英语翻译Again,these observations point to the question of what i

英语翻译
Again,these observations point to the question of what is the relevant model of growth and factor accumulation:in Solow-type models,there is a tendency for factor proportions to settle down not far from the initial equilibrium following a shock.In terms of the relevant counterfactual,if a particular set of policies had not been adopted then it is plausible to think that self-interested lobbying by the same factors that had,in reality,helped to bring about those policies would have led governments to devise substitutes in a counterfactual world.In contrast,in new growth models a counterfactual change in policy can lead to a very different capital/labour ratio and a very different sectoral composition of production.One can then imagine that the lobbying and the policies that would result could be very different.
The other tradition in the literature on European integration assumes that policy outcomes are shaped by particular individuals with agenda-setting powers.Policies are endogenous with respect to their actions.Thus,the literature emphasizing the influence of,inter alia,Schumann,Monnet,De Gaulle and Delors posits that policies would have been very different in their absence.If this is one’s approach,then one needs merely to trace out the implications of counterfactual policies (presumably,the status quo ante) in one’s preferred growth model.Alternatively,scholars writing in the tradition of Haas (1958) suggest that early policy choices and institutional developments importantly shaped subsequent policy options.Policy itself was path dependent,in other words.If Schumann and Monnet had not been there to create a European bureaucracy to regulate the coal and steel industries,there would not have been a Treaty of Rome.If Delors had not been there to help create the Single Market,there would not have been a single currency,since there were positive spillovers,both economic and political,from economic to monetary integration.
Whichever of these approaches is adopted,imagining the counterfactual is no easy task.Depending on the growth model one regards as relevant,counterfactual policies might have had either very large or very small effects on economic growth.And depending on the model of policy one regards as pertinent,one can imagine the counterfactual policies might have been very different or differed little at all from those actually observed.The following section will attempt to flesh out some of these counterfactuals.

这些资料又一次说明了这样一个问题：与增长和要素积累相关的模型究竟是哪一个?在SOLOW型模型里,在最初的平衡被打破后,要素比例很快就能趋于稳定.在某种假定出现的情况下,如果某一套特定的政策没有被采纳,那么在现实中确实帮助这些政策出台的因素所带来的自私自利喋喋不休的游说,将已经导致了政府在一个假定出现的世界里寻找了替代品.相比之下,在新增长模型下,政策上的假定变化可以导致迥异的资本/劳动比率和迥异的产品行业构成.人们可以想像得到,为政策出台所做的游说及政策本身将会变得极为不同.
欧洲一体化文献中的另一个传统假定政策的效果是由具备指定权限的特定个人所决定的.政策是内生的,并适合这些人的举措.因此,文献强调诸如舒曼、莫奈、戴高乐和德洛尔的影响,并设想,如果没有这些人,很多政策将会大不相同.如果有人采用这种方法,他只需要在自己所喜欢的增长模型里勾描一下反事实政策的含义就可以了（假设是可能的原始状态）.或者,根据研究HAAS传统（1958年）的学者的说法,早期的政策选择和机构发展对随后的政策选择的形成至关重要.或者说,政策本身是路径依赖的.如果舒曼和莫奈当初没有创建欧洲整体的政府机构以规范煤碳和钢铁工业,就不会出现罗马公约.如果当初没有德洛尔的单一市场,就不会有欧洲区的单一货币出现,因为无论是从政治的一体化还是货币的一体化来看,单一市场在经济和政治方面都有意想不到的积极作用.
究竟哪种方法才会被采纳呢?假想不存在的事情是很困难的.依据增长模型,假想中的政策对经济发展的影响可大可小.而根据政策模型,假想中的政策的可能和现实中的政策大相径庭,也有可能两者几乎没有差别.下一章将给出一些具体的假想政策的例子.