“As we are?.?.?.?prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well,” said Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist. For a long time since they were first coined in the 1980s, the words “emerging markets” appeared to have been well-chosen, such was their popularity as a description for a big chunk¹ of the planet. As the world evolves, the term is progressively losing its purchase over the collective consciousness because it imprisons² perceptions within parameters³ that are increasingly false or unhelpful. “由于我们……是自己所挑选的词语的囚徒，因此我们得好好遣词，”意大利政治学家乔万尼?萨托利(Giovanni Sartori)如此说道。“新兴市场”这个表述自上世纪80年代出炉以来，在很长一段时间内似乎很贴切，人们很喜欢用它来描述地球上相当大一部分地区。随着世界发展变化，这个词逐渐失去了其对世人集体意识的影响力，因为它把人们的观感桎梏在日益虚假或无益的参数中。

For one thing, several “emerging markets” — particularly recession-hit Brazil and Russia — are no longer emerging in an economic sense but rather regressing at a rapid clip. For another, the sense of equivalence that the term bestows⁴ on the countries under its umbrella is entirely⁵ bogus. Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Taiwan all boast a gross domestic product per capita that is higher than that of the UK, but find themselves occupying the same definitional space as India, the Philippines and Indonesia. 比如，数个“新兴市场”——尤其是受到经济衰退打击的巴西和俄罗斯——在经济意义上已经不再崛起，反而是在快速倒退。再比如，这个词赋予其群体内所有经济体的“均等感”完全是虚假的。卡塔尔、阿联酋和台湾地区都拥有比英国更高的人均国内生产总值(GDP)，但它们发现自己与印度、菲律宾和印尼处于同一个定义空间。

Most of all though, the longstanding hierarchy⁶ that put “emerging markets” at the periphery⁷ and “developed markets” at the core of global affairs may be unravelling⁸. In purchasing power parity⁹ terms, developed countries contribute less to global output than their emerging counterparts, after their share of world GDP dwindled¹⁰ to 43 per cent in 2014 from 54 per cent in 2004. 但最重要的是，长期以来在全球事务中把“新兴市场”置于外围、把“发达市场”置于核心的等级体系也许正在解体。按购买力平价计算，发达国家对全球产出的贡献已经少于新兴经济体的贡献，占世界GDP的比重从2004年的54%降至2014年的43%。

Such inconsistencies not only make for a flawed definition that can misdirect analysis and entrench¹¹ prejudice, they also exert a deleterious impact on portfolio¹² investment returns. The collection of emerging market stock and bond indices that have grown up over the past three decades influence how fund managers in the west allocate¹³ their money. Because their performance is judged against the dominant¹⁴ index in their asset class, such managers generally try to invest in most or all of the assets included in the index. In emerging markets, this presents problems; several of the key indices pool a jumble¹⁵ of incongruous assets with wildly different risk profiles. For example, although 70 to 90 per cent of the JPMorgan EMBI, CEMBI, GBI-EM and ELMI+ are composed of investment grade bonds, the remainder in the words of Peter Marber, fund manager at Loomis Sayles, are “garbage”. Thus a fund manager who tries to mirror any of these indices is in effect being invited to add junk to his portfolio. 这种不一致不仅造成有缺陷的定义，进而误导分析，固化偏见，而且会对投资组合的回报产生有害影响。过去30年里逐渐发展起来的新兴市场股票和债券指数，影响着西方基金经理配置资金的方式。由于他们的表现是根据所在资产类别的主要指数来评定的，这些经理一般会试图投资于指数所含的多数甚至全部资产。这种做法在新兴市场带来问题，因为多个关键指数只是把一些不协调的、风险状况大相径庭的资产拼凑在一起。举例来说，摩根大通(JPMorgan) EMBI，CEMBI，GBI-EM和ELMI+指数虽然70%至90%由投资级债券构成，但是借用Loomis Sayles基金经理彼德?马伯尔(Peter Marber)的话来说，其余标的资产都是“垃圾”。因此，试图以这些指数中的任何一个为参照的基金经理，实际上是被邀请往他的投资组合添加垃圾。

Over the next two weeks, the Financial Times will publish alternatives to the “emerging markets” definition and host a debate on which of these seems most helpful. It would be foolish to prejudge that debate, but it may transpire¹⁶ that no single term can encapsulate the diversity of 152 countries identified by the International Monetary¹⁷ Fund as “emerging and developing economies”.

今后两周，英国《金融时报》将发表“新兴市场”这一定义的几个替代词语，并主持一场辩论，看哪一个定义最有帮助。提前评判这场辩论将是愚蠢的，但可能出现的情况是，没有一个表述足以概括被国际货币基金组织(IMF)认定为“新兴和发展中经济体”的152个国家的多样性。

People are likely to perceive different characteristics according to their perspectives. A development economist¹⁸ might think, for example, that key criteria¹⁹ should include per capita GDP, educational coverage²⁰, health indices and the diversity of a country’s economic base. A fund manager would think that the access of international capital to a country’s financial markets is key. A strategist at a multinational²¹ company may think that a country’s openness to direct investment combined with its position on competitiveness rankings and corruption²² tables would be important determinants. 人们可能从自己的视角出发而特别注意某些特性。比如发展经济学家可能会认为，关键标准应当包括人均GDP、教育普及度、健康指数以及一个国家经济基础的多样性。基金经理会认为，国际资本进入一国金融市场的能力是关键。跨国公司的策略师可能会认为，一个国家对直接投资的开放程度，加上其在竞争力和清廉榜单上的排名，将是重要的决定因素。

All this remains²³ to be decided²⁴. At this stage it is becoming increasingly evident that the term “emerging markets” is less and less helpful. It should be scrapped²⁵, thus freeing us to imagine a more nuanced matrix through which to understand the world.

一切都有待定夺。就现阶段而言，越来越明显的是“新兴市场”这个表述已越来越不合用。不如放弃它，以释放我们的想象力，让我们构思一个更为精细的模型，通过它来理解世界。