电影何以笙箫默剧照:舒尔茨 获奖演说

没有找到原稿,现在只有份摘译

舒尔茨1979年荣获诺贝尔经济学奖获奖演说摘译

穷人的经济学

世界上大多数人是贫穷的，所以如果我们懂得穷人的经济学，也就懂得许多真正重要的经济学原理。世界上大多数穷人以农业为生，因而如果我们懂得了农业，也就懂得了穷人的经济学。

富人无法理解穷人的行为，经济学家也不例外，也无法弄懂穷人决策的偏好和稀缺约束条件。我们只知道世界上大多数人是贫穷的，他们通过出卖劳力获得微薄的收入，他们大部分收入都花在食品上，他们主要居住在低收入国家，以农业为生。经济学家不懂的是穷人和富人一样渴望改变他们自己以及他们孩子的命运。

在许多人看来，农业经济学近几十年的研究结果似乎是一个悖论。据我们所知，农业在许多低收入国家仍然存在提高食物产量的空间，能够养活不断增多的人口，穷人的收入和福利会得到改善。但提高穷人福利的决定性因素是人口素质，不是空间、能源或耕地。

在此，我首先要澄清经济学界的两个错误观点。大多数观察家都高估了土地的重要性，低估了人自身的重要性。

经济学界的错误

经济学界内存在一些理解上的错误。第一个错误是认为标准经济理论不适用于低收入国家，这些国家需要建立一个独立的经济学理论。一些经济学家转而从社会学或文化角度解释低收入国家的落后贫穷。幸运的是，这种趋势正在扭转。经济学家开始意识到标准经济模型同样适用于解释低收入国家面临的稀缺性问题。

第二个错误是对经济历史的漠视。古典经济学被鄙为没有生命力的理论。古典经济学建立的时候，西欧国家人民生活在水深火热之中。在李嘉图时代，英国家庭的劳动收入也主要是用来购买食物。在李嘉图的经典之作出版时，马歇尔说：“英国工人的周薪还不够买半蒲式耳小麦”。在印度，许多人仍生活在李嘉图那个年代的阴影之下，印度一个农民每周赚的钱还不够买两蒲式耳小麦。理解过去人们如何从贫困中走出有助于理解当今低收入国家的问题。

土地被高估

自然地球观认为适合耕种土地面积是固定的，地球无法为持续增长的人口生产足够的农产品。社会经济学观点认为人类有能力和智慧来减少对耕地、传统农业和日渐衰竭的能源的依赖。

具有讽刺意味的是，以沉闷著称的经济学却能够说明悲天悯人的自然地球观不符合经济历史。历史显示我们可以通过知识进步增加资源供给。我赞同人类学家马尔加蕾特·米亚德的话：“人类的未来永无止境。”人类的未来不受空间、能源和耕地的约束，人类的发展取决于人类的智力进化。

人口质量被低估

人口质量与贫穷密切相关，提高人口质量能显著改善经济前景以及穷人的福利。低收入国家的穷人不是住在无法突破的“贫穷均衡铁笼”中的囚犯，并不存在一股足以阻止人们放弃挣扎、追求经济发展的势不可挡的力量。穷人在面临更好的机会时也能够积极响应。

新机会的出现以及激励机制影响人们的预期。这些激励体现在农民出售农产品的价格及他们购买的产品和服务的价格上。在许多低收入国家，这种激励机制被严重扭曲。政府人为的价格扭曲带来的结果是农业对经济贡献的下降。

企业家精神

全世界的农民在权衡成本、收益和风险时，心中都会有一本账。在闭塞的、孤立的、分散的范围以内，他们都是精打细算的“经济人”。我最早在《改造传统农业》中对这一经济人行为进行了分析。尽管农民因接受的教育、健康和经验不同，观察、理解以及对新信息的反应能力也有所不同，但他们具有关键的一种天赋，即企业家精神。

人口质量的提高

这里的质量包含多种形式的人力资本。人力资本中资本的定义与广义资本理论以及狭义经济增长模型中的资本概念并不完全一致。这里资本的定义假设资本具有同质性，经济增长模型将不同形式的资本混为一谈。约翰·希克斯说，资本的同质性假设是资本理论的灾难。这个假设已被证明不适用于分析动态经济增长模型，因为不同资本的收益率存在差异。将不同形式的资本混为一谈是隐藏在经济增长模型中的一个核心内容。

人力资本是劳动生产率以及企业家能力的源泉。这种分配能力在农业生产、非农业生产、家庭生产活动、学生对时间和其他资源的支配中都十分重要。它同样影响着人们对工作机会和居住地点的追求，以及人们从当前消费、未来消费中获得的满意程度。

健康投资增加对医疗和教育的投资能够提高人口质量。人力资本理论将人的健康状况也看作一种“存货”、一种健康资本。这种存货的质量部分是遗传的，部分是后天形成的。健康“存货”随着时间贬值，在生命后期，贬值速度加快。

教育投资教育是提高人口质量的根本。但是在计算教育的成本时，孩子为父母工作的价值应该计算在内。教育的另一个特征是教育的效应随着时间的流逝逐渐显现。假设社会中大多数人都没有接受过教育，当受教育的儿童进入成年期，教育的成果才逐渐释放。

印度的人口在20世纪50年代至70年代间增长了50%，6至14岁的上学儿童增加了200%。中学和大学学生的增长率更高。教育从本质上说仅仅是一项投资，教育支出减少了具有储蓄效应的资源，将教育支出当作消费是错误的。

高技术人群

在衡量人口质量时，不能忽视医生、工程师、会计以及科学家、技术人员这些群体。低收入国家的研究能力令人吃惊。在低收入国家中设有专业研究所、政府部门的研究单位、工业研究部门以及大学研究机构。这些机构中的科学家或者技术人员通常受过高等教育、有些人从海外学成归国。他们研究的领域包括医药、公众健康、营养、工业、农业甚至原子能。低收入国家对农业的研究投入很多，对农业的推进也初见成效。

结束语

世界上大多人仍在继续出卖劳力赚取微薄的收入。他们一半或一半以上的收入都花在食物上，他们的生活十分艰辛，他们想尽一切办法提高产量。但是，大自然安排了数千种物种，随时有可能吞噬他们的劳动成果。太阳、地球、季风、降雨都不会特意眷顾他们。高收入国家的人们似乎已经忘却了阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔的箴言，他说：“知识是生产中最强大的引擎，知识使我们有能力与大自然抗争，使大自然满足我们的需要。”

相关链接如下:
http://time.dufe.edu.cn/ym210/article.php?articleid=1320

顺便说一下,楼上"木mm"发的那一堆英文是关于威廉·阿瑟·刘易斯和西奥多·舒尔茨的生平介绍,不是演说稿.

1979年诺贝尔经济学奖得主威廉·阿瑟·刘易斯和西奥多·舒尔茨
Theodore W. Schultzb USA University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA 1902 - 1998
Arthur Lewis United Kingdom Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA 1915 - 1991
The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1979
“for their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries”
Theodore W. Schultzb USA University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA 1902 - 1998
Arthur Lewis United Kingdom Princeton University Princeton, NJ, USA 1915 - 1991
Presentation Speech - The Sveriges Riksbank (Bank of Sweden) Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
KUNGL. VETENSKAPSAKADEMIEN THE ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
16 October 1979
THIS YEAR's ECONOMICS PRIZE AWARDED TO DEVELOPING-COUNTRY RESEARCH
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 1979 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to be shared by
Professor Theodore W. Schultz, University of Chicago, USA,
and Professor Sir Arthur Lewis, Princeton University, USA,
for their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.
Schultz as Agricultural Economist
Theodore W. Schultz was an agricultural economist to start with, and in the thirtles and forties, presented a series of studies on the crises in American agriculture, and then later took up agricultural questions in various developing countries throughout the world. His best known works from this period are Agriculture in an Unstable Economy (1945), and Production and Welfare of Agriculture (1949). His most trail-blazing book was Transforming Traditional Agriculture (1964). The main characteristic of Schultz's studies in agricultural economics is that he does not treat agricultural economy in isolation, but as an integral part of the entire economy. Schultz's analytical interest has been focused on the imbalance between relative poverty and underdevelopment in agriculture compared with the higher productivity and the higher income levels in industry and other urban economic activities - and this applies both to industrialized countries like the United States and to the many developing countries Schultz has studied.
Schultz has received many of the impulses for his notable analysis of the importance of human resources for economic and social development from his studies of the productivity problems in agriculture - in the United States as well as in the developing world.
Schultz's analysis of the development potential of agriculture is based on a disequilibrium approach. It is the gap between, on the one hand, traditional production methods, and on the other, the more effective methods now available which create the conditions necessary for a dynamic development. Using this approach, Schultz has, in various context, presented a detailed critique of the developing countries' industrialization policies and their neglect of agriculture. Schultz was the first to systematize the analysis of how investments in education can affect productivity in agriculture as well as in the economy as a whole. Well aware of the limitations of the method, Schultz has, as a first approximation, defined and measured the size of educational capital as a sum of accumulated investments in education. A large proportion of the costs of these education investments consist of a loss of earnings from employment during study periods. These are, therefore, a kind of alternative costs which can be seen both in the private and in the national context.
Schultz on the Human Factor
Schultz and his students have shown that, for a long time, there has been a considerably higher yield on "human capital" than on physical capital in the American economy, and that this tension has resulted in a much faster expansion of educational investments than of other investments.
Schultz has always kept close to economic reality in his work, both as an economic researcher, and as an adviser in various capacities. He has shown a great wisdom as an economist with a striking ability to define development factors which the model-building economists are inclined to neglect.
But the broadness of his approach is also manifest in a number of other factors and context which have to do with human resources (the human factor). Schultz has done research on subjects connected with health and disease as essential factors in economic development in the Third World, as well as on population issues in general. During his long career in research, he has shown an outstanding skill in asking the relevant questions and has opened up fruitful avenues of new research. Few economists have done so much to inspire colleagues and students to do worthwhile research.
Lewis on Poverty in the Developing Countries
Arthur Lewis is a leading figure and pioneer in developing country research. His fundamental works from the middle of the fifties - Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour (1954), and Theory of Economic Growth (1955) - have been followed by a series of other important works. The most significant of these are his Wicksell Lectures of 1969 (Aspects of Tropical Trade,1883-1965), and his latest great book, Growth and Fluctuations, 1870-1913 (1978).
Lewis has tackled issues which are basic to the causes of poverty among populations in the developing world and to the unsatisfactory rate of economic development. His two famous theoretical explanatory models, designed to describe and explain the intrinsic problems of underdevelopment, have won great acclaim and given rise to widespread scientific debate which has resulted in a series of variations and additions to Lewis's original premises.
The models have also been the subject of empirical testing which has confirmed their realistic structure and usefulness.
The first model is based on the dual nature of a developing economy. There is an agricultural sector functioning on traditional lines and primarily based on self-support which engages the labours of the greater part of the population, and a modern market-oriented sector primarily engaged in industrial production. The driving force in the economy stems from the latter sector, which expands with the support of unlimited supplies of labour by migration from the agricultural sector, and workers accept the low wages corresponding to the living standards and conventions in an underdeveloped agriculture. The profits in the modern sector ("capitalist sector") create the growing savings which finance the capital formation for expansion.

Lewis's other basic model relates to the determination of the terms of trade between developing and developed countries as regards raw materials and tropical products, on the one hand, and industrial products, on the other. Here, again, it is a question of a simple model of a classical pattern. Two groups of countries - south and north, poor and rich - each produce two kinds of products, one of which they have in common, namely, food. The other two products - in the model called "coffee" and "steel" - are traded. Lewis shows how under specific conditions, the terms of trade are determined by the relationship between the work productivity in agriculture in the developing countries and in the developed countries. According to this analysis model, the relatively much lower productivity in agriculture in the developing countries compared with the rich countries is the determining factor in the current terms of trade between the two groups of countries, i.e., the long-term development of the terms of trade.
One interesting thing about Lewis's greatly simplified model analysis is that it presents essential aspects of the reasons for the poverty and development problems of the developing countries, and another is that it can be integrated into a many-faceted picture of the historical and statistical development patterns in different countries of the Third World.
The experience he has gained from his numerous assignments as economic adviser, and as the administrator of a large development bank, has given him great insight into the way politicians and dictators function. So he is on firm ground for tackling a realistic analysis of the possibilities of economic policy. In one of his earliest works from 1949 (The Principles of Economic Planning), and even more so in Politics in West Africa (1965), Lewis has discussed in detail the difficult planning problems - from the standpoint of rational economics - which arise when central planning ignores price signals from a market system. In this context, Lewis has stressed the distinction between "planning by direction" and "planning through the market". This approach has always been a characteristic of Lewis's research and is particularly evident in his latest large work (Growth and Fluctuations ). He illustrates the interaction between development in the then-industrialized countries and developing countries during the long period of 1870-1913. Here, Lewis is very much the economic historian - with an extremely scrupulous examination of statistical sources and an impressive reprocessing of the material. In many essential respects he sheds new light on both growth processes and short and long economic cycles within the nucleus of industrialized countries wnich influenced the development in a periphery of developing countries.
Features in Common
Schultz's and Lewis's analysis of development problems have a number of features in common. We see how well their contributions complement one another. First, they have the same points of departure. Economic development -- and this includes not only economic growth -- is central to the research of both these economists.
Schultz's work primarily concentrates on a number of strategic questions related to conditions for efficiency in the employment of production resources. Here, Schultz attaches crucial importance to vocational skills, schooling, research and its application. Schultz is a pioneer in research on "human capital", a field which has been expanding rapidly since the end of the fifties.
The efficiency and development of agriculture is also in Lewis's opinion of vital importance for the situation and growth of the developing countries. But Lewis has focused attention on the dual nature of developing country economies, the tension between a large, dominating and stationary agricultural sector, and a dynamic industrial sector, which is sometimes in the nature of an enclave. Even in another respect, the low productivity of agriculture is, in Lewis's analysis, a causal factor for the poverty of the developing countries and a restriction on growth, namely, via effects on the terms of trade with developed industrial countries.
Another feature Schultz and Lewis have in comon is the importance they attach to facts and empirical research. They both have extensive practical experience of development problems and apply this in their research. They are both extremely interested in the history of the course and form of development in various eras in different countries. Characteristic of them both is their interest in problems of economic policy. Both are deeply concerned about the need and poverty in the world and engaged in finding ways out of underdevelopment. In this context, both Schultz and Lewis are ready to draw daring conclusions which can lead to recommendations of changed economic policy. They are also very critical of the type of agricultural policy or other economic policy which have been pursued during various phases. Their widespread and profound experience of developing-country economic policies and underlying politicaI systems makes their presentations of developing-country problems vivid and sincere.