親愛的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家：
Dear Economist,
我自己偶爾會買點(diǎn)焰火來放，產(chǎn)生令人愉悅的正外部性。不幸的是，外行放焰火有時(shí)會造成悲劇——而且經(jīng)常有人說要禁止私放焰火。怎樣才能經(jīng)濟(jì)有效地應(yīng)對這種負(fù)外部性呢？
Occasionally, I buy and launch my own fireworks, generating cheerful positive externalities. Sadly, some amateur launchings end in tragedy – and there is frequent talk of a private firework ban. What is the economically efficient way of dealing with those negative externalities?
延斯?弗勒利克?霍爾特(Jens Frolich Holte)，挪威
Jens Frolich Holte, Norway
親愛的延斯：
Dear Jens,
如果你對問題的診斷是正確的，那我們就可以從教科書中尋找解決方案?？扑苟ɡ?Coase theorem)告訴我們，從原則上說，在交易成本為零的市場上，根據(jù)鄰居是欣賞你的焰火表演還是害怕受到傷害，他們可以付錢給你，讓你燃放（或是不放）焰火。
If you’ve diagnosed the problem correctly, we can reach for a textbook solution. In a market with zero transaction costs, Coase theorem tells us that your neighbours could, in principle, pay you to hold firework displays, or not to, depending on their enjoyment of the spectacle or fear of injury.
更為可能的是，我們需要一個(gè)與科斯解決方案類似的辦法，可以對焰火征收“外部性稅”以反映風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，或提供補(bǔ)貼以反映其帶來的好處。但我不確定，在這個(gè)問題上，你對正外部性或負(fù)外部性的判斷是否正確。
More likely, we would need to approximate the Coasian solution with an externality tax on fireworks (to reflect the risks) or a subsidy (to reflect the benefits). But I am not sure you have correctly identified the positive and negative externalities here.
除非你朝著街道放焰火，否則，多數(shù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)必然由你和你那些選擇近距離欣賞焰火表演的朋友承擔(dān)。
Unless you are shooting the fireworks down the street, most of the risk is surely borne by you and your friends, who’ve chosen to enjoy the display at close range.
這就不存在負(fù)外部性的問題，因?yàn)樗麄儗︼L(fēng)險(xiǎn)是知情的。
There is no negative externality there: they’ve knowingly taken the risk.
就正外部性而言，我懷疑那些不知道焰火表演將何時(shí)開始的遠(yuǎn)鄰，是否會如你所想的那樣欣賞焰火表演。而且，噪音可能會讓他們頗為惱火。
On the positive externality side, I doubt that more distant neighbours enjoy the show as much as you think, not knowing when it is going to start. And they may be aggravated by the noise.
總體而言，外部性是什么呢？
On balance, where are the externalities?
實(shí)際上，我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注于如何鼓勵(lì)人們更負(fù)責(zé)任地使用焰火。如果你的焰火表演傷害了無辜的人，你就應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)起責(zé)任。適當(dāng)評估可能的傷害水平，會鼓勵(lì)你在放焰火時(shí)更加當(dāng)心。
We should focus instead on encouraging more responsible use of fireworks. If your firework display hurts an innocent, you should be liable. An appropriate level of likely damages will encourage you to take exactly the right amount of care with your displays
Dear Economist,
我自己偶爾會買點(diǎn)焰火來放，產(chǎn)生令人愉悅的正外部性。不幸的是，外行放焰火有時(shí)會造成悲劇——而且經(jīng)常有人說要禁止私放焰火。怎樣才能經(jīng)濟(jì)有效地應(yīng)對這種負(fù)外部性呢？
Occasionally, I buy and launch my own fireworks, generating cheerful positive externalities. Sadly, some amateur launchings end in tragedy – and there is frequent talk of a private firework ban. What is the economically efficient way of dealing with those negative externalities?
延斯?弗勒利克?霍爾特(Jens Frolich Holte)，挪威
Jens Frolich Holte, Norway
親愛的延斯：
Dear Jens,
如果你對問題的診斷是正確的，那我們就可以從教科書中尋找解決方案?？扑苟ɡ?Coase theorem)告訴我們，從原則上說，在交易成本為零的市場上，根據(jù)鄰居是欣賞你的焰火表演還是害怕受到傷害，他們可以付錢給你，讓你燃放（或是不放）焰火。
If you’ve diagnosed the problem correctly, we can reach for a textbook solution. In a market with zero transaction costs, Coase theorem tells us that your neighbours could, in principle, pay you to hold firework displays, or not to, depending on their enjoyment of the spectacle or fear of injury.
更為可能的是，我們需要一個(gè)與科斯解決方案類似的辦法，可以對焰火征收“外部性稅”以反映風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，或提供補(bǔ)貼以反映其帶來的好處。但我不確定，在這個(gè)問題上，你對正外部性或負(fù)外部性的判斷是否正確。
More likely, we would need to approximate the Coasian solution with an externality tax on fireworks (to reflect the risks) or a subsidy (to reflect the benefits). But I am not sure you have correctly identified the positive and negative externalities here.
除非你朝著街道放焰火，否則，多數(shù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)必然由你和你那些選擇近距離欣賞焰火表演的朋友承擔(dān)。
Unless you are shooting the fireworks down the street, most of the risk is surely borne by you and your friends, who’ve chosen to enjoy the display at close range.
這就不存在負(fù)外部性的問題，因?yàn)樗麄儗︼L(fēng)險(xiǎn)是知情的。
There is no negative externality there: they’ve knowingly taken the risk.
就正外部性而言，我懷疑那些不知道焰火表演將何時(shí)開始的遠(yuǎn)鄰，是否會如你所想的那樣欣賞焰火表演。而且，噪音可能會讓他們頗為惱火。
On the positive externality side, I doubt that more distant neighbours enjoy the show as much as you think, not knowing when it is going to start. And they may be aggravated by the noise.
總體而言，外部性是什么呢？
On balance, where are the externalities?
實(shí)際上，我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注于如何鼓勵(lì)人們更負(fù)責(zé)任地使用焰火。如果你的焰火表演傷害了無辜的人，你就應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)起責(zé)任。適當(dāng)評估可能的傷害水平，會鼓勵(lì)你在放焰火時(shí)更加當(dāng)心。
We should focus instead on encouraging more responsible use of fireworks. If your firework display hurts an innocent, you should be liable. An appropriate level of likely damages will encourage you to take exactly the right amount of care with your displays