产业结构变迁与测量全要素生产率增长【外文翻译】

1、产业结构变迁与测量全要素生产率增长外文翻译本科毕业论文外文翻译夕卜文题目： Industrial Structure Changes and the Measurement of Total Factor Productivity Growth:TheKrugman-Kim-Lau-Young Hypothesis 出 处：Academia economic papers作 者：Chi-Yuan Liang原文：Keywords: Total factor productivity, Economic growth, Industrial structure changes,Industria

2、l policy, Taiwan, NIEsJEL classification: D24, 000, Oil, 014, 040, 047, 049ABSTRACTBy considering the effect of industrial structural change, this paper provides a new methodology to measure the total factor productivity TFP of an economy. The major conclusions are as follows: 1 Ignoring the effect

3、of industrial structural changes underestimated the TFP growth of the whole economy of Taiwan by 23.23 percent from 196171980 and overestimated the TFP growth by 23.94 percent from 1980?1999. It is绪论基于 Kim 和 Lau(1994),Lau(1995)和 Young(1994a, 1994b),克鲁格曼(1994)提供的研究结果认为他的论点，即经济奇迹的秘密，在四个新工业化经济 体(新兴工业化经

4、济体)，如新加坡、香港、韩国和台湾，在过去三十年是“投入驱 动的经济增长”。换句话说，它已经与TFP或技术变化没有多大关系，但在快速增 长的要素投入方面仍然有很多工作需要做。因此，由于收益递减规律的存在,经济 奇迹是无法持续的。此后，我们把它作为Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young假说。克鲁格曼(1994)的观点引发了一场激烈的辩论，因为开展经济学家克鲁 格曼的观点似乎是非常反直观的。正如菲利普(1999)恰当地指出：人们普遍认 为表现出色的亚洲经济体局部是由于追赶的现象,这可能是因为受到很多先进国 家带来的不同技术的高更新率的影响。在克鲁格曼(1994)出版刊物后,根据最新的由菲利普(

5、2006)完成的调查, 有70多个研究结果发表和参与了探讨东亚全要素生产率增长假设的问题。对 Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young假说的批评主要集中在方法学问题和由新兴工业化经 济体所采取的宏观和产业政策无用的问题上。对方法论问题的批判例子包括尼尔 森和包(1999),克鲁格等(2000),谢(2002),梁(2002),利普西和卡洛(2004)等。纳尔逊和包(1999)和利普和卡洛(2004)是通过增长核算的方法怀疑全要 素生产率的衡量。克鲁格等(2000)采用数据包络分析(DEA)方法来衡量,而不是通 过全要素生产率的相对效率的变化来衡量。运用双重方法，谢(2002)认为，新加 坡、

6、韩国、香港和台湾的全要素生产率增长速度高于同期利率，这是由Young (1994b)获得。梁(2001)在对台湾全要素生产率的研究中也发现了这一个类 似的结果。从对新兴工业化经济体所采取的宏观调控和产业政策无用的观点来 看,Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young假说的批评者包括梁(1995),斯蒂格里茨(2001),梁 (2002)和菲利普(2006) o 据梁(2002),与 Kim 和 Lau(1994)和 Youn晨1994a, 1994b)不同。Kim和Lau(1994)使用时间序列和横断汇集数据,建 立一个国际的生产函数。Young (1994a)基于对不断增长的每个工人的产出加

7、上每 个工人的资本增长,执行一个截面回归分析，以1970年至1985年期间每个工人的 资本作为六十六个国家的全要素生产率来衡量残差。正如Young(1994a)指出， “这过程是错误重重。特别是，由于技术变革引起的资本积累，每个工人的资本系 数往往会夸大资本投入的产出弹性。”止匕外,Young(1994b)使用了 “增长核算”的 方法,这是类似于高氏和乔根森(1980)和乔根森等(1987)所采用的方法。数据汇编的方法也不尽相同。Kim和Lau (1994)和Young (1994a)不考虑 要素投入的异构特性。然而，随着Jorgenson和他的同伙(Christensen和乔根 森，1970

8、;高氏和乔根森，1980;乔根森等，1987, Young, 1994b)的研究，他们考虑到 了要素投入的异构特性,这可能有助于防止某些测量全要素生产率的变化而导致 的错误。这是我们主要探讨这项研究中的Young(1994b)的原因。此外,Young(1994b),正如高氏和乔根森(1980),乔根森等(1987),忽略了 各部门投入的异构特性。例如，劳动力投入的性质是各种不同特征的类型,如性 别、年龄、教育资金投入、建筑、机械性质、交通运输设、土地等，以及库存也 有所不同。为了精确测量要素投入的贡献和生产率变化对产出增长的影响,每个 要素投入应在被使用适当的衡量方法总结之前作进一步的分解，如

9、超越对指数。在产业结构中或“输入再分配效应“投入的质量变化引起的变更,应当考虑计算 整个经济的全要素生产率。因此,本文采用的是由Jorgenson和梁(1995),梁和乔 根森(1999)和梁(2002)所采用的方法,纳入产业结构的变化所引起的质量变化的 投入,并将其视为异质进一步投入他们的特点在全要素生产率的计算过程中。此外，由于Jorgenson和Griliches(1967)正确地指出，要保持理论上的 一致性,防止聚集错误,输出也应在被使用超越对指数总结之前被分解。如果此输 出聚合技术将被应用到整个经济,就在产业结构，或“输出再分配效应”，改变输 出的质量变化也应予以考虑。然而，很少有实

10、证研究予以考虑，包括 Young(1994b),梁和乔根森(1999),梁(2002),已实际完成在新兴工业化经济体的 整体经济TFP增长这项工作的测量。综上所述,无论是“输入再分配效应”还是“输出再分配效应”，只要是 由产业结构变化引起的均应纳入全要素生产率对整个经济增长的测量。因此, 本文的目的是合并产业结构对一个经济的全要素生产率增长的变化。重新评估 Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young假设，Young (1994b)的一个比拟是在方法和数据上同时 进行的。对于这种比拟,也可作为一个例子,我们使用1961年至1999年期间四个 新兴工业化经济体之一的台湾的数据。经深入分析,最后从台

11、湾的经验得出的政 策是来自调查的结果。本文的其余局部内容如下:第2节介绍方法,第3节是数 据的汇编,第4节是实证结果,第5节是结论以及进一步研究得出的建议的汇编。结论及其意义本文提供了一个新的方法来衡量一个经济体系的全要素生产率。在详细的部门级数据的基础上研究措施，考虑到了产业结构变化的影响，从1961年至1999年全要素生产率对台湾整体经济影响。其主要结论如下：第一，调整产业结构的变化与TFP增长在1961?1980年和1980?1999年登记的,分别为每年2. 03% 和 2. 37%。与此相反,没有工业调整结构变化的TFP增长率为1. 55%和2. 94年息百 分比率。换句话说，忽略了产

12、业结构变动的影响,从1961年至1980年低估23. 23% 整体经济全要素生产率的增长,而它高估了 23. 94%从198071999年全要素生产率 的增长。因此，必须考虑到产业结构变动的影响来正确地衡量TFP增长。全要素 生产率增长速度的差异揭示了这项研究及Young(1994b),由于采取的方法不同 而导致了从196671970年的1. 68个百分点到1980?1990年期间的-0. 77个百分 点。这个又导致数据的差异范围从198071990年间的0. 65个百分点到1966?1970 年-2. 25个百分点。据认为,我们的数据比由Young (1994a, 1994b)公布的更准确。

13、第二，在过去的二十年(1980?1999年)，全要素生产率是GDP增长的第二 个最重要来源,其贡献率到达32. 76%o这是低于资本(45. 88%)的贡献，但高于劳 动(21. 35%)。全要素生产率的相对贡献率在1980?1990年国内生产总值增长 46. 87%,根据这项研究,这比资本(38. 45%)和劳动(16. 48%)更多。相比之下，根据 Young(1994b),全要素生产率的相对贡献率对GDP增长是41. 25%,这是在同一时 期也比资本(28. 56%)和劳动(29. 49%)多。Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young假设说明新兴 工业化经济体的快速增长与全要素生产率的

14、改进没有什么，这在台湾的例子中是 没有根据的,特别是在过去的二十年。第三,与另外14个国家的数据相比拟,Young(1994b)指出，我们发现台湾 是最高的TFP增长的经济体之一。同样的结论可以适用于香港30%)和韩国(1.70%),而在新加坡(0.2%)出现异常。这一发现增强了梁(2002)的论点。总 之,Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young “投入驱动的经济增长”的假说在这个研究上是没有 根据的,而且梁(2002)和Young (1994b)也这么认为。第四，要素解释了工业结构变动在1970?1999的影响，包括政府工业和自 由化政策。止匕外,政府在促进储蓄和投资的方面有着重要作用。

15、从1961年至1999 年政府积极的实际利率政策，以及税务豁免的利息和股息收入高达台币。1989年 之前为120, 000和净额为270, 000保持一个非常高的储蓄率,这是至关重要的。这些结论与克鲁格曼(1994)对宏观和产业政策在经济开展的观点不同。therefore important to consider the effect of industrial structural changes to measure the TFP growth correctly. 2 The Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young uinput-driven growthv hypothesis

16、 for the NIEs is without basis, as demonstrated not only in this study but that of Liang 2002 and Young 1994b. 3 The factors that explain the effect of industrial structural changes from 197021999 include government industry and liberalization policies. Moreover, the government plays an important ro

17、le in promoting saving and investment. These conclusions differ with the argument offered by Krugman 1994 on the uselessness of macro and industry policies in the economic development of the NICs.INTRODUCTIONBasing his argument on the empirical results offered by Kim and Lau 1994, Lau 1995 and Young

18、 1994a, 1994b, Krugman 1994 maintained that the secret of the economic miracle in the four Newly Industrializing Economies NIEs, i. e. Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan, over the past three decades was the uinput-driven growth. In other words, it had little to do with TFP or technical change,

19、and much to do with the rapid increase in factor inputs. Hence, the economic miracle could not be sustained owing to the law of diminishing returns. Hereafter, we refer to this as the Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young hypothesis The publication of Krugman 1994 ignited a hot debate among development economists b

20、ecauseKrugman s view seems to be very counter-intuitive. As Felipe 1999 aptly stated:It was widely believed that, the high-performing Asian economies were partly due to the catch-up phenomenon, which could be attributed to the high rate of the technology change made by the diffusion of technology fr

21、om the more advanced countries.After the publication by Krugman 1994, according to the latest survey done by Felipe 2006, more than 70 research findings were published and took issue with the East Asian total factor productivity growth hypothesis. The critics of Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young hypothesis main

22、ly focus on the methodological problem and the uselessness of macro and industry policies taken by NIEs. The examples of critiques on methodological problems include Nelson and Pack 1999, Kruger et al. 2000, Hsieh 2002, Liang 2002, Lipsey and Car1aw 2004, etc.Nelson and Pack 1999 and Lipsey and Car

23、law 2004 are skeptical on TFP measurement by using the growth accounting technique. Kruger et al. 2000 employ the Data Envelopment Analysis DEA method to measure relative efficiency change instead of total factor productivity. Employing a dual approach, Hsieh 2002 argues that the TFP growth rates fo

24、r Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan are greater than the corresponding rates that Young 1994b obtained. Liang 2001 also found a similar result for Taiwan.The critics of the Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young hypothesis from theviewpoint of the uselessness of macro and industry policies taken by the NIEs inc

25、lude Liang 1995, Stiglitz 2001, Liang 2002 and Felipe 2006.According to Liang 2002, the approaches employed by Kim and Lau 1994 and Young 1994a, 1994b differ. Kim and Lau 1994 use time-series and cross-sectional pooling data to establish an international production function. Young 1994a performs a c

26、ross-sectional regression based on the growth of output per worker on a constant plus the growth of capital per worker during 197071985 in order to measure the residuals which he treats as TFP for a total of sixty-six countries. As Young 1994a points out, “This procedure is fraught with error. In pa

27、rticular, since technical change induces capital accumulation, the coefficient for capital per worker will tend to overstate the elasticity of output with respect to the capital input. In addition, Young 1994b uses a growth accountingv approach, which is similar to that adopted by Gollop and Jorgens

28、on 1980 and Jorgenson et al. 1987.The methods of data compilation also vary. Kim and Lau 1994 and Young 1994a do not take into consideration the heterogeneous characteristics of the factor inputs. However, following Jorgenson and his associates Christensen and Jorgenson, 1970; Gollop and Jorgenson,

29、1980; Jorgenson et al., 1987, Young 1994b takes into account the heterogeneous characteristics of the inputs, which might help avoid some of the measurement errors in relation to TFP changes. It is for this reason that we focus mainly on Young 1994b in this study.Moreover, Young 1994b, just as Gollo

30、p and Jorgenson 1980, Jorgenson et aL 1987, ignores the heterogeneous characteristics of inputs by sector. For example, the nature of labor input is different for various characteristic types, such as sex, age, education etc. As for capital input, the nature of buildings, machinery, transportation e

31、quipment, land and inventories also vary. For accurate measurement of the contribution of factor input and changes in productivity to the growth of output, every factor input should be further decomposed before being summed by using an appropriate weight, such as the translog index. The quality chan

32、ges in inputs caused by the changes in industrial structure or the “input reallocation effect” should be taken into account in calculating the TFP for the economy as a whole. This paper therefore employs the approach adopted by Jorgenson and Liang 1995, Liang and Jorgenson 1999 and Liang 2002 by inc

33、orporating the quality changes in inputs caused by changes in industrial structure, and treating them as a further heterogeneous characteristic of inputs in the TFP calculation.In addition, as Jorgenson and Griliches 1967 correctly pointed out, to maintain theoretical consistency and avoid the aggre

34、gation error, the output should also be decomposed before being summed up by using the translog index. If this output aggregation technique is to be applied to the whole economy, the quality changes in output with respect to changes in the industrial structure, or the uoutput reallocation effect, ”

35、should also be considered. However, few empirical studies, includingYoung 1994b, Liang and Jorgenson 1999 and Liang 2002, have actually performed this exercise in measuring the TFP growth for the whole economy in the NIEs.To sum up, both the “input reallocation effectv and uoutput reallocation effec

36、tv caused by changes in the industrial structure should be incorporated into the measurement of TFP growth for the whole economy.Consequently, the objective of this paper is to incorporate the changes in industrial structure into the measurement of TFP growth for an economy. To reevaluate the Krugma

37、n-Kim-Lau-Young hypothesis, a comparison with Young 1994b both in method and data is also conducted. For this comparison, and also as an example, we employ the data for Taiwan, one of the four NIEs, during the 196171999 periods. Finally, policy implications from Taiwan, s experience are drawn from t

38、he finding.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology, Section 3 the compilation of the data, Section 4 the empirical results, and Section 5 the conclusions and suggestions for further research.CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSThis paper provides a new methodo

39、logy to measure the TFP of aneconomy. Based on detailed sector-level data, this study measures the TFP of the whole economy of Taiwan from 196171999 by considering the effect of industrial structure change. The major conclusions are the followings.First, the TFP growth with industrial structure chan

40、ges adjustment registered 2. 03 percent per annum and 2. 37 percent per annum during 196171980 and 198071999 respectively.In contrast, the TFP growth without industrial structural changes adjustment was 1. 55 percent and 2. 94 percent per annum. In other words, ignoring the effect of industrial stru

41、ctural changes underestimated the TFP growth of the whole economy by 23.23 percent from 196171980, while it overestimated TFP growth by 23.94 percent from 1980?1999. It is therefore important to consider the effect of industrial structural changes to measure TFP growth correctly. The TFP growth rate

42、 difference revealed between this study and Young 1994b due to methodology varied from 1. 68 percentage points 196671970 to ?0. 77 percent point during 198091990. That due to data difference ranges from 0.65 percentage point during 198091990 to ?2. 25 percentage point during 1966?1970. It is believe

43、d that our data are more accurate than that posted by Young 1994a, 1994b.Second, during the last two decades 198021999, TFP was the second most important source of GDP growth, with a contribution ratio of 32. 76 percent. That is lower than the contribution of capital 45.88 percent, but higher than t

44、hat of labor 21. 35 percent. The relative contribution ratio of TFP to GDP growth was 46.87 percent during 198071990 according to this study, which was greater than that of capital 38. 45 percent and labor 16. 48 percent. By contrast, according to Young 1994b, the relative contribution ratio of TFP

45、to GDP growth was 41. 25 percent, which was also greater than that of capital 28. 56 percent and labor 29. 49 percent during the same period. The Krugman-Kim-Lau-Young hypothesis, which indicates that the fast growth of NIEs has little to do with improvement in TFP is unfounded in Taiwan, s case and particularly during the past two decades.Third, in comparison with the data for 14 other countries noted by Young 1994b, we found that Taiwan was one of the economies with the highest TFP growth.