决战1010精英组Economist阅读汇——yuanlinqinggre 分贴

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

GDP is too narrow ameasure of the things that truly matter to humans to be viewed as a valuableindicator in developed nations like ours in 2010.

Steve Landefeld presents his view cogently,but he proposes an old-fashioned vision that is drivenby conventional ways of thinking rather than modern evidence, and hemakes no mention of green issues or sustainability.


Here is an example:

It was a catastrophic(灾难性的) decline in living standards that prompted（引起） the development ofnational, or GDP, accounts. Trying to design policies in the 1930s….

I agree with thisassessment（评价）
about the origins of GDPmeasurement.
But of course such days arelong, long gone. This is not an issue relevant to the case for or against GDPin 2010.

Here is a further example:

GDP, and the broader set of nationalincome, product and wealth accounts, has stood the test [of] time and no othermeasure has proven a worthy alternative.

This is an assertion for which Mr Landefeldgives no evidence. On some measures of mental health,for example, as I tried to explain in the first stage of the debate, there isresearch evidence that levels of psychological well-being in rich nations areworsening through time.
If so, it would seem to me, and I presume toother observers, that the "test" has been failed.

Mr Landefeld also argues that:

There is no broader social measurement toolthat officials would agree is valid and useful.

This is not true: see the Stiglitz report.

Mr Landefeld suggests that it would seemirresponsible to abandon what he sees as the most comprehensive and reliablesystem currently available. Readers will have to judge for themselves. In myopinion, this takes us back to the kind of status-quo positions adopted indebates since at least the Middle Ages when it was proposed to give up the viewthat the Earth was the centre of the universe. Presumably（推测起来） weshould choose our intellectual positions on the basis of modern data and notbecause ideas are familiar to us or previously long-accepted.

Mr Landefeld says that theStiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (2009), which explored expanded welfaremeasures, has suggested a number of ways that "classical GDP issues"can be addressed within existing GDP accounts or through an extension andimprovement of measures included in existing accounts. Yet, as a read of thereport on the web will make clear, his is not in an obvious way an even-handedassessment of the Commission (on which I served).
For example, he does not mention the centralrecommendations in the Stiglitz Report about the need to measure human well-being（幸福感） rather than GDP.

Mr Landefeld believes that alternatives toGDP have…"foundered on the inevitable problems ofsubjectivity and uncertainty inherent in measuring happiness, household workand other non-market activities". Unfortunately, this is anassertion without data to support it. More important, it is time to think aboutwhat economists would call the right maximand.


Consider this possibility. One of Mr Landefeld's close relatives or friends comes to him andsays: "Steve, confidentially, I am really hating my job and my marriageisn't working and I am feeling deeply depressed." Surely he would not sayto his relative: "Not interested. Don't give me your subjectivity. Go homeand count dollars."

这篇文章，精彩的句子很多，my摘抄goes asfollows:
1. GDP is too narrow a measure of the things that truly matter tohumans to be viewed as
a valuable indicator indeveloped nations like ours in 2010.

可以用于Argue某种东西或指标衡不够全面
2. On some measuresof mental health, for example,
as I tried to explain in thefirst stage of the debate, there is researchevidence that levels of psychological well-being in rich nations are worseningthrough time.

插入语运用的十分好
3. If so, it wouldseem to me, and I presume to other observers,that the "test" has been failed.

蓝色部分可以运用与Argument的攻击中
4. Presumably（推测起来） weshould choose our intellectual positions on the basis of modern data and notbecause ideas are familiar to us or previously long-accepted.

Presumably, it isjust as likely that …..
5. Mr Landefeld believes that alternativesto GDP have…foundered on the inevitable problems ofsubjectivity and uncertainty inherent in measuring happiness, household workand other non-market activities.

可用于攻击某些问题所具有的内在问题
6. Consider thispossibility.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

If the motion were about measuring welfare,the answer might be that GDP is a poor measure. However,as a measure of standards of living—that is, a measure of the level of comfortprovided by privately purchased and publicly provided goods and services—GDP isa pretty good measure of living standards. While it may need to be supplemented by distribution of income and otherinformation, it is a concrete measure of the economic output and incomesavailable to meet the material needs of society and advance standards ofliving. 【当我们需要衡量个人购买以及公众提供的服务的满意度时，GDP是一个很好的手段，虽然有很多其他的因素需要补充】

I will concede(好词) that GDP is an imperfect measure of living standards, but as anobjective measure of the contributions of the economyto living standards, it is a better measure than gross nationalhappiness or any of the other measures that have been proposed. The question of whether it is a poor measure is directlyrelated to the quality of alternatives.（一个东西的好坏需要和其替代品进行对比才能被表现出来）【GDP相对于其他手段来说能更好的衡量经济对于生活水准的贡献】

I am reminded in thisdebate on GDP and standards of living of the debates on democracy as a form ofgovernment and Winston Churchill's famous words: "No one pretends thatdemocracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy isthe worst form of government except all those other forms that have been triedfrom time to time."【GDP是有缺陷，但是它是现有选择下最好的】

GDP may not (yet) measure the distributionof incomes, the effect of the economy on the environment, or the happiness ofsociety, but it is an objective and measureable index of what the economy cancontribute to standards of living. Taxes, public spending and transferprogrammes play an important role in determining how GDP is distributed. But itis the level and growth of GDP that determine how much a nation can afford tospend on such things as housing, medical care, food, and other goods andservices, as well as the alleviation of poverty, better schools, transport andpollution abatement.【虽然GDP未考虑收入分配等问题，但是真正决定一个国家所能购买的服务以及商品是GDP的增长】


Consider the alternatives. What would bethe result of America andother developed economies following Bhutan and replacing GDP with grossnational happiness? The main result would be a set of measures that do notchange over time and thus are of little value in assessing the effect ofspecific events or policies. 【其他的选择会造成更坏的结果】


Existing measures of happiness for thedeveloped economies in Europe, Americaand Japanare virtually flat over the entire post-second-world-war era, with nosignificant increase over time despite real GDP per head in these countriesmore than tripling over this period (Landefeld and Villones, 2009). Except forthe richest and poorest countries, there is little difference in recordedhappiness. There is almost no variation to reflect wars, recessions, or naturaldisasters—each of which clearly has a material affect on these countries andtheir living standards. Yet they barely register on the existing happinessindices. The reality, as Mr Oswald pointed out, is thatindividuals adapt to changes in their circumstances and register little changein their happiness when their incomes or circumstances change—up or down.Or as one of the online "comments from the floor" points out,"our troglodyte（穴居人） forebears weredoubtless just as happy as we are". Yet I feel certain that few Economistreaders would choose to return to the standard of living, as measured by the level of goods and services,including medical care, available in the Cro-Magnon era. Interesting stuff, butnot a tool that is likely to be helpful in guiding economic or other policies.【如果用幸福指数来衡量的话，我们与我们穴居人祖先可能一样幸福，这样就不能体现出物质生活上的提升】

Other alternatives to GDP, such as thegenuine progress indicator, suffer from（赞）
the second fatal deficiency of （致命的缺陷）subjectivemeasures: the absence of an objective set of weights for aggregating andcomparing the various indicators included in such measures. Without a widelyaccepted and objective means of weighting, it is impossible to provide an overallmeasure of a nation's progress in raising living standards. Without objectiveweights it is also not possible to compare the value of cleaning up theenvironment with the value of investments in early childhood education.Subjective weights from some new welfare-based index cannot take the place ofthe public debate and legislative processes necessary to the evaluation of suchcomplex, multifaceted issues.【另外的一些选择有着致命的缺陷，即缺乏客观的衡量标准】

As an economist, and head of a statisticalagency, I suggest that we in the field have no special expertise in developingsubjective social weights, and that such weights would not be accepted by thepublic or legislative bodies as a reasonable substitute for politicaldecision-making.

What would be helpful to public policywould be an extension of（。。。的一种扩充） the existingGDP accounts to measure the economic effects of pollution control, health andother public programmes. An extension of the national accounts would use proxies（代理） for market prices—the avoided costs of medical treatment associatedwith child health and environmental problems, the avoided work loss days fromillness, and so on—to compare and aggregate. Such measures would be limited tothe market effects of non-market programmes, and would need to be supplementedby explicit social and legislative judgments. But they would provide aconsistent means of comparing the economic effects of such programmes. This is theappropriate contribution for economics to make.【对于GDP的一种扩展可以更好的去衡量一些公众项目的利弊。这样有利于政策的评估】

A useful analogy for economic indicators isthat of a car's dashboard. The speedometer, tachometer and fuel gauges are allimportant. Other dials tell you the temperature, how far you've travelled andhow much oil you have. At any given time, these separate dials give you much ofthe information you need to drive your car, but you would never want to add upthe readings on all the indicators and put them on one gauge. That would makeno sense.
【经济指标就像汽车仪表板一样。汽车有很多指标但是只有个别几项是你需要去关注的】

GDP is the economy's speedometer, measuringthe growth rate of the economy. It's only one of several indicators. And othercomponents of the GDP accounts represent many of the other dials.

To address some of the gaps in the existingdashboard（仪表板）, BEA is looking at adding new gaugesto improve the existing dashboard, rather than developing a single new indexthat attempts to measure concepts as diverse as the distribution of income andsustainability. These plans are laid out in the paper "GDP and Beyond:Measuring Economic Progress and Sustainability" included in the backgroundreading section of this debate site.


GDP may be an imperfect measure of livingstandards, but it is not a poor one, at least not in comparison to the alternatives.【GDP的确不完美，但是和其他选项相比起来，它不差】


Oh, and by the way—which dial on your car'sdashboard do you look at the most?

积累：
1 However, as ameasure of standards of living—that is, a measure of the level of comfortprovided by privately purchased and publicly provided goods and services—GDP isa pretty good measure of living standards.

As a ……—that is, .., …. Is ….. 可用于ISSUE对于关键词的定义。

2 The question ofwhether it is a poor measure is directly related to the quality ofalternatives.

可以用于ARGUMENT中，用于没有比较就下结论的错误。

3 The reality, asMr Oswald pointed out, is that individuals adapt to changes in theircircumstances and register little change in their happiness when their incomesor circumstances change—up or down.

…, as A point out, …..

4 I am reminded inthis debate on GDP and standards of living of the debates on democracy as aform of government and Winston Churchill's famous words: "No one pretendsthat democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracyis the worst form of government except all those other forms that have beentried from time to time." 有达人能翻译一下么？

Commentary:

Comparing GDP, a measure of living standard,with other alternatives, the author reaches his conclusion in this article thatGDP, while it is not perfect, is still useful and objective. To justify hisconclusion, he speculates on the deficiencies other alternatives have. Firstly,happiness, as a measure for developed countries, may lead to the result thatpeople nowadays have the same happiness with their ancestors, in which casematerial changes in public life are not taking into consideration. Moreover,other alternatives suffer from fatal deficiency of lacking objective indicatorwhich can both comparing and aggregating. Thus, imperfect measure of living standard,which equate with the level of comfort provided by privately purchase and goodand services provided publicly, as GDP is, GDP is still useful when comparedwith current alternatives.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Opening remark

Finding ways to improve humanity's livingstandards is the point of economics. Having a good measure of living standards,you may think, is therefore pretty fundamental to the discipline. For decadeseconomists have turned to gross domestic product (GDP) when they want anestimate of how well off people are. By how muchare Americans better off than Indians, or than their parents' generation? Chances are the answer will start with GDP. 【多年来经济学家通过GDP来衡量人们的幸福】

GDP is really a measure of an economy'soutput, valued at market prices (to the extent that you have them). Associeties produce more, and therefore earn more, their materialwell-being (物质幸福) rises. So it is nosurprise that so many economists and official statisticians broadly accept GDPas a measure of living standards.
【GDP通过用市场价格去衡量经济的输出，这能够很好的衡量人么的物质财富】

It isn't the only measure. Even before therecent recession, a lot of debate over American living standards was based noton GDP, which was growing healthily?, but on median incomes, which were not:the point was that national output was growing, but that its fruits（犀利的用词） were not being evenly shared. It doesn't cover everything: not all the things that we value arebought and sold in the marketplace. But when economists want to measure theliving standards of whole societies, GDP is where they usually start.
【但是GDP不是唯一的手段，因为在这之前就存在关于它的争论，然而人们依旧使用它】

That said, economists and statisticianshave been debating for years whether GDP measures what truly matters. It may capture（capture的用法很好） material wealth, broadly, but is that enough? If it is not enough, with what shouldit be replaced—or, more likely, supplemented?With assessments of the environment? Measures of people's health? Estimates oftheir happiness? And how might all these different aspects be combined? If somenew measure is closely correlated with GDP, then GDP, though imperfect, may begood enough. If it is not, then focusing on GDP could be an error of more thanjust measurement: governments that pursue GDP growth may be making theircitizens worse off than they might be.
【经济学家对于GDP的争论仍在持续。如果说新的衡量方式与其相关那么GDP还是十分有效的，否则注重GDP会产生巨大的错误】

The Economist's latest online debate isintended to wrestle with（全力对付）
these questions. Andrew Oswald, of the University of Warwick,is proposing the motion that "GDP growth is a poor measure of improvingliving standards". Opposing him is StevenLandefeld, director of the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),which produces America'snational income and product accounts, of which GDP is a prominent feature.
【ECO在全力解决这些问题。观点分为两边】

Mr Oswald's starting point is a reportpublished last year by a commission chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobeleconomics laureate. The Stiglitz commission (of which Mr Oswald was a member,and which was written about in The Economist last September argued thatofficial statistics should shift away from measuring production to measuring"well-being". Mr Oswald points to two pieces of evidence inparticular: the Easterlin Paradox（悖论）, the finding thatincreasing wealth does not make countries happier; and global warming, which isa sign that people should produce less and enjoy the planet more.
【O先生认为其他的措施应该替代GDP对于人们的生活水平的衡量】

Mr Landefeld remarks that GDP was notintended to be a comprehensive measure ofsociety's well-being. Even so, he says, it has stood up well as a measure ofliving standards. Nothing has bettered it yet. That isn't to say that GDP can'tbe improved, though—and Mr Landefeld points to ways in which the BEA has been trying tobring that about. He too notes the conclusions of Mr Stiglitz's commission.
【L先生认为GDP从来就不是一个全面的衡量社会幸福的手段，但是它是一个有效的衡量生活水准的手段】

This promises to be a lively and enjoyabledebate on an important subject: how much use is GDP in measuring how well offpeople are? Mr Oswald and Mr Landefeld have set out what they think. I'm gladthat we have two such prominent people to lead the debate. And I'm lookingforward to the next round of arguments and to what you, on the floor of ouronline chamber, have to say.


Commentary:

When it comes to thedebate that how much use is GDP in measuring how well off people are, differentopinions show up. On the one hand, Mr. O holds the belief that GDP is toonarrow a measure of well-being, since it cannot value thing nut included in themarketplace which are also significant in people’s life. For that matter, usingGDP as a measure of how well off people are may not only be an error inmeasurement but also cause strange situation that GDP is increasing rapidlywhile people worse off. However, Mr L, on the other hand, remarks that GDP, notcomprehensive measure of social well-being as it is, is still a effectivemeasure of living standards and that no thing better has shown up, in whichcase GDP is still a good measure.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

PRO


"A … key message, and unifying theme of thereport, is that the time is ripe(成熟) for our measurement system to shift（转换，可以和change替换） emphasis from measuringeconomic production to measuring people's well-being（幸福）."
(Executive Summary: Stiglitz Commission Report)
【是时候将测量体系的中心从经济发展转到测量人们的幸福上去了】

GDP is a gravely dated（十分陈旧的） pursuit. It is time to listen to the Stiglitz Report.

The first reason is the evidence known as theEasterlin Paradox（悖论） (the empirical finding that countries do not become happier as theygrow wealthier). The second reason is that global warming means it is necessaryfor Homo sapiens（现代人） to make fewer things rather than more, to travel less except ontheir feet, to lean on the direct energy of the sun and water rather than on thesmashed fuel of buried trees, to value tranquil beauty more and 160mph motor cars less.
【对认为GDP过时的人的论据的一种解读】

These arguments are key parts of the recentStiglitz Report.

Life is now more complex and services dominate("The time has come to adapt our system of measurement … to better reflectthe structural changes which have characterised the evolution of moderneconomies.")
We, as a society, （插入语）need to measure well-being perse. ("A … unifying theme of the report is that the time is ripe for ourmeasurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production tomeasuring people's well-being.")
Official government statistics should blendobjective and subjective well-being data. ("Statistical offices shouldincorporate questions to capture people's life evaluations, hedonic experiencesand priorities in their own survey.")
Sustainability must be a criterion.("Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard ofindicators … the components of this dashboard should be … interpretable asvariations of some underlying "stocks".)
【列举出反方的重要观点】
I am optimistic. Eventually the green movement willdiscover the data of the Easterlin Paradox, named after Richard Easterlin, afamous Californian economist, and also become aware of the statistical evidenceon declining emotional prosperity（繁荣） that I describe below. Althoughfine young scholars like Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers doubt the veracity（精确性） of it, they are heavily outnumbered（在数量上超过）: the weight of publishedevidence is in line with Mr Easterlin's paradox. Moreover, Ms Stevenson and MrWolfers themselves agree that America,perhaps the iconic GDP-chasing nation, is not becoming happier through time.

If we look at broader measures of psychologicalwell-being, the newest longitudinal（纵向的） research suggests there arereasons to be more pessimistic than Easterlin. Although further researchevidence needs to be collected, this is what we currently know.

Worryingly, emotional prosperity and mental healthappear from the latest data to be getting worse through time. This disturbingconclusion emerges from these seven studies:

Sacker and Wiggins (2002)
Hodiamont et al. (2005)
Verhaak et al. (2005)
Green and Tsitsianis (2005)
Wauterickx and Bracke (2005)
Oswald and Powdthavee (2007)
Sweeting et al. (2009)
Why? We are not yet certain. But, first, humans are animals of comparison（比较才会感觉到自己的幸福） (some of the newestevidence, from brain scans, is reported in Fliessbach et al., 2007). What Iwant subconsciously（潜意识地） is to have three zoomy BMWsand for my colleagues in the office corridor at work to have mere rusting（生锈的）, spluttering Fords. Unfortunately,the tide of economic growth lifts all boats（很形象的说法）, so where having threeglamorous cars was unusual, eventually it becomes the norm, and any relativegains are thereby neutralised（中和）. Second, people choosethings—such as high-pressure kinds of work and long commutes away from theirfamilies and their dogs and their fishing buddies—that, despite what theythink, will often not make them happier.（反例举的很犀利，要是我能举出来就好了） Economists have ignored the research on "affective forecastingmistakes" by psychologists like Daniel Gilbert; they need to wake up toit.
【人是通过比较才能感觉到幸福的，然而经济的发展会使所有人的状况都发生改变。这会让许多人忽略了经济发展所带来的东西。同时对于幸福的测量也是存在缺陷的】

Unsurprisingly（毫不另人吃惊）, the citizens of the richnations find it difficult to grasp（理解） that higher gross domesticproduct from this point onwards will not make society happier. Like people inearlier times who could not conceive of (理解)themselves as creatures glued by gravity onto a spherical planet, they trusttheir intuitions (because as individuals they like to become richer and assumewhole countries must be the same). One cannot blame them. But the evidenceshows they are wrong.
【关于GDP悖论的产生并不源自于GDP本身的缺陷，而是源自于人们很难去理解一些他们直觉感觉错的事情】

As an undergraduate, I was taught that economics isa social science concerned with the efficient allocation of scarce resources.In 2010, a better definition is needed. Economics is a social science concernedwith the way to allocate plentiful resources to maximise a society's emotionalprosperity and mental health.

A gravely dated pursuit.





Grounding on both the paradox andevidence of mental well-being in developed countries, those who hold the beliefthat GDP is a gravely dated measure reach their conclusion. However, theauthor, synthesizing pivot arguments of the opposite, reasonably concludes thatpeople feel improvements only by comparing themselves with others, in which caseit is just as likely that living standard has improved a lot, whereas others’also improve. For that matter, mental well-being cannot measure the improvementin living standard. Moreover, the author also provides compelling evidence thatmanifest the deficiency of using mental well-being as a measure of livingstandard. Since the measure of well-being fails to exclude factors, even thoughthey will always lower their happiness, which people cannot get rid of. As aresult, he regarded other alternatives ineffective.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

oppo

Gross domestic product (GDP) is a keymeasure of a country's economic activity—the purpose for which it was designed.It was not designed to be, nor should be regarded as,a comprehensive（全面的） measure of society's well-being. Nonetheless, it has also provenuseful as a gauge (标准) of an economy's capacityto improve living standards. It was a catastrophic（灾难性的）
decline in living standards thatprompted the development of national, or GDP, accounts. Trying to designpolicies in the 1930s to combat the Great Depression, President Roosevelt hadonly such sketchy data as stock prices, freight car loadings and incompleteindices of industrial production on which to rely. In response, the USDepartment of Commerce developed a set of national economic accounts that forthe first time provided a comprehensive framework to guide policy decisions toassist the millions of people who were out of work.
【GDP是被设计用来度量一个国家的经济活动的，然而它从来不能很好的去度量社会的繁荣程度】

GDP, and the broader set of nationalincome, product and wealth accounts, has stood the test time and no othermeasure has proven a worthy alternative. Simon Kuznets, one of the earlyarchitects of the accounts, in 1941 recognised the limitations of focusing onmarket activities and excluding household production and a broad range of othernon-market activities and assets that have productive value or yieldsatisfaction. Yet 75 years and lots of research later, there is no broadersocial measurement tool that officials would agree isvalid（有效地）
anduseful.
【只关注与这些市场行为而忽略非市场行为时具有局限性的，然而美国政府没有提出新的有效地手段】

It would, therefore, seem irresponsible toabandon the most comprehensive and reliable system currently available to tellus how a society is faring economically. GDP may not be a complete measure ofimproving living standards, but that does not make it a poor one, especiallywhen considering what could possibly replace it today.
【废除那些现在对我们来说可行并有用的手段是不负责的，即使它不全面，但这并不使它成为一个不好的手段】

There is, of course, room to improve GDPthrough better measuring of the distribution of the gains from economic growthand the sustainability of that growth, and selected measures of non-marketactivities that affect the economy—and these concepts have merit. Rather than replacing GDP, the goal might be extending and supplementingGDP and the national accounts, rather than their replacement.
【相对于废除GDP来说，对其进行补充更为合适】

Over time the national accounts have been constantly（一致地） updated and extended to addresschanges in the economy and to keep them relevant, and many of the measurementissues raised in the current debate can be addressed within the context ofthese accounts. Yet extensions of the national accounts cannot be allowed tosubject a critical tool for economic policy to uncertainty. Past efforts toexpand conventional GDP have foundered（失败） on the inevitable problems of subjectivity and uncertainty inherentin measuring happiness, household work and other non-market activities. Criticsrightly fear that the inclusion of such uncertain and subjective values in GDPwill seriously diminish the essential role of the national accounts to financialmarkets, central banks, tax authorities and governments worldwide in measuringand managing the market economy.
【然而对于GDP的扩充，它是不被允许包含那些主观的，以及不确定的因素的】

Much work has focused on how tosuccessfully broaden the utility of GDP, while preserving its core integrity. Several National Academy of Sciencesstudies on accounting for the environment (Nordhaus and Kokkelenberg, eds,1999) and non-market production (Abraham and Mackie, eds, 2005), as well as theSystem of National Accounts (1993) guidelines for compiling GDP, have concludedthat an expansion of the GDP accounts should take place in supplemental, orsatellite, accounts that extend their scope（范围） without reducing the usefulness of the core GDP accounts. They alsoconclude that such an expansion should focus oneconomic aspects of non-market and near-market activities—such as energyand the economy's use of natural resources, the impact of investments inresearch and development (R&D), health care, or education—and not attemptto measure the welfare effect of such interactions.
【许多的努力需要被付出，从而GDP的效用才能被扩宽】

Recognising the concerns of subjectivityand uncertainty, the focus should remain on creating "new" estimateswithin the framework of the existing accounts. For example, theStiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (2009), which explored expanded welfaremeasures, has suggested a number of ways that "classical GDP issues"can be addressed within existing GDP accounts orthrough an extension and improvement of measures included in existing accounts.
【对于现存框架的添加，来产生新的衡量手段】

The US Bureau of Economic Analysis focuseson just such improvements, and President Obama this year proposed extensions within the scopeof the existing accounts that would provide new measures of:
【美国当局正在着重与这些提高】

how growth in income is distributed acrosshouseholds, other sectors and regions;
the sustainability of trends in saving,investment, asset prices and other key variables important to understandingbusiness cycles, economic growth and living standards.

There are, however, limits to what canreasonably be included in GDP. For many years the problem has not been withGDP, but rather the singular focus on GDP alone as a measure of society'swelfare. Many non-market measures of welfare may be better included in suchmeasures as the newly authorised US National Academies Key National IndicatorsSystem.
【一些合理的东西是可以被当做GDP的扩充而加进来的，GDP本身是并不全面的】

These and other efforts in the coming yearswill lead to a more inclusive set of measurement tools that will enhance ourunderstanding of countries' standards of living. This progress is inevitable,but it does not render current GDP data inadequate. GDP will continue to play acrucial role in measuring social progress in and among countries.
【更具有包容性的指标的出现是必然的，然而这并不意味着GDP数据就不准确了】




Commentary:


By synthesizing the factthat economic analysis bureau is trying to improve GDP, as a current measure ofeconomic activity and living standard, in order to make it more comprehensiveand continue to work as an effective indicator, the author comes to hisconclusion that the extension of GDP is inevitable and it is still a goodindicator. Granting that GDP stands the test of time and therefore effective,the author also suggests that it still fails to measure non-market activitieswhich are also important when it comes to the measure of living standard. Forthat matter, the government is still looking for solution to this problem,though uncertainty and subjectivity makes the improvement of GDP harder. As aresult, the process of improving and extending GDP, as a measure of livingstandard, is inevitable. This, however, does not make GDP a poor indicator.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Attack of the really quite likeabletomatoes

The success of genetically modified(调整) cropsprovides opportunities to win over their critics

Feb25th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IN THE14 years since the first genetically modified crops were planted commercially,their descendants（后代）,relatives and remixes have gone forth and multiplied like profitable, high-techpondweed（眼子菜）. A new report (see article) shows that 25 countries now grow GMcrops, with the total area under cultivation now larger than Peru.Three-quarters of the farmland used to grow soya（大豆） is now sown with a genetically modifiedvariant, and the figures for cotton are not that far behind, thanks to its success in India. China recently gave the safety go-ahead（安全认证） toits first GM rice variety and a new GM maize（玉米） that should make better pig feed. More andmore plants are having their genomes（基因组）
sequenced（被排好序列）: a full sequence for maize was publishedlate last year, the soya genome in January. Techniques for altering genomes aremoving ahead almost as fast as the genomes themselves are stacking up（堆积起来）, and new crops with more than one added trait（特性） are coming to market.

Such stories of success will strike fear into some hearts（引起恐慌）, andnot only in GM-averse Europe; a GM backlash（强烈对抗反应） isunder way in India, focused on insect-resistant aubergines（茄子）. Some of these fears are understandable, butlacking supporting evidence they have never been compelling（ETS/ECO都这么用）. Onsafety, the fear which cutsclosest to home, the recordcontinues to look good. Governments need to keep testing and monitoring, butthat may be becoming easier. More precise modifications, and bettertechnologies for monitoring stray(迷路的？) DNA both within plants and in the environment aroundthem, mean that it is getting easier to be sure that nothing untoward is goingon.

【GM食物在这几年有了很大的发展，虽然也遭受了一些民众的抵抗，但是总体来说政府需要对GM进行监管既可】

Then there is the worry that GM crops are a way for bigcompanies to take over the livelihoods of small farmers and, in the end, a chunk（大块） of nature itself. Seen in this light the fact that 90% of the farmers growing GM crops are comparativelypoor and in developing countries is sinister（不吉祥的）, not salutary（健康，卫生）; given Monsanto’s dominancein America’s soyabean market, it seems to suggest incipient(初期的，未成形的) world domination.It is certainly true that big firms make a lot of money selling GM seeds: theGM seed market was worth $10.5 billion in 2009, and the crops that grew fromthat seed were worth over $130 billion. But multinationals are not the only game in town. The governments of China (which has increased agricultural researchacross the board), India andBrazilare also developing new GM crops. In 2009 a GM version of an Indian cotton variety, developed in thepublic sector, came to market, and a variety engineered by a private Indianfirm has been approved for commercialisation（商业化）.Charities, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are also funding efforts in various countries to make crops more hardy（结实的，抗寒的） or nutritious（有营养的）. GM seeds that come from government researchbodies, or from local firms, may not arouse quite so much opposition as thosefrom large foreign companies, especially when they provide characteristics thatmake crops better, not just easier to farm.

【有些人开始担心，大公司会通过GM作物使一些贫穷的农民失去维持生计的手段。特别当商业化企业提供这些不仅仅是更容易种植而且有附加特性的作物时。民众更容易反感】

Moreover, where the seeds come from is a separatequestion from who should pay for them, as Mr Gates points out. As with drugs and vaccines, it is possible to getproducts that were developed with profit in mind to the people who need themusing donor money and clever pricing and licensing deals. In the longer term,if the seeds deliver what the farmers require, the need for such specialmeasures should diminish（下降）.After all, the whole idea is not that poor farmers should go on being poor. Itis that poor farmers should get a bit richer, be able to invest a bit more, andthus increase the food available to a growing and predominantly urbanpopulation.

【可以通过多种途径是需要GM作物的人得到GM作物，然而在长期中，种植GM和出售GM种子的人应该达到双赢局面】

Morethan strange fruits

There is another worry about GM technology, though, thatshould be taken seriously. It is that its success and appeal to technophiles（科技爱好者） may, in the minds of those who pay foragricultural research, crowdout（推开） other approaches to improving farming. Because itdepends on intellectual property that can be protected, GM is ripe（成熟） for private investment. There is a lot ofother agricultural research that is lessamenable to（对。。并不友善） corporate ownership but still needs doing. From soilmanagement to weather forecasts to the preservation, study and use ofagricultural biodiversity（生物多样性）,there are many ways to improve the agricultural systems on which the world’sfood supply depends, and make them more resilient（有弹性的） as well as more profitable. A farm is not ajust a clever crop: it is an ecosystem managed with intelligence. GM crops havea great role to play in that development, but they are only a part of thewhole.

【在GM上的投资并不应该排挤掉在提升农业产量领域的其他技术，虽然他们现在对于投资者并不那么成熟】

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Commentary:
Technology has beendeveloping rapidly, which can be best manifested in this article. Thanks to thetechnology to analysize the sequence of genome and realign them, people are nowcapable of growing Genetic Modified Food, although there are GM-averse countriesin the world because of its uncertainty whether it will do harm to human body.Worry that big company will take the livelihoods of small farms, as GMtechnology is becoming applicable, has already shown up. Thus, it will meetsless aversion by providing GM seeds through government and the government,moreover, also has to place supervision on the new technology. What is more, GMfood is not the only way of developing the productivity of farm, in which case,as the author implies, the development in GM food should not exclude possibilityof other types of technology to show up.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

INTHE 1990s cap-and-trade(限额交易)—the idea of reducingcarbon-dioxide emissions by auctioning off（拍卖） a set number of pollutionpermits, which could then be traded in a market—was the darling of the greenpolicy circuit. A similar approach to sulphur dioxide（二氧化硫）
emissions, introduced under the1990 Clean Air Act, was credited with（被认为有）
having helped solve acid-rainproblems quickly and cheaply. And its great advantage was that it hardly lookedlike a tax at all, though it would bring in a lot of money.
【限额交易出现，因为看起来不想一个税，虽然同样需要交钱】

The cap-and-trade provision expected in the climate legislation that SenatorsJohn Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have been working on, which may beunveiled shortly, will be a poor shadow of that oncealluring idea. Cap-and-trade will not be the centrepiece of the legislation (asit was of last year’s House climate bill, Waxman-Markey), but is instead likely to apply only to electrical utilities,at least for the time being. Transport fuels will probably be approached with（A 以B的方式
处理）
somesort of tax or fee; industrial emissions will betackled with（deal with） regulation and possibly, lateron, carbon trading. The hope will be to cobble together(胡拼乱凑)cuts in emissions similar in scope to those foreseen under the Housebill, in which the vast majority of domestic cuts in emissions came fromutilities.
【限额交易在真正立法时却不如原来设想的那样好，他只被运用于电器部】

Thiscomposite（复合的） approach is necessary because the charms of economy-widecap-and-trade have faded badly. The ability to raise money from industry is notso attractive in a downturn. Market mechanisms（市场机制） have lost their appeal as aresult of the financial crisis. More generally, climateis not something the public seems to feel strongly about at the moment, in partbecause of that recession, in part perhaps because they have worries about thescience (see article), in part, it appears, because the winterhas been a snowy one.
【这种复合的结局方案确实是必要的，在经济危机下，从市场中筹钱不是那么具有吸引力】

Thepublic is, though, quite keen on new initiatives on energy, which any Senatebill will shower with (给予大量的) incentives（奖励） and subsidies（津贴） whether the energy in question berenewable, nuclear, pumped out from beneath the seabed or still confined toresearch laboratories. So the bill will need to raise money, which is whycap-and-trade is likely to remain for the utilities, and revenues will beraised from transport fuels. A complex way of doing this, called a linked fee,would tie the revenues to the value of carbon in the utility market; astraightforward carbon tax may actually have a better chance of passing.
【虽然大众对能源创新比较感兴趣，而政府也愿意给予激励和津贴。但这都需要钱，所以限额交易还存在】

Energybills have in the past garnered（积累） bipartisan（两党的） support, and this one also needsto. That is why Senator Graham matters. He could bring on board both Democratsand Republicans. Mr Graham’s contribution has been to focus the rhetoric notjust on near-term jobs, but also on longer-term competitiveness. Every day Americadoes not have climate legislation, he argues, is a day that China’s grip onthe global green economy gets tighter.
【就如同能源法案得到了两党的支持，气候的立法同样需要】

Healso thinks action on the issue would be good for his party. While short-termRepublican interests call for opposition, the party’s long-term interests mustinclude broadening its support. Among young people, for example, pollingsuggests that the environment, and the climate, matter a great deal.
【虽然短期无利于自己的党派，但是长期中是有利的】

Unfortunatelyfor this argument, tactics matter, and young voters are unlikely to play agreat role in the mid-term election. Other Republicans may think it better towait before re-establishing the party’s green credentials. Lisa Murkowski ofAlaska, for example, is happy to talk about climate as a problem, and talksabout the desirability of some sort of carbon restriction—perhaps a tax, orsome version of Maria Cantwell’s “cap-and-dividend” scheme. But she expressesno great urgency about the subject. And she has introduced one of two measuresintended to curtail(削弱，剥夺) the power theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) now has to regulate carbon, on the groundthat that is a matter for legislation sometime in the future.
【但是共和党认为没有必要过急的去推行这样一个立法，毕竟年轻人对于中期选举的作用不大】

TheEPA’s new powers undoubtedly make the charms of legislation greater. Some industrial lobbies (工业游说) may decide that the bill will provide the certainty they need todecide about future investment, and get behind it. The White House has beensupportive of late, inviting senators over to talk. But it remains an uphillstruggle, and the use of reconciliation（调和） to pass health care could greatly increase the gradient（坡度） of the hill, as Mr Graham has madeabundantly clear.
【气候立法仍旧存在很多困难】


Ifthe bill does not pass, it will change environmental politics in Americaand beyond. The large, comparatively business-friendly environmental groupsthat have been proponents of trading schemes will loseground（处于不利地位）, with organizationscloser to the grassroots, and perhaps with a taste for civil disobedience,gaining power. Carbon-trading schemes elsewhere in the world have already been deprived of (剥夺) avast new market—Waxman-Markey, now dead, would have seen a great many carboncredits bought in from overseas—and if America turned away from cap-and-tradealtogether they would look even less transformative than they do today. And asmarket-based approaches lose relevance, what climate action continues may cometo lean more heavily on the command-and-control techniques they were intendedto replace.
【法案不通过会产生的结果】

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

WHEN America’s space agency, NASA,announced its spending plans in February, some people worried that itscancellation of the Constellation（星际） moon programme hadended any hopes of Americans returning to the Earth’s rocky satellite. The nextfootprints on the lunar regolith（风化层） were thereforethought likely to be Chinese. Now, though, the private sector is arguing thatthe new spending plan actually makes it more likely America will return to the moon.
【新的预算计划正使美国人更有可能回到月球】

The new plan encourages firms to compete to provide（竞争着做。。） transport to low Earth orbit (LEO).The budget proposes $6 billion over five years to spur（刺激） the development ofcommercial crew and cargo services to the international space station. Thismoney will be spent on “man-rating”（载人） existing rockets,such as Boeing’s Atlas V, and on developing new spacecraft that could belaunched on many different rockets. The point of allthis activity is to create healthyprivate-sector competition for transport to the space station—and in doing so to drive down the cost of getting intospace.
【美国鼓励私人去竞争提供低轨道运输服务，这有利于私人板块的健康竞争以及降低成本】

Eric Anderson, theboss of a space-travel company called Space Adventures,（插入语） is optimistic aboutthe changes. They will, he says, build “railroads into space”. Space Adventureshas already sent seven people to the space station, using Russian rockets. Itwould certainly benefit from a new generation of cheap launchers.
【有人对于太空旅行的变革十分乐观】

Another potentialbeneficiary（受益人）—and advocate of private-sector transport—is Robert Bigelow, awealthy entrepreneur（企业家） who founded a hotelchain called Budget Suites of America. Mr Bigelow has sofar（至今为止） spent $180 million of his own money on space development—probably more than any other individual in history.（破折号的用法十分有意思，研究一下） He hasbeen developing so-called expandable space habitats, a technology he boughtfrom NASA a number of years ago.
【另外一个受益于这一变革的人】

These habitats, which are folded up forlaunch and then inflated in space, were designed as interplanetary vehicles fora trip to Mars, but they are also likely to be useful general-purposeaccommodation. The company already has two scaled-down（缩小比例的） versions in orbit.
【这些“栖息地”的具体情况】

Mr Bigelow is preparing to build a spacestation that will offer cheap access to space（accessto ） toother governments—something he believes will generate alot of interest.(再次破折号) The current plan is tolaunch the first full-scale habitat (called
Sundancer) in 2014. Further modules（模块） will be added to this over the course of a year, and the resultwill be a space station with more usable volume than the existing internationalone. Mr Bigelow’s price is just under $23 million per astronaut. That is abouthalf what Russiacharges for a trip to the international station, a price that is likely to goup after the space shuttle retires later this year. He says he will be able tooffer this price by bulk-buying launches on newly man-rated rockets. Since mostof the cost of space travel is the launch, the price might come down even moreif the private sector can lower the costs of getting into orbit.
【外太空运输的价格可以进一步降低】

The ultimate aim of all his investment, MrBigelow says, is to get to the moon. LEO is merely his proving ground. He saysthat if the technology does work in orbit, the habitats will be ideal forbuilding bases on the moon. To go there, however, he will have to prove thatthe expandable habitat does indeed work, andalso generate substantial returns on his investment in LEO, to provide thenecessary cash.
【B最终的计划是到月球而不是LEO】

If all goes well, the next target will beL1, the point 85% of the way to the moon where the gravitational pulls of moonand Earth balance. “It’s a terrific dumping off point,” he says. “We couldtransport a completed lunar base [to L1] and put it down on the lunar surfaceintact.”
There are others with lunar ambitions, too.Some 20 teams are competing for the Google Lunar X Prize, a purse of $30million that will be given to the first private mission which lands a robot onthe moon, travels across the surface and sends pictures back to Earth. SpaceAdventures, meanwhile, is in discussions with almost a dozen potential clientsabout a circumlunar（环月） mission, costing $100million a head.
【地球与月球引力的平衡点——L1是很多人下一步的目标】

The original Apollo project was mainly arace to prove the superiority of American capitalism over Soviet communism.Capitalism won—but at the cost of creating, in NASA, one of the largestbureaucracies in American history. If the United States is to return to themoon, it needs to do so in a way that is demonstrably superior to the firsttrip—for example, being led by business rather than government. Engaging inanother government-driven spending battle, this time with the Chinese, will donothing more than show that Americahas missed the point.
【当初建立NASA是为了显示资本主义对于社会主义的优越，而当今如果米国需要重回月球，那么应当由商业而非政府来领导】

Commentary:
As NASA’s spending plan reveals it attemptto back to moon, lots of people are optimistic about the change , becausegovernment, in order to lower the cost of space tour, has so far proposed sixbillion dollars to spur the development in the transport service to moon in theprivate-sector. There is no denying that companies, which are now able toprovide transport service to low earth orbit, will scramble to providetransport service to moon in a competing market which protects the welfare ofcustomers according to economical theories. Moreover, government should let businessrather than government to return to the moon for government-driven spending battlewill do nothing beneficial to the public and the country itself.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Moderator

What is the right role for government in spurring innovation? The outlines of this age-old debate will be familiar to many. One side argues that governments inevitably get it wrong when they get too involved in innovation: picking the wrong technology winners, say, or ploughing subsidies into politically popular projects rather than the most deserving ones. The other rebuts that given the grave global challenges we face today—in the 1960s America thought it was the Soviet race into space, today many countries worry about climate change and pandemic threats—governments need to do much more to support innovation.

Happily for us, gentle reader, the two sides in the Economist's latest debate are moving beyond such platitudes to novel arguments. Arguing in favour of the motion that innovation works best when government does least is Amar Bhide, a professor at Harvard and author of "The Venturesome Economy". His opening statement roundly denounces the visions of home-grown Silicon Valleys that dance in the heads of bureaucrats worldwide as "a dubious conception of paradise". California's bloated government is bankrupt and Japan's once formidable MITI agency is in tatters, he observes, but market-minded Hong Kong is flourishing (and its hyper-commercial denizens far richer than their coddled Japanese counterparts).

He adds for good measure that the "techno-fetishist" view of innovation represented by the top-heavy Japanese model pales in comparison with a robust, bottom-up version of innovation that harnesses the creativity and enterprise of the many, including the "venturesome consumers". He does acknowledge that governments have a role to play: "Doing the least doesn't mean doing nothing at all." However, his advocacy of a least is best policy, though conceptually elegant, seems a bit slippery and is probably unhelpful in practice. In future postings, perhaps he will explain how exactly governments should decide whether they are doing too little or too much to help innovation.

David Sandalow, author of "Freedom from Oil" and a senior official in America's Department of Energy, presents a robust defense of government. He does make the familiar points about the need for governments to invest in education and fundamental research. He also adds slightly more controversial arguments about why government policies are required to overcome market failures (such as the recent financial crisis, which unfairly sapped innovators of credit) and misaligned incentives that hold back the adoption of worthwhile innovations (like energy-saving technologies with speedy paybacks).

More striking is Mr Sandalow's linkage of the global trend towards open innovation, which means companies increasingly rely on ideas from outside their own research laboratories, with the need for greater government spending on innovation. He argues that open innovation will get technologies faster to market, but at the expense of fundamental research of the sort that AT&T Bell Labs or Xerox Parc used to do. He insists that "without government support for such research, the seed corn for future generations would be at risk". That is a clever point, but it does not answer the obvious rebuttal that governments would inevitably invest in the wrong sorts of research (think, to stick with his analogy, of the money spent by the American government subsidising corn ethanol, an environmentally questionable but politically popular fuel).

Are you waiting for further rounds of jousting to decide which side to support? Don't be a mugwump, sitting on the fence with your mug in one hand and your wump on the other. Cast your vote now.

Commentary:

When it comes to the extent of the government’s involvement in the innovation, people’s opinions divided into two parts. Some people, whose view can be better represented by his view, argue that government should involve at least in the innovation, as sometimes government ploughing a lot of subsidies into politically popular projects rather than projects deserved to be invested, while others argue that companies, with the global trend towards open innovation, relies firmly on ideas outside the lab and therefore government should spending some money on innovation in the lab.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

pro

Innovation now attracts innumerable worshippers but their prayers are often quite narrow and sectarian. Silicon Valley or possibly the Israeli high-tech industry is the promised land: a wondrous combination of private high-tech enterprise underpinned by government-financed universities and research labs.

This is, alas, a dubious conception of paradise. For all the high-tech prowess of Silicon Valley, the economy of California is on the edge of disaster. Unemployment in eight counties now tops 20% and the government pays its bills in IOUs. And in spite of its extraordinary concentration of scientific and engineering talent and entrepreneurship, Israel's GDP per head in 2009 was lower than of Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia.

Or remember Japan's omnipotent, visionary MITI working hand and glove with the likes of NEC, Hitachi and Fujitsu? Put aside fiascos such as the ten-year Fifth Generation Computer Systems Project, by standard measures the overall level of Japanese engineering and scientific performance, either because of or in spite of government subsidies, is impressive. More tellingly, Hong Kong's GNP per head is nearly 30% higher than Japan's, 24% higher than Germany's and 505% higher than Israel's. Yet Hong Kong's government and private businesses pay scant attention to cutting-edge scientific and technological research.

The techno-fetishist view of innovation and the kind of government support it demands fails to appreciate the enormous variety of innovations that we need.

The measure of a good economy lies in the satisfaction it provides to the many, not a few, not in the wealth or accomplishment of a few individuals or organizations. And these satisfactions go beyond the material or pecuniary rewards earned: they include, for instance, the exhilaration of overcoming challenges. Indeed they go hand in hand: a good economy cannot provide widespread prosperity without harnessing the creativity and enterprise of the many. All must have the opportunity to innovate, to try out new things: not just scientists and engineers but also graphic artists, shopfloor workers, salespersons and advertising agencies; not just the developers of new products but their venturesome consumers. The exceptional performance of a few high-tech businesses, as the Silicon Valley and Israeli examples show, is just not enough.

This widely diffused, multifaceted form of innovation entails a circumscribed role for governments: they should not to put their finger on the scale bribing people to do basic research instead of, say, the kind of graphics design that has made Apple such an iconic company. Mandating more math and science in high schools when most of us never use trigonometry or calculus in our working lives takes away time from learning skills that are crucial in an innovative economy: how to listen and persuade, think independently and work collaboratively, for instance.

Yes, there is a problem with global warming, but that is best solved by innumerable tinkerers taking their chances with renewable energy and resourceful conservation, not by throwing money at projects that a few savants have determined to be the most promising. The apparent duplication of autonomous initiative isn't a waste: no one can foretell what is going to work. Even the most successful venture-capital companies have more misses than hits. Therefore putting many independent experiments in play raises the odds that one will work. When government gets into the game of placing bets, for instance, on new battery technologies, innovators who don't have the savvy, credentials and connections with politicians or the scientific establishment are at a severe disadvantage. Yet history shows that it is often the nonconformist outsiders who play a pivotal role. Would Ed Roberts have been able to secure a government grant to build the world's first personal computer, a virtually useless toy when it was introduced in 1974?

Of course a government doing the least doesn't mean a government doing nothing at all. Moreover, the least is a moving and ever expanding target. The invention of the automobile, for example, necessitated driving rules and a system of vehicle inspections. The growth of air travel required a system to control traffic and certify the airworthiness of aircraft. Similarly, radio and television required a system to regulate the use of the airwaves.

Modern technology created new forms of pollution that did not exist in agrarian economies. Governments had to step in, in one way or the other, to make it unrewarding to pollute. Likewise, antitrust laws to control commercial interactions and conduct emerged after new technologies created opportunities to realise economies of scale and scope(规模经济)—and realise oligopoly（寡头垄断） or monopoly profits. These opportunities were largely absent in pre-industrial economies.

But the principle of the least is best remains a true compass. New technologies not only create the need for desirable new rules, they but also generate more opportunities for unwarranted meddling and a cover for rent-seeking. It is one thing for the Federal Aviation Administration to manage the air traffic control system, quite another for the Civil Aeronautics Board (b. 1938, d. 1985) to regulate airfares, routes and schedules. The construction of the interstate highway system may have been a great boon to the US economy, for example, but it did not take long for Congress to start appropriating funds for bridges to nowhere.

Entrepreneurial leaps into the dark are best sustained by great caution in expanding the scope of government intervention; the private virtue of daring can be a public vice. The US chief justice has often repeated the maxim: "If it is not necessary to decide an issue to resolve a case, then it is necessary not to decide that issue." Similarly, if it is not necessary to intervene to promote innovation, it should be considered necessary not to intervene. The government should focus on things that private enterprise simply cannot provide and stay away from promoting activities that would allegedly be undersupplied. If nothing, this maxim frees up resources for crucial public goods. So traffic police, emission rules and carbon taxes: absolutely. Subsidising networks of hydrogen pumps and new engine or battery technologies: no thanks.





Commentary:

The author of this article, grounding on the fact that Hong Kong, a market-minded city, has a high GNP growth rate than Silicon Village, where innovation is funded by the government, implies that all, rather than groups of people limited to their professions, such as scientist and engineer, must have the opportunity to try out new things. The exceptional performance of a few is not just enough. Thereupon, since the private virtue of daring can be a public vice, government, even it is not necessary for them to intervene the innovation too much, has to do some other things, such as place supervision in case of the advent of oligopoly and monopoly.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

Governments spur innovation. Governments shape innovation. Many of the most important innovations in recent decades grew from the work of governments.

In 1965, a US government employee named Bob Taylor had an idea about how computers could communicate. He took the idea to his boss Charles Herzfeld, head of the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), who invested government funds in exploring it. That investment led to the ARPAnet and, in turn, to the internet, without which so many things (including this online debate) would not be possible.

An isolated example? Hardly. Among the innovations that grew directly from government funding are the Google search engine, GPS devices, DNA mapping, inexpensive mass data storage and even Teflon.

Why is government important to innovation?

First, because the private sector underinvests in fundamental research. That is natural. Time horizons in many businesses are short. Few companies are in a position to capture benefits from fundamental research they might fund on their own. In many fields, fundamental research requires resources available only to governments and the largest companies. As Professor Henry Chesbrough documents in his book "Open Innovation", the big corporate research labs of decades past have given way to more distributed approaches to innovation. That gets many technologies to market faster, but at the expense of fundamental research. Without government support for such research, the seed corn for future generations would be at risk.

Second, because innovation depends on an educated workforce, which is a job for governments. Biomedical research requires medical technicians. Energy research requires engineers. Computer research requires programmers. Although private companies often provide specialised training, an educated workforce is the essential starting point. Primary and secondary education is a vital precursor to much innovation. That is a job for governments everywhere. And universities play a central role, with training of promising young innovators often made possible by government funding.

Thirdly, because market failures stifle innovative technologies. The recent financial crisis choked off capital for innovators. Without governments stepping in to provide backstop support, thousands of promising innovations would have been lost due to the unrelated vagaries of failing financial markets. There are many other examples. Lack of capital and information prevents homeowners from investing in energy-saving technologies with very short payback periods. Split incentives between architects, builders, landlords and tenants prevent widespread adoption of similar technologies in commercial buildings. Governments have a central role in overcoming these barriers, and more.

Fourth, because government policies and standards can lay a strong foundation for innovation. Last century, the United States benefited from government policies requiring near universal access to electricity and telephone services, laying the groundwork for a vibrant consumer electronics industry. This century, Finland and Korea (among others) are benefiting from government policies to promote broadband access, helping position each country for global leadership in a vast global market. New technologies require standards that allow them to operate within larger systems. The NTSC television broadcast standard, 110V AC current and FHA housing loans, to pick just three examples, each helped market actors coordinate, encouraging innovation. Or consider Israel, which has a teeming innovation culture in which the Israeli government plays a central role, providing the foundation for startups that commercialise civilian uses of military technologies in materials, semiconductors, medical devices and communications.

Finally, because governments help make sure innovation delivers public benefits. Not all innovation is good. Collateralized debt obligations were an important financial innovation. Yet as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, financial markets cannot be relied upon to self-regulate innovation. As government encourages and promotes innovation, it also has a role in guiding it.

In the academic literature on innovation, the number of patents issued in a country is often used as a proxy for the rate of innovation. Patents are, of course, issued by governments. As this suggests, governments play a central role in innovation.

In his inaugural address, President Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…" That should guide us in thinking about this motion. The notion that "Innovation works best when government does least" is simplistic and wrong. There may be instances in which government meddling chokes off innovation. (Past US government restrictions on stem cell research come to mind.) Yet governments can and do play a central role in spurring innovation and making sure innovation delivers benefits. We should embrace government's role in innovation, always seeking to refine and improve it, not diminish it with broad generalities.

Commentary:

As the author emphasizes the involvement of government in innovation, he cites several crucial devices which are originated from government funded project, in which case he implies that private sectors suffer from the deficiency of short time horizon and thus they invest little in fundamental research which, however, is of great importance for further innovations. For that matter, government should provide financial support for fundamental researches.