作者 安德雷-施萊弗(Andrei Shleifer) 丹尼爾-崔斯曼(Daniel Treisman)
首發於光明觀察，轉載請註明譯者及出處；本譯文僅供參考，引用請查對原文。
恰當的比較在俄羅斯人準備參加1991年以來的第四次總統大選投票之際，他們的國度對許多西方觀察家來說仍是一個謎。俄羅斯是不是已經擺脫掉共產主義的過去，成為了一個擁有自由市場的民主國家？或者俄羅斯今天是否是一個經濟脆弱、腐敗盛行的國家，官員們脅迫媒體屈從，打擊異己力量，幹擾私有企業？
說也奇怪，答案是兩者兼而有之。在那些把俄羅斯與美國或者德國這樣的發達資本主義民主國家相提並論的人看來，1991年之後俄羅斯的演變似乎是一場頗具怪誕意味的失敗。西方評論家——還有一些俄羅斯人——把俄羅斯描繪成獨一無二的災難之地，貪官汙吏們（這些傢伙已把經濟搞得千瘡百孔）操縱下的假民主政體。但是如果把俄羅斯與墨西哥、巴西、馬來西亞或者克羅埃西亞這樣的人均收入水平差不多的資本主義民主國家相比，它好象是並無非常之處。俄羅斯的不足是發展水平差不多的國家的典型。
儘管它有傑出的物理學家、空間項目、核武庫，俄羅斯在1990年還是一個中等收入的國家，直到今天它也是。從平價購買力來看，根據聯合國的統計，它的人均國內生產總值當時及現在都在7000—8000美元左右，接近於阿根廷1991年、墨西哥1999年的水平。
如果這個收入範圍的國家完全是民主政體的話，其民主也只是大致處於邊緣。它們的政府腐敗，司法具有政治傾向性，新聞媒體也很少是完全自由的。絕大多數國家都有高收入不公、公司所有權集中、宏觀經濟運行混亂的問題。在所有這些方面，俄羅斯並不突出。
上一世紀90年代俄羅斯的經濟運行常被描繪成災難。事實上，就經濟轉軌來說，它所經歷的情況並無不尋常之處。俄羅斯的產值下滑——既便是官方的統計數字（它明顯誇大了實際的衰退）——大約是蘇聯解體之後該地區國家的平均數，而現在下滑又為五年的迅速增長所替代。
上一世紀90年代初期俄羅斯經受了一場惡性通貨膨脹和1998年的金融大危機。是不是不尋常？事實上，在價格放開之後的十年中，俄羅斯貨幣貶值幅度小於其它十一個國家，包括巴西(Brazil)、土耳其(Turkey)、烏克蘭(Ukraine)和白俄羅斯（Belarus）。
俄羅斯的寡頭政客們的確從與政府的私下交易中得到了好處，大大地抵消了小股東們強化局勢控制力的賭注。但是在這方面，俄羅斯又是中等收入的市場經濟社會的典型。所有這些國家——從墨西哥、巴西、以色列，到南韓、馬來西亞和南非——幾乎都是被一些有政治影響的企業界大亨所控制著。他們受到了政府的特別關照，經常拿小股東們開涮。
西方對俄羅斯政治的評價一直很尖銳。記者們說俄羅斯選民（對選舉）無動於衷，這個國家的選舉早已內定好了。自2000年以後，倡議發起團體自由之家（Freedom House）認為俄羅斯的政治自由還不如上一世紀70年代後期發動政變上臺的巴西軍政府之治。它還認為俄羅斯的公民自由不如1991年伊卜拉欣·巴班吉達(Ibrahim Babangida)少將軍事獨裁政府治下的奈及利亞。
俄羅斯的民主政治究竟有多麼不完善？從1991年之後這個國家已經舉行了七次全國大選——下個月的總統選舉投票將是第八次。在每一次選舉中，形形色色的候選人都參加競選，代表著政治舞臺上的所有派別。據聞，對大選缺乏興趣的俄羅斯選民比例高於近來美國的全國大選。國際觀察家們儘管批評新聞媒體的報導和斷斷續續發生的不公正事情，但總體上對這些選舉還是給予了很高的評價。
俄羅斯的民主政治還遠遠沒達到完善，肯定存在一些弄虛作假和不公正的事情。最近幾年來，普京逐步加大努力向新聞媒體施壓，用運用經濟槓桿來堵塞媒體批評的渠道，威嚇走潛在的政治競爭對手。不過，儘管這些發展使俄羅斯轉向不自由，但還沒有使它超越中等收入國家的傳統政治範疇。
在世人眼中，俄政府常常是異乎尋常地腐敗。一位美國前國會議員說它已經成為「世界上最嚴重的『盜賊』統治的國家」。在此，比較的方法也有益處。聯合國做了一項跨國範圍的城市人口調查，其中詢問被調查者，官員是不是要求或希望他們對他前一年的服務行賄。最近的調查顯示，17%的俄被調查者回答是肯定的。相比而言，巴西是17%，羅馬尼亞是19%，立陶宛是23%，阿根廷和印度尼西亞是30%。
俄羅斯已經成為了一個「正常的」中等收入國家，這樣說並不意味著為其領導人的失誤尋找藉口，也不意味著讓俄羅斯滿足於最近的發展沾沾自喜。西方對普京侵犯自由的批評正中肯綮，必須繼續堅持下去。但是這些批評對俄羅斯已經做出的根本性變革不應該熟視無睹。
安德雷-施萊弗，哈佛大學（Harvard University）經濟學教授；丹尼爾-崔斯曼，加州大學洛杉磯分校（the University of California, Los Angeles）政治學副教授。本文由《外交》雜誌的一篇文章略寫而成。
附：原文及網址
http://www.iht.com/articles/131702.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/131702.htm
Next to its peers, Russia is 'normal'
Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Treisman IHT
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Apt comparisons
As Russians prepare to vote in their fourth presidential election since 1991, their country remains an enigma to many Western observers. Has Russia shaken off its Communist past to become a democracy with free markets? Or is Russia today a corrupt state with a fragile economy, where officials intimidate the media, discourage opposition and harass private business?
The answer, oddly enough, is that it is both. To those who compare Russia to developed, capitalist democracies like the United States or Germany, its evolution since 1991 looks like a grotesque failure. Western critics - as well as some Russians - portray Russia as a unique disaster zone, a pseudo-democracy run by venal bureaucrats who have reduced the economy to a basket case. But compare Russia to capitalist democracies around its level of per capita income, such as Mexico, Brazil, Malaysia or Croatia, and it does not seem unusual. Russia's shortcomings are typical of countries around its level of development.
For all its brilliant physicists, space program and nuclear arsenal, Russia was a middle-income country in 1990 and remains so today. According to the United Nations, its gross domestic product per capita was then and is now around $7,000-$8,000 at purchasing power parity, close to that of Argentina in 1991 and Mexico in 1999.
Countries in this income range, if they are democratic at all, have democracies that are rough around the edges. Their governments suffer from corruption, their judiciaries are politicized and their press is seldom entirely free. Most have high income inequality, concentrated corporate ownership and turbulent macroeconomic performance. In all these regards, Russia does not stand out.
Russia's economic performance in the 1990s is often described as a catastrophe. In fact, its record is not unusual for a transitioning economy. The country's fall in output - even by official measures, which significantly overstate the true decline - was about average for the post-Soviet countries, and has now been followed by five years of rapid growth.
Russia suffered a bout of hyperinflation in the early 1990s and a major currency crisis in 1998. Unusual? In fact, in the decade after prices were freed, Russia's currency fell less than those of 11 other countries, including Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine, and Belarus.
Russia's oligarchs did benefit from sweetheart deals with the government, and massively diluted the stakes of minority shareholders to consolidate control. But in this, again, Russia is typical of middle-income market economies. Almost all of these - from Mexico, Brazil and Israel to South Korea, Malaysia and South Africa - are dominated by a few politically influential tycoons, who receive special favors from government and often abuse minority shareholders.
Western evaluations of Russia's politics have been scathing. Reporters portray Russian voters as apathetic and the country's elections as fixed. Since 2000 the advocacy group Freedom House has rated political freedom in Russia below that under Brazil's military junta of the late 1970s. It rates civil liberties in Russia below those of Nigeria in 1991 under the military dictatorship of Major General Ibrahim Babangida.
Just how defective is Russia's democracy? The country has held seven national elections since 1991 - the presidential ballot next month will be the eighth. In each a variety of candidates ran, representing all parts of the political spectrum. Supposedly apathetic Russians voted in these at rates higher than those for recent U.S. national elections. International observers, although critical of media coverage and episodic improprieties, generally gave these elections high marks.
Russia's democracy is far from perfect. Some falsification and improprieties have definitely occurred. In the last few years, Putin has stepped up efforts to intimidate the press, to use economic leverage to shut down critical media outlets and to scare off potential political rivals. But these developments, while shifting Russia toward the illiberal end of the spectrum, do not yet move it beyond the customary range of politics in middle income countries.
The Russian state is often viewed as unusually corrupt. A former U.S. congressman said it had become "the world's most virulent kleptocracy." Here too, a comparative perspective is useful. The United Nations conducts a cross-national survey of urban populations, in which it asks respondents whether any official has asked or expected them to pay a bribe for his services during the previous year. In the latest survey, 17 percent of Russian respondents said yes. This compared to 17 percent in Brazil, 19 percent in Romania, 23 percent in Lithuania, and 30 percent in Argentina and Indonesia.
To say that Russia has become a "normal" middle-income country is not to excuse the failures of its leaders, or to counsel complacency about recent developments. Western criticism of Putin's encroachments on freedom is appropriate and must continue. But such criticism should not lose sight of the fundamental transformation that Russia has made.
Andrei Shleifer is a professor of economics at Harvard University. Daniel Treisman is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles. This article is drawn from an essay in Foreign Affairs.
文章來源：譯者賜稿