• 2026考研英語(yǔ)全程班 6班
• 26考研全科上岸規(guī)劃營(yíng)「擇校▪規(guī)劃▪備考」
• 2026考研專(zhuān)業(yè)課復(fù)習(xí)資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫(kù)」

Leaders

社論精粹

Privatisation

私有化

The $9 trillion sale

9萬(wàn)億美元的大拍賣(mài)

Governments should launch a new wave ofprivatisations, this time centred on property

富裕國(guó)家的政府應(yīng)當(dāng)再掀起一股私有化浪潮，這次應(yīng)當(dāng)把重點(diǎn)放在土地和房產(chǎn)上。

IMAGINE you were heavily in debt, owned a large portfolio of equities and under-usedproperty and were having trouble cutting your spending—much like most Westerngovernments. Wouldn't you think of offloading some of your assets?

設(shè)想一下：如果你守著金山銀山，卻還在為籌錢(qián)還債而苦惱，你會(huì)怎么辦呢?答案是：賣(mài)掉其中的一部分，然后再用得到的錢(qián)還債不就行了嗎。其實(shí)，這也是那些債務(wù)纏身的富國(guó)應(yīng)該采取的一個(gè)辦法。賣(mài)掉一些“家底”—所持公司的股權(quán)、已經(jīng)用不著的房產(chǎn)，或者是尚未開(kāi)發(fā)的土地，把政府資產(chǎn)私有化，緊縮的煩惱不就可以迎刃而解了嗎?

Politicians push privatisation at different times for different reasons. In Britain in the 1980s,Margaret Thatcher used it to curb the power of the unions. Eastern European countriesemployed it later to dismantle command economies. Today, with public indebtedness at itshighest peacetime level in advanced economies, the main rationale is to raise cash.

政府會(huì)在不同的時(shí)期因?yàn)椴煌�的原因而進(jìn)行私有化。瑪格麗特·撒切爾在上世紀(jì)80年代的英國(guó)推行私有化，是因?yàn)槟菚r(shí)正是工會(huì)勢(shì)力的強(qiáng)盛時(shí)期，她想借此壓制工會(huì);后來(lái)，東歐國(guó)家也實(shí)施了私有化，那是因?yàn)樗麄兿霐[脫計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)。而如今，讓富國(guó)變賣(mài)家底，是因?yàn)樗麄兊膫鶆?wù)水平正處于和平年代的最高峰，實(shí)行私有化有助于他們籌措資金。

Taxpayers might think that the best family silver has already been sold, but plenty is still in thecupboard. State-owned enterprises in OECD countries are worth around $2 trillion. Then thereare minority stakes in companies, plus $2 trillion or so in utilities and other assets held by localgovernments. But the real treasures are “non-financial” assets—buildings, land, subsoilresources—which the IMF believes are worth three-quarters of GDP on average in richeconomies: $35 trillion across the OECD.

對(duì)此，民眾可能會(huì)有不同的想法。因?yàn)椋�在他們看�?lái)，值錢(qián)的家底已經(jīng)賣(mài)得差不多了，還有什么能拿的出手嗎?但是，破家值萬(wàn)貫，再窮的也總有壓箱底的寶貝。對(duì)于富國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，這些寶貝就是大約價(jià)值在2萬(wàn)億美元的政府企業(yè)，以及差不多同等價(jià)值的在私營(yíng)公司股權(quán)和地方政府手里的公用事業(yè)等其他資產(chǎn)。但這還算不上是真正值錢(qián)的，真正值錢(qián)的是那些“非金融性”資產(chǎn)，也就是房產(chǎn)，土地和地下資源。據(jù)國(guó)際貨幣基金組織測(cè)算，這部分家底的價(jià)值在35萬(wàn)億美元左右，相當(dāng)于富國(guó)平常年份GDP總和的四分之三。

Some of these assets could not or should not be sold. What price the Louvre, the Parthenon orYellowstone National Park? Murky government accounting makes it impossible to know whatportion of the total such treasures make up. But it is clear that the overall list includesthousands of marketable holdings with little or no heritage value.

不過(guò)，不是所有的家底都能賣(mài)的。有的不僅不應(yīng)賣(mài)，而且不能賣(mài)。試想，誰(shuí)能給盧浮宮，帕特農(nóng)神廟或者黃石國(guó)家公園開(kāi)個(gè)價(jià)呢?因此，準(zhǔn)備出售家底的政府應(yīng)該明白這樣一個(gè)道理：就算賬本再難看，也不能把這些寶貝拿出來(lái)賣(mài)。能夠賣(mài)的應(yīng)該是那些不怎么值錢(qián)或者是沒(méi)有多少傳承價(jià)值的東西。因?yàn)椋瑔螁芜@些就已經(jīng)足夠了。

America's federal government owns nearly 1m buildings (of which 45,000 were found to beunneeded or under-used in a 2011 audit) and about a fifth of the country's land area, beneathwhich lie vast reserves of oil, gas and other minerals; America's “fracking” revolution has so farbeen almost entirely on private land. The Greek state's largest stock of unrealised value lies inits more than 80,000 non-heritage buildings and plots of land. With only one holiday home forevery 100 in Spain, Greece should be able to tempt developers and other investors at the rightprice. Analysts at PwC reckon Sweden has marketable state-owned property worth $100billion-120 billion. If that is typical of the OECD, its governments are sitting on saleable landand buildings worth up to $9 trillion—equivalent to almost a fifth of their combined gross debt.

先看美國(guó)。聯(lián)邦政府的家底中包括近100萬(wàn)幢建筑物和約占國(guó)土面積五分之一的土地。據(jù)2011年的一次摸底調(diào)查顯示，在這100萬(wàn)幢建筑物中，政府不再需要的或者是已經(jīng)用不著了建筑物為45000幢。土地方面，由于它們大都蘊(yùn)藏著豐富的石油和天然氣或者其他資源。因此，只要像迄今為止幾乎完全都是在私人土地上進(jìn)行的“壓裂”革命那樣，只要把土地賣(mài)出去，肯定能得到豐厚的回報(bào)。再看希臘：他們最值錢(qián)的應(yīng)該是數(shù)量約為80000處的沒(méi)有傳承價(jià)值的建筑物和大大小小的地塊，這些家底還一直未實(shí)現(xiàn)其價(jià)值。鑒于西班牙百戶(hù)人家平均只有一戶(hù)擁有度假屋， 希臘應(yīng)當(dāng)可以用適當(dāng)?shù)膬r(jià)格吸引開(kāi)發(fā)商和其他投資商。最后是瑞典：據(jù)普華永道的估計(jì)，如果以市場(chǎng)價(jià)格來(lái)計(jì)算，該國(guó)政府手中所持有的土地和房產(chǎn)約為1000億-1200億美元。若以上情況屬實(shí)，那么，富國(guó)政府真正是在坐擁“金山銀山”。因?yàn)椋瑑H可供出售的土地和房屋加起來(lái)就大約值9萬(wàn)億美元，這幾乎相當(dāng)于他們GDP總和的五分之一。

Get on with it

賣(mài)吧!

Governments seem strangely reluctant to exploit these revenue-raising opportunities. That ispartly because privatisation always faces opposition. Particular sensitivities surround land, asRonald Reagan discovered when his plan to sell swathes of America's West were shot down bya coalition of greens and ranchers who enjoyed grazing rights, and as the British governmentfound in 2010 when environmentalists scuppered its attempt to sell Forestry Commission land.

但奇怪的是，當(dāng)增收的機(jī)會(huì)就擺在眼前時(shí)，富裕國(guó)家似乎又有點(diǎn)拿不定主意了。究其原因，除了舍不得之外，最主要的是因?yàn)椋�政府在推行私有化時(shí)，總會(huì)遇到反對(duì)。土地買(mǎi)賣(mài)特別敏感。當(dāng)里根準(zhǔn)備出售美國(guó)西部土地時(shí)，他發(fā)現(xiàn)自己成了熱愛(ài)游牧的綠色和平人士和農(nóng)場(chǎng)主的攻擊對(duì)象;當(dāng)英國(guó)政府試圖在2010年將林業(yè)委員會(huì)所屬的土地賣(mài)給別人時(shí)，他們?cè)獾搅谁h(huán)保主義者的突襲。

In recent years the big transactions, apart from reprivatisations of rescued banks, have mostlytaken place in emerging markets. Activity is starting to pick up in Europe: the Britishgovernment sold Royal Mail last year, and is setting a good example both in transparencyover its land and property holdings and in its readiness to sell them. But, overall, cautionrules. Italy, for example, carries a public-debt burden of 132% of GDP, yet its privatisationplans are timid—even though the state has proportionately more to sell than most other richcountries, with corporate stakes worth perhaps $225 billion and non-financial assets worth asmuch as $1.6 trillion. Now that markets have regained their composure, it is time to be bolder.

但是，在看到新興市場(chǎng)國(guó)家近年來(lái)一直在出售政府資產(chǎn)方面頻出大手筆之后，歐洲終于也坐不住了：去年，英國(guó)政府賣(mài)掉了皇家郵政，并且還在公布家底和出賣(mài)意向方面帶了一個(gè)好頭。不過(guò)，歐洲國(guó)家在做這些事的時(shí)候，總是顯得畏手畏腳，小心過(guò)頭。意大利就是這方面的一個(gè)例子。雖說(shuō)該國(guó)的政府債務(wù)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了GDP的132%，雖說(shuō)他們的家底比任何一個(gè)富裕國(guó)家都要殷實(shí)，但他們總是在實(shí)行私有化時(shí)表現(xiàn)的小心謹(jǐn)慎，以至于白白地浪費(fèi)了手中所持有的2250億美元的股票和1.6萬(wàn)億美元的非金融性資產(chǎn)。既然市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)緩過(guò)勁來(lái)了，還猶豫什么呢?放開(kāi)膽子賣(mài)啊!

There are ways of encouraging sales. Data collection on public property is shockingly poor. Itis patchy even in Scandinavia, where governments pride themselves on their openness.Governments need to get a better idea of what they hold. Effective land registries, givingcertainty to title, are essential: Greece's registry remains a mess. Too many governments usea flaky form of “cash basis” accounting that obscures the costs of holding property. Too fewproduce proper balance-sheets. Better beancounting would make it easier to ascertain whatmight be better off in private hands.

促進(jìn)房產(chǎn)買(mǎi)賣(mài)有許多法子。公共房產(chǎn)和土地方面，數(shù)據(jù)的收集糟糕的要命。即便是以公開(kāi)透明而自詡的北歐諸國(guó)政府在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上也做得差強(qiáng)人意。政府對(duì)自己的家底應(yīng)當(dāng)有更清楚的認(rèn)識(shí)。為了要讓房產(chǎn)權(quán)有確定性， 有效的土地登記是不可少的：希臘的土地登記仍然是一團(tuán)糟。太多的政府在房產(chǎn)的會(huì)計(jì)核算上采用一種不可靠的“現(xiàn)金制”， 這會(huì)模糊房產(chǎn)持有的成本。只有為數(shù)很少的政府對(duì)此提供適當(dāng)?shù)馁Y產(chǎn)負(fù)債表。一個(gè)好的會(huì)計(jì)核算制度會(huì)讓人們更容易確定哪些公房私買(mǎi)之后 比較合算。

Governments also need to sweat whatever remains in state hands. There is no single model formanaging public assets, but any successful strategy would include setting private-sector-stylefinancial benchmarks, replacing cronies with experienced managers and shielding them frompolitical interference. Not only is this good in itself, but it can also lead naturally toprivatisation. That was the case in Sweden a decade ago, when creating a professionallymanaged holding company for state assets revealed many to be non-core, leading to a sellingsplurge by a left-leaning government.

這樣，在搞清土地和房產(chǎn)的情況之后，政府還要花大力氣對(duì)剩余的家底進(jìn)行一番整頓。公共資產(chǎn)的管理沒(méi)有成例可循，但是若想成功，就必須為其設(shè)定新的基準(zhǔn)，以私人投資的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)要求公共資產(chǎn)，用經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的資產(chǎn)管理者取代靠拉關(guān)系而上位的庸才，并且讓這些人免受政治干擾。這種做法不僅本身有利于公共資產(chǎn)的管理，而且還能自然而然地公共資產(chǎn)的私有化。瑞典早在10年前就為我們樹(shù)立了一個(gè)榜樣。當(dāng)時(shí)，在給政府資產(chǎn)建立一個(gè)由專(zhuān)業(yè)人士管理的控股公司的過(guò)程中曾發(fā)現(xiàn)許多資產(chǎn)屬于非核心資產(chǎn)，為此，該國(guó)左傾的政府掀起過(guò)一股私有化大潮。

Where are the successors to Thatcher and Reagan?

學(xué)學(xué)里根和撒切爾

Privatisation is no panacea for profligate governments. Selling assets is a one-off thatprovides only brief respite for those addicted to overspending (though, once sold, assets—from ports to companies—tend to generate far more business). It also has to be weighedagainst lost revenue if the assets provide an income stream: oil-rich Norway gets a quarter ofits government revenue from well-managed state companies. Selling when markets aredepressed is generally a bad idea.

在私有化的過(guò)程中，各國(guó)政府應(yīng)該注意一下三點(diǎn)。第一，私有化不是靈丹妙藥。對(duì)揮霍無(wú)度花錢(qián)上癮的政府來(lái)說(shuō)，它只能解一時(shí)之痛，盡管賣(mài)掉港口和企業(yè)都會(huì)大大地促進(jìn)商業(yè)的發(fā)展。第二，只要待出售的資產(chǎn)還能帶來(lái)一點(diǎn)收入。政府就應(yīng)該三思而后行。在這方面，挪威就是一個(gè)可供學(xué)習(xí)的榜樣。雖說(shuō)這個(gè)國(guó)家的是靠石油富裕起來(lái)的，但是政府的收入中有四分之一是來(lái)自于對(duì)國(guó)有企業(yè)的良好管理。第三，不要再市場(chǎng)不振時(shí)出售家底。

Governments also need to learn from mistakes made in past waves of privatisation. Withoutrobust regulation, sell-offs enrich insiders and lead to backlashes. That happened in Britain(over rail and utilities) and emerging markets (telecoms, banking and more). The Royal Mail salewas a reminder of the political risks: price an asset too high and the deal might flop; price ittoo low and the taxpayer feels cheated. Nevertheless, for governments that are serious aboutbringing their spending in line with revenues, privatisation is a useful tool. It allows governmentsto cut their debts and improve their credit ratings, thus reducing their outgoings, and itimproves the economy's efficiency by boosting competition and by applying private-sectorcapital and skills to newly privatised assets.

另外，富國(guó)政府還應(yīng)從之前的私有化大潮中吸取經(jīng)驗(yàn)和教訓(xùn)。他們必須明白，如果缺乏嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管，私有化就會(huì)變成內(nèi)幕交易者牟利的機(jī)會(huì)，從而引發(fā)民眾的不滿(mǎn)。英國(guó)在出售鐵路和公共事業(yè)時(shí)發(fā)生過(guò)這種事情，新興市場(chǎng)國(guó)家在出售電信和銀行等行業(yè)時(shí)也發(fā)生過(guò)這種事情。圍繞著出售皇家郵政而發(fā)生的一系列事情提醒政府注意，私有化是要冒政治風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的：如果出價(jià)太高，協(xié)議可能會(huì)泡湯;如果出價(jià)太低，民眾又會(huì)認(rèn)為自己受騙了。盡管如此，政府還是應(yīng)該把私有化當(dāng)成是一個(gè)有用的工具。因?yàn)椋瑢?duì)于真得想實(shí)現(xiàn)收支平衡的政府來(lái)說(shuō)，他們可以借此降低債務(wù)，提高信用，從而達(dá)到減少開(kāi)支的目的;他們可以借此鼓勵(lì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，可以借此用私人投資的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)要求剛剛實(shí)現(xiàn)了私有化的國(guó)有資產(chǎn)，從而達(dá)到提高經(jīng)濟(jì)效率的目的。

Thatcher and Reagan used privatisation as a tool to transform utilities, telecoms andtransport. Their 21st-century successors need to do the same for buildings, land andresources. Huge value is waiting to be unlocked.

撒切爾和里根都曾經(jīng)利用私有化的方式，將原本由政府運(yùn)營(yíng)的公用事業(yè)、電信和交通等行業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樗饺似髽I(yè)。如今，他們的后人也需要對(duì)房屋、土地和資源實(shí)行私有化。這是一筆巨大的財(cái)富，它正在等待著人們?nèi)グ阉�發(fā)掘出來(lái)。

1.think of 想起;考慮

例句:It behoves us to think of these dangers.

我們必須考慮到這些危險(xiǎn)。

2.make up 彌補(bǔ)

例句:While renewable sources of energy will make upthe fastest-growing segment of the fuel mix in the future, fossil fuels will remain the dominantsource.

盡管可再生能源將是未來(lái)燃料組合中增長(zhǎng)最快的組成部分，但石化燃料仍將占據(jù)主流。

3.able to 能;會(huì)

例句:He had never been able to disbelieve it completely.

他從未能夠?qū)Υ擞枰匀�盤(pán)否定。

4.reluctant to 不愿

例句:Criminals are very reluctant to leave a paper trail.

罪犯非常不愿意留下案底。