自2000年第四季度以来，美国经济急剧降温，世界经济增长速度也随之放缓。根据世界银行的经济政策与远景小组在2001年11月公布的预测，2001年世界经济的增长速度为1.3%，大大低于2000年的3.8%。其中，发达国家的经济增长速度仅为0.9%，发展中国家则为2.9%。2002年世界经济的增长速度仅为1.6%，其中，发达国家和发展中国家的经济增长速度将分别为1%和3.7%。2001年世界贸易的增长速度由2000年的133%下降到1%，到2002年将仅回升到4%。几乎所有重要国际组织和私人研究机构的报告都显示，自2000年后期以来，世界经济可能已告别90年代以来的高速增长，而进入所谓增长衰退期，即世界经济只能维持2.5%以下增长速度的时期。一、2001～2002年的美国经济
2000年底，当美国经济的增长速度显著放缓时，大部分经济学家都认为，美国不会出现衰退；美国经济的放缓将很快结束 (具体说，在2001年第三季度就能恢复正常增长)。事实证明，这种看法是错误的。美国经济不但没有在2001年下半年恢复增长，反而陷入了衰退。2001年11月30日美国商务部宣布：美国2001年第三季度GDP的增长速度为负1.1%，而不是在10月份所宣布的负0.4%(美国前两个季度的增长速度分别为1.3%和0.3%)。换句话说，美国的经济形势比人们所预想的要严重得多。现在经济学家普遍认为，在第四季度美国的经济增长速度还将进一步下降。
一些经济学家强调，美国的经济衰退是"9·11事件"造成的；没有"9·11"，美国经济是不会陷入衰退的。这种看法显然站不住脚。按照传统，美国经济衰退的起始和截止期是由国民经济研究局经济周期日期委员会确定的。2001年11月26日，该委员会宣布，2001年3月美国经济的活动水平达到最高峰。换言之，从1991年3月开始的美国经济扩张在延续了整整十年之后，于2001年3月结束。显然，"9·11"之前美国经济就已开始迅速滑向衰退。"9·11事件"只不过是把从斜坡上下滑的美国经济重重地推了一把。
现在人们最关心的问题是：美国这次经济衰退将会持续多长时间?到目前为止，不同的经济指标提供了不同的信息。例如，根据最新数字，2001年美国的公司利润继续急剧下跌，与上年同期相比，下降了22.2%，创下了1947年政府开始统计公司利润以来的最差记录。利润状况的恶化意味着，公司还将继续压缩生产、裁减员工。就业形势的持续恶化必将影响居民的消费支出(这是支撑经济的主要力量)，从而使经济衰退进一步恶化。但是，从积极的方面来看，在第三季度，企业库存压缩量为601亿美元，是80年代初期以来相对GDP而言季度下降幅度最大的。库存的顺利调整很可能意味着经济下行已经到底。因而，在2002年经济有望较快恢复增长。此外，在第三季度，消费的增长速度为1.1%，好于人们的预期。投资支出在第三季度下降了9.3%，但下降幅度小于第二季度的14.6%。所有这些消息都使一些经济学家相信，美国经济可以在2002年下半年恢复增长。
现在，大多数经济学家认为，美国经济将在2002年年中走出衰退，甚至恢复比较强劲的增长。但关键的问题不在于给出美国经济复苏的确切时间(尽管我们必须作这样的预测)，而是对美国经济的中长期前景做出可以检验的判断。对美国经济中长前景的估计主要取决于对美国经济供给面(而不是需求面)，特别是对于美国劳动生产率增长的判断。从长期来看，一国经济增长速度取决于该国潜在经济增长速度或没有通货膨胀的经济增长速度。而一国的潜在经济增长速度又取决于劳动力大军的增长速度加劳动生产率的增长速度。如果潜在的经济增长率为4%，而现实的经济增长速度为2%，则政府可以使用扩张性的财政货币政策使经济增长速度上升到4%。如果潜在的经济增长速度为2%，则使用扩张性的财政货币政策将无法在不使通货膨胀上升的情况下使经济增长速度上升到4%。
直到美国的经济衰退已变成无可争议的事实之前，以美联储为代表的乐观派一直在宣传，第一，由于IT革命等原因，美国劳动生产率的增长速度是3%，美国劳动力的增长速度是1%，因而，美国无通货膨胀的经济增长速度是4%。然而，在2001年8月美国政府公布了劳动生产率增长速度的修正数字，认为在经济增长势头最高的时期，美国劳动生产率的增长速度只有2.6%。此后，又出现了一些研究报告。这些报告在相当程度上动摇了人们对联储版美国劳动生产率增长速度的信心。人们在过去几年中所感受到的美国劳动生产率的提高，在相当程度上可能是周期性因素造成的(经济增长率高时，劳动生产率将会随之提高)，或者是由于计算的错误(对劳动生产率进行估算在技术上是十分困难的)。最近，美国著名投资咨询公司麦肯锡公司公布了一项历时一年才完成的、据说是迄今为止最为详尽的关于美国劳动生产率的研究报告。该报告指出，在1995～2000年间，劳动生产率的提高几乎完全集中在6个部门：零售、批发、电讯、证券、计算机装配和半导体生产；计算机的使用使某些部门的劳动生产率得到提高，对另外一些部门则毫无作用；在90年代后期，美国劳动生产率的提高速度只有2.5%，而在今后则可能降到2%左右。
如果美国劳动生产率的增长率，从而美国GDP的潜在增长速度被"市场"(政府、投资者、消费者和生产者)高估了，那么，美国过去几年来GDP的高速增长在相当程度上就可以归结为"非理性"的股市、过度的投资和建立在过度负债基础上的过度消费。这样，或迟或早，美国就将面临泡沫经济崩溃的问题。具体来说，人们把由于周期性因素导致的劳动生产率的提高、企业利润水平和收益率的提高都归结为IT革命，因而产生了对经济增长前景的盲目乐观。宽松的货币政策使这种乐观情绪在股市得到充分表现：股票价格的狂升使企业(特别是IT产业)的筹资成本大大下降，从而为企业的过度投资提供了资金条件。股票价格的狂升还通过财富效应使消费需求大大增加。投资需求和消费需求的急剧增加所导致的GDP和企业收入的迅速增加，导致利润水平和收益率超常提高。而后者反过来又进一步推动了泡沫经济的发展。但是，由于劳动生产率的提高低于人们的预期，根据过分乐观的预期所提供的产出量必然导致利润水平的下降和生产过剩现象的出现。当企业发现利润水平(或增长速度)和收益率下降之后便会减少生产、压缩库存和减少投资。与此同时，企业还将解雇工人，缩短工作时间。就业状况的恶化将导致居民消费需求的减少。企业投资需求和居民消费需求的减少又将导致企业赢利状况的进一步恶化。企业必将进一步压缩生产、减少投资从而使经济形势进一步恶化。在实物经济处于收缩状态的同时，股市价格因经济状况恶化而出现暴跌。股市暴跌通过财富效应、成本效应对消费需求和投资希需求状况进一步造成巨大冲击，整个经济出现加速暴跌的恶性循环。美国是一个高负债的国家。在泡沫经济期间，大量居民借债消费，公司也大举借债投资。因此，此次美国高科技股经济泡沫破灭和经济增长速度下降对不良债权，从而对美国银行体系将造成什么影响仍是一个值得我们密切关注的问题。
尽管美国经济在2002年内有可能完成调整走出衰退。但有一点似乎是可以肯定的：由于有种种迹象显示，美国劳动生产率的增长速度被显著高估(不是3%而是2.5%以下)，在走出衰退之后，平均来说，美国将进入经济增长速度显著低于90年代后期的一个新时期。
二、2001～2002年的日本、欧盟和其他地区经济
日本经济在2001年第二季度收缩了3.2%，从而宣告日本经济在十年中第三次进入了衰退。如果说经济学家对于美国是否能够在2002年前半年走出衰退存在分歧的话，大概没有人会怀疑，在2002年日本经济走出十年"不况"(不景气)的希望几乎为零。
日本经济目前所面临的问题依然：内需不足，不良债权居高不下，股市持续暴跌，财政状况继续恶化。自2000年第四季度起，占GDP60%的私人消费需求出现负增长。进入2001年由于对经济前景看法悲观，日本私人消费需求始终处于十分疲软的状态。日本企业的设备投资自1999年开始增加，成为支撑景气回升的重要因素。但在2001年设备投资的增长也十分疲软。2000年度日本的经济增长率为1.2%。各重要国际经济组织和私人机构都预测在2001年度日本经济将收缩0.5%左右。由于美国经济减速，欧元贬值，日本对美、欧出口趋减。另外，受到美国经济的影响，亚洲出现经济滑坡，引起日本对亚洲的出口也相应减少。日本贸易顺差减少也对经济增长产生负面影响。2001年9月，日本公布的数字显示，在7月份，日本的经常项目顺差比上年同期减少了28%，从而使人们对日本经济的前景更为悲观。日本出口的30%依赖美国市场，而出口对GDP的比重为11%，美国经济增长速度的下降必将对日本经济产生重大不利影响。经济不振导致了失业形势的不断恶化，失业率上升到5%的历史最高水平。
由于对经济前景的悲观情绪，日经225指数从2000年3月开始直线下跌，到2001年3月16日跌至16年来的最低点(在3月底是12999.7点)，在一年间下跌幅度达36%；9月12日，日经指数跌破10000点，回到了1984年1月9日的水平。据计算，对于日本的16家主要商业银行来说，持有股票的损益平衡点是13000以上。股票价格的持续下跌导致金融机构二级资本金的减少，从而使银行冲销不良债权的能力下降。目前，一度有所好转的不良债权问题重新恶化。自1992年到2000年前半年，日本的主要银行已经核销了56万亿不良债权。与此同时，日本主要银行的经营利润仅为30万亿。在2001年4月下旬，日首次全面公布不良资产数据，截至2001年3月底，日本金融机构不良资产总额为150.922万亿日元，占日本金融机构贷款额的22%。不良债权再次成为日本经济健康发展的最严重障碍。
为了防止日本经济再次陷入衰退，日本政府采取了极度的扩张性货币政策。许多日本经济学家指出，日本的经济问题已无法通过宏观经济管理来解决了。不经过痛苦的结构改革日本经济是无法恢复健康增长的。但是，日本政治家有无勇气推行结构改革还有待进一步观察。
在1999年和2000年，欧盟(欧元区)的经济增长速度分别为2.7%和3.4%。在2001年，欧元区经济还差强人意。但到第二季度经济增长速度便开始显著放缓。一般认为，欧洲经济能够避免衰退，但前景不容乐观。在2001年前三个季度，欧盟15国的经济增长速度分别为2.5%、1.7%和1.4%。欧元区12国的相应数字为2.5%、1.7%和1.3%。欧盟(欧元)经济增速下降可归结于以下诸原因：贸易条件恶化(石油价格、食品价格提高和其他输入的通货膨胀)，在过去几年高技术领域投资过度和世界贸易速度的下降。贸易条件的恶化使实际收入下降，从而导致消费需求的疲软。高技术领域(特别是电讯领域)的过度投资，通过利润的减少和股市的下跌同时对投资需求和消费需求造成不利影响。此外，尽管欧盟区内贸易的比重很高，全球性贸易增长速度的下降对欧盟经济增长仍然是有重要影响的。ECB的官员认为，出口贸易增长速度的降低是导致欧洲经济增长速度显著放慢的最主要原因。自1997年以来欧盟地区的失业率一直在稳步下降，但依然远远高于美国(欧盟的失业率目前仍高于8%)。最后，应该指出，欧盟地区的通货膨胀率自1998年以来一直呈上升趋势，在2001年始终高于欧洲中央银行所设定的2%的通货膨胀目标。欧盟地区各国经济的发展状况并不平衡。欧盟地区的三个最重要国家，德国、意大利和法国在2001年的经济状况都很不理想。特别是德国，由于投资需求急剧下降，经济增长率在2001年大概只能达到0.8%，大大低于2000年3%的水平。其他国家的增长率也都有不同程度的下降。但是，欧洲国家在过去数年中并未出现美国式的泡沫经济，因而经济、金融形势都较稳定。从目前的情况来看，欧盟经济还没有陷入衰退的危险。
2001年，世界其他地区的经济形势也十分严峻。东亚地区经济普遍放缓，不少国家和地区已经陷入了衰退。例如，新加坡由于美国IT产品市场的不景气而陷入衰退。我国台湾地区也由于类似原因陷入了自50年代以来的第一次衰退。马来西亚、泰国和韩国等国家已经或正在进入衰退。拉丁美洲国家的经济状况也十分令人担忧。阿根廷已经发生金融危机，且在恶化之中，并很可能对美国银行造成重大影响；巴西等国的经济也遇到严重困难。
2001年，除中国和印度外，几乎所有国家都同时陷入严重困难。这种形势是70年代石油危机以来从未有过的，2002年在形势最终好转之前，很可能将进一步恶化。与此相关，世界贸易形势将进一步恶化。在2002年针对中国的贸易纠纷肯定会大量增加，要求人民币升值的压力也将加大。中国国际经济环境的唯一亮点可能是外资流入将保持较好势头。在今后的相当一段时间内，中国必须维持平均7%以上的经济增长速度。在世界经济增长普遍放缓的情况下，中国必须继续实行扩张性的财政货币政策、增加内需以便减少对净出口增长的依赖。中国必须做好在2002年应付相当多国家把"贸易战"(对中国实施"保障措施"和实行"反倾销")强加在中国头上的准备。同时，中国也必须做好世界主要货币汇率(特别是日元对美元汇率)发生大幅度波动的准备，及时对人民币汇率的决定机制和汇率水平做出科学的决断，维护中国的经济稳定和可持续发展。 (余永定)
2002: the World Economy in Significant Slowdown
Since the fourth quarter of 2000, the American economy has been sliding downward and, consequently, the world economic growth has decelerated. According to a forecast made in November 2001 by the Economic Policy and Prospect Research Group of the World Bank, the 2001 growth of the world economy should be something around 1.3%, plummeting from 3.8% for the previous year. For developed countries, the 2001 economic growth is estimated at 0.9% and, for developing countries, at 2.9%. The group predicted that the 2002 growth of the world economy would be a mere 1.6%, 1% for developed countries and 3.7% for developing countries. Global trade went up just 1% in 2001, in sharp contrast to a 13.3% year-on-year increase recorded for 2000. The World Bank group said in the report that it would pick up in 2002, though at a rate of 4% at the best.
Research institutes, whether affiliated to international organizations like the World Bank or operating with private funding, agree that gone are the high growths that characterized the world economy of the 1990s. Since the second half of 2000, they note, the world economy has entered a period of slowdown, during which its growths will have to stay at 2.5% or lower.
One. The American Economy 2001-2002
When a significant slowdown was observed in the American economy towards the end of 2000, most economists were optimistic. They insisted that there wouldn‘t be a recession ahead and that before long, the American economy would pick up - in the third quarter of 2001, to be exact. The true fact, however, is that instead of regaining a growth in the second half of 2001, the American economy plunged into a recession. According to a U.S. Department of Commerce report published on November 30, 2001, the country recorded a negative 1.1% increase in its GDP for the third quarter of the year, far worse than the October figure of a negative 0.4%. That followed positive growths of 1.3% for the first quarter and 0.3% for the second. It is now obvious that the economic situation of the United States is much worse than had been perceived.
Some economists attribute the current economic recession of the United States to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. These economists mean to say that the current plight of the American economy wouldn‘t have occurred if the United States had not been chosen as the target of world terrorism. Opinions of this kind are not well grounded. In the United States, it is up to the Dating Committee for Economic Cycles of the U.S. National Economy Research Bureau to work out and announce the dates for the beginning and ending of a period of economic recession. On November 26, 2001, the committee announced that in March 2001, economic activities of the United States had reached the highest level in ten years. This amounts to saying that the expansion of the American economy that began ten years before, in March 1991, had come to an end in March 2001. In other words, an economic downslide had already begun six months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. The terrorist attack, as a matter of fact, came as an unexpected push that accelerated the decline of the American economy.
How long this recession will last - this is the top concern of the general public as well as professionals. According to some of the newest statistics, corporate profitability of the United States continued to fall sharply in 2002, down by 22.2% year-on-year, which was the worst since the American government began monitoring and recording this economic index in 1947. As profits dwindle, companies are forced to cut their production and lay off their workers. The decrease in employment would, in turn, adversely affect consumer spending, the most important factor for any economic growth. And as a result, the recession would be likely to go from bad to worse in the United States.
But there are positive factors. The corporate inventory in the United States became smaller in the third quarter of 2001, cut by some US$60.1 billion in value. The figure, in terms of its proportion to the country‘s total GDP, was the greatest ever recorded since the early 1980s. The reduction of the corporate inventory may suggest that the economic downslide was ending, giving rise to hope that the American economy may pick up at a relatively fast speed in 2002. Besides, the United States registered in the third quarter a 1.1% increase in consumer spending, which was better than expected. Investment spending dropped by 9.3% year-on-year. This, however, compared favorably to a 14.6% decrease registered for the second quarter.
These facts have led to the belief that the United States will shake off the economic recession by mid-2002 and that a strong growth of its economy may be in sight. Optimists with the U.S. Federal Reserve believe that the IT revolution and other factors have resulted in an annual growth of 3% for labor productivity of the United States while the annual increase in the country‘s labor force has averaged 1%. Basing themselves on this belief -- or assumption, to be more exact -- they hold that the annual growth of the American economy should be around 4% if inflation is not taken into account. Nevertheless, the American government revised the figure in August 2001, to the effect that growths have averaged no more than 2.6% for labor productivity of the United States. A string of similar study reports were published after the revision, which have invariably reduced public confidence in the Federal Reserve‘s assertion. People are now attributing the improvements observed in recent years in America‘s labor productivity to factors periodic in nature, arguing that labor productivity will inevitably grow when economic growth is high. Also responsible are computation errors as labor productivity is technically difficult to work out. Not long ago, the Baker & Mckenzie Consultants Ltd., an internationally prestigious American investment consulting company, published a study report on America‘s labor productivity after a whole year‘s elaborate research. The report, said to be the most comprehensive of its kind ever published, notes that during the 1995-2000 period, growths of labor productivity were reported only in six sectors of the American economy: retailing, wholesaling, telecommunications, stock trading, computer assembling and semi-conductor production. Use of computers did contribute to enhancement of some sectors‘ labor productivity. In practically all other sectors, however, use of computers failed to bring about any improvement in labor productivity. The report concludes that growths averaged just 2.5% for America‘s labor productivity in the last years of the 1990s, and may drop in years ahead.
If this conclusion is sufficiently sound, we‘ll be justified to attribute the high growths of America‘s GDP in recent years to "irrational" stock trading, excess investment and excess spending built on excess liabilities. In that case, the American economic bubble will burst sooner or later. Despite the assumption that the current recession of the American economy may end in 2002, one thing seems certain, that is, the growth of America‘s labor productivity has been greatly overestimated. After the current recession ends, the United States will enter a new period in which its economy will grow at a pace much slower than during the late 1990s.
Two. Japanese, EU and other economies 2001-2002
The Japanese economy shrank by a year-on-year 3.2% in the second quarter of 2001, suggesting that Japan had landed itself in an economic recession for a third time in ten years. If economists differ on whether it will be possible for the American economy to recover in 2002, then everybody would take it for granted that there is utterly no hope for Japan to bring to an end the economic slump that has bedeviled it for well over ten years.
Deterioration of Japan‘s financial situation has continued into 2002, and so have other ills of the Japanese economy including poor domestic demand, stockpiling bad debts and continuously plummeting stock trading. Individual demand for consumption, which is responsible for 60% of any growth of the Japanese economy, has suffered negative growths since the last quarter of 2000. The Japanese people are reluctant to spend, seeing an economic prospect that allows no optimism. Corporate investment in equipment began to increase in 1999, which, for a time, pushed up business a little bit. In 2001, however, such investment fell again. The Japanese economy registered a growth of 1.5% in 2000, which was slashed to around 0.7% in the following year. Japanese exports to the United States and Europe have kept dwindling in step due to the downslide of the American economy and a devaluation of the Euro, and so have Japanese exports to fellow Asian countries whose economies have been adversely affected by America‘s economic recession. A reduction in Japan‘s trade surplus has also produced a negative effect on the Japanese economy. According to a report issued by the Japanese government in September 2001, the country‘s trade surplus under the current account for July went down by as much as 28% year-on-year, dimming the prospect of a quick recovery of the Japanese economy. Unemployment has gone up to an all-time 5% due to a continuous deterioration of the Japanese economy. Exports account for 11% of Japan‘s GDP, and 30% of Japanese exports go to the United States. It won‘t be difficult to conclude that any slowdown of the American economy will adversely affect the Japanese economy.
The Japanese government has been following an expansionist monetary policy to salvage the national economy. Many economists have pointed out that Japan‘s economic ills cannot be cured solely through macro-economic regulations. Structural reforms are the only remedy even though it will be extremely painful. Yet whether Japanese politicians have the guts to start structural reforms remains to be seen.
The European Union (including the Euro region) achieved an economic growth of 2.7% and 3.4% in 1999 and 2000, respectively. The economic situation remained fair for the Euro region in the first quarter of 2001. Beginning in the second quarter, however, an economic slowdown surfaced. Most economists agree that Europe can avoid an economic recession but the prospect of the European economy is far from being optimistic. For the first three quarters of 2001, the 15-member EU registered an economic growth of 2.5%, 1.7% and 1.4%, and the corresponding figures were 2.5%, 1.7% and 1.3% for the 12-member Euro region. The downslide for both EU and the Euro region is attributed to worsened trade conditions resulting from soaring prices for petroleum and food, excess investment in high-tech fields and decelerating growth of global trade. Deterioration of trade conditions for a country or region invariably reduces its revenue, which in turn weakens demand for consumption. Excess investment in high-tech fields, in the sector of telecommunications in particular, adversely affects investment and consumption demand. It is true that a fairly large portion of the EU trade is undertaken between the EU member countries. Despite that, it is not free from influence exerted by fluctuations of the world trade. Officials of the European Council Trade Bureau have acknowledged that decelerated growth of export is the most important factor for the current economic slowdown for Europe. Unemployment stands as high as 8% for EU, higher than for the United States, even though it has dropped steadily since 1997. Last of all, we need to note that inflation has been rising since 1998, and that the target set by the Central Bank of Europe of limiting inflation to 2% has never been attained. A country-by-country analysis brings to light that none of the major European countries can boost a good enough economic situation. Germany, for example, had an economic growth of about 0.8% in 2001, in sharp contrast to a 3% increase it made in the previous year.
The economic situation is grave for countries and regions other than the United States, Japan and EU. Southeast Asian economies are suffering from a slowdown, too. Singapore is already in recession as the IT market of the United States has been sluggish. For similar reasons, China‘s Taiwan is now in recession for the first time in 50 years. Recession is close at hand for Malaysia, Thailand and the Republic of Korea. The situation of the Latin American economies is, too, worrying. A financial crisis has broken out in Argentina, and Brazil suffers from grave economic difficulties.
All countries were in grave difficulties in 2001 except China and India. This state of affairs is likely to deteriorate in 2002 and cause global trade to drop even further. In view of this, trade disputes against China is bound to increase, and also expected is increased pressure brought to bear upon China for an appreciation of the Renminbi, the Chinese currency. Increased capital inflow will be the only positive external factor for China‘s economic development. To offset the various unfavorable external factors, China needs to maintain an economic growth of at least 7% and boost internal demand through a pro-active financial policy. The policy has been in place since the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. A prudent monetary policy must, too, continue, as part of an effort to prepare the country for any further fluctuation of exchange rates for the Japanese yen and other hard currencies.
1 The author is director and research fellow of the World Economy and Politics Institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.