蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖

值得轉載的一篇文章，從文章看出作者是一個有良心、理智的香港人 (相比起那個所謂的香港良心Mrs. Anson Chan有過之而無不及)。
(註: 作者跟我一樣都係undergrad係中大讀BBA, 後來先轉做政策研究及評論)


蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖
(明報)7月24日 星期四 05:10
【明報專訊】最近，聽到剛赴美國 進修的一位朋友，所親身經歷的一個小故事。他說有天到理髮店理髮，剛巧理髮師也是移民到來的港人，便閒聊起上來，講到香港的種種熱鬧精彩時，朋友便好奇問對方，為何不回流香港，怎料對方卻說：「算了，我恐怕自己再也不能適應香港。」

理髮師舉例說，在美國，如果覺得顧客不太適合電髮，他會坦白告知，沒有人會埋怨你為舖頭「倒米」；相反，在香港，卻多半會被人罵作「有病」、故作清高。再舉個例，他也是讀書人，在美國，帶本書回理髮店看，是一件自然不過的事，沒有人會報以怪異目光；相反，在香港，卻多半會被看作「珍禽異獸」，被人視作「扮嘢」。

簡單來說，在香港，有原則、有價值、有堅持，會被人視作異類；相反，在彼岸，那才是一個較尊重「values」，較有「heart」的地方。所以，這位理髮師說，他都是選擇不回香港，他覺得自己在彼岸會生活得心安理得一點。

上周三，政府頒布了一系列在高通脹下，政府的紓解民困措施，不料，旋即被部分人士批評為偏重、討好基層，但卻忽略中產，開學津貼、綜援 、生果金、公屋租金等，統統無份，只有電費及外傭稅的寬減項目，才稍為惠及，中產再一次被犧牲。另有外傭僱主及中產人士，擬組織遊行，抗議政府漠視中產階級需要云云。

通脹哪個階層影響最大﹖

「中產階級稅就交得最多，但福利就攞得最少」，這是近年輿論中建構出來其中一個最有深遠影響的論述。其中一個最為推波助瀾的，就是愈來愈變得像campaign media的本地傳媒，每次政府「派糖」政策出台，傳媒都最愛攫取一些最具煽風點火效果的公眾sound bites，又或者起一些煽情的報章標題，例如中產「被開刀」，甚至「任人劏」這類語不驚人死不休的字眼。反而對於政策的來龍去脈，政策的合理性，卻着墨和探討甚少。今次一個典型例子便是外傭稅。

隨着政府寬免外傭稅兩年，向中產示好，除了因政策考慮不周而惹來不滿之外，也帶來應否還原回幾年前的情况，取消外傭稅的爭論，而且聲浪愈來愈兇，有報章甚至以頭版加以炒作。但大家卻忘記了，當年在徵收400元外傭稅時，也同時降低了外傭的最低工資400元，所以對於很多住戶來說，外傭稅變相是由外傭支付的。所以今次提出要還原、撤銷外傭稅時，又有幾多人為外傭說句公道話，建議同時還原、提高回外傭的最低工資呢﹖大家恍如失憶，不記得事件中外傭同時是stakeholders（持份者）。

於是，大家只會為自己那一份吵吵鬧鬧，卻不會把眼界擴展至其他人，看看整體上的合理性，看看什麼為之「公道」。

平心而論，在新一輪通脹威脅下，對草根的影響要算最大，因為現時通脹勢頭最猛的，要算是油價和糧食價格。油價太貴，中產可減少使用私家車，多用公共交通公具；但食物如罐頭、麵包、肉價、米價等飈升，可壓縮的空間則不大。大家都明白，菜籃子是草根生活開支的主要部分，對中產則不然。我們這類中產，每次去街市或超市買菜，最多感到有些「肉赤」，但仍未至於消費不起，但設身處地去想，即食麵一包由兩元升至四元；豆腐一磚由一元多升至三元多；罐頭由每罐幾元升至十多元；米價勁升了一倍 …… 一個月入幾千元的草根家庭，這就是「生活中難以承受之重」。再加上，經濟雖然復蘇，雖然中產很多都有人工加，但在全球化衝擊下，很多基層勞工面臨deskilling、工種外移、職位流失等的衝擊，薪水根本升不上去，令其情况更加雪上加霜。

在考慮稅收、公共資源的投放及配置時，如果每個人只考慮自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」，這樣只會把香港變成一個全無價值、全無人情味的民粹主義社會，這樣的一個社會將會十分脆弱和容易瓦解。

因此，我們考慮的，應該是更高的一些原則，例如社會價值，以及政策的理性（rationality）等。例如九七金融風暴時，因為利益飈升但樓價卻狂跌，政府推出紓解民困措施，選擇向中產傾斜，例如退稅、增設供樓免稅額等，便十分合理；相反，若要紓解通脹壓力，明白到通脹的勢頭在菜籃子最猛，草根在經濟復蘇中受惠最少，多照顧基層，這也是應有之義。

我相信這個世界是要講道理的，不能只講對自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」。在考慮公共政策，如紓解民困措施時，亦當如此。

對香港心存感恩

我自己出身低下階層家庭，父親是個船塢工人，一家三兄弟，如果沒有政府和社會的資助，根本無可能負擔得起讀大學，亦因而無可能通過教育改變命運，實現階級流動。我想這也是香港三四十歲中生代的普遍共同經驗。所以我一直對香港這塊土地，心存感恩。

如果當年的納稅人，也斤斤計較，是否「稅就有份交，福利就無份」，稅款是否流向與己不相干的低下階層之口袋，那麼我相信香港整整一個世代的人，將無法出現階級攀升和集體生活改善，經濟奇蹟和起飛可能也無從談起。

如果有多到世界各地遊歷、見識的朋友，相信不難感覺到，香港的治安、公共秩序、城市管理等，都是世界首屈一指的，身邊不少朋友也認定，香港是全球華人社會中，一個算是可以讓我們安身立命的好地方。只要你看看其他亞洲國家如印尼 及菲律賓 ，便知道幸福並不是必然。如果大家都不認為自己的社會是公義和合理，反而充斥着不忿、嫉妒，甚至是仇恨，一個社會是不可能安定與和諧的。建立一個公義的社會，便是稅款、公共資源投放及配置的其中一個主題，最終每個階層都能受惠，包括中產。

或許這番說話很刺耳，但我知道，自己不會出來參選，也沒有興趣做官，有些說話如果連我都不說，可能就更加沒有幾個人會說。所以還是冒着得罪很多人的危險，坦然道出——為了我所鍾愛和感恩的香港。

作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/080723/4/7bsb.html

Monthly quote

quoted from Mark Sagoff's book (The Economy of the Earth, 2nd ed., 2008)

"as societies rise above the poverty level, goods are valued more for their social or cultural meaning than for their use; this meaning, moreover, is largely determined by their distribution" (p.76)

Distribution here means inter- and intra-generational equity. It also refers to the changees in status or identity after a redistribution of the good, like ownership of a rare product e.g. 'I'm not a plastic bag!'. So, one is altruistic and the other is self-interest, but both of them may be different from the 'utility' as economists defined. It is more likely related to the act itself, rather than the utility gains from the act. That's means that when societies pass through a certain threshold, the meanings of value change, and the old ways of interpretation fail.

Maths-based environmental economics

This is a reply to someone in discussion forum who insisted that mathematics is very important if not central to economics and social science in general. I don't agree especially on the latter. Their academic mindsets are just too closed to be realistic. They forget the nature and purpose of economics as a social science, and just do maths for maths.

Link: http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=7587344&extra=page%3D1&page=4

Env econ has a purpose of informing policy. Researchers commonly make use of many maths modelling and technical appraoches, like a 'must' in every publication. However, some people, including trained economists, considered this as source of problems rather than an advantage now (it's 'common' but flawed). They criticized the highly focused appraoch with maths has 'reduces the env problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approch'.
For example, maths-based econ can hardly measure cultural-ethical value as it is non-marketed, slippery & not quite consistent to utilitartian theory. When assessing the value of fengshui forest 風水林, resource economists tend to look at productivity only, like the market value of timber and land which are measurable and more reliable (so, 'economically justifiable') and can be well fitted into maths-based techniques like CBA (cost-benefit analysis). However, this simply bypass those values (sort of cultural, 'religious' dimensions, like so called 龍脈, 風水山墳) that the local villages do care. Applying this econ etimate to project evaluation without taking such considerations may simply create conflict and may therefore be rejected by locals, green groups, and sometimes the government themselves. The equation looks good, but the number or symbol is narrowly defined given the nature of the issue.

Likewise, someone in World bank said it is economically justified to transfer all electronic waste to Africa. I suppose he can a make maths equation to show that this is efficient from econ perspective. However, you can imagine the justice and politics issue here. It is difficult to incorporate those value dimensions and issues that cannot be easily be precisely transferred as numbers in maths model, as I hv mentioned in my first post. If we strictly follow maths rules and stick to maths model as a policy basis, the result will be excluding some real-world issues that are really important to policy makers. This is the problem with hedonic pricing method, contingent valuation method (for valuing non-marketed goods) commonly used in env econ. The same problem applies to the Arctic energy resource, justice, politics,...and the list goes on. It is difficult to put these into equations - will u ask someone how much is your ethical belief?. Excluding these dimensions is a tradition of econ, but is a problem as well when the social aspirations change thru these years. That's why a renowned env economist said that env econ did not pay a key policy role - the maths-based, technical approaches are just too unrealistic to apply in real policy implementation. This view is supported by quite a number of economists in the field.

The flaw of the math-based env econ is then clear. By sticking to the orthrodox model they ignore those outside their discipline. They use maths, they make policy advice, but they ignore the linkage with other perspectives which are imcompatible to their mindsets. But env issues are complex and trans-disciplinary, exclusion of non-economic perspectives is just a ignorance of realities. Finally, policy may be misguided. And this partly contributes to the development of ecological economics, which takes philosophy, politics, economics, sociology...etc into account. If the mainstream economics is perfect, we don't need this.

In fact, in social science, there is a trend (actually a tradition) to move across disciplinary boundary. Sociology involves politics, econ is related to psycho, journalism to sociology and politics; geography almost covers all. And finally, all these are built upon philosophy. So, social scientists have no excuse to escape from other disciplines' inputs.

Politics of climate change: who jump first?

Now US and probably some other developed economies have an excuse to keep away from bounding to economic-destructive emission targets. The politics of climate change is inseperable from distributional justice. It sounds reasonable for those developed economies to do more because they benefited more and also directly contributed to the problem in the past. However, does it mean that their less developed counterparts should do less? Comparably tough emission targets seem unfair to them, but getting it looser for these rapidly growing economies means bigger burden for the next generations. It's intra- vs. inter-generational justice underlying the whole discourse. And it is unresolvable by presenting scientific evidence about the likelihood of global warming which can only provide some informational assistance. Now people are looking for a new set of philosophy that can match people's wishes better than the old ones - I mean economic objectives, or those in the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Yet, there is still such a difficult question: Who jump first?

*****************************************
富國與開發中國家將減碳寄望哥本哈根會議
(法新社) 07月 09日 星期三 06:20PM

（法新社北海道 洞爺湖九日電） 八大富有國家領袖在提出二零五零年前讓全球碳排放量至少減半的呼籲後，今天與中國和印度 等八個主要開發中國家領袖集會，希望說服他們參與這項減碳計劃，但是 雙方未能就如何落實減碳目標達成協議，只好將希望寄託在明年底於哥本哈根舉行的氣候變遷會議。
與會領袖在一項聲明中說：「氣候變遷是我們時代所面臨的最重大全球挑戰。我們的國家將繼續朝有建設性的方向攜手合作，以促使哥本哈根氣候變遷會議能夠成功。」
這些國家也利用這項在洞爺湖舉行的會議，討論如何控制不斷飆漲的石油和糧食價格。糧油價格飆漲已對全球經濟造成危害。
但是聲明中說，儘管主要開發中經濟體也會採取行動，僅有富國將落實他們自訂的減排目標。聲明中未提出任何減排數字。
聲明中也未納入日本 的一項提議。這項提議建議開發中國家同意以長期減排換取富國在較短期內採取行動。這是全球氣候變遷談判的主要癥結之一。
八大工業國昨天呼籲世界在二零五零年前讓碳排放量至少減半，並敦促開發中國家也能就此採取行動，但是開發中國家不接受這種沒有約束力的呼籲。
歐洲聯盟執行委員會主席巴洛索為高峰會的結果辯護。
他說：「從已開發國家與開發中國家對抗的角度看待此事，將是錯的離譜。當然，我們接受最大部份的責任，但是這是全球的挑戰，需要全球的回應。」
布希的國際經濟事務助理普賴斯，一如往常的稱讚今天這項由美國 發起的會議。
他表示：「各界普遍承認，讓這些國家齊聚一堂，嘗試找出共同點，是對聯合國 談判的巨大貢獻。」
巴西、中國、印度、墨西哥與南非這些被稱為「五國集團」的國家立刻予以回應，他們呼籲富國必須帶頭行動，因為從歷史的角度來看，富國應為氣候變遷負責。
南非環境部長范斯考維克告訴記者：「在美國改變主意之前，南非覺得五國集團很難向前推進。」
五國集團敦促富國以一九九零年的排放量為基準，在二零二零年前減排百分之二十五到百分之四十。但是八大工業國與布希立場一致，僅表示在京都議定書減排義務二零一二年屆滿時，八大工業國將會各自設定他們的中期減排目標。
世界自然基金會 的「全球氣候倡議」負責人卡斯滕森，指責富國企圖藉著指責開發中國家來拖延行動。
他表示：「有些富國迷失在策略中，似乎忘記了人類與自然的生存極度倚賴他們的領導。」