FT社评 IMF不该批评新自由主义
As an all-purpose insult, “neoliberalism” has lost any meaning it might once have had. Whether it is a supposed sin of commission, such as privatisation; one of omission, such as allowing a bankrupt company to close; or just an outcome with some losers, neoliberalism has become the catch-all criticism of unthinking radicals who lack the skills of empirical argument.
作为一种万能的攻击对象，“新自由主义”(neoliberalism)失去了曾经拥有的任何意义。无论是所谓主动做的错事（比如私有化），还是因疏忽而做的错事（比如让破产的公司关门），又或者只是造就了一些失败者，“新自由主义”都已成为缺乏实证论证能力的鲁莽激进人士的万用批评对象。
The greatest insult of all, however, is that to our intelligence when august International institutions hitch their wagon to these noisy criticisms. This sorry spectacle befell the International Monetary Fund last week when it published an article in its flagship magazine questioning its own neoliberal tendencies and concluding that “instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardising durable expansion”.
然而，当令人尊敬的国际机构也附和这些嘈杂批评的时候，我们的智慧受到的侮辱才是最大的侮辱。这种令人遗憾的行为上周发生在国际货币基金组织(IMF)，当时它在其旗舰杂志上发表文章，质疑自己的新自由主义倾向，并得出结论称，“一些新自由主义政策没有促进增长，而是加大了不平等，从而危及经济的可持续扩张”。
The word “some” did a lot of work in that sentence. When it came to favoured IMF policies, the authors from the fund’s research department conclude that competition, global free trade, privatisation, foreign direct investment and sound public finances in the vast majority of countries all pass muster. That exonerates most of what passes as neoliberalism.
这句话中的“一些”真是意味深长。IMF研究部门的作者们在谈到所赞同的IMF政策时，他们的结论是竞争、全球自由贸易、私有化、外国直接投资以及绝大多数国家里的稳健公共财政全都合格。也就是说他们宣布新自由主义政策多数是“无罪的”。
Instead of this vast array of settled good practice, the article calls into question two policies: unfettered international flows of hot money, and excessively rapid efforts to reduce public deficits. None of this navel-gazing is remotely new or innovative. The IMF has queried the value of international portfolio investment since the Asian crisis almost two decades ago, while a horses-for-courses approach to fiscal deficits has been the global consensus for nigh on a decade.
文章没有批评所有这些公认的良好实践，而是对两项政策提出了质疑：不受约束的国际热钱流动，过快削减公共赤字。这种狭隘的思维绝非新鲜或者创新。从近20年前的亚洲危机开始，IMF就质疑国际证券投资的价值，而各国各尽所能地减少财政赤字是近十年来的全球共识。
It may appear easy to forgive and forget the criticisms as the childish rhetoric of the parts of the IMF which stand aloof from the nitty gritty of helping real countries in terrible circumstances. But the attack on neoliberalism is far more dangerous than that. It gives succour to oppressive regimes around the world which also position themselves as crusaders against neoliberalism, subjugating their populations with inefficient economic policy and extreme inequality using the full power of the state.
或许很容易把这些批评看作IMF一部分人的幼稚言辞而原谅和忘记，这些人不食人间烟火，帮助陷入困境的真实世界国家这种凡人间的奋斗离他们很远。但是对新自由主义的攻击远比这危险。它给了世界各地的专制政权口实，这些政权也自诩为反新自由主义斗士，动用国家的全部力量，用无效的经济政策和极端的不平等压迫民众。
Against this risk, what has the IMF achieved? Some raised eyebrows from those unaware of the fund’s work, a lot of eye-rolling from the better informed, and not even the grudging approval of Naomi Klein on Twitter. In seeking to be trendy, the IMF instead looks as out of date as a middle-aged man wearing a baseball cap backwards.
面对这种风险，IMF的文章引起了什么反响？一些不知道这篇文章的人表示惊讶，许多更了解情况的人表示轻蔑，而娜奥米•克莱恩(Naomi Klein)在Twitter上连个不情不愿的“赞”都没给。想赶时髦的IMF看起来就像是一个中年人反着戴棒球帽一样过时。
Worst of all, in seeking a public relations coup from relabelling existing policies, the fund has taken its eye off the ball. By far the most important global economic issue is the persistent decline in productivity growth that threatens to undermine progress for all. This does not get a mention.
最糟糕的是，为了通过给现有政策重贴标签而在公关上出奇制胜，IMF已偏离了重点。最为重要的全球经济问题是生产率增长的持续下降，这有可能危及所有国家的进步。IMF的文章却没有提到这一点。
