英國如何制定明智產業戰略
Theresa May is drawing up plans to develop an industrial strategy for the UK and to change an “anything goes” business culture. Good. There is a lot that needs fixing. The prime minister is not the first leader to make such promises. Here are the do’s and don’ts her government should consider, based on experience over the past few decades in the UK and elsewhere.
特里薩•梅(Theresa May，見上圖)正草擬計劃，爲英國制定一項產業戰略並改變“爲所欲爲”的商業文化。很好。有很多地方需要糾正。這位英國新首相併非第一位做出這種承諾的領導人。基於過去幾十年英國和其他國家的經驗，以下是她領導的英國政府應考慮的應該做和不應該做的事情。
An industrial strategy is a good idea, provided that it is built around sectors where the UK has a comparative advantage and where the government is an important player, either as a provider of development finance or as a customer.
產業戰略是個好想法——前提是它圍繞着英國具備比較優勢、且政府是重要參與者（要麼作爲開發融資的提供者，要麼作爲客戶）的行業。
We do not need an industrial strategy for dying businesses such as steel, or for those like retail that flourish without direct government involvement. We do need one for sectors like aerospace, defence, life sciences and energy, where government is bound to play a part in success.
我們不需要爲鋼鐵等日落西山的行業，或者像零售那樣不需要政府直接參與就能蓬勃發展的行業制定產業戰略。在航空航天、軍工、生命科學和能源等行業，我們確實需要產業戰略，政府難免會對這些行業的成功發揮一定作用。
In the past ten years UK governments have twice launched and abandoned industrial strategies. So Mrs May needs to persuade people that this time it is real — and not get into the business of deciding which takeovers are or are not in the public interest. Politics have trumped economics when this has happened before.
過去10年，英國政府曾兩度推出和放棄產業戰略。因此梅需要說服人們，這一次是真的，同時不要介入決定哪些收購符合（或是不符合）公共利益的事務。以前出現這種介入的時候，政治考慮曾經壓倒經濟邏輯。
Her government should find ways of throwing grit into the machinery of takeovers, which play a much bigger role in British corporate life than in other developed economies, including the US. Companies making a substantial takeover bid should be required to set a five-year business plan with binding commitments. And Mrs May should also search for ways of sharpening competition policy, and not just when it comes to takeover bids. Look everywhere for barriers to market entry and tear them down.
她的政府應找到阻撓收購的方法，收購在英國企業界的重要性超過其他發達經濟體，包括美國。發起大規模收購的公司應該被要求制定一項5年商業計劃，做出具有法律約束力的承諾。梅還應該想方設法加強競爭政策，而且不僅是在收購方面；要全方位搜尋市場準入壁壘，然後消除這些壁壘。
There is no need to waste time developing, in the prime minister’s words, “a better research and development policy that helps firms to make the right investment decisions”. The UK’s R&D tax credits are competitive. Mrs May should, however, set aside public money to compensate British science for the loss of European research funding, one of the downsides of Brexit, and she should rethink plans to scale down Innovate UK, the agency that has been a catalyst for business research.
不需要浪費時間制定梅所稱的“更好的研發政策，幫助企業做出正確的投資決定”。英國的研發稅收減免已經具備競爭力。然而，梅應撥出公共資金，補償失去了歐洲研究經費（這是英國脫歐的不利後果之一）的英國科學事業，同時她應重新思考縮減“創新英國”(Innovate UK)的計劃，該機構一直是企業研究的催化劑。
When it comes to executive pay, Mrs May should not mess with new rules for bonuses, which always have unintended consequences, usually in the form of increases in basic pay. She should, though, give teeth to annual shareholder votes on compensation packages, ignoring the objection that making these votes binding would lead to difficulties in agreeing pay contracts. So much the better. At the same time, parliamentary select committees should be encouraged to invite chairs of compensation committees to explain themselves if they sign off ridiculous pay packages. That would help to concentrate minds.
在高管薪資問題上，梅不應打亂獎金新規，這些規定總會產生意外後果，通常是以提高基本薪資的方式出現。然而，她應讓有關薪酬方案的年度股東投票變得真正有效，頂住下列反對意見：讓這些投票具有法律約束力將導致很難達成薪資合約。那樣反而更好。同時，應鼓勵議會特別委員會邀請企業的薪酬委員會主席解釋他們是否簽署了荒唐的薪酬方案。那將有助於集中注意力。
There should be no move to force boards to appoint non-executive directors they would not choose themselves. That would drive serious debates out of the boardroom and into the chief executive’s office, as in France. Instead, toughen up company legislation that requires boards to pay attention to the needs of a wider group of stakeholders than those who own shares.
不應採取措施強迫董事會任命他們自己不會選擇的非執行董事。那將促使嚴肅的辯論離開董事會，進入首席執行官辦公室，就像法國那樣。相反，應當收緊公司立法，要求董事會關注更廣泛利益相關者羣體的需求，而不只是股東。
And it is time to find ways to exploit the considerable soft power of government. For example, bosses in the UK crave access to Downing Street for the bragging rights. Those who take absurd pay packages or who play games with the tax system should be given the political cold shoulder as ostentatiously as possible.
與此同時，是時候設法利用政府的可觀軟實力了。例如，英國的商界領袖都渴望走進唐寧街，以獲得吹牛的權利。那些拿到荒唐薪酬方案或者與稅收制度打擦邊球的人應受到政府的冷遇，而且越明顯越好。
Capitalism thrives on animal spirits but occasionally creates monsters. The challenge for policymakers is to encourage the one while nailing the other.
資本主義的繁榮依賴於動物精神，但有時也會造出怪物。政策制定者面臨的挑戰在於鼓勵動物精神同時抓住怪物。
