Comments 14

美国、中国和生产率悖论

Jun 23, 2015 Stephen S. Roach

纽黑文—20世纪80年代末，有一个所谓的生产率悖论的激烈争论——信息技术的大规模投资并没有带来可测的生产率改进。如今，这一悖论卷土重来，给美国和中国造成了一个问题，一个将在一年一度的中美战略和经济对话中出现的问题。

让我们回到1987年。这一年，诺贝尔经济学奖获得者罗伯特·索洛（Robert Solow）提出了他的著名讽刺：“计算机时代随处可见，就是无法在生产率数字中找到踪迹。”生产率悖论似乎在20世纪90年代得到了解决，当时，美国出现了蔚为壮观的生产率复兴。1991—2007年美国非农商业部门生产率年增长率为2.5%，而此前15年的趋势值为1.5%。互联网时代的好处终于实现了。关于生产率悖论的关注也烟消云散。

但人们似乎高兴得太早了。尽管经历了又一次技术革命，但生产率增长再次下降。这一回，生产率下降是全球趋势，影响最大的正是世界最大的两个经济体——美国和中国。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson
Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

Mar 21, 2018 Richard N. Haass

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 in all 17 Comments on this article

Ron Norman Sep 1, 2015

A common lament in accounting departments is "if we just could spend less time gathering and correcting the data, we could do a better job of analysis". Imagine one now spends 80% of the time gathering and collecting data, and 20% of time in analysis. IT productivity comes and one now spends 20% of the time in gathering and collecting the data and 80% in analysis. You have shifted the content of the work day, but it would be difficult to find an increase in productivity.
Bruce Steinback Jul 2, 2015

Interesting, but a few thoughts on technology and productivity:

While washing machines, commercial aircraft and as such are wonderful creations, that arguably are not being replicated today, they're only productivity enhancers at best indirectly. In terms of direct productivity enhancing inventions I contend that we're as or more effective than in the past.

There is no doubt that robotics is a major revolution. Yes, manufacturing has slipped down to a fairly minor part of our economy, but I still feel a bit like a modern day Solow ("robots everywhere but in the productivity statistics").

Computerization of white collar tasks (beyond the 80's spreadsheets, and as such) is still in it's infancy. I suspect this will have an ever increasing effect in the next 5-15 years. Unfortunately, I also worry about the effect of this on the already shrinking middle-class.

Also kudos to Phillip George on noting the effect of drastically reduced corporate investment as a piece of the puzzle.
Barry Rosenfeld Jul 2, 2015

Does global secular stagnation create disturbing news? One would think that a reduced growth rate for total output would lower the growth rate of the global carbon footprint. As well, a shift toward low carbon input services and away from manufacturing, combined with modest redistributive policies to moderate extremes is income and wealth could enhance the average standards of living throughout the world within reduced overall macro growth rates. Perhaps micro-economic policies aimed at better resource allocation and output distribution are what is needed in the global context.
Philip George Jun 29, 2015

There's nothing puzzling about the fall in productivity growth if you look at the right parameter which is real net private domestic investment to real GDP. Here is a post which explains at length:

http://www.philipji.com/item/2015-06-29/making-sense-of-the-productivity-puzzle
John Brian Shannon Jun 28, 2015

Hi Stephen,

'Why is productivity 'going south' in the U.S. and China?'

The answer is found in the oft-repeated phrase of Soviet workers; 'As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work.'

Indeed, both China and the U.S. have millions of low-paying jobs. And those jobs are right where the production rubber hits the road.

Yes, in the 1970's and 80's when workers could actually live on full time wages (and in China too, although at a different living standard) workers in both countries had plenty of incentive to work hard and thereby contribute to positive corporate and national productivity stats.

Since the 1980's the cost of everything has risen faster than wages, and a larger percentage of wages are 'entry-level' positions.

Instead of 'living to work!' and thriving at their jobs and in their lives, the latest generations are 'working to live'.

Do you see the difference?

I do. Lower productivity levels reflect exactly the new mindset of the new *just good enough* culture that *we have created* with criminally low-paying jobs.

Let's try to remember that the Soviet Union failed as a country -- from within. And low wages, low recognition, and low satisfaction, is what ruined their economy.

Compare the former Soviet Union, America and China on the one hand -- to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Austria on the other hand where wages are among the highest in the world -- and with the same level of IT that the U.S. and China possess.

That's everything.

As always, best regards, JBS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_paradox

http://johnbrianshannon.com/economics/if-norway-can-succeed-like-this-why-cant-every-country-040914/

http://johnbrianshannon.com/2015/06/24/in-sweden-nobody-sleeps-in-dumpsters/

http://johnbrianshannon.com/geopolitics/europe/switzerland/can-switzerlands-amazing-success-story-be-exported-070914/
Torbjorn Stenbeck Jun 25, 2015

Productivity measurement is difficult when dealing with changing products. As I have understood the rules of the game, such products are excluded in the calculations. If so, that ruins some of the bases of this article and makes some of the debate a nonsens debate. I wish the method and in particular what was actually measured (hours of some undefined service?) had been explained better.
Petey Bee Jun 25, 2015

I wonder what it would look like if the unit of labor input was hours rather than $$ . . .
Rob Fasanello Jun 24, 2015

Great article. What about machine learning, self driving cars or the next generation of robot workers? These surely will result in significant increases in productivity. Forgive me if I'm missing the point of the article.
Jose araujo Jun 24, 2015

What about if we measured how many resources would it take to produce the past output with the current technology?
This I think would be a much better measure for innovation and technology impact on productivity, because there is a big problem on the way we measure and compare output from different eras and the problem is that we are comparing apples to oranges. Even accounting for the passage of time, the problem is that the output of the past measured in monetary units hardly compares to today’s output.
The real value of 100 dollars (at constant prices) in 2000 isn’t the same when we compare to 2015, our expectations and value perception isn’t the same. IMHO, we are in fact comparing apples to oranges.
Regarding the productivity value and impact on China, well IMHO that’s in part due to the fact that while moving along the cost curve is universal for all technologies, the effect of shifting cost curves only apply to the industries that are applying new techs. So for sure when we have a general improvement of living conditions and demand expands the productivity improvements are going to be much higher than when we shift technologies which only applies to a few firms in particular markets.
Procyon Mukherjee Jun 24, 2015

I think we have diverted too much attention to the supply of talented labor, but the question is whether it could induce competitiveness and productivity in a country. Well, the answer perhaps lies in how this labor could be gainfully utilized in a framework that allows innovation to thrive, so that productive output can be coalesced that broadens the economic potential of a nation.

If supply of labor does not improve productivity and is deployed in non-productive jobs, we have an issue at hand. Germany for example produces one tenth the number of engineers that India produces, but their industrial output is comparable to India. The high number of engineers in India could be deployed in areas of supervision, which has a very low value-add, whereas supervision is largely extinct in most parts of the developed world. This is one of the reasons why productivity could be low in India or China.

Secondly the need for sophistication and innovation in any produce must be inbuilt and not waiting to be induced by competitive pressures. Thus left on its own the large pool of talent is not hardwired to make innovation a way of life and waits for a spark, either from competition or from accident. But it could be sometimes very late and that is a national loss.

The productivity paradox could be solved by learning from the Swiss model where they keep producing the maximum patents per capita and at the same time have the best talents trained in vocational institutes moving to technical jobs that service the requirements of technicians. No wonder their have the highest productivity in their farm produce (and they barely work for six months in a year) and so is the case in the other areas of output.
Michael Public Jun 24, 2015

Imagine your whole economy is one shipyard with 498 manual workers, one engineer and a CEO. You mechanise the shipyard and retrench 497 workers (you still need one to watch the control panel). Productivity for the shipyard is through the roof. Productivity for the economy is exactly the same - with the same amount of production i.e. loading and unloading of ships as before. Yes, maybe the retrenched workers find other ways to be productive, but these are geared towards the well being and the entertainment of the CEO - they are not real productivity in the sense the serve important needs of the economy. Also, what happens is the CEO and engineer become fabulously wealthy, but the they hoard the money rather than spend it. This is a simple picture of the forces at work here. Technology indeed does bring productivity but the issue is that it accrues to owners and not to society.
- Petey Bee Jun 25, 2015
  
  What if you *like* swimming pools, manicures, and fancy meals? What if a lot more people would gain access to those things?
- Michael Public Jun 24, 2015
  
  I don't think that capacity has ever been a problem, the world has excess capacity everywhere, so the theoretical shipyard produces no extra revenue, in fact in may even handle less because there is no less consumption by locals requiring less imports. Yes, the labour kicking around is cheaper but it is used for things that are not really that productive at all in terms of WHAT is produced. e.g. clean your swimming pool, manicure your finger nails, prepare a fancy meal.
- Petey Bee Jun 24, 2015
  
  Fone typo- hours worked *per* day
- Petey Bee Jun 24, 2015
  
  Yes! There are two ways out of the situation you describe though.
  
  First, the shipyard now has greater capacity. At the same time, there is all this extra unused labor capacity kicking around, which would drive down wages, thus increasing productivity in all other enterprises too. (In accounting systems where the unit of labor input isn't time, but money).
  
  The second way out, more theoretical, would be if workers across the economy could negotiate a sharing of the increased output (the shipyard can produce more now in absolute terms), and also fewer hours worked poorer day. That last part is crucial, since it creates extra person-hours devoted to consumption rather than production. I think this is what is often left out of the story of productivity and the importance of the consumer.
  
  Now in China I believe they work much longer days than here, so that's a real opportunity to put this theory into practice.
Tomas Kurian Jun 24, 2015

Why would the companies be rising their productivity and producing more if people have no money to buy what is produced today ?

Rises in productivity does not necessarily mean rises in profits ( especially if there is no additional buying power to absorb these increses in production)

Profit and productivity
http://www.genomofcapitalism.com/index.php/5-profit-and-productivity-2

Also, as CEOs insist that people MUST work those long hours ( even if it means simply to sit at the office and doing nothing) these people cannot realize their benefits from increased productivity at all and so statistically, there is no productivity increase.

But to realize them, they would have to be given more free time ( FULLY PAID) and this is something that CEOs are not willing to do.

Therefore, productivity paradox.
The productivity increase is there, but is not being passed onto the employees.
YangKai Liu Jun 24, 2015

To unleash the power of latest wave of technological advances, organizations need to transform their decision-making process from rank- and seniority (so-called "experience")- based to fact-based. It should take significantly more time to realize.

http://prosyn.org/LRUZV9t/zh;

Log in/Register

美国、中国和生产率悖论

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Political Machismo

Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Germany’s Populist Temptation

The West’s Crisis of Confidence

No Blank Check for Development Banks

Missile Strikes Are Not a Syria Strategy

The “Next Eleven” and the World Economy

Should We Really Care About Inequality?

A Trade Tutorial for Trump

Automation and American Leadership