您现在的位置: 首页 > 英语听力 > 国外媒体资讯 > 经济学人双语版 > 经济学人商业系列 > 正文

经济学人:私有化 9万亿美元的大拍卖

来源:经济学人 编辑:mike   可可英语APP下载 |  可可官方微信:ikekenet
 下载MP3到电脑  批量下载MP3和LRC到手机


The $9 trillion sale
Governments should launch a new wave of privatisations, this time centred on property
IMAGINE you were heavily in debt, owned a large portfolio of equities and under-used property and were having trouble cutting your spending—much like most Western governments. Wouldn't you think of offloading some of your assets?

Politicians push privatisation at different times for different reasons. In Britain in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used it to curb the power of the unions. Eastern European countries employed it later to dismantle command economies. Today, with public indebtedness at its highest peacetime level in advanced economies, the main rationale is to raise cash.

Taxpayers might think that the best family silver has already been sold, but plenty is still in the cupboard. State-owned enterprises in OECD countries are worth around $2 trillion. Then there are minority stakes in companies, plus $2 trillion or so in utilities and other assets held by local governments. But the real treasures are “non-financial” assets—buildings, land, subsoil resources—which the IMF believes are worth three-quarters of GDP on average in rich economies: $35 trillion across the OECD.
Some of these assets could not or should not be sold. What price the Louvre, the Parthenon or Yellowstone National Park? Murky government accounting makes it impossible to know what portion of the total such treasures make up. But it is clear that the overall list includes thousands of marketable holdings with little or no heritage value.
America's federal government owns nearly 1m buildings (of which 45,000 were found to be unneeded or under-used in a 2011 audit) and about a fifth of the country's land area, beneath which lie vast reserves of oil, gas and other minerals; America's “fracking” revolution has so far been almost entirely on private land. The Greek state's largest stock of unrealised value lies in its more than 80,000 non-heritage buildings and plots of land. With only one holiday home for every 100 in Spain, Greece should be able to tempt developers and other investors at the right price. Analysts at PwC reckon Sweden has marketable state-owned property worth $100 billion-120 billion. If that is typical of the OECD, its governments are sitting on saleable land and buildings worth up to $9 trillion—equivalent to almost a fifth of their combined gross debt.
先看美国。联邦政府的家底中包括近100万幢建筑物和约占国土面积五分之一的土地。据2011年的一次摸底调查显示,在这100万幢建筑物中,政府不再需要的或者是已经用不着了建筑物为45000幢。土地方面,由于它们大都蕴藏着丰富的石油和天然气或者其他资源。因此,只要像迄今为止几乎完全都是在私人土地上进行的“压裂”革命那样,只要把土地卖出去,肯定能得到丰厚的回报。再看希腊:他们最值钱的应该是数量约为80000处的没有传承价值的建筑物和大大小小的地块,这些家底还一直未实现其价值。鉴于西班牙百户人家平均只有一户拥有度假屋, 希腊应当可以用适当的价格吸引开发商和其他投资商。最后是瑞典:据普华永道的估计,如果以市场价格来计算,该国政府手中所持有的土地和房产约为1000亿-1200亿美元。若以上情况属实,那么,富国政府真正是在坐拥“金山银山”。因为,仅可供出售的土地和房屋加起来就大约值9万亿美元,这几乎相当于他们GDP总和的五分之一。
Get on with it
Governments seem strangely reluctant to exploit these revenue-raising opportunities. That is partly because privatisation always faces opposition. Particular sensitivities surround land, as Ronald Reagan discovered when his plan to sell swathes of America's West were shot down by a coalition of greens and ranchers who enjoyed grazing rights, and as the British government found in 2010 when environmentalists scuppered its attempt to sell Forestry Commission land.
In recent years the big transactions, apart from reprivatisations of rescued banks, have mostly taken place in emerging markets. Activity is starting to pick up in Europe: the British government sold Royal Mail last year, and is setting a good example both in transparency over its land and property holdings and in its readiness to sell them. But, overall, caution rules. Italy, for example, carries a public-debt burden of 132% of GDP, yet its privatisation plans are timid—even though the state has proportionately more to sell than most other rich countries, with corporate stakes worth perhaps $225 billion and non-financial assets worth as much as $1.6 trillion. Now that markets have regained their composure, it is time to be bolder.
There are ways of encouraging sales. Data collection on public property is shockingly poor. It is patchy even in Scandinavia, where governments pride themselves on their openness. Governments need to get a better idea of what they hold. Effective land registries, giving certainty to title, are essential: Greece's registry remains a mess. Too many governments use a flaky form of “cash basis” accounting that obscures the costs of holding property. Too few produce proper balance-sheets. Better beancounting would make it easier to ascertain what might be better off in private hands.
促进房产买卖有许多法子。公共房产和土地方面,数据的收集糟糕的要命。即便是以公开透明而自诩的北欧诸国政府在这个问题上也做得差强人意。政府对自己的家底应当有更清楚的认识。为了要让房产权有确定性, 有效的土地登记是不可少的:希腊的土地登记仍然是一团糟。太多的政府在房产的会计核算上采用一种不可靠的“现金制”, 这会模糊房产持有的成本。只有为数很少的政府对此提供适当的资产负债表。一个好的会计核算制度会让人们更容易确定哪些公房私买之后 比较合算。
Governments also need to sweat whatever remains in state hands. There is no single model for managing public assets, but any successful strategy would include setting private-sector-style financial benchmarks, replacing cronies with experienced managers and shielding them from political interference. Not only is this good in itself, but it can also lead naturally to privatisation. That was the case in Sweden a decade ago, when creating a professionally managed holding company for state assets revealed many to be non-core, leading to a selling splurge by a left-leaning government.
Where are the successors to Thatcher and Reagan?
Privatisation is no panacea for profligate governments. Selling assets is a one-off that provides only brief respite for those addicted to overspending (though, once sold, assets—from ports to companies—tend to generate far more business). It also has to be weighed against lost revenue if the assets provide an income stream: oil-rich Norway gets a quarter of its government revenue from well-managed state companies. Selling when markets are depressed is generally a bad idea.
Governments also need to learn from mistakes made in past waves of privatisation. Without robust regulation, sell-offs enrich insiders and lead to backlashes. That happened in Britain (over rail and utilities) and emerging markets (telecoms, banking and more). The Royal Mail sale was a reminder of the political risks: price an asset too high and the deal might flop; price it too low and the taxpayer feels cheated. Nevertheless, for governments that are serious about bringing their spending in line with revenues, privatisation is a useful tool. It allows governments to cut their debts and improve their credit ratings, thus reducing their outgoings, and it improves the economy's efficiency by boosting competition and by applying private-sector capital and skills to newly privatised assets.
Thatcher and Reagan used privatisation as a tool to transform utilities, telecoms and transport. Their 21st-century successors need to do the same for buildings, land and resources. Huge value is waiting to be unlocked.

重点单词   查看全部解释    
typical ['tipikəl]


adj. 典型的,有代表性的,特有的,独特的

audit ['ɔ:dit]


n. 审计,查帐
vt. 审计,旁听

stock [stɔk]


n. 存货,储备; 树干; 血统; 股份; 家畜

commission [kə'miʃən]


n. 委员会,委托,委任,佣金,犯罪

panacea [.pænə'siə]


n. 万灵药,灵丹妙药

reminder [ri'maində]


n. 提醒物,提示

sweat [swet]


n. 汗,汗水
v. (使)出汗

generate ['dʒenə.reit]


vt. 产生,发生,引起

depressed [di'prest]


adj. 沮丧的,降低的,不景气的,萧条的,凹陷的,扁平

reluctant [ri'lʌktənt]


adj. 不情愿的,勉强的