世界如今需要的是大而不倒的銀行
In 1980, the econometrician David Hendry (now Sir David) investigated a key economic question: what causes inflation? Hendry looked to the data for insight. He speculated that a particular variable, X, was largely responsible. He assembled data on variable X, performed a few deft mathematical tweaks and compared his transformed X with the path of consumer prices in the UK. Graphing the result showed an astonishingly close fit.
1980年，計量經濟學家戴維亨德里（David Hendry，如今的戴維爵士）研究了一個重要的經濟學問題：是什麼引起了通脹？亨德里爲此查閱了數據。他推測，特定變量X負有主要責任。他收集了變量X的數據，在數學計算上進行了一些巧妙的變換，再把變換後的X與英國消費者價格的趨勢進行對比。繪製的結果表現出驚人的貼合。
The only snag: X was cumulative rainfall. Since consumer prices and cumulative rainfall both rise over time, Hendry had an excellent platform for finding his spurious correlation. Statistical sleight of hand did the rest.
唯一的問題是：X是累積降水量。由於消費者價格和累積降水量均隨着時間的推移而增加，亨德里得到了一個尋找虛假關聯度的完美平臺，然後利用了統計學花招。
Hendry wanted to demonstrate just how easy it was to produce plausible nonsense by misusing the tools of statistics. “It is meaningless to talk about ‘confirming’ theories when spurious results are so easily obtained,” he wrote.
亨德里只是想證明，錯誤地使用統計學工具是多麼容易得出看似合理的荒謬結論。“在站不住腳的結果可以如此輕易得到的情況下，討論‘驗證’理論毫無意義，”他寫道。
All this is by way of preamble, because a hot topic in economics at the moment is the role of finance in the health of the economy. For many years, economists have tended to believe that a larger financial sector tends to be good news for economic growth, with statistical evidence to back this up.
這一切都是序言，因爲當今經濟學的一個熱門話題是金融對於經濟健康的作用。多年來，經濟學家已經傾向於認爲，較大的金融部門對於經濟增長往往是好消息，這一點得到了統計學證據的支撐。
It won’t surprise anyone to hear that this belief is now viewed with some scepticism, and the statistical studies now back up the scepticism too. Several recent research papers have found that finance can be bad for economic growth.
沒有人會感到意外的是，如今一些人用懷疑的眼光審視這個觀點，而統計學研究竟然也支持這種懷疑態度。最近一些研究論文發現，金融可能會不利於經濟增長。
Given this statistical volte-face, Hendry’s conjuring trick comes to mind. Are our statistical studies simply serving as decoration for our existing prejudices?
鑑於此次統計學的倒戈，亨德里的統計學花招映入腦海。統計學研究只是在裝飾我們現有的偏見嗎？
A recent note by William Cline of the Peterson Institute for International Economics worries that new anti-finance research rests on a statistical illusion. Rich countries tend to grow more slowly than poorer ones. But rich countries also have larger banking sectors. A naive analysis, then, would show that large banking sectors are correlated with slower growth. But, points out Cline, the same statistical methods show that doctors are bad for growth and that telephones are bad for growth and even that research and development technicians are bad for growth. In reality, all that is being shown is that being rich already is bad for further growth.
彼得森國際經濟研究所(Peterson Institute for International Economics)的威廉克萊恩(William Cline)在最近一份研究報告中表達了擔憂——新的反金融研究是建立在統計學假象基礎上的。與較貧窮的國家相比，富裕國家往往增長更慢。但是，富裕國家同時也擁有規模更大的銀行部門。於是，幼稚的分析將據此推斷，大型銀行部門與較慢的增長之間存在相關性。但是，克萊恩指出，同樣的統計學方法也可以顯示醫生不利於增長、電話不利於增長、甚至研發專家也不利於增長。而事實上，唯一能夠得出的結論是，已經達到富有不利於進一步增長。
Cline makes a good point but a narrow one. It’s not particularly helpful to analyse banking like salt in cooking or water on your vegetable patch, and conclude that “some is good, too much is bad”. Unlike salt and water, banking services are complex and diverse. There’s a difference between a mortgage, a payday loan, life insurance, a credit derivative, a venture capital investment and an equity tracker fund. They’re all financial services, though.
克萊恩的觀點沒錯，但有狹隘之嫌。像考慮煮菜時放多少鹽或者菜園裏澆多少水一樣研究銀行業，然後得出“適量很好，過量不好”的結論，並不是特別有用。不同於放鹽或澆水，銀行業的服務複雜而多樣。抵押貸款、發薪日貸款（一種合法的高利貸——譯者注）、人壽保險、信用衍生品、風險資本投資以及股票指數基金是不同的。但它們都是金融服務。
More persuasive analyses of the relationship between finance and growth are asking not just whether finance can grow too big to be helpful but what kind of finance, and why.
對於金融和增長之間關係，更具說服力的分析並不僅是設問金融會否發展到太大而無用，而是問何種金融不利於增長，原因是什麼。
In two working papers for DNB, the Dutch central bank, Christiane Kneer explores the idea that the trouble with banking is that it sucks talent away from the rest of the economy. Kneer looked at the process of banking deregulation state by state in the US and found that banks hired skilled individuals away from manufacturing, where labour productivity fell. If Kneer is right, too much finance is bad for growth because the banks are gobbling up too many of the smartest workers.
在爲荷蘭央行(DNB)所作的兩份工作報告中，克里斯蒂亞娜克內爾(Christiane Kneer)探究了這樣一個觀點，那就是銀行業的麻煩在於它從經濟的其他領域挖走了太多人才。克內爾一個州一個州地研究了美國銀行業放鬆監管的經過，發現銀行業從製造業挖走了高技能人才，而製造業的勞動生產率下降。如果克內爾的觀點是正確的，過多金融不利於增長的原因是，金融業搶走了太多的頂級人才。
Another possibility, explored by economists Stephen Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi, is that large banking sectors aren’t doing their classic textbook job of funding the most productive investments. Instead, they like to lend money to organisations that already have collateral. Mortgages make attractive loans for this reason. Loans to a business that already owns an office block or an oil refinery are also tempting. But lending to a business with more intangible assets, such as an R&D department or a set of strong consumer relationships, is less attractive. Perhaps it is no surprise when Cecchetti and Kharroubi find that larger banking sectors are correlated with slower growth in R&D-intensive parts of the economy. But it is not encouraging.
經濟學家史蒂芬切凱蒂(Stephen Cecchetti)和艾尼塞哈魯比(Enisse Kharroubi)探索了另一個可能，即大型銀行部門並未履行其在經典教科書中的職責——爲最具成效的投資提供資金。相反，它們喜歡向已經有抵押物的組織放貸。正是由於這個原因，抵押貸款成了具有吸引力的貸款。向已經擁有寫字樓或煉油廠的企業放貸也頗具吸引力。但是向擁有較多無形資產（比如研發部門或一系列強大的客戶關係）的企業放貸，則沒那麼具有吸引力。切凱蒂和哈魯比發現，在研發密集型的經濟領域，較大的銀行部門與較慢的增長之間存在相關性，這或許並不令人意外，但不是好事。
. . .
. . .
Such research reminds us that we shouldn’t simply bash “banking” or “finance” in some generic way, blaming the banks for anything from the weather to the struggles of bees. We need to look at the details of what the financial services industry is doing, and whether financial regulations are protecting society or making things worse.
這類研究提醒了我們，不應該只是籠統地敲打“銀行業”或“金融”，把從天氣到蜜蜂陷入困境的一切問題都歸咎於銀行。我們需要看一看金融服務業活動的細節，以及金融法規是在保護社會還是讓事情變得更糟。
The truth is that we desperately need a strong banking sector. This entire research literature on finance and growth was originally kicked off by development economists who had observed that poor countries struggled to develop if they didn’t have decent banks. Thorsten Beck, an economist at Cass Business School, first started studying the effects of finance when he worked at the World Bank. “I didn’t care about the UK or the Netherlands. I cared about Kenya, Chile and Brazil.”
真相是我們絕對需要一個強大的銀行部門。有關金融與增長的整套研究文獻，最初是由發展經濟學家奠基的，他們注意到窮國如果沒有像樣的銀行便難以發展。卡斯商學院(Cass Business School)的經濟學家託斯滕貝克(Thorsten Beck)最初是在世界銀行(World Bank)工作期間開始研究金融的影響。“我那時不關心英國和荷蘭。我關心的是肯尼亞、智利和巴西。”
Without a strong and sizeable banking sector to lend money to businesses, it is very hard for a poor country to grow. It may well be that we have more finance sloshing around the economy than we can use. That is a big problem — but it is also a first-world problem.
沒有強大而成規模的銀行部門向企業放貸，貧窮國家很難發展。我們很可能面對在整個經濟體四處涌流的金融活動，超出我們可以利用的規模。這是個大問題——但也是第一世界的問題。
