GDP的未来（英文版）.pdf

May 2018Research InstituteThought leadership from Credit Suisse Researchand the worlds foremost expertsThe Future of GDPEditorialAcross the globe, a continuous increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ranks on top of political and regulatory agendas. GDPs power as an indica-tor of economic health and performance is based on WKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWLWDGHTXDWHOUHHHFWVWKHVWDWHof the respective society. Accordingly, central banks set monetary policies based on the gap between actual and potential GDP, and governments validate their decision-making in line with GDP growth. It has been argued for some time, however, that decision- PDNHUVRXJKWWRUHFRQVLGHUWKHLUGDWLRQRQ*3which tends to be imprecise in considering assets and often fails to account for liabilities. This report, commissioned by the Credit 6XLVVH5HVHDUFK,QVWLWXWHHSORUHVRQHRIWKHNHconcerns around measuring progress based on *3GJXUHVLQFOXGLQJWKHLQKHUHQWODFNRIFRQVLG -eration for long-term effects of economic growth. Indeed, GDP metrics provide no indication of societies damaging their capital, such as by with-holding education from certain groups, or by depleting natural resources for immediate HFRQRPLF EHQHGW ,Q IDFW WKH GHGQLWLRQ DQG methods behind GDP have been questioned since GUVWLQWURGXFHGLQWKHPLGVDWWKHWLPH QRWDEOGXHWRWKHHFOXVLRQRIJRYHUQPHQWDQGhousehold activities. Simultaneously, modern economies are increasingly driven by technologi-cal innovation, which can have a disruptive impact on statistics. For instance, digital intermediation or user- and peer-driven substitution of marketed SURGXFWVDUHHWWREHUHHHFWHGLQNHHFRQRPLFdata, such as price indices. :LWKDOOLWVGHGFLHQFLHVZHDUHHWWRGQG consensus on an internationally acceptable alter-native to GDP, although encouraging progress is being made toward a more holistic way of think-ing about economic activity. In fact, decision- makers in both private and public sectors now have tools to make highly sophisticated and sustainable choices. On the investor side, the demand for environmental, social and gover-nance data is rising steeply. On the public side, organizations such as the World Bank already consider metrics other than GDP to DVVHVVTXDOLWRIOLIHLQFOXGLQJOLIHHSHFWDQFDWbirth or access to education.As several authors in this report point out, we should focus on a number of issues going forward. First, the weaknesses of GDP metrics continue to EHGLVFXVVHGEOHDGLQJHSHUWVDQGWKHUHOHYDQWstakeholders need to closely follow those debates and take corresponding measures. Second, public and private decision-makers have a multitude of instruments at hand which need to be XVHGWRFRPSOHPHQW*3GJXUHVDVWKHHQDEOHsuperior assessment of actions and their impact on societies and the environment. Ultimately, in business, we learn not to let the great become the enemy of the good. We have not solved all the challenges, but we have come a long way in reducing many of the distortions of current metrics.We hope this report furthers the currently ongoing discussions around GDP and wish you an insightful read.Urs Rohner Chairman of the Board of Directors Credit Suisse Group AGCover photo: shutterstock, Sergey NivensThe Future of GDP 3For more information, contact: Richard Kersley, Head of Global Thematic Research, Credit Suisse Investment Banking,richard.kersleycredit-suisse, or0LFKDHO26XOOLYDQ 199720156RXUFH2(& Canada France Germany ItalyJapan UK USA,QGH 6 The Future of GDPThe stakes are high because of the importance of the conventional statistics in determining policy. Central banks set monetary policy according to the gap between actual and potential Gross Domestic Product (GDP) but what if both these sets of statis-tics are too uncertain to be meaningful? Governments justify politically contentious policies in terms of likely contribution to GDP growth. What if what we think we know about the economy is a chimera?“Central banks set monetary policy according to the gap between actual and potential GDP what if both are too uncertain to be meaningful?”To understand the issues, and consider how the measurement of the economy needs to evolve, it is important to start with why we use the framework in place today, its strengths, and its long-understood shortcomings. This sets the stage for understanding why the shortcomings are increasingly profound and wide-ranging. Statistics are both a lens for observ-ing the economy etymologically, the way the state sees the world and an instrument shaping the economy as policymakers, businesses and individ-uals change their behavior in reaction to the picture they see through that lens. The lens has become so distorting that it is time to think about fundamental change to the statistical framework.The origins of todays economic statisticsAll economic statistics are devised in a partic-XODU KLVWRULFDO FRQWHW DQG WKH KDYH FKDQJHG substantially between different epochs. There are also long lags between change in the structure of the economy and the response in the statistical FRQYHQWLRQV)RUHDPSOHLQDWWKHKHLJKWRI WKH ,QGXVWULDO 5HYROXWLRQ %ULWDLQV RIGFLDO annual statistical abstract contained page after page of detailed agricultural statistics and just a handful on steam, mines, cotton, rail and coal, although these leading technological sectors dominated news and conversation, not to mention literature. Todays framework, the System of National Accounts and associated macroeconomic statis-tics such as unemployment and consumer price indices, has its origins in the Depression and World War II.2The early research by economists such as Simon Kuznets in the USA and Colin Clark in the UK was a response to a political need to under-stand the scale of the economic catastrophe in the VWKHUHKDGEHHQYLFLRXVWUDGHFFOHVEHIRUHEXWQRQHVLQFHWKHHWHQVLRQRIWKHIUDQFKLVHWRWKHmajority of working men. After the start of the war, the imperative was the need to calculate the scale RIWKHFRQVXPSWLRQVDFULGFHQHHGHGWRHQDEOHWKHdiversion of enough resources for war production. 2. A fuller account is available in Diane Coyle, “GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History,” Princeton University Press, 2nd HGLWLRQThe Future of GDP 7$SDJHIURPWKH6WDWLVWLFDO$EVWUDFWIRUWKH8QLWHG.LQJGRP IDFVLPLOHHGLWLRQ The combination of this urgent need and Keyness new macroeconomic theory decisively shaped the construction of Gross National (and later Domestic) Product as the sum of consumer spend-ing, investment spending, government spending DQGQHWHSRUWVDIRUPXODZHOONQRZQWRHYHUgeneration of economics students since. $OWKRXJKZKDWEHFDPHWRGDV*3GHGQLWLRQwas built on the pre-war work, it differs philosoph-ically in an important way. Kuznets and Clark had DLPHGWRPHDVXUHHFRQRPLFZHOIDUH.HQHVDQGhis US counterparts wanted to measure production DQGVSHQGLQJ,QSDUWLFXODU.XQHWVGHGQLWLRQZRXOGhave deducted government spending on defense as a regrettable necessity not contributing to welfare. This was irrelevant to the wartime measurement need and would have been a public relations goal anyway. This wedge between welfare and output RUHSHQGLWXUHLVWKHVRXUFHRIPRVWVXEVHTXHQW critiques of conventional GDP. $IWHUWKHZDUWKHQHZGHGQLWLRQVZHUHIRUPDO -ized into the current framework and established as an international standard through the United Nations committee that still oversees statistical norms. The British economist Richard Stone, a pupil of Keynes and later a Nobel Prize winner, played a leading role. The advantage of a standard is the ability to compare (albeit with caution) different countries economies. 7KHGLVDGYDQWDJHLVWKDWFKDQJLQJWKHRIGFLDOVWDQGDUGLVDVORZEXVLQHVVWKDWWDNHVXSWRHDUV7UDGLWLRQDOFULWLTXHV7KHGHGQLWLRQRI*3DQGWKHPHWKRGVIRUFDOFX -ODWLQJLQHDWLRQDQGUHDO*3KDYHEHHQFRQWHVWHGsince the very start. The treatment of both govern-ment activity and household work were hotly debated in the early years, in discussions of the “production boundary,” or in other words the line between what is and is not counted in GDP. Simon Kuznets argued that, although some government spending such as education or health spending amounted to collective rather than individual consumption, much of it should be counted as intermediate spending and netted RIIWKH*3WRWDO)RUHDPSOHFRXUWVWRHQIRUFHFRQWUDFWVDUHDQLQSXWWKDWGUPVPXVWKDYHWRGRbusiness, like raw materials. As GDP counts added value, these costs should all be netted off the total to avoid double counting (a different aggregate, Gross Output, measures all activity including the production of intermediate goods).The distinction proved too FRPSOHIRUVWDWLVWLFLDQVDQGGLGQRWVLWQHDWOZLWKKeyness equation.There was also much debate about “household production,” i.e. goods and services produced in the home. The decision was made to count production of goods such as food and clothing as people could choose whether to consume or produce these them-selves, or trade them in the market. Services such as FOHDQLQJDQGFKLOGFDUHZHUHHFOXGHGWKHDUJXPHQWbeing that the market for these was minimal, and it ZRXOGEHWRRGLIGFXOWWRFROOHFWWKHVWDWLVWLFVKWWSVZZZEHDJRYIDTLQGHFIP“IDTBLG Feminists naturally objected, as women were the main providers of these services. At any rate, the market for such services is now far larger than the market for homemade food and clothes, although statisticians have little appetite for the data collec-tion that would be needed. This issue may become PRUH VLJQLGFDQW EHFDXVH RI GLJLWDO WHFKQRORJ however, as discussed below.7KHGHGQLWLRQRI*3DQGWKH PHWKRGVIRUFDOFXODWLQJLQHDWLRQ and real GDP, have been contested since the very start”The environmental critique was another of the earliest. Although Keyness concern had been the level of national output and associated employment, the policy target soon became the growth of GDP. The Cold War involved an economic as well as a military arms race, as both the USA and USSR wanted to demonstrate the superior standard of living of their own citizens. Targets for growth were set in the founding charter of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the successor to the body administering US Marshall Fund aid. Environmentalists were quick to point out the implications of continual economic growth set in terms of a target for a measure that omit-WHGHQYLURQPHQWDOHWHUQDOLWLHVVXFKDVSROOXWLRQRUgreenhouse gas emissions, and took no account of depreciation of the stock of environmental assets, treating natural resources as free. $VLJQLGFDQWGUDZEDFNRIUHOLQJRQ*3DVDJXLGHOLQHLVWKDWLWLVDHRZPHDVXUH,WPHD-sures economic activity in the current time period, YDOXLQJLWDWPDUNHWSULFHVWKDWEGHGQLWLRQRPLW social costs. There are balance sheets in the System of National Accounts, but they are incom-plete for instance, the contingent liabilities of governments are omitted. So too are the stocks of natural assets, with just a handful of countries starting to try to measure natural capital stocks. For that matter, GDP does not distinguish between a dollar of investment and a dollar of consumption, so it does not provide any guidance at all on the time trade-off between growth rates in different periods. Such concerns have led to many proposed DOWHUQDWLYHVWR*3VXFKDVWKH,QGHRI6XVWDLQ-able Economic Welfare and the Genuine Prog-ress Indicator.4However, their strength is also their weakness. In using market prices to value real output, GDP has the democratic strength RIUHHHFWLQJWKHFKRLFHVSHRSOHDFWXDOOPDNHLQ4. See “Measuring Progress? A Review of Adjusted Measures of Economic Welfare in Europe,” by Tim Jackson and Nat McBride, CES Working Paper, University of 6XUUHKWWSVZZZVXUUHDFXNFHVGOHVSG-I:30HDVXULQJ3URJUHVVGQDOSGI8 The Future of GDP( Price per unitof computingSRZHU 86 their behavior. All the alternative indices