我是保羅·科利爾的超級粉絲。作為一位備受尊敬的牛津大學經濟學家（同時也是一位騎士！），他的職業生涯致力于理解并減少全球貧困。他的作品《最底層的十億人》仍然是我會推薦給人們的少部分書之一，盡管從這本書出版到現在的12年，很多事情已經發生了改變。
所以當我得知科利爾的新書與貧困完全無關的時候，我有點驚訝。但當我了解到新書的內容也是我非常感興趣的話題——我們正在美國、歐洲和其他地方看到的兩極分化現象——我就急切地想知道他說了什么。我很高興我讀了這本書。《資本主義的未來：面對新的焦慮》（The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties，中文名暫譯）是一本雄心勃勃、發人深省的書。
科利爾在努力解決一個難題。從一些指標來看——包括GDP增長和壽命——世界各地人們的生活比以往任何時候都要好。然而，許多人正在質疑產生這些增長的資本主義制度。于是一種容易被理解的觀念出現了：這個體系正處于危機之中。
為什么會這樣？科利爾說，我們正在經歷三大分化：1）蓬勃發展的城市和苦苦掙扎的小城鎮之間的空間分化；2）得到與沒得到大學教育的人之間的階級分化；3）中高收入國家與脆弱國家之間的全球性分化。
對這三種分化，科利爾有自己的看法。他在英國工業城市謝菲爾德長大，現在他在一個高檔的大學城安家。他的父母在12歲時就退學了，而他去了牛津大學。他生活在一個富裕的國家，但是由于工作原因，他把很多時間都投入到一些世界上最窮的地方。
科利爾說，這三種趨勢的結果是，資本主義給一些人帶來了好處，但也讓其他人落在了后面。例如，他提出了一個任何生活在倫敦、紐約或我的家鄉西雅圖的人都會感到熟悉的觀點。技藝精湛的工人們搬到城市的動機很強烈，因為在那里他們能找到高薪的工作。當所有這些高收入者都聚集在一個地方時，便會涌現更多企業來支持他們。這種大規模的城市遷移推高了土地成本，使得除高收入者之外的其他人都難以負擔。這對少數幸運兒來說是一個良性循環，對其他人來說則是一個惡性循環。
所有這些加起來就構成了一個對這個問題令人信服的描述。我們應該對此做些什么？
我發覺自己同意科利爾的很多觀點。他這本書的中心思想尤其打動我：我們需要加強人們相互間的責任。這不會直接解決這些分化問題，但它會創造一種氛圍，讓我們能夠更多地討論解決分化的務實方案?？评麪枌懙溃骸爱斘覀冋J識到對他人負有新的責任時，我們就能建設更加繁榮發展的社會；當我們忽視他人時，我們會做出與之相反的事……為了實現繁榮的前景，我們必須重建相互尊重的意識?！?/span>
他考察了我們可以做到這一點的四個層面：全球層面、國家層面、公司層面和家庭層面。例如，他認為在全球范圍內，我們需要重振像北約（NATO）和歐盟（EU）這樣的組織，同時也要認識到有必要幫助世界上最貧窮的人擺脫貧困（鑒于蓋茨基金會的工作，我對這一領域特別感興趣）。
在企業層面，科利爾批判了公司唯一的責任是為股東賺錢的觀點。他認為，這種只關注利潤的做法，意味著許多公司不再覺得應該對它們的員工或所在的社區負有責任。他說這是“資本主義被普遍蔑視的一個重要原因——貪婪、自私、腐敗”。
我同意，企業需要從長遠的角度考慮自己的利益，而不只是關注短期利潤。企業在所在社區和員工眼中的形象是很重要的。我認為，逐利的動機鼓勵企業從一個寬廣的視角看待自己的利益，這種情況比科利爾意識到的更常發生，盡管也有不少例外的情況。當我們希望公司以某種方式行動時——例如減少污染或繳納一定的稅收——我認為讓政府出臺法律要比期望企業自愿改變行為更加有效。
如果有機會，我會問科利爾更多關于這方面的問題。讀完這本書，我想知道他是否認為我們可以通過改變激勵結構，從而讓公司采取不同的行動。或許有些公司沒有意識到他們的長期利益需要重視除了利潤之外的東西。和他討論將會很有趣。
我還想把科利爾關于世界、國家、公司、家庭的觀點再向前推進一步。我會增加第五個層面：社區。我們需要在本地重新建立聯系，在這里我們的物理距離足夠近，可以在有需要的時候互相幫助。教會可以實現這個目標，社區團體也可以，數字工具也幫助了人們與鄰居建立聯系，盡管我認為在該領域還有更多的事情可以做。
對于這樣復雜的主題，描述問題總是比解決問題容易?！顿Y本主義的未來》花了大量時間研究我們可以怎樣緩解人們的焦慮，包括更多的職業培訓、對家庭的支持（他稱之為“社會母性主義”），以及為了讓企業行為更合乎道德而設計的政策。
雖然我并非同意科利爾的所有建議，但我認為他更多時候是對的。梅琳達和我將在今年9月的目標守衛者報告中談到更多關于不平等的內容。舉一個例子，我認為美國政府需要更多的財政收入來履行其承諾，這就意味著對最富有的人征收更多的稅款。同樣地，科利爾也為提高城市高收入勞工的非勞動所得稅提出了很好的理由（就像他們土地價值的提高，僅僅由于他們得以有經濟能力住在一個其他有錢人想住的地方）。
從根本上說，我同意他的觀點——資本主義需要被管理，而不是被打敗。我們應該采取更多措施來遏制它過度發展的副作用，把負面影響降到最低。但是，在引發全球創新和經濟增長方面，沒有任何一種系統能夠與資本主義匹敵。在我們考慮它的未來時，這一點值得被記住。
Is there a crisis in capitalism?
I’m a big fan of Paul Collier. A highly respected Oxford economist (and a knight!), he has spent his career trying to understand and alleviate global poverty. His book The Bottom Billion is still on the short list of books that I recommend to people, even though a lot has changed since it was published 12 years ago.
So I was a little surprised when I learned that Collier’s latest book isn’t about poverty at all. But when I saw that it was about something I’m also keenly interested in—the polarization we’re seeing in the U.S., Europe, and other places—I was eager to see what he had to say. I’m glad I did. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties, is an ambitious and thought-provoking book.
Collier wrestles with a tough problem. By some metrics—including GDP growth and lifespan—life is better for more people around the world than it has ever been. And yet many people are questioning the capitalist system that produced those gains. There’s an understandable sense that the system is in crisis.
Why is this happening? Collier says we’re experiencing three big rifts: 1) a spatial divide between booming cities and struggling small towns; 2) a class divide between people who have a college education and those who don’t; and 3) a global divide between high- and middle-income countries on the one hand, and fragile states on the other.
Collier has a personal perspective on all three divides. He grew up in industrial Sheffield, England; now he makes his home in an upscale college town. Both of his parents left school when they were 12; he went to Oxford. He lives in a rich country, but because of his work, he spends a lot of time in some of the poorest places in the world.
As a result of the three trends, Collier says, capitalism is delivering for some people but leaving others behind. For example, he makes a point that should feel familiar to anyone living in London, New York City, or my hometown of Seattle. Highly skilled workers have a big incentive to move to cities, where they can get high-paying jobs. When all those big earners cluster in one place, more businesses sprout up to support them. This large-scale movement into the city drives up the cost of land, making it less affordable for everyone else. It is a virtuous cycle for a lucky few and a vicious one for others.
This all adds up to a compelling description of the problem. What should we do about it?
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Collier has to say. I was especially struck by the central idea of his book, that we need to strengthen the reciprocal obligations we have to each other. This won’t directly address the divides, but it will create the atmosphere where we can talk more about pragmatic solutions to them. “As we recognize new obligations to others,” Collier writes, “we build societies better able to flourish; as we neglect them we do the opposite…. To achieve the promise of prosperity, our sense of mutual regard has to be rebuilt.”
He looks at four areas where we can do this: the global level, the nation-state, the company, and the family. Globally, for example, he argues that we need to revitalize groups like NATO and the EU while also recognizing the need to help the world’s poorest people escape poverty (an area that is of special interest to me given the Gates Foundation’s work).
At the corporate level, Collier criticizes the notion that a company’s only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. This sole focus on the bottom line, he argues, means many companies no longer feel responsible to their employees or the communities where they operate. This has been a big driver, he says, of “the mass contempt in which capitalism is held—as greedy, selfish, corrupt.”
I agree that companies need to take a long-run view of their interests and not just focus on short-term profits. It matters how businesses are viewed in their communities and by their employees. I think the profit motive encourages companies to take such a broad view of their interests more often than Collier acknowledges, although there are plenty of exceptions. And when we want companies to act a certain way—for example to reduce pollution or pay a certain amount of taxes—I think it’s more effective to have the government pass laws than to expect them to voluntarily change their behavior.
If I had the chance, I would ask Collier more about this. I finished the book wondering if he thinks we can change the incentive structure so companies act differently. Or perhaps some companies don’t realize that their long-term interests require valuing things other than the bottom line. It would be fascinating to discuss with him.
I would also take Collier’s world/nation/company/family argument one step further. I would add a fifth category: community. We need to re-connect at the local level, where we’re physically close enough to help each other out in times of need. Churches can serve this purpose. So can community groups. Digital tools have also helped people connect with their neighbors, though I think there’s still more that could be done there.
With a complex subject like this, it is always easier to describe the problem than to solve it. The Future of Capitalism devotes a lot of time to how we might ease people’s anxieties, including more vocational training, support for families (what he calls “social maternalism”), and policies designed to make companies behave more ethically.
Although I don’t agree with all of Collier’s suggestions, I think he is right more often than not. Melinda and I will have more to say about inequity in our next Goalkeepers report in September. To take just one example, I think the U.S. government needs more revenue to meet its commitments, and that means raising taxes on the wealthiest. Similarly, Collier makes a good case for raising taxes on the unearned income of high-wage workers in cities (like when the value of their land goes up simply because they can afford to live in a place where other well-off people want to live).
Ultimately, I agree with him that “capitalism needs to be managed, not defeated.” We should do more to curb its excesses and minimize its negative aspects. But no other system comes close to delivering the innovations and economic growth that capitalism has sparked around the world. This is worth remembering as we consider its future.
