: : : 3 : Kumbhakar (2000),TFP : (1) 1988 TFP, ; (2),, (3) 90,(4),90,,, : TFP,,,,,,,,,,, :80,80 (Rawski,1994) ;90 90, (2002a,2002b) 90, (TFP),Jefferson et al. (1996) ( CD ) 3,, :310027, :ralphzwang @yahoo. com. cn ;, ;,, Subal C. Kumbhakar,, 48
2006 11 1980 1992 TFP (2001) 1995 1998, TFP Gao (2004) : (1) CD, ; (2) TFP (1998) (2001),CD, (Zheng et al.,2003) 700, Malmquist (2005) 1995 2004,,, 1987, Kumbhakar (2000),,,, TFP,,,, () TFP : y it = f ( x it, t) exp ( - u it ) (1) y it ; f ( ),; x it ; u it 0,(Technical Efficiency, TE) TE it = exp ( - u it ) ; i t f ( ), : lnf ( x it, t) = x it + v it (2) ; v, (2) (1),: ln y it = lnf ( x it, t) - u it = x it + v it - u it (3) Battese and Coelli (1992),u v : u it = u i exp[ - ( t - T) ] (4) v it N (0, 2 v) (5) u,, v u Chen(1997) Felipe (1999) TFP,20 90 TFP,Zheng et al. (2003) (2004) (2005) DEA Malmquist,(2005) (2006) (SFA), TFP, Zheng et al. (2003), (2004) (2005) (2006),,, TFP,,,, 49
: : () TFP Kumbhakar (2000),( Technical Change,TC),: TC it = 5lnf ( x it, t) 5 t (Technical Efficiency Change,TEC) : (6) TEC it = 5ln TE it 5 t = 5 u it 5 t : (7) 5ln y it 5 t = TC it + TEC it (8),TFP, : TgFP = gy - s gx (9) s (1), (8) (9) TFP : TgFP = TC + TEC + (- s ) gx = TC + TEC + ( RTS - 1) gx + ( - s ) gx (10), 5lnf ( )Π5ln x, ; RTS, ; ΠTRS,, = s, (,2005) (10),TFP (TFPG) : ( TC) ( TEC) (SCALE) (ALLCTV) () CD CES, (translog),,,,: ln y it = a 0 + a ln x it + a t t + 1 2 m a m ln x it ln x mit + 1 2 a tt t 2 + a t tln x it + v it - u it (11) K L,, m = K, L,: = a + a m ln x m + a t t (12) m RTS = = ( a + a m ln x m + a t t) (13) m TC = a t + a tt t + a t ln x (14) TEC = - 5^u it 5 t TFP (15),s (Kumbhakar,2000) 50
2006 11 28 ( ) 1987 2002,16 () ( Y) (1952 1995) (1996 2002) GDP, (1987 ) 1987 1998 GDP,1999 () ( K),: K it = K i, t - 1 + I it - it i t, K, I, (1987 2002) ( = - ), ^I it ;^I it ^I it ΠP it = I it - it, P 1995 1998 (,, ), 1991 1991,(2004),, t (t - 1 = 1) = t ( )Πt (t - 1 = 1) t - 1 ( ) (1952 1995),, 1987 ^I it ΠP it, t : K it = K i,1987 + ^I it ΠP it i = 1 () (L), (), ( 1) Z,(0112),, Wald 51
: : 1,, 1 :ln y Z 011083 010443 2144 3 3 448 010111 010014 7193 3 3 3 28 018527 013416 2150 3 3 ( ) 16-014979 012179-2129 3 3 Wald 8216149 3 3 3-010917 010204-4149 3 3 3 Wald 010000 010729 010163 4146 3 3 3 35211189 011228 010792 1155 011436 010503 2185 3 3 3-012304 011201-1192 3-011266 112921-0110 - 010282 010040-7113 3 3 3, 019948 010043, : 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 % 5 %1 % 0192 (4),,1 %, 2 u, =,,, 2 u + 2 v, 0199,1, () () TFP, 1987 2002 TFP 1 TFPG ( 1987 2002) 1,, TFP,TFP, TFP,, TFP :, ;,, TFP : (1),(2) 1987 52
2006 11,,,, (3),,1987 2002, ;, 2 6, 2 TFP TFP ( TFPG) ( TC) (TEC) (SCALE) ( ) (ALLCTV), 11 1987 TFP,, 1998 1999 TFP,1999 TFP,TFP,TFP 1999,TFP TFP, (2005) 1996 1997,,,, TFPG 21,,90 1998 1999, 90 TFP (,2005 ;,2006) 53
: : 3,TFP TFP 31,4,,1987, (4, ),,1987 2002,,,,7 ( ) - 0102, () - 0104, 41 ( 6) 1997,,, TFPG, 1998,, 0156 0161, 1998 50 %,, 51 ( 6) 1997, 1998 1999,- 011,- 012, 2000, TFPG 54
2006 11 4 5 2002,,, 2002 TFPG, TFP 55
: : 2 6 TFP TC TEC SCALE ALLCTV TC TEC SCALE ALLCTV 1988-016096 110184 215653-119740 - 017650 011369 019346 016935 1993 317813-018928 - 116415-012470 817700-016162 - 611064-110473 1998 216372-013979 112165-214558 212813-011037 010960-112736 2002 118381-012643 012596-018333 113038-010438 - 011717-010884 TC TEC SCALE ALLCTV TC TEC SCALE ALLCTV 1988-019952 014562 019464 015926-016720 016332 018940 011448 1993 213454-013785 - 017982-011686 218942-017168 - 113460 011686 1998 213453-012736 018455-119171 314461-015904 019430-217987 2002 115226-011589 011457-015093 115852-012442 011118-014528 :TFP :Π TFP, 2 TFP, TFP,;,, TFP,, 56
2006 11, (2005),,90 TFP,, 1998 1999, TFPG ( TFPG ),,1997 1999 1998 1999, 1998 1999 TFP,, 1998 1999 (TEC) ;, 1998 1999,,TC ( 1999, ),SCALE ( 1998,1997-010063),ALLCTV ( 1998,1997-010523), 1998 1999 TFPG,, 1997 2000 TFPG,TFPG,TFPG,, :,1998 1999? 1997 1998,,,,,,,,,,, (= Π ), 1998 (1999 2001), 7 1997 2000, 1999 SCALE ALLCTV 13,,, 1999 SCALE ALLCTV, 57
: : ( E,M,N,W ),,1998, 1999,2000 1997, 7 ( 1997 2000),, 90,1998,, ( ),,, (2005) 1996 2002,,, Kumbhakar (2000),,1988 TFP,TFP,TFP, () TFP 58
2006 11,;,,90,, 90,,,,,,,( ),,2005 :, 3,2006 : (1978 2003), 2,2001 :, 6,2004 :: DEA, 12,1998 :, 12,2001 :, 10,2002a ::, 6,2002b : :, ( ) 1 2,2004 ::1952 2000, 10,2005 :(1979 2001 ), ( ) 2 Battese, G. E. and T. J. Coelli, 1992,Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency and Panel Data : With Application to Paddy Farmers in India, Journal of Productivity Analysis 3, pp. 153 169. Chen, E. K. Y., 1997,The Total Factor Productivity Debate : Determinants of Economic Growth in East Asia, Asian2Pacific Economic Literature 11, pp. 18 39. Felipe, J., 1999,Total Factor Productivity Growth in East Asia : A Critical Survey, Journal of Development Studies 35, pp. 1 41. Gao, T., 2004,Regional Industrial Growth : Evidence from Chinese Industries, Regional Science and Urban Economics 34. Jefferson, G. H., T. G. Rawski, and Y. Zheng, 1996, Chinese Industrial Productivity : Trends, Measurement Issues, and Recent Developments, Journal of Comparative Economics 23, pp. 146 180. Kumbhakar, S. C., 2000,Estimation and Decomposition of Productivity Change when Production Is Not Efficient : A Panel Data Approach, Econometric Reviews 19, pp. 425 460. Rawski, T. G., 1994,Chinese Industrial Reform : Accomplishments, Prospects, and Implications, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 84, pp. 271 275. Zheng, J., X. Liu, and A. Bigsten, 2003,Efficiency, Technical Progress, and Best Practice in Chinese State Enterprises (1980 1994), Journal of Comparative Economics 31, pp. 134 152. ( 71 ) 59
2006 11 R&D and Productivity : An Empirical Study on Chinese Manufacturing Industry Wu Yanbing ( Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Abstract :The paper investigates the relationship between R&D and productivity by using the data on the four2digital manufacturing industries in China. We find that R&D has significantly positive effects on productivity through estimating two different kinds of production function model, and that the positive relationship between R&D and productivity is still remarkably existent when market factors and ownership factors are being controlled in the production function model. We also find that the positive effects of R&D on productivity depend on technical opportunities of industries, and that the elasticity of output with respect to R&D in high2tech industries is higher than that in non2high2tech industries. The paper gives empirical proof of appraising correctly R&D roles in economic growth. Key Words :R&D ; Productivity ; Empirical Analysis JEL Classification :D210, L600, O310 ( : ) ( : ) ( 59 ) The Performances of Industrial Productivity across Regions of Transitional China : Structural Differences, Institutional Shocks and Dynamic Characteristics Wang Zheng 1, Zheng Jinghai 2 and Shi Jinchuan 3 (11College of Economics, Zheiang University ;21Department of Economics, Ggteborg University ;31CRPE, Zheiang University) Abstract :This paper is dedicated to probing into the dynamic performances of industrial productivity across regions of transitional China, using the province2level panel data. Based on the approach by Kumbhakar (2000), TFP growth is decomposed into four components. The main results are as follows. (1) Since 1988, the industrial TFP growth has been commonly accelerated across regions, with a rising technical change rate as the principal impetus. (2) Meanwhile, technical efficiency and factorsallocative efficiency are deteriorated with scale efficiency switching from being retrogressive to being progressive. (3) Although the SOE reform in the late 1990s has constitutes a common shock to the industrial productivity, the eastern area with relatively few SOEs suffers the least from this policy enforcement. (4) By exploring the sources of productivity differences, we further confirm that the institutional shock launched by SOE reform in the late 1990s is crucial for the enhancement of scale effects as well as the temporarily rapid decline of factors allocative efficiency ; in addition, the educational level of the labor2force and the share of non2 SOEs in the industrial output contribute positively to the acceleration of technical change and the improvement of allocative efficiency. The economic transition, accompanied by gradual institutional reforms, is reshaping the map of regional industrialization through various channels. Key Words :Transition ; Industry ; Productivity ; TFP ; SOE Reform JEL Classification : E230, O140, O470 ( : ) ( : ) 71