世界需要负责任的民族主义

It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the relatively open economic policies that have been the norm in the US and Britain since the second world war.

在英国脱欧公投和唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)在共和党初选阶段胜出之后，显而易见的是，选民们开始对二战后在英美成为常态的相对开放的经济政策产生反感。

Populist opposition to International integration is on the rise in much of continental Europe and has always been the norm in Latin America. The question now is what should be the guiding principles of international economic policy? How should those of us — who believe that the vastly better performance of the global system after the second world war than after the first world war is largely due to more enlightened economic policies — make our case?

在欧洲大陆的大片地区，反对国际融合的民粹主义情绪正在升温，而在拉美，这种情绪一直是常态。目前的问题是，国际经济政策的指导原则应该是什么？我们这些人——相信二战后全球体系的表现远远好于一战后时期，而其主要原因在于更为开明的经济政策——应当如何证明自己的观点呢？

The mainstream approach starts with a combination of rational argument and inflated rhetoric about the economic consequences of international integration. Studies are produced about the jobs created by trade agreements, the benefits of immigration and the costs of restrictions. In most cases the overall economic merits are clear. But there is a kind of Gresham’s Law of advocacy whereby bolder claims drive out more prudent ones. Over time this has caught up with the advocates of integration.

主流方法的起点是理性论证结合有关国际融合的经济后果的夸大论证。有关方面发表研究报告，说明贸易协定创造工作岗位，以及移民的好处和限制的代价。在大多数情况下，总体的经济好处是显而易见的。但是，倡导方面也存在某种格雷欣法则(Gresham's Law)：更大胆的主张会驱逐更谨慎的主张。随着时间的推移，融合的倡导者受到该法则的影响。

While there is a strong case that the US is better off than it would have been if the North American Free Trade Agreement had been rejected, the most extravagant predicted benefits have not materialised. And it is fair to say that claims that China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation would propel political liberalisation have not been borne out. The willingness of people to be intimidated by experts into supporting cosmopolitan outcomes appears for the moment to have been exhausted.

尽管有充分理由说明，相比《北美自由贸易协定》(NAFTA)如果被拒绝的情况，现在美国的日子更好过，但当初预测的最夸张好处并未兑现。同样，可以公平地说，有关中国加入世贸组织(WTO)将推动政治自由化的说法并未成为现实。眼下，人们似乎不再愿意在专家们的威胁之下接受世界主义的结局。

The second plank of the mainstream approach is to push for stronger policies to resist inequality, cushion disruptions and support the poor and middle class, and then argue that if domestic policies are right, the pressure to resist globalisation will reduce. The logic is right and certainly measures like government assurance of mortgages and the interstate highway system were part of the political package that permitted the US to underwrite an open global system.

主流方法的第二根支柱，是推行更强力政策，以抵制不平等、为动荡提供缓冲、支持穷人和中产阶层，然后主张：只要国内政策正确，抵制全球化的压力将会减轻。这种逻辑是正确的，当然，像政府为房屋抵押贷款提供担保和建设州际公路体系等措施，是允许美国支持开放全球体系的政治“套餐”的一部分。

But the last eight years have seen America at last adopt universal health insurance, expand a variety of support programmes for the poor and bring unemployment below 5 per cent with trade becoming ever less popular. It is not that strong domestic policies are unnecessary to undergird global integration. It is that they are insufficient.

但在过去8年里，美国最终实施了全民医疗保险，扩展了大量针对穷人的支持项目，并把失业率下降至5%以内，而贸易却变得更加不受欢迎。问题并不是强有力的国内政策对于支持全球融合是不必要的，而是这些政策的力度还不够。

A new approach has to start from the idea that the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good. People also want to feel that they are shaping the societies in which they live. It may be inevitable that impersonal forces of technology and changing global economic circumstances have profound effects, but it adds insult to injury when governments reach agreements that further cede control to international tribunals. This is especially the case when, for reasons of law or practicality, corporations have disproportionate influence in shaping global agreements.

新办法的起点必须是如下观念，即政府的基本责任是推动公民福利最大化，而不是追求某些全球福祉的抽象概念。人们还希望感觉到，他们正在塑造自己身在其中的社会。技术的非人性力量力量和不断变化的全球经济环境或许必然产生深远的影响，但当政府达成进一步向国际审裁庭交出控制权的协议，就会让形势雪上加霜。当出于法律或现实原因，企业在塑造全球协议时的影响力大得不成比例时，尤其会是这种情况。

If Italy’s banking system is badly undercapitalised and the country’s democratically elected government wants to use taxpayer money to recapitalise it, why should some international agreement prevent it from doing so? Why should not countries that think that genetically modified crops are dangerous get to shield people from them? Why should the international community seek to prevent countries that wish to limit capital inflows from doing so? The issue in all these cases is not the merits. It is the principle that intrusions into sovereignty exact a high cost.

如果意大利银行系统的资本严重不足，而该国民选政府想用纳税人的钱为银行补充资本，为何应当让某些国际协议阻止这一举动？那些认为基因改造作物有危险的政府，为何不应保护本国民众远离这类作物？有些国家希望限制资本流入，国际社会为何应当寻求阻止它们这么做？所有这些例子中的关键都不是具体的利弊，而是干扰主权会有很高代价的原则。

What is needed is a responsible nationalism — an approach where it is understood that countries are expected to pursue their citizens’ economic welfare as a primary objective but where their ability to harm the interests of citizens elsewhere is circumscribed. International agreements would be judged not by how much is harmonised or by how many barriers are torn down but whether citizens are empowered.

我们需要的是一种负责任的民族主义——按照这种理念，各方都理解，国家应把增进本国公民的经济福利作为首要目标，但在伤害其他国家公民利益的能力方面受到限制。对国际协议的衡量标准将不是一体化程度有多么高，或者打破的壁垒有多少，而是公民是否被赋予了权力。

This does not mean less scope for international co-operation. It may mean more. For example, tax burdens on workers around the world are a trillion dollars or more greater than they would be if we had a proper system of international co-ordination that identified capital income and prevented a race to the bottom in its taxation. Taxes are only the most obvious area where races to the bottom interfere with the achievement of national objectives. Others include labour and financial regulation and environmental standards.

这并不意味着国际合作的空间被缩小。它或许意味着空间更大。例如，目前全球工人的税务负担为1万亿美元，高于如果我们拥有恰当国际合作体系——确认资本收入，防止在对资本收入征税方面发生逐底竞争——的情形。税收只是逐底竞争与实现国家目标相抵触的最明显领域。其他领域包括劳动力与金融监管，以及环境标准。

Reflex internationalism needs to give way to responsible nationalism or else we will only see more distressing referendums and populist demagogues contending for high office.

条件反射式的国际主义需要让位给负责任的民族主义，否则，我们只会看到更多令人痛苦的公投和民粹主义煽动者竞选要职。