财政紧缩政策不再是必由之路

IthasbeenjokedthatthelettersIMFstandfor“it’smostlyfiscal”.TheInternationalMonetaryFundhaslongbeenastalwartadvocateofausterityastherouteoutoffinancialcrisis,andeveryyearitchastisesdozensofcountriesfortheirfiscalindiscipline.Fiscalconsolidation–aeuphemismforcutstogovernmentspending–isastapleofthefund’srescueprogrammes.AyearagotheIMFwassuggestingthattheUShadafiscalgapofasmuchas10percentofgrossdomesticproduct.国际货币基金组织(IMF)曾被戏称为“以财政为主的组织(itsmostlyfiscal)”。长期以来，该组织一直是紧缩政策的忠实拥趸，认为它是走出金融危机的必由之路。每年IMF都会因数十个国家财政上的放纵而谴责它们。“财政整固”（削减政府开支的委婉说法）是IMF众多救援计划的主要内容。一年前，该组织曾暗示美国财政缺口高达其国内生产总值(GDP)的10%。AllofthismakestheIMF’srecentlypublishedWorldEconomicOutlookaremarkableandimportantdocument.Initsflagshippublication,theIMFadvocatessubstantiallyincreasedpublicinfrastructureinvestment,andnotjustintheUSbutmuchoftheworld.Itassertsthatwhenunemploymentishigh,asitisinmuchoftheindustrialisedworld,thestimulativeimpactwillbegreaterifinvestmentispaidforbyborrowing,ratherthancuttingotherspendingorraisingtaxes.Mostnotably,theIMFassertsthatproperlydesignedinfrastructureinvestmentwillreduceratherthanincreasegovernmentdebtburdens.Publicinfrastructureinvestmentscanpayforthemselves.所有这些都令IMF最近发布的《世界经济展望》(WorldEconomicOutlook)成为一份非同寻常的重要文件。在这份IMF头号出版物中，该组织提议大幅增加公共基础设施投资，这一倡议的对象不仅包括美国，还包括世界许多国家。该报告称，在失业率高企之际——正如许多工业化国家目前的状况，以借债而不是削减其他开支或增税为投资筹措资金，对经济会有更大的刺激效果。最值得注意的是，IMF称经过精心规划的基建投资会减轻而不是加重政府的债务负担，因为公共基础设施投资本身就能带来回报。WhydoestheIMFreachtheseconclusions?Considerahypotheticalinvestmentinanewhighwayfinancedentirelywithdebt.Assume–counterfactuallyandconservatively–thattheprocessofbuildingthehighwayprovidesnostimulativebenefit.Furtherassumethattheinvestmentearnsonlya6percentrealreturn,alsoaveryconservativeassumptiongivenwidelyacceptedestimatesofthebenefitsofpublicinvestment.Then,annualtaxcollectionsadjustedforinflationwouldincreaseby1.5percentoftheamountinvested,sincethegovernmentclaimsabout25centsoutofeveryadditionaldollarofincome.Realinterestcosts,thatisinterestcostslessinflation,arebelow1percentintheUSandmuchoftheindustrialisedworldoverhorizonsofupto30years.Soinfrastructureinvestmentactuallymakesitpossibletoreduceburdensonfuturegenerations.IMF为何会得出这样的结论？考虑一笔假想的对一条新公路的投资，这笔资金完全通过举债筹集。假定建设公路的过程中不会产生任何刺激性好处（这一假设违反事实并且保守）。除此以外，假定投资的实际收益只有6%——考虑到人们普遍接受的对公共投资收益的估计，这一假定也极为保守。那么，由于政府将从每一美元的新增收入中征收大约25美分的税，经通胀调整后的年度税收增幅将为投资额的1.5%。而在长达30年的时间跨度内，这笔投资在美国及众多工业国家的实际利率成本（即扣除通胀因素后的利率成本）不到1%。因此，基建投资实际上可能会减轻未来几代人的债务负担。Infact,thiscalculationunderstatesthepositivebudgetaryimpactofwell-designedinfrastructureinvestment,astheIMFrecognised.Itneglectsthetaxrevenuethatcomesfromthestimulativebenefitofputtingpeopletoworkconstructinginfrastructure,aswellasthepossiblelong-runbenefitsthatcomefromcombatingrecession.Itneglectstherealitythatdeferringinfrastructurerenewalplacesaburdenonfuturegenerationsjustassurelyasdoesgovernmentborrowing.事实上，正如IMF认识到的，这个计算过程低估了经过精心规划的基建投资对预算的积极影响。它忽略了人们得以从事基建工作这一刺激性好处带来的税收增长，以及对抗衰退可能带来的长期好处。它还忽略了一个事实：推迟基础设施更新同政府举债一样，必然给未来几代人造成负担。Itignoresthefactthatbyincreasingtheeconomy’scapacity,infrastructureinvestmentincreasestheabilitytohandleanygivenlevelofdebt.Critically,ittakesnoaccountofthefactthatinmanycasesgovernmentcancatalyseadollarofinfrastructureinvestmentatacostofmuchlessthanadollarbyprovidingatrancheofequityfinancing,ataxsubsidyoraloanguarantee.它忽略的另一个事实是：通过提高整体经济的产能，基建投资还提升了经济应对任何水平债务的能力。还有一个至关重要的问题是，它没有考虑到如下事实：通过提供股权融资、税收补贴或贷款担保，政府促成一美元基建投资的成本可能会远低于一美元。Whenittakesthesefactorsintoaccount,theIMFfindsthatadollarofinvestmentincreasesoutputbynearly$3.Thebudgetaryarithmeticassociatedwithinfrastructureinvestmentisespeciallyattractiveatatimewhenthereareenoughunusedresourcesthatgreaterinfrastructureinvestmentneednotcomeattheexpenseofotherspending.Ifweareenteringaperiodofsecularstagnation,unemployedresourcescouldbeavailableinmuchoftheindustrialworldforquitesometime.IMF发现，如果将上述因素都考虑在内，每一美元投资会增加近3美元的产出。在这个未利用资源足够充足的时期，这种与基建投资相关的预算计算尤其具有吸引力，因为加大基建投资不一定会以牺牲其他开支为代价。如果说我们正在进入长期停滞阶段，那么对多数工业国家，在相当长的时间内都有未利用资源可用。Whilethecaseforinvestmentappliesalmosteverywhere–possiblyexceptingChina,whereinfrastructureinvestmenthasbeenusedastimulustoolforsometime–theappropriatestrategyfordoingmorediffersaroundtheworld.尽管加大投资的理由适用于几乎所有地区（也许中国是个例外，那里把基建投资当成刺激手段已有一段时间），但合适的投资策略因地区而异。TheUSneedslong-termbudgetingforinfrastructurethatrecognisesbenefitsaswellascosts.Projectsshouldbeapprovedwithreasonablespeed.Thegovernmentcancontributebysupportingprivateinvestmentsinareassuchastelecommunicationsandenergy.美国需要对基础设施开展长期预算，在考虑成本的同时，还要考虑由此带来的收益。对项目的批准应具备足够的效率。政府可以通过支持电信及能源等领域的私有部门投资发挥作用。Europeneedsmechanismsforcarryingoutself-financinginfrastructureprojectsoutsideexistingbudgetcaps.ThismaybepossiblethroughtheexpansionoftheEuropeanInvestmentBankormoreuseofcapitalbudgetconceptsinimplementingfiscalreviews.欧洲则需要建立相关机制，在现存预算上限之外，开展自筹资金的基建项目。要实现这一点，可以扩大欧洲投资银行(EuropeanInvestmentBank)的规模，或在财政审核的过程中更多运用资本预算的概念。Emergingmarketsneedtomakesurethat