擺盪在社會主義與資本主義間

■ 沈中華 （Chung-Hua Shen, Chair, Department of Money and Banking） During my ph.D. study in the U.S., I was trained to believe that capitalism is the best system in the world and that socialism or communism should be buried in history. The sanctity of private property, market mechanism, and free economies promise us that once we adopt these hallmarks, we will be happy hereafter. The government guidance only deters the progress of economics. Employing the view of finances, the difference between the two systems is in fact in who can allocate credit, i.e., the funding channel. In socialism, government has power to decide which party can obtain the credit. Banks play an important role in this government-controlled system. In capitalism, sectors, which can generate the highest return and thus can pay the highest rate, obtain credit. Market mechanism allocates the credit. Is capitalism way of allocating credit always better than that of socialism The history does not argue against this concept, but only laugh silently at it, as it seems to say that there is no such thing as the best system. The economic outcome appears to move forward in the path of capitalism but sometimes, like a pendulum, it swings between two systems. Before 1950, the victory of the World War II made the West deeply believe that the capital market is “the” solution of the world’s economics. History, however, switched to the other extreme in the 1950s. The Soviet Union grew rapidly both in production and technology. When it launched the first space satellite (sputnik), many in the U.S. and Europe became alarmed that relying on the market to allocate credit may hinder the development of a country. Westerners, for the first time, realized that the state-allocated credit systems might perform no less than the private-allocated credit system. They began to adopt government credit-allocating system, though in a lesser extent. From the 1960s to the1980s, Japan produced substantial economic growth using a model of partial socialism with partial democracy, partial private enterprise, and partial bank-allocated credit system. Government control over credit allocation and a close partnership between government planners and bank-centered private conglomerate are so successful that were admired by the World. Much of East Asia had followed the Japanese path and its collective success shocked the confidence of many Westerners. The history switched back in 1990s. Japan had entered a protracted recession. In response, Japan gradually reformed its financial system based on U.S. and U.K.'s financial frameworks. And in 1997 and 1998, Asian crisis further destroyed the confidence of Japan and its followers. The crony capitalism, the original sin of Asian countries, together with the government controlled banking systems funded the credit to inefficient industries. Various countries had differing problems, but a common theme was that financial institutions failed in its designed function - credit allocation. In the 2000s, U.S. stock bubble was burst. The Enron, Worldcom, and many financial scandals occurred in the West. The just won victory by the capitalism was not sustainable. The more astonishing recognition was that there is also a dirty hand behind the capital market, which we often think only exists in the banking system. The suggested solution was to adopt stronger corprate governance in a broad sense. History tells us that opposite ideologies between two systems are over exaggerated. The core issue is in credit allocation, the financial system. A good credit allocation could solve the world economic problems. For this reason, I am teaching the course, “Emerging Financial Markets,” at NCCU's IMBA. 當我在美國攻讀博士時，博士班的訓練使我相信資本主義是世界上最好的經濟制度，而社會主義或共產主義應該被埋葬在歷史之中。私有財產的神聖性、市場機制以及自由經濟理論向我們保證，當我們採取這些優良的制度，我們將過著幸福快樂的生活。政府的指導只會妨礙經濟的運轉。 ◆信用分配 從財務的觀點來看，社會主義與資本主義的差異事實上就在於誰可以分配信用，例如資金管道。在社會主義體制下，政府有權決定哪一群人可以獲得信用。銀行在這個政府管控的系統中扮演一個很重要的角色。在資本主義體制下，能夠賺取最高的利潤，因而可以付出最高稅率的產業，可以得到信用。市場機制負責分配信用。 資本主義分配信用的方式總是優於社會主義嗎 歷史並沒有對這個觀點多所爭論，只是沉默地一笑置之，似乎在表達這世界上並沒有一個最好的經濟體制。經濟運作的結果看起來似乎朝資本主義體制的道路上前進，但是有時經濟運作就像鐘擺一樣，擺盪在兩種體制之間。 1950年代以前，二次大戰的勝利使得西方國家深信資本市場是世界經濟的解決方法。然而歷史卻在1950年代轉向另一個極端。蘇聯在生產與科技方面成長快速。當蘇聯發射第一個人造衛星的時候，很多美國人以及歐洲人警覺到依靠市場機制去分配信用，可能會阻礙一個國家的發展。西方人第一次了解到國家分配的信用體制表現可能不會比私人分配的信用體制來得差。西方人開始採用政府主導的信用分配體制，儘管程度跟社會主義國家比較起來不那麼極端。 從1960年代到1980年代，日本採用了部分社會主義結合部分民主、部分私人企業、部分銀行分配信用體制的模式，創造了充足的經濟成長。日本政府對於信用分配的控制，政府擘劃者與以銀行為核心的私人企業集團之間緊密的合作關係是如此地成功，以至於讓全世界都欽佩不已。許多東亞國家已經效法日本的步伐，而且這些國家集體的成功也衝擊了許多西方人的信心。 歷史在1990年代又扭轉回來。日本進入了長時間的經濟衰退。為了因應經濟衰退，日本以美國跟英國的金融架構為參考基礎，逐步改革本身的金融體制。在1997年以及1998年，亞洲金融危機進一步摧毀日本以及其跟隨者的信心。 ◆亞洲原罪 亞洲特有的親朋資本主義，也是亞洲國家的原罪，與政府控制的金融體系一起為無效率的產業提供信用。雖然不同的國家有不同的問題，但是一個共同的話題是金融機構失去本身被賦予的功能──信用分配。 在20世紀，美國股票經濟泡沫化。恩隆案，世界通訊案，以及許多企業財務醜聞發生在西方國家。資本主義才剛剛贏得的勝利是不足夠的。更讓人驚訝的事實是資本市場的背後也有一隻骯髒的手，而我們通常認為這隻骯髒的手只存在於金融體系中。人們建議的解決方式是採取更強大且更廣泛的公司治理制度。 歷史告訴我們，存在於這兩種經濟體系間的對立思想意識被過度誇張化。核心爭論在於信用分配以及金融體系。好的信用分配可以解決世界的經濟問題。這也是我在國立政治大學國際經營管理碩士學程教授「新興金融市場」的原因。（作者是政大金融系系主任） 【2005/01/02 經濟日報】