努力工作和黑天鵝--經濟學家轉用文化解釋貧富

 Hard work and black swans 

努力工作和黑天鵝

Economists are turning to culture to explain wealth and poverty 

經濟學家轉用文化解釋貧富

As a result, the ideas of the earliest economists are being revised and improved

因此修正、改善早期經濟學家的觀念

Schools brief

Sep 3rd 2020 edition

Sep 3rd 2020

The emergence of the discipline of economics in the 18th century was the result of people trying to explain something that had never happened before. At the time a handful of countries were becoming fabulously rich, while others remained dirt-poor. In 1500 the world’s richest country was twice as well-off as the poorest one; by 1750 the ratio was five to one. It is no coincidence that the most famous book in economics, published in 1776, inquired into “the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”.

人們試圖解釋前所未見的事，於是經濟學科在18世紀應運而生。當時，一小撮國家變得異常富裕，其他國家仍一貧如洗。1500年，世上最富國的財力是最窮國的兩倍。到1750年，這比例達到五比一。1776年，經濟學領域最出名的著作出版，探討「國家財富的性質和成因」，這並非巧合。

In order to explain such a divergence between rich and poor countries, the early economists were obsessed with culture, a catch-all term encompassing a society’s beliefs, preferences and values. Adam Smith, the author of “The Wealth of Nations”, explored the ways in which culture helped or hindered capitalism. He argued that certain norms were required in order for market economies to thrive—most importantly, that people would be self-interested, but that they would satisfy their self-interest by adapting to the needs of others. Karl Marx, a few decades later, worried that a culture of “oriental despotism” prevented the emergence of capitalism in Asia.

為解釋富國和窮國為何差異這麼大，早期的經濟學家迷上了「文化」，一個包羅萬象的用語，涵蓋社會信仰、偏好和價值觀。 《國富論》的作者亞當·史密斯（Adam Smith）探索文化如何助長或阻礙資本主義。他主張某些規範是促進市場經濟繁榮所必需的--最重要的是，人們是自私自利的，但他們會藉順應他人的需求來滿足私利。幾十年後，馬克思（Karl Marx）擔心，「東方專制」文化阻礙了資本主義在亞洲崛起。

The speculations of Smith, Marx and others were often vague. Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, published in 1905, made them concrete. Weber argued that Protestants, in particular Calvinists, drove the emergence of capitalism due to a strong work ethic.

史密斯、馬克思和其他人的推測常含糊不清。韋伯（Max Weber）於1905年出版的「新教徒的資本主義倫理與精神」使之具體化。韋伯主張，新教徒（尤其是喀爾文主義派），基於強烈的職業道德，推動了資本主義的出現。

In the middle of the 20th century such cultural explanations began to fall out of favour. The rapid rise of Japan’s economy in the 1950s, and later of the Asian “tigers”, quashed the Marxist-Weberian notion that Western culture alone was conducive to industrialisation. At the same time the increasing availability of data with which to do statistical analysis meant that economists’ attention went elsewhere. Why bother with hard-to-measure matters such as morals, when it is possible to plug hard data such as capital accumulation, wages or employment into a regression model? In 1970 Robert Solow, a Nobel prizewinner, quipped that attempts to explain economic growth with reference to culture ended up “in a blaze of amateur sociology”.

在20世紀中葉，這種文化解釋開始失寵。 1950年代日本經濟以及後來亞洲「四小龍」快速崛起，推翻馬克思與韋伯所謂只有西方文化才能促成工業化的觀念。同時，可用來做統計分析的數據愈來愈俯拾即得，經濟學家的注意力轉移他處。既然可能將資本累積、工資、就業等硬數據導入迴歸模型，又何必煩惱像道德這種難以測量的問題？ 1970年，諾貝爾獎得主梭羅（Robert Solow）打趣說，企圖參照文化來解釋經濟成長，最後落得以「一股業餘社會學狂熱」收場。

But an interest in culture remained—and indeed is now making a comeback. Since the 1980s datasets such as the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey have made it easier to quantitatively measure cultural preferences and relate them to economic outcomes. Top economic journals now regularly include papers on the importance of culture. Even many hardline wonks have come to realise the limits to pure economic reasoning.

但是對文化的興趣仍在，事實上，現在正捲土重來。自1980年代以來，有了「世界價值觀調查」和「一般社會調查」這類資料庫，更容易量化文化偏好，並與經濟結果聯繫起來。頂尖經濟期刊現在定期收錄探究文化重要性的論文。就連許多強硬派的權威，也開始體認到純經濟推理的局限。

Perhaps the most influential text in the revival of cultural economics was “Making Democracy Work”, a book from 1993 by Robert Putnam. Mr Putnam tried to understand why for many decades northern Italy had been richer than the south, folding the explanation under the catch-all term “social capital”. 

對文化經濟學的復興最具影響力的著作，也許是1993年普特南（Robert Putnam）所著的《使民主運轉起來》。普特南試圖理解，為什麼數十年來義大利北部一直比南部富庶，並把他的解釋概括於「社會資本」一詞底下。

People in the south were fiercely loyal to their family, but more distrustful of outsiders—whereas in the north people were happier to form connections with strangers, Mr Putnam argued. In the north people read more newspapers, were more likely to participate in sports and cultural associations, and voted more frequently in referendums. This, the theory went, contributed to better local government and more efficient economic transactions, which in turn produced greater wealth—though Mr Putnam was not clear about the precise mechanism by which one thing led to the other.

普特南指稱，南方人極忠於家人，但對外人較不信任；北方人則更樂於與陌生人建立聯繫。北方人閱讀更多報紙，更可能參加體育和文化協會，也更常參與公民投票。照理說，這會促成更好的地方政府、提高經濟交易效率，進而產生更多的財富--儘管普特南未說明究竟是什麼機制導致這些因果關係。

A group of researchers, largely dominated by Italians who were inspired by Mr Putnam’s work, has since extended his ideas, seeking cultural explanations of why some areas are rich and others poor. A paper from 2004 by Luigi Guiso, Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, also looking at Italy, finds that in high-social-capital areas, households invest less in cash and more in stocks, and make less use of informal credit. In areas where people do not really “trust those outside their family, it may be hard to form large business organisations which can benefit from economies of scale and which can drive the adoption of new technologies. This suggests that it is no coincidence that the average business in Lombardy, a rich northern region in Italy, has 13 employees, compared with five in Calabria, a poor southern one.

受到普特南的研究啟發，一群由義大利人主導的研究人員擴展了他的想法，從文化解釋為什麼某些地區富裕而另一些地區貧困。 圭索（Luigi Guiso）、薩皮恩扎（Paola Sapienza）和津加莱斯（Luigi Zingales）於2004年發表的一篇論文，同樣觀察義大利，發現在社會資本高的地區，家庭對現金的投資較少，股票的投資較多，並較少使用非正式信貸。在人們不太「信任家人外的人」的地區，可能難以形成大型商業組織，這類組織不但受益於規模經濟，也推動採用新技術。這顯示，義大利富裕的北部地區倫巴底，企業平均有13名員工，南部貧困的卡拉布里亞平均只有五名員工，絕不是巧合。

Others look beyond Italy. In “A Culture of Growth”, published in 2016, Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University puts the “principle of contestability” as the reason why some countries industrialised but others did not. Organisations such as the Royal Society, founded in London in 1660, were forums for the exchange of ideas, where people put forward their discoveries and fiercely interrogated the theories of others. Crucially, too, over time the goal of western European science shifted from one concerned with the “mindless piling up of empirical facts”, as Mr Mokyr puts it, towards discoveries which could be put to use in the real world. Scientific inquiry laid the groundwork for European economic exceptionalism. Nothing quite comparable happened in other parts of the world.

其他人放眼義大利以外地區。西北大學的莫基爾（Joel Mokyr）在2016年出版的《成長的文化》中將「可競爭性原則」做為國家實現工業化與否的原因。像1660年在倫敦成立的皇家學會這類組織，是交流思想的論壇，人們在那裡提出自己的發現，並嚴厲審問他人的理論。同樣重要的是，久而久之，用莫基爾的話來描述，西歐科學的目標從「漫不經心堆積經驗事實」，轉向可應用在現實世界的發現。科學探究為「歐洲經濟特殊論」奠定基礎，這在全世界無可比擬。

Culture club 文化俱樂部

The revival of cultural explanations for wealth and poverty seems to be a methodological step forward. Yet it raises two big questions. The first concerns the origins of cultural traits: where do they come from? The second is why people from apparently similar cultures sometimes have very different economic outcomes. To answer these questions, economists have come to appreciate the importance of history—and, in particular, historical accident.

從文化角度解釋貧富的做法再度盛行，似乎是方法論的進步。然而這引發兩大問題。第一個涉及文化特質的起源：它們來自何處？第二個問題是，為什麼文化明顯相似的國家，有時會產生截然不同的經濟結果。為回答這些問題，經濟學家開始評估歷史的重要性，特別是歷史的偶發事件。

Take first the question of the origin of cultural traits. Some research suggests that they are the product of changes which took place hundreds of years ago. A 2013 paper by the late Alberto Alesina and two of his colleagues looks at why countries have very different rates of female labour-force participation. Egypt and Namibia are about as rich as each other, but the share of Namibian women in the labour force is more than twice that of Egyptian women. The paper puts such differences largely down to differences in pre-industrial agriculture and environmental conditions. Plough cultivation, common in Egypt, required lots of upper-body strength—so men were at an advantage. Shifting cultivation, more common in Namibia, used hand-held tools like the hoe which suited women better. The effect of these agricultural technologies echoes in statistics today.

先談文化特質起源的問題。一些研究顯示，它們是源自於數百年前發生的變化。已故的阿萊西那（Alberto Alesina）和兩個同事在2013年發表一篇論文，探討各國女性勞動參與率差異懸殊的原因。埃及和納米比亞富裕程度不相上下，但納米比亞婦女在勞動力的占比是埃及婦女的兩倍以上。該論文將這種差異主要歸因於工業化前農業和環境條件的差異。犁耕在埃及很普遍，需要大量的上半身力量，因此男人占優勢。輪耕在納米比亞較常見，使用如鋤頭的手持工具，更適合女性。這些農業技術的影響在當今的統計數據上得到印證。

Other economists look to the distant past to explain contemporary disparities in income and wealth. A paper from last year by Benjamin Enke of Harvard University finds evidence that pre-industrial ethnicities which were exposed to a high local prevalence of pathogens exhibited tighter kinship systems—meaning, in effect, that people were strongly loyal to their extended family but suspicious of outsiders. In a place threatened by disease, tight family ties were beneficial because they reduced the need to travel, and therefore the risk of being exposed. Places which had tighter kinship systems hundreds of years ago tend to be poorer today, a relationship which first emerged during the industrial revolution. Other research has looked even further back, suggesting that contemporary cultural traits are the result of genetic variation. But this remains a niche pursuit, and most economists turn queasy when it comes to talking about genetics.

其他經濟學家則追溯到遙遠的過去，來解釋當代收入和財富不平等。哈佛大學的恩克（Benjamin Enke）去年的一篇論文發現，有證據證明，工業時代前的種族若暴露於當地感染率高的流行病，會展現更緊密的親屬關係----事實上，這意味人們對大家庭極為忠誠，但對外人有戒心。在一個受疾病威脅的地方，緊密的家庭關係是有益的，因為旅行的必要降低，染病風險因而減少。幾百年前血緣關係愈緊密的地方，如今往往更窮，這種關係最早在工業革命時期顯現。其他研究追溯得更久遠，發現當代文化特質是基因變異的結果。但這仍屬小眾型研究，大多數經濟學家談到遺傳學都變得侷促不安。

A separate body of research focuses on cases where culture is not a sufficient explanation for economic outcomes. Take the case of Guatemala and Costa Rica. “The two countries had similar histories, similar geographies and cultural inheritance, and were faced with the same economic opportunities in the 19th century,” write Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in “The Narrow Corridor”, a book published last year. But today the average Costa Rican is more than twice as rich as the average Guatemalan. The cause of the divergence initially appeared random, according to Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson. Eventually it became clear it was down to coffee. In Costa Rica the development of coffee plantations for the European market led to a more balanced relationship between state and society, possibly because the country had more marginal land and more smallholders. In Guatemala, by contrast, it led to the emergence of a rapacious government.

另一派研究聚焦的個案，是文化不足以解釋經濟結果的情況 [叮嚀一句：outcome是結果，可能有好有壞；「成果」則多半指好的結果]。以瓜地馬拉和哥斯大黎加為例，「兩國擁有相似的歷史、相似的地理和文化傳統，在19世紀也面臨相同的經濟機會」，阿齊默魯和羅賓遜在去年出版的《狹窄的走廊》書中寫道。如今，哥斯大黎加人的平均收入是瓜地馬拉人的兩倍多。 阿齊默魯和羅賓遜說，起初造成這種分歧的原因似乎是隨機的，後來則明顯歸因於咖啡。哥斯大黎加為歐洲市場開發的咖啡種植園，導致國家與社會之間的關係更加平衡，這可能是因為有更多的邊際土地和更多的小農。相形之下，在瓜地馬拉，則導致強取豪奪的政府出現。

In addition to culture, therefore, a growing band of economists is looking at “institutions”, often taken to mean the legal system and regulations. Some cultural economists argue that the focus on institutions proves their point: what are institutions if not the product of norms, values and preferences? Americans’ and Europeans’ differing beliefs about the causes of inequality, for instance, go a long way towards explaining why European welfare states are more generous than America’s.

因此，除文化外，愈來愈多的經濟學家開始關注「制度」，通常指法規制度。一些文化經濟學家主張，聚焦於制度證明他們的觀點：制度若不是規範、價值觀和偏好的產物，那會是什麼？美國人和歐洲人對--比方說--不平等成因的看法不同，對解釋為何歐洲福利國家比美國更慷慨大有幫助。

But in many cases the emergence of different institutions may have nothing to do with a country’s culture. Sometimes it is just luck. Mr Mokyr shows that Europe, which was fragmented into lots of states, was the perfect setting for innovation: intellectuals who challenged received wisdom and incurred the wrath of the authorities could move elsewhere (Thomas Hobbes wrote “Leviathan” in Paris). By contrast in China, Mr Mokyr argues, free thinkers had few escape routes. Europeans did not plan such a system. It just happened.

但在許多情況下，不同制度的出現可能與一國的文化無關。有時只是運氣。據莫基爾闡述，歐洲四分五裂成眾多國家，是創新的完美環境：知識分子若挑戰既有觀念並觸怒當局，可以遷往別處（托馬斯‧霍布斯在巴黎寫下《利維坦》）。對照下，莫基爾指出，中國的自由思想家的逃生路線很少。歐洲人並未規劃這樣的體系，但就這麼形成了。

Other work by Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson, along with Simon Johnson of MIT, has found a further element of randomness which may explain contemporary patterns of wealth and poverty—namely, which countries are more prone to certain diseases. The mortality rate of settlers was low in some colonised countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, in part because the kinds of diseases that were there were less virulent.

阿齊默魯和羅賓遜及麻省理工學院的詹森（Simon Johnson）的其他研究，發現了隨機性的另一個要素，可以解釋當代的貧富模式----即哪些國家更容易遭某些疾病打擊。在一些殖民地國家，例如紐西蘭和澳大利亞，移民的死亡率很低，部分原因是當地疾病的毒性較低。

In others, such as Mali and Nigeria, mortality rates were far higher. Colonisers did not want to settle in countries with a high risk of disease, even as they wanted to take those countries’ raw materials. So in countries such as Mali and Nigeria, rather than permanently settling, they set up systems which enabled the maximum of resource extraction with the fewest boots on the ground. That, say Messrs Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, produced rapacious political systems which have endured to this day.

在其他國家，例如馬利和奈及利亞，死亡率要高得多。殖民者不願在疾病風險高的國家定居，即使他們想奪取這些國家的原物料。因此，在馬利和奈及利亞等國家，他們不是想要永久定居，建立制度只為能夠以最少的地面兵力開採最大限度的資源。阿齊默魯、羅賓遜和詹森說，這種貪婪的政治制度延續至今。

Are economists any closer to answering the foundational question of their science? Far from the simplistic certainty of Weber, it seems likely that some countries are rich and others poor because of a messy combination of economic incentives, culture, institutions and chance—which is most important remains unclear. In 1817 Thomas Malthus, one of the early economists, wrote in a letter to David Ricardo, another, that “the causes of the wealth and poverty of nations [were] the grand object of all enquiries in Political Economy”. The revival of cultural economics two centuries on has helped in that quest, but it is not over yet. ■

經濟學家是否更接近於回答其學科的基本問題？迥異於韋伯單純、肯定的答案，一國是貧是富的成因，似乎可能是包含經濟動機、文化、制度和巧合的大雜燴，何者是最重要因素仍不明。 早期經濟學家馬爾薩斯（Thomas Malthus）1817年在寫給另一位經濟學家里卡多（David Ricardo）的信中寫道：「造成國家貧富的原因，是政治經濟學所有研究中最宏大的目標。」隔兩個世紀後，文化經濟學復興對答案的追尋雖有助益，但那場追尋尚未結束。 ■