提供“全民基本服務”纔是上策

Once in a generation, an automation scare triggers a bout of enthusiasm for a universal basic income — a payment made to all citizens regardless of work, wealth or their social contribution. Today’s discussion of the merits of UBI echoes similar debates in the 1960s and 1990s. But the appeal of this palliative for the replacement of humans by machines is misplaced.

這是二三十年出現一次的事情，對自動化的恐慌使得“全民基本收入”(universal basic income)之說大熱。所謂全民基本收入，是發錢給全體人民，而不論他們的工作、財富或社會貢獻。今天圍繞全民基本收入的優點展開的討論，與上世紀60年代和90年代分別出現過的兩場討論相似。這隻能是應對機器取代人類問題的權宜之計，卻產生了不該有的吸引力。

The starting point for thinking about how a government should respond to an intense wave of creative destruction in the economy is an acknowledgment that previous policy responses have failed. Governments did not have anything to offer in response to the deindustrialisation (thanks to automation) of large areas, and the loss of millions of jobs. People found that their governments had breached the implicit social contract of the postwar welfare state.

思考政府該如何應對經濟中洶涌的創造性破壞浪潮，首先要承認以前的政策是失敗的。面對大片地區的去工業化（拜自動化所賜）以及就業大量減少，政府無計可施。人們發現，政府已違背了戰後關於福利國家的不成文的社會契約。

However significant the scale of the next wave of automation turns out to be, it would be worth avoiding making the same mistakes again. So it is not surprising the idea of UBI has been revived. But it is hard to see why it would do better at addressing the economic and social costs of large-scale redundancy than the previous policy of making payments to those who lost their jobs. The problem is a hole torn in the fabric of a local or regional economy and society; giving people money is a temporary patch.

無論下一波自動化浪潮最終會形成多大的規模，避免再犯同樣的錯誤是值得的。因此，人們重提全民基本收入這個概念也就不足爲奇。但很難看出爲什麼在應對大規模裁員造成的經濟和社會成本方面，全民基本收入就優於原來發放失業救濟金的政策。我們面臨的問題就像是在地方或區域性的經濟和社會這塊布上撕開的一個洞，而給老百姓錢只能是個臨時補丁。

Part of the answer must be the simpler one of giving people jobs. If the state is going to have to spend money, it ought to do so through a jobs guarantee, so the people affected have an alternative to the dole. Even if this only pays slightly more, it sustains the benefits of continuing attachment to the job market.

解決途徑之一當然是選擇一種更爲簡單的辦法：給人們工作。如果國家怎麼樣都要花錢，就該把錢花到提供工作保障上，這樣受到影響的人就有了領失業救濟金之外的選擇。這樣做只會多花一點錢，但好處是讓人不脫離就業市場。

Another part of the policy mix is tackling the wider impact of this kind of economic shock on local areas. The decline of the “left behind” regions of developed economies has snowballed as shops close, people who can move away leave, the quality of schools and public services deteriorates, and infrastructure investment gets low priority because the economic returns to projects look underwhelming.

政策組合的另一部分，是着手解決這種經濟衝擊對當地的更廣泛影響。在發達經濟體中“落後”地區的衰落不斷加劇，商店關門，有能力離開的人走了，學校和公共服務的質量下降，基建投資因經濟效益欠佳而不受重視。

So more important that UBI — whose focus is the individual — is a commitment to universal basic service, with a focus on the community or the natural economic region. If teachers or nurses do not want to move to Detroit and West Virginia, or Burnley and Grimsby, then there should be a pay premium large enough to overcome their reluctance. And the quality of service in local transport networks should be as good in declining as in wealthy areas.

因此，比全民基本收入——其核心是個體——更重要的是提供全民基本服務(universal basic service)的承諾，把重點放在社區或自然經濟區域。如果教師或護士不願搬到底特律或西弗吉尼亞，伯恩利或格里姆斯比，那麼應該提供更高的薪酬，優渥到足以讓他們克服自己的不情願。而且，不管是富裕地區還是衰落地區，地方交通網絡的服務質量要一樣好。

The UK’s welfare state, like others in the west, was the product of a determination to avoid a repeat of the catastrophe of the Depression and a political imperative to reward the millions of working people who had contributed to the war effort. But while the concept of society’s mutual insurance against large-scale shocks outside the control of the individual is surely right, the insurance is ineffective if it ignores the context in which individuals find themselves. If the robots come for millions of jobs, it will hardly matter that the state provides everyone with a basic income if there is none of the civic fabric of a thriving economy.

與西方其他國家一樣，英國成爲一個福利國家，既是出於避免大蕭條那樣的災難重演的決心，也出於獎勵曾爲戰爭作出貢獻的數百萬工作者的政治必要。但是，雖然以社會共同保障來應對超出個人控制的大規模衝擊這一概念肯定是正確的，但如果忽視提供這種保障的背景是個體有實現自我的需要，那麼這種保障就是無效的。如果機器人將搶走數百萬工作，就算國家給所有人發放基本收入，卻缺乏繁榮的經濟中所應有的市政體系，那也是無濟於事。

To focus on UBI is to look at the next wave of automation through too narrow a prism. One advocate of a version of a guaranteed income was Milton Friedman, who supported it in part because of its focus on the individual. This is exactly why it would be an inadequate response to a significant economic shock. No individual can deal with a major technological change in the structure of the economy.

着眼於全民基本收入，就是通過一個狹窄的棱鏡來看待下一輪自動化。米爾頓?弗裏德曼(Milton Friedman)曾提倡過一種保障性收入，他之所以支持這種政策，部分緣於它對個體的關注。而這恰是爲什麼這種政策不足以應對重大經濟衝擊的原因。沒有個體能應對經濟結構中的重大技術變革。

A guaranteed income of ￡15,000 a year (or whatever the level might be) is a sticking plaster. If the robots really are coming, or perhaps even if they are not, governments should be thinking now about the investments they need to make and the services they need to provide, to everyone, to ensure a better policy response this time around.

由政府向每人每年發放1.5萬英鎊的保障性收入（或隨便多少）就像是貼膏藥。如果機器人真的要來了，或即便它們還不來，政府也應該開始考慮需要作出哪些投資以及需要提供什麼服務——面向所有人——以確保這次能有更好的應對政策。

The writer is a professor of economics at the University of Manchester

本文作者是曼徹斯特大學(University of Manchester)經濟學教授