[上進]最近的釣魚台讓我想到這篇(←整個就是書 …
如果爭釣魚台是為石油的話
我覺得這篇滿有參考價值的
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a curious phenomenon that economists call the resource curse
- so named because, on average, countries with large endowments of
natural resources perform worse than countries that are less well endowed.
Yet some countries with abundant natural resources do perform better than
others, and some have done well. Why is the spell of the resource curse cast
so unequally?
Thirty years ago, Indonesia and Nigeria - both dependent on oil - had
comparable per capita incomes. Today, Indonesia's per capita income is four
times that of Nigeria. Indeed, Nigeria's per capita income (as measured in
constant dollars circa 1995) has fallen.
A similar pattern holds true in Sierra Leone and Botswana. Both are rich
in diamonds. Yet Botswana averaged 8.7% annual economic growth over the past
thirty years, while Sierra Leone plunged into civil strife. The failures in
the oil-rich Middle East are legion.
Economists put forward three reasons for the dismal performance of some
richly endowed countries:
‧ First, the prospect of riches orients official efforts to seizing a
larger share of the pie, rather than creating a larger pie. The result of
this wealth grab is often war. At other times simple rent-seeking behavior
by officials, aided and abetted by outsiders, is the outcome. It is cheaper
to bribe a government to provide resources at below-market prices than to
invest and develop an industry, so it is no surprise that some firms succumb
to this temptation.
‧ Second, natural resource prices are volatile, and managing this
volatility is hard. Lenders provide money when times are good, but want their
money back when, say, energy prices plummet. (As the old adage has it, banks
only like to lend to those who do not need money.) Economic activity is thus
even more volatile than commodity prices, and much of the gains made in a boom
unravels in the bust that follows.
‧ Third, oil and other natural resources, while perhaps a source of
wealth, do not create jobs by themselves, and unfortunately, they often
crowd out other economic sectors. For example, an inflow of oil money often
leads to currency appreciation - a phenomenon called the Dutch Disease.
The Netherlands, after its discovery of North Sea gas and oil, found itself
plagued with growing unemployment and workforce disability (many of those who
could not get jobs found disability benefits to be more generous than
unemployment benefits.) When the exchange rate soars as a result of resource
booms, countries cannot export manufactured or agriculture goods, and
domestic producers cannot compete with an onslaught of imports.
So abundant natural wealth often creates rich countries with poor people.
Two thirds of the people in Venezuela, the Latin American country with the
largest oil deposits, live in poverty. No wonder that they are demanding that
the small group of those who benefit from the country's wealth start to share
it.
Fortunately, as we have become aware of these problems, we have learned
much about what can be done about them. Democratic, consensual, and
transparent processes - such as those in Botswana - are more likely to ensure
that the fruits of a country's wealth are equitably and well spent.
We also know that stabilization funds - which set aside some of the money
earned when prices are high - can help reduce the economic volatility
associated with natural resource prices. Moreover, such fluctuations are
amplified by borrowing in good years, so countries should resist foreign
lenders who try to persuade them of the virtues of such capital flows.
The Dutch disease, however, is one of the more intractable consequences of
oil and resource wealth, at least for poor countries. In principle, it is easy
to avoid currency appreciation: keep the foreign exchange earned from, say,
oil exports out of the country. Invest the money in the US or Europe. Bring it
in only gradually. But in most developing countries, such a policy is viewed
as using oil money to help someone else's economy.
Some countries, notably Nigeria, are trying to implement these lessons.
Nigeria has proposed creating stabilization funds, and, in the future, it will
sell its natural resources in transparent, competitive bidding processes. Most
importantly, the Nigerians are taking measures to ensure that the fruits of
this endowment are invested, so that as the country's natural resources are
depleted, its real wealth - fixed and human capital - is increased.
Western governments can help with common-sense reforms. Secret bank
accounts not only support terrorism, but also facilitate the corruption that
undermines development. Similarly, transparency would be encouraged if only
payments that are fully documented were tax deductible. Violent conflict is
fed and its effects worsened by massive sales of arms by Western governments
to developing countries. This should be stopped.
Abundant natural resources can and should be a blessing, not a curse.
We know what must be done. What is missing is the political will to make it
so.
--------
Joseph E. Stiglitz is Professor of Economics at Columbia University and a
member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization. He
received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
嗯....
雖然我看過了
不過徵強者翻譯
不然大BK會哭爸他看不懂
翻的很順(也就是夠宅)的話
給你1000p幣~~~
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.115.200.9
※ 編輯: ppp516 來自: 140.115.200.9 (06/17 17:59)
噓
06/18 10:21, , 1F
06/18 10:21, 1F
→
06/18 10:26, , 2F
06/18 10:26, 2F
噓
06/20 00:01, , 3F
06/20 00:01, 3F