|
Free exchange Poor behaviour 致窮的行為
譯者：老狒狒 A BAT and a ball cost $1.10 between them. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does each cost? By paying attention to how people actually think, behavioural economics has qualified some of the underlying assumptions of classical economics, notably that everyone is perfectly rational. In fact, the mind plays tricks, dividing up $1.10 (in this example) neatly into $1 and 10 cents, rather than correctly into $1.05 and 5 cents. People also tend to copy others and often prefer to co-operate rather than compete. For these reasons, some of the simplifying assumptions of economics are not always correct: people do not act in every instance in their long-term self-interest; they do not weigh up all the costs and benefits before taking a decision. 假設(shè)：球棒與球的成本相差1.10美元，球棒的成本比球的成本多1美元。問(wèn)：球棒與球的成本各是多少？通過(guò)關(guān)注人們的實(shí)際所想，行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)契合了經(jīng)典經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的某些基本假設(shè)，尤其是“人是完全理性的”這一基本假設(shè)。實(shí)際上，（在上述例子中）將1.10美元整齊地分為1美元和10美分，而不是正確地分為1.05美元和5美分，就是思維在作怪。人們還傾向于效仿別人，經(jīng)常是重視合作甚于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。因此，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的某些簡(jiǎn)單化的假設(shè)并非總是正確的：人的所做作為并非每一次都是從長(zhǎng)期利益著眼，在做決定之前沒(méi)有衡量全部的成本和收益。 Many of the insights of behavioural economics were based on studies of American university students and other privileged folk. But they apply with greater force to the poor—both the poor in rich countries and the more numerous inhabitants of developing ones. Behavioural economics therefore has profound implications for development. The new “World Development Report”, the flagship publication of the World Bank, considers them. 行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的許多深刻見(jiàn)解都是建立在美國(guó)大學(xué)生和其他有著優(yōu)越地位的人的研究基礎(chǔ)之上的。但是，他們?cè)趯⑦@些研究成果應(yīng)用于于窮人——既包括富裕國(guó)家的窮人，也包括人數(shù)更多的發(fā)展中國(guó)家的居民——時(shí)卻需要花費(fèi)更大的力量。因此，行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)對(duì)于發(fā)展有著深遠(yuǎn)的意義，而這正是世界銀行的最新一期旗艦出版物——《世界發(fā)展報(bào)告》的主題。 As the report shows, the poor are more likely than other people to make bad economic decisions. This is not because they are irrational or foolish but because so much is stacked against them. They are more likely to lack the basic information needed to make good choices, such as which fertiliser to use or when to apply it. They are more likely to live in societies which hold mistaken or harmful views, such as that girls should not go to school. 正如這份報(bào)告所示，窮人比其他人更有可能做出糟糕的經(jīng)濟(jì)決定。這不是因?yàn)楦F人不理性或者愚蠢，而是因?yàn)闂l件不允許。他們更有可能缺乏做出正確選擇——如使用何種化肥以及如何施肥——所需要的基本信息，他們更有可能生活在持有錯(cuò)誤或者有害觀點(diǎn)——如女孩不應(yīng)當(dāng)上學(xué)——的社會(huì)中。 Conventional economic thinking assumes the poor will want to earn their way out of poverty. But as studies from countries as different as Ethiopia and France show, poverty makes people feel powerless and blunts their aspirations, so they may not even try to improve their lot. When they do, they face obstacles everywhere. They have no margin for error, making them risk averse. If they do not know where their next meal is coming from, saving and investing for the future is hard. George Orwell said, “Within certain limits, the less money you have the less you worry.” He was wrong. The poor are subject to exceptional levels of stress: childhood sickness is more likely to be life-threatening; crop failure can lead to destitution. And stress makes good decision-making harder. Above all, the poor lack the institutional framework which, in the West, improves decisions. Everywhere, people underestimate the benefits of education and save too little for their retirement. But children in the West go to school as a matter of course; pension systems make some savings automatic. Poor countries provide few such props. 按照普通的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)思維，窮人希望通過(guò)多掙錢(qián)來(lái)擺脫貧困。但是，對(duì)埃塞俄比亞和法國(guó)這樣截然不同的國(guó)家的研究顯示，貧窮不僅讓人們感到無(wú)助，更能消磨他們的斗志。于是，他們甚至有可能不去嘗試改變命運(yùn)。當(dāng)他們嘗試著去改變命運(yùn)的時(shí)候，又會(huì)四處碰壁。他們沒(méi)有犯錯(cuò)的余地，這使得他們厭惡風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。如果他們不知道是下一頓飯來(lái)自何方，為未來(lái)而儲(chǔ)蓄和投資是困難的。喬治·奧威爾說(shuō)：“在一定限度內(nèi)，錢(qián)越少，操心就越少?！边@是不對(duì)的。窮人受制于各種非同尋常的壓力：兒童時(shí)代的頭疼腦熱更有可能演變成終生的疾病，農(nóng)作物的歉收可能導(dǎo)致一貧如洗。同時(shí)，壓力又會(huì)讓做出好決策更加困難。總之，窮人缺乏的是在西方被用來(lái)改進(jìn)決策的制度框架。凡是貧窮之地，人們都低估教育的好處，幾乎不為退休而存錢(qián)。但是，在西方，孩子上學(xué)是理所當(dāng)然的事情，養(yǎng)老金制度自動(dòng)為人們存下一些錢(qián)。窮國(guó)很少提供此類(lèi)支撐。 All this helps explain why the poor stay poor; why (for example) subsistence farmers do not buy fertiliser or put children into secondary school, though they would benefit from doing so. More important, though, behavioural economics provides a different way of thinking about some of the problems of poverty. 所有這一切都有助于解釋窮人為什么總是貧窮；有助于解釋?zhuān)ū热缯f(shuō)）農(nóng)民為什么不買(mǎi)化肥，為什么不把孩子送進(jìn)中學(xué)，盡管他們會(huì)從中獲益。然而，更為重要的是，行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)所提供的是另一種思考某些貧窮問(wèn)題的方式。 Traditional development programmes stress resources and markets. People are poor, the argument goes, because they lack resources: not just money but roads, clinics, schools and irrigation canals. The job of development is to provide those things. And since resources also need to be allocated properly, prices have to be right. So a lot of development is about freeing prices and making markets more efficient. 傳統(tǒng)的發(fā)展項(xiàng)目強(qiáng)調(diào)的是資源和市場(chǎng)。據(jù)此，窮人貧窮的原因是缺乏資源。這里所說(shuō)的資源不僅僅是資金，還包括道路、診所、學(xué)校和各種水利設(shè)施。發(fā)展的任務(wù)就是提供這些東西。同時(shí)，由于資源也需要得到正確的分配，因而，價(jià)格必需是正確的。于是，許多發(fā)展就是放開(kāi)價(jià)格和提高市場(chǎng)效率。 A behavioural approach to development is different. It focuses on how decisions are made and how they can be improved. For example, in Bogotá a conditional-cash transfer programme paid mothers a monthly stipend if they took their children to school. Attendance during the school year was good but re-enrolment rates were low. A shift in the timing of the hand-out—withholding a part of the regular payment until just before the start of the school year—boosted enrolment sharply. This makes little sense in conventional economic terms: going to school is so beneficial that families should not need extra incentives and the overall sum available did not change. Yet the pay-off was substantial. 針對(duì)發(fā)展的行為策略與此不同。它的重點(diǎn)在于決策的制定方式和決策的改進(jìn)方式。例如，波哥大的一個(gè)有條件現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)移項(xiàng)目曾經(jīng)每月給那些把孩子送去上學(xué)的母親們支付一筆獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金。學(xué)年中，出勤率是高的。但是，重新入學(xué)率卻處于低位。布施時(shí)機(jī)的調(diào)整——把一部分常規(guī)支付留到學(xué)年開(kāi)始之前支付——大幅提高了入學(xué)率。這在普通的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論中是不成立的。因?yàn)榘凑掌胀ǖ慕?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論，上學(xué)的好處是如此之大，以致于家庭不應(yīng)當(dāng)需要額外的動(dòng)力，同時(shí)他們可以得到的獎(jiǎng)金總額也沒(méi)有變化。不過(guò)，負(fù)債卻是巨大的。 Actions like this sound marginal. Economists should be paying attention to the details of policy anyway. It may not seem to amount to a profoundly different approach—but it actually might. 這樣的行動(dòng)看上去無(wú)足輕重。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家無(wú)論如何都應(yīng)當(dāng)去關(guān)注于政策的細(xì)節(jié)。這似乎不可能成為一種截然不同的策略。但是，實(shí)際是有可能的。 A tweaking revolution 微調(diào)革命 Some small-scale policies turn out to be far from marginal. A programme in Jamaica in the 1990s taught mothers of chronically malnourished toddlers how to play with them in such a way as to encourage greater verbal and physical skills—a behavioural tweak. Twenty years later, the average earnings of these children (among the most deprived in the country) were higher than those of children who had not been malnourished, and far higher than malnourished children who were not part of the programme. Paying attention to how the poor actually think would also imply big changes to financial-inclusion policies, encouraging financial products that people want to buy. 某些小范圍的政策最后都證明自己絕非無(wú)足輕重。在上世紀(jì)90年代的牙買(mǎi)加曾經(jīng)推行了這樣一個(gè)項(xiàng)目：教給那些有著長(zhǎng)期營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良的孩子的母親在同孩子玩耍時(shí)，如何更多地用口頭和身體技能的方式來(lái)鼓勵(lì)孩子。20年后，這些孩子的平均收入，在最貧困的國(guó)家中，高于沒(méi)有有過(guò)營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良的孩子，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于不是這一項(xiàng)目參與者卻曾經(jīng)營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良的孩子。關(guān)注窮人的實(shí)際所想還意味著金融包容政策的重大轉(zhuǎn)變，對(duì)人們想要購(gòu)買(mǎi)的金融產(chǎn)品給予更多的鼓勵(lì)。 Moreover, development experts have their biases and blind spots, like anyone else. In principle, behavioural development could sit happily alongside the traditional sort. In practice, the two will compete for resources and professional attention. 再者，發(fā)展專(zhuān)家也是普通人，他們也有各種偏見(jiàn)和盲點(diǎn)。從理論上說(shuō)，行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的發(fā)展策略能夠同傳統(tǒng)的發(fā)展策略愉快共處。但是，在實(shí)踐中，兩者將會(huì)為了資源和專(zhuān)業(yè)人員的注意而相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。 A behavioural approach to poverty is not new. The World Bank has long had a behavioural unit. The Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has championed randomised control trials to test tweaks to policy. But by making this the subject of its main annual publication, the Bank has brought behavioural economics into the mainstream of development. It is likely to prove a challenge to traditional ways of combating poverty, as well as a complement to them. 針對(duì)貧困的行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)策略不是新鮮事務(wù)。長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)，世界銀行一直擁有一個(gè)行為單位。麻省理工的貧困行動(dòng)實(shí)驗(yàn)室就是一個(gè)先行者。它們無(wú)論是在隨機(jī)控制測(cè)試，還是在針對(duì)政策的微調(diào)方面，都始終位于世界的前列。但是，世界銀行已經(jīng)通過(guò)讓其成為年度主要出版物主題的方式，將行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)引入到發(fā)展的主流之中。行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)很有可能證明自己既是對(duì)戰(zhàn)勝貧困的傳統(tǒng)方式的一種挑戰(zhàn)，也是對(duì)它們的一種補(bǔ)充。 From the print edition: Finance and economics |
|
|
