“創新從何而來？什么是經濟活力？”在7月8日舉行的第九屆“青島•中國財富論壇”上，哥倫比亞大學教授、2006諾貝爾經濟學獎得主Edmund PHELPS（愛德蒙·菲爾普斯）表示，關于創新的源泉，不少經濟學家都曾給出過答案，但他們忽略了一點——科學家和探險家的發現并不是創新的主要來源。

愛德蒙·菲爾普斯在其著作《大繁榮》中指出，在1870年代，在一些國家的經濟發展中，涌現出大量新產品和新方法，但它們大多是普通人突發奇想的成果，而并非來自科學家和探險家。“幾乎每個行業都有工人、經理或其他雇員在構思新的想法。在這些經濟體中產生的本土創新，很快就能超越科學家產生的創新。”

在他看來，高活力經濟的核心就是渴望創新。當人們在工作中展現的商業創造力或想象力愈加強烈，經濟活力和生產力就會隨之增強，并進一步推動整個國家的經濟增長。

如何才能激發和促進創新？愛德蒙·菲爾普斯認為，這需要一種能夠接受創新的社會氛圍，能夠容忍創新可能造成的破壞。他認為，中國擁有廣闊巨大的創新基礎，當然同時也存在一些障礙，例如，有的創新者難以從銀行系統獲得融資；公司內部可能等級森嚴，無法讓員工自由表達想法；企業所有者在支持新方法或新產品的開發方面也面臨著不確定性。畢竟，有些努力可能會失敗。

“中國已經在進行諸多高科技創新，毫無疑問，繼續這一努力是正確的做法。隨著時間的推移，我們將會看到中國在創新上的成果。”愛德蒙·菲爾普斯表示。

以下為發言實錄：

Edmund PHELPS（愛德蒙·菲爾普斯）：主辦方鼓勵我在演講開始就講現代經濟面臨的挑戰和機遇。我認為我最好花一點點時間回顧一下我曾經面對的問題和分歧；然后再深入探討從19世紀末開始發展的西方現代經濟所提出的問題。

我在我的回憶錄中講了這些內容；這本書叫《我的經濟理論之旅》，于今年春天在紐約和巴黎出版。這本書講述了我在過去60年來重塑經濟理論一些基本要素的工作。標題中說的旅程主要指的是兩個不同的經歷。第一個旅程指的是我在60年代的早期工作；我在那時的工作為凱恩斯和?？怂沟暮暧^經濟學建立了微觀基礎。

凱恩斯的著作《就業、利息和貨幣通論》被廣泛認為是對新古典經濟學的首次突破?？梢苑Q為現代經濟學的第一個突破。凱恩斯的成就是指出了可能導致經濟陷入蕭條并帶來嚴重失業的因素。但他的理論并不完整；沒有解釋為什么工資和物價沒有能夠迅速降低并最終避免經濟蕭條。

我的解釋提出了不完全信息理論，而工資和價格正是依據這些不完全的信息而設定的。關鍵一步是將一個企業對其他企業工資變化的預期引入其工資設定和價格設定中；這又導致了均衡路徑的概念；貨幣工資水平和物價水平變化預期在該路徑上達到了均衡；另外還有不均衡路徑的概念。

隨后我在賓夕法尼亞大學組織的 1969 年會議中提出了一些理論，這些理論在1970 年由諾頓出版社出版；我提出的這些理論是我職業生涯的巔峰。 20 世紀 60 年代初期，我對公共債務對國家資本存量路徑的影響進行了建模，但結果有爭議。此外我還提出了黃金定律。

在 70 年代、80 年代和 90 年代，我的研究范圍拓展到了標準經濟學領域如失業和公共財政等方面之外；當我和約翰·羅爾斯（政治哲學家）在斯坦福大學時，我與他一起研究新課題，如統計性歧視、經濟正義等；當我和托馬斯·內格爾（哲學家）做鄰居時，我們一起研究了利他主義的好處。

我還與讓-保羅·菲圖西（經濟學家）合作研究了國內財政刺激措施對海外的影響；我與肯尼斯·約瑟夫·阿羅（諾獎經濟學家）合作研究了在資本主義經濟中存在的，但在社會主義經濟中不存在的經濟收益。又過了很久，直到90年代初；我與新加坡的云天德 和冰島的 Gylfi Zoega （冰島央行貨幣政策委員會顧問）一起工作；他們兩個都是我以前的學生，我們一起寫了《結構性衰退》一書。

正如Bendy Curry所說，該書估計了自然失業率本身的變化程度；該變化程度往往能解釋失業率變化的原因。然后我寫了《獎勵工作》一書，該書為提高弱勢工人的工資提出了新的理由。我一開始提到的第二個旅程指的是我后來的工作。隨著20世紀、21世紀的到來，我想要開辟一個新的研究方向。

我意識到我一直在構思一些支持或豐富其他人理論，特別是凱恩斯理論的新元素；我沒有構想我自己的基本理論。幸運的是，我想到了一個研究現代社會經濟的新視角。在接下來的幾十年里，我建立了自己的全新理論。

過去 20 年我大部分工作的主題都是關于創新的；特別是關于西方的創新和人的活力。創新從何而來？什么是經濟活力？我首先講創新和活力；然后再談談它們與中國及中國經濟的關系。

創新從何而來？創新是指將新產品或新方法引入市場并進行使用。創新的想法從何而來？這是新古典經濟學提出的一個問題； 19世紀末，新古典經濟學在法國、德國和斯堪的納維亞半島不斷發展。但在 20 世紀初，一些經濟學家對這個問題給出了答案。這個答案至少在一段時間內拯救了新古典經濟學。

一個由阿瑟·斯庇索夫、瑞典人古斯塔夫·卡塞爾以及奧地利人熊彼得組成的德國歷史學派認為；創新源于科學家和探險家的發現；這些發現對于一個國家的經濟來說是外生的。熊彼得補充說，這些發現的商業應用需要企業家來籌集所需資金；招募人員以及開發和營銷新產品。

后來是 60 年代到 80 年代的尼爾森和溫特，然后是 90 年代到 2009 年的阿吉翁和霍伊特；他們認識到具有科學背景的人員在企業內部工作時也可以做出一些發現；發現不僅僅出現在科學基金會、大學實驗室和家庭車庫內。

但我提到的這些經濟學家從來沒有考慮過這一點；科學家和探險家的發現并不是創新的主要來源。我對創新的研究始于我寫的《大繁榮》一書，該書除了英文版也有中文版。書中指出，到了 1870 年代，一些國家出現了這種情況；即大量新產品和新方法開始從經濟中涌現。它們大多是很多人突發奇想的成果。其中很多是經濟商業部門的普通人；并不是熊彼得等著名經濟學家所認為的發現主要來自科學家和探險家。

我把這稱為本土創新。幾乎每個行業都有工人、經理或其他雇員在構思新的想法；以期以更好的方式生產某種東西或生產出更好的東西。我很清楚，在這些經濟體中產生的本土創新；很快就能超越科學家產生的創新。

廣受尊敬的商業領袖張瑞敏認識到鼓勵員工解決問題的價值。我們的觀點有相似之處。但為什么這種現象能在一些國家爆發而不是在其他國家爆發。我的解釋是因為經濟活力。經濟活力是指人們在工作中；展現在商業上可行的創造力或想象力的程度。換句話說，活力是一個國家創新的能力和愿望。

活力往往以多種方式表現出來。經濟活力的增強能帶來生產力的更快增長。隨著時間的推移，它將推動國家的增長達到更高的水平和更陡的坡度。這種活力的副產物是一系列獨特的經濟活動。并且出現了一批從事融資、開發和營銷新商業產品以在市場上銷售的部門；以及一群管理人員來決定將哪些新的商業創意開發成適銷產品以及如何更好地生產。

這些為提高生產力而做出的努力提高了工資，也增加了勞動力。有證據表明，活力增加還可以提高員工的敬業度和工作滿意度。

是什么讓一個國家的經濟比其他國家的經濟更有活力？正統觀點認為任何維持自由市場的國家都可以擁有自主創新的活力，但這個觀點是錯誤的。自主創新需要正確的條件。一個國家的創新能力有多大取決于它的態度。創新者往往是那些脫離主流觀念、跳出框框思考的人。

只有具有足夠經驗的金融家，才能有自信認為他們能夠很好地判斷提交給他們的創新項目。雄心勃勃的創新者必須有足夠的洞察力才能讓一個項目啟動起來。在《活力》一書中，我與合著者伯杰羅夫、云天德和 Gylfi Zoega 一起；用統計證據證明了一個社會所持有的價值觀對其經濟績效的重要性。這些價值觀包括銳意進取、接受競爭以及想要在工作中取得成就的愿望。所有這些都對經濟績效有巨大影響。

高活力的核心就是渴望創新，并且忽視可能存在的障礙，或者這些障礙可能在某種程度上促進創新。很多創新者迫切希望改變世界。還有一些創新者想向社會證明他們可以走自己的路。另一些人則想要證明自己能夠成功。

當然，想要實現高活力，從而在全國范圍內廣泛激勵創新；還需要一種能夠接受創新的社會和政治氛圍，能夠容忍創新可能造成的破壞。

下面我就中國的創新談幾點看法。理論上，中國擁有巨大的創造新產品和新方法的基礎。但也存在一些困難。首先，可能存在一些障礙，例如創新者難以從銀行系統獲得融資。其次，中國公司可能等級森嚴，無法讓很多員工表達他們的想法。企業所有者在支持新方法或新產品的開發方面也面臨著不確定性。畢竟，有些努力可能會失敗。

第三，可能是政府是否會批準企業進行未知的創新。政府可能不喜歡這種不確定性。最后，還有對中國人口老齡化的擔憂。有些人可能認為人口老齡化會對中國的創新和增長能力產生不利影響。但由于中國人口眾多，老齡化問題不應令人擔憂。

此外，老年人仍然可以為國家做很多生產工作。在美國，退休年齡是65歲。但很多老年人在達到這個年齡后仍然繼續工作，同時領取養老金。根據人口調查，65歲以上的美國人中有20%仍在工作；這一數字是 40 年前的兩倍。

在瑞典，退休年齡從62歲延長到63歲。一位瑞典朋友跟我說，公眾對此的反應是積極的。盡管在法國，人們正在抗議最近將退休年齡從 62 歲提高到 64 歲。與其他國家相比，中國的退休年齡相對較低。男性60歲退休，女性55歲退休。但《中國日報》最近的一篇文章報道稱，大約三分之一，即大約 5000 萬年齡在 60 歲至 69 歲之間的中國人仍在工作。

所以有很多人在正式退休后繼續工作并想繼續工作。中國已經在進行諸多高科技創新，毫無疑問，繼續這一努力是正確的做法。隨著時間的推移，我們將會看到中國在創新上的成果。

非常感謝！

I have been encouraged to begin my talk with the challenges and opportunities facing modern economies. I believe I can best do this in the very short time I have by reviewing the issues and differences confronting me; as I plunged into the questions raised by the modern economies that began to develop late in the 19th century in the west.

That is the story I tell in my memoirs; the book called My Journeys In Economic Theory published this spring in New York and Paris. the book tells the story of my part in reshaping some basic elements of economic theory over the past 6 decades. the journeys in the title refer mainly to 2 quite different experiences. the first was my early work in the 60s; to put the macroeconomics of Keynes and Hicks onto a microeconomic foundation.

Keynes's book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was widely recognized as the first break from neoclassical economics. the first breakthrough of what may be called modern economics. Keynes's achievement was to point to forces that could drive the economy into a depression bringing severe unemployment. but his theory was incomplete in leaving unexplained; why wages and prices did not quickly begin to moderate and ultimately thus to save the economy from a depression.

My explanation brought in the imperfect information on which wage setting was based and price setting too. the key step was to introduce firms expectations of other firms wage changes into their wage setting and their price setting; that led to the notion of an equilibrium path; a path along which expectations of the change of money wage levels and price levels are borne out; and the notion of disequilibrium.

The ensuing 1969 conference that I organized at Penn and the 1970 conference published by Norton; were the high points of my career for quite a while. earlier in the 60s I had modeled the effect of the public debt on the path of the nation's capital stock which proved controversial. and there was the golden rule also.

In the 70s and 80s and 90s I branched out from standard economics such as unemployment and public finance; to work on new subjects, statistical discrimination, economic justice with John Rawls when he and I were out at Stanford; and the benefits of altruism with Thomas Nagel when we were neighbors.

There was also my work with Jean-Paul Fitoussi on the effect overseas of a fiscal stimulus at home; and my work with Kenneth Arrow on the economic gains present in an economy under capitalism that are not found in an economy under socialism. much later in the early 90s; I work with Hian Teck Hoon of Singapore and Gylfi Zoega of iceland; both former students of mine to write Structural Slumps.

The book estimated the extent to which it is shifts in the natural unemployment rate itself as Bendy Curry put it; that are often the cause of shifts in the unemployment rate. then I wrote Rewarding Work, a book making a new case for lifting wages of the less advantaged workers. the second of these journeys that I referred to at the beginning was my later work. with the new century, the 20th century, 21st century, I wanted a new direction.

I became aware that I had been conceiving new elements with which to support or enrich the theories of others, typically Keynes; and not conceiving my own basic theory. fortunately a new perspective on the economies of a modern society came to my mind. and over the next decades I was able to build a radically new theory of my own.

The subject of much of my work over the last 2 decades has been innovation; especially the innovation in the west and the dynamism of the people. where do innovations come from? what is economic dynamism. I will speak first about innovation and dynamism; then say a few words on their relation to China and its economy.

Where do innovations come from? innovation is the introduction into the market and adoption of a new product or new method. where did ideas for innovation come from? this was a question for neoclassical economics; which had been developing in France, in Germany, in Scandinavia in the late 19th century. but early in the 20th century a few economists devised an answer to that question. an answer that served at least for a while to save neoclassical economics.

The German historical school consisting of Arthur Spiethoff, the Swede Gustav Cassel and the Austrian Joseph Schumpeter maintained that; innovations originated out of the discoveries and of scientists and explorers; thus discoveries that are exogenous to a nation's economy. Schumpeter added that commercial applications of those discoveries required entrepreneurs; to raise the needed capital, recruit personnel and develop and market the new product.

Later Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter from the 60s to the 80s and then Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt from the 90s to 2009; recognized that personnel with a background in science can make some discoveries while working inside corporations; not only inside science foundations, university labs and home garages.

At no point though did these economists that I referred to consider that; the discoveries of scientists and explorers were not the main source of innovation. my study of innovation started with my book, Mass Flourishing published in Chinese as well as English. it observes that in several nations by the 1870s; a huge number of new products and methods were beginning to pour out of the economy. they were mainly the fruit of new ideas hit upon by large numbers of people. many of them ordinary people in the business sector of the economy; not the fruit of discoveries made by scientists and explorers as prominent economists such as Schumpeter believed.

I came to refer to this as indigenous innovation. in virtually every industry there were workers, managers or other employees; who were conceiving new ideas for better ways of producing something or better things to produce. it was clear to me that this indigenous innovation conceived in these economies; soon came to dwarf the innovation coming from the discoveries of scientists.

The widely admired business leader Zhang Rui Min realize the value of enlisting employees to solve problems. there's a similarity there. but why this phenomenon exploded in some nations and not others. my explanation is dynamism. economic dynamism is the degree to which the people working in the nation's economy; exhibit creativity or imagination in commercially viable directions. in other words dynamism is the nation's capacity and appetite for innovation.

Dynamism tends to manifest itself in a variety of ways. increased dynamism in the economy brings faster growth of productivity. with time it drives the nation's growth path onto a higher level and a steeper incline. a byproduct of this dynamism is a distinctive set of economic activities. a sector engaged in the financing, developing and marketing of new commercial products for launch in the marketplace. and a cadre of managers deciding which new commercial ideas to develop into marketable products and how best to produce them.

These added avenues for human endeavor in pulling up productivity pulled up wages and increased the labor force too. there's evidence that greater dynamism also results in workers having more engagement, more employee engagement and higher job satisfaction.

What makes one nation's economy more dynamic than in other nation's economy? the orthodox view that any nation maintaining a free market can be depended on to have the dynamism for indigenous innovation is a mistake. the right stuff is required. how capable a nation is at innovating depends on its attitudes. innovators tend to be people who stand apart from the prevailing beliefs and think outside the box.

There have to be financiers with enough experience to feel confident; they can judge well the innovative projects submitted to them. aspiring innovators have to feel they have sufficient insight to warrant making a start. in the book Dynamism, I along with my co-authors Raicho Bojilov, Hian Teck Hoon, and Gylfi Zoega; found statistical evidence that the values held in a society matter for its economic performance. values like a willingness to take initiative and acceptance of competition and a desire to achieve on the job. all these things contribute powerfully toward economic performance.

At the heart of high dynamism is the desire to innovate in spite of obstacles or maybe in some part because of the obstacles. many innovators have a deep need to act on the world. others want to demonstrate to society that they can go their own way. some others are driven by a need to prove themselves that they can succeed.

Of course high dynamism and thus widespread innovation throughout the nation; also requires a social and political climate that is receptive to innovations despite the disruptions they are apt to cause.

Now I will offer a few thoughts on innovation in China. in principle, China could be an enormous generator of new products and new methods. but there are some difficulties. first, there may be obstacles such as a difficulty to obtain financing from the banking system. second, Chinese companies maybe too hierarchical to enable many employees to have their ideas heard. there is also the uncertainty that owners of firms face in supporting the development of new methods or products. after all, some efforts may fail.

Third, it may be whether the government would approve of industries embarked on voyages into the unknown. governments may not like the uncertainty. finally, there is the worry about China's aging population. some people may think that an aging population may have detrimental effects on China's capacity for innovation and growth. but China is so populous that this aging ought not to be cause for worry.

Furthermore the older people can do much of the producing for a nation. in the US, the retirement age is 65. but many seniors continue working while collecting their pension after reaching this age. according to population surveys, 20% of Americans over 65 are still working; which is twice as much as it was 40 years ago.

In Sweden, the retirement age was extended from 62 to 63. and a Swedish friend told me the public reaction was positive. though in France, people are protesting the recent rise in retirement age from 62 to 64. China's retirement age is relatively low compared to others. 60 for men, 55 for women. but a recent China daily article reported that about a third, roughly 50 million of Chinese people between the ages of 60 and 69 are still working.

So there are great many people who continue to work and want to work after official retirement. much high-tech innovation is already going on in China and undoubtedly it will be wise to continue in that effort. as time goes by we will see how well China goes in progressing in this direction. thank you very much