傳統思維不適合解決日本的經濟問題

Why is Japan finding it so difficult to raise inflation to its 2 per cent target? Why has its monetary policy become so extreme? Why is Japan’s public debt so remarkably high? The answer is that the country shares challenges confronted by other high-income economies, but in extreme form. This does not mean its situation is disastrous. It means that conventional wisdom is misleading.

爲什麼日本發現要把通脹提高到2%的目標水平如此困難？爲什麼它的貨幣政策變得如此極端？爲什麼日本的公共債務如此之高？答案是，該國面臨着跟其他高收入經濟體一樣的挑戰，但它的挑戰以極端形式出現。這並不意味着日本的處境是災難性的。這意味着傳統智慧具有誤導性。

Despite the efforts of the Bank of Japan, year-on-year inflation (without fresh food and energy) is only 0.2 per cent. Yet nearly five years have passed since, in concert with the government, the BoJ declared its intention to hit a target of 2 per cent inflation. Then, in April 2013, it announced “quantitative and qualitative easing”, which unleashed a huge expansion of its balance sheet. In January 2016, it announced a modestly negative rate on new bank reserves. In September 2016, it announced “yield curve control”. It has even said that it would continue to buy assets until inflation “exceeds the price stability target of 2 per cent and stays above the target in a stable manner”. That is a commitment to future irresponsibility.

儘管日本央行(BoJ)做出了種種努力，但同比通脹率（不含新鮮食品和能源）僅爲0.2%。但是，自日本央行連同政府宣佈打算實現2%的通脹目標以來，已經過去了近五年。那時，即2013年4月，日本央行宣佈進行“量化和質化寬鬆”，導致其資產負債表大幅擴張。2016年1月，日本央行宣佈對新增銀行準備金實行適度負利率。2016年9月，日本央行公佈了“收益率曲線控制”。它甚至表示會繼續購買資產，直至通脹“超過2%的價格穩定目標並穩定保持在目標水平上方”。這簡直是對未來不負責任的承諾。

Yet even all this has failed. This is not because these measures — supported by expansionary supplementary budgets — have failed to stimulate the economy. The rate of unemployment has fallen to 2.8 per cent, a level last seen in 1994. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has forecast growth at 1.5 per cent this year, up from 1 per cent in 2016, and it expects growth of 1.2 per cent and 1 per cent, in 2018 and 2019 respectively, both slightly above potential. Moreover, gross domestic product per head grew at close to the average rate of OECD members between 2012 and 2016. (See charts.)

然而，就連這一切都失敗了。這不是因爲這些措施——在擴張性補充預算的支持下——未能刺激經濟。失業率已降至2.8%，爲1994年以來未見的水平。經合組織(OECD)預測今年日本增長率爲1.5%，高於2016年的1%，並預計2018年和2019年的增長率分別爲1.2%和1%，均略高於潛在增長率。此外，在2012年至2016年，日本人均國內生產總值(GDP)增長率接近經合組織成員國的平均水平。

Yet the anchoring of inflation expectations appears so strong — at about zero in Japan — that wages and prices remain sticky. Does this matter? In an inescapably slow-growing economy, such as Japan, near-zero inflation does limit the effectiveness of monetary policy in a downturn, since it makes it harder to deliver negative real interest rates. Yet recent experience suggests monetary policy still works. The failure to raise inflation appears no disaster.

然而，通脹預期（在日本大約爲零）的錨定如此強烈，以至於工資和價格仍然深陷停滯。這很重要嗎？在日本這樣一個增長必然緩慢的經濟體中，近乎零的通脹確實會限制貨幣政策在經濟低迷時期的有效性，因爲它加大了實行負實際利率的難度。然而，近年經驗表明貨幣政策仍然是有效的。未能提高通脹似乎並非災難。

Two more important challenges exist. On one of these, current orthodoxy is right. On the other, it is wrong.

日本還有兩個更重大的挑戰。對於其中一個，當前的正統觀點是正確的。而對於另一個，正統觀點是錯誤的。

Where orthodoxy is right is on productivity. Given Japan’s demography and currently low unemployment, raising productivity is essential, though increasing participation of women and older people also matters. Fortunately, Japan enjoys room for productivity improvement: its average productivity per hour is among the lowest of the high-income countries; big business is far more productive than smaller firms; and manufacturing vastly more productive than services.

在生產率方面，正統觀點是正確的。鑑於日本的人口結構和當前很低的失業率，提高生產率是不可或缺的，儘管提高婦女和較年長人羣的勞動參與率也很重要。幸運的是，日本存在提高生產率的空間：其每小時平均生產率在高收入國家中是最低的；大企業的生產效率遠遠高於中小企業；而製造業生產率大幅領先於服務業。

Where orthodoxy is wrong is on public deficits and debt. It is true that gross debt is 240 per cent of GDP and net debt about 120 per cent. Without elimination of the structural primary fiscal deficit (now close to 4 per cent of GDP), debt ratios are likely to rise still further in future. It is not surprising that official institutions — the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the Ministry of Finance — agree on structural tightening. Yet there are two objections.

在公共赤字和債務方面，正統觀念是錯誤的。沒錯，日本的總債務已經相當於GDP的240%，淨債務達到GDP的約120%。如果不消除結構性的基本財政赤字（目前接近GDP的4%），債務比率未來可能進一步升高。意料之中的是，官方機構——經合組織、國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)和財務省——都認同結構性收緊。然而，可以提出兩點反對意見。

The first is that the BoJ holds more than 40 per cent of all Japanese government bonds. It can continue to hold this debt forever, should it need to do so. It can also continue to pay no interest on commercial bank reserves if it wished. It need only change required reserves. More fundamentally, the Japanese public is the creditor: it is not hard to see ways for the government to manage its liabilities to the public. When the government ceases to run primary deficits, it could, for example, convert its debts into irredeemable low-yielding bonds.

第一個是，日本央行持有的國債佔到日本國債總量的40%以上。如果需要的話，它可以無限期地永遠持有這筆債務；如果願意的話，它也可以繼續對商業銀行的準備金不支付利息。它只需要改變準備金要求。更爲根本的是，日本公衆是債權人：不難看出政府如何管理對公衆的負債。例如，當政府停止運行基本赤字時，它可以將自己的債務轉換成不可贖回的低收益債券。

The more important point is that the government’s persistent deficits are simply the mirror image of the private sector’s huge and persistent financial surpluses. There is no point in discussing how the government will eliminate the former without indicating what is likely to happen to the latter.

更重要的一點是，政府的持續赤字只不過是私人部門龐大而持續的財務盈餘的鏡像。討論政府將如何消除前者，而不說明後者可能會發生什麼，是毫無意義的。

One possibility is for Japan to run far larger current account surpluses. In 2015, for example, that would have required a current account surplus almost twice as big, at close to 6 per cent of GDP. Foreigners would surely not have liked that. The alternative is for the Japanese private sector to invest more or consume more (or both). The problem with the first option is that Japan’s private sector already has an exceptionally high investment rate, especially for a high-income country with structurally low growth. The difficulty with the latter is that Japan’s household savings rate is already close to zero. Consumption will only rise if household income does.

對日本而言，一個可能性是運行大得多的經常賬戶盈餘。例如，就2015年而言，這將需要經常賬戶盈餘增加近一倍，接近GDP的6%。外國人肯定不會喜歡這一點。日本的私營部門可以選擇加大投資或增加消費（或者在兩方面都發力）。但問題是，對於前一個選擇，日本私營部門的投資率已經非常高，尤其是對一個結構性低增長的高收入國家來說；對於後一個選擇，日本的家庭儲蓄率已接近於零。唯有家庭收入增多，消費才能增加。

The solution is not to tax consumption, as respectable opinion suggests. The solution is to tax savings. Uninvested and undistributed profits need to be turned into consumption. That could be done by “expensing” investment, while (quite logically) eliminating depreciation allowances.

解決方法不是像某些令人尊敬的觀點所認爲的那樣對消費徵稅。解決方法是對儲蓄徵稅。未投資和未分配的利潤需要轉化爲消費。通過對投資“收費”、同時（相當合乎邏輯地）取消折舊免稅額，可以做到這一點。

Conversion of uninvested and undistributed corporate profits into private consumption would eliminate the private sector surpluses and so the need for offsetting public sector deficits. In the absence of such policies, efforts to close the fiscal deficits are likely to fail, since, as has happened so often before, they are likely to tip the economy back into recession. In the absence of some such reform, the Japanese private sector is doomed to lend to the government the money it cannot currently use, in the sure and certain knowledge that it will never get back in full what it has lent.

把未投資和未分配的公司利潤轉化爲私人消費，將消除私營部門的盈餘，從而不需要公共部門的赤字作爲抵消。如果沒有這類政策，消除財政赤字的努力很可能會失敗，因爲正如以往屢屢發生的那樣，這些努力有可能使經濟再度陷入衰退。如果沒有一些此類改革措施，日本私營部門註定要把現在用不到的錢借給政府，明知道這些錢永遠不會全額收回來。

Fiscal tightening is the respectable solution to Japan’s soaring public debt. On its own, however, it cannot work.

財政收緊是針對日本公共債務猛增的令人尊敬的解決方案。但是，僅靠該方案不能解決問題。