A flawed question of how countries ‘compete'
The television quiz Jeopardy! reverses the usual order of events. Contestants are given the answer and invited to guess the question. As when the host says “Malcolm Glazer” and the guest responds “The most important man in football today?” This way of thinking is often useful when confronted with economic or business data. The user should ask “What is the question to which this number is the answer?”
ADVERTISEMENT
Last week the Swiss business school IMD published its annual rankings of national competitiveness. Ironically, there are two competing measures of competitiveness. Originally the IMD prepared an assessment for the World Economic Forum, but now each body produces its own. The rankings are broadly similar the US, Finland and Singapore are highly rated in both but there are also marked differences IMD likes Canada but not the UK while WEF likes the UK but not Canada.
But before considering who is right, first ask “What is the question to which these numbers are the answer?” Performance measures such as gross domestic product and gross national income are well-established indicators of productivity and prosperity. International conventions allow careful comparisons of these variables between countries and over time. What do the IMD and WEF rankings tell us that conventional calculations of income, output and growth fail to record?
Interest in national competitiveness is an extension of interest in the competitiveness of companies. Competitive businesses are able to offer goods or services more attractive than those of their rivals through lower costs or better products.
But the analogy between individual businesses and national economies doesn't quite hold. Companies that are not competitive disappear. Countries that are not competitive don't. These nations still need to import, and their exchange rate falls until they become competitive again. Every country that trades internationally is competitive in some areas the things it exports and uncompetitive in others those it imports. This principle of comparative advantage has been a foundation of economic analysis for 200 years.
The competitiveness of China is the most talked about phenomenon in the world economy today. But China's competitiveness is in commoditised manufacture, not in aircraft or software. Perhaps because such competitiveness is the result of low labour costs rather than high productivity, China is not ranked highly by either WEF or IMD. But if competitiveness means success in international trade based on technical efficiency and product quality rather than low labour costs, Germany and Japan are highly competitive. The strength of these countries' export industries in precision machinery means they run large trade surpluses despite strong exchange rates and high labour costs. Other German and Japanese industries are uncompetitive, but the principle of comparative advantage tells you it must be so. The more competitive you are in some industries, the less competitive in others. At this point, you will reach the same conclusion as most economists. The concept of national competitiveness is one that creates more confusion than insight.
Surveys of “competitiveness” do not measure competitive success, but how friendly the local environment is towards business which is not necessarily the same as how successful that business is in world markets. So France and Germany, although rich countries, are reckoned not to be “competitive”; Hong Kong and Singapore do well in their rankings; and the US is rated very “competitive” despite the weak dollar. Even business friendliness is hard to measure. Italy, the least “competitive” of rich countries, has policies extremely supportive of the right kind of company. But as in Russia, which Italy just outranks, the government is selective about which businesses it supports.
And that leads to the response that should earn the prize in Jeopardy! The question to which “The US, Finland and Singapore” is the answer is “Which countries have policies of which the IMD or WEF most approve?” That is not the same question as “How successful is local business?” or “How productive is the domestic economy?” And it is misleading to describe these surveys as rankings of national or international competitiveness.
国家竞争力排名没有意义
电视问答比赛“危险!”(Jeopardy!)颠倒了事物惯有的次序。主持人告诉参赛者答案，要他们猜对应的问题。比如，当主持人说出“马尔科姆?格莱泽”(Malcolm Glazer)这个名字时，嘉宾回答“当今足球界最重要的人？”面对经济或商业数据时，这种思考方式常常十分有用。使用这种方法思考的人应该问，“这个数字对应的问题是什么？”
上周，瑞士商学院国际管理发展学院(IMD)发布了国家竞争力的年度排名。具有讽刺意味的是，竞争力有两种针锋相对的衡量标准。最初，IMD为“世界经济论坛”(World Economic Forum，简称WEF)准备了一种评估，但现在两者已制定了自己的排名。IMD和WEF的排名十分相似――美国、芬兰和新加坡的排名都非常靠前，但差别也很明显――IMD喜欢加拿大却不喜欢英国，而WEF喜欢英国却不喜欢加拿大。
但在判断谁的排名正确前，先要问一个问题，即“这些数字对应的问题是什么？”诸如国内生产总值(GDP)、国民总收入(GNI)等业绩测量标准是已确立很久的生产力和经济繁荣的指标。国际公约允许对这些各国之间日积月累的变量进行仔细的比较。传统计算方式包括收入、输出及增长，IMD和WEF排名能告诉我们传统计算方式未能显示的东西吗?
对国家竞争力的兴趣是对公司竞争力兴趣的一种延伸。具有竞争力的企业能通过更低的成本或更好的产品，提供比竞争对手更有吸引力的产品或服务。
但是，个体企业和国家经济的类比并不完全成立。没有竞争力的公司将会消失，但没有竞争力的国家不会消失。这些国家仍需要进口，而且在再度获得竞争力前它们的汇率会一直下跌。每个从事国际贸易的国家总是在一些领域拥有竞争力，即其出口领域，而在其它领域则无竞争力，即其进口领域。在过去的200年中，这种比较优势原则一直是经济分析的基础。
如今，中国的竞争力成为世界经济中最广为谈论的话题。但中国的竞争力是在商品制造业，而不是在航空或软件领域。也许由于这种竞争力是低成本而非高生产力的结果，因此在WEF和IMD的排名中，中国的位置并不靠前。但如果竞争力指的是技术效率带来的国际贸易的成功和产品质量，而不是较低的劳动力成本，那么德国和日本是极具竞争力的。这些国家在精密机器等出口工业上的优势意味着，尽管汇率坚挺而且劳动力成本高，但它们对别国的贸易顺差仍然很大。德国和日本的其它工业没有竞争力，比较优势原则告诉你，事实一定如此。你在一些工业中的竞争力越强，在其它工业中的竞争力就越弱。在这一点上，你得出的结论和大多数经济学家一样。国家竞争力这个概念会造成更多的混淆，而不是洞察力。
“竞争力”调查衡量的不是竞争力上的成功，而是本国环境对于企业的友好程度，这与该企业在国际市场中的成功程度并不相同。因此，法国和德国虽是富国，但它们被认为不具有“竞争力”。香港和新加坡的排名较好；虽然美元处于弱势，但美国仍被评定为很有“竞争力”。甚至连企业友好程度也很难衡量。作为在富国行列中最不具“竞争力”的国家，意大利的现行政策对合适的公司都极度支持。但在排名仅次于意大利的俄罗斯，政府对其支持的企业有所选择。
于是，这就产生了能在“危险！”节目中得奖的答案。答案“美国、芬兰和新加坡”对应的问题是“哪个国家的政策是IMD或WEF最赞成的？”这个问题不同于“本国企业有多成功？”或“国内经济的生产力如何？”。而且，将这些调查描述为国家或国际竞争力排名会产生误导。
