特朗普時代的經濟學與政策

It is no secret that the bulk of the economics profession is troubled by the Trump administration’s approach to economic policy. Now a stellar set of economists has written an anthology of highly useful analytical briefs on virtually all aspects of US economic policy in the age of Donald Trump. Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute has summarised the research effort in a column for VoxEU and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, who publish the book today. (The full book is here, and requires the reader to register for a free account.)

並非祕密的是：經濟學領域的大部分人都對特朗普政府的經濟政策方針感到不安。如今，一批傑出的經濟學家就唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)時代美國經濟政策的方方面面撰寫了一部高度實用的分析文集。彼得森國際經濟研究所(PIIE)的查德?鮑恩(Chad Bown)在爲VoxEU和該書《Economics and policy in the Age of Trump》出版者——經濟政策研究中心(Centre for Economic Policy Research)撰寫的一篇專欄中，梳理了書中的研究努力。（全書可在此下載，但需要讀者先註冊免費賬號。）

Inevitably, the book sometimes covers well-trodden territory. There are chapters on Trump’s tax reform proposals (recently also addressed by Free Lunch) and financial regulatory reform. Chapters on healthcare, immigration and labour markets also synthesise a debate that Free Lunch readers are no doubt familiar with. The third part of the book is devoted to trade policy, the subject of intense debate among economists and policymakers for some time.

不可避免的是，書中的內容有時是人們熟悉的話題。一些章節涉及特朗普的稅收改革提案（最近英國《金融時報》的Free Lunch也提到這方面的改革）和金融監管改革。有關醫療、移民和勞動力市場的章節也是對Free Lunch讀者肯定熟悉的一場辯論的綜合提煉。本書第三部分論述的是貿易政策，這是經濟學家和政策制定者一段時間以來激烈辯論的話題。

Even in familiar terrain, this book is as good a guide as one can hope to get. First of all that is precisely because it is comprehensive: if you need to quickly inform yourself about the latest controversial economic proposal from Washington, you are likely to find what you need here. (And those already informed will find off-the-shelf basic bibliographies for when they need to reference the evidence.) Second, the authors have taken unusual (for economists) care to be clear, concise, and accessible without dumbing down the analysis. Each chapter is short, to the point, and covers the essential knowledge an informed citizen needs to have. (The World bank’s chief economist, Paul Romer, could usefully take this book as a model in his crusade for better writing from the bank.)

即使在人們熟悉的領域，本書也是一份極好的指南。首先這正是因爲它全面：如果你需要快速瞭解華盛頓出爐的最新的有爭議經濟提案，你很可能會在書中找到。（那些已經瞭解的人，可以在他們需要參考證據的時候在這裏找到現成的基本書目。）其次，作者們不同尋常（對於經濟學家而言）地努力做到清晰、簡潔和易於理解，同時沒有降低分析水平。每一章都言簡意賅，切中要害，涵蓋了一位希望知情的公民需要具備的基本知識。（世界銀行(World Bank)首席經濟學家保羅?羅默(Paul Romer)在推動該行提高寫作技巧的努力中，完全可以把本書用作樣本。）

But third, these succinct chapters offer both guidance to less well-known or more abstruse policy areas — including anti-poverty and social mobility policy, the trade effect of fuel standards, “border adjustment” taxation, and trade rule enforcement policy — and have a knack of homing in on how contemporary economic research often leads to more nuanced analysis than the simplistic economic reasoning sometimes dominating the policy debate (what James Kwak has called “economism”).

第三，這些言簡意賅的章節既讓人們瞭解了不那麼爲人所知、或比較深奧的政策領域（包括脫貧和社會流動性政策、燃油標準的貿易影響、“邊境調整”稅收以及貿易規則執行政策），還有助於人們瞭解：相比有時主導政策辯論的簡單化的經濟推理（郭庾信(James Kwak)所稱的‘經濟主義’(economism)），當代經濟研究往往帶來更爲細膩的分析。

That means even those who follow these debates can learn something new. Arik Levinson, for instance, argues that fuel economy standards for cars “have a built-in bias equivalent to a tariff on imports ranging from $80 to $200 per car. Loosening the standards would lower those implicit tariffs”.

這意味着，即使那些追蹤這些辯論的人也可能會學到新的東西。例如，阿里卡?萊文森(Arik Levinson)辯稱，汽車燃油經濟性標準“有着內置的偏向，相當於對每輛汽車徵收從80美元到200美元不等的進口關稅。放鬆相關標準將降低那些隱性關稅”。

In another example, Emily Blanchard summarises the “trade shock” debate well: “while Nafta may have done little to boost or harm overall growth and prosperity on the continent, it has had a powerful role in redefining how and where products are made”. She then provides a useful elaboration on how cross-border supply chains make the distribution of losses and gains much more complex than traditional trade, which is why trying to leave Nafta — rather than renegotiate it — could bring about as much real harm as Nafta itself is accused of having caused.

再舉一個例子，艾米麗?布蘭夏德(Emily Blanchard)很好地總結了“貿易衝擊”辯論：“儘管《北美自由貿易協定》(NAFTA)可能不怎麼有助於提振或損害北美大陸的整體經濟增長和富裕，但它對於重新界定產品如何生產以及在哪裏生產產生了強大影響”。她接着詳細描述了跨境供應鏈是如何讓損失和收益的分配遠比傳統貿易更爲複雜的，而這就是爲什麼試圖退出該協定（而不是重啓談判）可能帶來實質性損害，就像人們批評它已經造成的損害那麼嚴重。

If there is one large and economically significant policy area the book leaves out, it is climate change which has of course become topical since Trump’s decision last week to pull the US out of the Paris agreement (the chapter on vehicle fuel efficiency bears on this topic, but narrowly). So to complete your reading, add to this book my FT colleagues’ analysis of what the US withdrawal means. As they point out, much of the climate change action takes place at the state level rather than the federal government: most US states have renewable energy or carbon emissions reduction policies in place.

如果說本書遺漏了一個巨大且具有重大經濟意義的政策領域的話，那就是氣候變化；自特朗普最近決定讓美國退出巴黎氣候變化協定以來，這個問題就變成熱門話題了（有關汽車燃油效率的章節與氣候變化勉強有關）。因此要想全面瞭解，除了這本書，再看一看我在英國《金融時報》的同事們撰寫的有關美國退出巴黎協定意味着什麼的分析吧。正如他們所指出的，很多氣候變化行動是在各州的層面做出的，而不是聯邦政府：美國多數州都實行了可再生能源或減排政策。

Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have made a first stab at quantifying how much the US states can achieve on their own. Their analysis gives grounds for hope. For example, states accounting for almost four-tenths of the US economy have vowed to honour the Paris agreement and continue the efforts continued US participation would have required them to contribute. On renewable energy, current state policies could “go about 60 per cent of the way toward the renewables expansion previously expected under federal policy”. The MIT note nicely states the economic rationale for climate change policy: it reduces the risk for private sector investments in green energy-related sectors that are well on their way to becoming lucrative growth industries. If the global economy is slowly, but surely decarbonising, business sectors will benefit most in those countries which have certainty over regulatory and financial incentives so as to position themselves to capture this emerging market — including, significantly, in manufacturing.

麻省理工學院(MIT)的研究人員已經首次嘗試量化美國各州“單幹”可能取得的成果。他們的分析給人們帶來了希望。例如，佔美國經濟近十分之四的多個州誓言將履行巴黎氣候變化協定，將繼續按照美國堅守該協定所要求的去做出貢獻。在可再生能源方面，當前的州政策有望“達到之前在聯邦政策之下的可再生能源擴張計劃的60%”。麻省理工學院的簡報精闢地闡述了氣候變化政策的經濟邏輯：它會降低私營部門投資於綠色能源相關行業的風險，這些行業即將成爲有利可圖的增長型行業。如果全球經濟緩慢但確定無疑地走上低碳化道路，那麼在那些在監管和金融激勵措施上具備確定性的國家，企業界將最受益，因爲這種確定性能讓它們做好定位，以佔領這個新興的市場，重要的是，這包括製造業。

There is an inevitable “know thine enemy” flavour to much of this writing, as most of the writers disapprove of the course US policymaking is currently setting. But it is an informed disapproval which often accepts some of the stated aims of the Trump administration in terms of benefiting left-behind segments of the population, while arguing that the chosen policies are counterproductive and highlighting others that would do the job better. That, surely, is what public-spirited economics is all about.

本書的很多內容不可避免地帶有“分析敵情”的意味，因爲多數作者反對美國政策制定目前在走的路線。但這是一種有水平的反對，經常接受特朗普政府確定的一些目標（比如讓那些被全球化拋在後面的人羣受益），同時提出已選擇的政策會適得其反，然後着重介紹其他更好的政策。當然，這正是熱心公益的經濟學的意義所在。