魏尚进：全球化创造的赢家多于输家 | 趋势
■本文选自《复旦金融评论》，原标题《反全球化偏见与公共政策》
■作者：魏尚进 复旦大学泛海国际金融学院学术访问教授、哥伦比亚大学终身讲席教授
■公众号：复旦金融评论
许多全球化的赢家误以为自己是输家，因为他们没有认识到全球化带来的巨大的间接收益。纠正反全球化偏见可以使公共政策更加开明。
本文共计1871字，预计阅读时长5分钟
拉至底部，阅读英文原文
但我们不应夸大这一逻辑的重要性与普及性。事实上，在许多社会中还有另外三种固有的反全球化偏见在起作用，它们常常导致公共政策被误导，让雇主和工人都得不到好处。
首先，尽管全球化创造的赢家往往多于输家，哪怕在政府实施再分配计划之前也是如此，但许多赢家却误以为自己是输家，因为他们没有认识到全球化带来的巨大的间接收益。
以美国从中国的进口为例。许多人常说，与中国进口商品竞争最为直接的美国行业或地区往往表现不佳，因为这些进口造成了美国的就业岗位流失。但我的合作者和我在最新论文中强调，2000年至2014年期间，使用相对较多中国制造中间产品——如计算机和其他电子设备、家具和实验服——的美国行业往往经历了更快的就业增长和更大的实际工资增幅。但是，全球化反对者常常不理解或忽视这类发现。
此外，在美国制造业就业岗位中的一部分因为来自中国的进口商品而流失的同时，美国规模大得多的服务业（以及许多制造业企业）都受益于中国制造的廉价零部件。美国只有不到五分之一的就业岗位属于制造业，而服务业约占就业的四分之三——所有美国的州和大多数的城市都是如此。
因此，我们估算，如果把中美贸易的总体影响考虑在内，四分之三的美国工人的实际工资有所增长。而如果只关注直接竞争影响，大部分工人的实际工资看起来有所下降。换句话说，即便不考虑将雇主的部分收益转移给工人的再分配，美国绝大部分劳动力也从对华贸易中获益，工人作为一个群体获得的总收益也为正。
然而，尽管大部分美国人能够理解中国进口商品对就业和工资的直接影响，他们却不理解其中正面积极的间接影响。这不足为奇。当一家美国企业裁员时，人事经理会说，“对不起，我们不得不让你离开，但你应该责怪我们国家从中国大量进口商品夺了你的饭碗。”特朗普和许多美国媒体也在反复强化这一观念。但我们的分析表明，美国不同行业的就业的扩张也受益于对华贸易。
另一方面，当一家美国企业雇用新员工——他们的工资往往高于在夕阳产业中得到的工资——企业老板不大可能说，“恭喜你，你应该感谢中国进口的中间品让你得到了新工作。”相反，他们更有可能会说，“你得到了这份工作是因为我是一个了不起的企业家。”这种不对称的认知与宣传是造成反全球化偏见的内在原因之一。
这种偏见的第二个来源是公共话语的不对称。技术、教育和全球化都推动了就业市场的洗牌，对个人的收入与就业产生影响。但各国政客和媒体常常发现，将社会难题的责任推到外国企业或政府身上，比归咎于技术进步、公共教育体系的失败、家庭教养不足和个人努力不足更加方便。毕竟，教师和家长手里有选票，科技企业赞助了选战。相比之下，外国人两样都不沾。
最后，糟糕的反全球化政策背后的受益者也推波助澜助长了反全球化偏见。从贸易壁垒中获利的公司和个人有强烈的动机组织起来，为这些措施游说。相反，大部分因为贸易保护主义而失败的人，要么没有花足够的时间和精力去理解这些问题，要么因为缺少资源去游说改善公共政策。
这三个偏见源头表明，社会很可能轻率地采取伤及大多数人的反全球化措施。事实上，大部分国家都存在经济开放壁垒，仔细研究不难发现，这些壁垒有损于公民的福祉。
社会需要更好地分配全球化和新技术带来的收益，但他们还必须在其他两个领域做好进一步的工作。
高质量的研究和新闻有助于公民更好地理解开放贸易的间接和直接影响。此外，更好的教育体系和更多的个人努力能够提高劳动者的技能，提升他们的能力，从而抓住源自科技进步和全球化的机会。
全球化争论常常与民族主义、利己主义和缺乏经济理解力有关，其结果就是公共政策被误导、被绑架。纠正讨论中的负面偏见可以使公共政策更加开明。
向上滑动阅览英文原文
Anti-Globalization and Publicy Policy?
SHANG-JIN WEI
Opponents of globalization constantly point to the uneven impact of open trade. Although trade liberalization can make the overall economic pie bigger, not everyone gets a larger slice, and many may receive a much smaller piece than before because of competition from foreign-made products. Such concerns help to explain why many blue-collar American workers voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, and why French farmers and workers often take part in anti-globalization demonstrations.But we should not exaggerate the importance of this point. In fact, three other inherent anti-globalization biases are at work in many societies, and often contribute to the emergence of misguided public policies that benefit neither employers nor workers.First, although globalization frequently creates many more winners than losers, even before government redistribution programs, many winners mistakenly think they are losers because they fail to recognize globalization’s significant indirect benefits.Consider the example of US imports from China. As many often point out, US sectors or regions that compete most directly with Chinese imports tend to fare less well, because these imports displace US jobs. But as my colleagues and I highlighted in a recent paper, US sectors that use relatively more Chinese-made intermediate inputs – such as computers and other electronic equipment, furniture, and lab coats – tended to experience faster job growth and larger increases in real wages between 2000 and 2014. Yet, opponents of globalization often fail to understand or choose to ignore such findings.Moreover, whereas only a subset of US manufacturing jobs are displaced by imports from China, America’s much larger service sector (and many of its manufacturing industries) benefits from cheaper Chinese-made inputs. Less than one-fifth of all US jobs are in manufacturing, while the service sector accounts for about three-quarters of employment – a pattern that also holds for all US states and almost all US cities.We therefore estimate that when the total effects of US-China trade are considered, the real wages of three-quarters of American workers’ have increased (whereas if one focuses only on the direct competition effect, real wages would appear to have declined for most workers). In other words, even before the redistribution of some gains from employers to workers, an overwhelming majority of the US labor force already benefits from trade with China, and the total gains for workers are also positive.However, although most Americans understand the direct effect of Chinese imports on jobs and wages, they do not recognize the positive indirect effect. That is not surprising. When a US firm fires workers, its human-resources manager may say, “Sorry we have to let you go, but you should blame our country’s imports from China.” Trump and much of the US media have repeatedly reinforced this idea. Our analysis, however suggests that US job expansion is also linked to trade with China.On the other hand, when a US firm hires new workers, often at higher wages than they would receive in shrinking sectors, its boss is highly unlikely to say, “Congratulations, and you should thank imports from China for your new jobs.” Instead, they are far more likely to say, “You’ve got your jobs because I am a great entrepreneur.” This asymmetry in perception generates an inherent anti-globalization bias.These cond source of such bias is an asymmetry in public discourse. Technology, education, and globalization all contribute to the reshuffling of the job market and its impact on individuals. But national politicians and media often find it more convenient to blame societal woes on foreign firms or governments than on technological advances, the failure of public education systems, inadequate parenting, or individual shortcomings. After all, teachers and parents vote, and technology firms donate to political campaigns. Foreigners, by contrast, do neither.Finally, the asymmetric benefits of bad policies also fuel an anti-globalization bias. Companies and individuals who profit from trade barriers have a strong incentive to organize themselves and lobby for such measures. By contrast, most people who lose out as a result of protectionism do not spend enough time and effort to understand the issues, or lack the resources to lobby for better public policies.These three sources of bias suggest that societies can all too easily adopt anti-globalization measures that hurt most people. In fact, most countries have barriers to economic openness which, upon careful scrutiny, tend to hurt citizens’ wellbeing.To be sure, societies need to do a better job of distributing the gains from globalization and new technologies. But they also must step up their efforts in two other areas.Higher-quality research and journalism would help citizens to understand better the indirectas well as the direct effects of open trade. Furthermore, better education systems and greater individual efforts would improve skills and boost workers’ ability to seize opportunities arising from technological progress and globalization.The globalization debate is often tinged with nationalism, self-interest, and lack of economic understanding, resulting in misguided public policies. Redressing the negative bias in the discussion could enable more enlightened public policies.-END-