财产权制度为何具有道德力量

Property Rights: Negative Externalities and Social Cost

财产权：负外部性和社会成本

译校：FungChuh

人文经济学会资助译制

Brian Domitrovic: How to deserve a property right. Ronald Coase is famous for his observations about who would get what, if people had to bargain with each other over their property rights. If a doctor needs to keep a quiet examination room, and the confectioner on the other side of the wall needs to run a noisy workshop, bargaining would always end with a property right, necessary to control noise level, going to whichever one of them could make the more profitable use of that right. In short, where efficiency is concerned, who gets what depends on who's services are in greater demand.

如何配得上一项财产权。罗纳德·科斯著名是由于其观察：谁会得到什么，如果人们不得不为财产权问题交涉。如果一名医生需要保持一个安静的检查室，而在墙另一边的糖果制造商需要经营一家嘈杂的作坊，那么交涉总是会落到财产权问题上，控制噪音水平的必要性，取决于谁利用这一权利更有利可图。简而言之，从效率角度考虑，谁能得到什么要看谁的服务需求量更大。

An important question that Coase doesn't talk about, is who deserves what. The doctor and the confectioner each need the right to control the level of noise in their workspace. That right is a property right, and it's a factor of production for each of them. Which of them should get it? Which of them really deserves it? Come to that, is there any reason to think that where the market process puts things has anything to do with who deserves those things?

科斯没有提到的一个重要问题是，谁值得得到什么。医生和糖果制造商都需要控制工作场所的噪音水平的权利。这一权利是一项财产权，是他们各自的生产要素。他们中的哪一个应该得到它？他们中的哪一个真正配得上它？那么有什么理由认为，市场过程如何配置资源，和谁配得上它们有任何关系呢？

Consider a story. In 1980, Bill Gates, of Microsoft, was making a deal with IBM to supply a new operating system for their new invention called, a personal computer, or PC. Gates stood to make a lot of money from the deal, but there was just one problem. He needed to come up with an operating system. A fellow named Tim Patterson had already created a quick and dirty operating system. That was actually its title, or QDOS for short. He was willing to sell it to Gates. This system went on to become the Microsoft disk operating system, or MSDOS, which was released on the IBM PC in 1981. That of course, was the beginning of the billions of dollars that Gates would go on to make. What did Gates pay for the rights to QDOS, the thing that started it all? A mere 50,000 dollars.

想想看一个故事。1980 年，微软公司的比尔·盖茨与 IBM 达成交易，提供新的操作系统给他们的新发明，个人电脑，或称 PC。盖茨能从这笔交易中赚很多钱，但只有一个问题。他需要拿出一个操作系统。一个叫蒂姆·帕特森的家伙已经创造了一个快而粗糙的操作系统。这其实就是它的名字，简称 QDOS。他愿意把它卖给盖茨。这个系统后来变成了微软的磁盘操作系统，简称 MSDOS，1981 年在 IBM PC 上发布。当然，这也是盖茨后来赚取数十亿美元的开端。盖茨花了多少钱买下 QDOS 的版权，这一切的开端？仅仅 5 万美元。

This is a sort of David and Goliath story, except this time, it's Goliath who wins. Patterson is the underdog, who created something really valuable. Gates was merely lucky to sweep it up and make a deal with the giant IBM. What would Coase say about a story like this? Sure, the outcome was efficient. Gates knew how to create a lot of value with the right to QDOS, and Patterson didn't. That is, after all, why he was willing to accept, just 50,000 dollars for it. It seems that all that Coase could say, is that the story had a happy ending, after all, because the property right in question, was allocated efficiently.

这有点像大卫和歌利亚的故事，只不过这次，赢的是歌利亚。帕特森是弱势方，他创造了真正有价值的东西。盖茨只是幸运地瞥见了它，并与 IBM 这个巨头达成了交易。对于这样的故事，科斯会怎么说呢？当然，结果是有效率的。盖茨知道如何用 QDOS 的财产权创造出很多价值，而帕特森不知道。这毕竟就是他愿意接受那 5 万块钱的原因。看来，科斯能说的，就是这个故事毕竟有一个圆满的结局，因为其中的财产权，得到了有效的分配。

Actually, I think Coase’s perspective is deeper than that. When you start looking at the world through Coase’s lens, you see stories differently. From Coase’s perspective, the main characters in this story, are not Gates and Patterson. Really, they're just background scenery. Instead, the real main characters in this story are, a property right on the one hand. And, consumers, like you and me, on the other. The property right is the star, because that property right has explosive potential to bring value to consumers, if it can find it's way to them.

其实，我认为科斯的视角还远不止于此。当你开始用科斯的视角看世界时，你看到的故事就不一样了。在科斯的视角下，这个故事中的主角，不是盖茨和帕特森。真的，他们只是布景。相反，这个故事中真正的主角，一方面是财产权。而在另一个方面，是消费者，就像你和我。财产权才是主角，因为这项财产权有爆炸性的潜力，能给消费者带来价值，只要它能找到消费者。

This is a travel adventure story, that follows the odyssey of a property right. The suspense, is whether that property right will pass through the hands of the people who put the most value on it. They will be able to use it to create the most value for other people. That's the interesting question. Will that property right find the path it needs to take, in order to get to you and me?

这是一个旅行探险故事，讲述的是一项财产权的征程。悬念在于，这项财产权是否会去到最看重它价值的人手上。他们会用它来为别人创造最大的价值。这就是有趣的问题。这项财产权能不能找到它需要走的路，从而触及到你我？

Did Bill Gates deserve to be the hands through which that property right passed? Well, if the question is whether there was something so special about Bill Gates as an individual, that he should have made that fortune, instead of someone else, then the answer is, probably not. And, in Coase’s original story, the right to control noise in the workspace will go to either the doctor, or the confectioner, but there's nothing special about either of them either.

比尔·盖茨配得上掌握这项财产权吗？嗯，如果问题在于比尔·盖茨作为一个人是否有什么特别的地方，让他应该赚到这笔钱，而不是别人，那答案是，可能没有。而且，在科斯原来的故事里，工作场所的噪音控制权，要么归医生，要么归糖果制造商，但他们两者都没有什么特别之处。

In order for these property claims to have moral weight, there doesn't have to be anything special about Gates, or Patterson, or the doctor, or the confectioner. For a property right to have moral weight, is for the owner of that right to be entitled to it, within a system for allocating property rights that has moral weight.

为了让这些财产权有道德上的分量，盖茨、帕特森、医生或糖果制造商都不需要有什么特别之处。一项财产权要想有道德上的份量，财产权的所有者要有权行使它，在这个制度中，财产权配置本身有道德份量。

A system of property rights, like the system within which Gates acquired QDOS, has moral weight in so far as that system creates value for consumers by allowing trades that put resources to their highest valued uses. Those uses can even transform people's lives. In that sense, participants in the trading of property rights, do get what they deserve, not necessarily as a matter of reward for personal merit.

一个财产权制度，例如盖茨收购 QDOS 的制度，具有道德份量，是因为该制度为消费者创造价值，允许最大限度利用资源价值的交易发生。这些用途甚至可以改变人们的生活。在此意义上，财产权交易的参与者确实得到了他们应得的，不一定是作为个人成就的奖励，而是作为配置过程的副作用，为消费者创造巨大的价值。