译者 Flora Zhong
“Poor countries cannot afford democracy” is a common refrain. It suggests that poor lands need strong, authoritarian leaders to overcome the forces that have kept them poor for centuries. That the great majority of rich countries are mainly democratic may be evidence for this claim, but the effects of democracy on economic performance are disputed. Let’s explore how democracy can have economic advantages for poor as well as rich countries.
“穷国家受不起民主”是习以为常的说辞了。它的意思就是说，穷地方需要强硬的独裁者克服总是让国家受穷的各种阻力。多数富国都实行民主制可能也是这一论断的佐证，但是在经济表现中的民主力影响还是有争议的。让我们一起看看民主制度如何利用经济优势像在富国一样造福穷困国家的吧。
The actual effects of democracy on the economy and life in general should be compared not with an ideal form of government but with various governments that do not have a free press, do not allow open competition for political office, do not have widespread suffrage, and lack the other institutions and freedoms that define democracies. As Winston Churchill famously said, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (This is from a House of Commons speech on November 11, 1947, delivered about two years after he was defeated in a postwar election.)
通常，民主在经济和生活方面的实际影响并不是与一个拥有理想模式的政府相比照，而是和那些各种各样政府相比照，这些政府可能没有言论自由，没有政治职务公开竞争，没有广泛投票权，而且缺失其他可以定义民主的体系和自由。就像温斯顿·丘吉尔最著名的一句话一样：“没人假称民主制度是最完美或是最明智的制度。实际上，也有人说过，要不是由于其他所有的形式都行不通，民主制度会是最糟糕的政府模式。”（源于1947年11月11日，丘吉尔在战后竞选失败后2年来自下议院的演说词。）
Many studies have tried to isolate the effects of democracy on economic development, inequality, and education, and draw comparisons to authoritarian systems of government. It is very hard to separate the effects of democracy from other variables, so these studies fail to reach conclusive results. They tend, however, to find that once other suitable factors are taken into account, there seems to be only a weak relationship between long-term average rates of growth in GDP and whether countries are democratic. Democracies do appear to encourage broader investments in education, however, and education helps promote faster economic growth.
许多研究已经尝试将民主在经济发展，不平等和教育上的影响割裂开来，只是在政府权力系统进行比较。从其他变量总分割民主的作用挺困难的，所以这些研究也就没有得到结论性的成果。尽管如此，研究更倾向于，去寻找一旦其它合适的因素被考虑到，似乎只有在长期平均GDP增长率和一个国家是否是民主制这两者之间有一个非常虚弱的关系。民主会鼓舞广泛的教育投资，尽管如此，教育也可以促进经济快速增长。
People in wealthier countries learn to desire freedom not only in economic choices but also in social and political life.
在富裕国家生活的人们不仅学会了在经济生活的选择上渴望自由，而且在社会和政治生活中也同样如此。
While some authoritarian leaders greatly improve their economies, they are not the rule. For every example of dictators like Augusto Pinochet and Chiang Kai-shek who produced fast economic growth, there is a Joseph Stalin or Idi Amin with dismal economic policies. Similarly, not every democracy handles the economy well. India, for example, has been a vibrant democracy since its independence in 1947. During its first forty years it produced slow growth under a socialist government, and then made a transition to much faster economic growth after the government shifted toward more market-friendly policies.
然而一些独裁统治者的确改善了经济，但他们不能作为通则来看待。对于独裁者的例子，像Augusto Pinochet和蒋介石，他们让经济快速成长，也有斯大林和Idi Amin实施低迷的经济政策。相类似的，不是每一个民主政治都成把经济搞得很好。比如印度，1947年独立后，实行了充满活力的民主政治。在建国初期的40年间，在社会主义政府的领导下经济却缓慢发展，但是在政府转向更加市场友好的政策后，经济迅速发展起来。
While average rate of growth does not appear to differ much between democracies and authoritarian regimes, the variability in performance does differ more among authoritarian governments. China has had remarkable growth since the 1980s, but the prolonged devastation and hardship produced by China’s “great leap forward” (when millions of farmers starved) and its Cultural Revolution probably would not have occurred in a democratic country like India. Nor is it likely that Cuba and many African nations, for example, would have suffered so long with such terrible economic policies if they had had reasonably democratic institutions.
然而在民主和专政中的平均增长速度没有什么太大不同，在专政政府里确实是在表现上呈现出多样性。中国自从20世纪80年代以来，就有着显著的经济表现，但是中国“大跃进”那持久的灾难和苦难（上百万的农民挨饿受苦）还有文化大革命这样的事情可能不会在像印度这样的民主国家发生。也不像古巴和许多非洲国家一样，如果他们有一个适度的民主制度，也就不会这么上时间地忍受糟糕的经济政策。
One reason persistent economic distress is less likely in democracies is that a free press would publicly report the distress and severely criticize the economic policies causing it. Similarly, political candidates would openly attack policies that led to prolonged economic crises, and they would often be elected with a mandate to change the policies.
造成经济持续的不景气的一个原因是不太可能出现在民主里，就是说一个自由出版社会公开报道经济不景气，并且严厉批判引起萧条的经济政策。相似的是，政治候选人会公开攻击导致持续经济危机的政策，而且经常被授权改变政策而当选。
Some economic commentators use the strong correlation at any moment between wealth of countries and democratic governments to argue that democracy causes greater wealth. To be sure, many long-term democracies, such as the United States and Great Britain, grew very wealthy. So too, however, did countries like Taiwan and South Korea that started to grow rapidly under dictatorships but became democracies, some rather quickly, when they became richer.
一些经济评论家在国家财富和民主政府之间的任何时刻使用了很强的关联性，他们认为民主政治催生了较大的财富。当然，许多民主制度持续时间较长的国家，比如美国和英国，真的十分富裕。但是即便如此，那么像台湾和韩国这样的地区和国家，开始在专政制度下发展迅速，但是后面变成民主制度后，有些在他们变得更加富裕时，发展迅速，
The late sociologist and Hoover fellow Seymour Martin Lipset concluded many years ago from an examination of historical evidence that growing wealth mainly encourages democracy, rather than vice versa. I believe his interpretation was basically correct. Especially in the modern world, as people get richer they travel more, learn more through newspapers, television, and the Internet about what is going on in their own and in other countries, and communicate by phone, e-mail, texting, and otherwise. People in wealthier countries learn to desire freedom not only in economic choices but also in social and political life. These aspirations are incompatible with governments that censor what people read and hear, try to suppress open discussion of politically sensitive subjects, and suppress challenges from political candidates outside officially recognized parties.
已故胡佛研究员和社会学家Seymour Martin Lipset很多年前从一份历史证据调查中归结了一个现象：基本上，变富裕可以鼓励民主制度，而且此过程不可逆。我觉得他的阐释基本正确。特别是在现代世界，随着人们变的富有，他们开始到处旅行，通过报纸，电视和互联网更多了解他们自己还有其他国家发生的事情，并且通过电话，电子邮件，短信还有其他方式进行沟通。在富国生活的人们不仅仅在经济选择上渴望自由，而且在社会和政治生活上也会提出相同的要求。这些愿望与那种监视人们所读所听，试图压制人们公开讨论政治敏感话题还有压制来自官方指定政党以外挑战的政府根本不能相容。
So yes, poor countries can afford democracy, as long as they use their democratic government to promote economic freedoms. Unfortunately, many poor countries, including democracies, fail to do this.
所以，是这样的，穷国家才经得起民主，随着他们的民主，政府也不断推动经济自由。不幸的是，许多穷困的国家，包括实行民主制度的国家，也没有因此而成功。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Becker, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Science in 1992, is the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago. He is an expert in human capital, economics of the family, and economic analysis of crime, discrimination, and population. His current research focuses on habits and addictions, formation of preferences, human capital, and population growth. He writes commentary for The Becker-Posner Blog and is one of the initial fellows of the Society of Labor Economists. In addition to being a Nobel laureate, Becker is a recipient of the 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom.
作者Gery S Backer，1992年获得了诺贝尔经济学奖，胡佛研究院Rose-Marie和Jack R Anderson的资深院士，芝加哥大学经济社会学教授。他是人力资本，家庭经济学还有犯罪/歧视和人口经济分析方面的专家。他最近的研究集中于习惯和上瘾，偏好形成，人力资本和人口增长。他还为Becker-Posner的博客写评论，并且他也是劳动经济学家学会的最初成员。除了获得诺贝尔奖以外，Backer还是2007年总统自由勋章的获得者。
from 译言-每日精品译文推荐 http://article.yeeyan.org/view/209166/241587