悼念道格·诺斯

约拉姆·巴泽尔

在我1961年来到华盛顿大学的时候，道格（Doug，Douglas的昵称）已经在那儿有十年之久了，此后他又待了二十多年。所以他离开西雅图华盛顿大学，转至圣路易斯华盛顿大学的决定，让人感到非常困惑。尽管许多人把道格的职业生涯与圣路易斯华盛顿大学联系在一起，但他获得诺贝尔经济学奖的大量工作却是在西雅图完成的。他的作品非常出名，我只想着重谈谈他职业生涯的其他方面，以及个人的回忆。

道格在加州大学伯克利分校取得博士学位，但他却是第一个承认自己并没有从那里学到什么。他在西雅图的岁月里，当他需要涉及经济分析的建议时，总是非常谦逊地征求意见。就听取什么人的意见而言，道格具有敏锐的意识。在我看来，这项能力是他取得成就的主要原因。

在提供那类建议的同事之中，最著名的要数后期的唐·戈登（Don Gordon）。唐并不非常出名，但他却是一位伟大的经济学家，同时也是一位才智出众的系领导人。他敬重道格的非凡智慧。唐说服了道格，从事经济研究的正确方法是基于可靠的经济推理对假设进行验证，他同时建议道格将此方法应用于经济史的研究。这在当时是几乎是革命性的。同样具有革命性的是，道格还要求他的博士生掌握这些工具。道格和唐成为了亲密的同事和思想上的盟友，并且是终生的朋友。

那时，唐推荐的工具尚未在华盛顿大学经济系形成气候，在这个反对声重重的环境下，唐与道格一起苦苦争取，以确保新的雇员掌握这些技能。直至五十年代后期，他们终于赢得了斗争，这主要归根于道格是一位极具有技巧性的斗士。

从思想上来说，唐与道格都属于芝加哥学派。唐与道格意识到，他们必须招收怪才和少数派人士（包括女性），在此之前这早已成为了一种时尚，因为能够网罗到有名望人士的机会并不多。沃尔特·欧伊（Walter Oi）就是早期最著名的雇员之一，他是一名第二代日裔美国人，一位伟大的盲人经济学家。

在六十年代中期，在失去唐与沃尔特后，道格成为了系主任。在雇佣具有高度原创性的经济学家方面，他显示出极大的想象力。在其他事情上，这需要院长们达成一致，但道格在让大家达成一致意见这件事上堪称大师。

他最伟大举措之一就是雇佣了张五常，这具有极高的回报。尤其是对于系主任而言，张五常是一个具有极高维护成本的个体。道格对制度的理解主要归功于张五常的影响，有部分则是他从张五常的课上获得的。

道格雇佣的另一个高回报和高成本的经济学家则是莱维斯·科尔钦（Levis Kochin）。

招纳非传统顶尖人物的方式同样被用在了学生上面。道格赏识一位高回报但同样高成本的学生——克里斯·霍尔（Chris Hall）。尽管克里斯抵制形式要求，但他还是被授予了一个助理教职。道格确保克里斯在此期间将会获得博士学位。

事实上，所有这些以及其他一些人都对道格的经济学论断带有批判性，但这并不会困扰他。他乐于倾听并向任何人求教。

道格对经济系中的氛围产生了强烈的影响，他在任期间使得经济系变得非常有趣。在系里，专业上两个受到良好认可的最强的派别分别是在产权与经济史方面。两个派别同样人多势众。这在很大程度上归功于道格在挽留现任教师和招募两个方面的努力。他同时也确保那些主要的贡献者拥有良好的工作环境。两个派别致力于持续不断地热烈讨论，双方都产生了一连串的出版物。两个派别之间频繁的互动，主要还是归功于道格自己的兴趣与说教。乌姆拜克（Umbeck）关于1849年加州淘金热的研究就是基于这种互动而产生的一个重要结果。

在道格担任系主任时，部门会议也是极少的。我不相信他曾经参加过任何一次系主任会议。他在系里所做的决定通常并不基于深入的研究，而是快速果断地作出，并且绝大部分决定是非常适宜的。

在道格成为系主任十几年之后，一些教员向院长抱怨他偏袒，于是道格离开了。道格并不特别在意他日渐衰弱的地位，当学校提议让他提早隐退时，他在圣路易斯华盛顿大学找到了一份新的工作（华大提议他提早退休是非常不明智的）。张五常同样也不喜欢被边缘化，他得到了一个香港大学的系主任席位。随着他们的离开，经济系在经济史与产权领域的显著地位几乎随之终止，同时名列前茅的院系排名保不住了。

回想起道格，他卓越的专业贡献和我们友情的许多美好回忆，在我的脑海中交织在一起。在我到这儿之后，道格问我：“你准备如何实现你的职业生涯？”他必定已经知道他准备如何实现，并且他也真的获得了极大的成功。

事实上，我从未见过道格从事研究工作。我时常在上午10点左右过来，而那时，早起的道格已经完成了他的研究。这项研究他是在家里进行的。剩余的时光，他都花费在了闲聊、漫长的午餐以及讨论经济学这些事情上，只有极少的时间用在行政事务的管理上。

有一次，他在他就当时来说算得上是奢华的新房子中举行了一场乔迁庆祝宴会。在派对上，他提出让客人们玩迷宫游戏。他说：等到派对结束时，假如谁能够在整个迷宫中找到这个球，那个人将得到他的房子。在派对进行了一段时间之后，我找到了那个球，但我并没有得到那栋房子。

他介绍我去乘坐他的跑车和私人飞机。那次飞行是我第一次乘坐一架小型飞机。他还把我介绍去参加当地一项奇特的挖竹蛏子（razor clams）的消遣活动。

当道格还在华大的时候，我有机会在两个咨询项目中与他合作。第一个项目中，我们决定测算华盛顿州马路以外的汽油使用量，以便将汽油上的税转移到船舶上去征收。我们项目的结论与被普遍接受的观点中的三个要素中的其中一个有差异。我们发现，那个被普遍接受的观点源自于一项提交给美国国会的研究。结果发现，一个船舶行业的说客已经准备了那项研究，而那项研究结论则是被极大地夸大了。在华盛顿州的听证会上，道格展现出了他的演说技能，更展现出了他的斗争技巧。在陈述中，他通过说话表现出身处于象牙塔之中，假装我们与真实世界的运作相脱节，以此设计了一些圈套。那位已经撰写了国会研究报告的说客则是下一位陈述者。他中了圈套，并质疑我们的“象牙塔”研究成果，认为它们与国会的一项研究报告中所得到的结论不同。道格在他陈述中途打断了他，并问道：“是谁做了那项研究？”那位说客试图忽视那个问题，但道格坚持并一遍又一遍地重复了那个问题。突然，那位说客看了一下他的手表说道：“我必须去赶飞机了。”随后收拾他的文件，在他自己的陈述途中离开了。毫无疑问的是，我们的研究被无异议地采纳了。

我们的第二个咨询项目是与律师们一起的，这引发了一个关于葡萄酒的故事。在我们的工作结束之后，项目组中的一位律师问我，他是否能够从旧金山通过私人飞机给我带（更确切地说是替我走私）一箱葡萄酒。那时，国营商店是华盛顿州里唯一合法的葡萄酒销售商，而店里可供挑选的葡萄酒少之又少。我对葡萄酒一无所知，而道格则建议我该买些什么。结果是，这些葡萄酒要5美元一瓶，我觉得太贵了，特别是因为我并不认为这比我那时喝的1美元一瓶的葡萄酒好喝多少。几年以后，我问道格他是否愿意向我购买那剩下的九瓶还是十瓶葡萄酒。当他得知葡萄酒卖到40美元的时候，他对我的提议失去了兴趣。于是，我们继续慢慢地消费着那些葡萄酒。在1993年9月，我受邀于来年的十一月份在华盛顿大学演讲。与往常一样，我受邀前往道格和他妻子伊丽莎白（Elizabeth）的家中作客。十月份的时候，有消息称道格获得了诺贝尔奖。为了祝贺他，当我过来演讲的时候，我把仅剩的一瓶葡萄酒送给了他。后来，他告诉我，那葡萄酒已经卖到了500美元一瓶了。

在华盛顿大学，我与道格共事了有三十来年。在他迁至圣路易斯后，我们之间的互动自然而然地就因为地域分隔而渐渐减少了，但友谊依旧持续着。能够成为他的亲密朋友和备受器重的同事是极其让人受益的。我将会深深地怀念他！

（应俊耀翻译邱蔚怡校对）

附英语原文如下：

Yoram Barzel’s Tribute to Doug North

By the time I arrived at the University of Washington in 1961, Doug had been therefor a decade, and he stayed for two more. Moving from one Washington(the University of Washington in Seattle)to another Washington (WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis) is confusing. Most peopleassociate Doug’s career with WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis, but it was in Seattlethat he did the bulk of the work for which he won the Nobel Prize. His work iswell known, and I focus on other aspects of his career and on personalmemories.

Doug got his PhD from Berkeley, and he was the first to admit thathe hadn’t learned much there. Throughout his time in Seattle, when he needed advice when it cameto economic analysis, he asked for it with great humility. Doug had a keensense regarding which individuals to listen to, and it seems to me that thisability was a major contributor to his productiveness.

The most prominent colleague to providethat advice was the late Don Gordon. Don is not well known, but he was greateconomist and the intellectual leader of the department. He cherished Doug’sgreat wisdom. Don persuaded Doug that the right way to do economic research wasby testing hypotheses based on sound economic reasoning, and suggested to Dougto apply these in his economic history research; an almost revolutionaryapproach at the time. Equally revolutionary was Doug’s requirement of hisdoctoral students to acquire these tools. Doug and Don became close colleaguesand intellectual allies and remained lifetime friends.

The tools that Don recommended weren’t ingreat supply at the UW economics department at that time, and Doug and Donfought hard in an essentially hostile environment to ensure that new hireswould possess these skills. By the late 1950s they won the fight, most likelybecause Doug was an extremely skilled fighter.

Intellectually Doug and Don belonged to theChicago school.Doug and Don realized that they must hire odd balls and minorities, includingwomen, before that became fashionable, as there was not a great chance ofgetting top reputable people. A most prominent early hire was Walter Oi, whowas Nisei and blind and a great economist.

In the mid-1960s, after losing Don andWalter, Doug became chairman. He showed great imagination in hiring highlyoriginal economists. Among other thing, this required the consent of deans, andDoug was a master in getting consent.

One of his great coups was hiring SteveCheung, a very high return, and, especially to the chairman, a very highmaintenance cost individual. Much of Doug’s understanding of institutions wasdue to Steve’s influence, part of it acquired when Doug sat on one of Steve’sclasses.

Another high return and high cost economistDoug hired was Levis Kochin.

Getting unconventional top people alsoapplied to students. Doug recognized one high-return but also a high-coststudent — Chris Hall. Chris was offered an assistantship, and among otherthings, Doug saw to it that Chris, in spite of his resistance to formalrequirements, would get a PhD.

The fact that all these and some othersindividuals were critical to Doug’s economic arguments just didn’t faze him; hewas willing to listen to and to learn from anybody.

Doug had a strong influence on theatmosphere in the department, and among other things, made it exciting. The twostrongest groups in the department, well recognized in the profession, were inproperty rights and in economic history. Both groups had significant mass. Thiswas substantially due to Doug’s effort both in retaining existing faculty andin recruiting. He also made sure that substantial contributors were providedwith favorable working environment. Both groups engaged in continuous livelydiscussions, and both generated streams of publications. Mostly due to Doug’sown interests and persuasion, the two groups interacted strongly. Umbeck’sstudy of the 1849 Californiagold rush is one notable result of this interaction.

Under Doug’s chairmanship, departmentmeetings were rare. And I don’t believe he ever participated in meetings ofdepartment chairs. His departmental decisions were not always based onintensive research, but they were made quickly and decisively and by andlargely, well taken.

Doug’s departure as chairman after a dozenyears at that position came when some faculty members complained to the deanthat he was playing favorites. Doug didn’t particularly appreciate hisdeclining role, and when the university offered him early retirement, he wentshopping for a new job, and took the one offered by Washington University.(Not very smart of the UW to offer him “early retirement.”) Steve likewisedidn’t like being marginalized, and he took a chair position that was offeredto him at Hong Kong University. With thesedepartures, the department’s prominent standing in the fields of economichistory and property rights almost ceased, and the high-teens ranking of thedepartment was lost as well.

Remembering Doug, his remarkableprofessional contributions are mingled in my mind with many fond memories ofour friendship. One of the first questions Doug asked me after I arrived herewas “what do you intend to accomplish in your career?” He must have known whathe intended to accomplish, and he succeeded in spades.

I actually never saw Doug engaging inresearch. I used to come in around 10am, and by then Doug, an early riser, wasdone with his research, which he worked on at home. The rest of the day hespent on small talk, lengthy lunches, and discussing economics, but very littleon administration.

Once he held a housewarming party at hisnew and at the time luxurious house. At the party he introduced the guests tothe game of Labyrinth. He declared that if by the time the party was over,anybody who would be able to get the ball through the entire maze would get hishouse. I did (after stretching the party). But I didn’t get the house.

He introduced me to his sports car and tohis airplane. That airplane ride was the first time I was flown in a smallairplane. He also introduced me to a strange local pastime, digging for razorclams.

I collaborated with Doug twice onconsulting projects while he was at UW. In the first one we determined for theState of Washingtonhow much gasoline was used off the road, in order to divert the tax collectedon that gasoline to recreation and for boat facilities. Our results differed bya factor of three from the received wisdom. We discovered that the receivedwisdom was a study submitted to the U.S. Congress. It turned out that alobbyist for the boating industry had prepared that study, and its findingsthere were greatly inflated. At a State of Washington hearing, Doug displayed hispresentation skills, and even more his fighting skills. In the presentation heput out some bait by saying that by being in the ivory tower, we might havebeen out of touch with what was going on in the real world. The lobbyist whohad written the congressional study was the next presenter. He took the baitand questioned our “ivory tower” findings, stating that they differed fromthose in a study that had been made for Congress. Doug interrupted him inmid-presentation and asked: “who did that study?” The lobbyist tried to ignorethe question, but Doug persisted and repeated the question again and again. Allof a sudden the lobbyist looked at his watch and said: “I must catch a plane,”collected his papers, and departed in the middle of his own presentation. Notsurprisingly, our study was accepted without further questioning.

Our second consulting job was with lawyers,and it led to a wine story. After our job was over, a lawyer in the case askedme if he could bring me (or rather smuggle for me) a case of wine from San Francisco, where hewas going by private plane. At the time, state-run stores were the only legalwine sellers in the State of Washingtonand they had a meager selection. I knew nothing about wine, and Doug gave meadvice as to what to get. It turned out to be $5 per bottle of wine, which Ithought was steep, especially as I didn’t think it was better than the $1 wineI was drinking then. A couple of years later I asked Doug if he wanted to buyfrom me the remaining nine or ten bottles. He lost interest in the propositionwhen it turned out that by then they were selling for $40. We continued toconsume the wine slowly. In September 1993 I was invited to give a talk in Washington University the following November. Asusual, I was invited to stay with Doug and his wife Elizabeth. In October itwas announced that Doug won the Nobel Prize. To congratulate him, when I camefor the talk, I gave him the one remaining bottle of that wine. Later on hetold me that the wine was selling at $500.

I overlapped with Doug at the University of Washington for some three decades.Naturally our interactions declined with the geographic separation after hemoved to St. Louis,but the friendship endured. Acquiring him as a close friend and treasuredcolleague was extremely rewarding. I will miss him badly.