政府助長經濟，還是阻礙經濟？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/1/3
2013-12-31 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/epsos/ |
許多人認為，政府在經濟中只扮演負面角色：強制執行惱人的規範、向個人徵收稅賦和沒效率地花錢。要是政府讓到一旁，經濟會表現地更好。但經濟史讓這樣的假設複雜許多。有人認為，要是政府沒有積極干預，今日我們所知的市場根本不會出現。
政府可以推動「產業政策」以刺激經濟成長。俾斯麥（Otto von Bismarck）在19世紀末的德國，針對糧食和製造品實施保護性關稅（但讓用於工業的原物料得以自由進口）；歐魯克（Kevin O’Rourke）的研究顯示，這類保護主義式的經濟政策通常相當成功。
產業政策可以刺激經濟發展，但有人認為政府扮演著更根本性的角色。有些人（特別是偏向馬克斯主義的史學家）斷言，唯有政府願意打破傳統社會、強制性地創造市場，經濟才得以發展。
史學家博蘭尼（Karl
Polanyi）認為，英國政府在創造市場方面扮演著重要的角色；以勞動為例，在1834年的濟貧法之前，濟貧服務並沒有限制條件，其目標為維持社會穩定。當時，沒工作也不會遭人白眼，經濟效率是也個極為陌生的概念；博蘭尼認為，在這樣的系統之下，勞動市場根本不存在。而在濟貧條件變嚴格後，濟貧支出大減，沒工作不再那麼吸引人，民眾也得更加倚靠薪資過生活；博蘭尼表示，這代表政府協助創造了勞動市場。
更激進的歷史學家認為，政府為推動市場運作的要角。傅柯（Michel Foucault）在早期作品中指出，醫院、精神病院、監獄等政府機構在工業革命早期有著明確的經濟功能。經濟繁榮之時，工人階級可以自由地貢獻於經濟成長，那有助拉低薪資；但在衰退之時，工人階級就會被關起來，以減低反叛的風險（傅柯認為，瘋狂和犯罪，實際上就是為了將此行為合理化而創造）。
傅柯的晚期作品並沒有如此簡化，但他的結論與博蘭尼和馬克斯相似：政府是創造資本主義的關鍵。多數人認為，政府之所以存在，只是為了緩和（或是延緩）自由市場的嚴重災難，而經濟史顯示，政府實際上是以各種方式在協助市場運作；那隻隱形之手並非必然之事。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
The Economist
Economic
history
Governments
and economic progress
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 31, 2013
Dec 27th 2013, 18:06 by C.W. | LONDON
Other blog posts in Free exchange's economic history series have
included the economic consequences of the Black Death, the importance of
institutionsand what Adam Smith really meant. In the festive spirit, we ask our
readers to suggest the economic-history topic that we should write about next.
Please add your suggestions in the comments and we will choose the most
popular.
MANY people think that governments play only a negative role in
relation to the economy: enforcing irritating regulations, taxing individuals,
spending inefficiently. Economies do better when the government gets out the
way.
But economic history complicates that assumption. Some argue that
without active government intervention, markets as we know them today would
never have emerged.
Governments can pursue "industrial policy" to boost economic
growth, as we showed in our first blog postof the economic history series. The
government of Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor in the late 19th century,
implemented protective duties on foodstuffs and manufactured goods (but kept
free the importation of raw materials for use in industry). Research by Kevin
O'Rourke, then of Trinity College Dublin, suggests that protectionist economic
policies like Bismarck's were generally successful. Tariffs were positively
associated with growth in ten countries—from Germany to America—from 1875 to
1914.
So far, so uncontroversial. Industrial policy can spur economic
development. But others provocatively argue that governments have played a more
fundamental role. Some (particularly those historians that slide towards
Marxism) assert that economic development—indeed, the creation of capitalism
itself—was only possible because governments were willing to upend traditional
societies and forcibly create markets.
How did this work? Karl Polanyi, an Austrian historian, argued in
"The great transformation" that the English state was instrumental in
creating markets. Take the example of labour. Before the reform of the Poor
Laws, enacted in 1834, poor relief to the working classes was generous:
organised on a local scale, handouts were unconditional and intended to
preserve social stability. People could get away without working and slacking
off was not frowned up. The idea of economic efficiency was alien. In this system,
Polanyi reasoned, a labour market as such did not exist.
That all changed in 1834. Rules on accessing poor relief got tougher:
for example, the government decreed that the unemployed could not receive cash
hand-outs, but would have to go to a workhouse instead. (For more on the
history of poverty thinking, see our Free exchange column from the summer.)
Spending on poor relief plummetted. The prospect of unemployment became much
less attractive. Consequently, people had to rely more on earning money through
working for a wage. Hence, according to Polanyi, the state helped to create a
market in labour.
Governments also helped to create a market in land. Under acts of
"enclosure", which probably started in the middle ages, the
government transferred common land to private ownership. The Highland
clearances in Scotland were one such example; others have interpreted the
actions of the English state during the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s in a
similar way. This "colossal theft" (as Karl Marx described it in
"Capital") of land by private landowners from communal tenants forced
people to become wage-earners, rather than just living off the land. Marxist
historians tend to refer to this idea as "primitive accumulation":
the massive land-grabs during colonialism are interpreted in a similar way.
Other, more radical, historians see the state as playing an
instrumental role in getting markets going. In some accounts, it seems like the
state only exists for the benefit of greedy capitalists. Michel Foucault,
possibly the most radical of the lot, writes in an early work that state
institutions like hospitals, asylums and prisons emerged in the early part of
the industrial revolution in order to play an explicit economic function.
During periods of economic prosperity, the working classes could be let free to
contribute to economic growth: that helped to keep wages down. But during
downturns, the working classes were locked up (madness or criminality, argues
Foucault, were effectively invented to justify so doing). Locking up the
poorest people minimised the risk of violent rebellion:
Cheap manpower in the periods of full employment and high salaries; and
in periods of unemployment, reabsorption of the idle, and social protection
against agitation and uprisings.
Foucault's later works—such as his most famous book, "Discipline
and Punish"—are not quite so reductionist; although a whiff of what some
leftists call "structural Marxism" persists. But Foucault's general
conclusion is similar to Polanyi's and Marx's: governments were crucial for
creating capitalism.
Most people think that governments simply exist to soothe the worst
ravages of free markets (or to slow them down). Economic history shows that in
different ways states have instead helped to get markets going. The invisible
hand was far from inevitable.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
沒有留言:
張貼留言