ICOR / 2005 TFP 2005 Islam MPK % backward integration log-linear GDP Lucas % 199

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ICOR / 2005 TFP 2005 Islam MPK % backward integration log-linear GDP Lucas % 199"

琏尹汪
5 years ago
Views:

1 * + / GDP 90 6% 4% % 12% % 3. 8% GDP GDP / GDP % 2. 5% 1 / GDP % % GDP K / Y 2003 * lidk@ sem. tsinghua. edu. cn xux2. 08@ sem. tsinghua. edu. cn sem. tsinghua. edu. cn 46 1

2 ICOR / 2005 TFP 2005 Islam MPK % backward integration log-linear GDP Lucas % % 47

3 15% % 3. 8% GDP / GDP 1 = = = + = = %

4 WDI % % 10% WDI % 30% 4 GDP GDP 49

5 Ramsey Ramsey 1990 Ramsey Ramsey GDP Backward Integration Backward Integration Martin Brunner Holger Strulik 2002 Ramsey 1 Backward Integration Backward Integration k 0 k 0 k Brunner Martin and Holger Strulik 2002 Solution of Perfect Foresight Saddlepoint Problems A Simple Method and Applications Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control Brunner & Strulik 2002 Matlab

6 α = ~ Bai et al ρ = ~ Lucas Taiji Harashima n = g = ~ Young g = 4. 1% g = 1. 4% g = 1. 6% Young TFP 3% 1. 4% g = % g = 2. 8% g = 3. 25% Caselli 2006 / GDP G7 22% 21% 26. 7% 29. 4% 18. 2% 15. 2% G7 22% θ δ 珋 k 珋 y = α ρ + δ + θ g + n G7 51

7 珋 i 珋 y = n + g + δ α ρ + δ + θ g + n a = r = n = g = θ = δ = k 0 = GDP GDP G7 GDP G7 GDP Y GDP PPP t = % GDP 50% GDP % 4% % 52

8 % % C Y tr * i tr - Y to * i to Ct u Ct = C t 1 - θ 1 - θ U 2008 = e - ρ t u C t dt % Ct GDP W o = W r t = 1990 t = 1990 e - ρ t u C to * Δ dt = 2008 t = 1990 e - ρ t u Y to * 1 - i o * Δ dt = 2008 t = 1990 e - ρ t u C tr dt e - ρ t u C tr dt W o W r t C tr t 2008 Y to t GDP 1 - Δ GDP 3. 8% GDP Backward Integration GDP G7 G7 15% 29% GDP GDP t = % % % % % % % G7 GDP WDI GDP Cassili 2006 C to 53

9 2005 Ramsey G7 g = a = pho = Backward Integration GDP % 15% % 3. 8% GDP GDP GDP 1. 50% 35% 2008 GDP 5. 7% 0. 86% 2% 4% 2008 GDP 8. 56% % 2. GDP GDPgrt = ΔYt Yt = a* = a* ΔKt Kt It Yt * Yt Kt a n + g = a* - a* δ a n + g It - δkt Kt a n + g GDP % 35% GDP 10% GDP 0. 05* a* Y 5% GDP GDP K a % GDP 0. 9% GDP 9. 6% % 54

10 TFP GDP GDP 1 g TFP 30% GDP 0. 9% GDP + / GDP % 4% % 12% % 3. 8% GDP GDP second-best welfare benchmark first best 1 panel data 55

11 Barro Robert J Determinants of Economic Growth A Cross-country Empirical Study Journal of Comparative Economics Bond Steve Asli Leblebicioglu and Fabio Schiantarelli 2010 Capital Accumulation and Growth A New Look at the Empirical Evidence Journal of Applied Econometrics Brunner Martin and Holger Strulik 2002 Solution of Perfect Foresight Saddle Point Problems A Simple Method and Applications Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control Campos Nauros F and Jeffrey B. Nugent 2003 Aggregate Investment and Political Instability An Econometric Investigation Economica Caselli Francesco and Wilbur John Coleman 2006 The World Technology Frontier American Economic Review Harashima Taiji 2004 A More Realistic Endogenous Time Preference Model and the Slump in Japan EconWPA Working Papers ewp-mac He Xinhua and Qin Duo 2004 Aggregate Investment in People s Republic of China Some Empirical Evidence Asian Development Review Islam N. Erbiao Dai and Hiroshi Sakamoto 2006 Role of TFP in China s Growth Asian Economic Journal Lucas Robert E Inflation and Welfare Econometrica Young Alwyn 1995 The Tyranny of Numbers Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian Growth Experience Quarterly Journal of Economics Young Alwyn 2003 Gold into Base Metals Productivity Growth in the People s Republic ofchina during the Reform Period Journal of Political Economy

12 Endogenous Growth Government Productive Spending and China s Private Consumption Hu Yonggang a and Guo Xinqiang a b a Shanghai University of Finance and Economics b China Zheshang Bank Abstract A large part of China s government spending is laid for productive purposes. Contrary to the crowding-out effect from both New Classical Macroeconomics and New Keynesian models China s private consumption and government spending show robust positive correlationship. In this paper we set up an endogenous growth model in which productive government spending takes forms of both stock and flow. The studies show that government spending crowds out private consumption through negative wealth effect on one hand and crowds in it through positive productive externality on private capital on the other. Whether private consumption will rise following an increase in government spending depends on which effect is larger. The effect of government spending on private consumption depends on the productivity level and the composition as well as the size of government spending. The size of optimal government spending is equal to its total productivity and the optimal composition of government productive spending is equal to its relative productivity. Key Words Private Consumption Endogenous Growth Government Productive Spending Government Spending Composition JEL Classification E21 E23 E62 檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵檵 56 A Welfare Economics Analysis of the Chinese Economic Growth Li Daokui a Xu Xin a and Jiang Hongping b a School of Economics and Management Tsinghua University b Zhaoqing Municipal Government Office Guangdong Province Abstract China s macroeconomic investment rate seems to be very high in comparing with the world average and that of similar emerging market economies. Is China over-investing Existing research focuses on the rate of turn of investment in order to answer this question. We believe that this is wrong since the ultimate measure should be social welfare. However such analyses are missing in the literature. In the paper we first construct two measures of China s investment rate the domestic investment rate and the national investment rate which incorporates China s current account surplus. We then build a benchmark of growth model and then explore the method of backward integration to solve the model. Finally we compare the optimal investment path of the benchmark model with the actual one and calculate the welfare loss due to the deviation the actual investment rate from the optimal one. We find that China s average domestic investment rate and national investment rate are 6% and 4% lower than benchmark rate in the 1990s respectively. However after 2002 they are 5% and 12% higher than welfare maximizing rate respectively. As a result between 1990 and 2008 the total welfare loss is 5. 9% corresponding to 3. 8% GDP annually. Key Words Investment Rate National Investment Rate Welfare Analysis of Economic Growth Backward Integration JEL Classification E13 E22 E27 71

% 82. 8% You & Kobayashi % 2007 %

% 82. 8% You & Kobayashi % 2007 % 202 2 * 5. 6 995 2008 0 2008 28% Meng 2003 2000 2009 9. 4% 47% 200 % 2% 20% 50% Gruber & Yelowitz 999 Engen & Gruber 200 Chou et al. 2003 200 200 200 Brown et al. 200 2003 2003 2006 2006 * 00084 wubzh@