“创新从何而来？什么是经济活力？”在7月8日举行的第九届“青岛?中国财富论坛”上，哥伦比亚大学教授、2006诺贝尔经济学奖得主Edmund PHELPS（爱德蒙·菲尔普斯）表示，关于创新的源泉，不少经济学家都曾给出过答案，但他们忽略了一点——科学家和探险家的发现并不是创新的主要来源。
哥伦比亚大学教授、2006诺贝尔经济学奖得主Edmund PHELPS
爱德蒙·菲尔普斯在其著作《大繁荣》中指出，在1870年代，在一些国家的经济发展中，涌现出大量新产品和新方法，但它们大多是普通人突发奇想的成果，而并非来自科学家和探险家。“几乎每个行业都有工人、经理或其他雇员在构思新的想法。在这些经济体中产生的本土创新，很快就能超越科学家产生的创新。”
在他看来，高活力经济的核心就是渴望创新。当人们在工作中展现的商业创造力或想象力愈加强烈，经济活力和生产力就会随之增强，并进一步推动整个国家的经济增长。
如何才能激发和促进创新？爱德蒙·菲尔普斯认为，这需要一种能够接受创新的社会氛围，能够容忍创新可能造成的破坏。他认为，中国拥有广阔巨大的创新基础，当然同时也存在一些障碍，例如，有的创新者难以从银行系统获得融资；公司内部可能等级森严，无法让员工自由表达想法；企业所有者在支持新方法或新产品的开发方面也面临着不确定性。毕竟，有些努力可能会失败。
“中国已经在进行诸多高科技创新，毫无疑问，继续这一努力是正确的做法。随着时间的推移，我们将会看到中国在创新上的成果。”爱德蒙·菲尔普斯表示。
以下为发言实录：
Edmund PHELPS（爱德蒙·菲尔普斯）：主办方鼓励我在演讲开始就讲现代经济面临的挑战和机遇。我认为我最好花一点点时间回顾一下我曾经面对的问题和分歧；然后再深入探讨从19世纪末开始发展的西方现代经济所提出的问题。
我在我的回忆录中讲了这些内容；这本书叫《我的经济理论之旅》，于今年春天在纽约和巴黎出版。这本书讲述了我在过去60年来重塑经济理论一些基本要素的工作。标题中说的旅程主要指的是两个不同的经历。第一个旅程指的是我在60年代的早期工作；我在那时的工作为凯恩斯和希克斯的宏观经济学建立了微观基础。
凯恩斯的著作《就业、利息和货币通论》被广泛认为是对新古典经济学的首次突破。可以称为现代经济学的第一个突破。凯恩斯的成就是指出了可能导致经济陷入萧条并带来严重失业的因素。但他的理论并不完整；没有解释为什么工资和物价没有能够迅速降低并最终避免经济萧条。
我的解释提出了不完全信息理论，而工资和价格正是依据这些不完全的信息而设定的。关键一步是将一个企业对其他企业工资变化的预期引入其工资设定和价格设定中；这又导致了均衡路径的概念；货币工资水平和物价水平变化预期在该路径上达到了均衡；另外还有不均衡路径的概念。
随后我在宾夕法尼亚大学组织的 1969 年会议中提出了一些理论，这些理论在1970 年由诺顿出版社出版；我提出的这些理论是我职业生涯的巅峰。 20 世纪 60 年代初期，我对公共债务对国家资本存量路径的影响进行了建模，但结果有争议。此外我还提出了黄金定律。
在 70 年代、80 年代和 90 年代，我的研究范围拓展到了标准经济学领域如失业和公共财政等方面之外；当我和约翰·罗尔斯（政治哲学家）在斯坦福大学时，我与他一起研究新课题，如统计性歧视、经济正义等；当我和托马斯·内格尔（哲学家）做邻居时，我们一起研究了利他主义的好处。
我还与让-保罗·菲图西（经济学家）合作研究了国内财政刺激措施对海外的影响；我与肯尼斯·约瑟夫·阿罗（诺奖经济学家）合作研究了在资本主义经济中存在的，但在社会主义经济中不存在的经济收益。又过了很久，直到90年代初；我与新加坡的云天德 和冰岛的 Gylfi Zoega （冰岛央行货币政策委员会顾问）一起工作；他们两个都是我以前的学生，我们一起写了《结构性衰退》一书。
正如Bendy Curry所说，该书估计了自然失业率本身的变化程度；该变化程度往往能解释失业率变化的原因。然后我写了《奖励工作》一书，该书为提高弱势工人的工资提出了新的理由。我一开始提到的第二个旅程指的是我后来的工作。随着20世纪、21世纪的到来，我想要开辟一个新的研究方向。
我意识到我一直在构思一些支持或丰富其他人理论，特别是凯恩斯理论的新元素；我没有构想我自己的基本理论。幸运的是，我想到了一个研究现代社会经济的新视角。在接下来的几十年里，我建立了自己的全新理论。
过去 20 年我大部分工作的主题都是关于创新的；特别是关于西方的创新和人的活力。创新从何而来？什么是经济活力？我首先讲创新和活力；然后再谈谈它们与中国及中国经济的关系。
创新从何而来？创新是指将新产品或新方法引入市场并进行使用。创新的想法从何而来？这是新古典经济学提出的一个问题； 19世纪末，新古典经济学在法国、德国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛不断发展。但在 20 世纪初，一些经济学家对这个问题给出了答案。这个答案至少在一段时间内拯救了新古典经济学。
一个由阿瑟·斯庇索夫、瑞典人古斯塔夫·卡塞尔以及奥地利人熊彼得组成的德国历史学派认为；创新源于科学家和探险家的发现；这些发现对于一个国家的经济来说是外生的。熊彼得补充说，这些发现的商业应用需要企业家来筹集所需资金；招募人员以及开发和营销新产品。
后来是 60 年代到 80 年代的尼尔森和温特，然后是 90 年代到 2009 年的阿吉翁和霍伊特；他们认识到具有科学背景的人员在企业内部工作时也可以做出一些发现；发现不仅仅出现在科学基金会、大学实验室和家庭车库内。
但我提到的这些经济学家从来没有考虑过这一点；科学家和探险家的发现并不是创新的主要来源。我对创新的研究始于我写的《大繁荣》一书，该书除了英文版也有中文版。书中指出，到了 1870 年代，一些国家出现了这种情况；即大量新产品和新方法开始从经济中涌现。它们大多是很多人突发奇想的成果。其中很多是经济商业部门的普通人；并不是熊彼得等著名经济学家所认为的发现主要来自科学家和探险家。
我把这称为本土创新。几乎每个行业都有工人、经理或其他雇员在构思新的想法；以期以更好的方式生产某种东西或生产出更好的东西。我很清楚，在这些经济体中产生的本土创新；很快就能超越科学家产生的创新。
广受尊敬的商业领袖张瑞敏认识到鼓励员工解决问题的价值。我们的观点有相似之处。但为什么这种现象能在一些国家爆发而不是在其他国家爆发。我的解释是因为经济活力。经济活力是指人们在工作中；展现在商业上可行的创造力或想象力的程度。换句话说，活力是一个国家创新的能力和愿望。
活力往往以多种方式表现出来。经济活力的增强能带来生产力的更快增长。随着时间的推移，它将推动国家的增长达到更高的水平和更陡的坡度。这种活力的副产物是一系列独特的经济活动。并且出现了一批从事融资、开发和营销新商业产品以在市场上销售的部门；以及一群管理人员来决定将哪些新的商业创意开发成适销产品以及如何更好地生产。
这些为提高生产力而做出的努力提高了工资，也增加了劳动力。有证据表明，活力增加还可以提高员工的敬业度和工作满意度。
是什么让一个国家的经济比其他国家的经济更有活力？正统观点认为任何维持自由市场的国家都可以拥有自主创新的活力，但这个观点是错误的。自主创新需要正确的条件。一个国家的创新能力有多大取决于它的态度。创新者往往是那些脱离主流观念、跳出框框思考的人。
只有具有足够经验的金融家，才能有自信认为他们能够很好地判断提交给他们的创新项目。雄心勃勃的创新者必须有足够的洞察力才能让一个项目启动起来。在《活力》一书中，我与合著者伯杰罗夫、云天德和 Gylfi Zoega 一起；用统计证据证明了一个社会所持有的价值观对其经济绩效的重要性。这些价值观包括锐意进取、接受竞争以及想要在工作中取得成就的愿望。所有这些都对经济绩效有巨大影响。
高活力的核心就是渴望创新，并且忽视可能存在的障碍，或者这些障碍可能在某种程度上促进创新。很多创新者迫切希望改变世界。还有一些创新者想向社会证明他们可以走自己的路。另一些人则想要证明自己能够成功。
当然，想要实现高活力，从而在全国范围内广泛激励创新；还需要一种能够接受创新的社会和政治氛围，能够容忍创新可能造成的破坏。
下面我就中国的创新谈几点看法。理论上，中国拥有巨大的创造新产品和新方法的基础。但也存在一些困难。首先，可能存在一些障碍，例如创新者难以从银行系统获得融资。其次，中国公司可能等级森严，无法让很多员工表达他们的想法。企业所有者在支持新方法或新产品的开发方面也面临着不确定性。毕竟，有些努力可能会失败。
第三，可能是政府是否会批准企业进行未知的创新。政府可能不喜欢这种不确定性。最后，还有对中国人口老龄化的担忧。有些人可能认为人口老龄化会对中国的创新和增长能力产生不利影响。但由于中国人口众多，老龄化问题不应令人担忧。
此外，老年人仍然可以为国家做很多生产工作。在美国，退休年龄是65岁。但很多老年人在达到这个年龄后仍然继续工作，同时领取养老金。根据人口调查，65岁以上的美国人中有20%仍在工作；这一数字是 40 年前的两倍。
在瑞典，退休年龄从62岁延长到63岁。一位瑞典朋友跟我说，公众对此的反应是积极的。尽管在法国，人们正在抗议最近将退休年龄从 62 岁提高到 64 岁。与其他国家相比，中国的退休年龄相对较低。男性60岁退休，女性55岁退休。但《中国日报》最近的一篇文章报道称，大约三分之一，即大约 5000 万年龄在 60 岁至 69 岁之间的中国人仍在工作。
所以有很多人在正式退休后继续工作并想继续工作。中国已经在进行诸多高科技创新，毫无疑问，继续这一努力是正确的做法。随着时间的推移，我们将会看到中国在创新上的成果。
非常感谢！
I have been encouraged to begin my talk with the challenges and opportunities facing modern economies. I believe I can best do this in the very short time I have by reviewing the issues and differences confronting me; as I plunged into the questions raised by the modern economies that began to develop late in the 19th century in the west.
That is the story I tell in my memoirs; the book called My Journeys In Economic Theory published this spring in New York and Paris. the book tells the story of my part in reshaping some basic elements of economic theory over the past 6 decades. the journeys in the title refer mainly to 2 quite different experiences. the first was my early work in the 60s; to put the macroeconomics of Keynes and Hicks onto a microeconomic foundation.
Keynes"s book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was widely recognized as the first break from neoclassical economics. the first breakthrough of what may be called modern economics. Keynes"s achievement was to point to forces that could drive the economy into a depression bringing severe unemployment. but his theory was incomplete in leaving unexplained; why wages and prices did not quickly begin to moderate and ultimately thus to save the economy from a depression.
My explanation brought in the imperfect information on which wage setting was based and price setting too. the key step was to introduce firms expectations of other firms wage changes into their wage setting and their price setting; that led to the notion of an equilibrium path; a path along which expectations of the change of money wage levels and price levels are borne out; and the notion of disequilibrium.
The ensuing 1969 conference that I organized at Penn and the 1970 conference published by Norton; were the high points of my career for quite a while. earlier in the 60s I had modeled the effect of the public debt on the path of the nation"s capital stock which proved controversial. and there was the golden rule also.
In the 70s and 80s and 90s I branched out from standard economics such as unemployment and public finance; to work on new subjects, statistical discrimination, economic justice with John Rawls when he and I were out at Stanford; and the benefits of altruism with Thomas Nagel when we were neighbors.
There was also my work with Jean-Paul Fitoussi on the effect overseas of a fiscal stimulus at home; and my work with Kenneth Arrow on the economic gains present in an economy under capitalism that are not found in an economy under socialism. much later in the early 90s; I work with Hian Teck Hoon of Singapore and Gylfi Zoega of iceland; both former students of mine to write Structural Slumps.
The book estimated the extent to which it is shifts in the natural unemployment rate itself as Bendy Curry put it; that are often the cause of shifts in the unemployment rate. then I wrote Rewarding Work, a book making a new case for lifting wages of the less advantaged workers. the second of these journeys that I referred to at the beginning was my later work. with the new century, the 20th century, 21st century, I wanted a new direction.
I became aware that I had been conceiving new elements with which to support or enrich the theories of others, typically Keynes; and not conceiving my own basic theory. fortunately a new perspective on the economies of a modern society came to my mind. and over the next decades I was able to build a radically new theory of my own.
The subject of much of my work over the last 2 decades has been innovation; especially the innovation in the west and the dynamism of the people. where do innovations come from? what is economic dynamism. I will speak first about innovation and dynamism; then say a few words on their relation to China and its economy.
Where do innovations come from? innovation is the introduction into the market and adoption of a new product or new method. where did ideas for innovation come from? this was a question for neoclassical economics; which had been developing in France, in Germany, in Scandinavia in the late 19th century. but early in the 20th century a few economists devised an answer to that question. an answer that served at least for a while to save neoclassical economics.
The German historical school consisting of Arthur Spiethoff, the Swede Gustav Cassel and the Austrian Joseph Schumpeter maintained that; innovations originated out of the discoveries and of scientists and explorers; thus discoveries that are exogenous to a nation"s economy. Schumpeter added that commercial applications of those discoveries required entrepreneurs; to raise the needed capital, recruit personnel and develop and market the new product.
Later Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter from the 60s to the 80s and then Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt from the 90s to 2009; recognized that personnel with a background in science can make some discoveries while working inside corporations; not only inside science foundations, university labs and home garages.
At no point though did these economists that I referred to consider that; the discoveries of scientists and explorers were not the main source of innovation. my study of innovation started with my book, Mass Flourishing published in Chinese as well as English. it observes that in several nations by the 1870s; a huge number of new products and methods were beginning to pour out of the economy. they were mainly the fruit of new ideas hit upon by large numbers of people. many of them ordinary people in the business sector of the economy; not the fruit of discoveries made by scientists and explorers as prominent economists such as Schumpeter believed.
I came to refer to this as indigenous innovation. in virtually every industry there were workers, managers or other employees; who were conceiving new ideas for better ways of producing something or better things to produce. it was clear to me that this indigenous innovation conceived in these economies; soon came to dwarf the innovation coming from the discoveries of scientists.
The widely admired business leader Zhang Rui Min realize the value of enlisting employees to solve problems. there"s a similarity there. but why this phenomenon exploded in some nations and not others. my explanation is dynamism. economic dynamism is the degree to which the people working in the nation"s economy; exhibit creativity or imagination in commercially viable directions. in other words dynamism is the nation"s capacity and appetite for innovation.
Dynamism tends to manifest itself in a variety of ways. increased dynamism in the economy brings faster growth of productivity. with time it drives the nation"s growth path onto a higher level and a steeper incline. a byproduct of this dynamism is a distinctive set of economic activities. a sector engaged in the financing, developing and marketing of new commercial products for launch in the marketplace. and a cadre of managers deciding which new commercial ideas to develop into marketable products and how best to produce them.
These added avenues for human endeavor in pulling up productivity pulled up wages and increased the labor force too. there"s evidence that greater dynamism also results in workers having more engagement, more employee engagement and higher job satisfaction.
What makes one nation"s economy more dynamic than in other nation"s economy? the orthodox view that any nation maintaining a free market can be depended on to have the dynamism for indigenous innovation is a mistake. the right stuff is required. how capable a nation is at innovating depends on its attitudes. innovators tend to be people who stand apart from the prevailing beliefs and think outside the box.
There have to be financiers with enough experience to feel confident; they can judge well the innovative projects submitted to them. aspiring innovators have to feel they have sufficient insight to warrant making a start. in the book Dynamism, I along with my co-authors Raicho Bojilov, Hian Teck Hoon, and Gylfi Zoega; found statistical evidence that the values held in a society matter for its economic performance. values like a willingness to take initiative and acceptance of competition and a desire to achieve on the job. all these things contribute powerfully toward economic performance.
At the heart of high dynamism is the desire to innovate in spite of obstacles or maybe in some part because of the obstacles. many innovators have a deep need to act on the world. others want to demonstrate to society that they can go their own way. some others are driven by a need to prove themselves that they can succeed.
Of course high dynamism and thus widespread innovation throughout the nation; also requires a social and political climate that is receptive to innovations despite the disruptions they are apt to cause.
Now I will offer a few thoughts on innovation in China. in principle, China could be an enormous generator of new products and new methods. but there are some difficulties. first, there may be obstacles such as a difficulty to obtain financing from the banking system. second, Chinese companies maybe too hierarchical to enable many employees to have their ideas heard. there is also the uncertainty that owners of firms face in supporting the development of new methods or products. after all, some efforts may fail.
Third, it may be whether the government would approve of industries embarked on voyages into the unknown. governments may not like the uncertainty. finally, there is the worry about China"s aging population. some people may think that an aging population may have detrimental effects on China"s capacity for innovation and growth. but China is so populous that this aging ought not to be cause for worry.
Furthermore the older people can do much of the producing for a nation. in the US, the retirement age is 65. but many seniors continue working while collecting their pension after reaching this age. according to population surveys, 20% of Americans over 65 are still working; which is twice as much as it was 40 years ago.
In Sweden, the retirement age was extended from 62 to 63. and a Swedish friend told me the public reaction was positive. though in France, people are protesting the recent rise in retirement age from 62 to 64. China"s retirement age is relatively low compared to others. 60 for men, 55 for women. but a recent China daily article reported that about a third, roughly 50 million of Chinese people between the ages of 60 and 69 are still working.
So there are great many people who continue to work and want to work after official retirement. much high-tech innovation is already going on in China and undoubtedly it will be wise to continue in that effort. as time goes by we will see how well China goes in progressing in this direction. thank you very much
