「華人戴明學院」是戴明哲學的學習共同體 ,致力於淵博型智識系統的研究、推廣和運用。 The purpose of this blog is to advance the ideas and ideals of W. Edwards Deming.

2010年6月28日 星期一

戴明評論: 產官學界的新經濟領導

戴明評論: 產官學界的新經濟領導

Inside the Dire Financial State of the States
Ellen Weinstein for TIME

1. Inside the Dire Financial State of the States

By David von Drehle

Schools, health services, libraries — and the salaries that go with them — are all on the chopping block as states and cities face their worst cash squeeze since the Great Depression

2. 幾年前 中國開始擔心他國對它的妖魔化

它們發現 Made in China 是個惡標籤

所以希望提倡 Made with China

今晨 我終於在 BBC的WORLD SERVICE中看到它們的廣告


1.上周六看到的REX 所穿的 "China-Free" (沒有中國貨色)的襯衫

2. 台灣某鞋廠回台灣設廠做訂製鞋: Made in Taiwan

3. 中國的汽車 Made in U.K.或 Made in Japan

3. 哈佛大學的領導培訓


Program for Leadership Development Accelerating the Careers of High-Potential Leaders

Dates and Fees

  • July 26–October 2, 2010 — Module 1 (Off-Campus)
  • October 3–16, 2010 — Module 2 (On-Campus)
  • October 17, 2010–January 15, 2011 — Module 3 (Off-Campus)
  • January 16–29, 2011 — Module 4 (On-Campus)
  • $37,500

  • December 13, 2010–February 19, 2011 — Module 1 (Off-Campus)
  • February 20–March 5, 2011 — Module 2 (On-Campus)
  • March 6–June 18, 2011 — Module 3 (Off-Campus)
  • June 19–July 2, 2011 — Module 4 (On-Campus)
  • $38,500
  • The program fee covers tuition, books, case materials, accommodations, and most meals.

Investing in the next generation of leaders is critical to sustain competitive advantage through the downturn—and achieve corporate growth over the long term. The Program for Leadership Development equips functional managers with the advanced decision-making and execution skills they need to excel as multifaceted leaders. Participants emerge well equipped to take on greater cross-functional responsibilities—and ultimately drive performance throughout the organization.

What You Can Expect
Designed for individuals who will assume the cross-functional responsibilities of company leadership, PLD presents an integrated view of the fundamentals of management. Leveraging advanced strategies and techniques, participants learn how to excel in decision making and execution.

Who Is Right for the Program
Created for managers and functional specialists with approximately 10 years of work experience, PLD serves individuals with excellent prospects for leadership within their organizations. Participants represent diverse business functions, companies, industries, and countries.

Investment in the Future
By helping participants develop a broader vision for company success, PLD helps organizations groom the next generation of high potential leaders. Young executives reap extraordinary personal and professional growth, while organizations benefit from sustained corporate advantage.

Your Course of Study
With both on- and off-campus modules, this executive education program offers an integrated set of individual and classroom components. This in-depth leadership training program is well suited to the needs and time demands of this important group of managers.

Comprehensive Leadership Programs Summary
Compare the key features of Harvard Business School's three comprehensive leadership programs—the Advanced Management Program, the General Management Program, and the Program for Leadership Development.

A limited amount of partial scholarship funding may be available for qualified applicants from not-for-profit organizations. To be considered, you must complete and submit your application and include a request for funding. FOR MORE INFORMATION, please contact Ms. Deborah Hooper, Portfolio Director, at +1-617-496-3876.


2010 年06月30日 06:45 AM


Labour's election slogan, “a future fair for all”, was vacuous. No surprise there, I suppose: it was an election slogan after all. Fairness is one of those ideas that fails a basic test in a slogan or a mission statement – could you imagine anyone campaigning for unfairness? Moreover, fairness means very different things to different people.

“全民公平的未来” ——英国工党的这句竞选口号非常空洞。我想这并不令人意外——毕竟它是一个竞选口号。有些观点不符合口号或使命宣言的基本标准,公平就是其中之一——你能 想象有人以不公平为口号参加竞选吗?再者,不同的人对公平的理解也有所不同。

For instance, if Sue earns £20,000 and Jane earns five times as much, £100,000, what's the fair burden of tax? An extreme libertarian view is that all tax is armed robbery from the biggest gangster of all, the government. An extreme utilitarian view is that as long as Jane's post-tax income is greater than Sue's she has less need of the money and should be the first port of call for any extra taxation. It would be perfectly fair, under this view, for Jane to pay 75 per cent tax and Sue to pay nothing, and the only objection would be the practicalities.

例如,如果苏(Sue)收入2万英镑,而简(Jane)的收入是苏的5倍——10万英 镑。公平的税负应该是多少?极端的自由主义观点认为,任何税收都是政府这个最大的强盗对人民的武装抢劫。极端的功利主义观点认为,只要简的税后收入高于苏 的税后收入,她就更没有必要拥有这些钱,就应该是额外征税的首选。根据这种观点,简按75%的税率纳税,而苏不用纳税将是绝对公平的,唯一的问题将是可行 性。

I have a grudging respect for both sides of this argument. But in reality, we fudge a middle ground. Most people seem to think that it's reasonable for Jane to pay a higher percentage of her income as tax than Sue does. But some would say that if Jane pays £10,000 and Sue pays £3,000, Jane has contributed more than her fair share, even if the average tax rate she faces is lower. Further confusing the issue are taxes on fuel, cigarettes, air fares and other items which are correlated – imperfectly – with a particular level of income.

我勉强同意这两种观点。但在现实中,我们以中间立场来应付。大多数人似乎认为,简按更 高的税率纳税是合理的。但一些人会说,如果简纳税1万英镑,而苏纳税3000英镑,简交的税就超出了公平的份额,即使她的平均税率较低。对燃料、香烟、机 票以及其它与特定收入水平(不紧密)相关的物品征收的税收,又让这个问题变得更加混乱。

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist, author of a bestselling textbook and a former adviser to George W. Bush, has published an essay arguing that the utilitarian viewpoint, even in a mild form, is wrong. He thinks most people would agree with him once they thought about the implications. One such implication is that the US should impose a heavy tax on all its citizens and send the cash to much poorer people in the developing world. Mankiw is right to think that few Americans would support such a policy; he's wrong to regard this as a strong argument against utilitarianism. It might equally be an argument against treating casually held moral intuitions too seriously.

哈佛大学(Harvard)经济学家格雷格•曼昆(Greg Mankiw)发表文章称,功利主义观点(即便是温和的)是错误的。曼昆是一本畅销教科书的作者,还是乔治•W•布什(George W. Bush)总统的前任经济顾问。他认为,一旦考虑到功利主义的含义,大多数人就会同意他的观点。其中一个含义是,美国应该对所有本国公民课以重税,并把钱 送给发展中世界更为贫穷的人。曼昆认为没有多少美国人会支持这种政策;在这一点上他是正确的;但他把这种观点作为反对功利主义的有力论据是错误的——它同 样可以用于反对把偶然出现的道德直觉太当回事。

“Fairness”, in Mankiw's view, is not about distribution, but about people getting what they deserve. But that naturally raises other questions. I'm not convinced by Mankiw's various arguments, but another Harvard academic, the late Robert Nozick, produced a much better one: the famous “Wilt Chamberlain” thought experiment.

按照曼昆的观点,“公平”无关乎分配,而关乎民众是否获得其应得的东西。但这自然会引 出其它问题。我对曼昆的各种论证并不信服,但另一位哈佛学者、已故的罗伯特•诺齐克(Robert Nozick)提出的观点要好得多:即著名的“威尔特•张伯伦(Wilt Chamberlain)”思想实验。

Imagine, said Nozick, a “fair” distribution of income. After the government somehow imposes that distribution, then imagine that a million people are willing to pay 25 cents each to see basketball games featuring Wilt Chamberlain, a star of the day. Each is now 25 cents poorer and Chamberlain is a quarter of a million dollars richer. Everyone has been made happier by this voluntary set of transactions. How, then, can we say that the original distribution was “fair” and the new distribution is “unfair”? Leaning on this logic, Nozick argued that fairness must be more a matter of fair processes rather than fair shares.

诺齐克说,想象一下收入得到“公平”分配。在政府以某种方式完成分配后,再接着想像一 下,有一百万人愿意每人花25美分看威尔特•张伯伦(当时的篮球明星)的篮球比赛。现在每人少了25美分,而张伯伦多了25万美元。通过这种自愿形式的交 易,所有人都变得更幸福了。那么,我们怎么能说最初的分配是“公平的”,而新的分配是“不公平的”呢?基于这种逻辑,诺齐克认为,公平与其说与份额公平有 关,还不如说与过程公平有关。

The difficulty with both the Wilt Chamberlain argument and Mankiw's vaguer claim that people should get what they deserve is that people have different starts in life. Chamberlain had talent. Others have expensive educations, or the good fortune to be born in the right country. All these things have real economic value. Do any of them mean that the lucky winners deserve more?

无论是张伯伦论点,还是曼昆那种较为含糊的说法(人们应获得其应得的东西)都存在一个 不足之处,即人们生活的起点不同。张伯伦才华横溢,另一些人得以接受昂贵的教育,或幸运地出生在正确的国家。所有这些都具有实际的经济价值。难道这些意味 着幸运的赢家应该得到更多吗?

The lesson I draw from Nozick's argument is not that redistribution is always unjust. It is that the earlier in life all talents can be nurtured, the less we will have to worry about spreading the wealth around later.

我从诺齐克的观点中得出的领悟不是再分配总是不公平的,而是所有的天才越早得到培养, 我们就越不会为以后的财富分配担忧。

Tim Harford's latest book is ‘Dear Undercover Economist' (Little, Brown)

蒂姆•哈福德的新书是《亲爱的卧底经济学家》(Dear Undercover Economist),由利特尔-布朗公司(Little, Brown)出版。