中国已使近8亿人摆脱极端贫困，可以说是人类历史上减贫方面最伟大的成就。即便如此，中国内地尚未有一位经济学家获得诺贝尔经济学奖。
China has lifted nearly 800 million people out of extreme poverty, arguably the greatest achievement in poverty reduction in human history. Even so, no mainland Chinese economist has won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.
太平洋彼岸，美国在诺贝尔经济学奖得主中所占比例约为75%，尽管其经济正因公共债务不断攀升、财政赤字长期存在以及反复出现的金融危机和政府停摆而举步维艰。
Across the Pacific, the United States has produced about 75 per cent of Nobel economics laureates, even as its economy staggers under mounting public debt, chronic fiscal deficits, and recurring financial crises and government shutdowns.
迄今为止，共有99位经济学奖得主，其中仅有两位来自亚洲。阿马蒂亚·森因其对福利经济学的贡献而获奖，阿比吉特·班纳吉则因其在减轻全球贫困方面的工作而获奖。两人均来自印度，而非中国。为何会出现如此反常的情况？
Of the 99 economics laureates ever awarded, only two are from Asia. Amartya Sen was honoured for his contribution to welfare economics and Abhijit Banerjee for his work in alleviating global poverty. Both are from India, not China. Why such an anomaly?
简短的答案直指问题核心：西方的经济学与中国的经济学服务于不同的目的，并认可不同类型的成就。
The short answer strikes at the heart of the matter: economics in the West and economics in China serve different purposes and recognise different kinds of achievements.
西方经济学服务于资本和资本主义体系，强调市场力量、效率、生产力以及国内生产总值（GDP）增长。诺贝尔经济学奖传统植根于西方学术机构，其主要表彰的是在此智识框架内发展的贡献。
Western economics serves capital and the capitalist system, emphasising market forces, efficiency, productivity and gross domestic product (GDP) growth. The Nobel economics tradition, which is rooted in Western academic institutions, has largely recognised contributions developed within that intellectual framework.
在中国，经济学自豪地意识形态驱动。它将计划经济与社会主义市场经济相结合，在此体制下，国有企业和私营企业既相互竞争又相互补充。
In China, economics is proudly ideology-driven. It integrates the planned economy with the socialist market economy, where state enterprises and private enterprises compete and complement one another.
对于香港而言，在“一国两制”框架下实行资本主义经济，且其发展日益与国家发展融合，这一反常现象提出了一个比谁能获得诺贝尔奖更为重要的问题：香港的经济究竟是为了什么，又是为谁服务的？
For Hong Kong, practising a capitalist economy under the “one country, two systems” framework and increasingly integrating its development with national development, the anomaly raises a question more consequential than who wins a Nobel: what is Hong Kong’s economy ultimately for, and whom does it serve?
以电力为例，这是一项基本服务。香港两家电力公司在政府磋商的管制计划下运营，该计划允许它们按平均净固定资产的8%获得回报。资产基数越大，获准的回报越高。所有其他因素——如通胀率、工资变动、整体经济状况和家庭负担能力——根本不在考量之列。
Consider electricity, which is an essential service. Hong Kong’s two power companies operate under government-negotiated schemes of control, which permit a return of 8 per cent on their average net fixed assets. The larger the asset base, the greater the permitted return. All other factors – such as inflation rates, wage movements, general economic conditions and household affordability – don’t even enter the equation.
甚至燃料成本风险也通过燃料费调整转嫁给消费者。这是一种仅以单一变量——资本资产——为基础的利润保障计划。这是服务于资本而非民众的经济政策最纯粹的形式。
Even fuel cost risks are passed on to consumers through fuel cost adjustments. It is a profit-guaranteed scheme based on a single variable: capital assets. This is the purest form of economic policy serving capital rather than the people.
许多人会辩称，经济学不应通过“提振GDP还是改善民生”这种二元对立来看待。他们说，GDP增长的惠益终将惠及民众。
Many would argue that economics shouldn’t be viewed through the dichotomy of lifting GDP or lifting livelihood. The benefits of GDP growth will trickle down to the people, they say.
要是真这么简单就好了。纸面上，香港富得惊人。瑞银《2026年全球财富报告》显示，香港成年人均财富略低于65万美元（约510万港元），位居全球第四。按此衡量，一个平均的两成年人家庭将拥有超过1000万港元财富。香港本应充盈着繁荣与幸福。
If only it were that simple. Hong Kong is extraordinarily wealthy on paper. The UBS Global Wealth Report 2026 places Hong Kong’s average wealth per adult at just under US$650,000 (HK$5.1 million), the fourth highest in the world. By that measure, an average two-adult household would hold more than HK$10 million in wealth. Hong Kong should be overflowing with prosperity and happiness.
然而，平均数掩盖的往往多于揭示的。将一位百万富翁与一位举步维艰的租户放在一起，他们的平均财富看起来很漂亮。正如六月的一项研究指出，就财富分配而言，香港是全球最不平等的社会。这解释了统计繁荣与香港民众日常艰辛之间的鸿沟。
Averages can conceal more than they reveal, though. Put a multimillionaire and a struggling tenant together, and their average wealth looks impressive. As a study from June noted, Hong Kong is the world’s most unequal society in terms of wealth distribution. That explains the gulf between statistical prosperity and the everyday hardships Hong Kong people experience.
想象一个熟悉的香港夏日场景。为什么我们的购物中心总是人满为患，尤其是在夏天，即使人们并不在购物？答案是，许多居住在狭小住所的人因为电费高昂而不愿开空调，于是他们在有空调的商场里漫步，享受免费空调的同时，走完一万步。
Picture a familiar Hong Kong summer scene. Why are our shopping centres always so crowded, particularly in summer, even when people are not shopping? The answer is that many people living in cramped accommodation are reluctant to turn on the air conditioner because of the high electricity bills, so they stroll through air-conditioned malls, enjoying free air conditioning while clocking up their 10,000 steps.
舒适、运动、节俭——一次出游就能兼得。这就是我们的狮子山精神：在艰难中寻找幸福。然而，这种备受赞誉的香港精神绝不能成为政策制定者让市民继续在困境中挣扎的借口。
Comfort, exercise, thrift – all in one outing. This is our Lion Rock spirit: finding happiness amid hardship. However, this celebrated Hong Kong spirit is no excuse for policymakers to leave our citizens struggling in hardship.
住房提供了另一个典型例子。我们被告知房价由供需决定，而香港的土地短缺导致高房价不可避免。
Housing offers another telling example. We are told that property prices are determined by supply and demand, and Hong Kong’s land shortage makes exorbitant prices inevitable.
土地真的就是问题所在吗？香港约四分之三的土地仍未开发。新加坡的土地面积只有香港的约三分之二，人口大约只有香港的五分之四，但近80%的家庭居住在比香港住房更宽敞、更实惠的政府房屋中。
Is land really the issue? Roughly three-quarters of Hong Kong’s land remains undeveloped. Singapore has about only two-thirds of Hong Kong’s land area and roughly four-fifths of our population, yet close to 80 per cent of households live in government housing that is more spacious and affordable than Hong Kong’s dwellings.
新加坡与香港的区别不在于土地，而在于政府政策。香港的历史已经说明了这一点。当亚洲金融危机导致房价暴跌时，政府暂停了计划中的土地出售，并叫停了新居者有其屋计划的销售，以支撑房价。
The difference between Singapore and Hong Kong is not land but government policy. Hong Kong’s history makes this clear. When property prices plunged amid the Asian financial crisis, the government suspended scheduled land sales and halted new Home Ownership Scheme sales to prop up property prices.
如此坚决的政策在香港并不常见，但它奏效了。房价回升。但即使房价回到合理水平，特区政府也没有干预，而是选择让房价继续上涨，直至大多数人负担不起。
Such resolute policy is rarely seen in Hong Kong, and it worked. Property prices rebounded. But even when property prices returned to reasonable levels, the city government did not interfere and instead chose to let property prices keep rising until they were beyond the reach of most.
真正的问题是，政府在土地、住房及许多其他方面的政策服务于资本，而非人民。同样的问题——经济政策究竟服务于谁——也揭示了中西方发展道路的对比。
The real issue is that government policies – on land, housing and many other aspects – serve capital, not people. The same question of whom economic policies serve illuminates the contrast between Chinese and Western approaches to development.
中国的高速铁路网络通过连通性、流动性、生产力和国家发展提供公共利益。美国拥有丰富的资本和技术专长，却未建成可比拟的网络。美国资本流向人工智能公司，以期获得更大利润。它不流向基础设施，而基础设施的巨大利益将惠及整个社区，而非仅惠及投资者。
China’s high-speed rail network delivers public benefits through connectivity, mobility, productivity and national development. The US has abundant capital and technological expertise, yet it hasn’t built a comparable network. US capital flows to AI companies in the hope of ever-greater profits. It does not flow to infrastructure, the huge benefits of which would diffuse across the community rather than to investors.
中国不需要诺贝尔奖来验证其经济奇迹。然而，香港特区政府似乎需要一位诺贝尔奖得主经济学家来提醒它：市场是工具而非主人，GDP衡量的是产出而非人类福祉，经济存在是为了服务人民，而不是相反。
China does not need a Nobel Prize to validate its economic miracle. However, the Hong Kong government seems to need a Nobel laureate economist to remind it that markets are tools rather than masters, that GDP measures output instead of human well-being and that the economy exists to serve the people, not the other way round.