團結與繁榮

Word count: 20.6k   |   Reading time≈ 90 min

Reimagining-Our-Economy

【關於這篇文章】
本篇為團結經濟學一書之第二章摘錄及討論。文章試圖挑戰經濟理論中最基本的假設：人們的行為是單獨的且主要出於自利。文章指出，此類理論與實際經濟情況相差甚大。文章還舉出大量過去三十年來的實證證據，證明公平而社交網絡較為完善的地區（不論國家或地區）經濟表現更佳。本章可獨立閱讀，亦可先讀完團結經濟學簡介，了解全書的架構，再進行研讀，或是與不同章節進行比對。

書本資料

目錄

前言

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. “
Origins unknown, though often identified as a West African proverb

上面是開頭的諺語,在中文我們也常常會看到 “想要走得快，自己走；想要走得遠，大家一起走。” 等寓意很接近的詞語。

就如同我們的心跳是種種細胞之間的相互作用的結果, 比如右心房的電脈衝所帶來的規律心跳, 比如竇房結發出的電流信號讓我們的心肌可以運動. 在這個複雜的系統內的細胞需要有合作無間的協調運作, 才有辦法讓我們的肺部吸收氧氣, 讓我們的血液可以流向身體各處.

作者認為社會的運作是基於一樣得原理來達成共同的目標. 我們種種的社會組織系統跟相互關係就有如我們經濟的血脈; 而這些相互作用的結果部分是受到一個影響: 我們是被良心所驅動, 或是被無情的利益所驅動.

經濟就是一個Collective Intelligence的系統：若只專注於錢財物資的話，那就是偏向「收集情資」的詮釋，亦即GDP、國民所得等總經數據的分析研判；如果能將重心移向人心智能的look through（觀照覺察），即關切全球社會各類客戶群，在產品、服務上能否獲得實質助益、並提供贊助（收入）的行動上，在現況及未來趨勢上的共同感受體驗。

或許受到”新自由主義”的影響, 很多人相信驅動經濟的就是自私的人的個體所集結的影響力. 但是有研究卻表明, 人不是天生就是自私的, 同時也有研究的結論顯示一個互助互惠的環境可以讓整體社會更好. 不幸的是, 我們現在製造出來的系統跟環境卻往往助長了我們最不好的一群, 跟我們最不好的一面. 當現代經濟學家都假設人是自私自利的, 他們所推行的政策也往往只會培養各種自利的行為.

第二章我們會先探討為何互助互惠的天性對我們重新打造跟理解經濟是重要的. 再來我們會通過一些研究成果的分享來帶到為何缺少團結一致跟互助互惠會破壞我們的繁榮, 導致許多的不平等現象. 接著我們則需要探討如何去量化評估繁榮. 如果經濟良好不是簡單的產出的增加, 而是人類整體生命品質的提升, 我們則會需要比經濟產出更好的衡量指標. 因此我們會討論如何更好地衡量經濟, 找出可以啟發我們更多連結的指標, 讓我們可以求同存異, 變得更好.

  • 很顯然的，目前我們用以衡量經濟繁榮的指標顯然是失敗的，除了經濟指標外，並未包含其他因素，例如環境生態永續、財富的平均，或者是人類是否更為健康與快樂，如果一味的追求經濟富裕，而其他面向付之闕如，那又有何益?
  • 大部分的”問題”都是過與不及. 如何取得平衡可能比我們想像的重要

經濟人與現實世界

Homo Economicus versus the Real World

經濟學家 Ofer H. Azar 問了一個只有經濟學家才會問的問題: 人為何給小費? 對大部分人來說, 給小費幾乎是一個下意識或根深蒂固的習慣. 可是就如同Azar指出的:” 從完全自利的角度很難解釋給小費的這個行為.” 畢竟人們如果只在意自己, 給小費不外乎就只是希望得到更好的服務. 可是一個更高的消費不能直接帶來更好的服務, 畢竟小費是在服務結束後所產生的. 進一步的研究也顯示, 小費的多寡跟服務品質或下一次的光顧的期待沒有太多正相關性.

討論到這裡, 在以此為藉口不付小費之前, 嘗試把我們經濟模型中理論上的自利人群換做是一個真實的人: 給小費只因為那是應該做的事. 從這個角度我們可以找到一些答案: 大部分給小費的人只是在遵循基本的社會規範 (比如表示感謝; 理解服務人員很大的收入來自消費; 避免罪惡感等等). 我們付小費因為這樣才是公平的; 我們願意為了成為一個品行端正的公民來承擔一些成本, 即使這件事只有我們自己知道.

作者是以小費、此一被美國人視為日常瑣事為例，來說明傳統經濟學的自利假設，無法解釋「人性」：因為人願意拿小費出來，只是覺得這是對的事情。而Azar教授的研究結果也顯示：大多數人給小費的理由，就只是在遵循社會的規範；其次則是基於感恩，或意識到服務人員原本收入就不高，故不想有歉疚感。我們會想給小費，是因為覺得這樣做，比較能讓社會公平一點，雖然只有自己心知肚明。

  • 這一段內容的標題為「Homo Economicus versus the Real World」，也就是「經濟人 vs. 現實世界」，我們可能要先了解一下什麼是「經濟人」
    https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/经济人
  • 「經濟人」假設人是以物質經濟最大化思考。

裡面提到「我們每天所需要的食物和飲料，不是出自屠戶、釀酒家和麵包師的恩惠，而是出於他們自利的打算。我們不說喚起他們利他心的話，而說喚起他們利己心的話，我們不說我們自己需要，而說對他們有好處。」這想到人心智能從人才團隊，到客戶群的演變。其實便是團結經濟裡說的，不是「他們客戶群」而是「我們客戶群」，生產者和客戶群都是「我們」。

從個人角度來看待小費這件事可能會讓我們偏離事情的本質; 另一方面如果只是從互助互惠的角度來觀察, 同樣無法看透事情的本質. 研究人員也發現一個不令人意外的現象: 白人司機拿到的消費通常比黑人司機還要多. 給小費這個行為也很容易參雜性騷擾的風險: 因為服務人員有時候會因為後續重要的收入來源而忍受不合常理的言語或行為. 除了互助互惠, 權力與種族也是很重要的因素. 由此可見, 傳統經濟理念對於這樣簡單, 日常的事情都有可能會給我們帶來誤解, 或許我們需要一個新的角度來看待事物.

  • 經濟學也好, 民主主義也好, 資本主義也好, 新自由主義也好, 幾乎都是人們為了解釋種種社會現象, 為了規範未來的社會行為所”研發”出來的”虛構”的故事. 這裡的”虛構”只是說物理性無法證明 (比如台灣這塊土地無法證明叫台灣, 這塊土地上的泥土或到分子結構上沒有天然證據顯示是台灣), 不是說真的假的.因此, 我個人的最近期的心得 (因為心得也會常常改變所以需要整理分享和實際執行) 可以用以下幾句話來詮釋.從知道到做到需要的不是規範而是典範, 讓我們一起把”團結經濟”做出來,共勉之。
  • 這樣看起來，小費這件事，如果以自私的角度來看，或是站在對方角度也以自私的方式看待，則反而形成限制。像這裡講的，變成另一種權力結構。

我們看不到的那面

What We Don’t See

新自由主義主要是建立於一個假設: 人都是理性, 自利, 並且追逐個人主觀訂下的夢想目標. 有些理論家會做一些延伸來說明利他跟合作的行為. 但很多時候這些分析都是像是戴著有色眼鏡來看待: 如果你幫助我我也會回報; 透露出人還是以自我為中心去實現目標, 只是認同妥協跟合作是這個過程重要的一環. 這些自利行為的延伸探討確實比自私自利的中心思想的討論讓人感到欣慰, 但終究還是侷限在人個人主義跟自利行為的框架之中.

依照單一假設 (ex.人是自私自利的) 去探討與解釋經濟常常會遇到與現實不符的情況，原因在於人性並非只有單一面向，而是會依照不同行為選擇展現不同樣貌，人與人間的互動是選擇的結果 – 當選擇讓自私主導，呈現出來就是自利；若選擇讓關懷主導，呈現出來的就是互助。所以團結經濟學中探討設計制度的走向，會是盡量去啟發互助，而不是鼓勵自私。

Neoliberalism is rooted in the assumption of people as individual agents who are rational, are self-interested, and pursue their own subjectively defined and predetermined goals. Some theorists stretch this to take account of altruism and cooperation, but they often see this through an instrumental lens – I will scratch your back if you scratch mine – suggesting that people stick with their self-defined goals but recognize the value of compromise and collaboration in achieving those goals. For other theorists, being kind and generous toward others is seen as motivated by a desire for kudos and recognition – a self-seeking instinct – rather than because it is simply the right and moral thing to do. Such a view of enlightened or expanded self-interest is a welcome relief from pure selfishness, but it is still rooted in a frame of individual motivations and actions.

Here we see an example for the need of “zoom out” from the traditional view of economics!

Yet the example of tipping shows us that people are not so completely atomized. Our social roles and connections are a key part of how we navigate through the world. Common norms of society – what is seen as acceptable and unacceptable, worthy and shameful – shape our values, actions, and relationships. We seek a sense of belonging and connection with others, for our psychological and material well-being. We are quietly motivated by love, caring, and social solidarity – and this is as real as any of our desires for self-fulfillment.

This part beautifully illustrates the essence of the social aspect of one’s everyday life. We should not simply take theories and numbers as the most important way to look at ourselves or our society. We have many other elements that are as important if not more in life, and these elements are undermined under present day models/theories. Love, caring, social solidarity or gratitude can also be the hidden or blinded motivations that we should express and make more use of.

This sense of mutuality has been clearly visible during the global COVID-19 pandemic. It is notable that societies with relatively high levels of social solidarity – such as Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan – took widespread actions aimed at protecting the health and safety of those most vulnerable to the disease. Countries wracked by income inequality and social fragmentation – such as the United States, Brazil, and South Africa – fared poorly. But even in countries like the US, social distancing, mask-wearing, and improved sanitation became norms deeply motivated by desires to protect loved ones, acquaintances, and even strangers.

What a great example, we see Taiwan in this paragraph! Yes we do see in Taiwan there are people who do not stay home when required in the news; but ultimately the majority of the public still wear face musks, keep social distancing and collaborate in many other measures to ensure a high level of “ pandemic management “ All these will not be possible if not for the combined effort of 22 million people here in Taiwan, and thus we have had more than two years of relatively peaceful life, least affected by the pandemic in the world!

Economists do care about the broader well-being of society. But they believe this is best achieved through accepting the primacy of self-interest and allowing markets to efficiently steer goods to consumers, labor to firms, and capital to enterprises. The underlying assumption is that the central purpose of an economy is to maximize efficiency and output. In that world, no one can be made better off without someone being worse off – and proposing a distributional change in the name of “justice” is just playing zero-sum politics. Indeed, redistributing from one group to another would be a morally indefensible “taking” and actually diminish our total productivity.

Perhaps I am not understanding it correctly, but I do see that modern economics in “maximizing efficiency and output” does make everyone better off across the board, in theory. Yes in actual practice this often ends up in zero- sum games but economists often argue that it is because we could not put theory into full practice. This being said, after so many years of trying, we should indeed “zoom out” and study ourselves, our society and our world from new perspectives. (as so much has changed since the development of modern economics)

But that failure to consider who gets what leads to a definition of efficiency and prosperity that is misleading. How can it be considered “optimal” to have a market economy that wastes resources producing fancier iPhones rather than solving pneumonia and diarrheal disease (the leading causes of death among young children worldwide); that generates corrupted financial instruments rather than an educated populace; and that crunches consumer data for profit rather than coming up with creative solutions to ending homelessness?8 And what if creating mechanisms for sharing prosperity actually contributed to, rather than diminished, our collective productivity?

This is a really extraordinary piece of sharing of the present day world “strange phenomenons”. It has stretched our discussion from mainly economics to over politics and humanity as a whole. Yes, we do see the world in more or less minimal inequality across the board 500 years ago and before. Inequality has widened greatly over the last 500 years and that ample resources are not put into meaningful use for many people. We may have no clear solutions just yet, but yes, we do see people (like ourselves) working to hope to improve the world.

In that sense, celebrating individuals and markets is not just an economic model; it is also an effective ideology. One of its many evolutions, so-called “public choice” economics, portrays political leaders, government bureaucrats, and public employees as yet another set of self-seeking groups rather than stewards of the public interest; lucky for us (according to the theory) that business can meet our needs as privatized consumers versus social creatures. In short, the neoliberal narrative presents a picture in which individuals are heroes, markets are liberatory, and collective will, especially when enacted by the state, is suffocating.9 As we will see, not only is this wrong but it leads us to measure well-being inaccurately, stressing the dollars exchanged in markets rather than the care offered in communities.

我們的共同點

What We Have in Commom

To be fair, sometimes even traditional western economists agree that self-interest can lead to suboptimal outcomes. In one of the more famous examples, nearly two centuries ago, English economist William Forster Lloyd argued that, left to their own devices, herders would make individualistic decisions to breed as many cattle as possible. But while that would maximize their own gains, it would also overgraze common property and, eventually, deplete and destroy a key asset. This so-called “tragedy of the commons” would seem to call out for, well, common action and coordination.

公平起見, 我們也得提一下傳統西方經濟學家也同意自利行為可以導致次等的結果. 近200年前, 有英國學者指出牧牛人如果不受限制, 會想養越多牛越好. 雖然這樣可以最大化他的個人利益, 但是過度放牧之下會快速耗盡和摧毀一個重要的資產: 草地.這個所謂的”公地悲劇”自然而然地會號召合作跟協調.

  • 上面好像是副標題：「What We Have in Common」下的內容？因為在前一個副標題：「What We Don’t See」下的內容，就是昨天用原文說明的，主要是強調傳統經濟學的「經濟人」假設，與歐美社會中，人們給小費的規範一樣，在解釋現實狀況上，是有所抵觸的。
  • 像主席昨天在說明時也提到的”zoom out”，在研讀學習時，也需要不時跳脫出來、擴增放大視野，避免所謂的「見樹不見林」問題。
  • 這一章後面就會談到「合作組織（co-op）」，就是由客戶群以互助方式來滿足需求，而不必依賴營利的生產者來「提供服務」。不過台灣的「全聯」，原來是軍公教的合作社，後來也在本書前面提到的Neoliberalism風潮下，被尋租的財團加以「私有化」。另外還有「合作金庫」，顧名思義是原本是所有合作事業的金庫，但後來也「轉型」成營利性的金融機構，也就是變成「他們」利己的工具。
  • 有外部人員分享心得和我們交流互動自然是好的，但是我讚同B說的，避免騎驢父子和只見樹木，不見森林的狀況。更有洞察力的結論是建立在數據整合後系統性分析結果之上的，而且團隊中也有很多很厲害的專業人士，學長所說的團隊中的大家未必不了解，只是大家解決問題和執行步驟有先後順序。隨著大家共識的建立和整合，相信我們很快就會有更好更堅定的信念一致對外溝通，也會伴隨市場行銷和研究工作的進展，大家會推進項目的過程中去解決很多問題，當然也會不斷製造和遇見新的問題，以一個動態的角度來看，可能有些人會關注框架思路，有些人關注細節執行，大家集合在一起，也會更接近真實世界的原貌。

But even here, the usual economist solution to a shared problem relies on better defining individual property rights and business control. For example, if the field in question is owned by a private entity (whether they themselves are cattle herders or not), the owner will be motivated to manage each herder’s use of the field so as to limit exorbitant grazing. The other option is for the state to manage the resource with the same longer-term goal in mind. The common thread in both remedies is that single monopolistic ownership by an external agent is the only solution – people cannot be counted on to organize themselves around caring for each other and preserving a collective resource.

即使在這裡, 一般經濟學家會嘗試定義個人物權和商業管理來解決問題. 比如這個這塊地是私有的, 地主就會管制每一個放牧人使用, 讓草地不會發生過度放牧. 或者是讓國家來進行管理, 以達到長期的共同利益. 這兩個解答都有一個共同點: 人們無法被期待可以管理好自己的行為, 讓共有資產不會被破壞.

Yes, the author here pointed out a short-sightedness of present day economic models: everyone is self-centered. ShiMen- hill, a 500m high mountain by my house, always has a full box of mineral water near the top, put up by volunteers for thirsty trekkers. The empty bottles after drinking are also carried down by trekkers to avoid pollution to the environment. These acts of caring for each other and the environment are hard to explain and often neglected.

We are not denying the reality of self-interest and the desire for individual autonomy – and progressives ignore these impulses at our peril (consider the subtle and not-so-subtle resistance within certain state socialist systems). But people are also not hard-wired to always defect and withdraw with their spoils, either. Social emotions that emphasize care, connection, and mutual responsibility are also important drivers of human action. Social norms and collective governance – not just the invisible hand of the market or the heavy hand of private or public monopoly – can help promote a more cooperative outcome. Indeed, there are many real world examples where cooperation, caring, and social connection are fundamental to successful economic enterprises.

Talking about our very own team, we are a real world example where cooperation, caring and social connection will be fundamental to be successful/ influential!

One obvious area where mutuality drives economic activity is in economic cooperatives. The US Federation of Worker Cooperatives estimates there are perhaps 500 democratic workplaces in the US, with 8,000 worker-owners and managers generating over $400 million in annual revenues.12 The Cheese Board Collective in Berkeley13 and Red Sun Press in Boston14 are two prominent examples that have thrived since their founding in the early 1970s, when such alternative economic forms took off in the US. According to one Cheese Board member quoted on their website, “I love saying to people that this seems like an impossible business model, but it works, and it works very well.”

  • Here we see some successful examples of economic cooperatives. We also do see some of these examples in Taiwan; and some of them went sour per our discussions.
  • 建議用協作（collaborate）來取代合作（cooperate），如『「合作」英文怎麼說？Cooperate, Collaborate 等的用法！』 一文的說明：簡單來說，collaborate 會比較偏向集體、共同，彼此在這個合作中會有共享的身份，團體會大於個人。cooperate 則是重視各自的利益所以連結在一起合作，為了達成雙方的目標，交換彼此的資源和資訊，個人的利益會大於團體。

當合作可以有用

When Cooperation Works

因此, 面對公地悲劇我們或許還有一個選擇: 不是土地的私有化制度管理; 也不是土地公有的規障制度化; 而是合作. 有學者”Elinor Ostrom”自1960年代起研究共有產權, 她和她的研究團隊最終集結了5000多個樣本的數據庫, 其中不乏活躍了數百年的共有資產管理的例子.

在她1990年出版的”Governing the Commons”一書中, Ostrom詳細的說明了共有資產管理系統是如何的形成, 治理和系統管理員們是維持的. 這些例子包含了瑞士的”Törbel”, 日本的Hirano, Nagaike, Yamanoka三個村莊, 菲律賓的灌溉系統社群. 這些都是有數百年的歷史的成功案例.

  • 因為住過日本6年, 我花了15分鐘尋找平野(Hirano) 長池(Nagaike) 山中(Yamanaka) 的資料, 我用了日文找還真的找不到任何相關資訊. 只有這個比較像是市政計畫。但是用英文就找到了這個1982年發表的論文, 作者引用的應該就是這篇論文, 裡面(免費閱讀但須註冊) 說的就是這三個村, 期間包含木炭, 草原等種種資源的共有管理, 村民合作之下起到了一個生態/資源獲取平衡的結果.

例如在菲律賓有農民協作群體, 他們一起規劃了農業特區, 其中一個目的便是為了建造維持水壩, 好用來耕作耕地. 因為當地天氣有極端到破壞水壩更改水路的情況, 農業特區的運作可以使農民們更有彈性地面對自然災害對基礎設施的破壞.農業特區的運作也使一些沒有土地的農民可以系統性地獲得長期性土地使用權跟長期性所有權. 因為每一個家庭需要貢獻極其恐怖地勞動量才得以維持農業特區地水壩跟運作. 農業特區內地94%的參與度是極為特出的. 更值得讚賞的是, 這些農業特區的農民對於水資源的分配的公平性沒有任何異議或抱怨.

  • 這段也讓我聯想到福建圍樓等擁有長遠歷史的村莊文化和傳承. 但某個程度上來說, 菲律賓的農業特區也好, 福建圍樓也好, 都存在著倖存者偏差. 比如上面例子菲律賓的農民得有94%的人付出極為大量的人力物力才可以維持整個生態系的順利運轉 (相信福建圍樓也是有類似情況), 這意味著沒有如此協作能力的族群, 極有可能是遇到戰亂就會非常不穩定, 消失於漫長的歷史長河之中.
  • 之前我們有討論過的 “里山倡議—尋找人與自然的和諧共生”，雖然和上述所提的土地共有資產管理有些差異，里三倡議目標是維持生態系多樣系統共存共榮的實現。

Ostrom draws a few general lessons about managing the commons. She shows that appropriation (extraction of resources), provision (maintenance of the resource pool), and monitoring (observing the behavior of resource appropriators) exist with vigor and efficacy in the absence of the public or private ownership prescribed by market-based solutions. Like all cooperation strategies, these community-run systems also have in common that appropriators stand to reap more benefit from the common pool resource than they would by defecting – and they work to form a system that deprives them of immediate self-serving benefits, in exchange for long-term sustainability and widespread welfare.

In the cooperation examples above we can all see a huge trade off between immediate benefits and long term welfare. It seems to me that any sensible person will choose long term benefits over short term ones. Thus the ongoing episodes of people choosing short term over long term simply implies that many are not fully aware of the situations and that many are cornered in life so much that they believe they have no other choices.

The successful cases Ostrom examined make clear that the connections between people using these resources are far more than simple economic transactions. Commitment to rules and enforcement measures are, at least in part, due to the fact that the appropriators themselves are involved in every major decision about the use of the resource – that is, a form of economic democracy. Collective work days that contribute to the maintenance of the resource are often combined with festivities, a common practice that fortifies cohesion and emphasizes the importance of social emotions for cooperative strategies – just as markets help make us selfish, these traditions help make us mutual.

What a beautiful insight! Life is far more than many simple economic transactions put together. One of the key factors to a mutual society lies in the cohesion and connections between people.

None of this is without enforcement but it is done by the community and not by the state. Written codes created, upheld, and passed down through generations of households specify terms and types of penalties exercised upon parties who violate rules protecting the commons. Notably, the most serious penalty in many cases is complete ostracism and exclusion from the village and common pool resources. Participation in communal work and maintaining assets is high, complaints about abuse are low, and a sense of fairness in terms of burdens and benefits helps to reinforce the system.

Traditions passed down through generations often have lots of wisdom in many ways. However, if there is no measure to change/adapt facing the fast changing environment, old ways of doing can sometimes become obstacles to improvements. There is a strong need to strike a balance in between and to strike a balance itself requires wisdom.

Ostrom was ultimately recognized by the economics discipline for her path breaking work on economic governance. In 2009, she became the first woman (and until 2019, the only woman) to receive the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. But perhaps her ability to generate these profound insights on economic governance was due in part to the fact that her PhD was actually in political science, not economics, and thus she was not just sticking with the assumptions of self-interested behavior built into economic theory.

  • Perhaps this also explains why us MIC as a finance related team will want to include people from all walks of life and field. Multi-disciplinary will help greatly in our work to explore solidarity economics and mutuality.
  • 以財務為主，是在20多年前了，那時嘉鼎的英文名稱為MagniFinance LLC。後來經過不斷的soul searching之後，目前的Magnific Intelligence Collective (MIC) ，顧名思義就是以人心智能的擴增，為團隊間學習及協作的重點；甚至希望為經濟上的弱勢族群發聲，並且放大聲量。 我們目前與finance有關的，就是閱讀資料清單中的Confronting Financialisation.
  • 其實是「去金融（工具）化」，與大家在ACIS概念地圖的投票結果，大家正好可以反思看看。因為結果顯示，在介紹的優先順序上，大家仍舊無法免俗地認為，工具應該排在第一。但這與「新聞時事討論」對話區中提到的這篇，華爾街不斷推陳出新，以新的金融工具，來滿足投資人在利息、租金、股利上的需要，但對於社會經濟，卻毫無助益，還是製造貧窮的元凶上，我們似乎並沒有跳脫、甚至對抗（confronting）的意思。
  • 的確是有這個現象，原因或許是像是#教育訓練 群中 MIT關於產品的討論文章，大多人容易關注在功能，因為看起來比較簡單說明。115B原來想嘗試的做法，比較像是先不講工具，先講團結經濟、SDGs等概念，也是嘗試先忽略金融的過程。不過也的確碰到因為金融大量推動ESG，所以當受眾不容易了解時，又會跳到ESG這樣的工具思維。
  • 或許可以針對美股，作為團結經濟、擴增集智的工具，是一種廢物再利用的循環經濟，除了降低既有金融工具對社會環境的負擔，也避免再去開發新的金融工具，以杜絕人們對於利息、尋租、獲利的執迷不悟，終究讓自己陷於貧窮、而難以翻身的經濟弱勢族群。

Neoliberal theory obscures the extent and the promise of mutuality in our economy. Both the neoliberal approach (in which competition and incentives breed growth) and parts of the left (in which exchanges are win-lose) prevent us from seeing how mutuality and solidarity could be a core element for achieving prosperity and sustainability. And the separation of economics from other disciplines leads to the idea of our economy as simply a constellation of markets and not also a world of power – and that can prevent us from understanding political solidarity as key to economic transformation.

  • 過去有聽過一位國際志工分享，說她到了一些地區，一開始會想要以自己的價值觀幫助人，但發現對方的抗拒，或沒幫助到人。後來發現她該做的事，而需要做的是陪伴、參與，讓自己體會與對方屬於同一個群體開始。
    合作（cooperate），既使有嘗試為對方想，但還是把自己和對方站在分工、分開的角度。而協作（collaborate）則應該是參與，不分自己和對方，自己也是群體的一部分，共同協作。
  • 很棒的分享, 幫助人也是一個需要很多學習的過程. 往往說幫助人其實都還太驕傲了, 畢竟真的使得上力, 真的對人有幫助還真的非常有限.
    擺正自己的心態, 先從了解對方, 創造更多與他人連結的點, 從陪伴的過程當中, 我們互助互惠, 我常常在想, 可以做到這樣本身就已經非常了不起了.

If we take off the blinders of assuming that people primarily act out of self-interest in our economy, what would we see? We argue that we would better grasp how innovation takes place, how social support should be designed, and how we might protect our planet. We would also recognize a growing body of research showing that a system of economic domination that relies on communities being competitors for scarce resources will fare worse than a system that reinforces our instincts to be collaborators for economic prosperity.

  • 另一篇文章 中也提到前面在討論的contributing commons、即大家貢獻的共有資源，利息、尋租、及企業獲利這三大經濟的邪惡軸心，就是剝削性資本（家）所運用的武器，比較好聽一點的說法，就是「工具」。
    Interest, rent-seeking, and corporate profit are the weapons by which extractive capital wages war on the contributing commons.

一同成長

Growing Together

在90年代初期, 我們其中一人(Pastor)跟他人協作了一個關於拉丁美洲債務危機的論文. 在這篇論文中, 我們提出了經驗性證據來證明銀行通常傾向借錢給勞動階級收入占比比較低的國家: 一個新自由主義的指標來定義的話, 這樣的地方經濟通常要開始爆發成長, 而且如果發生借貸危機也比較容易可以實施貨幣緊縮.但這些相對勞工壓制較大的政權往往最後還不了貸款, 這部分原因是他們孤立勞工階級的做法往往加劇了社會衝突而降低生產力. 我們試圖提出銀行家往往被新自由主義過多的誤導, 而忽略了經濟系統會如何演化的冷靜分析. 這個結果導致銀行的借貸行為變得很不理性, 甚至會假設一個投資營利的目標.

很典型的金融事業的將本求利, 結果反而偷雞不著蝕把米, 賠了夫人又折兵.

談談金融系統導致了拉丁美洲債務危機 (80年代初期), 美國存款跟借款危機 (80年代後期), 本世紀初的科技泡沫危機和2008年的金融危機; 如果說金融系統會導致經濟危機的這個想法是不理性的, 這個說話相對上面的案例反而比較沒有那麼爭議性. 可是當我們把幾乎完稿的論文在美國經濟協會的會議發表後, 一個認為拉丁美洲應該遵循自由市場改革的資深經濟學家評論道:” 通常當我不喜歡一篇論文會是因為我覺得他使用的模型或計量經濟學有問題. 但這篇的數學論證很扎實, 統計報告也很完善. 但是我還是不喜歡這篇論文.”

就量化的標準來看, 連知名資深的自由市場派經濟學家也不得不承認, 拉丁美洲債務危機不是單單市場不自由的原因造成的.

It was a harsh awakening about the nature of a profession that was already struggling to understand why normal people tip. But we realized in retrospect that we were questioning too many prior beliefs at once: for example, by suggesting that bankers were class agents, not just financial actors, and that they might be so wed to their ideology that they would put aside the available evidence. Perhaps most threatening, by focusing on how labor repression was counter-productive, we were showing a major weakness in the basic neoliberal sacred cow that equity damages economic growth. So, we began a course of new research – after first making sure that that seemingly irritating paper did eventually get published – to see whether there might be a way to illustrate how class interest masked as self-interest could sour our economy for most of us.

To challenge current beliefs may be difficult, but if we tackle one at a time, we may get something out of it.

公平與繁榮

Equity and Prosperity

Fortunately, we were not the only ones questioning the supposed trade-off between equity and efficiency that is foundational to neoliberal economics. The mid-1990s saw a series of economists arguing that inequality in developing countries leads to social tension and political instability, higher uncertainty, more insecure property rights, lower investment, and so slower economic growth.28 Others suggested that income disparities can produce underinvestment in public education, thus limiting both the economic potential of lower-income people and the overall level of productivity.29 One of the more recent multi-country studies looking at this issue is by economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – not usually an equity-oriented bunch – who find that the single most important factor limiting sustained growth in developed and developing countries is the initial level of income inequality.

  • Here the discussion of income inequality took off. It is widely recognized as one of the most important factors affecting growth and prosperity, something quite rare as people from different perspectives often have different views but not in this case.
    We have contributed to the mix with a series of studies of the impact of inequality on economic output at the US metropolitan level. These have been part of a wave of other metro-level studies also questioning if fairness is really a drag on growth, as neoliberalism suggests. Our own most recent work on this topic mimicked the IMF study: we looked at how income inequality, along with other factors, impacted a metropolitan region’s ability to sustain steady employment gains over time. As with the research by the IMF, the single most important factor in derailing economic growth was the initial level of income inequality.
  • I am not quite sure here but there is this emphasis on the initial level of income equality. Initial as in the start of a period or the start of industrialization? Let’s read on.

But why? How does stressing the well-being of all people actually drive us toward economic strength? One clue came from our statistical tests, in which we found that not just income disparity, but also residential segregation by race, ethnicity, and income, as well as the political fragmentation of local government within metropolitan regions, were important in explaining poor economic outcomes.33 In places where those characteristics were more muted, periods of employment growth were longer and more robust – signaling that social connection matters.

Here the focus shifted to race, ethnicity and political fragmentation; how social connection interacts with economic factors.

Other research has added to this message that inequality hurts nearly all of us. For example, one study finds that high income inequality convinces low-income youth that investing time or money in education isn’t worth it, since the cards are already stacked against you. The result is a worrying diminution of performance on literacy, science, and math tests, with significant impacts for annual growth. Another study finds a huge gap in patents held in adulthood by children who grew up in wealth or poverty – with the disparity less related to aptitude than to socio-economic exposure. When these “Lost Einsteins” can’t be all they can be, we all lose out (more on this in chapter 3).

In her book Unbound: How Inequality Constricts Our Economy and What We Can Do about It, Heather Boushey stressed how equitable access to education and employment is crucial to progress and economic growth. She suggests that “Workers finding their right fit is the foundation for economic growth not only because it allows them to do what they like but also because it allows the economy to gain most from their efforts.”

The central message from all this research: just as we have been misled by neoliberal economics to think that people are just bundles of self-interest, so too have we been misled to think that actively promoting equity will be costly to our economic well-being, rather than generative of shared prosperity. Just as bad, we have been trained to think that there is a necessary political conflict between promoting a cooperative society and supporting individual initiative; in fact, the evidence suggests that individuals exist in communities, not on islands, and that they can better realize their potential in a society where cooperation and attention to equity are widely held norms.

這篇文章應該也與目前所討論章節內容有關。

We are not excessive redistributionists; some degree of inequality will result from people pursuing their passions with different levels of skill, dedication, and luck. But it is a myth – as well as a bad theory and narrative – that intervening in the market to promote equity will lead to worse economic performance. In our view, the political left sometimes implicitly buys into neoliberalism by also assuming that progressive demands for justice will come at the cost of aggregate income. The evidence points elsewhere – and political appeals to a resource-starved working class should be able to promise more, not less, in terms of the quality of their lives and the quality of the environments in which they live.

我們不是過多的再分配主義者;不同程度的不平等是由於人們在追求自己的熱忱時擁有不同水準的技能、專注度和運氣。但干預市場以促進平等將導致經濟表現惡化，這是一個神話——也是一個糟糕的理論和說法。在我們看來，政治左派有時會做出代表接受新自由主義的行為: 認為提升正義平等最終將減少所有人的收入。有證據指向其他方面——對資源匱乏的工人階級的政治訴求應該能夠在他們的生活品質和生活環境品質方面做出更多承諾，而不是更少。

相互關係的重要

Mutuality Matters

Building on and expanding mutuality in our economy will require more than just research; it will require creating institutions that recognize, reward, and reinforce our sense of social and economic connection across differences.

Scaling this will be challenging, and we discuss that later. But fortunately there are also lots of examples at smaller scales we can learn from and build on to help guide how to create those institutions, and not just in alternative economic enterprises like cooperatives or community land trusts. Indeed, new research, including some in the economics discipline, is helping us to better understand why even in business enterprises, recognizing mutuality can have better economic outcomes.

互助互惠很重要

建立和擴大我們經濟中的互補性需要的不僅僅是研究;這就需要建立機構來承認、獎勵和強化我們跨越種種差異的社會跟經濟的連結感。
將其擴展是一個挑戰，我們稍後會討論這個問題。但幸運的是，也有很多小規模的例子，我們可以學習和借鑒，以幫助我們如何創建這些機構; 而且不僅僅是局限於合作社或社區土地信託等性質的替代型企業方案。事實上，新的研究，包括一些經濟學領域的研究，正在幫助我們更好地理解為什麼即使在商業企業中，認識到互助互惠的關係能產生更好的經濟結果。

For example, in the workplace, people’s actions can be understood not simply out of pursuing self-interest but also out of constructing identity and adhering to norms consistent with those identities.

例如，在工作場所，人們的行為不僅可以被理解為追求自身利益，還可以被理解為構建自我認同並遵守與這些自我認同一致的規範。

George A. Akerlof and Rachel E. Kranton use this perspective to understand how firms with quite flat wage structures – where promotions come with only small income gains – can actually generate high performance: rather than using pay, they use pride and a sense of belonging.

喬治·阿克洛夫和瑞秋·克蘭頓用這種觀點來理解工資結構相對相差不大的公司—升職只伴隨著很小的收入增長—是如何實際產生高績效的:他們利用的不是工資，而是自豪感和歸屬感。

These researchers’ work also suggests that self-motivation and a sense of being part of a team may be a more important factor in stirring productivity than the threat of firing.

這些研究人員的工作還表明，與被解雇的威脅相比，自我激勵和團隊歸屬感可能是提高工作效率更重要的因素。

Indeed, external incentives can actually make a mess of things.

確實，外部激勵有時會把事情搞得更糟。

In his book The Moral Economy, Samuel Bowles discusses the case of a child-care center in Israel that imposed a fine on parents that were late in picking up their children.

塞繆爾鮑爾斯在《道德經濟》一書中討論了以色列托兒中心對遲到接孩子的父母處以罰款的事例。

Once parents could pay for lateness, they felt free of the social obligation to the teachers – and tardiness actually increased, the opposite of what was intended.

一旦家長可以選擇為遲到買單，他們就會覺得對老師的社會義務沒有了負擔—而事實上，遲到的人數反而增加了，這與本意相反。

Interestingly, the fine was rescinded in light of these results but the behavior and disregard of the effects on others persisted.

有趣的是，鑒於這些結果，罰款被取消了，但這種行為和對他人影響的忽視卻仍然存在。

And a recent paper by Bowles and Wendy Carlin suggests that paying attention to social norms, rather than narrow economic incentives is increasingly important given the growing significance of care work, services, and information sectors in our economy.

鮑爾斯和溫蒂·卡林最近的一篇論文表明，考慮到護理工作、服務和資訊部門在我們經濟中日益重要的重要性，關注社會規範，而不是狹隘的經濟激勵越來越重要。

These are sectors – which by the way now account for the majority of economic output – in which it is often difficult to directly link pay with the worker’s contribution to output, creating what the economics profession likes to call “incomplete contracts” because not every workplace action can be neatly pre-specified and carefully monitored.

在這些行業——順便說一下，這些行業目前占經濟產出的大部分—通常很難將薪酬與工人對產出的貢獻直接聯繫起來，從而產生了經濟學家喜歡稱之為“不完備契約”的現象，因為並非所有工作場所的行為都能得到合適的預先規定和仔細的監控。

Bowles and Carlin titled their paper “Shrinking Capitalism” in part to highlight how far this situation is from one of the defining features of capitalism – the labor–capitalist relationship, in which work is done using privately owned capital goods under the control of an owner or manager in return for wages.

鮑爾斯和卡林將他們的論文命名為“萎縮中的資本主義”，部分原因是為了強調這種情況與資本主義的一個特徵——勞動-資本關係——有多麼遙遠。在這種關係中，工作是使用私人擁有的資本財(在所有者或管理者的控制下) 來換取工資。

In this kind of employee–employer relationship, if each is acting according to their own self-interest, we expect the employee to be motivated to offer as little labor as possible for the level of wage benefits offered, and we expect the employer to be motivated to extract as much as possible in exchange for the lowest possible wage.

在這種雇員-雇主關係中，如果每個人都是根據自己的利益行事，我們希望雇員有動力為所提供的工資福利水準提供盡可能少的勞動力，我們希望雇主有動力以盡可能低的工資換取盡可能多的工作生產。

If there is a “complete contract” in which employers can fully account for and measure workers’ output and spell out every element of their contract with the worker (e.g. x wages for y amount of output), this might produce optimal economic outcomes, despite the antagonistic relationship.

如果有一個“完備的合同”，雇主可以完全解釋和衡量工人的產出，並詳細說明他們與工人的合同的每一個要素(例如，x工資為y的產量)，這可能會產生最優的經濟結果，儘管彼此是對立的關係。

But in an environment of incomplete contracts, the result will be a decidedly negative combination of labor shirking and labor exploitation.

但在不完全合同的環境下，其結果很有可能是勞動逃避和勞動剝削的消極結合。

In situations where individual output is hard to measure, social norms reinforced by our individual emotional responses – such as shame, pride, and honor – provide a substitute for excessive monitoring and abusive management.

在個人產出難以衡量的情況下，由我們個人情感反應強化的社會規範——如羞恥、驕傲和榮譽——提供了過度監控和虐待管理的替代品。

Companies that find ways to harness social emotions are able to motivate their workers toward productivity, rather than discipline them in the name of cost-cutting.

找到方法利用這種社會情緒的公司能夠激勵員工提高生產力，而不是以削減成本的名義約束他們。

Basically, if companies treat their employees well, it can provide a win-win for both firms and employees, and general benefits for our economy.

基本上，如果公司善待他們的員工，它可以提供一個雙贏的公司和員工，並為我們的經濟普遍受益。

Consider, for example, Hewlett Packard – which pioneered an egalitarian, decentralized management system based on the belief that people want to do a good job, and became a pioneer in a range of high-tech industries, including printing and computing, microwaves, calculators, communications technologies, and more.

以惠普為例，它開創了一種平等的、分散的管理體系，它相信人們希望把工作做好，並成為一系列高科技產業的先驅，包括印刷和計算、微波、計算器、通信技術等等產業。

Or Patagonia, whose corporate philosophy is rooted in employee engagement and ensuring work–life balance (their founder’s autobiographical memoir about the company is entitled Let My People Go Surfing!), and has become known for its elegant marketing campaigns and fashionable, top-of-the-line outdoor performance gear.

還有巴塔哥尼亞，它的企業哲學根植於員工敬業度和確保工作與生活的平衡(其創始人關於公司的自傳名為《讓我的人去衝浪!》)，並以優雅的行銷活動和時尚的、頂級的戶外性能設備而聞名。

Or Southwest Airlines, whose attempt to empower employees has been a key factor in their steady performance in an industry where cyclical bankruptcy has become standard.

再比如西南航空，在一個週期性破產已成為常態的行業，該公司賦予員工權力的嘗試一直是其穩定表現的關鍵因素。

以敘事來開展新路

Make the Road by Talking

If high levels of inequality and social fragmentation can actually impede investment, innovation, and skill development – and mutuality can lead to better economic performance – why don’t we “see” it and encourage more, despite the growing evidence?

如果高度的不平等和社會分化實際上會阻礙投資、創新和技能發展——而互助互惠可以帶來更好的經濟表現——那麼，儘管有越來越多的證據，我們為什麼沒有“看到”它並鼓勵更多互助互惠呢?

We would argue that the neoliberal economic framework not only assumes individual self-interested behavior, it helps to rationalize it, limiting our capacities to embrace others as worthy compatriots rather than discreditable competitors.

我們認為，新自由主義經濟框架不僅假定個人的自利行為，而且有助於使其合理化，限制了我們的能力: 將他人視為值得尊敬的同胞而非不光彩的競爭者。

In the neoliberal frame, it’s a good thing we have markets to channel our base instincts into something resembling a social optimum.

在新自由主義框架下我們有一個好處，我們有市場將我們的基本本能引導到類似於社會最佳狀態的東西。

But when we construct an economic theory to justify an arrangement in which we are all on our own, when we assume that self-interest (or limited group interest) is the main driver, and structure our systems to encourage or tame it, we actually reinforce that behavior.

但是，當我們構建一個經濟理論來證明一種我們都是靠自己的安排時，當我們假設自身利益(或有限的群體利益)是主要驅動力，並構建我們的系統來鼓勵或馴服它時，我們實際上是在強化這種行為。

It’s a toxic stew, one illustrated by the fact that the more students are exposed to traditional economics the less they exhibit cooperative behavior.

這是一種毒藥作用，學生們接觸傳統經濟學越多，他們表現出的合作行為反而就越少。

We need a different approach, one that recognizes our mutuality, understands how increased cooperation can lead to increased prosperity, and continually seeks to broaden the circle of “belonging ”.

我們需要一種不同的方式，一種認識到我們的互助互惠性，理解加強合作如何能帶來更大的繁榮，並不斷尋求擴大“歸屬感”範圍的方式。

We will only get there through a new conversation about solidarity, rather than continuing to persist in a tired construct of individual self-interest and the pursuit of just our own happiness.

只有通過一場關於團結的新型對話，我們才能實現這一目標; 不是繼續堅持個人私利和只追求我們自己的幸福的陳舊觀念。

The important role of conversation was driven home to us when we were following up on our research on the equity–prosperity relationship in metropolitan regions.

當我們繼續研究大都市地區的平等-繁榮關係時，談話的重要作用讓我們明白了。

Struck by the statistics, we did something economists infrequently do: we went and talked to civic actors in regions across the country to try to make sense of the data.

被這些統計資料所震撼，我們做了一件經濟學家不常做的事:我們去和全國各地的公民行動者交談，試圖理解這些資料。

What we found was that regions that did better at reaching the twin goals of social equity and economic prosperity had been able to construct a “diverse and dynamic epistemic community” at the metropolitan level.

我們發現，在實現社會公平和經濟繁榮這兩個目標方面做得更好的地區，大多能夠在大都市層級構建一個“多樣化和動態的知識共同體”。

Though the specific mechanisms for constructing such knowledge communities differed across regions, in all places it was some combination of social norms and a diverse range of institutions that supported communication across differences and helped to create as well as buttress a sense of common destiny.

儘管構建這種知識共同體的具體機制因地區而異，但在所有地方，都是社會規範和各種各樣的機構的某種結合，以支持跨地域交流，並幫助創造和鞏固一種共同的命運感。

在實現社會公平和經濟繁榮這兩個目標方面做得更好的地區，大多能夠在大都市層級構建一個“多樣化和動態的知識共同體” 這裡為實踐團結經濟提供了一個很好的線索, 也扣合了團結經濟需要有的一個重要元素: 各個組織團體協作, 集智, 從而構建一個更好的”我們的經濟”.

Creating that sense of shared destiny was not automatic; it required some effort on behalf of metropolitan leaders.

創造這種共同命運的感覺不是自然而然的; 這需要大都會區領導人做出一些相應的努力。

In the words of Yochai Benkler, “Talk is not cheap; through it we can come to define our preferences, goals, and desires in a situation; begin to build mutual empathy; negotiate what norms are appropriate and what course of action is fair; and begin to build trust and understand one another.”

用約查·本克勒的話來說:“ 知難行亦難 ; 通過它，我們可以確定自己的偏好、目標和願望;開始建立相互的同理心;討論什麼規範是適當的，什麼行動是公平的; 開始建立彼此的信任和理解。”

In the metropolitan areas we studied, a sense of mutuality was bred by collaborative knowledge generation, repeated interactions to build trust, and explicit efforts to ensure that business and civic actors could best address differences by meeting “face to face, race to race, and place to place.”

在我們研究的大都市地區，通過協作知識的生成、建立信任的重複互動以及確保商業和公民行為體通過“面對面、種族間、各地點間”的會談來最好地解決差異的明確努力，這些地區孕育了一種互助互惠關係。

Talking together does not mean an absence of conflict; equity often makes its way to the regional and national table kicking and screaming.

一起談話並不意味著沒有衝突;公平議題經常得經歷許多吵鬧和對立之後才有機會抵達地區性和國家層級的談判桌上。

For example, in San Antonio, Texas, Latino and Black residents struggled in the 1970s and 1980s for basic infrastructure and political voice.

例如，在德克薩斯州的聖安東尼奧，拉丁裔和黑人居民在20世紀70年代和80年代為基礎設施和政治發言權奮鬥過。

Over time, they escalated their campaign in a way that forced civic and business leaders to engage them, partly through creative organizing campaigns that strangled business activity until local banks and corporations realized that they had to make a deal.

隨著時間的推移，他們的活動升級，迫使公民和商業領袖參與進來，部分是通過極具創造力的社會運動來對抗商業活動，一直到當地銀行和企業意識到他們必須進入談判達成協議。

Conflict evolved to collaboration, including a now-celebrated workforce development initiative aimed at less advantaged workers that was co-chaired by a community leader and a business leader who had once been the target of community protests.

衝突演變為合作，包括現在著名的一項針對弱勢工人的勞動力發展倡議，該倡議由一名社區領袖和一名曾經是社區抗議目標的企業領袖共同主持。

And in 2012, the local Chamber of Commerce took the unusual move of supporting an increased sales tax to fund pre-kindergarten education in lower-income neighborhoods, benefitting young people of color in the region.

2012年，當地商會採取了一項不同尋常的舉措，支持提高營業稅，為低收入社區的學前教育提供資金，讓該地區的有色人種孩子受益。

In our quantitative and qualitative studies on US regions, we have found that connection was not in opposition to prosperity; rather, it was critical to regional resilience and collective (and even individual) success.

在我們對美國地區進行的定量和定性研究中，我們發現，這種聯結並不與繁榮對立;相反的，它對地區恢復力和集體(甚至個人)成功至關重要。

And while this emphasis on mutuality is core to solidarity economics, we must be clear-headed about the realities: as in San Antonio, when some individuals and groups benefit from the current set of arrangements, political solidarity and social movements will be necessary to move from abstract theory and calls to “come together” to the sort of economic rules that can improve our collective well-being.

雖然這種對互助互惠關係的強調是團結經濟學的核心，但我們必須清醒地認識到現實:就像在聖安東尼奧，當一些個人和團體從當前的一系列政策安排中受益時，政治團結和社會運動將是必要的，以便從抽象的理論和“團結起來”的呼籲, 可以順利轉變為改善我們集體福祉的那種經濟規則。

“衝突演變為合作，…..一名曾經是社區抗議目標的企業領袖共同主持。” 不是所有談判和衝突可以帶來這樣的結果. 我想在台灣的部分, 這或許更為困難. 我們可以設計怎樣的溝通, 協作, 集智, 來盡可能產出團結的經濟的成果, 直到這個成果成為社會無法忽視的力量?

衡量什麼重要

Measuring What Matters

Part of getting there also requires becoming clearer about how we measure our economy and well-being.

要實現這一目標，我們還需要更加清楚地衡量我們的經濟和福祉。

The nearly universal way people have been trained to think about “prosperity” is through the measure of total economic output, as shown in gross domestic product (GDP).

人們被訓練來思考“繁榮”的普遍方式是通過衡量經濟總產出，如國內生產總值(GDP)所示。

Part of what makes GDP so powerful in economic discourse is its ability to distill the entire complexity of the production of goods and services in our economy into a single number.

GDP之所以在經濟話語中如此強大，部分原因在於它能夠將我們經濟中所有商品和服務生產的複雜性提煉為一個數字。

But this one-number-fits- all mentality for understanding our economy has been critiqued from multiple angles.

但這種理解我們經濟的“一體適用”的心態受到了多方面的批評。

For example, GDP only measures paid labor and ignores unpaid labor, particularly the caring and community-organizing and community-building work so often undertaken by women, particularly women of color.

例如，GDP只衡量有報酬的勞動，而忽略了無報酬的勞動，尤其是通常由女性，或是有色人種女性承擔的關懷、社區組織和社區建設的工作。

GDP also does not account for the economic, social, or spiritual value of environmental resources – and so destroying the climate by producing fossil fuels is measured as a plus.

GDP也沒有考慮環境資源的經濟、社會或精神價值——因此，通過生產化石燃料破壞氣候被視為一項加分項。

It hides the class and racial inequalities that, as we have seen, can actually shrink GDP and certainly create damage to individuals and communities.

它隱藏了階級和種族的不平等，正如我們所看到的，這些不平等實際上會縮減GDP，並肯定會對個人和社區造成損害。

And with more transactions meaning more GDP, what gets counted gets contorted: because of our lack of universal health insurance, our emphasis on expensive treatments, and our failure to promote broad public health measures, the US has exorbitant health expenditures that make us look richer even as our lives are threatened.

隨著更多的交易意味著更多的GDP，統計的資料被扭曲了:因為我們缺乏全民醫療保險，我們強調昂貴的治療，我們也未能推廣廣泛的公共衛生措施，因此美國有過高的醫療支出，這讓我們看起來更富有，即使我們的生命受到威脅。

So what are some alternatives?

那麼有什麼替代方案呢?

“更多的交易意味著更多的GDP，統計的資料被扭曲了” 這裡作者指出了一個很荒謬的觀察: 美國人看起來富有是因為醫療資源的不足, 不足之下大家要花很多錢才可以活下來.

擴大我們的選擇可能性

Broadening Our Options

One particularly promising alternative is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which is currently being used in the US states of Maryland, Vermont, Washington (state), and Hawaii.

一個特別有前途的替代方案是真實發展指標(GPI)，目前正在美國馬里蘭州、佛蒙特州、華盛頓州和夏威夷使用。

Though it starts from total personal consumption expenditures (the bulk of GDP), it adds economic value for unpaid labor (such as housework and parenting and volunteer work), higher education, and value of public services (e.g. from the use of streets and highways).

雖然它從個人消費支出總額(GDP的大部分)開始，但它增加了無償勞動(如家務、養育子女和志願者工作)、高等教育和公共服務(如使用街道和高速公路)的經濟價值。

The GPI then subtracts economic value for the costs of pollution and CO2 emissions, depletion of non-renewables, loss of wetlands, farmland, and forest land, and various social costs including inequality, cost of crime, loss of leisure time, commuting, and auto accidents.

然後，GPI減去污染和二氧化碳排放的成本，不可再生能源的消耗，濕地、農田和林地的損失，以及各種社會成本，包括不平等的成本，犯罪成本，休閒時間的損失，通勤和車禍的經濟成本。

Using the GPI definitely paints a different picture of economic prosperity.

使用GPI絕對可以描繪出一幅不同的經濟繁榮景象。

For the twenty-eight countries that are part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the GPI is substantially less than GDP, showing the significant costs of unsustainability to human well-being.

在經濟合作與發展組織(OECD)的28個成員國中，GPI遠低於GDP，這表明人類福祉無法永續的巨大代價。

In nearly all of these countries, the absolute gap between GDP and GPI has been increasing.

在幾乎所有這些國家，國內生產總值和真實發展指標之間的絕對差距一直在擴大。

For the US, the difference is particularly stark: while the US ranked fifth in GDP per capita, it ranked fifteenth in GPI per capita.

對美國來說，這種差異尤其明顯:美國的人均GDP排名第五，但人均真實發展指標排名第十五位。

This is the highest negative gap between GDP and GPI when comparing with the twenty-eight OECD countries.

這是與28個OECD國家相比，國內生產總值(GDP)與真實發展指標(GPI)之間負差距最大的國家。

Conversely, Finland ranked tenth in GDP per capita but fifth in GPI per capita, reflecting a deeper commitment to welfare and sustainability compared to others in the group.

相反，芬蘭的人均國內生產總值排名第十，但人均真實發展指標排名第五，這反映出芬蘭比其他國家更注重福利和可持續發展。

While the GPI has the appeal of also being a single dollar value, Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has argued that we need a dashboard of indicators: “Policy makers and civil-society groups should pay attention not only to material wealth but also to health, education, leisure, environment, equality, governance, political voice, social connectedness, physical and economic security, and other indicators of the quality of life.Just as important, societies must ensure that these ‘goods’ are not bought at the expense of the future.”

雖然真實發展指標也具有單一金錢價值的指標的吸引力，但諾貝爾經濟學獎得主約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨認為，我們需要一個指標的指示:“政策制定者和公民社會團體不僅應該關注物質財富，還應該關注健康、教育、休閒、環境、平等、治理、政治聲音、社會聯繫、物質和經濟安全，以及其他生活品質指標。同樣重要的是，社會必須確保這些‘商品’不會以犧牲未來為代價購買。”

“芬蘭的人均國內生產總值排名第十，但人均真實發展指標排名第五” 在這個比GDP更具代表性, 但或許也是同樣過於簡化的指標中, 我們確實可以看到有些國家是有意識的在擴展跟實踐類似於團結經濟的理念. 芬蘭人在其國內範圍內, 留給後代子孫的環境的做法是值得大家學習的.

While we agree with Stiglitz and others about the importance of tracking a wide range of indicators to measure progress, there is also value in communicating complex measures of well-being in ways that are straightforward and intuitive for the general public.

雖然我們同意斯蒂格利茨和其他人的觀點，即追蹤廣泛的各類指標來衡量進步的重要性，但以對普羅大眾直接和直觀的方式傳達複雜的幸福指標也是有價值的。

Two prominent attempts to develop a single measure of prosperity, without reducing human well-being to a dollar figure, are the Human Development Index (HDI) developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) developed by both the UNDP and the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative.

聯合國開發計畫署(UNDP)開發的人類發展指數(HDI); 同樣聯合國開發計畫署和牛津貧困與人類發展倡議共同開發的多維貧困指數(MPI)是兩項傑出的嘗試，它們旨在發展一種衡量繁榮的單一標準，而不將人類福祉降低到一金錢數字。

Both indices depart from traditional monetary measures of well-being by integrating important considerations of social and human development, including prominent metrics on health, education, and quality of life.

這兩個指數都不同于傳統的貨幣福利衡量標準，它們綜合了社會和人類發展的重要考慮因素，包括健康、教育和生活品質方面的突出指標。

The MPI takes this a step further by giving greater emphasis to those suffering from extreme deprivation when measuring a country’s progress.

MPI更進一步，在衡量一個國家的進步時，更加強調那些遭受極端貧困的人。

The UNDP has developed an adjusted version of the HDI, which discounts achievements in health, education, and income when those achievements are not evenly distributed across the population.

開發計畫署編制了一份經過調整的人類發展指數，如果衛生、教育和收入方面的成就在人口中分佈不均，就會打折扣。

Another intriguing example is the Gross National Happiness (GNH) index, used by the government of Bhutan to guide the country toward a “just and harmonious society.”

另一個有趣的例子是國民幸福總值(GNH)指數，不丹政府使用它來指導國家走向一個“公正和和諧的社會”。

Grounded in a national survey, the GNH index is a single number developed from thirty-three indicators, based on nine domains that contribute to a person’s happiness: living standards, health, education, good governance, ecological diversity and resilience, time use, psychological well-being, cultural diversity and resilience, and community vitality.

基於一項全國性調查，GNH指數是一個由33個指標發展而來的單一數字，其基礎是與一個人的幸福有關的9個領域:生活水準、健康、教育、善治、生態多樣性和韌性、時間利用、心理健康、文化多樣性和韌性以及社區活力。

The government of Bhutan uses the index to help assess proposed policies, with specific screening tools developed in a range of sectors (e.g. agriculture, manufacturing) and project areas (e.g. youth, media, and information).

不丹的政府使用該指數來幫助評估擬議的政策，並在一系列部門(如農業、製造業)和專案領域(如青年、媒體和資訊)開發了特定的篩選工具。

Trying to bring the insights from Bhutan’s approach into the international arena, since 2011, Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs has led a diverse team that has annually produced a World Happiness Report.

自2011年以來，哥倫比亞大學教授傑佛瑞·薩克斯(Jeffrey Sachs)領導了一個多元化的團隊，每年發佈一份《世界幸福報告》，試圖將不丹方法的見解帶到國際舞臺上。

This relies heavily on an annual World Poll by Gallup, which has the advantage of being globally comparable.

這在很大程度上依賴於蓋洛普的年度世界民意調查，該調查具有全球可比性的優勢。

The World Happiness Report supplements this survey with a detailed analysis of a variety of factors that contribute to people’s life evaluation.

《世界幸福報告》對影響人們生活評價的各種因素進行了詳細分析，是年度世界民意調查的互補報告。

In their 2020 analysis, the team found that four variables related to the social and institutional context – having someone to count on in an emergency, generosity, freedom to make life choices, and absence of corruption – together account for more than half of the average country’s happiness score.

在他們2020年的分析中，該團隊發現，與社會和制度背景相關的四個變數——在緊急情況下有人可以依靠、慷慨、做出生活選擇的自由和沒有腐敗——加起來占了國家平均幸福得分的一半以上。

The single factor of social support was more important (33 percent) than GDP per capita (25 percent) in explaining a country’s happiness score.

在解釋一個國家的幸福指數時，社會支援這一單一因素(33%)比人均GDP(25%)更重要。

人均GDP在歷史上其實算是一個很新的概念, 美國在1991才從GNP轉用為GDP, 而近似GDP的GNP的廣泛接受跟使用也不過是1944年之後的事情. 從這些線索, 我們或許可以推測, GDP是我們內心餵養那隻自利主義的狼的時代產物. 但漸漸有更多人覺醒, 看到構成我們人類幸福的可能單一最大原因, 很有可能是社會支持. (是指個人可以感受、察覺或接受到來自他人的關心或協助) 難怪團結經濟一再強調互助互惠, 我們需要的一個有溫度的家庭, 有溫度的公司, 有溫度的社會跟世界!

變得負責任

Becoming Accountable

With all these alternatives available, why does GDP still rule the economic measure roost?

既然有這麼多可供選擇的辦法，為什麼GDP仍然是經濟衡量的主導?

After all, as early as 1934, one of the originators of the GDP and other national accounts measures, Simon Kuznets, submitted a report to Congress that warned “The welfare of a nation can . . .scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined” by measures like GDP.

畢竟，早在1934年，GDP和其他國民核算指標的創始人之一西蒙•庫茲涅茨(Simon Kuznets)就向國會提交了一份報告，警告稱“一個國家的福利……幾乎不可能從國民收入的測量中推斷出來。

That was an invitation to innovate, and yet we have more or less stuck with the same set of national accounts and performance measurements ever since.

這是一個讓我們去創新的邀請，但從那以後，我們或多或少地堅持使用同一套國家帳戶和績效衡量標準。

It might be easy to chalk up the persistence of GDP to the ease of collection and the difficulty in generating new measures.

人們可能很容易將GDP的持續增長歸咎於容易收集資料和難以制定新指標。

But the examples above show that it is possible to do better, particularly with modern data collection techniques, and so we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: GDP sticks because it masks power in our economy.

但上面的例子表明，我們有可能做得更好，尤其是利用現代資料收集技術，所以我們必須承認一個令人不安的事實: GDP之所以頑固，是因為它掩蓋了我們經濟中的實力。

After all, GDP is sexist (guess who does a lot of unpaid or undervalued caring labor), racist (guess who is generally left behind and kept behind when you do not disaggregate but instead offer a single number), and classist (guess whose income rose and whose fell during the pandemic – oh, right, it would not show up in GDP).

畢竟，GDP是性別歧視者(猜猜誰做了很多沒有報酬或被低估的關愛工作)、種族主義者(猜猜當你不分類，而是提供一個單一的數字時，誰被甩在了後面)和階級主義者(猜猜誰的收入在疫情期間上升了，誰的收入下降了—哦，對了，它不會顯示在GDP中)。

New methods of measuring well-being should clearly make visible how wealth and income are distributed.

衡量幸福的新方法應該清楚地顯示財富和收入是如何分配的。

After all, half of the income gains in the post-2010 US economic recovery were gobbled up by the top 10 percent of income earners in the US.

畢竟，在2010年之後的美國經濟復蘇中，收入增長的一半都被收入最高的10%的美國人吃掉了。

  • 財富分配不均貌似一個永遠的議題, 這個議題背後一直有多方的角力跟掙扎, 而這個角力的過程的產物中, 我們赫然可以看到GDP這個衡量的標準. 沒有對錯, 我們只是需要取得更好的平衡, 讓我們可以好好的開始對待”每一個人的經濟”
  • 上面心得的最後，好像又回到Neoliberalism的感覺，可能真的是其說故事、即敍事的說服力太強大？還是傳統經濟的束縛，令人難以擺脫？ Neoliberals have a convincing one, a vision that always comes back to individuals, freedom, and markets (even if the actual results are inequality and disadvantage).
  • 可能都有吧, 很多事情本來就無法一刀切, 我們或許可以儘量取得平衡就很不容易了.

As such, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth has suggested a new GDP 2.0.

因此，華盛頓公平增長中心提出了新的GDP 2.0。

In this version, the national accounts – that is, the system of accounting for all of a nation’s economic activity – would be broken up into income brackets (i.e. deciles) to better track who is gaining and who is slipping when aggregate output rises.

在這個版本中，國民經濟核算——即核算一個國家所有經濟活動的系統——將被分解為收入等級(即十分位元數)，以便更好地跟蹤當總產出上升時誰在增加誰在下降。

Macroeconomists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman have developed a helpful distributional national accounting method that complements the Washington Center’s suggestion.

宏觀經濟學家Thomas Piketty、Emmanuel Saez和Gabriel Zucman開發了一種有用的分配性國民經濟核算方法，對華盛頓中心的建議進行了補充。

We ourselves have contributed to this distributional approach with the development of the National Equity Atlas, a collaboration between PolicyLink, an Oakland based national intermediary, and the University of Southern California’s (USC’s) Equity Research Institute.

我們自己也為這種分配性方式做出了貢獻，我們開發了國家平權地圖集，這是一家位於奧克蘭的國家仲介機構PolicyLink與南加州大學(USC)平權研究所合作的成果。

The Atlas is a website that disaggregates data on economic well-being, educational opportunity, environmental burdens, and housing challenges, by race and ethnicity, as well as gender and nativity, for the top 150 metro areas in the US, the 100 largest cities, and all 50 states (plus DC).

《地圖集》是一個網站，根據種族和民族、性別和出生情況，對美國前150大城市、100大城市和所有50個州(加上華盛頓特區)的經濟福祉、教育機會、環境負擔和住房挑戰等資料進行分類。

It, along with a series of Equity Profiles and spin-off websites, has become a way for advocates to not only push for more attention to equity, but also ground the sort of regional conversations we highlighted above in the realities of the disparities that a regional measure of economic output hides.

它與一系列的《平權概況》和衍生網站一起，已經成為宣導者的一種推廣方式，不僅推動人們更多地關注公平，而且還將我們上面強調的地區性對話建立在地區性經濟產出衡量所隱藏的貧富差距的現實之上。

While data and discussion are an important part of promoting accountability, we also need more direct approaches.

雖然資料和討論是促進問責制的重要組成部分，但我們也需要更直接的方法。

Ostrom’s work on common pool resources highlights that cooperation was coupled with sanctions, generally developed by communities rather than by outside authorities.

奧斯特羅姆在共同資源方面的工作強調，合作是與制裁相結合的，制裁通常是由社區而不是外部當局制定的。

The challenge is taking this to scale, and that requires an effective government that cannot just devise new ways to measure progress but also commit itself to constraining the disproportionate influence of corporate power.

挑戰在於擴大規模，這需要一個有效的政府，它不僅要設計衡量進步的新方法，還要致力於限制企業權力不成比例的影響力。

Stronger regulations, limits to the role of money in politics, and a wealth tax that help to account for who is rich, as well as hold them responsible and accountable, would all be useful for improving our economy.

加強監管，限制金錢在政治中的作用，徵收財富稅，讓富人承擔責任，這些都有助於改善我們的經濟。

Because of this, both replacing GDP and ensuring we live up to what we choose to measure will require the sort of organizing and power-building that we explore in chapter 6.

正因為如此，無論是取代GDP，還是確保我們符合我們選擇的衡量標準，都需要我們在第6章中探討的那種組織能力和權力架構的建設。

An economics in which mutuality matters will come about when we have a politics in which solidarity is central.

當我們有一種以團結為核心的政治時，就會出現以互助互惠為重的經濟。

  • “An economics in which mutuality matters will come about when we have a politics in which solidarity is central.” 慢慢可以看出作者想要勾勒的團結經濟的未來. 有遠大的憧憬, 但需要更強的故事能力才有機會成為一個新風向.
  • 作者的意思，是除了mutuality外，還要有movement（行動、或運動）來配合，是以團結為中心思想。可否說明一下：「需要更強的故事能力才有機會成為一個新風向」，是什麼意思？
  • 這本書一直強調, 除了相應的政策, 需要一個強而有力的narrative才是具有可行性.
  • 是否指的是第24頁的內容： The newest theories of social movements talk about the importance of the construction of a shared identity through narrative understanding. We need an economic policy package, to be sure, but we also need a story. Neoliberals have a convincing one, a vision that always comes back to individuals, freedom, and markets (even if the actual results are inequality and disadvantage). We need a tale that resonates, that draws on the deep human sense that we can get through most anything if we band together, and that becomes a sort of mental default so that any economic question about a social challenge that gets asked gets a new sort of answer: mutuality and movements.
  • 是的

連結天性

Wired to Connect

Standing in the wreckage of individualism – an America ravaged by COVID-19, partly because the use of other protecting masks became a political football – it can seem reasonable to long for a different way.

站在個人主義的廢墟上——一個被新冠病毒蹂躪的美國，部分原因是使用其他防護口罩成了一場政治足球——渴望一條不同的道路似乎是合理的。

But while to do so is to dream of a better future, it is not utopian.

但是，儘管這樣做是為了夢想一個更美好的未來，但它不是烏托邦。

In reality, we as a species are constantly using social thinking to make decisions, define ourselves, and understand those around us.

事實上，作為一個物種，我們一直在使用社會思維來做決定，定義自己，理解我們周圍的人。

Solidarity economics reminds us that we are hard-wired to care, but that we are operating in a system designed to strip us of that virtue and so it is the system that must change to let out our better selves.

團結經濟學提醒我們，關心是與生俱來的，但我們所處的制度卻剝奪了我們的這種美德，因此，我們必須改變這個制度，讓我們展現出更好的自己。

In 2013, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman published a book called Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect.

2013年，加州大學洛杉磯分校的神經學家馬修·利伯曼出版了一本名為《社交天性：人類行為的起點──為什麼大腦天生愛社交？》的書。

In its pages, Lieberman suggests that social pain, like the pain of rejection or the shame of ostracism, travels the same neuro pathways as physical pain.

在書中，利伯曼指出，社會疼痛，比如被排斥的疼痛或被排斥的羞恥感，與身體疼痛的神經通路相同。

Because of this primal nature, we are obsessed with maintaining our reputations in our respective communities and constantly seeking information about others.

由於這種原始本性，我們癡迷於維護自己在各自社區的聲譽，並不斷尋求有關他人的資訊。

Trustworthiness, competence, and amicability are key to our complicit, mutual cooperation, and our individual sense of self is informed by the role we play and the reputation we have in our community.

誠信、能力和友好是我們串通一氣、相互合作的關鍵，我們個人的自我意識是由我們所扮演的角色和我們在社區中的聲譽所決定的。

Let us return to the biological metaphors with which we began this chapter.

讓我們回到本章開始時的生物學隱喻。

At this moment, along the corpus callosum in your brain, an important cluster of neurons is awaiting activation.

此時此刻，沿著你大腦中的胼胝體，有一簇重要的神經元正在等待啟動。

The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) is key to the experience of emotional attachment that bonds us to each other.

背側前扣帶皮層是將我們聯結在一起的情感依戀體驗的關鍵。

Mammals uniquely contain this neural region, which has a higher density of opioid receptors than any other part of the brain.

這種神經區域是哺乳動物獨有的，它的阿片受體密度比大腦的任何其他部位都要高。

Though very little of our sensory or motor experiences happen in just one part of the brain (like people, the brain itself is a collaborative organ), evidence shows that the dACC serves as an alarm system that detects and signals to us when our vital social attachments are at risk.

雖然我們的感覺或運動經驗很少發生在大腦的一個部分(就像人一樣，大腦本身是一個協作器官)，但有證據表明，當我們的重要社會關係受到威脅時，dACC充當了一種警報系統，檢測我們並向我們發出信號。

Evolution endowed us with strong social emotions as a fitness enhancement.

進化賦予我們強烈的社會情緒作為體能的增強手段。

Through the process of natural selection, we emerged as a more powerful species because of our sociality, not in spite of it.

通過自然選擇的過程，因為我們的社會性讓我們成為了一個更強大的物種，而不是儘管如此。

Continual progress depends on us embracing the social tendency of our decision-making by embedding social motivations in our policies and institutions.

持續的進步取決於我們在決策中融入社會傾向，將社會動機嵌入我們的政策和制度。

It is essential to our current and future collective welfare that we embrace the solidarity strategies that live in each of us to be able to achieve the best for all of us.

對我們當前和未來的集體福祉至關重要的是，我們必須採取我們每個人都具有的團結性策略，以便能夠為我們所有人實現最好的結果。

We need to give up the old shibboleth that centering mutuality and equity is somehow detrimental to prosperity; the reality is far from it, and the next chapter explores how this even plays out in the sphere of what is thought to be the special strength of a market capitalist economy: innovation.

我們需要放棄那種把互助互惠關係和公平放在重要位置會在某種程度上損害繁榮的陳舊陳詞濫調; 現實遠非如此，下一章將探討這種情況是如何在下列情況下發生的: 資本主義經濟的特殊動能領域—創新。

社交天性確實很大的程度上是人類進步的助力之一, 但是反過來說, 卻似乎也成為部分人剝削弱勢族群的利器. 我們可否把這個優勢的更好的使用, 取得一個更好的平衡?

團結經濟學簡介及閱讀攻略

各章導讀連結

115B實驗室

「115B實驗室」是由「嘉鼎智能團隊」，呼應社會團結經濟浪潮而成立，創立之初，以台北松山區的敦化南路1段1號5樓B室為起點，故以115B為紀念。

主要在協助個體、或組織，運用國際股市連結全球社會經濟的人心智能，增強本身經濟實力；並在過程中融合永續進展的理念，追求經濟、社會、環境各方面的均衡進步發展，尤其經濟上要符合（經世濟民）道理。

加入團隊

104 (嘉鼎智能｜115B實驗室)

社群媒體

歡迎加入我們的LINE社群一同推廣永續所得倡議

👉   115B Slack 社群

👉   115B實驗室 LINE 社群

👉   115B實驗室 FB

  • Copyright： Copyright is owned by the author. For commercial reprints, please contact the author for authorization. For non-commercial reprints, please indicate the source.
  • Copyrights © 2021-2024 115B-Lab