?A social turn--Hard work and black swans??

To explain wealth and poverty, the ideas of the earliest economists are being revisited and improved

Other economists look to the distant past to explain contemporary disparities in income and wealth. A paper from last year by Benjamin Enke of Harvard University finds evidence that pre-industrial ethnicities which were exposed to a high local?prevalence of pathogens exhibited tighter kinship systems meaning, in effect, that people were strongly loyal to their extended family but suspicious of outsiders. In a place threatened by disease, tight family ties were beneficial because they reduced the need to travel, and therefore the risk of being exposed. Places which had tighter kinship systems hundreds of years ago tend to be poorer today, a relationship which first emerged during the industrial revolution. Other research has looked even further back, suggesting that contemporary cultural traits are the result of genetic variation. But this remains a niche pursuit, and most economists turn?queasy?when it comes to talking about genetics.

disparity ?n. /d??sp?r?ti/ ?（尤指因不公正對(duì)待引起的）不同，不等，差異，懸殊

prevalence /?prev?l?ns/?n. 流行；普遍；廣泛? ?Pathogen??n. /?p?θ?d??n/ ?( technical 術(shù)語(yǔ) ) 病原體

kinship ?n. /?k?n??p/ ?

1.?親屬關(guān)系??the ties of kinship 親屬關(guān)系；2.（因出身或態(tài)度相似而產(chǎn)生的）親切感

genetic variation：基因異變? ? ??niche pursuit：小眾愛(ài)好/追求

Queasy??adj. /?kwi?zi/ ?1.惡心的；欲吐的2.稍感緊張的；略有不安的；心神不定的

A separate body of research focuses on cases where culture is not a sufficient explanation for economic outcomes. Take the case of?Guatemala and Costa Rica. “The two countries had similar histories, similar geographies and cultural inheritance, and were faced with the same economic opportunities in the 19th century,” write Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in “The Narrow?Corridor”, a book published last year. But today the average Costa Rican is more than twice as rich as the average Guatemalan. The cause of the divergence initially appeared random, according to Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson. Eventually it became clear it was down to coffee. In Costa Rica the development of coffee?plantations for the European market led to a more balanced relationship between state and society, possibly because the country had more marginal land and more smallholders. In Guatemala, by contrast, it led to the emergence of a rapacious?government.

Guatemala?/?ɡwɑ?t??mɑ?l?; ?ɡw?t??mɑ?l?/ 危地馬拉（拉丁美洲）??Costa Rica?哥斯達(dá)黎加 中美洲國(guó)家

?Corridorn. ??/?k?r?d??(r)/ ?

1. （建筑物內(nèi)的）走廊，過(guò)道，通道?His room is along the corridor. 他的房間就在走廊邊。

2.（火車上的）走道，過(guò)道，通道

3.走廊（一國(guó)領(lǐng)土通過(guò)他國(guó)境內(nèi)的狹長(zhǎng)地帶）；空中走廊（一國(guó)領(lǐng)空中允許他國(guó)飛機(jī)經(jīng)過(guò)的區(qū)域）air corridor

4.（沿著重要道路或河道的）狹長(zhǎng)地帶??the electronics industry in the M4 corridor 沿 4 號(hào)高速公路狹長(zhǎng)地帶的電子工業(yè)

IDIOMS 習(xí)語(yǔ)

THE CORRIDORS OF ?POWER?( sometimes humorous )權(quán)力走廊（高層政治決策機(jī)構(gòu)）

Plantation??n. /plɑ?n?te??n/ ?

1.?種植園，種植場(chǎng)（尤指熱帶國(guó)家種植咖啡、甘蔗、橡膠等的大莊園??a banana plantation 香蕉種植園

2.??木材林地；人造林???conifer/forestry plantations 針葉樹(shù)林地；種植林

Rapacious??adj. /r??pe???s/ ?( formal disapproving ) ?貪婪的；貪欲的；強(qiáng)取的

In addition to culture, therefore, a growing band of economists is looking at institutions , often taken to mean the legal system and regulations. Some cultural economists argue that the focus on institutions proves their point:?what are institutions if not the product of norms, values and?preferences? Americans’ and Europeans’ differing beliefs about the causes of inequality, for instance,?go a long way?towards explaining why European welfare states are more generous than America’s.

?go a long way：走了很長(zhǎng)一段路、細(xì)水長(zhǎng)流、對(duì)···大有幫助

But in many cases the emergence of different institutions may have nothing to do with a country’s culture. Sometimes it is just luck. Mr Mokyr shows that Europe, which was fragmented into lots of states, was the perfect setting for innovation: intellectuals who challenged received wisdom?and incurred the wrath of the authorities could move elsewhere (Thomas Hobbes wrote “Leviathan” in Paris). By contrast in China, Mr Mokyr argues, free thinkers had few escape routes. Europeans did not plan such a system. It just happened.

intellectual /??nt??l?kt???l/adj. 智力的；聰明的；理智的?n. 知識(shí)分子；憑理智做事者

received wisdom：指被大眾、社會(huì)接受、承認(rèn)的知識(shí)，就是常規(guī)常識(shí)

incur ?v. /?n?k??(r)/ ?

1.招致；遭受；引起?She had incurred the wrath of her father by marrying without his consent 她未經(jīng)父親同意就結(jié)婚，使父親震怒。

2.引致，帶來(lái)（成本、花費(fèi)等）?You risk incurring bank charges if you exceed your overdraft limit. 如果超出了透支限額，就有被銀行加收費(fèi)用的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

Wrath??n. /r?θ/ ?盛怒；震怒；怒火?? the wrath of God 上帝的憤怒

Other work by Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson, along with Simon Johnson of MIT, has found a further element of randomness which may explain contemporary patterns of wealth and poverty namely, which countries are more prone to certain diseases. The mortality rate of settlers was low in some colonised countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, in part because the kinds of diseases that were there were less virulent. In others, such as Mali and Nigeria, mortality rates were far higher. Colonisers did not want to settle in countries with a high risk of disease, even as they wanted to take those countries’ raw materials. So in countries such as Mali and Nigeria, rather than permanently settling, they set up systems which enabled the maximum of resource extraction with the fewest boots on the ground. That, say Messrs Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, produced rapacious political systems which have endured to this day.

Virulent??adj. /?v?r?l?nt/ ?/?rj?l?/ ?

1.(疾病或毒物) 致命的；惡性的；劇毒的?2.狠毒的；惡毒的；不共戴天的??virulent criticism 惡意的批評(píng)

Are economists any closer to answering the foundational question of their science? Far from the simplistic certainty of Weber, it seems likely that some countries are rich and others poor because of a messy combination of economic incentives, culture, institutions and chance which is most important remains unclear. In 1817 Thomas Malthus, one of the early economists, wrote in a letter to David Ricardo, another, that “the causes of the wealth and poverty of nations [were] the grand object of all enquiries in Political Economy”. The revival of cultural economics two centuries on has helped in that quest, but it is not over yet.

譯文

Other economists look to the distant past to explain contemporary?disparities?in income and wealth. A paper from last year by Benjamin Enke of Harvard University finds evidence that pre-industrial ethnicities which were exposed to a high local?prevalence of pathogens?exhibited tighter?kinship?systems meaning, in effect, that people were strongly loyal to their extended family but suspicious of outsiders. In a place threatened by disease, tight family ties were beneficial because they reduced the need to travel, and therefore the risk of being exposed. Places which had tighter kinship systems hundreds of years ago tend to be poorer today, a relationship which first emerged during the industrial revolution. Other research has looked even further back, suggesting that contemporary cultural traits are the result of?genetic variation. But this remains a?niche pursuit, and most economists turn?queasy?when it comes to talking about genetics.

其他經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家通過(guò)研究遙遠(yuǎn)的過(guò)去來(lái)研究當(dāng)前收入與財(cái)富的差異。去年哈佛大學(xué)Benjamin Enke?發(fā)表的文章發(fā)現(xiàn)前工業(yè)時(shí)代族群暴露在高病毒患病率地區(qū)的會(huì)展現(xiàn)出比較緊密的家族體系。這表明，實(shí)際中這些人會(huì)對(duì)大家族高度忠誠(chéng)而對(duì)外界人群保持警惕。在疾病肆虐的地區(qū)，緊密的家族紐帶是對(duì)人有幫助的，它減少外出需求，降低人暴露在病毒中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。那些幾百年前家族關(guān)系緊密的地區(qū)在現(xiàn)在相對(duì)貧窮，這種關(guān)聯(lián)最早在工業(yè)化時(shí)代顯現(xiàn)。其他學(xué)者看向更遠(yuǎn)的地方，認(rèn)為當(dāng)代文化特質(zhì)來(lái)自于基因異變。但這只是一小撮人的愛(ài)好，大部分的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家一提及遺傳學(xué)就反感。

A separate body of research focuses on cases where culture is not a sufficient explanation for economic outcomes. Take the case of?Guatemala?and?Costa Rica. “The two countries had similar histories, similar geographies and cultural inheritance, and were faced with the same economic opportunities in the 19th century,” write Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in “The Narrow?Corridor”, a book published last year. But today the average Costa Rican is more than twice as rich as the average Guatemalan. The cause of the divergence initially appeared random, according to Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson. Eventually it became clear it was down to coffee. In Costa Rica the development of coffee?plantations?for the European market led to a more balanced relationship between state and society, possibly because the country had more marginal land and more smallholders. In Guatemala, by contrast, it led to the emergence of a?rapacious?government.

另一個(gè)分支學(xué)者著重研究那些人文不能充分解釋的案例。以危地馬拉和哥斯達(dá)黎加為例，Daron Acemoglu?與?James Robinson在去年出版的《狹長(zhǎng)走廊》中提到兩國(guó)歷史相近、文化相通、地理相似，并同時(shí)在19世紀(jì)面臨一樣的經(jīng)濟(jì)機(jī)遇。但現(xiàn)在哥斯達(dá)黎加人均財(cái)富是危地馬拉的兩倍。根據(jù)Acemoglu先生與?Robinson先生的說(shuō)法，造成差異的原因開(kāi)始是偶然的，最終變得具體--是咖啡。在哥斯達(dá)黎加，供應(yīng)歐洲市場(chǎng)的咖啡莊園發(fā)展推動(dòng)了政府與社會(huì)關(guān)系的平衡，也許是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)國(guó)家有更多的邊境土地和小農(nóng)戶。而危地馬拉則相反，它導(dǎo)致了掠奪性政府的出現(xiàn)。

In addition to culture, therefore, a growing band of economists is looking at institutions , often taken to mean the legal system and regulations. Some cultural economists argue that the focus on institutions proves their point:?what are institutions if not the product of norms, values and?preferences? Americans’ and Europeans’ differing beliefs about the causes of inequality, for instance,?go a long way?towards explaining why European welfare states are more generous than America’s.

文化之外，一撮不斷壯大的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們研究制度，通常研究法律規(guī)章制度。一些人文經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家辯論到對(duì)制度的研究驗(yàn)證了他們的觀點(diǎn)：制度難道不是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、價(jià)值觀念與偏好的產(chǎn)物嗎？例如歐美關(guān)于導(dǎo)致不平等因素的不同理解是解釋歐洲福利普遍比美國(guó)慷慨的關(guān)鍵原因。

But in many cases the emergence of different institutions may have nothing to do with a country’s culture. Sometimes it is just luck. Mr Mokyr shows that Europe, which was fragmented into lots of states, was the perfect setting for innovation:?intellectuals?who challenged?received wisdom?and?incurred?the?wrath?of the authorities could move elsewhere (Thomas Hobbes wrote “Leviathan” in Paris). By contrast in China, Mr Mokyr argues, free thinkers had few escape routes. Europeans did not plan such a system. It just happened.

但更多案例中不同制度的出現(xiàn)似乎與國(guó)家文化有什么管理，有的時(shí)候只是好運(yùn)。Mokyr先生解釋多個(gè)大小國(guó)家分割的歐洲曾是創(chuàng)新的完美溫床：知識(shí)分子挑戰(zhàn)常規(guī)常識(shí)遭到權(quán)威的迫害可以跑到別的國(guó)家去。例如Thomas Hobbes?在巴黎著成《利維坦》。但有的國(guó)家環(huán)境并不一樣。歐洲并沒(méi)有可以安排這樣的布局，它只是偶然發(fā)生。

Other work by Mr Acemoglu and Mr Robinson, along with Simon Johnson of MIT, has found a further element of randomness which may explain contemporary patterns of wealth and poverty namely, which countries are more prone to certain diseases. The mortality rate of settlers was low in some colonised countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, in part because the kinds of diseases that were there were less?virulent. In others, such as Mali and Nigeria, mortality rates were far higher. Colonisers did not want to settle in countries with a high risk of disease, even as they wanted to take those countries’ raw materials. So in countries such as Mali and Nigeria, rather than permanently settling, they set up systems which enabled?the maximum of resource extraction with the fewest boots on the ground. That, say Messrs Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, produced rapacious political systems which have endured to this day.

Acemoglu?與?Robinson先生及麻省理工的Simon Johnson的其他著作也發(fā)現(xiàn)另一個(gè)可能可以解釋當(dāng)代貧富模式的隨機(jī)因素：哪些國(guó)家更容易爆發(fā)哪些疾病。在一些殖民國(guó)家移民死亡率偏低，比如新西蘭和澳大利亞，某種程度上此地病毒致命性不強(qiáng)；而在馬里和尼日利亞，死亡率偏高。殖民者不愿意在高死亡率國(guó)家定居，即使他們想掠奪其原材料。所以在馬里或者尼日利亞，相較于永久定居，殖民者創(chuàng)建了能夠保障用最少的人力獲取最大的利益的制度。這樣，據(jù)三位學(xué)者解釋，產(chǎn)生了掠奪性政治制度并延續(xù)至今。

Are economists any closer to answering the foundational question of their science? Far from the simplistic certainty of Weber, it seems likely that some countries are rich and others poor because of a messy combination of economic incentives, culture, institutions and chance which is most important remains unclear. In 1817 Thomas Malthus, one of the early economists, wrote in a letter to David Ricardo, another, that “the causes of the wealth and poverty of nations [were] the grand object of all enquiries in Political Economy”. The revival of cultural economics two centuries on has helped in that quest, but it is not over yet.

有經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家可以進(jìn)一步回答經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)問(wèn)題嗎？遠(yuǎn)不同于韋伯的簡(jiǎn)單肯定，如今看來(lái)國(guó)家的貧富差距是由多重因素影響，如經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激、人文、制度與偶然因素，誰(shuí)最重要仍是未解之謎。在1817年托馬斯·馬爾薩斯，一位早期的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家寫(xiě)給另一位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家大衛(wèi)·李嘉圖的信中寫(xiě)道：國(guó)家貧富差距的原因是政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)所有問(wèn)題中的宏偉課題。文化經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)兩世紀(jì)后的復(fù)興推動(dòng)著對(duì)這一課題的研究，但并未結(jié)束。