莫讓拯救歐元的努力前功盡棄

Three years ago, the euro risked exploding under pressure from the markets. After considerable tensions, Europe’s political leaders pulled together to avoid a crisis. The European Central Bank found the measures they took convincing enough to justify offering support of its own.

3年前，在市場壓力下，歐元面臨崩潰的危險。在形勢變得相當緊張後，歐洲的政治領袖齊心協力避免了這場危機。歐洲央行(ECB)認爲他們採取的措施足夠可信，因而也提供了支持。

Today, amid quiet markets, it may be governments that are undermining the euro. The French president, the German chancellor and the Italian prime minister have not refrained from mutual recriminations.

現在，市場一片平靜，正在削弱歐元的或許是政府。法國總統、德國總理和意大利總理毫不剋制地相互指責。

Even when couched in diplomatic terms, these reveal differences of policy and, more deeply, of national cultures. Such differences need to be handled responsibly, not exploited between one summit and the next. That will only benefit the populists. If the EU is to remain a harmonious community, two things must happen: the rules must be complied with, we must have more growth. We will either achieve both or neither.

儘管使用了外交辭令，這些指責還是暴露了政策上的差異，以及更深層次的國家文化的差異。這些差異需要以負責的態度來處理，而不是在一場又一場的峯會上對它們加以利用。那樣只會讓民粹主義者受益。如果歐盟(EU)要保持和諧，就必須做到兩件事：規則必須得到遵守；我們必須創造更多增長。我們要麼同時做到兩件事，要麼一件也做不到。

France and Italy, and southern Europe more broadly, must not accuse Germany and the north of being legalistic or technocratic simply because they expect rules to be observed. Bending the rules tends to favour the big member states at the expense of the small. That is why the violation of the stability pact by Germany and France in 2003 went down so badly with other Europeans.

法國和意大利，乃至所有歐洲南部國家，不能僅僅因爲德國和歐洲北部國家希望規則得到遵守，就指責這些國家拘泥於法規條文或者信守技術官僚主義。扭曲規則往往使大的成員國受益，卻損害小國的利益。2003年德國和法國違反《穩定與增長公約》(stability pact)讓其他歐洲國家難以接受，就是這個原因。

On the other hand, the insistence of France, Italy and the south on the need to create space for more growth must not be seen by Germany and the north as a sign of profligacy. More growth throughout the EU, and especially in the south, is imperative not just for the countries concerned but for the very survival of European integration.

另一方面，法國、意大利和歐洲南部國家堅持認爲，有必要爲經濟更快增長創造空間，這不應被德國和歐洲北部國家視爲一種恣意揮霍的表現。在整個歐盟境內、特別是南部國家創造更多增長，對相關國家，對歐洲一體化的延續都是必要的。

Reconciliation is possible. Two points must be acknowledged. First, the stability pact, by and large, is not currently complied with. We cannot speak of compliance when member states can easily secure extensions to deadlines for meeting the targets. France did not even ask permission but simply announced that it would not comply. Italy chimed in that the EU should not dare to consider this an infringement.

達成和解是可能的。必須承認兩點事實。首先，《穩定與增長公約》目前大體上沒有得到遵守。如果成員國能隨意延長達標的截止日期，遵守規則之說也就無從談起了。法國甚至不請求許可，直接宣佈不會遵守公約。意大利則應和法國，表示歐盟不應該將其視爲違反公約的行爲。

Second, while a simplistic stability pact may have been the right choice when the euro was in its infancy, Europe can no longer afford to stick with such a rudimentary instrument.

第二，在歐元誕生初期，簡單化的《穩定與增長公約》可能是一個正確的選擇，但歐洲已經無法再承受繼續沿用這樣一個過於初級的工具了。

By failing to recognise the proper role of public investment, it has pushed governments to stop building infrastructure just when they should have built more. What is needed is not the flexibility to deviate from the rules, but rules that are economically and morally rigorous.

由於未能認識到公共投資的正確作用，公約促使各國政府在需要建造更多基礎設施的時期停止了這類活動。我們需要的不是可以背離規則的靈活性，而是在經濟和道德方面具有嚴格標準的規則。

At the time of its Wirtschaftswunder, or “economic miracle”, Germany’s constitution stipulated that public borrowing be allowed only for public investment. Germans called it the “golden rule”, and initially tried to have it enshrined in the Maastricht treaty. This is hardly the mark of an irresponsible principle.

在德國的“經濟奇蹟”(Wirtschaftswunder)時期，德國憲法規定公共借貸只能被用於公共投資。德國人奉之爲“金科玉律”，最初還試圖將其寫入《馬斯特裏赫特條約》(Maastricht treaty)。這很難被視爲一條不負責任的原則。

The idea of more favourable treatment for public investment has been gaining ground. In 2013, the European Commission announced that it would apply it, within strict limits, in enforcing the stability pact. The International Monetary Fund and even the ECB are calling on governments to expand public investment. Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission’s new president, has announced a large EU investment plan.

有關對公共投資做更有利處理的觀點逐漸爲人們所接受。2013年，歐盟委員會(European Commission)宣佈將在執行《穩定與增長公約》方面，在有嚴格限制的前提下適用這種做法。目前國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)，甚至歐洲央行都在呼籲各國政府擴大公共投資。歐盟委員會新主席讓-克洛德•容克(Jean-Claude Juncker)已經宣佈了一項大規模的歐盟投資計劃。

But the new commission should go further. It should announce the promotion of a more investment-friendly implementation of fiscal discipline at the national level.

但新一屆歐盟委員會應該更進一步，應該宣佈在國家層面提倡實施對投資更友好的財政紀律。

To achieve this, the commission should enforce the existing stability pact without concessions, while allowing for the favourable treatment of public investment within the limits set out in 2013. It should announce a proposal for updating the rules on fiscal discipline, to reflect the role of productive public investment. Finally, it should establish a group to provide agreed principles on which categories of public expenditure qualify as investments, thus providing clarity and preventing loopholes from opening in the new regime.

要達成這個目標，歐盟委員會應該毫不妥協地實施當前的《穩定與增長公約》，同時在2013年設定的限制下允許對公共投資做更加合適的處理。委員會應該宣佈一個改進財政紀律規則的提案，以反映高效益公共投資的作用。最後，委員會應該成立一個小組，就哪些類別的公共支出能夠被視爲投資提供一致認可的原則，從而在實施新規時提供一種清晰性，防止出現漏洞。

The virtue of fiscal discipline is that it protects future generations from the abuses of current politicians. Assume, however, that a country needs more and better infrastructure, and its government can borrow at an interest rate of less than 1 per cent to fund infrastructure that produces a much higher rate of return. If that country decides to forgo such investment, as Germany is doing today, is it not acting against the interest of future generations?

財政紀律的好處在於，它保護後代人免於受到當今政治人士濫用職權帶來的害處。然而，假設一個國家需要更多更好的基礎設施，而且該國政府能夠以低於1%的利率借款，將資金用於修建能帶來更高回報率的基礎設施。如果這個國家決定放棄這樣的投資活動——就像德國今天所做的那樣——其做法難道不是違背了後代人的利益嗎？