提升中国生活水平仍需依赖投资-罗思义

如何提高生活水平，经济学术语就是如何推动消费，是中国和世界每个经济体面临的难题。投资、技术和其他因素都只是实现它的技术手段而已。

因此过去一段时期，关于消费有一个基本却关键的误读，成为了影响对中国经济探讨的潜在问题。虽然这个误读正在被纠正，还是有必要澄清其中的利害关系。在描述严格的经济学问题之前，先谈一谈这些问题对中国的生活水平和经济增长的实际意义。

统计学和理论经济学都认为，想要提高生活水平，唯有经济增长才是可持续的方式。世界银行数据显示，一般来说GDP的任何增长都会促进消费增长，最多可达87%。其他任何方式都无法在提高生活水平上达到哪怕一丁点儿这样的效果。

这对中国来说至关重要。1949年新中国成立时，百废待兴，生活水平位居世界末尾。中国底子薄，所以尽管后来取得了人类历史上最快速的经济增长，让自己从一个贫穷国变成了国际标准的中等收入国家，中国的人均消费还是落后于发达国家。要想达到发达国家的生活水平，中国还需飞速发展几十年。

很显然，除此之外没有其他替代的办法。世界银行2010年的数据，也是能得到的最新数据，显示中国的平均人均消费水平为2064美元（约12844人民币），美国是41320美元（约257125人民币）。当然这是未对市场汇率进行调整得到的数字，因为中国的平均价格水平比美国低42%。但即使利用“购买力平价”对汇率进行调整，上调中国的消费水平，中国的人均消费仍然只有3522美元（约21917人民币），仅为美国的9%。

中国的现有资源再分配并不能消除这一差距。即使完全不切实际地假设中国所有的GDP都用来消费，没有资源用在投资领域，然后根据价格数据进行调整之后，中国的人均消费仍然只有美国的18%。只有长期的经济增长才能让中国达到世界发达国家的生活水平。

事实上，提议中国不该投资而应将所有收入再分配到消费领域只会让情况变得更糟。现有的资本设备会迅速折旧，产值会迅速下降，生活水平也会暴跌。中国只有通过投资来实现增长。

更精确的计量经济学表明，投资占到经济增长的50%以上。中国的经济可以快速增长，正是因为有很高的投资水平。大幅度削减投资，将资源投向消费领域，只会让中国经济增速放缓。由于经济增长是刺激消费的主要动力，减少中长期投资会减缓中国生活水平的增速。

一个基本的算法就是在过去5年，中国不得不投资GDP的4%来使经济增长1%。对主流经济学标准来说，这是行之有效的方法——在金融危机之前，美国不得不投资GDP的7%来促进经济增长1%。但之后美国的经济状况便恶化了。因此，投资占中国GDP每减少4%，中国的经济增速将放缓1%。考虑到经济增长是刺激消费的主要动力，GDP增速放缓的效果将很快抵消最初因资源从投资领域转移所带来的消费增长。因此，在最初的增长之后，削减投资将导致消费低于它本该达到的水平。

为了说明这一点，想象一下假如中国GDP的4%或8%从投资转向消费。第一种情况下（GDP的4%从投资转向消费）中国的GDP年增速将放缓1%，第二种情况下（GDP的8%从投资转向消费），将放缓2%。最初通过资源转移带来的消费增长在10年后将被经济增长放缓产生的影响所抵消。在那之后，消费水平将比不采取这一转移措施更低。在GDP的8%被转移到消费的情况下，20年后中国的消费水平将比不采取转移措施低20%。具体影响请看下图。

中国的消费增长路径——资源由投资转向消费

但是，中国的经济必须再快速增长十年以上才能达到发达国家的生活水平。所以，在达到发达国家生活水平之前，资源从投资转向消费将使得中国消费和生活水平变得更低。

一些美国新保守派知道削减投资水平将使中国经济放缓，因此他们鼓动中国这么做，目的是为了维持美国的优越性。但是一些中国的经济学家却掉入这样的误区，错误地呼吁大幅削减投资、增加消费占GDP的比重，以为这样就可以提高生活水平。用技术经济学的术语来说，最大限度地提高消费增速是决定生活水平增速的关键因素，但这和提高消费在GDP中的比重搞混淆了。事实上根据刚才列出的原因，这个错误恰恰会弄巧成拙，让中国的消费水平变得更低。

幸运的是，这样的误区正在逐渐被澄清。中国最著名的经济学家之一、世界银行前首席经济学家兼高级副行长林毅夫曾强调，基于投资的项目比基于消费的项目更有效。复旦大学的张军教授和中欧国际工商学院的朱天教授最近在FT中文网上发表了一篇著名的文章，提到：“低消费率的另一面是高储蓄率，它使得一个国家可以在不依赖于外债的情况下实现高水平的投资，这也是中国经济在过去几十年里得以快速增长的一个主要原因。1990年到2010的二十年间，中国GDP年均增长率达到10.5%，与此同时，消费的增长也达到了8.6%（考虑通胀调整因素后）。虽然消费增长速度低于GDP的增长速度，但高达8.6%增速已经非常了不起，因为世界平均水平还不到3%！”他们精妙地总结说：“听起来也许有些拗口，但中国相对低的消费率正是其很高的消费增长率的重要原因。”

笔者最近研究了为什么这些在理论上显而易见的经济问题会对中国经济的增长和生活水平的提高有巨大的实际意义。所以中国最近经济增速的提升及其相应的战略因素的明确，将对中国保持中长期经济的发展有启发性作用。

（邢春燕译）

     英文原文：

How to improve living standards, in economic terms how to raise consumption, is the most important question in China and every economy. Investment, technology and other issues are only technical means to achieve this.

In the past period it has therefore been a potential problem that an elementary, but crucial, error on consumption affected China’s economic discussion. As this is being corrected it is important to clarify the high stakes involved. Before outlining the strictly economic issues their practical implications for China’s living standards and economic growth will be shown.

Both statistics and economic theory show that economic growth is the only sustainable way to increase living standards. World Bank data shows on average any increase in GDP creates an increase in consumption 87% as large. Nothing else even remotely approaches this in raising living standards.

For China this is crucial. At its creation in 1949 New China inherited from its predecessors one of the world’s poorest living standards. So low was the starting point that despite China achieving the fastest economic growth in human history, raising itself from a poor to a middle income country by international classifications, China’s consumption per person remains behind advanced economies. To reach the most advanced economies living standards China must grow rapidly for decades.

It is easy to show there is no substitute for this. World Bank figures for 2010, the latest available data, shows China’s average consumption per person was $2,064. The US figure was $41,320. Certainly this market exchange rate data is distorted. Average prices in China are 42% lower than the US. But even if a correction is made for this, utilizing ‘parity purchasing powers’, and China’s consumption is adjusted upwards by this amount, China’s consumption per person is still only equivalent to $3,522 in US terms - 9% of US levels.

No redistribution of China’s existing resources can close this gap. Even if the wholly unrealistic assumption is made that all China’s GDP is consumed, no resources are used for investment, then in price adjusted terms China’s consumption per person is only 18% of US levels. Only prolonged economic growth can bring China up to advanced economy living standards.

Actually the proposal that China should not invest, and redistribute all income into consumption, would clearly make the situation worse. Existing capital equipment would rapidly wear out, output would rapidly decline and living standards collapse. China can grow only by investing.

More precisely econometrics shows investment accounts for over 50% of economic growth. China’s economy can grow fast only because it has a high investment level. Significantly reducing this, by redirecting resources into consumption, would make China grow less rapidly. As economic growth is the main driver of rising consumption reducing investment, over anything except the short term, would therefore make China’s living standards rise more slowly.

The basic arithmetic is that over the last five years China had to invest 4% of GDP for its economy to grow by 1%. This is very efficient by major economy standards – even before the financial crisis the US had to invest 7% of GDP to grow by 1% and its position has subsequently deteriorated. Consequently for every 4% of GDP China’s percentage of investment in GDP is reduced its economy will slow by 1%. Given economic growth is the main driver of consumption increase this effect of slower GDP growth soon more than cancels out an initial boost to consumption from transferring resources from investment. Therefore, after an initial increase, cutting investment leads to consumption being lower than it would have been.

To illustrate this consider if 4% or 8% of China’s GDP is shifted from investment to consumption. In the first case China’s GDP growth would slow by 1% a year and in the second by 2% a year. The initial boost to consumption from the transfer of resources after 10 years is overtaken by the effect of slower economic growth. After that consumption would actually be lower than if the shift had not taken place. In the case where 8% of GDP is shifted to consumption, after 20 years China’s consumption would be 20% lower than if the shift from investment to consumption had not occurred. What happens is shown in the chart below.

But China’s economy must grow rapidly for far more than 10 years to reach advanced economy living standards. Consequently, long before it reached the living standards of the most advanced economies, shifting resources from investment to consumption would lead to China having lower consumption and living standards than if no such shift took place.

Some US neo-cons understand that cutting China’s investment level would slow its economy – therefore they advocate it in order to maintain US superiority. But some Chinese economists mistakenly fell into the confusion of calling for a major cut in investment, and increase in the percentage of consumption in China’s GDP, to try to increase living standards. In technical economic terms maximizing consumption’s growth rate, which is key to determining how fast living standards rise, was confused with raising the percentage of consumption in GDP. Actually this error, for reasons outlined, would lead to the opposite of the intention and China’s consumption would be lower than possible.

Fortunately such confusions are being sorted out. One of China’s most famous economists, Lin Yifu, former Chief Economist and Vice-President of the World Bank, has stressed investment based programs are more effective than those based on consumption. Jun Zhang of Fudan University and Tian Zhu of the China Europe International Business School recently wrote a notable article for the Financial Times noting: ‘Low consumption means high savings levels, which makes high investment possible… these are among the most important factors behind China’s rapid economic growth. From 1990 to 2010, GDP grew at an average of almost 10.5 per cent a year, while consumption grew at 8.6 per cent… when the world average was less than 3 per cent.’ They rightly concluded: ‘It may sound paradoxical, but China’s relatively low consumption rate is one reason the growth in the rate of its consumption has been so high.’

This present author has previously looked at why this apparently theoretical economic issue has huge practical implications for China’s economic growth and living standards. It is therefore encouraging for the medium and long term strength of China’s economy that the recent practical speeding up of economic growth is being accompanied by more clarity on key strategic issues.