$123,000,000,000,000：China’s estimated economy by the year 2040. Be warned

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 |Robert William Fogel  |Foreign Policy.
In 2040, the Chinese economy will reach $123 trillion, or nearly three times the economic output of the entire globe in 2000. China's per capita income will hit $85,000, more than double the forecast for the European Union, and also much higher than that of India and Japan. In other words, the average Chinese megacity dweller will be living twice as well as the average Frenchman when China goes from a poor country in 2000 to a superrich country in 2040. Although it will not have overtaken the United States in per capita wealth, according to my forecasts, China's share of global GDP -- 40 percent -- will dwarf that of the United States (14 percent) and the European Union (5 percent) 30 years from now. This is what economic hegemony will look like.

Most accounts of China's economic ascent offer little but vague or threatening generalities, and they usually grossly underestimate the extent of the rise -- and how fast it's coming. (For instance, a recent study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace predicts that by 2050, China's economy will be just 20 percent larger than that of the United States.) Such accounts fail to fully credit the forces at work behind China's recent successor understand how those trends will shape the future. Even China's own economic data in some ways actually underestimate economic outputs.

It's the same story with the relative decline of a Europe plagued by falling fertility as its era of global economic clout finally ends. Here, too, the trajectory will be more sudden and stark than most reporting suggests. Europe's low birthrate and its muted consumerism mean its contribution to global GDP will tumble to a quarter of its current share within 30 years. At that point, the economy of the 15 earliest EU countries combined will be an eighth the size of China's.

This is what the future will look like in a generation. It's coming sooner than we think.

What, precisely, does China have going so right for it?

羅伯特·福格爾，美國著名經濟學家，1993
年與道格拉斯·諾斯一同獲得諾貝爾經濟學
獎。以其在計量史學領域的貢獻而聞名。

The first essential factor that is often overlooked: the enormous investment China is making in education. More educated workers are much more productive workers. (As I have reported elsewhere, U.S. data indicate that college-educated workers are three times as productive, and a high school graduate is 1.8 times as productive, as a worker with less than a ninth-grade education.) In China, high school and college enrollments are rising steeply due to significant state investment. In 1998, then-President Jiang Zemin called for a massive increase in enrollment in higher education. At the time, just 3.4 million students were enrolled in China's colleges and universities. The response was swift: Over the next four years, enrollment in higher education increased 165 percent, and the number of Chinese studying abroad rose 152 percent. Between 2000 and 2004, university enrollment continued to rise steeply, by about 50 percent. I forecast that China will be able to increase its high school enrollment rate to the neighborhood of 100 percent and the college rate to about 50 percent over the next generation, which would by itself add more than 6 percentage points to the country's annual economic growth rate. These targets for higher education are not out of reach. It should be remembered that several Western European countries saw college enrollment rates climb from about 25 to 50 percent in just the last two decades of the 20th century.

And it's not just individual workers whose productivityjumps significantly as a result of more education; it's true of firms as well,according to work by economist Edwin Mansfield. In a remarkable 1971 study,Mansfield found that the presidents of companies that have been early adoptersof complex new technologies were on average younger and better educated thanheads of firms that were slower to innovate.

The second thing many underestimate when making projectionsfor China's economy is the continued role of the rural sector. When we imaginethe future, we tend to picture Shanghai high-rises and Guangdong factories, butchanges afoot in the Chinese countryside have made it an underappreciatedeconomic engine. In analyzing economic growth, it is useful to divide aneconomy into three sectors: agriculture, services, and industry. Over thequarter-century between 1978 and 2003, the growth of labor productivity in Chinahas been high in each of these sectors, averaging about 6 percent annually. Thelevel of output per worker has been much higher in industry and services, andthose sectors have received the most analysis and attention. (I estimate thatChina's rapid urbanization, which shifts workers to industry and services,added 3 percentage points to the annual national growth rate.) However,productivity is increasing even for those who remain in rural areas. In 2009,about 55 percent of China's population, or 700 million people, still lived inthe countryside. That large rural sector is responsible for about a third ofChinese economic growth today, and it will not disappear in the next 30 years.

Third, though it's a common refrain that Chinese data areflawed or deliberately inflated in key ways, Chinese statisticians may well beunderestimating economic progress. This is especially true in the servicesector because small firms often don't report their numbers to the governmentand officials often fail to adequately account for improvements in the qualityof output. In the United States as well as China, official estimates of GDPbadly underestimate national growth if they do not take into accountimprovements in services such as education and health care. (Most greatadvances in these areas aren't fully counted in GDP because the values of thesesectors are measured by inputs instead of by output. An hour of a doctor's timeis considered no more valuable today than an hour of a doctor's time was beforethe age of antibiotics and modern surgery.) Other countries have a similarnational accounting problem, but the rapid growth of China's service sectormakes the underestimation more pronounced.

Fourth, and most surprising to some, the Chinese politicalsystem is likely not what you think. Although outside observers often assumethat Beijing is always at the helm, most economic reforms, including the mostsuccessful ones, have been locally driven and overseen. And though China mostcertainly is not an open democracy, there's more criticism and debate in upperechelons of policymaking than many realize. Unchecked mandates can of courselead to disaster, but there's a reason Beijing has avoided any repeats of theGreat Leap Forward in recent years.

For instance, there is an annual meeting of Chineseeconomists called the Chinese Economists Society. I have participated in manyof them. There are people in attendance who are very critical of the Chinesegovernment -- and very openly so. Of course, they are not going to say "down withHu Jintao," but they may point out that the latest decision by the financeministry is flawed or raise concerns about a proposed adjustment to the pricesof electricity and coal, or call attention to issues of equity. They might evenpublish a critical letter in a Beijing newspaper. Then the Chinese financeminister might actually call them up and say: "Will you get some of your peopletogether? We would like to have some of our people meet with you and find outmore about what you are thinking." Many people don't realize suchback-and-forth occurs in Beijing. In this sense, Chinese economic planning hasbecome much more responsive and open to new ideas than it was in the past.

Finally, people don't give enough credit to China'slong-repressed consumerist tendencies. In many ways, China is the mostcapitalist country in the world right now. In the big Chinese cities, livingstandards and per capita income are at the level of countries the World Bankwould deem "high middle income," already higher, for example, than that of theCzech Republic. In those cities there is already a high standard of living, andeven alongside the vaunted Chinese propensity for saving, a clear and growingaffinity for acquiring clothes, electronics, fast food, automobiles -- all aglimpse into China's future. Indeed, the government has made the judgment thatincreasing domestic consumption will be critical to China's economy, and a hostof domestic policies now aim to increase Chinese consumers' appetite foracquisitions.

And Europe? Europe, by which I mean the 15 earliest EUmembers, faces twin challenges of demography and culture, its economic futureburdened by a mix of reproductive habits and consumer restraint.

Europeans, of course, won't be eating grass in 2040. Theireconomic decline over the next 30 years will be relative, not absolute, astechnological advances and other factors should allow Europe's overall laborproductivity to continue to grow about 1.8 percent annually. Yet theirpercentage contribution to global GDP will tumble, shrinking by a factor offour, from 21 percent to 5 percent, in a generation.

Demography is the first key issue. The population of WesternEuropean countries has been aging rapidly, and that is likely to continue overthe next several decades. The basic reason: European couples aren't producingenough babies. Europe's total fertility rate has been below the level needed toreplace the population for about 34 years, according to a 2005 Rand Corp.study. As a result, the percentage of women of childbearing age will decline,in the earliest 15 EU countries, from about 50 percent in 2000 (it was alsoabout 50 percent in 1950) to the U.N. projection of about 35 percent in 2040.So we have a double whammy: Not only will reproductive-age women have sharplyreduced fertility rates, but the proportion of women who are in theirchildbearing years will also have declined sharply. By 2040, almost a third ofWestern Europe's population may be over age 65.

Why are there fewer babies? One key reason is that Europeanattitudes toward sex have evolved sharply. One-hundred fifty years ago, it wasconsidered a sin to enjoy sex, the only legitimate purpose for which wasprocreation. But today, young women believe that sex is mainly a recreationalactivity. Behind the fertility trend is a vast cultural shift from thegeneration that fought in World War II, which married early and produced thegreat baby boom of 1945 to 1965. The easy availability of birth control and therise of sex as recreation mean that populations are likely to shrink in manyEuropean countries. As early as 2000, the natural rate of increase (birthsminus deaths) was already negative in Germany and Italy. By 2040, it is likelythat the natural increase will be negative in the five largest Europeancountries, except Britain.

So what if Europeans have a little fun now and then? Well,fun has consequences. Declining fertility pushes up the age of the citizenryand shrinks the percentage of people in the workforce, and so impedes growth.Demographic changes also shape the hiring and promotion structures ofindividual companies, and not necessarily for the better; if the elderly clingto the best jobs well past retirement age, younger workers may have to wait anextra decade, perhaps longer, to get their turn. And because younger workersare a major source of new ideas, slowing down the ascendancy of the nextgeneration may retard the pace of technological change. (If fertility ratesremain as low as they have been, Italy's population will fall by half in 50years. Naturally, politicians are doing everything they can. They are joiningwith the Holy See and telling young women: Please procreate.)

In another way, Europe's culture confounds economists.Citizens of Europe's wealthy countries are not working longer hours to makehigher salaries and accumulate more goods. Rather, European culture continuesto prize long vacations, early retirements, and shorter work weeks overacquiring more stuff, at least in comparison to many other developed countries,such as the United States. In my observation, those living in most WesternEuropean countries appear to be more content than Americans with the kind ofcommodities they already have, for example, not aspiring to own more TVs perhousehold. Set aside whether that's virtuous. A promenade in the Jardin duLuxembourg, as opposed to a trip to Walmart for a flat-screen TV, won't helpthe European Union's GDP growth.

Of course, China faces its own demographic nightmares, andskeptics point to many obstacles that could derail the Chinese bullet trainover the next 30 years: rising income inequality, potential social unrest,territorial disputes, fuel scarcity, water shortages, environmental pollution,and a still-rickety banking system. Although the critics have a point, theseconcerns are no secret to China's leaders; in recent years, Beijing has provenquite adept in tackling problems it has set out to address. Moreover, historyseems to be moving in the right direction for China. The most tumultuous localdispute, over Taiwan's sovereignty, now appears to be headed toward aresolution. And at home, the government's increasing sensitivity to publicopinion, combined with improving living standards, has resulted in a level ofpopular confidence in the government that, in my opinion, makes major politicalinstability unlikely.

Could Europe surprise us by growing substantially more thanI have predicted? It seems farfetched, but it could happen, either by Europeanscurtailing vacations and siesta time to adopt a more workaholic ethos, or bymore young women and their partners aligning their views of sex more closelywith those of the pope than those of movie stars. Anything's possible, butdon't bet on it -- Europeans seem to like their lifestyles just fine, and they'velong since given up their dreams of world domination. An unexpectedtechnological breakthrough could also shake things up, though this isn't thesort of thing economists can base predictions on.

To the West, the notion of a world in which the center of globaleconomic gravity lies in Asia may seem unimaginable. But it wouldn't be thefirst time. As China scholars, who take a long view of history, often pointout, China was the world's largest economy for much of the last two millennia.(Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, reckons China has beenthe globe's top economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries.) While Europe wasfumbling in the Dark Ages and fighting disastrous religious wars, Chinacultivated the highest standards of living in the world. Today, the notion of arising China is, in Chinese eyes, merely a return to the status quo.

羅伯特·福格爾，美國著名經濟學家，1993年與道格拉斯·諾斯一同獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。以其在計量史學領域的貢獻而聞名。

原文链接：http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/123000000000000?page=0,0

今年早些时候，诺贝尔经济学奖得主、美国芝加哥大学的福格尔教授在《外交政策杂志》上发表了一篇文章，题为：“123,000,000,000,000美元：为什么到2040年中国经济总量会达到123万亿美元”。他预言，到2040年，也就是一代人之后，短短30年的工夫，迅速形成的新世界格局将是，中国成为唯一的超级经济大国，昔日世界舞台上的主角美国则成了老二。“2040年，中国的经济总量将达到123万亿美元，是2000年全球经济总量的将近三倍。中国人均国民收入将达到85,000美元，是欧盟届时预期人均收入的两倍，比印度和日本也要高出许多。换言之，在中国从2000年的穷国一跃而为2040年的超级富国之后，中国大都市普通居民的生活水准将是普通法国人的两倍。”“即便30年之后中国的人均财富不一定能超过美国，根据我的预计，中国在全球GDP中的占比（40%）──也会远超美国（14%）和欧盟（5%）。这就是2040年的世界经济霸权格局。”

    福格尔认为这一代美国人之所以相比中国会落入下风，有六个原因：
   
     1. 中国正在快速转型为资本主义消费经济
    福格尔表示，“中国长期压抑的消费倾向”正在急剧释放，“从很多方面来看，中国都是目前全球最具资本主义特色的国家。”他的论据是，当美国在战场上大肆挥霍钱财，当高盛和华尔街将美国转变为财富集中于极少数人手中的财阀统治之时，中国正在日益资本主义化和民主化。

    “在中国的大城市，居民的生活水准和人均收入已经达到世界银行认定的‘中高收入’水平，服装、电子产品、快餐、汽车的获得都很便利，而且是越来越便利。”这就是中国的未来。原因何在？因为他们的新“政府已经认定，国内消费的增长对于中国经济来说至关重要，政府出台了大量的促进消费者消费欲望的国内政策。”
   
     2. 中国目前的政治体系资本主义化更甚于美国
    福格尔说，“中国的政治体制很有可能有别于你的想象。”北京政府并非事事都是老大，“多数经济改革，包括一些最为成功的改革，是由地方政府推动、监管的。”如今“在中国针对上层决策的批评和辩论超出了很多人的想象。”

    福格尔参加过多次中国留美经济学会的会议。该学会很多经济学家公开“批评中国政府”，甚至会“指出财政部最近的决策有失误，对电力和煤炭的指导调价措施提出疑虑……甚至在北京的报纸上刊登批评信”。随后会有某位财政部长来接见这些经济学家，探讨他们的见解。“比起过去，如今中国的经济计划要顺应民意得多，对新观点也持更为开放的态度。”对比美国更资本主义化，甚至可能也更民主。
   
     3. 中国最近对教育的大手笔投入
    福格尔着重指出，中国正在对教育做出“大手笔的投入”。“受过教育的劳动者工作效率就会高很多……受过大学教育的劳动者的工作效率是受教育年限不满九年的劳动者的三倍……高中毕业生则是其的1.8倍。”

    “下一代中国人将实现100%的高中入学率和大约50%的大学入学率，此举将为其年度经济增长率贡献大于六个百分点。”与此同时，美国却把数万亿美元扔进战场、背负上巨额债务、教育也开始走下坡路，将奔向2040年赛跑的领跑地位拱手让给了中国。
   
    4. 中国七亿人口的农村经济为经济增长添砖加瓦
    福格尔说，展望中国未来的时候，我们“总是会想到上海的高楼和广东的工厂，而往往会忽略一个经济增长引擎：中国乡村发生的巨变。”

    从1978年到2003年，中国工业及服务业中的劳动生产率平均为每年6%，而在未来，农村地区的劳动生产率将增长，中国有七亿农民，占了中国总人口的一半以上。“如今，辽阔的乡村为中国经济增长做出了大约三分之一的贡献”，随着下一代中国乡村人口增加一亿，农村对中国经济的贡献率还将进一步增长。
   
     5. 中国政府的数据其实是低报了中国的经济发展
    福格尔警告我们不要被那种声称“中国的数据是虚假的，在一些关键方面故意夸大”的报告所愚弄，事实正好相反：“中国的统计学家很可能低报了中国的经济发展。”

    在服务行业，“小公司通常不会向政府申报盈利数据，政府部门通常都无法真实地统计到产能提高的真实状况。”和美国一样，“官方估算的GDP值严重地低估了国内经济的增长”，因为这些估算没有“把诸如教育、医疗等公共事业机构的发展考虑进去”。原因何在呢？因为“这些领域的重大发展多数都没有完全计入GDP”。这是一个全球性的问题，“不过中国服务行业的快速增长使得这样的低估差距尤为明显。”
   

     6. 到2040年，中国将再次成为全球唯一的一个超级经济大国    “在西方人看来，全球经济中心位于亚洲的世界格局是难以想象的。不过这种情况并非前所未有……在过去2000年的1800年中，中国一直都是全球最强大的经济体……当欧洲还处于黑暗时代、陷于宗教战争的纷飞战火之时，中国却滋养出了全世界最高的生活水准。如今，在中国人眼里，中国的崛起不过是一次辉煌的回归而已。”

    到2040年，中国将成为全世界唯一的超级经济大国，拥有四倍于美国的经济总量，这在很大程度上要归功于高盛阴谋──这边厢，高盛在大肆开挖美国的资本主义和民主墙角，那边厢，高盛的资本、人才和人脉也正在被中国一点一点给吸干。

---------------------------------------------------------------

美国芝加哥大学教授、诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗伯特·福格尔在《外交政策》1-2

月号预测了2040 年中国经济。按照福格尔的预测，到2040 年，中国经济规模将达123

万亿美元，是2000 年全球经济产出的将近三倍。中国的人均收入估计将达8.5 万美元，

比欧盟高出一倍多，远远高于日本和印度的水平。到2040 年，中国占世界GDP 的比

例将达到40%，超过了美国（14%），更是将欧盟（5%）远远抛在后面。

福格尔的乐观预测建立在以下几个观察之上。第一，他认为中国正在进行大规模

的教育投资。1998 年，中国开始高校扩招，此后四年，高校入学人数增加了165%，

海外留学生增加了大约152%。在2000 至2004 年之间，大学招生继续猛增，增长率

几乎达到50%。福格尔预测，未来20 年左右，中国中学入学率将达到100%，大学入

学率将达到50%，仅此一点就能使中国的年均经济增长率提高六个百分点以上。第二，农业部门的劳动生产率将持续提高。从1978 年到2003 年，中国的农业、工业和服务

业三个部门的劳动生产率年均增长率均在6%以上。2009 年，中国仍然有大约55%的

人口生活在农村。中国的经济增长至少有1/3 归功于农业部门，未来30 年，农业部门

的发展将继续为中国经济做出贡献。第三，中国的统计数字往往低估其经济实力。比

如，服务业内的中小企业往往不向统计部门报告数字，服务业的质量提高也难以在统

计数字中被显示出来。第四，中国的政治体制是分权的，地方政府推动了很多成功的

改革，而且中国政府的决策机制已经变得更加民主化，很多学者能够参与决策，中国

的官员也更乐于接受新思想。第五，中国的消费实力正在崛起。尤其是中国的大城市，

已经达到了世界银行所称的“中高收入”国家的同等水平。

福格尔对中国的未来充满信心，但是对欧洲的前景却忧心忡忡。他认为，欧洲的

衰落已经是不可避免的。欧洲正面临着人口和文化的双重挑战。首先，欧洲的人口开

始迅速老龄化，到2040 年，欧洲大约有1/3 的人口会在65 岁以上。老龄化导致劳动

人口迅速减少，而且也会影响到年轻人的升迁。如果年长者过了退休年龄之后仍长期

占据最好的岗位，较年轻的工人要等很长时间才能等到自己的机会，但是，年轻人是

新思想的主要源泉，他们升迁的速度慢，技术进步的速度就会放慢。欧洲的另一个问

题是欧洲文化看重的是享受，而非工作。欧洲人更愿意到公园里面休闲，而不是到沃

尔玛买一台纯平电视。这对其GDP 的增长是不利的。这篇文章的娱乐色彩比较重。

福格尔教授对这个问题更学术性的研究是其2006 年在NBER 的一份研究报告《为什

么中国很可能实现其增长目标》。

曾经提出“Chinamerica”概念的哈佛大学历史学家弗格森（Niall Ferguson）在《外

交》3-4 月号上谈到，美国的衰落来得可能比历史学家们想象的更快更突然。过去，

历史学家大多认为帝国的衰落是渐进的、缓慢的，如同人从壮年到老年，是一个长期

甚至不易察觉的过程。但是，历史的真相是，帝国的衰落常常是突然崩溃的。罗马帝

国的衰落，只用了一代人的时间。在50 年内，罗马帝国的人口减少了3/4。弗格森指

出，帝国是一个复杂体系，其内部有各种力量相互作用。根据研究复杂体系的科学家

的研究，当复杂系统进入混沌时期的时候，微小的变化可能导致巨大的灾变。用一个

比喻来说，帝国更像又高又细的蚂蚁山，而非稳定的金字塔。从历史经验来看，财政

赤字不断扩大和军事过分对外扩张是导致帝国衰落的主要因素，美国也不会例外。

2009 年美国的财政赤字为1.4 万亿美元，大约为GDP 的11.2%，是60 多年来的最高

纪录。2008 年公共债务为5.8 万亿美元，到2019 年将达到14.3 万亿美元。利息支出

占联邦收入的比例从8%上涨到17%。根据国会预算办公室的预测，在金融危机之前，

公债余额占GDP 的比例只有44%，但是到2080 年，根据不同的情景分析，这一比例

可能会上升到280%或716%。且不论这一预测是否准确，但很可能美国的衰落会来得

更快，不会给人们留下充裕的时间预作准备。信心在这里起着重要的作用。从经济学

的角度来看，当前美国的财政压力并非致命，但问题在于，如果零利率和扩大财政支

出都无法拯救美国经济，美国的财政压力将越来越大，而且会让美国和国外的公众都

感觉到，美国政府已经黔驴技穷了，大家都会担心，美国会出现较高的通货膨胀，或

是会在某一天违约。当信心丧失之后，哪怕小的变化，比如有个评级机构降低美国的

信用评级，都会触发极大的恐慌。利率会马上提高，并使美国的债务负担更重。

如果美国的债务压力居高不下，那么也会影响到美国的外交政策。由于其他的公

共支出大多是刚性的，比如社会保障，那么当美国被迫减少支出的时候，很可能会削

减军费支出。美国在伊朗、伊拉克、阿富汗等地的敌人，会非常乐意看到，美国终有

一天会撑不住，被迫撤军。巧合的是，帝国的衰落往往是由于在兴都库什山脉或米索

不达米亚平原受挫。比如苏联从阿富汗撤军是在1989 年，不到两年之后，苏联就解

体了。

这两篇文章可以从不同的角度阅读。从中国人的角度来读，我们读到的是美国学

者对中国国情的隔膜，以及美国民众对中国崛起的疑虑；从美国人的角度来阅读，或

许这反映出美国对自己的未来的担忧，以及在金融危机之后出现的幻灭情绪。但是，

最近被翻译成中文的乔治·弗里德曼（George Friedman）的《未来一百年》，充满信

心地宣称，21 世纪才刚刚是美国世纪的开始。不妨对照一读。

-------------------------------------
为什么中国有可能实现其增长目标？
|Robert William Fogel

2002年，中国共产党宣布了到2020年使人均收入实现翻两番的目标。从2000年开始，要实现这一目标，中国的人均收入的年均增长率必须达到7.2%，而GDP的年均增长率需要达到8%左右（M. Wang，2005）。中国有可能实现这一目标吗？这一问题已经在亚洲、欧洲和美洲引起了广泛讨论，对此既有人持乐观态度，也有人表示悲观。

在本文中，我将列出一些我之所以对此持乐观态度的原因。事实上，我认为，中国的GDP至少在未来30年中将很可能保持8%或更高的年均增长率。要实现这一增长目标，中国必须克服一些经济问题、结构问题以及政治问题。在对这些实质性问题进行探讨之前，我们先来看一些数据，以便为下文的分析奠定基础。  

二战以来，亚洲的几个穷国在相对长的时间里取得了异常快速的增长率。在1950年到1970年的20年间，日本的人均收入的年均增长率达到了8.4%，人均收入增长了6倍以上，这一成果比中国政府目前制定的目标还要高出50%。而在1960年至1980年的20年里，新加坡的人均收入的年均增长率为7.2%，同期，中国台湾也达到了7.2%的水平。中国在1980年至2002年的22年间的实际年均增长率（8.2%）也比目前定下的目标要高（Fogel，2004b）。因此，中国领导层定下的目标完全符合东亚国家经济快速增长的经验。

然而，那些怀疑中国新的增长目标能否实现的人并非不了解亚洲地区这些国家已有的经验，他们只是担心，中国能否在从现在到2020年的近20年间重现那样的增长奇迹。他们之所以有这种担忧，是因为他们认为那些尚未解决的、或者不断涌现的经济问题、政治问题以及国际问题会大大削弱中国的经济增长率。其中的一个经济问题就是存在背负大量不良贷款的不稳定的银行体系。人们还认为，大批低效和亏损的国有企业也是影响未来中国经济增长的因素之一。此外，在发展较快的沿海省份和发展较慢的内陆省份之间、城乡之间以及高技能劳动者和体力劳动者之间的收入差距也在不断增长（参见Heckman，2005）。不仅如此，中国在基础建设方面也面临着“瓶颈”，其中包括能源和电力的供给压力、环境污染的恶化等问题。尽管人们已不再怀疑中国是否有能力养活13亿人口，但越来越担心这个国家的水资源供给是否充足。以上问题并没有涵盖所有可能阻碍中国经济持续高速增长的因素，却反映了一些主要的忧虑[1]。

虽然我也认识到了上述问题的重要性，但本文不会对这些问题做过多探讨。我认为这些都是需要在经济增长过程中加以解决的问题，并且，基于我将在本文下半部分指出的一些原因，我也深信它们会得到解决。显然，上述问题已经被中国的政治领导人及其经济顾问们提上了议事日程，事实上，他们一直在强调必须消除中国社会发展和经济发展的不平衡问题。在下文中，我会首先对一些可能阻碍中国经济在未来十年保持快速增长的根本因素进行探讨，也就是说，即使我们前面提到的那些问题都能成功解决，这些制约因素也会阻碍中国可能的长期增长。

为了更好地理解这些制约性的因素，我们最好先对中国在1978年至2002年间的人均收入的增长来源做一个分解。对此，可参见图1中的等式（1）和等式（2）。等式（1）是一个定义式，表示人均收入水平等于工人的人均产出乘以劳动力参与率。在等式（1）中，经济产出被分解为三个部门：农业、工业和服务业。每个部门的劳动生产率用该部门的劳动力份额加权。等式（2）是对等式（1）变形后得到的增长率，它表明人均收入的增长率来自劳动力在各个部门的份额的变化、每个部门的劳动生产率的变化、以及总体的劳动力参与率的变化，各部门的权重采用的是该部门的收入在整体经济中所占的份额。

图1：收入水平与收入增长等式

其中：

= 人均收入

ρ= 劳动参与率

 = 农业、工业和服务业各自的劳动力份额

 = 农业、工业和服务业中每个工人的产出

* = 变量上加星号表明该变量的增长率

 =农业、工业和服务业各自的产出在整体经济中所占的份额

表1显示，在1978年至2002年间，中国的人均收入69%的增长都来源于三大部门内部劳动生产率的提高[2]。其中，工业部门虽然存在很多低效的国有企业且资本配置效率较低，但其劳动生产率的增长却最为迅速。正如林毅夫等人（Lin和Tsai，2004，第355～356页）指出的那样，中国逐渐从中央计划体制向市场经济过渡的政策似乎比那些激进的方式更有效。通过渐进的改革，市场的范围成功扩展了，甚至国有企业的买卖也根据市场价格进行，而与计划价格挂钩。

表1：1978-2002年增长分解中所用的变量及加权数的值

   变量或加权数    1978-2000年的年均变化率

 

表1还表明，尽管工业部门的劳动生产率提高最为迅速，但农业部门的劳动力生产率的进步也几乎不相上下（工业部门为6.2%，农业部门为5.7%）。此外，农业部门生产率的迅速提高已经持续了20多年。表2 则显示，尽管中国的农业劳动生产率在这20多年的增长率并非前所未有，但与亚洲和欧洲其他国家相比却依然出类拔萃。事实上，只有韩国的农业劳动生产率在1980年至1997年间的增长率超过了中国，但当时，韩国的大部分农业劳动力都已经转移到了工业和服务业部门。就中国而言，近一半的劳动力依旧保留在农业部门，因此，劳动力可以继续向工业和服务也大规模转移，那么与1980年到2000年的20年相比，农业劳动生产率在未来20年可能有更大的提高潜力。

表2：部分国家农业劳动生产率的年均增长率（%）

国家与地区	时期	增长率
印度a 印度尼西亚a 日本a 韩国a 马来西亚a 中国台湾d 泰国a 法国a 德国a 意大利b 英国b 美国 c	1980-1997 1980-1997 1980-1997 1980-1997 1980-1997 1985-2003 1980-1997 1980-1997 1980-2000 1980-2000 1980-2000 1958-1996	2.3 1.7 4.1 6.8 3.7 3.9 2.3 5.5 - 5.2 3.4 3.2

 资料来源：（a）2000/2001年世界发展报告，表8。

       （b）世界银行，世界发展指数，http://publications.worldbank.org/subscriptions/WDI

       （c）Jorgenson 和Stiroh，2000，表2。

       （d）亚洲开发银行，2004。

由于在中国的经济增长率中有30%可能继续来源于劳动力的部门转移以及劳动参与率的小幅增长（Johnson 2000），因此，各行业内的平均劳动生产率每年只需要提高5%，即可实现预定的人均收入增长目标。若干因素显示，这种增长率的实现不是没有可能的。尽管近几十年来中国已经取得了巨大的进步，但在农业、工业和服务业这三个部门中，平均的技术水平还是大大低于国际领先者。因此，先进经验的推广会促进各部门的增长。其次，前沿技术的创新速度非常快，尤其是在工业和服务业领域，当然农业领域也是如此。第三，对资本尤其是人力资本的投资也会在接下来的几十年中促进经济的快速增长。最后，尽管目前人们都认为由于地方政府上报的增长率存在夸大现象，中国的经济增长率有可能被高估了，但总体而言，由于没有考虑到经济产出的质量的进步，以及小企业低报收入的情况，中国经济的实际增长率尤其是服务业的增长率也很有可能被低估。现在，我想对上述的最后两个因素做一个简要地说明，并对这两个因素在未来二三十年中可能对增长率造成的影响进行估计。

要素升级的作用

表3显示了中国在1980年、1990年、1997年以及2000年的小学、中学以及大学的入学率，并与7个亚洲国家、4个西欧国家以及美国进行了比较。中国的小学入学率超过其他所有国家，中学入学率与其他新兴工业化国家不相上下，但落后于韩国、日本、西欧以及美国。不过，在1990年至1997年间，这一差距已经迅速需缩小。在这短短的几年中，中国的中学入学率增长了40%。中国与发达国家在大学入学率方面差距最大，相当于韩国、日本、西欧和美国的入学率的15%~27%。然而，这一差距同样也在迅速缩小。1990年至2004年，中国的大学入学率提高了6倍（中国统计年鉴，2005）。

表3：各国的毛入学率

	小学				中学				大学				义务教育年限
	1980	1990	1997	2000	1980	1990	1997	2000	1980	1990	1997	2000
中国 中国香港 印度尼西亚 韩国 马来西亚 泰国 印度 日本 法国 德国 意大利 英国 美国	113 107 107 110 94 99 83 101 111 — 100 103 99	125 102 115 105 94 99 97 100 108 101 103 104 102	123 94 113 94 101 87 100 101 105 104 101 116 102	114 109 110 101 98 95 — 101 105 104 101 99 101	46 64 29 78 48 29 30 93 85 — 72 83 91	49 80 44 90 56 30 44 97 99 98 83 85 93	70 73 56 102 64 56 49 103 111 104 95 129 97	68 78 57 94 70 82 — 102 108 104 96 156 95	2 10 4 15 4 15 5 31 25 27 27 19 56	3 19 9 39 7 19 6 30 40 32 32 30 75	6 22 11 68 12 22 7 41 51 47 47 52 81	13 25 15 78 28 35 — 48 54 50 50 60 73	7-15 — 7-15 6-15 — 6-14 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-14 6-14 5-16 6-16

资料来源：美国教育部、国家教育统计中心，2004，表394。

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/xls/tabn394.xls

备注：毛入学率等于所有年龄段在校学生的总人数除以特定年龄段的学龄人口数所得的值。由于相关年龄段以外的学生也包含在内，因此该比率的值有可能会超过100。

通过图2中的等式，我们可以将由教育导致的劳动力质量的提高对人均收入增长率的影响进行定量处理。等式（3）是一个反映要素升级影响的生产函数，其中， 、 分别代表劳动和资本的升级指数（我的讨论将仅限于劳动）。等式（4）是等式（3）的变形，因变量是劳动生产率，中括号里的项包括各种要素的升级指数与全要素生产率的增长指数。等式（5）是从等式（4）中得到的增长率表达式，它意味着如果其他所有变量都为常数，那么劳动生产率的增长率应该等于劳动升级的增长率乘以劳动在收入中所占的比重。

图2：劳动升级型的生产函数

其中： Q = 产出

A = 全要素生产率指数

L = 劳动投入

 = 劳动升级指数

 = 资本升级指数

 = 星号表示变量的增长率

α= 劳动所占的收入份额

1-α = 资本所占的收入份额  

　

表4 列出了实现等式（5）的增长率所需要的一些条件。表的上半部分列出了具有小学、高中以及大学文凭的劳动力的相对生产率指数。该指数的计算基础是美国具有不同教育水平的男性的收入。它表明，具有大学和高中文化程度的员工的劳动生产率分别是受教育年限少于9年的工人的3.1倍和1.8倍[3]。表的下半部分显示了入学率的增加对经济的贡献。如果在未来20年，初中入学率达到了100%，那么劳动力升级的年均增长率会达到1.8%。 将这个数字乘以劳动在收入中所占的份额，就意味着劳动生产率的增长率会提高约1.1个百分点。

表4：中学和高等教育导致的劳动升级对人均收入增长率的可能影响

不同教育程度的相对生产率指数                      指数

少于9年                                           100 高中毕业生                                         179 学士或更高学位                                     310

估计值：

α                                                         0.6

 如果初中入学率在20年后达到100（%）                1.8

 如果高中入学率在20年后达到25（5）                  7.4

如果高中入学率在20年后达到50（%）                 11.2

α值来源于Young （2000），指数值是根据美国的以教育程度衡量的中期收入计算出来的（美国教育部、国家教育统计中心，2001，表383，http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt383.asp

如果大学入学率在未来20年能从6%增加至25%，也就是说，如果未来20年中国的高等教育能达到1980年时西欧国家的水平，那么劳动升级就会以年均7.4%的速度增长。这一劳动升级水平将使劳动生产率增长4.4个百分点，仅这一个因素就能对2002年的既定目标做出60%的贡献。如果高等院校有更大规模的扩招计划，使大学入学率在未来20年内达到50%，那么劳动升级的年均增长率就会达到11.2%。光是人力资本投资这个因素就能对整体经济增长率作出6.7个百分点的贡献.

高等教育的这些目标并不是无法实现的。我们应该记住，就在不远的1980年，西欧国家高等院校的入学率还只有25%，只有美国超过了50%。但就在20世纪末的最后20年，西欧国家的入学率都达到了50%。比如英国，其入学率从19%增加到了52%，其中2/3的增长都发生在1990年到1997年间。

中国政府也意识到了人力资本投资作为经济增长引擎的重要性。早在1998年，国家领导人就发出了高等院校进行大规模扩招的号召。这一号召很快得到了响应：在接下来的4年中，高等院校的招生人数增加了165%（从340万增加到了900万），而海外留学人员的数量也增加了152%（中国统计年鉴，2003）。目前估计，到2010年，至少20%的高中毕业生会继续进入高等院校学习，而到2050的长期目标是达到50%。从2000年到2004年间，大学入学率增长了约50%（从12.5%增加到了19.0%），因此，表4中的计算结果很可能还过于保守了（中国统计年鉴，2005）。目前，中国高等院校的学生约有2 000万，这一数目比现阶段美国高等院校的学生人数要多60%（Newcomb，2005；美国统计概要，2005）。据估计，2005年至2006年间，中国大学毕业生会达到330万，印度为310万，而美国仅为130万（Colvin，2005）。不过，在科技教育的前沿领域，美国仍然遥遥领先。

有关GDP测算的误差

到目前为止，我主要集中从要素升级的视角来论述为什么中国可能实现其增长目标。现在我想就等式（5）中产出部分的测算问题进行一些探讨。国民收入账户中出现测算误差的问题正日益变得严重。很明显，美国官方估计的GDP数据严重低估了美国经济的真实增长水平，因为他们没有将美国的产出质量的提高，尤其是像教育和卫生等服务业的质量提高计算在内。比如，现在的中学生接受的科学和技术教育比一代人以前的研究生学到的还多，与两代人之前相比就更是如此了。

在这方面，医疗卫生行业的进步还要突出。一个半世纪以前，40岁左右的就往往深受慢性病的困扰，情况要比现在70岁左右的人还严重。现在，不仅疾病发作的平均年龄延后了10年左右，而且一旦出现疾病，我们也可以采取各种有效的治疗措施。过去，1/4的男性会遭受疝气的长期折磨，但在今天的美国，这种疾病只需要病人住院23小时，通过一个外科手术即可解决。医疗措施能够有效地发挥作用的领域还包括泌尿生殖系统疾病的治疗、高血压的控制、中风发生几率的减少、膝关节和髋关节复位、白内障治疗以及能降低骨质疏松症和心脏病发病几率的治疗等（Fogel，2004a）。

但上述医疗卫生方面的巨大进步绝大多数都被GDP账户忽略了，原因在于，这些部门的价值是以投入而不是产出来衡量的。与半个世纪之前相比，今天一个医生工作一个小时的费用并没有什么不同，而那时，抗生素和现代手术技术还未出现。最近，有人做了一个估计，如果能采取一种更科学的估算方法，那么医疗卫生领域的进步所产生的价值将至少是该行业的投入成本的2倍。然而，这样的计算方法并没有被GDP账户所采用（Cutler和McClellan，2001；Murphy和Topel，2003；Nordhaus，2003）。就美国而言，根据我自己的粗略估计，如果将诸如“闲暇时间的增加”、“医疗卫生质量的提高”以及“教育质量的提高”这类因素考虑在内，那么在过去一个世纪里，美国的人均收入的年均增长率将会翻一番（从年均2.0%增长至3.6%）。

这些统计数字对于我们理解一般美国人的生活水平的变化会带来什么启示呢？如果我们采用传统的增长测算方法，那么美国人在2000年的实际收入就是1900年的8倍。但如果我们采取的是调整后的方法，那么美国人在2000年的实际收入就是1900年的35倍。换句话说，如今的美国人享受的80%的商品和服务都被排除在经济测量之外了（Fogel，2000和2004）。

如果在衡量中国的经济增长时也不能将这种产出质量的进步考虑在内，又会产生什么影响呢？在中国，人们的预期寿命的大幅度延长主要发生在改革开放以前。在1950年到1980年之间，新生儿的预期寿命从40.8岁增加到了67.8岁。到2000年，人们的预期寿命已经达到71.4岁，即在经济改革逐渐加速的时期，预期寿命年均增加约0.18岁（Keyfitz和Flieger，1990；中国统计年鉴，2003）。有关穷国和富国的人均寿命的价值的研究表明，中国人的寿命每增加一岁，所带来的价值相当于人均年收入的3.5倍（参见Murphy和Topel，2002；Visvusi和Aldy，2003）。因此，如果将寿命延长这种未被衡量的进步考虑在内，那么中国在1980年至2000年间的经济增长率还应该提高60%。如果中国GDP在2000年至2040年间的实际增长率为13%而不是8%的话，那么整个中国经济的规模到2040年将是现在所测算的经济规模的6倍。当然，考虑到美国和中国在产出测算中都没有考虑经济质量的改进，这两个经济体的相对排名也不会有太显著的变化。

政治不稳定是否会阻碍经济增长

到目前为止，我只是单纯地考虑了经济因素。有些分析人士认为，政治不稳定将严重阻碍中国维持高经济增长率。这样的观点描绘了好几种糟糕的可能性。有些人首先指出，由于剧烈的周期性经济波动所引起的萧败会引发失业，打破目前并不牢固的社会稳定局面。另一些人则认为金融问题和低效率的国有企业已经使中国的社会越来越动荡。他们认为，这些问题不仅会导致城市失业增加，而且也使得工资、养老金、医疗以及住房补贴不能兑现（Bremmer，2005；Chaohua， 2005）。此外，还有人警告说，受巨额不良贷款困扰的中国银行体系即将崩溃，而这一崩溃会影响微观经济的稳定（Garnaut和Song，2004）。

其他一些威胁到社会稳定的因素还包括：普遍存在的腐败；内部权力斗争；房地产行业、国际贸易以及钢铁（还有其他一些产品）行业的泡沫；城乡之间、沿海和内陆之间、高级知识分子和教育程度较低的大众之间、汉族和少数民族之间的发展不平衡问题。还有一个较为新颖的观点指出，由于15岁至34岁之间的中国人的男女性别比急剧不平衡，这会引发高犯罪率和暴力行为，导致不稳定的婚姻关系。有些人还指出，国际局势的紧张，尤其是台湾问题，会使领导人不再注意力放在经济目标上（Pei，2005；Bradsher ，2004；Dunphy，2004, Hu，2000；Lim，2004；Business Asia，2002；McGregor，2004；Wilson ，2004；EIU ViewsWire， 2004）。

在预测未来的时候，可能出现的情况几乎是没有穷尽的。但问题的关键不是有可能发生什么，而是更容易发生什么。重要的是，很多人提出的问题事实上都是中国社会长期存在的，比如低效率的国有企业问题等。尽管这些国有企业或许会成为经济发展的包袱，但中国仍然在过去25年中取得了年均8%以上的经济增长速度。 那种认为这些低效企业会在一夜间破产的观点是没有说服力的。中国政府已经出台了政策，逐渐关闭了某些亏损企业，或者在保证盈利的基础上对这些企业进行了重组，以确保不会导致失业率的急剧上升。即便政府出于某些经济或政治因素的考虑需要对这些低效企业提供补贴，它也有足够的资金支持，而且这种补贴负担会逐渐消失，因为随着经济的快速增长，经营状况欠佳的国有企业提供的工业产出的比例会逐渐降低，财政补贴负担也会快速消失。

这些分析也同样适用于国有银行问题。尽管中国国有银行的不良贷款比例已经达到了35%，但中国并没有处于银行体系即将崩溃的边缘。政府完全有能力消除这些负担。从根本上讲，国有银行之所以受坏账所累，主要是因为当初政府要求这些银行向亏损的国有企业提供融资。但是，大量流入的外商直接投资减轻了这种由融资政策引发的无效率和扭曲。中国政府一直鼓励引入外资，而这些外资在流入的同时也向中国转移了大量的先进技术。外商直接投资主要流向大企业，使得中国的各大银行有能力向那些小规模企业提供所需的资本（林毅夫、蔡昉和李周，2003；樊纲，2005）。此外，随着政府能够更有效地利用货币体系来调控商业周期，以及资本市场改革的不断深化，中国经济生活中的扭曲现象会得到改善。举例来说，不久前中国政府对四大国有银行中的两家进行了重组，将这两家银行的资本金充足率提高到了国际水平。也许更重要的是，中国的政府债务很低，还不到GDP的1/5，这就使政府有余地实行其所需要的稳定政策，包括对银行系统的快速重组等，而不是继续推行渐进的改革方案（林毅夫、蔡昉和李周，2003；樊纲，2005）。

尽管领导层对实行什么样的经济政策或许会存在分歧，但他们的基本立场却是一致的，那就是中国应该继续推进向市场经济转型的改革。此外，关于加大地方政府的经济决策权以推动经济增长这一点，领导层也没有异议。正如很多分析人士指出的那样，中国政府团结在一个叫做“市场联邦主义”的政策周围。这种具有中国特色的联邦制会限制中央政府对经济决策的过多控制，促进地方政府之间的有效竞争，抑制寻租行为，并刺激创新型的地方企业的发展。这种联邦制在税收体系方面也体现得较为明显，被称为“财政联邦主义”，它可以避免税收对经济增长的抑制。在1994年的税收改革中，中央政府的权限限制在了增值税和中央下属的企业的所得税方面。此外，还建立了归属地方政府的地税局。尽管在财政体系构建的过程中还有很多工作要做，尤其是要缩小地方发展的不平衡，但这些问题都已经提上了国家领导人的改革日程。中央领导人同样明白地方自治权过多的危害和副作用——可能导致寻租、道德风险及其他形式的腐败，他们知道必须对地方政府的行为进行监管，同时在必要时对腐败给予处罚。要成功实现自治权的下放需要一个强有力的中央政府，它既能够将中央与地方的发展目标统一起来，又能很好地约束地方政府那些危害改革进程的腐败行为，同时还能对推动改革进程的地方政府给予奖励（林毅夫、蔡昉和李周，2003；Bahl 和 Martrinez-Vazquez，2003；Blanchard 和Shleifer ，2000；Montinola、钱颖一和Weingast，1996；Krug、 Zhu和Hendrischke，2003）。

有些分析人士还提出，除非中国引入多党竞争机制，否则中央和各省之间的关系就会非常紧张，从而会危害中国的政治稳定并阻碍经济的高速增长。还有人认为，难以解决的发展不平衡问题也使基层集聚怨愤，甚至有可能使局势失控（Goldstone，1995；Ohman ，1995；Esarey，2002）。分析人士强调的其他事情还包括，环境的不断恶化、公共医疗改革发展滞后以及地方政府的腐败等（Shambaugh，2000；Chapman，2002）。

这些论点之所以缺乏说服力，就在于它们都假设中央政府对上述问题一无所知。但显然，中国的领导人非常清楚，促进经济增长的某些政策已经削弱了中央政府对国民的日常生活和信息的控制。事实上，改革的目的之一就是要发挥地方政府的积极性、推动地方的创新，同时鼓励跨国公司进入中国市场，以引入新的思想和技术。此外，尽管中国的政治制度与西方有异，但政府仍然鼓励人们就那些阻碍经济增长的现行政策提出批评。在中国的经济学会议上，学者们关于各级政府政策的讨论的激烈和广泛程度不亚于美国经济学会。

为了适应不断变化的经济形势和社会形势，中国共产党的领导人也在不断调整其核心目标，并与那些处在中国经济和社会转型前沿的精英阶层开展合作。这一调整过程在中国共产党的新口号——“三个代表”——上就可以反映出来。该思想是2000年春提出来的，它取代了中国共产党先前的“三大革命阶级”（即农民、工人和士兵）的思想。“三个代表”的思想对中国共产党作了这样的定位：（1）始终代表先进的社会生产力的发展要求；（2）始终代表中国的先进文化的前进方向；（3）始终代表中国的最广大人民的根本利益。为了与那些推动中国社会转型的精英阶层建立更紧密的联系，中国共产党还鼓励建立各种与政府紧密合作的商业和职业组织。不仅如此，中国共产党还对党员构成进行了改革，吸纳了大量商界、社会以及学术界的人才。在1982年以来的20年中，具有大学文凭的中央委员人数从刚过50%上升到了近99%（Dickson，2003a和b）。

在2002年11月召开的中共十六大上，省级领导们成了中央政治局的生力军，占到了总人数的42%。相反，政治局成员中军界的代表仅占8%，中央党政机关的成员则为25%。由于省级领导人在国家政策的讨论中占了重要地位，尤其是很多中央领导人也都是从省级领导人中提拔的，那么关于中央政府和省级政府之间会发生冲突的说法就没有太多意义了（Bo，2004）。

有些分析家认为中央政府丝毫不关心公众的意见。然而，大量翔实的证据否定了这一论调。自20世纪90年代末以来，中国的各级地方政府和省政府在制定经济和社会政策时都开始采纳民意调查的意见。对政府政策的学术讨论也非常活跃，评论者与政府最高领导人之间的互动很频繁。有关的社会调查发现的问题与学术界和国外分析人士的担忧大致相同，具体都包括腐败的蔓延、发展不平衡扩大、失业率居高不下、赋税过重以及养老金的拖欠等。但在另一方面，这些调查也反映出绝大多数人对于中央政府都持支持态度，他们坚信法院、媒体以及政府机关会对他们的困难采取负责任的态度（Pei，2001；Lin等人，2002；China Newsweek，2005）[4]。

公众对政府的信心反映出，中国人的生活水平普遍得到了改善（67%的人认为得到了改善，12%的人认为恶化了，还有20%的人认为没有变化）。对于生活水平是否会继续改善，人们所持的信念也很相似。根据另一个调查结果，农村地区的乐观度比城市还高（前者为75%，后者为68%）。因此，尽管政府会逐渐完善司法和行政体系，但政治改革的推动还会是相当谨慎的。公众对政府的普遍支持不仅反映了各级政府能正视人们的疾苦，而且表明当地方政府不能快速有效解决民生疾苦时，中央政府会迅速进行干预。此外，这种信心也来自20多年以来绝大多数家庭的收入都经历了快速的增长（Fewsmith，2003）[5]。

群众普遍受惠于经济增长，加上政府对公众意见的重视，尤其是对民生疾苦的关注，将保证中国的政治稳定持续下去。北京申办2008年奥运会的成功就证明了中国政权的稳定以及领导人的信心。另一个证明来自中国一直不断鼓励自己的学生到美国和欧洲的大学深造。在未来几十年里，中国对国内自由会采取逐步放开的政策。这些发展会使未来的政治制度走向何方还有待观察。但无论如何，政府对公众意见所抱有的负责任的态度表明，中国经济长期持续增长所需要的政治稳定是有可能维持下去的。

                                                   （李淑萍 译 吴素萍 校）

注释：

  *  本文从CES会议、芝加哥伊利诺伊大学、芝加哥大学以及西北大学研讨班受益匪浅，此外，A.J. Aiseirithe、Louis Cain、Thomas Chappelear、Jack Goldstone、James Heckman、Justin Lin以及Werner Troesken 也为本文提供了很多有益的建议。本文仅代表作者个人的观点，不代表国民经济研究局（NBER）的立场。——作者注

 ** 本文作者Robert W. Fogel为1993年诺贝尔经济学奖得主，《比较》第5辑曾发表了他的《经济学与时俱进》一文。——编者注。

1， 关于有可能阻碍中国经济增长目标的经济因素的讨论可参见Shane（2005）；Zakaria （2005）；R. Wang（2005）；The Economist（2004a，2004b，2005a）；Prasad（2004）

2， 表1中的分解分析所采用的数据来源于《2003年中国统计年鉴》第26页、27页、第313页。由于没有GDP平减指数，我们采用了零售价格定基指数以获得实际GDP。由于等式（1）中微分逼近值的总和与 的值不太一致，因此在计算LFRP、行业间劳动力流动以及部门内生产率的变化对人均收入总体变化的贡献时，我们将等式右边各项的和作为分母。

3，其他八国集团国家公布的数据的相对指数与表2所显示的美国的数据有所不同，但没有实质性区别。若采用其他国家的数据并不会根本上推翻分析结论。我在表2中之所以采用的是美国的数据是因为很可能美国的数据也低估了劳动升级对中国经济增长的影响。OECD提供的其他6个八国集团成员国在1997、1998或1999年的数据如下：

              加拿大    法国    德国    意大利    英国    美国    

12年级以下     100      100     100      100      100     100

高中毕业生      120      119     128      172      154     149

学士及更高学历  183      201     201      —       263     269    

资料来源：Sherman、Honegger和McGivern ，2003，表A31。

    由于某些原因，上表中美国的指数值与表2中存在差别。该表中的数值算是以男性和女性的平均收入为基础计算的，而表2中的数值则是仅以男性收入的中间数为基础的。此外，上表中的年龄段不包括65岁及以上人士。上表中的年限为1997年、1998年或1999年，不包括2000年。不过两个表最重要的区别在于上表中采用的标准是12年级以下而非9年级以下。需要注意的是，在表2中，具有大学学历的人的收入与只有高中文凭的人的收入之比为173。但在本表中，该比率为181。

4，其他有关政治压力和回应的有趣研究包括Huang（1995）；Chapman（2002）；Gong（2005）；D. Wang（2005）；以及 Bremmer（2005）。

5，还需要注意的是Fareed Zakaria对自由民主、非自由民主和自由专制所做的区别。自由民主的特征不仅包括竞选，而且还体现在政府会竭力保护公民的自由和尊严而非强权统治，对各级政府的权力进行监督并保证法律面前人人平等。非自由民主也有竞选制度，但选举出的政府会利用手中的权力压制人们的言论和集会自由，并对经济和社会行为进行限制。自由专制实行一党制，但同时给予公民有限的政治权利并改善了一国的经济状况、社会状况和公民权利状况。他提出，目前大多数东亚国家的政府“都是民主主义、自由主义、资本主义、寡头统治和腐败的混合产物——就像1900年左右西方国家的政府”（Zakaria，1997，第 28页；Zakaria，2003；也可参见The Ecolnomist，2005b）。

 英文原文：

Why China is Likely to Achieve its Growth Objectives

Robert W. Fogel

Working Paper 12122 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12122

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Issued in March 2006

1050 Massachusetts Avenue，Cambridge, MA 02138，

I have benefitted from discussions at the CES meeting, seminars at the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Chicago, and Northwestern University, and from suggestions by AJ Aiseirithe, Louis Cain, Thomas Chappelear, Jack Goldstone, James Heckman, Justin Lin, and Werner Troesken. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

 ⊙ copyright 2006 by Robert W. Fogel. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including . notice, is given to the source. 

Abstract 

   In 2002, the Chinese Communist Party announced a goal of quadrupling per capita income by the year 2020. Starting at income levels of the year 2000, this would require a growth rate of 7.2 percent per annum in per capita income or close to 8.0 percent in GDP. Such unresolved and emerging problems as growing income disparities, increasing pollution, pressures on infrastructure, the inefficiency of state owned enterprises, and political instability are often cited as reasons to doubt the attainability of the CCP’s goal. However, China’s progress in addressing fundamental constraints that might limit rapid economic growth augurs well for the success of its economic goals. Although there are disagreements about economic policy among top leaders, the continued transformation into a market economy and the promotion of increasing local autonomy in economic matters are not in doubt. In education, China has substantially increased the percentage of its workforce receiving a college education, and continuing growth in this investment in human capital could account for a large portion of the desired growth rate. In addition, the value of improvements in the quality of economic output unmeasured by GDP, such as advances in the quality of health care and education, could raise reported growth rates by as much as 60 percent. Finally, the government’s increasing sensitivity to public opinion and issues of inequality and corruption, combined with improving living conditions, have resulted in a level of popular confidence in the government that makes political instability unlikely.

Robert W. Fogel，The University of Chicago，Graduate School of Business 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 and NBER ，rwf@cpe.uchicago.edu ，

Why China Is Likely to Achieve Its Growth Objectives 

In 2002, the Chinese Communist Party announced a goal of quadrupling per capita income by the year 2020. Starting at income levels of the year 2000, this would require a growth rate of 7.2 percent per annum in per capita income or close to 8.0 percent in GDP (M. Wang 2005). Is China likely to meet that objective? That question has been a subject of debate in Asia, Europe, and America, with an array of both pessimistic and optimistic views. 

In this paper I present some reasons for joining the optimists. Indeed, I will argue that China’s GDP is likely to grow at rates of 8 percent per annum or more for a least a generation— that is, to 2030—and perhaps beyond that date. Before getting into substantive issues about the economic, structural, and political problems that will have to be overcome if the growth objectives are to be met, it is useful to look at some numbers in order to set the context for analysis. 

Exceptionally rapid rates of growth have been achieved by several poor Asian countries for relatively long stretches of time since World War II. During the twenty years from 1950 to 1970, Japan grew at an average annual rate of 8.4 percent in per capita income, increasing its per capita income more than sixfold, an achievement that is 50 percent higher than the goal set by the Chinese leadership. Over the twenty years between 1960 and 1980, Singapore’s growth in per capita income averaged 7.3 percent. The corresponding figure for South Korea between 1965 and 1985 was 7.6 percent, and Taiwan-China averaged 7.2 percent over the same period. Even China exceeded its new growth target over the 22-year period from 1980 to 2002, when the achieved growth rate averaged 8.2 percent per annum (Fogel 2004b). So the target set by the leadership is well within the experience of the rapidly growing economies of Southeast Asia. 

However, those who question whether the new goal is achievable do so not because they are unaware of the past experience of nations within the region, but because they doubt that China will be able to replicate the experience of past leaders between now and 2020. The doubts arise from beliefs that unresolved or emerging economic, political, and international problems are likely to reduce the recent growth rate substantially. One of the economic issues is the shaky state of the banking system, which is saddled with a high proportion of nonperforming loans. The inefficiency and unprofitability of many state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is also seen as a threat to future growth. Another problem is the growth in income disparities between the rapidly growing coastal provinces and the more slowly growing interior provinces, between urban and rural labor, and between highly skilled and manual labor (cf. Heckman 2005). There are also bottlenecks in infrastructure, including pressure on fuel supplies and electrical power, and the growth of environmental pollution. Although concern over the capacity of China to feed itself has diminished, concern over the adequacy of water supplies has risen. This is not an exhaustive list of the potential economic impediments to a continued high rate of economic growth, but it captures some of the main concerns.1 

Although I recognize the importance of these issues, I shall not dwell on them at this point. I view them as issues that need to be addressed during the course of economic growth and, for reasons that I discuss in the second half of the paper, I believe that they will be addressed. 

They are certainly on the “to do” lists of China’s political leaders and their economic advisors, who stress the need for reducing social and economic imbalances. My initial focus is on more fundamental constraints to sustaining rapid economic growth for another generation, constraints that might undermine long-term growth prospects even if all the right things are done to resolve the current litany of problems.

To get at these potentially more binding constraints it is useful to disaggregate the sources of growth in per capita income between 1978 and 2002. The process is facilitated by equations (1) and (2) in Figure 1. Equation (1) is merely an identity which states that the level of per capita income is equal to output per worker multiplied by the labor force participation rate. In equation (1) the output of the economy is divided into three sectors: agriculture, industry, and services. Labor productivity in each sector is weighted by that sector’s share of the labor force. 

Equation (2) is the rate of growth transformation of equation (1). It says that the rate of growth in per capita income is a weighted average of the sum of the rate of change in the labor share and of labor productivity of each sector plus the rate of change in the labor force participation rate. The sectoral weights are the mid-period shares of income originating in each sector. 

Table 1 shows that 69 percent of the growth in per capita income between 1978 and 2002 was due to increases in labor productivity within each of the three main sectors of the economy.2 The rise in labor productivity was most rapid in industry (6.2 percent per annum) despite the inefficient state-owned enterprises and the inefficiencies in the allocation of capital. As Lin and Tsai (2004, 355-356) have pointed out, the policy of gradually shifting from central control appears to have been more effective than the “big bang” approach. By sequencing reforms that successively enlarged the scope of the market sector, even the SOEs shifted most of their purchases and sales to market prices rather than plan prices. 

Table 1 also shows that while changes in labor productivity were highest in the industrial sector, they were nearly as high in agriculture (5.7 percent in agriculture as compared to 6.2 percent in industry). Moreover, this high rate of growth in agricultural productivity has been sustained for more than two decades. Table 2 shows that although China’s rate of growth in agricultural labor productivity over a two-decade period is not unprecedented, it is at the high end of experience in both Asia and Europe. Only Korea exceeded the Chinese growth in agricultural labor productivity between 1980 and 1997, but in contrast to China, most of the Korean agricultural labor force had already shifted into industry and services. In the Chinese case, half of the labor force is still in agriculture, so the interindustry effect might yet prove to be substantial. Indeed, it is likely to be somewhat larger in the next two decades than it was between 1980 and 2000. 

Since about 30 percent of China’s growth rate is likely to continue to come from interindustry shifts and modest increases in the labor force participation rate (cf. Johnson 2000), growth rates of labor productivity within sectors need only average about 5 percent per year. 

Several factors suggest that such growth rates are likely. Despite the remarkable advances of recent decades, the average technology is still well below best prevailing practice in each of the three sectors. Hence, growth in each sector will be stimulated by the diffusion of the best prevailing practice. Moreover, the frontier of technology is moving out rapidly, especially in the industrial and service sectors, but also in agriculture. Third, the investment in capital, especially human capital, is capable of rapid improvement in the next several decades. Finally, despite the preoccupation with possible overstatement of the Chinese growth rate due to inflated estimates of growth sent from localities, on balance it is likely that the true Chinese growth rate is understated, especially in the service sector, due to the failure adequately to account for improvements in the quality of output and the underreporting of small firms. I now want to elaborate briefly on these last two factors and assess their likely impact on growth rates over the next two or three decades. 

The Role of Factor Enhancement 

Table 3 presents enrollment ratios in primary, secondary, and tertiary schools for 1980, 1990, 1997, and 2000. China is compared with seven Asian nations, four Western European nations, and the United States. At the primary level, China’s ratios exceed those of all the other nations. At the secondary level China compares favorably with the other newly industrializing countries (NICs), but it is behind South Korea, Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. However, the gap diminished rapidly between 1990 and 1997. In this brief span the enrollment ratio at the secondary level increased by over 40 percent. China lags furthest behind the rich nations at the tertiary level. There its enrollment level is between 15 and 27 percent of enrollment levels in Korea, Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. However, once again it is rapidly closing the gap. Between 1990 and 2004 the Chinese tertiary enrollment ratio sextupled (China Statistical Yearbook 2005). 

It is possible to quantify the impact of enhancing the quality of labor through education on the growth rate of per capita income by making use of the equations shown in Figure 2. Equation (3) is a factor-augmenting production function in which . L and . K are indexes of labor and capital augmentation (in this discussion I will focus only on labor augmentation). Equation (4) merely rearranges equation (3) to put it in a more convenient form. The dependent variable is now labor productivity and the term in square brackets brings the augmentation indexes together with the index of total factor productivity. Equation (5) is the rate of growth transformation of equation (4). It indicates that when all other variables are held constant, labor productivity will grow at the rate of growth of labor augmentation multiplied by labor’s share in income. 

Table 4 presents the information needed to implement equation (5). The top part presents an index of the relative productivity of labor with primary, high school, and college degrees. The index is based on the income of U.S. males by education level. It indicates that a college-educated worker is 3.1 times as productive, and a high school graduate is 1.8 times as productive, as a worker with less than a ninth-grade education.3 The bottom half of the table indicates the contribution of various scenarios of increases in enrollment ratios. Labor enhancement would grow at the rate of 1.8 percent per annum if the secondary ratio reached one hundred in 20 years. 

Multiplying this figure by the labor share indicates that such an achievement would add about 1.1 percent to the growth rate of labor productivity. Labor enhancement would grow at 7.4 percent per annum if the tertiary ratio rose from 6 to 25 in the next twenty years, which would put the tertiary level of education in China at about where the Western European nations were in 1980. That level of labor augmentation would add 4.4 percent to the growth rate of labor productivity, and by itself would account for over 60 percent of the target set in 2002. With a more ambitious expansion of higher education, reaching enrollment ratios of 50 in 20 years, labor augmentation would grow at 11.2 percent. The rate of investment in human capital would by itself add 6.7 percent to the overall growth rate. These targets for higher education are not out of reach. It should be remembered that as recently as 1980, the Western European nations had ratios of about 25. Only the United States was above 50. The movement to enrollment ratios of 50 in Western Europe was a product of the last two decades of the twentieth century. In the case of the U.K., two-thirds of the increase from 19 to 52 percent took place between 1990 and 1997.

The significance of investment in human capital as an engine of economic growth has not eluded the State Council. In 1998 Jiang Zemin called for a massive increase in enrollments in higher education. The response was swift: over the next four years enrollment in higher education increased by 165 percent (from 3.4 million to 9.0 million) and the number of students studying abroad also rose by 152 percent (China Statistical Yearbook 2003). It is currently estimated that by 2010 at least 20 percent of high school graduates will be enrolled in institutions of higher education and the long run target is 50 percent by 2050. The tertiary enrollment ratio increased by about 50 percent between 2000 and 2004 (from 12.5 to 19.0 percent), so the calculations shown in Table 4 may well be too conservative (China Statistical Yearbook 2005). China currently has about 20 million students enrolled in higher education, which exceeds current U.S. enrollments by about 60 percent. (Newcomb 2005; U.S. Statistical Abstract 2005). It is estimated that in 2005-6 China will produce 3.3 million college graduates, India 3.1 million, and the United States 1.3 million (Colvin 2005). However, in advancing the frontier of scientific training, the United States still has a considerable lead. 

Errors in the Measurement of Output 

So far I have focused mainly on factor enhancement to support my contention that China is likely to achieve its growth targets. I want to turn now to the problems of measurement on the output side of equation (5). Errors in the measurement of national income from the output side have become increasingly severe. It is now clear that official estimates of GDP for the United States badly underestimate U.S. economic growth because they do not take into account improvements in the quality of output, especially in such services as education and health care. Children in secondary schools are taught more about science and technology today than postgraduate college students used to be taught a generation ago, let alone two generations ago. 

Even more dramatic are the improvements in health care. A century and a half ago, people in their late thirties and early forties were more afflicted by chronic disabilities than people in their late sixties and early seventies are today. Not only has the average age at onset of disabilities been delayed by a decade or so, but once disabilities appear, there are now numerous effective interventions. Hernias, which used to be permanent and exceedingly painful conditions afflicting one out of every four males, can now be repaired by a surgical procedure that in the United States requires hospitalization for only 23 hours. Other areas where medical interventions have been highly effective include treatment of genito-urinary conditions, control of hypertension and reduction in the incidence of stroke, replacement of knee and hip joints, curing of cataracts, and chemotherapies that reduce the incidence of osteoporosis and heart disease (Fogel 2004a). 

Yet most of these great advances in health care and education are overlooked in the GDP accounts, because the values of these sectors are measured by inputs instead of by output. An hour of a doctor's time is considered no more effective today than an hour of a doctor's time was half a century ago, before the age of antibiotics and modern surgery. It has recently been estimated that the value of improvements in health care, if properly measured, are at least twice the cost of health care, but such calculations have not yet made their way into the GDP accounts (Cutler and McClellan 2001; Murphy and Topel 2003; Nordhaus 2003). In the case of the United States, my own rough estimates indicate that allowing for such factors as the increase in leisure time, the improvement in the quality of health care, and the improvements in the quality of education would come close to doubling the U.S. annual growth rate of per capita income over the past century (from 2.0 to 3.6 percent per annum). 

What is the implication of these statistics for understanding the change in standards of living for the typical American? If we use the conventional measure of growth, the real income of the typical American in 2000 was 7 times greater than it was in 1900. However, if an adjusted measure is used, Americans in 2000 had real incomes that were 34 times greater than in 1900. In other words, 80 percent of the goods and services that Americans enjoy today are outside of the measured economy (Fogel 2000 and 2004a). 

What is the implication of the failure to take account of improvements in the quality of output for the measurement of Chinese economic growth? In China the main increases in life expectancy took place before the onset of the period of reform. Between 1950 and 1980, life expectancy at birth increased from 40.8 to 67.8 years. By 2000 life expectancy stood at about 71.4, an increase of about 0.18 years of life expectancy per calendar year during the period of accelerated economic reform (Keyfitz and Flieger 1990; China Statistical Yearbook 2003). Studies of the value of a statistical life year in rich and poor nations suggest that the value of an additional year of life in China is about 3.5 times per capita income (see, e.g., Murphy and Topel 2002; Viscusi and Aldy 2003). Hence, the value of the unmeasured improvements in life expectancy may have been high enough to raise the rate of economic growth between 1980 and 2000 by about 60 percent. If the true growth of GDP between 2000 and 2040 is 13 percent instead of 8 percent, then the true size of the Chinese economy in 2040 will be about 6 times the size of the measured economy. Of course, if both the United States and China similarly neglect changes of quality in their measurements, the relative ranking of the two economies may not be changed significantly. 

Will Political Instability Undermine Economic Growth? 

So far I have focused purely on economic issues. Some analysts argue that political instability is a serious impediment to China’s ability to maintain high rates of economic growth. Several scenarios have been outlined in which political factors could thwart economic goals. 

Some of these scenarios begin with an economic breakdown brought on by a sharp cyclical downturn that would raise unemployment and undermine a precarious social stability. Others warn that a growing social unrest has been brought on by the financial problems and inefficiencies of the state-owned enterprises. These problems have not only led to rising urban unemployment but have also resulted in the failure to pay promised wages, pensions, health-care allowances, and housing allowances (Bremmer 2005; Chaohua 2005). Still others warn of an impending breakdown in the banking system, which is beset by a huge burden of nonperforming loans, a breakdown that could undermine the microeconomic stability of the economy (Garnaut and Song 2004). 

Other threats to stability that have been observed include: widespread corruption; internal power struggles; bubbles in real estate, international trade, and steel (among other products); inequality between the urban and rural areas, between the coastal and interior provinces, between the highly educated elites and poorly educated masses, and between the Han majority and the ethnic minorities. One unique warning singles out the sharp rise in the sex ratio concentrated at ages 15–34, which, it is argued, will translate into high rates of crime and violence and may promote concubinage. Some single out international tensions, particularly over Taiwan, which divert the attention of the leadership from their growth objectives (Pei 2005; Bradsher 2004; Dunphy 2004, Hu 2000; Lim 2004; Business Asia 2002; McGregor 2004; Wilson 2004; EIU ViewsWire 2004).

When speculating about the future, the range of possible scenarios is virtually unlimited. The point at issue is not what might occur, but what is likely to occur. Moreover, many of the problems singled out are of long standing, such as the inefficiency of many state-owned enterprises. While these SOEs may be a drag on the economy, China has nevertheless been able to grow at over 8 percent per capita for a quarter of a century. The idea that these inefficient firms will suddenly go bankrupt is far-fetched. The policy of the State Council has been to gradually phase them out or to reorganize them on a profitable basis so as not to sharply increase unemployment. Not only does the government have the finances needed to continue subsidizing inefficient firms if it chooses to do so for economic or political reasons, but the burden of these subsidies will also gradually diminish, because the share of the industrial output supplied by these underperforming SOEs will gradually decline and the burden of a given level of subsidies will rapidly diminish with the economy growing so rapidly.

These points also apply to the problem of the state banks. Although the proportion of nonperforming loans may be about 35 percent, China is not in immediate danger of a collapse of its banking system. It is within the power of the government to remove this burden. The banks originally became saddled with the bad paper because the government obliged the banks to finance unprofitable SOEs. The inefficiencies and distortions in the economy produced by banking policies have been relieved by the large injection of foreign direct investment, encouraged by government policy, which has also facilitated the transfer of advanced technologies to China. With direct investment going largely into large-scale industry, the banks have been able to supply part of the capital needed by small-scale enterprises (Lin, Cai, and Li 2003; Fan 2005). Movements in the direction of more effectively using the monetary system to manage business cycles, and contemplated reforms in capital markets, should also alleviate economic distortions. For example, the government recently restructured two of the four largest state-owned banks to bring their capital position up to international standards. Most important, perhaps, is the very low level of government indebtedness (less than a fifth of GDP), which gives the State Council leeway to pursue needed stabilization policies, including a rapid restructuring of the banking system, instead of the gradual policy of reform it is currently pursuing (Lin, Cai, and Li 2003; Fan 2005). 

Although there are disagreements about economic policy among the top leaders, the proposition that China should continue to transform itself into a market economy is not at issue. 

Nor is there disagreement over the policy of promoting increasing autonomy in economic decisions as a lever of rapid economic growth. As many analysts have pointed out, the government is unified around a policy that has been called “market preserving federalism.” This Chinese form of federalism limits the central government’s control over economic decision making, promotes creative competition among local governments, constrains rent seeking, and provides an array of incentives to induce creative local enterprises. This type of federalism is also apparent in the design of the tax system, which has been called “fiscal federalism,” and which is aimed at preventing taxation from stifling economic growth. In the tax reform of 1994, the central government limited its primary administration to VAT and taxes on centrally owned enterprises. It also set up local tax bureaus under the direction of local governments to supervise income taxes. While much remains to be done in the design of the fiscal system, especially with respect to narrowing regional inequalities, these issues are on the leadership’s agenda of needed reforms. The central leadership is also aware of the danger that local autonomy may move in counterproductive ways that promote rent seeking, moral hazard, and other forms of corruption, and that it must monitor performance and penalize corruption where possible. The successful unfolding of autonomy requires a center strong enough to integrate national and local goals, to discipline local authorities whose corrupt practices threaten the progress of reform, and to provide rewards to those who advance it (Lin, Cai, and Li 2003; Bahl and Martinez-Vazquez 2003; Blanchard and Shleifer 2000; Montinola, Qian, and Weingast 1996; Krug, Zhu, and Hendrischke 2003). 

Some analysts argue that unless China permits competing political parties, powerful pressures will build up between the provinces and the center that will undermine political
stability and thwart continued high rates of economic growth. Others argue that the unsolved inequalities have also built up pressures at the grass roots that threaten to become unmanageable (Goldstone 1995; Ohman 1995; Esarey 2002). Other issues stressed by analysts include mounting environmental hazards, lagging development of public health programs, and endemic corruption (Shambaugh 2000; Chapman 2002). 

The difficulty with these arguments is that they assume that the leaders of the CCP and the State Council are unaware of these problems. The leaders are quite well aware that the successes of their growth policies have weakened the central government’s control over daily life and access to information. Indeed, one purpose of the reforms was to promote creativity at the local level by promoting local initiative and by encouraging the entry of global firms into the Chinese market in order to facilitate new ideas and technologies. Moreover, critiques of current policies that hamper economic growth are encouraged, although competitive political parties are prohibited. Debates over governmental policies at all levels are as vigorous and wide-ranging at the meetings of the Chinese Economists Society as they are at the American Economic Association. 

The leaders of the CCP have responded to the changing economic and social conditions by changing the central goal of the CCP and by co-opting the elites who are at the forefront of China’s economic and social transformation. This process of adaptation is reflected in the new slogan of the CCP, “Three Represents,” introduced by Jiang Zemin in the spring of 2000 to replace the previous slogan of “Three Revolutionary Classes” (peasants, workers, and soldiers). 

The new slogan portrays the CCP as: (1) the embodiment of society’s most advanced productive forces; (2) the promoter of an advanced culture; and (3) representing the needs and interests of the great majority of the Chinese population. To extend its connections with the elites who are bringing about the transformation of China, the CCP encouraged the formation of a wide array of new business and professional societies with strong ties to the state. It also transformed the membership of the CCP, bringing into its fold the technocratic leaders of business, social, and intellectual life. During the two decades following 1982, the proportion of the Central Committee members holding college degrees increased from a little over half to nearly 99 percent (Dickson 2003a and b). 

The 16th Congress of the CCP, which met in November 2002, made provincial leaders the most prominent group in the Politburo, representing 42 percent of its membership. By contrast, the military represented only 8 percent of the Politburo, and central party institutions accounted for 25 percent. The balance of the Politburo membership came from Shanghai political circles or from institutions other than provincial leaderships or central government institutions. Given the dominant role of provincial leaders in the shaping of national policy, it makes little sense to dwell on the possibility of a conflict between the national and provincial leaders, especially when many of the central leaders came from provincial posts (Bo 2004). 

Some analysts argue that leaders of the CCP and the State Council are out of touch with public opinion. However, the weight of evidence contradicts that view. Local and provincial governments have been using polling techniques to determine public opinion on an array of economic and social issues since the late 1980s. Academic critics of government policies abound and interactions between these critics and top government leaders are numerous. The range of problems raised by respondents to surveys mirrors the complaints of academic critics and foreign analysts, including widespread corruption, increasing inequality, persistent unemployment, burdensome taxes, and unpaid pensions. Nevertheless, the polls also reveal majority support for the central government and overwhelming belief that the courts, the press, and government institutions will be responsive to their grievances (Pei 2001; Lin et al. 2002; China Newsweek 2005).4 

Popular confidence in the government reflects the widespread belief among the Chinese that their living conditions have improved (67 percent better, 12 percent worse, 20 percent no change). The level of confidence about whether living conditions will continue to improve is similar. According to another poll, optimism about the future is slightly higher in rural areas (75 percent) than in the cities (68 percent). Hence, it is not surprising that political reform is quite limited, although there is an expectation that the government will gradually improve legal and governmental institutions. This generally favorable view of government not only reflects the pragmatic responses of leaders at all levels of government to grievances, but also the frequent intervention of the central government with local officials when they are too slow to respond to complaints. It also reflects the rapid increases in income experienced by the great majority of households for more than a quarter of a century (Fewsmith 2003).5 

This combination of widely shared economic advances and governmental attention to public opinion, especially with respect to grievances, is a formula for continued political stability. One indication of the stability of the regime and the self-confidence of its leaders is its successful bid for the 2008 Olympic Games. Another is its encouragement of Chinese students to enroll in American and European universities. The gradual loosening of constraints on expression in China is likely to continue over the next several decades. Whether or not these developments lead to a multiparty system of the American type remains to be seen. However, the government’s responsiveness to popular concerns indicates that political stability is likely to remain at the level required for continued long-term economic growth. 

Notes 

1. Discussions of economic impediments that may foil the growth targets of China are summarized in Shane 2005; Zakaria 2005; Morrison 2005; R. Wang 2005; Economist 2004a, 2004b, 2005a; Prasad 2004. 

2. The disaggregation shown in Table 1 is based on data from the China Statistical Yearbook 2003, pp. 26, 27, 313. In the absence of a GDP deflator, the retail fixed-base price index was used to obtain real GDP. Because the differential approximation shown in equation (1) does not quite add up to Y , the sum of the terms on the right-hand side of the equation was used as the denominator when computing the contribution of changes in the LFPR, in inter-industry shifts in the labor force, and in within-sector productivity to the overall change in per capita income. 

3. The relative index for other G-8 countries reporting data were somewhat different from those shown for the United States in Table 2, but not materially so. Their use would not materially change the analysis. I prefer the U.S. figures as reported in Table 2 because it
is likely that even they underestimate the impact of labor-augmentation on Chinese economic growth. The data reported by OECD for 6 of the G-8 countries for 1997, 1998, or 1999 are as follows: 

Canada France Germany Italy UK U.S. 

Less than 12th grade 100 100 100 100 100 100

High-school graduate 120 119 128 172 154 149

B.A. or higher degree 183 201 201 — 263 269

Source: Sherman, Honegger, and McGivern 2003, Table A31.

The values of the U.S. index in this table differ from those in Table 2 for several reasons. 

The values here are based on average income over both sexes rather than the median income for men only. The age range here excludes persons aged 65 and over. The years used here are 1997, 1998, or 1999 rather than 2000. But the most important factor is that the base here is less than twelfth grade rather than less than ninth grade. It should be noted that in Table 2, the ratio of the income of persons with college degrees to those with high school degrees is 173. In this note it is 181. 

4. Other interesting discussions of political stresses and responses include Huang 1995; Chapman 2002; Gong 2005; D. Wang 2005; and Bremmer 2005. 

5. It is also worth noting the distinction made by Fareed Zakaria between liberal democracies, illiberal democracies, and liberalizing autocracies. Liberal democracies are not only marked by contested elections, but also by governments that seek to protect the autonomy and dignity of individuals against coercion, create checks on the power of various branches of government, and establish equality under law. Illiberal democracies have contested elections but the elected governments use their power to repress speech and assembly and to restrict economic and social behavior. Liberalizing autocracies have one-party systems but have permitted individuals limited political rights and have improved the spheres of economic, social, and civil rights. He argues that most East Asian governments today “are a mix of democracy, liberalism, capitalism, oligarchy, and corruption—much like Western governments circa 1900” (Zakaria 1997, 28; cf. Zakaria 2003. See also Economist 2005b). 

References 

Asian Development Bank. 2004. Key indicators 2004: Poverty in Asia: Measurement, estimates,
and prospects. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. 

Bahl, Roy, and Jorge Martinez-Vazquez. 2003. Fiscal federalism and economic reform in China. Georgia State University International Studies Program, Working Paper No. 03-13. 

Blanchard, Olivier, and Andrei Shleifer. 2000. Federalism with and without political centralization. China versus Russia. Typescript, MIT. http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/ download_pdf.php?id=818. 

Bo, Zhiyue. 2004. The 16th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Formal institutions and factional groups. Journal of Contemporary China 13: 223–56. 

Bradsher, Keith. 2004. Is China the next bubble? New York Times, 18 January 2004. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=218&did=525776671&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3 &VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1123083139&clientId=133 92&aid=1. 

Bremmer, Ian. 2005. Can China handle threats to growth and stability? Financial Times. 20 March 2005. 

Business Asia. 2002. Fog on the horizon. 25 March 2002. 

Chaohua, Wang. 2005. Nothing to lose but their power. New Statesman. 1 January 2005. 

Chapman, Roger E. 2002. Review of Is China unstable? Assessing the factors, ed. David Shambaugh. H-US-Japan, October 2002. http://www.h-net.msu.edu/. 

China Newsweek. 2005. Opinion polls to link government and public. Translated by Li Shen and Yuan Fang for China.org.cn, 27 January 2005. http://www.china.org.cn/english/2005/Jan/
119018.htm. 

China Statistical Yearbook 2005. Beijing: China Statistics Press. 

China Statistical Yearbook 2003. Beijing: China Statistics Press. 

Colvin, Geoffrey 2005. Can Americans compete? Fortune 25 July 2005. www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,1081269,00.html

Cutler, David M., and Mark McClellan. 2001. Is technological change in medicine worth it?
Health Affairs 20, no. 5: 11–29. 

Dickson, Bruce J. 2003a. Threats to Party supremacy. Journal of Democracy 14: 27–35. 

Dickson, Bruce J. 2003b. Whom does the Party represent? From “three revolutionary classes” to “three represents.” American Asian Review 21: 1–24. 

Dunphy, Stephen H. 2004. The China bubble. Seattle Times, 1 February 2004, Sunday fourth edition. 

Economist. 2004a. A great wall of waste. 21 August 2004. 

Economist. 2004b. Where are the patients? 21 August 2004. 

Economist. 2005a. China and water: Drying up. 21 May 2005. 

Economist. 2005b. Winning is only half the battle. 23 March 2005. 

EIU ViewsWire. 2004. China politics: Rising U.S. tensions. 2 April 2004. 

Esarey, Ashley W. 2002. Reconsidering Weingast market-preserving federalism in contemporary China.http://www.columbia.edu/~as48/Comparative%20Federalism_files/MPF%2002-0204.pdf. 

Fan, Gang. 2005. China’s tough choices. Global Agenda 2005, 140–41. 

Fewsmith, Joseph. 2003. China’s domestic agenda: Social pressures and public opinion. China Leadership Monitor, no. 6: 48–64. 

Fogel, Robert William. 2000. The fourth great awakening and the future of egalitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Fogel, Robert William. 2004a. The escape from hunger and premature death, 1700–2100: Europe, America, and the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Fogel, Robert William. 2004b. High performing Asian economies. NBER Working Paper No. 10752. 

Garnaut, Ross and Ligang Song, eds. 2004. China’s third economic transformation: the rise of the private economy. London: RoutledgeCurzon. 

Goldstone, Jack A. 1995. The coming Chinese collapse. Foreign Policy, no. 99: 35–52. 

Gong, Xiaobing. 2005. Reforms in China: Enhancing the political role of Chinese lawyers (includes remarks by Veron Hung). Translated by Victorien Wu and Veron Hung. Presented at a seminar sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Asia Foundation, 2 June 2005. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa= eventDetail&id=781&&prog=zch. 

Heckman, James J. 2005. China’s human capital investment. China Economic Review 16: 50-70. 

Hu, Fred. 2000. Drifting apart. World Link 13, no. 5: 24–26. 

Huang, Yasheng. 1995. Why China will not collapse. Foreign Policy, no. 99: 54–68. 

Johnson, D. Gale. 2000. Agricultural adjustment in China: Problems and prospects. Population and Development Review 26:319–34. 

Jorgenson, Dale W., and Kevin J. Stiroh. 2000. U.S. economic growth at the industry level.
American Economic Review 90: 161–67. 

Keyfitz, Nathan and Wilhelm Flieger. 1990. World population growth and aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Krug, Barbara, Ze Zhu, and Hans Hendrischke. 2003. China’s emerging tax regime: Devolution, fiscal federalism, or tax farming? Erasmus Research Institute of Management Report Series Reference No. ERS-2004-113-ORG. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/`papers.cfm?abstract_id= 650830. 

Lim, Paul J. 2004. White-hot China. U.S. News & World Report. 15 March 2004. 

Lin, Gang, Martin King Whyte, Jie Chen, Edward Friedman, and Yongming Zhou. 2002. China’s “credibility gap”: Public opinion and instability in China. Asia Program Special Report no. 104. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington, D.C. 

Lin, Justin Yifu, Fang Cai, and Zhou Li. 2003. The China miracle: Development strategy and
economic reform. Sha Tin N. T., Hong Kong: Chinese University Press for the Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research and the International Center for Economic Growth. 

Lin, Justin Yifu, and Yingyi Tsai. 2004. Reform and development in China: A new institutional economics perspective. Seoul Journal of Economics 17, no. 3 (special issue): 335–81. 

McGregor, Richard. 2004. China politics: Clashes in China raise doubt over state control. EIU ViewsWire. 3 November 2004. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=46&did=759809111 &SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD& TS=1123000230&clientId=13392. 

Montinola, Gabriella, Yingyi Qian, and Barry R. Weingast. 1996. Federalism, Chinese style: The political basis for economic success. World Politics 48: 50–81. 

Morrison, Wayne M. 2005. China’s economic conditions. CRS Issue Brief for Congress, updated 25 April 2005.http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45465.pdf. 

Murphy, Kevin M., and Robert H. Topel. 2003. The economic value of medical research. In Measuring the gains from medical research: An economic approach, ed. Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Newcomb, Amelia. 2005. China goes to college—in a big way. Christian Science Monitor, 29 July 2005, Vol 29 Issue 172, 1-4.http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0729/p01s01-woap.html. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Digest of education statistics, 2001, NCES 2002-130. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002130. 

Nordhaus, William D. 2003. The health of nations: The contribution of improved health to living standards. In Measuring the gains from medical research: An economic approach, ed. Kevin 

M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ohman, Jack. 1995. Post-Deng China: The possible outcomes. Foreign Policy, no. 99: 53. 

Pei, Minxin. 2001. Cracked China. Review of 2001 Shehui lanpishu: Zhongguo shehui xingshi fengxi yu yuce (Social blue book 2001: Analysis and forecasting of social conditions in China), ed. Ru Xin, Lu Xueyi, and Shan Tianlun. Foreign Policy, no. 126: 78–80. 

Pei, Minxin. 2005. Dangerous denials: China’s economy is blinding the world to its political risks. Foreign Policy no. 146: 56–58. 

Prasad, Eswar, ed. 2004. China’s growth and integration into the world economy: Prospects and challenges. International Monetary Fund Occasional Paper 232. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/op/232/op232.pdf. 

Shambaugh, David. 2000. The modern Chinese state. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Shane, Matthew. 2005. China’s economic growth faces challenges. Amber Waves 3, no. 1: 3.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February05/Findings/ChinaEconomicGrowth.htm. 

Sherman, Joel D., Steven D. Honegger, and Jennifer L. McGivern. 2003. Comparative indictors
of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2002, NCES 2003-026. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Health Statistics. http://scsvt.org/resource/global_ed_compare_2002.pdf. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2005. 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Viscusi, W. Kip and Joseph E. Aldy. 2003. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. NBER Working Paper w9487. 

Wang, Dan. 2005. The old man of Tiananmen. Wall Street Journal, 18 January 2005. 

Wang, Mengkui. 2005. Growth model needs modification. China Daily, 11 May 2005.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/11/content_441002.htm. 

Wang, Robert. 2005. China’s economic growth: Source of disorder? Foreign Service Journal 82, no. 5: 18–23. 

Wilson, James Q. 2004. Sex matters. Review of Bare branches, by Valerie M. Hudson and
Andrea M. den Boer. Wall Street Journal, 13 July 2004. 

World Development Bank. 2001. World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New
York: Oxford University Press. 

Young, Alwyn. 2000. Gold into base metals: Productivity growth in the People’s Republic of
China during the Reform Period. NBER Working Paper No. 7856. 

Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6: 22–43. 

Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The future of democracy: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. New
York: W. W. Norton. 

Zakaria, Fareed. 2005. Does the future belong to China? Newsweek, 9 May 2005. 

罗伯特·福格尔（Robert Fogel）简介

    1926年福格尔出生在纽约市。福格尔1944年进入康奈尔大学，1948年获得学士学位。在哥伦比亚大学继续深造并于1960年在那里得到硕士学位。1963年在约翰·霍普金斯大学获得博士学位。在康奈尔期间，福格尔的兴趣从物理和化学转向经济学和历史。在四十年代后半期对经济前途普遍悲观，也促使他的注意力转移。

    福格尔1958年在约翰·霍普金斯大学开始执教，但于1959年又转到罗切斯特大学。1964年他进入芝加哥大学，1965年在那里任经济史教授。1965年，他同时兼任罗切斯特大学的教授职位，1975年他把两个职位都辞去，而到哈佛大学任教授。但是，对他来说，既要任人口经济学中心的理事，又要兼瓦格林基金会的理事，所以，1981年，他还是回到了芝加哥大学。福格尔1977年曾任经济史学会会长，1980年任社会科学史学会会长，1978年以后又一直任国立经济研究局的项目理事。

　福格尔教授的研究领域是：北美死亡率的经济解释，营养、劳动福利、劳动生产力的长期变化，对美国经济增长进行长期观察，对两代人不同的家庭行为数据的分析。通过运用经济学理论及数量的方法来解释经济发展和制度变迁，从而刷新了经济史的研究，因此罗伯特·福格尔以他在计量经济史方面出色的工作荣获了1993年诺贝尔经济学奖。

    福格尔的《铁路和美国经济增长：计量经济史学论文集》的出版，标志着“历史计量学”或“新定量经济史学：的诞生。这是把新古典经济学的原理同统计推断原理相结合的一门新学科，用以考察这样的反事实性问题：如果铁路从来就不存在，美国的经济增长率会是多少？对那些反对这一问题的人说来答案是：所有历史研究实际上都是提出反事实性问题，不过是采用含蓄的而不是直率的方式罢了。

    在围绕“新经济”史学的兴起而展开的热烈讨论中，福格尔坚定地维护《美国经济史新释》和《“科学”史学与传统史学》中明确制定的方法。不仅如此，对于19世纪美国铁路的经济影响，福格尔推翻了不少过去的研究；与恩哲尔曼齐心协力，重新考察了美国奴隶制经济学。美国史是以其受到热烈的争论而著名的课题，而《苦难的时代：美国黑奴制经济学》要算是迄今在美国史方面出版的一本争议最大的书。康拉德（A·H·Conrad）和迈耶尔（J·R·Meyer）发表在《政治经济学杂志》1958年4月、10月号上的那篇文章《南北战争前的南方奴隶制经济学》，最先与那种认为奴隶制是一种无效益、不赢利的生产方式的正统观点唱反调。福格尔和恩哲尔曼接受了这篇经典文章的观点，进而严加抨击像种族主义者那样的死死维护正统观点的那些人；坚持认为奴隶制具有相当的效益，并且唯有像南北战争那样的超经济力量才可能导致它解体。他们的书已多次被译成别种文字。在不到10年的时间里，对这本书的各种评论文献就远远超过了原书本身。

    有人认为福格尔对经济史的贡献仅仅是用挑衅性方式解释过去，这种看法也许是误解。从历史的档案中重新发掘各种有关资料，是福格尔大部分工作的中心内容。他把美国经济追溯到18世纪，重新建立了诸如这样一些变量的时间序列：生育率与死亡率、女性参与率、移民率、人口流动率以及储蓄率。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  附罗伯特·福格尔教授在中国的报道：

罗伯特·福格尔 中国人应改变养老方式

 http://finance.sina.com.cn 2005年06月04日 09:51 中国证券报

马朝阳

    有人认为，罗伯特·福格尔对经济学史的贡献，就是用挑衅性方式解释过去。他用的是一种反事实性研究办法，也就是说，先假设一种存在的事物不存在，然后推断这种事物对经济的影响。人们现在发现，福格尔的研究往往更接近事实真相。他创立的历史计量学，几乎刷新了经济史的研究方向，福格尔也因此获得1993年诺贝尔经济学奖。

　　经济人口学是福格尔的研究成就之一。福格尔把历史上的死亡率、发病率、营养摄取，个体的身高体重等等一系列的因素整合在一起进行研究，得出了一些非常重要的结论。

　　福格尔的演讲也与此有关，题目是《预测21世纪的人口寿命》。

　　他认为，从19世纪中叶开始，最高预期寿命以每10年2.24岁的速度增长，到2110年，人类预期寿命会增长24年，比现在要增加24岁，“比政府部门预测的两倍还要多。一般来说人们能够超过100岁”。

　　福格尔对中国人均寿命也有研究，他说，欧洲和美国在19世纪初花了150年的时间，才摆脱农村地区的平均寿命比城市地区低15—20岁的落后局面。50年前，中华人民共和国成立时中国人均寿命是50岁，而今天中国全国平均的寿命是72岁。中国用了这么短的时间就与西欧和美国站在了同一水平上。

　　福格尔认为，人类寿命的增加提出了一个很严肃的问题，即养老问题。

　　对于中国老龄化日趋严重、如何解决过早的老龄化问题，福格尔认为，中国不会像外国那样，通过政策来解决这个问题，这是经济上的问题，短期内还有一个关于养老基金的问题。“所以，你们需要改变人们为养老而储蓄的这种方式，在美国和西欧这个进程已经开始了。这其中有一种很困难的转变，就是说，从现收现付的基础到完全积累制的基础，怎么把债务的偿还在不同的几代人之间进行均摊，这都是很重要的和很难的问题，如果处理不好，就会产生很大的动荡。但是我想政府和经济学界会有很好的处理方法，我想他们会给中国提供一些好的例子。”

2005年诺贝尔奖获得者罗伯特·福格尔在北京论坛上的演讲

预测21世纪的人口寿命

罗伯特·福格尔

2005年5月

  　　非常感谢。预测人类未来的寿命是一种艺术，而不是一种科学，所以说我们不难看到在很多机构中预测21世纪人类寿命的时候，他们的数字是不一样的。一般来讲，一些政府机关，比如美国的社会安全部门的人口调查部门，还有其它的OECD的机构都是很保守的。美国机构预算在2000年—2080年之间，人类的预测寿命的增长是每10年增加0.86岁，这包括男性和女性的寿命。另外，他们还说这种每10年的增长率在2040年—2080年之间只是2000年—2040年之间增长的一半，为什么这么悲观呢？为什么他们认为人的预期寿命的增长在21世纪的最初的80年中增长的数字仅仅是在20世纪前80年增长的四分之一呢？我想这种悲观的预计是有他们一系列的理由。

　　一个理由是统计学上的理由，在20世纪，随着时间的发展，人类预期寿命增长的速度是放慢的，在1900年—2000年之间人类预期寿命的增长有26.6岁，其中72%是在这个世纪的前半个部分实现的，而后半部分只实现了29%，所以人们似乎有理由认为这种增长速度的放慢在后来也是如此。

　　另外一个原因就是分析了人类死亡的死因原因，死亡率的下降在1900年—2000年之间，是通过降低传染病来引起的，比如伤寒、水痘等，在20世纪的后半叶，这种死亡率的下降主要是由于战胜了一些威胁中老年人寿命的长期的疾病而实现的，比如说冠心病、心肌梗塞、糖尿病，除了肺结核以外的呼吸系统的疾病，还有一种人类演变方面的生物学方面的理由来支持，因为人类的构造有一些先天存在的缺陷，比如人听力丧失、痔疮等等这些都是人类逐渐年老的时候，身体慢慢出现的身体功能上的障碍或者病症。那么人类的身体能够允许这些错误的存在，因为在人类过了生殖旺盛期之后就不能有了优胜劣汰的选择，如果说年轻时候就生病就死亡了话，那么他们就没有机会产生下一代，所以他们就被选择掉了。那么另外一方面如果超过了生育年龄之后还出现了一些生理上的疾病和残疾，他就能够继续生存下去，所以说具有讽刺意味的观点就是说这种传染病的消失使这些脆弱的人类继续生存下去，超过生育年龄，就有很多老年病症存在。

　　我现在想谈一些人类更加乐观的预计。我认为我们这个世纪的人类寿命预计会增长，这应该跟人类的健康和生理构造的基础来说，这些实践中的数据还显示出有一个新的理论，一种技术生理演化的理论，它考虑到了快速发展的技术水平和人类生理上的实质性的改变之间存在着相互的关系。

　　第一个发现就是说人类在20世纪初达到65岁的人，他们等于活过了19世纪30年代儿童时期的疾病的幸存者，他们虽然逃过了这些儿童时期的疾病，但是他们的身体状况并不好，比同龄人的身体状况要差，他们有很多人都感染了一些慢性的长期的病症。当那些人长到能够参加美国内战、参加联邦军队的时候，他们其中四分之一的人却由于长期的慢性病而被拒绝了。他们在十几岁的时候有六分之一的人就有严重的残疾，而且到了将近四十岁的时候，一半人就有这样的病症，而到50岁的时候，他们有的还能再活二十多岁，但他们是有病症的，比如残疾，我的同龄人就是20世纪20年代出生的，他们身体要差得很多。

　　另外一个发现就是在慢性病患病率的下降和死亡率的下降是同时伴随出现的，虽然说我的这一辈的同龄人没有经历所谓优胜劣汰的淘汰过程，但是他们实际上感染慢性病的时间也是更加晚，而且机率也是更加低，就是说他们感染慢性病的时间延迟了十年，我们现在仍然有二分之一同龄人在60岁的时候没有什么疾病，而且即使染上了病症通过新的治疗干预也会消除这些病症，另外在公共卫生方面的改善，比如水的质量提高，或者牛奶质量的提高，以及有效的儿童时期的疫苗注射等等。这是在1949年前一个很重要的原因促成慢性病的避免，比如说那些导致老年人后来失聪、失明或者行走困难的疾病都能够得以减轻，老年人的健康由于这方面的原因得到了改善。

　　第四个实践的发现是有一些人类生理方面的改善，现在的成年人他们比过去更高、更重，而且他们的脊椎中电子信号传输更强，而且他们比营养不良的人来讲显得更加的健壮，而且他们不必要的腹部的脂肪比过去更少。这些发现显示出确实存在技术、生理演化的东西。这就是说在技术发展和人类生理改善方面确实存在着相互关系，这是一种人类的演化、是一种生物性的，但却不是基因型的，是快速的、是文化传播的，但不是非常稳定的。这种过程是在富裕国家和发展中国家都在进行，不像基因演化的理论，它是适应所有的地球上的生物，所有的历史时期，我说的这种技术演化只是用于过去300年的人类的历史，特别是上个世纪。

　　对于人类的寿命增长，自从19世纪中叶开始，我们看见预期寿命的最高值，这就是说在同一时期中任何人群出现最高人类的预期寿命，我们可以看到有更多的证据，这种最高的预期寿命和实际寿命之间的差距就是我们证据。

　　到了2010年我们人类的寿命的预期值将会增长24年，比现在这个世纪要增长24岁，这比政府部门预测的两倍还要多，一般来说，人们能够超过100岁，这就提出了一个很严肃的问题，关于退休和保健方面的问题，如果说我们有这么多的老年人存在，我们的社会能不能承担这样的负担呢？他们已经退出了劳动力队伍，剩下的30%的劳动力的30%能不能有足够的生产效率来支持整个社会需要呢？这种生产率的增加能不能实现这一点呢？请大家看第一个数据分析，我们看到第一个公式里面字母代表的是人均收入，“W”代表的是人均的产出，第二个公式里面也有同样的一些变量，就是说人均收入和人均的生产率、劳动力的参与率之间的关系。

　　表一显示出劳动力队伍的生产力是每年2%的速度来增加的，所以尽管劳动力的队伍将会减少一半，甚至在不太可能的情况下，生产率的提高只是1%，劳动力队伍所在的比例很小，我们看到人均收入增长仍然比今天还要多35%，所以说我们如果认为老龄化造成不能支撑的结果是不可能存在的。谢谢！

罗伯特·福格尔就如果解决过早的老龄化问题现场答问

中国网 | 时间：2005 年05 月30 日 | 文章来源：央视国际

提问：在中国今天已经处在老龄化之中，尽管中国还没有达到完全的繁荣，很多欧洲国家开始讨论延长退休的问题，中国尽管还没有达到完全繁荣，如果解决过早的老龄化问题，福格尔教授是不是有什么建议。谢谢。

罗伯特·福格尔：我想首先指出一些西欧国家他们在讨论将退休推迟，但是他们没有成功，因为国家变富了以后，人们就想早点退休，他们想在劳动年龄的时候每周都少点工作时间，他们想早点退休，退休并不等于懒惰，实际上退休的人实际上可能在生理上更加积极。比如说他们每天可以跑三四英里的路，而且参加其他的运动，他们可以比坐在电脑前打字花费更多的体力，变得更加积极。所以我认为不大可能看到我们会把退休年龄推迟。不管怎么样，政府做什么，用财力来支持，他们也不太会取得这样的成功，不会改变根本的方向。

对中国来说意味着什么呢？就是说你们变得更加富裕，而人们都想早点退休，想有更多的休闲时间，必须趁早准备好这点，因为你们将不会像外国那样，通过什么政策来解决这个问题，而这是经济上的问题，短期上还有一个关于养老基金的问题。所以说你们需要改变人们为养老而储蓄的这种方式，这也是已经开始的进程，在美国和在西欧这个进程已经开始了。有一种很困难的转变，就是说，从现收现付的基础到完全积累制的基础，在美国有一个很大的外债，11万亿，人们必须把这个偿还，但我们谈的是富裕国家，怎么把债务的偿还在不同的几代人之间进行均摊，这都是很重要的和很难的问题，如果处理不好，就会产生很大的动荡。但是我想会在这方面处理得很好，我想政府和经济学界会有很好的处理，我想他们会给中国提供一些好的例子。谢谢。

主持人 中国社科院人口所所长蔡昉：由于时间有限，提问就到这里。我做一个很简短的小结，福格尔教授给我们描述非常乐观的前景，更如他所指出，我们需要跨越人口问题本身去思索这样一个问题，我们能不能承受得起这样一个更长的寿命，更多的闲暇。回答这个问题，涉及了对一系列经济和社会制度问题的适应性的选择性问题，虽然说对21世纪人口预测的工作是基于他说的技术生理演化理论，但是实际上它也是社会经济重要的选择问题。这些问题涉及了我们的公共政策和政府长期的政策考虑，例如包括人口增长问题，人口转变问题，环境和气候变化问题，养老保障体系的模式、成本选择问题，还有医疗保障问题等等。同时我们也可以看到，它会影响到人们的生产方式和生活方式。中国在成功地实现了人口转变之后，也比较早得迎来老龄化的时代，作为人类进步现象预期寿命的延长以及相应延长闲暇，同时提出诸多的挑战。福格尔教授的研究具有重要的政策含义，值得我们深思。女士们，先生们，请让我们再一次感谢福格尔先生的演讲。