英國應該結束緊縮嗎

The British public is tired of austerity. So even supporters of the government have concluded from the unexpected success of Jeremy Corbyn’s new old Labour, which promised much higher spending and fiscal deficits than the Conservatives in last week’s general election But is it safe to give the public what it wants? Brexit is likely to bring economic disappointment. To add fiscal destabilisation to the mix would seem highly unwise.

英國公衆如今厭倦了緊縮。甚至政府的支持者也從傑里米?科爾賓(Jeremy Corbyn)領導的嶄新的老工黨(Labour)在最近大選的意外成功中推斷出這一點。工黨承諾比保守黨高得多的支出和財政赤字。但是，公衆要什麼就給他們什麼，這樣安全嗎？英國退歐(Brexit)在經濟上可能給人帶來失望。再加上財政不穩，似乎是非常不明智的。

The UK will remain an open trading economy dependent on the confidence of strangers, as investors and workers. It would be idiotic to jeopardise its reputation for sound management further in return for a brief high of larger fiscal deficits and debt. Yet this does not rule out different choices over revenue and spending. That is perfectly legitimate.

英國仍將是一個開放的貿易經濟體，依賴於作爲投資者和工人的陌生人的信任。進一步破壞英國穩健管理的聲名，以換取財政赤字和債務擴大帶來的短暫快感，將是愚蠢的。不過，這也不排除在收入和支出方面做出不同選擇的可能性，而這是非常合理的。

As Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation points out, fiscal austerity may refer to the deficit or to the level and structure of spending. Policy can affect the deficit by increasing revenue as well as by lowering spending. At the same time, spending can be changed, without altering the deficit, provided revenue is altered in an offsetting way.

正如決議基金會(Resolution Foundation)的托爾斯滕?貝爾(Torsten Bell)指出的那樣，財政緊縮也許是指赤字，也許指支出的水平和結構。政策可以通過增加收入、也可以通過減少支出來影響赤字。同時，不必改變赤字，也可以改變支出，如果收入向相同方向變化的話。

The austerity delivered since 2010 has meant deficit reductions predominantly achieved via curbs on spending. Between 2009-10 and 2021-22, public sector net borrowing is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to shrink by 9.2 per cent of gross domestic product. A reduction in spending from 45.3 per cent to 37.9 per cent of GDP is expected to deliver 80 per cent of the envisaged fall in the deficit.

在2010年以來實施的緊縮中，一直主要通過抑制支出減少赤字。根據預算責任辦公室(Office for Budget Responsibility)的預測，從2009/2010年至2021/2022年，公共部門淨借款與國內生產總值(GDP)之比將下降9.2個百分點。將支出從GDP的45%降低至GDP的37.9%，對設想中的赤字降幅的貢獻預計會達到80%。

By 2016-17, public sector net borrowing had already been reduced to 2.5 per cent of GDP, from 9.9 per cent in 2009-10. Given this, is it important to reduce this to the forecast level of 0.7 per cent in 2021-22? The argument against further tightening is that the deficit is now modest. The argument in favour is that it is needed to lower the net debt ratio, which was at the somewhat uncomfortable level of 87 per cent of GDP at the end of the last financial year, up from 35 per cent a decade earlier.

2009/2010年公共部門淨借款爲GDP的9.9%，2016/2017年已降至GDP的2.5%。鑑於此，在2021/2022年把這一比例降低至0.7%的預測水平，很重要嗎？反對進一步緊縮的理由是，赤字現在已經不大了。支持緊縮的理由是，有必要降低淨債務比——上一個財年末，淨債務與GDP之比爲令人不安的87%，高於十年前的35%。

It makes sense to run a still smaller deficit when debt is high and the economy is close to full employment. The aim would be to insure against any shocks that lie ahead, by reducing the debt ratio. A case can be made for borrowing for high-quality investment, especially when real interest rates are so low. The failure of the government to launch a bigger investment programme shortly after the crisis was surely an error. Instead, public sector gross investment was cut from 5.5 per cent of GDP in 2009-10 to 4 per cent last year. At the same time, higher public savings (and so a large surplus on the current budget) are desirable, given the persistent current account deficit and consequent vulnerability of sterling. In all, a smaller fiscal deficit does make sense.

當債務水平很高且經濟接近充分就業時，繼續降低赤字是合理的。目標應該是通過降低債務比率，防範未來的任何衝擊。借債進行高質量投資是值得支持的，尤其是在實際利率如此低的時候。政府在危機之後沒能很快啓動一項規模更大的投資計劃，肯定是個錯誤。相反，公共部門總投資從2009/2010年佔GDP的5.5%下降至去年的4%。另一方面，鑑於持續的經常項目赤字和相應的英鎊脆弱性，提高公共部門儲蓄（因而實現本期預算大額盈餘）是可取的。總之，降低財政赤字是合理的。

Yet this does not mean that spending needs to be cut any further. On the contrary, the UK public may well desire greater public spending, relative to GDP. That is a legitimate and workable option: Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany, all of which now spend more than the UK, are hardly basket cases. As Carl Emmerson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, the spending levels promised by Labour are not outrageous by such standards. But the increased spending needs to be of a high quality and be paid for by effective and efficient taxation. Furthermore, note that taxes will probably have to rise to mitigate the effects on public services of an ageing population.

然而，這並不意味着需要進一步削減支出。相反，英國公衆很可能希望提高公共支出相對GDP的比率。這是一個合理、可行的選項：北歐國家、荷蘭和德國——支出水平均高於英國——很難說處境很差。正如財政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)的卡爾?埃默森(Carl Emmerson)所指出的那樣，以這一標準來衡量，工黨承諾的支出水平並非不可接受。但是，增加的支出必須是高質量支出，並且通過高效和有效的稅收來滿足。此外，請注意，稅收將很可能必須提高，以緩解人口老齡化對公共服務的影響。

What is needed is honesty: the country can choose to raise spending. But, if it wants to run a sound fiscal policy, this will mean substantially higher taxes. Labour has broken the taboo on the latter. But it has dishonestly suggested that a substantial increase in spending can be financed solely at the expense of the rich and corrupt. Yet even taxes on corporations do not fall solely, or even mainly, on the rich. Furthermore, a quarter of Labour’s promised increase in spending goes to eliminate student debt, while leaving universities far worse off. This is an irresponsible and regressive benefit in favour of future winners. The priority is quite wrong.

目前需要的是誠實：國家可以選擇增加支出。但是，如果國家想實行穩健的財政政策，這將意味着大幅加稅。工黨已打破了加稅的禁忌。但工黨也不誠實地暗示，大幅增加支出的錢可以完全讓富人和腐敗分子來出。然而，就連公司稅也不僅僅或者主要由富人承擔。此外，工黨承諾的支出增加的四分之一，用於消除學生債務，同時會使大學的狀況顯著惡化。這是一種不負責任、倒退的福利，有利於未來的贏家。其優先次序完全錯了。

So should austerity be over? If we mean that it is safe to leave the fiscal deficit where it is, the answer is no. If we mean that it is possible to avoid lowering the share of public spending in GDP any further, the answer is yes. The argument that the UK has chronically underfunded public services is respectable. But higher spending means higher taxes. That additional taxation also needs to be well targeted and designed. The extra money raised needs to be well spent, too. Otherwise, the effort would be a huge waste. That would be quite senseless.

所以說，緊縮應當結束嗎？如果我們是指，讓財政赤字保持當前水平是安全的，那麼答案是否定的。如果我們是指，有可能避免進一步降低公共支出與GDP之比，那麼答案是肯定的。認爲英國長期對公共服務撥款不足的觀點是值得尊敬的。但是，更高的支出意味着更高的稅收。加稅也需要妥善地找準目標和進行設計。這些增加的資金也需要妥當使用。否則的話，這一努力將造成巨大浪費。那就將變得毫無意義了。