「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.

2014年8月26日 星期二

蘋論:台灣人幸福嗎;還該不該相信GDP?幸福生活不能光由GDP說了算;美國將調整GDP統計方式

蘋論:台灣人幸福嗎

台灣人幸福嗎?如果天天看台灣新聞,肯定不快樂;不看新聞平靜度日,生活在台灣比生活在大多數國家幸福。
主計總處本周五將公布國民幸福指數。上年度公布的國民幸福指數,以經濟合作發展組織(OECD)定義的美好生活要件,與OECD會員及夥伴國共36國相比,台灣排名第19,屬於中等幸福,優於日韓,是亞洲最幸福的國家。

GDP與快樂有相關性

幸福經濟學的核心觀念是永續發展。根據聯合國的定義,永續發展是指以全面的角度審視人類的福利,包括經濟進步、強大的社會聯繫以及環境的永續性。然而經濟成長確實會提升人民的快樂程度,並充實選擇的自由。
經過網路泡沫和金融海嘯的衝擊後,節約簡樸,「慢活」風潮興起,強調社會、人際關係和自然環境,拋棄圖謀高經濟成長率和生產力,因為那會破壞環境和人際關係,讓社會與文化付出代價。於是,人們應該把幸福快樂當成目標而非高度經濟成長,遂成為普遍的思維。
以快樂衡量社會福利,是把傳統經濟學個別考慮快樂的衡量指標加總起來,再督促政府努力把這個總和數值極大化。
必須注意的是,快樂與經濟成長並不互相排斥,不是只能二擇一,也就是說,只拼經濟不足以成就美好社會,但僅靠快樂也同樣不行。研究已經證實GDP與快樂之間確有相關性。
幸福經濟學家新發展出「永續經濟福利指標」以及「國民幸福指數」,此外,被經濟學家廣泛應用的替代指標──人類發展指數(HDI),由GDP加上像是健康、識字率、科技的取得等,成為生活經濟的衡量工具。 

政府別只談拼經濟

理察賴雅德在其《快樂經濟學》的書中說:「每人的年所得一旦超過一萬五千美元,快樂的程度與所得即再也沒有相關性。」那麼幸福感除了一定的所得之外,還與什麼因素有關?那就屬於社會指標的事了,例如:是否已婚、健康狀態、宗教信仰、道德價值、生活機能良好,以及政治自由等。
政府的責任還是要拼經濟,以保障大多數人民的基本經濟生活,然後要提供其他價值的極大化,例如安全、信仰、正義等。台灣政府只講拼經濟,不算是一個全方位提供人民幸福的現代政府。 


*****
"衡量"一直是Deming 關心的主題
那麼我們要問: 除了批評之外 怎樣來"衡量" 新經濟"和"轉型"?





2014年08月14日 05:57 AM

還該不該相信GDP?


北京理發店服務和倫敦性服務的價格有何共同點?答案是:依據對它們衡量方式的不同——更貼切地說是是否衡量——你可以或擴大、或縮小中國和英國經濟的規模,就像拉手風琴一樣。
今年4月,統計學家們在世界銀行(World Bank)的支持下進行研究,得出結論:中國的國內生產總值(GDP)遠大於他們之前認識到的水平。實際上,中國即將超越美國,成為世界最大的經濟體,這比預期要早許多年。原因呢?統計學家們之前高估了各類商品服務的價格,從理發到面條都不例外。因此,他們低估了中國人的購買力,於是低估了中國經濟的規模。
6月,英國的統計學家們也玩了一通魔術。他們聲稱,英國經濟規模——當然,只有中國的一小部分——比之前認為的水平高5%。這就好像是他們突然在英國的沙發背後又發現幾十億英鎊的年收入一樣。英國人的解釋更簡單。除了對計算方法做出調整之外,統計學家開始計入賣淫和違禁毒品的“經濟貢獻”。
GDP這個術語已經無處不在。它是我們衡量經濟成功的方式。人們以GDP大小來評判各國。經濟創造GDP的效率可能決定政府的興衰。從債務水平到製造業貢獻率的一切東西都被拿來與GDP對比衡量。GDP是地球轉動的動力。但它到底有什麽意義?除了一些專家之外,大多數人對它只是一知半解。事實上,你對GDP(它是現代生活最具核心意義的概念之一)鑽研得越深,就越難以掌握它。黛安娜•科伊爾(Diane Coyle)最近花費一整本書的篇幅來探討這個話題,用她的話來說,“GDP是生造出來的實體”。


科伊爾捍衛GDP作為理解經濟的工具的作用,只要我們清楚GDP的局限性。不過,當我與她通電話時,她卻對每季度GDP數據公佈時的“定時胡鬧”和“公共儀式”感到好笑。雖然這些數字往往存在誤差幅度,屢被修正,但我們卻為它賦予重大意義,就像神父對禮拜的重視一樣。

科伊爾的書名《GDP:一段簡短而深情的歷史》(GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History)無疑表明瞭她對GDP這一概念的基本擁護。但她警告道:“世界上不存在GDP這種實體,等著經濟學家去測量。它是人工創造出來的……是一種抽象,將釘子、牙刷、拖拉機、鞋、理發、管理咨詢、街道保潔、瑜伽教學、盤子、綳帶、書籍和其他成百上千萬種服務和商品加總起來。”因此,GDP的衡量者做的不是測量山體質量或地球經度這樣的科學工作,而是從事相當於想象的工作。
GDP的概念出奇之新。類似現代概念的國民經濟核算賬戶第一次出現,是在1942年的美國。之前政府不願費工夫衡量經濟的規模,也不是什麽怪事。直到工業革命之前,農業社會幾乎沒有什麽發展。因此,經濟規模幾乎完全是一國人口的函數。1820年,中國和印度占全球經濟活動的一半左右,完全憑借的是人口數量。
白俄羅斯裔美籍經濟學家西蒙•庫茲涅茨(Simon Kuznets)常被歸功在20世紀30年代首創GDP概念,但他從一開始就對GDP持強烈的保留意見。科伊爾對我說:“他做了大量工作。但概念上說,他想要的是不一樣的東西。”美國前總統富蘭克林•德拉諾•羅斯福(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)曾請求庫茲涅茨設法精確描繪危機後的美國,當時美國陷入了似乎永無止境的衰退。羅斯福希望通過公共設施支出來提振經濟。為了說明該做法的合理性,他需要的不只是碎片式的信息,例如貨車負荷或賑濟處排隊的長度。庫茲涅茨的計算表明,美國經濟規模在1929至1932年間減半。這一計算結果是可靠得多的行動依據。
庫茲涅茨對待數據十分謹慎。但究竟應當衡量哪些指標?他傾向於只囊括那些他認為對社會福祉有貢獻的活動。他認為,既然戰爭明顯損害人類福祉,為何還要計入軍械支出之類的東西?他還打算扣除廣告(無用)、金融和投機活動(危險)以及政府支出(重復,因為它只是稅收的循環)。人們消費的海洛因越多,妓女接客越多,經濟就越健康?他恐怕不會為這種想法激動。
但庫茲涅茨輸了。現代的國民收入賬戶將軍售和投資銀行活動雙雙囊括在內,也不區分社會“正物品”(例如教育支出)和社會“負物品”(或者說必需品,如賭博、卡特琳娜(Katrina)颶風過後的重建,或預防犯罪)。(那些沒多少犯罪活動的國家,就只能錯過與犯罪相關的經濟活動了,比如安保和修理破窗戶。)GDP是不考慮道德的。它被簡單定義為特定時期內所有產出品的貨幣價值。
關於GDP,第一點需要瞭解的是,它是流量指標而非存量指標。高GDP國家為了收入最大化,可能會長年累月地對基礎設施進行災難性的消耗。機場老化、公路破舊的美國,時而因此受到指責。
國民收入賬戶也不考慮資源的耗竭。中國將10%的年增長率維持了30年。但這一數字沒有扣除它消耗的、(可能)有限的石油和天然氣資源。(其假設是,技術總是會解決能源耗竭的問題。)它也不考慮經濟學家所稱的“外部性”,即增長的副產品,如污染。清理被污染的河流、復原被採伐一空的森林最終需要多少成本,不在GDP的考慮範圍內。
科伊爾告訴我,GDP“體現不出現在與未來之間的權衡”。創新可以幫助我們找到金屬等有限資源的替代品,但GDP不考慮可持續性。這就讓我們容易受到“引爆點”的影響,例如魚類資源的突然枯竭。
就連衡量所有產出品這一枯燥的活動,也不像聽上去那麽簡單。我曾在經濟學家張夏準(Ha-Joon Chang)位於劍橋大學(Cambridge University)的小辦公室拜訪他,他舉了一片麵包的例子。他表示,在計算麵包的價值時,如果我們將酵母和麵粉也囊括在內,將造成重復計算。產出是由增加值來衡量的:我們計算出麵包的價值,再減去中間投入品(例如磨坊主生產的產品)的價值。麵包是相對簡單的產品。但不妨試試計算一輛汽車或一臺iPhone的增加值吧,它們的生產依賴極為復雜的全球供應鏈。怪不得作為GDP指導手冊的《聯合國國民賬戶體系》(UN System of National Accounts)長達700多頁。
張夏準稱,GDP更適合衡量數量而不是質量。在他近期出版的《經濟學:用戶指南》(Economics: The User’s Guide)一書中,他以一種調皮的角度審視了我們奉若珍寶的經濟假設。以一套刀、叉、勺組成的餐具為例。就產出而言,一套由三把勺子組成的餐具具有同樣的價值。但就生活質量而言,明顯不是如此。科伊爾將GDP稱為“大規模生產時代的人工產物”。
事實上,GDP最大的缺陷之一在於,它對服務的統計非常糟糕。考慮到服務業占據許多發達經濟體產出的三分之二,這確實是個問題。統計學家擅長衡量那些實實在在、掉下去能砸到腳的東西,比如磚頭和鐵條,但他們不擅長衡量景觀園藝、噴氣式發動機服務合同或合成衍生品等無影無形的東西。如何比較巴西腦科醫生、德國機械師和尼日利亞投行家的產出?
再說回北京理發的例子。由於你無法知道每次理發的價格,就需要抽樣。你可能會下結論說,在北京理一次發的平均價格是紐約的一半。但你如何知道,你比較的兩樣服務是否具有可比性?你是否評判理發的質量,理發師的技術,裝飾的明亮程度?剪發過程中插科打諢的好壞,是否要考慮在內?我們應以每天照顧的病人數量還是護理的質量優劣來評判護士的效率?從嚴格的力學意義上說,要想增加愛樂樂團的效率,可以讓他們以兩倍速演奏協奏曲。
你可以辯稱,這種說法不得要領。服務的價值是市場願意承受的價值。沒有人肯花錢聽一場加速演奏的管弦樂隊演出。但有一項更根本的問題:一項特定的服務越多,是否就越好?我們衡量GDP的方式正體現了這種想法。以銀行業為例。2008年金融危機前,美國金融業規模急劇增長,到2009年已達到GDP的近8%。(部分原因是對銀行業衡量方式的變化。)但正如我們後來發現的那樣,銀行業擴張不一定是好事。銀行業之所以取得如此規模,很大程度上要歸功於它越來越有能力創造“復雜”產品,而事實證明其中一些產品是有害的。考慮到危機之後的漫長衰退,你有理由認為金融業的擴張破壞了GDP,而不是創造了GDP。如果按庫茲涅茨提議的那樣將銀行業剔除出GDP,而不是將它計入GDP,說不定金融危機永遠不會發生。
醫療行業是另一個例子。美國醫療支出占GDP的18%左右,其中很大一部分被保險、膨脹的藥品價格和沒有必要的醫療程序所占據。但如果從預期壽命和健康生活年數來看,結果並沒有顯著好於那些醫療支出僅有美國一半的國家。因此有必要發問:如果醫療支出對GDP的貢獻減小(而不是增加),美國是否能過得更好?
如果說有些服務被過於強調,那麽有些服務則根本沒有被考慮。GDP主要考慮經過買賣的東西,大量不涉及買賣的活動完全沒有得到體現。最明顯的是家務。家庭烹飪、清潔、養育子女和護理家中老人或殘疾人,完全沒有被賦予貨幣價值。這在一定程度上是因為此類活動(通常由女性完成)的價值被低估了。此外,它也很難估算。但不將家務考慮在內,在一定程度上是荒謬的。在日本,政府倡導讓更多女性參加工作,以提高GDP。從很多方面講,這都是個好主意。但我們仍然有必要進行一場思想實驗。設想一下,許多名義上未就業的女性在照顧兒童或年長親人。現在規定,每名女性應在鄰居家工作,照看鄰居的孩子或父母,按時收費。日本GDP將在一夜之間增加。但就實際完成的工作而言,沒有任何變化。唯一的不同之處是,老爺爺會對照顧自己的陌生人感到奇怪,而政府將找到新的稅收來源。
不平等加劇(它在發達經濟體引起了突然而急迫的關註)是總體增長率可能無法反映真實狀況的另一原因。幾十年來,美國經濟的表現在大部分時間內都是優秀的。但美國前勞工部長、現任加州大學伯克利分校(University of California, Berkeley)教授的羅伯特•賴克(Robert Reich)表示,經通脹調整的工資中位數自20世紀70年代以來再無增長。經濟增長的好處幾乎盡數歸於頂層的1%富人。如果我們不屬於這個精英階層,那麽GDP增長往好了說也與我們無關。
另一方面,科伊爾表示,GDP尤其不擅長衡量現代經濟最重要的特徵之一:創新。所謂的“特徵核算”(hedonic accounting)試圖做出調整,將計算機等設備的不斷升級考慮在內。如果你今天購買了一臺電腦,它的計算能力是你一年前所買的一臺電腦的四倍,但花費相同,那麽它的價格實際上下降了。換言之,你過得更好了。
正如作家傑里米•里夫金(Jeremy Rifkin)在近期著作《零邊際成本社會》(The Zero Marginal Cost Society)中指出的那樣,許多產品的價格——如在線音樂、互聯網拼車、維基百科(Wikipedia)、太陽能、Skype——正趨於零。如果經濟活動不索取價格,如何衡量它的價值?不是很久以前,百萬富翁還會死於缺乏抗生素,如今抗生素卻便宜得很。張夏準在劍橋的辦公室中對我說道:“就算你所生產東西的市場價值並沒有上升,但如果人們活得更好、吃得更好、擁有更多的閑暇時間,那麽應當說,社會變得更優越了。”
這就提出了一個近乎哲學問題的問題:我們到底需不需要增長?隨著人們漸漸認識到,GDP未能充分地把握住我們的經濟和社會現實,一個以不同方式衡量進步的迷你行業應運而生。法國前總統尼古拉•薩科齊(Nicolas Sarkozy)曾委托包括約瑟夫•斯蒂格利茨(Joseph Stiglitz)和阿瑪蒂亞•森(Amartya Sen)在內的頂尖經濟學家探索更好的方法論。他們的報告《對我們生活的誤測:為什麽GDP增長不等於社會進步 》(Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up)得出結論稱,我們對經濟福祉的標準衡量方法並不稱職。更嚴重的是,他們認為,過度關註GDP可能將政策制定者導向錯誤的方向——如擴張銀行業,忽視教育、醫療等更為基本的東西。他們總結道:“如果衡量標準錯了,那我們將為錯誤的目標而奮鬥。”
遺憾的是,GDP懷疑主義最著名的例子,卻也是最愚蠢的例子。宣稱更加全面反映人類進步的不丹“國民幸福總值”(Gross National Happiness)指數經不住推敲。人類發展指數(human development index)是優越得多的衡量標準,納入了預期壽命、識字程度、教育和生活水平等因素。該指數將不丹排在第140位,比剛果共和國高兩位(挪威排在第一,墊底的尼日爾排名第187。)不丹的“國民幸福總值”似乎是企圖掩蓋它差勁的表現。
著名經濟史學家羅伯特•斯基德爾斯基(Robert Skidelsky)對“增長神話”——即把追求GDP奉為最重要的事和終極目標——進行了更認真的探索。他與兒子、道德哲學家愛德華•斯基德爾斯基(Edward Skidelsky)合著了《賺多少算夠?金錢與美好生活》(How Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life)一書。書中探討的問題是,在富足社會中,是什麽驅動著人們追求更多的財富,盡管他們本能地知道,這無法帶給他們更多的幸福。
斯基德爾斯基父子承認,窮國需要增長才能趕上西方生活水平,但他們疑惑,為何富足社會也如此執迷於增長?他們的出發點是約翰•梅納德•凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)著於1930年的論文《我們後代的經濟前景》(Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren),凱恩斯在文中假設,隨著消費達到一定水平,更努力工作的動力將減弱。(GDP的另一缺陷是,沒有計入人們工作的時長。)凱恩斯認為,在富裕時期,人們將自然而然地放棄更多消費,轉而追求閑暇。他的想象是,到我們當今的時代,人們的工作時間不會超過每周15小時。
幾個月前,我在香港見到了老斯基德爾斯基。我問他凱恩斯的理論出了什麽問題。我們坐在一家五星級酒店的露臺上。就在我們說話時,直升機騰空而起,載著賭客去澳門玩百家樂(baccarat)紙牌,他們將在賭桌上努力贏更多的錢。為什麽人類如此貪得無厭?斯基德爾斯基表示,一個原因是欲望是相對的。金錢帶來地位。因此擁有“足夠”意味著擁有的比其他人多。如果每個人都富裕,那麽我們都會飛到自己專屬的加勒比海勝地,結果發現海灘全都是與自己一樣穿著考究的人們,無人願意侍奉我們享受馬丁尼(Martini)酒和法國小食。
另一個原因是不平等。斯基德爾斯基表示,五分之一的英國人生活在貧困線以下。但政府的想法不是更好地再分配財富(斯基德爾斯基提倡通過基本收入制實現),而是把蛋糕做大。這就迫使我們停留在持續的增長軌道上,讓我們奔跑在永不停歇的跑步機上。他表示:“這是無休止、無目的的增長。”
有人批評斯基德爾斯基父子的著作自以為知道什麽對於人們是好的,以及他們欲望的邊界應該在哪裡。例如,科伊爾就強烈反對這個觀點。她告訴我,這對父子眼中的“美好生活”概念來自英國生活的一個特定階層:“一杯乾紅佳釀,一本好書,背景中是廣播三台(Radio 3)的廣播聲。”問題在於,他們不允許改變欲望。他們也不相信創新,嗤之為狡猾廣告商創造出的幻象。但科伊爾認為,創新是真實存在的。“你會放棄互聯網或者新口味的早餐麥片嗎?”她問道,“我不想讓一個經濟史教授告訴我我能選什麽,不能選什麽。”
GDP辯論的核心是一種焦慮,即我們的社會在某種程度上被對單個數據點的追求綁架了。沒有人會認真地以為,把一個抽象數字越變越大本身是個有意義的目標。但GDP已經成為我們所看重事物的強大代表指標,以至於我們很難超越它。很少有經濟學家看不見它的諸多局限,但大多數人帶給我們的印象是,他們希望不惜代價來推高它。
科伊爾認為,我們應當發明反映經濟現實的新方法。她提倡她所稱的“儀表板方法”。例如,經合組織(OECD)編制的“更好生活指數”(Better Life Index)讓使用者可以根據收入、住房、健康和工作生活平衡等11種指標比較各國表現。選擇你最重視的標準,便能瞭解到某一經濟體的表現好壞。如果就業是你的首選標準,那麽瑞士和挪威是最好的國家。如果你對高收入和教育的結合更感興趣,那麽美國是理想地點。
理論上,這種方法將可以讓選民決定什麽對他們重要,並幫助政客制定可以實現理想結果的政策。但實踐中,將多重指標結合,並根據不同標準衡量這些指標,會導致整個過程主觀、模糊。GDP可能不符合我們的時代,也可能存在誤導。它可能無法全面地把握現在與將來、工作與閑暇、“好”增長與“壞”增長之間的復雜權衡,但它仍有一大優點:它是簡單、具體的數字。就目前而言,我們可能還是擺脫不了它。
本文作者是英國《金融時報》亞洲版主編
譯者/徐天辰


*****


美國將調整GDP統計方式
英國《金融時報》 羅賓•哈丁 華盛頓報導


今年7月,美國經濟總量將正式增大3%,因為官方將調整統計方式,將電影版稅和研發支出等21世紀的組成部分納入政府統計資料。

巨額無形資產將被納入全球最大經濟體的國內生產總值,這一調整是為了捕捉美國經濟產出不斷變化的性質。

美國經濟分析局(Bureau of Economic Analysis)負責國民核算的主管布倫特•莫爾頓(Brent Moulton)告訴英國《金融時報》(Financial Times),這是自1999年將電腦軟體納入統計以來的最大調整。

莫爾頓說:“我們將追溯這些重大改變,對我們來說這意味著從1929年開始。因此我們基本上將重寫經濟歷史。”

這些變化將影響各個方面,包括從美國各州的GDP衡量,到美聯儲(Fed)的通脹目標的穩定性。它們將迫使經濟學家重新研究各項政策辯論——從公司利潤到經濟增長的原因。

這次調整相當於為世界經濟估算規模增加一個像比利時這麼大的國家,也將使得美國成為首個採用新的GDP統計國際標準的國家之一。

莫爾頓說:“我們將納入研發支出,也將納入被稱為娛樂、文學及藝術原創的類別,這個類別將包括電影、長期電視節目、圖書、錄音等。”

目前,研發只是被算作一項經營成本,比如蘋果iPad的最終產出被包括在GDP中,但研發支出沒有算入。而現在研發將統計為一種投資,使美國經濟總量增加2%多一點。

擁有大量軍事研發的小州的GDP將大幅增加,但其他州基本沒有變化,從而拉大美國各地的收入差距。

預計研發將使得新墨西哥州的GDP增加10%,而路易斯安那州的增幅則只有0.6%。創意作品將為美國經濟規模進一步增加0.5%。固定收益養老金計畫赤字也將被納入。

除了這些變化外,還將對基於每五年對近400萬家美國公司的經濟普查所做出的國民核算進行調整。

譯者/王慧玲
2013.4.22


2011年 01月 11日 10:32
幸福生活不能光由GDP說了算

錢不是萬能的。但要衡量國家成功與否﹐卻又很難找到其他標準取而代之。

作為一個國家生產的所有商品和服務的貨幣衡量標準﹐國內生產總值(GDP)被視為一個國家在提高生活標準方面成功與否的指標。政治領導人對GDP這種角色表現出的不滿日益強烈。


Reuters
倫敦一家店鋪門上寫著“幸福”
11月﹐英國首相卡梅倫(David Cameron)宣佈將啟動對國民幸福感的衡量﹐將考慮到人們的生活滿意度等因素﹐此前法國總統薩科奇(Nicolas Sarkozy)也宣佈過類似計劃。

他們的舉措觸及到了經濟發展狀況的本質:什麼讓我們幸福?怎麼才能讓所有人都更幸福?然而﹐任何想得到明確答案的人可能都會感到失望。

英 國國家統計局(Office of National Statistics)衡量國民幸福感項目(Measuring National Well-Being Project)負責人奧林(Paul Allin)說﹐幸福不僅僅取決於GDP﹐但很難提出單一指標來代替GDP﹐我們也不確定這個單一指標就是答案﹔也許我們住在一個多維世界﹐就必須要習慣 管理合理數量的不同信息。

7日舉行的美國經濟學會(American Economic Association)年會對設立國家成功指標進行了討論﹐在會議間隙﹐布魯金斯學會(Brookings Institution)成員格雷姆(Carol Graham)對這種情況作出了總結:這就像是新的科學﹔仍有很多工作要做。

過去四十年大多數時間﹐經濟學家一直對一個悖論迷惑不解﹐這個悖論使人對GDP作為全球國家成功主要指標的角色產生了質疑。

這 個悖論就是﹐富國國民似乎並不比窮國國民更幸福。賓夕法尼亞大學(University of Pennsylvania)經濟學家伊斯特林(Richard Easterlin)從上世紀70年代開始的研究發現﹐沒有證據證明國家的收入──以人均GDP計算──與國民申報的幸福水平有關係。

最 近的研究表明﹐GDP也並不是那麼罪大惡極。賓夕法尼亞大學沃爾頓商學院(Wharton School)經濟學家賽克斯(Daniel Sacks)、史蒂芬森(Betsey Stevenson)和沃爾夫斯(Justin Wolfers)運用更多的數據和不同的統計學技巧進行研究後發現﹐人均GDP的特定百分比增幅往往與申報的幸福指數增幅相一致。這種關聯在不同國家和不 同時期都存在。

然而﹐要衡量政策的成功度﹐GDP是遠遠不夠的。

讓每個人每周工作120個小時能極大提高一個國家的人均GDP水平﹐但並不能使人們更幸福。消除污染限制能提高每小時勞動產生的GDP﹐但並不一定會形成一個大家都想居住的世界。

我們的方法是在GDP的基礎上增加平等程度、閑暇時間和壽命等其他客觀因素。8日﹐在提交給美國經濟學會年會的一份報告中﹐斯坦福大學經濟學家克萊諾(Peter Klenow)和瓊斯(Charles Jones)發現﹐這樣做會有很大的差別。

按照他們的計算方法﹐若考慮到壽命更長、閑暇時間多和平等程度高的因素﹐法國和德國的生活標準看起來幾乎與美國相同﹐若非如此﹐美國本來會遙遙領先。

克萊諾指出﹐這種計算有很大困難。首先一點就是﹐許多國家對壽命等關鍵因素的數據統計很薄弱。

為 了對比各國的發展狀況﹐詢問國民的感覺也許比金錢測量要好。普林斯頓大學(Princeton University)經濟學家迪頓(Angus Deaton)指出﹐美國和其他國家﹐比如說塔吉克斯坦﹐消費的商品和服務有極大的不同﹐要對這些商品和服務的價值進行比較幾乎是不可能的。簡單地詢問人 們的生活情況可能更容易﹐同時準確度也並不遜色。

在許多國家評估整體表現的過程中﹐問卷調查已經在發揮著重要的作用﹐從美國的消費者信心指數到荷蘭的生活狀況指數等種類很多﹐涉及到人際關係和社區參與等因素。

作為衡量國民幸福感的一部分﹐英國計劃在家庭調查中加入更多主觀問題。

但問卷調查可能也會發出誤導性的政策信號。

比如﹐沃爾夫斯發現﹐對美國女性的主觀幸福指數所做的調查表明﹐她們的幸福感低於四十年前﹐雖然工資、教育和其他客觀衡量因素都有所改善。他說﹐這並不意味著女權運動應該倒退。相反﹐這可能與被調查女性期望值升高或更坦率有關。

人們的真實偏好通常都會從行為中表現出來﹐而不是語言。

調查顯示﹐有孩子的人往往幸福感低於沒有孩子的人﹐但人們還是會生孩子﹐沒人會提倡通過大規模的結扎來改善整體國民的幸福感。

沃爾夫斯說﹐在這個世界中﹐我們關注的不僅僅是幸福感。

如果你僅僅衡量組成完整生活元素的一部分﹐那麼就會損及其他部分。

目前﹐也只能靠決策者選擇看起來最符合目前形勢的成功衡量標準了。這不是最理想的﹐但從經濟學角度來說這已經是最好的了。

Mark Whitehouse

Elusive Economic Indicator: Quality Of Life Gauge

Money isn't everything. But in measuring the success of nations, it isn't easy to find a substitute.

Political leaders are increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with gross domestic product─a monetary measure of all the goods and services a country produces─as a gauge of a nation's success in raising living standards.

In November, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to build measures of national well-being that would take into account factors such as peoples' life satisfaction, following a similar effort by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Their efforts cut to the core of what economics is supposed to be about: What makes us better off? How can we all have more of it? Anyone hoping for a clear-cut answer, though, is likely to be disappointed.

'There is more to life than GDP, but it will be hard to come up with a single measure to replace it and we are not sure that a single measure is the answer,' said Paul Allin, director of the Measuring National Well-Being Project at the U.K.'s Office of National Statistics. 'Maybe we live in a multidimensional world and we have to get used to handling a reasonable number of bits of information.

After a session on creating a national success indicator at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association on Friday, Carol Graham, fellow at the Brookings Institution, summed up the situation thus: 'It's like a new science. There's still a lot of work to be done.'

For much of the past four decades, economists have puzzled over a paradox that cast doubt on GDP as the world's main indicator of success.

People in richer countries didn't appear to be any happier than people in poor countries. In research beginning in the 1970s, University of Pennsylvania economist Richard Easterlin found no evidence of a link between countries' income─as measured by GDP per person─and peoples' reported levels of happiness.

More recent research suggests GDP isn't quite so bad. Using more data and different statistical techniques, three economists at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School─Daniel Sacks, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers─found that a given percentage increase in GDP per person tends to coincide with a similar increase in reported well-being. The correlation held across different countries and over time.

Still, for measuring the success of policy, GDP is far from ideal.

Making everybody work 120 hours a week could radically boost a country's GDP per capita, but it wouldn't make people happier. Removing pollution limits could boost GDP per hour worked, but wouldn't necessarily lead to a world we'd want to live in.

One approach is to enhance GDP with other objective factors such as inequality, leisure and life expectancy. In a paper presented Saturday at the American Economic Association meeting, Stanford economists Peter Klenow and Charles Jones found that doing so can make a big difference.

By their calculation, accounting for longer life expectancy, additional leisure time and lower levels of inequality makes living standards in France and Germany look almost the same as those in the U.S., which otherwise leads the pack by a large margin.

Mr. Klenow points out that the calculation is fraught with difficulties. For one, many countries have poor data on crucial factors such as life expectancy.

For the purpose of comparing well-being across countries, asking people how they feel might be better than monetary measures. Angus Deaton, an economist at Princeton University, notes that placing values on the extremely different goods and services consumed in the U.S. and, say, Tajikistan, can be impossible to do in a comparable way. Just asking people about their situation could be much easier and no less accurate.

Surveys already play a meaningful role in the way many countries assess their performance, from consumer confidence in the U.S. to the Netherlands's Life Situation Index, which accounts for factors such as relationships and community involvement.

As part of its effort to gauge well-being, the U.K. plans to add more subjective questions to its household surveys.

But surveys can also send misleading policy signals.

Mr. Wolfers, for example, has found that surveys of women's subjective well-being in the U.S. suggest that they are less happy than they were four decades ago, despite improvements in wages, education and other objective measures. That, he says, doesn't mean the feminist movement should be reversed. Rather, it could be related to rising expectations or greater frankness among the women interviewed.

Peoples' true preferences are often revealed more by what they do than by what they say.

Surveys suggest people with children tend to be less happy than those without, yet people keep having children─and nobody would advocate mass sterilization to improve overall well-being.

'What we care about in the world is not just happiness,' says Mr. Wolfers.

'If you measure just one part of what makes for a full life you're going to end up harming the other parts.'

For the time being, that leaves policy makers to choose the measures of success that seem most appropriate for the task at hand. That's not ideal, but it's the best economics has to offer.



2011年01月11日 07:25 AM

日本经济的启示
Japan finds there is more to life than growth




Is Japan the most successful society in the world? Even the question is likely (all right, designed) to provoke ridicule and have you spluttering over your breakfast. The very notion flies in the face of everything we have heard about Japan’s economic stagnation, indebtedness and corporate decline. 日本是全球最成功的社会吗?甚至这个问题本身(好吧,纯属设计)可能都会招致奚落,让你边吃早餐边骂骂咧咧。面对日本经济停滞、负债累累、公司状况江河日下的种种传闻,关于日本是最成功社会的念头立刻就会烟消云散。
Ask a Korean, Hong Kong or US businessman what they think of Japan, and nine out of 10 will shake their head in sorrow, offering the sort of mournful look normally reserved for Bangladeshi flood victims. “It’s so sad what has happened to that country,” one prominent Singaporean diplomat told me recently. “They have just lost their way.” It is easy to make the case for Japan’s decline. Nominal gross domestic product is roughly where it was in 1991, a sobering fact that appears to confirm the existence of not one, but two, lost decades. In 1994, Japan’s share of global GDP was 17.9 per cent, according to JPMorgan. Last year it had halved to 8.76 per cent. Over roughly the same period, Japan’s share of global trade fell even more steeply to 4 per cent. The stock market continues to thrash around at one-quarter of its 1990 level, deflation saps animal spirits – a common observation is that Japan has lost its “mojo” – and private equity investors have given up on their fantasy that Japanese businesses will one day put shareholders first. 随便问韩国、香港或者美国商人是如何看待日本的,他们十有八九会痛心摇头,脸上是一副 通常会留给孟加拉洪水灾民的悲天悯人的神情。“这个国家发生的一切着实让人哀叹,”新加坡某知名外交官近日对我说。“他们迷失了方向。”如今很容易为日本 的衰落找到理由。名义国内生产总值与1991年大致相当,这个冷峻的事实似乎证实,日本失落的不是十年,而是二十年。据JP摩根(JPMorgan)统 计,1994年,日本在全球GDP中所占比重为17.9%。去年,这个比重下降了一半,只有8.76%。大约在同期,日本占全球贸易的份额也锐减至4%。 股票市场继续在1990年四分之一所有的水平震荡。通货紧缩侵蚀了动物精神——人们普遍观察认为日本已经失去了“勇猛”——私人股本投资者也放弃了日本企 业有一天会把股东权益放在首位的幻想。
Certainly, these facts tell a story. But it is only partial. Underlying much of the head-shaking about Japan are two assumptions. The first is that a successful economy is one in which foreign businesses find it easy to make money. By that yardstick Japan is a failure and post-war Iraq a glittering triumph. The second is that the purpose of a national economy is to outperform its peers. 当然,这些说的是实情,但仅仅是部分事实。对日本摇头的主要原因基于两个假设。第一个 假设是,一个成功经济体就是外国企业容易挣钱的经济体。按照这个标准,日本无疑是个失败者,而海湾战争后的伊拉克则是光彩照人的胜利典范。第二个假设是, 一国发展经济的目的就是要超越其它国家。
If one starts from a different proposition, that the business of a state is to serve its own people, the picture looks rather different, even in the narrowest economic sense. Japan’s real performance has been masked by deflation and a stagnant population. But look at real per capita income – what people in the country actually care about – and things are far less bleak. 若从国家要务在于服务人民这个不同的命题出发,即便从最狭隘的经济角度看,日本呈现的也是一幅全然不同的图景。通货紧缩和滞涨的人口掩饰了日本的真实表现。但看看实际人均收入——日本国民真正关心的事——情况远没有那么黯淡。
By that measure, according to figures compiled by Paul Sheard, chief economist at Nomura, Japan has grown at an annual 0.3 per cent in the past five years. That may not sound like much. But the US is worse, with real per capita income rising 0.0 per cent over the same period. In the past decade, Japanese and US real per capita growth are evenly pegged, at 0.7 per cent a year. One has to go back 20 years for the US to do better – 1.4 per cent against 0.8 per cent. In Japan’s two decades of misery, American wealth creation has outpaced that of Japan, but not by much. 按照这个衡量标准,根据野村(Nomura)首席经济学家保罗•谢尔德(Paul Sheard)编撰的数据,过去5年,日本的年增长率为0.3%。这听起来不算啥,但美国的情况更糟糕,同期实际人均收入增幅为0.0%。过去10年,日 本与美国实际人均收入增长持平,每年0.7%。要往前追溯20年,美国的表现才强于日本——1.4%对0.8%。在日本境况凄凉的20年中,美国的财富创 造超过了日本,但并不太多。
The Japanese themselves frequently refer to non-GDP measures of welfare, such as Japan’s safety, cleanliness, world-class cuisine and lack of social tension. Lest they (and I) be accused of wishy-washy thinking, here are a few hard facts. The Japanese live longer than citizens of any other large country, boasting a life expectancy at birth of 82.17 years, much higher than the US at 78. Unemployment is 5 per cent, high by Japanese standards, but half the level of many western countries. Japan locks up, proportionately, one-twentieth of those incarcerated in the US, yet enjoys among the lowest crime levels in the world. 日本人自己经常使用非GDP的福祉衡量标准,如日本的安全、整洁、世界级的烹饪以及社 会压力小。为免人们指责他们(和我)思想天马行空,让我们来看看一些不容争辩的事实。日本人比其它任何大国的公民活得都长,平均寿命达到82.17岁,比 美国人的78岁高出一大截。日本的失业率为5%,以日本的标准衡量算是高的,但只有许多西方国家的一半。按比例测算,日本关押的囚犯只有美国的二十分之 一,然而犯罪率为全球最低。
In a thought-provoking article in The New York Times last year, Norihiro Kato, a professor of literature, suggested that Japan had entered a “post-growth era” in which the illusion of limitless expansion had given way to something more profound. Japan’s non-consuming youth was at the “vanguard of the downsizing movement”, he said. He sounded a little like Walter Berglund, the heroic crank of Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom, who argues that growth in a mature economy, like that in a mature organism, is not healthy but cancerous. “Japan doesn’t need to be No 2 in the world, nor No 5 or 15,” Prof Kato wrote. “It’s time to look to more important things.” 文学教授加藤典洋(Norihiro Kato)去年在《纽约时报》(The New York Times)上发表了一篇发人深省的文章。他提出,日本已经进入“后增长时代”,即经济无限扩张的幻想已让位于更深层次的内容。他表示,日本不消费的年轻 人是“经济规模缩减的主力军”。他听上去有点象乔纳森•弗兰岑(Jonathan Franzen)所著《自由》(Freedom)中疯狂的主人公沃特•贝尔格伦德(Walter Berglund)——后者辩称,就像成熟的有机体一样,成熟经济体的增长并不健康,而是弊病丛生。“日本不需要成为世界第二,也不需要成为世界第五或者 第十五,”加藤教授写道。“如今应该关注更重要的事情。”
Patrick Smith, an expert on Asia, agrees that Japan is more of a model than a laggard. “They have overcome the impulse – and this is something where the Chinese need to catch up – to westernise radically as a necessity of modernisation.” Japan, more than any other non-western advanced nation, has preserved its culture and rhythms of life, he says. 亚洲问题专家帕特里克•史密斯(Patrick Smith)也认同,日本更象是个榜样,而不是个落伍者。“他们克服了实现现代化就必须全盘西化的冲动——这正是中国人需要学习的。”在保留自身文化和生活节奏方面,日本比其他任何非西方发达国家都做得更好,他说。
One must not overdo it. High suicide rates, a subdued role for women and, indeed, the answers that Japanese themselves provide to questionnaires about their happiness, do not speak of a nation entirely at ease with itself in the 21st century. It is also possible that Japan is living on borrowed time. Public debt is among the highest in the world – though, significantly, almost none of it is owed to foreigners – and a younger, poorer-paid generation will struggle to build up the fat savings on which the country is now comfortably slumbering. 万事不能过头。高自杀率、女性处于屈从地位,甚至日本人自己提供的幸福问卷答案,均表 明它在21世纪不能完全做到坦然自若。也可能日本人必须得分秒必争。它的公共债务属全球最高之列——虽说值得注意的是,几乎所有债务都是欠本国国民的—— 收入更低的年轻一代很难积攒出如今这么丰厚的储蓄,供国家安心地躺在上面睡大觉。
If the business of a state is to project economic vigour, then Japan is failing badly. But if it is to keep its citizens employed, safe, economically comfortable and living longer lives, it is not making such a terrible hash of things. 如果一个国家的要务是投射其经济活力,那么日本可谓一败涂地。但是如果其要务是保证公民的就业、安全、经济安逸、寿命更长,那么日本并不全然是乱成一锅粥。

译者/常和

令人詬病的西方的管理"風格"一例

令人詬病的西方的管理"風格"一例:

Robert B. Reich 羅伯特‧賴克:美國公司的人力資源; 論破產法的起草和執行的操弄;論平均身高與國力.......

羅伯特‧賴克(Robert B. Reich)教授80年代初即相當出名,戴明博士和他弟子的書都多次引用他的著作。我這次當了他的粉絲。
他最重視社會平等.....這次在Wikipedia 才知道他的身高。(所以有人建議他移民荷蘭以拯救美國之數字.....90年代初,我與一位義大利同事到荷蘭廠開會,我們發現到了巨人國,男女皆然......)
今天他談平均身高與國力---以及美國的速食文化之惡.....
我也順便找一下台灣的資料。



  1. Robert Bernard Reich is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. Wikipedia

Just spoke to gathering of human-resource professionals, several of whom told me afterwards they were angry and frustrated with the financial types in their firms who “think only about the short-term bottom line” and don’t consider the long-term well-being of the company and its employees. When I asked them how pay was determined, they said they’re instructed to benchmark what competitors pay their top executives and recommend pay at or above the top of the range, so their firm gets the best. But they’re also instructed to recommend below-average pay for lower-level managers and employees, on the theory those jobs are fungible. The director of HR for one of America’s biggest corporations told me “this can’t go on. A revolution is coming.” Really?

2014年8月22日 星期五

評"台灣1年車禍損失 可再蓋高鐵"




這則新聞有許多缺點。
只公布這類的總損失,意義不太大。類似的,我們可估計台灣一年的醫療失誤的總損失、火災總損失、公傷總損失、交通誤點......
這類數據,應該從60年代就有了,我們必須看長期趨勢。事實上,到80年代,台灣的車禍傷亡數字都很駭人的。
其次是車禍必須細分類別,最重要的是汽車(又可分巴士、轎車......)和摩托車。要給"可預防"類數據,說明採取矯正措施的可行性----有些車禍可能是系統或機遇原因所造成。
我們的行政院為了應付瑞士某商學院的競爭力報告,可以列舉至少百來個指標來"控制"。我們希望把更多的資源用來做些預防措施 (譬如說,教導繫安全帶、防禦性駕駛......)。



1年車禍損失 可再蓋高鐵
自由時報-2014年08月23日 上午08:01
台灣一年車禍造成的損失,可以再建一條高鐵。交通部運研所統計,99年全台發生21萬9千多件車禍,2047人喪生,29萬3千多人受傷,估計醫療費用、生產力損失等支出,讓社會損失3817億、佔我國當年GDP 2.8%。
去年則有1928名民眾因車禍喪生、37萬3千多人受傷,以損失一人,社會就損失1600萬;受傷一人,社會就會損失100萬來估計,去年因車禍損失支出增到4445億,佔去年GDP 3.3%。
運研所官員指出,去年因車禍社會造成的損失金額,「可以再蓋一條高鐵」,呼籲大家共同維護交通安全,減少社會損失。(記者黃立翔)

2014年8月8日 星期五

氣爆區測出甲烷 疑台電管線外洩



點擊圖片可瀏覽相關圖片
圖:中央社資料照片
新頭殼newtalk2014.08.08 金名/高雄報導

高雄市一心、凱旋路口今(8)日上午傳出有不明氣體外洩,隨後有人聽見現場傳出爆炸聲,由於驗出大量甲烷氣體,高雄市環保局長陳金德說,台電為了發電,在路口埋有一條16吋的天然氣管,內有甲烷氣體,懷疑是台電管線漏氣。

陳金德表示,環保局通知台電切斷管線,台電還一度不願意,最後警告現場隨時有氣爆危險,並撂下要台電後果自負,台電才將管線切斷。

李長榮今早6時在連在二聖、凱旋路口進行吹驅清運丙烯,8時左右,環保局在一心、凱旋路口測到甲烷、丙烯、乙烯、丁烷等多種混和氣體約4000ppm,現場吹驅作業暫停,救災人員立刻撤離現場,並要求凱旋三路211巷附近的住戶撤離,經緊急關閉加壓吹驅作業,到10時30分許,現場氣體濃度才下降不到100ppm。

由於現場還有中油及中石化管線,市長陳菊要求中油代表說明,中油強調,近日完成吹驅作業,也加壓頂水測試,抽取分析丙烯都未達20ppm,強調不可能是中油和中石化管線外洩。

根據環保局的紀錄, 7時50分測到洩漏氣體100ppm,8時10分為600ppm,8時20分為3000ppm,隨即停止加壓吹驅作業,8時25分關閥。陳金德指現場還驗微量乙烯、丙烯,由於李長榮沒有天然氣管、中油是乙烯與丙烯管,因此初步排除漏氣可能,且檢測結果是甲烷。

陳金德指出,台電為了發電,在一心與凱旋路口埋有一條16吋的天然氣管,內有甲烷氣體,且無添加臭氣,現場測到的甲烷濃度一度飆到5000ppm,因此懷疑是台電管線漏氣。

不過上午近10時,有人聽見現場傳出「碰」的爆炸聲,環保局人員也證實,但目前尚查不出氣爆點所在。

2014年8月5日 星期二

At the Japanese auto giant, unplanned, agenda-free meetings are ubiquitous and indispensable.

strategy+business
 
strategy&
 
enews | Developments in strategy+business

For Honda, Waigaya Is the Way
by Jeffrey Rothfeder

At the Japanese auto giant, unplanned, agenda-free meetings are ubiquitous and indispensable.

Click here to read the full article.
Click here to comment on this article.

“If we don’t include our associates in the decision making, we’re ignoring potentially our most valuable asset.”
Published: August 1, 2014
 / Autumn 2014 / Issue 76

 
 

For Honda, Waigaya Is the Way

At the Japanese auto giant, unplanned, agenda-free meetings are ubiquitous and indispensable.

None of the conference rooms were available, so the meeting was held in a maintenance closet: an 8-by-8-foot room with mops, brooms, and brushes, and the smell of detergent in the air. Ten men and women squeezed into the tiny space. They all wore white pants and white shirts with their first names embroidered in red on the upper right side. It’s the uniform that every Honda Motor Company employee, whether pipe fitter or president, wears on the job at every factory or office. This is intended to diminish the influence of rank; in the moment-to-moment give-and-take of Honda workers’ daily responsibilities, all points of view or suggestions are equal. You may agree or think them foolish, but others’ title or position, camouflaged by their uniforms, should not be a factor in drawing your conclusion.
Shoehorned into the room were factory floor managers, assembly line associates (that’s Honda’s term for workers), and quality control experts at the Anna, Ohio, engine plant, where Honda has been making motors and drivetrain components since 1985. The plant, which was opened three years after Honda inaugurated its first U.S. automobile factory in nearby Marysville, Ohio, produces about 1.2 million motors a year, making it one of the world’s largest engine factories.
A serious crisis on the plant floor spurred this spontaneous meeting. A supplier had sent the Anna team dozens of camshafts with a hairline defect that produced a faint, rhythmic chirping sound in the engine. This noise, barely audible but disturbing, was discovered at the Marysville plant at the end of the Honda Accord sedan assembly line when workers revved the motors for the first time. Because of the tight conditions under the hood, it appeared that it would be impossible to remove the defective camshafts without taking the engines out of the cars as well.
The factory managers at the two plants drew up a preliminary plan to ship the affected Accords 50 miles from Marysville to Anna, where the engines could be repaired and reinstalled. It seemed like the only viable option, although clearly not a desirable one. The whole process, not counting transportation, could take upward of three hours per car. When the plan was relayed to the Anna workers, a quality control specialist shook her head, saying: “Let’s get off the floor and talk about it.”
Such unplanned, shapeless gatherings are the hallmark of the Honda Way. They are called waigaya, which isn’t a word in Japanese or any other language, but rather a name given them by Takeo Fujisawa, the business partner of company founder Soichiro Honda (at least according to company lore). He chose the word because to him the three syllables sounded like babble, the jabber of many people talking at the same time—Wai-ga-ya, wai-ga-ya, wai-ga-ya; in English, it could be hubbub. It is the noise of heated discussion and the free flow of ideas; it represents a battleground of facts and opinions—of chaotic communication, open disagreement, and inharmonious decision making.
Of course, most waigaya don’t start out so dramatically. On that day in Anna, away from the thrum of the factory, in the quiet, albeit congested, maintenance room, a Honda manager said to the others, “Look, I’d prefer not to belabor this issue because we’ve got a lot of work to do to get this process moving. And since the fix will be such a time sink, let’s not make it worse by losing more time discussing it.”
Although most in the room concurred with the manager, one of the associates noted testily: “We’re doing something very wrong if a slight problem in the engine isn’t addressed until the end of the vehicle’s assembly line, when we have no choice but to tear the car back down. We should have discovered this problem before.”
The Anna factory head was getting impatient. Hindsight and complaining about what should not have gone wrong were useless, and if that’s what this meeting was going to turn into—a session to air frustrations—he preferred that it end sooner rather than later. Yet he knew better than to try cutting off discussion about this too early; you didn’t do that at Honda. A balance had to be preserved between hearing everybody’s ideas—a good one might yet emerge—and moving people back to their jobs.
The discussion went on for about 20 minutes, with petty arguments flaring up and little being accomplished. The meeting seemed to be winding down when an assembler suggested a way to replace the camshafts without having to remove the engine completely and virtually rebuild the guts of the car: through an overhead pulley system that would lift the motor just far enough out of the Accord to give the workers room to maneuver.
“It’s not worth it,” one of his colleagues responded. “That’s more work than just doing the repairs. Let’s just give up and do it the obvious way.” But the assembler’s suggestion struck a chord with the quality control expert who had originally called for the meeting. Upon hearing it, she remembered something she had seen a month or so earlier in Marysville, an observation that she suddenly realized could provide a possible solution. “In Marysville, I was looking at how our engines were fitting just for the hell of it, and I noticed that there was a bit of room around the engine that just seemed larger than usual,” she told the team. “It was just a curious reflection; it didn’t mean anything to me at the time or until now. But that small bit of space, I think, will give us enough room to tilt the engine sufficiently to get at the camshaft. If it does, we can then make the fix without any pulleys or a major conveyance system. We can experiment with this and come back together to discuss within a couple of hours.”
Indeed, she was right. In short order, the Anna engine line and quality control workers had put together a scheme with “jigs, pictures, and everything else to basically roll the engine, pull the heads off, reset all the taps, put a new camshaft in—and tie up only an hour per vehicle, saving two hours for each car,” said Paul Dentinger, the Anna plant supervisor who was involved in that incident. Dentinger said that he recalled this story so vividly because it started out as one of those seemingly fruitless moments at Honda when you wished the corporate culture were more like that of most other companies—that is, less sensitivity about employees and their ideas and more top-down management, letting supervisors’ stances carry more weight in the discussion phase than, say, an assembly worker’s.
“If we had the old style of management at Honda that says do it this way, that there is no other way, follow the blueprint that we created without your input,” Dentinger said, “we would be literally sliding engines in and out of cars every day, not knowing that there might be a better way that, given the chance, one of our associates would think of. If we don’t include our associates in the decision making, we’re ignoring potentially our most valuable asset.”
“If we don’t include our associates in the decision making, we’re ignoring potentially our most valuable asset.”

Embracing Paradox

Soichiro Honda famously said that success is 99 percent failure. And, in fact, Honda’s spontaneous, open meetings may have little value half the time, and often appear to be a waste of resources. But on the whole, in Honda Motor’s experience, waigaya leads directly to significant improvements in productivity, process, systems, and performance that would otherwise have been absent.
As an offspring of Soichiro Honda’s unstructured management and cultural style—which is best exemplified by his insistence that Honda employees favor unorthodoxy over imitation—waigaya comes in many forms. It can be a half-hour meeting on a specific problem that needs to be addressed immediately, or it can be a series of sessions that go on for weeks or months about a new factory under development or a vehicle model upgrade. Every department at Honda practices waigaya—sales and marketing, manufacturing, maintenance. As few as three people or as many as 20 may attend.
At the heart of waigaya is a single concept: Paradoxes and disagreements are the essence of continuous improvement. Most companies are afraid of such dualities, but opposing concepts routinely alter the business equation: centralization versus decentralization, worker empowerment versus productivity, multinational control versus indigenous autonomy, disruptive innovation versus cannibalization of existing product lines, and on and on.
At the heart of Honda’s waigaya is a single concept: Paradoxes and disagreements are the essence of continuous improvement.
Indeed, once you begin considering conflicting possibilities, you must be prepared to continue doing so and to constantly weigh whether there is a contrasting point of view that has not been given full measure in the current strategic posture. Thus, throughout its history, Honda has welcomed paradoxes as opportunities to continually reassess the status quo and shape new responses to ingrained expectations.
Although waigaya may seem too free-form to be productive and may appear to lack a leadership component strong enough to produce real results, these meetings actually have an organizing framework that, at least in theory, ensures their success. Indeed, the central tenets of Honda Motor’s waigaya approach can best be explained by four straightforward rules:
  1. Everybody is equal in waigaya, and all can express their thoughts with impunity.
  2. All ideas must be debated until they are either proven valid or rejected.
  3. Once a person shares an idea, he or she doesn’t own it anymore—it belongs to Honda, and the group can do with the idea what it will.
  4. At the end of waigaya, decisions and responsibilities are generated—a precise list of who is to do what, and by when.

Channeling Bruce Lee

“Waigaya to me means perpetual dissatisfaction,” said one Honda executive. “At our company, self-satisfaction is the enemy.” Or, put another way, waigaya is the antithesis of the status quo. That was made clear in one of the most quarrelsome interactions at a series of waigaya leading up to the development of the third-generation Acura TL. A midsized luxury sedan, the original TL was introduced in 1995, and immediately became Acura’s best-selling model and the second best selling automobile in its category in the United States, behind the BMW 3 Series.
Nearly a decade after its debut, the TL’s boxy design had become a liability; more often than not, potential customers viewed the car as old-fashioned and stuffy. Sleekness, speed, and catlike responses to road conditions were increasingly the expectation for cars in this corner of the market. It was clear that the TL needed a design overhaul.
In 2004, Honda put together a team of designers; manufacturing experts; and sales, marketing, and engineering specialists to come up with the new model. The waigaya would be the channel through which the reinterpretation of the TL would initially be crafted. Ten people took part in this waigaya, which was frequently adjourned and went on for months.
After a lengthy early discussion, a catchphrase to conceptually characterize the car was agreed upon: “the Ultimate Athlete.” Inspired by this term, the car’s chief designer envisioned a single individual as the manifestation of the new TL. “I’m a big Bruce Lee fan,” said Jon Ikeda, who has since been promoted to head of the Acura Design Studio. “So I saw the car, this athlete, as if it were a metallic version of Bruce Lee, flexing its muscles, its tendons tense and outsized, its body ready to pounce and move quickly, unimpeded, in any direction it had to go.”
The waigaya proceeded generally as expected. Each participant had ideas about what the car should look like and of the type of engine, interior design, and components that would fit within the overall cost boundaries and still give the TL a facelift that could reanimate its potential customer base. As these recommendations were argued over, the large project leader—that’s the title given to the overall manager of each Honda development group—was looking for consensus: both points of agreement and areas that everyone felt might need more investigation in the next phases of the redesign effort. At the conclusion of the waigaya, his goal was to produce initial specifications for the vehicle that the entire team could support.
However, this story does not imply that waigaya achieves consensus through compromise. Quite the opposite; it would be a failure if that were the outcome, a triumph of the lowest common denominator. Instead, the purpose of waigaya is to extract the most distinctive ideas from a team of professionals with widely divergent backgrounds, generating previously unimagined recommendations that suit the conceptual, design, manufacturing, and budgetary framework of the vehicle.
“It’s not design by committee,” said Ikeda. “A good project leader will have a vision of where he wants to go with the car, and he will make sure that everybody’s ideas that survived the waigaya are considered for the final design—but then only some will make the final design; others won’t because they’re ill suited. After that, he sells the whole package back to us so we can call it our own and begin to think about the challenges of building the car now that we know its specifications.”
The most intriguing moment of the Acura TL’s waigaya—an instant in which a sudden burst of anger laid bare the full potential of the waigaya as a laboratory for innovation—occurred when Ikeda insisted on a radical concept for the car’s wheels.
Most of the cars in the Acura TL’s category had a relatively conservative tire thrust. Given his Bruce Lee conceit, Ikeda believed that if the new TL’s tires were conventional and didn’t support the athleticism of the rest of the car with their own sheer strength, the vehicle would look awkward and soft, like a man with a powerful torso and flabby legs.
Since the discussions about design elements during the waigaya had gone about as he had hoped, Ikeda could afford to approach the tire issue with a bit of swagger. He told the team: “I’m going to ask for a lot of stuff, or I’m going to ask for one thing; it’s your choice. Well, I know you’d rather one thing, so here it is: The tire size must be exactly what I want—17 inches [in diameter], 235/45, not 16 inches, 215/55, which would be more in line with a typical and less aggressive TL upgrade. I’m going to need the wider, bigger wheels to make a powerful, potent statement on the road—a vehicle that will be noticed for its hard-body physique that can deftly turn from a dead stop. And I want these tires on the base model, not some upper-end version of the TL.”
Ikeda’s single-demand strategy worked masterfully at first. Although there was grumbling that the tire design would add to the budget and would necessitate modifications to the chassis, suspension, and drivetrain, most of the other waigaya attendees were drawn to Ikeda’s idea because it was singular and bold, perfect for a car that few people viewed in those terms anymore. The dynamics engineer noted that the bigger tires would improve performance. The representative from the engine team, although a bit less upbeat, was also basically on board. He pointed out that the wheels Ikeda had selected would reduce fuel economy, but he added that if the design required these specifications, he would be willing to work on squeezing a few more miles per gallon out of the motor. Ikeda was convinced that he had won an enormous victory.
Suddenly, though, a business-side vice president, who represented Honda’s Japanese headquarters, spoke up softly. “It’s not going to happen,” he said. “You don’t even understand what you’re asking for. The cost of the testing time to make such a change is immense. That’s crazy. We’re not going to pay for that. I know you guys will be unhappy to hear me say this, but this is not a road you want to go down for this car. We’re going to do the 16-inch wheel, and that’s that.”
Ikeda was fuming; he felt that the vice president had hijacked the waigaya by implicitly using his seniority and, worse yet, his access to top corporate executives in Japan, to undercut the other opinions in the room. And given the stunned silence as the VP finished talking, Ikeda concluded that the VP had indeed succeeded in intimidating everyone and, in the process, had undermined the ideals of the waigaya. Ikeda stared at the vice president, his anger visible in his deep-set black eyes. “We’re trying to make a dream here,” Ikeda said. (Ikeda admitted later that he chose these words purposefully. The word dream has coursed through Honda Motor’s connective tissue since the debut of the Dream Machine, the company’s first completely Honda-built motorcycle, in 1949. It was a favorite word of Soichiro Honda, who said, “Honda has always moved ahead of the times, and I attribute its success to the fact that the firm possesses dreams.”)
“And you’re going to piss on our dreams?” Ikeda continued. “You’re going to reject them just like that, with some old-fashioned attitude that the new is impossible because it just looks like it is? Dream a little. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do? Six months from now, if we are unable to live up to our dreams, then reject us. But not now.”
Even as he spoke, Ikeda kept reminding himself that there are no stupid questions, answers, or comments in waigaya, that he was not committing career suicide with this passionate but obviously angry rant at a superior. When Ikeda finished talking, the meeting was adjourned; there was a palpable sense of relief in the room. The other participants had known that someone had to say what Ikeda said.
In the end, Ikeda got what he asked for. The project leader, Erik Berkman, told him after the session that he would include the larger wheels in the design because undoubtedly it was the right choice for this car and had the support of the waigaya. The waigaya had helped convince Berkman that the VP’s stance did not mesh with the overall direction that the new Acura TL needed.

The Everyday Waigaya

When you ask people at Honda about their most memorable waigaya, they often recall individual dramatic incidents such as when the faulty Accord camshafts were replaced in Anna or the iconic TL tires were agreed upon. After all, these were explicit, identifiable moments when out of the ashes of desultory discussion—blah, blah, blah, waigaya, waigaya, waigaya—something truly useful emerged; a simple, quiet idea was hatched out of noise.
But waigaya are so second nature to Honda, so prevalent each day in every one of the company’s manufacturing facilities, research labs, design centers, and offices around the world, that they, in effect, take the place of watercooler discussions. Many waigaya occur daily but are continued over a period of time. Just as it’s hard for most of us to separate one casual workplace conversation from another, Honda employees may find it difficult to remember exactly who said what yesterday or last week at an ongoing waigaya. That’s why waigaya have their greatest impact: Once woven into the fabric of day-to-day activities, waigaya become increasingly spontaneous, candid, fearless, and unself-conscious—the very characteristics that Honda believes are necessary for practical new ideas to blossom. 
Reprint No. 00269

AUTHOR PROFILE:

  • Jeffrey Rothfeder is the former editor-in-chief at International Business Times and national news editor at Bloomberg News. He is the author of eight books, includingMcIlhenny’s Gold: How a Louisiana Family Built the Tabasco Empire (Collins, 2007).
  • Adapted from Driving Honda: Inside the World’s Most Innovative Car Company, by Jeffrey Rothfeder, in agreement with Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Random House. Copyright © 2014 by Jeffrey Rothfeder.


網誌存檔