資本主義為何成了貪污的幫兇？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2014/3/28
2014-03-17 Web
only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04/ |
烏克蘭的問題政府一直操控在寡頭大亨之手，但在新興世界，政治和商業間的關係已越來越緊張。一如20世紀初的美國，新中產階級正在施展他們的力量，只不過這次是全球性現象；民眾想要清廉的政治人物，想要大亨在公平的條件下競爭，一場自資本家手中拯救資本主義的革命已經開始了。
利用政治關係賺取金錢，即為經濟學家所謂的「競租」，其範圍包括缺乏競爭、不良規範、低價將公共財產轉讓給企業等。在美國，這套系統在19世紀末到達頂點，而在新興世界，過去四分之一世紀對競租者來說有如美好時代。
資本主義以競租為基礎，不公平且有害長期成長。那會造成資源錯置、壓抑競爭，還有可能帶來嚴重貪汙。《經濟學人》建立了一套長期評斷各國裙帶資本主義程度的指數，其目的並非證實某國的貪汙特別嚴重，而是用以顯示，最有可能陷入裙帶主義的經濟部門之財富規模。
富有國家的表現相對好，不過，銀行援助將大量財富交至金融家之手，遊說團體影響力過高，今日的網路創業家也有可能成為明日的獨佔者。然而，新興世界的問題更為嚴重，富豪在高經濟租部門的財富，佔GDP比重為富有世界的2倍以上。
但這可能已經是競租的高峰，原因有三。其一，政府知道，唯有改善市場運作，並強化市場規範機構，才能讓國家富有、民眾滿意。其二，企業的財務誘因可能在改變；經濟富有之後，基礎建設和原物料的重要性也會下滑，例如，1900至1930年間，美國的新財富出自零售和汽車，而非鐵路和石油。
最後一個理由則是，政治人物的誘因也已經改變。成長大幅下滑，讓經濟改革變得極為重要；墨西哥等國家就是靠著政府推動改革，才減少了金融市場振盪的帶來影響。
該做的事還有很多。政府必須強化獨佔規範、促進競爭、確保公共標案及資產出售的透明化，並全力起訴貪汙者。經濟熱潮創造了企業大亨，也創造了他們的死敵，亦即教育程度良好、居於都會區的新中產階級；獨裁者和民選領袖都不該忽略這群人。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist
Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
Business and government
The new age of
crony capitalism
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: March 17, 2014
Mar 15th 2014 |
From the print edition
Political
connections have made many people hugely rich in recent years. But crony
capitalism may be waning.
AS THE regime of
Viktor Yanukovych collapsed in Ukraine, protesters against it could be found
outside One Hyde Park, a luxury development in west London. Their target was
Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man and a backer of the old regime.
"Discipline your pet", they chanted.
Ukraine's troubled
state has long been dominated by its oligarchs. But across the emerging world
the relationship between politics and business has become fraught. India's
election in April and May will in part be a plebiscite on a decade of crony
capitalism. Turkey's prime minister is engulfed by scandals involving
construction firms—millions of Turks have clicked on YouTube recordings that
purport to incriminate him. On March 5th China's president, Xi Jinping, vowed
to act "without mercy" against corruption in an effort to placate
public anger. Last year 182,000 officials were punished for disciplinary
violations, an increase of 40,000 over 2011.
As in America at
the turn of the 20th century, a new middle class is flexing its muscles, this
time on a global scale. People want politicians who don't line their pockets,
and tycoons who compete without favours. A revolution to save capitalism from
the capitalists is under way.
The kind of rents
estate agents can only dream of
"Rent-seeking"
is what economists call a special type of money-making: the sort made possible
by political connections. This can range from outright graft to a lack of
competition, poor regulation and the transfer of public assets to firms at
bargain prices. Well-placed people have made their fortunes this way ever since
rulers had enough power to issue profitable licences, permits and contracts to
their cronies. In America, this system reached its apogee in the late 19th
century, and a long and partially successful struggle against robber barons
ensued. Antitrust rules broke monopolies such as John D. Rockefeller's Standard
Oil. The flow of bribes to senators shrank.
In the emerging
world, the past quarter-century has been great for rent-seekers. Soaring
property prices have enriched developers who rely on approvals for projects.
The commodities boom has inflated the value of oilfields and mines, which are
invariably intertwined with the state. Some privatisations have let tycoons
milk monopolies or get assets cheaply. The links between politics and wealth
are plainly visible in China, where a third of billionaires are party members.
Capitalism based on
rent-seeking is not just unfair, but also bad for long-term growth. As our
briefing on India explains, resources are misallocated: crummy roads are often
the work of crony firms. Competition is repressed: Mexicans pay too much for
their phones. Dynamic new firms are stifled by better-connected incumbents. And
if linked to the financing of politics, rent-heavy capitalism sets a tone at
the top that can let petty graft flourish. When ministers are on the take, why
shouldn't underpaid junior officials be?
The Economist has
built an index to gauge the extent of crony capitalism across countries and
over time. It identifies sectors which are particularly dependent on
government—such as mining, oil and gas, banking and casinos—and tracks the
wealth of billionaires (based on a ranking by Forbes) in those sectors relative
to the size of the economy. It does not purport to establish that particular
countries are particularly corrupt, but shows the scale of fortunes being
created in economic sectors that are most susceptible to cronyism.
Rich countries
score comparatively well, but that is no reason for complacency. The bailing
out of banks has involved the transfer of a great deal of wealth to financiers;
lobbyists have too much influence, especially in America; today's internet
entrepreneurs could yet become tomorrow's monopolists. The larger problem,
though, lies in the emerging world, where billionaires' wealth in rent-heavy
sectors relative to GDP is more than twice as high as in the rich world.
Ukraine and Russia score particularly badly—many privatisations favoured
insiders. Asia's boom has enriched tycoons in rent-seeking sectors.
Wanted:
emerging-market Roosevelts
Yet this may be a
high-water mark for rent-seekers, for three reasons. First, rules are ignored
less freely than they used to be. Governments seeking to make their countries
rich and keep people happy know they need to make markets work better and
bolster the institutions that regulate them. Brazil, Hong Kong and India have
beefed up their antitrust regulators. Mexico's president, Enrique Peña Nieto,
wants to break its telecoms and media cartels. China is keen to tackle its
state-owned fiefs.
Second, the
financial incentives for businesses may be changing. The share of billionaire
wealth from rent-rich industries in emerging markets is now falling, from a
peak of 76% in 2008 to 58% today. This is partly a natural progression. As
economies get richer, infrastructure and commodities become less dominant.
Between 1900 and 1930 new fortunes in America were built not in railways and
oil but in retailing and cars. In China today the big money is made from the
internet, not building heavy industrial plants with subsidised loans on land
secured through party connections. But this also reflects the wariness of
investors: in India, after a decade of epic corruption, industrialists in open
and innovative sectors such as technology and pharmaceuticals are back in the
ascendant.
The last reason
for optimism is that the incentives for politicians have changed, too. Growth
has slowed sharply, making reforms that open the economy vital. Countries with
governments that are reforming and trying to tackle vested interests, such as
Mexico, have been better insulated from the jitters in the financial markets.
There is much more
to be done. Governments need to be more assiduous in regulating monopolies, in
promoting competition, in ensuring that public tenders and asset sales are
transparent and in prosecuting bribe-takers. The boom that created a new class
of tycoon has also created its nemesis, a new, educated, urban, taxpaying
middle class that is pushing for change. That is something autocrats and
elected leaders ignore at their peril.
