[2008.05.31] The Doha dilemma 多哈困局

The first is “food security”. Politicians in rich and poor countries have seized on recent price spikes as proof that free farm trade is a risky business and self-sufficiency a worthy goal. The second area concerns the poor. For years reformers have advocated freer trade on the grounds that market distortions, particularly the rich world’s subsidies, depress prices and hurt rural areas in poor countries, where three-quarters of the world’s indigent live. The Doha round of trade talks is dubbed the “development round” in large part because of its focus on farms. But now high food prices are being blamed for hurting the poor (the topic of a big United Nations summit in Rome starting on June 3rd).
第一方面是“粮食安全”。不管是富裕国家还是贫穷国家的政客们都抓住近来粮食价格高涨不放，以此来证明自由农业贸易有风险， 粮食实现自给自足很有必要。第二方面则关系到穷人。一直以来，鼓吹贸易自由的改革者都基于这样的理论：市场扭曲，尤其是发达国家的补贴，压低了价格并且伤 害了贫穷国家的农村地区，而这些地区居住着全球四分之三的最穷的人。多哈贸易谈判之所以被称为“发展回合”很大程度是因为它关注农业，但现在人们又指责高 粮价伤害穷人（一个大型的联合国主题峰会将于6月3日在罗马举行）。

The argument for self-sufficiency is easiest to counter. Anyone who believes autarky is the route to food security should look at starving North Korea. In world markets trade barriers, not the lack of them, have exacerbated the mess. The commodities that have seen the biggest price spikes are those which tend to be traded least. Only 6% of global rice production, for instance, flows across borders. Unilateral export restrictions, such as those imposed by Vietnam and India, have made matters worse. Global supply is disrupted and domestic farmers discouraged from producing more. The route to deeper, less volatile markets lies through freer trade and fewer distortions. The notion that free trade precludes food security is plainly wrong-headed.
自给自足的观点很容易反驳。任何一个认为经济独立是通向粮食安全 之路的人都应该看看饥饿的朝鲜。在全球市场上，是贸易壁垒而不是没有贸易壁垒加剧了粮食危机。价格上涨最大的商品往往是被交易最少的商品，例如，全球大米 产品中只有6%进行跨国贸易。单方面出口管制让情况更趋恶劣。印度和越南就有这样的举措，使得全球供给被扰乱，国内的农民也没有动力生产更多的粮食。只有 不断加大贸易自由度和减少市场扭曲才能使得市场日趋紧密和稳定。自由贸易危害粮食安全的观点完全是错误的。

The links between trade, food prices and poverty reduction are more subtle. Different types of reform have diverse effects on prices. When countries cut their tariffs on farm goods, their consumers pay lower prices. In contrast, when farm subsidies are slashed, world food prices rise. The lavishness of farm subsidies means that the net effect of fully freeing trade would be to raise prices, by an average of 5.5% for primary farm products and 1.3% for processed goods, according to the World Bank.
但贸易，粮价和减少贫困之间的关系就不那么明显了。不同的政策对价格有不同的影响。削减农产品关税，消费者花费减少；削减 农业补贴，全球粮食价格上升。因为农业补贴太多，所以完全自由贸易的净效应将会是粮食价格上升。据世界银行估计，基础农产品平均上升5.5%，加工后农产 品上升1.3%。

These effects are still much smaller than recent food-price spikes, but would they, on balance, help or hurt the poor? In crude terms, food-exporting countries gain in the short term whereas net importers lose. Farmers are better off; those who buy their food fare worse. Although most of the world’s poor live in rural areas, they are not, by and large, net food sellers. A forthcoming study* of nine poor countries by M. Ataman Aksoy and Aylin Isik-Dikmelik, two economists at the World Bank, shows that even in very rural countries, such as Bangladesh and Zambia, only one-fifth of households sell more food than they buy. That suggests the losers may outnumber winners.
这 些影响仍然远远小于近期的粮食价格上涨，但它们究竟对穷人有没有影响，如果有是对穷人有益呢还是有害？简单来说，短期内粮食出口国获益，而净进口国受损； 农民获益，粮食购买者受损。虽然世界上大部分穷人住在农村，但总体而言，他们不是粮食净出售者。一项由世行的两位经济学家M. Ataman Aksoy Aylin和Isik-Dikmelik共同完成即将出版的研究表明，包括孟加拉国和赞比亚在内的九个贫困国家，虽然它们很落后，但仍然只有五分之一的家 庭是净购买者。这意味着自由贸易的受损者多于获益者。

But things are not so simple. The authors point out that net food buyers tend to be richer than net sellers, so high food prices, on average, transfer income from richer to poorer households. And prices are not the only route through which poverty is affected. Higher farm income boosts demand for rural labour, increasing wages for landless peasants and others who buy rather than grow their food. Several studies show this income effect can outweigh the initial price effect. Finally, the farm sector itself can grow. Decades of underinvestment in agriculture have left many poor countries reliant on imports: over time that can change.
但事情并没有这么简单。研究者指出食品净购买者 一般而言比净出售者富裕，因此整体来看，高粮价使得收入从富裕家庭转移到穷困家庭。另外价格并不是唯一对贫困有影响的因素。更高的农业收入对促进农村劳动 力的需求，刺激无地农民和只买不种者的工资上升。几项研究显示，这一过程的收入效应超过最初的价格效应。最终，农业部门自身也得以发展。数十年来在农业上 的投资不足使得许多贫困国家依赖于粮食进口：假以时日这种情况可以得到改变。

The World Bank has often argued that the balance of all these factors is likely to be positive. Although freer farm trade—and higher prices—may raise poverty rates in some countries, it will reduce them in more. One much-cited piece of evidence is a study† by Thomas Hertel, Roman Keeney, Maros Ivanic and Alan Winters. This analysis simulated the effect of getting rid of all subsidies and barriers on global prices and trade volumes. It then mapped these results on to detailed household statistics in 15 countries, which between them covered 1 billion people. Fully free trade in farm goods would reduce poverty in 13 countries while raising it in two.
世行通常认为所有这些因素的净效应是积极的。虽然更自由的贸易—和更高的价格—可能提高某些国家的贫困率，但却可能减少更多 国家的贫困率。一项由Thomas Hertel， Roman Keeney， Maros Ivanic和Alan Winters共同完成的研究常被用来证明这一点。这项分析模拟了在全球价格和贸易的规模上，去掉所有补贴和壁垒对经济的影响，然后将结果与覆盖10亿人 口的15个国家的详细人口数据结合分析。农产品完全自由贸易使13个国家的贫困率下降，只有两个国家上升。

A question of numbers
数字问题

But lately the bank seems to be taking a different line. Robert Zoellick, the bank’s president, claims that the food-price crisis will throw 100m people below the poverty line, undoing seven years of progress. His figure comes from extrapolating the results of a different study by Mr Ivanic and Will Martin, another World Bank economist. This study analyses the effects of more expensive staple foods on poverty by examining household surveys in nine countries. In seven cases, higher food prices meant more poverty. (Dani Rodrik, a blogging Harvard economist, was one of the first to highlight the tension between these studies.)
但最近世行看起来要走另外一条路线。世行行长罗伯特佐立克声称粮价危机使得1亿人处于贫困线以下，十年的经济发展化为乌 有。他的数据主要来源于Maros Ivanic和另一位世行经济学家Will Martin所做的另一项研究。这项研究通过在9个国家以户为单位进行调查，分析了价格更高的主食与贫穷的联系。在七个国家，高粮价意味着更多的贫困（哈 佛大学经济学家Dani Rodrik在自己的博客首次强调这些研究的矛盾之处）。

In fact, the bank’s results are not as contradictory as they seem. The two studies are based on different sets of countries: only Peru, Zambia and Vietnam appear in both. And the gloomy analysis measures only the effect of pricier staple foods, whereas the other examines freer trade in all farm goods. Such trade brings broader benefits: even if higher prices for staples exacerbate poverty in some countries, at least in the short term, the effect may be outweighed by increased demand for other farm exports, such as processed goods, as rich countries cut tariffs.
事实上， 世行的研究结果并不像表面上看起来这样矛盾。这两次研究基于不同国家：只有秘鲁，赞比亚和越南同时在两项研究中出现。悲观的分析只考虑价格更高的主食与经 济的联系，而另外一项研究则考虑所有对农产品进行更加自由的贸易如何作用于经济。这样的贸易带来了更广泛的利益：即使主食价格上升加剧了某些国家的贫困， 至少在短期内，因为发达国家削减关税，对其他农产品的出口需求增长足以弥补由此所带来的损失，比如加工后产品。

These subtleties suggest two conclusions. First, the bank, and others, should beware sweeping generalisations about the impact of food prices on the poor. Second, the nature of trade reform matters. Removing rich-country subsidies on staple goods, the focus of much debate in the Doha round, may be less useful in the fight against poverty than cutting tariffs would be. The food-price crisis has not hurt the case for freer farm trade. But it has shown how important it is to get it right.
这种种联系可 以引出两个结论。第一，世行和其他人应该摒弃关于粮食价格对穷人影响的种种空泛之谈。第二，贸易改革的实质至关重要。要对抗贫困，废除富裕国家对主食的补 贴，关注多哈回合的种种争论，都不如削减关税有用。粮食危机没有损害到对自由贸易认识。但它表明，解决种种弊端至关重要。