is economic growth in China and India.

是中國和印度的經濟增長。

And the question I want to explore with you

而我想與你們探討的問題是

is whether or not

民主對於經濟增長

democracy has helped or has hindered

是促進

economic growth.

還是阻礙?

You may say this is not fair,

你可能認為這並不公平。

because I'm selecting two countries

因為我只用了兩個國家

to make a case against democracy.

便立論否定民主。

Actually, exactly the opposite

事實上,我要做旳

is what I'm going to do.

剛好相反。

I'm going to use these two countries

我要用這兩個國家

to make an economic argument for democracy,

作為經濟上支持民主的理據

rather than against democracy.

而非反對民主。

The first question there

第一個問題是

is why China has grown so much faster

為何中國的發展速度

than India.

比印度要快很多?

Over the last 30 years,

在過去的30年裡

in terms of the GDP growth rates,

以GDP(國內生產總值)增長率計

China has grown at twice the rate of India.

中國的增長是印度的兩倍。

In the last five years,

在過去的5年,

the two countries have begun to converge somewhat

兩國的經濟增長開始

in economic growth.

趨向一致。

But over the last 30 years,

但在過去30年,

China undoubtedly

中國毫無疑問

has done much better than India.

較印度表現好很多。

One simple answer

一個簡單的答案是

is China has Shanghai and India has Mumbai.

中國有上海,印度有孟買。

Look at the skyline of Shanghai.

看看上海的地平線

This is the Pudong area.

這是浦東地區。

The picture on India

而印度的照片則是

is the Dharavi slum of Mumbai

孟買達拉維的

in India.

貧民窟。

The idea there

兩張照片背後的

behind these two pictures

想法是

is that the Chinese government

中國政府可以

can act above rule of law.

凌駕法治之上。

It can plan

她可以根據國家長期利益

for the long-term benefits of the country

作出規劃。

and in the process,

而在這個過程中

evict millions of people --

遷徙以百萬計的人民 -

that's just a small technical issue.

這只是小小的技術問題。

Whereas in India, you cannot do that,

然而在印度,你無法這樣做

because you have to listen to the public.

你要聽取民眾的意見。

You're being constrained by the public's opinion.

你受到民意的制約。

Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

即使辛格總理

agrees with that view.

認同這個看法。

In an interview

在刊登於印度一份財經刊物上

printed in the financial press of India,

的一篇訪問中,

He said that he wants to make Mumbai

他說過想把孟買變成

another Shanghai.

另一個上海。

This is an Oxford-trained economist

這是一位在英國牛津大學受教育,

steeped in humanistic values,

人文價值觀深厚的經濟學家,

and yet he agrees

但他還是認同

with the high-pressure tactics of Shanghai.

上海的高壓政策。

So let me call it the Shanghai model of economic growth,

讓我稱它為上海式的經濟增長模式吧,

that emphasizes the following features

它強調以下

for promoting economic development:

促進經濟發展的形式:

infrastructures, airports,

基礎建設、機場、

highways, bridges, things like that.

公路、橋樑及類似的建設。

And you need a strong government to do that,

你需要一個強勢政府才可以這樣做，

because you cannot respect private property rights.

因為你不能尊重私有產權。

You cannot be constrained by the public's opinion.

你也不可以被民意約束。

You need also state ownership,

你亦需要公共產權,

especially of land assets,

特別是土地資產的擁有權,

in order to build and roll out infrastructures

以便急速地進行及推出

very quickly.

基礎建設。

The implication of that model

這個模式意味著

is that democracy

民主

is a hindrance for economic growth,

是經濟增長的障礙,

rather than a facilitator of economic growth.

而非經濟增長促進者。

Here's the key question.

這裡關鍵的問題是:

Just how important are infrastructures

基礎建設對經濟增長

for economic growth?

有多重要?

This is a key issue.

這是一個關鍵的課題。

If you believe that infrastructures are very important for economic growth,

如果你相信基礎建設對經濟增長極之重要,

then you would argue a strong government is necessary

那麼你應支持須要強勢政府去

to promote growth.

促進經濟增長。

If you believe

如果你相信

that infrastructures are not as important as many people believe,

基礎建設並非如很多人所想那麼重要的話,

then you will put less emphasis

那麼你便不會那樣重視

on strong government.

強勢政府。

So to illustrate that question,

要說明這個問題,

let me give you two countries.

讓我用兩個國家為例,

And for the sake of brevity,

同時為求簡單起見,

I'll call one country Country 1

我把第一個國家稱為甲國

and the other country Country 2.

另一個乙國。

Country 1

甲國

has a systematic advantage over Country 2

在基礎建設上較乙國

in infrastructures.

有系統性的優勢。

Country 1 has more telephones,

甲國有較多的電話,

and Country 1 has a longer system of railways.

和更長的鐵路系統。

So if I were to ask you,

如果我問你,

"Which is China

那一個是中國?

and which is India,

那一個是印度?

and which country has grown faster?"

那一個國家增長得比較快?

if you believe in the infrastructure view,

我相根據基礎建設的角度,

then you will say, "Country 1 must be China.

你會說:甲國應該是中國,

They must have done better, in terms of economic growth.

在經濟增長方面,她應表現較佳,

And Country 2 is possibly India."

而乙國就可能是印度。

Actually the country with more telephones

事實上,有較多電話的國家是

is the Soviet Union,

蘇聯,

and the data referred to 1989.

這是1989年的數據。

After the country reported very impressive statistics on telephones,

在發表了令人印象深刻的電話統計數據後,

the country collapsed.

這個國家解體了。

That's not too good.

這並非好事。

The picture there is Khrushchev.

這是赫魯曉夫的照片。

I know that in 1989

我知他在1989年

he no longer ruled the Soviet Union,

已不再統治蘇聯了,

but that's the best picture that I can find.

但這是我能找到的最好的照片。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Telephones, infrastructures

電話、基礎建設

do not guarantee you economic growth.

並不保證為你帶來經濟增長。

Country 2, that has fewer telephones,

擁有比較少電話的乙國

is China.

是中國。

Since 1989,

1989年以來

the country has performed at a double-digit rate

該國在過去的20年裡

every year for the last 20 years.

每年都表現出雙位數字的增長率。

If you know nothing about China and the Soviet Union

如果你對中國和蘇聯一無所知

other than the fact about their telephones,

只知道她們電話的數字,

you would have made a poor prediction

你便會對她們之後20年的

about their economic growth

經濟增長

in the next two decades.

作出差勁的預測。

Country 1, that has a longer system of railways,

有較長鐵路系統的甲國

is actually India.

其實是印度。

And Country 2 is China.

乙國是中國。

This is a very little known fact

這是一個關於這兩個國家

about the two countries.

罕為人知的事實。

Yes, today China has a huge infrastructure advantage

沒錯,在基礎建設上中國目前較印度

over India.

有龐大的優勢。

But for many years,

但很多年來

until the late 1990s,

直到90年代末期

China had an infrastructure disadvantage

中國在基礎建設上相對印度而言

vis-a-vis India.

是處於劣勢的。

In developing countries,

在發展中國家,

the most common mode of transportation

最普及的交通工具是

is the railways,

鐵路,

and the British built a lot of railways in India.

英國人在印度建了很多鐵路。

India is the smaller of the two countries,

印度是兩國中較小的一個,

and yet it had a longer system of railways

然而在90年代末，印度仍然擁有

until the late 1990s.

較長的鐵路系統。

So clearly,

明顯地,

infrastructure doesn't explain

基礎建設解釋不了

why China did better before the late 1990s,

爲何中國在90年代後期之前

as compared with India.

表現優於印度。

In fact, if you look at the evidence worldwide,

事實上,如果你環顧全球的證據,

the evidence is more supportive of the view

這些證據更多支持

that the infrastructure are actually the result of economic growth.

基礎建設是經濟增長的成果這種看法。

The economy grows,

經濟增長,

government accumulates more resources,

政府累積更多資源

and the government can invest in infrastructure --

及投資於基礎建設 -

rather than infrastructure being a cause

基礎建設並非

for economic growth.

帶動經濟增長的原因。

And this is clearly the story

這明顯是

of the Chinese economic growth.

中國經濟增長的故事。

Let me look at this question more directly.

讓我更直接的分析這個問題。

Is democracy bad for economic growth?

民主是否不利於經濟增長?

Now let's turn to two countries,

現在再看看另外兩個國家,

Country A and Country B.

丙國和丁國。

Country A, in 1990,

丙國在1990年

had about $300 per capita GDP

的人均GDP是300美元。

as compared with Country B,

至於丁國

which had $460 in per capita GDP.

其人均GDP則爲460美元。

By 2008,

到了2008年,

Country A has surpassed Country B

丙國超越了丁國

with $700 per capita GDP

人均GDP達700美元

as compared with $650 per capita GDP.

相對於650美元的人均GDP。

Both countries are in Asia.

兩個國家都在亞洲。

If I were to ask you,

假如我問你:

"Which are the two Asian countries?

她們是那兩個亞洲國家呢?

And which one is a democracy?"

那一個是民主國家呢?

you may argue,

你可能會認為

"Well, maybe Country A is China

丙國是中國

and Country B is India."

丁國是印度。

In fact, Country A

事實上,丙國是

is democratic India,

民主的印度,

and Country B is Pakistan --

丁國是巴基斯坦 -

the country that has a long period

該國有一段很長時期的

of military rule.

軍事統治。

And it's very common

我們時常會

that we compare India with China.

拿印度與中國比較。

That's because the two countries

因為這兩個國家

have about the same population size.

擁有差不多的人口。

But the more natural comparison

但更自然的比較

is actually between India and Pakistan.

實際上應是印度和巴基斯坦。

Those two countries are geographically similar.

這兩個國家地理位置差不多。

They have a complicated, but shared common history.

同時擁有複雜但相同的歷史。

By that comparison,

比較起來,

democracy looks very, very good

民主對經濟增長

in terms of economic growth.

看來極之有利。

So why do economists fall in love

但為何經濟學家會愛上

with authoritarian governments?

獨裁政府呢?

One reason is the East Asian Model.

一個原因是東亞模式。

In East Asia,

在東亞地區,

we have had successful economic growth stories

我們有一些成功的經濟增長故事

such as Korea, Taiwan,

例如南韓、台灣、

Hong Kong and Singapore.

香港和新加坡。

Some of these economies

這些國家中,有些

were ruled by authoritarian governments

在60和70年代,

in the 60s and 70s

以及80年代,

and 1980s.

曾受獨裁統治。

The problem with that view

這個看法的問題是

is like asking all the winners of lotteries,

像問彩票中獎人:

"Have you won the lottery?"

你中了獎嗎?

And they all tell you, "Yes, we have won the lottery."

他們都會跟你說:對,我中了獎。

And then you draw the conclusion

然後你便作出結論

the odds of winning the lottery

中獎的機會是

are 100 percent.

百分之百。

The reason is you never go

原因是你完全沒有亦無心去

and bother to ask the losers

問一下那些買了彩票

who also purchased lottery tickets

但沒有中獎

and didn't end up winning the prize.

而贏不到彩金的人。

For each of these successful authoritarian governments

在東亞,

in East Asia,

在這些每一個成功的獨裁政府背後

there's a matched failure.

都有一個相應的失敗例子。

Korea succeeded, North Korea didn't.

南韓成功,北韓失敗。

Taiwan succeeded, China under Mao Zedong didn't.

台灣成功,毛澤東領導下的中國失敗。

Burma didn't succeed.

緬甸不成功。

The Philippines didn't succeed.

菲律賓不成功。

If you look at the statistical evidence worldwide,

如果你看看全球的統計數據,

there's really no support for the idea

真的找不到證據去證明，

that authoritarian governments

獨裁政府

hold a systematic edge over democracies

在經濟增長上較民主國家

in terms of economic growth.

擁有系統性的優勢。

So the East Asian model

所以東亞模式

has this massive selection bias --

存有重大的選擇偏差 -

it is known as selecting on a dependent variable,

即是所謂篩選因變數的做法,

something we always tell our students to avoid.

一些我們經常教導學生要避免的錯誤。

So exactly why did China grow so much faster?

究竟是甚麽原因令中國增長快那麼多呢?

I will take you to the Cultural Revolution,

讓我與你們回顧一下文化大革命,

when China went mad,

當時中國處於瘋狂狀態,

and compare that country's performance with India

然後拿她的經濟表現與

under Indira Gandhi.

甘地領導下的印度比較。

The question there is: Which country did better,

這裡的問題是:那一個國家表現較好,

China or India?

中國或印度?

China was during the Cultural Revolution.

中國當時正處於文化大革命期間,

It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution,

結果是即使在文化大革命期間,

China out-perfomed India

以GDP增長計,

in terms of GDP growth

中國比印度有較好的表現

by an average of about 2.2 percent every year

以人均GDP計,

in terms of per capita GDP.

中國平均每年的增長高於印度百分之2.2。

So that's when China was mad.

這正是中國處於瘋狂的時候。

The whole country went mad.

整個國家都瘋狂起來。

It must mean that the country

這意味著這個國家

had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth

一定有一些經濟增長上的強大優勢

to overcome the negative effects

足以克服文化大革命

of the Cultural Revolution.

帶來的負面影響。

The advantage the country had

這個國家擁有的優勢就是

was human capital --

人力資本 -

nothing else but human capital.

沒有其他就只是人力資本。

This is the world development index indicator data

這是90年代初的

in the early 1990s.

全球發展指數的數據。

And this is the earliest data that I can find.

這是我能夠找到的最早的數據。

The adult literacy rate in China

中國的成人識字率

is 77 percent

達百分之77

as compared with 48 percent in India.

印度只有百分之48。

The contrast in literacy rates

中國和印度婦女

is especially sharp

的識字率之間的差距

between Chinese women and Indian women.

更為特別顯著。

I haven't told you about the definition of literacy.

我還未告訴你識字率的定義。

In China, the definition of literacy

在中國,識字的定義是

is the ability to read and write

能夠讀和寫

1,500 Chinese characters.

1,500個中文字。

In India, the definition of literacy,

在印度,識字的定義,

operating definition of literacy,

操作上識字的定義,

is the ability, the grand ability,

是以你所說的語言,無論你說甚麽話,

to write your own name

書寫自己名字

in whatever language you happen to speak.

的能力,重大的能力。

The gap between the two countries in terms of literacy

在識字水平上,兩國的差距

is much more substantial

跟數據所顯示的

than the data here indicated.

嚴重得更多。

If you go to other sources of data

如果你參考其他數據來源