马来西亚应如何脱离中等收入陷阱
信息来自：VoxEU.org · 作者：Aaron Flaaen，Ejaz Ghani，Saurab · 日期：13-08-2013
2013-8-13
提要：马来西亚成功实现了低收入到中等收入的结构转型，成为世界最出色的制造业出口国之一。然而，和许多其他中等收入经济体一样，马来西亚正受到低工资经济体和创新型发达经济体的双向挤压。本文指出，在当今全球经济环境下，生产率高增长与低增长的区分标准已不再是“工业与非工业”，而是“传统经济活动与现代经济活动”。服务业提供给马来西亚等中等收入经济体的增长机遇尤为突出。服务业的现代化或许提供了一条脱离中等收入陷阱的道路，并能成为马来西亚未来经济增长的动力。
（外脑精华•北京）许多发展中国家通过高速经济增长成功实现了从低收入到中等收入的转型，但随后就陷入了中等收入陷阱。能够从中等收入经济体成功转型为高收入经济体的国家至今寥寥无几，目前人们对其原因依然知之甚少。尤其令人担忧之处在于，目前全球多数贫困人口并非生活在低收入经济体，而生活在中等收入经济体。那么，什么是中等收入陷阱？决策者应采取什么对策？
本文以马来西亚为例，讨论中等收入陷阱问题。马来西亚从低收入经济体到中等收入经济体的结构转型是成功的，令其成为世界最出色的制成品出口国之一。然而，和许多其他中等收入经济体一样，马来西亚正受到低工资经济体和创新型发达经济体的双向挤压。
何为中等收入陷阱
中等收入陷阱是指经济发展的一定水平，一个经济体达到这一水平时，就会受到低工资生产型经济体和高技能创新型经济体的双向挤压。中等收入经济体过去的经济增长动力来自制造业出口部门的成本优势，但面对工资更低的经济体，此时这种优势却开始下滑。在两类经济体的夹击之下，许多中等收入经济体找不到可行的高增长战略。它们面临众多新挑战，包括社会凝聚力下降、大批青年人得不到就业以及大量贫困人口（尤其是在其落后地区）。
随着全球、制度和结构等各层面环境的转变，中等收入经济体已无法再依靠以往的有效战略来保持过去的经济增长速度。如果既得利益者占据优势，新兴高竞争力经济部门没有话语权，经济转型就会更加困难。中等收入经济体常见两种通病：要么迟迟不肯放弃过去的成功政策，要么过早地放弃那些可以为下一步专业化进程打下基础的行业。总之，时机选择和平稳转型是成功走出中等收入陷阱的两项要素。
何处寻找经济增长新动力
目前世界正在经历第三次产业革命，而服务全球化处于这场革命的前沿。在一定程度上由于传输成本下降，服务活动的可贸易性增强，并具备了成为经济增长新动力的潜力。可进行数字化传输的许多服务都在持续增长，包括教育、医疗、保险、审计、呼叫中心等等。可贸易型现代服务的种类正在急剧增长，服务业生产率的增速大大超过了制造业。
1987-2007年间，马来西亚农业、制造业和服务业三个部门的劳均产出都保持了上升趋势，但制造业生产增速明显高于其他两部门。马来西亚制造业的发展得益于良好的基础设施、健康的制度、融入全球经济以及劳动力技能。再则，马来西亚的战略位置及其作为东南亚与西方商业交往中心的历史地位令该国拥有参与制造业国际贸易的历史传统。然而，马来西亚服务业出口却不如制造业出口成功。
比较1990-2007年间马来西亚、中国、印度、韩国和美国五国的各经济部门对劳动生产率增长的贡献度，可以看到，东亚两国和印度的情况与人们的一般印象相符：在中韩两国，工业部门对生产率增长的贡献占据绝对优势，而印度的生产率增长主要依靠服务业。美国作为服务业规模庞大的高收入经济体，服务业对生产率增长的贡献度也很高。马来西亚的情况看来介于四国之间。
再比较2000-09年间六个亚洲国家（中国、印度、韩国、新加坡、泰国和马来西亚）、巴西和美国的现代服务与传统服务出口的增长情况，可以看到，其他所有其他国家的现代服务出口增幅都大大高于美国，只有马来西亚是例外，其现代服务的出口增幅低于美国。
这里所说的现代服务出口包括电信服务、计算机和信息服务、其他商业服务、金融服务出口，以及版税和专利费。传统服务业出口包括交通运输、建筑、个人服务和文娱服务出口。
马来西亚制造业与服务业的生产率之间存在巨大的鸿沟，而且近年来还在加速扩大。然而，这道鸿沟并不是马来西亚经济发展的必然结果。生产率增长并不是制造业的固有属性。事实上，在当今全球经济环境下，生产率高增长与低增长的区分标准已不再是“工业与非工业”，而是“传统经济活动与现代经济活动”。因此，对马来西亚而言，相比仅仅依靠特定经济部门来促进生产率增长，真正需要的是实现广泛的结构转变，即促使制造业和服务业两部门都转向生产率更高的生产活动。
马来西亚决策层应如何行动
过去几十年间，马来西亚通过贸易、资本和经济管理这三种全球化途径来扩充其可贸易品部门，从而成为最先进产品的出口国之一。然而，马来西亚服务业尚未实现现代化、从而对经济增长作出突出的贡献。那么，马来西亚应如何推动其服务业向高收入方向发展？
马来西亚在2020年之前成为高收入经济体的战略以一系列计划作为支撑。根据这些计划，公共投资将加速增长，并为私人制造业、服务业和矿业提供支持。马来西亚将大力对关键制造业和服务业活动实行市场化。然而，马来西亚还有很多工作要做。
决策层应鼓励企业家精神和创新，以求在廉价劳动力和知识扩散的效应耗尽之前令信息网络和高技能劳动力开始发挥作用。
要建设具备企业所需技能的劳动力队伍，马来西亚应迅速扩大中等教育、而后是高等教育体系。高技能工人和专业人员是高附加值的现代服务业和制造业不可缺少的要素。“劳动力技能危机”是马来西亚经济的重要缺陷。
马来西亚的另一个重点政策领域应是吸引高生产能力的外国企业在马来西亚布置生产能力。除了高工资、进口资本设备和丰厚税收的直接利益外，这些外企对整个马来西亚经济将产生重要的溢出效应。
最值得期待的是服务业的发展。服务业全球化的光明前景意味着，马来西亚应利用互联网和电信技术提供的市场空间。
可进行数字化和国际贸易的现代服务领域一直在扩展。印度是领先者，但许多其他新兴经济体正在意识到，服务业比工业更容易实现生产率增长。服务业发展为马来西亚这样的新兴经济体提供了脱离中等收入陷阱的另一种经济增长途径。
英文原文：How to avoid middle-income traps? Evidence from Malaysia
Many developing countries have successfully made the transition from low-income to middle-income status, thanks to rapid economic growth, but have subsequently got stuck in a middle-income trap. A great deal of research has been done on what explains much faster growth in the developing world than in the developed world （Acemoglu et al 2011, Baldwin 2011, Commission on Growth and Development 2008, Rodrik 2013, UNIDO 2011）. But little is known about why so few countries succeed in making the transition from middle-income to high-income status （The Economist 2013）. This is a worrying trend and an issue of major concern, especially because the majority of poor people now live not in low-income but in middle-income countries （Chandy and Gertz 2011, Sumner and Kanbur 2011）. So what is a middle-income trap? What should policymakers do about it?
We examine these questions in the context of Malaysia, whose structural transformation from low to middle income has made it one of the most prominent manufacturing exporters' in the world. However, in a competitive global economy, like many other middle-income economies, it is sandwiched between low-wage economies on one side and more innovative advanced economies on the other.
What is a middle-income trap?
The middle-income trap is a development stage that characterises countries that are squeezed between low-wage producers and highly skilled and fast-moving innovators. Cost advantages in manufactured exports that once drove growth start to decline in comparison with other lower-wage countries. Caught between these two groups, many middle-income countries are without a viable high-growth strategy. They are faced with new challenges, including social cohesion, a large pool of young people in search of jobs, as well as millions who still live in misery and poverty, particularly in lagging regions.
As global, institutional, and structural environments evolve, prior strategies no longer remain effective at generating an equivalent rate of economic growth. Transition becomes more difficult when the status quo prevails, and the emerging competitive sectors do not have a seat at the table. Many middle-income countries tend to make two common mistakes: either they cling to past successful policies for too long, or they exit prematurely from the industries that could have served as the basis for their specialisation process （Agénor and Canuto 2012; Aiyar et al. 2013;s Eichengreen, Park, and Shin 2013; Felipe 2012; Gill and Kharas 2007; Nungsari and Zeufack 2009; OECD 2007）. Timing and smooth transition are the two keys to success.
What might be the new growth drivers?
The world is experiencing a third industrial revolution, with the globalisation of services being at the forefront （Blinder 2006, Ghani 2010）. Due in part to lower transport costs, services are now characterised by growing tradability and a potential new source of growth. The number of services that can be transported digitally is constantly expanding - education, health, insurance, audits, call centers, and many more. The list of modern services that can be traded is exploding, and productivity growth in services is increasing at a much faster pace than in manufacturing.
Figure 1 compares output per worker in Malaysia in agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors during the past two decades. Although all three sectors have experienced an upward trend, productivity growth in the manufacturing sector trumps the other two sectors. Good infrastructure, sound institutions, global integration, and skills have benefitted the manufacturing sector. Its strategic location and historical role as a regional hub for commercial interactions with the West has given Malaysia a long history of international trade in manufacturing. However, the record for Malaysian services exports has been less successful.
Figure 2 compares the sectoral contribution to total labour productivity growth in Malaysia, with China, India, Korea, and the US. For the two east Asian countries and India, the results broadly agree with popular perceptions of the regions: there is a dominant contribution of the industrial sector in both Korea and China, while India relies mostly on services for overall productivity growth. As a high-income country with a large services sector, the US also records high contributions from services along with minimal benefits from reallocating labour among the sectors. Malaysia appears to fit somewhere between India, the US, and the east Asian countries.
Figure 3 compares the export of modern and traditional services from Malaysia with other countries. Brazil, China, India, Singapore, and Thailand have all experienced a much faster decadal growth in export of modern services （and traditional services） compared to the US. The exception is Malaysia, which experienced a slower growth in modern service export compared to the US.
Note: Modern services include exports in telecommunications, computer and information services, other business services, financial services, insurance, royalties, and license fees. Traditional services include travel, transportation, construction and personal, cultural, and recreational services exports.
A large gap in productivity exists between manufacturing and services in Malaysia, and this gap has only accelerated in recent years. However, this gap is not the inevitable consequence of a country's economic evolution. There is no intrinsic characteristic of manufacturing that translates into inevitable productivity growth. Rather, in the current global environment, 'industrial versus nonindustrial' is no longer the appropriate distinction for designating high-productivity/low-productivity production. The key designation is 'modern versus traditional' activities. Therefore, rather than advocate for a particular sector as the source of stronger growth in Malaysia, there is a stronger need for broad structural transformation; that is, moving to higher productivity production in both goods and services.
What should policymakers do?
Over the past several decades, Malaysia has leveraged the three channels of globalisation - trade, capital, and economic management - to expand its tradable sector, and has consequently become one of the most sophisticated exporters of manufacturing goods in the world. The services sector in Malaysia has yet to modernise and contribute substantively to economic growth. What steps can be taken to advance this sector to enable Malaysia to proceed on the path to high-income status?
Malaysia's economic strategy to become a high-income economy by the year 2020 is strongly supported by the Economic Transformation Program, Strategic Reform Initiatives, and Government Transformation Program. Public investments through the Economic Transformation Program are expected to accelerate in the future, as the implementation of large infrastructure and investment projects gather momentum and are funded by government-linked companies. Furthermore, these investments have also bolstered private manufacturing, services, and mining sectors in targeted growth corridors. The Economic Transformation Program has made great strides in liberalising crucial manufacturing and services activities to pull in a skilled labour pool and relax restrictions on capital mobility. But more can be done:
Policymakers should promote entrepreneurship and innovation to begin reaping the benefits of information networks and skilled labour before the gains from cheap labour and knowledge spillovers are exhausted.
Rapidly expanding the secondary and then tertiary education system will be critical in producing graduates with the skills that employers require. Highly skilled workers and professionals are an indispensable ingredient of high, valued-added, modern services and manufacturing. The "skills crisis" is a well-known shortcoming of the Malaysian economy.
-- Attracting highly productive foreign firms to locate production in Malaysia is another area on which policy makers should focus.
Apart from the direct benefits of high wages, imported capital equipment, and substantial tax revenues, the spillovers between these firms and the broader economy are well documented. More can be done, including allowing foreign-owned firms - particularly in the services sector - to gain from network externalities and collateral benefits of foreign direct investment to stimulate further growth, and promoting venture capital investments for small domestic startup firms seeking to scale to global markets.
-- Developing the services sector holds the greatest promise.
In particular, providing access to learning and training opportunities to build social entrepreneurs and product innovations will be crucial. The promise of the globalisation of services means that Malaysia should utilise the market space provided by internet and communication technologies to foster business innovations for the global economy. In this respect, the interaction of spatial transformations linked to such structural changes will be paramount.
The range of modern services that can be digitised and traded globally is constantly expanding. India has been a pioneer, but many other emerging markets are finding it easier to generate productivity growth in services than in industry. This does not happen automatically. Although the same set of general non-distortionary policies is as important for modern services as for goods, specific strategies for services matter, like market integration and the technological changes in information networks. Services expansion provides an alternative growth escalator for emerging markets like Malaysia to escape the middle-income trap.
Conclusions
Malaysia and other countries facing the middle-income conundrum will need to expand their ‘modern’ sectors. This will work, in practice, when traditional sectors with low productivity shed labour and high productivity modern sectors （be they in goods or services） grow and hire more labour. Both processes are needed if a country is to climb out of the middle-income trap. But this process of structural reform can be tricky: structural reforms can be slow and complex, or fast and easy, depending on the ownership of the programme, implementation capabilities, and a macroeconomic stance that provides fiscal and political space to implement the program.
Editor's note: this is a summary of a World Bank Working PRE Paper on Malaysia by Flaaen et al, 2013. Views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily of the institution they may be associated with.
References
Acemoglu, D and J Robinson （2012）, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, New York, Crown.
Agénor, P-R, and O Canuto （2012）, “Middle-Income Growth Traps”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6210, Washington, DC.
Aiyar S, R Duval, D Puy, Y Wu, and L Zhang （2013）, “Growth Slowdowns and the Middle-Income Trap”, IMF Working Paper 71, Washington, DC.
Baldwin, R （2011）, “Trade and Industrialization after Globalization’s 2nd Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain are Different and Why It Matters”, NBER Working Paper 17716, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Barro, R J （2012）, “Convergence and Modernization Revisited”, NBER Working Paper No. 18295, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Blinder, A S （2006）, “Offshoring: The Next Industrial Revolution?”, Foreign Affairs, April.
Bosworth, B and A Maertens （2010）, “The Role of the Service Sector in Economic Growth and Employment in South Asia”, in Ejaz Ghani （ed.） Service Revolution in South-Asia, World Bank and Oxford University Press.
Chandy, L and G Gertz （2011）, “Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015”, Brookings Institute.
Commission on Growth and Development （2008）, “The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development”. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Eichengreen B, D Park and S Kwanho （2013）, “Growth Slowdowns Redux: New Evidence on the Middle-Income Trap”, NBER Working Paper No 18673, Cambridge, MA.
Felipe, J （2012）, “Tracking the Middle-Income Trap: What Is It, Who Is in It, and Why? Part 1.” ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 306, Manila.
Flaaen A, E Ghani and S Mishra （2013）, "How to avoid middle income traps ? evidence from Malaysia", Policy Research Working Paper Series 6427, World Bank.
Ghani, E （2010）, The Poor Half Billion in South Asia: What is Holding Back Lagging Regions? World Bank and Oxford University Press.
Ghani , E （2010）, The Service Revolution in South Asia, Oxford University Press.
Gill, I, and H Kharas （2007）, “An East Asia Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth”, Washington, DC, World Bank.
Haussmann R, J Hwang, and D Rodrik （2007）, “What You Export Matters”, Journal of Economic Growth 12 （1）, 1–25.
Kanbur, R and A Sumner （2011）, "Poor Countries or Poor People? Development Assistance and The New Geography of Global Poverty", February.
Kharas H, A Zeufack, and H Majeed （2010）, “Cities, People & the Economy: A Study on Positioning Penang”, Khazanah Nasional Berhad and World Bank.
Pritchett, L （1997）, “Divergence, Big Time”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11（3）, 3–17.
Rodrik, D （2013）, “The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Growth”, Global Citizen Foundation, Working Paper 1.
The Economist （2012）, “The middle-income trap”, 27 March.
UNIDO （United Nations Industrial Development Organization） （2009）, “Industrial Development Report: Breaking In and Moving Up; New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle-Income Countries”, available online at www.unido.org.
经济策划组
国家银行
MIDA
My Trade Link
马来西亚财政部
国家统计局
Country Report
新经济模式 （中文）
