3 ( 510275) 1982 2002 ( TFP) TFP, ( GDP) TFP ; OLS Panel Data Dynamic Panel Data ( GMM), TFP, TFP, TFP TFP,,, (TFP), Chow and Lin(2002) (2003), TFP TFP, TFP Young(1995) TFP Easterly and Levine (2001), TFP Prescott (1998), TFP TFP Bernard and Jones (1996) OECD TFP ;Miller and Upadhyay(2002) TFP,, TFP,, TFP TFP 1982 2002 28 TFP, TFP, TFP OLS Panel Data Dynamic Panel Data ( GMM) TFP, ( GDP), TFP 3 1970 2002, Jonathan Temple Steve Dowrick, 19
,, ; TFP, TFP 13 % 1619 %, 418 % 713 %, TFP ( ), ;, TFP TFP, TFP, ( ) TFP TFP, Hall and Jones (1999) Bils and Klenow(2000), Cobb2Douglas, Y i = K i ( A i H i ) 1- (1) i Y i, K i H i A i A i TFP, E i, H i H i = e <( E i ) L i (2) < ( E i ), < ( E i ) f (0) = 0, E = 0, H = e <(0) L = L, y = YΠL, h = HΠL, Hall and Jones(1999), y i = A i K Y 1- i h i (3) TFP TFP GDP, 28,,,, 1982 2002 GDP 1982 1998,1999 2002 1996 2002, GDP, 1978, 1978, (2004) 1982 1998,1999 2002 1996 2002 1995 1952 1995,1996 ( ), ( ), ( ) 1982 20
2002 (2004) 2 1970 a 014,,1982 1998,1999 2002 1982 1990 2000, 1987 1993 1995 15 1983 1986 1988 1989 1991 1992,, ( ), 115 6 3 315, (2),, George Psacharopoulos, Psacharopoulos (1994) Psacharopoulos et al (2004), 0118 01134, 01151,, <( E), 0 6 0118,6 12 01134,12 01151,,,,, ( ) TFP (3) 28 1982 2002 TFP, TFP 519 % 1984, 1213 % ; 1992 1994, 10 % 1989 1990 TFP,,1982 2002 812 %,1984 1992 1994 11 %, 1989 1990 215 %, TFP, TFP TFP,,2002, 10 % 1 2002 TFP 2002, 2002 TFP,,TFP, TFP, Hall and Jones(1999), (3) 2002, 1215, ln h = 0118 (6) + 01134 (6) + 01151 (015) = 1196 (2003) TFP 21
TFP 1, 1, 1,,TFP,, 18 % 65 %, TFP 7 %, TFP, 76 %,2002 23 %, 1122, 80 %, 24 % TFP, 1 2002 TFP,, TFP (Counterfactual), TFP, 95 % ; TFP,, 8, KΠY 22 ( KΠY 100 ),, TFP 1 2002 ( ) 1, TFP YΠL ( KΠY) Π1 - HΠL A 0150 2112 1110 0121 1100 1100 1100 1100 0136 1129 0175 0137 0121 1101 0170 0129 0130 1101 0183 0136 0106 1118 0165 0107 0123 1122 0178 0124 01191 01336 01111 01186 YΠL 11000 01107 01743 01885 1, ;2, X X i = (3),, K Y 1- i, 01885, 01743, 01107, TFP TFP, TFP Klenow and Rodriguez2Clare (1997) h i (4) ln y i = lna i + ln X i (5) ln y lna,, 22
var (ln y) var (ln y) = cov(ln y,lna) var (ln y) + cov(ln y,ln X) var (ln y) = 1 (6) ln X lna ln y, 1, X TFP 2 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 cov(ln y,lna) Πvar (ln y) 0188 0177 0168 0170 0173 0180 0175 cov(ln y,ln X) Πvar (ln y) 0112 0123 0132 0130 0127 0120 0125 X (4), 1982 2002 2, TFP, 1990 68 % 1982 88 %, 75 %, 25 % TFP, TFP,? TFP?, ( ) TFP 2 2 ( ) 2 2, 2, 2 2 2, g c ln y 0 g = c + ln y 0 +, ln y 0 2 2,,, 2, 2,, 2, 2 ( ) ( ),, 2 %,,,, 2 % 35, 2 %,35 ( ) Quah(1996) 23
70Π (Romer,2001, p25) TFP Panel Data, Miller and Upadhyay(2002),, x, ( ), g = c + ln y 0 + x +, x, Panel Data,, x x, FDI Dynamic Panel Data GMM System GMM, Caselli et al (1996) Bond et al (2001),, Panel Data, Dynamics Panel Data GMM,, Panel Data,, Islam (1995) 5,Rivera and Currais(2004) 4, 5, 4 1982 1985,1986 1989,1990 1993,1994 1997,1998 2001,ln y it lna it, i = 1, 2,,28, t = 1,2,,5, ln y i2 i 1986 1989 ln y,lna TFP ( ) 2 2 2( a) ln y 2( b) lna TFP 2 2 (a), 2,1991 2000, 2, 2 (b) TFP, TFP 1982 1991 2, lna 1990,, Miller and Upadhyay(2002) Panel Data, 24
2 (a) 2 (b), TFP,, 2,,, 2,, TFP 2, (ln y 5 - ln y 1 )Π16 = + y ln y 1 + (7) (lna 5 - lna 1 )Π16 = + A lna 1 + (8) t = 5 t = 1 1998 2001 1982 1985, 16, 16 Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) 3 = 16 = - (1 - e - ) TFP,OLS y 01010 33-01011 3-01014 01006 (01004) (01005) (01012) (01016) gr 2 01017 01200 01036-01102 s1e1e 01007 01010 01010 01013 Implied - 01009 01012 01015-01006 A 01005-01015 3 01005 01013 (01006) (01008) (01015) (01017) gr 2-01021 01051-01153 - 01081 s1e1e 01016 01019 01012 01013 Implied - 01004 01018-01005 - 01012 1 (7) (8) OLS, (9), = 16 ;2 3 10 % 33 5 % 333 1 % ;3 TFP P2 01103, 10 % (9) 3 (7) (8) OLS,,,, 019 % TFP,, 10 %, 112 %,TFP, 10 % ( P2 01103) 2,, TFP 1 %,, ( ) Panel Data d (ln y t ) = ln y t - ln y t - 1 = + y ln y t - 1 d (lna t ) = lna t - lna t - 1 = + A lna t - 1 + t (10) + t (11) t = 1, 2 5, 25
= - (1 - e - ) (12),, ( Wooldridge, 2002), Islam (1995),Miller and Upadhyay (2002),, Panel Data, Panel Data,, Miller and Upadhyay(2002) 4 4 TFP,Panel Data, y - 01174 333-01363 33-01179 33-01322 333 (01062) (01149) (01080) (01099) gr 2 01699 01777 01864 01580 s1e1e 01061 01050 01056 01053 Implied 01048 01113 01049 01097 A - 01491 333-01509 333-01744 333-01483 333 (01083) (01093) (01245) (01168) gr 2 01547 01755 01644 01387 s1e1e 01093 01080 01087 01075 Implied 01169 01178 01341 01165 1 (10) (11) Panel Data, ; 2 (12), = 4 ( 4 ) ;3 3 10 % 33 5 % 333 1 %, 5 %, TFP, TFP 418 %, 1416,TFP 1619 %, 411 ( ) Dynamic Panel Data GMM(22Step) Panel Data,, Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) Islam(1995) Caselli et al (1996) Bond et al (2001), d (ln y t ) = ln y t - ln y t - 1 = y ln y t - 1 + ln s t + ln ( n + g + d) t + t (13) s t ( ) ( n + g + d) t ( + + ), s t ( + )ΠGDP, n t, g + d 0105, s t ( n + g + d) t 1982 1998 s t n t,1999 2002 lna t (13) ln y t TFP d (lna t ) = lna t - lna t - 1 = A lna t - 1, s t ( n + g + d) t (13) + ln s t + ln ( n + g + d) t + t (14) Y i = K i ( A i H i ) 1 -, ( K H) ( K H L), Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) I Solow, 26
II Augmented Solow, (13) (14) I (7),, Solow K H Augmented Solow K H L,,, TFP,, Dynamic Panel Data GMM Bond et al (2001), (13) (14),, (13) ln y t - 2,ln s t - 2,ln ( n + g + d) t - 2, (14) lna t - 2, ln s t - 2,ln ( n + g + d) t - 2 5 5 TFP,Dynamic Panel Data GMM(22Step) y - 01253 333-01147 3-01184 33-01288 333 (01077) (010870) (01069) (01098) lns t 11334 333 01779 33 11308 3 01968 33 (01320) (01370) (01758) (01367) ln( n + g + d) t - 01483 33-01450 - 01409-01476 33 (01195) (01297) (01369) (01200) s1e1e 01186 01190 01095 01121 Sargan Statistic 1193 6134 6137 0147 P2Value 58188 9164 91500 921540 Implied 01073 01040 01051 01085 A - 01406 333-01227 3-01298 3-01485 333 (01126) (01122) (01171) (01099) lns t 11818 333 11138 33 21067 333 01909 (01480) (01467) (01549) (01559) ln( n + g + d) t - 01222-01490 - 01195-01401 3 (01372) (01396) (01452) (01208) s1e1e 01247 01266 01230 01145 Sargan Statistic 5126 7150 5149 2107 P2Value 15138 5175 13190 56100 Implied 01130 01064 01089 01166 1 (13) (14) Dynamic Panel Data GMM(22Step),, ( Eviews 510) ;2 (13) ln y t - 2,lns t - 2,ln ( n + g + d) t - 2, (14) lna t - 2,lns t - 2,ln ( n + g + d) t - 2 ;3 (12), = 4 ( 4 ) ;4 3 10 % 33 5 % 333 1 % ;5 Sargan Null Hypothesis ;6 TFP P2 011026, 10 % 5, Dynamic Panel Data GMM Panel Data, TFP ( TFP P2 011026, 10 % ), TFP 713 %, 916, TFP 13 %, 514, TFP TFP, TFP,TFP, TFP 27
TFP, TFP, Cobb2Douglas, 28 1982 2002 TFP, TFP, TFP, OLS Panel Data Dynamic Panel Data ( GMM) TFP TFP, Panel Data Dynamic Panel Data GMM,TFP, TFP 1310 % 1619 %, 418 % 713 % Miller and Upadhyay(2002) 83 TFP, TFP, TFP TFP, TFP, TFP, TFP, ( TFP 1013 %, 10 % ),,, ( 112 %),,, OECD ( 2 %), Barro (1991) Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) Islam(1995) TFP, TFP, Romer (1986) Lucas (1988),, ( Infrastructure) ( Hall and Jones, 1999) (Acemoglu et al,2004) (Barro et al,2003), (2003), TFP,2003, 8,2003 1952 1998, 2,2004 1952 2000, 10 Acemoglu, D1, S. Johnson and J. Robinson, 2004, Institutions As the Fundamental Cause of Long2Run Growth, NBER Working Paper, No. w10481. Barro, R., 1991, Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), pp. 407 443. Barro, R. and M. McCleary, 2003, Religion and Economic Growth, Harvard University Working Paper. Bernard, A. and C. Jones, 1996, Comparing Apples to Oranges Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries, American Economic Review, 86(5), pp. 1216 1238 Oxford. Bils, M. and P. Klenow, 2000, Does Schooling Cause Growth? American Economic Review, 90(5), pp. 1160 1183. Bond, S., A. Hoeffler, and J. Temple, 2001, GMM Estimation of Empirical Growth Models, Unpublished Working Paper, University of Caselli, F., G. Esquivel and F. Lefort, 1996, Reopening the Convergence Debate A New Look at Cross2Country Growth Empirics, 28
Journal of Economic Growth, 1, pp. 363 389. Chow, G. and A. Lin, 2002, Accounting for Economic Growth in Taiwan and Mainland China A Comparative Analysis, Journal of Comparative Economics, 30(3), pp. 507 530. Easterly, W. and R. Levine, 2001, Itπs Not Factor Accumulation Stylized Facts and Growth Models, World Bank Economic Review 15 (2), pp. 177 219. Hall, R. and C. Jones, 1999, Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per Worker than Others? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (1), pp. 83 116. Islam, N., 1995, Growth Empirics A Panel Data Approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (4), pp. 1127 1170. Klenow, P. and A. Rodriguez2Clare, 1997, The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics Has It Gone Too Far? in Ben S. Bernanke and Julio J. Rotemberg, eds., NB ER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, pp. 73 103. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Lucas, R., 1988, On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), pp. 3 42. Mankiw, G., D. Romer, and D. Weil, 1992, A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), pp. 407 438. 286. Miller, S. and M. Upadhyay, 2002, Total Factor Productivity and the Convergence Hypothesis, Journal of Macroeconomics, 24, pp. 267 Prescott, E., 1998, Needed A Theory of Total Factor Productivity, International Economic Review, 39, pp. 525 551. Psacharopoulos, G., 1994, Returns to Investment in Education A Global Update, World Development, 22(9), pp. 1325 1343. and A. Patrinos, 2004, Returns to Investment in Education A Further Update, Education Economics, 12(2), pp. 111 134. Quah, D., 1996, Twin Peaks Growth and Convergence in Models of Distribution Dynamics, Economic Journal, 106, pp. 1045 1055. Rivera, B. and L. Currais, 2004, Public Health Capital and Productivity in the Spanish Regions A Dynamic Panel Data Model, World Development, 32(5), pp. 871 885. Romer, D., 2001, Advanced Macroeconomics, New York, NY McGraw2HillΠIrwin. Romer, P., 1986, Increasing Returns and Long2Run Growth, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), pp. 1002 1037. Wooldridge, J., 2002, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Young, A., 1995, The Tyranny of Numbers Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian Growth Experience, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (3), pp. 641 680. The Disparity of Income, TFP and the Convergence Hypothesis in Chinese Provinces Peng Guohua (Lingnan College, Sun Yat2Sen University) Abstract We study the convergence of total factor productivity(tfp) in Chinese provinces during 1982 2002 and compare it with the mode of income( GDP per labor) convergence. On the accounting basis our analysis shows that the differences in TFP can explain the bulk of income disparity. OLS, Panel Data fixed2effect and Dynamic Panel Data first2differenced GMM estimated methods support both conditional convergence of TFP and income while the speed of TFP is much faster than that of income. Only the east region has club2convergence. Further more, the Chinese provincial convergence modes of TFP and income are very similar to those of cross2country. Key Words Total Factor Productivity( TFP) ; Income Disparity ; Convergence JEL Classification O180, O470, C330 ( ) ( ) 29