中國經(jīng)濟(jì)增速“被高估”.

　　China’s economic growth is being overstated by 1 to 2 percentage points due to a glitch in the way it is calculated, according to estimates by Capital Economics. 據(jù)凱投宏觀(Capital Economics)估計(jì)，由于計(jì)算方法上的一個(gè)問題，中國當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)增長速度被高估了一到兩個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。

　　If correct, this would mean the world’s second-largest economy only grew by 5-6 per cent in the 12 months to the first quarter of 2015, rather than the 7 per cent figure announced by Beijing. 如果這種說法是正確的，就意味著在截至2015年第一季度的12個(gè)月里，全球第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體的增長速度只有5%到6%，而不是中國政府公布的7%。

　　China’s official gross domestic product data have long attracted widespread scorn, with many commentators arguing the suspiciously smooth numbers are manipulated for political reasons. 長期以來，中國官方公布的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)數(shù)據(jù)受到廣泛質(zhì)疑。許多評論人士聲稱，這一平滑得令人生疑的數(shù)據(jù)因政治原因而受到了操縱。

　　However, the Capital Economics analysis differs in that it is suggesting an error arises from a technical issue with how economic growth is calculated, rather than any deliberate attempt to mislead. 不過，與上述說法不同的是，凱投宏觀的分析表明，導(dǎo)致中國GDP數(shù)據(jù)存在誤差的原因，是計(jì)算方法上的技術(shù)問題，而不是出于任何故意的誤導(dǎo)企圖。

　　Moreover, if the analysis is correct, it suggests that a swath of other emerging market countries, including India, could also be inadvertently overstating their economic growth numbers. 此外，如果這一分析是正確的，它意味著包括印度在內(nèi)的一系列其他新興市場國家，也可能在無意間高估了經(jīng)濟(jì)增長數(shù)據(jù)。

　　The issue centres on the so-called “GDP dlator”, the inflation measure used to convert estimates of nominal GDP into real, inflation-adjusted terms. 這個(gè)問題的核心，是所謂“GDP平減指數(shù)”(GDP dlator)。該指數(shù)是用來衡量通脹的指標(biāo)，用于將對名義GDP的估計(jì)，轉(zhuǎn)換為經(jīng)通脹調(diào)整后的實(shí)際GDP數(shù)據(jù)。

　　The dlator is a broader measure than indicators such as consumer or producer price inflation and is therore often considered a more usul gauge of overall price pressures in an economy. It is the prerred inflation measure of the US Federal Reserve. 平減指數(shù)是一個(gè)比消費(fèi)者價(jià)格指數(shù)(CPI)和生產(chǎn)者價(jià)格指數(shù)(PPI)覆蓋范圍更廣的指標(biāo)。出于這個(gè)原因，該指數(shù)往往被視為衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)中總體價(jià)格壓力的更有用的指標(biāo)。該指標(biāo)是美聯(lián)儲(Fed)優(yōu)先采用的通脹指標(biāo)。

　　Since GDP is a measure of domestic output, arguably this dlator should only rlect the prices of domestically produced goods and services. 由于GDP是衡量國內(nèi)產(chǎn)出的指標(biāo)，理論上其平減指數(shù)只應(yīng)該反映國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)的商品和服務(wù)的價(jià)格水平。

　　In practice, this means netting out the price of imports in the calculation of the GDP dlator, a routine practice in countries with “robust statistical systems”, as Chang Liu, China economist at Capital Economics, puts it. 在實(shí)際操作上，這意味著在計(jì)算GDP平減指數(shù)的過程中，應(yīng)將進(jìn)口商品的價(jià)格排除在外。這在擁有“健全統(tǒng)計(jì)體系”——按照凱投宏觀中國經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家劉暢的說法——的國家是一種例行做法。

　　For much of the time, a failure to do this might not matter too much. However, at times when import price inflation varies markedly from domestic inflation, such as when global commodity prices are rising or falling rapidly, it matters more. 很多情況下，不這么做可能不會產(chǎn)生太大影響。然而，在進(jìn)口價(jià)格通脹的變化與國內(nèi)商品通脹的變化大不相同時(shí)——比如在全球大宗商品價(jià)格迅速上漲或下跌時(shí)，不扣除進(jìn)口價(jià)格的變化就會產(chǎn)生較大影響。

　　As the chart shows, in 2007 when commodity prices spiked, the US consumer price index rose much more than the GDP dlator, widening the “inflation gap”, or the difference between the two measures. 2007年當(dāng)大宗商品價(jià)格大幅升高時(shí)，美國CPI上升幅度大大高于GDP平減指數(shù)，從而擴(kuò)大了“通脹率差距”，即兩種指標(biāo)之差。

　　More recently, as commodity prices have fallen, the US inflation gap has turned negative. A similar pattern has occurred in Japan, the UK and Germany, Capital Economics says. 更近一些時(shí)候，隨著大宗商品價(jià)格下跌，美國的通脹率差距轉(zhuǎn)為負(fù)值。凱投宏觀表示，日本、英國和德國也出現(xiàn)了類似的現(xiàn)象。

　　However, because China does not net off shifts in import prices when calculating the dlator for most sectors of its economy, its dlator tracks producer price inflation much more closely. 但是，由于中國在計(jì)算多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域的平減指數(shù)時(shí)沒有扣除進(jìn)口價(jià)格的變化，其平減指數(shù)更緊跟PPI。

　　As a result, Mr Liu says: “China’s GDP dlator is not an accurate measure of changes in domestic output prices. It exaggerates inflation when import prices are rising, and understates it when import prices fall”. 劉暢說：“(因此)中國的GDP平減指數(shù)就不能精確衡量國內(nèi)產(chǎn)出價(jià)格的變化。當(dāng)進(jìn)口價(jià)格上漲時(shí)，它夸大了通貨膨脹，而當(dāng)進(jìn)口價(jià)格下跌時(shí)，它又低估了通貨膨脹。”

　　In the first quarter of the year, China’s dlator turned negative for the second time since 2000, coming in at -1.1 per cent. In comparison, consumer price inflation was +1.2 per cent. This means its inflation gap has jumped to 2.3 percentage points, even as it has fallen sharply in the likes of the US, as the chart shows. 在今年第一季度，??中國的平減指數(shù)下降到-1.1%，這是自2000年后第二次轉(zhuǎn)負(fù)。相比之下，CPI為+1.2%。這意味著中國的通脹率差距已擴(kuò)大到2.3個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，即使美國等國的通脹率差距已出現(xiàn)大幅下降，如圖中所示。

　　If the dlator is, as a result, understated, then real GDP growth is overstated by the same amount. 因此，如果平減指數(shù)被低估，那么實(shí)際GDP增長率就被夸大了同等幅度。

　　“A reasonable guess might be that true inflation was 1-2 percentage points higher than the dlator shows. In that case, real GDP growth in Q1 would have been 5-6 per cent [rather than 7 per cent],” said Mr Liu, who added that the lower rate was closer to Capital Economics’ own estimate, based on activity data, of 4.9 per cent. 劉暢說：“一個(gè)合理猜測是真實(shí)的通脹水平比平減指數(shù)顯示的要高1到2個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。在這種情況下，一季度實(shí)際GDP增長率應(yīng)為5%到6%，而不是7%?！彼€說這個(gè)較低的數(shù)值更接近于凱投宏觀基于活動數(shù)據(jù)估算得出的4.0%。

　　A figure of 5-6 per cent would also be closer to the estimates of several other forecasters, with Citibank suggesting the true figure was “below 6 per cent”, the Conference Board’s China Center 4 per cent and Lombard Street Research just 3.8 per cent. 5%到6%的數(shù)字也更接近于其他機(jī)構(gòu)的估計(jì)，花旗銀行(Citibank)估計(jì)真實(shí)的增長率數(shù)據(jù)“低于6%”，世界大型企業(yè)聯(lián)合會(Conference Board)中國中心估計(jì)為4%，朗伯德街研究(Lombard Street Research)的預(yù)測僅為3.8%。

　　Mr Liu stresses that Capital Economics is not suggesting China’s National Bureau of Statistics is deliberately skewing the dlator in order to exaggerate reported economic growth. Instead, the problem stems from limitations in its data collection. 劉暢強(qiáng)調(diào)，凱投宏觀并不是暗示中國國家統(tǒng)計(jì)局有意歪曲平減指數(shù)以夸大經(jīng)濟(jì)增長數(shù)據(jù)。相反，問題源于國家統(tǒng)計(jì)局在數(shù)據(jù)收集方面的局限性。

　　As such, if the analysis holds water, then the problem could be prevalent across a wide range of emerging markets, suggesting EM growth is routinely understated during periods of commodity price strength and overstated when, as now, raw material prices are weak. 因此，如果上述分析成立，那么眾多新興市場可能普遍存在這一問題，這意味著新興市場的增長通常在大宗商品價(jià)格走強(qiáng)時(shí)被低估，在原材料價(jià)格疲軟時(shí)又被高估，而目前正屬于后一種情況。

　　“Statistics agencies in many countries use the same approach as China because they lack the ability or capacity to collect the data needed to track the prices of inputs as well as final outputs,” says Mr Liu. 劉暢說：“許多國家的統(tǒng)計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)采用了與中國一樣的方法，因?yàn)樗鼈內(nèi)狈κ占粉櫷度雰r(jià)格以及最終產(chǎn)出價(jià)格所需數(shù)據(jù)的能力?！?/p>

　　In particular, he highlights India as another country prone to the same issue. 他特別強(qiáng)調(diào)印度是另一個(gè)容易出現(xiàn)這一問題的國家。