评论
打印
Three years ago, the euro risked exploding under pressure from the markets. After considerable tensions, Europe’s political leaders pulled together to avoid a crisis. The European Central Bank found the measures they took convincing enough to justify offering support of its own.
3年前，在市场压力下，欧元面临崩溃的危险。在形势变得相当紧张后，欧洲的政治领袖齐心协力避免了这场危机。欧洲央行(ECB)认为他们采取的措施足够可信，因而也提供了支持。
Today, amid quiet markets, it may be governments that are undermining the euro. The French president, the German chancellor and the Italian prime minister have not refrained from mutual recriminations.
现在，市场一片平静，正在削弱欧元的或许是政府。法国总统、德国总理和意大利总理毫不克制地相互指责。
Even when couched in diplomatic terms, these reveal differences of policy and, more deeply, of national cultures. Such differences need to be handled responsibly, not exploited between one summit and the next. That will only benefit the populists. If the EU is to remain a harmonious community, two things must happen: the rules must be complied with, we must have more growth. We will either achieve both or neither.
尽管使用了外交辞令，这些指责还是暴露了政策上的差异，以及更深层次的国家文化的差异。这些差异需要以负责的态度来处理，而不是在一场又一场的峰会上对它们加以利用。那样只会让民粹主义者受益。如果欧盟(EU)要保持和谐，就必须做到两件事：规则必须得到遵守；我们必须创造更多增长。我们要么同时做到两件事，要么一件也做不到。
France and Italy, and southern Europe more broadly, must not accuse Germany and the north of being legalistic or technocratic simply because they expect rules to be observed. Bending the rules tends to favour the big member states at the expense of the small. That is why the violation of the stability pact by Germany and France in 2003 went down so badly with other Europeans.
法国和意大利，乃至所有欧洲南部国家，不能仅仅因为德国和欧洲北部国家希望规则得到遵守，就指责这些国家拘泥于法规条文或者信守技术官僚主义。扭曲规则往往使大的成员国受益，却损害小国的利益。2003年德国和法国违反《稳定与增长公约》(stability pact)让其他欧洲国家难以接受，就是这个原因。
On the other hand, the insistence of France, Italy and the south on the need to create space for more growth must not be seen by Germany and the north as a sign of profligacy. More growth throughout the EU, and especially in the south, is imperative not just for the countries concerned but for the very survival of European integration.
另一方面，法国、意大利和欧洲南部国家坚持认为，有必要为经济更快增长创造空间，这不应被德国和欧洲北部国家视为一种恣意挥霍的表现。在整个欧盟境内、特别是南部国家创造更多增长，对相关国家，对欧洲一体化的延续都是必要的。
Reconciliation is possible. Two points must be acknowledged. First, the stability pact, by and large, is not currently complied with. We cannot speak of compliance when member states can easily secure extensions to deadlines for meeting the targets. France did not even ask permission but simply announced that it would not comply. Italy chimed in that the EU should not dare to consider this an infringement.
达成和解是可能的。必须承认两点事实。首先，《稳定与增长公约》目前大体上没有得到遵守。如果成员国能随意延长达标的截止日期，遵守规则之说也就无从谈起了。法国甚至不请求许可，直接宣布不会遵守公约。意大利则应和法国，表示欧盟不应该将其视为违反公约的行为。
Second, while a simplistic stability pact may have been the right choice when the euro was in its infancy, Europe can no longer afford to stick with such a rudimentary instrument.
第二，在欧元诞生初期，简单化的《稳定与增长公约》可能是一个正确的选择，但欧洲已经无法再承受继续沿用这样一个过于初级的工具了。
By failing to recognise the proper role of public investment, it has pushed governments to stop building infrastructure just when they should have built more. What is needed is not the flexibility to deviate from the rules, but rules that are economically and morally rigorous.
由于未能认识到公共投资的正确作用，公约促使各国政府在需要建造更多基础设施的时期停止了这类活动。我们需要的不是可以背离规则的灵活性，而是在经济和道德方面具有严格标准的规则。
At the time of its Wirtschaftswunder, or “economic miracle”, Germany’s constitution stipulated that public borrowing be allowed only for public investment. Germans called it the “golden rule”, and initially tried to have it enshrined in the Maastricht treaty. This is hardly the mark of an irresponsible principle.
在德国的“经济奇迹”(Wirtschaftswunder)时期，德国宪法规定公共借贷只能被用于公共投资。德国人奉之为“金科玉律”，最初还试图将其写入《马斯特里赫特条约》(Maastricht treaty)。这很难被视为一条不负责任的原则。
The idea of more favourable treatment for public investment has been gaining ground. In 2013, the European Commission announced that it would apply it, within strict limits, in enforcing the stability pact. The International Monetary Fund and even the ECB are calling on governments to expand public investment. Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission’s new president, has announced a large EU investment plan.
有关对公共投资做更有利处理的观点逐渐为人们所接受。2013年，欧盟委员会(European Commission)宣布将在执行《稳定与增长公约》方面，在有严格限制的前提下适用这种做法。目前国际货币基金组织(IMF)，甚至欧洲央行都在呼吁各国政府扩大公共投资。欧盟委员会新主席让-克洛德•容克(Jean-Claude Juncker)已经宣布了一项大规模的欧盟投资计划。
But the new commission should go further. It should announce the promotion of a more investment-friendly implementation of fiscal discipline at the national level.
但新一届欧盟委员会应该更进一步，应该宣布在国家层面提倡实施对投资更友好的财政纪律。
To achieve this, the commission should enforce the existing stability pact without concessions, while allowing for the favourable treatment of public investment within the limits set out in 2013. It should announce a proposal for updating the rules on fiscal discipline, to reflect the role of productive public investment. Finally, it should establish a group to provide agreed principles on which categories of public expenditure qualify as investments, thus providing clarity and preventing loopholes from opening in the new regime.
要达成这个目标，欧盟委员会应该毫不妥协地实施当前的《稳定与增长公约》，同时在2013年设定的限制下允许对公共投资做更加合适的处理。委员会应该宣布一个改进财政纪律规则的提案，以反映高效益公共投资的作用。最后，委员会应该成立一个小组，就哪些类别的公共支出能够被视为投资提供一致认可的原则，从而在实施新规时提供一种清晰性，防止出现漏洞。
The virtue of fiscal discipline is that it protects future generations from the abuses of current politicians. Assume, however, that a country needs more and better infrastructure, and its government can borrow at an interest rate of less than 1 per cent to fund infrastructure that produces a much higher rate of return. If that country decides to forgo such investment, as Germany is doing today, is it not acting against the interest of future generations?
财政纪律的好处在于，它保护后代人免于受到当今政治人士滥用职权带来的害处。然而，假设一个国家需要更多更好的基础设施，而且该国政府能够以低于1%的利率借款，将资金用于修建能带来更高回报率的基础设施。如果这个国家决定放弃这样的投资活动——就像德国今天所做的那样——其做法难道不是违背了后代人的利益吗？
