烏克蘭仍可藉助改革實現繁榮

The crisis in Ukraine has revived memories of the cold war and sparked fears of a new one. But as vulnerable as the country looks – with Crimea annexed and Russian troops on its borders – many are equally discouraged by its economic fragility, including slow growth and a fiscal deficit exceeding 5 per cent of gross domestic product.

烏克蘭危機再度勾起了人們對冷戰的回憶，並引發了人們對新冷戰的擔憂。然而，就像烏克蘭看上去不堪一擊（克里米亞被俄羅斯吞併，同時俄羅斯大軍壓境）一樣，很多人對於該國的經濟脆弱同樣感到失望，包括增長緩慢以及財政赤字對國內生產總值(GDP)的比例高於5%。

Yet Ukraine’s economic plight does not mean its economic future has to be bleak. Like Poland in 1989, it has great potential for improvement. And if it addresses its problems with the right reforms it can still release that potential as Poland did quarter of a century ago.

然而，烏克蘭當前的經濟困境並不意味着，其經濟未來肯定一片黯淡。與1989年的波蘭一樣，烏克蘭具有經濟轉好的巨大潛力。如果能夠藉助適當的改革解決好各個問題，烏克蘭仍能像25年前的波蘭那樣把潛力釋放出來。

Since the collapse of communism, huge variations in long-term growth have appeared in the former Soviet block While Poland’s gross domestic product had doubled by 2013, that of Ukraine remains below its initial level. Institutional change, or the lack of it, is a key to this divergence. Poland and most other former Soviet countries swiftly restructured state machinery to enable the growth of dynamic, politically autonomous private companies in competitive domestic markets. By contrast in Ukraine, as in Russia, crony capitalism took hold. Politically connected businesspeople can use political patronage to take over the assets of less fortunate entrepreneurs while some politicians use their power to enrich themselves.

自從共產主義制度倒臺以來，前蘇聯共和國的長期增長出現巨大差距，到2013年，波蘭的GDP翻了一番，而烏克蘭仍不及最初水平。體制變革（或者未進行體制變革）是導致這種差距的關鍵。波蘭和其他多數前蘇聯共和國迅速改組了國家機器，使得活力十足、政治自主的私營企業在有競爭性的國內市場實現了增長。相比之下，烏克蘭就像在俄羅斯那樣，裙帶資本主義生根發芽。有政治人脈的商人可以利用政治保護傘，奪取不那麼幸運的企業家的資產，同時一些政客利用手中的權力發財致富。

This limits competition, efficiency and structural change, works against small and medium enterprises, curbs investment and fosters a shadow economy. The ensuing poor economic performance and blatant unfairness lead to deep distrust of politicians, who respond by competing for popularity with fiscally disastrous policies such as fuel subsidies. These features of Ukraine’s regime grew worse under President Viktor Yanukovich, ejected last month after the protests in Kiev’s Maidan Square.

這限制了競爭、效率和結構性改革，不利於中小企業，同時阻礙了投資並培育了一個影子經濟。繼而出現的經濟表現疲弱和明目張膽的不公平，導致人們對政客的極度不信任，政客們的迴應是用能源補貼等有損財政健康的政策來爭奪選民的支持。在總統維克多•亞努科維奇(Viktor Yanukovich)的領導下，烏克蘭政府的這些特點變得更爲糟糕，在基輔獨立廣場爆發抗議後，亞努科維奇在上月遭到驅逐。

However, there is no cause for condescension towards Ukrainians. The conditions they inherited from the Societ era, including high inflation and poor state structures, were tougher than those in Poland. Western economies have their own problems arising from mistaken policies. For example, the availability of easy credit led to costly boom-and-bust episodes in the US, Britain, Greece, Spain and Ireland and to delays in structural reforms in Italy and France. So it is no surprise that both problems cropped up in Ukraine, the fastest-growing country in Europe between 2002 and 2008.

然而，我們沒有理由在烏克蘭人面前表現得高人一等。他們從前蘇聯時代所繼承的狀況（包括高通脹以及疲弱政府結構），要比波蘭更爲嚴峻。西方經濟體本身有着因錯誤政策引發的問題。例如，寬鬆信貸政策導致美國、英國、希臘、西班牙和愛爾蘭出現代價高昂的榮衰期，並導致意大利和法國推遲了結構性改革。因此，這兩個問題突然出現在烏克蘭就毫不奇怪了，2002年至2008年，烏克蘭是歐洲增長最快的國家。

More importantly, even though embarking on comprehensive and radical reforms immediately after the collapse of communism has proved more effective, reforms undertaken later have also worked. In the late 1990s Bulgaria rid itself of hyperinflation and recovered from financial collapse by introducing a currency board. It has since displayed impressive fiscal and monetary stability. Poland accelerated privatisation, reformed its pension system and strengthened local government in 1998-2000. A small but competent, cohesive group of reformers with a clear leadership can turn a country around given a political mandate and sufficient time.

更爲重要的是，儘管事實證明，在共產主義倒臺後立即啓動全面且徹底的改革是更有效的，但以後實行的改革也起到了作用。上世紀90年代末，保加利亞引入了貨幣發行局制度，消除了惡性通脹並從金融危機中復甦。此後，該國展現出了不俗的財政和貨幣穩定局面。1998年至2000年，波蘭加速了私有化進程，改革了養老金制度並增強了地方政府的實力。如果獲得政治授權並假以一定時日，一個規模小但有能力和凝聚力的改革者團隊，再加上清晰的領導權是能夠讓一個國家脫胎換骨的。

The general goal of the necessary reforms is clear to many Ukrainians, regardless of which part of the country they live in: replace the existing unfair and inefficient system with the one that increases economic freedom for all; and respect the rule of law, thus generating more rapid and sustained economic growth.

對於很多烏克蘭人而言，不管他們生活在該國的哪個地區，必要改革的總體目標是清晰的：用一套擴大爲全民經濟自由的制度來取代目前不公平且低效率的制度；尊重法治，從而實現更快、更長久的經濟增長。

It is not intellectually difficult to suggest what form a proper package of reforms should take. It has to be broad and introduced rapidly. It should include measures that make both economic and political sense, such as deregulation to smooth the establishment of enterprises, quick auditing and, following appropriate investigation, dissolving the most corrupt parts of the state. The gas sector, a focus of high-level corruption, needs to be restructured; and the stolen assets recovered from officials. Introducing these measures would reduce resistance to the elimination of massive fuel subsidies.

從學術上指出一份像樣的改革計劃應採取何種形式，不是一件難事。它必須覆蓋範圍廣，而且應快速推出。它應該包括在經濟上和政治上都行得通的舉措，例如放鬆監管，爲企業創立提供便利、快速審覈以及在適度調查後，消除政府最腐敗的部門。天然氣行業（腐敗最嚴重的焦點領域）需要接受重組；被竊取的資產應從官員手中收回。引入這些舉措將減小取消鉅額燃料補貼所面臨的阻力。

Many economists and politicians in Ukraine know what should be done. The key is the politics – and there are hopeful signs. A society that produced the Maidan movement shows an impressive capacity for self-organisation. Most Ukrainians know a huge gap has appeared in their standard of living relative to that of, say, Poland, and want it to be bridged. Many understand this requires radical reforms and that such reforms are also crucial for strengthening Ukraine’s position relative to Russia. Finally, most oligarchs do not relish the prospect of operating in a subservient position in a Ukraine dominated by Russia.

烏克蘭的很多經濟學家和政界人士都知道應該採取什麼措施。關鍵是政治，目前的跡象讓人充滿希望。一個製造了獨立廣場運動的社會，表現出了了不起的自我組織的能力。多數烏克蘭人明白，他們的生活水平與波蘭等國存在巨大差距，他們希望彌補這一差距。很多人認爲，這需要徹底的改革，而且這種改革對於提高烏克蘭與俄羅斯的相對地位至關重要。最後，多數寡頭並不期待在一個由俄羅斯主宰的烏克蘭低聲下氣地經商。

Which brings me to the final remark. Mr Yanukovich’s downfall has increased Ukraine’s chances of rule of law and democratic reform. This is the most likely reason Vladimir Putin is trying to destabilise the country. The Russian president’s annexation of Crimea has created geopolitical risks that call for a decisive response from a united west. Such a response is also needed to discourage further attempts to destabilise the country and thus obstruct its reforms.

接下來是我的結束語了。亞努科維奇的下臺擴大了烏克蘭實行法治和民主改革的機率。這是俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)試圖攪亂該國的最有可能的原因。普京吞併克里米亞之舉引發了地緣政治風險，需要西方聯合起來做出果斷迴應。要阻止俄羅斯進一步攪亂烏克蘭從而阻礙其改革的企圖，也需要這種迴應。

The writer is a former deputy prime minister of Poland and former president of the Polish central bank

本文作者是波蘭前副總理、波蘭央行前行長