The realwealth of nations

　　國富實論

　　A new report comes up with a better way to size upwealth

　　新報告，新思路，衡量真財富。

　　Wealth is not without its advantages, JohnKenneth Galbraith once wrote, and the case to thecontrary, although it has often been made, hasnever proved widely persuasive. Despite theobvious advantages of wealth, nations do a poor job of keeping count of their own. Theymay boast about their abundant natural resources, their skilled workforce and theirworld-class infrastructure. But there is no widely recognised, monetary measure that sumsup this stock of natural, human and physical assets.

　　約翰肯尼斯加爾布雷恩曾經(jīng)寫道：盡管事實反復(fù)證明財富并非一無是處，而其劣勢沒人說地明白，其優(yōu)勢誰又真正知道呢。即便財富優(yōu)勢清晰可辨，然而各個國家在清點財富時，卻總做著一筆糊涂賬。他們也許會驕傲地宣稱，我國自然資源豐富，勞動力技術(shù)嫻熟并且基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施世界一流。但是，我們卻沒有一個一致認可的貨幣量度來總括這些自然，人力和實物資產(chǎn)。

　　Economists usually settle instead for GDP. But that is a measure of income, not wealth. Itvalues a flow of goods and services, not a stock of assets. Gauging an economy by its GDP islike judging a company by its quarterly profits, without ever peeking at its balance-sheet.Happily, the United Nations this month published balance-sheets for 20 nations in a reportoverseen by Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University. They included three kinds of asset: manufactured, or physical, capital ; humancapital ; and natural capital .

　　經(jīng)濟學(xué)家總是用國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值來解決問題。但是國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值 是衡量一個國家收入的指標，并非資本。它體現(xiàn)了商品和服務(wù)的流量，而不是資本的存量。使用國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量一個經(jīng)濟體， 恰如，從不往資產(chǎn)負債表上掃一眼，卻以季度盈利來判斷一家企業(yè)的走向一樣。值得慶幸的是，本月聯(lián)合國在劍橋大學(xué)帕薩達斯古普塔爵士的監(jiān)督下，發(fā)表了20個國 家的資本決算報告，包含制造或物質(zhì)資本，人力資本，自然資本。

　　By this gauge, America s wealth amounted to almost $118 trillion in 2008, over ten times itsGDP that year. Its wealthper person was, however, lower than Japan s, which tops the league on this measure.Judged by GDP, Japan s economy is now smaller than China s. But according to the UN, Japanwas almost 2.8 times wealthier than China in 2008 .

　　根據(jù)該指標，2008年，美國的財富總額近118萬億美元，是其當(dāng)年國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的十倍多。然而，其人均財富卻低于日本，后者在這項指標中獨占鰲頭。僅以國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量，日本的經(jīng)濟規(guī)模比中國小。但是，根據(jù)聯(lián)合國的報告，在2008年，日本的財富幾乎是中國的2.8倍。

　　Officials often say that their country s biggest asset is their people. For all of the countries inthe report except Nigeria, Russia and Saudi Arabia, this turns out to be true. The UNcalculates a population s human capital based on its average years of schooling, the wage itsworkers can command and the number of years they can expect to work before they retire. Human capital represents 88% of Britain s wealth and 75% of America s. Theaverage Japanese has more human capital than anyone else.

　　官員們經(jīng)常說人民是國家最大的財富。除尼日利亞，俄羅斯和沙特阿拉伯外，該報告中的其他國家均證明了此言非虛。根據(jù) 一國國民平均受教育年限，工人應(yīng)得工資和該國國民退休前的工作年數(shù)，聯(lián)合國計算出了該國的人力資本。人力資本占英國財富的88%，美國的 75%。而日本人均蘊藏的人力資本比任何其他國家都要高。

　　Japan is also one of only three countries in the report that did not deplete their naturalcapital between 1990 and 2008. All of the countries except Russia nonetheless increasedtheir wealth, accumulating enough other assets to offset the erosion of their naturalpatrimony. In 14 of the 20 countries studied, these increases in wealth outpaced the growthof their population, leaving per-person wealth higher in 2008 than in 1990. Germany, forexample, increased its human capital by over 50%. China expanded its manufacturedcapital by an extraordinary 540%.

　　該報告中，僅有三個國家在1990 2008年間，沒有損耗自然資本，日本也位列其一。盡管如此，除俄羅斯外，其他國家的財富均有增加，因為人力和物質(zhì)資本的積累抵消了自然資本損耗所帶來的損 失。在調(diào)研的20個國家中，14個國家的財富增長速度超過人口增速，使得2008年的人均財富高于1990年。比如說，德國的人力資本增長了50%多。中 國的制造資本神一樣地增長了540%。

　　By putting a dollar value on everything from bauxite to brainpower, the UN s exercise makesall three kinds of capital comparable and commensurable. It also implies that they aresubstitutable. A country can lose $100 billion-worth of pastureland, gain $100 billion-worth ofskills and be no worse off than before. The framework turns economic policymaking into anasset-management problem, says Sir Partha.

　　聯(lián)合國評估了從鋁土礦到智力資源，一切事物的價值，此次實踐使三種資本具備了可比性和 可衡量性，也意味著它們之間可以互相替代。一個國家若失去了價值1000億美元的牧場，卻獲得了1000億美元的技術(shù)，那她的狀況并不比之前差。帕薩爵士 說：該框架將經(jīng)濟政策制定轉(zhuǎn)變成資產(chǎn)管理問題。

　　A country like Saudi Arabia, for example, depleted its stock of fossil fuels by $37 billionbetween 1990 and 2008, while adding to its stock of school-leavers and university graduates. In some richer countries, however,investments in human capital appear to have hit diminishing returns, the report argues.Perhaps governments should redirect their investment into natural capital instead,restocking their forests rather than their libraries.

　　比如，沙特阿拉伯，在19902008年間，雖然損耗了 370億美元的化石燃料，但高中和大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的人數(shù)大大增加。報告指出，在一些更富裕的國家，人力資本的投資收益卻日漸萎 縮，也許這部分國家應(yīng)再度投資自然資產(chǎn)，重新武裝森林，而不是圖書館。

　　The idea that natural assets are substitutable makes some environmentalists nervous. Many of the services the environment provides, likeclean water and air, are irreplaceable necessities, they point out. In theory, however, theundoubted value of these natural treasures should be reflected in their price, which shouldrise steeply as they become more scarce. A good asset manager will then husband themcarefully, knowing that it will take an ever-increasing amount of human or physical capital tomake up for further losses of the natural kind.

　　自 然資產(chǎn)可替代論讓一些環(huán)保主義者不由捏一把冷汗。他們指出，自然所給予人類的供養(yǎng)，如潔凈的水和空氣是無法替代的必需品。然而，理 論上，這些自然財富不容置疑的價值應(yīng)該通過價格體現(xiàn)出來，而價格會隨著它們的稀缺而水漲船高。一位資深的資產(chǎn)管理人會謹慎使用這些資產(chǎn)，因為他知道自然資 本的空洞將變本加厲地吸取人力資本或物質(zhì)資本。

　　In practice, however, natural assets are often hard to price well or at all. As a consequence,the UN report has to steer clear of assets like clean air that cannot be directly owned, boughtor sold. It confines itself to resources like gas, nickel and timber, for which market pricesexist. But even these market prices may not reflect a commodity s true social value.Beekeeping is one example beloved by economic theorists. Bees create honey, which can besold on the market. But they also pollinate nearby apple trees, a useful service that is notpurchased or priced.

　　但是，實際上，我們很難或根本無法給自然資產(chǎn)標上合適的價格。聯(lián) 合國的報告中避開了像潔凈空氣這樣無法直接擁有和買賣的自然資產(chǎn)，而只計算可以用市場價表示的自然資產(chǎn)，如天然氣，鎳和木材。即便如此，也許市場價無法反映出商品 真正的社會價值。經(jīng)濟理論家愛以養(yǎng)蜂為例，蜜蜂釀下可以在市場上兜售的蜂蜜，但它們也為周邊的蘋果樹授粉，而這個有益的舉動卻不能被出售，也無法標 價。

　　No one is more aware of these limitations than the report s authors. Their estimates areillustrative, not definitive, says Sir Partha. The calculations are inevitably crude, just asthe first guesstimates of GDP were crude over 70 years ago. He hopes more economists willdo the hard but valuable work of pricing the seemingly priceless. The profession does notreally reward this work, says Sir Partha. But some economists do it anyway. Taylor Rickettsof the University of Vermont and his co-authors have even calculated the value ofpollination, showing that one Costa Rican coffee-grower benefited by $62,000 a year fromthe feral honey bees in two nearby patches of forest.

　　沒有誰比該報告的作者更清楚它的局限性。帕特爵士說：他們的估算是對現(xiàn)有資本的補充性解釋，并不是最 佳版本。報告的結(jié)果不免有不準確的地方，正如70多年前人們第一次約摸著估算GDP一樣。他希望更多經(jīng)濟學(xué)家能做出艱苦且有價值的工 作，為世界的無價資產(chǎn)標價。帕特爵士還說：這項工作在業(yè)界并非真地有利可圖。不管怎樣，還有經(jīng)濟學(xué)家為此奉獻著，佛蒙特大學(xué)的泰勒立克次和他的合著 者們甚至計算出了蜜蜂授粉的價值。結(jié)果顯示，哥斯達黎加兩小片樹林中的野蜜蜂就能為一位咖啡種植主帶來62000美元的利潤。

　　Now that economists have shown that such wealth can be measured, they must decide whatit should be called. In his earlier academic work Sir Partha calls it comprehensivewealth. The UN report dubs it inclusive wealth. If the notion catches on, neither name maybe needed. Pretty soon, says Sir Partha, we ought to drop both adjectives and just call itwealth .

　　既然經(jīng)濟學(xué)家已經(jīng)證明自然財富可以計算，那他們必須為它取個名字。在其早前的學(xué)術(shù)專著中帕特爵士曾稱它為全部財 富。聯(lián)合國的報告中則叫它天地財富。一旦這個概念流行開來，這兩個名稱都可能被淘汰，很快，帕特爵士說，我們應(yīng)把形容詞都去掉，就叫它財 富!

　　The realwealth of nations

　　國富實論

　　A new report comes up with a better way to size upwealth

　　新報告，新思路，衡量真財富。

　　Wealth is not without its advantages, JohnKenneth Galbraith once wrote, and the case to thecontrary, although it has often been made, hasnever proved widely persuasive. Despite theobvious advantages of wealth, nations do a poor job of keeping count of their own. Theymay boast about their abundant natural resources, their skilled workforce and theirworld-class infrastructure. But there is no widely recognised, monetary measure that sumsup this stock of natural, human and physical assets.

　　約翰肯尼斯加爾布雷恩曾經(jīng)寫道：盡管事實反復(fù)證明財富并非一無是處，而其劣勢沒人說地明白，其優(yōu)勢誰又真正知道呢。即便財富優(yōu)勢清晰可辨，然而各個國家在清點財富時，卻總做著一筆糊涂賬。他們也許會驕傲地宣稱，我國自然資源豐富，勞動力技術(shù)嫻熟并且基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施世界一流。但是，我們卻沒有一個一致認可的貨幣量度來總括這些自然，人力和實物資產(chǎn)。

　　Economists usually settle instead for GDP. But that is a measure of income, not wealth. Itvalues a flow of goods and services, not a stock of assets. Gauging an economy by its GDP islike judging a company by its quarterly profits, without ever peeking at its balance-sheet.Happily, the United Nations this month published balance-sheets for 20 nations in a reportoverseen by Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University. They included three kinds of asset: manufactured, or physical, capital ; humancapital ; and natural capital .

　　經(jīng)濟學(xué)家總是用國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值來解決問題。但是國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值 是衡量一個國家收入的指標，并非資本。它體現(xiàn)了商品和服務(wù)的流量，而不是資本的存量。使用國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量一個經(jīng)濟體， 恰如，從不往資產(chǎn)負債表上掃一眼，卻以季度盈利來判斷一家企業(yè)的走向一樣。值得慶幸的是，本月聯(lián)合國在劍橋大學(xué)帕薩達斯古普塔爵士的監(jiān)督下，發(fā)表了20個國 家的資本決算報告，包含制造或物質(zhì)資本，人力資本，自然資本。

　　By this gauge, America s wealth amounted to almost $118 trillion in 2008, over ten times itsGDP that year. Its wealthper person was, however, lower than Japan s, which tops the league on this measure.Judged by GDP, Japan s economy is now smaller than China s. But according to the UN, Japanwas almost 2.8 times wealthier than China in 2008 .

　　根據(jù)該指標，2008年，美國的財富總額近118萬億美元，是其當(dāng)年國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的十倍多。然而，其人均財富卻低于日本，后者在這項指標中獨占鰲頭。僅以國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量，日本的經(jīng)濟規(guī)模比中國小。但是，根據(jù)聯(lián)合國的報告，在2008年，日本的財富幾乎是中國的2.8倍。

　　Officials often say that their country s biggest asset is their people. For all of the countries inthe report except Nigeria, Russia and Saudi Arabia, this turns out to be true. The UNcalculates a population s human capital based on its average years of schooling, the wage itsworkers can command and the number of years they can expect to work before they retire. Human capital represents 88% of Britain s wealth and 75% of America s. Theaverage Japanese has more human capital than anyone else.

　　官員們經(jīng)常說人民是國家最大的財富。除尼日利亞，俄羅斯和沙特阿拉伯外，該報告中的其他國家均證明了此言非虛。根據(jù) 一國國民平均受教育年限，工人應(yīng)得工資和該國國民退休前的工作年數(shù)，聯(lián)合國計算出了該國的人力資本。人力資本占英國財富的88%，美國的 75%。而日本人均蘊藏的人力資本比任何其他國家都要高。

　　Japan is also one of only three countries in the report that did not deplete their naturalcapital between 1990 and 2008. All of the countries except Russia nonetheless increasedtheir wealth, accumulating enough other assets to offset the erosion of their naturalpatrimony. In 14 of the 20 countries studied, these increases in wealth outpaced the growthof their population, leaving per-person wealth higher in 2008 than in 1990. Germany, forexample, increased its human capital by over 50%. China expanded its manufacturedcapital by an extraordinary 540%.

　　該報告中，僅有三個國家在1990 2008年間，沒有損耗自然資本，日本也位列其一。盡管如此，除俄羅斯外，其他國家的財富均有增加，因為人力和物質(zhì)資本的積累抵消了自然資本損耗所帶來的損 失。在調(diào)研的20個國家中，14個國家的財富增長速度超過人口增速，使得2008年的人均財富高于1990年。比如說，德國的人力資本增長了50%多。中 國的制造資本神一樣地增長了540%。

　　By putting a dollar value on everything from bauxite to brainpower, the UN s exercise makesall three kinds of capital comparable and commensurable. It also implies that they aresubstitutable. A country can lose $100 billion-worth of pastureland, gain $100 billion-worth ofskills and be no worse off than before. The framework turns economic policymaking into anasset-management problem, says Sir Partha.

　　聯(lián)合國評估了從鋁土礦到智力資源，一切事物的價值，此次實踐使三種資本具備了可比性和 可衡量性，也意味著它們之間可以互相替代。一個國家若失去了價值1000億美元的牧場，卻獲得了1000億美元的技術(shù)，那她的狀況并不比之前差。帕薩爵士 說：該框架將經(jīng)濟政策制定轉(zhuǎn)變成資產(chǎn)管理問題。

　　A country like Saudi Arabia, for example, depleted its stock of fossil fuels by $37 billionbetween 1990 and 2008, while adding to its stock of school-leavers and university graduates. In some richer countries, however,investments in human capital appear to have hit diminishing returns, the report argues.Perhaps governments should redirect their investment into natural capital instead,restocking their forests rather than their libraries.

　　比如，沙特阿拉伯，在19902008年間，雖然損耗了 370億美元的化石燃料，但高中和大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的人數(shù)大大增加。報告指出，在一些更富裕的國家，人力資本的投資收益卻日漸萎 縮，也許這部分國家應(yīng)再度投資自然資產(chǎn)，重新武裝森林，而不是圖書館。

　　The idea that natural assets are substitutable makes some environmentalists nervous. Many of the services the environment provides, likeclean water and air, are irreplaceable necessities, they point out. In theory, however, theundoubted value of these natural treasures should be reflected in their price, which shouldrise steeply as they become more scarce. A good asset manager will then husband themcarefully, knowing that it will take an ever-increasing amount of human or physical capital tomake up for further losses of the natural kind.

　　自 然資產(chǎn)可替代論讓一些環(huán)保主義者不由捏一把冷汗。他們指出，自然所給予人類的供養(yǎng)，如潔凈的水和空氣是無法替代的必需品。然而，理 論上，這些自然財富不容置疑的價值應(yīng)該通過價格體現(xiàn)出來，而價格會隨著它們的稀缺而水漲船高。一位資深的資產(chǎn)管理人會謹慎使用這些資產(chǎn)，因為他知道自然資 本的空洞將變本加厲地吸取人力資本或物質(zhì)資本。

　　In practice, however, natural assets are often hard to price well or at all. As a consequence,the UN report has to steer clear of assets like clean air that cannot be directly owned, boughtor sold. It confines itself to resources like gas, nickel and timber, for which market pricesexist. But even these market prices may not reflect a commodity s true social value.Beekeeping is one example beloved by economic theorists. Bees create honey, which can besold on the market. But they also pollinate nearby apple trees, a useful service that is notpurchased or priced.

　　但是，實際上，我們很難或根本無法給自然資產(chǎn)標上合適的價格。聯(lián) 合國的報告中避開了像潔凈空氣這樣無法直接擁有和買賣的自然資產(chǎn)，而只計算可以用市場價表示的自然資產(chǎn)，如天然氣，鎳和木材。即便如此，也許市場價無法反映出商品 真正的社會價值。經(jīng)濟理論家愛以養(yǎng)蜂為例，蜜蜂釀下可以在市場上兜售的蜂蜜，但它們也為周邊的蘋果樹授粉，而這個有益的舉動卻不能被出售，也無法標 價。

　　No one is more aware of these limitations than the report s authors. Their estimates areillustrative, not definitive, says Sir Partha. The calculations are inevitably crude, just asthe first guesstimates of GDP were crude over 70 years ago. He hopes more economists willdo the hard but valuable work of pricing the seemingly priceless. The profession does notreally reward this work, says Sir Partha. But some economists do it anyway. Taylor Rickettsof the University of Vermont and his co-authors have even calculated the value ofpollination, showing that one Costa Rican coffee-grower benefited by $62,000 a year fromthe feral honey bees in two nearby patches of forest.

　　沒有誰比該報告的作者更清楚它的局限性。帕特爵士說：他們的估算是對現(xiàn)有資本的補充性解釋，并不是最 佳版本。報告的結(jié)果不免有不準確的地方，正如70多年前人們第一次約摸著估算GDP一樣。他希望更多經(jīng)濟學(xué)家能做出艱苦且有價值的工 作，為世界的無價資產(chǎn)標價。帕特爵士還說：這項工作在業(yè)界并非真地有利可圖。不管怎樣，還有經(jīng)濟學(xué)家為此奉獻著，佛蒙特大學(xué)的泰勒立克次和他的合著 者們甚至計算出了蜜蜂授粉的價值。結(jié)果顯示，哥斯達黎加兩小片樹林中的野蜜蜂就能為一位咖啡種植主帶來62000美元的利潤。

　　Now that economists have shown that such wealth can be measured, they must decide whatit should be called. In his earlier academic work Sir Partha calls it comprehensivewealth. The UN report dubs it inclusive wealth. If the notion catches on, neither name maybe needed. Pretty soon, says Sir Partha, we ought to drop both adjectives and just call itwealth .

　　既然經(jīng)濟學(xué)家已經(jīng)證明自然財富可以計算，那他們必須為它取個名字。在其早前的學(xué)術(shù)專著中帕特爵士曾稱它為全部財 富。聯(lián)合國的報告中則叫它天地財富。一旦這個概念流行開來，這兩個名稱都可能被淘汰，很快，帕特爵士說，我們應(yīng)把形容詞都去掉，就叫它財 富!