英国如何制定明智产业战略
Theresa May is drawing up plans to develop an industrial strategy for the UK and to change an “anything goes” business culture. Good. There is a lot that needs fixing. The prime minister is not the first leader to make such promises. Here are the do’s and don’ts her government should consider, based on experience over the past few decades in the UK and elsewhere.
特里萨•梅(Theresa May，见上图)正草拟计划，为英国制定一项产业战略并改变“为所欲为”的商业文化。很好。有很多地方需要纠正。这位英国新首相并非第一位做出这种承诺的领导人。基于过去几十年英国和其他国家的经验，以下是她领导的英国政府应考虑的应该做和不应该做的事情。
An industrial strategy is a good idea, provided that it is built around sectors where the UK has a comparative advantage and where the government is an important player, either as a provider of development finance or as a customer.
产业战略是个好想法——前提是它围绕着英国具备比较优势、且政府是重要参与者（要么作为开发融资的提供者，要么作为客户）的行业。
We do not need an industrial strategy for dying businesses such as steel, or for those like retail that flourish without direct government involvement. We do need one for sectors like aerospace, defence, life sciences and energy, where government is bound to play a part in success.
我们不需要为钢铁等日落西山的行业，或者像零售那样不需要政府直接参与就能蓬勃发展的行业制定产业战略。在航空航天、军工、生命科学和能源等行业，我们确实需要产业战略，政府难免会对这些行业的成功发挥一定作用。
In the past ten years UK governments have twice launched and abandoned industrial strategies. So Mrs May needs to persuade people that this time it is real — and not get into the business of deciding which takeovers are or are not in the public interest. Politics have trumped economics when this has happened before.
过去10年，英国政府曾两度推出和放弃产业战略。因此梅需要说服人们，这一次是真的，同时不要介入决定哪些收购符合（或是不符合）公共利益的事务。以前出现这种介入的时候，政治考虑曾经压倒经济逻辑。
Her government should find ways of throwing grit into the machinery of takeovers, which play a much bigger role in British corporate life than in other developed economies, including the US. Companies making a substantial takeover bid should be required to set a five-year business plan with binding commitments. And Mrs May should also search for ways of sharpening competition policy, and not just when it comes to takeover bids. Look everywhere for barriers to market entry and tear them down.
她的政府应找到阻挠收购的方法，收购在英国企业界的重要性超过其他发达经济体，包括美国。发起大规模收购的公司应该被要求制定一项5年商业计划，做出具有法律约束力的承诺。梅还应该想方设法加强竞争政策，而且不仅是在收购方面；要全方位搜寻市场准入壁垒，然后消除这些壁垒。
There is no need to waste time developing, in the prime minister’s words, “a better research and development policy that helps firms to make the right investment decisions”. The UK’s R&D tax credits are competitive. Mrs May should, however, set aside public money to compensate British science for the loss of European research funding, one of the downsides of Brexit, and she should rethink plans to scale down Innovate UK, the agency that has been a catalyst for business research.
不需要浪费时间制定梅所称的“更好的研发政策，帮助企业做出正确的投资决定”。英国的研发税收减免已经具备竞争力。然而，梅应拨出公共资金，补偿失去了欧洲研究经费（这是英国脱欧的不利后果之一）的英国科学事业，同时她应重新思考缩减“创新英国”(Innovate UK)的计划，该机构一直是企业研究的催化剂。
When it comes to executive pay, Mrs May should not mess with new rules for bonuses, which always have unintended consequences, usually in the form of increases in basic pay. She should, though, give teeth to annual shareholder votes on compensation packages, ignoring the objection that making these votes binding would lead to difficulties in agreeing pay contracts. So much the better. At the same time, parliamentary select committees should be encouraged to invite chairs of compensation committees to explain themselves if they sign off ridiculous pay packages. That would help to concentrate minds.
在高管薪资问题上，梅不应打乱奖金新规，这些规定总会产生意外后果，通常是以提高基本薪资的方式出现。然而，她应让有关薪酬方案的年度股东投票变得真正有效，顶住下列反对意见：让这些投票具有法律约束力将导致很难达成薪资合约。那样反而更好。同时，应鼓励议会特别委员会邀请企业的薪酬委员会主席解释他们是否签署了荒唐的薪酬方案。那将有助于集中注意力。
There should be no move to force boards to appoint non-executive directors they would not choose themselves. That would drive serious debates out of the boardroom and into the chief executive’s office, as in France. Instead, toughen up company legislation that requires boards to pay attention to the needs of a wider group of stakeholders than those who own shares.
不应采取措施强迫董事会任命他们自己不会选择的非执行董事。那将促使严肃的辩论离开董事会，进入首席执行官办公室，就像法国那样。相反，应当收紧公司立法，要求董事会关注更广泛利益相关者群体的需求，而不只是股东。
And it is time to find ways to exploit the considerable soft power of government. For example, bosses in the UK crave access to Downing Street for the bragging rights. Those who take absurd pay packages or who play games with the tax system should be given the political cold shoulder as ostentatiously as possible.
与此同时，是时候设法利用政府的可观软实力了。例如，英国的商界领袖都渴望走进唐宁街，以获得吹牛的权利。那些拿到荒唐薪酬方案或者与税收制度打擦边球的人应受到政府的冷遇，而且越明显越好。
Capitalism thrives on animal spirits but occasionally creates monsters. The challenge for policymakers is to encourage the one while nailing the other.
资本主义的繁荣依赖于动物精神，但有时也会造出怪物。政策制定者面临的挑战在于鼓励动物精神同时抓住怪物。
