【英语生活】谁说大企业不能破产

Neither a democratic society nor a market economy can accept the notion that a private business is “too big to fail”.

Liberal democracies of the modern world based on lightly regulated capitalism acknowledge two mechanisms of accountability – the marketplace and the ballot box. In the marketplace, organisations that do not meet, or respond to, the needs of society are ground between the twin pressures of their customers and their investors. At the ballot box, politicians that do not meet, or respond to, the needs of society suffer popular rejection.

Commercial success and democratic election are the only sources of legitimate authority in a society that no longer relies on spiritual leadership nor respects hereditary titles. An organisation exempt from either of these disciplines represents an unaccountable concentration of power. As we have today at Citigroup, Barclays and Deutsche Bank.

If “too big to fail” is incompatible with democracy, it also destroys the dynamism that is the central achievement of the market economy. In principle, there is no reason why disruptive innovations and radically new business models should not come from large, established, dominant companies. In practice, the bureaucratic culture of these organisations is such that this rarely happens. Revolutions in business generally come from new entrants. That is why so many of today's market leaders – Microsoft and Google, Vodafone and Easyjet – are companies that did not exist a generation ago. These companies could not have succeeded if governments had been committed to the continued leadership of IBM and AOL, AT&T and British Airways.

Any form of selective government support distorts competition. To win such subsidy today, the companies concerned must, like General Motors and Citigroup, be both large and unsuccessful. It is difficult to imagine a policy more damaging to innovation and progress.

The assertion that in future we will supervise the activities of large banks so that their businesses do not fail represents a refusal to address the issue. Even if that assertion were credible – and it is not – the outcome would not deal with either the political problem or the economic problem. Such regulation fails to call managers effectively to account, while supervision that ruled out even the possibility of organisational failure would kill all enterprise.

There should be a clear distinction in public policy between the requirement for essential activities to survive and the continued existence of particular companies engaged in their provision. There are many services we cannot do without – the electricity grid and the water supply, the transport system and the telecommunications network. These activities are every bit as necessary to our personal and business lives as the banking sector and at least as interconnected. Even a brief hiatus in their supply is intolerable.

But the need to keep the water flowing does not establish a need to keep the water company in business. We do not mind if one chain of high street shops closes its doors, because there are many other places to buy our clothes and groceries. Other industries are different. We cannot contemplate keeping aircraft circling over London while the liquidator of Heathrow Airport Ltd finds the way to his office.

In all industries where there is or might be a dominant position in the supply of essential public services, there needs to be a special resolution regime. The key requirement is that assets that are needed for the continued provision of these services can be quickly separated from the organisations engaged in their supply. The businesses involved must be required to operate in such a way that such a separation is possible. In some relevant industries such a scheme exists; in others it does not. In all cases, review and contingency planning is required.

“Too big to fail” – whether the claimant is a bank or an auto company – is not a status we can live with. It is both better politics and better economics to deal with the problem by facilitating failure than by subsidising it.

无论是民主社会，还是市场经济体，都无法接受私营企业“太大以至于不能倒闭”的概念。

以监管宽松的资本主义为基础的现代自由民主承认两种问责机制——市场和选票。在市场中，不能满足社会需求或予以回应的组织，会面临来自顾客和投资者的双重压力。在投票过程中，没有满足社会需求或予以回应的政治家，会遭到民众的唾弃。

在不再依赖精神领袖、也不尊崇世袭头衔的社会中，商业成就和民主选举是合法权威的唯一来源。一个组织若不受这两种规则限制，便代表了不负责任的权力集中。正如今天我们在花旗集团(Citigroup)、巴克莱(Barclays)以及德意志银行(Deutsche Bank)身上所看到的那样。

如果“太大以至于不能倒闭”的概念与民主互不相容，那么它也破坏了活力这一市场经济的主要成就。原则上，老牌大型支配性企业没有理由不能产生颠覆性的创新和崭新的商业模式。而在实践中，这些机构的官僚主义文化正是病因所在。商业中的革新通常来自新进入者。这就是为何当今的市场领袖中有那么多——微软(Microsoft)、谷歌(Google)、沃达丰(Vodafone)和Easyjet——都是一些成立时间不到30年的公司。如果政府一直致力于维护IBM、美国在线(AOL)、美国电话电报公司(AT&T)和英国航空(British Airways)的领导地位，那么上述公司就不会取得成功。

任何形式的有选择性的政府支持都会扭曲竞争。今天，要想赢得这类救助，相关公司必须同时具备庞大和不成功两个条件，就像通用汽车(General Motors)和花旗集团一样。很难想象出还有什么政策比这对创新和进步的破坏性更强大了。

今后我们将监督大型银行的活动，这样它们就不会倒闭——这种主张表明政府并不想解决问题。即使该主张值得信任——事实上不是——其结果既解决不了政治问题，也对经济问题无济于事。这种监管不能有效督促经理人负起责任，而且，这种甚至连组织倒闭的可能性都排除在外的监管，会毁掉所有的企业。

关键经济活动的存续和参与这些活动的特定供应商的存续有着不同的条件，政府应该在公共政策中作出明确的区分。我们不能没有电网、供水给、交通运输系统和电信网络。这些活动对我们的个人和商务生活来说是必不可少的，完全不亚于银行部门，至少联系同样紧密。这些服务供应哪怕短暂中断都是无法容忍的。

不过，必须保持供水不中断并不意味着一定不能让水厂倒闭。如果繁华的商业街上有一家商店倒闭，我们并不会介意，因为还有许多其它的地方可以买到衣服和杂货。其它行业就不同。我们不能想象，当希思罗机场(Heathrow Airport Ltd)的清算人试着理清头绪时，就让飞机在伦敦上空一直盘旋。

所有在关键公共服务供给中占有或可能占有支配性地位的行业都必须设立一种特殊决议制度。其中的关键要求就是，不间断提供这些服务所必需的资产能够与这类服务的供应机构迅速分离。必须要求所涉及企业的运营方式，能使这种分离成为可能。在某些相关的行业可以设立类似的机制；另一些则不需要。但无论如何，都必须制定审查和应急计划。

无论请求方是一家银行，还是一家汽车公司，“太大以至于不能倒闭”都不是我们所能接受的一种状态。通过推动破产而不是援助来解决问题，无论是在政治上，还是在经济上，都能取得更好的效果。

译者/董琴