作者罗思义系中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员。本文刊于3月27日观察者网。

　　【李光耀辞世后，对李光耀生前身后的评价都侧重其“威权”政治，或者他对“儒家价值观”的信奉。但从专业的经济角度看，新加坡到底为什么能取得如此“轰动”的成功？很显然这才是与所有发展中国家的利益最休戚相关的。今天观察者网专栏作者罗思义就将眼光瞄准了这个领域。他在文中提供了一个事实：在新加坡的经济增长中，59%来自资本投资，34%来自劳动力投入的增加，只有8%得益于生产力（TFP）的发展。这样的增长结构，能给发展中国家包括中国怎样的教训呢？不过，中国读者们肯定会说，中国的经济体量和新加坡不可同日而语，不可能不发展科技、提高TFP对经济增长贡献，这将是作者下一篇文章要探讨的内容，敬请关注。】

　　李光耀及其同僚领导下的新加坡经济享有盛誉，可以说是经济史上最为成功的例子之一。无论以何种方式计算，新加坡的人均GDP都超过了美国，这在亚洲国家中绝无仅有。一个领导人在其短短几十年的政治生涯内，让一个一无所有的第三世界国家达到如此成就，的确是创造了一个亚洲“经济奇迹”。所有国家——尤其是发展中国家——都应当从中取经。中国当然不能例外。那么，究竟是怎样的一种基本体制，造就了新加坡惊人的经济成就？

　　先让事实说话。世界银行最新数据显示，以当前汇率计，截至2013年新加坡的人均GDP是美国的104%。以购买力平价（PPPs）计，其人均GDP是美国的148%。这一统计是从1965年新加坡赢得独立后开始的，那时以购买力平价计，新加坡的人均GDP不到美国的四分之一——而如果以当前汇率计算，还不到六分之一。

　　对李光耀生前身后的评价都侧重其“威权”政治，或者他对“儒家价值观”的信奉。但从专业的经济角度看，新加坡到底为什么能取得如此“轰动”的成功？很显然这才是与所有发展中国家的利益最休戚相关的。如果中国的人均GDP能够达到新加坡的水平，即超过美国，那么起码在经济发展这一点上，“中国梦”就相当圆满了。那么，新加坡的“经济奇迹”能给中国和其他国家上一堂什么样的课呢？

　　新加坡是“开放型经济”取得成功的一个经典案例——新加坡的贸易总额竟是远远超过其国内生产总值的。这点当然是符合中国“对外开放”政策的。但所有研究都表明新加坡的经济发展的基础几乎完全依靠资本与劳动力的大量累积——生产力提高带来的贡献微乎其微（用专业术语来说，是全要素生产力——TFP）。

　　这一事实在上世纪90年代被英国经济学家阿尔文•扬所发现，而这一发现又被美国经济学家保罗•克鲁格曼引为证据。1994年，克鲁格曼在著名的“亚洲奇迹的神话”一文中就以此来预言亚洲经济不久即会遭遇失败——他认为成功的经济增长应该依靠生产力的发展，而不是资本与劳动力的累积。显然，当新加坡的人均GDP甚至超过了美国时，克鲁格曼搬起的这块石头，恰好砸在自己脚上。

　　自此以后，凡是有关新加坡的重要研究都反复引用了扬的发现。下面的图表即根据最近的一篇类似研究制成，作者是新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院的Vu Minh Khuong。文章发现，在新加坡的经济增长中，59%来自资本投资，34%来自劳动力投入的增加，只有8%得益于生产力（TFP）的发展。

　　总而言之，任何一项研究都表明，新加坡经济之所以能达到亚洲经济发展的最高水平，其人均GDP之所以能超过美国，首先靠的是巨额资本的累积，其次是劳动力，而生产力增长的影响可以说微不足道。

　　Vu对这个课题进行了巨细无遗的考察，还发现新加坡的经济成功呼应着亚洲总体上的经济成功。那些成功亚洲发展中国家的经济模式表明，其经济增长根本上是由资本积累推动的。如同Vu总结的：“亚洲经济增长模式的秘诀，并不在于实现生产力的高速增长，而是在长期密集的要素投入动员过程中，仍然能保持生产力的稳定增长。”

　　哈佛大学戴尔·乔根森教授的研究推动了计算经济增长来源的最先进官方统计法的产生。他的看法如下：

　　“亚洲的崛起是我们这个时代所取得的最大经济成就，直到上世纪中期，这一地区还被贫困笼罩着。它所创造的一种新经济增长模式，依靠的是经济全球化和人力、非人力资本的耐心累积。经济分析家们过去都不愿承认这种源自亚洲的经济增长新范式——亚洲国家以外的那些分析者对此拒之尤甚——因为这意味着承认西方理念的失败。在有关经济增长与发展的著作中，西方的思想至今占据着主导地位。”

　　确实，新加坡经济取得成功的一个关键点在于其经济增长模式（即以资本积累与劳动力投入为主导，生产力增长退居末端的经济模式）比起大多数亚洲经济体来，甚至更加符合发达经济体的发展模式。从图表3对新加坡与其它发达经济体的数据比较上，此点即一览无余。试做以下比较：

　　• 在发达经济体中，57%的经济增长来自资本投入——新加坡则达到了59%。

　　• 在发达经济体中，32%的经济增长来自劳动力投入——新加坡则达到了34%。

　　• 在发达经济体中，11%的经济增长来自全要素生产力增长——而新加坡只有8%。

　　简言之，新加坡的经济增长模式基本上同发达经济体的增长模式相同——新加坡的人均GDP能达到高度发达经济体才有的水平，这是原因之一。

　　就这么直截了当地说吧，通过新加坡的经济发展，李光耀展示了这样一种经济观念：为了在人均GDP上超过美国，数量远比质量来得重要。

　　对中国和其他所有发展中国家来说，这一课至关紧要：它们不是正试图复制新加坡的成功案例，以接近发达经济体的水平吗？

以下为英文原文：

The economic development of Singapore under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew and those with whom he worked is famous as one of the greatest success stories in history. Singapore has become the only Asian country to achieve a higher per capita gross domestic product than the United States by every measure. To have achieved this from the starting point of a third world country, and during a single lifetime, is a true Asian "economic miracle" meriting close study by every country, and above all by every developing country. This naturally includes China. What, therefore, were the fundamental mechanisms explaining Singapore`s stunning economic success?

To start with the facts, by 2013, the latest year for which World Bank data is available, Singapore`s per capita GDP was 104 percent of that of the U.S., calculated at current exchange rates. Calculated at Parity Purchasing Powers, Singapore`s GDP was 148 percent of that of the U.S. This after Singapore`s per capita GDP was less than one quarter that of the U.S. in terms of PPPs - and less than one sixth measured at current exchange rates - when it achieved independence in 1965.

In obituaries of Lee Kuan Yew and during his lifetime, emphasis has been placed on his "authoritarian" politics or his espousal of "Confucian values," but what in strictly economic terms was the basis of Singapore`s sensational success? Obviously, this is the topic of greatest interest to every developing country. If China could achieve Singapore`s level of per capita GDP, higher even than that of the U.S., the "Chinese Dream" of economic development would be more than achieved. What lesson, therefore, can China and every country draw from Singapore`s "economic miracle?"

Singapore was a classic example of the success of an "open economy:" Singapore`s total trade is indeed considerably higher than its GDP. This is, of course, in line with the ideas behind China`s "opening up" policy. But every study shows that Singapore`s domestic development was based overwhelmingly on the huge accumulation of capital and labor, with only a tiny contribution coming from productivity growth (technically known as Total Factor Productivity, or TFP).

This reality was first noted in the 1990s by the United Kingdom-based economist Alwyn Young. His finding was used by U.S. economist Paul Krugman in a famous 1994 paper entitled "The Myth of Asia`s Miracle" to predict Asia`s coming economic failure. Krugman argued that successful economic growth should be based on productivity development, not on accumulation of capital and labor. But, of course, it was Krugman who was proved wrong as Singapore`s per capita GDP overtook even that of the U.S.

Young`s finding has since been replicated by every major study of Singapore since. The latest, by Vu Minh Khuong of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, is summarized in Figure 2 below. This study found that 59 percent of Singapore`s economic growth came from capital investment, 34 percent from growth of labor inputs, and only 8 percent from productivity (TFP) increases.

In short, every study has found that Singapore`s achievement of the highest level of economic development in Asia - a higher level of per capita GDP than the U.S. - was based on massive accumulation first of capital and then of labor, with productivity growth playing a tiny, almost nonexistent, role.

Vu, in the most exhaustive study of the subject so far, also found that Singapore`s model corresponded to successful economic development in Asia in general. Successful Asian developing countries showed a pattern of economic growth fundamentally driven by capital accumulation. As Vu summarized, "The secret of the Asian growth model lies not in achieving high TFP growth but in sustaining reasonable TFP growth despite the intensive mobilization of factor inputs over extended periods."

As Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, whose work has led to the most modern official methods of calculating the sources of economic growth by the OECD and other international agencies, put it, "The emergence of Asia from the underdevelopment that persisted until the middle of the last century is the great economic achievement of our time. This has created a new model for economic growth built on globalization and the patient accumulation of human and non-human capital. Economic commentators, especially those outside Asia, have been reluctant to recognize the new paradigm for economic growth that originated in Asia, since this would acknowledge the failure of Western ideas that still greatly predominate in the literature on economic growth and development."

Indeed, a key reason for Singapore`s economic success was that its pattern of economic development corresponded - even more than most Asian economies - to that of a developed economy, with its overwhelming dominance by capital accumulation and labor inputs and the small role played by TFP growth. This can be seen clearly from comparing the data for Singapore with that for advanced economies shown in Figure 3.

In advanced economies as a whole, 57 percent of growth is due to capital investment, while in Singapore that figure is 59 percent. In advanced economies, 32 percent of growth was due to labor inputs, whereas 34 percent of growth in Singapore was due to labor inputs. Furthermore, 11 percent of growth in advanced economies was due to TFP increases, and in Singapore it was only 8 percent.

In short, Singapore`s pattern of growth was essentially the same as that of an advanced economy, which is largely the reason why Singapore has achieved the per capita GDP of an extremely advanced developed economy.

To put it in blunt but accurate terms, Lee Kuan Yew showed through Singapore`s economic development that quantity was far more important than quality in achieving a higher level of per capita GDP than the U.S.

This is indeed a crucial lesson for China and for every developing country to study as they seek to replicate Singapore`s success and approach the level of advanced economies.

References

Young, A. (1995, August). The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the statistical reality of the East Asian growth experience. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 641-680.

Krugman, P. (1994). The Myth of Asia`s Miracle. Foreign Affairs, 62-78.

Vu, K. M. (2013). The Dynamics of Economic Growth: Policy insights from comparative analyses in Asia. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, M.A., U.S.: Edward Elgar.

（欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博：@人大重阳，微信公众号：rdcy2013）