総説・解説等

Productivity gains from structural shifts could be highly significant in economic development. More specifically, it has been argued that the rapid shift of capital and labor into the "modern sector" of higher labor productivity played a pivotal role in the Asian Miracle by preventing a decline in the return on capital despite the sustained high investment ratios in these high-performing economies (see, for example, Nelson, R. and Pack, H., The Asian Miracle and Modern Growth Theory, Economic Journal, 1999; 109: 416–436). Since the 1960s, a handful of East Asian economies, notably Singapore, the Republic of China, Hong Kong, and the Republic of Korea, have managed to set themselves off on a path of impressive growth. With their real per capita GDP growing at a pace of 4–5% per year on average, these economies outperformed other comparable developing countries in the 1960s and stand out as the only region that has managed to catch up to the living standards of the advanced countries. The accompanying figure (Figure 5 in the APO Productivity Databook 2008) shows how these economies rapidly closed the per capita income gap with the USA from 1975, against the background of little progress made by the region as a whole. Because of its potential policy significance, what has been the recipe for the Asian Miracle has been a subject of vigorous academic debate. Among other views, narrowing the "idea gap" was put forward as an explanation by Paul Romer (Idea Gaps and Object Gaps in Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, 1993; 32: 543–573). He argued that underlying the success of the East Asian economies was their ability to adopt existing technologies from the advanced economies. If true, this represented a less costly approach to economic development than the accumulation view whereby the road to prosperity is through savings and investment, in other words, forgone current consumption, which many poor countries cannot easily afford. Empirical evidence, however, has lent little support for this view. East Asia's rapid growth has been found to be largely driven by factor accumulation, with total factor productivity (TFP) growth accounting for only one-fourth of the region's growth in labor productivity between 1960 and 1994 (Collins, S. and Bosworth, B., Economic Growth in East Asia: Accumulation versus Assimilation, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1996; 2: 135–203). The main lessons from East Asia's success therefore are not about which policies best promote TFP growth. Rather, the focus should be on how to achieve and sustain high rates of savings and investment, defying the law of diminishing returns. With an investment ratio of over 20% of GDP, Nelson and Pack (1999) argued that the success of the fast-growing Asian economies lay in their extraordinary ability to absorb and assimilate technologies superior to their own at a rapid pace sustained over a long period without slowing. This process involved uncertainty and economic risk in an essential way. To sow the seeds of success, a favorable policy environment was first required to nurture learning, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Subsequently, it was the shift of resources into the more modern, capital-intensive technologies through aggressive entrepreneurship and progressive learning that held the key to sustaining high rates of return on capital and in turn investment, which drove growth. In other words, the observed dramatic shift in the product mix and firm size in these Asian economies should be seen as an integral part of their success story which ran far deeper than simply factor accumulation.

Asia is a diverse region with countries at different stages of economic development. Part of this diversity is reflected in the national industrial composition. Economic data suggest that the more an economy relies on its agricultural sector, the lower its per capita GDP. Although the actual path of economic development may vary, an effective redeployment of resources from the agricultural sector appears to be an element common to a country's development outcome. The accompanying chart shows national industrial composition of total value added in 2005 (Figure 13 in the APO Productivity Databook 2008). The share of agriculture ranged from 44.8% in Lao PDR to 1.4% in Japan. The data suggest a negative correlation between the size of the agricultural sector and the relative per capita GDP against the USA. That is, the lowest income group tends to have the largest agricultural sector, whereas the top group has the smallest. Agricultural employment in Asia accounted for 45% of total employment in 2005, compared with 1.1% for the USA. In Asia, agriculture generally has a higher employment share than its corresponding value-added share, implying that the sector's labor productivity level lags behind that of the wider economy. In 2005, per-worker value added in agriculture was only 31% of that in the nonagricultural sector on average. Assuming other things being equal, this difference in the industrial structure alone, i.e., the relatively less productive sector having a much greater weight, explains 10–20% of Asia's 84% labor productivity shortfall against the USA. In the context of long-term trends, this snapshot of cross-country comparisons in 2005 reflects regional progress rather than weakness. Despite the widespread variations, nearly all countries studied are making concerted efforts to shift resources from agriculture, and most experienced positive labor productivity growth between 2000 and 2005, ranging from 1.1% in Japan to 5.8% in Malaysia (Table 11 in the APO Productivity Databook 2008). The trend of a long-term relative decline of agriculture is unmistakable. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Green Revolution and rural reforms preceded economic reforms and the subsequent takeoff in China and India in the 1980s (see for example, Sachs, J., The End of Poverty, 2005). The boost in rural income was significant when agriculture's share in total employment was around 70% in both countries in the 1970s. The subsequent emergence of high-performing new sectors (particularly manufacturing in China and IT services in India) held the key to the productive absorption of resources displaced from agriculture and spurred overall growth. By 2005, agriculture's employment share had fallen to 53.7% and 44.8% in India and China, respectively. However, the corresponding value-added share of 18.3% and 12.6% still suggests significant slack in agriculture in these two economies, despite their rapid economic growth. Underemployment, and informal production and employment, are suspected to be prevalent in agriculture in these fast-transforming Asian economies. Given the size of the sector, their impact on economic measurement could be significant.

21世紀に入りアジア経済は高成長を遂げたが、日本は低成長に停滞してきた。本稿ではアジア全域の長期的な生産性改善と、パンデミック期に顕在化した制度的脆弱性を論じる。高い成長ポテンシャルを持つ南アジア・東南アジア諸国には、今後15–25年の人口ボーナス期を活かす制度基盤の整備が不可欠となる。拡大する所得効果は、日本経済の成長の好機となりうる。成長共創は、理念的な枠組みではなく、制度的応答力の向上によって実現される。

首都圏の不動産価格は高騰し多額の含み益が生じているが、地方との価格差が拡大するなか、現行の譲渡所得税制は地方移住の制度的障壁となっている。本稿では、都市部の居住用不動産を売却して地方へ移住する際、譲渡益の80％を控除する新たな税制の導入を提案する。これにより追加の財政負担を伴うことなく、比較的富裕な層の資産・消費・経験を地方に再配分し、地域における「集積の経済」形成の契機とすべきであると主張する。

This study examines productivity dynamics in the Maldives from 1970 to 2023 in comparison with SAARC countries and Fiji. Strong TFP growth in the late 1980s was followed by investment-led growth with negative TFP in the 1990s–2000s. Since the 2010s, TFP growth has stagnated near zero, while labor quality has ceased to improve. Despite relatively high per capita GDP, the Maldives shows weak labor productivity performance—above Afghanistan but below Nepal and Pakistan. The economy remains highly vulnerable to external shocks such as the 2005 tsunami, the 2009 global financial crisis, and the 2020 pandemic.

「エネルギー生産性の改善をどう捉えるか」をテーマに、慶應義塾大学産業研究所所長の野村浩二教授をゲストに迎えた対談の後編です。前編で野村教授は、規制などを通じた過度な省エネを推進すると、国内の産業空洞化を招く可能性に言及し、それが既に起こり始めていると指摘しました。後半では、鉄鋼業で実際に起きている現象をベースに、経済成長とエネルギー改善の在り方について、より視野を広げて考えます。また、政府の統計について深い知見を有する野村教授に、政策立案の潮流となっているEBPM（エビデンス・ベースト・ポリシー・メイキング＝証拠に基づく政策立案）の導入に伴い、統計作成の現場で起きている変化についても伺いました。

具体的な数値を伴ったデータが“エビデンス”として示されると、示された側は、それを疑うことなしに受け入れがちです。しかし、その内容や、一緒に伝えられた解釈は本当に“正しい”ものなのでしょうか。ゲストにお招きした慶應義塾大学産業研究所所長の野村浩二教授は、「“エビデンス”を健全に疑う」姿勢が大切だと指摘します。専門分野の1つである「エネルギー生産性の改善をどう捉えるか」というテーマの対談を通じて、その作法の一端を披露していただきました。聞き手はPwCコンサルティングの片岡剛士チーフエコノミスト、モデレーターはPwCコンサルティングのシニアエコノミスト 伊藤篤が務めました。