如何糾正經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)與現(xiàn)實(shí)的偏差？

It is faintly surprising that one of the liveliest areas of economics these days is the question of measurement, and what relation published statistics bear to what is happening in the economy. Statistics do not usually inspire excitement.

如何衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)以及統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)與實(shí)際經(jīng)濟(jì)情況之間的關(guān)系最近成為了經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)最活躍的領(lǐng)域之一，這有點(diǎn)出人意料，統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)通常不會(huì)激起人們的興奮之情。

This attention reflects the convergence of two strands of scepticism about the existing statistics, and in particular gross domestic product. One is the “productivity puzzle” and to what extent the mis-measurement of digital phenomena helps explain the slow rate of productivity growth. The other is the longstanding critique of GDP as a meaningful measure of progress, for reasons of environmental sustainability or other contributors to society’s wellbeing.

這種關(guān)注反映出對(duì)當(dāng)前統(tǒng)計(jì)手段的兩種質(zhì)疑的共同點(diǎn)，尤其是針對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的質(zhì)疑。一種涉及“生產(chǎn)效率謎題”，以及對(duì)數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)的不當(dāng)衡量在多大程度上有助于解釋生產(chǎn)率增長(zhǎng)緩慢。另一種是長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)對(duì)GDP作為進(jìn)步衡量指標(biāo)的合理性的批評(píng)，理由是GDP未能考慮環(huán)境可持續(xù)性或者其他促進(jìn)社會(huì)福祉的因素。

The two converge on the distinction between the aggregate amount of marketed economic activity and total economic welfare. The conventional statement about GDP is that it is only meant to count the former, not the latter. GDP does not capture environmental factors or consider income distribution. But as long as that gap has been roughly constant, GDP growth has been a good enough measure of improvement in economic welfare.

這兩種懷疑都著眼于市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)總量(marketed economic activity)和總經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉(total economic welfare)之間的區(qū)別。關(guān)于GDP，傳統(tǒng)的說(shuō)法是GDP只是為了衡量前者，而非后者。GDP并不把環(huán)境因素或者收入分配納入考慮。但只要兩者差距大致保持穩(wěn)定，GDP增長(zhǎng)率足以作為衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉改善程度的良好指標(biāo)。

Perhaps the wedge between total marketed economic activity and welfare is increasing because of the pace of technological change, but statistics have never captured the human gains from advances in periods of innovation, whether in medicines or the internet.

市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)總量和總經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉之間的差距或許正因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)變革而擴(kuò)大，但統(tǒng)計(jì)從未考慮藥物或者互聯(lián)網(wǎng)等創(chuàng)新給人類(lèi)帶來(lái)的福祉。

This case for the defence of GDP is fundamentally weak, however. It in fact includes many non-marketed activities, yet excludes other productive activity. Business and government count as “the economy” but voluntary and household activities do not.

然而，這個(gè)為GDP辯護(hù)的理由根本站不住腳。GDP實(shí)際上涵蓋了許多非市場(chǎng)的活動(dòng)，卻把其他一些生產(chǎn)活動(dòng)排除在外。企業(yè)和政府都算作“經(jīng)濟(jì)”，但志愿勞動(dòng)和家務(wù)勞動(dòng)卻不算在內(nèi)。

Postwar social changes — a rising proportion of women working outside the home, and the increased purchases of prepared foods, professional childcare, domestic appliances and so on — have flattered the official productivity statistics for decades.

數(shù)十年來(lái)，戰(zhàn)后的種種社會(huì)變化——走出家門(mén)工作的女性的比例上升，人們購(gòu)買(mǎi)更多的預(yù)制食品、專(zhuān)業(yè)的兒童保育服務(wù)、家用電器等產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)——使官方的生產(chǎn)率數(shù)據(jù)被高估。

More subtly, the statistics blur the distinction between marketed economic activity and increases in economic welfare that cannot be priced by converting nominal GDP into “real” terms.

更微妙的是，通過(guò)把名義GDP轉(zhuǎn)換為“實(shí)際”GDP，統(tǒng)計(jì)模糊了市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)和無(wú)法定價(jià)的經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉增長(zhǎng)之間的差異。

Economists and statisticians are beginning to accept that our framework for economic statistics needs to change. Some argue for developing better “satellite” accounts, where all the interesting data about the environment or the household are collated.

經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家開(kāi)始接受，我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)統(tǒng)計(jì)框架需要改革。一些人主張?jiān)O(shè)立更好的“衛(wèi)星賬戶”，將一切有關(guān)環(huán)境或者家庭的有趣數(shù)據(jù)歸入這個(gè)賬戶。

But why should all the pressing questions be satellites?

但為什么這些迫切的問(wèn)題要居于附屬地位呢?

GDP could certainly be improved. In one of the joint winners of the Indigo Prize essay competition, a team led by Carol Corrado and Jonathan Haskel, proposed better measurement of services and intangibles, and direct measurement of the economic welfare being created by digital goods. The other winning essay — which I co-authored with Benjamin Mitra-Kahn — proposed similar incremental changes as an interim step.

我們當(dāng)然能夠改進(jìn)GDP。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)Indigo Prize征文比賽的獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)咧?、由卡蘿爾•科拉多(Carol Corrado)喬納森•哈斯克爾(Jonathan Haskel)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的小組，提出了更好地衡量服務(wù)和無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的方法，以及直接衡量數(shù)字產(chǎn)品創(chuàng)造的經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉的方法。另外一篇獲獎(jiǎng)文章——由我與本杰明•米特拉-卡恩(Benjamin Mitra-Kahn)合作撰寫(xiě)——提出了類(lèi)似的漸進(jìn)變革作為一種臨時(shí)措施。

We opted for better measurement of intangibles, adjusting for the distribution of income, and removing unproductive financial activity. The long-term recommendation was more radical: ditching GDP as the metric of progress in favour of measures of access to different kinds of assets, including financial wealth but also natural capital, intangible assets, infrastructure and human and social capital.

我們主張更好地衡量無(wú)形資產(chǎn)、根據(jù)收入分配進(jìn)行調(diào)整，以及去除非生產(chǎn)性金融活動(dòng)。針對(duì)長(zhǎng)期的建議則更加激進(jìn)：摒棄GDP作為衡量進(jìn)步的指標(biāo)，轉(zhuǎn)而衡量人們獲得和使用各類(lèi)資產(chǎn)的機(jī)會(huì)，這些資產(chǎn)不僅包括金融財(cái)富，也包括自然資本、無(wú)形資產(chǎn)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、人力和社會(huì)資本。

This was inspired by Amartya Sen’s idea that prosperity consists in people having the capabilities needed to lead the life they would find meaningful; and by the need to get away from measuring economic progress only through the short-term flow of activity. There is no sustainability without a balance sheet.

這受到了兩方面的啟發(fā)，一是阿瑪?shù)賮?bull;森(Amartya Sen)的觀點(diǎn)，他認(rèn)為繁榮的意義在于人們擁有過(guò)上自己認(rèn)為有意義的生活所需要的能力;第二是我們有必要摒棄只通過(guò)短期活動(dòng)情況來(lái)衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)步的做法。沒(méi)有一個(gè)“資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表”，就談不上什么可持續(xù)性。

Perhaps neither the incremental nor the radical is the right approach. Reform will take time because there needs to be consensus about how to change; statistical standards are like technical standards. But I am now confident that in another 10 or 20 years GDP will have been dethroned.

或許上述漸進(jìn)改革和激進(jìn)改革都不是正確的策略。改革需要時(shí)間，因?yàn)樾枰腿绾胃母镞_(dá)成共識(shí);統(tǒng)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就像是技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。但我現(xiàn)在確信，再過(guò)10至20年，GDP將走下神壇。

The writer is a professor of economics at the University of Manchester

本文作者是曼徹斯特大學(xué)(University of Manchester)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授