關於 new growth theory ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

這位楊某人還真敢講：「鴻海雖然曾經擁有超過1百萬員工，也是全世界最大的勞工密及代工廠。但在勞工管理方面，卻一無可取，毫無學習效法之處。」

此人就是典型的站著說話不腰疼，「沒啥現場管理經驗，所以不知道百萬人規模管理的困難度」。我甚至懷疑此人連30人小公司大概都管不好。

1. 南非等許多民主國家發展到後來是國民財富縮水、犯罪率暴增。

美國真是自由國度？身為美國法律碩士的我，看到的反而是美國充滿各種市場與非市場管制，你在美國上藥房不但連顆消炎藥都買不到（因為受處方簽管制），連自家草坪修剪樣貌、頻率都受到社區管委會干涉。甚至某些地區你能否購買房地產並遷入居住，也要鄰居同意！

2. 當然更甭提此人經濟學基礎不扎實，除了數學公式亂丟之外，經濟內涵是一知半解，多次被我糾正其錯誤。

無論是中美貿易戰此人錯估情勢，多次聲稱美國可輕而易舉打敗中國（是啊，都打到利率倒掛）；又或者宣稱「Bloomberg報導的米粒晶片監聽事件」為真；又或者聲稱「中國操控匯率為真」...等等可笑論點。在在證明此人根本不懂價格理論，甚至連真實世界觀察都有問題。

請參見：

「匯率操控論的愚蠢與荒謬」
https://tinyurl.com/ybxjg3fr

「貿易戰檢驗-g20中美大和解？」
https://tinyurl.com/yy3e3w48

「貿易戰再檢驗-台灣12月外銷訂單衰退10%」
https://tinyurl.com/ybc8q2nf

「從中國工人生產力不如美國談起」
https://tinyurl.com/y5ekxb6p

「總體經濟學可笑又一例」
https://tinyurl.com/yxsclo4o

「關於usmca」
https://tinyurl.com/y4o28acl

民主能當飯吃嗎?

郭台銘這一句話傳遍世界。我碰過即使不懂中文的分析師，也聽過台灣的Terry Gou，不認同民主制度這件事。民主是否幫助經濟成長，是一個被討論了幾世紀的古典議題。隨著二戰後量化經濟學的發展。對於民主與經濟議題，逐漸由近代較為精準的數據，以及統計等數學模式，取代了解過去的辯論，做出較有信任度的結論。1997年，著名的經濟學者Rodriguez 一篇論文，用了90+國家的資料，做出了分析。某些專制國家，確實也出現高度經濟成長。但民主國家，依據Rodrik分析，有著以下幾個優勢:

Rodrik, "Democracy and Economic Performance", 1997, Harvard University

1. 民主國家長期的經濟增長，更具可預測性。

2.民主國家之經濟穩定性較高: 從實際GDP、實際消費、以及實際投資等三方面而言，民主國家長期性的震動，都比專制國家低的許多。

3. 民主國家對經濟衝擊，應對能力較高: 許多觀點認為，在大環境巨變，經濟受到不尋常壓力之處境下，政府權利較高的國家， 比較可能積極對應衝擊。然而事實與此假設完全相反。根據1970年代，油價攀升、地緣政治動盪之國際情勢下，經濟衝擊最小的，乃是政府權力最低，而人民政治參與率最高的國家。相對於極權政府的一意孤行，高度民主化的國家，較容易吸收民間的各項改革和對應方針。

4. 民主國家勞工薪水比較高: 過去資料顯示，越是民主國家，其勞工薪資越高 (這個結論已經排除了，各國經濟附加價值之不同，購買力不同，以及人均GDP等因素)。

2002年左右，哥倫比亞大學的另一篇論文，更進一步談到，民主制度國家，其全因素生產力(total factor productivity)有比較高的成長。

Rivera-Batiz, "Democracy, Governance and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence", 2002, Columbia University

Rivera-Batiz理論的一個重點在於，民主體制內部的制衡效應，將腐敗政府官員和機制，逐漸排除，提高治理質量。民主制度大體上有增加"政府質量"(quality of governance)之效應，但中南美洲以及非洲的幾個例子，將整體民主對經濟的效應拉下。但這並不是常態。Piero Gleijeses說了以下這句話，描述拉丁美洲的所謂民主: “The box on the outside is labeled a democracy, but inside you have an authoritarian system.”。

附圖表顯示該論文的主要結論之一。民主政治，是解釋經濟成長的一個重要元素。加入了"政府質量"之後，該元素變成超越民主因素的主要因素。解釋了民主體系內所推動的高治理品質，乃是促進經濟成長的根本原因之一。

民主制度，不見得增加某些人之個人財富，也不保證降低代工產業成本。但卻對你我的經濟利益，以及後代子孫的經濟利益，有著正面的關係。郭台銘在會議上怒叱立法委員蕭美琴，更可見他不尊重民主體系。民主制度之民選立法人員，與企業首腦討論或執問是常態。美國各大企業CEO，常常被傳到國會，為參眾議員詢問，一次幾個小時，被問的問題尖銳且直接。"沒有正眼相看"，是個小插曲。重點是郭台銘為什麼沒有就事論事，回應蕭委員。

78585 - 請幫我幫我

這是鴻海在前幾年，員工屢次發生跳樓自殺案件後，所提供給基層員工的一個熱線電話。隨著鴻海員工自殺事件，康乃爾大學的學者Selden，與香港理工學院合作，對鴻海的勞工制度，做了一些調查:

Selden, "Chinese labor protest and trade unions", 2016, Cornell University

Selden, "Apple, Foxconn and China's New Working Class: Political Economy of global production", 2013, Cornell University

自殺事件後，鴻海所成立的「工會」，並不是民主體制下的工會。鴻海「工會」之經理人，完全由總公司指派。員工並沒有透過工會，而獲得爭取任何權利的管道。員工將此類的新"福利"，稱之為"監督中心"。將並自殺防止熱線，稱之為"監管熱線"。富士康的工會此其實是一個政治裝飾品，其用意在於，紓解西方企業客戶，對於鴻海勞工管理的顧慮。被接受訪問的員工，基本上一致表示了工作環境惡劣，工作時數的不合理，以及欠缺加班制度。「血汗工場」不是形容詞，而是個事實。

郭台銘政見之一：替台灣年輕人的工作和出路著想。但除了實現血汗工廠模式之外，還有什麼具體的政策。鴻海雖然曾經擁有超過1百萬員工，也是全世界最大的勞工密及代工廠。但在勞工管理方面，卻一無可取，似乎無學習效法之處。

https://www.facebook.com/albert.yang.3990/posts/10214670786266222

20161006 早上參加台經院國際處舉辦的The 31st Pacific Economic Community Seminar “Quest for Economic Growth Engines”研討會。我被安排開幕做一個致詞，及第一場的主持。結束就已經近12點。致詞稿如下，請批評指教。(說實在有點太長，會不會？)
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Welcome to the 31st Pacific Economic Community Seminar. The theme of this year’s seminar is “Quest for Economic Growth Engines”, which is also an international project of PECC. We initiated this project to the PECC Standing Committee in Yangzhou, China last week.
The reason for proposing such a project is because we have noticed that the IMF has constantly revised downward its outlook for global economic growth since the fourth quarter of 2014. In addition, economists have been stressing a “new normal” or a “new mediocre.” Strong growth or solid recovery seems very unlikely for the time being.
In addition, geopolitical factors are furthering uncertainties amid deteriorating economic conditions; large economies are not showing leadership to pull the world economy along, rather they are desperately trying to cope with their own difficulties. In the face of heavy fiscal constraints and debt pressure, extreme monetary operations, through quantitative easing, have become one of the few workable options. Overcapacity due to overinvestment at bad times has been an issue causing inexhaustible structure reforms, whereas continuous reforms have also slowed growth momentum and limited growth potential. When big players are dealing with either tepid growth or periodical headwinds, soggy demand holds back others that are closely associated with global or regional supply chains.
As every economy is specialized in specific ways, almost none are immune to shrinking world demand. Therefore, to pick one’s growth potential is no longer simply to seek the betterment of oneself, but the well-being of all. Consumption, investment and trade are main engines that used to drive economic growth yet have seemingly lost steam in recent times. Decision makers are responsible for building healthy environments that are able to encourage consumption, investment and trade.
Private or household consumption is the most important component of GDP. Despite consumption preferences and decisions being dissimilar among the economies, it is a rule of thumb that demand for consumption goods is strong in good times, whereas consumers tend to retreat in bad times. Since the marginal propensity to consume theory indicates that an increase in consumer spending occurs with an increase in disposable income, avoiding income traps is essential to support consumption. Income traps have been present in different forms: emerging economies are suffering from middle-income traps, while advanced economies are stressing high-income traps.
In addition, to escape from income traps, building sound social safety nets is also a necessary task to promote private consumption. Saving is critical, especially for developing economies when lacking sufficient social safety nets. However, high saving rates restricts other economic activities, such as consumption. With well functioning safety nets, people will be more willing to spend.
As for investment, it is the key for growth. Besides the fact that investment is a crucial component of domestic demand, it also paves the way for supplying external demand. Not only emerging, but also advanced economies have strived to attract foreign investments. For emerging economies, foreign investment comes with technology and the chance to upgrade economic capacity. For advanced economies, foreign investments bring in capital and job opportunities. Complicated and excessive regulations, poor infrastructure and unstable political systems are some of many reasons that could impede potential foreign investments. Hence, capacity building to create healthy environments through information and knowledge sharing among economic partners to eliminate or mitigate those unattractive factors is much needed.
Last but not least, trade is an engine for GDP growth; otherwise negotiations for most free-trade agreements would not be so difficult to conclude. The conclusion of the TPP has been in the spotlight, as regional supply chains will be reshuffled when the treaty comes about. The TPP also sets a high quality benchmark for others, including the RCEP and the TTIP. However, we are certainly not sure if TPP can be ratified at this moment with respect to so many uncertainties.
Even so, free trade is in theory good for all participants. If an agreement covers the region, then it would be beneficial for the entire region. When a free-trade deal is implemented, tariff and non-tariff barriers are eliminated. As a result, suppliers’ and consumers’ surpluses are maximized; overall welfare increases and resources are optimally allocated. However, free trade poses serious threats for outsiders. For example: rules of origin require a high percentage of intermediate components of a final product to enjoy duty-free treatment. Those requirements reduce outsiders’ chances to compete with members in that trading bloc. As more members will certainly create more benefits, making sure every economy is included would be to seek the well-being of all.
To address the “new mediocre” and revive or explore growth engines, CTPECC is undertaking an international project in line with this seminar. We are honored to have many opinion leaders here to share their views with us today.
Ladies and gentlemen,
With these words, I wish our seminar all success and I wish you all an enjoyable day in Taipei. Thank you.

【#圖看天下】

《經濟學人》發表報告，提及中國的中產階級持續擴大，卻沒有帶來政治民主化。

社會科學有所謂「現代化理論」(Modernization Theory)，指經濟發展將帶動中產階級興起，並由此而引發民主化訴求，1980年代台灣和南韓的民主化，都是學者常常引用的案例 ── 但中國明顯地是一個例外。幾年前，政治學家Jie Chen就發表過研究，指由於中國政府全面控制了社會和經濟，中國的中產階級實際上依附於政權而生，因此他們的政治取向保守，傾向維持現狀多於民主化，「現代化理論」並不適用於中國。

1980年代提出的「民主回歸論」，其實有很強的「現代化理論」傾向，認定中國走向改革開放，將逐步帶來政治開明，香港回歸後就有機會實現民主(有興趣的朋友，可看曾澍基教授的《巨龍囗裏的明珠》和張炳良教授的《心繋國是》)；就連美國過去對華友好的「接觸政策」(Engagement policy)，也有「現代化理論」的影子。

在一定程度上，香港和美國現時都是在應付，「現代化理論」在中國失落後的爛攤子吧。

▋延伸閱讀
Economist: The new class war
http://goo.gl/8St1ij
Jie Chen: A Middle Class Without Democracy: Economic Growth and the Prospects for Democratisation in China
https://goo.gl/008RII
Jie Chen and Chunlong Lu: Democratization and the Middle Class in China: The Middle Class’s Attitudes toward Democracy
http://goo.gl/mb25bs

圖片來源：經濟學人

#中國 #中產階級 #中國中產階級 #現代化理論 #民主化 #民主回歸論 #接觸政策

-----------------------------------
Follow me:
1. 即LIKE: https://www.facebook.com/brianfonghk
2. 將FB專頁設爲「搶先看」