A Tale of Two Economies
Despite their huge differences, the Chinese and American economies share one common characteristic that is both a short-run problem and a long-run opportunity: rising labor productivity.
In the U.S., election-year political rhetoric was directed at the so-called "jobless recovery" but ignored the fact that this problem, insofar as it exists, is largely due to rising labor productivity rather than to "outsourcing" of jobs abroad. Similarly, much of the criticism of China's limited ability to create sufficient new job opportunities has ignored the fact that these limits are due largely to rising labor productivity.
Both the Chinese and American economies have generated rates of growth in labor productivity (measured as output per employed worker, or per hour worked), substantially above their previous performance. In China, for the period from 1998 to 2003, increases in labor productivity have been nearly 7%, the highest among the world's major economies. In the United States, annual increases in labor productivity in the same period have averaged between 3% and 3.5%, the highest among the major industrialized economies, including Japan and Germany.
Rising labor productivity is a powerful contributor to economic growth and social progress. It drives the demand for labor, tending to boost wages and to raise profitability of capital. In the process, business investment and consumer spending are stimulated, and these in turn contribute to economic growth.
At the same time, rising labor productivity reduces the amount of new employment created by economic growth. For example, if gross domestic product in the U.S. grows at an annual rate of 4% (the current U.S. growth rate) while labor productivity increases at an annual rate of 3%, then the rate of new job creation in the U.S. will not exceed 1%. This 1% increase amounts to approximately 1.4 million net new jobs annually, which is about 500,000 fewer jobs than the normal increase in the number of new entrants into the labor market each year. Higher labor productivity thus reduces the capacity of aggregate economic growth to generate new jobs.
China has an analogous problem. While China's annual rate of GDP growth has averaged between 8% and 9% in the 1998-2003 period, annual growth in labor productivity has also been extraordinarily high: nearly 7%. The result has been to cap creation of new jobs at 1-2% of existing employment, about 10 million new jobs annually. This figure, although substantial, pales when compared with the total number of China's unemployed and underemployed labor. According to China's official statistics, registered unemployment rose to 4% from 3% of the urban labor force in the past five years, rates that are remarkably low compared with other countries. But these figures conceal as much as they reveal. When proper allowance is made for "unregistered" urban unemployment (for example, the number of itinerant migrant workers from rural areas has been estimated as over 100 million) and "disguised" rural unemployment (labor that, while nominally employed, does not add to output), China's actual unemployment soars to 23% of the labor force, about 168 million workers.
In the short run, there is a tension between the goals of raising GDP growth, creating additional jobs, and increasing labor productivity. Notwithstanding the many and major differences between the U.S. and Chinese economies, rising labor productivity in both countries means that fewer new jobs result from any realized rate of economic growth than would result if productivity growth were slower.
In the midterm and long run this tension is mitigated by the self-corrective effects of competitive markets: higher labor productivity generates additional demand for labor, boosting employment and economic growth. Yet these long-term effects provide limited comfort for policymakers and households anxious for employment to be expanded here and now.
While bearing in mind the long-run prospects, both China and the U.S. should formulate policies that reflect the complex interactions among economic growth, labor productivity and new employment opportunities. Although the public-sector bureaucracies of both China and the U.S. -- especially those of China -- are swollen and should be streamlined, it probably makes sense in the short run to moderate reductions in these relatively low-productivity public-sector jobs. Investments by China in health-services delivery, in preventing and controlling epidemic disease, and in countering the country's serious air- and water-pollution problems can contribute to advancing economic growth and improving quality of life without appreciable effects on labor productivity in the near term.
What is best in the short run may not be best in the long run, and vice versa. This point carries with it a particular message for China's policymakers: a higher rate of aggregate economic growth may not always be preferable to a lower rate. Annual growth of 7%, together with labor productivity growth of 3%, may be preferable to aggregate growth of 9% with accompanying growth in labor productivity of 7%, because the former combination will generate more new employment.
双雄记
尽管存在巨大的差异，但中国和美国这两个经济体却有著一个共同的特点：劳动生产率的提高。这既是一个短期的挑战，也是一个长期的机遇。
在美国，大选之年的政治辩论主要指向了所谓的“失业型经济复苏”，但忽视了一个事实，就是迄今为止，这个问题主要是由于劳动生产率的提高，而不是向海外外包工作造成的。同样，许多对中国在创造足够的新就业机会方面能力有限的批评也忽略了一个事实，就是这种局限在很大程度上是由于劳动生产率的提高造成的。
中国和美国都创造了大大高于以往表现的劳动生产率（按每名职工的产值，或每工作小时的产值来衡量）。在中国，从1998年到2003年，劳动生产率的年增幅一直接近7%，是全球主要经济体中最高的。在美国，同期劳动生产率的年平均增幅为3%至3.5%，是包括日本和德国在内的主要工业化国家中最高的。
劳动生产率的提高是经济增长和社会进步的强大推动力。它推动了对劳动力的需求，有助于提高工资和提高资本盈利能力。在这个过程中，企业投资和消费者支出受到刺激，这又反过来又推动了经济增长。
与此同时，劳动生产率的提高降低了经济增长创造的新就业数量。比如，如果美国国内生产总值(GDP)折合成年率增长4%（目前美国的增长率），而劳动生产率折合成年率增长3%，那么美国新增就业机会的增长率不会超过1%。这1%的增幅相当于年度净增就业岗位140万个左右，比每年新进入就业市场的劳动力人数少大约50万个。劳动生产率的提高会降低经济持续增长创造新增就业机会的能力。
中国也存在同样的问题。尽管1998年至2003年期间中国的GDP年增幅平均达到了8%至9%，但劳动生产率年增幅也非常高：接近7%。这使得每年的新增就业岗位增幅一直维持在1-2%，约为1,000万人。这一数字尽管巨大，但与中国的失业和未就业劳动力总人数相比却相形见绌。根据中国的官方统计，城镇劳动力的登记失业率在过去5年中从3%增加到4%，与其他国家相比仍非常低。但这些数据可能并未完全反映出实际情况。如果考虑到未登记城镇失业人口（比如，从农村地区进城务工的人数估计超过1亿人）及“隐性”农村失业人口（名义上就业，但并未增加产值的劳动力），中国的实际失业率将高达23%，失业人口约为1.68亿人。
从短期来看，在提高GDP增幅、创造新就业机会的目标和增加劳动生产率之间存在矛盾。尽管美国和中国的经济有许多明显不同之处，但劳动生产率的提高对两个国家而言都意味著实际经济增长率创造的新就业机会要少于劳动生产率较低时。
从中长期来看，这种矛盾将由于市场的自我调整功能而得到缓和：劳动生产率的提高会创造对劳动力的额外需求，进而推动就业和经济增长。但这种长期效应却难以打动急于在此时此刻就实现扩大就业的政策制定者和普通民众。
在意识到这种长期前景的同时，中国和美国还应制定政策，以真正反映出经济增长、劳动生产率和新增就业机会之间的复杂内在联系。尽管中国和美国──尤其是中国──的政府部门过于臃肿，需要进行精简，但从短期看放慢削减这些低生产率的政府部门岗位可能更可取一些。中国为预防和控制传染病及解决严重的空气及水污染问题而投资于健康服务行业有助于提高经济增长率，改善生活质量，同时又不会在近期内对劳动生产率产生明显影响。
从短期看最好的措施从长期来看不见得最佳，反之亦然。这点对中国的政策制定者而言尤其具有特殊含义：更高的累计经济增长率不见得总是好于较低的增长率。7%的经济年增长率和3%的劳动生产率增幅可能要好于9%的经济增长率和7%的劳动生产率增幅，原因是前者相结合会创造更多的新就业机会。
