李昌镛:处在压抑下的亚洲服务业

作者: 2014-01-13 16:35

马尼拉欧元区危机过去数年来一直是决策者的讨论主题,但亚洲两大巨头中国和印度的经济放缓已经日益引发公众的担......

 马尼拉——欧元区危机过去数年来一直是决策者的讨论主题,但亚洲两大巨头——中国和印度的经济放缓已经日益引发公众的担忧。我们该如何看待全球经济面临更多阻力?

  在历经多年两位数的GDP增长之后,中国的经济正在减速。亚洲开发银行预计中国的增长将从2011年的9.3%放缓至今年的7.7%。中国人口开始老龄化,实际工资提升,增长率也正在放缓至相对可以持续的数字。

  印度同样具有快速增长及受益于人口红利的巨大潜质,但结构改革问题一直是其亟待解决的。我们预计印度经济增长将从去年的6.5%放缓到2012年的5.6%。

  外部需求疲软部分造成了经济增长下降,但投资放缓和消费停滞不前等内生性因素也对经济扩张起到了阻碍作用。在全球经济放缓的大背景下保增长是一项艰巨的任务,要完成这项任务就必需重新思考“亚洲工厂”的未来。

  区域内制造业联系在很大程度上推动了亚洲的繁荣:来自亚洲的零部件和中间产品被组装成最终产品出口到发达国家。但随着世界各地预算缩紧,对亚洲的出口需求预计将会持续萎缩。既然如此,亚洲今后的增长点究竟在哪里?

  升级业务处理、旅游和医疗保健等服务业或许会在该地区的未来增长中发挥关键的作用。亚洲各国的服务业已经颇具规模,为经济增长和就业做出了显著的贡献。2010年服务业占亚洲发展中国家GDP总额的接近一半,2000至2010年间占印度经济增长的三分之二,而同期在以制造业为主的中国则占经济增长总额的43%。此外,服务人员在发展中亚洲国家占就业总人数的比例超过三分之一。

  如果这些国家重走发达经济体的发展之路,工业将逐步取代农业的主导地位,而工业的主导地位最终又会被范围进一步拓宽的服务业所取代。这其中当然不乏发展空间:亚洲发展中国家的工业出产份额2010年超过了经合组织的平均水平(41%比24%),但服务业份额却依然大幅落后(48%比75%)。

  让亚洲服务业更有活力是未来经济发展的关键。但传统服务业仍然占据着行业主导,比方说餐厅、出租车和理发店。包括互联网接入技术、或金融、法律和其他专业商务服务在内的现代服务业在亚洲服务经济中占比不到10%,这一比例远低于发达经济体20%至25%的份额。

  虽然传统服务业能提供就业机会,但却带不来更多收入。劳动生产率也偏低:就该地区大多数经济体而言,服务业的劳动生产率还不及经合组织平均水平的20%。就连工业劳动生产率达到经合组织平均水平118%的韩国,其服务业的劳动生产率却只有经合组织平均水平的43%。

  充满活力的服务业可以带来广泛的经济效益。服务业和工业的协同效应可以实现整体生产力的提升。比方说,工业设计、市场营销和法律服务可以促进投资和开发新的制成品。服务业往往能更有效地创造就业机会,其中女性尤其会成为受益者,进而实现包容性增长的效果。

  发展服务业可以多元化产业基础,从而提高经济抵抗力并强化经济增长动能。现代服务业的流通性越来越强,提供了全新的出口机遇。如印度和菲律宾就已确立了在世界业务流程外包出口领域的领先地位。

  技能差距和基础设施匮乏往往被视为限制亚洲服务业活力的要素。但其实繁琐的法规才是最大的障碍。保护现有企业和其他既得利益者的过度规管有损市场竞争力并限制了生产率及效率的提高。

  比方说富有的律师成为法律市场的主导,教师工会控制学校,强势医生影响整个医学界,由此导致的企业成本高企也对工业发展起到了阻碍作用。

  亚洲众多服务企业的所有权归属于公共部门,因此政府并不鼓励放开服务。但同样这些政府已经为公共利益放开了经济的制造业及农业领域,甚至不惜以牺牲工人和农民等少数群体的利益为代价。既然如此,他们为什么还要继续执行保护主宰服务业的特殊利益团体的政策?

  很多人认为管制可以保护国内小企业免受国外大公司不正当竞争的困扰。但其实即使国内竞争也正在受到管制的扼杀。

  比方说在印度,有人担心几个月后沃尔玛进入市场时家庭零售业将会被彻底击垮。但决策者必须认识到有不用扼杀竞争就能保护小型零售业的方法。比方说政府可以制定分区政策帮助小型零售业发现专门的利基市场,也可以为转岗人员开设技能培训课。个体零售企业的生存不应被用作制定或坚持商业法规,最终保护现有富裕阶层的借口。

  亚洲决策者们必需牢记他们是通过竞争成功发展了制造业。服务业也应该适用相同的逻辑。服务业升级对亚洲而言是触手可及的果实,因为不需要巨额投资就可以达到这样的效果。但由于缺乏破除既得利益所必需的政治意愿,服务业改革对亚洲地区而言仍然是遥不可及的。

  翻译:Xu Binbin

  李昌镛,亚洲开发银行首席经济学家
 

Asia's Stifled Services  

By Changyong Rhee

MANILA - The eurozone crisis has dominated discussion among policymakers over the last few years, but the economic slowdown in Asia's two giants - the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India - has become a source of growing public concern as well. How worried should we be about an additional drag on the global economy?

After years of double-digit GDP growth, the PRC's economy is decelerating. At the Asian Development Bank, we predict that its growth will slow to 7.7% this year, from 9.3% in 2011. The PRC's population is aging, real wages are rising, and growth is moderating toward more sustainable rates.

India, too, has massive potential to grow fast and reap a demographic dividend, but it has been struggling with structural reform. We expect that India's expansion will slow to 5.6% in 2012, from 6.5% last year.

Weak external demand is partly responsible for the falloff in growth, but internal factors - namely, slowing investment and stagnating consumption - are also holding back economic expansion. Maintaining growth in the face of a global slowdown is a daunting task, and it requires rethinking the future of "factory Asia."

Asia's boom was driven largely by intraregional manufacturing linkages: intermediate goods and parts were sourced from within Asia for assembly into final goods exported to advanced economies. But, with budget-tightening around the world, demand for Asia's exports is expected to continue to falter. Where, then, should Asia look for another source of growth?

Upgrading the service sector - for example, business processing, tourism, and health care - could play a critical role in the region's future growth. Asia's service sector is already large, contributing significantly to growth and employment. Services accounted for nearly half of developing Asia's GDP in 2010, two-thirds of India's growth from 2000 to 2010, and 43% of growth in the manufacturing-oriented PRC in the same period. In addition, service workers comprise more than one-third of total employment in developing Asia.

If these countries follow the same path traveled by the advanced economies, agriculture's dominance will give way to industry, which in turn will be supplanted by services, further broadening their role. There is certainly room to grow: the share of industry in developing Asia's output surpassed the OECD average in 2010 (41% vs. 24%), but the share of services still lags by a wide margin (48% vs. 75%).

Making Asia's service sector more dynamic is essential to future growth. But the sector is still dominated by traditional services, such as restaurants, taxis, and barbers. Modern services - such as Internet connectivity technology, or financial, legal, and other professional business services - account for less than 10% of Asia's service economy, well below the 20-25% in advanced economies.

While traditional service industries are able to provide jobs, they do not generate much income. Labor productivity is also quite low: For most economies in the region, service-sector productivity is less than 20% of the OECD average. Even in South Korea, labor productivity in industry is 118% of the OECD figure, but only 43% of the average for services.

A vibrant service sector could have broad economic benefits. Synergies between services and industry could improve overall productivity. For example, industrial design, marketing, and legal services could facilitate investment and development of new manufactured products. The service sector also tends to be more effective in job creation, particularly for women, thus supporting inclusive growth.

Developing the service sector could also diversify the production base, thereby enhancing economic resilience and boosting growth momentum. Modern services are becoming increasingly tradable, providing new export opportunities. India and the Philippines, for example, have established themselves as world leaders in the export of outsourced business processes.

Skills gaps and a lack of infrastructure are frequently cited as factors that hinder service-sector dynamism in Asia. But burdensome regulations are the biggest barrier. Excessive regulation that protects incumbent firms and other vested interests undermines market competitiveness and limits prospects for improved productivity and efficiency.

For example, legal markets are dominated by rich lawyers, schools are controlled by teachers' unions, and the medical sector is influenced by powerful doctors, resulting in high business costs that also hamper industrial development.

Many service firms in Asia are owned by the public sector, so governments have less incentive to deregulate services. But the same authorities have already opened their economies' manufacturing and agriculture sectors for the common good, even at the expense of minority groups like farmers and factory workers. Why, then, are they maintaining policies that protect the special-interest groups that dominate the service sector?

Many argue that regulations protect small domestic firms against undue competition from large foreign firms. But the truth is that regulations are stifling even for domestic competition.

In India, for example, there is fear that small mom-and-pop retailers will be crushed when Wal-Mart enters the market in the next few months. But policymakers must recognize that there are ways to protect small retailers without stifling competition. The government can, say, impose zoning regulations, help small retailers find specialized niches in the market, or provide skills training to displaced workers. The survival of artisanal retailers should not be used as an excuse to introduce or uphold business regulations that ultimately protect the incumbent rich.

Asian policymakers must remember how they successfully developed their manufacturing sector - through competition. The same logic should be applied to services. Upgrading the service sector is low-hanging fruit for Asia, because tremendous investments are not required. And yet service-sector reform remains just out of reach for the region, owing to the absence of the political will needed to dismantle the vested interests that keep it there.

Changyong Rhee is Chief Economist at the Asian Development Bank.
 

转载请注明出处。

相关推荐