FT社評 IMF不該批評新自由主義
As an all-purpose insult, “neoliberalism” has lost any meaning it might once have had. Whether it is a supposed sin of commission, such as privatisation; one of omission, such as allowing a bankrupt company to close; or just an outcome with some losers, neoliberalism has become the catch-all criticism of unthinking radicals who lack the skills of empirical argument.
作爲一種萬能的攻擊對象，“新自由主義”(neoliberalism)失去了曾經擁有的任何意義。無論是所謂主動做的錯事（比如私有化），還是因疏忽而做的錯事（比如讓破產的公司關門），又或者只是造就了一些失敗者，“新自由主義”都已成爲缺乏實證論證能力的魯莽激進人士的萬用批評對象。
The greatest insult of all, however, is that to our intelligence when august international institutions hitch their wagon to these noisy criticisms. This sorry spectacle befell the International Monetary Fund last week when it published an article in its flagship magazine questioning its own neoliberal tendencies and concluding that “instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardising durable expansion”.
然而，當令人尊敬的國際機構也附和這些嘈雜批評的時候，我們的智慧受到的侮辱纔是最大的侮辱。這種令人遺憾的行爲上週發生在國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)，當時它在其旗艦雜誌上發表文章，質疑自己的新自由主義傾向，並得出結論稱，“一些新自由主義政策沒有促進增長，而是加大了不平等，從而危及經濟的可持續擴張”。
The word “some” did a lot of work in that sentence. When it came to favoured IMF policies, the authors from the fund’s research department conclude that competition, global free trade, privatisation, foreign direct investment and sound public finances in the vast majority of countries all pass muster. That exonerates most of what passes as neoliberalism.
這句話中的“一些”真是意味深長。IMF研究部門的作者們在談到所贊同的IMF政策時，他們的結論是競爭、全球自由貿易、私有化、外國直接投資以及絕大多數國家裏的穩健公共財政全都合格。也就是說他們宣佈新自由主義政策多數是“無罪的”。
Instead of this vast array of settled good practice, the article calls into question two policies: unfettered international flows of hot money, and excessively rapid efforts to reduce public deficits. None of this navel-gazing is remotely new or innovative. The IMF has queried the value of international portfolio investment since the Asian crisis almost two decades ago, while a horses-for-courses approach to fiscal deficits has been the global consensus for nigh on a decade.
文章沒有批評所有這些公認的良好實踐，而是對兩項政策提出了質疑：不受約束的國際熱錢流動，過快削減公共赤字。這種狹隘的思維絕非新鮮或者創新。從近20年前的亞洲危機開始，IMF就質疑國際證券投資的價值，而各國各盡所能地減少財政赤字是近十年來的全球共識。
It may appear easy to forgive and forget the criticisms as the childish rhetoric of the parts of the IMF which stand aloof from the nitty gritty of helping real countries in terrible circumstances. But the attack on neoliberalism is far more dangerous than that. It gives succour to oppressive regimes around the world which also position themselves as crusaders against neoliberalism, subjugating their populations with inefficient economic policy and extreme inequality using the full power of the state.
或許很容易把這些批評看作IMF一部分人的幼稚言辭而原諒和忘記，這些人不食人間煙火，幫助陷入困境的真實世界國家這種凡人間的奮鬥離他們很遠。但是對新自由主義的攻擊遠比這危險。它給了世界各地的專制政權口實，這些政權也自詡爲反新自由主義鬥士，動用國家的全部力量，用無效的經濟政策和極端的不平等壓迫民衆。
Against this risk, what has the IMF achieved? Some raised eyebrows from those unaware of the fund’s work, a lot of eye-rolling from the better informed, and not even the grudging approval of Naomi Klein on Twitter. In seeking to be trendy, the IMF instead looks as out of date as a middle-aged man wearing a baseball cap backwards.
面對這種風險，IMF的文章引起了什麼反響？一些不知道這篇文章的人表示驚訝，許多更瞭解情況的人表示輕蔑，而娜奧米•克萊恩(Naomi Klein)在Twitter上連個不情不願的“贊”都沒給。想趕時髦的IMF看起來就像是一箇中年人反着戴棒球帽一樣過時。
Worst of all, in seeking a public relations coup from relabelling existing policies, the fund has taken its eye off the ball. By far the most important global economic issue is the persistent decline in productivity growth that threatens to undermine progress for all. This does not get a mention.
最糟糕的是，爲了通過給現有政策重貼標籤而在公關上出奇制勝，IMF已偏離了重點。最爲重要的全球經濟問題是生產率增長的持續下降，這有可能危及所有國家的進步。IMF的文章卻沒有提到這一點。
