Over the past year, the eurozone has been enjoying a solid cyclical recovery, outperforming expectations more than any other major advanced economy.	过去一年来，欧元区一直处于稳健的周期性复苏态势，且表现比其他主要发达经济体更超出预期。


And make no mistake: the election of Emmanuel Macron is a landmark event, raising hopes that France will re-energize its economy sufficiently to become a full and equal partner to Germany in eurozone governance.	请记住：伊曼纽尔·马克龙的当选是一个具有里程碑意义的事件，令法国有机会充分重振其经济，以期能在欧元区治理中成为德国一个全面而对等的合作伙伴。


Macron and his economic team are full of promising ideas, and he will have a huge majority in the National Assembly to implement them (though it will help if the Germans give him leeway on budget deficits in exchange for reform).	马克龙和他的经济团队都充满了有前景的想法，而他在国民议会中也拥有绝大多数席位来推行这些想法——如果德国人能给予他一些预算赤字的空间来换取改革的话可能会有所帮助。


In Spain, too, economic reform is translating into stronger long-term growth.	而在西班牙，经济改革也正转化为更强势的长期增长。


But all is not well.	但整体来看就不甚乐观。


Greece is still barely growing, after experiencing one of the worst recessions in history, although those who blame this on German austerity clearly have not looked at the numbers: with encouragement from left-leaning US economists, Greece mismanaged perhaps the softest bailout package in modern history.	在经历了史上最严重的衰退后，希腊经济的增长仍然停止，尽管那些指责在德国紧缩政策中的人显然没有看到下列数据：在左倾美国经济学家的鼓动下，希腊错过了或许是现代史上交换条件最轻柔的援助计划。


Italy has done far better than Greece, but that is a backhanded compliment; real income is actually lower than a decade ago (albeit it is hard to know for sure, given the country’s vast underground economy).	意大利比希腊好得多，但这只是一个言不由衷的赞美； 实际收入事实上比10年前更低（但鉴于该国的地下经济规模极大，也很难确定）。


For southern Europe as a whole, the single currency has proved to be a golden cage, forcing greater fiscal and monetary rectitude but removing the exchange rate as a critical cushion against unexpected shocks.	对于南欧整体来，单一货币已被证明是一个金色的牢笼，一方面执行更为严苛的财政和货币政策，另一方面又剥夺了汇率这个抵受意外冲击的重要缓冲工具。


Indeed, part of the reason the United Kingdom’s economy has held up well (so far) since last year’s Brexit referendum is that the pound fell sharply, boosting competitiveness.	事实上，自去年英国脱欧公投以来，英国经济（尚能）保持良好的一部分原因就是英镑大幅贬值提升了竞争力。


The UK, of course, famously (and wisely) opted out of the single currency even as it is now moving (not so wisely) to withdraw from the European Union and the single market entirely.	当然，英国当年也是大张旗鼓（且明智地）选择不去使用单一货币，即使现在正在（不太明智地）要从完全退出欧盟和单一市场。


It is now fairly obvious that the euro was not necessary to the success of the EU, and instead has proved a massive impediment, as many economists on this side of the Atlantic had predicted.	现在我们可以相当明确地认识到，欧元不是实现欧盟伟业的必需品，也已被证明是一个巨大的障碍，正如许多身处大西洋这一侧的经济学家所预测的那样。


Eurocrats have long likened European integration to riding a bicycle: one must keep moving forward or fall down.	欧盟官员长期以来都将欧洲一体化比作骑自行车：必须不断前进否则就要摔倒。


If so, the premature adoption of the single currency is best thought of as a detour through thick, wet cement.	如果是这样的话，过早采用单一货币最好被视作是有大路不走，专门挑了条水泥未干的小道绕行。


Ironically, by far the main reason why euro adoption was originally so popular in Southern Europe was that back in the 1980s and 1990s, ordinary people longed for the price stability Germans enjoyed with their Deutsche Mark.	具有讽刺意味的是，南欧各国原本欢迎欧元的主要原因在很大程度上是在1980~90年代，普通民众渴望能享有德国马克那样的的价格稳定。


But, while the euro has been accompanied by a dramatic eurozone wide fall in inflation, most other countries have managed to bring down inflation without it.	可尽管欧元推出后欧元区通胀率大幅下滑，但大多数区外国家也没有欧元的情况下成功压低了通胀。


Far more important to the achievement of price stability has been the advent of the modern independent central bank, a device that has helped dramatically reduce inflation levels worldwide.	如果要实现价格稳定，更为重要的一点是现代独立央行的出现，正是这一机构帮助实现了全球通胀水平的大部降低。


Yes, a few places, such as Venezuela, still have triple-digit price growth, but they are now rarities.	虽然还有类似委内瑞拉等几个国家出现了三位数的通胀，但已经算是特例了。


It is very likely that if, instead of joining the euro, Italy and Spain had simply granted their central banks more autonomy, they, too, would have low inflation today.	如果不是加入欧元，只要意大利和西班牙简单地授予本国央行更多的自主权，那么今天的通货膨胀率也会很低。


Greece is admittedly a less obvious case; but, considering that many poor African countries have been able to keep inflation well within single digits, one can presume that Greece would have managed as well.	虽然希腊的情况不太容易判断，但考虑到许多非洲穷国都能成功将通胀率保持在个位数以内，料想推测希腊也能如此。


Indeed, if Southern European countries had kept their own currencies, they might never have dug as big a debt hole, and would have had the option of partial default through inflation.	事实上，如果南欧国家保留自己的货币，他们可能永远不会沦为如此一个债务大坑，也可以选择利用通胀实现部分违约的选项。


The question now is how to maneuver the EU out of the wet cement.	现在的问题是如何让欧盟摆脱这个泥沼。


Although many European politicians are loath to admit it, the status quo is probably not sustainable; eventually, there must be either significantly greater fiscal integration or a chaotic break-up.	虽然许多欧洲政客都不愿意承认，但现状可能是不可持续的； 最终要么出现远大于当前规模的财政整合，要么在混乱中四分五裂。


It is astonishingly naive to think the euro will not face further real-life stress tests over the next 5-10 years, if not sooner.	如果有人觉得欧元不会在未来5~10年内面临进一步的实际压力测试（而不是更快爆发），那就是太过幼稚了。


If the status quo is ultimately unsustainable, why are markets so supremely calm, with ten-year Italian government bonds yielding less than two percentage points more than Germany’s?	如果现状最终是不可持续的，那为什么市场竟如此极度淡定，以至于十年期意大利政府债券的利率只比德债高出不到两个百分点？


Perhaps the small spread reflects investors’ belief that outright bailouts are eventually coming, however much German politicians protest to the contrary.	或许这点利差反映了投资者认定彻底救助方案最终会降临的信念，不管德国政客对此提出了多少反对声音。


European Central Bank purchases of periphery countries’ debt already constitute an implicit subsidy, and discussion of Eurobonds is heating up with Macron’s victory.	欧洲央行对周边国家债务的采购已经构成了一种隐性补贴，而发行欧洲债券的讨论也正随着马克龙的胜利而升温。


Or perhaps investors are gambling that the South has walked too far into the cement to get out.	或者也许投资者正在赌南欧各国已经泥足深陷无力回天。


Germany will just keep squeezing their budgets in order to ensure that its banks are repaid.	德国也将继续挤压这些国家的预算以确保德国银行的贷款能得到偿还。


Either way, eurozone leaders would be better off taking action now, rather than waiting for the single currency’s next moment of truth.	无论以哪种方式，欧元区领导人现在最好要行动起来，而不是坐等单一货币的下一个考验降临。


How long today’s optimism lasts is for Macron and Merkel to decide.	而今天的乐观情绪究竟能持续时间，还是取决于马克龙和默克尔两人。


A European Economic Miracle?	一场欧洲经济奇迹即将来临?


LONDON – A couple of years ago, the eurozone – about one-sixth of the world economy – appeared to be in serious trouble.	发自伦敦——几年前，经济总量约占全球1/6的欧元区似乎陷入了严重困境。


Beginning in 2010, an unexpected sovereign debt crisis contributed to and was compounded by serious weaknesses in major banks.	从2010年开始，一场意想不到的主权债务危机触发并加剧了各大型银行的严重危机。


Fiscal austerity, in Greece and other relatively weak countries, helped fuel an overall economic downturn.	在希腊和其他国力相对薄弱的国家，财政紧缩政策导致整体经济下滑。


In the absence of generous mutual support, there was an aura of last-ditch desperation when, in March 2015, the European Central Bank announced an ambitious program of purchasing government debt.	在缺乏大手笔互助资金的情况下，各方仿佛都走到了绝境，直到在2015年3月欧洲央行宣布实施一项雄心勃勃的政府债务采购计划后才得以告终。


Just over two years later, the situation looks much more positive.	计划启动至今两年多，形势看似大为好转。 根据国际货币基金组织的最新预测，2017年欧元区整体将实现1.


The latest International Monetary Fund forecast projects 1.7% growth for the eurozone as a whole in 2017, and 1.6% growth in 2018 – a remarkable improvement from a few years ago, when the region struggled to break 1%.	7％的增长，2018年则为1. 6％——这相对几年前可谓极大改善，须知当时要实现1％的增长都极为勉强。


Recent solvency concerns for some smaller banks in Italy and Spain were handled without causing any significant disruption.	近期对几家意大利和西班牙小型银行偿付能力问题的处理并未遇到什么大的阻碍。


And, at a just-concluded ECB conference that I attended, there was even some discussion of when the ECB could scale back its interventions and perhaps begin to raise interest rates. (All the sessions were on the record and live webcast.)	而在刚刚闭幕的欧洲央行会议上，甚至出现了一些针对欧洲央行何时可以开始收回干预措施或提高利率的讨论（会议的所有环节都进行了录音和网络直播）。


The immediate macroeconomic picture remains somewhat murky.	然而眼下的宏观经济图景仍然略显模糊。


On the morning of June 27, financial markets thought ECB President Mario Draghi spoke more positively on growth than in the recent past, and the value of the euro strengthened significantly.	6月27日上午，金融市场认为，欧洲央行行长马里奥·德拉吉（Mario Draghi）谈论增长的语气比过去更为积极，推动欧元兑美元大幅上涨。


By the next morning, senior ECB officials were quoted as saying that Draghi’s remarks had been overinterpreted – and the euro fell.	第二天早上，又有消息引述几位央行高级官员说行长的言论被过度诠释，于是欧元应声下跌。


The real question is what comes next, and this was the theme of the conference: what should we expect in terms of Europe’s medium-term growth potential?	真正的问题是下一步会出现什么情况，而这也是这次央行会议的主题：如何看待欧洲的中期增长潜力？


In particular, as long as interest rates remain low, the current level of government debt in countries such as Italy remains manageable. But as interest rates rise, will there be sufficient growth to sustain the expectation that public debt levels are sustainable?	特别是在当前的低利率水平下，意大利等国的政府债务水平表现可控，可一但利率上升，又能否能有足够的增长来维护公共债务水平可持续的预期？


The pro-growth achievements of the past few years are real.	过去几年的促增长政策确实取得了一些成就。


The ECB’s low (in fact, negative) interest-rate policies helped sustain credit in general and ensure continued financing of government deficits in particular.	欧洲央行的低利率（实际上是负的）利率政策有助于维持整体信贷，尤其能确保政府赤字能够获得持续融资。


This took pressure off fiscal policy – and there has been less austerity than previously seemed likely.	这解除了财政政策所肩负的压力——而紧缩政策也比原先预想的要少。


Banks have been gradually placed on a stronger footing, with more loss-absorbing equity capital.	各大银行的基础也得到进一步强化，拥有更多可以吸收亏损的资本。


There is also some evidence that competition in product markets has increased, perhaps owing to more relaxed regulation.	还有一些证据表明商品市场的竞争有所增加，这或许是监管更为宽松的结果。


There is also bad news, although not all of it is specific to the eurozone.	此外还有一些坏消息——但其中一些也不是欧元区特有的。


Across industrial countries, there has been a slowdown in productivity growth – and therefore in overall economic growth – which now appears to have started around the year 2000.	纵观全球发达工业国，生产力的增长放缓——以及因此产生的整体经济增长放缓——已经是自2000年延续至今的难题。


The precise explanation remains elusive, but the prevailing view is that while the advent of new information technology had some definite positive impact on productivity in the 1990s, the gains have not proved sufficiently long-lived or widespread.	人们对此依然缺乏精确的解释，而通行的看法是虽然新信息技术的出现确实对1990年代的生产力水平产生了一定的积极影响，但无法证明这些好处是能足够长期或普遍存在的。


In addition, the precise pattern of technological change has put pressure on the middle class everywhere – by reducing the demand for workers who have only a secondary-school education.	另外，技术变革的特定模式也给世界各地的中产阶级带来了压力——对中等教育程度工人的需求因此减少了。


This implies weak growth and widening inequality, a combination that could further undermine education and skill levels.	这意味着增长放缓和不平等状况的扩大，而两者合一则可能进一步损害劳动者的教育和技能水平。


At the same time, European demographic trends are a source of concern.	与此同时，欧洲的人口趋势也值得忧虑。


An aging population means more retirees – expecting publicly provided pensions – relative to the number of economically active people.	人口老龄化意味着退休人员相对于经济活跃人口的比例增加——为政府带来养老金压力。


Europe has experienced significant immigration from countries such as Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan; but many of the newcomers have little education, and finding them employment has proved difficult.	虽然欧洲接收了来自叙利亚，利比亚和阿富汗等国的大量移民，但是很多新来者都基本没有受过教育，让这些人实现就业极为困难。


More innovation could definitely help.	更多的创新肯定是有帮助的。


Even pessimists acknowledge the incipient wave of technology in life sciences, artificial intelligence, and robotics around the world.	甚至悲观主义者都承认在全球各地已经掀起了生命科学，人工智能和机器人技术的热潮。


But as China continues to emerge as a research powerhouse, there is increasing pressure on Europe to keep up.	但随着中国逐渐成长为研究型大国，欧洲压力也越来越大。


It would be a mistake to count Europe out yet. Its human capital is sound, good health care is available to more people than in the US, and stronger companies are emerging through the process of integrating national markets.	但也不应该把欧洲排除在外，因为欧洲的人力资本健全，医疗保健也比美国更好，而且在各国市场的一体化过程中也不断涌现出更强大的企业。


Moreover, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union seems to have concentrated continental leaders’ minds.	此外，英国脱离欧盟的决定似乎统一了欧陆各国领袖的思想，也没有人想再犯2010~14年间的政策失误。


No one wants to repeat the policy missteps of 2010-2014. French President Emmanuel Macron is proposing a stronger central authority, including a potential finance ministry.	法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙（Emmanuel Macron）提议建立一个更强大的中央权力机构，并可能在其中设立一个财政部。


Whether the Germans will agree remains far from clear, but it is worth recalling that building a fiscal union in the US took a very long time (and in some senses may remain an unfinished project).	虽然尚不清楚德国人会否同意此举，但要记得美国花了很长一段时间才建立了财政联盟（而且在某种意义上这个进程还未完成）。


The greatest cause for concern could turn out to be imbalances within the eurozone.	而令人担忧的可能是欧元区内的失衡。 德国经济强劲：增长率达1.


The German economy is strong: 1.5-1.6% growth, near-full employment, and a large current-account surplus.	5~1. 6％，近乎完全就业，坐拥巨额经常账户盈余；


Spain’s economy is greatly improved, experiencing 2.6% growth, but unemployment remains stubbornly – and disturbingly – high, at around 18%.	西班牙经济虽然大幅改善，实现了2. 6％的增长，但失业率居高不下，维持在18％左右。


Italy remains the big question, with the IMF forecasting GDP growth of 0.8% this year and next.	意大利仍然是一个大问题，国际货币基金组织预计该国今明两年的GDP增长率为0.


Can northern Italy’s family firms again prove themselves capable of growth in increasingly tough international markets?	8％。 意大利北部的家族企业能否再次证明自己可以在竞争日渐激烈的国际市场上发展壮大？


Will the next wave of new technology help or hurt them?	对这些企业来说下一波新技术浪潮是助力还是冲击？


France, too, remains something of a wildcard.	法国则依然是个未知之数。


Will Macron’s stunning makeover of French politics lead to growth-enhancing reforms?	马克龙对法国政治的大刀阔斧调整会否催生促进增长的改革？


If not, Germany may be less inclined to meet Macron halfway on eurozone integration.	如果改革难产，德国或许不会在欧元区整合方面与法国妥协。


Above all, the eurozone – or perhaps the EU – must find ways to ensure that everyone grows and benefits from growth.	最重要的是，欧元区——或者也许是欧盟——必须找到方法来确保每个国家都能实现增长并从增长中获益。


Whether it will succeed or not cannot be known. What is certain is that in an environment like the current one, where the worst has passed, the task has become easier.	虽然我们不知道这一点能否实现，但可以肯定的是，在现在这样的环境下最差的情况已经过去，任务也会变得更加轻松。


Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Lies	石油巨头、烟草巨头、谎言巨头


BOSTON – Over the last few years, a growing number of people have been taking a hard look at what is happening to our planet – historic droughts, rising sea levels, massive floods – and acknowledging, finally, that human activity is propelling rapid climate change.	波士顿——过去几年来，越来越多人已经开始认真审视我们这个星球正在发生的事情——历史性干旱、海平面上升、大规模洪涝——并最终认识到人类活动正在推动快速气候变化。


But guess what?	但你猜怎么着？


Exxon (now ExxonMobil) had an inkling of this as early as 1978.	埃克森（现在叫埃克森美孚）早在1978年就已经看出了端倪。


By the early 1980s, Exxon scientists had much more than an inkling.	到20世纪80年代初，埃克森科学家的理解更加深入。


They not only understood the science behind climate change, but also recognized the company’s own outsize role in driving the phenomenon.	他们不仅了解气候变化背后的科学，而且也承认公司自身在这一现象背后所起的巨大作用。


Recognizing the potential effects as “catastrophic” for a significant portion of the population, they urged Exxon’s top executives to take action.	科学家们认识到这可能会对很大部分人产生“灾难性”的影响，并因此敦促埃克森的高管采取行动。


Instead, the executives buried the truth.	但高管们非但没有采取行动，反而掩盖了真相。


There may be a silver lining to this infuriating story: the recent investigation that exposed Exxon’s deceit could end up catalyzing the action needed to address the looming climate crisis.	这个令人义愤的故事背后可能尚存一线希望：最近揭露埃克森骗局的调查可能最终对应对迫在眉睫的气候危机起到催化作用。


After all, similar revelations about the tobacco industry – what the major cigarette companies knew and when they knew it – transformed the public-health landscape.	毕竟，有关烟草行业的类似披露——大型烟草企业知道些什么、什么时候知道的——彻底改变了公共卫生状况。


In 1996, a series of lawsuits forced tobacco companies to release millions of internal documents, which confirmed what public-health advocates and policymakers had long suspected: as early as the 1950s, the industry knew that nicotine was addictive and that cigarettes caused cancer.	1996年，系列诉讼迫使烟草公司公开数以百万计的内部文件，证实了公共健康倡导者和决策者早就怀疑的内容：早在上世纪50年代，业内人士就知道尼古丁具有成瘾性和香烟会诱发癌症。


But, to protect its own interests, Big Tobacco deliberately misled the public, doing everything possible to cast doubt on scientific findings that it knew to be accurate.	但为保护自身利益，烟草巨头故意误导公众，千方百计质疑它明知准确无误的科学发现的准确性。


Such tactics enabled the industry to delay, for more than 50 years, regulation that could have saved millions of lives annually.	此等伎俩使烟草行业成功延迟每年本可挽救成百上千万人生命的法规出台超过50年之久。


After the revelations, however, it was clear that the tobacco industry was a malevolent force that did not belong in the policymaking process.	但此次披露证明烟草业是不应属于决策过程的邪恶力量。


With Big Tobacco out of the picture, and armed with evidence of the real effects of tobacco consumption, health advocates were finally able to compel their governments to act.	随着烟草巨头的出局，手握烟草消费的实证效果的健康倡导者终于成功地迫使政府采取行动。


In 2003, world leaders agreed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization.	2003年，世界领导人在世卫组织的主持下签署了烟草控制框架公约（FCTC）。


Today, the treaty covers 90% of the world’s population and has contributed to a significant decline in sales for global tobacco corporations.	今天，上述公约涵盖 90%的世界人口，并导致全球烟草企业销售显著下降。


Over time, it will save hundreds of millions of lives (and save governments’ health-care budgets huge sums).	随着时间的推移，这将挽救成百上千万的生命（并为政府节约巨额医疗预算）。


Big Oil, it is now clear, has been following Big Tobacco’s playbook.	显而易见，石油巨头一直在学习烟草巨头的榜样。


In 1997, almost two decades after it began studying climate change, it quashed its research, claiming that climate science was “far from clear” and thus that it did not “support mandated cuts in energy use.”	1997年，石油巨头在开始气候变化研究近20年后隐瞒了自己的研究成果，声称气候科学“很不明朗”，因此并不支持出台“强制削减能源使用”的规定。


Beyond suppressing its own findings, ExxonMobil (and its peers) funded and promoted junk science and attacked scientists who warned of the impending climate disaster.	除隐瞒自己的研究结果，埃克森美孚（及其同行）还出资推动垃圾科学，攻击警告气候灾难即将到来的科学家。


The fossil-fuel companies’ approach was so effective that the media are only now beginning to recognize the leading role the industry played in creating – almost out of whole cloth – the so-called “climate debate.”	化石燃料公司的方法非常有效，以至媒体到现在才开始意识到石油业在凭空捏造的所谓“气候辩论”中所起的主导作用。


But perhaps Big Oil’s biggest success was diminishing the political will to implement appropriate regulation.	不过或许打消推行相关法规的政治意愿才是石油巨头最大的成功。


Even after the international community adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the fossil-fuel industry managed to block meaningful progress – to the point that, if serious action is not taken soon, the entire process could unravel.	即使在1992年国际社会通过联合国气候变化框架公约（UNFCCC）后，化石燃料行业仍成功阻止了有意义的进展——乃至今天如果不迅速采取行动，整个过程都有遭到逆转的可能。


In Europe, Royal Dutch Shell’s lobbying so diluted the European Union’s efforts that there are now no binding targets for renewables or energy efficiency for individual countries.	在欧洲，荷兰皇家壳牌石油的游说严重稀释了欧盟的努力，以至针对各国的限制性可再生或能源效益目标至今都没有出台。


The company even sent a letter to the European Commission’s president claiming that “gas is good for Europe.”	该公司甚至致函欧盟委员会主席称“天然气有益于欧洲发展”。


Shell and other oil companies are now promising to work as “advisers” to national governments on how to deal with climate change.	壳牌和其他石油公司现在承诺承担国家政府“应对气候变化目标”的顾问任务。


Just as the tobacco files drove the tobacco industry out of policymaking processes, the Exxon investigation should compel world leaders to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry from efforts to solve the climate crisis.	就像烟草文件将烟草业赶出决策过程一样，埃克森调查应促使世界领导人将化石燃料行业清除出解决气候危机的进程。


After all, no policy can succeed if those who shape it are betting on its failure.	毕竟，如果政策制定者一心希望政策失败，那政策成功的可能性将微乎其微。


The turning point for tobacco-related public-health policy came when the industry’s depravity became indisputable.	当行业堕落成为不争事实的时候出现了烟草领域公共卫生政策的转折点。


Now, that moment has come for the climate movement.	现在，气候运动的时机已经到来。


We cannot simply hope that the fossil-fuel industry will change its ways.	我们不能简单地希望化石燃料业改弦更张。


As an alliance of human-rights groups, environmental activists, and corporate-accountability advocates already is demanding, we must kick the industry out of the policymaking process altogether.	正如人权组织、环保人士和企业责任倡导者联盟已经要求的那样，我们必须将化石燃料业彻底踢出决策过程。


Exxon’s scientists were right: the effects of climate change on many communities are catastrophic.	埃克森的科学家没有说错：气候变化对许多群体的影响的确可以用灾难性来形容。


With so many lives at stake – and such clear evidence of the threat – Big Oil, like Big Tobacco before it, should be treated for what it is: Big Trouble.	因为威胁到如此多的生命——以及威胁的证据如此明确——石油巨头就像之前的烟草巨头一样，应该被视为巨大的麻烦制造者。


Making Journalism Great Again	让新闻再次伟大


OXFORD – In the debate over the future of journalism, “fake news” has taken center stage, with storylines featuring a ranting American president, Russian communication “bots,” and betrayal and subterfuge competing for public attention.	牛津—在关于新闻的未来的争论中，“假新闻”是中心议题，其特色内容是一位慷慨激昂的美国总统，俄罗斯通讯“机器人”，以及为了争夺公共注意力的背叛和花招。


But in an era of diminishing profits and shrinking audiences, is fake news really the biggest threat that traditional media face?	但在这个利润节节下降、关注度日益降低的时代，假新闻真的是传统媒体所面临的最大威胁吗？


In a news environment increasingly prone to hyperventilation, it can be difficult to separate fact from fabricated or deliberately skewed content shared via social media.	在一个动辄需要倒吸一口凉气的新闻环境中，很难将事实和编造出来或故意留有破绽并通过社交媒体分享出来的内容区分开来。


The proliferation of “bots” – computer programs that automatically spread disinformation – has blurred these lines further.	“机器人”——自动散播虚假信息的电脑程序——大行其道，让边界变得更加模糊。


And as the methods of manipulation multiply, the problem is only likely to worsen.	而随着操纵手段的多样化，问题还可能进一步恶化。


And yet the near-constant focus on fake news has distracted many in the industry from more serious challenges confronting professional journalism.	但几乎一直关注着假新闻，这让许多业内人士不再主义专业新闻学所面临的严峻挑战。


The erosion of business models and growing dependence on third-party digital distributors – like Facebook and Google – have handcuffed news organizations and cut deeply into their profits.	业务模式的萧条和对第三方数字散播者——如脸谱和谷歌——的日益依赖，严重制约了新闻组织，也吞噬了它们的利润。


Worse, audiences no longer trust the information presented to them.	更糟糕的是，新闻受众不再信任呈现给他们的信息。


This suggests that the problem is bigger than fake news.	这表明问题不止于假新闻。


In fact, large, traditional, or legacy media organizations still trump social media as trusted sources.	事实上，大型传统或老牌媒体组织仍然是比社交媒体更值得信任的消息源。


As the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism’s Digital News Report 2017 revealed, 40% of news consumers say that established media organizations – The New York Times, for example – accurately differentiate fact from fiction.	路透新闻研究所（Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism）的《2017年数字新闻报告》（Digital News Report 2017）揭示，40%的新闻消费者说老牌新闻组织——比如《纽约时报》——能准确地区分事实和虚构。


For social media, this share is only 24%.	而社交媒体的这一比例只有24%。


But this also means that 60% of news consumers regard the legacy media as being careless with facts.	但这也意味着60%的新闻消费者认为老牌媒体对于事实并不上心。


That statistic alone should be a cause for grave concern to everyone in the industry.	这一统计数字已足以让新闻业全体同仁感到深切的忧虑。


According to the report – which surveyed some 70,000 Internet users in 36 countries – 29% of respondents said they were avoiding news altogether.	报告调查了36个国家的大约70,000名互联网用户，有29%的受访者说他们根本不看新闻。


For many, this was either because producers’ preference for negative stories put them in a bad mood, or because they viewed the reporting as politically slanted and therefore untrustworthy.	对很多人来说，这要么是因为新闻提供者偏好负能量故事，令他们心情不悦，要么是因为他们认为报道有政治倾向，因而不可信任。


Without trust, there is no audience; and without an audience, there is no business.	没有信任，就没有受众； 没有受众，就没有生意。


If the survey’s results are representative of broader trends, one of the world’s most important pillars of democracy – a free and open press – is in jeopardy.	如果调查结果反映了广泛的趋势，那么全球民主最重要的支柱之一——自由开放的媒体——就岌岌可危。


Perhaps this should come as no surprise.	也许这本不足为奇。


In the digital era, trust deficits have affected most major institutions, from political parties and big companies to religious organizations and universities.	在数字时代，信任赤字影响着大部分重要机构，包括政党、大公司、宗教组织和大学。 这可能表明公民变得更加知情，更加具有批判精神；


This could be a sign of a more informed and critical citizenry; or, more likely, it could be a response to feeling overwhelmed by choice and powerless in a complex world.	也可能——这种可能性更大——是人们因为被选择压得喘不过气来，或因为身处复杂世界的无力感而产生的反应。


But what has changed for news organizations is that, thanks to social media, they no longer have a monopoly on holding the powerful to account.	但新闻组织所面临的变化是，拜社交媒体所赐，它们不再垄断解释权。


On the contrary, they have come to be identified with the powerful – part of a media-business-political elite divorced from the concerns of ordinary people.	相反，它们被人们与权力等同起来——成为与老百姓的关注点脱离的媒体-商业-政治精英的一部分。


Having become a target of popular anger, journalism will need to “disrupt” itself to regain credibility and restore audiences’ trust.	新闻成为汹涌民意的对象，需要自我“破坏”以重获信誉、重建受众的信任。


To this end, media organizations should take at least six steps.	在这方面，媒体组织应该至少采取六项措施。


For starters, news outlets must set their own agendas, rather than wasting resources on pursuing someone else’s.	首先，新闻媒体必须制定自身的日程，而不是将资源浪费在追逐他人日程上。


The international investigation that led to the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers are brilliant examples of journalism that is relevant and interesting – two fundamental criteria that all reporting should meet.	产生了巴拿马文件（Panama Papers）和天堂文件（Paradise Papers）的国际调查便是重要且有趣的新闻的闪光的例子——而重要和有趣乃是所有报道都应该达到的两个基本标准。


Second, reporters have a responsibility to their audiences to analyze what powerful actors are doing, rather than what they are saying.	其次，记者有责任替受众分析权势人物如何做，而不是他们在说什么。


As the Washington Post’s media columnist Margaret Sullivan recently observed, coverage of US President Donald Trump has focused narrowly on his words, at the expense of his policy.	《华盛顿邮报》媒体专栏玛格丽特·苏利文（Margaret Sullivan）最近观察道，对美国总统特朗普的报道狭隘地聚焦于他的用词，却忽视了他的政策。


Third, the media must become better listeners.	第三，媒体必须成为更好的聆听者。


Journalists’ distinction between “reporting” and “reporting on the ground” highlights the reality that a sizable proportion of newsroom staff never leave their desks.	记者对“报道”（reporting）和“接地气的报道”（reporting on the ground）的区分突显出一个现实：相当一部分新闻工作者总是在闭门造车。


Journalists don’t necessarily do this by choice; many are glued to their screens because their companies lack resources, or force them to follow and report on twitter feeds.	记者未必是刻意这样做； 许多人离不开屏幕是因为公司缺乏资源，或强迫他们跟踪推特消息源上的报道。


In a sense, reporters’ behavior is merely a symptom of an editorial pathology.	从某种程度上讲，记者的行为只是编辑方法的表征。


Fourth, news organizations must engage audiences – talking to them, not down to them.	第四，新闻组织必须走到受众中去——和他们交谈，而不是居高临下。


Very often, the news cycle is driven by assumptions about what viewers or readers might like, rather than what they actually want.	通常发生的情况是，新闻圈根据先入为主地认定观众和读者喜欢什么，而不是根据他们实际喜欢什么来采取行动。


Diversity in a newsroom is vital to broadening the relevance of its coverage.	新闻室的多样化对于拓宽报道的关联性至关重要。


Fifth, in the rush to experiment with new forms of storytelling, some media companies are forgetting their mission.	第五，一些新闻媒体急于实验新的叙事类型，忘记了自己的使命。


News outlets should forego expensive, flashy projects if they do little to further audiences’ understanding of a story.	如果花费糜巨、华而不实的项目无助于让受众更好地理解报道，就应该放弃。


Finally, rebuilding trust will require a new definition of news itself.	最后，重建信任需要重新定义新闻本身。


When audiences feel overwhelmed by information and complexity, the response can be to tune out.	当受众感到被信息和复杂性压得喘不过气时，他们的反应有可能是干脆不理不睬。


The media must give people a reason to tune back in.	媒体必须给人们一个重新关注的理由。


(One example: positive news is dramatically undervalued in today’s media environment.)	（举一个例子：正能量新闻在当今的媒体环境中被大大低估了。 ）


If traditional media outlets allow themselves to be defined by the fake-news debate, they, too, will be overwhelmed.	如果传统媒体组织任由假新闻争论来定义自己，那么它们也会被压得无法翻身。


So long as social media companies optimize for advertising revenue, their algorithms will tend to reward the extremes, and news organizations will waste valuable resources battling disinformation.	只要社交媒体采用广告收入最优化的路线，它们的算法总会奖励极端，而新闻组织将把宝贵的资源浪费在打击虚假消息上。


A better approach would be to make news less boring.	更好的方针是让新闻不再那么无聊。


Reputable media companies have always sought to capitalize on facts: the scoop, the exclusive interview, the probing investigation.	信誉卓著的媒体公司永远在试图利用事实：独家新闻、独家采访、调查挖掘。


Truth, like trust, is a commodity.	和信任一样，真相也是商品。


The future of the industry depends on getting better at producing it.	新闻业的未来取决于你能否变得更加擅长生产真相。


Free Speech and Fake News	自由言论和假新闻


PRINCETON – About a week before the United States presidential election last November, someone posted on Twitter that Hillary Clinton was at the center of a pedophilia ring.	普林斯顿——去年11月美国总统大选一周前，有人在推特上发帖称，希拉里·克林顿是一个恋童癖团伙的核心成员。


The rumor spread through social media, and a right-wing talk show host named Alex Jones repeatedly stated that she was involved in child abuse and that her campaign chairman, John Podesta, took part in satanic rituals.	有人通过社交媒体不断散播谣言，还有一位右翼脱口秀节目主持人亚历克斯·琼斯反复指控她参与虐待儿童，还指控她的竞选主席约翰·波德斯塔参与撒旦的邪恶仪式。


In a YouTube video (since removed), Jones referred to “all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped.”	在一段YouTube视频中（后来被删除），琼斯提到“希拉里·克林顿亲手谋杀、切碎和强奸的所有儿童。


The video, posted four days before the election, was watched more than 400,000 times.	”这段视频在大选前四天被上传至网络，并被观看超过400,000次。


Emails released by WikiLeaks showed that Podesta sometimes dined at a Washington, DC, pizza restaurant called Comet Ping Pong.	维基解密发布的电子邮件显示波德斯塔有时会去华盛顿特区一家名叫彗星乒乓的比萨饼餐厅就餐。


Apparently for that reason the child-sex-ring accusations focused on the pizza restaurant and used the hashtag #pizzagate.	显然因为这个原因，儿童性团伙的指控就聚焦这座比萨饼餐厅，并采用了#比萨门的主题标签。


The allegations were frequently retweeted by bots – programs designed to spread certain types of messages – contributing to the impression that many people were taking “Pizzagate” seriously.	旨在散播某类信息的机器人程序大肆转发上述指控——给人留下的印象是很多民众都在严肃探讨“比萨门”。


The story, amazingly, was also retweeted by General Michael Flynn, who is soon to be President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser.	令人吃惊的是，迈克尔·弗林将军也转发了这则推特，而这位将军很快就将成为当选总统唐纳德·特朗普的国家安全顾问。


Even after Trump’s election – and despite debunking by the New York Times and the Washington Post – the story continued to spread.	即使在特朗普胜选后——虽然谎言被《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》所拆穿——这则故事仍然继续传播。


Comet Ping Pong was harassed by constant, abusive, and often threatening phone calls.	彗星乒乓餐厅经常接到辱骂、往往还带有威胁意味的骚扰电话。


When the manager approached the DC police, he was told the rumors were constitutionally protected speech.	当餐厅经理向华盛顿警方求助时，他被告知谣言是受到宪法保护的言论。


Edgar Welch, a Christian who has Bible verses tattooed on his back, was one of Jones’s listeners.	埃德加·韦尔奇是一位把圣经经文纹在背上的基督徒，也是琼斯的忠实听众之一。


On December 4, he drove 350 miles from his home in North Carolina to Comet Ping Pong, armed with an assault rifle, a revolver, and a knife.	12月4日，他从家乡北卡罗来纳驱车350英里抵达彗星乒乓餐厅，随身携带突击步枪、左轮手枪和刀具。


He allowed guests and staff to leave while he searched for enslaved children supposedly hidden in tunnels.	他让客人和工作人员离开后搜查被认为藏在隧道里的受到奴役的儿童。


He fired his rifle at least once, to open a locked door.	他用突击步枪至少射击一次，目的是打开一扇被锁住的房门。


After finding no children, he surrendered to police.	在没有找到孩子后，他向警方投降。


Fake news – “active misinformation” that is packaged to look as if it comes from a serious news site – is a threat to democratic institutions.	虚假消息——即精心包装、看似来自严肃新闻网站的“主动误导”——对民主制度构成了严重威胁。


There have been less absurd examples, including a fake report of a nuclear threat by Israel’s defense minister that misled his Pakistani counterpart into retweeting the report and warning Israel that Pakistan, too, is a nuclear power.	还有一些不那么荒谬的例子，其中包括以色列国防部长核威胁的虚假报告 ，误导其巴基斯坦同行转发了这份报告，并警告以色列巴基斯坦同样是有核国。


President Barack Obama acknowledged the danger to democratic freedoms when speaking to the press in Germany shortly after the US election.	巴拉克·奥巴马总统在美国大选刚刚结束时接受德国媒体采访，承认了谣言对民主自由的威胁。


Whether or not fake news cost Clinton the presidency, it plainly could cause a candidate to lose an election and upset international relations.	无论假新闻是否导致克林顿在总统大选中落败，它显然可以导致候选人选举失利，并破坏国际关系。


It is also contrary to one of the fundamental premises on which democracy rests: that voters can make informed choices between contending candidates.	谣言也违背了民主体制赖以存在的一个基本前提：即选民可以在完全知情的情况下选择候选人。


The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that.	美国宪法第一修正案规定“国会不应制定任何法律. .


“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” By 1919, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of those words had led to the doctrine that Congress could prohibit speech only if it posed “a clear and present danger” of serious harm.	”。 到1919年，最高法院对上述条款的解释已经树立了国会只有在构成“明确且现实威胁”的情况下才能对言论进行限制的原则。


That position was further refined in what is perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech by an American judge: Louis Brandeis’s concurring opinion in the 1927 case of Whitney v. California.	这一立场在路易斯·布兰戴斯对1927年惠特尼诉加利福尼亚案表达部分赞同意见后进一步得以强化，这或许是美国法官对言论自由最有力的支持。


Brandeis described freedom of speech and assembly as “functions essential to effective democracy.”	布兰戴斯将言论和集会自由形容为“有效民主所必须的职能”。


He appealed to “courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government.”	他呼吁民众“勇敢、自力更生，对民选政府流程贯彻自由和无畏理性的能力抱有完全的信任。


On that basis, for speech to pose a clear and present danger that could justify prohibiting it, the harm the speech would cause must be so imminent that it could preclude any opportunity to discuss fully what had been said.	”在这样的基础上，如果某一言论构成明确而现实的威胁，并在此基础上满足启动限制规定需要满足的条件，那么上述言论必须造成直接的损害，以至于充分探讨言论内容的任何可能性都被预先排除。


If, Brandeis insisted, there is “time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”	布兰戴斯坚持认为如果“有时间通过讨论来揭露谎言和谬误，通过教育来避免邪恶向前发展，那么就必须以更多言论来进行补救，而不是强制谣言散播者不许发声。 ”


Today, it is difficult to have so much confidence in the power of “free and fearless reasoning,” especially if it is supposed to be “applied through the processes of popular government” – which presumably requires that it influence elections.	今天，尤其在本应“由民主政府通过特定程序来贯彻执行的前提下”，很难对“自由和无畏推理”的力量抱有如此强烈的信心——这个假设成立的前提条件是“自由和无畏的推理”能够影响选举进程。


Similarly, Brandeis’s belief that “more speech, not enforced silence” is the remedy for “falsehood and fallacies” looks naïve, especially if applied in an election campaign.	同样，布兰戴斯认定“更多讨论、而非强制沉默”是“虚假和谬误”的补救办法看上去也非常天真，尤其如果适用于竞选活动中。


What, though, is the alternative?	那么，还有哪些可以采纳的替代方法？


What Jones said about Clinton is surely defamation, and she could bring a civil suit against him; but that would be costly and time-consuming, most likely taking years to move through the courts.	琼斯对克林顿的言论无疑涉及诽谤，她可以对他提出民事诉讼； 但那种方法注定耗时、昂贵，法院审理很有可能要历时数年才能完成。


In any case, civil defamation lawsuits are effective only against those who have the assets to pay whatever damages are awarded.	无论如何，民事诽谤诉讼仅对那些有财力支付判决赔偿的人才有效。


What about criminal libel?	那么诽谤罪怎样？


In the United Kingdom, “defamatory libel” was for many centuries a criminal offense, but it fell into disuse and was abolished in 2010.	在英国，“诽谤”几百年来都属于刑事犯罪，但后来却逐渐停用并于2010年被彻底取消。


In the US, criminal libel is not a federal offense.	在美国，刑事诽谤不属于联邦犯罪之列。


It continues to be a crime in some states, but few cases are brought.	某些州仍将诽谤列为刑事犯罪，但实际审理诽谤案件的情况却少之又少。


A report in 2015 by A. Jay Wagner and Anthony L. Fargo for the International Press Institute describes many of the recent cases as “petty” and regards the civil libel law as a better recourse for “personal grievances.”	2015年杰伊·瓦格纳和安托尼·法格为国际新闻研究所提交的一份报告用“琐碎”来形容许多近期案例，并把民事诽谤法视为发泄“个人不满”的渠道。


The report concludes that criminal libel has become “redundant and unnecessary.”	该报告认定刑事诽谤罪已经变得“多余和没有必要”。


Recent examples of fake news suggest that Wagner and Fargo’s conclusion was premature.	近期的假新闻事例表明瓦格纳和法戈的结论为时过早。


To accuse, during an election campaign, a US presidential candidate of personally murdering children is not petty, and civil libel law provides no adequate remedy.	在大选期间指责一位美国总统候选人亲手杀害儿童绝非小事，而民事诽谤法没有提供任何充分的补救。


In the Internet age, is it time for the legal pendulum to swing back toward the offense of criminal libel?	在互联网时代里，法律的钟摆再次回归刑事诽谤罪的时机是否已经成熟？


Fake News and Biased News	假新闻和有偏见的新闻


TOKYO – Interviews are always tricky.	东京—访谈就是防不胜防。


If an unscrupulous interviewer is looking for a particular answer or claim, they have the power to edit, manipulate, or even rewrite their subject’s words to that end.	如果一位“无良”访问者想要挖掘某个答案或观点，他完全有权力去编辑、操纵甚至改写访问对象的话。


That is why I have long taken pains to check carefully quotations attributed to me by the media.	正因如此，我一直会仔细阅读我被媒体引用的言辞。


But, when it comes to television or radio interviews, it seemed to me that such distortions would be more difficult to pull off.	但对于电视或广播采访，我认为这样的扭曲会比较困难。


I was wrong.	我错了。


Not long ago, representatives from a Japanese television program associated with a liberal-leaning newspaper requested an interview with me to discuss Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s economic-reform strategy, known as “Abenomics.”	不久前，一位日本某电视节目的代表要求采访我。 这个节目与一家偏自由派立场的报纸有关，采访的内容是首相安倍晋三的经济改革战略，即“安倍经济学”。


I was interviewed for about an hour, with my answers to be included in an episode centered on a panel discussion held in the studio.	我被采访了大约一个小时，我的回答被做进了在工作室录制的一期专家讨论中。


The result was not what I expected.	结果和我预想的不一样。


To be sure, I wasn’t entirely shocked to find that the panelists denied the recent achievements of Abenomics and espoused the strange view that monetary policy cannot boost an economy, and yet can suddenly cause hyperinflation.	平心而论，对于讨论组成员否认安倍经济学的最新成果、持有货币政策无法提振经济，反而可能突然引起恶性通胀的奇怪观点，我并不是十分震惊。


Such claims have persisted, despite the ongoing monetary-policy-driven, low-inflation recoveries in the United States, Europe, and Japan.	这样的论调由来已久，尽管货币政策驱动的低通胀复苏在美国、欧洲和日本进行的十分良好。


But the distortion of my own words was significant.	但节目严重扭曲了我的原话。


In my interview, I highlighted the successes of Abenomics.	在我的采访中，我强调了安倍经济学的成功之处。


And I argued that a strong labor market and rising business profits would be among Abenomics’ enduring legacies, even if Abe’s administration faced political challenges.	我指出，劳动力市场的强势和企业利润的上升都是安倍经济学的未竟的遗产，尽管安倍政府面临了政治挑战。


The program included just two minutes of my interview, emphasizing the part about the potential political challenges, rather than Abenomics’ great successes.	节目却只播出了我两分钟的采访，强调了潜在政治挑战的部分而不是安倍经济学的巨大成功。


In recent years, much attention has been devoted to “fake news” – outright disinformation that spreads widely, often through social media or other online platforms.	近几年来，人们大量关注“假新闻”——即传播广泛的完全错误的信息，它们通常通过社交媒体或其他在线平台传播。


But my recent experience highlighted another danger: biased news, in which strategic edits surreptitiously advance the views of a journalist, editor, or broadcaster.	但我的最近经验突显出另一种危险：有偏见的新闻，即策略性地编辑新闻，从而支持记者、编辑或节目制作者的观点。


Such reporting, which may be delivered even by traditional news organizations, can be very damaging, not least for political leaders.	这类报道甚至可能由传统新闻组织制作，它们可能造成巨大的破坏性，至少对政治领导人是如此。


Without a doubt, Abe’s political standing has been vulnerable to the effects of biased journalism.	毫无疑问，安倍的政治立场很容易受到有偏见的新闻的影响。


For example, several months ago, Abe was addressing a crowd gathered in Akihabara, a district of Tokyo.	比如，接个月前，安倍在东京秋叶原区的群众集会上发表演讲。


A number of attendees, in a clear attempt to sabotage his speech, booed and heckled relentlessly.	一些听众显然是为了捣乱，不断地发出嘘声和刁难。


Eventually, Abe shouted, “I am not addressing a crowd shouting like you!”	最后，安倍大喊道：“我不是为向你们这样瞎嚷嚷的群众演讲的！


The next day, his words were reported widely; the behavior of the crowd, however, was not, leaving readers with the impression that their prime minister had, completely unprompted, yelled coarsely at Japanese citizens.	”第二天，他的这番话被广泛报道； 但听众的行为只字未提，让读者产生了首相完全是主动向日本公民爆粗口的印象。


Similar distortions characterized accounts of hearings in Japan’s Diet to investigate allegations, originally made by former Vice Minister of Education and Science Kihei Maekawa, that Abe rigged the decision-making process behind the opening of a new veterinary department at a university run by a close friend of his.	类似的扭曲也出现在对日本众议院调查指控听证会的报道中。 指控来自前文部科学事务次官前川喜平（Kihei Maekawa），说安倍操纵了一所由其密友主持的大学新设兽医系的决策过程。


Not only did Abe himself deny the accusations; Tatsuo Hatta, formerly of Osaka University, and Moriyuki Kato, former Governor of Ehime Prefecture, testified that the process had been conducted fairly and lawfully.	不但安倍本人否认了指控，前大阪大学教授八田达夫（<>Tatsuo Hatta）和前爱媛县知事加户守行（Moriyuki Kato）也作证整个决策过程是公平合法的。


Yet many media organizations, including two leading newspapers, Asahi and Mainichi, continued to report on the supposed scandal – leaving out the testimony of Hatta and Kato, while providing an extensive account of Maekawa’s accusations.	但许多媒体组织，包括两家大报《朝日新闻》和《每日新闻》持续报道着所谓的丑闻——对八田和加户的证词只字不提，而对前川的指控长篇累牍地报道。


Such biased reporting can easily turn voters against a leader.	这类有偏见的报道可以轻易地让选民反对领导人。


Fortunately for Japan, its voters have not been duped.	对日本来说，幸运的是选民没有被骗。


Abe just scored a landslide victory in the general election on October 22, easily returning his ruling coalition to power.	安倍刚刚在10月22日举行的大选中赢得压倒性胜利，轻松让其执政联盟重新掌权。


In the United States, by contrast, biased news stories, especially on social media, appear to be having a powerful effect on voters, and have propelled political polarization to unprecedented levels.	相反，在美国，有偏见的新闻报道，特别是社交媒体上的报道，对选民产生了强大的影响，也让政治极化达到了前所未有的程度。


This is particularly true with regard to President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly attacked the media – often wrongly, to be sure – for its coverage of his administration.	总统特朗普尤其如此，他一再抨击媒体对其政府的报道——平心而论，常常是错误的批评。


Trump, who has been known to disseminate problematic news himself, is no innocent victim of media bias.	特朗普本身便是著名的问题新闻推手，绝对算不上媒体偏见的无辜受害人。


But the state of US politics today does highlight the need for voters everywhere to have access to complete and objective accounts of what is happening in their country and the world.	但当今美国政局确实突显出，世界各国的选民都需要能够获得关于国内和国际上正在发生什么的完整可观的报道。


Only then will they be truly empowered, as a democratic system requires, to make informed choices about their collective future.	惟其如此，他们才能真正得到民主制度所要求的赋权，做出关于集体未来的知情的选择。


Six Features of the Disinformation Age	虚假信息时代的六大特征


MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA – Concern about the proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda has reached the point where many governments are proposing new legislation.	加利福尼亚州门洛帕克——许多政府对有关虚假信息、错误信息和宣传运动的担忧已经到了促使他们推动全新立法的程度。


But the solutions on offer reflect an inadequate understanding of the problem – and could have negative unintended consequences.	但目前提出的解决方案反映出人们对这个问题仍然理解不足——而且可能会产生意想不到的负面后果。


This past June, Germany’s parliament adopted a law that includes a provision for fines of up to €50 million ($59 million) on popular sites like Facebook and YouTube, if they fail to remove “obviously illegal” content, such as hate speech and incitements to violence, within 24 hours.	今年6月，德国议会通过了一项法律，该法律规定如果像Facebook和YouTube等流行网站未能在24小时内删除仇恨及煽动言论等“明显违反法律”的内容，可以对它们执行高达5，000万欧元（合5，900万美元）的罚款。


Singapore has announced plans to introduce similar legislation next year to tackle “fake news.”	新加坡也已宣布明年将推出类似计划来应对“虚假消息泛滥”。


In July, the US Congress approved sweeping sanctions against Russia, partly in response to its alleged sponsorship of disinformation campaigns aiming to influence US elections.	7月，美国国会批准了针对俄国的一系列制裁措施，部分原因是据称俄罗斯赞助了旨在影响美国总统竞选的虚假消息散布活动。


Dialogue between the US Congress and Facebook, Twitter, and Google has intensified in the last few weeks, as clear evidence of campaign-ad purchases by Russian entities has emerged.	美国国会与Facebook、Twitter和Google等企业已经在近几周加强了对话，因为有明确证据显示已经出现了俄罗斯实体购买竞选广告的行动。


Such action is vital if we are to break the vicious circle of disinformation and political polarization that undermines democracies’ ability to function.	如果我们想要打破破坏民主政体运行能力的虚假信息和政治极化的恶性循环，采取这样的行动可谓至关重要。


But while these legislative interventions all target digital platforms, they often fail to account for at least six ways in which today’s disinformation and propaganda differ from yesterday’s.	但虽然这些立法干预措施都针对数字平台，但它们却往往没有考虑到今天的虚假信息和政治宣传至少在哪六个方面与之前有所不同。


First, there is the democratization of information creation and distribution.	首先是信息创造和传播过程的民主化。


As Rand Waltzman, formerly of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, recently noted, any individual or group can now communicate with – and thereby influence – large numbers of others online.	就像前国防部高级研究计划局兰德·沃尔兹曼最近所强调的那样，任何个人或团体现在都可以与大量在线民众进行沟通——并进而对它们产生影响。


This has its benefits, but it also carries serious risks – beginning with the loss of journalistic standards of excellence, like those typically enforced within established media organizations.	这种情况当然有好的一面，但也伴随着严重的危险因素——首先就是优秀新闻标准的丧失，就像以往在传统媒体机构所执行的那样。


Without traditional institutional media gatekeepers, political discourse is no longer based on a common set of facts.	没有传统的机构媒体把关者，政治谈话已经不再以共同的事实为基础。


The second feature of the digital information age – a direct byproduct of democratization – is information socialization.	数字信息时代的第二大特征——同时也是民主化进程的直接副产品——是信息社会化。


Rather than receiving our information directly from institutional gatekeepers, who, despite often-flawed execution, were fundamentally committed to meeting editorial standards, today we acquire it via peer-to-peer sharing.	我们已不再直接从机构把关者那里接收信息，这些把关者尽管往往在流程的执行方面存在缺陷，但从本质上讲却致力于达到编辑目标，今天，我们获得信息的方式是通过点对点共享。


Such peer networks may elevate content based on factors like clicks or engagement among friends, rather than accuracy or importance.	这样的点对点网络可能基于点击量或朋友圈互动等因素来决定其内容定位，而并不那么关注重要性和准确度。


Moreover, information that is filtered through networks of friends can result in an echo chamber of news that reinforces one’s own biases (though there is considerable uncertainty about how serious a problem this represents).	不仅如此，通过朋友圈过滤的信息可能导致强化个人偏见的信息回声效应（尽管人们根本不确定这个问题究竟有多严重）。


It also means that people who otherwise might consume news in moderation are being inundated with political polemic and debate, including extreme positions and falsehoods, which heighten the risk of misinforming or polarizing wider swaths of the public.	它还意味着本来可能接受温和消息的人现在却被政治争议和辩论所包围，包括极端立场和虚假言论，从而导致传播虚假消息和公众大面积极端化的风险显著增加。


The third element of today’s information landscape is atomization – the divorce of individual news stories from brand or source.	当今信息状况的第三个要素是信息雾化——也就是个人新闻报道与品牌或报道来源脱钩。


Previously, readers could easily distinguish between non-credible sources, like the colorful and sensational tabloids in the checkout line at the supermarket, and credible ones, such as longstanding local or national newspapers.	此前，读者可以非常轻松地区分不可靠的信息来源，如超市排队交费期间购买的五颜六色和耸人听闻的小报，读者也可以轻易分辨出可靠来源，比如历史悠久的地方或全国性新闻报道。


Now, by contrast, an article shared by a friend or family member from The New York Times may not look all that different than one from a conspiracy theorist’s blog. And, as a recent study from the American Press Institute found, the original source of an article matters less to readers than who in their network shares the link.	现在的情况则恰恰相反，由某位朋友或家庭成员分享的纽约时报某篇文章可能看上去与阴谋论者的博文区别不大，而且，就像美国新闻研究所最近一则研究所发现的那样，朋友圈中分享信息的个人比一篇文章最初的来源更能引起读者们的关注。


The fourth element that must inform the fight against disinformation is anonymity in information creation and distribution.	反虚假信息斗争必须具备的第四个要素是信息创建和传播过程中的匿名性。


Online news often lacks not only a brand, but also a byline.	在线新闻往往不仅缺乏品牌，而且往往连署名都没有。


This obscures potential conflicts of interest, creates plausible deniability for state actors intervening in foreign information environments, and creates fertile ground for bots to thrive.	这掩盖了潜在的利益冲突，为国家行为主体在外国信息环境中进行干预创造了可信的否定理由，同时也为机器人的大面积使用创造了沃土。


One 2015 study found that bots generate around 50% of all web traffic, with as many as 50 million Twitter users and 137 million Facebook users exhibiting non-human behaviors.	2015年一次研究表明机器人产生约50%的网络流量，高达5，000万推特用户和1. 37亿Facebook用户曾经表现出非人类特征。


Of course there are “good” bots, say, providing customer service or real-time weather updates.	当然，机器人也可以起到“正面效果”，比如提供客户服务或实时天气更新。


But there are also plenty of bad actors “gaming” online information systems to promote extreme views and inaccurate information, lending them the appearance of mainstream popularity and acceptance.	但同时存在大量的不良机器人“欺骗”在线信息系统宣传极端观点和不准确信息，并将其装扮成主流民意借以欺骗用户。


Fifth, today’s information environment is characterized by personalization.	第五，今天的信息环境以个性化为特点。


Unlike their print, radio, or even television counterparts, Internet content creators can A/B test and adapt micro-targeted messages in real-time.	有别于印刷、广播甚或电视媒体的同行，网络内容创造者可以实时进行A/B测试并调整信息所针对的微目标。


“By leveraging automated emotional manipulation alongside swarms of bots, Facebook dark posts, A/B testing, and fake news networks,” according to a recent exposé, groups like Cambridge Analytica can create personalized, adaptive, and ultimately addictive propaganda.	“通过与大量机器人、Facebook暗帖、A/B测试和虚假消息网络配合利用自动情感操纵，”据最近一份爆料显示，像剑桥分析这样的团队可以创造个性化、灵活多样并最终能吸引外界关注的宣传攻势。


Donald Trump’s campaign was measuring responses to 40-50,000 variants of ads every day, then tailoring and targeting their messaging accordingly.	唐纳德·特朗普的竞选团队每天要对 40-50,000个广告选项进行评估，而后再根据评估状况定制、并针对性地发布相关的消息。


The final element separating today’s information ecosystem from that of the past, as Stanford law professor Nate Persily has observed, is sovereignty.	正如斯坦福大学法学教授纳特·佩尔西利所观察到的那样，将今天的信息生态系统与过去区别开来的最终还是主权因素。


Unlike television, print, and radio, social-media platforms like Facebook or Twitter are self-regulating – and are not very good at it.	与电视、报纸和广播不同，像Facebook或Twitter这样的社交媒体平台实行自我管制——而且管治水平并不是很高。


Despite the US campaign-ad controversies of the last few weeks, neither platform has yet consulted leading experts, instead seeking to solve problems in-house.	虽然过去几周爆发了美国竞选广告争议，但这两家平台都还没有咨询过首席专家，反而试图将问题解决在企业内部。


It was not until mid-September that Facebook even agreed to disclose information about political campaign ads; it still refuses to offer data on other forms of disinformation.	直到9月中旬Facebook才同意披露有关政治竞选广告的信息，但仍然拒绝提供与其他形式虚假信息有关的资料。


It is this lack of data that is undermining responses to the proliferation of disinformation and propaganda, not to mention the political polarization and tribalism that they fuel.	正是这种信息的缺乏导致人们无法对虚假信息和宣传泛滥作出回应，更不要说由此所造成的政治极化和部族主义倾向。


Facebook is the chief culprit: with an average of 1.32 billion daily active users, its impact is massive, yet the company refuses to give outside researchers access to the information needed to understand the most fundamental questions at the intersection of the Internet and politics.	Facebook是主要的罪魁祸首：平均每天拥有13. 2亿活跃用户的Facebook拥有巨大的影响力，但这家企业却拒绝为外部研究者提供理解在互联网和政治交叉领域最根本问题所需的信息。


(Twitter does share data with researchers, but it remains an exception.)	（Twitter确实与研究人员分享数据，但迄今为止，这样做的仍只有Twitter一家）。


We are living in a brave new world of disinformation.	我们正生活在勇敢的虚假信息新世界当中。


As long as only its purveyors have the data we need to understand it, the responses we craft will remain inadequate.	只要我们理解这个世界所需的数据仍然由服务提供商所掌握，我们就很难采取准确的对策。


And, to the extent that they are poorly targeted, they may even end up doing more harm than good.	而且，因为这些措施的针对性较差，它们所带来的坏处可能比好处更多。


The Protocols of Donald J. Trump	唐纳德·特朗普规则


LONDON – It is an odd quirk in the history of logic that the blameless Cretans should have given their name to the famous “liar paradox.”	伦敦——无可指责的克里特人应当将名声归功于著名的“说谎者悖论”无疑是逻辑史上一个古怪的巧合。


The Cretan Epimenides is supposed to have said: “All Cretans are liars.”	克里特的艾庇米尼得斯曾说：“所有克里特人都是骗子。


If Epimenides was lying, he was telling the truth – and thus was lying.	”如果艾庇米尼得斯是在说谎，他说的这句话是实话——那他所说的“所有克里特人都是骗子”这句话就是骗人的。


Something similar can be said of US President Donald Trump: Even when he’s telling the truth, many assume he is lying – and thus being true to himself.	美国总统唐纳德·特朗普也存在类似情况：即使他说的是实话，许多人也认为他在说谎——因此符合他自己的形象。


His trolling is notorious.	他的高谈阔论臭名昭著。


For years, he claimed, with no evidence other than unnamed sources that he called “extremely credible,” that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent.	几年来，他在除所谓“非常可信”的来源外没有其他任何证据的情况下，声称巴拉克·奥巴马伪造出生证。


During the Republican primary, he linked his opponent Senator Ted Cruz’s father to John F. Kennedy’s assassination.	在共和党初选期间，他指责竞选对手克鲁斯参议员的父亲参与对约翰·肯尼迪总统的暗杀。


He has promoted the quack idea that vaccines cause autism, and has masterfully deployed the suggestio falsi – for example, his insinuation that climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to cripple the American economy.	他到处撒谎说疫苗导致自闭症，并且完美地制造假理论——比如，他暗示气候变化是一场由中国制造的骗局，目的是削弱美国的经济力量。


There has always been a thriving market for fake information, forgeries, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.	假消息、伪结论、骗局和阴谋一直拥有蓬勃发展的市场。


“History is a distillation of rumor,” wrote Thomas Carlyle in the nineteenth century.	托马斯·卡莱尔曾在十九世纪写道：“历史是对谣言进行蒸馏的结果”。


Sellers of fakery manufacture information for money or for political profit; there are always eager buyers among the credulous, prurient, or vindictive.	假消息的贩卖者为了钱或政治利润制造假消息； 这些消息在轻信谎言、低级趣味或怀恨在心者中间从来不缺少买家。


And gossip is always entertaining.	八卦总是非常有趣的。


Modern history provides us with some famous examples.	我们可以从现代史上找到一些著名的例子。


The Zinoviev letter, a forgery implicating Britain’s Labour Party in Kremlin-led Communist sedition, was published by the Daily Mail four days before the United Kingdom’s general election in 1924, dashing Labour’s chances.	1924年英国大选前四天《每日邮报》公布了指控英国工党参与克林姆林宫领导的共产党骚乱的季诺维也夫信件，粉碎了工党获胜的希望。


Perhaps the most famous such forgery was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.	或许最著名的造假案例是《犹太贤士议定书》。


Possibly manufactured for money, The Protocols purported to be evidence of a Jewish plan for world domination.	制造者可能为了赚钱，声称有证据表明犹太人制定了统治世界的计划。


Its key passage reads: “[…] we shall so wear down the Goyim that they will be compelled to offer us an international power that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government.”	该《议定书》关键段落如下：“[…]我们将打击异教徒，迫使他们赋予我们国际权力，这种权力可以使我们在不使用暴力的情况下逐渐吸收世界所有国家的力量，并成立一个超级政府。


Circulated by the Czarist secret police in the early 1900s to justify the regime’s anti-Jewish pogroms, it became the foundation of the anti-Semitic literature of the first half of the twentieth century, with horrendous consequences.	”最早传播该议定书的是20世纪早期的沙皇秘密警察，目的是为沙俄政权的反犹太大屠杀提供依据，该议定书后来成为20世纪上半叶反犹文学的基础，并由此酿成了可怕的后果。


So what is new?	那又有什么是以前没有过的？


The attention being paid to fake information today arises from the hugely expanded speed with which digitally manufactured information travels around the world.	人们正在关注数字化制造的假消息今天正以前所未有的速度向世界各地传播。


In the past, one had to be able to hoodwink more or less reputable news outlets to plant fake stories.	过去，造假者必须蒙蔽受人尊敬的新闻媒体才能植入假消息。


Now misinformation can go viral through social media, like a modern Black Death.	现在假消息可以通过社交媒体像现代黑死病般实现病毒式传播。


The important question is how this will affect democracy.	重要的问题在于这将如何影响民主。


Will the unprecedented ease of access to information liberate people from thought control, or will it strengthen it to such an extent that democracy simply drowns in a sea of manipulation?	前所未有的信息获取便利是会将民众从思想控制下解放出来，还是会强化思想控制，导致民主彻底淹没在信息控制之中？


Optimists and pessimists both have good arguments.	乐观者和悲观者都有好的理由。


“Knowledge is power,” say the optimists.	“知识就是力量”，乐观者说。


It seems to follow that the more information made available, the more knowledgeable voters will be, and therefore the more able to hold leaders to account.	他们似乎认为随着信息量的扩大，选民将会掌握更多知识，并因此更好地让领导者担责。


But information, the pessimists point out, is not knowledge.	但悲观者指出信息并非知识。


Information has to be structured to become knowledge.	信息成为知识的前提是必须对其进行“结构化”。


Institutions like schools, universities, newspapers, and political parties have been our traditional structuring devices.	学校、大学、新闻媒体和政党等机构曾经是传统的结构化工具。


But digital technology is institutionally naked.	但数字技术在结构上却完全赤裸。


It provides no structuring mechanism, and therefore no control on the spread of knowledge-free opinion.	它缺乏任何结构化机制，因此无法控制与知识无关的言论传播。


Social media have undoubtedly played a part in the rise of the populist politics that thrives in such an environment.	社交媒体显然在民粹政治崛起的过程中发挥了作用，民粹主义在这样的环境中是蓬勃发展的。


Left-wing populists, like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Bernie Sanders in the US, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, received a significant boost from social media’s ability to bypass traditional news outlets.	英国的杰里米·科尔宾、美国的伯尼·桑德斯和法国的梅朗雄等左翼民粹份子的宣传能力因为社交媒体能绕过传统媒体而得到了显著的提升。


Right-wing populists, like Trump, Marine Le Pen in France, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, benefited in exactly the same way.	特朗普、法国的马琳·勒庞和荷兰的威尔德斯等右翼民粹分子也以同样的方式得到了好处。


Both sides accuse long-established media outlets of “faking” news.	双方都指责长期存在的媒体渠道是“假”新闻制造者。


Perhaps the market for news will eventually find its own equilibrium between truth and falsehood.	也许新闻市场最终会在真与假之间找到其自身的平衡。


A fraction of the population will always be willing buyers of fake news; but the majority will learn to distinguish between trustworthy and unreliable sources.	一小撮人总是愿意相信假消息； 但绝大多数人将学会分辨哪些消息来源不可靠。


But if the spread of misinformation is thought of as a virus, there is no natural equilibrium to be had, short of catastrophe.	但如果假消息真像病毒一样，人们很难在不发生灾难的情况下达到自然平衡。


So it has to be checked by inoculation.	因此防范措施必须包括预防性疫苗接种。


Few trust politicians, who often have a vested interest in false information, to do the job.	很少有人相信政客能承担这样的任务，因为他们往往是假消息的既得利益者。


One answer is independent agencies along the lines of the consumer watchdog Which?	答案之一是类似《选择？ 》这样的消费者独立监督机构。


There are a number of websites now devoted to fact checking and debunking putative news stories.	现在已经出现了几家网站专门从事事实核查和揭露新闻内幕的工作。


One of the best known, Snopes.com, was launched in 1994 as a project to check the accuracy of urban legends.	其中最著名的是1994年成立的 Snopes. com，专门对都市传奇的准确性进行核查。


Facebook is now attempting to flag fake news stories by noting that they have been “disputed by third-party fact checkers.”	Facebook现在标记假新闻的方式是明确告知公众“第三方核查人员怀疑此消息的准确度。 ”


Worthy though these attempts are, they suffer from an inherent weakness: they still place responsibility on readers to check whether a news story is true.	虽然上述尝试很有价值，但我们无法忽视其固有弱点：那就是它们仍然要求读者负责核查新闻的准确度。


But we are all liable to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore information that challenges them.	但我们都愿意寻找证实我们想法的信息，而对挑战我们想法的信息选择性忽略。


Facts will not be checked by those whose beliefs depend on not checking them.	那些想法建立在不对信息进行核查基础之上的人是不会对事实进行核查的。


There are no easy answers.	没有简单的解决方法。


Obviously, education in critical thinking, and especially in social sciences such as economics, is necessary.	显然，批判性思维教育，尤其是在经济学等社会科学领域，是很有必要的。


But will that be sufficient to counter the massive increase in the ability to spread fake information?	但靠这种方式来对抗虚假消息传播能力的大幅提升究竟够不够？


Democracy depends both on the right to free speech and the right to know.	言论自由和知情权都是民主的基础。


We may have no alternative but to strike a new balance between the two.	除在两者间实现新的平衡外我们别无选择。


The False Narrative of Realpolitik	对现实政治的错误描述


GENEVA – In an era of divisive social media and partisan “fake news,” the notion that “actions speak louder than words” is no longer true.	发自日内瓦——在这个充斥着分裂性社交媒体和偏向性“假新闻”的年代，“行动胜于雄辩”的观念已经有点过时了。


As we are rediscovering, words are both powerful and problematic, particularly in the context of geopolitics.	正如我们重新意识到的那样，言论既强而有力又问题重重，尤其是在地缘政治的背景下。


The recent United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York offered the latest reminder that in diplomacy, words still matter.	而最近在纽约举行的联合国大会会议也再度提醒我们：在外交上，言论依然相当重要。


Much attention has been drawn to US President Donald Trump’s remark that the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” should the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) threaten it or its allies.	美国总统特朗普在会上声言，如果朝鲜威胁到这美国或其盟国，美国“别无选择，只能将之完全摧毁”，这一言论引起了各界极大重视。


In fact, most military experts agree that a kinetic war on the Korean Peninsula would annihilate the DPRK, and quite possibly South Korea along with it.	事实上大多数军事专家都认为，一旦在朝鲜半岛爆发热战，朝鲜必将泯灭，但很可能连带着韩国一起摧毁。


But other parts of Trump’s UN speech, especially its passages about national interests and sovereignty, require further reflection.	但特朗普联合国演讲的其他部分，特别是关于国家利益和主权的段落，则需要人们去进一步思考。


Trump makes no secret of his desire to “put America first,” and he reiterated that pledge at the UN dais.	特朗普“把美国放在第一位”的意愿路人皆知，他也在联合国的讲台上重申了这一承诺。


But he also urged other leaders to put their countries first, too.	但他也呼吁各国领导人也把自身的国家放在第一位。


“To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past,” he said.	“要想克服当代的恐惧，实现未来的愿景，我们首先必须师法过去的成功经验。


“Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.”	”他指出，“我们的成功取决于一个由热爱自身主权的强大和独立国家组成的联盟，来促进本国和世界的安全、繁荣与和平。


One could infer, and many have, that such statements signal a revival of US devotion to Realpolitik in world affairs.	人们可以推测（而许多人也已经这样推断）这样的声明表明美国在世界事务中重新回归现实政治理念。


As the historian John Bew observed in his 2016 history of the term, the pendulum swing was to be expected: “Our foreign policy debates follow cycles, in which policymakers declare themselves more idealistic, or more realistic.”	正如历史学家约翰·贝尔（William Bew）在他2016年出版的著作《现实政治的历史》中所观察到的那样，这一钟摆式的回归是不出所料的：“我们的外交政策辩论存在周期性，有时政策制定者们宣称自己更加理想主义，又是又更为现实。


But Bew’s survey also reminds us that the singular pursuit of national interests – the type of worldview championed by Trump – is not Realpolitik at all if it is uncoupled from a transformative idea or normative purpose.	但是，贝尔的调研还提醒我们，对于国家利益的单一追求——也就是特朗普所推崇的那种世界观——如果不与转型性的理念或者规范性的目的挂钩，那就根本算不上现实政治。


Severing moral concerns from global affairs would only weaken the US and all who emulate it.	将全球事务中的道德关注剥离出来只会削弱美国和所有效仿它的人。


The concept of Realpolitik emerged from the mixed outcomes of the European revolutions of 1848, when Germany’s future unification had many possible permutations, but the larger political goal – an international order comprising strong nation-states – was nonetheless clear.	现实政治的概念是1848年欧洲各国革命成果混合之下的产物，虽然德国未来的统一可以产生多种的政治目标排列组合，但更宏大的政治目标——由强大民族国家构筑的国际秩序——仍然是极为清晰的。


But in the wake of Trump’s “America First” doctrine, the challenge for the world today is to discern what the purpose of political realism has become.	但在特朗普的“美国优先”原则之下，当今世界面临的挑战就是要弄清政治现实主义的目的究竟是什么。


One answer was shared at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in Davos earlier this year.	今年早些时候在达沃斯举行的世界经济论坛年会上出现了一个答案。


There, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered a robust defense of globalization and emphasized his view that in pursuing national agendas, countries should place objectives “in the broader context” and “refrain from pursuing their own interests at the expense of others.”	在会上中国国家主席习近平强势捍卫了全球化，并强调在追求本国议程的过程中，各国应该把目标“放在更宏大的背景下”，并避免“牺牲别人来为本国利益服务”。


If leaders of the world’s two most powerful countries differ fundamentally in their approach to international relations, what are the prospects for strengthening cooperation globally?	如果世界上两个最强大国家的领导人在处理国际关系的手段方面存在根本差异，那么加强全球合作的前景又将如何？


History is replete with examples of conflicts stemming from a rising power challenging the influence and interests of an incumbent.	历史充满了一个新崛起势力挑战现有势力的影响力和利益进而爆发冲突的例子。


During the Peloponnesian War, according to the Greek historian Thucydides, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”	根据古希腊历史学家修昔底德（Thucydides）的说法，在伯罗奔尼撒战争期间“是雅典的崛起以及这一崛起令斯巴达产生的恐惧使得战争变得无法避免。


How China and the US avoid what Harvard’s Graham Allison has termed the “Thucydides Trap” is of great concern to the world, as is ensuring that geostrategic disputes elsewhere don’t lead to violence.	”中国和美国该如何避免哈佛大学教授格雷厄姆·艾里逊（Graham Allison）所说的“修昔底德陷阱”是全球非常关心的问题，同时有助于确保其他地方的地缘战略冲突不会升级为暴力斗争。


As Stanford biologist Robert Sapolsky has argued, behavioral dichotomies that might seem inevitable and crucial one minute can, under the right circumstances, “evaporate in an instant.”	正如斯坦福大学生物学家罗伯特·萨波洛斯基（Robert Sapolsky）所说，在正确的情况下，在某个时间似乎不可避免和危急的行为性对立可以“瞬间蒸发”。


For Sapolsky, “contact theory,” which was developed in the 1950s by psychologist Gordon Allport, can foster reconciliation among rivals, and help bridge the “us-them” divide.	萨波洛斯基指出由心理学家戈登·阿尔波特（Gordon Allport）发展出来的“接触理论”可以促进对手之间的和解，并帮助弥合“敌/我”之间的对立。


“Contact,” whether between kids at a summer camp or negotiators around a table, can lead to greater understanding if engagement is lengthy and on neutral territory, outcome-oriented, informal, personal, and avoids anxiety or competition.	无论是在夏令营的孩子们之间还是桌旁的谈判者身上，如果联系时间足够长且位于中立区域，注重结果，非正式，个人化并避免焦虑或竞争，都能够更好地增进互相之间的理解。


What is said during these engagements is crucial.	在这些联系过程中所表达的言论极为重要。


As the Nobel laureate economist Robert J. Shiller has noted, stories, whether true or not, are drivers of major decisions, especially economic choices.	正如诺贝尔奖获得者经济学家罗伯特·席勒（Robert J. Shiller）所指出的那样，故事（无论真实是否）都是重大决定的驱动因素，特别是经济决策中。


In his study of “narrative economics,” Shiller highlights the effects that “viral” stories can have on the global economy.	在“叙事经济学”研究中，席勒强调“病毒传播型”故事对全球经济的影响。


He points out that people’s choices and assessments of current events are partly based on the stories they have heard about past events.	他指出，人们对当前事件的抉择和评估有部分是基于他们曾经听过的关于过去事件的故事。


For example, the 2007-2009 global financial crisis is called the “Great Recession” because the traumatic tales of the Great Depression persist in our collective memory.	比如2007~09年全球金融危机之所以被称为“大衰退”，就是因为大萧条的创伤故事仍然存在于我们的集体记忆中。


Words and narratives affect international affairs in similar ways.	言语和叙事也在以类似的方式影响着国际事务。


Narratives that have emerged in response to – or as a result of – national, regional, and global divisions are often structured by an “us-them” dichotomy.	因应——或者作为其结果——国家，地区和全球性分裂而产生的叙述通常由“我们-他们”的二分法构成。


But these national narratives, as appealing as they may be to some, must not be confused with Realpolitik,as they remain bereft of the innovation, inspiration, and idealism needed for transformational change.	但这些国家性述事虽然很能吸引一些人，却不能与现实政治混淆，因为它们仍然缺乏变革所需的创新，灵感和理想主义。


Stories that seek to preserve the singular benefits of global integration, while limiting shared obligations, may in fact go “viral” domestically, because citizens yearn for responsive leadership that addresses local and national concerns.	那些试图保护全球一体化下的单一利益却同时逃避共同义务的故事可能会在国内变得“病毒化”，因为公民总是希望负责任的领导层能解决本地和本国问题。


But a shared identity and collective purpose remains elusive, despite the fact that we are living in an age of social networks.	但尽管事实上我们生活在一个社交网络发达的时代，却依然难以找到一个共同的身份和目标。


That fact alone cannot absolve governments of their regional and global responsibilities.	这个事实本身就表明各国政府无法免除自身的区域和全球责任。


The political, economic, and social fractures that have emerged must not foster intolerance, indecision, or inaction.	眼下的政治，经济和社会压力不应导致不宽容，犹豫不决或不作为。


That is why next year’s WEF annual meeting will seek to rededicate leaders to the development of a shared narrative, one that strengthens cooperation for this generation and every generation to come.	这也是为何明年的世界经济论坛年会将力求让各国领导人一起重新发展一个共同的叙事，以加强这一代人和往后每一代人的合作。


The Courage to Normalize Monetary Policy	实现货币政策正常化的勇气


NEW HAVEN – Three cheers for central banks!	发自纽黑文——让我们为中央银行欢呼致意！


That may sound strange coming from someone who has long been critical of the world’s monetary authorities.	这句话出自我这么一个常年批评世界货币当局的人之口可能有点奇怪。


But I applaud the US Federal Reserve’s long-overdue commitment to the normalization of its policy rate and balance sheet. I say the same for the Bank of England, and for the European Central Bank’s grudging nod in the same direction.	但我对美联储终于履行了其政策利率和资产负债表正常化的迟到承诺是表示赞赏的，对英国央行的类似行为以及欧洲央行朝着这个方向的不情愿转向也持同样态度。


The risk, however, is that these moves may be too little too late.	然而风险在于，这些举动可能太微小，也太迟了。


Central banks’ unconventional monetary policies – namely, zero interest rates and massive asset purchases – were put in place in the depths of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.	中央银行的非常规货币政策——具体来说就是零利率和大量资产购买——在2008~09年金融危机的谷底时出台实施。


It was an emergency operation, to say the least. With their traditional policy tools all but exhausted, the authorities had to be exceptionally creative in confronting the collapse in financial markets and a looming implosion of the real economy.	这本质上是个紧急行动，由于传统的政策工具已经全部耗尽，当局必须非常拿出极具创新的方案去应对金融市场的崩溃以及可能随之而来的实体经济垮塌。


Central banks, it seemed, had no choice but to opt for the massive liquidity injections known as “quantitative easing.”	当时中央银行似乎别无选择，只能选择被称之为“量化宽松”的大量流动性注入方案。


This strategy did arrest the free-fall in markets.	这个策略确实阻止了市场的自由下跌。


But it did little to spur meaningful economic recovery.	但它在促进实质性经济复苏方面作用不大。


The G7 economies (the United States, Japan, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy) have collectively grown at just a 1.8% average annual rate over the 2010-2017 post-crisis period.	七国集团经济体（美国，日本，加拿大，德国，英国，法国和意大利，合称G7）在2010~17年后危机时期的集体年均增长率仅为1.


That is far short of the 3.2% average rebound recorded over comparable eight-year intervals during the two recoveries of the 1980s and the 1990s.	8％，远低于1980年代和1990年代两次复苏期间可供对比的八年间隙期平均3. 2％的比率。


Unfortunately, central bankers misread the efficacy of their post-2008 policy actions.	不幸的是，那些中央银行家误判了2008年后政策行动的效力。


They acted as if the strategy that helped end the crisis could achieve the same traction in fostering a cyclical rebound in the real economy. In fact, they doubled down on the cocktail of zero policy rates and balance-sheet expansion.	他们的所作所为仿佛是认定那些有助于结束危机的战略也可以在促进实体经济周期性反弹方面达到同样的效果，因此他们将零政策利率和资产负债表扩张的鸡尾酒疗法用药量增大了一倍。


According to the Bank for International Settlements, central banks’ combined asset holdings in the major advanced economies (the US, the eurozone, and Japan) expanded by $8.3 trillion over the past nine years, from $4.6 trillion in 2008 to $12.9 trillion in early 2017.	这个赌注是如此之大，根据国际清算银行的统计，过去九年来中央银行在各主要发达经济体（美国，欧元区和日本）的合共持有的资产增加了8. 3万亿美元，从2008年的4.


Yet this massive balance-sheet expansion has had little to show for it.	但这一庞大的资产负债表扩张却没有体现出来。


Over the same nine-year period, nominal GDP in these economies increased by just $2.1 trillion.	在同样的九年间这些经济体的名义GDP增长了2. 1万亿美元。


That implies a $6.2 trillion injection of excess liquidity – the difference between the growth in central bank assets and nominal GDP – that was not absorbed by the real economy and has, instead been sloshing around in global financial markets, distorting asset prices across the risk spectrum.	这意味着6. 2万亿美元的过剩流动性注入——中央银行资产增长与名义GDP之间的差——并未被实体经济所吸收，而是在全球金融市场中徘徊，扭曲了整个风险波段的资产价格。


Normalization is all about a long-overdue unwinding of those distortions.	这类扭曲早该得到纠正，而正常化就是药方。


Fully ten years after the onset of the Great Financial Crisis, it seems more than appropriate to move the levers of monetary policy off their emergency settings.	在金融危机爆发十多年之后将货币政策杠杆从紧急状态下解除出来似乎再合适不过了。


A world in recovery – no matter how anemic that recovery may be – does not require a crisis-like approach to monetary policy.	无论复苏有多疲软，一个复苏中的世界都已经不需要那种危机式的货币政策操作手法了。


Monetary authorities have only grudgingly accepted this.	但众多货币当局只是勉强接受了这一点。


Today’s generation of central bankers is almost religious in its commitment to inflation targeting – even in today’s inflationless world.	当前这一代中央银行家对通货膨胀目标有着近乎宗教式的狂热——即便在今天这个缺乏通货膨胀的世界上。


While the pendulum has swung from squeezing out excess inflation to avoiding deflation, price stability remains the sine qua non in central banking circles.	虽然钟摆已经从摆脱过度通胀转向了避免通缩，但维持价格稳定性仍然是央行界的绝对必要条件。


Inflation fixations are not easy to break. I can personally attest to that.	这种通货膨胀思维定势可不容易打破，我可以以个人名义证实这一点。


As a staff economist at the Fed in the 1970s, I witnessed first-hand the birth of the Great Inflation – and the role played by inept central banking in creating it.	作为1970年代受雇于美联储的经济学家，我亲眼目睹了大通胀（the Great Inflation，几乎贯穿整个1970年代的美国经济危机）的诞生——以及笨拙无能的央行在这场危机的催生中所扮演的角色。


For years, if not decades, after that experience, I was convinced that renewed inflation was just around the corner.	在经历了那场事件的多年甚至几十年后，我总是会担心新一轮通胀随时会卷土重来。


Today’s generation of central bankers has dug in its heels at the opposite end of the inflation spectrum.	而当代的中央银行家却陷入了通胀光谱的另一端。


Wedded to a “Phillips curve” mentality conditioned by the presumed tradeoff between economic slack and inflation, central bankers remain steadfast in their view that an accommodative policy bias is appropriate as long as inflation falls short of their targets.	他们拘泥于一种受限于经济萧条和通胀之间假设性权衡的“菲利普斯曲线”心态，坚持认为只要通货膨胀低于目标值，宽松的政策偏向就可以适用。


This is today’s biggest risk.	这也是当前最大的风险。


Normalization should not be viewed as an inflation-dependent operation.	正常化不应被视为一个依附于通胀状况的行动。


Below-target inflation is not an excuse for a long and drawn-out normalization.	低于目标的通胀不是正常化策略一再延长的借口。


In order to rebuild the policy arsenal for the inevitable next crisis or recession, a prompt and methodical restoration of monetary policy to pre-crisis settings is far preferable.	为了应对必将到来的下一次危机或衰退，我们必须重建自己的政策武器库，而快速且有条理地回归到危机前的货币政策是极有必要的。


A failure to do this was, in fact, precisely the problem during the last pre-crisis period, in the early 2000s.	事实上，2000年代初的上一个危机前时期所遭遇的问题正是没有做到这一点。


The Fed committed the most egregious error of all.	美联储犯下了最为严重的错误。


In the aftermath of the bursting of the dotcom bubble in early 2000, and with fears of a Japan scenario weighing heavily on the policy debate, it opted for an incremental normalization strategy – raising its policy rate 17 times in small moves of 25 basis points over a 24-month period from mid-2004 to mid-2006.	在2000年初网络泡沫破裂之后，他们害怕重蹈日本的覆辙并因此选择了一种渐增式的正常化策略——从2004年年中至2006年年中的24个月间将其政策利率调高了17次，每次都小幅提升25个基点。


Yet it was precisely during that period when increasingly frothy financial markets were sowing the seeds of the disaster that was shortly to follow.	然而正是在这个时期，泡沫越吹越大的金融市场正在播下不久以后那场灾难的种子。


In the current period, the Fed has outlined a strategy that does not achieve balance-sheet normalization until 2022-2023 at the earliest – 2.5-3 times as long as the ill-designed campaign of the mid-2000s.	在此期间，美联储提出了一项到2022~2023年度前不去实现资产负债表正常化的策略，其运作时长比2000年代中期那个设计不佳的行动还要长2. 5~3倍。


In today’s frothy markets, that’s asking for trouble.	在今天这个光鲜脆弱的市场上这是在自找麻烦。


In the interest of financial stability, there is a compelling argument for much speedier normalization – completing the task in as little as half the time the Fed is currently suggesting.	为了实现金融稳定，有必要去实施更快的正常化——比美联储当前建议的时间还得短一半。


Independent central banks were not designed to win popularity contests.	独立的中央银行本来不是为了四处讨好而生的。


Paul Volcker knew that when he led the charge against raging inflation in the early 1980s.	保罗·沃尔克（Paul Volcker）在1980年代早期带领美联储应对猛烈通胀压力时就知道这一点。


But the approach taken by his successors, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, was very different – allowing financial markets and an increasingly asset-dependent economy to take charge of the Fed.	但他的继任者格林斯潘（Alan Greenspan）和本·伯南克（Ben Bernanke）所采取的方法却截然不同，他们允许金融市场和日渐转向资产依赖型的经济体去掌控美联储。


For Janet Yellen – or her successor – it will take courage to forge a different path.	对于珍妮特·耶伦（Janet Yellen）或其继任者来说创造不同的道路则需要勇气。


With more than $6 trillion of excess liquidity still sloshing around in global financial markets, that courage cannot be found soon enough.	眼看超过6万亿美元的过剩流动性仍然在全球金融市场徘徊，这股勇气还是早点生出来为好。


America’s Risky Recovery	美国的高风险复苏


CAMBRIDGE – The United States’ economy is approaching full employment and may already be there.	美国剑桥—美国经济正在走向充分就业，也许已经达到了这一水平。


But America’s favorable employment trend is accompanied by a substantial increase in financial-sector risks, owing to the excessively easy monetary policy that was used to achieve the current economic recovery.	但美国有利的就业趋势伴随着金融部门风险的大幅增加，这是因为为了实现目前的经济复苏而实施了过于宽松的货币政策。


The overall unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, and the unemployment rate among college graduates is just 2.5%.	总体失业率已降至5. 5%，大学毕业生失业率更是只有2.


The increase in inflation that usually occurs when the economy reaches such employment levels has been temporarily postponed by the decline in the price of oil and by the 20% rise in the value of the dollar.	5%。 经济达到如此就业水平时常常出现的通胀的增加因为石油价格下跌和美元升值20%而被暂时遏制。


The stronger dollar not only lowers the cost of imports, but also puts downward pressure on the prices of domestic products that compete with imports.	升值的美元不但降低了进口品的成本，也给予进口品竞争的国产商品造成了降价压力。


Inflation is likely to begin rising in the year ahead.	通胀可能在未来一年中开始上升。


The return to full employment reflects the Federal Reserve’s strategy of “unconventional monetary policy” – the combination of massive purchases of long-term assets known as quantitative easing and its promise to keep short-term interest rates close to zero.	回归充分就业反映了美联储的“非常规货币政策”——被称为量化宽松的大规模长期资产购买计划与承诺将短期利率维持在近零水平的组合。


The low level of all interest rates that resulted from this policy drove investors to buy equities and to increase the prices of owner-occupied homes.	这一政策让所有利率都呈现出低水平，促使投资者购买股票，并提高了自住住房的价格。


As a result, the net worth of American households rose by $10 trillion in 2013, leading to increases in consumer spending and business investment.	结果，2013年美国家庭净财富增加了10万亿美元，促使消费支出和商业投资增加。


After a very slow initial recovery, real GDP began growing at annual rates of more than 4% in the second half of 2013.	在非常缓慢的初始复苏后，2013年下半年，实际GDP开始以超过4%的年率增长。


Consumer spending and business investment continued at that rate in 2014 (except for the first quarter, owing to the weather-related effects of an exceptionally harsh winter).	2014年，消费支出和商业投资继续保持这一增幅（第一季度除外，原因是极寒冬季所造成的天气影响）。


That strong growth raised employment and brought the economy to full employment.	这一强劲增长提高了就业，让经济回归充分就业。


But the Fed’s unconventional monetary policies have also created dangerous risks to the financial sector and the economy as a whole.	但美联储的非常规政策也为金融部门和整个经济制造了高危风险。


The very low interest rates that now prevail have driven investors to take excessive risks in order to achieve a higher current yield on their portfolios, often to meet return obligations set by pension and insurance contracts.	目前的极低利率让投资者承担过多风险追求投资组合的高收益，而这往往是为了实现退休金和保险合同所规定的回报责任。


This reaching for yield has driven up the prices of all long-term bonds to unsustainable levels, narrowed credit spreads on corporate bonds and emerging-market debt, raised the relative prices of commercial real estate, and pushed up the stock market’s price-earnings ratio to more than 25% higher than its historic average.	这一追求收益率的行为将长期债券价格推高至不可持续的水平，缩小了公司债券和新兴市场债务的信用利差，提升了商业地产的相对价格，也让股市市盈率增加到历史平均水平以上25%的程度。


The low-interest-rate environment has also caused lenders to take extra risks in order to sustain profits.	低利率环境还让贷款人为了保持利润而承担过多风险。


Banks and other lenders are extending credit to lower-quality borrowers, to borrowers with large quantities of existing debt, and as loans with fewer conditions on borrowers (so-called “covenant-lite loans”).	银行和其他贷款人授信给低质量借款人、存在大量未偿还债务的借款人，或者降低价款人贷款条件（所谓的“低门槛贷款”）。


Moreover, low interest rates have created a new problem: liquidity mismatch.	此外，低利率还制造了新问题：流动性错配。


Favorable borrowing costs have fueled an enormous increase in the issuance of corporate bonds, many of which are held in bond mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs).	有利的借贷成本促使公司债券发行量猛增，其中有许多持有于债券共同基金和交易所交易基金（ETF）。


These funds’ investors believe – correctly – that they have complete liquidity.	这些基金的投资者——正确地——认为它们具有完美流动性。


They can demand cash on a day’s notice.	他们只需要提前一天通知就可以套现。


But, in that case, the mutual funds and ETFs have to sell those corporate bonds.	但是，接到套现通知后，共同基金和ETF必须出售这些公司债券。


It is not clear who the buyers will be, especially since the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation restricted what banks can do and increased their capital requirements, which has raised the cost of holding bonds.	谁来当买家无法清楚地知道，特别是自2010年多德-弗兰克（Dodd- Frank）金融改革立法限制银行行为、增加资本要求从而提高了持有债券的成本之后。


Although there is talk about offsetting these risks with macroprudential policies, no such policies exist in the US, except for the increased capital requirements that have been imposed on commercial banks.	尽管有人建议用宏观审慎政策抵消这些风险，但美国不存在宏观审慎政策——除了已经实施的增加商业银行资本要求之外。


There are no policies to reduce risks in shadow banks, insurance companies, or mutual funds.	没有政策降低影子银行、保险公司或共同基金的风险。


So that is the situation that the Fed now faces as it considers “normalizing” monetary policy.	这就是现在美联储在考虑货币政策“正常化”时所面临的局面。


Some members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC, the Fed’s policymaking body) therefore fear that raising the short-term federal funds rate will trigger a substantial rise in longer-term rates, creating losses for investors and lenders, with adverse effects on the economy.	联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC，美联储决策机构）的一些委员因此担心，提高短期联邦基金利率会导致长期利率大幅上升，造成投资者和贷款人损失，经济也受到拖累。


Others fear that, even without such financial shocks, the economy’s current strong performance will not continue when interest rates are raised.	也有委员担心，即使没有这些金融冲击，美国经济目前的强劲表现也会因为利率提高而终止。


And still other FOMC members want to hold down interest rates in order to drive the unemployment rate even lower, despite the prospects of accelerating inflation and further financial-sector risks.	其他一些委员希望维持低利率以使失业率进一步下降，尽管这有可能加速通胀、继续增加金融部门风险。


But, in the end, the FOMC members must recognize that they cannot postpone the increase in interest rates indefinitely, and that once they begin to raise the rates, they must get the real (inflation-adjusted) federal funds rate to 2% relatively quickly.	但是，最终，FOMC委员们必须认识到，他们无法永远阻止利率升高，而一旦他们开始提高利率，就必须让实际（经通胀调整的）联邦基金利率相对迅速地提高到2%。


My own best guess is that they will start to raise rates in September, and that the federal funds rate will reach 3% by some point in 2017.	我自己的猜测是他们会在9月开始提高利率，联邦基金利率将在2017年的某个时候达到3%的水平。


The FIFA Syndrome	FIFA综合征


LONDON – The arrest of FIFA executives on a raft of fraud and corruption charges has been front-page news in recent days.	伦敦—以多起欺诈和腐败指控拘捕FIFA（国际足联）高官成为近几天来媒体关注的焦点。


But the charges brought by the Swiss and American authorities focus on bribery and embezzlement, and do not address another egregious injustice: the treatment of the migrant workers in Qatar who are building the stadiums for the 2022 FIFA Football World Cup.	但瑞士和美国当局提起的指控集中在贿赂和侵吞公款上，并没有解决另一种臭名昭著的不公：在卡塔尔为2022年FIFA世界杯建设足球场的移民工人的待遇。


Amnesty International recently released a report on the abysmal conditions in Qatar.	大赦国际（Amnesty International）最近公布了一份关于卡塔尔糟糕情况的报告。


The workers are subject to unsafe construction sites, exploitative recruitment agencies, and little recourse to formal justice.	工人在不安全的工地工作，遭受招工头盘剥，无从寻求形式正义。


Recently, Nepal’s labor minister publicly spoke out about the government of Qatar not allowing his country’s migrant workers to return home to mourn relatives who died in the April 2015 earthquake.	最近，尼泊尔劳工部长公开批评卡塔尔不许尼泊尔民工回国为2015年4月地震死难亲属奔丧。


As Amnesty International notes, the responsibility lies primarily with the Qatari authorities.	大赦国际指出，责任主要在卡塔尔当局。


But FIFA had – and still has – a responsibility to act.	但FIFA也有行动责任——过去有，现在也有。


There have also been calls for sponsors, including McDonalds, Visa, Coca-Cola, Adidas, Budweiser, Gazprom, KIA, and Hyundai, to place pressure on FIFA and Qatar to improve working conditions.	已经有人要求赞助商，包括麦当劳、维萨、可口可乐、阿迪达斯、百威、俄天然气、起亚和现代，向FIFA和卡塔尔施压，要求它们改善工作条件。


Such issues have arisen in recent years in other sectors as well.	这些问题近几年来也出现在其他部门。


In April, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the treatment of garment workers in Bangladesh.	4月，人权观察组织（Human Rights Watch）发布了一份关于孟加拉国纺织工人待遇的报告。


The report, prompted by the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, in which more than 1,100 people died and over 2,000 were injured, highlighted poor working conditions, inadequate building inspections, weak labor laws, and the need for fairer wage practices and legal benefits.	该报告因2013年拉纳广场（Rana Plaza）倒塌事件而启动。 倒塌事件造成1,100多人死亡，2,000多人受伤，凸显出孟加拉国工作条件恶劣、建筑检查工作不严、缺乏劳动法、需要更公平的工资和法律福利等问题。


Beyond these examples, there have been many others.	还有其他许多例子。


In technology, Apple and Foxconn have faced criticism for working conditions at their Chinese production sites.	在科技行业，苹果和富士康面临关于中国工厂工作环境的批评。


Even educational institutions, such as New York University’s new campus in Abu Dhabi, have been tainted by episodes of workplace exploitation and abuse.	甚至教育机构，如纽约大学阿布扎比新校区，也爆出了在工作场所压迫和虐待的丑闻。


These are not isolated cases.	这些都不是孤例。


For every disaster and high-profile case that hits the headlines, there are many more that we never hear about.	每一起媒体所关注的灾难和大案的背后都有许多我们不曾听说的案例。


Nonetheless, one hopes that the treatment of those who make the goods, produce the services, and build the things that make us happy and productive – from clothing and technology to sports stadiums and college campuses – continues to come under scrutiny.	尽管如此，我们希望生产商品、提供服务、建造让我们幸福和富于生产力的东西的人——不管他们生产的是服装、技术还是体育场和大学校园——都能继续受到关注。


Globalization should force managers – and all of us – to do some serious thinking about labor practices around the world.	全球化应该迫使管理者——以及我们所有人——认真反思全世界的劳动行为。


Here is where it gets complicated.	症结就在这里。


What counts as a company’s workforce?	什么构成了公司的劳动力（workforce）？


Are “its” workers only those people on its own payroll?	“它的”工人只是那些在公司花名册上注册的人吗？


Are companies responsible for their products’ entire supply chains?	公司是否需要为其产品的整个供应链负责？


To what extent can – and should – a company be held to account for the choices of those who may be several links removed?	在何种程度上可以——也应该——要求公司为好几环之外的公司的选择负责？


When a serious issue has been brought to a company’s attention, are its managers obliged to address it, even if it involves the subcontractor of a subcontractor?	当一个严重的问题引起了某公司的关注，其管理人是否有责任解决它，哪怕其中包含着层层转包的关系？


The larger and more complex the company, the harder it is to track all of the firms with which it does business, the firms that they then subcontract to, and so on.	公司规模越大越复杂，跟踪所有与它有直接和间接业务往来的企业的难度也越大。


Companies, not surprisingly, say that their responsibility extends only so far.	毫不奇怪，公司声称它们的责任到此为止。


But that is not an answer; it is a choice.	但这并不是答案； 这是一个选择。


Organizations can decide to extend their reach.	组织可以决定它的触及面范围。


They can even decide that they want to know the full provenance of all materials and components in their products, and that they will hold their extended suppliers to account.	它们甚至可以决定要了解产品的所有材料和部件的全部来源，决定要问责扩大的一整条供应链。


In this sense, the larger the company, the greater its responsibility.	从这个角度，公司规模越大，责任也越大。


But larger companies also have a larger ability to become a force for good, both locally and globally.	但越大的公司，成为正义力量（不管是在本地还是在全球）的能力也越强。


If a company the size of US retailer Walmart decides that it will not allow wasteful packaging, its purchasing power will lead to changes in packaging for the entire retail sector.	大如美国零售商沃尔玛，如果它决定拒绝浪费性包装（wasteful packaging），其购买力足以导致整个零售业的包装变革。


The same is true of wages and labor practices.	工资和劳动行为也是如此。


When the world’s biggest companies and most well recognized brands take seriously their responsibility as buyers, sellers, and manufacturers and make a firm commitment to act on core values, others tend to follow – or risk being left behind.	当全世界最大的公司和最驰名的商标认真对待它们作为买家、卖家和制造商的责任，坚定致力于维护核心价值，那么其他公司也会跟进——否则就会被淘汰。


Those that operate in an ethical manner and seek to improve the lives of all who are associated with the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of their products will benefit from kudos, more business, or simply not being singled out as a bad actor.	那些以高道德标准精英、寻求改善所有与产品制造、营销和分销相关的人的生活的公司将会赢得信誉和更多的生意，而就算只是不再名列坏公司名单，也会让它们受益良多。


By contrast, companies whose managers believe that a competitive marketplace is no place for ethical behavior will suffer if and when consumers take their business elsewhere; government regulation and fines force them to act; or they become unable to attract an educated and ever-more discerning workforce.	相反，如果公司管理者认为竞争性市场不是一个讲道德的场所，那么消费者可以和其他公司打交道； 政府监管和罚款会强迫它们采取行动；


All of it – the constant scrutiny, the bad press, the tarnished reputation – will hit their long-term stock prices.	它们也将无法吸引受过教育、辨别力日益增强的劳动力，因此而蒙受损失。 所有这些——不断的监督、负面报道、名誉扫地——将影响它们的长期股价。


Much the same is true for organizations like FIFA.	FIFA等组织也是如此。


When sponsors like Coca-Cola or Adidas believe that their reputations will be tarnished by association with an organization engaged in corrupt practices, they will take their brand-management dollars elsewhere.	当可口可乐和阿迪达斯等赞助商认为它们的名誉因为与从事腐败的组织有染而受到影响，它们将把品牌管理预算投向别处。


Companies are made up of people.	公司是为人民而成立的。


Paying fair wages, adopting ethical sourcing practices, and upholding the dignity of workers should be a part of the way they calculate their success.	支付公平的工资、采取合乎道德的采购、捍卫工人尊严应该成为公司衡量成功的一部分。


Those who disconnect themselves from the fate of others, who act without conscience or a sense of right and wrong, and who spurn ordinary human decency have no place running organizations or sitting on company boards.	漠不关心他人的命运、毫无道德观或是非观、践踏普通人体面尊严的组织将无立足之地，这样的公司将无从建设品牌。


The things that make us happy must not come at an unforgivably high price.	让我们幸福的东西决不能只有付出难以负担的高价才能获得。


Finishing the Post-Crisis Job	完成后危机时代的工作


LONDON – August 9, 2017, is the tenth anniversary of the decision by the French bank BNP Paribas to freeze some $2.2 billion worth of money-market funds.	伦敦——2017年8月9日是法国巴黎银行决定冻结22亿美元货币市场基金决策十周年纪念日。


Those of us who were active in financial markets at the time remember that event as the beginning of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.	我们这些当时活跃在金融市场上的人还清楚地记得那次事件标志着大萧条后最严重的全球金融危机启动。


Many economists and financial observers argue that we are still living with the consequences of that crisis, and with the forces that incited it.	许多经济学家和金融观察家认为我们仍未能从那次危机及其背后势力所造成的后果中摆脱。


This is partly true.	这在一定程度上的确是真的。


Many developed economies still have in place unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing, and both productivity and real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth appear to be mostly stagnant.	许多发达经济体仍在实行量化宽松等非常规货币政策，并且生产率和（经过通胀调整后的）实际工资增长似乎大都陷入停滞当中。


But it is important to put these developments in perspective.	但正确看待上述进展的确非常重要。


Many people, including the Queen of England in November 2008, still ask: “Why did no one see it coming?”	许多人，包括2008年11月的英国女王，仍在不断询问：“为什么没有人能预见这次危机？


In fact, many financial observers did warn that housing prices in the United States were rising untenably, especially given the lack of domestic personal savings among US consumers.	”事实上，许多金融观察家确曾警告美国的房屋价格上涨不可持续，尤其因为美国消费者国内个人储蓄的匮乏。


As Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs at the time, I had written three different papers over a number of years showing that the US current-account deficit was unsustainable.	作为高盛时任首席经济学家，我曾在几年时间里撰写了三份不同的报告，表明美国经常账户赤字是不可持续的。


Unfortunately, these findings largely fell on deaf ears, and the firm’s foreign-exchange salespeople probably got bored passing on yet more of the same pieces to their clients.	不幸的是，绝大多数人对这些研究成果视而不见，而且公司外汇销售人员可能厌烦了向客户提交大致相同的报告。


At one point in 2007, the US current-account deficit was reported to be 6-7% of GDP (it has since been revised down to around 5% for the full year).	2007年的某个时点，美国经常账户赤字据报占到国内生产总值的6-7%（之后的全年数据下修到5%左右）。


This high figure reflected the fact that the US trade balance had been steadily deteriorating since the 1990s.	上述数字高企反映了自20世纪90年代以来美国的贸易平衡稳步恶化。


In the absence of any obvious negative consequences, however, complacency had set in, and the US continued to spend more than it saved.	但由于没有显而易见的负面后果，自满情绪占据了主导地位，而美国继续花的比存的多。


Meanwhile, China had spent the 1990s exporting low-value-added products to the rest of the world, not least to US consumers.	此外，整个20世纪90年代中国忙于向世界其他国家出口低附加值产品，而不仅限于美国消费者。


In 2007, its current-account surplus was around 10% of GDP – the mirror image of the US.	2007年，中国的经常账户盈余约为国内生产总值的10%——恰恰是与美国相反的镜像。


Whereas the latter was saving too little, China was saving too much.	美国存款过低，而中国却存款过高。


For some observers, this huge international imbalance was the source of the crisis.	在某些观察家看来，这一巨大的国际收支失衡是危机爆发的源头。


In the years leading up to the crash, they argued that the global financial system was simply doing its job, by finding increasingly clever ways to recycle the surpluses.	在崩溃之前的几年里，他们提出全球金融系统仅仅是在通过越来越聪明的方式回收盈余来完成自己的任务。


Of course, we now know that it performed that job rather poorly.	当然，我们现在知道这项任务完成的相当糟糕。


Much has changed in the intervening decade.	这十年间发生了很大变化。


In 2017, China will run a current-account surplus of 1.5-2% of GDP, and the US will most likely run a deficit of around 2% – but possibly as high as 3% – of GDP.	2017年，中国的经常账户盈余占国内生产总值的1. 5~2%，而美国赤字则最有可能占国内生产总值的2%——或者可能高达3%左右。


This is a vast improvement for the world’s two largest economies.	这是世界两大经济体最明显的进步。


Still, other countries have built up ever-larger current-account imbalances over the past decade.	但过去十年来其他国家的经常账户失衡仍然日渐加剧。


Chief among them is Germany, whose external surplus now exceeds 8% of GDP.	其中最主要的是德国，其外部盈余现在已经超过国内生产总值的8%。


Germany’s current account suggests that there are deep imbalances that could lead to a new crisis if policymaking is not well coordinated.	德国的经常账户状况表明存在严重的收支失衡，如果决策不善有可能导致新一次危机爆发。


The last thing that Europe needs is another sudden reversal, as we saw at the height of the Greek debt crisis.	欧洲最不需要又一次突然间的逆转，就像我们在希腊债务危机高潮期间所看到的那样。


The United Kingdom, for its part, will have a current-account deficit above 3% of GDP this year, which is nearly three times what it was ten years ago.	就英国而言，今年经常账户赤字将超过国内生产总值的3%，接近十年前的三倍左右。


But that is not to say that the UK’s trade balance has significantly deteriorated.	但这并不是说英国的贸易平衡严重恶化。


Rather, it reflects the fact that the UK is a major financial center, and that investment returns have shifted more in the UK than elsewhere.	相反，它反映出英国是一个重要金融中心，并且英国的投资回报比其他国家变化更多。


All told, the global economy today is much healthier than it was ten years ago.	总而言之，今天的全球经济比十年前健康得多。


Many are disappointed that real global GDP growth since the crisis has undershot performance in the previous decade.	许多人对危机以来实际全球GDP增长与过去十年相比表现不佳颇感失望。


But since 2009 – the worst year of the recession – the global economy has grown at an average rate of 3.3%, just as it did in the 1980s and 1990s.	但2009年来——那也是经济衰退最糟糕的年份——全球经济平均增长率为3. 3%，与20世纪80年代和90年代大致相同。


Of course, this is largely owing to China, the only BRIC country (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) that has met my growth expectations for the decade (although India is not too far behind).	当然，这在很大程度上归功于中国，中国是十年来满足我增长预期的唯一一个金砖国家（巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国）（尽管印度相差也不是太多）。


The size of China’s economy has more than trebled in nominal terms since 2007, with GDP rising from $3.5 trillion to around $12 trillion.	2007年来，中国经济体量增长超过三倍，其国内生产总值从3. 5万亿美元增长到约12万亿美元左右。


As a result, the aggregate size of the BRIC economies is now around $18 trillion, which is larger than the European Union and almost as big as the US.	结果是金砖经济体的经济总量现在约为18万亿美元，这一数字超过了欧盟，几乎和美国一样大。


There will inevitably be another financial bubble, so it is worth asking where it might occur.	再一次出现金融泡沫不可避免，因此，我们应当思考下一次泡沫可能在哪里发生。


In my view, it is unlikely to emerge directly from the banking sector, which is now heavily regulated.	我认为不太可能直接从银行业出现，因为银行业现在的管制非常严格。


The bigger concern is that many leading companies across different industries have continued to focus excessively on quarterly profits, because that determines how executives are remunerated.	最大的问题是不同行业的许多领先企业继续过度关注季报利润，因为这直接决定了管理人员的薪酬。


Policymakers should take a hard look at the role of share buybacks in this process.	决策者应当认真审视这一过程中股票回购的作用。


To her credit, in the Conservative Party’s 2017 election manifesto, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that her government would do this.	据信，在保守党2017年选举宣言中，英国首相特雷莎·梅公开宣布她的政府将会这样做。


One hopes that May’s government follows through.	我们希望梅政府能够兑现承诺。


Doing so could strike a symbolic blow against the underlying malaise of post-crisis economic life.	这样做会象征性地打击后危机经济生活当中的潜在隐患。


The West needs real investments and higher productivity and wage growth – not more economically unjustifiable profits.	西方不需要更多经济上不合理的利润，而需要真正的投资和更高的生产率及工资增长。


Banking on the Unbanked	寄希望于无银行户头者


TORONTO – In a sea of gloomy news, one bright headline appears on the horizon.	多伦多——在一片悲观消息的海洋里，出现了一抹亮眼的颜色。


The World Bank’s latest figures on individuals’ bank accounts, to be released next spring, are expected to show that the number of people holding accounts at banks or other formal financial institutions has grown.	世界银行计划于明年春天发布的个人银行账户最新统计数据预计将会表明越来越多的人开始持有银行或其他正式金融机构的账户。


The last time the World Bank published its Global Findex report, in April 2015, an estimated 700 million adults, mainly in developing countries, had obtained access to financial services during the previous three years.	2015年4月，世界银行最近一次发表全球金融发展水平指数报告时，估计有7亿成年人（主要来自发展中国家）已经在过去三年中获得了金融服务。


That amounted to an increase of more than 21% in the global number of “banked” individuals.	这相当于全球“拥有银行账户”的个人增长超过21%。


Because broader access to financial services helps to create a path out of poverty, any increase in this metric is a positive sign for human development.	因为扩大金融服务范围有助于实现脱贫，因此，上述指标的提升可以被视为人类发展领域的积极信号。


But my organization won’t be declaring victory when the new report comes out.	但我所在机构不会在新报告发表时庆祝胜利。


No matter what the World Bank data show, universal financial inclusion for the world’s poorest remains a distant goal.	无论世行数据如何，为世界最贫困人口提供普遍金融服务仍然是一个遥远的目标。


At the moment, some two billion adults remain excluded from formal financial services.	目前，仍有约20亿成年人无法享受到正式的金融服务。


Excessive documentation requirements, high account fees, limited access to bank branches, and the perception that financial institutions are “only for the rich” are among the most persistent obstacles to overcome.	文件要求繁琐、账户费用过高、银行分支机构有限以及金融机构“只为富人服务”的理念共同构成的障碍往往最难以克服。


At the Mastercard Foundation, we are committed to helping to remove these barriers for the world’s poorest.	在万事达基金会，我们正在为协助世界最贫困人口克服这些障碍而努力工作。


This month in Accra, Ghana, we convened the fifth annual Symposium on Financial Inclusion, bringing together hundreds of financial services providers, policymakers, academics, and development experts to examine how to broaden and deepen financial inclusion.	本月在加纳的阿克拉，我们召开了第五届金融包容性年度研讨会，汇集了数百位金融服务提供商、决策者、学者和发展专家共同研究如何扩大和深化贯彻金融包容。


We have been hosting this global conference since 2013, and each year, a familiar concern emerges: financial institutions could do more to focus on the needs of their poorest clients.	我们举办上述全球会议始于2013年，而每年都会出现一个熟悉的问题：那就是金融机构可以将更多精力投入到关注最贫困客户的需求当中。


Because banks often do not consider the behaviors and aspirations of poor customers, they do not always offer the products and services the poor need.	因为银行往往不考虑贫困客户的行为和希望，因此他们并不总能提供穷人所需的产品和服务。


If the industry’s priorities changed, barriers to inclusion would fall.	如果行业优先目标发生变化，那么实现包容性的障碍自然而然就会有所下降。


Reversing this trend should be easier than it is.	扭转这一趋势本来应当相对容易。


After all, when people prosper, so do banks.	归根结底，如果民众兴旺发达，银行也会受益。


Poor people tend to save more money when they can access bank accounts or make mobile payments.	穷人在开立银行账户后往往会存更多的钱或者进行手机支付。


With savings comes increased overall prosperity.	储蓄增加将会带来整体繁荣。


Children do better in school when parents can easily pay fees.	父母能轻易支付费用时孩子在学校的表现也会更好。


Women become more empowered to start businesses.	女性也会拥有更强的创业能力。


Poor households can better cope with adverse shocks like crop failure, illness, or natural disaster.	贫困家庭能够更好地面对农作物歉收、疾病或自然灾害等不利影响。


The positive economic knock-on effects are obvious.	拥有银行账户对经济产生的正面连锁反应显而易见。


With bank accounts, budding entrepreneurs can establish their creditworthiness and tap responsible, formal lenders.	有了银行账户，处在创业阶段的企业家可以建立自己的信用，并享受负责任的正规贷款商所提供的服务。


And with capital, small enterprises can grow into larger businesses, employing others, especially young people.	而小企业有了资金就可以成长为大企业，雇用包括年轻人在内的更多民众。


Technology has helped close the gap in recent years.	近年来在技术协助下已经缩小了目前存在的差距。


The success of digital payment platforms, such as the M-Pesa mobile app in Kenya, demonstrates how quickly vulnerable clients will take up and use inexpensive products and services if they are designed with users’ needs in mind.	肯尼亚M-Pesa移动应用程序等数字支付平台的成功表明如果根据弱势客户的需求来设计产品，他们会以何等的速度对这些廉价产品和服务加以利用。


Moreover, financial technology firms in Africa and Asia are finding innovative ways to analyze data generated by poor people’s activities, and using that data to design and deliver better banking services.	此外，非洲和亚洲的金融技术公司正在寻找创新方式来分析贫困人口活动所产生的数据，并利用相关数据来设计和提供更高质量的银行服务。


Non-traditional approaches are also emerging, such as reaching the unbanked poor via small, independent businesses that they already use and trust.	超越传统的方法也正在不断涌现，比如通过他们已经在使用并且信任的小型独立企业来联系那些尚未开立银行账户的贫困人口。


But much of the onus for inclusion will remain on financial institutions.	但金融机构仍将承担扩大金融服务的大部分职责。


One argument I often hear is that the financial services sector is risk-averse.	我经常听到的一个说法是金融服务业的本质是风险厌恶。