“本文中的英文部分来自“经济学人”杂志。译文是个人学习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝转载或用于任何商业用途。本人同意平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。”
Doing deregulation right
如何正确地放松监管
America needs regulatory reform, not a crude cull of environmental rules
美国需要监管改革，但不是轻率地废除环境法规那样简单
What does the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, agree on? In addition to an enthusiasm for power, two things unite the conservatism of Stephen Bannon, the president’s consigliere , with the conservatism of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, the Republican leaders in Congress. One is tax cuts, on which he has thus far been vague. The other is deregulation, which matters more to Republicans now than debt or deficits.
由唐纳德·特朗普领导的共和党有什么共识吗？ 除了对权力的热衷以外，两件事情把总统顾问斯蒂芬·班农的保守主义与国会共和党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔和保罗·瑞安的保守主义连接起来。 一个是减税，迄今为止一直模糊不清。 另一个就是放松监管，这对共和党人来说比债务或赤字更为要紧。
The president promised “a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations” when he spoke to a joint session of Congresson February 28th. Mr Bannon has announced nothing less than “the deconstruction of the administrative state”. That project began with an executive order requiring federal agencies to get rid of two regulations for every new one they issue. It continued this week when the White House proposed slashing the budgets of many federal agencies. Under Barack Obama, CEOs grumbled constantly about burdensome new regulation and more zealous enforcement of existing rules. Stock markets have soared, possibly on a belief that undoing all this will bring much faster growth.
总统在2月28日的国会联席会议上发言时，承诺“用有历史意义的努力大力减少压制工作机会的法规”。 班农先生宣布了“行政国家的解构”。 该项目始于一项行政命令。它要求联邦机构每颁布一条新法规必须废止两条旧法规。 本周白宫继续提议削减众多联邦机构的预算。 在巴拉克·奥巴马治下，CEO们不断地抱怨负担沉重的新法规，更加热衷于执行现有法规。可能是因为大家相信撤销这些法规将带来更快的增长，股指大幅飙升。
Something has indeed dampened America’s economic dynamism. Startups are rarer, labour is less mobile and fewer people switch jobs than they did three decades ago. Regulation has shot up the list of small firms’ concerns since 2008. Yet there is a right way and a wrong way to deregulate. Markets need clear rules, enforced predictably. Less regulation is not always better: the freedom to dump toxic sludge into rivers will not improve Americans’ living standards. Republicans must ensure that they do the right sort of deregulation. There is little to be gained from crudely hacking at Mr Obama’s handiwork, while ignoring systemic problems that have led to a proliferation of rules, whoever is in charge.
有些事确实抑制了美国的经济活力。 创业变得愈加稀缺，劳动力更少转移，相比30年前更少的人转换工作。 自2008年以来，监管机构已经着手处理小企业们关注的问题。但是，解除管制也有正误方法之分。 市场更需要明确的规则和可预见性地实施。 减少监管并不总是更好：将有毒污泥倾倒到河流中的自由不会提高美国人民的生活水准。 共和党人必须确保他们能恰到好处地放松管制。从奥巴马的手里不会获得什么，而忽略了导致其滋生蔓延的系统性问题同样如此，无论谁应该为此负责。
Don’t just blame the bureaucrats
By one estimate, the number of federal edicts has risen steadily for almost four decades, from about 400,000 in 1970 to 1.1m. One reason for this proliferation is that bureaucrats much prefer writing new rules to rubbing out old ones. They scrutinise policy rigorously, but usually only in advance, when little is known about its impact. Little effort is made to analyse whether a rule’s benefits still justify its costs once implemented. Instead, politicians rely on gut instinct to tell them whether firms’ complaints about over-regulation are reasonable.
不要只责怪官僚
据估计，联邦法令的数量已经稳定上升了将近四十年，从1970年的大约40万件增加到目前的110万件。滋生蔓延的一个原因是，官僚们更喜欢编写新规则来取代旧规则。 他们严格审查政策，但通常只在制定法令之前，那时对法令可能产生的影响还知之甚少。 一旦法令施行后，几乎没人花气力去分析其好处与投入成本相比是否合理。 相反，政治家只是依靠直觉本能来判断公司对过度监管的投诉是否有道理。
Political gridlock is another reason for regulatory sprawl. When a president is blocked by a hostile Congress, as Mr Obama was for most of his time in office, the temptation is to exercise power by issuing rules through the federal bureaucracy. But even when Washington is unified, as it is now, Congress and the executive branch find it much easier to issue new edicts than to undo old ones. The same is true at the state level.
政治僵局是法规滋生的另一个原因。 当一个总统的权利被充满敌意的国会限制时，正如奥巴马在他大部分在职时间的情形一样，他必然倾向于通过联邦官僚机构发布法规来行使权力。 但即使当华盛顿融合之时，比如当下的情形，国会和行政部门发现颁布新法比撤销旧法更容易。 即便在州一级也是如此。
The result is a proliferation of rules at all levels of government—rules that can slow innovation, but which also impede straightforward tasks, such as fixing bridges. When Mr Obama tried to finance “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects after the recession, he found that many lacked the long list of permits and approvals necessary to start building. Any infrastructure push by Mr Trump will run up against the same roadblocks.
结果就是法规在各级政府中不断繁荣。法规不但可以减缓创新，也阻碍了简单任务的完成，比如维修桥梁。 当奥巴马在经济衰退后尝试资助“铲已备好”的基础设施项目时，他发现许多项目缺乏开工建设所需的许可证和批准书。 特朗普先生的任何推动基础设施建设的行动也将面临同样的障碍。
Fixing this requires substantial change. Mr Obama made a modest start by directing agencies to evaluate old regulations. Mr Trump’s demand that agencies must abolish old rules before writing new ones sounds crude, but provides a welcome incentive for bureaucrats to look again at old rulings. The strategy has had some success in Britain and Canada.
搞定这些问题需要实质性的改变。奥巴马采取了折中的办法开始，要求行政机构评估旧法规。特朗普则要求行政机构在编写新规之前必须废除旧规。这听起来简单粗暴，但却提供了一个受欢迎的激励因素，这使得官僚们愿意重新审视旧法规。这种策略在英国和加拿大取得过一些成功。
The White House should bolster the office that scrutinises proposed rules. It has seen its staff fall by half over three decades, while regulations have proliferated. Congress should appoint experts to scrutinise regulation on its behalf, as it has done for budgetary matters. This new body could review old rules as a matter of course. If these edicts do not pass a cost benefit analysis, they should expire automatically.
白宫应该支持审查拟议法规的办公机构。它的工作人员在过去三十年里减少了一半，与此同时法规却不断增加。议会应任命专家审查自身的法规，就像在预算项目上所做的一样。这个新机构当然也可以审查旧法规。如果这些法规没有通过成本效益分析，就应该自动过期。
Unfortunately, the approach many Republicans favour is to make it harder for the executive branch to do anything at all. Some want to subject every new rule to a congressional vote. Yet few politicians are equipped to scrutinise, say, arcane financial rules. Such votes are more likely to create feeding opportunities for lobbyists—and, in turn, more of the exemptions that increase regulatory complexity and harm competition.
不幸的是，一众共和党人赞成的这个方法会使执行部门做事更加困难。 有人希望对每一条新规进行国会投票。 然而，实际上政客几乎不具备审查的能力，晦涩难懂的金融法规就是一个例子。 这种投票更可能沦为游说者创造食利的机会，其次，更多的豁免会增加监管的复杂性并妨害竞争。