India
Safe and sorry 印度：安全，但不能令人满意
To achieve faster growth, India needs financial-sector reform 要获得更快的增长，印度必须改革其金融部门。

    WHEN the fashionable comparisons are drawn between India and China, one industry where India normally comes out on top is finance. Its banks and capital markets are more open and efficient. Private institutions—such as ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank—are growing fast and are widely admired. And the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, is a respected prudential regulator. Yet, marking two years of this government's tenure late last month, the finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, singled out financial-sector reform as essential if India is to achieve its aim of sustaining economic growth of 7-8% a year.
    当对印度和中国进行时髦比较时，印度明显占上风的是金融部门。它的银行和资本更加开放和有效率，私营机构――如ICICI银行和HDFC银行――快速增长并备受尊重，而央行印度储备银行是受市场尊敬的谨慎管理者。然而已有两年任期的本届政府财政部长奇丹巴拉姆上个月指出，印度要达到维持每年经济增长7-8％的目标，关键是金融部门的改革。

   He identified a shortage of credit as a big obstacle to growth and a shortage of capital in the banking system as the biggest constraint to increasing credit. It is doubtful, however, whether Mr Chidambaram's government is likely to undertake the reforms needed to generate the capital: mostly they involve the government allowing its own dominant role in the financial system to shrink.
    他指出信贷不足是经济增长的很大障碍，而银行系统资本金缺乏又是增加信贷的最大约束。但不确定的是，奇丹巴拉姆的政府是否会采取增加资本金的改革：这需要收缩政府在金融体系中的大部分主导权。

   The arguments for reform are bolstered by the publication this week of a report by the McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of an American consultancy. It believes that the financial system is inefficient, and allocates most of its capital to the least productive parts of the economy. Correcting these shortcomings, it argues, could free billion of capital a year, over 6% of GDP, and raise the growth rate by 2.5 percentage points a year.
    改革的建议得到了麦肯锡全球机构本周出版的报告的支持，这是一家美国咨询公司的研究部门。报告认为印度金融体系是无效率的，它将大部分的资金分配到了经济中生产能力最低的部门。要纠正这个缺点，报告建议每年要花费480亿美元，相当于GDP的6％，而这将会每年提高经济增长率2.5个百分点。

   According to McKinsey's Leo Puri, India's financial system is “healthier but punier” than China's, and is “the one sector that could hold India back”. Indian banks lend only 61% of their deposits, compared with 130% in China (see chart). A broader measure of “financial depth” which includes other assets, such as shares, and corporate and government bonds, finds India at just 160% of GDP, compared with 220% in China.
    麦肯锡的利奥.普利认为，相比中国来说，印度的金融体系是“健康，但却弱小的”，同时也是 “会拉印度发展后腿的一个部门”。印度银行只借出了他们61％的存款，相比之下中国是130％。更广泛的衡量是“金融深度”指标，它包括了股票、公司和政府债券在内的其他资产，测算后印度这一指标只有GDP的160％，而中国是220％。

    Not only is there a shortage of finance. It is going to the wrong places. Banks are required to hold 5% of their reserves in cash and at least 25% in government debt. They also have to direct 36% of loans to “priority sectors”, picked by the government to help small borrowers. These are often loss-making for the banks, and hence lower overall lending. Even with these rules, access to bank credit is very limited. In much of the countryside, usurious moneylenders still hold sway. So, even in its own terms of ensuring that India's poor have access to banking services,  the system does not work.
    金融部门的缺点不只是这些，它还正在走向错误的方向。印度银行被要求持有5％的现金和最少25％的政府债券，而且还要将36％的贷款直接投向“优先部门”，他们是政府为了帮助小借款人而从中挑选出的，这些贷款通常会造成银行的坏账，所以总贷款额是不断下降的。即使有了这些管制，得到银行贷款还是很困难，在许多农村地区，高利贷者仍大行其道。因此，即便穷人拥有保证获得银行服务的形式规定，印度银行体系也还是失效了。

   State-owned banks control 75% of total banking assets, a share second only to that of China (83%) among the large developing economies. One obvious solution to the difficulties would be to make it easier for private and foreign banks to operate. It would also help if the government forced some of the 27 state banks to merge. But bank unions put up powerful resistance, as does the notion that, left to the market, Indians' access to finance would be even more restricted. It is hard to see how.
    印度国有银行拥有75％的总体银行资产，在发展中大国中仅次于中国（83％），要解决这个问题，一个显而易见的办法是对私人和国外银行开放国有银行的运营权，这同时也有助于政府整合27个邦银行。但是银行联盟对市场化仍具有很强的抵抗力，印度人要获得银行服务会变得更加困难，对此现在还很难找到解决之道。