the hidden cause of the industrial revolution with ben southwood

What if the Industrial Revolution wasn't sparked by the steam engine, but by a quiet legal revolution in how England handled property rights?

如果工业革命不是由蒸汽机引发的，而是由英格兰处理产权方式的一场悄然的法律革命引发的，结果会怎样呢？

Ben Southwood of Works in Progress argues that the Glorious Revolution of the 1680s unleashed British growth by empowering a Parliament composed of landowners who simplified their own tangled, inefficient property rights.

Works in Progress 的本·索斯伍德 (Ben Southwood) 认为，1680 年代的光荣革命赋予了由土地所有者组成的议会的权力，从而释放了英国的经济增长，而土地所有者简化了自己错综复杂、效率低下的产权。

Through thousands of case-by-case acts, they freed up land for investment, consolidated inefficient farm ownership, and enabled a boom in privately-built roads, canals, and navigable rivers that created national markets.

通过数以千计的具体行动，他们释放了土地用于投资，巩固了效率低下的农场所有权，并促进了私人修建的道路、运河和通航河流的繁荣，从而创造了全国市场。

Along the way you'll learn why roads once moved at 1.5 miles per hour, and how these centuries-old lessons about buying off holdouts might solve today's housing and infrastructure gridlock.

一路上，您将了解到为什么道路曾经以每小时 1.5 英里的速度行驶，以及这些数百年关于收买顽固分子的经验教训如何解决当今的住房和基础设施僵局。

Comparing the US bundle of rights encompassed by “fee simple” ownership of real estate with that of the UK as well as Europe’s equivalent ownership rights has significant difference.

将美国“简单”房地产所有权所包含的一系列权利与英国以及欧洲的同等所有权相比，存在显着差异。

In the US the owner of the soil owns not just the crops on it, but the minerals beneath.

在美国，土地所有者不仅拥有其上的农作物，还拥有其下方的矿物质。

Current relevance, Obama’s war on hydrocarbons by restricting leases on federal lands did not prevent an overall increase in US oil & gas output, because private and state lands, plus the new technologies (2005 – present of lateral fracking, downhole mudmotors, & 3D seismic) more than made up for the Democrat Administration’s oil & gas prohibitions.

目前的相关性是，奥巴马通过限制联邦土地租赁对碳氢化合物发起的战争并没有阻止美国石油和天然气产量的全面增长，因为私人和国有土地，加上新技术（2005年出现的横向压裂、井下泥浆马达和3D地震）足以弥补民主党政府的石油和天然气禁令。

Meanwhile in UK & Europe drilling went nowhere because the minerals are owned by the governments and the private land owner had no right to profit from mineral beneath their land.

与此同时，在英国和欧洲，钻探毫无进展，因为矿产归政府所有，私人土地所有者无权从其土地下的矿产中获利。

The Newcastle coal discussion got me thinking that this could be visualized as a graph.

纽卡斯尔煤炭讨论让我想到这可以用图表来可视化。

Using the language of graphs (very simplistically) Newcastle and its customers are vertexes and these vertexes are connected by edges which represent transportation cost functions.

使用图形语言（非常简单地）纽卡斯尔及其客户是顶点，这些顶点通过代表运输成本函数的边连接。

I discussed this with my son who said I’m describing supply chain digital twins.

我和我的儿子讨论了这个问题，他说我正在描述供应链数字孪生。

He then pointed me to an article that describes how BASF uses supply chain digital twin to manage supply chains for it products.

然后他向我推荐了一篇文章，介绍了巴斯夫如何使用供应链数字孪生来管理 IT 产品的供应链。

I think this sort of modeling could incorporate rent-seeking considerations.

我认为这种模型可以考虑寻租问题。

Adam Smith used the Dutch Republic throughout Wealth of Nations as the example of a nation that had already implemented his system of natural liberty.

亚当·斯密在《国富论》中用荷兰共和国作为已经实施其自然自由制度的国家的例子。

Angus Maddison wrote that the Dutch Republic was the first nation in history to implement real property rights.

安格斯·麦迪逊写道，荷兰共和国是历史上第一个实行不动产权的国家。

Jan Devries wrote that the Dutch Republic was the first modern economy snd launched the industrial revolution.

扬·德弗里斯（Jan Devries）写道，荷兰共和国是第一个现代经济体，并发起了工业革命。

Jonathan Israel showed that the Dutch Republic invaded in 1688 because it had good intelligence that England and France were planning a joint attack on the Dutch.

乔纳森·伊斯雷尔 (Jonathan Israel) 表示，荷兰共和国于 1688 年入侵，是因为它掌握了英国和法国计划联合进攻荷兰的情报。

Both had tried separately several times and failed.

两人曾分别尝试过多次，但均以失败告终。

They thought a joint attack could succeed.

他们认为联合攻击可能会成功。

The Dutch saw England as the weaker and so launched a preemptive attack.

荷兰人认为英格兰较弱，因此发动了先发制人的进攻。

The Dutch armada was much larger than the Spanish one a century earlier.

荷兰无敌舰队比一个世纪前的西班牙无敌舰队大得多。

Additional ideas and people mentioned in this podcast episode:

本播客节目中提到的其他想法和人物：

A few more readings and background resources:

更多阅读材料和背景资源：

More related EconTalk podcast episodes, by Category:

更多相关的 EconTalk 播客剧集，按类别：

* As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.

* 作为亚马逊合作伙伴，Econlib 通过符合条件的购买赚取收入。

Intro.

简介。

[Recording date: July 1st, 2026.]

[记录日期：2026年7月1日。]

Russ Roberts: Today is July 1st, 2026, and my guest is Ben Southwood.

Russ Roberts：今天是 2026 年 7 月 1 日，我的嘉宾是 Ben Southwood。

Ben is a founding editor of Works in Progress , and has been head of research at Create Streets, and head of Housing at Policy Exchange.

Ben 是 Works in Progress 的创始编辑，曾担任 Create Streets 的研究主管和 Policy Exchange 的住房主管。

Our topic for today is a recent essay you wrote for the Works in Progress Newsletter, which I saw on Substack, which I recommend--your site.

我们今天的主题是您最近为 Works in Progress Newsletter 撰写的一篇文章，我在 Substack 上看到了这篇文章，我推荐您的网站。

And you also have a print edition.

您还有印刷版。

In the Newsletter, your essay was called "The Secret Cause of the Industrial Revolution: Cue the Exciting Music."

在时事通讯中，你的文章被称为“工业革命的秘密原因：提示令人兴奋的音乐”。

Russ Roberts: Before we get to your essay, tell listeners what Works in Progress is.

拉斯·罗伯茨：在我们讨论你的文章之前，请告诉听众什么是“正在进行中的作品”。

Ben Southwood: A few of my friends and I decided in 2020--when I didn't have any children, so I had a lot more time, and I had a lot more time because I was stuck in my house--we decided to set up an online magazine.

本·索斯伍德：我和我的几个朋友决定在 2020 年——当时我没有孩子，所以我有更多的时间，而且我有更多的时间，因为我被困在家里——我们决定创办一本在线杂志。

We thought that we know so many good people who aren't being given the time of day they deserve that if we just put their articles on our website and then we sat back and enjoyed the rents, then this would benefit us hugely.

我们认为我们认识这么多好人，但他们没有得到应有的时间，如果我们只是将他们的文章放在我们的网站上，然后我们坐下来享受租金，那么这将使我们受益匪浅。

And, to an extent, that worked out, and now I do it as a full-time job.

在某种程度上，这很有效，现在我把它作为一份全职工作。

Then it was just an unpaid side-hustle for fun.

那时，这只是一种无偿的副业，只是为了好玩。

Now, prestige and status, maybe.

现在，也许是声望和地位。

Now it's my actual job, and I spend lots of time thinking about how to make it better.

现在这是我的实际工作，我花了很多时间思考如何让它变得更好。

And, as you say, we have a print magazine and thousands of subscribers that we send it to, and we're kind of a real media business, although not quite, but on our way to being one if we do play our cards right.

而且，正如你所说，我们有一本印刷杂志和数千名订阅者，我们是一家真正的媒体企业，虽然不完全是，但如果我们打得好的话，我们正在成为一家真正的媒体企业。

So, yeah, but what do we do?

所以，是的，但是我们该怎么办？

We are about: "New and underrated ideas to improve the world" is our official tagline.

我们的宗旨是：“改善世界的新的和被低估的想法”是我们的官方口号。

And, the way I interpret that is: we write a lot about how global health has been improved in the past and how we could do it better today; how new drugs have made our lives better and how we could get more new drugs; how reforms have led to higher efficiency or more technologies being invented or more technologies being deployed; or distributing property rights around poor countries has led to economic growth there and poverty reduction.

我的解释是：我们写了很多关于过去如何改善全球健康以及我们今天如何做得更好的文章；新药如何让我们的生活变得更好以及我们如何获得更多新药；改革如何提高效率或发明更多技术或部署更多技术；或在贫穷国家周围分配财产权导致了那里的经济增长和减贫。

Those sorts of things.

诸如此类的事情。

Sometimes it's case studies, sometimes it's making a case for something that we should do.

有时是案例研究，有时是为我们应该做的事情提供理由。

But always trying to bring out parallels that are lessons for growth and progress for the world.

但始终试图找出相似之处，为世界的增长和进步提供教训。

Russ Roberts: And the version I saw in the Substack version is really quite beautiful.

Russ Roberts：我在 Substack 版本中看到的版本确实非常漂亮。

The aesthetics of it are quite nice, and I'm sorry I don't get the print edition, but for people who like beautiful print design, I think you guys are--if it's anything like the Newsletter, I'm sure it's beautiful.

它的美学非常好，很抱歉我没有得到印刷版，但对于喜欢漂亮印刷设计的人来说，我想你们是——如果它是像时事通讯那样的东西，我相信它很漂亮。

Ben Southwood: I can't take any credit for that.

本·索斯伍德：对此我不能承担任何责任。

We have an excellent art director, and she does a brilliant job, and we get lots of compliments on our design.

我们有一位出色的艺术总监，她的工作非常出色，我们的设计得到了很多赞美。

Russ Roberts: Okay.

拉斯·罗伯茨：好的。

You open your essay with the following.

你用以下内容开始你的论文。

You say--you make a very bold claim:

你说——你提出了一个非常大胆的主张：

Great opening.

伟大的开幕。

You say, "Today, the Glorious Revolution is remembered for ____" Fill in the blank.

你说：“今天，光荣革命被纪念____” 填空。

Unfortunately, there are many people listening who don't know.

不幸的是，有很多人在听却不知道。

They don't remember it because they've never heard of it.

他们不记得它，因为他们从未听说过它。

So, explain for us outsiders what it was, just politically, and then we'll look at its application to the issues of the Industrial Revolution.

因此，请为我们这些局外人解释一下它是什么，只是在政治上，然后我们将看看它在工业革命问题上的应用。

Ben Southwood: Okay, great.

本·索斯伍德：好的，太好了。

Well, I'm going to draw a slightly stronger parallel than history can actually justify, but I think it's very useful for thinking about the Glorious Revolution.

好吧，我将画一个比历史实际证明的更强烈的类比，但我认为这对于思考光荣革命非常有用。

The Glorious Revolution is basically a middle revolution as part of three war/revolution situations that happened in Britain and America between the early 1600s and the late 1800s.

光荣革命基本上是一场中间革命，是1600年代初到1800年代末英国和美国发生的三次战争/革命局势的一部分。

And basically, you can see--if you want--you can see the English Civil War in the mid-1600s, then the Glorious Revolution in the late 1600s, and then the American Civil War in the mid-1800s as being the same struggle playing out a few different times.

基本上，如果你愿意的话，你可以看到 1600 年代中期的英国内战，然后是 1600 年代末的光荣革命，然后是 1800 年代中期的美国内战，因为同一场斗争在不同的时间上演。

So, ultimately--I mean, as I say, I think that this is actually stretching things, but I think it's a useful way of thinking about things in that Britain--before that England, and then after that, the United States--there's ultimately a struggle between older aristocracies that depend on rents from their farmland, and they've taken this farmland through conquest hundreds of years before, been given it by the king, whatever; and then new mercantile elites who are growing up because of trade and technology and science and whatever.

所以，最终——我的意思是，正如我所说，我认为这实际上是在延伸事物，但我认为这是一种思考英国问题的有用方式——在英国之前，然后是美国——依赖农田租金的老贵族之间最终存在着一场斗争，他们在数百年前通过征服夺取了这片农田，是国王赐予的，无论如何；然后是由于贸易、技术和科学等而成长起来的新商业精英。

And, I mean, as I said, this is a very broad brush.

而且，我的意思是，正如我所说，这是一个非常广泛的刷子。

I think it's actually slightly overfitting things to a simplistic model; but, like, it's a nice way of looking at things.

我认为这实际上稍微过度拟合了一个简单的模型；但是，这是一种看待事物的好方法。

And then, the English Civil War, you have this--the mercantile side effectively wins, takes over, but then tries to set up its own hereditary system.

然后，在英国内战中，重商一方实际上获胜并接管，但随后试图建立自己的世袭制度。

Everyone decides to restore the King.

大家决定恢复国王。

King comes back--Charles II, son of the Charles I who was executed at the beginning of the English Civil War.

国王回来了——查理二世，查理一世的儿子，在英国内战开始时被处决。

Then when he tries to hand over--sorry, when he hands over to James I, but when he tries to hand over James II, who is an open Catholic, then the same mercantile elites are worried: 'We're going back to absolutism, we're going back to rule by the aristocratic elites, and we are not going to have the system of,' I guess, like, mercantile freedom that they wanted.

然后，当他试图移交时——抱歉，当他移交给詹姆斯一世时，但当他试图移交开放的天主教徒詹姆斯二世时，同样的商业精英就会担心：“我们将回到专制主义，我们将回到贵族精英的统治，我们将不会拥有他们想要的商业自由制度。”

But, lots of other stuff is wrapped up in that, like different kinds of Christianity and so on.

但是，很多其他的东西都包含在其中，比如不同种类的基督教等等。

So, they invite in the ruler of the Netherlands, the ruler of--well, they would have said Holland at the time, William, who happens to be married to the daughter of the English king.

因此，他们邀请了荷兰的统治者，也就是当时的荷兰统治者威廉，他恰好娶了英国国王的女儿。

And, they invade in Devon in Southwest England, and pretty much no one puts up a fight.

而且，他们入侵了英格兰西南部的德文郡，几乎没有人进行战斗。

It is actually a massive invasion.

这实际上是一次大规模的入侵。

A lot of the recent historical work has been highlighting how it's a massive invasion, and there are actually loads of troops, and it was the biggest invasion for a long time before or after in England.

最近的许多历史著作都强调这是一次大规模的入侵，而且实际上有大量的军队，而且这是英格兰在此之前或之后很长一段时间内最大规模的入侵。

But, ultimately, there aren't really any battles.

但最终，并没有真正发生任何战斗。

They're very minor.

他们都很小。

James gives in very easily, and William becomes King, and they reestablish many of the rights that Parliament thought it had that it kind of lost over the previous 150 years and gained at certain times, then lost, and then gained, and then lost.

詹姆斯很容易让步，威廉成为国王，他们重建了议会认为拥有的许多权利，这些权利在过去 150 年中失去了，在某些时候获得了，然后失去了，然后获得了，然后又失去了。

Russ Roberts: So, the simple story is that out of fear of a Catholic king, some of the influential, powerful people of England decide they'd rather be ruled by a foreigner, although he's married to the daughter of the king, and they invite him, William, to come be king, and--

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，这个简单的故事是，出于对天主教国王的恐惧，英格兰一些有影响力、有权势的人决定他们宁愿由外国人统治，尽管他娶了国王的女儿，他们邀请他威廉成为国王，而且——

Ben Southwood: Crucial thing is that he's a Protestant, and their view is that if they've invited him and he's a Protestant, they'll understand that ultimately the aristocracy is in charge--or at least the landowners as a whole are in charge--and the king has an important role--he's very important, single most important guy--but he cannot overrule what Parliament as a whole, assembled together, on important issues.

本·索斯伍德：至关重要的是，他是一名新教徒，他们的观点是，如果他们邀请了他，而他是一名新教徒，他们就会明白，最终是贵族掌权——或者至少是整个地主掌权——而国王扮演着重要的角色——他是非常重要的、最重要的人——但他不能在重要问题上推翻整个议会。

Russ Roberts: So, this is a side-question, for a non-Brit.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，对于非英国人来说，这是一个附带问题。

Why would William accept this?

威廉为什么要接受这个？

So, he gets this letter.

于是，他收到了这封信。

I'm trying to imagine him sitting wherever he was in the Netherlands.

我试着想象他坐在荷兰的任何地方。

He gets the letter and says, 'Could you come bring a bunch of troops here because we're not happy with this King, who is an open Catholic?' Open meaning just that it's not a secret.

他收到信后说：“你能带一群军队来这里吗，因为我们对这位公开的天主教徒的国王不满意？”开放意味着这不是秘密。

And, he says to himself, 'Oh, that'll be great because I'd really like England to help reestablish the power of Parliament and reduce the power of the monarchy.' Usually, when you bring a bunch of people with weapons and you're dominant and no one stands up to you, you kind of have a lot of authority, and you can decide what it's going to look like.

而且，他对自己说，“哦，那太好了，因为我真的希望英国帮助重建议会的权力并削弱君主制的权力。”通常，当你带着一群拿着武器的人，你占主导地位，没有人能反抗你，你就拥有很大的权威，你可以决定它会是什么样子。

Do you have any idea--this, again, a side-question--but, why did he concede to the parliamentary importance?

你知道吗——这又是一个附带问题——但是，他为什么承认议会的重要性？

Ben Southwood: Really interesting question.

本·索斯伍德：非常有趣的问题。

I'm not sure at all.

我一点也不确定。

I don't know the answer to that question.

我不知道这个问题的答案。

I think he was already kind of keen on taking over England, and discovering that there were a big group of powerful people who were up for it made him a lot more interested.

我认为他已经热衷于接管英格兰，并且发现有一大群有权势的人为此做好了准备，这让他更感兴趣了。

They were called the Immortal Seven, who wrote the letter to him.

他们被称为不朽七人，是他们给他写了这封信。

And, you can get the actual exact--the letter itself, you can go and look up a picture of it if you like.

而且，你可以获得实际的精确信息——这封信本身，如果你愿意的话，你可以去查找它的图片。

I guess it's not that long ago, so it still exists somewhere.

我想这并不是很久以前的事情，所以它仍然存在于某个地方。

And, we have nice pictures on Wikipedia of the letter.

而且，我们在维基百科上有这封信的精美图片。

And, they said about all the different ways that James II was injuriously riding roughshod over their rights.

而且，他们还谈到詹姆斯二世以各种不同的方式粗暴地践踏他们的权利。

He was trying to do pretty--it did look like he was trying to head the country towards absolutism in various different ways.

他试图做得漂亮——看起来他确实试图以各种不同的方式带领国家走向专制主义。

For example, like in many countries, the local governments were in charge of running elections, and he was trying to take over all the local governments around the country to install his own guys in there to, obviously, fix all the elections, to get his stooges elected, to try and get him to do all of his stuff.

例如，就像在许多国家一样，地方政府负责举行选举，而他试图接管全国各地的所有地方政府，并在那里安插自己的人，显然是为了操纵所有的选举，让他的走狗当选，试图让他做他所有的事情。

Russ Roberts: So, it isn't just what is effectively an institutional reform of boosting the power of Parliament.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，这不仅仅是增强议会权力的有效制度改革。

It's also making sure that a threat, perhaps exaggerated or not totally real, but a perceived threat or a useful threat to wave around: that the King was going to head back towards some time in the past when the king had more of an authoritarian opportunity.

它还确保一种威胁，可能是夸大的或不完全真实的，但是一种感知的威胁或有用的威胁：国王将回到过去的某个时候，那时国王有更多的独裁机会。

But, okay, let's put that down now.

但是，好吧，现在让我们把它放下吧。

Russ Roberts: So, as a result of this, Parliament becomes a lot more active and passes a lot more acts.

拉斯·罗伯茨：因此，议会变得更加活跃并通过了更多法案。

And the opening half or so of your piece is that Parliament changes property rights.

你的文章的开头一半左右是议会改变了财产权。

And, I want listeners to imagine this conversation as a conversation about the rules of the game.

而且，我希望听众将这次对话想象为关于游戏规则的对话。

So, you have certain institutional rules, norms, and other kinds of things, but you also have legislation.

因此，有一定的制度规则、规范和其他类型的东西，但也有立法。

And, the claim of this piece is that empowering Parliament--which was effectively answering to the landowning class--resulted in a surprisingly positive outcome.

而且，这篇文章的主张是，赋予议会权力——这实际上是对地主阶级的回应——带来了令人惊讶的积极结果。

As opposed to, to take one of my favorite examples, Japanese farmers--there aren't very many of them, but the Japanese Diet, the legislative branch of Japan, privileges Japanese rice over world rice because they're powerful, those farmers.

相反，举我最喜欢的例子之一，日本农民——他们的数量不是很多，但日本国会，日本的立法部门，给予日本大米相对于世界大米的特权，因为他们是强大的，那些农民。

And, the rest of the people pay a much higher price for rice to eat it.

而且，其他人要花更高的价格才能吃到大米。

And, that's often the case.

而且，情况经常如此。

A special interest group gets its way and extracts resources from the rest of the society.

一个特殊利益集团随心所欲地从社会其他人那里榨取资源。

Here you're arguing that the special interest group--but not small, but a large group, but it's still a piece of society--the landowners got Parliament to do a bunch of things that were highly productive , as opposed to extractive.

在这里，你认为特殊利益集团——但不是小集团，而是一个大集团，但它仍然是社会的一部分——土地所有者让议会做一些高生产力的事情，而不是榨取性的事情。

Is that a fair claim to summarize what you're saying?

这是一个合理的说法来总结你所说的话吗？

Ben Southwood: Absolutely.

本·索斯伍德：当然。

Yeah.

是的。

So, two interesting things here.

所以，这里有两件有趣的事情。

One is that there's a whole bunch of scholarship that thinks the core feature of the Industrial Revolution in institutional terms was constraining the power of the monarch.

一是有很多学者认为工业革命在制度方面的核心特征是限制君主的权力。

And, I think there's something to that, but I think it's a bit exaggerated how important that is.

而且，我认为这是有道理的，但我认为它的重要性有点夸大了。

Because, in fact, what you tend to see is not that the English Parliament and the English State is less vigorous than continental states after this point, but actually they seem more vigorous.

因为事实上，你往往看到的并不是英国议会和英国政府在这一点之后不如大陆国家那么有活力，而是实际上它们看起来更有活力。

That, they're doing more stuff in general.

也就是说，他们总体上正在做更多的事情。

It's not that the state is doing--

并不是国家在做——

Ben Southwood: Exactly.

本·索斯伍德：没错。

Yeah.

是的。

I mean, the ways in which they're interventionists are very different, right?

我的意思是，他们作为干预主义者的方式非常不同，对吗？

Because, it's kind of like, if we are drawing the parallel to today--and maybe I'm pre-figuring where we're going to go with this conversation--but if I was drawing the parallels to today, it's more like they are intervening to make local governments more YIMBY [Yes, in My Backyard], for example.

因为，这有点像，如果我们与今天进行类比——也许我正在预先计算我们将在这次对话中进行什么——但如果我与今天进行类比，则更像是他们正在进行干预，以使地方政府更加“YIMBY”（是的，在我的后院），例如。

They are being interventionist, but interventionist in a way that is concordant with--basically productive, as you're saying.

他们是干预主义者，但干预方式与你所说的基本上是富有成效的相一致。

But, sorry, to go more directly: Second point that's interesting is that it wasn't just that Parliament happened to be a committee of landowners.

但是，抱歉，更直接地说：第二点有趣的是，议会不仅仅是碰巧是一个土地所有者委员会。

It basically was exclusively landowners.

它基本上完全是土地所有者。

And after 1711, you actually had to be a landowner to--you had to own a significant amount of land; otherwise, you weren't allowed to stand for Parliament.

1711 年之后，你实际上必须成为土地所有者——你必须拥有大量土地；否则，你就不能代表议会。

So, Parliament, to an extent you can't imagine today, it's, like, exclusively made up of landowners.

所以，议会，在你今天无法想象的程度上，它就像是完全由土地所有者组成的。

The whole point is basically to sort out landowner problems.

重点基本上是解决土地所有者的问题。

They're thinking of things from a landowner perspective.

他们从土地所有者的角度考虑问题。

They are all actually landowners.

他们实际上都是地主。

What you might expect or what you might predict, based on our experiences--like, with the Japan example or thinking about a parliament that people accuse of representing homeowners, say, today in the United Kingdom or many other developed countries, in the United States--what you might expect is that giving them power leads to them coming up with more and more ways to protect these privileges.

根据我们的经验，你可能会期待或预测什么——比如以日本为例，或者考虑一下人们指责代表房主的议会，比如今天在英国或许多其他发达国家，在美国——你可能会期望的是，赋予他们权力会导致他们想出越来越多的方法来保护这些特权。

But, strangely enough, almost the opposites happened.

但奇怪的是，几乎相反的情况发生了。

Now, they didn't--let's be clear--they didn't remove people's big land holdings.

现在，我们要明确的是，他们并没有剥夺人们拥有的大量土地。

But, the land holdings at the time were not exactly how we would think about property rights.

但是，当时的土地所有权并不完全是我们对产权的看法。

So, the kind of standard property right that we have today would be called, what I think is called a 'fee simple' in their terms.

因此，我们今天拥有的那种标准产权，我认为用他们的话来说就是“简单费用”。

But, basically we can do whatever we want with it.

但是，基本上我们可以用它做任何我们想做的事情。

We can mortgage it, we can sell it off, we can chop it up into different parts.

我们可以抵押它，我们可以卖掉它，我们可以把它分成不同的部分。

There might be restrictions on these things, but, by and large, if we have property rights, we expect to be able to do lots of different things to them.

这些事情可能会受到限制，但总的来说，如果我们拥有产权，我们期望能够对它们做很多不同的事情。

That wasn't the case for the property rights of the 17th century in England.

17 世纪英国的产权情况并非如此。

And indeed, anywhere in Europe.

事实上，在欧洲任何地方。

If you were a landowner, you had tenants; you often couldn't kick the tenants off.

如果你是地主，你就有佃户；你常常无法赶走房客。

Right?

正确的？

So, like, if you're a German big landowner, your tenants couldn't leave; but also you couldn't kick them off in the 1600s or 1700s.

所以，如果你是德国大地主，你的佃户就不能离开；但你也无法在 1600 年代或 1700 年代将它们踢掉。

They had a hereditary right to farm your land.

他们拥有耕种你的土地的世袭权利。

So, you were the landowner, but you didn't have the same kind of rights that you would expect a landowner to have today.

所以，你是土地所有者，但你没有像今天的土地所有者那样拥有同样的权利。

Equally, if you were the main landowner--almost exclusively men, but whoever was the heir--then you couldn't get rid of it.

同样，如果你是主要的土地所有者——几乎都是男性，但无论谁是继承人——那么你就无法摆脱它。

So, you might have a big plot of land; you might want to mortgage one bit of the land, use that to improve another bit of the land by draining some marshes or by improving the irrigation or by getting a new crop or by buying new animals to--horses instead of oxen.

所以，你可能有一大片土地；你可能想抵押一小块土地，用它来改善另一块土地，方法是排干一些沼泽地、改善灌溉、种植新作物或购买新动物——马而不是牛。

You often couldn't do any of these things.

这些事情你常常做不到。

So, you would have a life tenancy, basically, where you got a certain income out of the land each year, but you didn't have the right to change anything about the land.

因此，基本上，您将拥有终身租赁，您每年从土地中获得一定的收入，但您无权改变土地的任何内容。

And, this happened in different ways in different countries.

而且，这种情况在不同的国家以不同的方式发生。

In England, there was just a long contract which came out of trusts.

在英格兰，只有一份来自信托的长期合同。

I mean, before the 1300s, you didn't have the right to write a will.

我的意思是，在 1300 年代之前，你没有权利写遗嘱。

So there wasn't such thing as a will.

所以不存在遗嘱这样的东西。

It was just a set of rules that everyone customarily agreed where property went to.

这只是一套每个人通常都同意财产去向的规则。

But after that point, you did have a will.

但在那之后，你确实有了意愿。

And then you would write these really complicated things called 'entails.' And you would settle these entails with your heirs.

然后你会写出这些非常复杂的东西，称为“entails”。您将与您的继承人解决这些问题。

So when your heir came of age, you and your heir would sign a contract saying that you get this land when I die, subject to all of these different deals.

因此，当您的继承人成年时，您和您的继承人将签署一份合同，规定在我死后，您将获得这块土地，但须遵守所有这些不同的协议。

And the deals would be things like you have to pay dowries out--so if one of your sisters is marrying out, that gets paid out of the land.

这些交易就像你必须支付嫁妆一样——所以如果你的一个姐妹要嫁出去，这笔钱就会从土地中得到支付。

You can't squander all of the property before her dowry gets paid.

在她的嫁妆付清之前，你不能挥霍掉所有的财产。

You might have a widow who is in the family.

您家里可能有一位寡妇。

You don't want that widow to go without.

你不想让那个寡妇独自离开。

So, the widow gets an income out of this estate as well.

因此，寡妇也可以从该遗产中获得收入。

You owe that to the widow.

这是你欠寡妇的。

You can't split up your estate.

你不能分割你的财产。

And, usually, they would stop them from mortgaging, selling, splitting, because they were terrified that in a few generations their family would have gone.

而且，通常，他们会阻止他们抵押、出售、分割，因为他们害怕几代人后他们的家人就会消失。

No one would know who they are.

没有人会知道他们是谁。

The land is all broken up, they're all poor, or middle-class, or whatever.

土地都被破坏了，他们都是穷人，或者是中产阶级，或者什么的。

So, the property rights of the day--the key thing I'm going to here, is not just in that--there are loads of different examples we could give.

因此，当今的财产权——我在这里要讨论的关键问题不仅仅在于这一点——我们可以举出很多不同的例子。

But the property rights of the day weren't the kind of property rights always that we understand today.

但当时的产权并不总是我们今天所理解的那种产权。

And, that meant that there were lots of problems with them.

而且，这意味着他们存在很多问题。

Russ Roberts: And, just to add one more piece, and then I want to say something else about the general issue.

拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，我想再补充一点，然后我想就一般性问题说点别的。

Talk about commons--the commonly held land--and how important that may or may not have been.

谈论公地——共同拥有的土地——以及它可能重要也可能不重要。

Ben Southwood: Yeah.

本·索斯伍德：是的。

So another one of the interesting ways in which property rights were held is that there were two kinds of land that basically don't exist today.

因此，财产权的另一种有趣的持有方式是，有两种土地今天基本上不存在。

Well, common land does exist in small cases.

好吧，在小情况下确实存在公共土地。

In London, there are lots of individual parks called Commons, like Wimbledon Common.

在伦敦，有许多名为 Commons 的独立公园，例如温布尔登公园 (Wimbledon Common)。

Blackheath Common is near me.

Blackheath Common 就在我附近。

And this would originally have been common land that, when everything else was turned into houses, stayed as parks in the middle because the rights over who could develop it were complicated.

这本来是公共土地，当其他一切都变成房屋时，它仍然作为中间的公园，因为谁可以开发它的权利很复杂。

But, this was the case no less in the 1500s and 1600s, and lots of land would be held in common.

但是，这种情况在 1500 年代和 1600 年代同样如此，许多土地将被共有。

And, one mistake that people make when they think about this common land is they think that everyone had a right to use this common land.

而且，人们在考虑这块公共土地时犯的一个错误是，他们认为每个人都有权使用这块公共土地。

That wasn't usually the case.

通常情况并非如此。

What was usually the case is this Common--so basically there were very complex--if people have read the work of Elinor Ostrom, then her stuff is often about how people manage these common resources without making them get massively overused, and these commons were an example of that.

通常情况是这样的——所以基本上非常复杂——如果人们读过埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆的作品，那么她的作品通常是关于人们如何管理这些公共资源而不使它们被大规模过度使用，这些公共资源就是一个例子。

So, you actually had to be a local landowner to graze your animals on this common land or to use this common land in almost all cases.

因此，您实际上必须是当地的土地所有者才能在这块公共土地上放牧您的动物或在几乎所有情况下使用这块公共土地。

It's called stinting .

这叫节俭。

You had a certain number of stints, and you got the stints from having a certain amount of land.

你有一定数量的任期，并且你通过拥有一定数量的土地而获得了任期。

So, you have more land, you had more stints; you could graze more animals for more days on the common land.

所以，你有更多的土地，你有更多的任期；你可以在公共土地上放牧更多的动物更多天。

And, in some places, the rules were extremely complex.

而且，在某些地方，规则极其复杂。

There were special houses called tofts .

有一些特殊的房子，叫做“托夫茨”。

And, if you had a toft, they gave you one extra day per month of grazing your--the rules were extremely complicated, and if people are really interested, they can look up Laxton, which was the last open field village.

而且，如果你有牧草，他们每个月会给你额外一天的放牧时间——规则极其复杂，如果人们真的感兴趣，他们可以查一下拉克斯顿，这是最后一个露天村庄。

So, that common land is where there's a plot of grass, basically, that you can graze your animals on.

所以，公共土地基本上就是有一块草地，你可以在上面放牧动物。

People get a certain amount of rights of how long they can graze their animals, how often they can graze them.

人们对放牧动物的时间和频率享有一定的权利。

And, it was overgrazed.

而且，它被过度放牧了。

That's the standard tragedy of the commons.

这就是标准的公地悲剧。

It was overgrazed, but it wasn't overgrazed that much because there were lots of restrictions on how you could graze it.

它被过度放牧了，但并没有过度放牧那么多，因为放牧方式有很多限制。

And, there was a period of exaggerating how overgrazed it was because people didn't realize about how there were many restrictions, and not just anyone--any local poor person, couldn't graze their animals on that land.

而且，有一段时间夸大了过度放牧的程度，因为人们没有意识到有很多限制，而且不仅仅是任何人——任何当地的穷人，都不能在那片土地上放牧他们的动物。

And, the second kind of land is open land--open fields, the open field system.

其中，第二种土地是空地——空地，空地系统。

So, across Europe, much of the farmland was under something called the open field system.

因此，在整个欧洲，大部分农田都处于所谓的露天系统之下。

Basically, one big landowner owns a bunch of land, and then that land is sub-owned by leaseholders, effectively, but tradable leases often--sometimes not tradable, sometimes they were, like serf-esque or serf, or they were tied to the land.

基本上，一个大土地所有者拥有一堆土地，然后这些土地实际上被承租人转拥有，但通常是可交易的租赁——有时不可交易，有时是，就像农奴或农奴一样，或者它们与土地捆绑在一起。

Sometimes in England after the 1300s, there would be leaseholders who sold subleases who sold subleases, and you owned it through an incredibly complex chain up to the original freeholder.

有时在 1300 年代后的英格兰，会有一些承租人出售转租，而你通过一个极其复杂的链条直到原始的自由持有者才拥有它。

And, the freeholder was supposed to own it subject to the king anyway.

而且，无论如何，自由持有者都应该拥有它，服从国王。

So, the land would be split up into lots and lots and lots of small strips across this big farm.

因此，这个大农场的土地将被分成很多很多很多的小条带。

And, everyone would have strips split across different farms.

而且，每个人都会将条带分布在不同的农场。

And, if you're all doing the same crop and you have a very organized system, it's not so bad, right?

而且，如果你们都做同样的作物并且有一个非常有组织的系统，那还不错，对吧？

Because, the great thing is you have massive insurance to one idiosyncratic risk hitting a particular field.

因为，最棒的是，您可以为特定领域的特殊风险提供大量保险。

If you own one whole field and that field gets a rust disease, or that, for some reason, there's snow on that field or some idiosyncratic risk hits that field, then you might just starve to death, you and your whole family.

如果你拥有一整块田地，而那块田地患了锈病，或者由于某种原因，那块田地有雪，或者某些特殊的风险袭击了那块田地，那么你和你的全家可能就会饿死。

Whereas if you have lots of strips, tiny strips spread across lots of different fields, and you farm them all collectively--so you don't have to re-plow everything, you'll plow it together, you put the same crop in each field--then you have insurance.

然而，如果你有很多条，小条分布在很多不同的田地里，你把它们全部集中种植——这样你就不必重新耕种所有的东西，你可以把它们一起犁，你在每块田里种同样的作物——那么你就有保险了。

You're never going to lose too much because your strips are all spread out.

你永远不会损失太多，因为你的纸条都散开了。

That's great.

那太棒了。

The downside is when you want to change crops, use a different method, get a horse instead of oxen--horses go much quicker, but they use more food, so you need big fields so they're not turning around all the time.

缺点是当你想改变农作物时，使用不同的方法，养一匹马而不是牛——马走得更快，但它们消耗更多的食物，所以你需要大块土地，这样它们就不会一直转来转去。

When you want to make any of these changes, then having your land split out across different places is a big deal.

当你想要做出任何这些改变时，那么将你的土地分割到不同的地方是一件大事。

And, lots of these changes started coming about.

而且，许多这样的变化开始发生。

So, from the 1500s particularly, people started making lots more innovations.

因此，特别是从 1500 年代开始，人们开始进行更多的创新。

Innovations started picking up.

创新开始加速。

And, you get the horseplow rising, is one I've already mentioned, but lots of different crops.

而且，你会得到马拉犁的升起，这是我已经提到过的，但是有很多不同的农作物。

New World crops, for example, are more--like potato and maize--are just better crops than wheat and rye and barley.

例如，新世界作物（如马铃薯和玉米）比小麦、黑麦和大麦更好。

And so, people wanted to implement them.

因此，人们想要实施它们。

But, you can't plant a new crop on just one strip of a big field, or at least you can't do that economically.

但是，你不能在一大片田地的一小片土地上种植新作物，或者至少你不能在经济上做到这一点。

And , things like turnips will often grow across the edges, so your neighbor can take them easily.

而且，像萝卜这样的东西通常会长到边缘，所以你的邻居可以轻松地拿走它们。

Or, their animals are there and their animals just eat your plants.

或者，他们的动物在那里，他们的动物只是吃你的植物。

Basically, these things require coordination.

基本上，这些事情都需要协调。

It's a massive coordination problem when you want to change crops.

当你想要改变作物时，这是一个巨大的协调问题。

And, in a world of stasis for a long time, it just didn't matter that much, and the insurance benefits were probably worth it in many cases.

而且，在一个长期停滞的世界里，这并不重要，而且在很多情况下，保险福利可能是值得的。

And, you've got slow enclosure of some fields as it became really worth doing.

而且，你已经慢慢地封闭了一些领域，因为它变得非常值得做。

But, at this time, suddenly all fields became worth enclosing, basically, because people needed to make changes.

但是，在这个时候，突然之间，所有领域都变得值得封闭，基本上，因为人们需要做出改变。

It was impossible to get the kind of consensus needed to make those changes.

不可能达成做出这些改变所需的共识。

So, this is just another case, the open and common field system.

所以，这只是另一种情况，开放和共同领域系统。

Common land is the grazing area.

公共土地是放牧区。

Open fields are these big fields.

开阔的田野就是这些大田野。

They got crops in them, but you only own a strip--like, a really small strip--at a time.

他们里面有庄稼，但你一次只能拥有一条——就像一条非常小的条。

These are just two cases of--yeah, sorry, that's the interesting farming system that existed, totally different from what we have now.

这只是两个例子——是的，抱歉，这是存在的有趣的农业系统，与我们现在的完全不同。

Russ Roberts: Now, I was going to say that a lot of these, quote, "inefficiencies"--the strip land, which you have no chance of taking advantage of economies of scale; restrictions on how you use land--which means you're talking about the dowry for the sister, the widowed sister, or the sister to be married.

拉斯·罗伯茨：现在，我想说的是，其中很多都是“效率低下”——狭长的土地，你没有机会利用规模经济；对土地使用方式的限制——这意味着您正在谈论姐妹、丧偶姐妹或即将结婚的姐妹的嫁妆。

A lot of these were, quote, "inefficient," but they provided a social safety net that otherwise wasn't available.

其中很多是“效率低下”的，但它们提供了一个否则无法提供的社会安全网。

And in a time where people are close to subsistence--they're not literally at subsistence, but they're not very far away from starvation--there's a certain natural equilibrium where these, quote, "inefficient" rules persist because they provide other things--other than bigger crops.

在人们接近温饱的时代——他们并不是真正处于温饱状态，但他们离饥饿并不远——存在某种自然平衡，在这种平衡中，这些“低效”规则持续存在，因为它们提供了其他东西——除了更大的农作物。

The only other thing I want to throw in is that my understanding was always that primogeniture--which is the law that requires the oldest son to inherit all the land--was to avoid those kind of strip-farming inefficiencies that are really costly.

我唯一想指出的另一件事是，我的理解始终是长子继承权（即要求长子继承所有土地的法律）是为了避免那种代价高昂的低效率的露天农业。

You talk in the paper about just the travel time to go from one piece to the other is going to make you less efficient.

您在论文中谈到，仅从一件物品到另一件物品的旅行时间就会降低您的效率。

But, the fact that you don't have a large plot, which means that your horse turns around a lot--I mean, there's all kinds of problems with this kind of system.

但是，事实上你没有一个大的情节，这意味着你的马经常掉头——我的意思是，这种系统存在各种各样的问题。

The only benefit--besides seeing your neighbor more often because his plot is next to yours and they're not very big, so your neighbor is nearby, farming beside you--the only real benefit is this social safety net issue.

唯一的好处——除了更频繁地见到你的邻居，因为他的地块就在你的旁边，而且它们不是很大，所以你的邻居就在附近，在你旁边耕种——唯一真正的好处是这个社会安全网问题。

Of course, if you can't imagine improving the land, if you can't imagine the role of a horse, if you can't imagine selling your land and using it to invest in some kind of capital project, the status quo is going to persist for a long, long time.

当然，如果你无法想象改善土地，如果你无法想象马的作用，如果你无法想象出售土地并用它来投资某种资本项目，那么现状将持续很长很长一段时间。

And, it did.

而且，确实如此。

We're talking for hundreds and hundreds--centuries and centuries--the standard of living in the world's agricultural nations, which was almost everywhere, was stagnant and not much higher than in Roman times.

我们谈论的是数百年来——几个世纪以来——世界上几乎无处不在的农业国家的生活水平一直停滞不前，并不比罗马时代高多少。

There's a little improvement.

有一点进步。

The plow got a little bit more effective.

犁变得更有效了。

That was the technological change: 'Let's make it sharper.

这就是技术变革：‘让我们让它变得更清晰。

Let's make it sharp instead of round.' 'Oh, good idea.' So, there were a few innovations, but not much.

让我们把它做成尖的而不是圆的。 “哦，好主意。”所以，有一些创新，但不多。

So, suddenly, and this, I think, is--listeners, you can debate the importance of any one of the institutional changes or the Acts of Parliament that we'll talk about in a second.

所以，突然之间，我想，听众们，你们可以辩论我们稍后将讨论的任何一项制度变革或议会法案的重要性。

But, just to foreshadow, Parliament comes along and does a bunch of things to give people more freedom to do things with their land--so to link things together and to make bigger plots and to mortgage them and to not have to wait for your sister's dowry and so on.

但是，只是为了预示，议会出现了，做了很多事情，让人们有更多的自由来处理他们的土地——所以把事情联系在一起，划出更大的土地，抵押它们，而不必等待你姐姐的嫁妆等等。

And, this unleashes two things: productivity changes in the land itself, but also, I assume it also leads to capital accumulation that wouldn't otherwise be available.

而且，这释放了两件事：土地本身的生产力变化，而且，我认为它也会导致资本积累，而这是其他方式无法获得的。

So, this is really important.

所以，这非常重要。

So, the question is--and you can debate how important it is, and there's a thousand other things happening at the same time--but what I'm curious about is if you have anything to say about why this happened.

所以，问题是——你可以争论它的重要性，而且还有上千件其他事情同时发生——但我很好奇的是，你是否对为什么会发生这种情况有什么想说的。

So, Parliament does all this--you have a wonderful set of charts about how active Parliament was in legislating.

所以，议会做了这一切——你有一组精彩的图表来显示议会在立法方面的积极程度。

And usually, again, as we said, begin with, well, that's not usually a good thing.

通常，正如我们所说，首先，这通常不是一件好事。

You want Parliament to be on vacation, not passing all kinds of legislation.

你希望议会休假，而不是通过各种立法。

But, a lot of this legislation was plot-specific, family-specific, estate-specific.

但是，很多立法都是针对特定地块、特定家庭、特定财产的。

So, it's doing all these interventions that are suddenly giving people more freedom to do with their land what they might otherwise not have thought of doing or being able to do.

因此，所有这些干预措施突然赋予人们更多的自由来处理他们的土地，他们本来可能没有想到或无法做到这一点。

Why?

为什么？

Why did Parliament move in this direction?

为什么议会朝这个方向发展？

What are your thoughts?

你有什么想法？

Ben Southwood: Yeah, great question.

本·索斯伍德：是的，很好的问题。

And, to some extent, if you look at what Parliament was doing when it was active before then--so during the 1500s and the early 1600s, when it was actually doing something--so the issue with Parliament in the 1500s and 1600s, especially between the English Civil War in the 1640s and Restoration.

而且，在某种程度上，如果你看看议会在那之前活跃时在做什么——所以在 1500 年代和 1600 年代初期，当它实际上在做某事时——那么议会在 1500 年代和 1600 年代的问题，特别是在 1640 年代的英国内战和复辟之间。

So after Restoration in the 1660s up to the Glorious Revolution in the 1680s, during this time, the big issue was that Parliament just kept getting prorogued.

所以从1660年代的复辟到1680年代的光荣革命，这段时间最大的问题是议会不断休会。

So, what you would do is you'd be a promoter--

所以，你要做的就是成为一名推广者——

Ben Southwood: Prorogued.

本·索斯伍德：暂停。

Shut down, shut down.

关闭，关闭。

So, they'd shut them down mid-session.

所以，他们会在会议中途关闭它们。

So, the King could just shut Parliament when he thought they were making a mischief.

因此，当国王认为议会在作恶时，他可以关闭议会。

So, he'd call Parliament because he wanted to raise some taxes for something, and he wanted consent of the government to raise those taxes.

因此，他会打电话给议会，因为他想提高一些税收，并且他希望政府同意提高这些税收。

Parliament would come in, and then all the landowners would be, like, 'Hey, great.

议会介入，然后所有的土地所有者都会说，‘嘿，太棒了。

Parliament is in session.

议会正在开会。

Let's bring a bill to deal with all the problems on my land that I've got, and I'll bring it to Parliament.' And, they'd bring the bill, and they'd be working through the bill, working through the bill.

让我们提出一项法案来解决我土地上的所有问题，然后我会将其提交给议会。”而且，他们会提出法案，他们会通过该法案，通过该法案。

Forty days later, the King would be like, 'You guys, you won't give me the taxes I want.

四十天后，国王会说，‘你们这些家伙，你们不肯给我我想要的税。

I'm closing Parliament.' So, all bills instantly get killed if they're in progress, despite all the time, money, and effort you've put into getting that bill through.

我要关闭议会。因此，尽管您投入了所有时间、金钱和精力来完成该法案，但如果所有法案正在进行中，它们都会立即被取消。

And so, people just didn't bring bills.

所以，人们只是没有带账单。

So, people would have this extremely big problem, like, I don't know--so the system wouldn't let them cut any of the wood on their land.

所以，人们会遇到这个非常大的问题，比如，我不知道——所以系统不会让他们砍伐他们土地上的任何木材。

They'd signed a settlement with their dad, and their dad is dead.

他们与父亲签署了和解协议，而他们的父亲去世了。

They need an heir, age 21, before they can change the settlement to cut the wood.

他们需要一个 21 岁的继承人，然后才能改变定居点以砍伐木材。

But, it turns out their heir has gone missing, but not proven dead.

但是，事实证明他们的继承人失踪了，但并未证明死亡。

So, they haven't got anyone they can sign with.

所以，他们没有可以签约的人。

There's no one that can consent in the country, except for Parliament, to them cutting the wood on their thing.

除了议会之外，这个国家没有人可以同意他们砍伐他们的东西。

It's all going--been planted a hundred years before.

这一切都在发生——一百年前就已经种下了。

It's all going rotten.

一切都快要腐烂了。

They're wasting this massive investment in wood, over a hundred years of land and time keeping this wood going.

他们浪费了对木材的大量投资，浪费了一百多年的土地和时间来维持木材的运转。

They can't do it.

他们做不到。

These guys are really annoyed.

这些家伙真的很恼火。

They come to Parliament.

他们来到议会。

'Please, can you fix this problem?

'拜托，你能解决这个问题吗？

Please, can you untangle this rights problem I've got?'

拜托，你能解决我遇到的这个权利问题吗？

It's not so much like, 'Do I want you to proactively produce some public good?' or just, 'I have a rights problem.

这不像是“我希望你主动生产一些公共产品吗？”或者只是，‘我有权利问题。

This is a badly written right.

这是一个写得不好的权利。

We can make everyone better off'--or nearly everyone better off.

我们可以让每个人都过得更好——或者几乎每个人都过得更好。

I mean, the really interesting thing you said is carve widows out of their portions and get rid of your sister's dowry.

我的意思是，你说的真正有趣的事情是剥夺寡妇的份额并摆脱你姐姐的嫁妆。

In fact, until the 1880s, when they got rid of entails--strict settlements--so, in the 1880s, they just scrap this system where you can bind all of your heirs to how they use your land that you hand to them.

事实上，直到 1880 年代，他们废除了继承权——严格的定居点——所以，在 1880 年代，他们只是废除了这个制度，在这个制度中，你可以约束你所有的继承人如何使用你交给他们的土地。

But, between the 1400s and the 1800s, we have this system.

但是，在 1400 年代到 1800 年代之间，我们有这个系统。

After the Glorious Revolution, what they do is not scrap the system.

光荣革命后，他们所做的并不是废除制度。

And, they don't even scrap the system in individual cases.

而且，在个别情况下他们甚至不会废弃该系统。

What they do is undo the entail briefly , let you do something, and then restore the entail afterwards.

他们所做的就是短暂地撤消继承，让你做某事，然后再恢复继承。

So, the key thing here is that you're only allowed to mortgage your land to improve it or cut down the trees to sell them or whatever it is you want to do--cut a canal through your land--you're only allowed to do any of this stuff if it benefits all the widows, all the dowries, all of the third heirs who get £1,000 pounds a year off your land.

所以，这里的关键是，你只被允许抵押你的土地来改善它，或者砍伐树木来出售它们，或者任何你想做的事情——在你的土地上开凿一条运河——只有当它有利于所有寡妇、所有嫁妆、所有每年从你的土地上获得 1,000 英镑的第三继承人时，你才被允许做任何事情。

Actually, they try to do it in a really consensualist way.

事实上，他们试图以一种真正协商一致的方式来做这件事。

And so, they use two of the things I think are useful for making political changes.

因此，他们使用了我认为对实现政治变革有用的两个东西。

One is they've got big legitimacy because it's just a panel of all the landowners saying, 'What do you landowners reckon is fair for landowners?' And, of course, since they're dealing with land, they're the right people to have because when you get a consensus of all those guys, it sounds like all the landowners agree.

一是他们有很大的合法性，因为它只是一个由所有土地所有者组成的小组，他们会说：“你们土地所有者认为什么对土地所有者来说是公平的？”当然，由于他们处理的是土地问题，所以他们是合适的人选，因为当你得到所有这些人的共识时，听起来就像所有土地所有者都同意一样。

Two is that: in any individual case, they're trying to make as few people worse off as possible.

二是：在任何个别情况下，他们都试图让尽可能少的人生活变得更糟。

So, it wasn't like they were expropriating all of these streams of money you would be expecting to get into the future.

所以，他们并没有征用你期望未来获得的所有这些资金流。

It was just they're saying, if you were alive or if you were here, you would probably want us to increase the value of this property.

他们只是说，如果你还活着或者在这里，你可能会希望我们增加这处房产的价值。

Right?

正确的？

You would probably want us to let the current owner invest.

您可能希望我们让现任所有者投资。

You would like us, like everyone--if you're the 10th heir down the chain, you're not a twinkle in the eye yet.

你会像每个人一样喜欢我们——如果你是第十个继承人，那么你还没有眨眼。

You don't exist in anyone's--yeah, you're the great, great, great grandson of the one who currently exists.

你不存在于任何人之中——是的，你是目前存在的那个人的曾曾曾孙。

You would prefer , when you inherit, that this guy right now was given the right to cut his wood down, sell it off to make boats, or to drain the land so you can get more higher rents for that period, or irrigate or whatever.

当你继承时，你会希望这个人现​​在有权砍伐他的木材，卖掉它来造船，或者排干土地，这样你就可以在那段时间获得更高的租金，或者灌溉或其他什么。

You would prefer that.

你会更喜欢那样。

So, what Parliament was, in principle, doing was working out: would the heirs who don't currently exist like us to loosen this property right just temporarily?

因此，议会原则上所做的就是解决：目前不存在的继承人是否会像我们一样暂时放松这种财产权？

And then they did that, on a case-by-case basis, thousands of times.

然后他们根据具体情况这样做了数千次。

Which is amazing to me.

这对我来说太棒了。

It was basically like a committee they had set up of all the richest guys in the country to decide whether another one of those rich guys was allowed to slightly alter his inheritance rules and his will, which I think is a remarkable--a very obviously inefficient system.

这基本上就像他们成立了一个由全国所有最富有的人组成的委员会，以决定是否允许其中另一个富人稍微改变他的继承规则和遗嘱，我认为这是一个了不起的——一个非常明显低效的制度。

But, given the inefficiencies that were in the status quo , turned out to add efficiency, I think.

但是，我认为，鉴于现状的低效率，结果却提高了效率。

Russ Roberts: What's great about it is that if you go back to, I want to say it's 2009, I'm just guessing, the first time I interviewed--it might have been the only time--I interviewed Walter Williams of George Mason University.

拉斯·罗伯茨：它的伟大之处在于，如果你回到2009年，我想说那是2009年，我只是猜测，我第一次采访——这可能是唯一一次——我采访了乔治梅森大学的沃尔特·威廉姆斯。

And I remember we're talking about this idea of if you could pass one piece of legislation, what would it be?

我记得我们正在讨论这个想法，如果你可以通过一项立法，那会是什么？

And, if I remember correctly, Walter quoted Hayek's suggestion, which was that the piece of legislation he would pass would be that all legislation that is passed going forward from today has to apply equally to everyone.

而且，如果我没记错的话，沃尔特引用了哈耶克的建议，即他将通过的一项立法是，从今天起通过的所有立法都必须平等地适用于每个人。

And, meaning you can't--go back to another 2009 episode: We were talking about how the financial crisis, in the settlement of the financial crisis' financial--its bailout for financial institutions.

而且，这意味着你不能回到 2009 年的另一集：我们正在谈论金融危机如何解决金融危机，以及如何对金融机构进行救助。

There was a piece in it about the Chevy Volt, which was an electric car, and it just had a set of--it wasn't about the Chevy Volt, it was about electric cars.

其中有一篇关于雪佛兰 Volt 的文章，这是一款电动汽车，它只是有一组 - 不是关于雪佛兰 Volt，而是关于电动汽车。

But, they wrote it in a way that it only applied to the Chevy Volt.

但是，他们的编写方式仅适用于雪佛兰伏特。

It was basically a giveaway of, I think, $7,500 to new owners, but it didn't apply.

我认为这基本上是向新业主赠送 7,500 美元，但它并不适用。

Or, there would be an emissions law about catalytic converters.

或者，会有关于催化转换器的排放法。

You had to put a catalytic converter on.

你必须安装催化转换器。

Now it turned out Honda, the Civic, had better environmental impact, meaning fewer emissions, without a catalytic converter than even its competitors did with a catalytic converter.

现在事实证明，本田思域在没有配备催化转换器的情况下对环境的影响更大，这意味着排放量甚至比配备催化转换器的竞争对手还要少。

But, of course, they passed a law that said everybody had to have a catalytic converter, imposing a tax, essentially, an equal burden on all competitors so that the American car makers could do a little better.

但是，当然，他们通过了一项法律，规定每个人都必须拥有催化转换器，本质上对所有竞争对手征收平等的税收，以便美国汽车制造商可以做得更好一点。

So, these things are common as can be.

所以，这些事情很常见。

And, worse than that, there's all kinds of legislation in the United States, say, to benefit--there's basically, I think, about 10 families that own the sugar beets and sugar cane that exists in America, and any law about, say, importing sugar, it's a payoff to 10 families.

而且，更糟糕的是，美国有各种各样的立法，比如说，为了受益——我认为，基本上有大约 10 个家庭拥有美国现有的甜菜和甘蔗，任何关于进口糖的法律，都是对 10 个家庭的回报。

I mean, it's grotesque.

我的意思是，这很奇怪。

It's an incredible example of rent seeking.

这是一个令人难以置信的寻租例子。

And, as I often point out, those 10 families paid a lot of attention to sugar legislation and quotas, and the rest of us just ate the candy bars and the food that had sugar in it and paid a higher price and didn't think about ever that this was caused by some act of Congress.

而且，正如我经常指出的那样，这 10 个家庭非常关注糖立法和配额，而我们其他人只是吃了棒棒糖和含糖食品，并支付了更高的价格，并且从未想过这是由国会的某些法案引起的。

So, here's the flip side.

所以，这是另一面。

And what I love about this story is: here's an example where the legislative branch only overwhelmingly passed legislation--it was not really legislation-- decreed , created acts that only affected one family.

我喜欢这个故事的是：这是一个例子，立法部门只是以压倒性多数通过了立法——这并不是真正的立法——法令，制定了只影响一个家庭的法案。

Forget everybody.

忘记大家。

One .

一 。

And, it's basically what we would call a waiver.

而且，这基本上就是我们所说的豁免。

It's like: Okay, we got this law.

就像：好吧，我们有了这条法律。

It's good for a lot of people, but it's really awful for you, and obviously you don't like it.

这对很多人来说是好事，但对你来说却很糟糕，而且显然你不喜欢它。

And, normally that means too bad.

而且，通常这意味着太糟糕了。

You're by yourself.

你就一个人了。

But, no, we got a little desk over here.

但是，不，我们这里有一张小桌子。

Go make your case, and we'll give you a waiver.

去提出你的理由，我们会给你豁免。

And, the amount--and you have charts, as I said, in the piece--of the activity of Parliament in this area of dealing with land rights, is: It's an explosion.

而且，正如我在这篇文章中所说的那样，议会在处理土地权利领域的活动数量是：这是一次爆炸性的增长。

So, I think of it--I don't know if it was good-hearted.

所以我想了想——不知道是不是好心。

I mean, it's not good-hearted, and obviously they were looking for ways to make more money.

我的意思是，这不是善意的，而且显然他们正在寻找赚更多钱的方法。

But they're not using it to make more money at other people's expense.

但他们并没有用它来牺牲别人的利益来赚更多的钱。

The right way to say it would be it's not redistributive.

正确的说法是它不是再分配的。

It's not taking people's land and giving it to other people--taking large landowners, splitting their land up and share it, forcing them to share it.

它不是夺走人们的土地并将其送给其他人——夺取大土地所有者，分割他们的土地并分享，强迫他们分享。

Which would be sometimes what revolutions led to.

有时这就是革命所导致的。

This is a weird revolution.

这是一场奇怪的革命。

This is a change in institutional power, the empowerment of a particular class because of the way they dominated the legislature we're talking about--which is Parliament--and as a result, they are doing ad hoc stuff--and other stuff as well--but ad hoc stuff that actually was maybe for the best.

这是制度权力的变化，是对特定阶级的赋权，因为他们主导我们正在谈论的立法机构（即议会）的方式，因此，他们正在做临时的事情，以及其他事情，但临时的事情实际上可能是最好的。

Maybe.

或许。

Ben Southwood: Yeah.

本·索斯伍德：是的。

I mean, I personally think that most of what they did had good results.

我的意思是，我个人认为他们所做的大部分事情都取得了良好的结果。

The one we haven't talked about so far--so there were three kinds of bills they did a lot of.

到目前为止我们还没有讨论过——所以他们经常开具三种账单。

One was unpicking particular families' inheritance problems so that they could invest.

一是解决特定家庭的继承问题，以便他们可以投资。

One was taking land that was either in common ownership or split up into lots of inefficiently small strips and allowing it to be combined into larger, more efficient fields where new techniques could be applied, etc., etc. And, the third thing they did was to basically let people set up a bunch of toll roads, toll canals, and toll rivers.

一是把要么是共同所有权的土地，要么是分成许多效率低下的小条带，并允许它们合并成更大、更高效的领域，可以应用新技术，等等。他们做的第三件事是基本上让人们建立一堆收费公路、收费运河和收费河流。

So--

所以——

Russ Roberts: Go ahead.

拉斯·罗伯茨：继续吧。

That was my next area.

那是我的下一个领域。

Russ Roberts: Really important.

拉斯·罗伯茨：真的很重要。

Infrastructure, we would call it modern terms.

基础设施，我们称之为现代术语。

Ben Southwood: Exactly.

本·索斯伍德：没错。

Infrastructure.

基础设施。

And, later on, they did use these same things to provide other kinds of infrastructure, like clean water, gas, electricity--

后来，他们确实使用这些相同的东西来提供其他类型的基础设施，例如清洁水、天然气、电力——

Ben Southwood: Sewage.

本·索斯伍德：污水。

Exactly.

确切地。

But, at this time, that stuff wasn't done so much.

不过，这个时候，那些事情还没有做那么多。

But the three things they did an awful lot of were canals, navigable rivers, and building roads.

但他们做的最多的三件事是运河、通航河流和修建道路。

And so, in the 1660s, before the Glorious Revolution, before these acts started being passed--which were called Statutory Authority Acts--basically they set up kind of a company, kind of a form of local government.

因此，在 1660 年代，光荣革命之前，在这些法案（称为法定权力法案）开始通过之前，基本上他们建立了一种公司，一种地方政府形式。

But, the local government, insofar as a form of local government, had a really, really skinny territory.

但是，就地方政府的一种形式而言，地方政府的领土确实非常薄弱。

Like a long, skinny territory.

就像一个又长又瘦的领土。

You only apply along the length of this road or this canal or this river.

您只能沿着这条路、这条运河或这条河流申请。

But, before these were done, Britain basically had no canals.

但是，在这些完成之前，英国基本上没有运河。

Its rivers were not particularly navigable, less so than most of the European rivers.

它的河流并不特别适合通航，不如大多数欧洲河流。

And it had extremely poor roads.

而且那里的道路极其糟糕。

So, I've read some historians who suggest that the roads in the 1660s were actually worse than the roads under King Alfred a thousand years earlier in the 660s.

因此，我读过一些历史学家的文章，他们认为 1660 年代的道路实际上比 1000 年前 660 年代阿尔弗雷德国王统治下的道路还要糟糕。

Because they still had the declining Roman roads then, so they were still a bit better.

因为他们还有当时没落的罗马道路，所以还是好一点。

Whereas they were genuinely almost unusable in winter and rainy seasons in the 1600s.

然而在 1600 年代，它们在冬季和雨季几乎无法使用。

So--

所以 -

Russ Roberts: Just a quote, which I loved--you write:

拉斯·罗伯茨：只是引用我喜欢的一句话——你写道：

Which, the problem we have, I think, as moderns, is we've seen too many movies--Dickens or Jane Austen novels--where there's a group of people in a coach, in a carriage, and they're clip-clopping away at a nice brisk, maybe 15, 20 miles an hour.

我认为，作为现代人，我们面临的问题是我们看过太多电影——狄更斯或简·奥斯汀的小说——里面有一群人坐在一辆马车里，坐在一辆马车里，他们以每小时 15、20 英里的速度疾驰而去。

The roads really didn't allow that.

道路确实不允许这样做。

A mile and a half per hour.

每小时一英里半。

So, what you said--you write: "In 1705, the journey from London to Birmingham, a distance of about 100 miles,"--100 miles.

所以，你说的——你写的是：“1705年，从伦敦到伯明翰的旅程，距离大约100英里，”——100英里。

So that's an hour and a half in a car today.

所以今天在车里花了一个半小时。

In those days, if you had a fast horse and it could go fast, again, maybe a hundred miles would take you six hours, I don't know, I'm just guessing.

在那些日子里，如果你有一匹快马并且它跑得很快，那么一百英里也许需要你六个小时，我不知道，我只是猜测。

But, in those days, it took 65.

但是，在那些日子里，需要65。

Sixty-five hours.

六十五小时。

That's five days to go a hundred miles if you go in daylight.

如果白天走的话，一百英里需要五天时间。

I guess you could go at night if you were really stupid.

我想如果你真的很蠢的话你可以晚上去。

But it was really, really hard to move things, people, or stuff around.

但移动东西、人或东西真的非常非常困难。

Ben Southwood: It's hard to imagine how disconnected the city was given--sorry, the country was, the world was--when the fastest you can send a letter is that speed.

本·索斯伍德（Ben Southwood）：很难想象这座城市是如何与世隔绝的——对不起，这个国家是这样，整个世界是这样——当你寄出一封信的最快速度就是这个速度时。

Maybe if you have a guy changing horses and it's just one guy carrying one letter, you can go at the speed you're talking about, so you can get it there in ten hours or eight hours or something.

也许如果你有一个人换马，而只有一个人带着一封信，你可以按照你所说的速度去，这样你就可以在十小时或八小时之内把它送到那里。

But, sending anything more than that and you traveling yourself is going to take days and days to go between two pretty close cities in a pretty small country.

但是，发送比这更多的东西并且您自己旅行将需要数天的时间才能在一个很小的国家的两个非常接近的城市之间往返。

And, this means that so much stuff that we take for granted just couldn't happen.

而且，这意味着我们认为理所当然的许多事情根本不可能发生。

One that I found while researching this article is that some places would have loads of manure because they were animal farming areas, and some places would need loads of manure, but transporting was so expensive that it wasn't worth doing.

我在研究这篇文章时发现，有些地方因为是畜牧业，所以会有大量的粪便，有的地方需要大量的粪便，但运输成本太高，不值得。

So, there would just be loads piling up, not being used.

因此，只会有负载堆积起来，而没有被使用。

I wonder what it smelled like.

我想知道它闻起来是什么味道。

And then, loads of areas that had massively lower yields.

然后，大量地区的产量大幅降低。

And, it just happened, if you were next to one of the areas with loads of spare manure, you would have high yields.

而且，事情就这样发生了，如果你位于有大量备用粪便的地区之一，你就会获得高产量。

But, by 1800, when thousands and thousands and thousands of miles of toll roads have been built, thousands of miles of canals have been built, hundreds of miles of rivers have been made navigable with improvements, by that point, you have this national market in grain, national market in manure, national market in pottery, national market in textiles.

但是，到了1800年，当成千上万英里的收费公路已经建成，数千英里的运河已经建成，数百英里的河流已经改善通航，到那时，你就有了这个全国粮食市场、全国粪便市场、全国陶器市场、全国纺织品市场。

So, you start getting concentration of comparative advantages.

因此，你开始集中比较优势。

You can't really get Adam Smith's [David Ricardo's--Econlib Ed.]] ideal of people specializing in their comparative advantages when transport costs are so high.

当运输成本如此之高时，你无法真正实现亚当·斯密（大卫·李嘉图——Econlib Ed.）的理想，即人们专注于自己的比较优势。

Actually, oversea in a big ship, large quantities of high-value goods, you can do that even before all of this stuff.

其实在海外，一艘大船，大量的高价值货物，你甚至可以在所有这些东西之前做到这一点。

But, inland--inland just doesn't exist.

但是，内陆——内陆根本不存在。

So, the cheapest place to get--London had stone because there was a place with stone--Portsmouth, Portland--that you could ship around the edge.

所以，最便宜的地方——伦敦有石头，因为有一个地方有石头——波特兰的朴茨茅斯——你可以在边缘运送。

But, nowhere inland had it unless they had stone right there.

但是，除非那里有石头，否则内陆地区没有任何地方有这种东西。

And, London had coal because Newcastle had coal right next to the coast.

而且，伦敦有煤炭，因为纽卡斯尔靠近海岸就有煤炭。

But, getting it even 50 miles inland from Newcastle didn't happen.

但是，从纽卡斯尔到内陆 50 英里的地方也没有实现。

No one was using coal 50 miles inland, but they were using it along the coast because you could transport stuff relatively cheaply by ship.

在内陆 50 英里的地方没有人使用煤炭，但他们在沿海地区使用煤炭，因为通过船运输东西可以相对便宜。

Russ Roberts: So, just a footnote: Adam Smith is not comparative advantage.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，只是一个脚注：亚当·斯密不是比较优势。

That's his successor, David Ricardo.

那是他的继任者大卫·里卡多。

Which is important, comparative advantage.

这很重要，比较优势。

But, in this case, it's really Adam Smith's insight that's more important, which is that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.

但是，在这种情况下，更重要的是亚当·斯密的见解，即分工受到市场范围的限制。

So, if you're producing a small amount of something, you just can't use very effective techniques to do it, and if you can't ship it and sell it outside your hometown, you're basically--you're in the Middle Ages, as I like to say, when buy local was the rule of the day, and it was really poor.

所以，如果你生产少量的东西，你就不能使用非常有效的技术来做到这一点，如果你不能将其运送到家乡以外的地方出售，那么你基本上就处于中世纪，正如我想说的，当时购买本地产品是当时的规则，而且真的很穷。

It doesn't work so well.

效果不太好。

It's not so pleasant.

这不太令人愉快。

Russ Roberts: So, I want to talk about the significance of this in comparing it to the rest of continental Europe.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，我想谈谈与欧洲大陆其他地区相比这一点的重要性。

But, what did Parliament do that unleashed toll roads, canals, and making rivers more navigable?

但是，议会做了什么来开放收费公路、运河，并使河流更容易通航呢？

Ben Southwood: Basically, so they just said you're allowed to charge to create them, and we'll give you the right to expropriate the land, use eminent domain to get the land on the way.

本·索斯伍德：基本上，他们只是说你可以付费创建它们，我们将赋予你征用土地的权利，使用征用权来获得土地。

Not always eminent domain; sometimes they bought it.

并不总是征用权；有时他们会买。

But, usually it was just a strip of someone's farmland, so it wasn't a big deal.

不过，通常只是某人的一小片农田，所以没什么大不了的。

And, usually the person proposing it was one of the landowners who owned the land.

而且，通常提出建议的人是拥有土地的土地所有者之一。

So, again, it wasn't such a big deal because the landowner wanted there to be good roads, wanted to export his grain around the country, was willing to give up a bit of his land.

所以，这又不是什么大不了的事，因为地主希望那里有良好的道路，希望将粮食出口到全国各地，并愿意放弃一些土地。

But, they did use eminent domain compulsory purchase together.

但是，他们确实一起使用了征用权强制购买。

But, basically, yes: a bunch of landowners of an area would come to Parliament and say, 'I want to build a road here.

但是，基本上，是的：一个地区的一群土地所有者会来到议会说，‘我想在这里修一条路。

I want the right to charge a toll, which you can't otherwise charge.

我想要收取通行费的权利，否则你无法收取通行费。

And, I promise I will use that money to improve the road.

而且，我保证我会用这笔钱来改善道路。

I will raise a loan, use that to improve the road, repay the interest on the loan.'

我将筹集一笔贷款，用它来改善道路，偿还贷款利息。”

Basically the same thing as if you are, I don't know, Harris County in Texas going to your voters and saying, 'I want to build a new road in the HCTRA [Harris County Toll Road Authority] toll road network.

我不知道，这基本上就像你在德克萨斯州哈里斯县向你的选民说，‘我想在 HCTRA [哈里斯县收费公路管理局] 收费公路网络中修建一条新公路。

Will you cover the bond?' They were doing the same thing there.

你会支付保证金吗？他们在那里做同样的事情。

And, Parliament said yes to hundreds and hundreds of these schemes.

而且，议会对数百个此类计划表示同意。

And, as I say, sometimes they expropriated new land to build new roads.

而且，正如我所说，有时他们会征用新土地来修建新道路。

They always did that for canals because obviously there wasn't a canal to go from.

他们总是对运河这样做，因为显然没有运河可走。

They never did that with rivers because they were taking over the existing river; but the river had no owner, so no one could charge, no one improved it.

他们从来没有对河流这样做过，因为他们正在接管现有的河流；但这条河没有主人，所以没有人可以冲锋，没有人可以改善它。

All the ships would break on the rocks, and the places would be unsafe to go down.

所有的船只都会触礁，而这些地方都不安全。

And then, sometimes they took over existing roads that were there for a long time.

然后，有时他们会接管已经存在很长时间的现有道路。

And, the road previously had been rubbish but free to travel on, and then afterwards it was improved.

而且这条路以前是垃圾路，但是可以自由行驶，后来又改善了。

They put macadam down or they put stones down or whatever, [inaudible 00:46:59]--

他们放下碎石或放下石头或其他什么，[听不清 00:46:59]--

Russ Roberts: Instead of mud, which was not a good--those who've been to the United Kingdom know that does occasionally rain.

拉斯·罗伯茨：不是泥浆，泥浆不好，去过英国的人都知道，泥浆偶尔会下雨。

So, it was--these roads--the reason that travel was a mile and a half per hour--well, that was in winter, because it's raining all the time, and you can't go fast in mud.

所以，正是这些道路，导致行驶速度为每小时一英里半，嗯，那是在冬天，因为一直在下雨，在泥泞中你无法走快。

I also learned an important piece of trivia for me that this macadam surface, which I'd heard of, it's a form of paving; they would sometimes add tar to it, and that's called tarmac.

我还了解到一个重要的琐事，我听说过的这种碎石表面，它是一种铺路形式；他们有时会在上面添加焦油，这就是所谓的停机坪。

Russ Roberts: And, tarmac is now--I don't know what it's actually made of, airport runways--but we call, when a plane lands, we say it hit the tarmac.

拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，停机坪现在是——我不知道它实际上是由什么构成的，机场跑道——但我们称，当飞机着陆时，我们说它撞到了停机坪。

The plane is on the tarmac.

飞机停在停机坪上。

So, it must have been a point in life, if not still the case, that runways were made of macadam with tar added to it, which is tarmac.

因此，跑道是由添加了焦油的碎石制成的，这一定是生活中的一个时刻，如果不是现在的话，那就是停机坪。

So, thank you for that, Ben.

所以，谢谢你，本。

That's really nice to know.

很高兴知道这一点。

Ben Southwood: And, by the way, in England, we call asphalt 'tarmac.' So, tarmac to us is just the standard road material.

本·索斯伍德：顺便说一句，在英国，我们将沥青称为“停机坪”。所以，柏油路对我们来说只是标准的道路材料。

And, again, because of old macadam.

再次，因为旧碎石。

Russ Roberts: It's like Googling.

拉斯·罗伯茨：这就像谷歌搜索。

It's a search whether it's on Google or not.

无论是否在 Google 上，这都是搜索。

Russ Roberts: Now you point out, it says, "By 1840," you write,

拉斯·罗伯茨：现在你指出，它说，“到 1840 年”，你写道，

Ben Southwood: I was going to say that's like a Netherlands football [soccer] fan in Texas going to a Buc-ee's and being, like--they're having the exact same experience of the German travelers in England in the 1780s.

Ben Southwood：我想说，这就像得克萨斯州的一名荷兰足球迷去了 Buc-ee's 餐厅，他们的经历与 1780 年代在英格兰的德国旅行者完全相同。

Like, 'How are their roads like this, so big and wide?

就像，‘他们的路怎么会这样，又大又宽？

Or the petrol stations?'

还是加油站？

Russ Roberts: Yeah, my favorite is the size of the drinks in America for the Europeans.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我最喜欢的是欧洲人在美国喝的饮料的大小。

They go, 'This thing is the size of my head, and there's free refills.' Yeah, sometimes there are wonders outside of one's home country that travel allows you to appreciate.

他们说，“这个东西和我的头一样大，而且可以免费补充。”是的，有时旅行可以让你欣赏到祖国之外的奇观。

Russ Roberts: But, the point is that these incentives--this is an incredibly important thing.

拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，重点是这些激励措施——这是一件非常重要的事情。

These incentives that were allowed to operate to bring improvement, privately driven with the permission of Parliament to create infrastructure, what we would now call public goods, were extremely--it's got to be unbelievably important.

这些激励措施被允许用来带来改善，在议会的许可下由私人推动创建基础设施，我们现在称之为公共产品，这些激励措施非常重要，而且一定非常重要。

So, I want to pause here and take stock of the argument, because before we started recording, we talked about some people were skeptical of this: the claims in your piece, that really, is this what caused the Industrial Revolution?

所以，我想在这里暂停一下，盘点一下这个论点，因为在我们开始录音之前，我们谈到了一些人对此表示怀疑：你的文章中的主张，真的，这就是导致工业革命的原因吗？

I want to say just one thing.

我只想说一件事。

Here's what I hear when I read your piece: Agriculture, through a set of legislative changes and property rights, agriculture became more productive--and you give some examples of the actual, the size, the magnitude of the productivity.

以下是我在阅读您的文章时听到的内容：农业，通过一系列立法变革和财产权，农业变得更加生产力——您举了一些生产力的实际、规模和数量的例子。

It's not a small thing.

这不是一件小事。

It's the most important industry in the country to start with, before the Industrial Revolution.

在工业革命之前，这是该国最重要的产业。

So, agriculture suddenly starts to be more productive.

因此，农业突然开始变得更有生产力。

Farmland becomes more productive.

农田变得更加富有成效。

There's probably the beginning of accumulation of capital, which allows for investment in other things.

资本积累可能已经开始，这允许对其他事物进行投资。

And then, as technology starts to grow--which would be the steam engine and other things that are the more traditional sources of the so-called Industrial Revolution or the changes in standard of living that we're talking about here that begin in the late 17th, mid-17th through the century going forward--with this change in infrastructure, you suddenly have the return to investment in innovation technology go crazy.

然后，随着技术开始发展——蒸汽机和其他东西是所谓工业革命的更传统来源，或者我们在这里讨论的从 17 世纪末、17 世纪中叶开始直至本世纪的生活水平变化——随着基础设施的变化，创新技术的投资回报突然变得疯狂。

It's the equivalent of saying--where I live is a perfect example.

这相当于说——我住的地方就是一个完美的例子。

Israel is an incredible high-tech powerhouse, an extraordinary innovator.

以色列是一个令人难以置信的高科技强国，一个非凡的创新者。

Unicorns per capita are out of control.

人均独角兽数量已失控。

The amount of innovation here in technology is unbelievable.

这里的技术创新数量令人难以置信。

If you could only sell it in Israel, it wouldn't be worth doing.

如果你只能在以色列出售它，那就不值得了。

Those people would be doing other things with their time, the Israeli high-tech sector.

这些人会用他们的时间做其他事情，即以色列高科技行业。

Once you can sell it--and of course digitally you can sell it anywhere at almost no cost--once you can distribute software, for example, around the world, your market is enormously larger, and the economies of scale and the division of labor does the magical stuff that Adam Smith talks about.

一旦你可以出售它——当然，你可以以数字方式在任何地方几乎免费出售它——一旦你可以在世界各地分发软件，例如，你的市场就会变得更大，规模经济和劳动分工就会发挥亚当·斯密所说的神奇作用。

And, that's not a small thing.

而且，这不是一件小事。

It's like saying: Well, technology is what drove the Industrial Revolution.

这就像在说：嗯，技术推动了工业革命。

Well, it can't if you can't use the technology outside your hometown.

好吧，如果你不能在家乡以外使用该技术，那就不行。

It's one thing to say, 'Well, my hometown has got really great construction equipment because we use steam.' Well, what?

说“嗯，我的家乡拥有非常好的建筑设备，因为我们使用蒸汽”是一回事。嗯，什么？

To build the 40th house after you built the 39th?

建完第 39 栋房子之后再建第 40 栋？

But, if you're building a factory and you're selling the product of that factory around the world because you can actually ship it somewhere on a carriage and eventually a truck, it makes all the difference.

但是，如果你正在建造一家工厂，并且你要在世界各地销售该工厂的产品，因为你实际上可以用马车并最终用卡车将其运送到某个地方，那么一切就变得不同了。

I think one of the lessons I get from your piece--and maybe the claims are overblown, and maybe you're making too strong a case; it's always possible, it's hard to know, it's a speculative piece almost by definition--but it makes you appreciate the unseen infrastructure that has to exist for technology to be worth bringing into the world.

我认为我从你的文章中得到的教训之一是——也许这些说法被夸大了，也许你的论点太有力了；它总是有可能的，很难知道，从定义上来说，这几乎是一个投机性的作品——但它让你欣赏到那些看不见的基础设施，这些基础设施必须存在，技术才值得引入世界。

And, we take it for granted.

而且，我们认为这是理所当然的。

We always assume government has to do it.

我们总是认为政府必须这样做。

Here's a case where government probably just allowed it to happen--which is very cool--through essentially reassigning the property rights for the river or the strip of land that became the canal or the road that got improved.

在这种情况下，政府可能只是允许这种情况发生——这非常酷——通过本质上重新分配河流或成为运河或改善道路的土地的产权。

But, whether it's privately done or whether it's government, the role of infrastructure and ability to move stuff around and create national markets is extraordinarily important.

但是，无论是私人还是政府，基础设施的作用以及运输物品和创建全国市场的能力都异常重要。

And, I think it's easy to miss it.

而且，我认为很容易错过它。

So, I think readers who read your piece--and I recommend it--will really benefit from having--it's like looking behind the curtain.

所以，我认为阅读你的文章的读者——我推荐它——会真正受益于——就像在幕后看一样。

Ben Southwood: Yes, I agree with all of that.

本·索斯伍德：是的，我同意所有这些。

And, one additional thing I would say is, okay, cards on the table, I think that probably some kind of industrial revolution would have happened if these reforms hadn't happened.

而且，我要说的另一件事是，好吧，桌面上的牌，我认为如果没有发生这些改革，可能会发生某种工业革命。

I think that the important thing really was the stuff Joel Mokyr and Anton Howes talk about--the accelerating innovation.

我认为真正重要的是乔尔·莫基尔和安东·豪斯谈论的内容——加速创新。

And it happened in stuff that wasn't just classic hard, heavy industries, like watches were getting better.

这种情况不仅仅发生在经典的硬重工业领域，比如手表正在变得越来越好。

Actually, Adam Smith speculated about watches getting better, and then I can't remember who, but someone did a paper in the last 10 years showing that he was right, and they were getting 1% more efficient each year for the whole 1700s up to the time he was writing.

事实上，亚当·斯密推测手表会变得更好，然后我不记得是谁了，但有人在过去 10 年里发表了一篇论文，表明他是对的，直到他撰写本文时，在整个 1700 年代，手表的效率每年提高 1%。

Russ Roberts: He added that it doesn't make people any more likely to be on time for their meetings, but the people do like that the time is more accurately kept, even if it doesn't change their behavior.

拉斯·罗伯茨：他补充说，这并不会让人们更有可能准时参加会议，但人们确实喜欢更准确地记录时间，即使这不会改变他们的行为。

Ben Southwood: There you go.

本·索斯伍德：就这样吧。

So, I think the overall constant innovation, everyone thinking it's possible to improve things and then trying to do it, that's the most important thing.

所以，我认为整体上不断创新，每个人都认为可以改进事情，然后尝试去做，这是最重要的。

But, I think sometimes people go a bit too hard, in, like, 'Oh, it doesn't matter.

但是，我认为有时人们有点太努力了，比如，‘哦，没关系。

Everything else can be messed up.

其他一切都可能搞砸。

As long as you've got the improving mindset, then we're going to get the growth one way or another, and it just doesn't matter if institutions are done well.

只要你有改进的心态，那么我们就会以某种方式实现增长，而制度是否做得好并不重要。

Technology will solve everything.' Obviously, technology is really important and often the most important thing.

技术将解决一切。”显然，技术确实很重要，而且往往是最重要的。

But, there are loads of cases--like the Ottoman Empire and de facto preventing the printing press, or the Western world and de facto preventing nuclear power from being used since the 1970s--where actually society, institutions can slow down things even when technology is racing ahead.

但是，有很多案例——比如奥斯曼帝国事实上阻止了印刷机的出现，或者西方世界自 20 世纪 70 年代以来事实上阻止了核能的使用——实际上，即使技术正在飞速发展，社会、机构也可以放慢速度。

And, if you think about right now, the reason why data centers have become so extremely expensive--and then the inputs into data centers like GPUs [graphics processing units] and memory and energy and so on--is because we can't build the physical things.

而且，如果你现在想想，数据中心变得如此昂贵的原因——以及 GPU [图形处理单元]、内存和能源等数据中心的投入——是因为我们无法构建物理事物。

The straightforward stuff, the stuff we know how to do, no technological improvements necessary.

简单的事情，我们知道如何做的事情，不需要技术改进。

Like, this is just getting better at what we already know how to do.

就像，这只是在我们已经知道如何做的事情上做得更好。

Or just allowing what we already know how to do.

或者只是允许我们已经知道如何做的事情。

We are not coming up with ways to do that .

我们还没有想出办法来做到这一点。

And that's holding back our growth right now, not the ideas.

目前阻碍我们发展的是这些因素，而不是我们的想法。

It's the application of the ideas rather than having new ideas.

这是想法的应用而不是新想法。

And, I think both of these things are really important.

而且，我认为这两件事都非常重要。

This case shows us a case where I think the Industrial Revolution probably happened more quickly, more effectively, delivered more benefits, and scaled more, as you said, because of these institutional changes that allowed it to happen.

这个案例向我们展示了一个案例，我认为工业革命可能发生得更快、更有效，带来了更多好处，规模更大，正如你所说，因为这些制度变革使得工业革命得以发生。

And, I think that's the lesson I really want people to get.

而且，我认为这就是我真正希望人们得到的教训。

The other lesson would be that there are tricks to pulling off these kinds of reforms.

另一个教训是，实现此类改革是有技巧的。

Like, when you have these complex overlapping rights where lots of people have an endowment effect and everyone is a bit skeptical of allowing change because they're worried, 'Am I the widow whose portion is going to get taken away?

就像，当你拥有这些复杂的重叠权利时，很多人都会产生禀赋效应，每个人都对允许改变持怀疑态度，因为他们担心，‘我是一个寡妇，其份额将被剥夺吗？

Am I the sister whose dowry is going to get taken away?

难道我就是那个嫁妆要被拿走的姐姐吗？

Am I the heir who is not going to get their inheritance because my father has gambled this all away?' Which is, by the way, something that happened all the time.

我是不是因为我父亲把这一切都赌光了而无法继承他们的遗产？顺便说一句，这是一直在发生的事情。

They were constantly gambling away their estates before the settlement system came in.

在结算制度出现之前，他们不断地把自己的财产赌光。

They were constantly spending that night until 7:00 AM drinking and gambling, and gambling, like, £20,000 pounds.

当晚他们一直喝酒赌博，直到早上 7:00，赌博金额高达 20,000 英镑。

And, they even did this, by the way, when they did have settlements; but they could only do it up to a max amount.

顺便说一句，当他们确实有定居点时，他们甚至这样做了；但他们只能做到最大数量。

Once all the money they were going to get per year was covering interest on the loans that their creditors would give them, then no one would give them another loan.

一旦他们每年获得的所有钱都可以支付债权人向他们提供的贷款的利息，那么就没有人会再向他们提供贷款。

But, anyway, that side is very important, too.

但无论如何，这一面也非常重要。

And, pulling those things off requires carefully thinking: Can I pass this reform?

而且，实现这些目标需要仔细思考：我可以通过这项改革吗？

Do I have a coalition in favor?

有支持我的联盟吗？

Even good reforms.

即使是好的改革。

Good reforms give you an advantage because you're generating more upside, so you should be able to build a bigger coalition than bad reforms.

好的改革会给你带来优势，因为你会产生更多的好处，所以你应该能够建立比坏的改革更大的联盟。

When bad reforms win, we should think to ourselves, like: How have these guys managed to pull it off when we are offering more benefits than the bad reform guys?

当糟糕的改革获胜时，我们应该反思一下：当我们提供比糟糕的改革者更多的好处时，这些人是如何成功实现这一目标的？

We should be able to offer more upside because there should be slightly higher growth every time we do a deregulation that improves things or fixing a thing.

我们应该能够提供更多的好处，因为每次我们放松管制来改善或解决问题时，都应该有稍微更高的增长。

And, these guys did that systematically.

而且，这些人系统地做到了这一点。

They came up with ways to get the growthist reform through by buying off all the people who would be affected by the growthist reform.

他们想出了通过收买所有可能受到增长主义改革影响的人来实现增长主义改革的方法。

Russ Roberts: So, you start off the piece talking about the vetocracy--the ability of players in the political game to veto improvements or efficient legislation or any kind of policy improvement.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，你在这篇文章中谈到了否决权——政治游戏中参与者否决改进或有效立法或任何类型的政策改进的能力。

And, it feels like we used to talk about this a lot in the program, and I think I've told the story before of telling my 11- or 12- or 10-year-old child that we're not allowed to build a building in our backyard and rent it out.

而且，感觉我们以前在节目中经常谈论这个问题，我想我之前已经讲过这个故事，告诉我 11 岁、12 岁或 10 岁的孩子，我们不允许在后院建造建筑物并将其出租。

And my son said, 'What?

我儿子说，‘什么？

This is America.' Meaning, in America, you have freedom of property.

这是美国。这意味着，在美国，你拥有财产自由。

It's yours .

是你的了。

Do whatever you want with it.

用它做任何你想做的事。

And, increasingly, it seems, in America, that's not the case, especially in cities.

但在美国，情况似乎越来越并非如此，尤其是在城市。

In cities, lots of people have a veto on what you do with your land, and to do something creative, different, whatever it is with your land requires getting the approval of a long list of players who--and, that very uncertainty reduces the incentive of people to make the investments that are necessary.

在城市里，很多人对你对土地所做的事情拥有否决权，而要对你的土地做一些创造性的、不同的事情，无论它是什么，都需要得到一长串参与者的批准，而这种不确定性会降低人们进行必要投资的动力。

The length of time it takes means that the return on those investments has to be quite a bit larger, which means many investments can never take place because it's not worth it.

所需时间的长短意味着这些投资的回报必须相当大，这意味着许多投资永远无法进行，因为它不值得。

So, I think we have a very sclerotic property rights system in the United States.

所以，我认为美国的产权制度非常僵化。

You could debate whether there are good things that come from that.

你可以争论这是否会带来好处。

You could arguably--and, certainly in Europe, and we talk about this all the time on the program, if you go to--I'll take Venice as my latest favorite example.

你可以说——而且，当然是在欧洲，如果你去的话，我们一直在节目中谈论这个——我会以威尼斯作为我最近最喜欢的例子。

If you go to Venice, Venice is one of the most beautiful places in the world.

如果你去威尼斯，威尼斯是世界上最美丽的地方之一。

It's magnificent.

太棒了。

And it's so static.

而且它是如此静态。

One of the reasons it's beautiful is it doesn't look like anywhere else.

它美丽的原因之一是它看起来与其他地方不同。

One of the reasons it's beautiful is it looks the way it looked more or less 500 years ago.

它美丽的原因之一是它看起来大约是 500 年前的样子。

And the idea of putting up a skyscraper there--forget whether it's feasible or not--is offensive, because it's like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

在那里建造一座摩天大楼的想法——忘记它是否可行——是令人反感的，因为这就像在蒙娜丽莎上留胡子一样。

It's like, well, what are you talking about?

就像，好吧，你在说什么？

You're despoiling a enormously beautiful human creation.

你正在掠夺极其美丽的人类创造物。

The city itself is a work of art that needs to be preserved.

这座城市本身就是一件需要保护的艺术品。

And, I'm sympathetic to that.

而且，我对此表示同情。

And, I would say the same thing.

而且，我也会说同样的话。

I was just in San Francisco.

我刚在旧金山。

You drive around San Francisco, and listeners, it's still a very beautiful city.

你开车绕着旧金山转，听众们，它仍然是一座非常美丽的城市。

There are certain blocks you don't want to go on, but in general, it's a gorgeous city.

有些街区你不想继续走下去，但总的来说，这是一座美丽的城市。

And, the housing stock there is mind-blowingly beautiful.

而且，那里的住房美得令人惊叹。

And, I am sure that if you own a certain kind of house there, you can't do whatever you want with it.

而且，我确信，如果你在那里拥有某种类型的房子，你就不能用它做任何你想做的事。

You can't add a story, you can't change the front, you can't--etc., etc., etc. And, there's a lot of benefits to it.

你不能添加故事，你不能改变前面，你不能——等等，等等。而且，它有很多好处。

It creates a unique, nostalgic setting.

它创造了一个独特的、怀旧的环境。

But, it comes at a price.

但是，这是有代价的。

So, take us home and talk about what you think should be changed, à la the Glorious Revolution, in property rights today or in freedom to do what you want with what you own and make it better, at least in your eyes.

所以，带我们回家，谈谈你认为应该改变什么，就像光荣革命一样，在今天的财产权方面，或者在用你所拥有的东西做你想做的事情的自由方面，并让它变得更好，至少在你看来。

Ben Southwood: So, I think there are some very interesting points from American history that help us think about this question.

本·索斯伍德：所以，我认为美国历史上有一些非常有趣的观点可以帮助我们思考这个问题。

In the 1920s, or let's say in the 1890s and the first decade of the 20th century, if oil was found in a suburban neighborhood, you might just see smoking derricks stuck up next to your house.

在 20 年代，或者说在 1890 年代和 20 世纪第一个十年，如果在郊区发现石油，你可能只会看到你家旁边竖着冒烟的井架。

And, I think that there are some people out there who might think this is freedom, this is progress.

而且，我认为有些人可能认为这就是自由，这就是进步。

But, I think basically everyone, including me, including, I think, that it's reasonable to have some constraints on what people do for externality-based reasons.

但是，我认为基本上每个人，包括我在内，出于外部性原因对人们的行为进行一些限制是合理的。

And, those extreme cases are the highest possible externalities, like black smoke flooding into your garden.

而且，这些极端情况是最高可能的外部性，例如黑烟涌入您的花园。

Those cases, it's reasonable there.

这些情况，都是有道理的。

And, there's a general point, which is that when you think of a residential property, a lot of what you're buying is not in the property's boundaries.

而且，有一个普遍的观点，那就是当您想到住宅物业时，您购买的很多东西都不在该物业的边界内。

So, is it reasonable for people to have a kind of collective ownership over the areas they live, in order to make those areas nicer?

那么，人们对他们所居住的地区拥有某种集体所有权，以使这些地区变得更加美好，这合理吗？

I think it is reasonable.

我认为这是合理的。

I think it is reasonable.

我认为这是合理的。

I think that's a reason why neighborhoods have often been developed en masse , in a single go, because then you can deliver more amenities.

我认为这就是为什么社区经常一次性开发的原因，因为这样你就可以提供更多的便利设施。

Like: Should we have it that someone could buy up a park and build a skyscraper on your park, therefore losing everyone their access to a park and benefiting them by maximizing the profit, but potentially reducing the total value of the neighborhood?

比如：我们是否应该认为有人可以买下一个公园并在你的公园上建造一座摩天大楼，从而失去每个人进入公园的机会，并通过最大化利润使他们受益，但可能会降低社区的总价值？

I think that it's good to have institutions that deal with that.

我认为有机构来处理这个问题是件好事。

And so, therefore, the way I think about things is not: Do we want to come up--how do we unleash everyone's right to build a skyscraper on their own plot?

因此，我思考问题的方式不是：我们想不想——我们如何释放每个人在自己的地块上建造摩天大楼的权利？

But more: When it actually does increase the total value of the neighborhood to allow it to be built in a different way--when it is the case that the scarcity of housing, or whatever else it is you want to build, the scarcity of housing is so high that you can take a house per quarter acre development and turn it into a classic row home neighborhood, for example--in a world where you can do that and at scale, not just individual plots, but at scale, make a profit--like, it benefits--what you lose in amenities, you over gain in development.

但更多的是：当它确实增加了社区的总价值，允许以不同的方式建造时——当住房稀缺，或者你想建造的任何其他东西的情况下，住房稀缺程度如此之高，以至于你可以每四分之一英亩开发一栋房子，并将其变成一个经典的联排住宅社区，例如——在一个你可以做到这一点的世界，不仅仅是个别地块，而是大规模地，赚取利润——就像，它受益——你失去的东西在便利设施方面，您会获得更多的发展。

I would like to create institutions for doing that.

我想为此创建机构。

And, I think some people have come up with interesting ways of doing that.

而且，我认为有些人已经想出了有趣的方法来做到这一点。

So, one interesting way is Donald Shoup came up with something called graduated density zoning.

因此，唐纳德·舒普（Donald Shoup）提出了一种有趣的方法，即分级密度分区。

And, what that is, is: The larger the assembled plot you have, the greater your development rights.

也就是说：你拥有的土地面积越大，你的开发权就越大。

So, if you have one plot--just like I'm only one homeowner--I can build the normal amount, which may be a home per quarter acre.

所以，如果你有一块地——就像我只是一个房主一样——我可以建造正常的数量，这可能是每四分之一英亩的房屋。

We're in[Wherein?] New England suburbs here.

我们在[哪里？]新英格兰郊区。

But, if I own four, then the externalities I impose outside that four-unit block are limited because I'm not imposing any externalities on the ones that are within my ownership block.

但是，如果我拥有四个单位，那么我在该四个单位区块之外施加的外部性是有限的，因为我不会对我的所有权区块内的单位施加任何外部性。

So I get a bit more density.

所以我得到了更多的密度。

And, that extends outwards.

而且，它向外延伸。

And, this is quite powerful tool.

而且，这是一个非常强大的工具。

So, between 1916 and 1961, New York basically had this.

所以，1916年到1961年间，纽约基本上都是这样的。

They had a rule that you drew a line from the street, a diagonal line upwards, and you could build under that line.

他们有一条规则，你从街道上画一条线，一条向上的对角线，你可以在这条线下建造。

And, obviously, if you just think about the 3D [3-Dimensional] geometry there, the more you build out that plot, the bigger you can build.

而且，显然，如果您只考虑那里的 3D [3 维] 几何形状，那么您构建的图越多，您可以构建的就越大。

And so, there weren't any rules for forcing people to come into your plots.

因此，没有任何规则可以强迫人们进入你的地盘。

But, the bigger your assembled unit of land was, the more rights you got.

但是，您组合的土地面积越大，您获得的权利就越多。

So you had strong incentives to keep absorbing more.

所以你有强烈的动力去继续吸收更多。

And, the Rockefeller Center in the 1930s was built under this system.

并且，20世纪30年代的洛克菲勒中心就是在这个体系下建成的。

And, you can see the individual plots that they didn't get.

而且，你可以看到他们没有得到的个别图。

They would have made them huge offers.

他们会给他们提供巨额报价。

There were, like, diners, two-story diners, and then, like, a 50-story building next to it.

那里有，就像，食客，两层楼的食客，然后，旁边，就像一座 50 层的建筑。

They would have made them, like, in 1930s money, 'I'll give you a million dollars.

他们会像 20 世纪 30 年代的钱那样赚钱，‘我给你一百万美元。

Please, you're costing me a hundred thousand square foot here, or a million square foot, from the line you're cutting across my giant building.'

拜托，从你横穿我的巨型建筑的那条线开始，你让我损失了十万平方英尺，或者一百万平方英尺。”

And, the guy said No. But they still managed to assemble a pretty damn good Center; and they made, like, 300 transactions, and only about four people said No.

而且，那家伙说不。但他们仍然设法组建了一个非常好的中锋；他们进行了大约 300 笔交易，只有大约四个人说不。

And so, that was graduated density zoning.

这就是分级密度分区。

I think that's a great idea.

我认为这是个好主意。

I think versions of it could be used.

我认为可以使用它的版本。

If you want to go a bit further, Michael Heller, the law professor, came up with something called land assembly districts.

如果你想更进一步，法学教授迈克尔·海勒 (Michael Heller) 提出了一种称为土地集结区的概念。

And, land assembly districts are very similar to enclosure in Britain in the 1680s and 1700s.

而且，土地整合区与 1680 年代和 1700 年代英国的圈地非常相似。

It's basically the same mechanism.

其机制基本相同。

I wonder if he was inspired by enclosure.

我想知道他是否受到了圈地的启发。

You get together a group of people--so, plots of homeowners--and you don't have to get everyone.

你把一群人聚集在一起——也就是说，房主的地块——但你不必把所有人都聚集在一起。

So, you get up to--you just need 90% of people or 85% of people.

所以，你只需要 90% 或 85% 的人。

And, with 85% of people, you can unify your land into one plot, and then you each get a share in that.

而且，对于 85% 的人来说，你可以将你的土地统一为一块土地，然后你们每个人都可以分享其中的一份。

An even share, or a share in proportion to your land contribution or your property value contribution.

均等份额，或按您的土地贡献或财产价值贡献比例的份额。

So, the downside of this is that, like enclosure, there might be 10% of people who don't want to enclose their land.

所以，这样做的缺点是，就像圈地一样，可能有 10% 的人不想圈地。

Those people get overridden.

那些人被推翻了。

The upside is that you don't get people carving giant blocks out of a big development because of their holdout rights.

好处是，你不会因为人们的坚持权利而在大型开发项目中开辟巨大的街区。

And, I think it's a genuinely hard question whether we want--some questions are always going to involve, for the greater good, some overriding of individual rights.

而且，我认为，我们是否愿意，这确实是一个很难的问题——为了更大的利益，有些问题总是会涉及到一些凌驾于个人权利之上的事情。

It's necessary.

有必要。

It's impossible to make some decisions socially that don't have those kind of impacts.

做出一些不产生此类影响的社会决策是不可能的。

But, where the right threshold is, whether you should do it at all, whether just graduated density zoning is enough.

但是，正确的阈值在哪里，是否应该这样做，仅分级密度分区是否足够。

I'm interested in land assembly districts as another kind of mechanism that would do that--I think, fairly, but I don't know if 90% is enough or if it's too much and you should let it happen with 66%.

我对土地整合区感兴趣，作为另一种可以做到这一点的机制——我认为，公平，但我不知道 90% 是否足够，或者是否太多，你应该让它发生 66%。

In Israel, they have a system called Tama 38.

在以色列，他们有一个名为 Tama 38 的系统。

So, maybe you know about it.

所以，也许你知道这一点。

Individual buildings, if they're built before 1980, can agree to demolish themselves and rebuild them, and they have to get two-thirds approval.

个别建筑，如果是1980年之前建造的，可以同意自行拆除并重建，但必须得到三分之二的同意。

So, you have to get two-thirds of the residents in the building to approve it.

所以，你必须得到大楼里三分之二的居民的批准。

And, in this case, your house gets demolished.

而且，在这种情况下，你的房子会被拆除。

And you get a nicer, better property back at the end; but, if two-thirds of your neighbors agree, then you can, without your consent, see your apartment get demolished.

最后你会得到一个更好、更好的房产；但是，如果你三分之二的邻居同意，那么你可以在未经你同意的情况下看到你的公寓被拆除。

And, this is now producing 50% of the homes in Tel Aviv and is a very well-used scheme and hasn't been overturned.

而且，现在特拉维夫 50% 的房屋都是由该项目建造的，并且是一个非常常用的方案，并且尚未被推翻。

There's some controversy, but the forces of anti never quite managed to overturn it.

存在一些争议，但反势力从未完全推翻它。

Again, very similar to the mechanism of enclosure.

同样，与外壳的机制非常相似。

Russ Roberts: If you vote against it, you do get to live somewhere, by the way.

拉斯·罗伯茨：顺便说一句，如果你投反对票，你确实可以住在某个地方。

I can't remember what the deal is, but the developer has to pay for your rent.

我不记得是什么交易了，但开发商必须支付你的租金。

I can't remember the deal, but it's not as great--

我不记得这笔交易了，但没那么好——

Ben Southwood: They recently changed the rules so that the developer had to sort you out while it was being done.

Ben Southwood：他们最近改变了规则，因此开发商必须在完成时对你进行排序。

The rule was all previous--the original rules were: Developer comes to a building, says, 'Do you want me to demolish this building, build a bigger one, give you all a nicer apartment in it?' They can't just kick you out for nothing.

规则都是以前的——最初的规则是：开发商来到一栋大楼前，说：“你想让我拆除这栋大楼，建造一栋更大的大楼，给你们提供一套更好的公寓吗？”他们不能无缘无故把你踢出去。

Everyone has to get a nicer apartment at the end.

每个人最终都必须得到一个更好的公寓。

Everyone has to get an equally nicer apartment at the end, like your Walter Williams rule.

每个人最终都必须得到同样更好的公寓，就像沃尔特·威廉姆斯的规则一样。

And, they can only propose equal rules to everyone.

而且，他们只能向所有人提出平等的规则。

You can't have it so that two-thirds of the apartment steal the space of the other guys.

你不能让公寓的三分之二的人抢占其他人的空间。

And then, if you can get two-thirds of people to sign up for it--it was originally 80%, and then it was so effective that they decided to reduce the threshold.

然后如果你能让三分之二的人报名的话——本来是80%，然后效果非常好，所以他们决定降低门槛。

If you can get two-thirds to sign up, then they demolish it, build the new one, and you get to move back in.

如果你能让三分之二的人报名，那么他们就会拆除它，建造新的，然后你就可以搬回去。

And, the recent change they did was to make sure that the developer has to house you in the intervening time because some people said, no, the house got demolished, they had nowhere to go.

而且，他们最近所做的改变是确保开发商在干预期间必须为你提供住房，因为有些人说，不，房子被拆了，他们无处可去。

They did get a nice apartment at the end, but what happened in between?

他们最终确实得到了一套不错的公寓，但中间发生了什么？

Russ Roberts: Yeah, and that would also give the developer an incentive to finish the building sooner than later, which is a serious issue here, as it is in many parts of the world.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，这也会激励开发商早日完工，这在这里是一个严重的问题，就像在世界许多地方一样。

Russ Roberts: Let's close with: anything else you want to add about the implications of your piece for the modern world, or footnotes?

拉斯·罗伯茨：让我们结束吧：关于你的作品对现代世界的影响，你还有什么想要补充的吗？或者脚注？

Anything?

任何事物？

Ben Southwood: So, the one overriding idea I have is that the world has rightly discovered that physical constraints are one of the big things holding developed Western countries back.

本·索斯伍德：所以，我最重要的想法是，世界正确地发现，物质限制是阻碍西方发达国家发展的一大因素。

So, whereas in--especially to a larger extent in the East, where China is building energy infrastructure quicker, it's building train infrastructure quicker, it's building road infrastructure quicker, building homes quicker, it's building water infrastructure quicker--it's building physical things more quickly than the West.

因此，尽管在更大范围内——特别是在东方——中国正在更快地建设能源基础设施、更快地建设火车基础设施、更快地建设道路基础设施、更快地建设住宅、更快地建设水利基础设施——但它建设实体设施的速度比西方更快。

And, there's a big movement that's arisen to try and tackle this problem in the West, and it's biggest in the United States, but it has outposts in Australia and the United Kingdom and Ireland and New Zealand and Canada, and, to some extent, a growing extent, in continental Europe, although continental Europe is a bit behind.

而且，西方正在兴起一场试图解决这个问题的大运动，其中规模最大的是美国，但它在澳大利亚、英国、爱尔兰、新西兰和加拿大也有前哨基地，在某种程度上，在欧洲大陆也有前哨基地，尽管欧洲大陆有点落后。

And this movement says we need to allow more building, particularly of homes, but in a wide range of other areas, too.

这项运动表明，我们需要允许更多的建设，特别是房屋建设，但也需要在其他广泛领域进行建设。

And, I think homes is the biggest constraint.

而且，我认为房屋是最大的限制。

So, I think it's fine that it's particularly of homes.

所以，我认为它特别适合家庭，这很好。

Overwhelmingly , the view of this faction is that the best strategy is to advocate, advocate, advocate, highlight who the enemy is, build up a giant force of enthusiastic supporters, and then get the highest level of government that they can get control of to force lower levels of government to accept reforms that allow people to do more with their land, that allow more development, that up-zone areas, that remove urban growth boundaries, and so on.

绝大多数人认为，最好的策略是倡导、倡导、倡导、突出敌人是谁，建立一支由热情支持者组成的庞大力量，然后让他们能够控制的最高层政府迫使下级政府接受改革，允许人们用他们的土地做更多的事情，允许更多的发展，开发高档地区，消除城市增长的边界，等等。

And, I'm not saying--I think this strategy has shown some successes.

而且，我并不是说——我认为这个策略已经取得了一些成功。

But if we look at other really controversial land rights changes of the past, by and large, very few of them involve this strategy.

但如果我们看看过去其他真正有争议的土地权利变化，总的来说，很少有涉及这一策略的。

The huge successful ones.

那些巨大的成功人士。

Like, in 1947, the Eastern Punjab in India redrew all of its land at once in a single one-off big enclosure scheme.

比如，1947 年，印度东部旁遮普邦通过一项一次性大型圈地计划一次性重新划定了所有土地。

Now that was not because of a: 'Oh, let's cleverly take over the government and force everyone.' This was, like, a popular bottom-up thing.

现在这不是因为：“哦，让我们巧妙地接管政府并强迫每个人。”这就像是一种流行的自下而上的事情。

I think the same thing--the Glorious Revolution shows that the same strategy should be part of our toolkit.

我认为同样的事情——光荣革命表明，同样的策略应该成为我们工具包的一部分。

Not the only part of our toolkit.

不是我们工具包的唯一部分。

We should be advocating, we should be convincing, we should be top-downing where it works.

我们应该提倡，我们应该令人信服，我们应该在有效的地方自上而下。

But, I also think that schemes that buy in locals to change can have much quicker and more powerful changes--can generate quicker and more powerful changes more quickly.

但是，我也认为，吸纳当地人进行变革的计划可以带来更快、更强大的变革——可以更快地产生更快、更强大的变革。

We can get more powerful up-zonings that come in next year.

明年我们可以获得更强大的升级分区。

We can get urban growth boundaries removed.

我们可以消除城市增长的界限。

We can build nuclear infrastructure or data centers.

我们可以建设核基础设施或数据中心。

I think that's the big lesson I want.

我想这就是我想要的重要教训。

And, the Glorious Revolution is just one example.

而且，光荣革命只是一个例子。

There are many, many, many examples around the world, but I'm interested that there was a case where it went across society.

世界各地有很多很多的例子，但我感兴趣的是有一个案例跨越了整个社会。

They did it systematically for a huge range of things.

他们系统地为很多事情做了这件事。

So, that's what inspired me to get an expert to write it with me, because, by the way, this is a co-authored piece with Kara Dimitruk, who is a professor, who is a genuine expert on this topic, and I'm more of a dilettante that read lots and lots and lots about it and have the--I'm interested in the world today, and this is my parallel, whereas she's an actual expert.

所以，这就是激励我找一位专家和我一起写这篇文章的原因，因为，顺便说一句，这是与卡拉·迪米特鲁克（Kara Dimitruk）合着的文章，她是一位教授，是这个主题的真正专家，而我更像是一个业余爱好者，阅读了很多很多关于它的内容，并且拥有——我对当今世界感兴趣，这是我的相似之处，而她是一位真正的专家。

But, yes, that's my story.

但是，是的，这就是我的故事。

My story is that we can push on multiple fronts at the same time.

我的故事是，我们可以同时在多个方面推进。

This is one of the fronts we should push on if you are one of the people like me who thinks that restrictions on building in the physical world are holding back the West.

如果你是像我一样认为对现实世界建筑的限制阻碍了西方的人之一，那么这是我们应该推动的前沿之一。

Russ Roberts: My guest today has been Ben Southwood.

拉斯·罗伯茨：今天我的客人是本·索斯伍德。

Ben, thanks for being part of EconTalk.

Ben，感谢您参与 EconTalk。