海德沙龙

Free-Market Environmentalism 自由市场环保主义 作者：Richard L. Stroup

译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy）

校对：混乱阈值（@混乱阈值）

来源：EconLib， http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html Free-market environmentalism emphasizes markets as a solution to environmental problems. Proponents argue that free markets can be more successful than government—and have been more successful historically—in solving many environmental problems.

自由市场环保主义强调将市场作为环境问题的解决办法。这一观念的倡议者认为，在解决许多环境问题方面，自由市场能够做得比政府更成功——历史上也一直更为成功。

This interest in free-market environmentalism is somewhat ironic because environmental problems have often been seen as a form of market failure (see PUBLIC GOODS and EXTERNALITIES ). In the traditional view, many environmental problems are caused by decision makers who reduce their costs by polluting those who are downwind or downstream; other environmental problems are caused by private decision makers’ inability to produce “public goods” (such as preservation of wild species) because no one has to pay to get the benefits of this preservation.

对自由市场环保主义的关注多少有点反讽，因为环保问题一向都被看作是一种市场失灵的体现（见词条“公共物品”和“外部性”）。传统观点认为，许多环境问题之产生，是由于决策者会通过污染处于下风向或下游的人们来减少自身的成本；其他环境问题之产生，则是由于私人决策者无力生产“公共物品”（如野生物种保护），因为人们无需支付价格就能获得此种保护所带来的收益。

While these problems can be quite real, growing evidence indicates that governments often fail to control pollution or to provide public goods at reasonable cost. Furthermore, the private sector is often more responsive than government to environmental demands. This evidence, which is supported by much economic theory, has led to a reconsideration of the traditional view.

尽管这类问题相当实际，但是越来越多的证据表明，政府常常无法以合理的价格控制污染或提供公共物品。此外，私营部门通常比政府更能响应环保需求。此类证据得到了许多经济理论的支持，现已引导人们重新考量传统观点。

The failures of centralized government control in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union awakened further interest in free-market environmentalism in the early 1990s. As glasnost lifted the veil of secrecy, press reports identified large areas where brown haze hung in the air, people’s eyes routinely burned from chemical fumes, and drivers had to use headlights in the middle of the day.

在1990年代早期，东欧和苏联中央集权政府的控制失败进一步唤醒了人们对自由市场环保主义的关注。随着“公开性”政策拉开遮掩的帷幕，新闻媒体报道了在被黄色雾霾覆盖的大片地区中人们的眼睛经常因化学烟雾而刺痛，以及司机们大白天都需要开车灯。

In 1990 the Wall Street Journal quoted a claim by Hungarian doctors that 10 percent of the deaths in Hungary might be directly related to pollution. The New York Times reported that parts of the town of Merseburg, East Germany, were “permanently covered by a white chemical dust, and a sour smell fills people’s nostrils.”

《华尔街日报》在1990年曾引用过一些匈牙利医生的说法，即匈牙利10%的死亡与污染直接相关。《纽约时报》报道说，在东德梅泽堡，市镇的部分地区“常年覆盖着一层白色化学粉尘，一股股恶臭扑鼻而来。”

For markets to work in the environmental field, as in any other, rights to each important resource must be clearly defined, easily defended against invasion, and divestible (transferable) by owners on terms agreeable to buyer and seller.

要让市场在环保领域发挥作用，跟在其他领域一样，对于重要资源的权利归属必须得到清晰界定（defined），对于侵犯行为能够轻松防卫（defended），并且权利所有人应当能基于买卖双方均能接受的条款而剥离（divestible）（或转让）之。

Well-functioning markets, in short, require “3-D” PROPERTY RIGHTS . When the first two are present—clear definition and easy DEFENSE of one’s rights—no one is forced to accept pollution beyond the standard acceptable to the community. Local standards differ because people with similar preferences and those seeking similar opportunities often cluster together.

简而言之，运转良好的市场要求存在这种“3D”财产权。一旦具备前面两条（某人的权利界定清晰并易于防卫），就没有任何人会被迫接受超过所在社群接受标准的污染。各地标准会有所不同，因为具有相同偏好的人和追寻相同机遇的人通常会聚集在一起。

Parts of Montana, for example, where the key economic activity is ranching, are “range country.” In those areas, anyone who does not want the neighbors’ cattle disturbing his or her garden has the duty to fence the garden to keep the cattle out. On the really large ranches of range country, that solution is far cheaper than fencing all the range on the ranch. But much of the state is not range country. There, the property right standards are different: It is the duty of the cattle owner to keep livestock fenced in. People in the two areas have different priorities based on goals that differ between the communities.

比如，在蒙大拿州的部分地区，关键的经济活动是牧场经营，可以说是“牧乡”。在这类地区，任何人如果不希望邻居的牧群打扰他或她的园子，自己就有义务修建花园栅栏，把牧群拦在外边。在牧乡的大型牧场上，这种解决办法远比给牧地上所有牧场都装上栅栏要来得便宜。但蒙大拿州许多其它地区并不是牧乡。在这些地方，财产权的标准就有所不同：牧群所有者有义务将牲畜用栅栏围住。不同地区的人们考虑的优先次序不同，根源在于不同社群拥有不同的目标。

Similarly, the “acceptable noise” standard in a vibrant neighborhood of the inner city with many young people might differ from that of a dignified neighborhood populated mainly by well-to-do retirees. “Noise pollution” in one community might be acceptable in another, because a standard that limits one limits all in the community. Those who sometimes enjoy loud music at home may be willing to accept some of it from others.

类似地，内城区年轻人很多的那些小区活力十足，这些地方的“可容忍噪音”标准可能就会不同于居民主要为生活优裕的退休人员的高端小区。某个社群的“噪音污染”在另外一个社群可能是可接受的，因为限制单个人的标准应当对于社群内的所有人都适用。偶尔喜欢在家里听听吵闹音乐的那些人很可能也愿意接受别人家里不时放放这种音乐。

Each individual has a right against invasion of himself and his property, and the courts will defend that right, but the standard that defines an unacceptable invasion can vary from one community to another. And finally, when the third characteristic of property rights—divestibility—is present, each owner has an incentive to be a good steward: preservation of the owner’s wealth (the value of his or her property) depends on good stewardship.

每个个体都有权反对对他本人及其财产的侵犯，且法院会捍卫这种权利。但在不同社群之间，如何界定不可容忍之侵犯的标准是可以不同的。最后，当财产权具备第三个特征（即可剥离性）时，每个所有者就都有做好管理人的激励：良好的管理才能维护业主的财富（财产的价值）。

Environmental problems stem from the absence or incompleteness of these characteristics of property rights. When rights to resources are defined and easily defended against invasion, all individuals or CORPORATIONS , whether potential polluters or potential victims, have an incentive to avoid pollution problems. When air or water pollution damages a privately owned asset, the owner whose wealth is threatened will gain by seeing—in court if necessary—that the threat is abated.

环境问题的根源在于财产权不具备或部分缺失上述特性。如果资源的权属界定清晰，对于侵权能够轻松防卫，那么所有个体或公司，不管他们是潜在污染者还是潜在受害者，就都具有激励去避免污染。当空气污染或水污染损害到私人所有的资产时，财富受到威胁的所有者通过确保威胁得以解除（必要时通过法院）就能获利。

In England and Scotland, for example, unlike in the United States, the right to fish for sport and commerce is a privately owned, transferable right. This means that owners of fishing rights can obtain damages and injunctions against polluters of streams. Owners of these rights vigorously defend them, even though the owners are often small anglers’ clubs with modest means.

比如，英格兰和苏格兰就与美国不同，以运动和商业为目的的钓鱼活动是私有的、可转让的权利。这就意味着钓鱼权的所有者能够从河流污染者那里获得赔偿或是用禁令禁止污染河流的行为。这些权利的所有者会积极地捍卫权利，尽管他们通常都只是些小型垂钓俱乐部，财产并不太多。

Fishers clearly gain, but there is a cost to them also. In 2005, for example, INTERNET advertisements offered fishing in the chalk streams of the River Anton, Hampshire, at 50 pounds British per day, or about $90 U.S. On the River Avon in Wiltshire, the price per day was 150 pounds, or $270. Valuable fishing rights encouraged their owners to form an association prepared to go to court when polluters violate their fishing rights. Such suits were successful well before Earth Day in 1970, and before pollution control became part of public policy.

钓鱼的人显然会得利，但他们也需承担成本。比如，2005年，网上广告说到汉普郡一条白垩河（安东河）上钓鱼每天需50英镑，合90美元；而在维尔特郡的埃文河上，价格更是高达每天150英镑，合270美元。价值高昂的钓鱼权促使其所有者组成联盟，一旦污染者损害他们的钓鱼权，就时刻准备走上法庭。早在1970年“世界地球日”诞生之前很久，早在污染控制进入公共政策之前很久，这类诉讼就已经很成功了。

Once rights against pollution are established by precedent, as these were many years ago, going to court is seldom necessary. Potential plaintiffs who recognize they are likely to lose do not want to add court costs to their losses.

一旦反对污染的权利经由先例得以确立，就像上述权利多年以前实现的那样，以后就很少有必要上法庭了。如果潜在的原告察觉到他们很可能会输掉官司，他们就不会愿意再往自己的损失上添一份诉讼开销。

Thus, LIABILITY for pollution is a powerful motivator when a factory or other potentially polluting asset is privately owned. The case of the Love Canal, a notorious waste dump, illustrates this point. As long as Hooker Chemical Company owned the Love Canal waste site, it was designed, maintained, and operated (in the late 1940s and 1950s) in a way that met even the Environmental Protection Agency standards of 1980. The corporation wanted to avoid any damaging leaks, for which it would have to pay.

因此，当工厂或其它有可能造成污染的资产为私人所有时，对造成的污染需付的责任就是一个强大的激励因素。发生在“爱河”这一臭名远扬的废料堆上的事件很好地表明了这一点。在胡克化学公司拥有“爱河”填埋场期间，它的设计、维持和运转（从1940年代晚期至1950年代）始终都做得很好，甚至能够满足美国环保署1980年的标准。公司希望能够避免任何有害泄露，要不然它就得出钱。

Only when the waste site was taken over by local government—under threat of eminent domain, for the cost of one dollar, and in spite of warnings by Hooker about the chemicals—was the site mistreated in ways that led to chemical leakage. The government decision makers lacked personal or corporate liability for their decisions.

只有在填埋场被当地政府接管（在政府威胁实施土地征用的情况下，胡克公司以一美元价格转让，并且当时它还就化学品提出过警告）以后，场地才遭到滥用，最后导致了化学泄露。政府决策者不需为他们的决定承担个体或公司责任。

They built a school on part of the site, removed part of the protective clay cap to use as fill dirt for another school site, and sold off the remaining part of the Love Canal site to a developer without warning him of the dangers as Hooker had warned them. The local government also punched holes in the impermeable clay walls to build water lines and a highway. This allowed the toxic wastes to escape when rainwater, no longer kept out by the partially removed clay cap, washed them through the gaps created in the walls.

他们在填埋场的部分地面上建了一所学校；移除了部分起保护作用的黏土盖层，用到另一学校工地去做填土；把“爱河”填埋场的剩余部分卖给了开发商，却没有像胡克公司那样附上危险警告。当地政府还在不渗水的黏土墙上开挖孔洞，用于建设水管和公路。由于黏土盖层部分被拆，挡不住雨水，结果有毒废弃物就被雨水从墙上的破洞里冲刷了出来。

The school district owning the land had a laudable but narrow goal: it wanted to provide EDUCATION cheaply for district children. Government decision makers are seldom held accountable for broader social goals in the way that private owners are by liability rules and potential PROFITS . Of course, anyone, including private parties, can make mistakes, but the decision maker whose private wealth is on the line tends to be more circumspect. The liability that holds private decision makers accountable is largely missing in the public sector.

拥有这片土地的学区所抱持的目标虽然值得称赞，但却过于狭隘：它就想为学区的孩子们提供便宜的教育。政府决策者几乎从来不会因更广泛的社会目标而遭到问责，这一点与私人所有者不同，后者需受责任原则和潜在利益的限制。当然，任何人都可能犯错，包括私方在内。但是，当决策者需要用个人财富来承担风险时，他会更加慎重。与对私人决策者问责的情况不同，在公共部门中，问责要求总体上是缺失的。

Nor does the government sector have the long-range view that property rights provide, which leads to protection of resources for the future. As long as the third D, divestibility, is present, property rights provide long-term incentives for maximizing the value of property. If I mine my land and impair its future PRODUCTIVITY or its groundwater, the reduction in the land’s value reduces my current wealth.

政府部门也不具备财产权所带来的长远视野，而这种视野会鼓励资源保护，以备未来之需。只要财产权具备第三个“D”即“可剥离性”，财产权就能提供将财物价值最大化的长期激励。如果我在我的土地上进行开采，破坏了它未来的生产率或其地下水，那么土地价值的减少就会导致我当前的财富的减少。

That is because land’s current worth equals the PRESENT VALUE of all future services. Fewer services or greater costs in the future mean lower value now. In fact, on the day an appraiser or potential buyer can first see that there will be problems in the future, my wealth declines. The reverse also is true: any new way to produce more value—preserving scenic value as I log my land, for example, to attract paying recreationists—is capitalized into the asset’s present value.

这是因为，土地的当前价值等于所有未来得益的折现值。未来得益减少或成本增加就意味着当前价值变低。事实上，只要有一个估价人或潜在买家首先看出未来会出问题，从这时起，我的财富就减少了。这话反过来也成立：任何能够产出更多价值的新办法（比如伐木时注意保护地面的观赏价值以吸引付费消遣的客人）都可以折算为资产的现值。

Because the owner’s wealth depends on good stewardship, even a shortsighted owner has the incentive to act as if he or she cares about the future usefulness of the resource. This is true even if an asset is owned by a corporation. Corporate officers may be concerned mainly about the short term, but as financial economists such as Harvard Business School’s Michael C. Jensen have noted, even they have to care about the future. If current actions are known to cause future problems, or if a current INVESTMENT promises future benefits, the stock price rises or falls to reflect the change. Corporate officers are informed by (and are judged by) these stock price changes.

财产所有者的财富取决于良好的管理，因此，即便是目光短浅的所有者也有动力表现出关心资源未来价值的样子。即便资产由公司所有，情况也是如此。公司管理者更多关心的可能是短期，但是正如哈佛商学院的Michael C. Jensen等金融经济学家所指出的那样，即便是这些人，也不得不着眼长远。如果人们知道当前行为在未来有可能引起麻烦，或者他们知道当前投资有望在未来获利，那么这种变化就会在股票价格的涨落上体现出来。公司管理人能够通过这种股票价格变化来获得信息，他们的工作成效也能由此得以判断。

This ability and incentive to engage in farsighted behavior is lacking in the political sector. Consider the example of Seattle’s Ravenna Park. At the turn of the twentieth century it was a privately owned park that contained magnificent Douglas firs. A husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Beck, had developed it into a family recreation area that, in good weather, brought in thousands of people a day.

政府部门缺乏行长远之事的能力和动力。这方面可以看看西雅图拉文纳公园的例子。20世纪初，这一公园属于私人所有，里面长有华贵的花旗松。W. W. Beck夫妇将公园打理成了一个家庭休闲场所，天气好的时候每天能吸引数千人来玩。

Concern that a future owner might not take proper care of it, however, caused the local government to “preserve” this beautiful place. The owners did not want to part with it, but the city initiated condemnation proceedings and bought the park.

然而，当地政府担心下一位所有者不会用心打理公园，因此要“保护”该公园。尽管公园所有者不愿意，但该市启动了征用程序，最终买下了公园。

But since they had no personal property or income at stake, local officials allowed the park to deteriorate. In fact, the tall trees began to disappear soon after the city bought it in 1911. A group of concerned citizens brought the theft of the trees to officials’ attention, but the logging continued.

然而，由于当地官员并不需要担心私人财产或收入受损，公园状况在他们的管理下日益恶化。事实上，在市政府于1911年买下之后，公园里面的高大树木很快就开始消失。一群热心市民还曾将偷树贼逮捕送官，但砍伐并没有停止。

Gradually, the park became unattractive. By 1972 it was an ugly, dangerous hangout for drug users. The Becks, operating privately at no cost to taxpayers, but supported instead by user fees, had done a far better job of managing the park they had created.

日复一日，这个公园不再有吸引力了。到1972年，它已经变成了一个丑陋危险的地方，只有吸毒者出没。Beck夫妇的私人经营没有花费纳税人一分钱，但他们能够得到使用者付费。在管理他们创造出来的这一公园方面，他们的成绩可漂亮多了。

Could parks, even national parks like Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, be run privately, by individuals, clubs, or firms, in the way the Becks ran Ravenna Park? Would park users suffer if they had to support the parks they used through fees rather than taxes?

公园、甚至是像大峡谷这样的国家公园是否能够以Beck夫妇经营拉夫纳公园的方式，由私人（包括个体、俱乐部或公司）来经营呢？如果公园使用者需要通过付费而非纳税的方式来维持他们所用的公园，他们因此就受损了吗？

Donald Leal and Holly Fretwell studied national parks and compared certain of them with state parks nearby. The latter had similar characteristics but, unlike the national parks, were supported in large part by user fees.

Donald Leal和Holly Fretwell对国家公园进行了研究，并将其中部分与临近的州立公园进行了比较。州立公园与国家公园在许多地方都很相似，但有一个区别：它们大部分都通过使用者付费来维持。

The comparisons were interesting. Leal and Fretwell noted, in 1997, that sixteen state park systems earned at least half their operating funds from fees. The push for greater revenue led park managers to provide better services, and more people were served.

比较结果非常有意思。Leal和Fretwell在1997年提到，有16个州立公园体系通过收费赚取到了一半以上的运营经费。为了获得更大收益，公园管理者愿意提供更好服务，公园也迎来了更多的游客。

For example, in contrast to nearby national parks with similar natural features, Texas state parks offered trail runs, fun runs, “owl prowls,” alligator watching, wildlife safaris, and even a longhorn cattle drive. Costs in the state parks were also lower. Park users seem happy to pay more at the parks when they enjoy more and better services.

比如，与附近自然景观相似的国家公园相比，德克萨斯的州立公园向游客开放山路跑、乐跑、“寻找猫头鹰”、鳄鱼观赏、野生动物游猎，甚至包括长角牛骑行等活动。州立公园的支出也更低一些。如果能够享受到更多更好的服务，逛公园的人似乎很乐意花更多钱。

Private individuals and groups have preserved wildlife habitats and scenic lands in thousands of places in the United States. The 2003 Land Trust Alliance Census Tables list 1,537 local, state, and regional land trusts serving this purpose. Many other state and local groups have similar projects as a sideline, and national groups such as The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society have hundreds more.

私人和私人团体已经在美国数千个地方对野生动物栖息地和风景胜地进行了保护。土地信托联盟2003年的普查表中列有1537个地方性、全州性以及地区性的土地信托在从事这一事业。还有许多其他全州性或地方性的团体业余举办类似项目，而全国性团体如“大自然保护协会”和“奥杜邦协会”则有数百个此类项目。

None of these is owned by the government. Using the market, such groups do not have to convince the majority that their project is desirable, nor do they have to fight the majority in choosing how to manage the site. The result, as the federal government’s Council on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY has reported, is an enormous and healthy diversity of approaches.

这些团体全都不归政府所有。由于它们利用的是市场，它们在其项目值得与否的问题上不用去说服多数人。同样，在选择如何管理保护地的问题上，它们也无需和多数人争执。结果，照联邦政府环境质量委员会报告的说法，我们在保护方法上具备了极为丰富且极为有益的多样性。

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the government is still involved, even in the case of privately donated and privately owned trust lands. Most of these private conservation choices benefit from tax advantages, as conservers gain charitable deductions from taxable income. Tax law, therefore, influences what sorts of donations qualify; it also increases the total amounts by rewarding all qualifying choices by tax reductions.

不过，有一个重要之处值得注意，那就是这里仍然会牵涉到政府，即便是那些私人捐赠或私人所有的信托土地也是如此。绝大多数选择进行私人环保的经营者都会获得税赋优惠，因为保护者的应税收入能够获得慈善事业减免。因此，税法会影响到哪种捐赠符合条件。它也能通过税赋减免来奖赏所有符合条件的选择，从而增加此类捐赠总量。

Who gains from the increased conservation? Most often it is first and foremost the nearby landowners. When donors of trust lands retain adjacent property, they benefit from the existence of the trust lands to a degree greater than other citizens more distant. Open space usually raises the value of nearby lands.

谁会从环保增进中获益？绝大多数时候，首先是临近地区的土地所有者。如果信托土地的捐赠者保留有临近地产，他们就会从信托土地的存在中获益，且这种获益程度会高于离该信托土地相对更远的市民。开阔的空间通常都能增加附近土地的价值。

Further, when many polluters and those who receive the pollution are involved, how can property rights force accountability? The nearest receivers may be hurt the most, and may be able to sue polluters—but not always. Consider an extreme case: the potential GLOBAL WARMING impact of carbon dioxide produced by the burning of wood or fossil fuels. If climate change results, the effects are worldwide.

更进一步说，如果涉及到的污染者和受污者人数众多，财产权又如何能推动问责呢？离得最近的受污染者可能受损最大，也可能有能力起诉污染者，但情况并非总是如此。这里可以考虑一个极端例子，即燃烧木头或化石燃料所产生的二氧化碳可能造成的全球变暖影响。如果气候变化发生，其影响将会遍及全球。

Nearly everyone uses the ENERGY from such fuels, and if the threat of global warming from a buildup of carbon dioxide turns out to be as serious as some claim, then those harmed by global warming will be hard-pressed to assert their property rights against all the energy producers or users of the world. The same is true for those exposed to pollutants produced by autos and industries in the Los Angeles air basin. Private, enforceable, and tradable property rights can work wonders, but they are not a cure-all.

如果二氧化碳增加所导致的全球变暖最后确实像某些人所宣称的那么严重，由于几乎所有人都使用此类燃料所产生的能源，全球变暖的受害者就要针对全世界的能源生产者或使用者主张其财产权利，而这会相当艰难。同理，洛杉矶空气盆地中受到汽车和工业污染物影响的人也很难主张其权利。私人所有的、可强制生效的、可交易的财产权能发挥妙用，但并非万灵药。

Still, even the lack of property rights today does not mean that a useful property rights solution is forever impossible. Property rights tend to evolve as technology, preferences, and prices provide added incentives and new technical options. Early in American history, property rights in cattle seemed impossible to establish and enforce on the Great Plains. But the growing value of such rights led to the use of mounted cowboys to protect herds and, eventually, barbed wire to fence the range.

不过，即便目前缺失相关的财产权，也并不意味着可行的财产权解决方案永远不可能出现。财产权常常会跟着技术、偏好和价格所导致的激励和新技术的增加而发生演变。在美国早期历史上，大平原上似乎根本不可能建立和实施对牛群的财产权。但随着这一权利的价值增加，人们开始利用牛仔骑士保护畜群，最终还用上了带刺铁丝网来围护牧场。

As economists Terry Anderson and Peter J. Hill have shown, the plains lost their status as commons and were privatized. Advances in technology may yet allow the establishment of enforceable rights to schools of whales in the oceans, migratory birds in the air, and—who knows?—even the presence of an atmosphere that clearly does not promote damaging climate change. Such is the hope of free-market environmentalism.

经济学家Terry Anderson和Peter J. Hill已经表明，草原由此失去了公地地位，被私有化了。随着技术的进步，将来某个时候，对于海中的鲸群、空中的候鸟，甚至是（天知道呢）对于一种明显不会造成有害气候变化的气体的存在，我们都可能建立起一种可以强制生效的权利。这正是自由市场环保主义的愿景。

（编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。 ——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——