State support remains a leading cause of tension in international commercial relations. Governments see trade distortions that look like they were caused by industrial subsidies, but lack data to illuminate that state support. In the 1980s, the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) developed an index that helped countries to see the overall incidence of agricultural subsidies, initially called the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Consumer Subsidy Equivalent (CSE). Are there lessons for today in the PSE approach? I try to answer that question from the standpoint of economics: how did the PSE evolve, what is it, is the concept relevant to industrial subsidies? And of politics: how was OECD able to create the tool, and do present conditions permit something similar? The PSE was a response to a shared perception of crisis. It drew on well‐established concepts in the agricultural economics and trade literatures. And it works best in a context where market power is sufficiently diffuse that a price gap between domestic and world prices can be calculated. Only some of those conditions can be met when applying the approach to concentrated industries dominated by large firms that operate in multi‐country supply chains.

中文翻译：

---

你的比我大！像生产者补贴当量这样的指数可以帮助理解工业补贴的相对发生率吗？

国家支持仍然是国际商业关系中紧张局势的主要原因。各国政府认为贸易扭曲看起来像是由工业补贴引起的，但缺乏数据来阐明国家的支持。在1980年代，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）建立了一个指数，该指数帮助各国了解了农业补贴的总体发生率，最初称为生产者补贴当量（PSE）和消费者补贴当量（CSE）。PSE方法今天有什么教训吗？我试图从经济学的角度回答这个问题：PSE是如何演变的，它是什么，这个概念与工业补贴有关吗？政治方面：经合组织如何创建该工具，当前条件允许类似的东西吗？PSE是对共同危机意识的回应。它借鉴了农业经济学和贸易文献中公认的概念。在市场力量充分分散以至可以计算出国内价格与世界价格之间的价格差距的情况下，它最有效。将方法应用于由在多国供应链中运营的大公司主导的集中行业时，只能满足其中一些条件。