我是保罗·科利尔的超级粉丝。作为一位备受尊敬的牛津大学经济学家（同时也是一位骑士！），他的职业生涯致力于理解并减少全球贫困。他的作品《最底层的十亿人》仍然是我会推荐给人们的少部分书之一，尽管从这本书出版到现在的12年，很多事情已经发生了改变。
所以当我得知科利尔的新书与贫困完全无关的时候，我有点惊讶。但当我了解到新书的内容也是我非常感兴趣的话题——我们正在美国、欧洲和其他地方看到的两极分化现象——我就急切地想知道他说了什么。我很高兴我读了这本书。《资本主义的未来：面对新的焦虑》（The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties，中文名暂译）是一本雄心勃勃、发人深省的书。
科利尔在努力解决一个难题。从一些指标来看——包括GDP增长和寿命——世界各地人们的生活比以往任何时候都要好。然而，许多人正在质疑产生这些增长的资本主义制度。于是一种容易被理解的观念出现了：这个体系正处于危机之中。
为什么会这样？科利尔说，我们正在经历三大分化：1）蓬勃发展的城市和苦苦挣扎的小城镇之间的空间分化；2）得到与没得到大学教育的人之间的阶级分化；3）中高收入国家与脆弱国家之间的全球性分化。
对这三种分化，科利尔有自己的看法。他在英国工业城市谢菲尔德长大，现在他在一个高档的大学城安家。他的父母在12岁时就退学了，而他去了牛津大学。他生活在一个富裕的国家，但是由于工作原因，他把很多时间都投入到一些世界上最穷的地方。
科利尔说，这三种趋势的结果是，资本主义给一些人带来了好处，但也让其他人落在了后面。例如，他提出了一个任何生活在伦敦、纽约或我的家乡西雅图的人都会感到熟悉的观点。技艺精湛的工人们搬到城市的动机很强烈，因为在那里他们能找到高薪的工作。当所有这些高收入者都聚集在一个地方时，便会涌现更多企业来支持他们。这种大规模的城市迁移推高了土地成本，使得除高收入者之外的其他人都难以负担。这对少数幸运儿来说是一个良性循环，对其他人来说则是一个恶性循环。
所有这些加起来就构成了一个对这个问题令人信服的描述。我们应该对此做些什么？
我发觉自己同意科利尔的很多观点。他这本书的中心思想尤其打动我：我们需要加强人们相互间的责任。这不会直接解决这些分化问题，但它会创造一种氛围，让我们能够更多地讨论解决分化的务实方案。科利尔写道：“当我们认识到对他人负有新的责任时，我们就能建设更加繁荣发展的社会；当我们忽视他人时，我们会做出与之相反的事……为了实现繁荣的前景，我们必须重建相互尊重的意识。”
他考察了我们可以做到这一点的四个层面：全球层面、国家层面、公司层面和家庭层面。例如，他认为在全球范围内，我们需要重振像北约（NATO）和欧盟（EU）这样的组织，同时也要认识到有必要帮助世界上最贫穷的人摆脱贫困（鉴于盖茨基金会的工作，我对这一领域特别感兴趣）。
在企业层面，科利尔批判了公司唯一的责任是为股东赚钱的观点。他认为，这种只关注利润的做法，意味着许多公司不再觉得应该对它们的员工或所在的社区负有责任。他说这是“资本主义被普遍蔑视的一个重要原因——贪婪、自私、腐败”。
我同意，企业需要从长远的角度考虑自己的利益，而不只是关注短期利润。企业在所在社区和员工眼中的形象是很重要的。我认为，逐利的动机鼓励企业从一个宽广的视角看待自己的利益，这种情况比科利尔意识到的更常发生，尽管也有不少例外的情况。当我们希望公司以某种方式行动时——例如减少污染或缴纳一定的税收——我认为让政府出台法律要比期望企业自愿改变行为更加有效。
如果有机会，我会问科利尔更多关于这方面的问题。读完这本书，我想知道他是否认为我们可以通过改变激励结构，从而让公司采取不同的行动。或许有些公司没有意识到他们的长期利益需要重视除了利润之外的东西。和他讨论将会很有趣。
我还想把科利尔关于世界、国家、公司、家庭的观点再向前推进一步。我会增加第五个层面：社区。我们需要在本地重新建立联系，在这里我们的物理距离足够近，可以在有需要的时候互相帮助。教会可以实现这个目标，社区团体也可以，数字工具也帮助了人们与邻居建立联系，尽管我认为在该领域还有更多的事情可以做。
对于这样复杂的主题，描述问题总是比解决问题容易。《资本主义的未来》花了大量时间研究我们可以怎样缓解人们的焦虑，包括更多的职业培训、对家庭的支持（他称之为“社会母性主义”），以及为了让企业行为更合乎道德而设计的政策。
虽然我并非同意科利尔的所有建议，但我认为他更多时候是对的。梅琳达和我将在今年9月的目标守卫者报告中谈到更多关于不平等的内容。举一个例子，我认为美国政府需要更多的财政收入来履行其承诺，这就意味着对最富有的人征收更多的税款。同样地，科利尔也为提高城市高收入劳工的非劳动所得税提出了很好的理由（就像他们土地价值的提高，仅仅由于他们得以有经济能力住在一个其他有钱人想住的地方）。
从根本上说，我同意他的观点——资本主义需要被管理，而不是被打败。我们应该采取更多措施来遏制它过度发展的副作用，把负面影响降到最低。但是，在引发全球创新和经济增长方面，没有任何一种系统能够与资本主义匹敌。在我们考虑它的未来时，这一点值得被记住。
Is there a crisis in capitalism?
I’m a big fan of Paul Collier. A highly respected Oxford economist (and a knight!), he has spent his career trying to understand and alleviate global poverty. His book The Bottom Billion is still on the short list of books that I recommend to people, even though a lot has changed since it was published 12 years ago.
So I was a little surprised when I learned that Collier’s latest book isn’t about poverty at all. But when I saw that it was about something I’m also keenly interested in—the polarization we’re seeing in the U.S., Europe, and other places—I was eager to see what he had to say. I’m glad I did. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties, is an ambitious and thought-provoking book.
Collier wrestles with a tough problem. By some metrics—including GDP growth and lifespan—life is better for more people around the world than it has ever been. And yet many people are questioning the capitalist system that produced those gains. There’s an understandable sense that the system is in crisis.
Why is this happening? Collier says we’re experiencing three big rifts: 1) a spatial divide between booming cities and struggling small towns; 2) a class divide between people who have a college education and those who don’t; and 3) a global divide between high- and middle-income countries on the one hand, and fragile states on the other.
Collier has a personal perspective on all three divides. He grew up in industrial Sheffield, England; now he makes his home in an upscale college town. Both of his parents left school when they were 12; he went to Oxford. He lives in a rich country, but because of his work, he spends a lot of time in some of the poorest places in the world.
As a result of the three trends, Collier says, capitalism is delivering for some people but leaving others behind. For example, he makes a point that should feel familiar to anyone living in London, New York City, or my hometown of Seattle. Highly skilled workers have a big incentive to move to cities, where they can get high-paying jobs. When all those big earners cluster in one place, more businesses sprout up to support them. This large-scale movement into the city drives up the cost of land, making it less affordable for everyone else. It is a virtuous cycle for a lucky few and a vicious one for others.
This all adds up to a compelling description of the problem. What should we do about it?
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Collier has to say. I was especially struck by the central idea of his book, that we need to strengthen the reciprocal obligations we have to each other. This won’t directly address the divides, but it will create the atmosphere where we can talk more about pragmatic solutions to them. “As we recognize new obligations to others,” Collier writes, “we build societies better able to flourish; as we neglect them we do the opposite…. To achieve the promise of prosperity, our sense of mutual regard has to be rebuilt.”
He looks at four areas where we can do this: the global level, the nation-state, the company, and the family. Globally, for example, he argues that we need to revitalize groups like NATO and the EU while also recognizing the need to help the world’s poorest people escape poverty (an area that is of special interest to me given the Gates Foundation’s work).
At the corporate level, Collier criticizes the notion that a company’s only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. This sole focus on the bottom line, he argues, means many companies no longer feel responsible to their employees or the communities where they operate. This has been a big driver, he says, of “the mass contempt in which capitalism is held—as greedy, selfish, corrupt.”
I agree that companies need to take a long-run view of their interests and not just focus on short-term profits. It matters how businesses are viewed in their communities and by their employees. I think the profit motive encourages companies to take such a broad view of their interests more often than Collier acknowledges, although there are plenty of exceptions. And when we want companies to act a certain way—for example to reduce pollution or pay a certain amount of taxes—I think it’s more effective to have the government pass laws than to expect them to voluntarily change their behavior.
If I had the chance, I would ask Collier more about this. I finished the book wondering if he thinks we can change the incentive structure so companies act differently. Or perhaps some companies don’t realize that their long-term interests require valuing things other than the bottom line. It would be fascinating to discuss with him.
I would also take Collier’s world/nation/company/family argument one step further. I would add a fifth category: community. We need to re-connect at the local level, where we’re physically close enough to help each other out in times of need. Churches can serve this purpose. So can community groups. Digital tools have also helped people connect with their neighbors, though I think there’s still more that could be done there.
With a complex subject like this, it is always easier to describe the problem than to solve it. The Future of Capitalism devotes a lot of time to how we might ease people’s anxieties, including more vocational training, support for families (what he calls “social maternalism”), and policies designed to make companies behave more ethically.
Although I don’t agree with all of Collier’s suggestions, I think he is right more often than not. Melinda and I will have more to say about inequity in our next Goalkeepers report in September. To take just one example, I think the U.S. government needs more revenue to meet its commitments, and that means raising taxes on the wealthiest. Similarly, Collier makes a good case for raising taxes on the unearned income of high-wage workers in cities (like when the value of their land goes up simply because they can afford to live in a place where other well-off people want to live).
Ultimately, I agree with him that “capitalism needs to be managed, not defeated.” We should do more to curb its excesses and minimize its negative aspects. But no other system comes close to delivering the innovations and economic growth that capitalism has sparked around the world. This is worth remembering as we consider its future.
联系客服
