* Chenery et al. 1989 1962 Peneder 2002 Baumol 1967 Kuznets 1971 * 200433 chhg@ mail. shufe. edu. cn zhruogu @ yahoo. com. cn 500 yu. dianfan@ mail. shufe. edu. cn 10ZD&011 4
2011 5 Sachs 1994 Fan 2003 2008 2009 2002 2007 2004 2009 1 2006 Chenery et al. 1989 Fabricant 1942 - Shift-Share Method - 2002 2008 1978 1 Kuznets 1971 Stockman 1988 Imbs 2003 Blanchard and Simon 2001 Kahn et al 2002 Eggers and Ioannides 2006 5
E = n Y i / L i i = 1 Y / L - 1 = n Y i / Y i = 1 L i / L - 1 1 E Y L i n Y / L Y i / L i = Y / L E = 0 Y i / Y L i / L E E Chenery et al. 1989 E 0 Theil and Henri 1967 2007 TL = n Y ( i ) i = 1 Y ln Y i Y ( L ) L i TL = 0 0 70 2008 TS TS 1 1 1 1978 2009 TS TS 2 6 1
2011 5 0. 188 1 80 1990 2004 TS 1 1 TL 1. 000 TL TS E / TS 0. 072 ** 1. 000 E 0. 887 *** 0. 072 ** 1. 000 / - 0. 308 *** 0. 188 *** - 0. 320 *** 1. 000 * ** *** 10% 5% 1% 1 1978 2009 1978 2009 TL TS TL TS 80 TL 1980 TS 90 1 TS TS 7
TL TS 90 TL TS TL TS 1978 2009 30 1 30 2 y it = γ i + β 1 lntl it + β 2 lnts it + u it 3 i t y lntl lnts u γ i Frank 2005 y it = γ i + β 1 lntl it + β 2 lnts it + β 3 y it * lntl it + β 4 y it * lnts it + u it 4 4 Δy it = β 1 ΔlnTL it + β 2 ΔlnTS it + β 3 Δy it * ΔlnTL it + β 4 Δy it * ΔlnTS it + Δu it 5 Baum & Schaffer 2002 Hansen 1982 J GDP TS 2006 2010 8 HP Hordick and Prescott 1980
2011 5 T lny t - lny * t + λ T -1 lny * t +1 - lny * t - lny * t - lny * t -1 6 t = 1 t = 2 lny t GDP lny * t lny t - lny * t λ Aghion et al. 2006 2008 vol it t + T = std lny it + T - lny it 1 + T g T t ik 7 k = t g lny GDP std lny t + T - lny t t t + T GDP T T = 5 1 1978 2 1978 2009 1978 1984 1985 1991 1992 2000 2001 2009 2 Hansen β^ 1 β^ 3 β^ 1 / β^ 3 1 Aghion et al. 2006 2008 6 2008 5 2006 2005 2008 T = 5 2 1999 1978 1999 1976 1984 1984 1992 1992 1999 2008 1978 2004 1979 1984 1985 1992 1993 2000 2001 2004 9
β^ 2 β^ 4 β^ 2 / β^ 4 1 g it lntl it = β 1 + β 3 g it 8 g it lnts it = β 2 + β 4 g it 9 2 Δg 1978 2009 1978 1984 1985 1991 1992 2000 2001 2009 ΔlnTL ΔlnTS Δg* ΔlnTL Δg* ΔlnTS 5. 935 *** 10. 86 2. 755 ** 2. 28-0. 522 *** - 22. 30-0. 203 *** - 2. 71 6. 001 *** 4. 10 2. 751 1. 14-0. 516 *** - 11. 67-0. 404 *** - 4. 12 3. 563 *** 3. 30-1. 835 1. 16-0. 510 *** - 25. 06 0. 021 0. 33 4. 749 *** 9. 91-2. 921 1. 15-0. 463 *** - 11. 54 0. 213-1. 04 6. 398 *** 12. 06 9. 133 *** 6. 22-0. 499 *** - 17. 36-0. 677 *** - 6. 35 Hansen p-value 0. 260 0. 456 0. 887 0. 192 0. 133 F 267. 84 81. 30 159. 58 110. 27 127. 68 870 120 150 180 210 TL 0. 561 0. 403 0. 880 0. 621 0. 206 TS 0. 299 0. 638-2. 017 0. 255 0. 737 1 STATA10. 0 * ** *** 10% 5% 1% t 2 3 1992 2000 1 2 1 1985 1991 1992 2000 1992 2000 2001 2009 10 1
2011 5 HP Backus & Kehoe 1992 λ 100 1 3 Hansen 3 ΔlnTL 0. 073 *** 3. 75 0. 024 *** 6. 73 0. 063 *** 3. 33 ΔlnTS - 0. 188 *** 3. 11-0. 004 0. 57-0. 179 *** 3. 19 Δvol* ΔlnTL - 0. 509 *** - 15. 54-0. 502 *** - 18. 53-0. 517 *** - 16. 69 Δvol* ΔlnTS 0. 086-0. 96 0. 139 * 1. 75 0. 083-1. 00 Hansen p-value 0. 154 0. 339 0. 188 F 95. 96 214. 92 98. 77 120 150 120 TL - 0. 068 0. 004-0. 075 TS 0. 165 0. 009 0. 157 1 2 1 1 3 lntl β^ 1 / β^ 3 < 1 TL β^ 2 β^ 4 lnts β^ β^ β^ 2 / β^ 4 < 1 1 λ λ λ Backus & Kehoe 1992 100 OECD 25 11
3 1978 2009-0. 068 0. 165 30 30 30 WTO 70 1978 2009 1 GDP 1978 DEA TFP 2 1 2004 2008 2009 2 TFP DEA DEA DEA Coelli & Rao 2006 12
2011 5 4 4 2 TFP 4 Ⅰ ΔTFP 1978 2009 1978 1984 1985 1991 1992 2000 2001 2009 ΔlnTL ΔlnTS ΔTFP* ΔlnTL ΔTFP* ΔlnTS 0. 569 *** 25. 20 0. 113 1. 34-0. 532 *** - 24. 63-0. 113-1. 44 0. 569 *** 9. 24 0. 484 *** 3. 38-0. 490 *** - 8. 50-0. 387 *** - 3. 17 0. 531 *** 13. 99-0. 033-0. 29-0. 510 *** - 14. 76 0. 012 0. 12 0. 499 *** 12. 75-0. 310 * 1. 78-0. 465 *** - 12. 56 0. 315 ** - 1. 97 0. 568 *** 16. 89 0. 477 *** 3. 12-0. 538 *** - 17. 46-0. 459 *** - 3. 15 Hansen p-value 0. 722 0. 216 0. 107 0. 568 0. 406 F 291. 67 38. 99 110. 65 65. 76 179. 44 870 120 150 210 210 1 SYS-GMM SYS-GMM 1 Arellano-Bond 2 Hansen 5 SYS-GMM Arellano-Bond Hansen 5 2 4 HP OECD λ = 25 5 λ = 100 2008 T = 6 SYS-GMM 6 13
5 Ⅱ Δg 1978 2009 1978 1984 1985 1991 1992 2000 2001 2009 ΔlnTL ΔlnTS Δ g* lntl Δ g* lnts 5. 031 *** 4. 21 6. 287 ** 2. 20-0. 509 *** - 10. 75-0. 254 ** - 2. 05 4. 211 ** 2. 01 3. 558 0. 73-0. 544 *** - 16. 28-0. 502 *** - 4. 28 2. 428 * 1. 83-0. 883-0. 19-0. 516 *** - 18. 88 0. 0506 0. 42 6. 960 *** 6. 29-1. 546-0. 52-0. 527 *** - 10. 86 0. 193 1. 05 5. 870 *** 7. 30 8. 232 ** 2. 44-0. 499 *** - 8. 60-0. 616 *** - 2. 70 m1 p-value 0. 000 0. 012 0. 022 0. 008 0. 031 m2 p-value 0. 130 0. 249 0. 431 0. 189 0. 669 Hansen p-value 1. 000 0. 220 0. 146 0. 323 0. 268 F 196. 21 291. 97 477. 67 137. 52 165. 54 N 900 150 180 240 240 1 collapse 2 3 m1 m2 6 FD λ = 25 λ = 25 T = 6 T = 6 T = 6 SYS-GMM SYS-GMM SYS-GMM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ΔlnTL ΔlnTS Δvol* ΔlnTL Δvol* ΔlnTS 0. 031 *** 4. 87 0. 014 1. 28-0. 529 *** - 13. 88 0. 065 0. 66 0. 058 *** 3. 33-0. 164 *** 3. 14-0. 515 *** - 17. 09 0. 022-0. 27 0. 055 *** 4. 82-0. 007-0. 21-0. 518 *** - 11. 57 0. 049 0. 34 0. 023 *** 8. 55-0. 019 *** - 2. 78-0. 513 *** - 15. 85 0. 182 1. 62 0. 055 *** 4. 80-0. 012-0. 45-0. 529 *** - 12. 43 0. 148-0. 71 0. 081 *** 3. 18-0. 105-1. 50-0. 571 *** - 9. 99 0. 352 *** 3. 40 0. 028 *** 3. 86-0. 020 * - 1. 84-0. 511 *** - 10. 66 0. 168 1. 36 0. 091 *** 2. 95-0. 108 * - 1. 73-0. 585 *** - 10. 24 0. 342 *** 3. 33 Hansen 0. 206 p-value 0. 114 0. 177 0. 113 0. 145 0. 125 0. 180 0. 233 F 156. 87 125. 66 34. 14 68. 87 44. 75 269. 12 162. 61 364. 75 150 120 90 120 60 180 180 180 m1 p-value - - - - - 0. 010 0. 058 0. 014 m2 p-value - - - - - 0. 135 0. 141 0. 284 3 1 2 5 1 2 3 1 4 6 3 14
2011 5 1978 2009 30 15
2005 7 1999 2006 7 2009 2 2010 2 2005 6 2008 6 2007 5 1999 2005 11 2008 11 2004 11 2008 12 2002 2 1989 2008 K 1952 2006 10 2006 1986 2003 3 2005 6 2008 2008 2009 12 Gary H. Jefferson 2009 7 2004 1952 2000 10 2008 3 Aghion Philippe Philippe Bacchetta Romain Ranciere Kenneth Rogoff 2006 Exchange Rate Volatility and Productivity Growth The Role of Financial Development NBER Working Paper 12117. Backus David K. and Patrick J. Kehoe 1992 International Evidence on the Historical Properties of Business Cycles American Economics Review Vol. 82 No. 4 PP. 864 888. Coelli T. J. Rao D. S. P. Christopher J. O'Donnell and Battese G. E. 2006 An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Springer Publishers. Denison E. F. 1967 Why Growth Rates Differ Post-War Experience in Nine Western Countries Brookings Institution Washington DC. Frank M. W. 2005 Income Inequality and Economic Growth in the U. S. A Panel Cointegration Approach Working Paper Sam Houston State University. Grossman G. M. Helpman E. 1991 Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy MIT Press Cambridge USA. Singh. L. 2004 Technological Progress Structural Change and Productivity Growth in Manufacturing Sector of South Korea The Institute of World Economy Seoul National University. Lucas R. E. 1993 Making a Miracle" Econometrica 61 251 272. Maddison A. 1987 Growth and Slow down in Advanced Capitalist Economies Techniques of Quantitative Assessment" J. Econ. Literat. 25 649 698. Nelson R. R. Pack H. 1999 The Asian Miracle and Modern Growth Theory Econ. J. 109 416 436. Peneder M. 2002 Structural Change and Aggregate Growth WIFO Working Paper. Austrian Institute of Economic Research Vienna. Timmer M. and A. Szirmai. 2000 Productivity Growth in Asian Manufacturing The Structural Bonus Hypothesis Examined Structural Change and Economic Dynamics Vol 1 pp. 371 392. 31 16
2011 5 Cyclical Fluctuations and Nonlinear Dynamics of Inflation Rate Zhang Lingxiang and Zhang Xiaotong School of Economics Nankai University Abstract In this paper China s inflation rate cyclical fluctuations and nonlinear dynamics are analyzed based on the MRSTAR model. The authors investigate the partition of inflation rate asymmetric and nonlinear characteristics of its dynamics and transition path and intrinsic mechanism of different regimes. The empirical results show that China s inflation rate can be divided into four regimes deflation deflation recovery moderate inflation and hyper inflation. The partition criteria not only depend on the inflation level but depend on its magnitude as well. Within a fluctuation cycle the typical transition path of different regimes is laid out as follows deflation moderate inflation hyper inflation moderate inflation deflation. The deflation and moderate inflation phases have high persistence whereas the hyper inflation phase has low persistence. The impulse responses to shocks are transient and there appears to be asymmetry between the impulse responses to positive and negative shocks. Key Words Inflation Rate Cyclical Fluctuation MRSTAR Model Nonlinear Impulse Response JEL Classification C22 C44 E32 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 16 An Empirical Study on the Effects of Industrial Structure on Economic Growth and Fluctuations in China Gan Chunhui Zheng Ruogu and Yu Dianfan Office of Scientific Research Administration Shanghai University of Finance and Economics School of International Business Administration Top500 Enterprises Research Center Abstract The adjustment of industrial structure is currently a key issue in China however the effects of industrial structure on economic growth is not consistent in the literatures. In this paper we develop a new measurement of industrial structure from the rationalization and optimization of industrial structure and specify a fixed effect model to explore the relationship between industrial structure and economic growth. Futhermore we consider the mechanism of the rationalization and optimization of industrial structure on economic fluctuations. The results showed that the rationalization of industrial structure and economic growth has a steady relationship and the optimization of industrial structure and economic growth has an uncertain relationship but their impact mechanisms on economic growth are the same. The optimization of industrial structure is an important source of economic fluctuations but the rationalization of industrial structure can avoid this fluctuation. Overall the contribution of the rationalization of industrial structure to economic development is much greater than the optimization of industrial structure. In the policy making process the government should give more consideration to the rationalization of industrial structure rather to the optimization of industrial structure. Key Words Rationalization of Industrial Structure Optimization of Industrial Structure Economic Growth Economic Fluctuations JEL Classification O11 O41 O47 31