生产率究竟有多重要

克鲁格曼有句名言：生产率不是一切，但是长期来看，它几乎就是一切。最近三年，英国的这一指标竟然每年下降1.2%，这是怎么回事，该怎么应对？德日等发达国家的表现又是如何？FT经济评论员布里坦(Samuel Brittan)做出了分析。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

dunce 傻瓜，劣学生

crawl 爬行

sermon 布道

jargon 行话，术语

incremental capital to output ratio 增量资本产出比率，即要得到一个单位的产出，需要投入多少资本

groan 呻吟

pull one's socks up 努力

阅读即将开始，建议您计算一下阅读整篇文章所用时间，并对照我们在文章最后给出的参考值来估算您的阅读速度。

Yes, productivity matters – but it is not everything

By Samuel Brittan

There is nothing wrong with the US economy a measure of redistribution would not put right

* * *

Economists are often accused of an obsessive preoccupation with real gross national or gross domestic product, two closely related measures of national output. These measures have their uses. They show that, among advanced industrial countries, the US has made the most impressive (but still modest) recovery from the pre-crisis peak of 2007-08. The UK remains below that peak, sharing the dunce’s cap with the euro area.

Nevertheless, promoting GDP at all costs would be an insane objective for long-term economic policy. GDP would be maximised by opening a country’s frontiers and promoting mass immigration. Maybe some of the immigrants would be unemployed or, in other ways, be a charge on social security. But, so long as there is a net addition to the labour force, the country’s GDP would almost certainly rise, however overcrowded and unbearable the country might be to inhabit.

A less bad approximation might be GDP per worker. But even that borders on the absurd – for it might be maximised by compulsory increases in working hours at the expense of leisure.

A better measure might be GDP per hour worked, often known as productivity. This at least does not foreclose the choice between work and leisure, which as far as modern production methods allow should be left to individual choice. I have been aided in examining the record here by a thoroughgoing piece of research by independent economist Andrew Smithers.

In the past 20 years, output per hour has grown by an average of 1.5-2 per cent per year in the leading industrial countries. But in the three years to the beginning of 2013 there has been a major reversal. US productivity has on this measure slowed to a crawl of 0.3 per cent growth per year, and the UK has achieved a magnificent average of minus 1.2 per cent. Germany and Japan are not doing all that well, but are at least in positive territory.

Do these dismal figures just reflect the slow recovery from recession of the two English-speaking countries, which will be reversed if recovery continues and gathers pace; or has there been a fundamental change for the worse? Mr Smithers fears the latter. Like most modern economists, he concentrates on quantifiable relationships. The most easily quantifiable aspect is the relation between investment and productivity growth. But despite the sermons on his subject from leftwing political economists, from UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson onwards, there is little long-term relationship between investment and growth.

It is worth concentrating instead, if the reader will excuse one piece of jargon, on the incremental capital to output ratio, or ICOR. This measures how much investment is required to produce a unit increase in output. Thus the lower the ICOR, the greater the apparent efficiency of the economy. ICORs are best estimated over long periods to reduce business cycle influences. On this measure, the US and the UK seem, surprisingly, far more efficient than Japan and Germany over a 20-year period, whether one looks at total or just business investment. But in the three years to the beginning of 2013, there has been a dramatic reversal by this measure, too. US ICORs have been lower than those of Japan and Germany, whereas British ICORs have shot up right out of the page.

Looking at intermediate periods, Mr Smithers fears that the rise in the US ICOR is more than a passing phase and that the productivity of new US capital has halved. Taking into account both productivity trends and the likely growth of the US labour force, he believes that the current US recovery will soon run into an inflation barrier and that the optimism of mainstream opinion at the US Federal Reserve is misplaced.

Where I differ from Mr Smithers is in the policy conclusions. The US is by far the richest country in world history. The Financial Times books section is nevertheless groaning with treatises on how US business needs to pull its socks up. But suppose good advice is not followed? There is nothing wrong with the US economy that a measure of redistribution towards both the less well-paid and public services would not put right. Some suggest this reallocation has gone further than generally realised but still has a good way to go.

Output per hour in the British economy is, however, still far below that of the US, and the ordinary British citizen would benefit from an approximation of performance towards American levels. This may require fundamental changes along the lines put forward by management experts and efficiency gurus. But I would try a bit of Keynesianism as well. How far the form of forward guidance set out by Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, may indirectly help in this direction by underpinning the current recovery is a matter I hope to discuss next month.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1. What is "productivity", accoeding to the article?

a. GDP growth rate.

b. GDP per capita.

c. GDP per worker.

d. GDP per hour worked.

2. What is correct about incremental capital to output ratio, known as ICOR?

a. The higher the ratio, the higher the economic efficiency.

b. US's ICOR is lower than Japan and Germany.

c. Britain's economic efficiency is relatively enhancing.

d. ICOR is not a good measure of long term performance.

3. Economist Smithers fears "fundamental change for the worse", what is it?

a. That the rising ICOR for US is permanent.

b. That the US capital investment is not enough.

c. That the population of US is ageing fast.

d. That the Fed might not have the ability to help the economy.

4. "Productivity is not everything" means?

a. It ignores the choice beteen work and leisure.

b. Economies should invest to boost productivity.

c. The efficiency of investment in UK is alarmingly low.

d. Demographic changes could threaten productivity.

[1] 答案d. GDP per hour worked.

解释：这是作者在文章前几段解释的。

[2] 答案b. US's ICOR is lower than Japan and Germany.

解释：以20年的维度来看，英美的经济效率要高于德日，因为它们的ICOR要更低。但是2010-12年这三年，英国的这一指标已经远远超过这三个国家了。ICOR很适合进行长期比较，因为它可以不受经济周期的影响。

[3] 答案a. That the rising ICOR for US is permanent.

解释：史密瑟斯担心两件事：一是美国资本投资产出大大降低了，二是美国这种降低不是暂时的。他担心的不是投资减少，而是投资效益降低。再加上人口的问题（当然美国的老龄化速度并不很快），美国的经济复苏可能要碰到屏障。

[4] 答案c. The efficiency of investment in UK is alarmingly low.

解释：生产率很重要，但是如何提高它呢？如果投入大量的资本也无法提升它怎么办？这就是本文试图提请读者思考的问题。