返回主页
赶英超美梦想成真
目录
2014年：中国可能超美国
2011 International Comparison Program
International Comparison Program
2011国际比较项目发布汇总结果
China rejects sign it may soon be No. 1 economy
The Framework, Methodology
The ICP approach
New Method to Compute Global PPPs
ICP Handbook
2005 International Comparison Program
2005 Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures
中国超美：如何面对“捧杀”？
中国外贸如何成为世界第一
挑战美国霸权的是美国自己
2014年：中国可能超美国
中国即将成为世界最大经济体，这有何重要意义？英国《金融时报》的首席经济评论员和亚洲版主编2014年05月05日在以下两篇文章中予以探讨。
马丁 沃尔夫：美国的霸权仍会持续多年
广交会五年来最冷
中国在非洲：高铁和飞机
上周我们得知，中国即将超越美国，成为世界最大经济体。据信，美国自19世纪70年代初以来就一直是世界头号经济体。考虑到这一点，中国超越美国将是一个令人瞩目的时刻，但它还没令人瞩目到一些人所担心、另一些人所期望的程度。
世 界银行(World Bank)国际比较计划(ICP)存在已久，先来说说它得出的估计数字有何意义。该计划旨在比较不同国家的生活水平。2011年，按市场汇率计算，中国的 人均国内生产总值(GDP)仅相当于美国的11%。但考虑到中国有大量的非贸易商品和服务价格低廉，按购买力计算，中国与美国的这一比例将上升到五分之 一。
尽管如此，中国仍然是一个贫穷的国家：按购买力计算，该国的人均GDP仅列世界第99位。由于中国经济产出有近一半来自投资，它的相对人均消费甚至更低。
但中国是个巨大的国家，2011年人口达13.4亿。相比之下，就连拥有3.12亿人口的美国也显得微不足道。因此，尽管中国穷得多，但按购买力计算，该国的GDP在2011年已达到美国的87%。现在则肯定已超过美国。
人们可能会质疑新近修订的数字是否准确。答案是，它们是合理的。一个更重要的问题是：它们意味着什么？它们并不代表中国已经成为世界头号经济强国。
中国是贸易超级大国，去年商品出口比美国高出14%，但商品进口比美国低31%。进口市场的规模决定了一国在全球议价中的实力。中国尚未成为世界第一大进口国。随着中国经济继续以相对高速增长，它不久将成为世界第一大进口国。
经 济实力的另一个衡量角度是外汇储备持有量。截至今年3月，中国的外汇储备总量达4万亿美元，堪称巨大。但这既是优势，又是劣势。中国多年来积累的大量资 产，西方央行只需按几下键盘便能在瞬间内制造出来。的确，中国可以抛售这些资产，但那样做的话，它将是最大的输家。在我们这个储蓄过剩的世界里，美国可以 轻易找到其他买家。
美国金融市场和金融企业位于全球金融体系的核心，这使得美国对全球金融格局和全球监管的细节拥有非凡的影响力。这种现状可能会维持很长时间，部分原因是中国金融体系需要成功退出巨大的信贷繁荣，在此过程中它将面临不少挑战。
全球经济影响力的另一评判标准是科技。有一点能证明中国仍然远远落后：该国总体经济的平均生产率仍只有美国的五分之一。更重要的是，除了华为(Huawei)这个突出的例子之外，中国缺少世界领先的科技企业。相比之下，美国拥有一大批世界领先的企业。
技 术优势和美国的国防支出规模，为美国军队赋予了覆盖全球的影响力和实力。这很可能将持续相当长一段时间。此外，美国其实处在一座巨大的岛屿上，南北邻国相 对弱小且友好。中国则被强大且心怀嫉妒的国家包围。而且，美国长期以来一直有能力建立强大的盟国体系，而中国却没能建立起可以相提并论的盟国体系。
美国还具备“软”优势：影响力深厚的大众文化；引领世界的高等教育机构；无与伦比的科研基础；对自由和民主理想的坚持——自由和民主仍然吸引着世界上的很多人，尽管美国屡屡未能践行。对世界其他许多地方而言，中国政治体系的吸引力远不及美国，其历史文化也较美国陌生得多。
我们可以满怀把握地期待，长期来看，中国经济的相对规模将继续增加。该国的科技水平和军事能力亦是如此。然而，这个崛起的巨人还需要很长时间方能拥有美国那种影响世界的能力（前提是后者得到贤明的治理）。
但同样确定的是，我们正在踏入一个新的时代：中国不断增强的权力和影响力必须被认可、被顾及，尤其是在全球治理方面。诸如此类的权力过渡并不容易。
考虑到两个大国之间差异悬殊，权力从美国向中国的过渡可能尤为棘手。世行的最新报告是这一漫长而曲折过程中的又一步。
裙带资本主义：香港排第一
裙带资本主义全球排名
戴维 皮林：中国已经开始改变世界
当年邓小平提出“蹈光养晦”时，可没有考虑到有“国际比较计划”那些多管闲事的统计学家。就在上周，世界银行的国际比较计划成功“曝光”中国即将在今年成为以购买力计算的世界最大经济体。
中 国改革之父邓小平生前曾主张，中国在崛起的同时最好隐藏自己的雄心。与邓小平的建议一致的是，中国政府对国际比较计划的说法不太高兴。在国际比较计划上周 发布的报告中，中国国家统计局表示对国际比较计划的研究方法持保留意见，并表示中国国家统计局“并不认可报告得出的结果属于官方统计数据”。受到严格控制 的中国媒体也远远没有大力宣扬中国突然登上世界经济巅峰的消息，而是对其低调处理，甚至完全避而不谈。美国加州克莱蒙特-麦肯纳学院(Claremont McKenna College)国际研究中心主任裴敏欣表示：“中国人认为这只是一种会计操作，并不是一块真正的里程碑。”
从某种意义 上说，中国的低调反映出中国对现实的清楚认识。中国充其量只是一个中等收入国家，人均国民收入比秘鲁还低一点。中国的科技实力远远落后于美国和其他西方经 济体，这其中也包括中国历史上长期的对手——日本。在军事上，中国的全球影响力与美国相比不值一提。此外，中国还缺乏对外“说服力”。中国没有一个足够诱 人的政治体制、无法影响全球舆论。中国最密切的盟友是朝鲜和巴基斯坦这类国家。现年85岁的茅于轼被视为中国经济现代化的理论家之一，他对这份新出炉数据 的看法是严肃而现实的。他承认中国是世界最大经济体，但他认为这只不过说明中国拥有13.6亿人口，是世界人口第一大国。
茅于轼表示：“中国经济规模巨大并不令人惊讶，但这只不过是因为中国人口多。中国是大而不强。”
茅于轼表示，中国人民自19世纪以来一直为国家的孱弱而“感到屈辱”，如今他们为中国新拥有的强大经济实力而欣喜。但从其他方面来说，中国显然还十分落后。“中国对科技进步几乎没什么贡献……中国的政治体制仍然不民主，并且中国社会还存在许多不稳定因素。”
茅于轼在毛泽东时代曾多次遭到清洗，即便是现在，他的观点也被视为十分危险。他赞同一些人的预言，认为中国会因投资过度和债务过于庞大而爆发大规模金融危机。
然 而，《当中国统治世界》(When China Rules the World)一书作者马丁 雅克(Martin Jacques)则认为，正是因为有关中国会出现系统性崩溃的预言始终不绝于耳，使得我们未能认识到一个显而易见的事实：中国的崛起将改变世界。他表示： “人们对中国还存在一种抵触情绪，无法认识到这股潜在的趋势。”中国以超出几乎所有人预期的速度超越了一块又一块里程碑——最大出口国、最大制造国、最大 碳排放国。他预计到2030年，中国的产出很可能将占到全球总产出的三分之一，中国的经济规模很可能将超过欧美经济规模的总和。“这其中许多状况都没引起 人们的注意。因此，当像这样的‘超越’一刻来临时，人们应该警醒了。”
中国崛起已经改变了世界。中国通过成为全球低成本制造工厂，压低了商品制造成本，从而提高了消费者的购买力——尽管在这个过程中，来自中国上亿劳工的竞争可能也降低了西方的工资水平。
作为巨大的原材料进口国，中国已开始改变各大宗商品出口国的命运——从巴西到澳大利亚、从蒙古到安哥拉。如果非洲经济最终也开始发展，那将在很大程度上归功于来自中国的需求。
尽管茅于轼对中国政治经济的诸多方面都持批评态度，但他也明确表示，“中国为世界经济做出了显著贡献”，并且中国有许多值得其他发展中国家学习的地方。
从 战略上说同样如此，尽管中国的军事实力无法与美国相比，但中国已经在发挥地区影响，在历史影响范围内提出了一些主权要求。中国与日本就“尖阁诸岛” （Senkaku，中国称“钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿）问题、以及与越南和菲律宾等国就南中国海问题的摩擦不断升级，原因就在于此。
雅克认为美国战后在亚洲的“霸主”地位是不可维持的，他认为这些争端是“该地区以中国为中心的新秩序确立过程中的第一次‘生长痛’”。尽管刻意保持低调，但中国已经登场。
译者/何黎
德国人偏爱俄罗斯
七大军区司令忠勇与战功
在不平等世界要包容
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
世行报告：中国今年可能超美国成全球最大经济体
2014-04-30 大公财经
大公财经综合报道（实习记者 周哲） 据英国《金融时报》中文网4月30日文章，世界银行(World Bank)今日公布的数据显示，美国正处于失去全球最大经济体地位的边缘，今年其经济规模很可能落在中国之后。如果真是这样，这一超越则要比人们普遍预期的来得更早。
自1872年超越英国以来，美国一直是全球最大经济体。此前大多数经济学家预测，中国经济规模将在2019年超过美国。
上述数据是由世行国际比较计划(International Comparison Program)编制的，是对货币在不同国家的购买力的最权威估计，为国际货币基金组织(IMF)等大多数公共部门和私人部门机构所采用。这是自2005年以来该数据首次进行更新。
在对商品与服务的价格进行广泛研究之后，世行得出结论认为，较贫穷国家的货币购买力要比早先预期的强，因而调高了新兴市场经济体的相对规模。
作为对真实生活成本的估计，购买力平价(PPP)被认可为比较经济体规模的最佳方式，比变化无常的汇率更为理想，汇率很少能反映出商品与服务的真实成本。IMF基于汇率指标估算，2012年美国国内生产总值(GDP)为16.2万亿美元，而中国的GDP为8.2万亿美元。
2005年世行认为，中国的经济规模尚不及美国的一半，仅为美国的43%。使用购买力平价这一新的方法，并考虑到近年来中国经济增长显著快于美国这一事实，世行的研究得出的结论是，2011年中国GDP达到了美国的87%。
就2011年的情况而言，世行报告称：“美国仍是全球最大经济体，但以购买力平价衡量，中国则紧随其后”。
IMF预计，2011年至2014年中国经济增长了24%，而美国仅增长了7.6%，所以今年中国经济规模很可能会超过美国。
这些数据彻底改变了全球经济格局图景，提高了大型中等收入国家的重要性。印度此前是全球第十大经济体，如今已变为全球第三。2005年，印度经济规模是美国的19%，到2011年达到美国的37%，该比例提高了将近一倍。
俄罗斯、巴西、印尼和墨西哥都进入了全球经济前12强。相比之下，由于成本高、增长低的缘故，英国和日本相比2005年排行榜与美国的差距拉得更远，德国的相对排位略有提高，意大利则维持了原有排名。
这一结果将加剧有关世行和IMF等全球性国际机构投票权的争论，世行和IMF与全球经济实力对比越来越脱节。
在考察实际人均消费时，该报告发现，新方法加上贫穷国家增长更快这一事实，已导致贫富差距“大大缩小”，“表明世界已变得更为平等”。
世界富国的GDP仍占全球GDP的50%，而其人口却仅占全球人口的17%。
对比不同国家的生活成本之后，该报告还发现，全球生活成本最高的四个经济体是瑞士、挪威、百慕大群岛和澳大利亚，最低的是埃及、巴基斯坦、缅甸和埃塞俄比亚。
英国前高官：中国经济有望在2019年超越美国
国际货币基金组织最新发布的《世界经济展望》预测，如果以购买力平价为基准计算相对价格，中国经济会在2017或2018年超越美国经济。IMF同时预测中国的经济将以8.4%的速度增长，而美国的增速则维持在3%。
如果一定要给中国赶超美国设定一个时间表，现在有一种相对容易的测算方法，即以购买力平价(PPPs)为基准计算相对价格。
世界银行通过统计多种产品，得出了一个综合购买力平价来衡量中国的经济。通过计算购买力平价，会很容易预测出中国经济将在2017至2019年超越美国。
林毅夫：2030年中国GDP或将达到美国的2倍
林毅夫以中美的经济发展作对比，认为照这个势头下去，到2030年时，中国人均收入将能达到美国的50%，中国GDP将达到美国的2倍，占全世界的25%，世界500强企业中国也将占有100-150席。
广交会五年来最冷
中国在非洲：高铁和飞机
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
“若按照购买力平价计算，中国或将在今年取代美国，一举成为全球最大经济体。”世界银行最新报告的结论让外媒大为讶异。不过，中国并未高调接茬。英国《金融时报》网站5月1日报道称，中国曾努力阻止这份经济报告的起草，“已为此抗争了整整一年”。
自1872年超越英国以来，美国一直是全球最大经济体。大多数经济学家此前预测，中国经济规模将在2019年超过美国。该报告援引了国际货币基金组织（IMF）对中美经济的预测数据：在2011年至2014年期间，中国经济将增长24%，而美国将仅仅增长7.6%。结论是：如果忽略支出结构以及通胀程度的变化，那么2014年全年中国经济总量将超出美国0.12%。
世界银行赞助的国际比较项目（International Comparison Program）发表了最新研究报告，上述数据是对货币在不同国家的购买力的最权威估计，为IMF等大多数公共部门和私人部门机构所采用。这是自2005年以来该数据首次更新。购买力平价被认为是比较经济体规模的最佳方法，能反应真实的生活成本。
然而，中国对此权威报告相当排斥。据英国《金融时报》援引帮助整理这份报告的知情人消息称，为阻止被冠以如此名号，中国已为此抗争了整整一年。
据该报告消息，中国国家统计局“并不赞成将其作为官方统计结果。”报告中有这样一行：中国国家统计局对本报告采用的方法论的某些方面持保留意见。
但是，据那些参与收集这些数据的人说，中国对这些数据的厌恶不止于此。一位参与报告准备工作的人士说：“一年前，中国和相关组织还为此发生了激烈争辩。中国不希望这样的统计数据被公之于众，不希望成为老大。他们对该统计结果将给中美两国带来的影响力感到忧虑。”这位知情人还称：“他们（中国）软硬兼施，闹了整整一年。中国痛恨这个数据。
从美国手中接过世界最大经济体这一头衔可以被视作30年来经济迅速增长的最高成就。然而，中国领导人谨防自身承担的国际责任随之增加，该文章还称。“若以人均基础来计算，中国仍然属于贫困国家。因此，他们并不愿意被推上国际舞台——至少目前不乐意。”一位服务于中国高层决策者的顾问说。
以当前汇率和经济增长率预测值角度看，若扣除物价因素按实值计算，中国可能在十年左右赶超美国。但即便预测成真，考虑到中国13.6亿的庞大人口，从人均角度测算中国依旧贫穷。根据世行的这份报告，假如以人均购买力计算，那么中国排在全球第99位，而美国排在第12位。
环球时报：“中国超美国”，世行说说我们听听
世界银行日前发布2011年“国际比较项目”报告，并且推算出，按照购买力平价(PPP)，今年中国的经济总量可能超越美国，成为全球第一。这个消息引起西方主流媒体的普遍关注，据报道，中国官方强烈质疑这一推测所用方法论的准确，并且为阻止世行公布此报告做了长时间努力。
PPP算法就是在世界各国各选取一揽子商品，看购买它们需要多少各国的本币，从而推算各国货币的“实际购买力”，进而计算各国的经济总量。这种方法产生于上世纪初，常被经济学家当作除按市场汇率之外计算各国GDP的辅助方式。与按市场汇率计算GDP相比，PPP方式推算出的发展中国家经济总量常常会大一些。
虽不能将PPP称之为“胡说”，但“中国第一”这一说法离中国人自己的感受太远，它与当今世界现实经济面貌也有很大距离。中国的确在发电量、工业总产值、贸易总额等一系列重要数据上超过了美国，但谁都知道中国经济的质量仍然远低于美国，中国的先进技术、品牌拥有量、大公司的核心竞争力等诸多方面都与美国有相当大距离。
中国政府反对PPP计算方法，中国舆论也不像西方主流媒体对它那么热心，这是个好现象。这些反映了中国主流社会对于我国经济所处实际位置的清醒。尽管我们当前的自信和民族骄傲都处于短缺的状态，但我们没有为了获取它们而昏了头，别人给杆子就爬。
当然，一些人完全从“阴谋论”的角度来看PPP带来的这顶帽子，也没必要。PPP的参考价值不是零，正确的做法是冷静对待它，尤其要冷静对待外界将这一算法对中国的套用。
世行的这个报告，有可能对西方主流社会形成刺激，从而成为西方以“认真方式”谈论“中国超越美国”的开始。以往只是泛泛预测，今后的这种谈论会加入更多紧迫感。世界看中国的方式和与之相关的心理将进入新的过渡期。
中国也需进行相应的心理调适。我们不能因为别人“夸”我们就信以为真，妄自尊大，但我们也不能以自己的感受和需求为中心，中国第几完全凭我们自己说了算。这个世界上大概有“多个”中国，一个是“真实的”中国，一个是我们自己感受的中国，还有一个是外界认识的中国。这几个“中国”都在对我们的现实政治发生作用。
一个重要的事实是，国际话语权并不掌握在我们的手里。中国是“什么样”，大体上由西方说了算。但中国“怎么做”，总体上我们自己说了算。对这个关键性差别，我们必须十分清楚。我们用不着对外界的看法太较劲，但决不能让外界拥有对我们行动的指挥权。
中国迟早会成为世界经济总量第一的，而且那个时间点从历史长河的角度看，不会很远。在这个不可避免的进程中，外界议论纷纷对我们应属最小的压力，我们最需要认真考虑的，是伴随这个进程的实际亚太地缘政治演变。为了尽可能扩大这种演变的正效果，我们现在就需要有政治远见，有能够跳出眼前得失的战略胸怀和智慧。
对中国有可能成为“总量第一”的预测，在中国国内也是双刃剑。它能一定程度上增强中国社会的信心，但也会加大民众福利要求的压力。国家物质强大同社会团结和稳定的关系，是难以捉摸的。如何让中国未来“冲刺”的过程不断聚集全社会的正能量，而不是让它激发社会所有阶层的各种不满和委屈，这恐怕是对中国究竟有无资格登上世界之巅的考验。
皮林：站在世界巅峰的中国
【观察者网按】世界银行4月30日公布，今年中国经济规模将超美国成世界第一，英国《金融时报》又报道称中国在世行国际比较项目（ICP）“作了一年”为阻止这个统计结果公布。中国经济成功、中国政治成熟的形象跃然西媒纸上。这引起了国际国内各种力量的纠结。5月2日，《金融时报》显然为自己的报道替中国意外“加分”做点弥补，刊发了两位主笔的“大作”——“中国站上世界之巅”，明褒实贬，曲笔勾画，指出中国种种无法克服的弱点和难以弥合的与美国的差距，要让所有不喜欢中国、中共成功的人士因之前的报道“而引起的惶恐不安有所消解”。他们让茅于轼、裴敏欣等“唱衰派”作佐证。但是中国的崛起又实实在在，难以否认，两位主笔的如椽大笔显得左右为难、滞涩犹疑，其一贯纵横捭阖的分析力、想象力和文笔大失水准。显然这是编辑部的命题作文，显示出西方媒体精英面对中国崛起，其内心的矛盾、分裂、惶惶然，又不能闭嘴的尴尬。
以下为英国《金融时报》5月2日组织两位专栏作家马丁 沃尔夫和戴维 皮林就“站在世界巅峰的中国”（China: on top of the world）一题分别撰写的文章US hegemony will last for years、China is already changing the world；观察者网陈佳静、朱新伟/译。
美国还能称霸很多年
马丁·沃尔夫
本周传来消息，中国即将取代美国成为世界头号经济体。鉴于1870年代初以来，美国一直被认为是全球第一经济体，如今我们迎来了重要节点。但是，众人的恐慌或乐观情绪则有点儿过度解读。
我们先从计算方式讲起：世界银行（World Bank）主持已久的国际比较项目（international comparisons project, ICP）究竟有何意味。该项目试图比较国与国之间的生活水准。2011年，按市场汇率计算，中国的人均国内生产总值（GDP）仅为美国的11%。但是，一旦将中国诸多相对廉价的非贸易商品和服务纳入考虑范围，那么中国的人均购买力是美国的1/5。
尽管如此，中国依然是一个穷国：按购买力平价计算，中国人均GDP仅列世界第99名。既然中国近半生产总值源于投资，其人均消费就更低了。
中国毕竟是个泱泱大国，2011年人口总量已经达到13.4亿。与之相比，3.12亿人的美国简直是小巫见大巫。因此，哪怕穷得多，2011年中国按购买力平价计算的GDP总额就已经达到美国的87%。现在中国应该已经超过美国了。
大家尽可以去争论新数据的准确性。但答案很明显，数据很合理。更为重要的是，从这些数据能得出什么结论。至少有一点可以排除，即中国已然是世界第一经济大国。
中国是个贸易大国。去年，中国出口商品总值比美国高14%，但进口商品总值却比美国低31%。然而正是一个国家的市场规模决定了它在全球交易中的影响力。中国尚未成为世界第一进口大国。随着经济相对持续快速增长，中国离第一并不遥远。
另一个评价经济实力的指标是外汇储备。截至2014年3月，中国外汇储备达到惊人的4万亿美元。但这既是中国力量的源泉，也是中国弱点所在。她花费数年积累的资产，西方央行只需在瞬息之间按几个键就可以做到。没错，中国能抛售这些外汇储备。但她也将成为最大的输家。在这个储蓄过剩的世界里，美国随时能找到其它买家。
美国金融市场和金融公司处在全球金融系统运行的中心。这赋予美国在全球金融规模和全球监管细节上超乎想象的能量。这种地位基本上可以维持很长一段时间，原因之一是，中国金融体系难以从巨大的信贷扩张中脱身。
考量全球经济影响力的另一个指标是科技。中国经济的平均生产力远远落后，仅为美国的五分之一。更为重要的是，中国公司缺少世界一流技术团队（华为公司例外）。相比之下，美国拥有许多世界领先的公司。
美国将先进技术大规模投资国防事业，保证美军具备全球投送兵力强大的军事力量。这种局面似乎短时间内不会改变。美国其实就是个大岛，南北邻居相对羸弱，且对美态度友善。中国就不一样，周围满是强大而贪婪的邻国。美国一直还有强大的同盟建设体系。在这一点上，中国难以企及。
美国还具备“软实力”优势：影响力巨大的流行文化；世界顶级的高等学府；无与伦比的科研基础；世界许多地方仍然向往美国对自由和民主理念的承诺，虽然后者常常言行不一。中国的政治制度对外界缺乏吸引力，其历史文化也比美国来得陌生。
我们可以稳健地预测，中国经济未来将持续增长。中国的科技水平与军事实力也引人期待。但如果美国治理得当，中国这个崛起中的大国想要像美国那样影响世界，那还得等待很长一段时间。
诚然，我们正迈入必须承认和适应中国实力和影响力崛起的时代，特别是在全球性治理的时代。权势转换殊为不易。
鉴于两国差异巨大，整个转换过程可能异常棘手。本周发布的报告仅仅是一段小插曲，眼前的道路漫长而曲折。
ICP Classification of Final Expenditure on GDP, 2011
Shares in world GDP in PPS, 2011 (%)
GDP per capita, 2011
中国已在改变世界
戴维·皮林
邓小平说“韬光养晦”的时候，未曾料到国际比较项目的统计学家会来捣乱。本周，世界银行主持的合作项目迫使中国“出柜”，称按照平价购买力计算，中国今年将成为世界第一大经济体。
北京方面谨守改革开放之父的建议，低调行事，对上述统计结果颇感不悦。本周发布的国际比较项目报告中，中国国家统计局就其统计方法持保留态度，称“不符合官方数据的结果”。遭到严密控制的媒体并未欢呼雀跃，而是对中国突然晋升世界第一经济体这一事实低调处理，或者干脆保持缄默。加州克莱蒙特 麦肯纳学院政府学教授裴敏欣说：“中国知道这是会计学的小把戏，算不上实质性的里程碑。”
在某种意义上，中国的谦逊态度反映了对现实的深刻认知。中国最多只能算是中等收入国家，人均收入低于秘鲁。中国的技术能力远逊于美国等西方经济体，包括宿敌日本。军事上，中国绝没有美国那样的全球影响力。她的说服力也不够。中国缺乏足够炫目的政治体制来左右全球舆论。她的亲密盟友是朝鲜、巴基斯坦等国。85岁的经济学家茅于轼被认为是中国经济现代化的思想建构者之一，他对最新数据的态度颇为审慎和冷静。他同意中国是世界第一大经济体，但同时认为，这只不过反映了中国作为第一人口大国、拥有13.6亿人的事实。
“毫无疑问，中国经济体量很大，但这仅仅因为人多。”茅先生说，“中国大而不强。”
他表示，中国人自19世纪以来因为国力孱弱而屡遭“凌辱”，对现在的经济实力感到很高兴。但其他许多方面，中国仍然落后。“中国对科学发展贡献甚少……中国政治不民主，社会有很多不稳定因素。”
茅于轼在毛泽东时代经历数次清洗，现在甚至被认为观点激进。他和许多人一样，预测将来会因为过度投资和负债而爆发金融危机。
不过，《中国统治世界》的作者马丁 雅克提出，总有人预言制度震荡，但这不能妨碍我们看清事实：中国崛起将改变世界。“现在仍然在否定中国，看不清根本趋势。”他说。中国已经越过了好几个里程碑——最大出口国、最大制造国、最大二氧化碳排放国——速度超过几乎所有人的预测。他预计，到2030年，中国很有可能占全世界生产总量的三分之一，经济体量超过欧洲和美国的总和。“很多东西没有被雷达探测到。一旦“超越”（sorpasso）时刻来临，感觉就像睡觉时突然惊醒一样。
中国崛起已经改变了世界。中国成为低成本的世界工厂，削减了许多物资的成本。这增加了消费者的购买力，虽然数亿名中国工人拉低了欧洲工人的工资。
中国作为原材料的进口国，已经开始改变巴西、澳大利亚、蒙古、安哥拉等资源出口国的命运。考虑到中国方面的资源需求量，如果非洲经济最终能够活跃起来，那也颇为可观。
茅先生虽然批评中国政治经济的许多方面，但他明言“中国对世界经济做出了巨大贡献”，并且，其他发展中国家可以从中国身上学到很多东西。
从地缘战略上考虑，中国虽没有美国那般军事实力，但已经具有地区性影响，坚持捍卫自古以来拥有的领土。看看中日钓鱼岛争端，与越南、菲律宾等南海周边国家的冲突便知一二。
马丁·雅克认为，冷战后美国在亚洲的“霸权”地位不可持续，而上述领土争端是“以中国为核心的新兴地区秩序的第一波阵痛”。中国步点轻盈，徐徐而至。
返回页首
2011 International Comparison Program
2011 Global Results
Summary: published on April 30, 2014
The Summary of Results and Findings of the 2011 International Comparison Program (PDF) was published on April 30, 2014. It presents the results of the International Comparison Program for the gross domestic product (GDP) and its main aggregates. It provides several indicators including purchasing power parities (PPPs), real expenditures, and price level indices for GDP and its main aggregates for 199 participating economies. The link to the press release can be found here (Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Japanese).
Abbreviations
2011 Final Report: end of July 2014
The ICP 2011 Final Report will be released by the end of July 2014, and will provide detailed results and in-depth analysis of volume and per capita measures with detailed information on methodology and country survey coverage.
This data is structured and can be downloaded for ICP regions or economic groupings such as: Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Caribbean, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Latin America, Eurostat-OECD, the Pacific Islands, Western Asia, and singleton economies. It covers 7 expenditures categories for goods and services and 16 indicators including purchasing power parities, expenditure shares of GDP, total and per capita expenditures in US dollars both in exchange rate term and PPP term, price level index with the US or the world as a base.
The main results of the ICP 2011 round can be accessed through two web resources for retrieving and reporting development-related data: the ICP Portal and the ICP DataFinder (available for iOS in Apple Stores and Android on Google Play). They can also be downloaded under different formats PDF, Tableau Visualization, or Excel. Using the web resources, users can customize online the ICP 2011 data by preparing reports, charts and maps.
返回页首
International Comparison Program
The International Comparison Program (ICP) is a worldwide statistical partnership to collect comparative price data and compile detailed expenditure values of countries’ gross domestic products (GDP), and to estimate purchasing power parities (PPPs) of the world’s economies. Using PPPs instead of market exchange rates to convert currencies makes it possible to compare the output of economies and the welfare of their inhabitants in real terms (that is, controlling for differences in price levels).
ICP 2011 Round
The International Comparison Program (ICP) was implemented as a true global initiative for the second time, with the reference year 2011. It built on well-programmed activities of a wide network of national, regional, and international institutions that engaged in methodological research, survey activities and data processing and analysis in the areas of price statistics and national accounts , and estimated purchasing power parities (PPPs) of the world’s principal economies.
The 2011 round of the International Comparison Program (ICP) leveraged on the successful implementation of the 2005 round which, based on a concerted effort by international and national statistical agencies, was better planned, managed and coordinated than ever.
The ICP Global Office worked to broaden the scope of the program, streamline quality assessment processes, improve the relevance of PPP statistics, improve the sustainability of PPP delivery, and enhance statistical capacity building activities related to the generation of ICP basic data with a specific focus on price statistics and the implementation of the System of National Accounts.
参与ICP的国家列表
ICP 国家分类（地图）
Overview
The International Comparison Program (ICP) is a worldwide statistical operation involving 199 countries. It produces internationally comparable price and volume measures for gross domestic product (GDP) and its component expenditures. The measures are based on purchasing power parities (PPPs). To calculate the PPPs, the ICP holds surveys every six years to collect price and expenditure data for the whole range of final goods and services that comprise GDP including consumer goods and services, government services and capital goods.
PPPs are both currency converters and spatial price deflators. They are used by the ICP to make the GDPs of different countries comparable. Initially, the GDPs are not comparable because they are expressed in national currencies and valued at national price levels. But, after PPPs are applied, the GDPs are converted to a common currency and are revalued at a uniform price level. As a result, differences between the GDPs reflect only differences in the volumes of final goods and services purchased.
The GDP volumes facilitate comparisons of the economic size of countries and, when put on a per capita basis, the economic welfare of their populations. They can also be used to compare the overall productivity and investment potential of countries. Other uses include monitoring the incidence of poverty and tracking progress towards the Millennium Development goals.
The main users of the volume and price measures generated by the ICP are international organizations and regional agencies. There is, however, a growing demand for PPPs from a variety of users at the national level: government agencies, universities, research institutes, public enterprises, private firms, banks, journalists, and individuals.
The ICP is organized by region. There are eight regions of which all but one are overseen by the ICP Global Office in the World Bank. The remaining region is covered by the Eurostat-OECD PPP Program. This program has a different timetable to that of the ICP but employs compatible methodology. Eurostat and the OECD work closely with the Global Office to ensure that their 47 countries can be combined in a global comparison across regions.
Responsibility for the ICP within regions is shared between national and regional agencies. National statistical offices carry out data collection. Regional agencies provide guidance and coordinate data collection and data validation. They also put together and finalize the regional comparisons. Responsibility for ensuring that the regional comparisons can be combined in a world comparison and then combining them rests with the Global Office.
Results of regional comparisons are disseminated by regional agencies. Results of the world comparison are disseminated by the Global Office.
The ICP was first established in 1968 as a joint venture of the UN and the International Comparisons Unit of the University of Pennsylvania, with financial contributions from the Ford Foundation and the World Bank. Starting with a modest project to undertake comparisons in 10 countries in 1970, further ICP rounds have been conducted in 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 (only partial), 1993, and 2005. By the time of the 1993 round, the ICP had expanded to the status of a truly global program. Coverage has increased from the initial 10 countries in 1970 to 118 in 1993, covering all regions of the world for the first time. OECD, in collaboration with the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) has continued to collect price data to estimate PPPs in its member states and currently operates on a three-year cycle.
返回页首
2011国际比较项目发布汇总结果
2011国际比较项目发布汇总结果比较世界各经济体真实规模
2014年4月29日
2014年4月29日，华盛顿：国际比较项目（ICP）今天发布的最新数据显示，世界经济在2011年生产的货物和服务总值超过90万亿美元，世界总产出近一半来自低收入国家和中等收入国家。
根据联合国统计委员会的授权，2011年的一轮ICP覆盖了199个经济体，是迄今对世界各国购买力平价（PPP）的一次最广泛的测算。ICP2011的测算结果得益于历次PPP计算活动的若干方法上的改进。
ICP的主要产出是对2011年的PPP和基于PPP换算的国内生产总值（GDP）及其主要构成的总量和人均估计。购买力平价法将国家的经济衡量指标（如GDP）换算成统一的货币单位，比汇率换算法更能直接衡量货币购买力。
ICP项目的实施由设在世界银行内的ICP全球办公室领导和协调，与8个地理区域监管经济活动的区域性机构合作开展。8个地理区域包括非洲、亚洲与太平洋、独联体、拉丁美洲、加勒比海地区、西亚、太平洋岛屿，以及由欧盟统计局和经合组织管理的定期PPP项目国家。此外，还有两个单独的经济体格鲁吉亚和伊朗参加了与其合作经济体开展的双边调研，但未参与任何区域性比较。
2011 ICP 参与ICP的国家列表
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
ICP Classification of Final Expenditure on GDP, 2011
Shares in world GDP in PPS, 2011 (%)
GDP per capita, 2011
主要调查结果
-全球12个最大的经济体中有6个属于中等收入类别（根据世界银行的定义）。这12个最大经济体加起来占世界经济的三分之二，占世界人口的59％。
-用购买力平价法计算的世界GDP总量达到90.647万亿美元，而用汇率法计算为70.294万亿美元。
-用购买力平价法计算中等收入经济体在全球GDP总量中的占比为48％，而用汇率法计算为32％。
-用购买力平价法计算2011年低收入经济体的世界GDP占比超过用汇率法计算结果的2倍。然而，这些经济体仅占全球经济的1.5％，但人口占世界人口近11％。
-世界人口中约28％居住在人均GDP支出高于13460美元世界平均水平的经济体，而72％的人口居住在人均GDP支出低于世界平均水平的经济体。
-世界人均年支出中值约为10057美元，这意味着全球有一半人口的人均支出高于此水平，另一半人口低于此水平。
在不平等世界要包容
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
世界上最大的经济体有哪些？
-6个最大的中等收入经济体为中国、印度、俄罗斯、巴西、印尼和墨西哥，占世界GDP的32.3％，而6个高收入经济体为美国、日本、德国、法国、英国和意大利，占世界GDP的32.9％。
-包括中国和印度在内的亚太地区占世界GDP的30%，欧盟统计局和经合组织国家占54％，拉丁美洲占5.5％（不包括参与经合组织项目的墨西哥和未参加ICP2011的阿根廷），非洲和西亚约各占4.5％。
-中国和印度占亚太地区经济的三分之二，但不包括日本和韩国，后者参与经合组织成员国的比较。
-俄罗斯占独联体的70％以上，巴西占拉丁美洲的56％。
-南非、埃及和尼日利亚约占非洲经济的一半。
世界上最昂贵的国家有哪些？
-价格水平指数（PLI）是PPP与相应汇率的比率。指数超过100意味着价格高于世界平均水平，指数低于100表示价格相对较低。
-从GDP来看最昂贵的经济体为瑞士、挪威、百慕大、澳大利亚和丹麦，其价格指数范围从210到185。美国在世界上排名第25，低于大多数其他高收入经济体，包括法国、德国、日本和英国。
-23个经济体的价格指数为50或50以下。价格水平最低的经济体为埃及、巴基斯坦、缅甸、埃塞俄比亚和老挝人民民主共和国，其价格指数范围从35到40。
从人均来看哪些国家最富哪些国家最穷？
-人均GDP最高的5个经济体为卡塔尔、中国澳门特别行政区、卢森堡、科威特和文莱。前两个经济体人均超过10万美元。
-有11个经济体人均GDP超过5万美元，但其人口总和不到世界人口的0.6％。美国的人均GDP排名世界第12。
-有8个经济体即马拉维、莫桑比克、 中非共和国、尼日尔、 布隆迪、刚果民主共和国、 科摩罗和利比里亚人均GDP不到1000美元。
哪些国家用于直接惠及个人的支出最多？
- 对各个经济体人口的物质福利进行一般测算，采用实际人均消费（一个衡量经济中直接惠及个人的所有支出的指标）比采用人均GDP更好。采用这一指标衡量，人均实际个人消费最高的5个经济体分别为百慕大、美国、开曼群岛、中国香港特别行政区和卢森堡。
-世界平均人均实际个人消费约为8647美元。
投资性支出
-中国目前在世界投资性支出（固定资本形成总额）中占比最高，占27％；其次是美国，占13％。
-再其次是印度、日本和印度尼西亚，分别占7％、4％和3％。
-中国和印度在亚太地区的投资性支出中约占80％。俄罗斯占独联体的77％，巴西在拉丁美洲占61%，沙特阿拉伯在西亚占40%。
2011 ICP 参与ICP的国家列表
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
使用数据的局限性
购买力平价是统计学上的估计，像所有的统计数据一样，都会受到抽样误差、测量误差和分级误差的影响。因此，须将其作为真实值的近似值对待。由于用于收集数据和计算购买力平价的过程的复杂性，不可能直接估计出其误差幅度。因此，在经济体之间的估计值方面存在微小差异不应被视为严重问题。
购买力平价不应被用来作为判断货币低估或高估的指标，不作为汇率“应该是多少”的依据。购买力平价不反映对货币作为交换媒介、投机性投资或官方储备的需求。
ICP旨在通过统一的货币单位表达，在特定基准年对各经济体的经济活动水平进行比较。因此，用PPP估算的支出不能与2005年开展的一轮ICP的估算结果进行直接比较，因为它们是基于两个不同的价格水平。此外，有些经济体参与了这两轮比较活动中的一轮但没有参与另一轮。少数经济体从一个地区转到另一个地区。最重要的是，在2011年的一轮ICP活动中对估算方法做了重大改进。
ICP不应被用来比较一个经济体的购买力平价GDP随着时间推移的变化情况。经验表明，在外推法估算结果和新基准之间可能出现很大的差异，即使只间隔两年时间。最近两轮ICP活动之间的间隔时间为六年，这导致了对许多经济体而言由外推法估算的2011年基于PPP的支出与来自2011年lCP基准的估算支出间一些很大的差异。
Shares in world GDP in PPS, 2011 (%)
GDP per capita, 2011
PRESS RELEASE
2011 International Comparison Program Summary Results Release Compares the Real Size of the World Economies
April 29, 2014
WASHINGTON, April 29, 2014 – The International Comparison Program (ICP) released new data today showing that the world economy produced goods and services worth over $90 trillion in 2011, and that almost half of the world’s total output came from low and middle income countries.
Under the authority of the United Nations Statistical Commission, the 2011 round of ICP covered 199 economies - the most extensive effort to measure Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) across countries ever. ICP 2011 estimates benefited from a number of methodological improvements over past efforts to calculate PPPs.
The ICP’s principal outputs are PPPs for 2011 and estimates of PPP-based gross domestic product (GDP) and its major components in aggregate and per capita terms. When converting national economic measures (e.g. GDP), into a common currency, PPPs are a more direct measure of what money can buy than exchange rates.
ICP implementation was led and coordinated by the ICP Global Office, hosted by the World Bank, in partnership with regional agencies overseeing activities in eight geographic regions: Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Latin America, the Caribbean, Western Asia, Pacific Islands, and the countries of the regular PPP program managed by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In addition, two “singleton” economies, Georgia and Iran, participated in bilateral exercises with partner economies, without being part of any regional comparisons.
Major findings:
-Six of the world’s twelve largest economies were in the middle income category (based on the World Bank’s definition). When combined, the twelve largest economies account for two-thirds of the world economy, and 59 percent of the world population.
-The PPP-based world GDP amounted to $90,647 billion, compared to $70,294 billion measured by exchange rates.
-Middle income economies’ share of global GDP is 48 percent when using PPPs and 32 percent when using exchange rates.
-Low income economies, as a share of world GDP were more than two times larger based on PPPs than respective exchange rate shares in 2011. Yet, these economies accounted for only 1.5 percent of the global economy, but nearly 11 percent of the world population.
-Roughly twenty-eight percent of the world’s population lives in economies with GDP per capita expenditures above the $13,460 world average and 72 percent are below that average.
-The approximate median yearly per capita expenditures for the world – at $10,057 – means that half of the global population has per capita expenditures above that amount and half below.
Which are the largest economies?
-The six largest middle income economies – China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico – account for 32.3 percent of world GDP, whereas the 6 largest high income economies – United States, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Italy – account for 32.9 percent.
-Asia and the Pacific, including China and India, accounts for 30 percent of world GDP, Eurostat-OECD 54 percent, Latin America 5.5 percent (excluding Mexico, which participates in the OECD and Argentina, which did not participate in the ICP 2011), Africa and Western Asia about 4.5 percent each.
-China and India make up two-thirds of the Asia and the Pacific economy, excluding Japan and South Korea, which are part of the OECD comparison.
-Russia accounts for more than 70 percent of the CIS, and Brazil for 56 percent of Latin America.
-South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria account for about half of the African economy.
Which countries are the most expensive?
-The Price Level Index (PLI) is the ratio of a PPP to a corresponding exchange rate. An index over 100 means prices are higher on average than in the world, and one less than 100 means prices are relatively lower.
-The most expensive economies in GDP terms are Switzerland, Norway, Bermuda, Australia and Denmark, with indices ranging from 210 to 185. The United States ranked 25th in the world, lower than most other high-income economies, including France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
-23 economies are showing a PLI of 50 or below. The cheapest economies are Egypt, Pakistan, Myanmar, Ethiopia and Lao People's Democratic Republic, with indices ranging from 35 to 40.
Which countries are the richest and poorest in per capita terms?
-The five economies with the highest GDP per capita are Qatar, Macao SAR, China,, Luxembourg, Kuwait, and Brunei. The first two economies have more than $100,000 per capita.
-Eleven economies have more than $50,000 per capita, while they collectively account for less than 0.6 percent of the world’s population. The United States has the 12th highest GDP per capita.
-Eight economies – Malawi, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Niger, Burundi, Congo, Dem. Rep., Comoros and Liberia – have a GDP per capita of less than $1,000.
Which countries devote the most spending that directly benefit individuals?
-A general measure of material well-being of each economy’s population is measured better by actual individual consumption per capita – a measure of all expenditures in the economy that directly benefit individuals – rather than by GDP per capita. By this measure, the five economies with highest actual individual consumption per capita are Bermuda, United States, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong SAR, China, and Luxembourg, respectively.
-The world average actual individual consumption per capita is approximately $8,647.
Investment expenditures
-At 27 percent, China now has the largest share of the world’s expenditure for investment (gross fixed capital formation); followed by the United States at 13 percent.
-India, Japan and Indonesia follow with 7 percent, 4 percent, and 3 percent, respectively.
-China and India account for about 80 percent of investment expenditures in the Asia and the Pacific region. Russia accounts for 77 percent of CIS, Brazil for 61 percent of Latin America and Saudi Arabia for 40 percent of Western Asia.
Limitations in the use of the data
PPPs are statistical estimates. Like all statistics they are subject to sampling errors, measurement errors, and errors of classification. Therefore, they should be treated as approximations to true values. Because of the complexity of the process used to collect the data and calculate the PPPs, it is not possible to directly estimate their margins of error. Therefore, small differences in the estimated values between economies should not be considered significant.
PPPs should not be used as indicators of the under- or overvaluation of currencies. They do not inform what exchange rates “should be”. PPPs do not reflect the demand for currencies as a medium of exchange, speculative investment, or official reserves.
The ICP is designed to compare levels of economic activity across economies, expressed in a common currency, in a particular benchmark year. As such, PPP-based expenditures are not directly comparable with the 2005 ICP round estimates because they are based on two different price levels. In addition, some of the economies participating in one of these comparisons were not in the other comparison. A small number of economies moved from one region to another, and most importantly, some significant improvements in methodology were implemented in ICP 2011.
The ICP should not be used to compare changes in an economy’s PPP-based GDP over time. Experience has shown that sizeable discrepancies can arise between extrapolated estimates and a new benchmark, even when they are only a couple of years apart. The gap between the latest ICP rounds was six years, which has resulted in some very large differences for many economies between the extrapolated PPP-based expenditures for 2011 and the benchmark PPP-based expenditures that are available from ICP 2011.
返回页首
China rejects sign it may soon be No. 1 economy
By Associated Press, April 30, 2014
BEIJING — China has rejected a World Bank report that suggests it might pass the United States this year to become the biggest economy measured by its currency’s purchasing power.
China is on track to become the No. 1 economy by sheer size by the early 2020s and possibly sooner. But its leaders downplay such comparisons, possibly to avert pressure to take on financial obligations or make concessions on trade or climate change.
广交会五年来最冷
中国在非洲：高铁和飞机
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
三星：贪欲帝国
七大军区司令忠勇与战功
在不平等世界要包容
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
The estimate by the World Bank’s International Comparison Program says that based on 2011 prices, the purchasing power of China’s currency, the yuan, was much stronger than was reflected by exchange rates.
By that measure, China’s economy was 87 percent the size of the United States’ in 2011, or 15 percent bigger than the previous estimate, according to a calculation by RBS economist Louis Kuijs. Faster-growing China would pass the United States in purchasing power terms this year, though it still would be about 60 percent the size of the U.S. economy at market exchange rates.
China’s National Bureau of Statistics, which took part in the study, rejected its conclusion, according to the World Bank report.
The statistics bureau “expressed reservations” about the study’s methodology and “did not agree to publish the headline results for China,” the report said.
A figure was estimated anyway by researchers, but “the NBS of China does not endorse these results as official statistics,” the report said.
The statistics bureau in Beijing did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment.
China’s government has been reluctant to acknowledge previous milestones showing its economic rise when it passed Germany as the biggest exporter, Japan as the No. 2 economy and the United States as the biggest trader.
Its leaders have emphasized China’s status as a middle-income country in resisting pressure to adopt binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, for which their country is the biggest source.
The International Comparison Program, conducted every six years, is meant to allow comparisons of living standards in countries with widely varying prices.
The results are a good tool for understanding living conditions for Chinese families but other uses are limited, said Mark Williams, chief Asia economist for Capital Economics.
“It does bring home the sheer size of the Chinese economy, in the services and goods and that people in China are producing,” Williams said.
“Where it falls short is that it doesn’t really tell us about China’s economic standing relative to the rest of the world,” he said. “When it comes to China’s purchasing power abroad, we need to look at the figures adjusted for market exchange rates.”
The International Monetary Fund has forecast China’s economic growth this year at 7.5 percent, nearly triple the 2.8 percent outlook for the United States.
With its much larger population of 1.3 billion people, China barely ranks in the top 100 countries for income per person.
The report is a reminder that Chinese consumers only have about one-tenth as much money to spend as Americans, said economist Brian Jackson of IHS Global Insight. That is about half the world average, on par with the Philippines, Bolivia or Iraq.
Sellers of consumer goods “may find it discouraging, given it implies a relatively low cost regime for final sales,” Jackson said in an email.
返回页首
The Framework, Methodology
Measuring the Real Size of the World Economy
The Framework, Methodology, and Results of the
International Comparison Program (ICP)
Edited by the World Bank
Measuring the Real Size of the World Economy is the most comprehensive accounting ever presented by the International Comparison Program (ICP) of the theory and methods underlying the estimation of purchasing power parities (PPPs). PPPs reveal the relative sizes of economies by converting their gross domestic products and related measurements into a common currency, thereby enabling comparisons based on economic and statistical theory.
The ICP is a global statistical initiative; its foundation is the comparison of national prices of a well defined basket of goods and services under the conceptual framework of the System of National Accounts. The ICP faces unique challenges in providing statistical methodology that can be carried out in practice by countries and economies differing in size, culture, the diversity of goods and services available to their population, and statistical capabilities.
The ICP has a rich history beginning in 1968. Each successive round brought new and improved methodologies regarding the theory and application of price indexes. The purpose of Measuring the Size of the Real Economy is to bring together a presentation of the methodology available for international price comparisons, the choices made for the 2005 ICP, the outcome of those choices, and steps taken to improve the quality of the 2011 ICP results.
By disclosing the theory, concepts, and methods underlying the estimates, this
Book increases the transparency of the ICP process. Greater transparency allows researchers, users of PPPs, and those involved in implementation of the program to better understand the strengths, limitations, and assumptions underlying its results. This book also provides a forward-looking view of methodological developments with an eye toward improving the quality of future comparisons.
The ICP is now the largest and most complex statistical program in the world. In 2005 it included 100 countries and economies, working in parallel with the 46 countries in the Eurostat-OECD PPP program. By 2011, the ICP has grown to include 198 countries and economies.
Measuring the Real Size of the World Economy was prepared by the ICP Global Office in the World Bank Development Economics Data Group, with contributions from the leading international experts in the fields of economics and statistics on international comparisons.
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
ICP Book Chapters
Front matters
An overview of the data collection and the estimation of PPPs at the basic heading, region, and global levels is provided for the non technical reader. The overview includes a summary of the main uses of PPPs. The many choices of methods to estimate PPPs are reviewed along with the reasons for the choices made for ICP 2005. The basic concepts such as transitivity, base country invariance, fixity, and the symmetric treatment of countries are defined and their affect on the methodology used.
Abbreviations
Introduction
A summary of key findings regarding inequality and poverty is provided in the context of the innovations made for the ICP 2005 with more countries, more precise definitions of goods and services that were priced, and the new and improved linking method, to name a few.
1
The Framework of the International Comparison Program
This is an introductory chapter providing a technical review that starts with the conceptual framework provided by the Gross Domestic Product. PPPs and Price Level Indexes are defined with examples of their use. All steps from data collection to the estimation of the global PPPs are presented in summary form as an introduction to the more detailed presentations in the chapters to follow.
2
Governance Structure of the ICP 2005
The ICP is the largest international statistical program in the world and is built upon a foundation of cooperation and trust where countries have to agree upon what is priced, when, and how the results are compiled. The Global, regional, and national governances are described.
3
National Accounts Framework for International Comparisons: GDP Compilation and Breakdown Process
This chapter explains how the concepts underlying the GDP must be considered in collecting prices and estimating PPPs. These concepts include defining the final expenditure components of GDP, explaining the prices used to value them, introducing the classifications to be used for the different expenditure components, and describing the data sources commonly used to break down the expenditures into the necessary detail.
4
Computation of Basic Heading Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) for Comparisons within and between Regions
This is the first of a set of three chapters devoted to the estimation of PPPs. The main objective of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the methods used to compute PPPs at the basic heading level first at the regional level then linked across regions. The Jevons, Jevons-GEKS, CPD, CPRD, and CPDW methods are described, and the reasons for using the CPDW for the ICP 2011 are provided.
5
Methods of Aggregation above the Basic Heading Level within Regions
This chapter provides in in-depth review of the methodology available to average (aggregate) basic heading PPPs to the GDP using expenditures as weights. The properties of the traditional methods are provided. A new method (Ikle Dikhanov Balk) was used for the first time by the African region—an extensive annex discusses its properties.
6
Methods of Aggregation above the Basic Heading Level Linking the Regions
The different methods for linking the regions for GDP aggregates and the GDP in such a way that the relative country volumes within each region are preserved are presented. The methods used for ICP2005 are reviewed, problems noted, and solutions for improvement offered.
7
The Survey Framework: Household Consumption
The next 10 chapters deal with the data collection for household components of the GDP first for regions and for the Ring. These are followed by chapters on data validation and then chapters on the estimation of PPPs for the comparison resistant components such as health, housing, etc. Chapter 7 uses results from the ICP 2005 to describe how the product specifications were determined, products for pricing were chosen for the regional comparisons, and introduces the classification of products as Important or Less Important to be used as weights in the estimation of basic heading PPPs. Guidelines using results from ICP 2005 are provided to determine the number of products to price and the number of outlets to be surveyed. The chapter emphasizes the need to include both the urban and rural domains in the price collection.
8
The Ring Comparison—Linking the Regions
A review of linking methods is provided followed by a description of the Ring method used in 2005. This includes the selection of Ring countries, developing the Ring list, and data collection and validation. Results from ICP 2005 are used to evaluate the linking process. The chapter concludes with a set of lessons learned that were instrumental in moving from a large Ring list priced by a few countries to a smaller core list priced by every country. The lessons learned from the inability to use the representativity concept resulted in the simpler Importance classification being introduced for use in ICP 2011. Another significant outcome of the review is that the within region results need to remain open for review until the global validation is completed.
9
Validation of ICP Regional Prices and Basic Heading PPPs
A detailed review of the validation methods first with in countries, then between countries is provided. The Quaranta and Dikhanov tables are described along with their relative strengths. The diagnostics provided by these tables are explained and guidelines provided to give the reader a view of the steps taken to ensure comparable products were priced across countries.
10
Validation of Basic Heading and Aggregated PPPs
The concept that basic heading and aggregated PPPs also need to be validated is introduced using data from the ICP 2005. Data plots are introduced as a simple way to review basic heading PPPs by country and by basic heading to find outliers needing additional review. The same methods can be applied to the review of the aggregated PPPs and the affect of the weights used by reviewing the Paasche-Laspeyres spreads underlying the Fisher index, and the direct vs. indirect PPPs from the GEKS aggregation.
11
Health and Education
The data needed to calculate PPPs for health and education are described. Three kinds of data are required and include prices of household expenditures for health and education services, compensation of government health and education workers, and total expenditures of households and the government for health and education. Because countries differ in how health and education services are provided, the chapter describes the steps taken to ensure comparable results across countries.
12
Dwelling Services
The three methods to estimate within region PPPs are described in detail using results from ICP 2005 to assess their relative strengths. The use of the different methods by region posed problems when linking PPPs across regions. The chapter provides a detailed explanation of the linking process for ICP 2005. The conclusion of this analysis is a set of recommendations regarding the use of the direct volume approach for all countries, the use of direct rent data, and the linking method that have been reviewed and endorsed by the TAG.
13
Construction
This chapter provides the conceptual framework underlying the estimation of construction PPPs, explains the different pricing methods, and describes the methodology used in ICP 2005 by the ICP regions and the Eurostat-OECD comparison. It concludes with an evaluation of the basket of components method used in the ICP regions with some lessons learned for ICP 2011.
14
Machinery and Equipment
This chapter explains how products were defined and prices collected for the expenditure classification of “machinery and Equipment” for ICP 2005. It concludes with lessons learned which is that the role of the countries in establishing the global list of products be increased and the concept of “importance” be applied to the prices. In addition, the data collection process should include obtaining detailed specifications of the items being priced.
15
Government Services: Compensation
The main focus is on the price information needed for government services and, in particular, the data needed for compensation of government employees It includes an overview of how the government is treated in the ICP covering both the collective and individual expenditures of government. The specifications for the collection of compensation of government employees for ICP 2005 are provided. The chapter concludes by explaining the changes to be made for ICP 2011, mainly to update the list of government occupations to align them with the ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations. In addition the reporting form seeks more detail such as compensation for different number of years of experience, hours actually worked, and the level of government, to name a few.
16
Government Services: Productivity Adjustments
This is a complex chapter covering the use of productivity adjustments for government compensation in three ICP regions. The adjustment method is described and data from ICP 2005 are used to illustrate the effects on the global comparison. A historical review of methods for dealing with nonpriced services is provided. The chapter concludes with a description of the linking method used for ICP 2005 and with a proposal for linking regions in ICP 2011 using productivity adjustments and a global aggregation that has been endorsed by the TAG.
17
Reference PPPs
Prices or data to estimate PPPs are not collected for all basic headings because in many instances it is too expensive or simply prices are not available such as for gross operating surplus of government. For these basic headings PPPs are imputed using reference PPPs, that is PPPs based on one or more other basic headings that have already been computed. The chapter explains which reference PPPs were used in ICP 2005, how much of the GDP was covered by imputed PPPs, and their contribution using 2005 data. The chapter concludes with recommendations for ICP 2011 that have also been endorsed by the TAG.
18
Extrapolating PPPs and Comparing ICP Benchmark Results
Two issues are presented. One is the method to impute PPPs for countries that did not take part in the ICP to meet data user needs for a complete set of world wide data. The other issue is the extrapolation of PPPs between benchmark periods as published in the World Development Indicator publication produced by the World Bank. Both methodologies are presented along with their underlying concepts and how they should be interpreted against the benchmark results.
19
Overview of Results and Empirical Analysis
The major results from the 2005 ICP are presented. In addition, an empirical analysis is presented to show how results would differ using alternative indexing methods. Specifically, additive vs non results are provided. In addition, the effect of imposing fixity is also provided to aid data users in understanding the final results.
20
Absolute Poverty Measures for the Developing World, 1981-2008
The use of PPPs in the measurement of regional and global inequality and to measure regional and global poverty is presented and in part reviews the work of Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion and presents their estimates.
21
Purchasing Power Exchange Rates for the Global Poor
One of the issues facing poverty analysts is that the national annual prices collected by the ICP may be different from those faced by people at the poverty line. Expenditure patterns of the poor are also likely to be different from the rest of the population. This paper is concerned with the recalculation of PPPs using expenditure patterns of those at the poverty line as well as the resulting effect of the estimates of global poverty. The underlying theory of poverty-weighted PPPs is presented along with methodology that was developed for the analysis.
22
International Relative Price Levels: An Empirical Analysis
The structure of international price relatives is examined using cross sectional and time series data from the ICP. They seek answers to questions of interest to international economists such as is the dispersion of relative prices across countries related to whether the product is internationally tradable? Furthermore, is there a systematic relation between the cross-country dispersion of relative price levels and that of income levels? If so, is this sensitive to whether the product is tradable or not? The chapter concludes about the importance of the ICP for understanding international price levels.
23
Purchasing Power Parity Estimates: Applications by the International Monetary Fund
The chapter first outlines the IMF’s use of the ICP PPP estimates to guide decisions about the membership quotas and for their World Economic Outlook report and analysis. It then moves to measurement issues that affect their usage, mainly the country coverage, imputation for missing countries, and the periodicity of PPP estimates.
24
Using Expenditure PPPs for Sectoral Output and Productivity Comparisons
The chapter outlines the types of PPPs needed for sectoral, single, and multifactor productivity comparisons by industry. It goes on to describe the adjustments needed to convert PPPs by expenditure category into output PPPs by industry and also to explain the conditions under which expenditure PPPs will provide a good proxy for production PPPs. This chapter greatly expands the use of PPPs from the ICP.
返回页首
The ICP approach
GDP can be estimated from the production side, the expenditure side and the income side. All three approaches will yield the same result in theory. Price and volume comparisons of GDP are based on the identity: value = price x volume. The values of income aggregates, unlike the values of production and expenditure aggregates, cannot be split into meaningful price and volume components. Price and volume comparisons can only be made from the production side or the expenditure side.
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
ICP comparisons are made from the expenditure side. These have the advantage of enabling the levels and structures of the principal components of final demand – consumption and investment – to be compared. They are also less difficult to organize because they have less onerous data requirements. Their disadvantage is that, because industries are not identified on the expenditure side, productivity comparisons can be made only at the level of the whole economy. To compare productivity at the industry level, international comparisons should be made from the production side. These are more difficult to organize as they require data for both intermediate consumption and gross output.
Comparing the values of the final expenditure that countries make on GDP will not provide a comparison of the volumes of goods and services purchased in the countries unless the differences in their price levels have been removed. Differences in price levels can be removed either by observing volumes directly or by deriving them indirectly using a measure of relative prices to place the expenditures of the countries on a uniform price level. Prices are easier to observe than volumes and direct measures of relative prices usually have smaller variability than direct measures of relative volumes. ICP comparisons observe prices directly and estimate volumes indirectly.
National Account Framework
The ICP is a major statistical exercise which requires a great deal of cooperation and coordination between price statisticians and national accountants. Inevitably, a large part of the overall work program is directed at identifying the representative and comparable products to be priced and then collecting the prices required to produce PPPs. However, the national accounts are a critical part of the overall ICP. PPPs are of no use unless other relevant data are available to use with them. For example, PPPs are combined with national accounts data to produce real expenditures expressed in a common currency, which can be used to compare the relative size of countries. PPPs can also be combined with exchange rates to provide price level indexes (PLIs), which show the relative price levels in different countries thereby enabling countries to be compared on the basis of whether they are “expensive” or “cheap” to live in or to visit.
It is therefore clear that the national accounts have a major impact on the overall outcomes of the ICP and one of the aims in the 2011 round has been to improve the quality of the national accounts data. Any errors in the national accounts data have a direct impact on the real expenditures derived by applying PPPs to the national accounts values.
The System of National Accounts is, by the nature of the ICP, the reference framework for the determination of PPPs. This entails specifying the detailed ICP requirements for national accounts data, the major uses of these data and possible methods of estimating detailed data for those countries that do not compile their accounts at the level required for the ICP. These requirements have been useful to all the countries, whether they have been implementing the System of National Accounts for the first time, improving their national accounts, upgrading the coverage of their accounts (particularly producing expenditure-based gross domestic product (GDP) estimates for the first time), or reviewing their national accounts to meet all the standards of the System of National Accounts 1993.
The Global Office developed the above in the form of an ICP-related national accounts framework, under which expenditure values are compiled. The relevant series of sequenced activities have been defined. It is worth underlining that the 2011 ICP used the System of National Accounts 1993 because the vast majority of countries did implemented this version of the system in 2011. The sequenced activities mentioned above have been customized according to whether a particular country is still using an older version or has already migrated to the System of National Accounts 2008.
Price and Volume Measures
PPPs are used to convert the final expenditures on GDP reported by countries into real expenditures. The converted expenditures are called real because, being valued at a uniform price level and expressed in a common currency, they reflect only real or actual differences in the volumes purchased by countries. PPPs and real expenditures provide the price and volume measures required for international comparisons of GDP and its constituent expenditures.
The table below shows expenditure on GDP at national price levels in national currencies for three countries, the PPPs used to convert them to real expenditures at a uniform price level in a common currency (dollars) and the population of countries and their and exchange rates. The table refers to GDP, but the computations are the same for any of the component expenditure of GDP.
Final Expenditures
ICP comparisons are made from the expenditure side of the national accounts with the object of converting the final expenditures of countries to internationally comparable real expenditures. This requires countries to supply a detailed breakdown of final expenditure on GDP for the comparison year. As the detailed expenditures are used as weights in the calculation of PPPs and in the estimation of real expenditures, they need to be harmonized across countries. Countries are required to report their final expenditures according to a common classification.
裙带资本主义：香港排第一
裙带资本主义全球排名
The common classification used by the ICP adheres to the definitions, concepts, classifications and accounting rules of the 1993 SNA. It is structured by type of final expenditure - individual consumption expenditure, collective consumption expenditure, and gross capital formation - and, in the case of individual consumption expenditure, by purchaser - households, NPISHs and government. Within this structure, final expenditures are broken down into main aggregates, expenditure categories, expenditure groups, expenditure classes, and basic headings as shown in the table below.
ICP Classification of Final Expenditure on GDP
Basic heading are the lowest level of aggregation for which final expenditures can be estimated. In theory, they should cover a homogeneous set of goods or services, but, in practice, they can cover a broader range of products than is theoretically desirable. Basic headings are the building blocks of ICP comparisons. It is at the level of the basic heading that expenditures are defined, products are selected for pricing, and prices are collected and edited.
It is also at the basic heading level that PPPs are first calculated and averaged. The final expenditures at the basic heading level provide the weights with which basic heading PPPs are aggregated and averaged to derive PPPs for classes, groups, categories, aggregates and GDP. It is these PPPs that are used to convert final expenditures to real expenditures at each level of aggregation. The ICP publishes PPPs, price level indices, real expenditures and volume indices for GDP, main aggregates and selected expenditure categories.
Results of ICP comparisons are presented by who consumes: households or government. This is because one of the principle aims of the ICP is to compare the actual individual consumption (of households) across countries at various levels of aggregation.
However, in the ICP classification, individual consumption expenditure is structured by who pays: households, NPISHs or government. Their individual consumption expenditures have to be combined to obtain actual individual consumption. The ICP classification is designed to allow the three sets of individual consumption expenditures to be combined at the lowest level of aggregation feasible. For households and government, this tends to be the basic heading level. For NPISHs, the level is higher because countries generally do not have detailed data for NPISHs.
ICP Classification of Final Expenditure on GDP
返回页首
New Method to Compute Global PPPs
Abbreviations
One of the most significant changes in methodology between the 2005 and 2011 rounds of ICP is the method used to link the ICP regions to generate the global comparison. The 2011 linking procedures differ from those used in 2005 in two important respects: (1) at the basic heading level, in 2005 only 18 countries participated in the Ring, a special group covering representative countries from ICP regions to be used in linking, whereas in 2011 almost all participating countries contributed to the inter-regional linking; (2) at the aggregate level (i.e. above the basic heading), in 2011 a new method (CAR - Country Approach with Redistribution) was implemented in place of the so-called super-country method, in which linking factors were computed for regional aggregates (super-countries).
Shares in world GDP in PPS, 2011 (%)
GDP per capita, 2011
2011 Linking Method at the Basic Heading Level - an Extension of the Ring Approach
The Ring method used in 2005 was a step forward compared to the single-country bridges used in previous rounds. However, an obvious extension of the method would be to include more countries, which was the approach adopted for 2011. Almost all countries from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, Western Asia, and Eurostat-OECD (CIS was linked via Russia into the Eurostat-OECD region and the Caribbean was linked directly via Latin America) were used in linking in the 2011 round. To that end, the countries collected Global Core List (GCL) items. Even though fewer GCL products were specified (around 600 items) than the ring products in 2005, the efficiency of the GCL approach was superior to the Ring method because of the almost universal coverage of countries and the GCL items were included in the calculation of regional PPPs.
2011 Linking Method at the Aggregate Level - Country Approach with Redistribution (CAR) Method
For 2011, the CAR method was introduced to link the regions at the aggregate level. First, global matrices of basic heading PPPs and expenditures were constructed; second, an unrestricted GEKS aggregation was run on those matrices to arrive at PPPs and real expenditures at every level of aggregation; third, for each region, the regional total of real expenditures was obtained by summing real expenditures for all countries in that region; fourth, those regional totals were distributed among the countries of each region according to the fixity principle.
Improvements in ICP Methodologies
The 2011 ICP round leveraged the successful implementation of the 2005 round: the scope of the exercise was broadened; quality assessment processes were streamlined; and several methodological improvements were introduced. In addition to the improved method of linking regional PPPs and computing global PPPs, additional improvements were introduced:
1- Calculating basic heading PPPs. In 2005 basic heading PPPs were calculated using the CPD method without assigning any weight at the product level. In 2011 it was decided that products would be classified as important or less important and that weights of 3:1 would be used in computing basic heading PPPs at the intra-region level and also in estimating linking factors. Thus basic heading PPPs were calculated using the CPD-W method. The classification and weighting of products by their relative importance will affect the 2011 PPPs compared with those from the2005 ICP round.
2- Dwellings. In 2005 Africa and the CIS used the dwelling stock approach, Latin America the rental approach, and Asia and the Pacific the reference volume approach, whereas Eurostat-OECD and Western Asia used a combination of rental and dwelling stock data. The regional results were linked using the dwelling stock data. In 2011 the Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, and Western Asia regions calculated PPPs using rental data collected for the global list of dwelling types; Asia and the Pacific used the reference volume approach; the CIS used dwelling stock data; and Eurostat-OECD used a combination of rental and dwelling stock data. Linking was carried out in stages. The Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, and Western Asia regions were linked using the same rental data that went into the estimation of their intra-region PPPs. For Asia and the Pacific, the CIS, and Eurostat-OECD, dwelling stock data were used to link them to each other and then to the rest of the world.
裙带资本主义：香港排第一
裙带资本主义全球排名
3- Government. In 2005 government consumption estimates were adjusted for productivity differences between economies in three of the six regions—Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Western Asia—but the regional linking factors were computed without any productivity adjustments. In 2011 the Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and Caribbean regions used productivity adjustments when computing their regional results, but no productivity adjustments were applied in the Eurostat-OECD, CIS, and Western Asia regions. The linking factors for all regions were computed with productivity adjustments to produce the global results.
4- Construction. The method used to estimate construction PPPs changed completely in 2011 and is not comparable with that used in 2005. In ICP 2005, construction PPPs were estimated using the BOCC approach. Because of the difficulties encountered in implementing this approach, a simplified input method based on the prices of basic materials, labor, and machinery was adopted for ICP 2011.
返回页首
ICP Handbook
The ICP Methodological Handbook is at the center of a range of documentation prepared for the ICP. It provides the theoretical and methodological background that guided the data collection, analysis, and estimation of PPPs for the ICP results; and in some cases the choices of methodology that could be used. The Methodological Handbook is a work in progress because some pieces of methodology are being improved from those implemented in the previous ICP round. The handbook is intended mainly for all those involved in, or with responsibilities for, the compilation of PPPs — including professional economists and statisticians working at all levels in National Statistical Offices and the various international and regional agencies involved in the program.
Most of the contents of the handbook is being translated into the ICP book.
Abbreviations
ICP 2011
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Preface. What is ICP?
Chapter 1. Overview of the ICP
This chapter provides an overview of the International Comparison Program (ICP). It discusses the purpose of the program, what is Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), how to calculate PPPs, the inter-relationships between PPPs and exchange rates, the use of PPPs and their role in the statistical system.
Chapter 2. Governance and Execution of ICP 2003-2006
This chapter looks at arrangements made to rectify problems in past rounds, and the planning and execution strategy of ICP 2003-2006. It explains issues such as the ownership of the ICP, funding, organization and governance structure, including roles and responsibilities of the Executive Board and Technical Advisory Group.
Chapter 3. GDP and Main Expenditure Aggregates
This chapter defines the final expenditure components of GDP and explains the prices used to value them. It introduces the classifications to be used for the different expenditure components and describes the data sources commonly used to break down final expenditures in the necessary detail.
Annex 1. Spreadsheet for Weights
Annex 2. Expenditure Weights Diagnostic Module
Annex 3. Weights Diagnostic Module
Chapter 4. Price Concepts and Definitions
This chapter and the following chapter are concerned mainly with how to draw up the lists of products for pricing in different countries. Chapter 4 addresses topics such as basic price concepts, representativity, comparability, brands, quality and methods of quality adjustment, etc. It also includes a summary description of how Purchasing Power Parities are calculated at the level of the basic heading, as an understanding of the methodology used helps elucidate the role of representativity and comparability in drawing up lists of products.
Chapter 5. Product Lists, Specifications and the Pre-Survey
This chapter describes how the lists of products to be used for pricing by countries are drawn up. It explains how the Structured Product Descriptions (SPDs) are constructed and how the detailed Product Specifications (PSs) which are used by the price collectors in the field are derived from the SPDs. The first part of the chapter is devoted to Structured Product Descriptions and the related Product Specifications. Subsequent sections describe the Pre-Survey and the process of building up the final lists of products to be priced.
Annex. Examples of Structured Product Descriptions
Chapter 6. Sampling and Price Collection
This chapter is concerned with the sampling survey procedures to be used to collect the prices of household consumption goods and services. The chapter has two annexes. The first deals with the estimation of target PPP indices from samples of price observations. The annex also addresses the issue of missing prices. The second annex deals with the question of the sizes of the samples of outlets needed for price collection purposes. It shows how to calculate the minimum sample sizes needed to achieve certain levels of precision in the estimated average prices.
Chapter 7. Editing and Validation
This chapter contains guidelines for validation and editing of ICP data at national and regional levels with reference to the ICP/CPI Tool Pack. It addresses issues such as distribution of responsibilities at the national level, organization of ICP price collection within a country, the exact matching approach and exceptions to it, numeric checking of preliminary input data, outliers and statistical inference, validation steps at the regional level, the iterative revision of prices, etc. It describes the use of the Quaranta Tables as well as the Dikhanov Tables recently developed.
Chapter 8. Government Services
This chapter describes the information on government services that is required for the ICP 2003-2006 round. Chapter 3 deals with the expenditure weights that are required for government consumption expenditure and this material is not repeated here. The main focus of the chapter is on the price information needed for government and in particular on the data needed on compensation of government employees.
Annex. Worksheet for Annual Compensation
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
Chapter 9. Gross Capital Formation
This chapter provides a detailed explanation of issues related to gross capital formation, including price surveys for gross capital formation, some related problems, representativity and comparability. It provides a review of the Basket of Construction Components and methods to derive weights needed to estimate construction PPPs.
Annex. Use of Exchange Rates as Approximate PPPs for Machinery and Equipment
Chapter 10. Dwelling Services
This chapter explains: (a) the methods that may be used to estimate expenditure on dwellings as part of final consumption expenditure of households; (b) the information required on rents; and (c) the data on dwelling services that participating countries are required to submit for ICP 2003-2006. It also contains a questionnaire on dwellings.
Annex 1. Dwelling Services Questionnaires and Guidelines
Annex 2. Housing Questionnaires
Chapter 11. Estimation of PPPs for Basic Headings Within Regions
This chapter describes the methods that may be used to estimate Purchasing Power Parities at the level of a basic heading. The national average prices of the selected products within each basic heading are used as inputs into the estimation of the parities. The national average prices are those emerging from the price collection and validation processes described in the preceding chapters.
Chapter 12. Aggregation Methods
This chapter describes the methods used to calculate PPPs and quantity indices for higher level expenditure aggregates for the regional level comparisons. A higher level aggregate is an expenditure class, group or category obtained by combining two or more basic headings. The nominal value of an expenditure aggregate, expressed in its own national currency, is obtained simply by summing the values of the expenditures for the set of basic headings of which it is composed. Quantity indices may be converted into real expenditures by multiplying them by the corresponding expenditures in the base country.
Annex. Reference PPPs
Chapter 13. The Ring Comparison — Linking the Regions
This chapter mainly describes how a “Ring” price collection program is organized and carried out to link blocks of within-region PPPs. The conceptualization and selection of Ring Countries are highlighted. Also discussed are the development of a Ring or global product list, and Ring data validation.
Chapter 14. The Ring Comparison — Linking Within-Region PPPs using Between-Region PPPs
The purpose of this chapter is to explain how within-region basic heading PPPs — that is, PPPs between countries within the same region — can be linked to obtain a global set of transitive PPPs at the basic heading level covering all the countries participating in ICP 2003-2006.
Chapter 15. Linking PPPs and Real Expenditures for GDP and Lower Level Aggregates
This chapter describes the ways in which the PPPs and real expenditures for aggregates such as food consumption, total household consumption or GDP calculated by the regions may be linked to obtain a global set of aggregate PPPs and real expenditures covering all the countries included in the ICP program.
返回页首
2005 International Comparison Program
2005 ICP Global Results: Summary Table
The 2005 Round of the International Comparison Program (ICP) marks a watershed
compared with earlier rounds. The sponsors and partners of the program have taken a
number of steps aimed at strengthening the ICP operations and improving the quality of its
outputs. These included imposing stringent global standards for data collection, validation
and processing. This first electronic edition of the ICP OPERATIONAL MANUAL represents
part of this effort.
The Manual’s primary aim is to provide a general understanding of the basic principles
underlying the ICP and how such an understanding can improve the efficiency of its
implementation and the management of its operations. To this end, the Manual serves both
as an operational guide for planning, coordinating and monitoring of the implementation of
the program, and provides reference materials and step-by-step guidelines for price surveys,
covering household final consumption, government expenditure, and capital formation. It
also gives guidance to the compilers of expenditure weights and offers them a useful tool to
validate their data.
The Operational Manual in its current form is a live document in that it is work in progress. It
attempts to describe the more important issues in the light of the significant changes
introduced in the 2005 round of the ICP. It will be amended and improved as time goes on,
in the light of new methods and new approaches for future ICP rounds. In particular, the
Manual will be revised and updated at the end of the 2005 round, taking account of problems
encountered and experiences gained.
How is the Operational Manual different from the ICP Handbook? The ICP Handbook is the
principal source of information about the ICP itself, in particular the theoretical underpinning
of the idea of Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) and the linkage of the ICP with the concepts
and practices of national accounts construction, as embodied in the UN System of National
Accounts (SNA 1993). The Handbook is a comprehensive reference source for all those
seeking to understand the underlying concepts of the ICP.
This Operational Manual is a companion to the Handbook: it does not attempt to replace it,
but to complement it: it translates theory into practice, by describing the procedural rules and
the practical methods of obtaining all the data required for this vast global program. It is
therefore primarily addressed to ICP practitioners, whatever their role, from the army of price
collectors in the majority of countries around the world, to the national ICP coordinators and
the regional and global levels of ICP coordination and calculation. There is inevitably a
degree of overlap between the two documents.
在不平等世界要包容
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
1. THE INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON PROGRAM (ICP)
OBJECTIVES, HISTORY AND ORGANISATION
1.1. Objectives of the ICP
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the measure most often used by economists to
represent the total economic size of countries. GDP and its components on a per capita
basis represent the distribution of a country’s goods and services as they contribute to its
economic welfare. By comparing countries’ GDPs and their components it is possible to
measure differences in economic welfare, in total and on a per capita basis. But before such
comparisons can be made, it is necessary to express the GDPs – which are in national
currencies and valued at national price levels– in a common currency at a uniform
international price level.
2. The International Comparison Program was established to provide Purchasing Power
Parity conversion factors, as an alternative to direct conversion of currencies based on
exchange rates, so as to be able to compare GDP between countries on a real basis. The
PPP between two countries is the rate at which the currency of one country needs to be
converted into that of the second country to ensure that a given amount of the first country’s
currency will purchase the same volume of goods and services in the second country as it
does in the first. PPPs generated by the ICP provide meaningful comparisons based on the
prices of hundreds of products, thereby avoiding the deficiencies of exchange rates.
3. Why “meaningful”? Because economic statistics are often measured in terms of
national currencies: the GDP of Germany is x euros; the average household income in
Mexico is y pesos; the balance of payments in Tanzania is z shillings, and so on. The usual
way of comparing values in different countries is to express them all in terms of a common
currency, often the US dollar. The conversions are frequently made using the normal market
exchange rate, sometimes the annual average exchange rate, or maybe the exchange rate
on a particular day, when a report is being made.
4. But market exchange rates are notoriously volatile, depending as they do not only on
aspects of the real economy in a country but on other factors, notably interest rates, and on
intangibles such as political perspectives. Exchange rates can change drastically within the
space of 24 hours, even though the economic fundamentals have not changed. Moreover,
an exchange rate-based conversion factor assumes that exchange rates either equate to or
move in line with relative prices. This implies that any discrepancy between a country’s
exchange rate and the corresponding PPP is transitory. In other words, it is assumed that
over the long term a country’s exchange rate gravitates towards its long term equilibrium rate
which is approximated by its PPP. However, research findings abound that this does not hold. A country may have relatively stable exchange rates over time but they can be far from
its PPP.
5. Another important distinction is that an exchange rate-based conversion factor
assumes that a common price level exists throughout an economy. As a result, the same
conversion factor is used to deflate GDP, consumption, capital formation or any of its lower
level aggregates, such as food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. On the other hand,
separate PPPs are calculated for different economic aggregates.
6. It would be possible, for example, to calculate PPPs for tourist expenditure. If a
tourist visits a foreign country, he will need to spend his own country’s currency in order to
buy – and spend – the currency of the country he visits. He will buy currency at a
commercial exchange rate. When abroad, he may find that the money he has bought will
buy him significantly less (or significantly more) than the same money would have bought
him in his own country. He will consider that the foreign country is relatively “cheap” or
relatively “expensive”. In fact it is the exchange rate he has obtained which leads to this
impression. A tourist PPP (if it existed) would give him an exchange rate that equalized the
quantity of tourism-related goods and services that he could buy in both countries. No
country would seem “cheap” or “expensive” using this PPP exchange rate.
7. Comparisons of per capita expenditures are generally considered to be a good
approximation of relative economic development. Countries compare their per capita
expenditures on food, education, and health, for example, with other countries from their
region. Health and education expenditures as a percentage of government expenditure or
total GDP give a comparable measure of the domestic resources devoted to these uses.
These measures, when based on PPPs, are important because the relative prices of these
services differ greatly between countries. It is useful for national policy purposes to have
ratios in both national and international prices.
Examples of specific uses include the following:
--A key measure of the potential for economic growth is the ratio of investment to the
GDP. Where economic growth is related to the amount of investment, it is
appropriate to make these comparisons between countries using PPP-based
measures.
--Living standards in different countries can be evaluated by comparing PPP-based
per capita expenditures of household consumption or components of household
consumption.
--Price levels of basic consumption items or total consumption are used to assess the
incidence of poverty and to monitor progress of policies targeted to poverty
alleviation. The current practice to produce global poverty estimates makes use of
US$1/day and US$2/day poverty lines. The comparison between countries is made
using PPPs for the private consumption aggregate of GDP. The ICP framework can
be used to investigate the incidence and distribution of poverty in various regions of
the same country.
--The European Commission spends some 30 per cent of its total budget on the
Structural and Cohesion Funds, the overall aim of which is to gradually reduce
economic disparities between EU Member States. The list of regions eligible for fund
allocations, is established on the basis of PPP-converted GDP per capita, as well as
the actual allocations.
--The comparison of the relationship between PPPs and exchange rates for similar
countries will allow a country to consider the effect of its exchange rate policies. The
extent of the deviations of PPPs from the official exchange rates shows the extent to
which a currency over or understates the general price levels.
--Multinational businesses need PPP data to help them in locating their operational
centers, as they need to know the relative prices of labor, raw materials, and indeed the size of markets. They also use PPP results to determine equitable levels of
compensation for expatriate staff, bearing in mind the difference in price levels
between their home country and the country where they are assigned.
--The results of the ICP also address a very common concern for tourists,
compensation administrators, and traders, namely how expensive is “my” country
compared to a neighbouring country or a country to be visited. This concern can only
be addressed by knowing the prices of goods and services to be bought or sold in
each country as generated by the ICP along with the price of currency, the exchange
rate.
History of the ICP
The program was first established in 1968 as a joint venture of the United Nations
and the University of Pennsylvania, with financial contributions from the Ford Foundation
and the World Bank. Starting with a modest project to undertake comparisons in 10
countries in 1970, further ICP rounds were conducted in 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1993.
By the time of the last round, the ICP had expanded to the status of a truly global program.
Coverage increased from the initial 10 countries in 1970 to 118 in 1993, covering all regions
of the world for the first time. The OECD and Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the EU)
calculate PPPs in their member states on a permanent basis.
The World Bank has now assumed the role of global coordinator for the ICP in non-
EU/OECD countries. The 2003-2006 ICP round marks a watershed in the program’s history.
It will produce PPP data for about 150 countries including those in the EU and OECD (see
Annex 1). Significant steps have also been taken to enhance the credibility of the program. A
new strategic framework has been developed to address long-standing issues, including the
program’s governance structure, resource base, and methodological underpinnings. These
are described in the next section.
Organization of the ICP
The new ICP Governance Framework establishes institutional responsibilities and
organizational arrangements worldwide. It specifies the roles and responsibilities of the
executive, managerial and advisory bodies, and the procedures that they follow, which
ensure that the International Comparison Program is run to high standards, globally,
regionally and nationally.
The ICP Executive Board is responsible for the successful implementation of the
Program. An international secretariat at the World Bank, known as the Global Office, headed
by the ICP Global Manager, manages the ICP on a day-to-day basis. It reports to the
Executive Board and prepares annual work programs and budgets for its approval. The
Technical Advisory Group provides guidance on technical issues and monitors the use of appropriate methodology. Regional Implementing Agencies (see Annex 1.2) are responsible
for setting up the structures required to implement and monitor the program at the regional
level. (Note that “regional” here indicates global regions such as entire continents or large
groups of countries). Each regional agency has established a Regional ICP Office headed
by a Regional Coordinator. Regional agencies have established regional boards to maintain
contact with participating countries. Within participating countries, the ICP is carried out by a
National Implementing Agency that will nominate an ICP National Coordinator.
The Organizational Framework lays out the organizational structure specifying how
the global, regional and national implementing agencies are organized to carry out their
responsibilities. As far as the results are concerned, the regional agencies produce PPPs for
their respective regions in a selected regional currency, while the Global Office links the
regional estimates to produce a globally consistent set of results in an international currency
such as the US dollar.
返回页首
2005 Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures
Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures
2005 International Comparison Program
2008 by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
1818 H Street NW
Washington , D.C. 20433 U.S.A.
Internet: www.worldbank.org
This publication is a product of the International Comparison Program, Global Office and the staff of the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in
this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Rights and permissions
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>广交会五年来最冷
中国在非洲：高铁和飞机
Preface
This publication presents the results of the 2005 International
Comparison Program (ICP), which was led and
coordinated by the World Bank during 2003–08. The size
and complexity of this important statistical project made
it imperative to distribute the tasks by geographic regions.
Data collection was overseen by regional coordinating agencies,
which compiled the results and produced regional estimates
of purchasing power parities (PPPs). Throughout the
process, the regional coordinators worked closely with the
ICP global office at the World Bank. The strong partnership
with the Eurostat-OECD and its parallel program made it
possible to combine the results from the two efforts for this
publication.
The final step of the ICP has been the linking of regional
results into a global data set so that economic activity and
price levels can be compared between economies in different
regions. These global results were produced using a
new technique known as the “ring comparison.” This publication
comprises the results for 146 economies obtained
through this linking process. The number of participating
economies far exceeds that of previous rounds.
On behalf of the World Bank and the ICP Executive
Board, we would like to thank all those who have contributed
to making the 2005 ICP such a resounding success.
It has been a great team effort. We cannot give credit, in
this limited space, to all of the individuals responsible for
its successful completion. Many are listed in the acknowledgments
that follow. Here we would like to highlight the
efforts of some special groups.
We are very pleased to say that the program has greatly
benefited from the overwhelming support it received from
national statistical offices and other participating agencies.
The success of such a huge and complex undertaking
depends critically on the active cooperation of the agencies
involved in collecting the data in each economy. Some
of the processes we used were new and untested, and the
spirit in which everyone tackled the problems that inevitably
arose in the course of this groundbreaking work has
been truly gratifying.
We would especially like to thank the staff of the regional
coordinating agencies—namely, the African Development
Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Statistics
Canada, the Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the Statistical
Office of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CISSTAT),
the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian
Federation (Rosstat), and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(Moscow)—which have invested so much effort into setting
up regional product lists, training statistical office staff
in the concepts underlying PPPs, and addressing the practical
issues associated with collecting and editing the data
and compiling the PPPs and related statistics for each of
the regions. We also want to thank Eurostat and OECD for
providing their experience, expertise, and overall support
for the regional and ring comparisons.
When the United Nations Statistical Commission gave
the go-ahead to this ICP round at its 2002 meeting, it
emphasized that the project had to have a strong governance
structure. The Executive Board was set up to provide
this governance. The Board and its members have had a
major impact on the program, and we would like to thank
them all for their contributions.
The project would not have been such a success without
the invaluable inputs from members of the Technical
Advisory Group. We appreciate the wholehearted and
enthusiastic manner in which they conducted their various
discussions—both at meetings in Washington and via
emails.
Our special thanks go to the major donors, whose contributions
were so important in bringing the program to
fruition. Contributors to the Global Trust Fund include
the U.K. Department for International Development, the
International Monetary Fund, the Australian Agency for
International Development, and the United Nations Development
Programme. The World Bank made significant contributions
to both the global and regional programs, as did
numerous regional agencies.
We would like to congratulate the global office team
at the World Bank. They have faced many challenges and
obstacles over the past four years or so, but their perseverance
and unwavering commitment to the project have
ultimately helped them overcome all the odds. They have
succeeded not only in producing a very important set of
statistical indicators but also in refining important concepts
underlying international comparisons, developing new tools
to make data collection and compilation easier and more
transparent, and setting up a firm basis on which future
ICPs can be launched.
We hope that users will find the report useful. These
data represent the most comprehensive survey of prices
ever undertaken. As with any statistical exercise, there are
limitations to the data, and these are highlighted in the
report. We welcome any comments and suggestions for
their improvement.
Finally, to everyone involved in this enormous task,
thanks very much for a job well done!
Dennis Trewin
Chairman
ICP Executive Board
Shaida Badiee
Director
Development Data Group
World Bank
返回页首
中国超美：如何面对“捧杀”？
人民财评：世行称中国经济年内超美 如何面对“捧杀”？
李海霞 人民网
2014年05月06日
世界银行在按照货币购买力平价（PPP）进行测算后指出，中国可能在今年就超越美国，成为世界最大的经济体。消息一出，外媒为之哗然。
报告得出结论的大体思路是：作为对真实生活成本的估计，购买力平价被认为是比较经济体规模的最佳方式。它的基本的原理是对比两国商品的价格。根据世行2011年“国际比较项目（ICP）”报告提供的数据，2011年人民币与美元的购买力平价是3.506人民币的购买力相当于1美元。根据这种统计方法，2005年时中国经济规模只有美国的43%，中国的经济规模在2011年已达美国的86.9%，加上2011年至2014年中国经济增长了24%，美国仅增长7.6%，中国GDP超美今年有望实现。
对中国经济前景，向来有“棒杀”和“捧杀”两派。“棒杀”者即是“中国崩溃论”的鼓吹者；“捧杀”听起来悦耳，但危害一样巨大。
改革开放30多年来，我国经济以近两位数的高速增长创造了世界经济发展史上的奇迹，虽然近年来增速有所放缓，却依然保持着世界范围内的领先水平。随着经济进入中高速发展的换挡期，中国将进入提质增效升级的“第二季”。尽管中国经济面临着发展不平衡、不协调等方面的挑战，但唱空中国的“崩溃论”不会吓倒中国政府和公众。
“中国的经济今年底超越美国”的论调似乎给中国的怀疑者当头一棒，但在一定程度上，这种“捧杀”之嫌也会影响人们对真实国力的判断，同时，给别有用心者找到哄抬人民币汇率等的借口。
不仅如此，PPP的算法有很多先决条件。如果要按照同一种商品的比价来看，需要有关国家的产业结构和消费结构相似、劳动生产率和贸易条件相同。很显然，世界各国经济发展模式及贸易环境千差万别，即便PPP算法有其优越性，但其巨大的误差却也不容忽视。
不可否认，中国何时超越美国成为“全球第一”是一个常被提及的话题。对此，中国经济学家也有自己的预测。2013年中国的国内生产总值（GDP）为568845亿人民币，按照当年的平均汇率算不足10万亿美元。而同年美国的GDP超过16万亿美元，中国经济规模大约只有美国的62%左右。按照目前年均增长7.5%的速度，大约要到2025年才能赶上或略微超过美国经济的规模。即便是根据经合组织此前的预测，中国至少要到2016年才能超越美国。
无论如何，我们都应清楚地认识到美中经济差距之大，立足本国，放眼全球，内外兼修，不断地在综合国力和人均收入水平的提升上下足功夫，让全体人民都享受到经济发展的好处，坚定地走好促改革、调结构、惠民生的路子。
格林斯潘：中国经济高增长是借来的
广交会五年来最冷
中国在非洲：高铁和飞机
人民网北京5月6日电 （刘然）近日，世界银行赞助的“国际比较项目”（ICP）发表了最新研究报告。报告中称，按照购买力平价（PPP）计算，中国将在2014年取代美国，成为全球最大的经济体。
那么，中国是如何“赶超”美国的呢？
该报告中通过购买力平价法（PPP）进行估算。以2011年数据为基础，称2011年中国GDP达到了美国的87%。2011年至2014年中国经济GDP增长了24%，而美国增长了7.6%，所以得出结论是2014年中国经济总量将超出美国0.12%。
不过，按照购买力平价计算的GDP却“并不靠谱”。
购买力平价(ppp)理论认为，如果一个国家一定单位的货币可以购买相同的商品，那么这两个国家所花的货币就应该是等价的。而在实际情况中，这种统计的数据前提却很难实现。因此，在经济学上，购买力平价(PPP)理论汇率与实际汇率可能有很大的差距。
国家统计局有关负责人曾在公开场合表示过对这种统计方法的不认同。他表示，由于各个国家购买力平价的比较是一项非常复杂的工作，到目前为止，包括联合国统计委员会组织的购买力平价（PPP）研究仍然被公认为还是研究性质、探索性质。所以，用这个还处在研究中的办法来衡量中国和美国的经济总量，也只有参考的价值，是种研究。
许多经济学家和媒体都也指出，购买力平价（PPP）方法存在许多缺陷，例如要求有关国家的产业结构和消费结构相似、劳动生产率和贸易条件相同，不考虑国际贸易中的交易费用等，这在现实生活中是很难满足的。所以，购买力平价（PPP）在统计学上具有欺骗性，可以通过选择所用的商品获得对某国有利或者不利的结果。
然而，按照传统计算方法，中国的经济总量却仍和美国相差甚远。根据世界货币基金组织（IMF）基于汇率指标的估算，2012年美国国内生产总值（GDP）为16.2万亿美元，而中国GDP为8.2万亿美元，也就是中国的经济体量刚刚超过50%。
即便按照购买力平价（PPP）计算，中国人均GDP只有美国的五分之一。因此，中国社科院世界经济与政治研究所研究员沈骥如评论称，只有经济发展的成果惠及全民，我们的GDP才是高效的GDP，这比PPP吹大的GDP要实惠得多，我国在世界上的话语权，也会得到实质性的提高。
七大军区司令忠勇与战功
在不平等世界要包容
中国为什么不喜欢“第一大经济体”的帽子
作者: 裴敏欣 时间: 2014年05月08日
根据世界银行的最新报告，中国今年将超越美国，成为世界第一大经济体。但中国似乎并不喜欢这个高帽子，因为它并不会带来实惠，反而会在内政外交上面给中国制造麻烦。
拒绝接受世界最大经济体头衔的国家应该寥寥无几，但中国就是其中一个。
140年来，只有美国安享着全球经济霸主地位所带来的权力和威信（美国在1872年超过英国成为世界第一大经济体，随后一直占据着这个位置）。不过，世界银行国际比较计划（International Comparison Programof the World Bank）上周公布的权威经济报告称，按购买力平价计算，中国将在2014年取代美国的全球最大经济体地位。
世行在这篇报告里公布的数据显示，按购买力平价计算，2011年中国经济总量为13.5万亿美元。2011-2014年间中国将实现24%的经济增长目标，而美国经济的累计增幅为7.6%。2011年美国的经济总量为15.5万亿美元。到2014年底，中国按购买力平价计算的经济规模预计将达到16.7万亿美元，略高于美国的16.6万亿美元。
世行这份新报告出炉前，经济学界普遍认为，中国按购买力平价计算的经济规模将在2019年超过美国，成为全球最大经济体。中国能提前五年做到这一点，主要是拜金融危机和大衰退所赐——它们导致美国经济增长乏力，但只对中国经济造成了温和的影响。
但中国并没有四处夸耀自己即将登上世界第一大经济体的宝座。
表面上看，成为全球最大经济体只会有助于彰显执政者在为中国赢得经济繁荣和国际尊重方面所付出的努力。一直以来，通过宣扬中国将不可避免地崛起为世界第一经济大国以及美国的相对衰落，中国政府已经相当成功地改变了许多国家在经济和地缘政治问题上的权衡思路，特别是在非洲、拉美和中东。
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
那么，为什么中国政府现在又不喜欢“世界第一”这顶帽子了呢？
在这个问题上，影响中国政府的是两种相互矛盾的情绪。没错，中国政府非常希望通过超越美国获得政治上的认可。但与此同时，中国领导人有着务实的灵魂。他们知道，和世界第一这个头衔相伴而来的将是沉重的国际责任。举例来说，现在联合国就有可能要求中国为发展援助提供更多资金，同时缴纳更多会费（目前中国只承担着联合国预算的5%，是第六大资金供给国）。最令人担心的是，如果成为新晋超级大国，中国在全球气候变化谈判中的位置就可能受到不利影响——中国政府将发现，以发展中国家自居并借此坚持说自己不应该为减少温室气体排放而拿出巨额资金将不再那么站得住脚。
在地缘政治领域，登上世界经济强国之巅也具有相当大的风险。由于惧怕中国的实力，美国及其盟友可能会联手对付中国。鉴于中国经济总量还不到西方国家（包括日本）的一半，中国势必无法跟这样的“反华联盟”抗衡。
在国内，让民众了解世行最新报告的内容对中国政府来说也毫无裨益（中国主要官方新闻媒体都没有报道这个消息）。中国政府非常清楚，世行的这份报告充其量只是在玩弄会计手法，实际上什么也改变不了——普通中国人不太可能突然觉得自己有钱了——尽管按购买力平价计算，他们的人均收入在一夜之间飙升了40%以上。听到这样的“好消息”后，中国人的反应很可能是要求政府把更多的资金用于社会服务和环保。
对生意人来说，中国更快地成为世界第一经济大国的意义或许也只是一个学术问题。对那些跟中国有业务往来的人来说，有两点最为重要。一是人均收入，它决定了个人的实际消费能力。在这方面，中国的人均收入，就算用购买力平价来衡量，也只有美国的五分之一。也就是说，整个中国市场或许很大，但就可支配收入决定的实际消费能力而言，今后几十年中国还将处于较低水平。另一点是整体竞争力，它受政治制度、技术成熟度、创新和金融行业发展情况等因素影响。在这方面，中国过去30年来或许已经突飞猛进，但仍然远远落后于美国。（财富中文网）
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
近日，世界银行赞助的“国际比较项目”（ICP）发表了最新研究报告。报告中称，按照购买力平价（PPP）计算，中国的经济总量将在2014年超过美国，成为全球最大的经济体。消息一出引发全球关注。
中国经济真的如该报告所说已经世界第一了么？
为何这个数据引发了全球经济专家和主流媒体的讨论？
媒体和专家又是如何进行判断的？
你又如何看待中国经济的世界排名？
统计局：数据高估了我国的GDP规模
国家统计局国际统计中心有关专家认为，按照全球国际比较项目办公室发布的结果，中国的物价水平只有世界平均水平的70%，只是美国价格的54%，甚至还低于非洲的许多国家。而我国的粮食、牛羊肉、汽车、汽油等商品的价格是比较高的，通过购买力平价却反映不出来。由于购买力高估，也自然就高估了我国的GDP规模。
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
中国为何对“年内第一”持保留态度？ 统计局专家回应
朱剑红
2014年05月06日 人民网-人民日报
一则消息引起外国媒体热议：根据世界银行4月30日发布的《购买力平价与实际经济规模——2011年国际比较项目结果摘要报告》，以购买力平价法（PPP）计算，中国的经济规模在2011年已经达到美国的86.9%，比2005年的43.1%提高一倍多。据此，该报告作出预测称，今年中国可能超越美国，一跃成为全球头号经济体。
中国经济的规模怎么突然长得这么大？购买力平价又是做什么用的？本报记者就此采访了国内统计专家。
什么是购买力平价法
世行报告的结论是用购买力平价法计算的，那么，什么是购买力平价法？
北京师范大学国民经济核算研究院学术委员会主任邱东教授介绍，随着经济全球化和一体化的不断深入，开展国家间的国际对比越来越有必要。长期以来，国际上主要使用“汇率法”，即将各国以不同货币单位计量的经济总量折算成统一的货币单位，并在此基础上进行国际比较。“汇率法的好处在于，简单直观，折算方便，全球公认。例如，中国2012年的GDP最终核实数为519470亿元人民币，国际货币基金组织用汇率法计算为82270亿美元。两个数字，一目了然！但这个方法也有局限，因为汇率只反映了国际贸易中的货物和服务的货币比例关系，而且未考虑各国价格水平差异，同时汇率还容易受到利率和政治等各种因素的影响，所以，当汇率短时间内发生较大变动时，会导致国家间的比较不合逻辑。”
例如1997—1998年亚洲经济危机时，亚洲许多国家的货币大幅贬值，使得这些国家按美元计算的经济总量和人均水平发生了重大变化。按照汇率法，日本的经济规模在1996年是美国的60%，但由于日元大幅贬值，到2002年，却仅为美国的38%。“这就形象地说明，采用汇率法进行国际比较有着较大的缺陷。因此，国际统计学界一直试图探索推出一种能反映货币相对购买力的方法对汇率法计算结果来进行补充，购买力平价法就是其中之一。”邱东说。
购买力平价是不同国家大致相同的货物和服务的货币价格比率，是指在基准国的一单位货币所能购买的对比国的等量货物和服务所需要的本币数量。假如说，在美国买一个汉堡需用一美元，在中国买需用5元人民币，购买力平价就是5。
从20世纪50年代起，一些经济统计学家开始进行探索。自1995年起，世界银行同时公布两套GDP数据。一套是按照汇率法计算，另一套按照购买力平价法计算。2002年，按照汇率法计算，中国的经济规模在世界上排名第六，但按照当时世行计算的购买力平价法来计算，中国已经排名第二。
“其实，购买力平价法就是把国与国之间原本不可比的经济数据，进行直接比较所借助的统一的转换因子。得到这个转换因子，是通过全球实施国际比较项目来实现的。”邱东介绍，国际比较项目一般是5年为一期，从1968年至今已经组织了八轮。随着参与国际比较项目的国家不断增多，影响不断扩大，2008年，联合国统计委员会第三十九届会议决定，启动第八轮全球国际比较。本轮国际比较是历次参与国最多的一次，全球有199个国家和经济体参加。项目实施实行三级管理：在全球一级，世界银行下设全球国际比较项目办公室，负责全球一级国际比较项目活动协调；在区域一级，由经合组织（OECD）和欧盟统计局、亚洲开发银行、非洲开发银行、独联体统计局、拉美和加勒比海经社理事会、西亚经社会理事会等6个区域性组织分别负责本地区国际比较项目活动协调、技术方法指导以及区域购买力平价结果测算和发布等工作；各国统计机构是参与方，只负责按照统一方案组织调查，收集并提交基础数据。
中国为何对本轮比较结果持保留态度
国际比较的初衷是为弥补汇率法的不足，那么，购买力平价法计算的结果又有什么不足？
根据世界银行的报告，我国的主要比较结果为：2011年购买力平价为3.506，也就是说1美元与3.506元人民币的购买力相当，同期人民币对美元的汇率为6.46。据此计算，2011年我国GDP为13.5万亿美元，全球GDP总量为90.6万亿美元；我国占全球经济总规模的14.9%，相当于美国的87%，居世界第二位。而按汇率法计算的全球GDP为70.3万亿美元，我国为7.3万亿美元，占世界的比重为10.4%。
对于上述通过购买力平价法计算的结果，国家统计局国际统计中心有关专家认为，尽管世行国际比较项目的专家做了许多有价值的探索工作，但各个国家生产和消费的商品与服务是不尽相同的。若在全球选择统一固定的商品和服务进行比较，则容易对具体的国家丧失了代表性；如不同国家都选取对自己有代表性的商品和服务，各国间又因代表品不同而丧失了代表性。正是由于这些原因，这个结果低估了中国的物价水平。按照全球国际比较项目办公室发布的结果，中国的物价水平只有世界平均水平的70%，只是美国价格的54%，甚至还低于非洲的许多国家。而我国的粮食、牛羊肉、汽车、汽油等商品的价格是比较高的，通过购买力平价却反映不出来。由于购买力高估，也自然就高估了我国的GDP规模。
为何出现对物价水平的低估？邱东认为，主要原因是方法上的局限性。尽管本轮国际比较的主要方法有创新、有改进，但是不可能做到尽善尽美，有些比较方法还有待进一步探讨和论证。例如建筑品比较，这一轮采用了新的方法，即“投入法”，用建筑投入品价格，推算建筑成品的价格，也就是说，用诸如钢筋、水泥等产品的价格，来推算房屋的价格。显然，这一方法无法反映建筑品的“市场供求”，没有将诸如房屋这样的商品的“溢价”因素考虑在内，所以会造成推算的我国建筑品价格严重偏离我国的实际。而由于我国固定资本形成占比较高，这种偏离对我国购买力平价结果影响较大。事实上，世行发布的报告中，对方法的局限性也有详细的介绍。
国家统计局有关统计专家说：“国际比较项目是一项技术性和专业性都很强的统计业务活动，这一轮的比较方法应该说有许多改进和创新。对于其中的某些方法，中国积极地与有关方面进行了及时沟通，坦诚地交换了意见。”正是由于方法论的局限和购买力平价法结果运用导致中国GDP总量和人均水平的明显高估，中国官方不认可这些数据，但同意世行项目办公室在表明中方态度前提下，推算和使用有关数据。中国的这一态度得到了国际比较项目最高决策机构——国际比较项目执委会的认可，全球办公室在发布报告中认真执行了全球执委会的决定，并在其发布报告中的正文表述和数据脚注中得到了体现。
如何使用全球比较的结果
尽管用购买力平价法已经进行了八轮全球国际比较，但统计专家们都认为，购买力平价法的比较方法还在不断的探讨、改进和完善过程中。
事实上，对于国际比较项目及其生产的有关数据的局限性，世行全球办公室在其报告中专门做了论述。
一是提请用户注意：购买力平价法更适用于相似经济体间的比较，不太适用于对差异较大的经济体间的比较；产品类的购买力平价数据可靠性要好于服务类，如住房、医疗领域的购买力平价误差可能较大；购买力平价只反映各经济体的总体价格水平，而不反映经济体内部的价格水平差异。
二是购买力平价不能用作汇率决定水平。因为汇率充其量仅能反映国际贸易中的货物和服务，但是对于非贸易部分，比如建筑、政府服务等，并不在国际贸易中。
三是将居民消费购买力平价用于贫困分析有一定局限性，因为各国的消费结构不一致。
四是不能对两轮间比较结果进行直接比较，或者说不能把2011年全球国际比较结果与以2005年全球国际比较结果为基准的外推结果进行直接比较。
国家统计局国际统计中心负责人提醒到，我们应该充分地注意国际比较项目有关数据产生的大背景和技术说明，不能过度引申其统计意义，对结果也不能拿来就用，更不能简单套用有关数据用于经济分析和政策解读。譬如按购买力平价计算的我国经济总量要大于汇率法，所以与美国的差距缩小了，等等。无论用哪种方法计算GDP，我们都必须看到，我国的经济发展水平与发达国家的差距依然很大，我们的人均水平还很低，在经济结构、社会保障、医疗教育、养老等民生方面与美国、日本、欧元区等发达国家还有很大差距。我们发展的任务还很重，路还很长。不管国际上如何排名，都只是一个视角或参考。
算法对吗？数据全面吗？结论有意义吗？
PPP存在许多缺陷，它的许多前提，例如要求有关国家的产业结构和消费结构相似、劳动生产率和贸易条件相同，不考虑国际贸易中的交易费用等，这在现实生活中是很难满足的。所以，不少经济学家认为，PPP在统计学上具有欺骗性，可以通过选择所用的商品获得对某国有利或者不利的结果。
不管是按汇率还是按PPP， 即使赶上了，又说明什么呢？以中国超过13亿的人口，对美国3亿人口，任何的大数据，都会被稀释。
Shares in world GDP in PPS, 2011 (%)
GDP per capita, 2011
德国人偏爱俄罗斯
沈骥如：莫被PPP吹大的中国经济规模冲昏头
2014年05月05日 海外网
摘要：了解了用PPP计算各国经济规模的缺陷，就不会被“中国经济规模今年超美国”的预言冲昏头脑，而是会使我们多一份理性，多一份冷静。
4月29日，世界银行发布了2011年“国际比较项目（ICP）”报告，报告宣称，通过购买力平价（PPP）法计算作出的预测，今年中国可能超越美国，一跃成为全球头号经济体。我们知道，2013年中国的国内生产总值（GDP）为568845亿人民币，约合91000亿美元，同年美国的GDP超过16万亿美元，中国经济规模大约只有美国的56%左右。按照目前年均增长7.5%的速度，大约要到2025年才能赶上或略微超过美国经济的规模。但是，世界银行用PPP，魔术般地把中国经济赶超美国的时间，提前到了今年。
比较不同国家的经济规模，最常用的、最简单的方法，是把一个国家GDP的总额，按照由市场供求关系决定的汇率，换算成另一个国家货币额。但是，这种计算有时会受到汇率频繁波动和通货膨胀率波动的影响，为了避免这种情况，有人设计出了购买力平价（PPP）计算方法。其基本的原理是对比两国商品的价格。例如，一个汉堡包在美国卖4美元，在中国卖16元人民币，那么，在汉堡包上反映的美元和人民币的汇率就是1比4，即1美元兑换4元人民币。但是，商品有千百万种，于是，就需要选择一组商品，并给每种商品一个权重，来计算两国货币的PPP值，它实际上是一种根据各国不同的价格水平计算出来的货币之间的等值系数，目的是对各国的国内生产总值进行合理比较。但在现实生活中，用PPP计算出来的各国货币购买力，误差更大。
根据2011年“国际比较项目（ICP）”报告提供的数据，2011年人民币与美元的购买力平价是3.506人民币的购买力相当于1美元。按照这一高得出奇的汇率，中国经济规模在今年就可以超过美国了。但是，正是这种购买力平价，使一些西方国家总是指责中国的人民币汇率被人为压低了。许多经济学家和媒体都指出，PPP存在许多缺陷，它的许多前提，例如要求有关国家的产业结构和消费结构相似、劳动生产率和贸易条件相同，不考虑国际贸易中的交易费用等，这在现实生活中是很难满足的。所以，不少经济学家认为，PPP在统计学上具有欺骗性，可以通过选择所用的商品获得对某国有利或者不利的结果。
了解了用PPP计算各国经济规模的缺陷，就不会被“中国经济规模今年超美国”的预言冲昏头脑，而是会使我们多一份理性，多一份冷静。一方面，应该看到，30多年的改革开放使中国经济持续高速增长，这是我国取得的毋庸置疑的成就。但是，另一方面，我们经济发展的质量，我们在世界经济中的话语权，还远未达到应有的水平。第一，我国的人均GDP虽然已经达到6700美元，属于中高收入国家行列，但是仍在世界人均水平中位线13460美元之下，位居世界第99位；而且，基尼系数为0.473，高于0.4的公认警戒线，表明我国收入差距大，多数人的收入水平被不合理的分配结构压低了。第二，我国经济的增长方式不可持续、经济结构不合理的问题还没有得到根本解决，GDP的质量不高。例如，我国今年一季度产钢超过2亿吨，全年的钢产量大约要达到8亿吨的水平，占世界的一半，已经出现了大量的产能过剩。去年1吨钢的利润一度只有0.45元。8亿吨的GDP很多，但是利润很微薄，只是给铁矿石出口国赚取了大量利润，出现了我们买什么，什么就贵，我们卖什么，什么就便宜的局面，这表明，我们在国际市场上，还很缺少话语权。
严峻的形势告诉我们，要拿出壮士断腕的决心，转变经济发展方式，调整经济结构，通过自主科技创新，改变过去那种高投入、高消耗、高污染的增长模式，实现经济和社会的可持续发展，缩小收入分配差距，不断提高GDP的质量，让全体人民都享受到经济发展的好处。只有经济发展的成果惠及全民，我们的GDP才是高效的GDP，这比PPP吹大的GDP要实惠得多，我国在世界上的话语权，也会得到实质性的提高。
（沈骥如，中国社科院世界经济与政治研究所研究员，海外网专栏作者）
为何中国常常“被第一”？
如果中国成为世界经济第一的说法被普遍采纳，那么，首先国际上对人民币升值等要求的声音就会更大，人民币对外购买力降低，我国经济负担将持续增大。特别在中国仍未完全摆脱出口导向型经济的情况下，中国经济的压力很大。此外，国内的贫富差距、产业结构等经济因素并未调整好。在这种情况下，“中国第一”大都是捧杀。
返回页首
中国外贸如何成为世界第一
2014-05-06
世界银行“国际比较计划”日前发布一份报告，西方所谓的中美“经济霸权之争”大有提前上演之势。该报告更新了世界各国基于购买力平价计算的GDP数据，认为中国今年可能超越美国，摘得世界头号经济体桂冠。消息一出，立即引起国际舆论尤其是美国方面的异常关注，美国媒体惊呼：“中国世纪自今日开始。”中国官方则强烈质疑得出这一数据所用方法的准确性，英国《金融时报》还称中国为阻止世行公布此报告做了长时间努力。
中国经济强劲、政治成熟的形象跃然纸上，或许是为了让西方读者安心，《金融时报》赶出社评，分析中国的不足。《金融时报》首席经济评论员马丁 沃尔夫认为，中国超越美国将是一个令人瞩目的时刻，但它还没令人瞩目到一些人所担心、另一些人所期望的程度。中国是贸易超级大国，2013年商品出口比美国高出14%，但商品进口比美国低31%，而进口市场的规模决定了一国在全球议价中的实力。
根据世界贸易组织提供的数据，中国确实尚未成为世界第一大进口国。但从趋势看，随着中国经济继续以相对高速增长，它不久将成为世界第一大进口国。这样的超越早在不经意间多次发生——出口量、进出口总量都是如此。
美国自19世纪70年代初以来一直是世界头号经济体，在漫长的岁月里，“睡狮”中国则落寞无名。1948年时，中国进出口贸易总值仅9.07亿美元，远低于美、德、日等贸易大国。到2013年，中国进出口总值已上升至41600.09亿美元，占世界贸易总量的比重也从1948年时的0.76%跃升至11.05%，一举成为世界第一大进出口贸易国。1948年，美国的进出口贸易总值占全世界的17.28%；到了2013年，却已经落后中国近1个百分点。
如果满屏数字让您一时眼花缭乱，不妨将视线直接聚焦2004、2009、2013这几个年份：短短十年间，中国进出口贸易总值接连超越日、德、美。当有些国人还对中国道路感到迷茫懵懂时，或对现状忧心忡忡、辗转反侧时，或面对西方自卑不安时，厚积薄发的“醒狮”已经大步流星地走在了“列强”的前面。
感谢网友北海居整理世界贸易组织提供的数据（具体数据表格见文末附表），笔者据此绘制图表如下，以供读者参考。
中美德日货物进出口统计
不仅如此，中国的进出口贸易早已不是“一亿衬衫换飞机”的窘迫局面。在出口产品中，机械/电子制造业产品（42%）是出口的主力，服装、鞋类为主的纺织品仅占12%。
贸易大国出口最多的是什么？
各国主要出口产品统计
俄罗斯：俄罗斯的出口结构非常单一，石油天然气（71%）出口占据了其出口的大半壁江山。
中国：机械/电子制造业产品（42%）仍然是出口的主力，其次是服装、鞋类为主的纺织品（12%）。
日本：机械/电子（36%）和汽车等交通产品（24%）是出口主力。
美国：出口结构平衡，排名前四的分别为机械电子（24%）、交通（16%）、化工（11%）和石油矿物（10%）。
欧盟：出口结构和美国类似，排名前四同样为机械电子（27%）、交通（15%）、化工（15%）和石油矿物（8%）。
澳大利亚、阿拉伯、尼日利亚：和俄罗斯一样，这些国家的出口能源和矿物出口，石油/矿物占出口的比重均超过50%。
贸易大国最喜欢进口什么？
各国主要进口产品统计
了解主要贸易国家的外贸特点当然也不能少了进口。同样来自渣打银行的图表告诉我们，总体来看全球进口比例最高的两类产品分别是：1、机械与电气设备；2、石油等矿产品。
中国的这两类产品进口比例在二到三成左右，第1类为31%，第2类为25%。
俄罗斯的能源出口优势明显：第1类产品进口比例为30%，也是进口占比最高的产品类型；第2类不属于达到一定比例的进口产品；交通类产品进口占比位居第二，为17%。
紧挨俄罗斯的其他欧洲国家地区与俄罗斯形成互补，进口第2类产品比例为32%。
占据中东大部地区的石油输出国组织“欧佩克”同样是能源出口地区，进口主要来自第1类产品，进口比例为26%，其次是交通类产品，进口17%。
临近中国的韩国、日本和印度进口第2类产品比例都很高，分别为40%、38%和40%。
上述亚洲三国对外能源依赖度较高，第2类产品进口比例甚至超过了欧美，欧洲这类产品的进口比例为32%，美国和巴西一样，都只有19%。
从进口比例来看，两个美洲国家的外部依存度均相对较低，美国进口比例最高的第1类产品占比也不超过30%。巴西最高进口比例也来自第1类产品，比例为27%。
澳大利亚是主要能源出口国，进口最多的是第1类产品，第2类产品的进口比例17%，属国内第二大进口产品类型。
“金砖国家”之一南非进口比例也不算高，第1类和第2类产品的进口占比分别为24%和23%。
德国人偏爱俄罗斯
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
返回页首
挑战美国霸权的是美国自己
卢斯：挑战美国霸权的是美国自己，而非中国
2014-05-06
先说最重要的事。中国不会取代美国成为世界超级大国。按购买力平价（PPP）算法，中国经济将超越美国——上周传来的这一消息是统计学上的里程碑。但还不止于此。
中国没有能力，也没有野心接美国之任。以美元计算，中国超越美国需要大概十年时间。当下的故事在于，美国渐渐不愿——更关键的是，不能——继续保持她过去70年来扮演的角色。美国霸权过后，将是世界多极化——而不是中国走上台来。问题是，什么样的多极化？会建立在美国框架下的全球规则的基础上吗？还是“身后之事，与美国何干”？
地缘政治的转化早已在亚欧大陆的两端展开。上周，奥巴马访亚归来。此行，他访问了亚洲的四个国家，都是中国的邻国。这几个国家都畏惧区域霸权扩张。美国总统将他剩余的大部分时间花在乌克兰以西的俄罗斯周边地区，鼓励他们要团结一致。他们也担心越来越具掠夺性的地区性大国。60年多前，乔治 凯南（George Kennan）勾画了对苏遏制政策。如今，美国一不小心踏入了对中国和俄罗斯的双重遏制。
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
对美国领导力的需求仍然很强。但美国维持双重遏制政策的能力已是一个公开的质疑。
亚欧大国间较量的回归在全球经济变化中找到了对应。美国在美元体系下仍是领头羊——美元是唯一稳定的国际货币。美国的人均收入是中国的五倍。也许中国需要花30年左右的时间才能在生活水平上赶超美国，但她迎头赶上的速度却是惊人的。本世纪初，中国经济仅占全球经济的4%。而今，这一数据已达12%。美国则从三分之一降至20%。
中国会在未来十年的某个时间点超越美国。但她不会取代美国。其中包含着危险性。美国不再有能力维护世界秩序，而中国则缺乏正当性。中国这个独裁国家不是靠移民建立起来的，也从不寻求输出普世价值。
我们已经处于多极经济体系的早期阶段。后冷战时期的美国全球秩序的建立围绕着她所发起的国际机构——联合国（UN），国际货币基金组织（IMF），世界银行（World Bank），以及北约（NATO）。该秩序也建立在1994年乌拉圭回合定下的贸易协定基础之上。
之后，美国就不再有能力完成一次新的回合。多哈回合是她的一切，但该回合已经终了。奥巴马在欧洲和太平洋的贸易大计划失败了。两大计划都是为着防御目的——中国并不包括在跨太平洋战略经济伙伴关系（TPP）中，而俄罗斯不是跨大西洋贸易投资伙伴之一。美国缺乏帮助他们的影响力。
在IMF改革上也是如此。中国在世界顶尖经济体中的投票表决权仅占4%，几乎只是她在全球经济中所占比重的三分之一，这十分荒谬。
诸如印度、墨西哥、巴西这样的国家的代表权也不尽如人意：比利时仍比这些国家所持有的投票权要多。可以理解，这些国家正开始远离美国所建立的国际机构。奥巴马的功劳在于，他结束了乔治 W 布什政府建起的IMF治理谈判，并达成协议增加新兴世界的代表权。然而即便是这样的边际再分配也受到了国会的阻挠，也封锁了奥巴马寻求贸易主动权的余地。美国正表现得像一个衰落中的霸权国家：不愿分享权力，也无法强逼结果。
在美国处理气候变化问题时也能看到同样的问题。作为世界上最富有的国家，美国拿出了一笔钱来资助新兴世界国家进行碳减排。但是，所谓的“减排换资金”政策失去了一个重要组成部分——资金。
美国及其伙伴国都无法提供像2009年哥本哈根峰会上承诺的1000亿美元一年的气候援助。不得不再提，美国国会妨碍着美国领导人。奥巴马也无力在这件事上有所作为。值得庆幸的是，中国、印度和其他国家开始注意能源效率是否符合他们的自身利益。不过这些国家正自主地作出一些改变。
骰子尚未掷下。想要把多极世界塑造成什么样，美国手握的牌最多。她比任何一个潜在对手都有正当性——尤其是中国。但是，美国对付这些困难的能力却受到了国内瘫痪所阻。问题的核心在于美国中产阶级的不断下滑，而中产阶级又是冷战后美国全球力量的基石。全美国不断加剧的经济不平等和华盛顿的政治失灵，都扼杀了美国的宽宏大量——这一定义冷战时期美国领导力的精神。这一损失无法量化，也因此而不真实。
美国仍然有权力定下全球参与的基调，让谈判结果对自己和世界都有利。但是，这就要求美国重获开明的自利精神。我们必须都抱着这样的希望：这种精神只是在休眠，它并没有消逝。
（英文原载英国《金融时报》网站2014年5月4日，原标题：Uncertainty, not China, is replacing US power；观察者网张苗凤/译）
2011 ICP 国家分类（地图）
在不平等世界要包容
匹克迪 《二十一世纪资本论》
乔姆斯基：真的“去美国化”了
2014-01-21
在最近发生的震惊世界的华盛顿的闹剧期间，中国的一位评论员在文章中（指2013年10月16日新华社英文版评论员刘畅的评论《美国的失败将造就一个“去美国化”的世界》）写道，如果美国不能成为世界制度一个负责任的成员，世界也许应当脱离这个无赖国家，它是军事上占统治地位的强国，但是在其他的领域已经失去信誉。
华盛顿衰落最近的根源是政治阶级出现的激烈的向右转。过去人们以某种讽刺语调描写美国是一个“一党制的国家”，这并非不确切，这个党就是分成所谓共和党人和民主党人两个派别的“企业党”。
情况已经不是这样。美国继续是一个只有“一个党”的国家，但是现在它只有一个派别，温和的共和党人现在被称作新的民主党人（如同在国会已经指定的联盟）：存在一个共和党的组织，但是很久以前它就放弃了任何成为一个正常的反对党团的企图。保守派的评论员、美国企业研究所的诺曼·奥尔斯坦因将现在的共和党人说成是一种意识形态上极端的“激进的起义者”，他们嘲笑事实和协议，蔑视它的政治反对派的合法性，这对社会是一个重大的危险。
这个党长期为最富有的人和公司阶层服务。由于不可能靠这个平台获得选票，被迫动员社会上极端分子（根据世界的标准）的阶层。这种疯狂就是茶党的成员和一堆非正式团体之间的新准则。
共和党的定位和它的企业家支持者期待利用这些团体作为反对居民的新自由主义袭击的冲锋车，以便实现私有化，解除调控和限制政府，同时保留那些为财富服务的部分，如武装力量。
它取得了某些成功，但是现在它可怕地发现已经不能控制它的基层。这样对国家和社会的冲击将变得更为严峻。其例子是最近共和党对奥巴马医保方案（“可以得到的医疗救助法”）的激烈反对和政府关门的事件。
中国评论员的观察并不完全是新奇的事情。早在1999年政治分析人士萨缪尔·亨廷顿就警告说，对世界的大部份地区来说，美国变成了“无赖的超级大国”，被看成是对各国社会主要的外部威胁。
在乔治·布什就任总统的头几个月，美国政治科学协会主席罗伯特·杰维斯曾经警告说，在世界上大部分人看来，今天第一个无赖的国家就是美国。不论是亨廷顿或是杰维斯都警告说这种过程是冒失的。对美国来说其后果可能是有害的。
在最近一期《外交》杂志上，大卫·凯耶审视了华盛顿脱离世界的方式的一个方面：拒绝多边条约如同是一种运动。他解释说，某些条约被美国完全拒绝，比如在参议院投票反对2012年残疾人权利公约时，1999年反对全面禁止核试验的条约。另外一些条约则因美国不作为而被排除，其中包括关于劳工、经济或文化权利的条约、关于危险物种、污染、刑事冲突、保卫和平、核武器、海洋法和歧视妇女等领域的条约。
凯耶指出，拒绝国际义务变得如此根深蒂固，外国政府已经不指望华盛顿批准或它全面参加根据条约建立的机构。世界继续前进，法律在别的地方执行，美国只是有限地参与（如果出现这种情况的话）。
尽管不是新的，近年来实践已经变得更加明显，同时在国内已经悄悄地接受美国有权作为一个无赖的国家行动的理论。
作为一个典型的例子，几周以前美国的特种部队在的黎波里（利比亚首都）的街上抓住一个叫阿布·阿纳斯·利比的嫌犯，将他带到一条船上进行审问，不允许他有一名律师，也不尊重他的权利。美国国务卿约翰·克里向媒体通报说这个行动“是合法的”，因为是在履行美国的法律，没有对此发表评论。
原则如果是普遍的才是有用的。如果是古巴的特种部队在美国迈阿密绑架了恐怖分子路易斯·波萨达·卡里莱斯，将他带到古巴岛上进行审问，根据古巴的法律进行审判，（美国的）反应是将会大不相同。说这个也没有用。
只有无赖的国家才会采取这样的行动。更准确地说，美国是拥有足够的势力采取行动而又逍遥法外的唯一的国家，近年来美国恣意进行侵略，用无人机进行攻击及干了很多其他的事情，在世界上广大的地区制造恐怖。比如，为了以另外的方式挑战世界，美国坚持封锁古巴，尽管遭到全世界的反对，2013年10月份在联合国谴责美国对古巴的封锁时（指通过要求美国取消对古巴的经济、贸易和金融封锁的决议，188票赞成，2票反对），以色列和它的保护国（美国）一起投了反对票。
不论世界怎么想，美国的行动都是“合法的”，因为“我们（美国人）就是这样决定的”。早在1962年杰出的社会活动家迪安·艾奇逊（前国务卿）就阐明了原则，他通知美国国际法协会，当美国以它的势力、立场和威望回答一种挑战的时候，不存在任何合法的帝国主义。
按照前总统肯尼迪的顾问和历史学家亚瑟·施莱辛格的说法，古巴在回答美国的一场入侵时犯了一种“罪过”，之后面对美国策划的一次袭击将恐怖从大陆带到古巴岛时，又“大胆地幸存下来”。
当美国取得独立的时候，寻求联合那个时代的国际社会。因此《独立宣言》开始表示关心体面地尊重人类的意见。
根据外交历史学家埃利加·古尔德的说法，一个关键的因素是一个没有秩序的联邦演变为一个统一的国家，配得上签署条约，她观察了欧洲秩序的公约。在得到这种地位时，新的国家也赢得了在国内的范围按照自己的意愿采取行动的权利。因此能够摆脱土著居民办事，扩大奴隶制，机构让人十分憎恨，在英国这是不可能被容忍的，如受尊敬的法学家威廉·默里在1772年裁决的那样。英国先进的法律是推动奴隶的有产者的社会置身它的范围以外的一个因素。
作为一个算得上签署条约的国家有多方面的优势：外国的承认，在它的领土范围内没有干涉的行动自由。它的权力提供了再次成为一个无赖的国家的机会，它自由地挑战国际法，同时面对在国外日益增多的抵抗，因为自身的伤口促成了它自己的衰落。
（魏文编译）
返回页首
返回主页
version:2.1<EMAIL_ADDRESS>© retter2012.com