有許多人都提出相同的呼籲或論點，或許從社會發展，環境，生態，...等等。那經濟的觀點來說呢？我清楚的回憶起在學校時老師曾回答：那不是經濟學討論的範圍。這個回答並不是針對這項的論點或類似的問題，但是以甚麼來衡量經濟福祉，一直都沒有一個好的方法，或說一種清楚的指標來衡量。最簡單的指標就是GDP,即從GPD來看的經濟成長。

大部分的經濟評量方式都顯示美國的經濟又開始成長，許多專家更預計第三季將有3%的年成長率，不景氣已經過去了！但是失業率上升至9.7%，而且很有可能在未來幾個月都會持續上升。當有上百萬家庭因失業而生活窘迫，但是經濟指標卻顯示漸入佳境。真的是經濟指標反應在前嗎？如果是，那麼中間的時差是多久呢？一季顯然還不夠。

法國總統薩柯奇請諾貝爾經濟學家史迪格里茲 Joseph E. Stiglitz 與阿馬蒂亞·森 Amartya Sen研究另一種經濟指標做為政府施政的參考。下周在匹茲堡舉行的G20峰會，薩柯奇將會把這項研究提到會議中討論。一個強國的總統和兩個年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主能為這世界帶來甚麼樣的改變呢？發展一個綜合指標是個好方法，但是官僚與學界能屏棄成見接受嗎？而政府會因為要跨部門合作，所以成效更差嗎？還有一個更嚴重的問題：當遊戲規則改變，我們能指望現有的官僚能在新的規則競賽中得高分嗎？總合指標是否意味著要做假更容易呢？或因為玩真的會不及格，所以只能做假？

我是相信規則改變，會使整個遊戲進行的方式改變的。還記得2004年雅典奧運的跆拳道比賽，除了朱木炎是以「迎戰」的方式贏得冠軍，其他的金牌得主，觀其晉級過程，都是一旦取得領先就開始避免交戰，在場內「四處逃竄」。這種武術的金牌產生方式讓人對這種技擊印象深刻，和一般人對於武術的認知完全不同！這種畏戰的精神在其他的武術技擊項目都很少見，但雅典奧運的跆拳賽，一方猛追，一方四處逃竄是主流；那是跆拳道第一次成為正式比賽項目，也讓世人認識不同的武術技擊精神－－選手要極端慎重，一旦領先，更要避免交戰，以確保戰果，大大顛覆世人對武術高手的刻板印象。霍元甲、李小龍或是Rocky在這種規則下，都只有很低的勝算。雖然我不贊同這種規則，也覺得以「四處逃竄」方式贏得金牌不算光榮。舉這個例子是要說明，同樣是武術項目也有鼓勵「逃避」而非「迎戰」的比賽規則。而我們今天在看待我們的經濟表現所使用的評價方式，就像是雅典奧運的跆拳道比賽規則。那些金牌得主可能都很強，但若是採用一個強調「正面迎戰」的比賽規則，我們就不會在決賽裡看到，那個在第一回合得分後，就被追著跑的選手，就是最後的金牌得主的荒謬場景。

一項為國際社會所接受的經濟綜合指標會是個不錯的方法，這樣官僚與政客就不能老是以經濟成長為藉口，犧牲或漠視某些經濟要素或指標，或技術性的隱匿某些指標。但是實際運作時，也有可能只會像中油的油價機制一樣，永遠只能知道要調多少錢，沒有人明白如何計算的。不過這是另一個問題了！




Emphasis on Growth Is Called Misguided        

By PETER S. GOODMAN        
September 23, 2009        

Among the possible casualties of the Great Recession are the gauges that economists have traditionally relied upon to assess societal well-being. So many jobs have disappeared so quickly and so much life savings has been surrendered that some argue the economic indicators themselves have been exposed as inadequate.        

In a provocative new study, a pair of Nobel prize-winning economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, urge the adoption of new assessment tools that incorporate a broader concern for human welfare than just economic growth. By their reckoning, much of the contemporary economic disaster owes to the misbegotten assumption that policy makers simply had to focus on nurturing growth, trusting that this would maximize prosperity for all.       


“What you measure affects what you do,” Mr. Stiglitz said Tuesday as he discussed the study before a gathering of journalists in New York. “If you don’t measure the right thing, you don’t do the right thing.”        

According to the report, much of the world has long been ruled by an unhealthy fixation on swelling the gross domestic product, or the quantity of goods and services the economy produces. With a singular obsession on making G.D.P. bigger, many societies — not least, the United States — failed to factor in the social costs of joblessness and the public health impacts of environmental degradation. They allowed banks to borrow and bet unfathomable amounts of money, juicing the present by mortgaging the future, thus laying the ground for the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.      

The report is more critique than prescription. It elucidates in general terms why leaning exclusively on growth as an economic philosophy may yield unhappiness, and it suggests that the incomes of typical people should be weighed more heavily than the gross production of whole societies. But it sidesteps the thorny details of slapping a cost on a ton of pollution or a waylaid career, leaving a great mass of policy choices for others to resolve.  


Some Americans may reflexively reject the report and its recommendations, given its provenance: it was ordered up last year by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, whose dissatisfaction with the available tools of economic assessment prompted him to create the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Tuesday’s briefing was held in an ornate room at the French consulate. The official French statistics agency is already working to adopt the report’s recommendations. Mr. Sarkozy plans to bring it with him to the G-20 summit meeting in Pittsburgh this week, where the leaders of major countries will discuss a range of policy issues.      


But whatever one’s views on the merits of European economy policy, and wherever one sits on the ideological spectrum, these appear fitting days to re-examine how economists measure vital signs — particularly in the United States.        

By most assessments, the American economy is now growing again, perhaps even vigorously. Many experts expect a 3 percent annualized rate of expansion from July through September. As a technical matter, the recession appears to be over. Yet the unemployment rate sits at 9.7 percent and will probably climb higher and remain elevated for many months. In millions of households still grappling with joblessness and the tyranny of bills, signs of health served up by the traditional economic indicators seem disconnected from daily life.        

This was precisely the sort of contradiction Mr. Sarkozy sought to unravel when he created the commission, tasking it with pursuing alternate ways of measuring economic health.       


To head the panel, he picked Mr. Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist whose best-selling books amount to an indictment of the Washington-led model of global economic integration. Mr. Sarkozy also selected Mr. Sen, a Harvard economist and an authority on poverty.        

The resulting report amounts to a treatise on the inadequacy of G.D.P. growth as an indication of overall economic health. It cites the example of increased driving, which weighs in as a positive within the framework of economic growth, as it requires greater production of gasoline and cars, yet fails to account for the hours of leisure and work time squandered in traffic jams, and the environmental costs of pollutants unleashed on the atmosphere.        

During the real estate bubble that preceded the financial crisis, the focus on economic growth helped encourage overbuilding and investment in real estate. Mr. Stiglitz argues that the single-minded focus on growth gave American policy makers a false sense of assurance that their policies were virtuous, as they allowed financial institutions to direct virtually unlimited sums of money into real estate and as consumer debt levels built with unrestrained momentum.        

Credit enabled spending, and spending translated into faster growth — an outcome that was intrinsically good, and never mind how long it might last or the convulsions that would accompany the end of easy money.      


A growth-oriented policy encouraged homeowners to borrow as if money need never be repaid, and industry to produce products as if the real cost of pollution were zero, Mr. Stiglitz added.        

“We looked to G.D.P. as a measure of how well we were doing, and that doesn’t tell us whether it’s sustainable,” he said at the briefing. “Your measure of output is grossly distorted by the failure of our accounting system. What began as a measure of market performance has increasingly become a measure of social performance, and that’s wrong.”        

Instead of centering assessments on the goods and services an economy produces, policy makers would do better to focus on the material well-being of typical people by measuring income and consumption, along with the availability of health care and education, the report concludes.        

Many of these prescriptions will no doubt resonate with policy makers and ordinary people.        

Indeed, the difficulty comes in turning these general principles into new means of measurement. The report notes that its authors concur on the big picture, but diverge on the methodologies to be employed when it comes to factoring in the value of a better education and cleaner skies.        

The old mode of measurement has taken a beating, and yet the new one, it seems, is still a work in progress.        

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/economy/23gdp.html?em   

---

The story was taken from The New York Times, and the copyright remains with The New York Times Company.  The author of this story and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.