里約奧運(yùn)會(huì)：英國(guó)為何獎(jiǎng)牌大豐收？

Sir John Major has salvaged his reputation through the clever public-relations ruse of sitting around, mainly in The Oval, while history notices his good work. The high politics of his premiership has aged gracefully.

英國(guó)前首相約翰•梅杰(John Major，見(jiàn)上圖)在閑坐時(shí)——大部分是在橢圓形體育場(chǎng)(The Oval)——想出的巧妙公關(guān)策略挽回了自己的聲望，而歷史記住了他的功績(jī)。隨著時(shí)間的推移，他擔(dān)任首相期間的高階政治顯得越來(lái)越高明。

He kept Britain out of the euro. He established the fundaments of the Northern Ireland peace accord. He fought a war in the Gulf that did not become a protracted vision of hell.

他讓英國(guó)留在了歐元區(qū)之外。他為達(dá)成北愛(ài)爾蘭和平協(xié)議奠定了基礎(chǔ)。他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)英國(guó)參加了海灣戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，而這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)并未變成一幕漫長(zhǎng)的噩夢(mèng)景象。

Britain’s resurgence as an Olympic nation, its near-primacy in Rio trace­able to funds from a lottery he set up in 1994, polishes off his arc from national punchline to quiet respectability to the last retired prime minister who can walk into a pub without provoking a wince of pity or a citizen’s arrest.

英國(guó)重新崛起為一個(gè)奧運(yùn)強(qiáng)國(guó)，借助梅杰在1994年設(shè)立的彩票所提供的資金在里約奧運(yùn)的獎(jiǎng)牌榜上名列前茅，成了他從全國(guó)笑料升華為受人默默敬重的前首相的弧線上的點(diǎn)睛之筆，如今他是可以信步邁入一家酒吧、而不致招來(lái)憐憫眼神甚至“公民逮捕”的最后一位退休首相。

Twenty years ago, Britain consoled itself with gallows humour as it pipped Belarus to 36th place in the medal table of the Atlanta Games. By 2012, it was third, the natural ceiling for a country without the preponderance of China or America. It is now impudently defying that limit in second place. At the start of this week, even a merged mega-state of France and Germany would still trail Britain.

20年前，當(dāng)英國(guó)在亞特蘭大奧運(yùn)獎(jiǎng)牌榜上僅以微弱優(yōu)勢(shì)超過(guò)白俄羅斯排名第36位時(shí)，它只能用黑色幽默安慰自己。到2012年，英國(guó)的排名已升至第三，這是一個(gè)沒(méi)有像中國(guó)或美國(guó)那樣實(shí)力的國(guó)家所能達(dá)到的天然上限。如今，在里約奧運(yùn)會(huì)，英國(guó)居然超越了這一極限，獲得的獎(jiǎng)牌(包括金牌)數(shù)目一度超過(guò)了中國(guó)，排名升至了第二。截至本周初，甚至法德兩國(guó)合起來(lái)的獎(jiǎng)牌數(shù)都落在英國(guó)后面。

As a case study of total and intended success, of a top-down project going to plan, there is little to match this in the annals of British technocracy. Among the wider lessons for government is that money matters. Athletes were victims of a national make-do-and-mend culture that was presumably meant to be charming. They now have expensive coaches, specialised infrastructure and enough direct income to give up other work. There was never a costless route to their present eminence, which the left can cite as a kind of social democracy in action.

作為一項(xiàng)全面且符合初衷的成功(一項(xiàng)自上而下的項(xiàng)目按計(jì)劃結(jié)出碩果)的案例，奧運(yùn)獎(jiǎng)牌豐收在英國(guó)技術(shù)官僚制度的史冊(cè)上是難以找到先例的。對(duì)政府來(lái)說(shuō)，這件事的普遍教訓(xùn)是資金很重要。以往英國(guó)運(yùn)動(dòng)員是“修補(bǔ)一下湊合著用”的國(guó)家文化的受害者，這種文化的本意想必是為了表現(xiàn)得灑脫。如今這一代運(yùn)動(dòng)員有高薪聘請(qǐng)的教練、專(zhuān)門(mén)的訓(xùn)練設(shè)施以及足以讓他們放棄其他工作的直接收入。要達(dá)到他們現(xiàn)在所處的榮耀地位，不花錢(qián)的途徑是從來(lái)不存在的;左翼人士可以援引此例說(shuō)明，社會(huì)民主制度是管用的。

Before the implications for public services seem too plain, conservatives should speak up. Investment galvanised British athletics but so did a pitiless elitism. UK Sport, the distributor of lottery funds that was set up in the last months of Sir John’s government, sifted winners from the rest. Money went to plausible finalists and medallists. Even then it was conditional on performance metrics. Lots of dedicated but limited competitors were left to fall out of the system.

在這一點(diǎn)對(duì)公共服務(wù)的潛在影響變得太明顯之前，保守黨人應(yīng)大膽直言。投資刺激了英國(guó)的競(jìng)技體育，但無(wú)情的精英主義也起到了作用。在梅杰政府最后幾個(gè)月期間成立的英國(guó)體育局(UK Sport)負(fù)責(zé)分配彩票資金，該局從大量運(yùn)動(dòng)員中遴選出勝者。資金流向有希望進(jìn)入決賽并獲得獎(jiǎng)牌的選手。即使那樣，待遇也是以成績(jī)?yōu)闂l件的。很多敬業(yè)但能力有限的參賽者被這一體制淘汰。

The read-across to public administration is performance-related pay, not a rise for every teacher, and hospital league tables, not an article of credulous faith that all providers do an equally fabulous job. The state cannot allow for pure meritocracy and outright failure as sport can. It has a duty of universal provision. But public expenditure tied to strict invigilation of standards — a meeting of New Labour largesse and Sir John’s Citizen’s Charter — is a bipartisan settlement that is always almost ­happening.

公共管理部門(mén)從中應(yīng)該汲取的經(jīng)驗(yàn)是績(jī)效工資(而不是每位老師都加薪)和醫(yī)院排行榜(而不是盲目相信所有提供商都做得同樣出色)。國(guó)家不能像體育那樣允許出現(xiàn)純粹的精英治理和徹底的失敗。國(guó)家負(fù)有照顧全民的普遍義務(wù)。但受制于嚴(yán)格監(jiān)督標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的公共支出——新工黨的慷慨與梅杰的公民憲章(Citizen’s Charter)倡議相遇——是一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)近乎達(dá)成的兩黨共識(shí)。

Even the politicians newly taken with industrial policy have something to crib from our Olympic model. Although Max Whitlock took Britain’s historic total of gymnastic golds from zero to two in the time it takes to watch a film, UK Sport generally builds on areas of strength instead of planting greatness where it has never flowered. The British specialisms are cycling, rowing and bits of track and field. The economic equivalents are financial services, higher education and sophisticated manufactures. It would be nice to win at beach volleyball but then it would be nice to make steel at competitive prices. Neither warrants throwing good and scarce money after bad.

就連那些新近對(duì)產(chǎn)業(yè)政策產(chǎn)生興趣的政客們，也可以借鑒我們的奧運(yùn)模式。盡管馬克斯•惠特洛克(Max Whitlock)僅用看一場(chǎng)電影的時(shí)間就將英國(guó)體操歷史上的金牌數(shù)從零提升至兩塊，但英國(guó)體育局通常只看重優(yōu)勢(shì)項(xiàng)目，而不是在從未開(kāi)花結(jié)果的項(xiàng)目上為將來(lái)的偉大成就播種。英國(guó)運(yùn)動(dòng)員擅長(zhǎng)的是自行車(chē)、賽艇以及少量田徑項(xiàng)目。其在經(jīng)濟(jì)上對(duì)應(yīng)的是金融服務(wù)、高等教育和高端制造。贏得沙灘排球?qū)⑹呛檬?，但如果能以有?jìng)爭(zhēng)力的價(jià)格生產(chǎn)鋼鐵也是好事。這兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域都不值得投入寶貴的資金追逐較小的希望。

If investment under a discriminating eye is the technical lesson of Britain’s Olympic story, there is a moral too. Anything worth doing takes time to show up in tangible results. In that lag, the authors of the change may be supplanted by do-nothings who reap all the glory. Voters were relaxed about ditching Conservative for Labour rule in 1997 precisely because of the economic tranquility that was hard earned by the outgoing government’s structural reforms.

如果說(shuō)帶著挑剔的眼光投資是英國(guó)奧運(yùn)成功的技術(shù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，那么還有一條道義上的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。任何值得做的事情都需要時(shí)間才能展現(xiàn)出實(shí)實(shí)在在的成果。由于這一時(shí)間差，變革的始作俑者可能被那些收獲所有榮耀卻什么都沒(méi)做的人取代。1997年，英國(guó)選民輕松地放棄保守黨，轉(zhuǎn)而選擇工黨，恰恰是因?yàn)楸Ｊ攸h執(zhí)政期間推行的結(jié)構(gòu)性改革好不容易實(shí)現(xiàn)了經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)定。

The Tories were helped to victory at the most recent election by an NHS that, improved by years of Labour money, experienced no winter crisis of capacity. Even the London Games, won by a Labour government in 2005, fostered enough national bonhomie to see the Conservatives through the economic stagnation and botched Budgets of 2012.

保守黨依托英國(guó)國(guó)家醫(yī)療服務(wù)體系(NHS)的表現(xiàn)贏得了最近的大選，而NHS恰恰是在工黨執(zhí)政期間多年大舉投入之下改進(jìn)了表現(xiàn)，近年沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)冬季接診能力危機(jī)。就連工黨政府2005年申辦成功的倫敦奧運(yùn)，也培育了足夠的舉國(guó)歡欣鼓舞，讓保守黨政府挺過(guò)了經(jīng)濟(jì)停滯以及2012年的糟糕預(yù)算。

Serious governments are self-abnegating. They know that difficult decisions bring immediate infamy and deferred, if any, acclaim. The trick is to trust history to reach the right verdict in the end. Behind Whitlock, Mo Farah, Sir Bradley Wiggins and the embarrassment of riches slung around their necks are some less famous deeds by some less storied people, including the prime minister of an extravagantly hated government more than 20 years ago. If only to incentivise all politicians to take the long view, we should say so.

認(rèn)真的政府需要自我否定。他們知道，艱難的決定會(huì)立刻帶來(lái)惡名，并使贊揚(yáng)(如果有的話)來(lái)得更晚。關(guān)鍵在于相信歷史最終將作出公正的定論。在惠特洛克、莫•法拉(Mo Farah)、布拉德利•威金斯爵士(Sir Bradley Wiggins)以及他們脖子上掛著的獎(jiǎng)牌背后，是一些不那么赫赫有名的人物的不那么出名的事跡，包括20多年前受人憎恨的保守黨政府的首相。哪怕只是為了激勵(lì)所有政客把眼光放長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)，我們也應(yīng)該這么說(shuō)。