獎勵制的片面/表面之強調常會扭曲經理人的方向和表現

這一報告的"基本道理"是可應用在許多制度上的問題的:
獎勵制的片面/表面之強調常會扭曲經理人的方向和表現

報告：增加環保投入不利中國官員升遷 In China, Being Green Can Be Bad for Your Career

報告：增加環保投入不利中國官員升遷

中

國領導人熱衷於談論他們解決污染問題的決心。新領導人習近平去年11月勾勒他自己的“中國夢”時曾明確提出要創造“更優美的環境”。

那麼中國的空氣和水的質量為什麼這麼差呢？

一組經濟學家說﹐很大的原因在於﹐為減少污染而大力投入的地方官員到頭來反倒減少了自己獲得升遷的機會﹐而大手筆投資公路和其他交通基礎設施（雖有可能破壞環境﹐但它們提高了GDP）的官員卻更有可能獲得升遷。

清華大學的吳靜、阿爾伯塔大學(University of Alberta)的莫克(Randall Morck)、上海財經大學的黃俊以及新加坡國立大學(National University of Singapore)的鄧永恒、楊賢寫道﹐市政府用於改善環境的支出﹐與該市的書記和市長獲得提拔的概率之間﹐反倒存在明顯的負相關。對中國的政界人士來說﹐搞環保是件孤獨的事。

五位經濟學家比較了2000年到2009年環境支出和交通設施支出的政治結果。他們說﹐更高的交通設施支出帶來更高的GDP──更高的GDP增長帶來政治升遷﹔而更高的環境投入並不一定帶來GDP的增加﹐從職業角度講﹐這屬於失敗之舉。

這 樣的政治結果可能也是官員不願增加綠色項目投入的原因。用於改善環境的投入在城鎮基礎設施投入的比重從2000年的25.4%下降到2006年的 19.1%﹐然後在2009年有所上升﹐達到21.3%。與此同時﹐包括道路橋梁在內的城鎮交通設施投入佔城鎮基礎設施投入總額的比重﹐從2000年的 60.2%上升到2009年的72.7%。

儘管如此﹐報告作者認為﹐某種最低限度的環境支出是獲得升遷的必要條件﹐因為這類支出被認為是“維穩”的必要之舉。地方官員可不希望自己的履歷上出現因為污染問題而爆發群體性事件的記錄。

Bob Davis

 In China, Being Green Can Be Bad for Your Career
 China's leaders love to talk about their commitment to cleaning up pollution. When China's new leader Xi Jinping sketched out his version of the 'Chinese dream' in November, he made sure to include 'a better environment.'

So why are air and water quality in China so lousy?

A big reason, says one group of economists, is that local officials who spend heavily to reduce pollution instead end up reducing their chances for promotion. Those, on the other hand, who spend big on highways and other transportation infrastructure, which may damage the environment but boost GDP, are more likely to get ahead.

'A city government's spending on environmental improvements is actually significantly negatively related to the odds of its (Communist Party) secretary and mayor being promoted,' write Jing Wu of Tsinghua University, Randall Morck of the University of Alberta and Yongheng Deng, Jun Huang and Bernard Yeung of the National University of Singapore ( pdf). For a Chinese politician, it's lonely being green.

The economists compared the political outcomes of spending on the environment and spending on transportation infrastructure between 2000 and 2009. Higher transportation infrastructure turned into higher GDP -- and higher GDP growth brings promotions, they say. Higher environmental investment didn't lead to the necessary jump in GDP. Career-wise, that's a loser.

The political outcome also probably reflects a reticence to spend more on green projects. Investment in environmental improvements, as a percentage of total urban infrastructure investment, dropped from 25.4% in 2000 to a low of 19.1% in 2006, before increasing a somewhat to 21.3% in 2009. Meanwhile, investment in urban transportation infrastructure, including roads and bridges, jumped from 60.2% of total urban infrastructure investment in 2000 to 72.7% in 2009.

Still, there is some minimum level of environmental spending that's necessary for career advancement, the authors argue, because such spending is seen as necessary to preserve 'social stability.' Massive protests over pollution are not the sort of thing a local official wants on his resume.

Bob Davis