Richard Layard - 追求沒那麼自私的資本主義

2009年3月21日

【明報專訊】英國《金融時報》3月10日評論
作者：Richard Layard(倫敦政治經濟學院教授)

儘管過去我們創造了大量財富，然而自1950年代開始，我們的「快樂」卻沒有同步增加。不斷加速的經濟增長並不值得我們為之作大量的犧牲，尤其不應犧牲快樂的最主要來源─人與人之間的關係─家庭、工作、社群。過去我們已為著「效率」、「生產力」而犧牲得太多。

為「效率」「生產力」犧牲太多

我們絕大部分人都犧牲了我們的價值。1960年代，60%的成人表示他們有信心「大部分人都是可以相信的」，今天這數字在英美都已跌至30%。這份信心的失落除了對於銀行業的失望之外，其實在家庭(離婚大增)、在遊戲場所(你可以相信的朋友已減少)、在工作環境(同事之間競爭愈烈)都出現。

我們愈來愈視「個人利益」為我們可以信賴的唯一動機，而且視人與人之間的競爭為能夠獲得最多個人利益的途徑。這其實通常是有違生產力的，而且通常無法帶來快樂的工作環境，因為對身分的競爭是一個零和的遊戲。相反，我們需要一個能真正帶來正面增長的社會。人這種動物是自私與慷慨的結合體；但普遍而言我們感覺良好是因為我們幫助了別人，而不是踐踏了別人。

我們的社會已充斥太多個人主義，太多競爭，卻沒有充足的共同目的。我們推崇成功、地位，並且輕蔑人與人之間的互相尊重。不過，北歐人卻能夠將具效率的經濟，以及人與人之間的互相尊重相結合─北歐人的互信是全球之冠！

要發展一個建基於信任的社會，我們應從學校開始，讓孩子們明白一個最高貴的生命是減少世上的哀痛並帶來快樂─這原則在商業社會同樣適用。我們應專注真正為社會帶來利益的事，而不是只著眼在紙上盈利。所有的專業─包括媒體、廣告、商業─都應有清晰、專業的道德操守，而業內的人亦應緊守。

所以，我們需要的是一個減低個人主義、一個導向更大社會責任的潮流。我們需要的是一個「改變」的潮流，而這個呼喊通常在黑暗的期間才會發出，就如30年代的北歐。

我們應該做的起碼有3點：

1.學校應加強推廣人的價值；

2.成年人也應重整生命中重要的東西──現代的快樂調查可有助達此目標；

3.經濟學家應選用一個更現實的模式，量度人們如何會快樂以及市場如何有效運作。

至於大學商學院所教授的3個概念亦應重整：

1.過去我們著重「有效率的資本市場」，現在這概念已失去信譽；

2.有關「代理人」理論─即以高額獎金作鼓勵才可令代理人展現最佳一面，這說法已導致太多效果為本的開支，並削弱了單單由完成工作而來的滿足感，以及引起同事之間不必要的競爭。

3.「不斷轉變」的說法是自利的顧問公司所推崇的，但這說法其實無視人們對於穩定的追求。
我們不需要共產主義，我們不需要一個達爾文式的弱肉強食競爭社會，我們需要的是一種令我們可以信賴身邊人的資本主義。

Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism
By Richard Layard
FT, March 10, 2009

What is progress? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been asking this question for some time and the current crisis makes it imperative to find an answer. According to the Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness. It does not mean wealth creation or innovation, which are sometimes useful instruments but never the final goal. So we should stop the worship of money and create a more humane society where the quality of human experience is the criterion. Provided we pay ourselves in line with our productivity, we can choose whatever lifestyle is best for our quality of life.

And what would that involve? The starting point is that, despite massive wealth creation, happiness has not risen since the 1950s in the US or Britain or (over a shorter period) in western Germany. No researcher questions these facts. So accelerated economic growth is not a goal for which we should make large sacrifices. In particular, we should not sacrifice the most important source of happiness, which is the quality of human relationships – at home, at work and in the community. We have sacrificed too many of these in the name of efficiency and productivity growth.

Most of all we have sacrificed our values. In the 1960s, 60 per cent of adults said they believed “most people can be trusted”. Today the figure is 30 per cent, in both Britain and the US. The fall in trustworthy behaviour is clear in the banking sector but can also be seen in family life (more break-ups), in the playground (fewer friends you can trust) and in the workplace (growing competition between colleagues).

Increasingly, we treat private interest as the only motivation on which we can rely and competition between individuals as the way to get the most out of them. This is often counterproductive and does not generally produce a happy workplace since competition for status is a zero-sum game. Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities. Humans are a mix of selfishness and altruism but generally feel better working to help each other rather than to do each other down.

Our society has become too individualistic, with too much rivalry and not enough common purpose. We idolise success and status and thus undermine our mutual respect. But countries vary in this regard, and the Scandinavians have managed to combine effective economies with much greater equality and mutual respect. They have the greatest levels of trust (and happiness) of any countries in the world.

To build a society based on trust we have to start in school, if not earlier. Children should learn that the noblest life is the one that produces the least misery and the most happiness in the world. This rule should apply also in business and professional life. People should do work that is useful to society and does not just make paper profits. And all professions – including journalism, advertising and business – should have a clear, professional, ethical code that its members are required to observe. It is not for nothing that doctors form the group most respected in our society – they have a code that is enforced and everyone knows it.

So we need a trend away from excessive individualism and towards greater social responsibility. Is it possible to reverse a cultural trend in this way? It has happened before, in the early 19th century. For the next 150 years there was a growth of social responsibility, followed by a decline in the next 50. So a trend can change and it is often in bad times (such as the 1930s in Scandinavia) that people decide to seek a more co-operative lifestyle.

I have written a book about how to do this and there is room here for three points only. First we should use our schools to promote a better value system – the recent Good Childhood report sponsored by the UK Children’s Society was full of ideas about how to do this. Second, adults should reappraise their priorities about what is important. Recent events are likely to encourage this and modern happiness research can help find answers. Third, economists should adopt a more realistic model of what makes humans happy and what makes markets function.

Three ideas taught in business schools have much to answer for. One is the theory of “efficient capital markets”, now clearly discredited. The second is “principal agent” theory, which says the agents will perform best under high-powered financial incentives to align their interests with those of the principal. This has led to excessive performance-related pay, which has often undermined the motive to work well for the sake of doing a good job and introduced unnecessary tension among colleagues. Finally, there is the macho philosophy of “continuous change”, promoted by self-interested consulting companies, which disregards the fundamental human need for stability – in the name of efficiency gains that are often not realised.

We do not want communism – as research shows, the communist countries were the least happy in the world and also inefficient. But we do need a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but on better values.

Values matter and they are affected by our theories. We do not need a society based on Darwinian competition between individuals. Beyond subsistence, the best experience any society can provide is the feeling that other people are on your side. That is the kind of capitalism we want.

Lord Layard is at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance. He has written ‘Happiness’ (2005) and co-authored ‘A Good Childhood’ (2009)