[2011.11.12] 掌握在帝王手中的国有企业

引用 Lilacknot 2011-11-13 22:51

这是我到目前为止翻译最长的文章，也就是昨晚因为它把把水泼在了电脑上（好在吹了一夜电扇，电脑有惊无险），但是译文只得到现在才发。。。

引用 handsome2011 2011-11-14 00:08

辛苦了。

引用 migmig 2011-11-14 00:18

时间仓促，粗看了一遍，改了个把字词，也不一定对，供参考。

WHEN China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2001, many people hoped that this would curb the power of its state-owned enterprises. Ten years on, they seem stronger than ever. President Hu Jintao can expect to hear about this at the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation summit this weekend. Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, has warned stridently of the dangers of state capitalism. A Congressional report released on October 26th railed against the unfair advantages enjoyed by state-owned firms and lamented that China is giving them “a more prominent role”.

当2001年12月中国加入世贸组织时，人们纷纷期待此举可以约束中国国有企业的权力。十年过去了，它们却似乎比以前更为强大了。在本周末召开的亚太经合组织会议上，胡锦涛主席将会听说这一消息。美国国务卿希拉里•克林顿强烈警告国家资本主义的威胁。在10月26日发布的国会报告中，美国指责中国国有企业享有的优势是不公平的，同时对中国赋予国有企业更为重要的角色感到遗憾。

Indeed it is. In a new book called “China’s Regulatory State”, Roselyn Hsueh of Temple University documents how, in sectors ranging from telecommunications to textiles, the government has quietly obstructed market forces. It steers cheap credit to local champions. It enforces rules selectively, to keep private-sector rivals in their place. State firms such as China Telecom can dominate local markets without running afoul of antitrust authorities; but when foreigners such as Coca-Cola try to acquire local firms, they can be blocked (though this week China did approve Yum! Brands’ bid to acquire Little Sheep, a Chinese restaurant chain).

事实的确如此。在天普大学Roselyn Hsueh的新著《中国的国家调控》中，他阐述了从纺织业到电信产业的各个市场领域中，中国政府是如何不动声色地阻碍市场动力的。政府引导给予当地龙头企业低息贷款。政府有选择性地实施政策，让私营企业竞争对手自生自灭。像中国电信这样的国有企业允许支配地方市场，却与反对垄断的当局并行不悖；但是当像可口可乐这样的外国企业想要收购地方企业时，则会遭到百般刁难（尽管本周中国准许百胜餐饮集团中标收购中国连锁餐馆“小肥羊”）。
2.png
In the dozen or so industries it deems most strategic, the government has been forcing consolidation. The resulting behemoths are held by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), which is the controlling shareholder of some 120 state-owned firms. In all, SASAC controls $3.7 trillion in assets (see chart). The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) calls it “the most powerful entity you never heard of”; though it does not always get its way. Some state-owned firms have powerful friends and are hard to push around.

政府对几十家左右视为“重大战略型”产业一直强行推动合并，其结果就是国资委监管下的一个庞然大物应运而生。国资委是约120家国有企业的控制股东，控有3.7万亿美元的资产（见图表）。波士顿咨询组织（BCG）称之为“闻所未闻的头号强劲实体”——尽管它也并不总是一意孤行。有的国有企业拥有些强势的伙伴，而且他们很不好对付。

In some ways, SASAC aims to modernise its enterprises. Peter Williamson of Cambridge’s Judge Business School points approvingly to the steel industry. China was once littered with small, uneconomic steel firms; SASAC has urged them to merge, creating three “emperors” and five “kings”. That, says Mr Williamson, means there are enough steel firms to foster competition at home; yet they are big enough to venture overseas. What the government’s plan lacks, however, is any idea that private steelmakers might compete, in China, with the emperors and kings.

某种程度上来说，国资委的目的在于促进国有企业的现代化进程。剑桥佳齐商学院的Peter Williamson对钢铁工业的现状表示赞许。中国曾经遍布不景气的小型钢铁厂在国资委的敦促下纷纷合并，由此造就了“三皇五帝”。Williamson教授称这意味着中国已拥有足够多的钢铁企业来促进国内市场的竞争力；然而这些钢铁企业还不够够强大到海外去投资。但是政府的举措中不完善的地方在于，私有钢铁制造商可能会在中国同那些钢铁大王们一拼高下。

According to the Congressional report, state-owned firms account for two-fifths of China’s non-agricultural GDP. If firms that benefit from state largesse (eg, subsidised credit) are included, that figure rises to half. Genuinely independent firms are starved of formal credit, so they rely on China’s shadow banking system. Fearing a credit bubble, the government is cracking down on this informal system, leaving China’s “bamboo capitalists” bereft.

据国会报告称，国有企业占有中国非农业GDP的五分之二。如果那些拿着国家补贴（例如，贷款补贴）的企业都算在内，这个数字将会达升至二分之一。而真正独立的公司缺乏正规贷款，因此他们只能依赖中国的影子银行系统。由于担心出现信贷泡沫，政府正在严厉打击这种非正式系统。这样一来，中国的民营资本家也就无计可施了。

Those who argue that state-owned firms are modernising point to rising profits and a push to establish boards of directors with independent advisers. Official figures show that profits at the firms controlled by SASAC have increased, to $129 billion last year. But that does not mean that many of these firms are efficient or well-managed. A handful with privileged market access—in telecoms and natural resources—generate more than half of all profits. A 2009 study by the Hong Kong Institute for Monetary Research found that if state-owned firms were to pay a market interest rate, their profits “would be entirely wiped out”.

那些认为国有企业正在逐步实现现代化的人们意味着不断提高的收益和推动成立兼有独立顾问的董事会。官方数字显示国资委掌控中的企业在去年其收益已经增长到1290亿美元。但是这并不是说这些企业效率高，经营好。有一小撮企业享有着优惠市场准入——在通信和自然资源方面——其中一大半的收益产生于此。香港金融研究中心2009年的一项研究发现如果要是企业按照市场利率操作，它们那些所谓的利润也就无从谈起。

One reason is that state firms must pursue the state’s aims, which include many things besides making profits. David Michael of BCG observes that the government forces state firms to shoulder all manner of extra costs. For example, when coal prices shot up recently, the country’s energy giants were not allowed to pass the hikes on to consumers. When the China Europe International Business School asked its senior alumni at state-owned firms about their biggest headaches, many grumbled about official meddling.

原因之一在于国有企业必须完成政府的指标，这包括收益以外的很多事情。波士顿咨询集团David Michael注意到政府强制国有企业承担形形色色的额外成本。例如，近期煤价疯涨，政府则禁止国家能源巨头将涨价负担转嫁给消费者。当中欧国际工商学院问及其在国有企业谋事的前校友们最头痛的问题时，很多人都抱怨官方的干涉。

Still, Mr Michael, who served as one of the only foreigners on China Mobile’s advisory board, believes SASAC deserves some praise. The group runs management-training courses, benchmarks firms against international standards and establishes codes of conduct. Following recent scandals involving Chinese firms overseas, it issued an edict in July restricting the use of derivatives by the main state-owned firms. And SASAC is now pushing the biggest of its charges to appoint boards of directors.

作为中国移动顾问委员会中唯一的外国人士，Michael教授仍然相信国资委应得到一定的嘉许。他们开设管理培训课程，建立不符合国际标准的标杆企业，制定行为准则。随着最近涉及海外中国企业丑闻的曝光，中国政府在七月发布法令限制主要国有企业对非独创性技术的使用。同时国资委正在极力促成国有企业完成董事会的任命。

Yet Curtis Milhaupt of Columbia Law School insists that such reforms are “not where the action is”. In a new paper, he examines how exactly China’s big state firms are controlled, and reaches troubling conclusions. Regardless of whether a state-owned firm is listed in New York, has an “independent” board or boasts a market-minded chairman with a Harvard MBA, he finds that the strings always lead back to a core company that is in the tight clutches of SASAC. He thinks genuine market reform will come only when state firms venture abroad en masse and have to adapt to global norms.

但是，哥伦比亚大学法学院的Curtis Milhaupt坚持主张这样的改革措施算不上什么激动人心的事。在最近一篇论文中，他对中国大型国有企业究竟是如何被控制的进行了调查，并最终得出了让人担忧的结论。他发现，不论这家国有企业是否在纽约上市，是否拥有独立的委员会，抑或自夸拿着哈佛MBA学位的董事长是否有市场头脑，那根弦总归还是拴着一家在国资委牢牢掌控中的核心企业上。他认为只有当国有企业全部去国外风险投资，极力达到全球标准，才称得上真正的市场改革。

A recent ruling in Europe may prove a straw in the wind. Earlier this year, an attempt by Sinochem, a state-owned chemicals firm, to enter into a joint venture to make antibiotics with DSM, a Dutch firm, attracted the attention of the European Commission’s antitrust authorities. They decided to scrutinise not just Sinochem itself but all of SASAC’s empire. The deal was approved anyway, but this may have set an important precedent.

欧洲最近的一项裁决或许预示着情况将会有所改观。今年初，国有化工公司中化试图联合一家荷兰公司帝斯曼投资生产抗生素，此举引起欧洲委员会反垄断组织的注意。他们决定仔细审查的不单有中石化，还包括整个“国资委帝国”。至少这项决议最终得到获准，但这或许是关键性的先声之举。

引用 join_soon 2011-11-14 04:16

本帖最后由 join_soon 于 2011-11-14 04:17 编辑

回复 migmig 的帖子

自生自灭。
－－掐住私营的竞争企业


Those who argue that state-owned firms are modernising point to rising profits and a push to establish boards of directors with independent advisers.
那些认为国有企业正在逐步实现现代化的人们意味着不断提高的收益和推动成立兼有独立顾问的董事会。
－－“意味着”：。。。指出国有企业的不断提高的。。。

引用 join_soon 2011-11-14 04:18

回复 Lilacknot 的帖子

霸主和巨头的市场：　这个题目好。

引用 dditt 2011-11-14 09:58

December 译成11月，好样的。

引用 冯超晓丽 2011-11-14 10:03

A Congressional report released on October 26th railed against the unfair advantages enjoyed by state-owned firms and lamented that China is giving them “a more prominent role”. 楼主第一段最后一句：貌似漏掉了 them 。

引用 Lilacknot 2011-11-14 10:10

回复 dditt 的帖子

我错了。。。

引用 微博评论 2011-11-14 10:42

第六感9：布尔什维克已成历史，国社党(纳粹)有借尸还魂之势，奥巴马也不止一次说过崇拜罗斯福，问题是在危机面前东西方谁会成为法西斯？

引用 betruen 2011-11-14 12:13

The group runs management-training courses, benchmarks firms against international standards and establishes codes of conduct.
作为中国移动顾问委员会中唯一的外国人士，Michael教授仍然相信国资委应得到一定的嘉许。他们开设管理培训课程，建立不符合国际标准的标杆企业，制定行为准则。

建立不符合国际标准的标杆企业 --->依据国际标准建立标杆企业 against 理解有误

引用 sweetshow 2011-11-14 12:14

引用 betruen 2011-11-14 12:18

本帖最后由 betruen 于 2011-11-14 12:20 编辑

China’s state-owned enterprises are on the march
中国国有企业方兴未艾
“方兴未艾” 是褒义词，多形容新生事物正在蓬勃发展。因此用在这不合适。
依据文章内容 ，指的是国有企业独霸市场的现状并未因加入WTO而有丝毫改变，含有批判之意 。 “中国国企依旧独霸一方”

引用 西米 2011-11-14 12:24

本帖最后由 西米 于 2011-11-14 13:56 编辑

第四段 “That, says Mr Williamson, means there are enough steel firms to foster competition at home; yet they are big enough to venture overseas. What the government’s plan lacks, however, is any idea that private steelmakers might compete, in China, with the emperors and kings.” “Williamson教授称这意味着中国已拥有足够多的钢铁企业来促进国内市场的竞争力；这些钢铁企业也足够强大，而不必冒险到海外投资。但是政府的举措中不完善的地方在于，私有钢铁制造商可能会在中国同那些钢铁大王们一拼高下。“

-----我的理解是：

“威廉姆森先生认为：这种整合的结果，使钢铁行业具有足够多的企业可以在国内竞争，同时这些企业的规模又大得足以在海外扩展。但是，中国政府的这些措施，完全没有顾及到如何让私人钢铁企业在中国与“三皇五帝”们竞争。”  

引用 西米 2011-11-14 13:36

本帖最后由 西米 于 2011-11-14 15:07 编辑

第一段中

1.“遏制中国国有企业的发展势头”
  --- 这里的“Power”似乎是指他们具有的不适当的优势地位，而不是发展势头。

2.“胡锦涛主席可以在本周末召开的亚太经合组织会议中得知这一消息。”
  --- 得知“消息“？难道胡需要在这个会上才得知国有企业更强大吗？这里的“hear about it”指的是在这个会上肯定会有与会者谈论这个问题。

3.“美国国务卿。。。”一句似乎需要加个时间副词，不然上下文不好衔接。

4. 最后一句中“悲哀”一词不甚贴切。此外把国会报告说成“美国指责”在这里似无必要。

引用 deeppace 2011-11-14 13:58

国企都死亡最好

引用 deeppace 2011-11-14 13:59

国企都死亡最好

引用 西米 2011-11-14 14:43

本帖最后由 西米 于 2011-11-14 14:58 编辑

关于“emperors and kings”的翻译问题

“掌握在帝王手中的国有企业”似乎把原意过度引申了。通观全文，作者只是在借用中文中的“三皇五帝”来说明各个行业中存在为数不多﹑且具有不公平优势的大型国企而已。他的借喻不一定很得当，我们也没有必要深挖这个说法背后的什么微言大义。比如谁掌控中国的国企，他们在其中有什么利益关系等等，这些虽然都是很有意义的话题，但不是原作者在这里关注的重点。

引用 Lilacknot 2011-11-14 16:20

回复 betruen 的帖子

嗯嗯，当时用“方兴未艾”也有点不大确定，但是这里文章中确实也说到国企试图做出的一些改善，用“依旧独霸一方”的话，貌似没有把“发展”表现出来啊。。

引用 Lilacknot 2011-11-14 16:22

回复 migmig 的帖子

yet they are big enough to venture overseas然而这些钢铁企业还不够够强大到海外去投资
就是这句话的理解不是很清楚啊，请指点~~

查看全部评论(45)