原文期刊：经济学人
原文标题：America should get rid of oppressive job licensing
本文选自The Economist《经济学人》2018年2月17日一篇题为America should get rid of oppressive job licensing（职业证照制度在阻碍竞争）的文章。
作者指出，美国的职业证照制度并不能保护消费者利益，反而会削弱人才竞争、导致收入不均和社会流动性差问题。
主要亮点：① 话题紧贴社会生活、具有普遍意义；②开篇结尾都很有特色：开篇由“相反观点”引入“作者观点”；结尾援引经济学家Friedman话语诙谐强调职业证照保护的不是消费者而是各行业；③结构清晰：引出话题（第一、二段）→ 展开批驳（第三、四段）→ 提出建议（第五、六段）→ 重申观点，结束全篇（第七段）
原 文
ⅠSome rush to blame free markets for America’s income inequality and its lack of social mobility. Among rich Western countries, America is where the top 1% of earners have become most detached from their countryfolk. Yet those who blame this on unchecked competition or globalism run wild ignore an awkward fact. Far from being laissez-faire, America’s labour markets are over-regulated by state governments.
ⅡFully 22% of American workers must hold licences simply to do their jobs, up from just 5% in 1950. Licences make it harder to enter a profession. Not everyone can afford to pay a registration fee or take time to study for an exam before being allowed to do a certain job. The beneficiaries from such barriers to entry are incumbent workers, whose wages rise when competition is chilled.
ⅢLicensing rules are enacted in the name of consumer protection. But tasks like issuing some prescriptions or drafting routine legal documents rarely require years of expensive postgraduate education. They may even be done better by a specialist who has fewer formal qualifications. The evidence from states where highly trained nurses can operate freely suggests that they provide just as good primary care as doctors do. Yet more than half of states restrict their practice, often requiring them to operate under supervision from doctors, who, naturally, charge a huge fee for the privilege.
ⅣSome labour-market regulation makes sense. When buyers cannot easily judge quality, the state may need to step in. But there are pitfalls. Because lawmakers also lack the expertise to judge who can safely perform, say, a dental procedure, they often ask professions to regulate themselves. Inevitably, state bar associations charged with deciding what tasks should count as “practising law” tend to shut out non-lawyers.
ⅤThere are better ways to help consumers. The government can issue qualifications and titles, but leave consumers to decide whether such diplomas are a valuable signal of quality. Or the government can use inspections instead of licences. Inspections can tie in with credentials, as when restaurants receive health-and-safety certificates to display to customers.
ⅥMarket forces are often best of all, in spite of information asymmetries. Brain surgery may be complex, but it is unlicensed, beyond the need for surgeons to have medical degrees. People tend to make better choices for themselves than governments, more so in a world of online reviews and price-comparison websites. The state should favour the flow of information by requiring transparent contracts. If buyers are exploited, they should have recourse through the courts.
ⅦMilton Friedman said that you can tell who benefits from licensing by watching who lobbies for it—and rarely is that consumers. Letting professions wield the power of government against potential competitors is foolish and costly. When licensing is inevitable, regulators should aim to promote competition as well as protect consumers. Licensing running wild not only poisons markets, it also poisons sentiment towards markets that fail.
词汇短语
1.detached from 与…分离/脱离的
2.beneficiary [?ben??f???r?]n. 受益者
3.prescription [pr??skr?p??n]n. 药房，处方
4.supervision [?su?p??v???n]n. 管理，监督
5.privilege [?pr?v?l?d?]n. 特权；特殊待遇；荣幸
6.expertise [?eksp???ti?z] n. 专门知识（或技能等），专长
7.inevitably [??nev?t?bl?]ad. 不可避免地，必然发生地
8.inspection [?n?spek??n]n. 视察，检查
9.tie in with与…配合/结合；与…一致
10.credentials [kr??den??lz]n. 证明文件；资历
11.asymmetry [e??s?m?tri]n. 不对称；不相等
12.recourse [r??k??s] n. （实现或解决某事的）途径；求助
13.lobby [?l?b?]v. 游说（政府或有政治权力的人）
14*.laissez-faire [?lese? ?fe?]n. （国家不限制私营企业发展的）自由放任主义
15*.incumbent [?n?k?mb?nt]a. 现任的，在职的
16*.pitfall [?p?tf??l ]n. 问题，隐患，陷阱
（标*的为超纲词汇）
逐段翻译点评
ⅠSome rush to blame free markets for America’s income inequality and its lack of social mobility. Among rich Western countries, America is where the top 1% of earners have become most detached from their countryfolk. Yet those who blame this on unchecked competition or globalism run wild ignore an awkward fact. Far from being laissez-faire, America’s labour markets are over-regulated by state governments.
【翻译】：有些人草率地将美国收入不均及社会流动性差归咎于自由市场。西方发达国家中，美国收入前1%的群体与其同胞的财富悬殊最大。但把这归因于“盲目的竞争”或“失控的全球化”的人忽视了一个尴尬的事实。美国劳动力市场远非自由放任，而是受州政府的过度管制。
【点评】：I 引子：指出美国收入不均等问题和其劳动力市场监管过度有关。首先引入一种观点：美国收入不均等问题是自由市场所致。随后让步肯定美国贫富分化严重。最后亮明作者立场：问题不在“自由市场”，而在“州政府对劳动力市场的过度监管”。
主要逻辑衔接：①首句Some rush to引出“有些人”观点。rush to（急于，仓促）带贬义，暗示后文批驳。②第二句援引数据，肯定事实“美国财富不均”。③后两句以Yet转折，明确作者不同观点。those who…回应首句观点；ignore…表明作者对其反驳；末句明确an awkward fact所指。核心关键词： labour markets are over-regulated（劳动力市场被过度管制）。
ⅡFully 22% of American workers must hold licences simply to do their jobs, up from just 5% in 1950. Licences make it harder to enter a profession. Not everyone can afford to pay a registration fee or take time to study for an exam before being allowed to do a certain job. The beneficiaries from such barriers to entry are incumbent workers, whose wages rise when competition is chilled.
【翻译】：如今整整22%的美国工人必须持有执照才可从事其工作，1950年这一数据仅为5%。执照增加了入行的难度。并不是所有人都拿得出注册费或备考时间，来获取从事某项工作的许可。这些准入门槛的受益者是现有工作者，冷却竞争可使他们薪资上涨。
【点评】：II 明确“监管过度”所指——严苛的职业证照制度，并简述其负面影响。首先指出证照制度过于严苛。随后阐述其负面影响。
主要逻辑衔接：①首句借今昔数据对比（证照要求提升）、情态动词（must）以及强调副词（fully、simply），印证上段末“政府监管过度”。②第二、三句指出加大入行难度，两句间为解释说明关系。第四句进一步揭示问题：加剧收入不均（外人入行难vs. 现有行内人员薪资上涨），其中such barriers to entry概指第二、三句。核心关键词：①licenses（证照）；①barriers （障碍）
ⅢLicensing rules are enacted in the name of consumer protection. But tasks like issuing some prescriptions or drafting routine legal documents rarely require years of expensive postgraduate education. They may even be done better by a specialist who has fewer formal qualifications. The evidence from states where highly trained nurses can operate freely suggests that they provide just as good primary care as doctors do. Yet more than half of states restrict their practice, often requiring them to operate under supervision from doctors, who, naturally, charge a huge fee for the privilege.
【翻译】：执照条例是以保护消费者的名义颁布的。但开某些处方或起草日常法律文件等工作无需多年昂贵的研究生教育。正式文凭较少的专业人员甚至可以做得更好。来自那些允许受过高度训练的护士自主开展工作的州的证据表明，护士提供的初级治疗和医生一样好。然而超半数的州在限制护士执业，常常要求他们在医生的监管下操作。自然，后者会为该特权收取高额费用。
【点评】：III 展开批驳：指出证照制度不仅未能保护消费者，反而会加重其负担。首先说明执照条例打的是“保护消费者”（提高各行业服务质量）的名义。其后以“医疗业情形”为例指出证照条例并未起到这一作用。
主要逻辑衔接：①段落以But一分为二，形成“介绍—批驳”结构。②第二、三句以They may even be done better（They =tasks like…）形成递进、初步进行反驳：有些初级医疗工作不需要研究生教育（指医生），受过高度训练的护士甚至可以完成更好。③第四、五句以Yet形成转折，进一步凸显问题：明明有些州的情形表明护士可以自主完成初级治疗，而很多州却强行要求他们在医生监管下完成，且医生会为此特权收取高昂费用（即：反而增加了消费者经济负担）。the privilege替代上句“监管护士工作”。核心关键词： in the name of consumer protection（打着保护消费者的名义）。
ⅣSome labour-market regulation makes sense. When buyers cannot easily judge quality, the state may need to step in. But there are pitfalls. Because lawmakers also lack the expertise to judge who can safely perform, say, a dental procedure, they often ask professions to regulate themselves. Inevitably, state bar associations charged with deciding what tasks should count as “practising law” tend to shut out non-lawyers.
【翻译】：有些劳动力市场监管也合情合理。当消费者难以判断（商品或服务的）质量时，政府可能需要介入。但其中存在一些隐患。由于立法者们也缺乏相关专业知识去判断谁能安全完成比如牙科手术。他们常委托各行业进行自我监管。结果必然是，被指定负责决定哪些工作属于“从事律师工作”的州律师协会往往会将非律师拒之门外。
【点评】：IV 继续批驳：指出该制度促成“行业保护”（降低了社会流动性，加剧收入不均）。首先承认适当监管可取。随后转而指出“监管存在隐患”。最后具体说明。
主要逻辑衔接：①首两句形成“概述观点—详释观点”的逻辑， step in= regulate。②第三句以But转而指出监管存在隐患（pitfalls），第四、五句具体说明隐患。Inevitably…体现因果逻辑：立法者们要求各行业自行监管，这自然会使得各行业将他人拒之门外。核心关键词：①pitfalls（误区）。
ⅤThere are better ways to help consumers. The government can issue qualifications and titles, but leave consumers to decide whether such diplomas are a valuable signal of quality. Or the government can use inspections instead of licences. Inspections can tie in with credentials, as when restaurants receive health-and-safety certificates to display to customers.
【翻译】：帮助消费者有更好的方式。政府可以颁发资格证和职称证，但让消费者决定这些证书是否有价值的质量标识。或者政府可用“检查”替代“证照”。“检查”可以结合“认证”，好比餐馆可获得卫生与安全认证以展示给顾客。
【点评】：V 提出建议：如何才能比现行证照制度更好地保护消费者利益？首先总说“帮助消费者有更好的方式”。随后分说两种可行方案。
主要逻辑衔接：①第二句和第三、四句以Or 衔接，说明两种可行方案，从而解释首句（better ways）。②第二句说明方案1：让消费者/市场决定执照价值（是否质量的有效标识）。③第三、四句说明方案2：“检查” 取代证照制度，并与“认证”结合（inspections…tie in with credentials）。核心关键词：better ways to help consumers（帮助消费者还有更好的方案）。
ⅥMarket forces are often best of all, in spite of information asymmetries. Brain surgery may be complex, but it is unlicensed, beyond the need for surgeons to have medical degrees. People tend to make better choices for themselves than governments, more so in a world of online reviews and price-comparison websites. The state should favour the flow of information by requiring transparent contracts. If buyers are exploited, they should have recourse through the courts.
【翻译】：市场力量往往是最佳方式，尽管存在信息不对称。脑外科手术或许复杂，但它不需要执照，只要求外科医师具有医学学位。人们往往能比政府更好地为自己进行选择，在如今在线评论和比价网站盛行的世界更是如此。政府应当要求合同透明化，以促进信息流动。当消费者受到剥削时，他们应当能够求助于法院。
【点评】：VI 指出“保护消费者利益”的最佳力量——市场力量。首先提出借助市场力量是最佳方式，只是“信息不对称”问题容易妨碍市场机制正常发挥作用。随后举例说明市场力量的作用。最后提出“信息不对称”问题的解决办法。
主要逻辑衔接：①首句通过best of all顺承上段“可行方案”，引出“最佳方案”。②第二、三句解释首句Market forces are often best of all，其中第二句举例验证：无需证照制度，市场力量可促成“能者居上”。第三句强调消费者（即市场力量）比政府能够做出更好的选择。③第四、五句回应首句information asymmetries，提出政府应解决 “信息不对称”问题。核心关键词： market forces are often best of all（市场力量往往是最佳方式）。
ⅦMilton Friedman said that you can tell who benefits from licensing by watching who lobbies for it—and rarely is that consumers. Letting professions wield the power of government against potential competitors is foolish and costly. When licensing is inevitable, regulators should aim to promote competition as well as protect consumers. Licensing running wild not only poisons markets, it also poisons sentiment towards markets that fail.
【翻译】：米尔顿·弗里德曼曾说过，要想知道谁获益于职业证照，只需看谁在为此游说——而这极少是消费者。让行业行使政府权力去阻挡潜在竞争者，既愚蠢又代价巨大。如果证照制度不可避免，那监管者们应致力于促进竞争以及保护消费者。不加管制的证照制度不仅会毒害市场，也会毒害人们对失效市场的情绪。
【点评】：VII 重申观点，结束全篇。首先援引著名经济学家Friedman话语强调证照受益方并不是消费者。其后重申对监管者的建议。最后提出警告：必须对证照制度加以管控。
主要逻辑衔接：①首句benefits from licensing和rarely is that consumers呼应第三段“执照条例无法保护消费者权益”及第二段“证照受益者是业内人员”，总括文旨。②第二句回应第四段“监管隐患”，并以强烈贬义词foolish和costly明示作者态度。③第三句则简括第五、六段建议，明确作者观点。③末句通过并列结构和poison重复强调：“不加管控的证照制度”将招致负面后果，呼吁监管者即刻采取措施。核心关键词：should aim to（应致力于）。
