英国：文件，文件,满天飞

Deregulation
放松监管

Paper, paper everywhere

文件，文件,满天飞

Aug 16th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Everyone wants to cut red tape.Could the ★Tories★ actually do it?

人人都想削减行政的繁文缛节，那些★托利党人★真能做的到么？

(托利党：创建于1689年，作为辉格党的对立党而存在的英国政党，1832年以后托利党改名为保守党)

HAVING lost the last two elections promising taxcuts, many Conservatives reckon deregulation is the only economic policy leftthat can inspire the business lobby without putting off floating voters. So itis not surprising that cutting red tape features in the final report of theparty's economic-competitiveness group, due to be published on August 17th.Chaired by John Redwood, a former cabinet minister, the group does not ignoreother sources of competitiveness, or lack thereof. Britain's transport infrastructure,for example, is targeted for reform. But the war against red tape has dominatedadvance previews.

经 过最近两次承诺减税的选举败北之后，许多保守党人估摸着剩下来唯一能刺激企业游说，而又不会使投票人感到反感的方法就是放松监管了。因而，当保守党的经济 竞争力研究小组的最终报告中显露出削减行政文牍的特征时，也就不足为奇了。这个团体由前内阁大臣约翰·瑞德伍德的领导，他们没有忽略其他方面的竞争。当然 也可以说成说是缺少其他方面的竞争。例如，不列颠的运输基础设施是改革的目标之一。但是，针对行政文牍的措施却主导了改革的前奏。

This will surprise those abroad who assume that Britainis a beacon of laissez-faire, with little need for a bonfire of paperwork. TheCentre for European Reform, a think-tank that assesses European Unioncompetitiveness, continues to rate Britainas one of its least-regulated members, with Finlandand the Netherlands.The latest Global Competitiveness Report, produced by the World Economic Forum,ranks Britainthird for “market efficiency”, the closest it has to a measure of regulation.

这 让那些外国人感到奇怪，他们把大不列颠想象为自由主义的灯塔，认为它基本不需要对文书工作大张旗鼓。评估欧洲联盟竞争力的智囊机构——欧盟改革中心，一直 把大不列颠和芬兰、荷兰一起评价为市场监管度最小的三个成员国。最近，世界经济论坛发布了全球竞争力报告，英国因为“高效的市场”而排名第三，是最接近于 监管标准的国家了。

Nevertheless, the arteries of the British economy arefurrier than they were a decade ago. The tax code has doubled in size, andrecently overtook India'sas the longest in the world. As chancellor, Gordon Brown launched variousinitiatives against red tape. Most such measures, including setting up theBetter Regulation Commission, have disappointed businessmen, who complain thatMr Brown created a good many more regulations than he abolished. Mr Redwood isright that the stakes are high: with itsinfrastructure and productivity unimpressive by rich-world standards, Britainis left with flexible markets as a large part of its competitive advantage. Deloitte,an auditing firm, reckons it will slip from sixth to twelfth in itsworld-competitiveness league by 2010, in part due to regulation.

尽 管如此，英国的经济主动脉上覆盖的皮毛还是比十几年前更厚了。税法的规模增加了一倍，最近还取代了印度成为了世界上税法最繁杂的国家。格登·布郎首相提出 了多项法案来削减行政文牍。包扩建立更好的监管委员会在内，大多数的这类法案都让商界人士颇感失望。他们抱怨说，布郎先生制定出一大把的法规，远比他废除 的要多。瑞德伍德是对的，不列颠的风险很高：就富国标准来讲，英国的基础设施与生产率给人印象并不深刻，灵活的市场是它的竞争力优势的主要组成部分。就拿Deloitte审计事物所来讲，其在业界的世界竞争力排名到2010年估计会由现在的第六位滑落至第十二位，部分原因是监管。

Some of Mr Redwood's ideas are already Tory policy,such as abolishing★home-information packs★ in property deals and issuing fewertargets to local government. These, however, would dent the overall burden ofregulation only slightly. Other ideas are more radical, but also harder toachieve. It is not obvious how Britaincan excuse itself from EU labour laws, such as the SocialChapter and the Working-Time Directive, without compromising the termsof its membership. Simplification of the tax code makes sense and is oftenurged, but detail is essential.

瑞德伍德的部分措施已经采用了托尼党的策略，比如，废除物业交易中提交的★标准住房信息包★，对地方政府发出更少的行政命令等。尽管如此，诸多手段仍然不能很深地触动超负荷运转的行政制度。其他的一些方法更激进一些，不过同样难以见效。在不对其他成员国妥协的情况下，大不列颠如何才能从欧盟的劳动力法案中抽身出来，并非轻而易举。比如工作时间指标、social chapter等。简化税法的确重要，同时也十分迫切，但是实施细节必不可少。

(注：home-informationpacks简称HIP ，英国政府2007年要求卖房的一方提供更多的信息，称为Seller Pack, 也称做HIP。)

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader,points out that long-term cuts in red tape are achieved not by a flurry of“quick wins” but by process reforms, such as requiring independent assessmentof each new rule's impact and giving regulations an expiry date. Mr Redwoodentertains these ideas—he is expected to recommend ★sunset clauses★ and more parliamentary time fordebating regulations—but some experts question their effectiveness. MartinLodge of the London School of Economics argues that when a regulation is aboutto expire, those with a vested interest in its survival mobilise to preserveit. This, he suggests, is why the idea of sunset clauses is kicked around everyfew years but never implemented.

自由民主党的代主席文斯·凯布尔指出，狂风骤雨式的速度战不能完成需要较长期限的削减行政文牍工作，但是程序化的改革可以做到。举例来讲，每个新规范的影响都需要独立的评估，并给出其生效期间。瑞德伍德考虑了这些意见——人们期望他会推崇 ★“日 落”★条款，并为法规争取到更多的国会辩论时间——但是部分专家对这些意见的效率性持怀疑态度。伦敦经济学院的马丁·罗吉认为，一旦某项制度面临被废除的 情况时，那些非常希望其幸存下的人会积极行动去维持它。他认为，这就是为什么“日落”条款的设想被踢来踢去好几年，却从来没有实施的原因。

(注：日落条款：：除非由法律特地重新授权，一个政府计划或机构自行废止的法律或法条。通俗的讲，就是有“寿命”的法律法规。)

How much of Mr Redwood's report the Tories adopt willrest partly on how far it compromises the rest of their agenda. Labour and thetrade unions have noted the tension between relaxing laws that limit workinghours and the professed concern of David Cameron, the Conservative Partyleader, with people's work-life balance. Yet, as the Tories insist, regulationoften hits the weakest hardest. Small firms suffer more than large corporationsthat can afford★compliance departments★. Perks and protection for existingworkers may make firms reluctant to hire new ones. Mr Brown plans to brandishthe report as proof that the Tories are lurching to the right. If they makethese points effectively, he will find it harder than usual.

托 利党会采用多少瑞德伍德的建议，要看他们剩下的会议日程中愿意多大程度上进行妥协。劳工与商业协会已经注意到了紧张的气氛，保守党领袖大卫·卡梅伦对民众 工作生活之平衡情况的公开表态，与放宽限制工时法律之间剑拔弩张。然而，象托利党人强调的那样，监管通常对弱者给以迎头痛击。小型企业所遭受的损失要远大 于大型公司，因为大公司能负担得起★监察合规部门★的花费。对现有工人提供额外津贴和保护有可能使企业不愿意雇用新人。布郎计划把这份报告作为托利党正在败于右派的证据。但是如果保守党能使这些措施变得有效率的话，布郎就会发现他的计划难上加难。