文/新浪财经专栏作者 迈克尔-斯宾塞 穆罕默德-埃里安
随着经济逐步增长，并向2008年经济危机爆发前的水平回归，中国、印度和巴西的表现，是一个对当今的全球经济增长的重要动力。新兴经济体的高增长和金融稳定性，有助于促进工业化国家面临巨大的调整，新兴经济体应在多速度的全球经济中发挥更大的作用。
在过去的两年中，工业化国家经历了严重的经济不稳定。目前，他们正在冥思苦想来对付日益扩大的主权债务问题和仍然持高的失业率。然而，一度被认为是脆弱的新兴经济体，却已体现了明显的经济反弹。随着经济逐步增长，并向2008年经济危机爆发前的水平回归，中国、印度和巴西的表现，是一个对当今的全球经济增长的重要动力。
新兴经济体的高增长和金融稳定性，有助于促进工业化国家面临巨大的调整。但这种增长具有显著的长期影响。如果目前的模式持续下去，全球的经济将永久改变。具体而言，按照市场价格估算，不需要超过十年，发展中经济体所产生的国内生产总值将达到50%的全球份额。
因此，重要的是要知道这种突破性增长阶段是否是可持续的。答案将取决于两个问题。其一是新兴经济体是否有能力来管理他们的成功；其二将涉及到何种程度上全球经济才能够适应这种的成功。
虽然新兴经济体经济未来仍有很大的发展前景，但必须进行持续的、快速的、甚至有时候会很艰巨的结构调整、改革和制度建设。近些年来，几个大国已经在这方面取得了一系列灵活而有效的历史经验，并将继续执行。
随着政府政策的调控，我们应该期望新兴经济体以一个扩大的中产阶级为基础，逐步加强国内的内生增长动力。结合更多的贸易往来，新兴经济体的未来之一是减少对工业国的需求依赖，尽管不会是一个完全的脱钩。
收入分配以及经济增长的问题。新兴经济体仍然需要更好地管理他们的国内事务，比如收入和公共产品分配问题。这方面的失败会破坏他们加强国内和区域增长的动力。这些新兴国家在经济增长中面临着严峻的收入分配的挑战，这已经被摆上了决策的议程。
在新兴经济体适应工业国家的经济放缓后，更具挑战性的是金融部门的传导机制。今天的低利率环境造成资金像洪水一样流向新兴经济体，提高了通货膨胀和资产泡沫的风险。西方银行扰乱了信贷供应，如果持续扩大的话，可能摧毁新兴市场的银行。
这些风险是真实的。幸运的是，一些新兴经济体有减震器来对付这种局面。以良好的初始条件进入2008-2009年的经济危机(包括大量的国际储备、预算和平衡国际收支盈余，以及资金充裕的银行)，他们远远没有消耗自己的财政和金融的灵活性，因而他们有能力以应对未来的冲击。
总体而言，新兴经济体处于有利地位，并继续成功地航行在工业国家受到危机冲击的不稳定世界。然而新兴经济体和发达经济体还不能完全脱钩。
以知识、金融和技术流动为基础形成新兴经济体持续的高速增长是与一个开放的、以规则为基础的、全球化经济密切相关的。然而，这一全球性的建设同时面临先进国家居高不下的失业率和金融动荡局面下的压力。全球经济增长发生在哪里被视为一场零和博弈，导致产生次优反应。
因此，工业化国家市场的持续开放不再是理所当然之事。政治和政策正变得偏向国内、更为狭隘，而国际议程和追求全球共同利益的呼声越来越难以得到关注。
这些挑战还将在未来几年越来越大，并涉及到全球制度和治理问题。
在一个强弱对比正发生逆转、增长速度不一的世界，经营不断壮大、日益复杂的国际关系是更大的挑战。这样的世界需要更好的全球治理及改革过时的体制，这使得新兴经济体获得在国际机构中的话语权和代表权。
如果没有这些改变，全球经济可能会从一个危机走向另一个危机，因为没有坚定的舵手来确定一个整体方向。其结果就是经济学家所谓的“纳什均衡”，或一系列次优及部分合作的结果。
这一切会给我们带来什么？
由于在增长不一致的全球经济中，工业化国家过度膨胀的资产负债表需要一个长期的修复过程，新兴经济体将被要求发挥更重要的作用。它们单凭自身手段可以胜任这一要求，但事情并非那么简单。新兴经济体为工业化国家的调整所起到的增长润滑剂作用，取决于工业化国家接受全球经济运作和治理结构转变的意愿。我们希望，这些全球性问题能够得到应有的关注。
(本文作者穆罕默德-埃里安系太平洋投资管理公司首席执行官和共同首席信息官，著名作家。迈克尔-斯宾塞系2001年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者，斯坦福大学名誉教授，美国发展委员会主席。)
以下是文章全文：
Can Emerging Markets Save the World Economy?
Mohamed A. El-Erian is CEO and co
CIO of PIMCO and author of the bestselling book When Markets Collide。
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics and Professor Emeritus at
Stanford University, chairs the Commission on Growth and Development。
Over the past two years, industrial countries have experienced bouts of
severe financial instability. Currently, they are wrestling with widening
sovereigndebt problems and high unemployment. Yet emerging economies,
once considered much more vulnerable, have been remarkably resilient.
With growth returning to pre2008 breakout levels, the performance of
China, India, and Brazil is an important engine of expansion for today’s global economy。
High growth and financial stability in emerging economies are helping
to facilitate the massive adjustment facing industrial countries.
But that growth has significant longer-term implications. If the current pattern is sustained, the global
economy will be permanently transformed.
Specifically, not much more than a decade is needed for the share
of global GDP generated by developing economies to pass the 50%
mark when measured in market prices。
So it is important to know whether this breakout growth phase is
sustainable. The answer comes in two parts. One depends on emerging
economies’ ability to manage their own success; the other relates
to the extent to which the global economy can accommodate this success.
The answer to the first question is reassuring; the answer to the
second is not。
While still able to exploit the scope for catch-up growth, emerging economies must undertake continuous, rapid, and at
times difficult structural change, along with a parallel process of
reform and institution building. In recent years, the systemically
important countries have established an impressive trackrecord of
adapting pragmatically and flexibly. This is likely to continue。
With government policy remaining on course, we should expect a gradual
strengthening of endogenous domestic growth drivers in emerging
economies, anchored by an expanding middle class. Combined with higher
trade among them, the future of emerging economies is one of reduced
dependence on industrial-country
demand, though not a complete decoupling。
Distribution as well as growth matter. Emerging economies still need to
manage better their growing domestic tensions, which reflect rising income
inequality and uneven access to basic services. A failure on this front
would derail their strengthening domestic and regional growth dynamics.
This is better understood today, with distributional aspects of growth
strategy being firmly placed on emerging countries’ policy agendas。
While emerging economies can deal with the economic slowdown in industrial
countries, the financial-sector transmission mechanism is more challenging.
Today’s low interest
rate environment is causing a flood of financial flows to emerging economies,
raising the risk of inflation and asset bubbles. The hiccups in Western banks
have served to disrupt the availability of trade credits, and, if amplified,
could destabilize local banks。
These risks are real. Fortunately, several emerging economies continue to
have cushions and shock absorbers. Having entered the 2008-2009 crisis with sound initial conditions (including large international
reserves, budget and balance-of-payments surpluses, and highly capitalized banks)， they are nowhere near
exhausting their fiscal and financial flexibility – and hence their capacity to respond to future shocks。
Overall, emerging economies are well placed to continue to navigate
successfully a world rendered unstable by crises in industrial countries.
Yet, again, the decoupling is not complete. A favorable outcome also requires
industrial countries’ ability and willingness to accommodate the growing
size and prominence of emerging economies. The risks here are significant,
pointing to a wide range of potential problems。
The flow of knowledge, finance, and technology that underpins sustained high
growth rates in emerging economies is closely linked to an open, rule-based, and globalized economy. Yet this global construct comes under pressure
in an environment in which advanced countries have stubbornly high unemployment
and bouts of financial volatility. The location of growth in the global economy
comes to be seen as a zero-sum game, leading to suboptimal reactions。
As a result, the continued openness of industrial-country markets cannot be taken for granted. Political and policy narratives
are becoming more domestic and narrow, while the international agenda and the
pursuit of collective common global interests are having greater difficulty
being heard。
These challenges will grow in the years ahead. And then there is the issue of
global institutions and governance。
Managing a growing and increasingly complex set of transnational connections
is an even bigger challenge in a multi-speed world that is being turned upside down. Such a world requires better
global governance, as well as overdue institutional reforms that give emerging
economies proper voice and representation in international institutions。
In the absence of such changes, the global economy may bounce from one crisis
to another without a firm hand on the rudder to establish an overall sense of
direction. The result is what economists call “Nash equilibria,” or a series
of suboptimal and only quasi-cooperative outcomes。
Where does all this leave us?
Emerging economies will be called on to play an even larger role in a multi-speed global economy characterized by protracted rehabilitation of over-extendedbalance sheets in industrial countries. Left to their own devices,
they are up to the task. But they do not operate in a vacuum. Emerging
economies'ability
to provide the growth lubrication that facilitates adjustment in industrial
countries is also a function of the latter countries’ willingness to
accommodate tectonic shifts in the operation and governance of the global
economy. Let us hope that these global issues receive the attention they require.
(本文作者介绍：2001年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者美国斯坦福大学商学院研究生院前任院长和现任名誉院长，纽约大学斯特恩商学院经济学教授，增长与发展委员会主席。著有《下一次趋同》一书。)
本文为作者独家授权新浪财经使用，请勿转载。所发表言论不代表本站观点。
