Economics

自动化、生产率和增长

Aug 26, 2015 Michael Spence

柏林—如果一家企业投资于自动化，那么这家企业的劳动力——尽管可能有所缩减——就会更具生产力，这似乎是不言自明的。那么，为何统计数据显示并非如此？

在发达经济体，大量行业有资金也愿意投资于自动化，但生产率增长（用每员工或每工时所产生的增加值衡量）已经至少低迷了15年。此外，自2008年全球金融危机以来，这些国家的总体经济增长也十分疲软——平均不超过4%。

一个解释是发达经济体背负了过多的债务，需要去杠杆，这导致了公共部门投资不足，也抑制了消费和私人投资。但去杠杆只是暂时的过程，而不会永远制约增长。从长期看，总体经济增长取决于劳动力及其生产率的增长。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Michael Spence

Writing for PS since 2008
166 Commentaries

Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics Emeritus and a former dean of the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Senior Adviser to General Atlantic, and Chairman of the firm’s Global Growth Institute. He is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Asia Global Institute and serves on the Academic Committee at Luohan Academy. He is a former chair of the Commission on Growth and Development and the author of The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World (Macmillan Publishers, 2012).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 Comments on this article

M A J Jeyaseelan Sep 2, 2015

Mere improvements in technological productivity by themselves do not guarantee growth, unless there is real purchasing power available in the market for the increased output resulting from productivity enhancements. The data, which I came across tells a different story. US slumped in to recession in spite of the significant upturn in productivity levels in the preceding period. The non farm business sector in the US witnessed an annual average productivity growth of 2.5% between 1991 and 2007 as against the trend rate of 1.5% in the preceding 15 years. But, with the recession, the trend petered out. A growing market is a precondition for economic growth including productivity growth. Both speculative and premium pricing of products reduce the market for other products and this is invariably the root cause of all recession

The problem with most economists is that they often fail to gauge the growing negative impact of the paper economy on the real economy. Unless speculative markets and premium pricing strategies are done away with, there is no way to escape the roller coaster rides, which affects the poor the most.

I believe that global economic recovery is gaining ground with the falling oil prices and will be consolidated once the gold prices also drop below $500 per Oz.

All the good things including automation, productivity and growth will happen once the resources start flowing back to the real economy.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141005214242-17589031-global-economic-recovery-is-here-for-sure

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-time-gold-price-go-downhil-jeyaseelan-m-a-j
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robbie Jena Sep 1, 2015

Nobel Laureate says "There is no easy answer"...and that is correct. Neither he or anyone else can talk on this and find a real solution...So, everyone is in the same boat.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Schmidt Aug 30, 2015

"It seems obvious that if a business invests in automation, its workforce – though possibly reduced – will be more productive." Investments into automation usually mean investments into technology. However, technology is usually not the limiting factor on productivity gains through automation today. Productivity gains are constrained by low maturity in terms of organizational capabilities to automate beyond individual tasks and across silos, in particular in service-intensive industries. Maturity may indeed provide a sustainable competitive advantage, but there is no evidence that advanced economies have a significant edge in this regard.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rafael Cattan Aug 29, 2015

What about the impact of lower employment on aggregate demand? Is the technology limited only by itself?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
THOMAS HEAD-RAPSON Aug 29, 2015

Ever-more efficient business chasing an ever-smaller global/total disposable income, anyone?
- Curtis Carpenter Aug 29, 2015
  
  Yes, there does seem to be something wrong with the base assumptions underlying articles like this doesn't there?
  
  It's been almost 150 years since we've had any new ideas in the area of political economy. Perhaps its time to try again.
  "Wealth" I think, needs to be redefined in more humane and sustainable terms.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sergio Martinez Aug 28, 2015

This attractive paper motivates two comments, and a reading suggestion from this modest reader. C1. Forget Statistics, regarding the manufacturing field we have already available all the population data: just analyze one manufacturing site. C2. Recurrent confusion among academics (with no experience at the shop floor) between SYNCHRONIZATION (do exactly what has to be done how it is expected when it is required) with AUTOMATION (in most cases too expensive with poor flexibility): cannot imagine the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra of robots… ;-)
The Common Sense for a Substainable Industrial Production (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1330753)
Microeconomics: Production, Market Structure & Pricing e-Journal, Vol. 2, No 9 (jan 2010)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Aug 27, 2015

Confusing. How would the value-added accounting break down for the development, manufacture, and sale of an iphone? Does location inside/outside the US matter?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Aug 27, 2015

Yes, to full access the productivity growth we would need to calculate past output costs with current technology.

They created an artifice called CPI that magically allows comparation between different times, but they forget that once you change the components of the CPI, all comparisons are wrong because we would be comparing oranges to apples.

The more you enlarge your time series the worst it is because a CPI from say the 50's is completely different from current CPI or even 2000 CPI.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Aug 27, 2015

What is always ignored is that as productivity increases prices fall. To unload a ship by hand today will cost you 1000x the price of using a crane. To publish your article you just emailed it to the editor who pressed the upload button when done - in the past, typesetters, printers, paper delivery boys with bicycles. The statistics have no way of capturing this information - all they see is the nominal value of things and this will always trend towards the 'cost of living' in what labor is paid - and because labor are the bulk of consumers - revenues will also trend towards this same amount. In other words - the statistics that are used are purely a false measure and having any sort of academic debate based on them is for the most part fruitless.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Aug 26, 2015

First: If 2/3 of total output comes from no tradable goods and services, does it make sense to analyze productivity from a tradable goods and services perspective?

Second and probably more important, when we are so far from total output possibilities and full employment, clearly the gains in output don't have to come from the second derivative of the product i.e. productivity, but from the first, total production.

We have been facing a severe demand shock that led to the reduction of output, and the increase of the potential output gap. Being scale along with technology, the main determinant of productivity of tradable goods and services, its natural to productivity to remain at the same levels or diminish.

This will continue to happen if we have a supply side lens, because automation will imply higher firm productivity, but if employment levels diminish so will consumption leading to a decrease in scale, total output and macro productivity.

In conclusion, we have to increase consumption and then we can worry about productivity, actually we don't have to worry about productivity cause this things tend to solve themselves.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.