針對北歐的高失業率說法(15-17%)，應該是出自The McKinsey Global Institute （2006年五月）出版的瑞典經濟政策分析(Sweden's Economic Performance: Recent Developments, Current Priorities）。 針對The McKinsey Global Institute 的分析，CEPR(Center for Economic and Policy Research, 一美國的機構)提出說明。在此提供部份說明的（中英文對照），原文部份，還請各位自行連結、閱讀。
"Is the Unemployment Rate in Sweden Really 17 Percent?"
By JOHN SCHMITT
In May 2006, the McKinsey Global Institute published a 252-page analysis of the Swedish economy. One of the report's most frequently cited findings was that the "de-facto" unemployment rate in Sweden in 2004 was between 15 and 17 percent, about three times higher than the official unemployment rate of 5.4 percent in that year (McKinsey Global Institute, 2006, Exhibit 6).
2006年五月，the McKinsey Global Institute出版252頁的瑞典經濟分析。該報告最常被引出的發現是：瑞典2004年的「實際」失業率介於15到17%，約是當年官方失業率 5.4%的三倍(McKinsey Global Institute, 2006, Exhibit 6)。
Important media outlets such as the Financial Times (September 10, 2006; January 22, 2007; April 17, 2007) and The Economist (September 9, 2006) repeated the McKinsey estimate as part of critiques of recent Swedish economic performance. The Economist even went so far as to accuse Sweden of being "a world champion at massaging its jobless figures."
重要的媒體，例如the Financial Times（2006 年9月10日；2007年1月22日；2007年4月17日）以及英國<<經濟學人>>（2006年9月9日）都一再提 到：McKinsey的估計是批判瑞典近來的經濟表現。<<經濟學人>>甚至進一步指控瑞典「在操作失業率數字上是世界冠軍」。
To arrive at their 15-17 percent "de-facto" unemployment rate, McKinsey added what they viewed as "people who don't work, even though they should be able to" to the pool of the unemployed. These groups that McKinsey added to the unemployed included: "latent job candidates"; the "underemployed”; those "excluded from [the] labor force with ability to work"; and workers on government programs. Reasonable people could disagree with McKinsey concerning both their choices of the types and the numbers of individuals to include in their "de-facto" unemployment calculation. The analysis here, however, accepts that McKinsey methodology and, instead, asks: what happens if we use the same methodology to estimate the "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States?
要達到他們所謂的「實際」15-17%的失業率，McKinsey把他們認為「沒有工作的人，即使他們應該有能力工作」加 到失業一項。McKinsey添加到失業的類別包括：「有潛力的職場候選人」[如大四畢業生等]、「低就業」[即有工作但工時未達某一標準]，「有工作能 力卻被排除在勞動力之外」的人 [例如服刑、坐監等]，以及接受政府計畫的勞工。理性的人會無法同意McKinsey對於類型的選擇以及把那些個人的數目加入「實際」失業率的計算中。本 文的分析雖然接收McKinsey的方法，卻反而要問：如果我們使用相同的方法來估算美國的「實際」失業率，會是怎樣的情況？
[中略]
The resulting "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States is 13.8 percent, compared to a 5.5 percent official U.S. unemployment rate, and an estimated 15.5 percent "de-facto" Swedish unemployment rate.
結果是，與美國官方失業率5.5%以及McKinsey估算的瑞典「實際」失業率15.5%相較，美國的「實際」失業率會是13.8%。
If we also include the two countries' prison and jail populations in the "de-facto" unemployment rate --something in the spirit of the original McKinsey analysis, but not included in the original analysis done exclusively in the context of the Swedish economy-- the "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States rises to 15.2 percent, just 0.5 percentage points lower than McKinsey's figure (15.7 percent) for Sweden including its prison and jail population.
如果我們也將兩個國家的監獄與拘留 所人口包括在「實際」失業率裡----這是McKinsey分析的原始精神，不過，這部份[指用在美國情境] 並不包括在原始分析裡，原始分析只有針對瑞典經濟情境----那麼，美國「實際」失業率升高到15.2%，只比McKinsey將瑞典監獄與拘留所人口列 入後提出的數據（15.7%)低0.5個百分比。
The unemployment rate is far from a perfect measure of economic well-being or national labor-market performance. To the extent that critics of the Swedish economy rely on the McKinsey Global Institute's estimates of the "de-facto" unemployment in Sweden, those critics must also be sure to apply the same criteria to other countries serving as implicit or explicit points of comparison.
失業率絕不是評估經濟福利或國家勞動市場表現的完美評估標準。對於引用McKinsey Global Institute估算瑞典「實際」失業率而批判瑞典經濟的批評者，那些批評者必須也要將同樣的標準應用在其它國家作為比較的顯式或隱式。
以上引自：http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/sweden_unemployment_2007_06.pdf。
另有該文的摘要版，放在CEPR的網站上：
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/is-the-unemployment-rate-in-sweden-really-17-percent/
"Is the Unemployment Rate in Sweden Really 17 Percent?"
By JOHN SCHMITT
In May 2006, the McKinsey Global Institute published a 252-page analysis of the Swedish economy. One of the report's most frequently cited findings was that the "de-facto" unemployment rate in Sweden in 2004 was between 15 and 17 percent, about three times higher than the official unemployment rate of 5.4 percent in that year (McKinsey Global Institute, 2006, Exhibit 6).
2006年五月，the McKinsey Global Institute出版252頁的瑞典經濟分析。該報告最常被引出的發現是：瑞典2004年的「實際」失業率介於15到17%，約是當年官方失業率 5.4%的三倍(McKinsey Global Institute, 2006, Exhibit 6)。
Important media outlets such as the Financial Times (September 10, 2006; January 22, 2007; April 17, 2007) and The Economist (September 9, 2006) repeated the McKinsey estimate as part of critiques of recent Swedish economic performance. The Economist even went so far as to accuse Sweden of being "a world champion at massaging its jobless figures."
重要的媒體，例如the Financial Times（2006 年9月10日；2007年1月22日；2007年4月17日）以及英國<<經濟學人>>（2006年9月9日）都一再提 到：McKinsey的估計是批判瑞典近來的經濟表現。<<經濟學人>>甚至進一步指控瑞典「在操作失業率數字上是世界冠軍」。
To arrive at their 15-17 percent "de-facto" unemployment rate, McKinsey added what they viewed as "people who don't work, even though they should be able to" to the pool of the unemployed. These groups that McKinsey added to the unemployed included: "latent job candidates"; the "underemployed”; those "excluded from [the] labor force with ability to work"; and workers on government programs. Reasonable people could disagree with McKinsey concerning both their choices of the types and the numbers of individuals to include in their "de-facto" unemployment calculation. The analysis here, however, accepts that McKinsey methodology and, instead, asks: what happens if we use the same methodology to estimate the "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States?
要達到他們所謂的「實際」15-17%的失業率，McKinsey把他們認為「沒有工作的人，即使他們應該有能力工作」加 到失業一項。McKinsey添加到失業的類別包括：「有潛力的職場候選人」[如大四畢業生等]、「低就業」[即有工作但工時未達某一標準]，「有工作能 力卻被排除在勞動力之外」的人 [例如服刑、坐監等]，以及接受政府計畫的勞工。理性的人會無法同意McKinsey對於類型的選擇以及把那些個人的數目加入「實際」失業率的計算中。本 文的分析雖然接收McKinsey的方法，卻反而要問：如果我們使用相同的方法來估算美國的「實際」失業率，會是怎樣的情況？
[中略]
The resulting "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States is 13.8 percent, compared to a 5.5 percent official U.S. unemployment rate, and an estimated 15.5 percent "de-facto" Swedish unemployment rate.
結果是，與美國官方失業率5.5%以及McKinsey估算的瑞典「實際」失業率15.5%相較，美國的「實際」失業率會是13.8%。
If we also include the two countries' prison and jail populations in the "de-facto" unemployment rate --something in the spirit of the original McKinsey analysis, but not included in the original analysis done exclusively in the context of the Swedish economy-- the "de-facto" unemployment rate in the United States rises to 15.2 percent, just 0.5 percentage points lower than McKinsey's figure (15.7 percent) for Sweden including its prison and jail population.
如果我們也將兩個國家的監獄與拘留 所人口包括在「實際」失業率裡----這是McKinsey分析的原始精神，不過，這部份[指用在美國情境] 並不包括在原始分析裡，原始分析只有針對瑞典經濟情境----那麼，美國「實際」失業率升高到15.2%，只比McKinsey將瑞典監獄與拘留所人口列 入後提出的數據（15.7%)低0.5個百分比。
The unemployment rate is far from a perfect measure of economic well-being or national labor-market performance. To the extent that critics of the Swedish economy rely on the McKinsey Global Institute's estimates of the "de-facto" unemployment in Sweden, those critics must also be sure to apply the same criteria to other countries serving as implicit or explicit points of comparison.
失業率絕不是評估經濟福利或國家勞動市場表現的完美評估標準。對於引用McKinsey Global Institute估算瑞典「實際」失業率而批判瑞典經濟的批評者，那些批評者必須也要將同樣的標準應用在其它國家作為比較的顯式或隱式。
以上引自：http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/sweden_unemployment_2007_06.pdf。
另有該文的摘要版，放在CEPR的網站上：
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/is-the-unemployment-rate-in-sweden-really-17-percent/
全站熱搜
留言列表
