the wealthy. This is not just a moral and political problem: economies with less inequality actually perform better. Progressive-capitalist reforms thus have to begin by curtailing the influence of money in politics and reducing wealth inequality.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them.
A comprehensive agenda must focus on education, research and the other true sources of wealth. It must protect the environment and fight climate change with the same vigilance as the Green New Dealers in the US and Extinction Rebellion in the United Kingdom. And it must provide public programmes to ensure that no citizen is denied the basic requisites of a decent life. These include economic security, access to work and a living wage, health care and adequate housing, a secure retirement, and a quality education for one’s children.
This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we do not even want to imagine.
Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise.
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
