近十年来，生产率增长领域的学者比平时更卖力的在阐述自己的观点。理论可以简单的表述为，由于存在向低生产率国家的资金流动和技术外溢，加之丰厚的潜在收益，故而国与国之间的生产率差异趋于收敛。该模型直到上实际90年代中期都与富国的现实生活拟合得相当好，例如欧洲生产率向美国生产率的逼近。然而现在，资金和计划虽然能够通过鼠标点击瞬间横跨大洋，但人们预计的收敛却迟迟没有出现：得益于对信息技术（IT）的投资，美国正在享受生产率的猛增，而欧洲却被晾在了一旁。即使生产率的推动力存在此消彼长，对于经济学家而言仍有很多解释工作要做。
Plenty of reasons are on offer, such as the relative rigidity of most European labour markets, better American management, and America's superior universities and their close links with industries that make and use IT. Another likely culprit, though, is the regulation of product markets: if regulation makes competition less intense, it blunts companies' incentives to raise productivity and thwart their rivals.Granted, governments have been liberalising markets, from banking to gas supply, for years. But some countries have been opening faster and further than others. Measured by an index created at the OECD, the gap between the most and least liberal services markets widened in the 1980s and into the 1990s. Only in the late 1990s did it narrow, but some countries were still far behind.
可供选择的解释原因有很多，例如大多数欧洲劳动力市场相对僵化，美国的管理优势，美国拥有世界顶级大学以及产研结合等。除此之外，还可能有另一宗罪，即产品市场管制：如果管制致使激烈竞争的缺失，这将降低企业提高生产率的动机并使之厌恶竞争。虽然不得不承认，近年来各国政府正纷纷开放市场，涉及范围从银行到燃气供应等。不过有些国家开放得更快也更深入。据经济合作与开发组织（OECD）对指数的计量研究表明，上世纪80年代到90年代间，最自由和最不自由的服务市场之间的差距被扩大了。整体状况仅在上世纪90年代有所收敛，而且一些国家仍然很落后。
.
A new paper* by Paul Conway, Donato de Rosa, Giuseppe Nicoletti and Faye Steiner, of the OECD, helps to fill in part of the productivity puzzle. It assesses the effect of regulation of services markets on the productivity growth of OECD countries. Manufacturing tends to be less regulated and more open to foreign competition, so a look at services probably captures most of the economy-wide effects. And services such as telecommunications and energy are important inputs for manufacturers.
由经济合作与开发组织的康韦（Paul Conway）、罗莎（Donato de Rosa）、尼可雷提（Giuseppe Nicoletti）及斯坦尼尔（Faye Steiner）四人撰写的这份新报告能够帮我们解开部分生产率之谜。该报告评估了服务市场管制对该组织成员国的生产率增长的影响。由于制造业倾向于较少的管制和更开放的国外竞争，因此看来服务市场很可能受到了来自经济领域的绝大部分影响。另外对制造商而言，诸如通讯和能源之类的服务是笔很重要的投入。
Using the in-house index as a gauge of regulation, Mr Conway and his colleagues find that output per worker grows more slowly in more rule-bound markets. (Were they able to use output per hour, for which not enough industry-level data are available, the gains from deregulation might look a bit smaller.) However, this effect is concentrated in industries that either produce IT or use it a lot. This implies that weak competition does most harm by dulling the incentive to invest in IT.
以内部指数来作为衡量的标准的话，康韦和他的同事们发现大多规则约束市场下的每人产出增长要更缓慢（他们怎么不用每小时产出做计量单位呢？因为缺乏足够能用的工业级数据，从撤销管制规定中获得的好处似乎也不明显）。不过这些影响集中反应在创造或大量使用信息技术的产业上。这便暗示着竞争的乏力会通过削弱对信息技术的投资热情而造成极大的损害。
They also ask whether regulation slows the rate at which laggard countries close the gap between themselves and the leaders. The lower a country's productivity, the more it has to gain by catching up—and the more damage red tape can do. Suppose, they say, that between 1995 and 2003, for each service studied, the freest standards in any country had applied everywhere. Then output per worker would have grown 0.2 percentage points a year faster in British businesses and 0.5 points faster in America, Finland and Sweden. The most regulated countries forwent more: a point plus in Canada, Norway, Portugal and Spain, and 1.8 points in Greece.
他们也在问，是否就是因为存在管制而减缓了落后国生产率向先进国收敛的速率。国家生产率越低，差距也就越大，要抛弃的繁文缛节也就越多。他们通过对每项服务进行研究后认为，假如1995年至2003年间世界各国都采用的是最自由的制度，那么英国商业一年的每人产出量就将会提高0.2个百分点，美国、芬兰和瑞典则能提高0.5个百分点。而管制最严的那些国家则失去得更多：加拿大、挪威、葡萄牙和西班牙损失达1个多百分点，而希腊多达1.8个百分点。
The authors go on to look at two channels through which regulation may have dampened productivity growth. One is by discouraging foreign direct investment (FDI). Economists broadly accept that FDI helps productivity grow. Partly this is because competition from foreigners spurs on the locals—especially important in services, where cross-border trade is less common than for goods. However, local firms may also enjoy “spillovers” from foreign entrants by imitating their methods or recruiting employees trained by the foreigners and steeped in their know-how. Mr Conway and his colleagues find that the degree of product-market regulation has a direct effect, accounting for 10% of the variation in FDI's employment share; direct restrictions on FDI explain a further 13%.
该文作者继而还发现管制对生产率增长的抑制可能有两个途径。一个是外商直接投资（FDI）的减少。经济学家普遍认为外商直接投资有助于生产率增长。这部分是因为来自外商的竞争将会对本地有刺激作用——在服务领域显得尤为重要，跨国贸易比商品本身还要不寻常。不过当地企业或许也能享受到外国进入者带来的“好处”，他们可以通过接受外商培训和接受技术外溢来仿用外商采用的方法或招聘员工。康韦和他的同事发现产品市场管制的程度对生产率增长的抑制有着直接影响，其中使用外商直接投资份额的变化能够解释10%，对外商直接投资的直接管制能够解释另外的13%。
The other channel is investment in IT. Overall, for the period 1985-2003, the authors estimate that 12% of the country-by-country differences in IT investment, as a share of business's total, can be ascribed to variations in product-market regulation. America's relatively pro-competitive rules added more than four percentage points, relative to the OECD average, to its IT investment share; regulation pulled the figures for France, Greece, Italy and Portugal down by 2.5 to 3.5 points. By 2003, the differences were less than the average for the period, thanks to a closing of the regulatory gap, but they persisted nonetheless.
另一条影响途径就是对信息技术的投资。总的来说，作者估计在1985至2003年间，各国在信息技术上投资的差异有12%，同商业的整个占有率一样，这都能归因于各国产品市场管制的差异。美国因其相对有利竞争的法规而使其的信息技术投资份额高出经济合作与开发组织的平均水平4个百分点，而管制则使法国、希腊、意大利和葡萄牙的数值低于平均水平2.5到3.5个百分点。幸好各国在管制上的差距有所缩小，因此2003年各国间的差异较此时期内的平均差异要小，不过管制仍然存在。
为什么信息技术如此重要？尼可雷提指出，自上世纪90年代中期以来的信息技术中最为关键的进步影响已经来临。用政策来防止信息技术扩散的国家只有死路一条。而且因为信息技术能够提升很多产业的生产率，它们的作用（或它们的缺失）贯穿整个经济体。他还说，“防止这些技术扩散的政策恰恰正是对经济的破坏，因为信息技术已经得到了广泛应用。”
Even if the laggards are stirring, they still have much to do. In the European Union this includes the completion of the much-heralded single market in services. In manufacturing, says another new paper†, by Rachel Griffith, Rupert Harrison and Helen Simpson, of London's Institute for Fiscal Studies, the single market has increased competition, innovation and productivity as a consequence. Thanks to IT, America's banks and retailers have taken fuller advantage of huge continental markets for mortgages and groceries. Europe's would surely do the same.
但即便是死气沉沉的市场正向生机勃勃变化，但仍有很多事情要做。包括欧盟大肆宣传的单一服务市场的建成，而由伦敦财政研究学会的格里菲思（Rachel Griffith）、哈里森（Rupert Harrison）及辛普森（Helen Simpson）撰写的另一份最近报告†认为，制造业的单一市场中的竞争更加激烈，这必将导致创新和生产率提升。正因为有信息技术，美国银行和零售商才得以在巨大的大陆上全力推广信贷和杂货。欧洲也一定会这么做的。
* “Regulation, Competition and Productivity Convergence”. OECD Economics Dept Working Paper No. 509, September 2006
《制度、竞争和生产率收敛》，经济合作与开发组织经济部工作报告，第509期，2006年09月。
† “Product Market Reform and Innovation in the EU”. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5849, September 2006
《产品市场在欧盟的改革和创新》，欧盟经济政策研究中心讨论报告，第5849期，2006年09月。
Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.翻译 by zhenglijin