特朗普政府向加拿大取經

Thirty six years ago, the phrase “air traffic control” aroused strong passions. The reason? In 1981, just after Ronald Reagan became president, thousands of air traffic controllers went on strike. But Reagan broke the unions in a move that became a powerful symbol of the new free-market, deregulated era.

36年前，“空中交通管制”這個詞曾引發強烈憤怒。原因何在？1981年，在羅納德?里根(Ronald Reagan)就任總統後不久，數千名空管人員開始罷工。但里根整垮了工會，此舉成爲一個自由市場、放松管制新時代的強有力象徵。

The air traffic control issue could become symbolic again — with a 21st-century twist. This week, Donald Trump summoned business leaders to the White House, where he reiterated his pledge to create a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan to unleash economic growth. The US president seems to visualise this in terms of concrete; or, more accurately, bridges, roads and that (in) famous wall. But Gary Cohn, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, has a different spin: his first priority is to take the air traffic control system away from the Federal Aviation Administration and place it in a non-profit entity, funded by public and private finance.

空中交通管制問題可能再次具有象徵意義——帶有21世紀的特點。最近，唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)把一些商界領袖叫到白宮，他重申了創建一份1萬億美元基礎設施計劃以釋放經濟增長的承諾。美國總統似乎在用混凝土來構想這份計劃；或者更準確地說是橋樑、道路和那道名聲不佳的隔離牆。但是白宮國家經濟委員會(National Economic Council)主席加里?科恩(Gary Cohn)的觀點不同：他的優先事項是讓空中交通管制系統脫離美國聯邦航空管理局(FAA)，把它歸入一個非盈利實體，由公共和私營部門資金融資。

The hope is that this will unleash investment, such as the adoption of GPS technology to replace the land-based system. “Air traffic control is probably the single most exciting thing we can do,” Mr Cohn declared, arguing that embracing GPS and digital technologies could slash US flight times so dramatically that “we will save over 25 per cent of the jet fuel in this country”.

他希望這將釋放投資，例如採用GPS技術替代基於地面的系統。“空中交通管制很可能是我們現在能做的最令人興奮的一件事，”科恩表示，他辯稱，引入GPS和數字技術有望如此戲劇性地縮減美國航班飛行時間，以至於“我國將節省25%以上航空燃油。”

This initiative might show how the White House is being forced to scale back reform ambitions in the face of Congressional opposition towards measures such as healthcare reform. It would be hard to persuade Trump voters that air traffic control reform is “the single most exciting” infrastructure pledge on the table.

這一舉措可能表明，面對美國國會對醫療改革等措施的反對，白宮正被迫收縮其改革雄心。很難說服特朗普的選民相信，空中交通管制改革是目前“最令人興奮的”基礎設施承諾。

But another way to interpret Mr Cohn’s comments is that it confirms that some in the White House are trying to turn Mr Trump’s grandiose promises into practical policy. And investors and business leaders (not to mention voters) should welcome reform.

但還有一種解讀科恩言論的方法：它證實，白宮的一些人正試圖把特朗普的宏大承諾轉化爲現實的政策。投資者和商界領袖（更別提選民了）應該歡迎改革。

The current system is desperately old-fashioned, so much so that industry studies suggest that introducing GPS might deliver a $30bn annual efficiency boost to the economy. Second, shifting the discussion about infrastructure away from Mr Trump’s obsession with concrete towards digital technology is welcome — and overdue.

現有系統過時得讓人絕望，以至於行業研究顯示，採用GPS可能會給美國經濟帶來每年300億美元的效率提振。其次，將基礎設施討論從特朗普對混凝土的迷戀轉向數字科技是可喜的，而且早該如此。

Third, the initiative is something that might win wide support. Most Republicans love the idea. So do business leaders: Doug Parker, chief executive of American Airlines, for example, said this week that wants an overhaul of the “antiquated” system, and suggested that a new non-profit entity should do this by issuing bonds. And he pointed out that a flight from Dallas Fort Worth to Philadelphia takes about 30 minutes longer than it did in 1979 because the US air traffic system has not kept pace with the rest of the world.

第三，該計劃可能會贏得廣泛的支持。多數共和黨人喜歡這個創意。企業領導人也是如此：例如，美國航空(American Airlines)首席執行官白偉德(Doug Parker)最近表示，他希望徹底改革這個“過時”的體系，他還表示，新的非盈利實體應該通過發行債券來這麼做。他指出，從達拉斯沃思堡國際機場(Dallas Fort Worth)到費城的航班所需時間比1979年多出約30分鐘，因爲美國空管系統沒有趕上世界其他地區的步伐。

Even unions may get on board, notwithstanding their previous opposition. This is because the FAA’s budget has been so unstable in recent years that it has hit air traffic controllers too.

就連以前表示反對的工會都可能贊同改革。這是因爲最近幾年，美國聯邦航空管理局的預算一直不穩定，也影響到了空管人員。

Then there is a fourth factor: the reforms show that parts of the administration are ruthlessly non-ideological about the sources of their reform ideas. In this case the inspiration partly comes from Canada. “We lost control of the skies over the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean because Canada has adopted a GPS system,” Mr Cohn laments.

接下來還有第四個因素：此類改革顯示，特朗普政府中的一些人對於改革創意的來源是超越意識形態的，在這方面不留情面。在本例中，其靈感在一定程度上來自加拿大。科恩嘆息道：“我們失去了對大西洋和太平洋空域的控制，因爲加拿大采用了GPS系統。”

There is so much fascination (or wounded pride) about Ottawa’s experience, that Elaine Chao, transportation secretary, has visited Canada to study the system. And that may pave the way for the import of other Canadian ideas.

美國對渥太華的經驗如此着迷（或者說自尊受損），以至於美國交通部長趙小蘭(Elaine Chao)專程赴加拿大研究這個體系。這可能會爲引入加拿大的其他創意鋪平道路。

Notably, Ottawa has launched a C$130bn infrastructure initiative, featuring a new $35bn infrastructure bank that is supposed to use public funds to catalyse private sector investment into infrastructure projects. “We think we will raise $4 to $5 in private capital for every tax dollar invested,” Bill Morneau, Canadian finance minister, told investors in New York this week. This idea may be emulated, not least because many Republicans are opposed to using too much public debt to fund Mr Trump’s infrastructure plans.

引人注目的是，渥太華方面推出了1300億加元的基礎設施計劃，包括打造一家新的350億美元的基礎設施銀行，擬利用公共資金刺激私營部門投資於基礎設施項目。加拿大財長比爾?摩爾諾(Bill Morneau)最近在紐約告訴投資者：“我們認爲，每投資1加元納稅人資金，我們將籌集到4至5加元的私營部門資金。”這種想法可能會被效仿，特別是因爲很多共和黨人反對利用過多公共部門債務爲特朗普的基礎設施計劃買單。

It would be premature to get too optimistic about the economic impact of these ideas. Canada’s system of government embraces sensible bipartisan policymaking. But even Ottawa has found it hard to turn its infrastructure promises into tangible projects as quickly as it hoped. It will be far harder in the US’s fractured — and fractious — system.

現在就對這些構想的經濟影響持過於樂觀的態度還爲時尚早。加拿大的政府體系接納理性的兩黨政策制定。然而，就連加拿大也發現很難像希望的那樣，迅速將基礎設施承諾轉變爲實際項目。在美國割裂且吵鬧的體制中，難度會大得多。

If Mr Cohn can make his air traffic control plans fly, that would create a symbolic victory of sorts. And, as Reagan knew, symbolism sometimes matters; particularly with that tricky issue of business mood.

如果科恩能夠將其空中交通管制計劃付諸實行，那將帶來一個具有象徵意義的成功。正如里根知道的那樣，象徵意義有時很重要；尤其是對於那個棘手的商業信心問題。