破亂:印度需要市場經濟

When the Indian government presented its budget last month, the people were expecting giveaways, subsidies and bribes for votes. But it turned out to be a surprisingly responsible settlement that capped the fiscal deficit at 4.8 per cent of economic output. It was a sensible budget, but it will not get India growing again.

當印度政府上月公佈預算案時，人們原本以爲預算中會包括爲拉攏選民而提供的施捨、補貼和賄賂。但結果是，這份預算案出人意料地可靠，將財政赤字限制在經濟產出的4.8%。這是一份合理的預算，但它不會重新推動印度的增長。

Meanwhile, the day before the budget, Sugata Mitra, a researcher at Newcastle University, won the TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design conference) prize of $1m to run Schools in the Cloud from India. The scheme aims to empower teachers and parents towards self-directed learning by children.

與此同時，在預算案公佈的前一天，紐卡斯爾大學(Newcastle University)研究員蘇加塔??米特拉(Sugata Mitra)獲得了100萬美元的TED（技術、娛樂和設計大會）獎金，用於運營印度的“雲端學校”(Schools in the Cloud)項目。該項目旨在幫助教師和父母引導兒童自主學習。

To Indians, the contrast between the budget and the prize confirms their perception of the country’s “bottom-up” success, driven by people, in contrast to China’s “top-down” success, induced by state investment. Prosperity is spreading, despite appalling governance in the world’s biggest democracy.

對印度人而言，預算和獎金的鮮明對比驗證了他們的看法：印度的成功是由人民推動的“自下而上式”成功，與中國由國家投資推動的“自上而下式”成功不同。儘管政府治理糟糕，但這個世界上人口最多的民主國家仍在不斷走向繁榮。

Indians despair over the delivery of public services. Where the state is needed – to provide law and order, education, health and water – it performs poorly. Where it is not needed, it is hyperactive, tying people up in red tape. People cynically sum up their country’s story of private success and public failure with the phrase: “India grows at night while the government sleeps.” The country’s recent economic slowdown suggests it may have reached the limits of its ability to grow in the dark.

印度人對公共服務感到絕望。在需要政府推行法律和秩序，提供教育、衛生和自來水時，它的表現總不理想。在不需要政府時，它卻太過活躍，用繁文縟節束縛着人們。對於私營部門的成功和公共部門的失敗，人們諷刺性地總結爲：“印度經濟在晚上政府睡覺的時候纔會增長。”印度近期的經濟增速放緩表明，它可能已經達到了在黑暗中增長的極限。

Two years ago, India was the envy of the world. It had survived the financial crisis and was growing rapidly, creating jobs and lifting millions out of poverty. The country had innovative companies competing brutally at home and starting to stomp on to the global stage. This came on the back of free-market reforms begun in 1991. Since then, governments had kept reforming slowly, making it the world’s second-fastest growing economy.

兩年前，印度是全世界羨慕的對象。它成功渡過了金融危機，增長迅速，就業崗位增加，數百萬人脫貧。在印度，創新公司在國內展開激烈的競爭，並開始登上全球舞臺。這一切發生的背景是1991年開始的自由市場改革。從那以後，政府持續緩步推行改革，使印度成爲全球增長第二快的經濟體。

But soon after the current government, led by the Congress party, came to power in 2004, it made a disastrous mistake. Under the influence of Sonia Gandhi and her National Advisory Council, it concluded the reforms only helped the rich. It changed its focus to welfare spending. Instead of building roads, it offered cheap food, energy and make-work jobs. This resulted in high inflation, low growth and an unsustainable deficit.

但國大黨(Congress party)領導的現任政府2004年上臺不久後，鑄下大錯。在索妮婭??甘地(Sonia Gandhi)及其國家諮詢委員會(National Advisory Council)的影響下，該黨得出結論：改革只幫助了富人。於是，政府將重心轉向福利支出。它的重點不再是修築公路，而是提供廉價食品、能源和不必要的、人爲創造就業的工作崗位。這導致了高通脹、低增長和不可持續的赤字。

Hope for India may well lie with its aspiring young people, those who are in the middle class or about to reach it. They are about a third of the country now, and will be half in a decade. They have no one to vote for because no politician talks the language of public goods or governance. The existing parties treat voters as poor, ignorant masses who need to be appeased at election time with populist giveaways.

那些雄心勃勃、身爲中產階級或即將躋身這一行列的年輕人承載着印度的希望。他們佔據該國人口的三分之一左右，十年後將佔據總人口的一半。他們的選票無處可投，因爲沒有政客談論公共產品或治理。現有的黨派將選民視爲貧窮、無知的大衆，只需在選舉時用民粹主義的施捨加以撫慰即可。

They are puzzled why their nation offers astonishing religious and political freedom but not economic freedom. In a country where two out of five people are self-employed, it takes 42 days to start a business. The entrepreneur is a victim of endless red tape and corruption. It has been ranked 132nd in the world for “ease of doing business”.

他們困惑：爲何在印度可以享受巨大的宗教和政治自由，卻享受不到經濟自由。在五分之二人口從事個體經營的印度，開辦企業卻要花42天。沒完沒了的官僚作風和腐敗，令企業家深受其害。印度的“經商便利指數”全球僅排名第132位。

India ends up reforming furtively because no party has bothered to explain the difference between being “pro-market” and “pro-business”. People are left with the impression that liberal reforms mostly help the rich. They don’t understand that being pro-market is to believe in competition, which helps keep prices low, raises the quality of products and leads to a rules-based capitalism that helps everyone. To be pro-business means allowing politicians and officials to retain authority over economic decisions, leading to crony capitalism. It also explains why India does not perform to potential.

到頭來，印度改革進行得偷偷摸摸，因爲各黨派懶得解釋“支持市場”和“支持企業”之間的區別。人們的印象是，自由化改革主要令富人受益。他們不理解，支持市場即相信競爭，從而有助於降低價格，提高產品質量，催生出遵守規則、造福人人的資本主義制度。支持企業意味着讓政客和官員保留經濟決策大權，從而滋生裙帶資本主義。這還能解釋印度爲何未能發揮出全部潛力。

There is a political space that should be filled by a secular party at the right of centre. None of the existing parties is likely to fill it. The only answer for aspiring India may well be a new liberal party, which trusts markets rather than officials and focuses on the reform of institutions. This party might not win votes quickly but it could bring governance reform to centre stage and gradually prove to voters that open markets and rules-based government are the only civilised ways to lift living standards and achieve shared prosperity. At a time when western economies and their way of doing business are under a cloud, a successful India driven by free markets and democracy can be a real force for good.

印度存在着應由中右翼世俗政黨填補的政治空間。現有的政黨無法填補這一空間。對於雄心勃勃的印度，唯一的答案恐怕是出現一個相信市場而非官僚、注重制度改革的自由主義新政黨。這個政黨或許無法迅速贏得選票，但它可以將治理改革推向舞臺中央，並逐步向選民證明，開放市場和信奉規則的政府是提高生活水平、實現共同繁榮的唯一文明方式。在西方經濟體及其行事方式遭受質疑之時，在自由市場和民主推動下獲得成功的印度，將成爲一股積極向上的力量。