【作者】 唐家龙；

【导师】 李建民；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 劳动经济学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 中国经济发展创造了世界经济史上的一个奇迹。当前关注的焦点在于,这个奇迹能否继续下去?大多数的研究从经济增长源泉角度来回答这个问题。目前对此的探讨已经非常多了,但还存在着两个主要的问题:一是缺乏对经济发展阶段与增长理论模型的相洽性研究:二是忽略了不同研究方法之间的相洽性研究。由此引申出来的问题是,不同理论和方法下的结果往往存在矛盾,对于中国经济增长源泉的解释不能给出令人满意的答案。本研究希望在这两个方面做出贡献。通过引入劳动增强型新古典增长模型和人力资本增长模型,本文探讨了1952-2007年期间中国经济增长的源泉问题,尤其是改革开放以来生产率变动及技术进步、技术效率的变动问题,同时分析了人力资本对经济增长的内部效应和外部效应。本研究共分七章。第1章阐释了研究的背景、理论意义和现实意义。第2章进行文献综述并提出分析的理论模型。第3章和第4章分别核算经济增长研究中最关键的物质资本、人力资本因素并调整了劳动力指标。第5章利用全国综合数据进行计量分析,建立了全周期估计生产函数和分段联合估计生产函数。第6章利用数据包络分析方法进行分省面板数据的实证研究,探讨了改革开放以来全国及区域的生产率变动模式以及技术进步、技术效率的演进模式。第7章对研究结果进行了简要的解释,然后进行总结和讨论。通过构建较为完整的数据集,采用分阶段的增长模型,本研究发现了更符合中国经济增长阶段性特征的结果,这一结果明显区别于当前的一些重要文献。首先,劳动增强型新古典增长模型对于中国自1952年以来的经济增长数据有着较强的解释力,但改革开放后的经济增长轨迹与卢卡斯人力资本增长模型的预期较为一致。其次,资本是1952-2007年间驱动中国经济增长的最重要源泉;改革开放时期,人力资本与物质资本具有较强的互补性,人力资本外部效应的存在提升了物质资本的产出弹性,提高了综合生产率水平。第三,改革开放之前TFP对于经济增长的贡献为负,改革开放之后TFP成为驱动经济增长的重要力量。其中,改革开放的第一阶段(1978-1991)的TFP增长主要由技术效率改进推动;第二阶段(1992-2004)主要由技术进步推动。但自1997年以来,技术效率改进不足抵消了技术进步的推动作用,TFP增长陷入了停滞并一直延续到2007年。第四,改革开放之后,技术进步是驱动东部地区和全国的生产率增长的源泉,技术效率对于中西部地区的生产率增长具有显著贡献。技术进步包括了体现型和非体现型技术进步,物质资本的贡献中蕴含了体现型技术进步,TFP增长测量的是非体现型技术进步。本研究发现,资本积累是中国经济增长的最重要源泉,尽管无法将体现型的技术进步从要素积累的贡献中有效地分离出来,但没有理由怀疑技术进步的存在性。因此,虽然发现当前TFP增长陷入了停滞,但并不能由此判定中国经济增长不可持续。实证分析也证明,改革开放以来技术进步并没有停滞,技术效率没有跟上生产前沿推进的速度才是当前需要考虑的重要因素。本研究认为,不能简单地将生产率停滞等同为技术进步停滞,并作为经济增长不可持续的论据。更多还原

【Abstract】 China has been making a miracle in the growth history of the world economy. The current focus is whether the growth miracle will persist. The common technique to answer this question is employing the methods of growth accounting. The literature at present is rich in this trend, whereas two puzzles remain not well solved yet. The first is lack of consideration between the stage of the economic development and the choice of growth theory. The second is how to compromise the results from different modeling. This inquiry seeks to contribute in the literature from an integrative perspective. We introduce the labor augmented neoclassical growth model and new growth model with both physical and human capital to explore the sources of Chinese growth from 1952 to 2007, and more attention are paid to the growth dynamics of total factor productivity (TFP) , technical progress and technical efficiency in the post-reform era. The internal effects and external effects of human capital are also integrated into the course of investigation.The dissertation has seven chapters. The first chapter raises the research questions and the second reviews the literature and present the theoretical framework. Chapter three and four go into detail discussing how the non-human capital and human capital are measured, which serve as core basis for later investigation. Chapter five employs parametric methods and present one whole-period estimation for the production function and one joint estimation for segmented production function. Chapter six focuses on the dynamics of TFP change, technical change and technical efficiency change in the post-reform era using the Malmquist productivity index. Chapter 7 presents the conclusive remarks and discussions.After constructing a complete and integrated database, we demonstrate that the joint production function is consistent with the China’s growth facts, which leads to some distinctive findings from some important literatures in the field. Firstly, we find that labor augmented neoclassical growth model fits the whole-period analysis well whereas the Lucas model incorporating human capital preferably captures the growth feature of the post-reform era and human capital scales up the output elasticity of physical capital. Secondly, physical capital is major contributor of economic growth from 1952 to 2007 in china, while human capital act as an important complementary factor for physical capital and raise up the TFP level in the post-1978 era. Thirdly, TFP only prospects in the post-1978 era as an import but limited contribution to growth. For the post-1978 era, technical efficiency growth drives TFP going up from 1978 to 1991, technical progress takes the stage for 1992-2007. However, TFP growth rate stagnates since 1997 due to the lack of technical efficiency improvement. Finally, technical progress in the eastern China dominates the pattern of TFP growth for China’s mainland while technical efficiency improvement contributes relatively more to the growth of middle and western China.There are two types of technical progress: embodied and disembodied. The productivity change merely measures the disembodied one and factor accumulation embraces the embodied one. On the one hand, we find that the productivity stagnates concurrently. On the other hand, we substantiate that physical capital is the major contributor to growth. Since we have revealed that technical progress does not regress and is on the upgrade, the essential thing should be making progress in technical efficiency so as to push the actual output approaching the potential production frontier. Thus, we cannot simply claim that the Chinese economy is unsustainable merely through the observation of recent stagnancy of productivity growth.更多还原