1701879327
经济学家的争议:巴格沃蒂挑战森
1701879328
1701879329
阿马蒂亚·森是诺贝尔经济学奖获得者,目前任教于哈佛大学;贾格迪什·巴格沃蒂是哥伦比亚大学教授,国际贸易与全球化理论领域的权威学者。他们曾是剑桥大学的同学,也是西方学术界最有影响的两位印度裔经济学家。两人年纪相仿,如今都是约八十岁的年迈之士。他们出现严重的分歧多少有些出人意料,而巴格沃蒂论战的激烈言辞更令人吃惊。争论的核心是关于印度应当采用何种经济政策。[31]
1701879330
1701879331
今年两人先后出版了新著。4月,巴格沃蒂及合作者出版了《增长为什么重要》,副标题是“印度的经济增长何以减少贫困并为其他发展中国家提供经验”。[32]7月,森及合作者的著作面世,书名是《不确定的荣耀:印度及其多种矛盾》。[33]《经济学人》6月29日发表了一篇书评介绍森的新著,文章提及巴格沃蒂的著作,认为他们主张通过劳动力和土地市场的改革来加速增长,从而降低贫困率,并为社会项目创造更多的税收收入。但书评作者认为森的著作想要“走得更远”。[34]这句话令巴格沃蒂颇为不满。他致书《经济学人》(7月13日发表),声称“问题的真相是,森先生只是近来才学会了在表面上支持增长,而长久以来一直指责增长为拜物教”,他从不明确提倡任何支持增长的政策(如贸易开放和外国直接投资),也没有认识到如果缺乏增长,向穷人的再分配是不可行的政策。森一直断言“再分配政策导致了亚洲的迅速增长”,这是本末倒置的没有现实依据的主张。巴格沃蒂认为,“增长使得再分配具有可行性,而不是相反”。[35]
1701879332
1701879333
一周后,《经济学人》刊登了森的回应。他指出,“我一直拒绝回应巴格沃蒂在过去持续的和单方面的攻击,但这一次粗暴的歪曲有必要得到纠正”。森随后列举了他从1960年起的一系列著述,表明自己一直在研究经济增长(“作为手段而非目标”)的重要性。他明确表示,更快的经济增长必须与其他措施相结合:减少文盲、疾病、营养不良和其他贫困问题。这些措施不只是简单的收入再分配。而经济增长在很大程度上得益于早先对教育和卫生的公共支持,这种认识依据了日本、中国、韩国、新加坡和其他许多国家的正面经验,而不是什么本末倒置。[36]此后巴格沃蒂连续发表文章继续批评森,而森则不再予以回应。
1701879334
1701879335
注释
1701879336
1701879337
[1] Slavoj Žižek, “Mandela’s Socialist Failure” (December 6, 2013), http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/mandelas-socialist-failure. 三天之后这篇文章以不同的标题发表在《卫报》:Slavoj Žižek, “If Nelson Mandela really had won, he wouldn’t be seen as a universal hero,” The Guardian (December 9, 2013)。
1701879338
1701879339
[2] “Sad South Africa: Cry, the Beloved Country,” Economist (October 20, 2012).
1701879340
1701879341
[3] John Cassidy, “Mandela’s Mixed Economic Legacy,” New Yorker (December 12, 2013 Issue).
1701879342
1701879343
[4] Eve Fairbanks, “The Dark Spot of Nelson Mandela’s Legacy,” The New Republic (December 9, 2013).
1701879344
1701879345
[5] Desmond Tutu, “Why I won’t vote for the ANC,” Prospect Magazine (May 10, 2013).
1701879346
1701879347
[6] Michelle Jones, “Loyalty was Mandela’s weakness: Tutu,” Cape Times (December 6, 2013).
1701879348
1701879349
[7] David Beresford, “Nelson Mandela obituary,” The Guardian (December 5, 2013).
1701879350
1701879351
[8] Bill Keller, “Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95,”New York Times (December 5, 2013)
1701879352
1701879353
[9] “Petitions: A Stand for Democracy in the Digital Age” (December 10, 2013), http://www.change.org/petitions/a-stand-for-democracy-in-the-digital-age-3.
1701879354
1701879355
[10] Alan Rusbridger, “The Snowden Leaks and the Public,” New Yorker (November 21, 2013 Issue).
1701879356
1701879357
[11] Stephen Sedley, “Beware Kite-Flyers,” London Review of Books, Vol. 35, No. 17 (September 12, 2013).
1701879358
1701879359
[12] Julian Sanchez, “Decoding the Summer of Snowden,” Cato Policy Report (November/December 2013).
1701879360
1701879361
[13] Alan Rusbridger, “The Snowden Leaks and the Public,” New Yorker (November 21, 2013 Issue).
1701879362
1701879363
[14] David Runciman, The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis From World War I to the Present (Princeton University Press, 2013).
1701879364
1701879365
[15] David Runciman, “The trouble with democracy,” The Guardian (November 8, 2013).
1701879366
1701879367
[16] David Runciman, “Democracy’s Dual Dangers,” The Chronicle Review (November 18, 2013).。
1701879368
1701879369
[17] Francis Fukuyama, “The Decay of American Political Institutions,” The American Interest(December 8, 2013).
1701879370
1701879371
[18] Mark Lilla, “Arendt and Eichmann: The New Truth,” The New York Review of Books(November 21, 2013 Issue); “The Defense of a Jewish Collaborator,” The New York Review of Books (December 5, 2013 Issue).
1701879372
1701879373
[19] Mark Lilla, “Arendt and Eichmann: The New Truth”.
1701879374
1701879375
[20] Roger Berkowitz, “Arendt and Eichmann,” reply by Mark Lilla, The New York Review of Books (December 19, 2013 Issue).
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.701879326e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]