Sister-talk
推心置腹 （陳繼龍 譯）
Mar 1st 2007
From The Economist print edition
Relationship counselling for the fund and the bank
國際貨幣基金組織與世界銀行應(yīng)處理好關(guān)系
CONCEIVED at the same Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the IMF and the World Bank are neither identical twins, nor always very fraternal[1] .The fund is buttoned-up[2] , hierarchical and preoccupied with hard money and sound budgets. Its sister, by contrast, is loose-limbed, sprawling and a bit of a dilettante[3] , worrying about greenery, equality and empowerment, as well as poverty.
國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）和世界銀行都是1944年布雷頓森林（Bretton Woods）會議的產(chǎn)物，但兩者既非“同卵雙生”，亦非總是親密無間。IMF生性內(nèi)斂，做事按部就班，一心只想管好硬通貨，安排好預(yù)算。相反，它的“姐妹”卻愛漫無目的地四處招搖，對綠化、平等、權(quán)力以及貧窮等問題，它都要“先天下憂”，結(jié)果卻都淺嘗輒止。
Inevitably, they squabble[4] . In moments of crisis, the bank is rudely press-ganged[5] into the fund's rescue missions. In today's quieter interludes, the fund itches[6] to offer help, on things such as pensions and insurance, that the bank is perhaps better placed to provide.
為此，“姐妹倆”免不了會爭風(fēng)吃醋。危機(jī)時(shí)刻，世界銀行被強(qiáng)行“抓了當(dāng)差”幫助基金組織實(shí)施援助工作。在當(dāng)今這段較為平和的時(shí)期，諸如養(yǎng)老金和保險(xiǎn)金之類世界銀行自己就能從容駕馭的事情，基金組織卻急不可耐地想要插上一腳。
Last March the two sisters asked Pedro Malan, Brazil's former finance minister, and five other notables to examine their relations at length. This week they released their report. It concludes that the fund and the bank should talk to each other more and step on each other's toes[7] less.
去年3月，“姐妹倆”請巴西前財(cái)長佩德羅?馬倫（Pedro Malan）和其他五位知名人士幫忙對兩者的關(guān)系給仔細(xì)“診了脈”。本周出爐的報(bào)告給出的診斷結(jié)論是：基金組織和世界銀行相互之間應(yīng)該多推心置腹，少越俎代庖。
They should swap[8] staff, and their leaders should make joint plans about the future. But in their operations, a bit of distance would help. The report sees little reason for the fund to provide long-term loans to countries in deep poverty but not in acute crisis. The money is supposed to meet a “protracted balance-of-payments need”. But this concept is so vague as to be almost indistinguishable from development aid, the report argues.
它們應(yīng)當(dāng)開展人事交流，雙方領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人應(yīng)該共同制定未來發(fā)展計(jì)劃。不過，在實(shí)際操作過程中，兩者之間保持些許距離還是會有所裨益的。該報(bào)告認(rèn)為IMF不應(yīng)向非處于緊急狀態(tài)的貧窮國家貸款，它的資金應(yīng)用于糾正“國際收支失調(diào)”。但同時(shí)該報(bào)告也認(rèn)為這個(gè)概念（即糾正“國際收支失調(diào)”）本是就是模糊的，不容易同發(fā)展援助的概念相區(qū)分。
The amount of this lending has fallen in recent years. But it has grown as a share of the fund's shrinking portfolio. The IMF's natural clients in emerging Asia and Latin America have repaid their loans and amassed[9] their own defences against financial crises. This has left the fund all suited up with nowhere to go. The bank's mission, on the other hand, now spans all the world's least tractable problems. It is in no danger of ever putting itself out of a job.
近年來這種貸款總額已直線下降，但基金組織投資組合總體縮水，以致貸款所占比例不減反增。在新興的亞洲和拉丁美洲，貸款國家已經(jīng)清償了IMF所貸款項(xiàng)，并且對金融危機(jī)的自我防范能力也越來越強(qiáng)，導(dǎo)致基金組織已無法物色到合適的貸款對象。另一方面，世界銀行現(xiàn)在的任務(wù)遍及全球，而且全是一些最容易處理的問題。它用不著擔(dān)心別人再搶它的飯碗了。
The bank has also begun to look beyond policies at the deep, social “institutions” that underpin[10] prosperity or poverty. This reflects a turn in the thinking of academic economists, who are now keen to excavate a country's political roots in search of explanations of their diverging fortunes.
此外，世界銀行的眼光不再只盯著政策不放，開始關(guān)注那些促進(jìn)繁榮或者加重貧窮、（傳統(tǒng)、習(xí)俗）等深層次的社會原因。這表明世行學(xué)院經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們的思維正在發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變。他們很想從政治根源上，找到某個(gè)國家財(cái)富分布不平衡的原因。
One exemplar of this approach is Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. No surprise then that he will now take up a big job on one side of “19th street”, which separates the headquarters of the two siblings.
麻省理工學(xué)院的西蒙?約翰遜（Simon Johnson）是采用這一方式的代表人物之一。他現(xiàn)在能在“第19號大街”一側(cè)謀得高職，并不奇怪。世界銀行與世界貨幣基金組織這“姐妹倆”的總部正是位于這條大街的兩側(cè)。
What is slightly odd is the sister who picked him. The fund has been trying for months to replace Raghuram Rajan, its chief economist. The job was reportedly offered to Olivier Blanchard, one of the great living macroeconomists, and Elhanan Helpman, a great trade economist. Eventually it fell to Mr Johnson.
稍稍有點(diǎn)奇怪的是選中他的那個(gè)“姐（妹）”。數(shù)月來基金組織一直想撤換其首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家拉古拉姆?拉揚(yáng)（Raghuram Rajan）。有報(bào)道曾說這一職位已經(jīng)給了健在宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)大師奧利維爾?布蘭查德（Olivier Blanchard），也有的說給了杰出貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家艾爾哈南?赫爾普曼（Elhanan Helpman），可最終卻花落約翰遜頭上。
He has recently worked under Mr Rajan, but he is no particular authority on misaligned exchange rates or capital-flow reversals. In fact, his appointment is perhaps a symbol of the fund's wider predicament. Cursed by uninteresting times and unsure of its role, it cannot count on attracting the people it wants. It therefore finds itself courting an economist who would look more at home across the street. Having fallen out of fashion, the fund has started trying on its sister's clothes.
不久前他曾在拉揚(yáng)手下謀過事，但在匯率失調(diào)和資本流動逆轉(zhuǎn)方面他還算不上是行家里手。事實(shí)上，他的出任也許正是基金組織困難重重的表現(xiàn)之一?？嘤跁r(shí)代的索然無味，職能定位不明的基金組織根本無法吸引自己心儀的人才。因此它也明知這次求爺爺告奶奶請來的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家會身在曹營心在漢。跟不上潮流，基金組織又開始管世界銀行的“閑事”了。
推心置腹 （陳繼龍 譯）
Mar 1st 2007
From The Economist print edition
Relationship counselling for the fund and the bank
國際貨幣基金組織與世界銀行應(yīng)處理好關(guān)系
CONCEIVED at the same Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the IMF and the World Bank are neither identical twins, nor always very fraternal[1] .The fund is buttoned-up[2] , hierarchical and preoccupied with hard money and sound budgets. Its sister, by contrast, is loose-limbed, sprawling and a bit of a dilettante[3] , worrying about greenery, equality and empowerment, as well as poverty.
國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）和世界銀行都是1944年布雷頓森林（Bretton Woods）會議的產(chǎn)物，但兩者既非“同卵雙生”，亦非總是親密無間。IMF生性內(nèi)斂，做事按部就班，一心只想管好硬通貨，安排好預(yù)算。相反，它的“姐妹”卻愛漫無目的地四處招搖，對綠化、平等、權(quán)力以及貧窮等問題，它都要“先天下憂”，結(jié)果卻都淺嘗輒止。
Inevitably, they squabble[4] . In moments of crisis, the bank is rudely press-ganged[5] into the fund's rescue missions. In today's quieter interludes, the fund itches[6] to offer help, on things such as pensions and insurance, that the bank is perhaps better placed to provide.
為此，“姐妹倆”免不了會爭風(fēng)吃醋。危機(jī)時(shí)刻，世界銀行被強(qiáng)行“抓了當(dāng)差”幫助基金組織實(shí)施援助工作。在當(dāng)今這段較為平和的時(shí)期，諸如養(yǎng)老金和保險(xiǎn)金之類世界銀行自己就能從容駕馭的事情，基金組織卻急不可耐地想要插上一腳。
Last March the two sisters asked Pedro Malan, Brazil's former finance minister, and five other notables to examine their relations at length. This week they released their report. It concludes that the fund and the bank should talk to each other more and step on each other's toes[7] less.
去年3月，“姐妹倆”請巴西前財(cái)長佩德羅?馬倫（Pedro Malan）和其他五位知名人士幫忙對兩者的關(guān)系給仔細(xì)“診了脈”。本周出爐的報(bào)告給出的診斷結(jié)論是：基金組織和世界銀行相互之間應(yīng)該多推心置腹，少越俎代庖。
They should swap[8] staff, and their leaders should make joint plans about the future. But in their operations, a bit of distance would help. The report sees little reason for the fund to provide long-term loans to countries in deep poverty but not in acute crisis. The money is supposed to meet a “protracted balance-of-payments need”. But this concept is so vague as to be almost indistinguishable from development aid, the report argues.
它們應(yīng)當(dāng)開展人事交流，雙方領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人應(yīng)該共同制定未來發(fā)展計(jì)劃。不過，在實(shí)際操作過程中，兩者之間保持些許距離還是會有所裨益的。該報(bào)告認(rèn)為IMF不應(yīng)向非處于緊急狀態(tài)的貧窮國家貸款，它的資金應(yīng)用于糾正“國際收支失調(diào)”。但同時(shí)該報(bào)告也認(rèn)為這個(gè)概念（即糾正“國際收支失調(diào)”）本是就是模糊的，不容易同發(fā)展援助的概念相區(qū)分。
The amount of this lending has fallen in recent years. But it has grown as a share of the fund's shrinking portfolio. The IMF's natural clients in emerging Asia and Latin America have repaid their loans and amassed[9] their own defences against financial crises. This has left the fund all suited up with nowhere to go. The bank's mission, on the other hand, now spans all the world's least tractable problems. It is in no danger of ever putting itself out of a job.
近年來這種貸款總額已直線下降，但基金組織投資組合總體縮水，以致貸款所占比例不減反增。在新興的亞洲和拉丁美洲，貸款國家已經(jīng)清償了IMF所貸款項(xiàng)，并且對金融危機(jī)的自我防范能力也越來越強(qiáng)，導(dǎo)致基金組織已無法物色到合適的貸款對象。另一方面，世界銀行現(xiàn)在的任務(wù)遍及全球，而且全是一些最容易處理的問題。它用不著擔(dān)心別人再搶它的飯碗了。
The bank has also begun to look beyond policies at the deep, social “institutions” that underpin[10] prosperity or poverty. This reflects a turn in the thinking of academic economists, who are now keen to excavate a country's political roots in search of explanations of their diverging fortunes.
此外，世界銀行的眼光不再只盯著政策不放，開始關(guān)注那些促進(jìn)繁榮或者加重貧窮、（傳統(tǒng)、習(xí)俗）等深層次的社會原因。這表明世行學(xué)院經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們的思維正在發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變。他們很想從政治根源上，找到某個(gè)國家財(cái)富分布不平衡的原因。
One exemplar of this approach is Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. No surprise then that he will now take up a big job on one side of “19th street”, which separates the headquarters of the two siblings.
麻省理工學(xué)院的西蒙?約翰遜（Simon Johnson）是采用這一方式的代表人物之一。他現(xiàn)在能在“第19號大街”一側(cè)謀得高職，并不奇怪。世界銀行與世界貨幣基金組織這“姐妹倆”的總部正是位于這條大街的兩側(cè)。
What is slightly odd is the sister who picked him. The fund has been trying for months to replace Raghuram Rajan, its chief economist. The job was reportedly offered to Olivier Blanchard, one of the great living macroeconomists, and Elhanan Helpman, a great trade economist. Eventually it fell to Mr Johnson.
稍稍有點(diǎn)奇怪的是選中他的那個(gè)“姐（妹）”。數(shù)月來基金組織一直想撤換其首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家拉古拉姆?拉揚(yáng)（Raghuram Rajan）。有報(bào)道曾說這一職位已經(jīng)給了健在宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)大師奧利維爾?布蘭查德（Olivier Blanchard），也有的說給了杰出貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家艾爾哈南?赫爾普曼（Elhanan Helpman），可最終卻花落約翰遜頭上。
He has recently worked under Mr Rajan, but he is no particular authority on misaligned exchange rates or capital-flow reversals. In fact, his appointment is perhaps a symbol of the fund's wider predicament. Cursed by uninteresting times and unsure of its role, it cannot count on attracting the people it wants. It therefore finds itself courting an economist who would look more at home across the street. Having fallen out of fashion, the fund has started trying on its sister's clothes.
不久前他曾在拉揚(yáng)手下謀過事，但在匯率失調(diào)和資本流動逆轉(zhuǎn)方面他還算不上是行家里手。事實(shí)上，他的出任也許正是基金組織困難重重的表現(xiàn)之一?？嘤跁r(shí)代的索然無味，職能定位不明的基金組織根本無法吸引自己心儀的人才。因此它也明知這次求爺爺告奶奶請來的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家會身在曹營心在漢。跟不上潮流，基金組織又開始管世界銀行的“閑事”了。