“翻新从何而来？什么是经济活力？”在7月8日举行的第九届“青岛?中国金钱论坛”上，哥伦比亚大学栽种、2006诺贝尔经济学奖得主Edmund PHELPS（爱德蒙·菲尔普斯）示意，对于翻新的源头，不少经济学家齐曾给出过谜底，但他们忽略了少量——科学家和探险家的发现并不是翻新的主要开头。

哥伦比亚大学栽种、2006诺贝尔经济学奖得主Edmund PHELPS

爱德蒙·菲尔普斯在其著述《大闹热》中指出，在1870年代，在一些国度的经济发展中，暴清晰无数新产物和新范例，但它们大多是宽泛东谈主突发奇想的恶果，而并非来自科学家和探险家。“险些每个行业齐有工东谈主、司理或其他雇员在构念念新的想法。在这些经济体中产生的原土翻新，很快就能越过科学家产生的翻新。”

在他看来，高活力经济的中枢即是渴慕翻新。当东谈主们在使命中展现的买卖创造力或设想力更加强横，经济活力和分娩力就会随之增强，并进一步激动通盘国度的经济增长。

怎样才能激励和促进翻新？爱德蒙·菲尔普斯觉得，这需要一种或者收受翻新的社会氛围，或者容忍翻新可能形成的破碎。他觉得，中国领有遍及浩繁的翻新基础，虽然同期也存在一些贬抑，举例，有的翻新者难以从银行系统得到融资；公司里面可能等第森严，无法让职工目田抒发想法；企业扫数者在复旧新范例或新产物的设备方面也濒临着不细目性。毕竟，有些奋发可能会失败。

“中国也曾在进行诸多高技术翻新，毫无疑问，络续这一奋发是正确的作念法。跟着时辰的推移，咱们将会看到中国在翻新上的恶果。”爱德蒙·菲尔普斯示意。

以下为发言实录：

Edmund PHELPS（爱德蒙·菲尔普斯）：主办方饱读舞我在演讲运转就讲当代经济濒临的挑战和机遇。我觉得我最佳花少量点时辰总结一下我也曾面对的问题和不对；然后再深切探讨从19世纪末运转发展的西方当代经济所建议的问题。

我在我的回忆录中讲了这些践诺；这本书叫《我的经济表面之旅》，于本年春天在纽约和巴黎出书。这本书叙述了我在畴昔60年来重塑经济表面一些基本要素的使命。标题中说的旅程主要指的是两个不同的阅历。第一个旅程指的是我在60年代的早期使命；我在其时的使命为凯恩斯和希克斯的宏不雅经济学竖立了微不雅基础。

凯恩斯的著述《办事、利息和货币通论》被等闲觉得是对新古典经济学的初度破碎。不错称为当代经济学的第一个破碎。凯恩斯的成即是指出了可能导致经济堕入荒废并带来严重休闲的身分。但他的表面并不完满；莫得解释为什么工资和物价莫得或者飞速裁汰并最终幸免经济荒废。

我的解释建议了不十足信息表面，而工资和价钱恰是依据这些不十足的信息而设定的。要津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钱设定中；这又导致了平衡旅途的想法；货币工资水谦让物价水平变化预期在该旅途上达到了平衡；另外还有不平衡旅途的想法。

随后我在宾夕法尼亚大学组织的 1969 年会议中建议了一些表面，这些表面在1970 年由诺顿出书社出书；我建议的这些表面是我处事糊口的巅峰。 20 世纪 60 年代初期，我对环球债务对国度成本存量旅途的影响进行了建模，但限度有争议。此外我还建议了黄金定律。

在 70 年代、80 年代和 90 年代，我的推敲范围拓展到了范例经济学界限如休闲和环球财政等方面除外；当我和约翰·罗尔斯（政事形而上学家）在斯坦福大学时，我与他沿途推敲新课题，如统计性厌烦、经济正义等；当我和托马斯·内格尔（形而上学家）作念邻居时，咱们沿途推敲了利他目的的克己。

我还与让-保罗·菲图西（经济学家）协作推敲了国内财政刺激样式对国外的影响；我与肯尼斯·约瑟夫·阿罗（诺奖经济学家）协作推敲了在成本目的经济中存在的，但在社会目的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 （冰岛央行货币策略委员会照看人）沿途使命；他们两个齐是我以前的学生，咱们沿途写了《结构性败落》一书。

正如Bendy Curry所说，该书猜想了当然休闲率自身的变化进度；该变化进度往往能解释休闲率变化的原因。然后我写了《奖励使命》一书，该书为提升马虎工东谈主的工资建议了新的事理。我一运转提到的第二个旅程指的是我其后的使命。跟着20世纪、21世纪的到来，我想要开辟一个新的推敲标的。

我相识到我一直在构念念一些复旧或丰富其他东谈主持论，迥殊是凯恩斯表面的新元素；我莫得构想我我方的基本表面。红运的是，我猜想了一个推敲当代社会经济的新视角。在接下来的几十年里，我竖立了我方的全新表面。

畴昔 20 年我大部单干作的主题齐是对于翻新的；迥殊是对于西方的翻新和东谈主的活力。翻新从何而来？什么是经济活力？我最初讲翻新和活力；然后再谈谈它们与中国及中国经济的联系。

翻新从何而来？翻新是指将新产物或新范例引入市集并进期骗用。翻新的想法从何而来？这是新古典经济学建议的一个问题； 19世纪末，新古典经济学在法国、德国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛络续发展。但在 20 世纪初，一些经济学家对这个问题给出了谜底。这个谜底至少在一段时辰内缓助了新古典经济学。

一个由阿瑟·斯庇索夫、瑞典东谈主古斯塔夫·卡塞尔以及奥地利东谈主熊彼得构成的德国历史派系觉得；翻新源于科学家和探险家的发现；这些发现对于一个国度的经济来说是外生的。熊彼得补充说，这些发现的买卖应用需要企业家来筹集所需资金；招募东谈主员以及设备和营销新产物。

其后是 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；他们相识到具有科学配景的东谈主员在企业里面使命时也不错作念出一些发现；发现不单是出目下科学基金会、大学实验室和家庭车库内。

但我提到的这些经济学家从来莫得推敲过这少量；科学家和探险家的发现并不是翻新的主要开头。我对翻新的推敲始于我写的《大闹热》一书，该书除了英文版也有中语版。书中指出，到了 1870 年代，一些国度出现了这种情况；即无数新产物和新范例运转从经济中暴露。它们大多是许多东谈主突发奇想的恶果。其中许多是经济买卖部门的宽泛东谈主；并不是熊彼得等着名经济学家所觉得的发现主要来自科学家和探险家。

我把这称为原土翻新。险些每个行业齐有工东谈主、司理或其他雇员在构念念新的想法；以期以更好的面容分娩某种东西或分娩出更好的东西。我很明晰，在这些经济体中产生的原土翻新；很快就能越过科学家产生的翻新。

广受尊敬的买卖首级张瑞敏相识到饱读舞职工惩处问题的价值。咱们的不雅点有不异之处。但为什么这种风物能在一些国度爆发而不是在其他国度爆发。我的解释是因为经济活力。经济活力是指东谈主们在使命中；展目下买卖上可行的创造力或设想力的进度。换句话说，活力是一个国度翻新的才气和愿望。

活力往往以多种面容发达出来。经济活力的增强能带来分娩力的更快增长。跟着时辰的推移，它将激动国度的增长达到更高的水谦让更陡的坡度。这种活力的副产物是一系列私有的经济算作。而况出现了一批从事融资、设备和营销新买卖产物以在市集上销售的部门；以及一群不竭东谈主员来决定将哪些新的买卖创意设备成适销产物以及怎样更好地分娩。

这些为提升分娩力而作念出的奋发提升了工资，也加多了劳能源。有把柄标明，活力加多还不错提升职工的敬业度和使命惬心度。

是什么让一个国度的经济比其他国度的经济更有活力？正宗不雅点觉得任何守护目田市集的国度齐不错领有自主翻新的活力，但这个不雅点是过错的。自主翻新需要正确的条目。一个国度的翻新才气有多大取决于它的格调。翻新者往往是那些脱离主流不雅念、跳出框框念念考的东谈主。

唯有具有满盈训诲的金融家，才能有自信觉得他们或者很好地判断提交给他们的翻新神气。嘻是图的翻新者必须有满盈的细察力才能让一个神气启动起来。在《活力》一书中，我与合著者伯杰罗夫、云天德和 Gylfi Zoega 沿途；用统计把柄讲授了一个社会所抓有的价值不雅对其经济绩效的首要性。这些价值不雅包括锐意越过、收受竞争以及想要在使命中取得确立的愿望。扫数这些齐对经济绩效有浩繁影响。

高活力的中枢即是渴慕翻新，而况薄情可能存在的贬抑，或者这些贬抑可能在某种进度上促进翻新。许多翻新者要紧但愿改换世界。还有一些翻新者想向社会讲授他们不错走我方的路。另一些东谈主则想要讲授我方或者得胜。

虽然，想要完了高活力，从而在天下范围内等闲激励翻新；还需要一种或者收受翻新的社会和政事氛围，或者容忍翻新可能形成的破碎。

底下我就中国的翻新谈几点看法。表面上，中国领有浩繁的创造新产物和新范例的基础。但也存在一些清贫。最初，可能存在一些贬抑，举例翻新者难以从银行系统得到融资。其次，中国公司可能等第森严，无法让许多职工抒发他们的想法。企业扫数者在复旧新范例或新产物的设备方面也濒临着不细目性。毕竟，有些奋发可能会失败。

第三，可能是政府是否会批准企业进行未知的翻新。政府可能不可爱这种不细目性。临了，还有对中国东谈主口老龄化的担忧。有些东谈主可能觉得东谈主口老龄化会对中国的翻新和增长才气产生不利影响。但由于中国东谈主口繁密，老龄化问题不应令东谈主担忧。

此外，老年东谈主仍然不错为国度作念许多分娩使命。在好意思国，退休年级是65岁。但许多老年东谈主在达到这个年级后仍然络续使命，同期领取待业金。根据东谈主口探听，65岁以上的好意思国东谈主中有20%仍在使命；这一数字是 40 年前的两倍。

在瑞典，退休年级从62岁延迟到63岁。一位瑞典一又友跟我说，公众对此的反映是积极的。尽管在法国，东谈主们正在抗议最近将退休年级从 62 岁提升到 64 岁。与其他国度比较，中国的退休年级相对较低。男性60岁退休，女性55岁退休。但《中国日报》最近的一篇文章报谈称，梗概三分之一，即梗概 5000 万年级在 60 岁至 69 岁之间的中国东谈主仍在使命。

是以有许多东谈主在肃肃退休后络续使命并想络续使命。中国也曾在进行诸多高技术翻新，毫无疑问，络续这一奋发是正确的作念法。跟着时辰的推移，咱们将会看到中国在翻新上的恶果。

极端感谢！

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