【英语生活】亨利手球划算吗？

Dear Economist:

With regard to the controversial goal that has shattered Irish World Cup hopes, how would an economist have chosen to control the ball in Thierry Henry's position? Given that the rewards so greatly exceed the risks, would it have made any economic sense not to handle the ball? Is this a form of moral hazard?

Rich Stevenson, Oxford

Dear Rich,

Allow me to answer the questions in reverse order. Moral hazard describes a situation where a decision-maker takes unwarranted risks because he or she has been provided with some kind of safety net. Examples include people who insure their cars and then don't park securely, or financial traders who gamble because they get bonuses for profitable trades, but no real penalty for losing money. Thierry Henry committed a deliberate handball and set up the winning goal for France. I cannot quite see the parallel with moral hazard.

As for the risks and rewards, I think you are extremely confused. You say that the rewards exceed the risks, but we must ask to whom those risks and rewards accrue.

Henry has been selfless. The rewards of his cheating go largely to his team-mates, who get to go to the World Cup with their names unblemished, and to fans of French football, once they get over the embarrassment - which they will. Henry himself faced all the risks. He might have been cautioned or sent off, but surely the far greater risk was what happened: only the TV cameras noticed the handball and a great striker's reputation was tarnished. His subsequent pronouncements of guilt, shame and remorse have hardly put matters right.

So, what would an economist have done? The answer is absolutely clear: economists would never cheat in front of the camera. Their fans and team-mates might be frustrated with them, but their sponsors would be delighted.

亲爱的经济学家：

对于那个粉碎了爱尔兰入围世界杯希望的有争议进球，如果处在亨利(Thierry Henry)的位置，经济学家会选择怎样控球？鉴于回报远远大于风险，不去触球是否有经济学意义？这是一种道德风险吗？

里奇•斯蒂文森(Rich Stevenson)，牛津

亲爱的里奇，

请允许我倒着回答问题。道德风险指的是，一位决策者因为拥有某种安全保障，而去冒不必要的风险。譬如，人们会在上了车险后，就不顾安全地停车，再或者，金融交易员之所以投机，是因为他们能从获利的交易中分红，却不会因赔钱而受到真正的惩罚。亨利蓄意手球，为法国队打进了决胜一球。我看不太出这与道德风险有何相似之处。

至于风险和回报，我想你的逻辑极其混乱。你说回报大于风险，但我们必须问清楚，那些风险和回报都是针对谁的。

亨利很无私。他作弊的回报大多给了他的队友——他们会名声无损地前往世界杯——以及法国队的球迷们，如果他们能够摆脱难堪的话（而他们会的）。亨利则要自己承担所有的风险。他本来会受到警告，或被红牌罚下场，但实际上发生的事情显然风险大得多：只有电视摄像机捕捉到了手球，一位伟大的前锋顿时声名扫地。即便他随后表示了悔恨、羞愧和自责，也于事无补。

那么，经济学家会怎么做？答案一目了然：经济学家永远不会在镜头面前作弊。他们的粉丝和队友或许会为此感到沮丧，但他们的赞助商会很开心。

译者/陈云飞