[2011.05.12] 世界经济增长

引用 join_soon 2011-5-18 22:00

本帖最后由 join_soon 于 2011-5-18 23:24 编辑

回复 710802847 的帖子

May 12th 2011 | from the print edition
The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World. By Michael Spence.
未来经济一体化：在多速世界中未来的经济增长。——迈克尔•斯彭斯著
MICHAEL SPENCE has long been pointing out the frictions that interfere with efficient markets. He won the Nobel prize in economics for this in 2001, together with George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz. In recent years Mr Spence has been preoccupied with the economics of development and growth, and his interest in laissez-faire’s flaws has stayed with him. His new book, “The Next Convergence”, warns of the frictions that arise when the world tries to accommodate both rapidly-growing emerging giants like India and China and slow-growing developed countries like America.
迈克尔•斯彭斯早已指出干预有效市场的矛盾【摩擦（frictions ）这是个重要术语】。在2001年，迈克尔•斯彭斯和乔治•阿克尔洛夫、约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨一起获得诺贝尔经济学奖。最近几年他一直专注于经济发展与经济增长，而且他对不干预主义【自由竞争市场（laissez-faire’s ）】的瑕疵【缺陷】的兴趣分毫不减。他的新书“未来经济一体化”警告，当世界设法使迅速增长的印度和中国等新兴与像美国一样增长缓慢的发达国家相协调发展时，该矛盾（上文所提干预市场的矛盾）将会升级【将会产生有效市场的摩擦】。
Never before have so many people grown rich so quickly. Japan was the first country to achieve sustained, high-speed growth, in the post-war years, but it did so alone. A handful of smallish Asian tigers followed. Mr Spence wonders whether that formula can work when 60% of humanity, led by India and China, try the same thing. Globalisation, he notes, has been critical to the rapid growth of emerging markets. But it has also led to rising inequality in the rich countries, and they may now well respond by raising protectionist barriers. Or maybe not. Mr Spence is not sure about this nor, unfortunately, of many of the other issues he tackles. “The Next Convergence” feels less like a book than a transcript of the author thinking out loud about a hotch-potch of contemporary economic issues.
以前从未有这么多的人如此迅速地富裕起来。日本是在战后第一个国家实现持续高速增长的国家，但它如此的孤独【但它是一个国家】。只有【后来有】亚洲四小龙　／紧跟其后／。Mr Spence好奇【在想】，当中国和印度控制全球百分之六十人口时【当控制了全球百分之六十人口的中国和印度领着人民做同样的事情的时候】，该准则【这个公式】是否还成立，【。】也就是是否会尝试做同一件事——全球一体化。他指出，【他指出，全球一体化】对快速增长的新兴市场而言，全球化曾被批评【是关键性的】。但它也会使发达国家的贫富差距增大，所以他们做出加强贸易保护性壁垒的反应。否则，也许不会。【当然，也可能不会。】Mr Spence也不确定，不幸地，这样顺带出更多的问题要他处理【对这个问题不确定，不幸的是，对于其多其它的问题也不确定】。“未来经济一体化”感觉不太像是一本书而是更像是作者自己对当代经济问题大杂烩思考的文本记录。

Mr Spence surveys the state of knowledge of growth and development economics, touching on the role of foreign aid, trade liberalisation, natural resources and the difficulty that countries experience when they begin evolving from middle- income nations to more advanced economies. He breaks little new ground and sticks to broad generalities, offering little in the way of examples or research to prove his point. The text is also thick with such phrases as “suboptimal noncooperative outcomes” and “systematically impactful”. Readers new to the field may find this book a useful overview, but only if they can endure the ponderous writing.
Mr Spence调查关于经济增长和发展的知识的情况，涉及到国外援助、贸易自由化和自然资源的作用，以及国家要从中等收入国家发展至发达国家所要面临的困难。他并未开辟新领域，而是墨守普遍性规则，并未提供有力的例证和研究来证明自己的观点。本书充斥着如“相对满意【次优的】非合作性产出【结果】”“系统性影响”之类的词汇。当时只要初涉该领域的读者能忍耐那沉闷的写作风格的话，他们可能就会发现这本书是有用的概述。
This is a pity because Mr Spence has much to offer from a rich career in research, academia and global policymaking. The reader occasionally glimpses his experiences, in particular in his analysis of China. He describes how Deng Xiaoping, China’s paramount leader until the early 1990s, realised that the country could accelerate its development by learning from Western experts, such as the World Bank, how markets work rather than feeling its way by trial and error. He also illustrates how China’s leaders are grappling with reorienting growth from labour-intensive manufactured exports to capital-intensive services aimed at domestic consumers.
有点可惜的是，Mr Spence可以根据他丰富的职业生涯在研究、学术界、全球性决策上提供很多意见（让他不能尽施其才）。读者们偶尔会瞥一眼【瞥见到】他的体会【经验】，特别是他对中国的分析。他描述了，改革开放总设计师邓小平是怎样在20世纪90年代以前就【邓小平，在９０年代以前他是中国的最高领导，】意识到中国可以通过向像世界银行等西方专家们学习［市场运作］而获得快速发展　／．还有，市场运作是怎样／　【而不是】摸着石头过河　／而不是凭感觉／。他还举例说明了中国领导人正是如何努力使中国实现从劳动密集型产品出口到针对内需的资本密集型服务的转型。
Mr Spence is no fire-breathing ideologue, but he clearly believes the world trusts too much in laissez-faire and not enough in government. America, he says, needs to spend more on unemployment insurance, industrial policy and public infrastructure. The world economy needs “enhanced coordinated oversight” and “global effective government”. But he is never clear about what this would entail nor what good it would do. Mr Spence wants to replace the current hybrid of floating and fixed exchange rates—with “a new hybrid”. That’s as specific as he gets. He downplays the benefits of China letting its undervalued exchange rate rise while arguing later that it must do so anyway.
Mr Spence不是气焰嚣张的理论家，但他坚信，世界过于相信不干预主义［自由市场经济］，而不够相信政府（宏观调控）。他说，美国需要在失业保险、产业政策和公共建设上投入更多。世界经济需要“强化协调监管”和“全球有效政府”。但他从未明白【讲清】这的必要性【这样做的细节】和它的好处。Mr Spence想以一种“新混合体”替代通用的浮动汇率制和固定汇率制。对此他做了详细地描写。但他对中国‘操纵’汇率使之被低估的好处轻描淡写，【但他不认为中国让其低价的汇率升高有什么大用，】随后他认为中国必须这样做。
In short, Mr Spence has more questions than answers. That in itself is no bad thing. You need humility when evaluating the impact of globalisation, he says. But that makes for an unsatisfying book.
总之，Mr Spence提出的问题比回答的还多。但这本质上不是件坏事。他说，当你评价全球化的影响时，你需要谦虚。但是，它是一个令人满意的书【谦虚使得这本书不那么让人满意】。

引用 wharton323 2011-5-18 22:06

He won the Nobel prize in economics for this (1) in 2001, together with George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz.
原译:在2001年，迈克尔•斯彭斯 (2)和乔治•阿克尔洛夫、约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨一起获得诺贝尔经济学奖。

评:
1)没有译出; 2)还是改为"他"要来得简明。

引用 wharton323 2011-5-18 22:23

His new book, “The Next Convergence”, warns of the frictions that arise when the world tries to accommodate both rapidly-growing emerging giants like India and China and slow-growing developed countries like America.
原译：他的新书“未来经济一体化”警告，当世界设法使迅速增长的印度和中国等新兴与像美国一样增长缓慢的发达国家相协调发展时，该矛盾...将会升级。
评：arise没有“升级”解。

引用 wharton323 2011-5-18 22:28

Or maybe not. Mr Spence is not sure about this nor, unfortunately, of many of the other issues he tackles.
原译：否则，也许不会。Mr Spence也不确定，不幸地，这样顺带出更多的问题要他处理。

评：基本同意2楼意见，但如能明确译出he tackles两字，则更好。

引用 yannanchen 2011-5-18 23:11

In short, Mr Spence has more questions than answers. That in itself is no bad thing. You need humility when evaluating the impact of globalisation, he says. But that makes for an unsatisfying book 原译：总之，Mr Spence提出的问题比回答的还多。但这本质上不是件坏事。他说，当你评价全球化的影响时，你需要谦虚。但是，它是一个令人满意的书。
评论： 译反了。
总之，Mr Spence提出的问题比回答的还多。但这本身不是件坏事。他说，当你评价全球化的影响时，你需要谦虚。但是，提出的问题比回答的还多却使它成了一本不令人满意的书。

引用 yannanchen 2011-5-18 23:22

“suboptimal noncooperative outcomes” and “systematically impactful”.
次优非合作解， 系统影响力大的，

引用 yannanchen 2011-5-18 23:26

He describes how Deng Xiaoping, China’s paramount leader until the early 1990s, realised that the country could accelerate its development by learning from Western experts, such as the World Bank, how markets work rather than feeling its way by trial and error.
这句简单些是：He describes how Deng Xiaoping realised that the country could accelerate its development by learning from Western experts how markets work rather than feeling its way by trial and error.

原译错了。

引用 yannanchen 2011-5-18 23:29

“global effective government”.
有效的全球治理

引用 yannanchen 2011-5-18 23:31

That’s as specific as he gets.译反了。

他并没有详述， 仅仅提到“新混合体”而已， 语焉不详。

引用 710802847 2011-5-19 00:23

回复 join_soon 的帖子

谢谢您精彩的点评~
apan was the first country to achieve sustained, high-speed growth, in the post-war years, but it did so alone.
日本是在战后第一个国家实现持续高速增长的国家，但它如此的孤独【但它是一个国家】。
译为”它是一个国家“有点怪怪的。可不可以译为”它是唯一的亚洲国家“？

引用 710802847 2011-5-19 00:28

回复 yannanchen 的帖子

在管理学上有一个相对满意原则：
满意原则是针对“最优化”原则提出来的。“最优化”的理论假设把决策者作为完全理性的人，以“绝对的理性”为指导，按最优化准则行事。但是，处于复杂多变环境中的企业和决策者，要对未来做出“绝对理性”的判断是不可能的．因此，决策者不可能做出“最优化”的决策，只能做到满意决策。
所以原译为相对满意非合作产出，现在感觉”次优非合作解“更好。

引用 sailor 2011-5-19 17:25

提几点，供参考！呵呵！
His new book, “The Next Convergence”, warns of the frictions that arise when the world tries to accommodate both rapidly-growing emerging giants like India and China and slow-growing developed countries like America.
他的新书“未来经济一体化”警告，当世界设法使迅速增长的印度和中国等新兴与像美国一样增长缓慢的发达国家相协调发展时，将会产生有效市场的摩擦。
“他的新书“未来经济一体化”警告”这里感觉怪怪的，要稍微调整一下，整个句子读起来也不是很顺。

试译：他在新书《未来经济一体化》中发出警告，称当世界设法协调印度和中国等快速发展的新兴大国和美国等增长缓慢的发达国家时，摩擦就会随之产生。


Mr Spence wonders whether that formula can work when 60% of humanity, led by India and China, try the same thing.
我觉得这里还是不对，应该是“世界60%的人口在印度和中国的领导下做同样的事情时，”中国和印度的总人口应该没达到世界总人口的60%。



Globalisation, he notes, has been critical to the rapid growth of emerging markets.
他指出，对快速增长的新兴市场而言，全球化是关键性的。
有点死板。试译：他指出，全球化对快速增长的新兴市场一直至关重要。

This is a pity because Mr Spence has much to offer from a rich career in research, academia and global policymaking. The reader occasionally glimpses his experiences, in particular in his analysis of China.
你的理解有误。
试译：这有点可惜，因为斯彭斯凭借研究、学术以及全球政策制定方面的丰富阅历还可以提供许多东西。读者偶尔可以窥见其经历，在对中国的分析中尤其如此。

He downplays the benefits of China letting its undervalued exchange rate rise while arguing later that it must do so anyway.
，【但他不认为中国让其低价的汇率升高有什么大用，】这个中文太绕了。
试译：他对中国让其低估的汇率上升所带来的好处轻描淡写，但是后来又称中国无论如何必须这样做。

引用 valor 2011-5-19 22:09

The challenges of growing richer
日益富裕带来的挑战
===
要变得更富所存在的挑战，也就是说，如何变得更富

引用 valor 2011-5-19 22:14

He won the Nobel prize in economics for this in 2001, together with George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz
在2001年，他和乔治•阿克尔洛夫、约瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨因此一起获得诺贝尔经济学奖。
他因这方面的研究/因此与乔治•阿克尔洛夫、约瑟夫•斯蒂格利共同获得了2001年的诺贝尔经济学奖

引用 710802847 2011-5-19 22:18

sailor 发表于 2011-5-19 17:25
提几点，供参考！呵呵！
His new book, “The Next Convergence”, warns of the frictions that arise whe ...

我一开始跟“他对中国让其低估的汇率上升所带来的好处轻描淡写，但是后来又称中国无论如何必须这样做。”差不多，但是后来发现，假如这样翻译的话，逻辑上还是有点问题

引用 sailor 2011-5-19 22:29

回复 710802847 的帖子

逻辑上有什么出入啊，这句话反映了他的矛盾看法。"但他对中国‘操纵’汇率使之被低估的好处轻描淡写，"你这个译文跟原文的意思还是有一定出入的，遗漏了信息。

引用 valor 2011-5-19 22:31

Mr Spence wonders whether that formula can work when 60% of humanity, led by India and China, try the same thing. Globalisation, he notes, has been critical to the rapid growth of emerging markets.
Mr Spence在想，当控制了全球百分之六十人口的中国和印度领着人民做同样的事情的时候时，该公式是否还成立。
===
当控制了全球百分之六十人口的中国和印度==人口占全球人口60%的中国和印度~~

引用 710802847 2011-5-19 22:42

回复 valor 的帖子

The challenges of growing richer
日益富裕带来的挑战
===
要变得更富所存在的挑战，也就是说，如何变得更富
嗯嗯，valor姐！这是按照我原来错误的理解定的，忘了该过来。

引用 subswing 2011-5-20 12:32

Michael Spence迈克尔·斯宾塞

查看全部评论(19)