財政緊縮政策不再是必由之路

It has been joked that the letters IMF stand for “it’s Mostly fiscal”. The International Monetary Fund has long been a stalwart advocate of austerity as the route out of financial crisis, and every year it chastises dozens of countries for their fiscal indiscipline. Fiscal consolidation – a euphemism for cuts to government spending – is a staple of the fund’s rescue programmes. A year ago the IMF was suggesting that the US had a fiscal gap of as much as 10 per cent of gross domestic product.

國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)曾被戲稱爲“以財政爲主的組織(it's mostly fiscal)”。長期以來，該組織一直是緊縮政策的忠實擁躉，認爲它是走出金融危機的必由之路。每年IMF都會因數十個國家財政上的放縱而譴責它們。“財政整固”（削減政府開支的委婉說法）是IMF衆多救援計劃的主要內容。一年前，該組織曾暗示美國財政缺口高達其國內生產總值(GDP)的10%。

All of this makes the IMF’s recently published World Economic Outlook a remarkable and important document. In its flagship publication, the IMF advocates substantially increased public infrastructure investment, and not just in the US but much of the world. It asserts that when unemployment is high, as it is in much of the industrialised world, the stimulative impact will be greater if investment is paid for by borrowing, rather than cutting other spending or raising taxes. Most notably, the IMF asserts that properly designed infrastructure investment will reduce rather than increase government debt burdens. Public infrastructure investments can pay for themselves.

所有這些都令IMF最近發佈的《世界經濟展望》(World Economic Outlook)成爲一份非同尋常的重要文件。在這份IMF頭號出版物中，該組織提議大幅增加公共基礎設施投資，這一倡議的對象不僅包括美國，還包括世界許多國家。該報告稱，在失業率高企之際——正如許多工業化國家目前的狀況，以借債而不是削減其他開支或增稅爲投資籌措資金，對經濟會有更大的刺激效果。最值得注意的是，IMF稱經過精心規劃的基建投資會減輕而不是加重政府的債務負擔，因爲公共基礎設施投資本身就能帶來回報。

Why does the IMF reach these conclusions? Consider a hypothetical investment in a new highway financed entirely with debt. Assume – counterfactually and conservatively – that the process of building the highway provides no stimulative benefit. Further assume that the investment earns only a 6 per cent real return, also a very conservative assumption given widely accepted estimates of the benefits of public investment. Then, annual tax collections adjusted for inflation would increase by 1.5 per cent of the amount invested, since the government claims about 25 cents out of every additional dollar of income. Real interest costs, that is interest costs less inflation, are below 1 per cent in the US and much of the industrialised world over horizons of up to 30 years. So infrastructure investment actually makes it possible to reduce burdens on future generations.

IMF爲何會得出這樣的結論？考慮一筆假想的對一條新公路的投資，這筆資金完全通過舉債籌集。假定建設公路的過程中不會產生任何刺激性好處（這一假設違反事實並且保守）。除此以外，假定投資的實際收益只有6%——考慮到人們普遍接受的對公共投資收益的估計，這一假定也極爲保守。那麼，由於政府將從每一美元的新增收入中徵收大約25美分的稅，經通脹調整後的年度稅收增幅將爲投資額的1.5%。而在長達30年的時間跨度內，這筆投資在美國及衆多工業國家的實際利率成本（即扣除通脹因素後的利率成本）不到1%。因此，基建投資實際上可能會減輕未來幾代人的債務負擔。

In fact, this calculation understates the positive budgetary impact of well-designed infrastructure investment, as the IMF recognised. It neglects the tax revenue that comes from the stimulative benefit of putting people to work constructing infrastructure, as well as the possible long-run benefits that come from combating recession. It neglects the reality that deferring infrastructure renewal places a burden on future generations just as surely as does government borrowing.

事實上，正如IMF認識到的，這個計算過程低估了經過精心規劃的基建投資對預算的積極影響。它忽略了人們得以從事基建工作這一刺激性好處帶來的稅收增長，以及對抗衰退可能帶來的長期好處。它還忽略了一個事實：推遲基礎設施更新同政府舉債一樣，必然給未來幾代人造成負擔。

It ignores the fact that by increasing the economy’s capacity, infrastructure investment increases the ability to handle any given level of debt. Critically, it takes no account of the fact that in many cases government can catalyse a dollar of infrastructure investment at a cost of much less than a dollar by providing a tranche of equity financing, a tax subsidy or a loan guarantee.

它忽略的另一個事實是：通過提高整體經濟的產能，基建投資還提升了經濟應對任何水平債務的能力。還有一個至關重要的問題是，它沒有考慮到如下事實：通過提供股權融資、稅收補貼或貸款擔保，政府促成一美元基建投資的成本可能會遠低於一美元。

When it takes these factors into account, the IMF finds that a dollar of investment increases output by nearly $3. The budgetary arithmetic associated with infrastructure investment is especially attractive at a time when there are enough unused resources that greater infrastructure investment need not come at the expense of other spending. If we are entering a period of secular stagnation, unemployed resources could be available in much of the industrial world for quite some time.

IMF發現，如果將上述因素都考慮在內，每一美元投資會增加近3美元的產出。在這個未利用資源足夠充足的時期，這種與基建投資相關的預算計算尤其具有吸引力，因爲加大基建投資不一定會以犧牲其他開支爲代價。如果說我們正在進入長期停滯階段，那麼對多數工業國家，在相當長的時間內都有未利用資源可用。

While the case for investment applies almost everywhere – possibly excepting China, where infrastructure investment has been used a stimulus tool for some time – the appropriate strategy for doing more differs around the world.

儘管加大投資的理由適用於幾乎所有地區（也許中國是個例外，那裏把基建投資當成刺激手段已有一段時間），但合適的投資策略因地區而異。

The US needs long-term budgeting for infrastructure that recognises benefits as well as costs. Projects should be approved with reasonable speed. The government can contribute by supporting private investments in areas such as telecommunications and energy.

美國需要對基礎設施開展長期預算，在考慮成本的同時，還要考慮由此帶來的收益。對項目的批准應具備足夠的效率。政府可以通過支持電信及能源等領域的私有部門投資發揮作用。

Europe needs mechanisms for carrying out self-financing infrastructure projects outside existing budget caps. This may be possible through the expansion of the European Investment Bank or more use of capital budget concepts in implementing fiscal reviews.

歐洲則需要建立相關機制，在現存預算上限之外，開展自籌資金的基建項目。要實現這一點，可以擴大歐洲投資銀行(European Investment Bank)的規模，或在財政審覈的過程中更多運用資本預算的概念。

Emerging markets need to make sure that projects are chosen in a reasonable way based on economic benefit.

新興市場則需要確保基於經濟效益合理選擇開工項目。

What is crucial everywhere is the recognition that in a time of economic shortfall and inadequate public investment, there is for once a free lunch – a way for governments to strengthen both the economy and their own financial positions. The IMF, a bastion of “tough love” austerity, has come to this important realisation. Countries with the wisdom to follow its lead will benefit.

在這個經濟乏力及公共投資不足的時期，這種能讓政府同時提振經濟和改善財政狀況的免費午餐只有一次。認識到這一點對於全世界所有地區都至關重要。如今，一向以“嚴厲的愛”充當緊縮政策堡壘的IMF也已經有了這一重要認識。明智而跟隨IMF領導的國家將從中受益。