• 2026考研英語全程班 6班
• 26考研全科上岸規劃營「擇校▪規劃▪備考」
• 2026考研專業課復習資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫」

Leaders

社論精粹

Privatisation

私有化

The $9 trillion sale

9萬億美元的大拍賣

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

富裕國家的政府應當再掀起一股私有化浪潮，這次應當把重點放在土地和房產上。

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?

設想一下：如果你守著金山銀山，卻還在為籌錢還債而苦惱，你會怎么辦呢?答案是：賣掉其中的一部分，然后再用得到的錢還債不就行了嗎。其實，這也是那些債務纏身的富國應該采取的一個辦法。賣掉一些“家底”—所持公司的股權、已經用不著的房產，或者是尚未開發的土地，把政府資產私有化，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.

政府會在不同的時期因為不同的原因而進行私有化�，敻覃愄�·撒切爾在上世紀80年代的英國推行私有化，是因為那時正是工會勢力的強盛時期，她想借此壓制工會;后來，東歐國家也實施了私有化，那是因為他們想擺脫計劃經濟。而如今，讓富國變賣家底，是因為他們的債務水平正處于和平年代的最高峰，實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.

對此，民眾可能會有不同的想法。因為，在他們看來，值錢的家底已經賣得差不多了，還有什么能拿的出手嗎?但是，破家值萬貫，再窮的也總有壓箱底的寶貝。對于富國來說，這些寶貝就是大約價值在2萬億美元的政府企業，以及差不多同等價值的在私營公司股權和地方政府手里的公用事業等其他資產。但這還算不上是真正值錢的，真正值錢的是那些“非金融性”資產，也就是房產，土地和地下資源。據國際貨幣基金組織測算，這部分家底的價值在35萬億美元左右，相當于富國平常年份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，不是所有的家底都能賣的。有的不僅不應賣，而且不能賣。試想，誰能給盧浮宮，帕特農神廟或者黃石國家公園開個價呢?因此，準備出售家底的政府應該明白這樣一個道理：就算賬本再難看，也不能把這些寶貝拿出來賣。能夠賣的應該是那些不怎么值錢或者是沒有多少傳承價值的東西。因為，單單這些就已經足夠了。

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。聯邦政府的家底中包括近100萬幢建筑物和約占國土面積五分之一的土地。據2011年的一次摸底調查顯示，在這100萬幢建筑物中，政府不再需要的或者是已經用不著了建筑物為45000幢。土地方面，由于它們大都蘊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行的“壓裂”革命那樣，只要把土地賣出去，肯定能得到豐厚的回報。再看希臘：他們最值錢的應該是數量約為80000處的沒有傳承價值的建筑物和大大小小的地塊，這些家底還一直未實現其價值。鑒于西班牙百戶人家平均只有一戶擁有度假屋， 希臘應當可以用適當的價格吸引開發商和其他投資商。最后是瑞典：據普華永道的估計，如果以市場價格來計算，該國政府手中所持有的土地和房產約為1000億-1200億美元。若以上情況屬實，那么，富國政府真正是在坐擁“金山銀山”。因為，僅可供出售的土地和房屋加起來就大約值9萬億美元，這幾乎相當于他們GDP總和的五分之一。

Get on with it

賣吧!

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，當增收的機會就擺在眼前時，富裕國家似乎又有點拿不定主意了。究其原因，除了舍不得之外，最主要的是因為，政府在推行私有化時，總會遇到反對。土地買賣特別敏感。當里根準備出售美國西部土地時，他發現自己成了熱愛游牧的綠色和平人士和農場主的攻擊對象;當英國政府試圖在2010年將林業委員會所屬的土地賣給別人時，他們遭到了環保主義者的突襲。

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，在看到新興市場國家近年來一直在出售政府資產方面頻出大手筆之后，歐洲終于也坐不住了：去年，英國政府賣掉了皇家郵政，并且還在公布家底和出賣意向方面帶了一個好頭。不過，歐洲國家在做這些事的時候，總是顯得畏手畏腳，小心過頭。意大利就是這方面的一個例子。雖說該國的政府債務已經達到了GDP的132%，雖說他們的家底比任何一個富裕國家都要殷實，但他們總是在實行私有化時表現的小心謹慎，以至于白白地浪費了手中所持有的2250億美元的股票和1.6萬億美元的非金融性資產。既然市場已經緩過勁來了，還猶豫什么呢?放開膽子賣啊!

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.

促進房產買賣有許多法子。公共房產和土地方面，數據的收集糟糕的要命。即便是以公開透明而自詡的北歐諸國政府在這個問題上也做得差強人意。政府對自己的家底應當有更清楚的認識。為了要讓房產權有確定性， 有效的土地登記是不可少的：希臘的土地登記仍然是一團糟。太多的政府在房產的會計核算上采用一種不可靠的“現金制”， 這會模糊房產持有的成本。只有為數很少的政府對此提供適當的資產負債表。一個好的會計核算制度會讓人們更容易確定哪些公房私買之后 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，在搞清土地和房產的情況之后，政府還要花大力氣對剩余的家底進行一番整頓。公共資產的管理沒有成例可循，但是若想成功，就必須為其設定新的基準，以私人投資的標準來要求公共資產，用經驗豐富的資產管理者取代靠拉關系而上位的庸才，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的管理，而且還能自然而然地公共資產的私有化。瑞典早在10年前就為我們樹立了一個榜樣。當時，在給政府資產建立一個由專業人士管理的控股公司的過程中曾發現許多資產屬于非核心資產，為此，該國左傾的政府掀起過一股私有化大潮。

Where are the successors to Thatcher and Reagan?

學學里根和撒切爾

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.

在私有化的過程中，各國政府應該注意一下三點。第一，私有化不是靈丹妙藥。對揮霍無度花錢上癮的政府來說，它只能解一時之痛，盡管賣掉港口和企業都會大大地促進商業的發展。第二，只要待出售的資產還能帶來一點收入。政府就應該三思而后行。在這方面，挪威就是一個可供學習的榜樣。雖說這個國家的是靠石油富裕起來的，但是政府的收入中有四分之一是來自于對國有企業的良好管理。第三，不要再市場不振時出售家底。

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，富國政府還應從之前的私有化大潮中吸取經驗和教訓。他們必須明白，如果缺乏嚴格的監管，私有化就會變成內幕交易者牟利的機會，從而引發民眾的不滿。英國在出售鐵路和公共事業時發生過這種事情，新興市場國家在出售電信和銀行等行業時也發生過這種事情。圍繞著出售皇家郵政而發生的一系列事情提醒政府注意，私有化是要冒政治風險的：如果出價太高，協議可能會泡湯;如果出價太低，民眾又會認為自己受騙了。盡管如此，政府還是應該把私有化當成是一個有用的工具。因為，對于真得想實現收支平衡的政府來說，他們可以借此降低債務，提高信用，從而達到減少開支的目的;他們可以借此鼓勵競爭，可以借此用私人投資的標準來要求剛剛實現了私有化的國有資產，從而達到提高經濟效率的目的。

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利用私有化的方式，將原本由政府運營的公用事業、電信和交通等行業轉變為私人企業。如今，他們的后人也需要對房屋、土地和資源實行私有化。這是一筆巨大的財富，它正在等待著人們去把它發掘出來。

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。

2.make up 彌補

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燃料組合中增長最快的組成部分，但石化燃料仍將占據主流。

3.able to 能;會

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

他從未能夠對此予以全盤否定。

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。