TOP创新区研究院 . 创新区研究，就在TOP研究院。TOP研究院专注于全球创新区的一体化研究，从Talent(个人), Organization(组织), Place(区域)三大维度出发，通过"研究/连接/分享"，探索中国创新区的实践路径。 生产效率大PK。 来源 / TOP创新区研究院 （ID：TOP_Lab） 为什么几乎所有东西都是"中国制造"？ 以下文章来源于TOP创新区研究院 ，作者趋势研究组 很多人会脱口而出："因为中国的人工便宜呗！" 这话在2 0年前或许没错。但今天，中国制造业产出约占全球总量的3 0 %，遥遥领先于美 国约1 6 %的份额。如果你还单纯认为是人力成本的原因，那就不对了。 最 近 ， 一 位 经 济 学 家 单 伟 建 (We i j i a n S h a n ) 做 了 一 件 很 有 意 思 的 事 ： 他 找 来 了 特 斯 拉 ——这个在美国和中国都有着几乎一模一样"超级工厂"的公司，进行了一次硬核的生产 效率大PK。 结果，令人震惊。 特斯拉的"双城记" 特斯拉的上海工厂和加州弗里蒙特工厂，可以说是"兄弟"工厂。它们使用相同的技术、 相 同 的 生 产 线 ， 制 ...

Economic Overview - Estonia's GDP reached €10.49 billion in Q3 2025, showing a year-on-year growth of 0.9% and remaining stable quarter-on-quarter [1] - Private consumption decreased by 0.6% year-on-year, while government consumption increased by 3.4%, marking the fastest growth since Q2 2024 [1] - Overall investment fell by 0.7% year-on-year, with government investment rising by 8.8% and corporate investment declining significantly by 27.3% [1] - Household investment in housing grew by 12.1% year-on-year [1] Trade Performance - External trade continued to grow, with goods and services exports increasing by 5.7% year-on-year and imports rising by 5.6% [1] - Net exports achieved positive growth for the second consecutive quarter [1] Sector Performance - The energy sector experienced the highest value-added growth at 21.5% year-on-year [1] - Manufacturing sector value-added grew by 7.9% year-on-year [1] - The real estate sector saw a value-added increase of 4.4% year-on-year [1] - The accommodation and food services sector faced the largest decline in value-added, down by 8.8% year-on-year [1] - Transportation sector value-added decreased by 6.9% year-on-year [1] - Wholesale and retail trade sector value-added also fell by 6.9% year-on-year [1] - Health and social work sector value-added declined by 4.5% year-on-year [1]

Core Viewpoint - The overall industry value added in Macau is projected to increase by 8.2% year-on-year to MOP 384.54 billion in 2024, indicating a continued economic recovery [1] Group 1: Industry Value Added - The value added by the tertiary sector (services, including wholesale and retail, food and beverage, finance, and gaming) is expected to reach MOP 365.88 billion, while the secondary sector (industry and construction) is projected at MOP 18.66 billion [1] - The tertiary sector's contribution to the overall industry value added is anticipated to be 95.1%, an increase of 0.8 percentage points from 2023, while the secondary sector's share will be 4.9% [1] - The non-gaming sector's value added is expected to account for 56.7% of the total value added, up by 7.8 percentage points compared to 2019 [1] Group 2: Income Distribution - In terms of initial income distribution, production and import taxes are projected to reach MOP 97.1 billion, with a year-on-year increase of 21.4% [1] - Operating surplus is expected to be MOP 155.03 billion, reflecting a 3.6% increase year-on-year [1] - Employee compensation is projected at MOP 133.31 billion, with a year-on-year growth of 6.1% [1] - The shares of these components in the local GDP are expected to be 25.2% for production and import taxes, 40.2% for operating surplus, and 34.6% for employee compensation [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article presents a paradox where China's manufacturing sector exhibits strong global competitiveness despite academic reports indicating its labor productivity is significantly lower than that of the United States. The author argues that the methodology used in these studies is flawed, leading to incorrect conclusions about China's labor productivity [1][15]. Methodological Issues - Traditional methods of measuring labor productivity through value-added calculations can obscure differences in product quality and types, leading to inaccurate comparisons between countries [2]. - The classification differences between U.S. and Chinese manufacturing statistics contribute to misleading productivity comparisons. U.S. statistics include companies that do not manufacture products, while China only includes actual manufacturers [3][4]. - The use of purchasing power parity (PPP) indices to compare value-added across countries may not accurately reflect price differences, complicating productivity assessments [5]. Industry Comparisons - The research focuses on five key industries: shipbuilding, steel, electric vehicles, solar photovoltaic components, and cement. It finds that Chinese workers' per capita output is 2 to 3 times that of their U.S. counterparts, while nominal value-added is about 20% lower due to price differences [7][8]. - In the cement industry, China's per capita output is slightly higher than that of the U.S., but its nominal value-added is only 28% of the U.S. level, primarily due to significant price disparities [8]. Labor Productivity Metrics - The analysis indicates that in shipbuilding, steel, and electric vehicles, China's labor productivity is superior when measured by physical output. For instance, in shipbuilding, China's per capita output is 2.5 times that of the U.S. [16]. - The average nominal wage for Chinese workers is significantly lower than that of U.S. workers, which is attributed to the overall lower wage levels in China rather than lower productivity [8][15]. Trade Barriers and Their Impact - Trade barriers, such as tariffs, inflate domestic prices in the U.S., leading to higher nominal value-added figures without necessarily improving labor productivity [9][11]. - The structural price differences between the U.S. and China further complicate productivity comparisons, particularly in industries like electric vehicles and pharmaceuticals [12][13]. Global Competitive Advantage - China's manufacturing sector is increasingly moving up the value chain, focusing on high-end manufacturing while outsourcing low-end production to countries with lower wages. This strategy enhances China's global competitiveness [17]. - The article suggests that the U.S. should focus on expanding its advantages in high-tech sectors rather than attempting to regain lost ground in general manufacturing, which may lead to adverse economic outcomes [17].

Core Viewpoint - The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) has introduced the "Five Values" framework to enhance the quality and efficiency of central enterprises, aligning with the central government's goals for high-quality development and new productive forces [1][2]. Group 1: Value Creation Metrics - The first value is "Value Added," which reflects the economic contribution of enterprises. In 2024, central enterprises are expected to achieve a value added of 10.7 trillion yuan, showing significant year-on-year growth [1]. - The second value is "Functional Value," which assesses the role of enterprises in promoting economic and social development. SASAC is establishing an evaluation system for state-owned enterprises to consider their strategic mission contributions in performance assessments and compensation [2]. - The third value is "Economic Value Added" (EVA), which accounts for capital costs to better reflect true value creation. Since 2010, EVA for central enterprises has increased from over 380 billion yuan to approximately 1.2 trillion yuan [2]. Group 2: Strategic Focus Areas - The fourth value is the proportion of revenue and value added from strategic emerging industries. In 2024, investments in these industries are projected to exceed 40% of total investments, with revenue nearing 30% [3]. - The fifth value is "Brand Value," which measures the intrinsic value of enterprises. In 2024, the total brand value of central enterprises is estimated to reach 8.6 trillion yuan, with an average annual growth rate exceeding 15% over the past three years [3].