Eco Weekly 考研特刊.pdf
《Eco Weekly 考研特刊.pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Eco Weekly 考研特刊.pdf(44页珍藏版)》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、 2010年3月14日 谨以本刊献给Florachen(陈佳丽) 你永远和我们在一起! 经济学人论坛的各位译者, 你们辛苦了! ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISATION 经济学人杂志中文版 中文版双周刊特刊 考研英语与北外高翻特别奉献 2010年03月14日 www.ecocn.org/bbs ECO TEAM so long as something was changed, productivity rose. An awareness that they were being experimented upon seemed to be enough to alter w
2、orkers behaviour by itself. 此结论是从那些组装继电器和盘绕电线圈的产业妇女令人疑惑的行为中得出的。根据实验的记录,无论是加 强还是减少照明,她们的每小时产出都会提高。无论做了什么;只要产生了变化,工人们的生产力就会提高。其 实人们应该注意到:仅仅是被他人实验本身似乎就足以改变工人的行为。 The data from the illumination experiments had never been rigorously analysed and were believed lost. But Steven Levitt and John List, two ec
3、onomists at the University of Chicago, discovered that the data had survived the decades in two archives in Milwaukee and Boston, and decided to subject them to econometric analysis. The Hawthorne experiments had another surprise in store for them. Contrary to the descriptions in the literature, the
4、y found no systematic evidence that levels of productivity in the factory rose whenever changes in lighting were implemented. 这些从照明实验中得到的数据从没经过严谨地分析,并且被认为已经遗失了。但是来自芝加哥大学的两位经 济学家 Steven Levitt 和 John List 发现这些数据在密尔沃基和波士顿的两个档案馆中保存了几十年,于是他们决 定重新以对其进行计量经济分析。在 “Hawthorne“ 实验中还有别的 “ 惊喜 ” 等着他们。他们发现没有系统的证据
5、来说明只要对光照施以改变,工厂的生产力水品就有所提高,这与该实验的论文相矛盾。 It turns out that idiosyncrasies in the way the experiments were conducted may have led to misleading interpretations of what happened. For example, lighting was always changed on a Sunday, when the plant was closed. When it reopened on Monday, output duly ros
6、e compared with Saturday, the last working day before the change, and continued to rise for the next couple of days. But a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went Working hard? It must be Monday 工作如此努力?这一定是 星期一吧 经济学人中文版特刊第2期(总特2期) 2010年3月14日 第
7、6 页 up on Mondays. Workers tended to beaver away for the first few days of the working week in any case, before hitting a plateau and then slackening off. 这说明也许是实验所采取的古怪方式造成了人们对所发生的事情得出了错误的结论。比如说,每周日工厂关 闭时照明都会有变化。所以当星期一复工时,产出按时比光照改变前的最后一个工作日(上周六)来得高,并会 持续上升一些日子。但是当对没有进行实验的周进行数据对比时,他们发现产出也经常在周一时上升。无论
8、情况 如何,工人们每周前几天努力工作,随后达到一个顶峰,接着松懈起来。 Another of the original observations was that output fell when the trials ceased, suggesting that the act of experimentation caused increased productivity. But experimentation stopped in the summer, and it turns out from the records of production after the experim
9、ents that output tended to fall in the summer anyway. Perhaps workers were just hot. 另一原始观测得出:每当实验一停止,产出就会减少,这被认为是所进行的实验造成了生产力的提高。但是 实验是在夏天停止的,而实验结束后的关于生产的记录说明产出在夏天都会下降。也许(这只是)因为工人们太 热了。 There is a suggestion in the data that productivity was more responsive to changes in artificial than natural lig
10、ht. This could be interpreted as a subtler version of the Hawthorne effect, if you believe that workers were aware that changes in artificial light were induced by the experimenters, whereas natural light was changing on its own. But even this evidence is weak. For something so influential and intui
11、tively appealing, it turns out that the Hawthorne effect is remarkably hard to pin down. 实验数据反映,相比自然光,生产力的波动对人工照明更敏感。如果你相信工人们知道是实验者们在调整人 工照明,而自然光是则是自发地改变,那么这种现象就可以被认为是 “Hawthorne“ 效应的一个更微妙的版本。但 是就算是这条证据也十分无力。作为一个如此具有影响力以及从直观上引人入胜的理论,“Hawthorne“ 效应却显 得异常难以证实。 ( 译者:bighumbug) Banks and accounting stan
12、dards 银行与会计准则 Messenger, shot 通风报信者,枪毙 Apr 8th 2009 From The Economist print edition Accounting rules are under attack. Standard-setters should defend them. Politicians and banks should back off 会计规则正在遭受攻击,标准制定者们应当捍卫它,政客与银行应当退开 IN PUBLIC, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behi
13、nd the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and its just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regu
14、lators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be arcane, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyer
15、s, reviving the banking system will be difficult. 台面上,银行家们将他们的麻烦归咎于自身;台面下,他们一直把目标对准他人:会计准则的制定者。银行业 ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISATION ECO Weekly 考研特刊 考研特刊 ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISATION ECO Weekly 经济学人中文版特刊第2期(总特2期) 第 7 页 2010年3月14日 ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISATION ECO Weekly 特别报道 特别报道 ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISAT
16、ION ECO Weekly 考研特刊 ECONOMIST CHINA ORGANISATION ECO Weekly 抱怨会计规则迫使他们报告巨大损失,认为这些会计准则不公平。规则规定他们必须以第三方付出价格来评估部分 资产的价值,而非按照银行管理者和监管者期望该资产能够获得的价格。不幸的是,银行的游说活动看来已显成效。 其中细节可能无法获知,但是准则制定者在独立性方面 这正是资产市场正常运行的关键 已经做出妥协了。 银行如果不以能够吸引买家的价格计量有毒资产,银行系统的复苏将会非常困难。 On April 2nd, after a bruising encounter with Congr
17、ess, Americas Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASBs chairman, decried those who “impu
18、gn our motives”. Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management”. 4 月 2 日,美国 FASB(财务会计准则委员会)在与国会激烈摩擦之后,匆匆通过了规则的修改。这些修改 使得银行在使用模型评估非流动资方面用有更大的自由,同时使得它们确认收益表中长期资产损失时更为灵活。 FASB 主席 Bob Herz(鲍伯 赫茨)对那些 “ 怀疑我们的动机 ” 的人们提出谴责。然而银行股价上涨了,这些
19、修 改也使得被一个游说团体漂亮地称为 “ 管理层自由衡量 ” 的现象更加明显。 European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to be “piecemeal”, but the pressure to fold when it completes its overhaul of rules later this year is strong. On April 1
20、st Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules. 欧洲的部长们立刻要求国际会计准则委员会 (IASB) 也这么做。IASB 表示它不想变得 “ 支离破碎 ”,但试图让 它在今年下半年完成规则修订时屈服的压力十分巨大。 4月1日, 欧盟委员会委员Charlie McCreevy警告IAS
21、B说: 它不是 “ 处在政治真空中 ” 而是 “ 在现实世界里 ”,并表示欧洲可能最终会发展出不同的会计规则。 It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts
22、. The truth will not be known for years. But banks shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are sceptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains. 是银行呆错了星
23、球,它们的账目上充斥着估值过高的资产。现在他们认为市价高估了损失,因为市价主要反 映了市场的暂时性流动性不足,而非坏账的可能范围。几年中没人会知道真相。但是,银行股票以低于账面价值 的价格交易,这一点反应了投资者的怀疑。死寂的市场一定程度上反应了瘫痪的银行既不希望承受账面损失而出 售资产,也不愿意去购买这些被认为是便宜货的资产。 To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. Japans procrastination prolonged its crisis. Americas new p
24、lan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostil
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Eco Weekly 考研特刊 考研 特刊
链接地址:https://www.31doc.com/p-3655777.html