国际经贸高级英语精读1--3课课文翻译

国际经贸高级英语精读 罗汉主编 复旦大学出版社

Starting as low-income economies in the 1960s, a few economies in East Asia managed,in a few decades, to bridge all or nearly all of the income gap that separated them from the high-income economies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Meanwhile many other developing economies stagnated .

What made the difference?One way to grow is by developing hitherto unexploited land.Another is to accumulate physical capital:roads, factories, telephone networks.A third is to expand the labor force and increase its education and training.But Hong Kong (China) and Singapore had almost no land.They did invest heavily in physical capital and in educating their populations,but so did many other economies.During the 1960s through the 1980s the Soviet Union accumulated more capital as a share of its gross domestic product (GDP) than did Hong Kong (China), the Republic of Korea, Singapore, or Taiwan (China).And it increased the education of its population in no trivial measure. Yet the Soviets generated far smaller increases in living standards during that period than did these four East Asian economies.

Perhaps the difference was that the East Asian economies did not build, work, and grow harder so much as they built, worked, and grew smarter.Could knowledge, then, have been behind East Asia s surge ?If so, the implications are enormous,for that would mean that knowledge is the key to development—that knowledge is development.

How important was knowledge for East Asia s growth spurt ?This turned out not to be an easy question to answer.The many varieties of knowledge combine with its limited marketability to present a formidable challenge to anyone seeking to evaluate the effect of knowledge on economic growth.

How, after all, does one put a price tag on and add up the various types of knowledge?What common denominator lets us sum the knowledge that firms use in their production processes; the knowledge that policymaking institutions use to formulate, monitor, and evaluate policies; the knowledge that people use in their economic transactions and social interactions?What is the contribution of books and journals, of R&D spending, of the stock of information and communications equipment, of the learning and know-how of scientists, engineers, and students? Compounding the difficulty is the fact that many types of knowledge are accumulated and exchanged almost exclusively within networks, traditional groups, and professional associations.That makes it virtually impossible to put a value on such knowledge.

Reflecting these difficulties in quantifying knowledge,efforts to evaluate the aggregate impact of knowledge on growth have often proceeded indirectly, by postulating that knowledge explains the part of growth that cannot be explained by the accumulation of tangible and identifiable factors, such as labor or capital.The growth not accounted for by these factors of production—the residual in the calculation—is attributed to growth in their productivity, that is, using the other factors smarter, through knowledge.This residual is sometimes called the Solow residual, after the economist Robert M. Solow,who spearheaded the approach in the 1950s,and what it purports to measure is conventionally called total factor productivity (TFP) growth.Some also call the Solow residual a measure of our ignorance ,because it represents what we cannot account for. Indeed, we must be careful not to attribute all of TFP growth to knowledge,or there may be other factors lurking in the Solow residual.Many other things do contribute to growth—institutions are an example—but are not reflected in the contributions of the more measurable factors.Their effect is (so far) inextricably woven into TFP growth.

In early TFP analyses,physical capital was modeled as the only country-specific factor that could be accumulated to better people s lives.Technical progress and other intangible factors were said to be universal, equally available to all people in all countries,and thus could not explain growth differences

国际经贸高级英语精读 罗汉主编 复旦大学出版社

between countries.Their contributions to growth were lumped with the TFP growth numbers.Although this assumption was convenient, it quickly became obvious that physical capital was not the only factor whose accumulation drove economic growth. A study that analyzed variations in growth rates across a large number of countries showed that the accumulation of physical capital explained less than 30 percent of those variations.The rest—70 percent or more—was attributed directly or indirectly to the intangible factors that make up TFP growth (Table 1.1).

Later attempts introduced human capital to better explain the causes of economic growth.A higher level of education in the population means that more people can learn to use better technology. Education was surely a key ingredient in the success of four of the fastest-growing East Asian economies: Hong Kong (China), the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (China). Before their transformation from developing into industrializing economies, their school enrollment rates had been much higher than those of other developing countries (Table 1.2).They had also emphasized advanced scientific and technical studies—as measured by their higher ratios of students in technical fields than in even some industrial countries—thus enhancing their capacity to import sophisticated technologies.Moreover, the importance of education for economic growth had long been recognized and established empirically .One study had found that growth in years of schooling explained about 25 percent of the increase in GDP per capita in the United States between 1929 and 1982.

Adding education reduced the part of growth that could not be explained,thus …… 此处隐藏：39559字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……