上周，中国国务院总理李克强在3000名人大代表面前做政府工作报告时表示，2014年中国的GDP增长目标是7.5%，与两年前持平。他的话带动了股市上涨，市场参与者也不出所料地感到欢欣鼓舞。不过，也有少数经济学家对此表示异议。他们认为中国的年度GDP增长目标妨碍了政府关注一些重大问题，比如污染、债务激增和当前的改革，这种情况很危险。持这种观点的经济学家数量正在不断上升，他们表示，GDP增长目标弊大于利。

首先让我们介绍一些背景情况：1985年中国首次核算GDP【此前中国借用苏联的物质产品平衡表体系（Material Product System）来计算经济产出。这个体系的缺陷在于它不包括服务业。中国是一个幅员辽阔的国家，这种经济核算方式没什么价值】，随后很快开始公布GDP增长目标，20多年来一直如此。

最初，设定经济增长目标的效果很好。地方政府努力完成经济指标，几千万人在这个过程中摆脱了贫困。然而，随着2010年之后中国很快跻身全球经济前五名，接着又成为世界上第二大经济体（仅次于美国），GDP增长目标开始显现出它不利的一面。地方政府不计代价地寻求经济增长。中国政府一直在食品安全问题上妥协让步。各地普遍出现环境污染。为了促进地方经济增长，所有规模较小的城市都存在影子债务。

长江商学院（the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business）北京校区经济学教授李伟说：“一个国家还很贫穷时，制定GDP增长目标有好处。不过，一旦像中国这样成为中等收入国家，人们就会开始重视生活质量。”

李伟指出，中国目前处境艰难。相比而言，改善服务能给美国地方政府带来收益，原因是更好的服务会吸引来更多的人，税收就会增长。在中国，地方政府不能收税，而要靠中央政府的财政划拨。通过防治大气污染等措施吸引来更多的人也不能给中国各地的地方政府带来好处，他们唯一想吸引的是那些能促进地方经济发展的人，目的是给中央政府一个好印象，从而提高自己在财政收入分配中所占的份额。地方政府要的是能提升GDP的行业，有时这些行业会造成污染，或者需要很大的激励，而这会影响民众的生活质量。

制定GDP增长目标的部分原因是证明中央政府的决策合理性。经济咨询机构龙洲经讯（Gavekal Dragonomics）研究总监白安儒这样写道：“中国政府错过了降低、甚至完全放弃经济增长目标的机会，表明中国政府在让公众继续支持自己的政策规划方面存在顾虑。”去年，中国政府在信贷飞速增长的情况下收紧了政策，今年的增长目标则表明，中国再次采取了促增长政策。白安儒说：“有些人和我们一样，希望看到中国政府能迅速改变执着于增长目标的局面。因此，我们这些人都很失望。”

中国领导人似乎已经意识到，虽然公布GDP增长目标存在问题，但他们无力予以解决。李克强总理在人大会议上宣布最新经济增长目标一天后，财政部长楼继伟在记者招待会上表示，经济增长稍低于目标也无妨。楼继伟说，7.2%也算合理的经济增长率。他强调，创造就业机会、控制物价上涨和经济效益比实现增长目标更重要。

公布今年的GDP目标后立即给它打个折扣，看起来几乎就像是预先安排好的一样。就好比中国政府先公布一个备受瞩目的数字，然后又解释说，实现这个目标也不是什么大事。

中国会不会很快就停止制定GDP目标？经济学家对这个问题的态度并不乐观。但就目前而言，中国肯在这个目标上让步可能已经是个足够好的消息了。（财富中文网）

译者：Charlie

When China's Premier Li Keqiang told a supportive audience of 3,000 delegates in Beijing last week that the country would aim for 7.5% GDP growth in 2014 -- the same target of the past two years -- stocks rose and traders predictably cheered. But the news also produced groans from a small but growing number of economists who believe China's annual GDP target dangerously distracts the country from its huge problems of pollution, exploding debt, and ongoing reforms. They say it hurts more than it helps.

First, some background: China has released GDP targets for more than two decades, beginning shortly after the country first calculated GDP in 1985. (Before that, China relied on the Material Product System to measure economic output, a system borrowed from the Soviets. MPS's flaw is that it doesn't measure services, which in a country as large as China makes it kind of worthless.)

GDP targeting worked well for China initially. Local governments strived to meet economic directives and freed tens of millions from poverty in the process. But as China cracked into the world's top five economies earlier this decade and then moved into the No. 2 spot (behind the U.S.), GDP targets began showing their dark side. Local governments were pursuing growth at any cost. In China, food safety has been compromised. Pollution is widespread. Shadow debt exists across smaller cities as localities push for growth.

"When you are poor country, GDP targeting has advantages," says Wei Li, professor of economics at the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing. "But once you're in middle income, like China, people start to value quality of life."

Li points out that China is in a tough spot. In the U.S., for comparison, local governments are rewarded for providing better services because better services attract more people, and tax revenues increase. In China, because local government's can't collect taxes -- they instead rely on allocations from the central government -- they aren't rewarded for attracting more people with offerings such as, say, clean air. The only people they seek to attract are those who will boost local GDP, thus impressing the central government into allocating them a larger share of revenues. Localities seek out GDP-boosting businesses, sometimes polluting ones or those that require big incentives, at a detriment to citizens' quality of life.