亚洲人的“资本主义空想” Growth that looks meaningless unless it improves lives

As Asian economies close the gap on western living standards, an awkward question lurks beneath their seemingly spectacular progress. Can Asians enjoy western standards of living without destroying the planet?

随着亚洲经济体逐渐拉近与西方在生活水平上的差距，在它们取得惊人进步的表面之下，潜藏着一个棘手的问题：亚洲人能否在不破坏地球环境的前提下，享受西方的生活水平？

Chandran Nair, author of Consumptionomics, a book that questions the sustainability of the imported western growth model, argues that they cannot. His views are controversial. To suggest that Asians must refrain from a western lifestyle would be regarded by many as an affront to perfectly legitimate and long-delayed aspirations.

《消费经济学》(Consumptionomics)一书的作者程子俊(Chandran Nair)给出了否定的答案。该书质疑亚洲从西方引进的增长模式是否具有可持续性。这种主张亚洲人应该摒弃西方生活方式的观点，肯定会冒犯许多对西方生活向往已久、并认为这种生活方式完全正当的人。

But Mr Nair, a Malaysian, says this is denial. How can everyone in China or India eat sushi like the Japanese or drive cars like Americans, he asks, without draining the seas of fish and the deserts of oil? Western capitalism, he says, built its high living standards on abundant resources, partly supplied by colonialism. The US had few people and seemingly limitless resources, the opposite of what is now true in Asia.

但身为马来西亚人的程子俊表示，这种说法是在否认现实。他问道：在中国或印度，难道能够人人都像日本人一样吃寿司，或者像美国人一样开汽车，而不会造成海里的鱼儿灭绝，沙漠里的石油枯竭？他表示，西方资本主义较高的生活水平是建立在丰富资源的基础上，而这些资源部分得自于殖民主义。美国的人口很少，并且拥有看似无穷无尽的资源，与亚洲当前的状况恰恰相反。

The answer, Mr Nair argues, is to price resources properly. You can own a car, but only if you pay for the roads you drive on and the (unsubsidised) petrol you use. That is a stark message both for westerners and increasingly for Asians, many of whom are coming to see a western lifestyle as a birthright.

程子俊认为，解决之道在于对资源合理定价。你尽可以拥有汽车，但前提是你必须为你所行驶的道路、以及你所使用的（未经补贴的）汽油付费。这样的说法对西方人来说是残酷无情的，对亚洲人来说也日益如此——如今许多亚洲人正开始把享受西方生活方式当作与生俱来的权利。

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, argues from a different perspective that Asians need to redefine what kind of growth they want. In an essay in Outlook magazine with Jean Drèze, a development economist, he writes that “economic growth is not constitutively the same thing as development”. India has grown strongly for 20 years but “the progress of living standards for common people, as opposed to a favoured minority, has been dreadfully slow”. Growth can be useful. But without public policies to ensure that the fruits of that growth go to improving health, nutrition and education, it has little meaning, he says.

诺贝尔经济学奖获得者阿玛蒂亚?森(Amartya Sen)从另一个角度来阐述这一问题，他认为，亚洲人需要重新界定究竟什么才是自己真正想要的增长模式。他与发展经济学家让?德雷兹(Jean Drèze)在《Outlook》杂志上撰文表示：“经济增长本质上并不等同于发展”。印度20年来经济增长迅猛，但“普通人生活水平的提高，与一小群特权人群相比，却极度缓慢”。增长或许有益。但是，在缺乏相关公共政策、不能确保增长果实被用于改善医疗卫生、营养和教育的情况下，增长就没有什么意义。

The recognition that 20 years of growth has had minimal impact on the lives of 800m Indians lies behind Sonia Gandhi’s championing of a food security bill, which aims to subsidise food for nearly two-thirds of the population. Whether this initiative by the leader of the ruling Congress party is a vital step towards more equitable development or a socialist fantasy that will wreck government finances is a matter of heated debate.

正因为认识到20年来的经济增长对8亿印度人的生活影响甚微，印度执政党国大党的领袖索尼娅?甘地(Sonia Gandhi)才会支持一项粮食安全议案，该议案旨在为近三分之二人口提供粮食补贴。人们正在激烈辩论，索尼娅的这项倡议究竟是朝着更公平发展方向迈进的关键一步，还是一个将会损害政府财政状况的社会主义空想。

These arguments dovetail with Mr Nair’s concerns that the majority of Asians are instead being sold a capitalist fantasy. “They’ve gone to the west and bought the idea that wealth trickles down,” he says. “But the gravy’s too thick and there’s not enough to go around.”

这些辩论正吻合程子俊关于大部分亚洲人正被兜售一种资本主义空想的担忧。“他们已经向西方靠拢，购买了财富会向下流淌的理论。然而，肉汁太稠了流不动，也不够分配。”

译者/何黎