就現(xiàn)階段而言，越來越明顯的是“新興市場”這個表述已越來越不合用。不如放棄它，以釋放我們的想象力，讓我們構(gòu)思一個更為精細(xì)的模型，通過它來理解世界。下面學(xué)習(xí)啦小編為大家?guī)斫鹑?a href='http://www.zbfsgm.com/cai/' target='_blank'>財(cái)經(jīng)雙語閱讀：《讓“新興市場”成為歷史》，希望大家喜歡!

　　“As we are ....prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well,” said Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist. For a long time since they were first coined in the 1980s, the words “emerging markets” appeared to have been well-chosen, such was their popularity as a description for a big chunk of the planet. As the world evolves, the term is progressively losing its purchase over the collective consciousness because it imprisons perceptions within parameters that are increasingly false or unhelpful.

　　“由于我們……是自己所挑選的詞語的囚徒，因此我們得好好遣詞，”意大利政治學(xué)家喬萬尼?薩托利(Giovanni Sartori)如此說道。“新興市場”這個表述自上世紀(jì)80年代出爐以來，在很長一段時間內(nèi)似乎很貼切，人們很喜歡用它來描述地球上相當(dāng)大一部分地區(qū)。隨著世界發(fā)展變化，這個詞逐漸失去了其對世人集體意識的影響力，因?yàn)樗讶藗兊挠^感桎梏在日益虛假或無益的參數(shù)中。

　　For one thing, several “emerging markets” — particularly recession-hit Brazil and Russia — are no longer emerging in an economic sense but rather regressing at a rapid clip. For another, the sense of equivalence that the term bestows on the countries under its umbrella is entirely bogus. Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Taiwan all boast a gross domestic product per capita that is higher than that of the UK, but find themselves occupying the same definitional space as India, the Philippines and Indonesia.

　　比如，數(shù)個“新興市場”——尤其是受到經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退打擊的巴西和俄羅斯——在經(jīng)濟(jì)意義上已經(jīng)不再崛起，反而是在快速倒退。再比如，這個詞賦予其群體內(nèi)所有經(jīng)濟(jì)體的“均等感”完全是虛假的?？ㄋ?、阿聯(lián)酋和臺灣地區(qū)都擁有比英國更高的人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)，但它們發(fā)現(xiàn)自己與印度、菲律賓和印尼處于同一個定義空間。

　　Most of all though, the longstanding hierarchy that put “emerging markets” at the periphery and “developed markets” at the core of global affairs may be unravelling. In purchasing power parity terms, developed countries contribute less to global output than their emerging counterparts, after their share of world GDP dwindled to 43 per cent in 2014 from 54 per cent in 2004.

　　但最重要的是，長期以來在全球事務(wù)中把“新興市場”置于外圍、把“發(fā)達(dá)市場”置于核心的等級體系也許正在解體。按購買力平價計(jì)算，發(fā)達(dá)國家對全球產(chǎn)出的貢獻(xiàn)已經(jīng)少于新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體的貢獻(xiàn)，占世界GDP的比重從2004年的54%降至2014年的43%。

　　Such inconsistencies not only make for a flawed definition that can misdirect analysis and entrench prejudice, they also exert a deleterious impact on portfolio investment returns. The collection of emerging market stock and bond indices that have grown up over the past three decades influence how fund managers in the west allocate their money. Because their performance is judged against the dominant index in their asset class, such managers generally try to invest in most or all of the assets included in the index. In emerging markets, this presents problems; several of the key indices pool a jumble of incongruous assets with wildly different risk profiles. For example, although 70 to 90 per cent of the JPMorgan EMBI, CEMBI, GBI-EM and ELMI+ are composed of investment grade bonds, the remainder in the words of Peter Marber, fund manager at Loomis Sayles, are “garbage”. Thus a fund manager who tries to mirror any of these indices is in effect being invited to add junk to his portfolio.

　　這種不一致不僅造成有缺陷的定義，進(jìn)而誤導(dǎo)分析，固化偏見，而且會對投資組合的回報產(chǎn)生有害影響。過去30年里逐漸發(fā)展起來的新興市場股票和債券指數(shù)，影響著西方基金經(jīng)理配置資金的方式。由于他們的表現(xiàn)是根據(jù)所在資產(chǎn)類別的主要指數(shù)來評定的，這些經(jīng)理一般會試圖投資于指數(shù)所含的多數(shù)甚至全部資產(chǎn)。這種做法在新興市場帶來問題，因?yàn)槎鄠€關(guān)鍵指數(shù)只是把一些不協(xié)調(diào)的、風(fēng)險狀況大相徑庭的資產(chǎn)拼湊在一起。舉例來說，摩根大通(JPMorgan) EMBI，CEMBI，GBI-EM和ELMI+指數(shù)雖然70%至90%由投資級債券構(gòu)成，但是借用Loomis Sayles基金經(jīng)理彼德?馬伯爾(Peter Marber)的話來說，其余標(biāo)的資產(chǎn)都是“垃圾”。因此，試圖以這些指數(shù)中的任何一個為參照的基金經(jīng)理，實(shí)際上是被邀請往他的投資組合添加垃圾。

　　Over the next two weeks, the Financial Times will publish alternatives to the “emerging markets” definition and host a debate on which of these seems most helpful. It would be foolish to prejudge that debate, but it may transpire that no single term can encapsulate the diversity of 152 countries identified by the International Monetary Fund as “emerging and developing economies”.

　　今后兩周，英國《金融時報》將發(fā)表“新興市場”這一定義的幾個替代詞語，并主持一場辯論，看哪一個定義最有幫助。提前評判這場辯論將是愚蠢的，但可能出現(xiàn)的情況是，沒有一個表述足以概括被國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)認(rèn)定為“新興和發(fā)展中經(jīng)濟(jì)體”的152個國家的多樣性。

　　People are likely to perceive different characteristics according to their perspectives. A development economist might think, for example, that key criteria should include per capita GDP, educational coverage, health indices and the diversity of a country’s economic base. A fund manager would think that the access of international capital to a country’s financial markets is key. A strategist at a multinational company may think that a country’s openness to direct investment combined with its position on competitiveness rankings and corruption tables would be important determinants.

　　人們可能從自己的視角出發(fā)而特別注意某些特性。比如發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家可能會認(rèn)為，關(guān)鍵標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)當(dāng)包括人均GDP、教育普及度、健康指數(shù)以及一個國家經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)的多樣性。基金經(jīng)理會認(rèn)為，國際資本進(jìn)入一國金融市場的能力是關(guān)鍵?？鐕镜牟呗詭熆赡軙J(rèn)為，一個國家對直接投資的開放程度，加上其在競爭力和清廉榜單上的排名，將是重要的決定因素。

　　All this remains to be decided. At this stage it is becoming increasingly evident that the term “emerging markets” is less and less helpful. It should be scrapped, thus freeing us to imagine a more nuanced matrix through which to understand the world.

　　一切都有待定奪。就現(xiàn)階段而言，越來越明顯的是“新興市場”這個表述已越來越不合用。不如放棄它，以釋放我們的想象力，讓我們構(gòu)思一個更為精細(xì)的模型，通過它來理解世界。