注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

森《真实的印度》(4):民主与经济增长有矛盾吗?  

2009-05-06 17:20:45|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

 四、民主与经济增长有矛盾吗?

PB: Democracy obviously has been afavorite cause of yours. Another favorite cause has been that of masseducation, basic health, and women's rights. When you combine these two sets ofcauses, one cannot help but notice that there could be a disjuncture, not inthe realm of your ideas but in the real world of politics. The conditions ofbasic health and sanitation and primary and secondary education are simplyappalling in India.Yet, the electorate does not penalize politicians when they fail to deliverthese services. And the conditions continue to be appalling, election afterelection.

PB:显然,民主,是你最喜欢的目标。你喜欢的其他目标有:大众教育、基础健康和妇女权利。当你将两组目标组成在一起的时候,人们禁不住会注意到:其中有不相联之处,不是指你的思想领域,而是指真实的政治世界。在印度,基础医疗卫生和初中等教育,真的令人心惊肉跳。然而,当政治家们不能提供这种服务时,选民们并没有惩罚他们。而且,这些条件还在延续着它的令人心惊肉跳,虽然,选举一个接着一个。

AS: A very interestingquestion, Pranab. Let me say three things. First, democracy is basically apermissive system. Some of the issues of deprivation are very easy to seize interms of media and political opposition. Like famines. Hard to win electionsafter a famine. It's hard to prevent newspapers writing editorials, unless youcensor them, criticizing the government if famines occur. So these things getimmediately politicized. The rest require a lot of effort. In India, thegender issue - when I first started working on it, you were one of the first tobe involved in that. You wrote this great paper ... what was it called?

AS:普拉拉,这是一个是很有趣的问题。我想说三件事。第一,民主,本质上,是一个许可体制。媒体和政治反对派,对于一些剥夺问题,是非常容易抓住的。像饥馑。饥荒之后,是很难赢得选举的。如果发生了饥荒,是很难阻止报纸写社论来批评政府的,除非你搞审查制度。因此,这些事很快就会政治化。其他的事儿,就需要做大量的工作。在印度,性别问题——当我第一次研究这个问题的时候,你是第一个来讨论这个问题的。你写了一篇很好的论文……题目是什么呢?

PB: - "Life and Death Questions in India."

PB:是“印度的生死拷问。”

AS:
I think you have had the same experience as Ihad, the people treating it as your and my amiable eccentricity that we areconcerned with the gender issue. But nobody thinks like that today. If theIndian Parliament is debating today as to how to ensure that a third of theparliamentarians are women, something has changed - and changed as a result ofpolitics, particularly the women's movement.

AS:我认为,你与我一样,有着同样的经历,就像你我的那些亲近的偏心者们,他们认为:我们关心的是性别问题。但是,今天的人们却不是这样想了。如果印度议会今天讨论如何确保第三个议员是女人,事情就会有所变化——而且,这是政治结果所造成的变化,特别是妇女运动的结果。

One of the things I discuss in The Argumentative Indian is thatdespite the fact that since the economic reforms in 1979 the Chinese have growneconomically much faster than India, life expectancy in India has increasedabout three times as fast as that in China over the last quarter century. Thereason for it is not so much that the Indians are getting things right, butthat the Chinese are getting things pretty bad. Earlier, because of theirleft-wing communist commitment to basic health care and basic education, theChinese did a lot of very good things in terms of spreading public educationand health care. Often, the health care was of a very low quality, butnevertheless, there was universal coverage. At the time of the economic reform,the Chinese did away with universal social insurance of health. One morning,simply abolished it. Rather than 100 percent of the people being covered, 70percent, minimally, are not covered by any kind of health insurance today. Youcan't imagine in a democratic country an established right of citizens couldhave been compromised so easily.

我在《争议印度人》里,讨论的一件事,就是:尽管存在一个事实,即:自中国的1979年经济改革以来,中国人的经济增长速度超过了印度,但是,印度的寿命期望值,却在过去的四分之一的世纪里,速度是中国的三倍。理由并不是:印度人在这方面做得对,而是:中国把事情做得很差。在更早的时候,因为中国的左翼共产主义致力于基础保健和基础教育,中国人在拓展公共教育和医疗保健上,做得非常好。经常地,那个医疗保健的质量非常差,但是,它却是全民覆盖的。在经济改革时期,中国人取消了全民的社会健康保险。人们早上一睁眼,就抛弃了。现在不是100%的覆盖了,而是70%(最少如此)没有得到某种健康保险。你不能想象,在一个民主国家里,一项已有的公民权利,可以如此容易地被损伤。

On top of that, people publicly grumble in India all thetime. Every now and then, that confronts politicians with the need to dosomething, which the Chinese government does not quite have to face. By notknowing that, for example, SARS had in fact surfaced in November of one yearbut would not be revealed until the April of the following year, China put things in a closet, which prevents akind of inescapable improvement that you see in India. So my second point is thatthe democratic critique is still, even in India, making a difference.

最重要的,印度人,在所有的时间里,都可以公开地发出不平之声。他们总是时不时地要求政治家去采取措施,而中国政府却不太会遭遇这样的问题。譬如,因为人们不知道SARS实际上在那一年的11月就已经浮出水面了,但是,直到第二年的四月,才公之于众。中国把这个事儿瞒得严严实实。如果放在印度的话,这就会妨碍印度的势在必然的改进。因此,我的第二个观点就是:民主批评,即使是在印度,还依然是发挥作用的。

My third point is that democracy is primarily, as I see it,not just voting, but public reasoning, government by discussion. To initiatethe discussion is a contribution to democracy. You might not have thought thatyour - "Life and Death Questions" was a contribution to Indiandemocratic practice, but that's what it was because a lot of people read it andwere inspired by it and moved by it.

我的第三个观点就是:民主,正如我所看到的,它不只是投票问题,它主要还是公众推理,是由争论主宰的政府。争论的发生,是有助于民主的。你可能不觉得“生死拷问”并不是对印度民主实践的贡献,但是,事实正好相反,因为一大批人,读了它,而且,受到它的激励,被它所推动。

For years, people used to say every time I gave a lecture,- "You are going on and on about democracy, but if democracy is so good,how come Indiadoesn't grow at all?" My answer was that economic growth depends not onthe harshness of the political climate, but the friendliness of the economicclimate. People don't ask me that rhetorical question any more because India'seconomic growth is quite high now. But the country is no less democratic today- it is not democracy that had to be abandoned to grow fast.

多年以来,每当我做演讲的时候,人们总是喜欢问我:“你一而再,再而三地讲民主问题,但是,如果民主真的是那么好的话,那么,印度为什么没有发展呢?”我的回答是:印度增长,不取决于“政治气候”的争吵程度,而是取决于经济气候的友好程度。现在,因为印度的经济增长很快了,所以,人们不再问我这种修辞学上的问题了。但是,这个国家的民主却一点也没有少——经济的快速增长,并不要抛弃民主。


(待续)

  评论这张
 
阅读(105)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017