: 3 :,,,,,,,,,,,, :,30 9 %, (1994) (The Myth of Asiaπs Miracle),,,,,1997,,,,, :,,,,, (1994) 1998, 1998,,,,,,, ( ),, :,?,? 3,, :100871, :jjxy @pku. edu. cn ;,, :100871, :nk94zhang @pku. edu. cn 2008 ( : 08AbJ G228), 4,,,
2008 11,,??,? (1978 2006) () (Shift2Share Analysis), Fagerberg(2000) Timmer (2000) Peneder (2003) L P t, L P t i, t, i, i = 1,2,3,,L P t i i t, S t i t i : L P t = Yt n = L = t L T i L T (1), t 0 : L P t - L P 0 i = 1 L P 0 = (2) : n i = 1 n ( S t i - S 0 i ) L P 0 i + i = 1 Y t il T i n i = 1 L P t is t i (1) n (L P t i - L P 0 i ) ( S t i - S 0 i ) + ( L P t i - L P 0 i ) S 0 i i = 1 (2) L P 0 : (2), i,t 0,, i : (2),,, i,t 0,, i : (2), () (2) ( 1) 1 1 ( ),( 2) 2, 3815 %,,,,,,( x13 > x11 + x12 ), 1 %,1 % 5
: 1, ( x23 > x21 + x22) 1978 2006, 4. 98 = 0. 50 1. 42 3. 06 = = = 0. 42-0. 11-0. 35 0. 88,, 2. 45 0. 22 0. 70 1. 53 2. 12 0. 39 1. 07 0. 65 2 () 1978 2006, 100 = 10. 0 ( e1) 28. 5 ( e2) 61. 5 ( e3),1978 015 = = = 2006 215 8. 5 ( p1) - 2. 2 ( x11) - 7. 0 ( x12) 17. 7 ( x13), 49. 1 ( p2) 4. 4 ( x21) 14. 0 ( x22) 30. 7 ( x23) 12 %32 % 42. 5 ( p3) 7. 8 ( x31) 21. 6 ( x32) 13. 1 ( x33),,,,, (1978 2006 ),, (), 1978 2006 1978 1985,1985 1988,1988 1991,1991 1998,1998 2002,2002 2006,,,, 11 1,,,,,, 1978-2006,, 6
2008 11,, 1990,35 % 50 % ;1990, 30 %(1998 2002), 3 3,20 80, 1978 1985 ( ),01195 1985 1988 1988 1991,, 01010-01020 20 80,,,1 1988 1991 3 1998 2002,, 1978 1985 01140-01055 01195, 1985 1988-01004 - 01014 01010,1991, 1988 1991-01019 01001-01020 1991 1998 01062-01061 01123 1991 1998 2002 2006, 1998 2002 01014 01001 01013 2002 2006 01047-01032 01079, (1978 1985,1991 1998, 2002 2006),,,,,,,, 21,1978 1985,1985 1988,1988 1991,1991 1998,1998 2002,2002 2006,, 2,3 2 3,1978 2006, 2 3 () (), 7
: 2 2 50 %,, 1991 (1978 1985,1985 1988,1988 1991), 50 %,,,,, 20 90,,,,,,,, 1998 2002,,,, 1991 1998 2002 2006,,,, :,1991 1998,, 1991 1998, 82 %, 8 3
2008 11 2002 2006, 64 %, 18,,1991 1998,1994,1998,2002 2006, 2002 2006 4 1991, 1988 1991,, 60 %,1991 1998,,,1998,1998,1998 1998 2002,4,,1998 4,1998 2002, 82 %, 1978 2006 6, 1998 2002 (1978 2006) 1978 1985 01186 01070 01116 1985 1988 01046 01018 01028 1988 1991 01022 01011 01011 1991 1998 01297 01112 01185 1998 2002 01209 01171 01038 2002 2006 01204 01135 01070 (1986 2002) (),, ( TFP), :,(aggregate level) TFP (sectoral level) TFP : Y i = f i ( K i,l i, t) (3) i = 1,2,3,,: G( Y i ) = i G( K i ) + i G( L i ) + G( A i ) (4) G( X) = ( dxπdt)πx = XΠX, G( A i ) i TFP, i = f ( K i ) K i ΠY i i, i = f (L i ) L i ΠY i i, G( Y) : Syrquin(1984) 9
: G( Y) = d ( Y i i ) Y = i G( Y i ) = i i G( K i ) + i i G( L i ) + i G( A i ) (5) i = Y i ΠY,, Y : Y = Y i, K = K i,l = L 1,= G( Y) = G( K) + G(L) + G( A) (6) i i,= i i,g( A) TFPTFPG( A) TFP i G( A i ),TSE( Total Structural Effect) : TS E = G( A) - i G( A i ) = i i G( k i ) + i i G( l i ) (7) k i = K i ΠK, l i = L i ΠL (5), d i = f ( K i ) K i ΠY i, i = f ( L i ) L i Π Y i, G( k i ) = gk i k i - gk k G( l i ) = gl i L i - gl (7) : L TS E = 1 Y K i [ f ( K i ) - f ( K) ] + 1 Y L i [ f ( L i ) - f ( L) ] = A ( f K ) + A ( f L ) (8) f ( K i ) f ( L i ) i,f ( K) f ( L ) (6) A ( f K ) A ( f L ), (6) : ( ) ( f ( K i ) - f ( K) > 0,f ( L i ) - f ( L ) > 0),( ) ;, ( ) ( f ( K i ) - f ( K) < 0 f (L i ) - f (L) < 0), ( ),A ( f K ) Af ( L),TSE,(3) (4),,TFP TFP G ( A) i G( A i ), ( ), (3), (4) (3) TSE () TFP,, (8) TSE,TFP,(6) G( A) (8) (6),,, : ; ; 10
, ( i = f ( K i ) K i ΠY i, i = f ( L i ) L i ΠY i ),,,: ; 11 :, ;,,,, ( 1987 1990 1992 1995 1997 2002 ) 21 : ( ),,,(2007),, : (), (4) (5),(8) G( Y) = G( K) + G(L) + i G( A i ) + TS E (9) (9),GDP : G( K) ; G( L) ; i G( A i ), ; TSE 5 f ( L i ) L i, f ( K i ) K i, K i L i, f ( K i ) f ( L i ), 5 5 () 2008 11 1986 1990 1017 8412 511 1990 1992 911 7915 1114 5812 4118 1992 1995 519 8014 1317 4213 5717 1995 1997 516 7413 2011 3419 6511 1997 2002 315 6810 2815 1113 8817 (1994), (2007) 2000,, 2001 2002, 1987, 1990 2002 1986 1990, (1991), 11
:,,,, (2008),1992 2005,90, : ;,,5, 1990 2002, : (1) ( ) ; (2),Chenery(1986) ;, :,?,, ( ),,, ;, :,,,,,,, () : 11,,,;,,,,,,, 12
2008 11 21,,,,,, () 1992 2002,, 67 8, 6, 6, ( ) 1992 2002 1992 (Π1 ) 2002 (Π1 ), 9178011 100 % 100 % 013359 012449 307314 511 % 319 % 014131 013309 (3 4 ), 4521510 3819 % 4611 % 014975 012753 4349116 5610 % 5010 % 012166 012102 () 7,, ( ) 1992 2002 1992 2002 (Π) (Π) 7588 10010 % 10010 % 1712 4127, - 1829 5815 % 5010 % 1197 1865 1425 2117 % 2114 % 2462 7367 7992 1918 % 2816 % 2412 5659,,,,1992,,,,,,,, :,, ;,,(7) 7,,,,, (1999),- 015 %,(1999),, (2002),,20 90 GDP 13
: 7 :,,,,, 8,1992 2002,,,, 1992 2002, 01278, 01067,,8 8,,, ( : Π) ( :Π) 1992 2002 1992 2002 0162 1180 3786 8532 0105 0114 1421 2329 1111 3187 7964 18027 1174 3115 6191 12271,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,, 20 80, 50 %, ;20 90, ;1998,,,, (1994) 1998 1998, ;,,,1998 1998,,,,,,, 14
2008 11,2008 :, 4,1999 :, 5,2007 :17, 7,2002 : :,1,1991 :, 4 Chenery H. B., Robinson S., Syrquin M., 1986, Industrialization and Growth : A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press, pp48 52. Fagerberg Jan, 2000,Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth : A Comparative Study, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 393 411. Krugman P., 1994,The Myth of Asiaπs Miracle : A Cautionary Fable, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, pp. 62 78. Peneder Michael, 2003,Industrial Structure and Aggregate Growth, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 14, pp. 427 448. Syrquin, M., 1984,Resource allocation and productivity growth, In : Syrquin, M., Taylor, L., Westphal, L. E. ( Eds. ), Economic Structure Performance Essays in Honor of Hollis B. Chenery, Academic Press, pp75 101. Timmer P. M., Szirmai A., 2000,Productivity Growth in Asian Manufacturing : the Structural Bonus Hypothesis Examined, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 371 392. Structural Change and Technical Advance in Chinaπs Economic Gro wth Liu Wei and Zhang Hui (School of Economics, Peking University) Abstract :This article empirically measures the effect of structural change of industries on Chinaπs economic growth compared to the impact of technical advance on Chinaπs economic growth, using decomposed expressions of labor productivity and total factor productivity. The study illustrates that the impact of structural effect on the economic growth is decreasing during the thirty years since Chinaπs economic reform in 1978, gradually exceeded by the impact of technical advance, which means that technical advance will play a more important role than market mechanism in the future. However, our study also indicates the decreasing of the impact of structural change on economic isnπt equivalent to the disappearance of gains from market reform. Some of the institutional and developmental factors retard the improvement of allocative efficiency. In this perspective, China still has a great deal to improve the efficiency of market mechanism. Key Words :Structural Change ; Technical Advance ; Economic Growth JEL Classification :O330,O470 ( : ) ( : ) 15