应被修正而非取代的GDP

Jan 17, 2018 Urs Rohner

发自苏黎世——许多有名望的经济学家早就指出，国民生产总值（GDP）不是一个衡量经济发展和社会福祉的恰当标准，因此不应成为政策制定者唯一关注的东西。然而我们至今都还无法找到一个更可行的GDP 替代指标。

GDP有一个众所周知的缺陷就是无视家务劳动的价值，包括照顾儿童和老年家庭成员。更重要的是，将货币价值分配给这些活动也无法解决GDP的一个更深层次缺陷：它无法充分反映社会个别成员的生活经验。针对家务劳动的价值矫正会令 GDP 膨胀，却不会对生活标准产生切实的改变。在从事家务劳动者中占主要份额的妇女将继续被视为志愿者，而不是真正的经济贡献者。

另一个路人皆知的缺陷则是它没有考虑到价值的破坏，例如当某些国家拒绝为某些人口群体提供教育导致人力资本流失，或者过度消耗自然资源以获取直接经济利益。总而言之，GDP 在衡量资产有所偏差，而对负债就根本不管了。

To continue reading, register now.

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

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

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Fernando Centeno Jan 22, 2018

"Actual economic development" still only refers to business transactional activity, when in fact, "economic development" is a public term, reflecting socioeconomic outcomes, in real terms. Regrettably, "economic development" is a greatly misunderstood concept, hijacked to reflect business outcomes rather than human capital outcomes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
B Wilds Jan 19, 2018

We have allowed numbers that mean "nothing" to seep into how the gross domestic product (GDP) is calculated all in an effort to create the illusion of growth. In 1962 Kuznets, the father of the GDP formula emphasized that we must keep in mind the difference between quantity and the quality of growth. He made clear a distinction exist between cost and returns.

The number we are spoon fed and await with such glee has little to do with real growth but most likely mirrors or is merely a reflection of monetary pumping. The GDP number fails to highlight a slew of important factors that feed directly into our standard of living and the health of our economy. More about this subject in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/gdp-number-is-master-illusion.html
- Scott Paterson Jan 19, 2018
  
  Dear Bruce Wilds. Thank-You for the Kuznets reference and the blogspot nugget. Really like the analogy of GDP and magic act. Very powerful imagery.You are such a good writer. Hope you can help me convince others of the futility of massaged numbers.
  
  Your list of economic activities ignored by GDP show some positive growth factors that I hadn't considered.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ismail OURAICH Jan 18, 2018

I am very skeptical as to the idea of rewarding housework time (especially in what pertains to children upbringing), whether performed by women (predominantly) or men (less so globally, though increasingly in Western EU countries for example). From an ethical perspective, the "commodification" of family human relations can have unintended moral and social consequences. I would really like to hear your thoughts on this?
- Scott Paterson Jan 18, 2018
  
  Ismail,
  Does this mean you don't pay your maid?
  
  Not sure why Rohner uses domestic work as an example other than to make the point that society does not attribute value to certain activities. In fact a salary is a salary and it gets measures as part of the national income (that UR calls GNI) if the domestic worker receives a W-2 and / or pays taxes. A wife who cleans and cooks for you without a wage is included in the measurement of economic activity through the mechanism called the joint tax return.
  - Ismail OURAICH Jan 18, 2018
    
    My bad, I think I was not specific enough in my comment. My argument concerns the idea of commodification of parenthood and familial care performed by family members. A growing movement, especially within the feminist movement, asks for parenthood on both sides to be monetized, i.e. commodified. I just find the idea of commodification of certain types of human activity to be highly disturbing. This is especially true in an age of increased digitization and big data fever that aims at quantifying anything and everything, and which increasingly gives unparalleled leverage of big corporations and big government to ever intrude on the humane side of our lives.
    
    The example you mention of the maid, of course that is considered salaried labor and should as such figure in whatever measure of economic activity one comes up with to characterized its fundamentals.
    
    And thanks for the comment. It helped clarify what I had in mind.
    - Scott Paterson Jan 19, 2018
      
      You are obviously a very enlightened person. When you mention unparalleled ... corporate power you highlight the need for alternative analysis.
      
      And you are named (or tagged) after a character in one of my favorite novels, 'Moby Dick' by my third favorite author Herman Mellville.
      
      Help me analyze Jason Furman's post today. It's so fun holding these people responsible for such an uneven recovery.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Scott Paterson Jan 17, 2018

Thanks for highlighting the pratfalls of relying on GDP as an indicator of a country's economic health, Urs Rohner. I like the brief history of alternative assessments of social and economic welfare and the use of the term GNI; the references you make to the Irish economy in 2015 as an indicator of the limits of GDP analysis; and the nod to parallel assessment devices.

In doing research for my response I was shocked to find your quite respectful bio was not that of a member of the radical left and that my terminal was not wafting of patchouli. To talk about national income statistics implies an acknowledgment of the widening disparity between the haves and the have nots that has been long guised in statistics that are adored by the paid for press. By citing Tobin and the other you are nodding in the direction of social welfare and economists such as yourself as well as the company on which you sit has always had that in mind for its customers. I respect that.

The reason for the excitement over discussion of national income is that it is such a fundamental part of Thomas Pikkety's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'. I'm sincerely wondering what you think about his statistical correlations between peaks in this gap correlating with the Belle Epoch, WWI, and WW II. Since we are now at the widest gap ever shall we expect more conflagration as a solution?

I must question you as to how the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act hyperlink is referring to the solution to the yawning gap? Yes and I read your explanation. I read everything about economics three times: the first reading allows me to reflect on my personal economy and its management; the second affords application to the economy around me; and the third, a chance to reflect on the systems in general and ponder on what alternatives could be implemented.

I think we all know that the Irish statistical aberration is more of a reflection of members of the Oireachtas' ability to massage statistics through legislating tax-free registrations and less than a miraculous growth in the economy of individuals. By registering corporations and their large asset values in the country without transferring the actual wealth the miracle is on paper only.

Similarly the pass through scheme, as Forbes' Kelly Phillips labeled it in December 2017 is an attempt to massage statistics by those darn Republicans. In theory as you explained there will be an incentive to shift corporate earnings back to the US and I really wish that would happen, but get real. When corporations park their money in offshore banks with no taxes, are allowed to borrow against these assets with no repercussion; there is no incentive in offering them 21% tax instead of 32% tax. They can continue paying no tax and a few percent to borrow against their accounts.

Pikkety offers us real tools in his two Fundamental Laws of Capitalism and his recognition of the Fundamental Force for Divergence. When the rate of growth on capital investment is greater than the growth of that economy we get divergence. Makes sense then to do the things that grow the economy.

In the Second Law, after some math we see that growth equals the saving rate divided by the capital / income ratio, the measure of capital assets divided by national income, expressed as a percentage of annual income. Ooh! there's that phrase national income. What sticks out in my mind is that savings is very important to growth.

Well let's round it off, then. Pikkety's First Fundamental Law of Capital states that capital expressed in national income equals the rate of return on capital investment times the aforementioned capital / income ratio. National income as you concisely explained subtracts the costs associated with capitalization from the GDP and this makes sense for a more realistic assessment of actual wealth accrued.

The most important thing about the nature of national income statistics is that they reflect the taxes paid by French (and other) Capitalists for centuries in the form of tax returns which allowed Pikkety and others to do a mega analysis of Capital and chart it against historical events. Before this so much analysis had been based on voodoo economics.

Like Federalism in the US where government is multitiered, we must look at all economic analysis and the numbers that inspire them as a multilayered. Instead of Local, State, and National, the economic systems of the self would be best described as personal, means of employment, and relation to the system in general. The paid for press is lauding the low unemployment rate statistics while ignoring the low wages from crappy part-time jobs. Likewise a freshly milked GDP as in the Irish example is not an indicator of economic health.

But perhaps a tax on the wealthy individuals tangible and intangible assets of all participants in the national economy who reside or not and represent the top earners, let's say the equivalent of the national debt to strengthen financial solvency. A tax on the top hundred families that is redistributed into long term savings accounts. The unhealthy concentration of wealth in the few while so many have nothing, or at best less for more effort needs to be addressed for the economy as a whole to work. The problem with relying on the 2017 Tax Act to solve statistical aberrations is that it ignores the engine of the economy - its people
A new reply to this comment has been posted.