评论
打印
The second lesson is the need for small victories to generate momentum, rather than going for big wins immediately— Peel's policy of "gradualism". His plan did not fully remove sliding-scale tariffs until 1849, giving time for landowners to adapt. Meanwhile, Britain's free-trade moves helped usher in a wave of trade agreements across Europe and with America.
第二个教训是，需要小的胜利来产生动力，而不是立即取得大的胜利——皮尔的“渐进主义”政策。他的计划直到1849年才完全取消浮动关税，给土地所有者时间来适应。与此同时，英国的自由贸易举措在欧洲和美国掀起了一波贸易协定浪潮。
The third lesson is the need for tangible benefits for the public. By 1850, people were paying around a quarter less for bread than if repeal had not occurred, according to Kevin O'Rourke of NYU Abu Dhabi. The real incomes of society's top 10% fell, while those of the bottom 90% grew slightly, notes Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College.
第三个教训是，公众需要切实的利益。据阿布扎比纽约大学的凯文·奥罗克称，到1850年，人们购买面包的费用比废除该法案之前减少了1/4。达特茅斯学院的道格拉斯·欧文指出，社会上收入最高的10%的人的实际收入下降了，而收入最低的90%的人的实际收入略有增长。
Much can be learned from Peel's approach. Today, free trade is promoted by stale policy wonks and rapacious executives, nothing like the broad, energetic coalition of the past. Opponents of globalisation use social media far more effectively than its supporters. Politicians vie for grand gestures rather than quiet incrementalism. And the benefits of free trade are largely hidden from consumers. Those who take to the ramparts to protest against globalisation fail to notice why their smartphones are so cheap.
我们可以从皮尔的方法中学到很多东西。如今，自由贸易与过去广泛而积极的联盟不同，相反是由陈腐的政策书呆子和贪婪的高管推动的。全球化的反对者比支持者更有效地利用了社交媒体。政客们争夺的是大刀阔斧的姿态，而不是安静的渐进主义。自由贸易的好处在很大程度上被消费者所掩盖。那些拿起壁垒来抗议全球化的人没有注意到他们的智能手机为什么这么便宜。
Yet the most important lesson is about leadership. Peel had opposed repealing the Corn Laws but, faced with a crisis, he was willing to split his party and lose his job to do the right thing. The divided Conservatives rarely held power during the following 30 years. It was "the whole community" that mattered, Peel wrote in his memoirs, and whether "cheapness and plenty are not (better) ensured for the future" by free trade than by protectionism. What leader would be willing to do that today?
然而，最重要的教训是领导力方面。皮尔曾反对废除《谷物法》，但在面临危机时，为了做正确的事，他愿意分裂自己的政党甚至丢掉自己的工作。在接下来的30年里分裂的保守党很少掌权。皮尔在回忆录中写道，重要的是“整个社会”以及自由贸易是否能比保护主义“更好地保证未来的廉价和富足”。今天有哪个领导人愿意这样做呢？
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
