世界经济千年史.docx
编号：时间：2021年x月x日书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟页码：第27页 共27页世界经济千年史2004年第54期（总第470期）2004年9月28日荷兰格罗宁根大学教授、世界经济千年史作者Maddison先生在中国经济研究中心万众楼做了题为“世界经济千年史”的讲座，集中讨论了宏观经济计量历史研究的发展进程。下面是他报告的主要内容。宏观经济计量历史的发展经历了三个历史阶段：20世纪50年代以来的“收入和财富国际研究协会时期”即IARIW时期（International Association for Research in Income and Wealth）；18201950年的库兹涅斯研究为代表的时期或“Kuznetsian时期”；15001820年商人资本主义年代。50年代以来，宏观计量的主要目的是提供可能的政策选择以改善国家的增长表现以及进行国家间差异分析。我们现在有50年代以来世界大部分国家的增长和收入的官方估计。而在Kuznetsian时代，数量经济史学家在测量世界经济增长和量化增长因素方面取得了巨大进展。虽然仍有一些领域需要改进，但对这个时期经济发展大致轮廓没有实质争议。相反，关于商人资本主义年代的世界经济的描述则存在很大分歧，作为代表的是亚当、斯密的乐观看法和马尔萨斯的悲观论。20世纪50年代以来的IARIW时代虽然50年代以来标准国民经济核算体系逐渐被采用，但是现存估计中仍有很多问题。使用苏联MPS体系（material production system）的国家增长被高估，需要做大量调整。非洲许多新生国家缺少必要的技术和资金进行国民收入增长核算，虽然国际组织工作在一定程度上弥补了这种不足，但是非洲数据也需要做大量调整。还有1995年以来一些高收入国家开始引入享乐指数（hedonic index）来反映产品质量的改善，但是这么做并没有充分的根据并且会高估经济增长，比如美国用新的计量技术重新进行19291950年国民经济核算，结果使国内生产总值(GDP)的增长率由2.6%增加到3.5%。最后关于教育和知识的计量也还没有成熟理论。另一问题是购买力平价转换与国家间GDP水平比较。政府统计官员会提供真实价格计算的总产出和总支出数据，经济学家、新闻记者和官员们都将其作为经济增长和波动的主要指标。购买力平价方法与用真实价格计量的目的是一样的，即修正价格差异使真实产出和支出水平的有效比较成为可能。以汇率转换的GDP与以购买力平价转换的GDP区别非常大。以购买力平价计算的发展中国家的GDP要大大高于以汇率转换的GDP，差距可能达到3-5倍。同时发达国家GDP以汇率计算则容易被高估。更为明显的一个例子是1950年中国和印度以汇率计算人均GDP分别是$85和$175（1990年价格），这两个数据低得让人难以置信。那么为何汇率转换还如此经常的被使用呢？一方面出于无知和支持自己观点的需要，另一方面许多发展国家不愿意接受购买力平价方法，因为担心这会不利于他们申请世行的优惠贷款和资助。这导致了经济间比较分析的明显错误，媒体经常称日本是世界第二大经济虽然其GDP还不到中国的60，英国的政客们也始终相信英国的经济规模比中国大。18201950年的Kuznetsian时代Simon Kuznets教授对现代经济增长的研究成果，使可以数量化研究的时间界限从20世纪50年代推进到19世纪20年代。关于这段时期我们现有的几个结论是：加速的经济增长始于1820年而非Kuznets认为的1760年；经济学家对西欧各国研究表明西欧的崛起是同时而非交错发生的；这段时期快速发展加大了西方与其他国家的差距；Kuznets研究推翻了Kondratieff长期循环的说法和Schumpeter循环发展论点。事实上1820年以来的技术变革不是浪潮式的而是连续推进的，目前有足够证据把18202001这段时间划分为5个不同的发展阶段。其中19501973年是一个无可比拟的繁荣的黄金时代，这个时期世界GDP年均增长5，世界贸易年均增长8，人均收入有明显趋同趋势，大部分地区经济增长都快于美国。1973年以后，世界经济增长明显下降，各地区的差异加大，但是基于世界的角度，最近这个阶段仍然是增长表现名列第二的阶段。区分领导国家和跟随国家对于研究技术的动态传播和赶超过程是非常重要的，“领导”国家指那些处于技术前沿的国家，而“跟随”国家指劳动生产率较低的国家。1500年以来共有4个领导国家，16世纪的意大利，16世纪至拿破仑战争时期的荷兰，此后的英国和1890年后的美国。对1820年以来英国、美国和日本的增长分析，最早考虑的是劳动力投入和生产率，战后资本成了一个非常重要的增长因素，之后又有观点将“人力资本”看作生产要素。Denison扩展增长分析方法指出1820年以来英国、美国和日本经济增长表现出以下一些显著特点：物质资本大量增长，非居住建筑和机器设备增加非常明显，伴随在机器设备中加速的技术进步。教育水平大大提高，英国提高了8倍，美国和日本11倍。人均劳动投入在英国和日本下降了40，在美国下降了20。对外贸易占GDP的比重在英国由3增至25，日本0.2至13，美国2至10。自然资源的缺乏对增长并不构成限制，人均土地在美国下降了14倍，英国和日本下降了4倍。能源的投入增长比较温和，美国人均增长了3倍，英国6倍，日本8倍。15001820年的商人资本主义年代关于商人资本主义年代（15001820）经济表现，在18世纪末就已经存在两种不同的解释。亚当、斯密乐观地认为，美洲大陆和新航线的发现给大型经济，国际贸易和专业化的发展创造了新的机会，虽然因为对贸易的共同限制，这些机会不能被充分利用。马尔萨斯则悲观论则认为，经济表现取决于人口增长和固定的土地供给间的平衡，技术进步、资本形成和国际贸易专业化的因素被忽略，因此只有通过灾难（战争、饥荒、疾病）才能实现平衡。这两种观点对立一直存在。此外悲观的看法有了一些其他的支持，LeRoy Ladurie认为法国13001720年的经济是停滞的，真实工资论者则更加悲观他们有人认为英国1820年的生活水平比1500年下降了44等等。关于15001820不同国家和地区的经济表现，Kuznets在1965年提出了关于西欧人口率和人均GDP增长的一个非常有影响的假说，认为西欧发达国家15001750年可能的（并且或许是最大的）长期人均产出年均增长率为0.2%。对上述假说验证表明，西欧15001820年人均年增长率为0.14，显著小于Kuznets估计，美洲国家整体而言人均GDP增长快于西欧，非洲南部和北部的发展差异比较明显，亚洲国家整体而言收入水平是停滞的，日本的人均表现要好于中国和印度，但是非常明显中国这个时期有着广泛的增长，它在人口大量增长的情况下生活水平并没有下降并且GDP的增长与西欧一样显著。在分析商人资本主义时代的增长时，增长分析的方法就不再适用了。研究表明，人均劳动投入、资本和人力资本、知识在这个时期都有增加，但是非常明显的是全球化在这个时期起到了比以往更加重要的作用，相对来说全球化在这段时期的作用比在20世纪还要重要。西方造船业和航海的巨大发展，使世界贸易在15001820年增长了20倍。欧洲国家还从殖民地，非洲奴隶贸易中获取了很多利益。美洲国家则经历了生态、技术和人口的转型。引进新的农作物提高了粮食的产量；马和其他牲畜的引入则改善了交通条件；欧洲各种技术的引入也有助于经济的发展；欧洲疾病使2/3土著居民死亡，加上欧洲人和非洲奴隶大量涌入，改变了美洲的人口结构。非洲和亚洲国家也引入了美洲农作物。此外还存在大陆间的技术传递，欧洲向美洲输出武器、工具、车辆、船和造船技术、印刷、文字、教育和政治经济机构，欧洲采矿技术在美洲应用生产出大量金银供欧洲与亚洲进行贸易，同时期欧洲从亚洲引入了纺织和陶瓷技术。与亚当斯密和马尔萨斯关于商人资本主义的对立解释相对应，关于现代化的根源有非常不同的看法。有一个学派认为现代经济增长源于工业革命，而之前则是几个世纪的马尔萨斯停滞。很多人支持这个观点，但是这些观点在根本上是错误的。事实上向现代资本主义过渡经历了长时间的准备。首先是教育和知识的传播由于印刷术的发明和推广而变革；其次造船业和航海业到1820年也发生了变革，船只的设计、装备和天文知识都大大改善，有了精确的航海指导等等。这些进展都是科研努力的结果。无疑，欧洲的这些发展是19和20世纪经济更快发展的前奏，欧洲的现代化不是一蹴而就的。（任丽达、卢锋整理） - 发贴时间： 2004-10-17 2:28:56 218.31.*.* errantking 等级：贫农财产：经验：魅力： 注册：2003-9-7 文章：55 鉴定：保密 - Measuring and Interpreting World Economic Performance 1500-2001*Angus MaddisonThis is a suitable occasion for surveying the progress achieved, in the past 60 years, in quantifying world economic development, and analysing the causal influences which determine the pace and pattern of growth. This was a major objective of the founding fathers of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth (IARIW). The initiative for creating an association including both academics and official statisticians came from Simon Kuznets (1901-85), the pioneer of quantitative economic history. Milton Gilbert (1909-79) and Richard Stone (1913-1991) were strategic partners with enormous international leverage in creating and diffusing standard procedures for construction of comparable national accounts by official statistical offices.This paper analyses the development of macro-measurement in three epochs:a) for the IARIW epoch, back to 1950, the main purpose has been to illuminate policy options to improve growth performance at the national level and to analyse inter-country divergence in real income levels to help devise policies for catch-up. We now have official estimates of growth and levels for the vast bulk of the world economy from 1950 onwards.b) For the Kuznetsian epoch of “modern economic growth” back to 1820, quantitative economic historians have made great progress in measuring world economic growth and in quantifying the forces determining performance. There is scope for further research to fill gaps and crosscheck existing estimates, but the broad contours of development in this period are not under serious challenge.c) for the “merchant capitalist” epoch, 1500-1820, there are sharply divergent interpretations about world, and particularly European performance. The dichotomy between positive and negative assessments started with Adam Smith and Malthus at the end of the 18th century. In my view, the evidence for the Malthusian view is shoddy.Historians usually start at the beginning of their chronology. Quantitative economic historians have to work backwards from the present, proceeding from what is known and accepted, to earlier epochs where evidence is weaker and there is greater reliance on clues and conjecture. *This is the first Ruggles Lecture, delivered at the 28th IARIW General Conference, Cork, Ireland August 2004I(i) Standardised Estimates of GDP Growth for 1950 onwardsThe standardised accounts provide a coherent macroeconomic framework covering the whole economy, crosschecked in three ways. From the income side, they are the total of wages, rents and profits. On the demand side, they are the sum of final expenditures by consumers, investors and government. From the production side, the sum of value added in different sectors-agriculture, industry and services, net of duplication.Milton Gilbert had been responsible for the official US accounts during the war and from 1950 to 1961 was head of statistics and national accounts in OEEC. The Marshall Plan required criteria for aid allocation, and NATO needed them for its burden-sharing exercises. Gilbert met these requirements by pushing official statistical offices of the 16 OEEC member countries to adopt the standardised system of accounts designed by Richard Stone. Stone set up a programme in Cambridge to train official European statisticians to implement the standardised system. A set of national handbooks was prepared to explain the problems of adjustment to the standardised system, and a first comparative set of accounts for the 16 countries for 1938 and 1947-52 was published by OEEC in 1954, with extensive notes explaining the adjustments which had been made to achieve comparability.In 1953, Stone became chairman of a United Nations commission which established a system of accounts for worldwide application. The UN could not exert as much leverage on its member countries to conform as was possible in OEEC. The communist countries used the Soviet SMS (system of material accounts) which had a narrower definition of productive activity (excluding many service activities), involved serious double counting (measuring gross output without deducting inter-sector transfers of inputs) and exaggerated economic growth. The price system and tax-structures were different from those in capitalist countries, and measurement conventions gave incentives to exaggerate quality change when new products were introduced. Abram Bergson (1914-2003) pioneered procedures for re-estimation of Soviet GDP on a basis corresponding approximately to Western conceptions in coverage, with elimination of double-counting, and repricing on an “adjusted factor cost” basis with imputation for capital costs which were not considered in Soviet accounting. These corrective procedures were applied to Soviet statistics by a team of CIA Sovietologists in Washington. In New York, Thad Alton and his colleagues did the same for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. This work was financed for intelligence purposes, but was publicly available in annual reports to the US Congress (see Maddison 1998b).In the 1990s most of these countries adopted the standardised SNA system in principle, but implementation was complicated by the massive change in ownership, in the level and structure of prices, allocation of resources between consumption and investment, and statistical reporting procedures. It will take some years before these problems can be fully resolved. The IMF continues to use exaggerated measures of GDP growth for these countries. As a result, it shows a growth in world GDP averaging 3.9 percent a year for 1970-200, compared with my estimate of 3.3 percent. For China it shows growth averaging 8.5 per cent a year, whereas my adjusted measure shows a growth rate of 6.5 per cent (see Maddison, 2003, p. 231).Another area of weakness is Africa, where there was and still is a great shortage of skills and money for such work in a large number of newly created countries. The gap in estimates of GDP growth was filled in substantial degree by the OECD Development Centre which compiled annual estimates of real GDP growth 1950-90 for 51 African countries. The Centre benefited from the expertise of Derek Blades, who had been chief statistician in Malawi for eight years, and by David Roberts who had similar experience in Gambia. A third problem in the assessment of GDP growth performance in the higher income countries derives from recent changes in measurement conventions from 1995 onwards, involving adoption of hedonic indexes to adjust for assumed changes in quality of product, use of chain indices, and treatment of consumer software as investment. Hedonic indices are perfectly respectable in small doses, but one can be skeptical about the widespread assumption that quality changes have been so large and monotonically positive. In the USA, where the switch to hedonics was most significant, their net impact was to raise the measured rate of growth to a somewhat greater degree than in Western Europe and Japan. US official estimates go back to 1929, and the changes in measurement technique had their biggest impact for 1929-50, raising the GDP growth rate for that period from 2.6 percent a year to 3.5. There was no counterpart to this long retrospective readjustment in other countries, and I have continued to use the earlier US official measure for 1929-50 (for reasons explained in Maddison, 2001, p. 138, and Maddison, 2003, pp.79-80). More than 40 years ago, Milton Gilbert warned that such adjustments could open Pandoras box: “In the end, they would make it impossible to construct measures of output and price changes that are useful to the study of economic growth” (Gilbert, 1961, p. 287). The danger which arises from an overdose of hedonics is discussed in Appendix 3.Ed Denison (1915-1992) expressed opposition to changes in national accounting which treat accretions of knowledge as investment. He considered this a “misclassification” which made “growth analysis chaotic” (see Denison, 1989, p. 10). A major justification for his complaint was that his growth accounts included “human capital”, i.e. increments in the quality of the labour force due to increases in the level of education.In fact, the only form of knowledge which is now treated as investment is computer software. It is odd to treat this rapidly depreciating knowledge as investment, whilst ignoring the more durable influence of books and education.(ii) Purchasing Power Converters for Cross-country Comparison of GDP Levels Once standardised accounts of real GDP growth in national currencies had been established for all OEEC countries, the next step to facilitate inter-country comparison and multi-country aggregation was the development of purchasing power parity converters (PPPs) to measure real GDP levels, rather than relying on exchange rate comparison. The first OEEC study, co-authored by Milton Gilbert and Irving Kravis (1916-92). appeared in 1954, a second in 1958. They compared real expenditure levels in 8 OEEC countries. A third volume by Paige and Bombach (1959) compared real output levels in the UK and USA. Kravis and his colleagues, Alan Heston and Robert Summers improved the methodology of PPP estimation in their ICP project at the University of Pennsylvania from 1968 onwards.The OEEC studies were binary comparisons between pairs of countries. The three options were i) a Paasche PPP, with “own-country” quantity weights; ii) a Laspeyres PPP with the quantity weights of the numeraire country-the United States; iii) a compromise geometric (Fisher) average of the first two measures. The corresponding measures of real expenditure were: i) Laspeyres comparisons of GDP levels based on the prices (unit values) of the numeraire country; ii) Paasche level comparisons based on “own-country” prices (unit values); iii) a Fisher geometric average of the two measures. Binary comparisons, e.g. Germany/USA and UK/USA, could then be linked with the USA as the star country. Such star comparisons could provide a proxy Germany/UK comparison, but it was not “transitive” (i.e. the result would not be identical to that derived from a direct Germany/UK comparison). This was not a great drawback for OEEC countries where the inter-country deviation in performance levels was not too wide. But Kravis, Heston and Summers were engaged in comparisons over a much wider range of per capita income. They therefore adopted the Geary-Khamis method, invented by Roy Geary (1896-1983) and Salem Khamis, which multilateralised the results, provided transitivity and other desirable properties. They used it in conjunction with the commodity product dummy method (CPD), invented by Robert Summers, for filling holes in the basic dataset. Their masterpiece was their third study, the 1982 volume World Product and Income, which contained estimates for 34 countries (in Africa, the A
