![](https://images1.caifuzhongwen.com/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20221227/080027c674d02514e0a302.jpg)
随着各国央行不断提高利率来应对通胀,衰退开始席卷西方世界。今年,一届短命的英国政府曾试图孤注一掷地推动增长,却让英国经济受到重创。在经济活动作用下,气候危机无可置疑地呈现在世人面前。同时,贫富差距不断拉大依然表明多年来的经济增长并未转化为更高的工资或改善许多人的生活条件。
近来围绕“去增长”,也就是不再将经济增长作为社会目标的辩论越发激烈,这一点儿也不奇怪。
在日本,环境问题引发了限制大规模生产和消费的呼吁,这让倡导去增长的马克思主义学者斋藤幸平顺理成章地成为最畅销书作者,他撰写的《人类世的“资本论”》( Capital in the Anthropocene)在这个普遍保守的国家卖出了50多万本。该著作的英文版将于明年问世。《极限与超越》(Limits and Beyond)也在今年出版,这是50年前的报告《增长的极限》(The Limits to Growth)的续作,在这篇影响深远而又颇受争议的报告中,麻省理工学院(MIT)的科学家们曾预测,如果人口和资源消耗的增长趋势不放慢,社会就会崩溃。
作者乌戈·巴迪在《极限与超越》指出:“人类似乎在繁荣发展的同时自杀。”这本书认为,《增长的极限》中的理论已全面得到证实。
虽然增长为纲的反对者的观点再次受到关注,但他们仍是主流经济学的边缘群体。不过,即使在他们的批评者中,也有人热切地要求重新评估我们看待增长的方法以及我们对衡量增长的全能指标——国内生产总值,也就是GDP的重视程度(应当指出的是,GDP的发明者、美国经济学家西蒙·库兹涅茨就反对把GDP作为决策工具)。
确实,现在全世界都在推动为幸福和环境退化等问题引入标准化的国家衡量标准,以便让决策者有更多工具可用。正如剑桥大学(University of Cambridge)公共政策学教授戴安娜·科伊尔所说,我们“必须把自然资本和人力资本作为经济发展的基本贡献者”。
经济增长的代价
英国生态经济学家、前政府顾问蒂姆·杰克逊是终止增长狂热的主导声音之一。他的著作《无增长的繁荣》(Prosperity Without Growth)是2009年《金融时报》年度最佳书籍之一。他还是瑞士智库罗马俱乐部(Club of Rome)会员,1972年出版的《增长的极限》就是该机构受托撰写。杰克逊指出,今年伴随利兹·特拉斯短暂而灾难性的首相生涯的“特拉斯经济学”,即通过减税来促进增长,就标志着一种导致许多糟糕决策的痴迷心态进入“收尾阶段”。
杰克逊对《财富》杂志表示:“我们放松了金融系统监管,我们的公司运用了的杠杆太高,我们造成了金融不稳定,股东回报和工人工资的差异形成了巨大的贫富差距,我们的环保投资则彻底失败了。这都是因为我们只盯着经济增长的耀眼成绩。”
杰克逊认为,应当把我们对繁荣的定义和扩大经济产出的“简单问题”区分开来。他说:“从哲学观点看,做到这一点相当容易,而其中的一部分原因是我们用以衡量经济增长的GDP真的不是一个非常好的指标,即使是用在经济上,就更不用说更全面地衡量繁荣水平了。这样的看法已经有相当长的历史,至少可以追溯到1968年,当时罗伯特·肯尼迪就对GDP提出了批评,说它‘衡量了许多东西,唯独不包括让人生有价值的那些’。”
尽管认同其中的许多原则,但和许多人一样,杰克逊对“去增长”这个术语并不满意,原因是它具有消极框架,定义也存在争议。他担心人们把去增长视为“一种减少经济产出的战略决策……其实这种决策是指‘在可能的方面聚焦于在社会中创造幸福的经济活动’。”
杰克逊提出的保留意见理由充分。科伊尔等许多经济学家都不认同经济增长不必要或者可选的观点。
科伊尔说:“没有增长就没有创新。我们不想降低未来实现繁荣的可能性。我们需要注意环境受到的影响,[但]那对我来说意味着用可持续的方法衡量增长,也就是调整衡量对象,但我们当然不会抛弃经济应该增长的想法。”
杰克逊则指出,无增长的经济“必须具备各种各样的创新。”他说这里有“好的创新”,比如可再生能源科技和医疗保健系统,也有“坏的创新”,就像生产过程对环境有害以及消费者购买后变得不耐用的商品。他说:“从任何角度讲,去增长都不排除那些可以为我们的生活质量做出贡献的东西。”
去增长的另一个争议点是它会缩小还是会扩大贫富差距。科伊尔认为,去增长的倡导者“不诚实”,因为他们实际上是在要求衰退,而这会让人们的情况变得更糟,尤其是社会中那些最贫困的人。她说:“如果经济不增长,你可能就没办法向那些目光没有这么长远的人重新分配任何增量收入。”她还指出:“重新分配政策赢不了选举。”
杰克逊说去增长需要和缩小贫富差距的措施搭配起来。他指出,经济正在增长,富人和穷人都在变富的时候比较容易绕开这个问题,但故意或意外造成经济萎缩时就不能这样,“在经济增长水平较高或者经济可能不增长的社会,除非注意收入分配,否则就无法创造幸福。”
杰克逊承认,他提出的“给人们带来幸福的静态可持续经济”可能“不太像我们所知的资本主义”,但他又说:“那也不完全是我们所了解的社会主义或共产主义。”
比GDP更好的指标
无论今后几年政府选择采用哪种经济政策,他们很可能都会以更多元化的重要数据为基础。联合国将在2025年发布2008-2009全球金融危机前以来的首个新“国民经济账户系统”。这个系统将首次并列展示GDP和标准化的幸福和环境可持续性指标。一些国家已经开始编制这样的指标。比如,英国国家统计局将“环境账户”和GDP一同公布,而联合国推广的系统是打算让所有国家都采用同样的标准。
科伊尔说:“GDP不会变。宏观经济政策需要它,因此它有用,而且你不能抛弃这样的信息,但我认为政府将越来越多地不把它作为衡量成功的唯一标准。”
杰克逊对联合国的措施持谨慎乐观态度——“这给了我们重新设定前进方向的空间”,但它应当产生的结果可不光是几项新指标。他说:“在政治上,它必须着手取消GDP在政治决策中至高无上的地位。”
科伊尔指出:“绝不会有哪一个数据能反映出货币性活动的情况、市场经济、居民活动的情况、自然环境的变化以及分配情况,人们绝对无法把所有这些都放进一项指标中。今后我们得环视四周,查看我们关心的一些不同的东西。”(财富中文网)
译者:Charlie
并非只有增长一条路。制图:VICTORIA ELLIS/FORTUNE,原图由GETTY IMAGES提供
随着各国央行不断提高利率来应对通胀,衰退开始席卷西方世界。今年,一届短命的英国政府曾试图孤注一掷地推动增长,却让英国经济受到重创。在经济活动作用下,气候危机无可置疑地呈现在世人面前。同时,贫富差距不断拉大依然表明多年来的经济增长并未转化为更高的工资或改善许多人的生活条件。
近来围绕“去增长”,也就是不再将经济增长作为社会目标的辩论越发激烈,这一点儿也不奇怪。
在日本,环境问题引发了限制大规模生产和消费的呼吁,这让倡导去增长的马克思主义学者斋藤幸平顺理成章地成为最畅销书作者,他撰写的《人类世的“资本论”》( Capital in the Anthropocene)在这个普遍保守的国家卖出了50多万本。该著作的英文版将于明年问世。《极限与超越》(Limits and Beyond)也在今年出版,这是50年前的报告《增长的极限》(The Limits to Growth)的续作,在这篇影响深远而又颇受争议的报告中,麻省理工学院(MIT)的科学家们曾预测,如果人口和资源消耗的增长趋势不放慢,社会就会崩溃。
作者乌戈·巴迪在《极限与超越》指出:“人类似乎在繁荣发展的同时自杀。”这本书认为,《增长的极限》中的理论已全面得到证实。
虽然增长为纲的反对者的观点再次受到关注,但他们仍是主流经济学的边缘群体。不过,即使在他们的批评者中,也有人热切地要求重新评估我们看待增长的方法以及我们对衡量增长的全能指标——国内生产总值,也就是GDP的重视程度(应当指出的是,GDP的发明者、美国经济学家西蒙·库兹涅茨就反对把GDP作为决策工具)。
确实,现在全世界都在推动为幸福和环境退化等问题引入标准化的国家衡量标准,以便让决策者有更多工具可用。正如剑桥大学(University of Cambridge)公共政策学教授戴安娜·科伊尔所说,我们“必须把自然资本和人力资本作为经济发展的基本贡献者”。
经济增长的代价
英国生态经济学家、前政府顾问蒂姆·杰克逊是终止增长狂热的主导声音之一。他的著作《无增长的繁荣》(Prosperity Without Growth)是2009年《金融时报》年度最佳书籍之一。他还是瑞士智库罗马俱乐部(Club of Rome)会员,1972年出版的《增长的极限》就是该机构受托撰写。杰克逊指出,今年伴随利兹·特拉斯短暂而灾难性的首相生涯的“特拉斯经济学”,即通过减税来促进增长,就标志着一种导致许多糟糕决策的痴迷心态进入“收尾阶段”。
杰克逊对《财富》杂志表示:“我们放松了金融系统监管,我们的公司运用了的杠杆太高,我们造成了金融不稳定,股东回报和工人工资的差异形成了巨大的贫富差距,我们的环保投资则彻底失败了。这都是因为我们只盯着经济增长的耀眼成绩。”
杰克逊认为,应当把我们对繁荣的定义和扩大经济产出的“简单问题”区分开来。他说:“从哲学观点看,做到这一点相当容易,而其中的一部分原因是我们用以衡量经济增长的GDP真的不是一个非常好的指标,即使是用在经济上,就更不用说更全面地衡量繁荣水平了。这样的看法已经有相当长的历史,至少可以追溯到1968年,当时罗伯特·肯尼迪就对GDP提出了批评,说它‘衡量了许多东西,唯独不包括让人生有价值的那些’。”
尽管认同其中的许多原则,但和许多人一样,杰克逊对“去增长”这个术语并不满意,原因是它具有消极框架,定义也存在争议。他担心人们把去增长视为“一种减少经济产出的战略决策……其实这种决策是指‘在可能的方面聚焦于在社会中创造幸福的经济活动’。”
杰克逊提出的保留意见理由充分。科伊尔等许多经济学家都不认同经济增长不必要或者可选的观点。
科伊尔说:“没有增长就没有创新。我们不想降低未来实现繁荣的可能性。我们需要注意环境受到的影响,[但]那对我来说意味着用可持续的方法衡量增长,也就是调整衡量对象,但我们当然不会抛弃经济应该增长的想法。”
杰克逊则指出,无增长的经济“必须具备各种各样的创新。”他说这里有“好的创新”,比如可再生能源科技和医疗保健系统,也有“坏的创新”,就像生产过程对环境有害以及消费者购买后变得不耐用的商品。他说:“从任何角度讲,去增长都不排除那些可以为我们的生活质量做出贡献的东西。”
去增长的另一个争议点是它会缩小还是会扩大贫富差距。科伊尔认为,去增长的倡导者“不诚实”,因为他们实际上是在要求衰退,而这会让人们的情况变得更糟,尤其是社会中那些最贫困的人。她说:“如果经济不增长,你可能就没办法向那些目光没有这么长远的人重新分配任何增量收入。”她还指出:“重新分配政策赢不了选举。”
杰克逊说去增长需要和缩小贫富差距的措施搭配起来。他指出,经济正在增长,富人和穷人都在变富的时候比较容易绕开这个问题,但故意或意外造成经济萎缩时就不能这样,“在经济增长水平较高或者经济可能不增长的社会,除非注意收入分配,否则就无法创造幸福。”
杰克逊承认,他提出的“给人们带来幸福的静态可持续经济”可能“不太像我们所知的资本主义”,但他又说:“那也不完全是我们所了解的社会主义或共产主义。”
比GDP更好的指标
无论今后几年政府选择采用哪种经济政策,他们很可能都会以更多元化的重要数据为基础。联合国将在2025年发布2008-2009全球金融危机前以来的首个新“国民经济账户系统”。这个系统将首次并列展示GDP和标准化的幸福和环境可持续性指标。一些国家已经开始编制这样的指标。比如,英国国家统计局将“环境账户”和GDP一同公布,而联合国推广的系统是打算让所有国家都采用同样的标准。
科伊尔说:“GDP不会变。宏观经济政策需要它,因此它有用,而且你不能抛弃这样的信息,但我认为政府将越来越多地不把它作为衡量成功的唯一标准。”
杰克逊对联合国的措施持谨慎乐观态度——“这给了我们重新设定前进方向的空间”,但它应当产生的结果可不光是几项新指标。他说:“在政治上,它必须着手取消GDP在政治决策中至高无上的地位。”
科伊尔指出:“绝不会有哪一个数据能反映出货币性活动的情况、市场经济、居民活动的情况、自然环境的变化以及分配情况,人们绝对无法把所有这些都放进一项指标中。今后我们得环视四周,查看我们关心的一些不同的东西。”(财富中文网)
译者:Charlie
Recession looms across the West, as central banks keep raising interest rates to battle inflation. This year, a short-lived British government tanked the U.K. economy in a desperate attempt to boost growth. And the climate crisis—fueled by the effects of economic activity—made its presence undeniably visible across the world. Meanwhile, rising inequality continues to demonstrate how years of economic growth have not delivered higher wages or better living standards for many people.
Little wonder that the debate around “degrowth”—abandoning economic growth as society’s goal—is flaring up these days.
In Japan, the Marxist academic and degrowth advocate Kohei Saito has unexpectedly become a bestselling author with an environmentally driven call for limits on mass production and consumption: With over half a million copies sold in the generally conservative nation, Capital in the Anthropocene will become available in English next year. This year also saw the publication of Limits and Beyond, a 50-years-on update to the seminal and highly controversial report The Limits to Growth, in which MIT scientists predicted societal collapse if growth trends in population and resource depletion are not abated.
“It seems that humanity is thriving and committing suicide at the same time,” noted author Ugo Bardi in the newer book, which argues that the original’s thesis has been broadly vindicated.
While opponents of the growth-is-good mantra are enjoying revived interest in their ideas, they remain on the fringe of mainstream economics. But even among their critics, there is enthusiasm for reevaluating how we approach growth and the importance we place on the all-powerful metric that measures it—gross domestic product, or GDP. (It should be noted that Simon Kuznets, the U.S. economist whose work led to the creation of GDP, argued against using it as a policymaking tool.)
Indeed, there is now a global push to introduce standardized national metrics for things like well-being and environmental degradation, to give decision-makers additional tools. As Diane Coyle, a public policy professor at the University of Cambridge, put it, we “have to count natural capital and human capital as fundamental contributors toward economic progress.”
The costs of economic growth
Tim Jackson, an ecological economist and former government adviser in the U.K., is one of the leading voices calling for an end to growth mania; his Prosperity Without Growth was one of the Financial Times’ books of the year in 2009, and he’s a member of the Club of Rome, the Swiss think tank that commissioned The Limits to Growth back in 1972. Jackson argues that “Trussonomics”—the slash-taxes-to-boost-growth playbook that characterized the brief and disastrous U.K. premiership of Liz Truss this year—was the “endgame” of an obsession that has led to many bad decisions.
“We deregulated financial systems; we’ve over-leveraged companies; we’ve delivered financial instability; we’ve created huge inequity because of the difference between the returns to shareholders and the wages to workers; and we’ve completely failed to invest in environmental protection,” Jackson told Fortune. “All because we all have our eyes on the glittering prize of economic growth.”
Jackson argues for separating our conception of prosperity from the “simple question” of expanding economic output. “From a philosophical point of view, it’s pretty easy to do that, and it’s partly pretty easy to do it because GDP, which is what we measure economic growth by, really isn’t a very good measure, even of the economy, let alone of a broader measure of prosperity,” he said. “That’s a quite well-established argument that goes back to at least 1968 when Robert Kennedy critiqued the GDP and said it ‘measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile.’”
Even though he’s aligned with many of the movement’s principles, Jackson is skittish about the term “degrowth”—as are many others, owing to its negative framing and contested definition. He’s wary of people seeing degrowth as “a strategic decision to go and turn down economic output…It’s rather a decision to say, ‘Be focused on the economic activity that creates well-being in society, wherever that may be,’” he said.
There’s good cause for Jackson’s defensiveness; many economists, Coyle included, are scathing about the idea of treating economic growth as undesirable, or as optional.
“If you don’t have growth, you don’t have innovation,” said Coyle. “We don’t want to undermine the possibility of future prosperity. We need to pay attention to what’s happening with the environment, [but] that says to me that you measure growth in a sustainable way, so we change what we measure, but we certainly don’t throw away the idea that the economy ought to grow.”
Jackson counters that a growthless economy “would have to have all sorts of innovation.” He argues that there’s “good innovation”—such as renewable-energy technologies and health care systems—and “bad innovation,” exemplified by goods that are environmentally harmful to make and that do not last once consumers have bought them. “Things that can contribute to the quality of our lives are not ruled out in any sense by degrowth,” he said.
Another controversial aspect of degrowth is the question of whether it would reduce or boost inequality. Coyle argues that degrowth advocates are being “dishonest” because they are effectively calling for recessions that will make people—particularly the poorest in society—worse off. “If you don’t have a growing economy, you can’t possibly redistribute any income growth to the people who’ve not seen it so far,” she said. And, she added, “the politics of redistribution don’t win elections.”
Jackson says degrowth would need to go hand in hand with measures to tackle inequality. It’s easier to sidestep the issue when an economy is growing and both rich and poor are getting richer, he says, but not in times of deliberate or unintentional economic shrinkage. “You cannot achieve well-being in a society in which you have turgid levels of economic growth or perhaps no levels of economic growth, unless you pay attention to the distribution of income,” he said.
Jackson admits his proposed “stationary, sustainable economy that delivers well-being for people” would probably not be “much like capitalism as we know it,” though he adds that “it isn’t entirely what we’ve learned as socialism or communism” either.
Better metrics than GDP
Whichever economic policies governments choose to follow in the coming years, there’s a good chance that they’ll have more diverse and meaningful information on which to base it. The United Nations will in 2025 release the world’s first new “system of national accounts” since before the 2008–09 financial crisis, in which GDP will for the first time be accompanied by standardized metrics for well-being and environmental sustainability. Some countries have already started producing such metrics—the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics publishes “environmental accounts” alongside GDP figures, for example—but the UN push is an effort to get everyone on the same page.
“GDP will still be there—it’s needed for macroeconomic policy so it’s useful, and you don’t throw away this sort of information—but I think governments will increasingly not use it as their sole measure of success,” said Coyle.
Jackson is cautiously optimistic about the UN process—“It’s a place where we have a chance to reset our direction of travel”—but says it needs to result in more than just new measurements. “It politically has to engage in the process of supplanting the supremacy of the GDP in political decision-making,” he said.
“You’re never going to get a single number that captures what’s happening to monetary activity; the market economy; what’s happening to household activity; what’s happening to the natural environment; what’s happening to distribution—you’d never get all that into a single metric,” said Coyle. “We’re going to have to get our heads around looking at several different things that we care about.”