企专多重异质性与出口行为：Melitz模型的拓展与来自中国制造业的证据
|
摘要
本文是基于新兴的新新贸易理论和中国现实的理论与实证研究。新新贸易理论是建立在国际产业转移输出国(发达国家)情境、先本土市场后国际市场而逐步国际化的跨国公司为研究对象的基础上的,自然地,新新贸易理论的中国化受到中国情境与其原假设情境差异的影响。本文结合国际产业转移理论、全球价值链理论和反映中国情境典型事实的潮涌现象理论,探讨了在新新贸易理论中国化过程中如何放松假设,以发展适宜于中国情境的新新贸易理论。本研究发现,中国化的新新贸易理论应该是多重异质性基础上的异质企业模型,而不是西方文献的生产率单一异质性。在此基础上,本文放松了新新贸易理论经典模型Meltiz(2003)模型的前提假设,推导出适宜国际产业转移输入国情境(中国情境),也适宜国际产业转移输出国情境(发达国家情境)的中国出口企业异质性模型(Ⅱ),并对其进行了实证检验。循着中国出口企业异质性模型(Ⅱ)、结合适宜中国情境的相关理论,提出中国出口企业异质性并非西方理论类似的单一异质性,而是多重异质性;中国出口企业异质性并非不变,而是随着中国出口贸易的情境的历史变迁而变化;中国出口企业异质性的变迁反映了中国企业出口行为的变化,是中国出口企业竞争力和绩效变迁的内在原因。
本文实证研究采用中国工业企业数据库作为数据来源,该数据收录了1998年—2007年年销售额在500万元人民币以上的所有工业企业的企业层面数据。由于中国制造业各细分行业在出口行为方面存在较大差异,本研究对细分行业进行了大量的分组研究。中国制造业细分行业按照行业代码为13-43(代码前两位,没有38)进行细分,样本量最少的细分行业为烟草制造业,样本企业数为2560;样本量最大的细分行业为非金属矿物制品业,样本企业数为166209家;30个行业样本企业数合计达到1911041家,数据全面、准确、可靠性高,保障了本文实证研究的信度和效度。
本文首先检验了新新贸易理论经典模型Meltiz(2003)模型在中国情境的适用性问题。Meltiz(2003)模型指出,生产率差异是企业选择出口与否的异质性因素,生产率高的企业选择出口,而生产率低的企业不出口,本文称之为“出口—生产率异质性”。本文利用中国工业企业数据库1998-2007年的191万多家企业层面的数据对此进行了实证检验,结果表明,在多个年份、多个行业普遍出现了“出口—生产率异质性”和“出口—生产率悖论”并存的情况,即出口企业生产率高于非出口企业、出口企业生产率低于非出口企业并存。这为新新贸易理论关于生产率与出口行为关系的理论提供了新的经验证据,同时,也表明生产率差异不是中国企业“出口—异质性”因素的全部,至少不是唯一重要的异质性——这意味着,单一异质性在中国情境受到了挑战。
接下来本文检验了中国出口企业多重异质性,发现,在企业区位、企业年龄、企业规模、创新、品牌、企业性质、企业级别、资本结构、人力资本、企业成长率、企业生产率等多重异质性是中国企业是否出口的决定性因素。进一步地,实证检验发现,(1)生产率异质性并非中国制造业大多数细分行业企业是否出口的唯一异质性,部分中国制造业细分行业企业生产率正向影响是否出口(也就是说生产率高的企业选择出口),这和Meltiz(2003)模型的预测一致;而更多行业的情况与之相悖,企业生产率负向影响企业出口(也就是说生产率低的企业反而选择出口)。(2)企业区位、企业年龄、企业规模、创新、品牌、企业性质、企业级别、资本结构、人力资本、成长率等多重异质性不仅和生产率异质性一样对企业是否选择出口具有解释力,而且其解释力胜过生产率单一异质性,说明在中国情境下多重异质性比生产率单一异质性更适宜。(3)企业区位等多重异质性不仅对企业选择是否出口具有解释力,而且对于企业出口多少,即本土市场和国际市场的比重,也具有解释力,这也是其优于生产率单一异质性之处。
进一步地,本文检验了多重异质性的变迁与中国出口企业绩效之间的关系。由于1998年以前中国制造业企业层面的数据欠缺,本文通过选取典型产业的案例研究检验了出口企业多重异质性的变迁。玩具产业是中国改革开放后发展壮大的典型出口主导型产业,在这个产业中,外商投资主导的F类出口企业(相对发达国家或地区国际产业转移输出的产物)、中国本土生而国际化的G类出口企业和中国本土先本土市场后国际市场的E类出口企业(这两类企业是发展中国家承接国际产业转移的产物)三类企业并存,在中国出口贸易发展的不同阶段,影响这三类企业出口决策,进而影响其出口竞争力的多重异质性发生了明显的变迁。在这个历史变迁的过程中,潮涌现象是重要的影响因素。作为国际产业转移输入国的发展中国家潮涌现象频仍这一事实,以及这一事实对多重异质性与出口竞争力关系的调节作用,进一步证实了新新贸易理论中国化的必要性;而结合潮涌现象发展的中国出口企业多重异质性理论的解释力,也进一步证实了新新贸易理论中国化的可行性。作为一个补充,本文通过对中国工业企业数据库1998—2007企业层面数据的分年实证检验,基于概率回归模型和线性回归模型的检验结果再次证实,中国出口企业多重异质性确实随着中国出口贸易的变迁而发生了显著的变迁。
This dissertation makes some theoretical and empirical research to the economic reality in China based on the emerging New-New trade theory. New-New trade theory is based on the international industrial transfer exporting countries (developed countries) situation with the gradually international corporations. Naturally, if we use New-New trade theory to analyze the economic issues in China, we have to modify some assumption according to Chinese context. This dissertation references theory of international industrial transfer, the global value chain theory and wave-phenomenon theory and discusses how to relax the assumptions of New-New trade theory so as to make it appropriate for the context of China. The study finds that, New-New trade theory in the context of China should be a multiple heterogeneous model but not single productivity heterogeneity as in western literature. On this basis, this dissertation loosens the assumption of Meltiz (2003) model and derives Chinese export firms heterogeneous model (Ⅱ) which is suitable for context of both international industrial transfer of the importing country (China situation) and exporting countries (the developed countries context). We also make some empirical testing. Following modelⅡand with reference to some related theory, this dissertation puts forward that: the heterogeneity of Chinese export firms is multiple heterogeneity but not single heterogeneity; the heterogeneity is changing with context of Chinese export but not stable; the variation of heterogeneity reflects changes of export behavior of Chinese firms which leads to changes of their competitiveness and performance.
The empirical study uses China Industry Business Performance Data which included data of industrial firms with annual sales of over 5million yuan from 1998 to 2007. As there exists great difference in export behavior of sub-industries in Chinese manufacturing sectors, this study conducts plenty of sub-grouping research. There are 30 sub-industries with code from 13 to 43(no 38). The minimum sample is tobacco industry sub-sectors with 2560 firms. The largest sample is non-metallic mineral products industry with 166,209 firms. The total sample reaches 1,911,041 firms with complete, accurate and highly reliable data. This guarantees reliability and validity of our empirical study.
Firstly, this dissertation examines the applicability of Meltiz (2003) model in the context of China. Meltiz (2003) model indicates that productivity is the factor for firms to choose whether export or not. Firms with high productivity choose to export while firms with low productivity choose not to export. We call this“export - productivity heterogeneity”in this dissertation. We make empirical testing to over 1.91 million firms from China Industry Business Performance Data. The results show that, there exist both "export - productivity heterogeneity" and "export - productivity paradox" in several years and several sub-industries. That is, the phenomenon of productivity of exporters is higher than non-export firms and productivity of exporters is lower than non-export firms coexist. This provides new empirical evidence about the relationship between productivity and export behavior for New-New trade theory. It also shows that productivity heterogeneity is not all for "export - heterogeneity" of Chinese firms. This means that a single heterogeneity has been challenged in the context of China.
Secondly, this dissertation examines the multiple heterogeneity of Chinese export firms and finds that, heterogeneity in the firm location, firm age, firm size, innovation, brand, ownership, firm level, capital structure, human capital, firm growth and firm productivity are critical factors for Chinese firms to choose export or not. Furthermore, the empirical testing finds that: (1) Productivity heterogeneity is not the only heterogeneity for most sub-industries of Chinese manufacturing sectors to choose export. In some sub-industries, firms with high productivity choose export, which is consistent with Meltiz (2003) model. But more sub-industries show the opposite situation in which firms with low productivity choose export. (2)The multiple heterogeneity in the firm location, firm age, firm size, innovation, brand, ownership, firm level, capital structure, human capital, firm growth have a greater explanatory power in export behavior than a single productivity heterogeneity. This means that multiple heterogeneity is more appropriate for the context of China. (3) Multiple heterogeneity has explanatory power also to firms’export amount. It is superior to single productivity heterogeneity.
Furthermore, this dissertation examines the relationship between changes of multiple heterogeneity and China's export business performance. As lack of firms’data before 1998, this dissertation chooses a typical case study to examine the change of multiple heterogeneity in export firms. Toy industry is a typical export-oriented industry with development of China's reform and opening up. In this industry, there exist foreign invest oriented firms(we define them as class F), global born firms(class G) and gradually global firms(class E). In different stages, multiple heterogeneity, which affects firms’export decisions and further affects their export competitiveness has occurred distinct changes. In this process, wave phenomenon is an important factor. Wave phenomenon is frequent in developing countries. The explanatory power of multiple heterogeneity model approves the feasibility of New-New trade theory in China. As a supplement, this dissertation makes a empirical test based on probability and linear regression model. The results show that, multiple heterogeneity of Chinese export firms has occurred a significant change with the development of trade in China.
本文实证研究采用中国工业企业数据库作为数据来源,该数据收录了1998年—2007年年销售额在500万元人民币以上的所有工业企业的企业层面数据。由于中国制造业各细分行业在出口行为方面存在较大差异,本研究对细分行业进行了大量的分组研究。中国制造业细分行业按照行业代码为13-43(代码前两位,没有38)进行细分,样本量最少的细分行业为烟草制造业,样本企业数为2560;样本量最大的细分行业为非金属矿物制品业,样本企业数为166209家;30个行业样本企业数合计达到1911041家,数据全面、准确、可靠性高,保障了本文实证研究的信度和效度。
本文首先检验了新新贸易理论经典模型Meltiz(2003)模型在中国情境的适用性问题。Meltiz(2003)模型指出,生产率差异是企业选择出口与否的异质性因素,生产率高的企业选择出口,而生产率低的企业不出口,本文称之为“出口—生产率异质性”。本文利用中国工业企业数据库1998-2007年的191万多家企业层面的数据对此进行了实证检验,结果表明,在多个年份、多个行业普遍出现了“出口—生产率异质性”和“出口—生产率悖论”并存的情况,即出口企业生产率高于非出口企业、出口企业生产率低于非出口企业并存。这为新新贸易理论关于生产率与出口行为关系的理论提供了新的经验证据,同时,也表明生产率差异不是中国企业“出口—异质性”因素的全部,至少不是唯一重要的异质性——这意味着,单一异质性在中国情境受到了挑战。
接下来本文检验了中国出口企业多重异质性,发现,在企业区位、企业年龄、企业规模、创新、品牌、企业性质、企业级别、资本结构、人力资本、企业成长率、企业生产率等多重异质性是中国企业是否出口的决定性因素。进一步地,实证检验发现,(1)生产率异质性并非中国制造业大多数细分行业企业是否出口的唯一异质性,部分中国制造业细分行业企业生产率正向影响是否出口(也就是说生产率高的企业选择出口),这和Meltiz(2003)模型的预测一致;而更多行业的情况与之相悖,企业生产率负向影响企业出口(也就是说生产率低的企业反而选择出口)。(2)企业区位、企业年龄、企业规模、创新、品牌、企业性质、企业级别、资本结构、人力资本、成长率等多重异质性不仅和生产率异质性一样对企业是否选择出口具有解释力,而且其解释力胜过生产率单一异质性,说明在中国情境下多重异质性比生产率单一异质性更适宜。(3)企业区位等多重异质性不仅对企业选择是否出口具有解释力,而且对于企业出口多少,即本土市场和国际市场的比重,也具有解释力,这也是其优于生产率单一异质性之处。
进一步地,本文检验了多重异质性的变迁与中国出口企业绩效之间的关系。由于1998年以前中国制造业企业层面的数据欠缺,本文通过选取典型产业的案例研究检验了出口企业多重异质性的变迁。玩具产业是中国改革开放后发展壮大的典型出口主导型产业,在这个产业中,外商投资主导的F类出口企业(相对发达国家或地区国际产业转移输出的产物)、中国本土生而国际化的G类出口企业和中国本土先本土市场后国际市场的E类出口企业(这两类企业是发展中国家承接国际产业转移的产物)三类企业并存,在中国出口贸易发展的不同阶段,影响这三类企业出口决策,进而影响其出口竞争力的多重异质性发生了明显的变迁。在这个历史变迁的过程中,潮涌现象是重要的影响因素。作为国际产业转移输入国的发展中国家潮涌现象频仍这一事实,以及这一事实对多重异质性与出口竞争力关系的调节作用,进一步证实了新新贸易理论中国化的必要性;而结合潮涌现象发展的中国出口企业多重异质性理论的解释力,也进一步证实了新新贸易理论中国化的可行性。作为一个补充,本文通过对中国工业企业数据库1998—2007企业层面数据的分年实证检验,基于概率回归模型和线性回归模型的检验结果再次证实,中国出口企业多重异质性确实随着中国出口贸易的变迁而发生了显著的变迁。
This dissertation makes some theoretical and empirical research to the economic reality in China based on the emerging New-New trade theory. New-New trade theory is based on the international industrial transfer exporting countries (developed countries) situation with the gradually international corporations. Naturally, if we use New-New trade theory to analyze the economic issues in China, we have to modify some assumption according to Chinese context. This dissertation references theory of international industrial transfer, the global value chain theory and wave-phenomenon theory and discusses how to relax the assumptions of New-New trade theory so as to make it appropriate for the context of China. The study finds that, New-New trade theory in the context of China should be a multiple heterogeneous model but not single productivity heterogeneity as in western literature. On this basis, this dissertation loosens the assumption of Meltiz (2003) model and derives Chinese export firms heterogeneous model (Ⅱ) which is suitable for context of both international industrial transfer of the importing country (China situation) and exporting countries (the developed countries context). We also make some empirical testing. Following modelⅡand with reference to some related theory, this dissertation puts forward that: the heterogeneity of Chinese export firms is multiple heterogeneity but not single heterogeneity; the heterogeneity is changing with context of Chinese export but not stable; the variation of heterogeneity reflects changes of export behavior of Chinese firms which leads to changes of their competitiveness and performance.
The empirical study uses China Industry Business Performance Data which included data of industrial firms with annual sales of over 5million yuan from 1998 to 2007. As there exists great difference in export behavior of sub-industries in Chinese manufacturing sectors, this study conducts plenty of sub-grouping research. There are 30 sub-industries with code from 13 to 43(no 38). The minimum sample is tobacco industry sub-sectors with 2560 firms. The largest sample is non-metallic mineral products industry with 166,209 firms. The total sample reaches 1,911,041 firms with complete, accurate and highly reliable data. This guarantees reliability and validity of our empirical study.
Firstly, this dissertation examines the applicability of Meltiz (2003) model in the context of China. Meltiz (2003) model indicates that productivity is the factor for firms to choose whether export or not. Firms with high productivity choose to export while firms with low productivity choose not to export. We call this“export - productivity heterogeneity”in this dissertation. We make empirical testing to over 1.91 million firms from China Industry Business Performance Data. The results show that, there exist both "export - productivity heterogeneity" and "export - productivity paradox" in several years and several sub-industries. That is, the phenomenon of productivity of exporters is higher than non-export firms and productivity of exporters is lower than non-export firms coexist. This provides new empirical evidence about the relationship between productivity and export behavior for New-New trade theory. It also shows that productivity heterogeneity is not all for "export - heterogeneity" of Chinese firms. This means that a single heterogeneity has been challenged in the context of China.
Secondly, this dissertation examines the multiple heterogeneity of Chinese export firms and finds that, heterogeneity in the firm location, firm age, firm size, innovation, brand, ownership, firm level, capital structure, human capital, firm growth and firm productivity are critical factors for Chinese firms to choose export or not. Furthermore, the empirical testing finds that: (1) Productivity heterogeneity is not the only heterogeneity for most sub-industries of Chinese manufacturing sectors to choose export. In some sub-industries, firms with high productivity choose export, which is consistent with Meltiz (2003) model. But more sub-industries show the opposite situation in which firms with low productivity choose export. (2)The multiple heterogeneity in the firm location, firm age, firm size, innovation, brand, ownership, firm level, capital structure, human capital, firm growth have a greater explanatory power in export behavior than a single productivity heterogeneity. This means that multiple heterogeneity is more appropriate for the context of China. (3) Multiple heterogeneity has explanatory power also to firms’export amount. It is superior to single productivity heterogeneity.
Furthermore, this dissertation examines the relationship between changes of multiple heterogeneity and China's export business performance. As lack of firms’data before 1998, this dissertation chooses a typical case study to examine the change of multiple heterogeneity in export firms. Toy industry is a typical export-oriented industry with development of China's reform and opening up. In this industry, there exist foreign invest oriented firms(we define them as class F), global born firms(class G) and gradually global firms(class E). In different stages, multiple heterogeneity, which affects firms’export decisions and further affects their export competitiveness has occurred distinct changes. In this process, wave phenomenon is an important factor. Wave phenomenon is frequent in developing countries. The explanatory power of multiple heterogeneity model approves the feasibility of New-New trade theory in China. As a supplement, this dissertation makes a empirical test based on probability and linear regression model. The results show that, multiple heterogeneity of Chinese export firms has occurred a significant change with the development of trade in China.
引文
[1] Abraham K. G. and S. K. Taylor. Fims' Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence[J]. Journal of Labor Economics, 1996, 14(3), 394-424.
[2] Agarwal S. and Ramaswami S. Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarterly, 1992, 23(1).
[3] Alvarez, S. A. , and Barney, J. B. Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2007(1).
[4] Anderson, E. , and Gatignon, H. Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1986, 17(3).
[5] Anderson, E. , and Van Wincoop, E. Trade Costs[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2004, 42: 691-751.
[6] AndréVarella Mollick, RenéCabral. Productivity effects on Mexican manufacturing employment[J]. North American Journal of Economics and Finance 2009(20): 66-81.
[7] Annika Alexius, Mikael Carlsson. Production Function Residuals, VAR Technology Shocks, and HoursWorked: Evidence from Industry Data[J]. Economics Letters, 2004(8): 259-263.
[8] Antras P. and E. Helpman. Contractual Frictions and Global Sourcing. Working Paper, 2007.
[9] Antras P. and E. Helpman. Global Sourcing. The Journal of Political Economy. 2004, 6, 552-580.
[10] Antras P. Firms, Contracts, and Trade Structure[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003, 11, 1375-1418.
[11] Aw B. Y. , S. Chung and M. J. Roberts. Productivity and Turnover in the Export Market: Micro Evidence from Taiwan and South Korea[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 1999
[12] Baldwin B. and R. Forslid. Trade Liberalization with Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussing Paper, 2004, No. 4635.
[13] Baldwin R. E. and F. R. Nicoud. The Impact of Trade on Intra-industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity: A Comment. Working Paper, 2004.
[14] Baldwin R. E. and F. R. Nicoud. Trade and Growth with Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussion Paper Series, 2005, No. 4965.
[15] Baldwin R. E. and J. Harrigan. Zeros, Quality and Space: Trade Theory and Trade Evidence. Working paper, 2007.
[16] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Agglomeration and the Heterogeneous Firms Trade Model. Working Paper, 2005.
[17] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Agglomeration, Offshoring and Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussion Paper 2006a , No. 5663.
[18] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Heterogeneous Firms, Agglomeration and Economic Geography: Spatial Selection and Sorting[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2006b, 6, 323-346.
[19] Baldwin R. E. Heterogeneous Fims and Trade: Testable and Untestable Properties of the Melitz Model. Working Paper, 2005
[20] Baldwin, R. and Robert-Nicoud, F. Trade and Growth with Heterogeneous Firms[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 21–34.
[21] Barga M. and W. Zeile, International Fragmentation of Production and the Intrafirm Trade of U. S. Multinational Companies. U. S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Working Paper, 2004, WP2004-02.
[22] Bartelsman, E. and Doms, M. Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2000, 38: 569-594.
[23] Bernard A. B. and J. B. Jensen, Entry, Expansion, and Intensity in the US Export Boom, 1987-1992[J]. Review of International Economics, 2004, 12(4), 662-675.
[24] Bernard A. B. and J. B. Jensen. Why Some Firms Export. Working Paper, 2001.
[25] Bernard A. B. and J. Wagner. Export Entry and Exit by Gennan Firms. NBER Working Paper, 1998, No. 6538.
[26] Bernard A. B. , S. J. Redding and P. K. Schott, Products and Productivity, Working Paper, 2006b.
[27] Bernard A. B. , S. J. Redding and P. K. Schott, Multi-Product Firms and TradeLiberalization. Working Paper, 2006a.
[28] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1999, 47: 1-25.
[29] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in US Manufacturing: 1976-87. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 1995: 67-112.
[30] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Why Some Firms Export[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2004, 86: 561-569.
[31] Bernard, A. B. , Eaton, J. and Kortum, S. S. Plants and Productivity in International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, 2003, 93: 1268-1290.
[32] Bernard, A. B. , Jensen, J. B. . and Schott, P. K. Survival of the Best Fit: Exposure to Low Wage Countries and the(Uneven)Growth of U. S. Manufacturing Plants[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2006, 68: 219-237.
[33] Bernard, A. B. , Redding, S. J. and Schott, P. K. Comparative Advantage and Heterogeneous Firms[J]. Review of Economic Studies , 2007, 74: 31–66.
[34] Bombardini M. , Firm Heterogeneity and Lobby Participation. Manuscript, 2004.
[35] Bowen, H. P. , Leamer, E. E. and Sveikauskas, L. Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory[J]. American Economic Review, 1987, 77: 791-809.
[36] Brouthers Keith D, Brouthers Lance Eliot, and Werner Steve. Transaction Cost - Enhanced Entry Mode Choice and Firm Performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003(24).
[37] Bustos P. . Rising Wage Inequality in the Argentinean Manufacturing Sector: The Impact of Trade and Foreign Investment on Technology and Skill Upgrading. Working Paper, 2005.
[38] Casares. ER . Productivity, Structural Change in Employment and Economic Growth[J]. Estudios Economicos 2007, 22(2): 335–355.
[39] Chaney T. Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, 2008, 98(4): 1707-1721.
[40] Chang, Y. , & Hong, J. H. Do Technological Improvements in the Manufacturing Sector Raise or Lower Employment?[J]. American Economic Review, 2006(1), 352–368.
[41] Chen, N. , Imbs J. and Scott A. The Dynamics of Trade and Competition[J]. Journalof International Economics, 2009, 77: 50–62
[42] Clerides, S. , Lach, S. and Tybout, J. Is Learning by Exporting Important? Micro-dynamic Evidence from Columbia, Mexico and Morocco[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1998, 113: 903-947.
[43] Coelli. TJ. A Guide to DEAP Version2. 1: A Data Envelopmeni Analysis (Computer)Program[Z]. CPEA Working Paper, 1996.
[44] Davis, D. and Weinstein, D. Do Factor Endowments Matter for North-North Trade[M]. Columbia University, mimeograph, 2004.
[45] DIXIT, A. and NORMAN, V. . The Theory of International Trade[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
[46] DUNNE, T. , ROBERTS, M. J. and SAMUELSON, L. . The Growth and Failure of U. S. Manufacturing Plants[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1989, 104: 671-698.
[47] Eaton J. , S. Kortum and F. Kramarz. An Anatomy of International Trade: Evidence from French Firms[Z]. Working Paper, 2008.
[48] Eaton J. , Samuel Kortum, Francis Kramarz. Firms, Industries and Export Destinations[J]. American Economic Review, 2004, 94: 150-154.
[49] Ederington, J. and McCalman P. Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 422–440.
[50] Emerson, J, Kao, C. Testing for Structural Change in Panel Data: GDP Growth, Consumption Growth, and Productivity Growth[J]. Economics Bulletin, 2006, 3(14): 1-12.
[51] Fagerberg, J, Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth: A Comparative Study[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2000, 11: 393-411.
[52] Fan, S G, Zhang, X B, Robinson, S. Structural Change and Economic Growth in China[J]. Review of Development Economics, 2003, 7(3): 360-377.
[53] Feenstra R. C. Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy[J]. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1998, 12(4), 31-50.
[54] Garrick Blalock and Paul J. Gertler. Welfare Gains from Foreign Direct Investment through technology transfer to local suppliers[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 402-421.
[55] Gereffi, G. , and Memedovic, O. The Global Apparel Value Chain: What Prospects for Upgrading by Developing Countries ?http: //www. unido. org/, 2003.
[56] Ghironi, F. and Melitz, M. J. Trade Flow Dynamics with Heterogeneous Firm[J]. American Economic Review, 2007, 97: 356~361.
[57] Ghironi, F. and Melitz, M. J. International Trade and Macroeconomic Dynamics with Heterogeneous Firm s[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, 120: 865-915.
[58] Goldberg, P. and Pavcnik, N. Trade, Inequality and Poverty: What Do We Know? Evidence from Recent Trade Liberalization Episodes in Developing Countries. Brookings Trade Forum, 2004: 223-269.
[59] Grossman G. M. , E. Helpman and A. Szeidl, 2006, Optimal Integration Strategies for the Multinational Firm[J]. Journal of International Economics, 70, 216-238.
[60] Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 2005, Outsourcing in a Global Economy[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 135-160.
[61] Hall, R. , & Jones, C. Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999, 114(1), 83–116.
[62] Hansen J. D. and U. M. Nielsen, Economies of Scale and Scope, Firm Heterogeneity and Exports[Z]. Working Paper, 2007a.
[63] Hansen J. D. and U. M. Nielsen, Choice of Technology, Firm Heterogeneity, and Exports[Z]. Working Paper, 2007b.
[64] Harrigan, J. Technology, Factor Supplies, and International Specialization: Estimating the Neoclassical Model[J]. American Economic Review, 1997, 87: 475-494.
[65] Head K. and J. Ries, Heterogeneity and the FDI versus Export Decision of Japanese Manufacturers[J]. Japanese International Economies, 2003, 17, 448-467.
[66] Head K. , J. Ries and B. J. Spencer. Vertical Networks and U. S. Auto Parts Exports: Is Japan Different[J]. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2004, 13, 37-67.
[67] Helpman E. , O. Itskhoki and S. Redding, Wages, Unemployment and Inequality with Heterogeneous Firms and Workers[Z]. Working Paper, 2008.
[68] Helpman, E. and Krugman, P. R. Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy[M]. Cambridge MA:MIT Press, 1985.
[69] Helpman, E. , Melitz, M. J. and S. R. Yeaple. Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms[J]. American Economic Review, 2004, 94: 300-316.
[70] Helpman, E. , Trade, FDI and the Organization of Firms[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2006, 9: 589-630.
[71] Helpman, E. . Increasing Returns, Imperfect Markets, and Trade Theory, in R. W. Jones and P. B. Kenen(eds. ). Handbook of International Economics. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1984.
[72] Hnatkovska, V. , and N. Loayza. Volatility and Growth, in Joshua Aizenmann and Brian Printo, eds. Managing Volatility[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2005: 65-100.
[73] Hopenhayn, H. . Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium[J]. Econometrica, 1992, 60: 1127-1150.
[74] Hummels D. , J. Ishii and K. M. Yi, The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2001, 54, 75-96.
[75] Im, K. S. , Pesaram, M. H. , & Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogenous panels[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2003, 115(1), 53–74.
[76] Jay B. Barney, and Shujun Zhang. Collective Goods, Free Riding and Country Brands: The Chinese Experience[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[77] John Humphrey, and Hubert Schmitz. Governance in Global Value Chains. IDS Bulletin, 2001, 32(3).
[78] Josh Ederington and Phillip McCalman. Endogenous Firm Heterogeneity and the Dynamics of Trade Liberlization[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 422-440.
[79] Katalin Balla, and Janos Kollo, Transition with heterogeneous labor[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 19(2008)203–220.
[80] Kruger, J J. Using the Manufacturing Productivity Distribution to Evaluate Growth Theories[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2006, 17: 248-258.
[81] Krugman, P. R. Intra-industry Specialization and the Gains from Trade. Journal ofPolitical Economy[J]. 1981, 89: 959-973.
[82] Krugman, Paul, . Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade[J]. American Economic Review, 1980, 70: 950–959.
[83] Labini, P S. Why the Interpretation of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function Must Be Radically Changed?[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamic, 1995, 6: 485-504.
[84] LEAMER, E. E. Sources of Comparative Advantage: Theories and Evidence[M]. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1984.
[85] Levin, A. , Lin, C. F. , and Chu, J. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data. Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2002, 108(1): 1-24. .
[86] Lu , J . W. and Beamish , P. W. The internationalization and performance of SMEs[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22.
[87] Malhotra Naresh K. Agarwal James, and Ulgado Francis M. Internationalization and Entry Modes: a Multi-theoretical Framework and Research Propositions[J]. Journal of International Marketing, 2003, 11(4).
[88] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power inside the Firm and the Market: A General Equilibrium Approach[M]. CEPR Discussion Paper, 2002, No. 4358.
[89] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Globalization and the Employment of Talent[M]. CEPR Discussion Paper, 2003, No. 4129.
[90] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Corporate Hierarchies and International Trade: Theory and Evidence, University of Munich, Mimeo, 2005.
[91] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power inside the Firm and the Market: A General Equilibrium Approach, Discussion Paper 2006, No. 109.
[92] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Competing in Organizations: Firm Heterogeneity and International Trade, Discussion Paper 2007a, No. 207.
[93] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power in the Multinational Corporation in Industry Equilibrium, Discussion Paper 2007b, No. 209.
[94] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Corporate Hierarchies and the Size of Nations: Theory and Evidence, Discussion Paper 2008, No. 227.
[95] Marjorie A. Lyles, Barbara B. Flynn, and Mark T. Frohlich. All Supply Chains Don’t Flow Through: Understanding Supply Chain Issues in Product Recalls[J].Management and Organization Review, 2008, 4.
[96] MARKUSEN, J. R. and VENABLES, A. J. The Theory of Endowment, Intra-industry and Multi-national Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 52: 209-234.
[97] Martin P. and C. A. Rogers, Industrial Location and Public Infrastructure[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1995, 39, 335-351.
[98] Melitz, M. J. and Ottaviano, G. I. P. . Market Size, Trade, and Productivity. NBER Working Paper, 2005, #11393.
[99] Melitz, M. J. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity[J]. Econometrica, 2003, 71: 1695-1725.
[100] Melitz, Marc J. and Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P. , . Market size, trade, and productivity[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2008, 75(1): 295–316.
[101] Namini J. E. and R. A. Lopez, Random versus Conscious Selection into Export Markets - Theory and Empirical Evidence, Working Paper, 2006.
[102] Nocke V. and S. Yeaple, Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions versus Greenfield Foreign Direct Investment: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity, Working Paper, 2006.
[103] Oviatt, BM, and McDougall, PP. Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2005, 29(5).
[104] Paul W. Beamish, and Hari Bapuji. Toy Recalls and China: Emotion vs. Evidence[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[105] Samuelson, P. A. International Factor Price Equalization Once Again[J]. Economic Journal, 1949, 59: 181-97.
[106] Shaver J . Myles. Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect FDI Survival?[J]. Management Science, 1998, 44(4).
[107] Shrader Rodney C. Collaboration and Performance in Foreign markets: the Case of Young High - technology Manufacturing Firms[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(1).
[108] Spencer B. J. , International Outsourcing and Incomplete Contracts[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2005, 38(4), 1107-1135.
[109] Syrquin, Chenery H B. Three Decades of Industrialization[J]. The World Bank Economic Reviews, 1989(3): 152-153.
[110] Yadong Luo. A Strategic Analysis of Product Recalls: The Role of Moral Degradation and Organizational Control[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[111] Yeaple, S. R. . A Simple Model of Firm Heterogeneity, International Trade, and Wages. Journal of International Economics[J]. 2005, 65: 1-20.
[112] Yeats A. J. , Just how Big is Global Production Sharing? World Bank Working Paper, 2001, No. 1871.
[113] Young A. Gold into Base Metals: Productivity Growth in the People’s Republic of China during the Reform Period[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, 2000(111): 1220-1261.
[114] Zahra Shaker A. , R. Duane Ireland, and Michael A. Hitt. International Expansion by New Venture Firms: International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning and Performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(5).
[115] Zhang, W. B. Preference, Structure and Economic Growth[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 1996, 7: 207-221.
[116]白重恩,钱震杰.国民收入的要素分配:统计数据背后的故事[J].经济研究, 2009(3): 27-41.
[117]蔡昉,王德文.中国经济增长可持续性与劳动贡献[J].经济研究, 1999(10): 62-68.
[118]蔡昉.中国又到了重工业化阶段了吗[J].经济学动态, 2005(9).
[119]陈丽丽.国际贸易理论研究的新动向——基于异质企业的研究[J].国际贸易问题,2008,03: 119-123.
[120]陈林,朱卫平.出口退税和创新补贴政策效应研究[J].经济研究, 2008, 11: 74-87.
[121]陈勇,唐朱昌.中国工业的技术选择与技术进步: 1985-2003[J].经济研究, 2006(9): 50-61.
[122]陈文芝,贸易自由化与行业生产率——企业异质性视野的机理分析与实证研究,浙江大学博士论文,2009
[123]陈小红,李明阳.国际贸易理论综述[J].知识经济, 2010, 05.
[124]樊瑛.新新贸易理论及其进展[J].国际经贸探索, 2007, 12: 4-8.
[125]樊瑛.国际贸易中的异质企业:一个文献综述[J].财贸经济, 2008a, 2: 120-128.
[126]樊瑛.异质企业贸易模型的理论进展[J].国际贸易问题, 2008b, 3: 124-128.
[127]干春晖,郑若谷.改革开放以来产业结构演进与生产率增长研究——对中国1978-2007年“结构红利假说”的检验[J].中国工业经济, 2009(2): 55-64.
[128]郭克莎.三次产业增长因素及其变动特点分析[J].经济研究, 1992(2): 51-61.
[129]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.地方政府行为、投资冲动与宏观经济稳定[J].管理世界, 2006, 5: 19-25.
[130]海韦尔·琼斯.现代经济增长理论导引(中文版)[M].商务印书馆, 1999.
[131]何德旭,姚战琪.中国产业结构调整的效应、优化升级目标和政策措施[J].中国工业经济, 2008(5): 46-56.
[132]洪联英,罗能生.出口、投资与企业生产率:西方贸易理论的微观新进展[J].国际贸易问题, 2008, 7: 22-26.
[133]胡军,陶锋,陈建林.珠三角OEM企业持续成长的路径选择——基于全球价值链外包体系的视角[J].中国工业经济, 2005, 8: 42-49.
[134]胡军,向吉英.转型中的劳动密集型产业:工业化、结构调整与加入WTO[J].中国工业经济, 2000(6): 20-24.
[135]胡秋阳.中国的经济发展和产业结构——投入产出分析的视角[M].经济科学出版社, 2007.
[136]胡永泰.中国全要素生产率:来自农业部门劳动力再配置的首要作用[J].经济研究, 1998(3): 31-39.
[137]黄静波.技术创新、企业生产率与外贸发展方式转变[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2008, 3: 168-176.
[138]季剑军.论企业的异质性[J].江汉论坛, 2010, 04.
[139]江小涓,李蕊. FDI对中国工业增长和技术进步的贡献[J].中国工业经济, 2002,7: 5-16.
[140]江小涓.中国的外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献[J].中国社会科学, 2002, 6: 4-14.
[141]李宾,曾志雄.中国全要素生产率变动的再测算: 1978—2007年[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2009(3): 3-15.
[142]李春顶,石晓军,邢春冰.“出口—生产率悖论”:对中国经验的进一步考察[J].经济学动态, 2010, 8: 90-95.
[143]李春顶,唐丁祥.出口与企业生产率:新-新贸易理论下的我国数据检验(1997-2006年)[J].国际贸易问题, 2010, 9: 13-21、32.
[144]李春顶,赵美英.出口贸易是否提高了我国企业的生产率?——基于中国2007年制造业企业数据的检验[J].财经研究, 2010, 4: 14-24.
[145]李春顶,尹翔硕.我国出口企业的“生产率悖论”及其解释[J].财贸经济, 2009, 11: 84-90, 111
[146]李春顶.“后危机时代”我国技术进口战略分析[J].经济理论与经济管理, 2010, 7: 11-16.
[147]李春顶.出口与增长:中国三十年经验实证(1978- 2008)[J].财经科学, 2009, 5: 117-124.
[148]李春顶.新-新贸易理论文献综述[J].世界经济文汇, 2010, 1: 102-117.
[149]李春顶.中国出口企业是否存在“生产率悖论”:基于中国制造业企业数据的检验[J].世界经济, 2010, 7: 64-81.
[150]李军.基于全球价值链的产业国际竞争力研究.华中科技大学硕士论文, 2006-04-01
[151]李军,杨学儒.全球价值链形态与国际竞争力[J].经济研究导刊, 2008, 4: 31-33.
[152]李军,杨学儒,潮涌式产业升级与多元化寻路:粤省例证[J].改革, 2011, 3: 38-46.
[153]李昭华,蒋冰冰.欧盟玩具业环境规制对我国玩具出口的绿色壁垒效应——基于我国四类玩具出口欧盟十国的面板数据分析: 1990-2006[J].经济学季刊, 2009, 3: 813-828.
[154]林季红.跨国公司理论发展趋势探析——新新贸易理论与企业资源基础理论相互融合问题研究[J].中国经济问题,2008,06.
[155]林毅夫,蔡防,李周.比较优势与发展战略—对“东亚奇迹”的再解释[J].中国社会科学, 1999(5): 4-20.
[156]林毅夫,巫和懋,邢亦青.“潮涌现象”与产能过剩的形成机制[J].经济研究, 2010, 10: 4-19.
[157]林毅夫(2007a).潮涌现象与发展中国家宏观经济理论的重新构建[J].经济研究, 2007a, 1: 126-131.
[158]林毅夫(2007b).提高宏观调控的科学性和有效性[N].人民日报, 2007-06-11.
[159]林毅夫(2007c).当前宏观经济条件下的改革和调控思路[N].人民日报, 2007-8-22(9).
[160]刘海云,唐玲.国际外包的生产率效应及行业差异[J].中国工业经济, 2009, 8: 78-87
[161]刘伟,张辉.中国经济增长中的产业结构变迁和技术进步[J].经济研究, 2008(11): 4-15.
[162]刘志彪,张杰.全球代工体系下发展中国家俘获型网络的形成、突破与对策—基于GVC与NVC的比较视角[J].中国工业经济, 2007, 5: 39-47.
[163]刘志彪,张杰.我国本土制造业企业出口决定因素的实证分析[J].经济研究, 2009, 8: 99-112.
[164]卢旺财,胡平波.全球价值网络下中国企业低端锁定的博弈分析[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 10: 23-32.
[165]吕铁,周叔莲.中国的产业结构升级与经济增长方式转变[J].管理世界, 1999(1): 113-125.
[166]吕政.中国工业结构的调整与产业升级[J].开发研究, 2007(1): 1-5.
[167]毛蕴诗,汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究[J].管理世界, 2006, 5: 114-120 .
[168]钱学锋,熊平.中国出口增长的二元边际及其因素决定[J].经济研究, 2010, 1: 65-79.
[169]钱学锋.企业异质性、贸易成本与中国出口增长的二元边际[J].管理世界, 2008, 9: 48-66.
[170]尚启君.我国能否跨越以劳动密集型工业为主导的工业化阶段[J].管理世界, 1998(3): 69-73.
[171]谭力文,马海燕,刘林青.服装产业国际竞争力——基于全球价值链的深层透视[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 10: 64-74.
[172]王红领,李稻葵,冯俊新. FDI与自主研发:基于行业数据的经验研究[J].经济研究, 2006, 2: 44-56.
[173]王岳平,葛岳静.我国产业结构的投入产出关联特征分析[J].管理世界, 2007(2): 61-68.
[174]巫强,刘志彪.进口国质量管制条件下的出口国企业创新与产业升级[J].管理世界, 2007, 2: 53-60.
[175]吴敬琏.中国应当走一条什么样的工业化道路?[J].管理世界, 2006(8): 1-7.
[176]武力,温锐. 1949年以来中国工业化的“轻重”之辩[J].经济研究, 2006(9): 39-49.
[177]西蒙·库兹涅兹.现代经济增长[M].北京:经济科学出版社, 1982.
[178]徐长生,王晶晶.宏观经济内外失衡的矫正与政策工具选择[J].改革, 2008, 7: 34-41.
[179]徐朝阳,林毅夫.发展战略与经济发展[J].中国社会科学, 2010, 3: 94-108.
[180]杨帆,徐长生.中国工业行业市场扭曲程度的测定[J].中国工业经济, 2009, 9: 56-66.
[181]杨学儒,檀宏斌,费菲.家族企业的国际化创业[J].现代管理科学, 2008,9:60-62.
[182]杨学儒,李新春.家族涉入指数的构建与测量研究[J].中国工业经济,2009,5 :97-107.
[183]杨学儒,陈文婷,李新春.家族性、创业导向与家族创业绩效[J].经济管理,2009,3:53-59.
[184]易靖韬.企业异质性、市场进入成本、技术溢出效应与出口参与决定[J].经济研究, 2009, 9: 106-115
[185]余道先,刘海云.技术创新的贸易效应研究:一个文献综述[J].财贸经济, 2007,5: 65-72.
[186]余淼杰.中国的贸易自由化与制造业企业生产率[J].经济研究, 2010, 12: 97-110.
[187]詹晓宁,葛顺奇.出口竞争力与跨国公司FDI的作用[J].世界经济, 2002, 11: 19-25.
[188]张公嵬,梁琦.出口与企业绩效:主要论题与最新进展[J].国际商务(对外经济贸易大学学报) 2010, 01.
[189]张杰,李勇,刘志彪.出口促进中国企业生产率提高吗?——来自中国本土制造业企业的经验证据: 1999-2003[J].管理世界, 2009, 12: 11-26.
[190]张军,威廉·哈勒根.转轨经济中的“过度进入”问题——对“重复建设”的经济学分析[J].复旦学报(社会科学版), 1998, 1: 21-26.
[191]张培刚,张建华.发展经济学教程[M].北京:经济科学出版社, 2001.
[192]张培刚,张建华等.新型工业化道路的工业结构优化升级研究[J].华中科技大学学报(社科版). 2007(2): 82-88.
[193]张其仔.比较优势的演化与中国产业升级路径的选择[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 9: 58-68.
[194]章样荪,贵斌威.中国全要素生产率分析: Malmquist指数法评述与应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2008(10): 111-122.
[195]赵君丽,?吴建环.?新新贸易理论评述[J].经济学动态, 2008,06.
[196]赵美英,李春顶.我国对外直接投资发展状况及影响因素实证分析[J].亚太经济, 2009, 4: 81-85.
[197]郑京海,胡鞍钢.中国的经济增长能否持续——一个生产率视角[J].经济学(季刊), 2008(4): 777-808.
[198]中华人民共和国国家统计局.中华人民共和国2010年国民经济与社会发展公告[EB].中华人民共和国国家统计局官方网站. http: //www. stats. gov. cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20110228_402705692. htm.
[199]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究, 2004, 6: 33-40.
[200]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究, 2007, 7: 36-50.
[201]周其仁.“产能过剩”的原因[N].经济观察报, 2005-12-12.
[202]朱廷珺,李宏兵.异质企业假定下的新新贸易理论:研究进展与评论[J].国际经济合作, 2010, 04: 81-86.
[203]卓越,张珉.全球价值链中的收益分配与“悲惨增长”——基于中国纺织服装业的分析[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 7: 131-140.
[2] Agarwal S. and Ramaswami S. Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarterly, 1992, 23(1).
[3] Alvarez, S. A. , and Barney, J. B. Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2007(1).
[4] Anderson, E. , and Gatignon, H. Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1986, 17(3).
[5] Anderson, E. , and Van Wincoop, E. Trade Costs[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2004, 42: 691-751.
[6] AndréVarella Mollick, RenéCabral. Productivity effects on Mexican manufacturing employment[J]. North American Journal of Economics and Finance 2009(20): 66-81.
[7] Annika Alexius, Mikael Carlsson. Production Function Residuals, VAR Technology Shocks, and HoursWorked: Evidence from Industry Data[J]. Economics Letters, 2004(8): 259-263.
[8] Antras P. and E. Helpman. Contractual Frictions and Global Sourcing. Working Paper, 2007.
[9] Antras P. and E. Helpman. Global Sourcing. The Journal of Political Economy. 2004, 6, 552-580.
[10] Antras P. Firms, Contracts, and Trade Structure[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003, 11, 1375-1418.
[11] Aw B. Y. , S. Chung and M. J. Roberts. Productivity and Turnover in the Export Market: Micro Evidence from Taiwan and South Korea[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 1999
[12] Baldwin B. and R. Forslid. Trade Liberalization with Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussing Paper, 2004, No. 4635.
[13] Baldwin R. E. and F. R. Nicoud. The Impact of Trade on Intra-industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity: A Comment. Working Paper, 2004.
[14] Baldwin R. E. and F. R. Nicoud. Trade and Growth with Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussion Paper Series, 2005, No. 4965.
[15] Baldwin R. E. and J. Harrigan. Zeros, Quality and Space: Trade Theory and Trade Evidence. Working paper, 2007.
[16] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Agglomeration and the Heterogeneous Firms Trade Model. Working Paper, 2005.
[17] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Agglomeration, Offshoring and Heterogeneous Firms. CEPR Discussion Paper 2006a , No. 5663.
[18] Baldwin R. E. and T. Okubo. Heterogeneous Firms, Agglomeration and Economic Geography: Spatial Selection and Sorting[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2006b, 6, 323-346.
[19] Baldwin R. E. Heterogeneous Fims and Trade: Testable and Untestable Properties of the Melitz Model. Working Paper, 2005
[20] Baldwin, R. and Robert-Nicoud, F. Trade and Growth with Heterogeneous Firms[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 21–34.
[21] Barga M. and W. Zeile, International Fragmentation of Production and the Intrafirm Trade of U. S. Multinational Companies. U. S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Working Paper, 2004, WP2004-02.
[22] Bartelsman, E. and Doms, M. Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2000, 38: 569-594.
[23] Bernard A. B. and J. B. Jensen, Entry, Expansion, and Intensity in the US Export Boom, 1987-1992[J]. Review of International Economics, 2004, 12(4), 662-675.
[24] Bernard A. B. and J. B. Jensen. Why Some Firms Export. Working Paper, 2001.
[25] Bernard A. B. and J. Wagner. Export Entry and Exit by Gennan Firms. NBER Working Paper, 1998, No. 6538.
[26] Bernard A. B. , S. J. Redding and P. K. Schott, Products and Productivity, Working Paper, 2006b.
[27] Bernard A. B. , S. J. Redding and P. K. Schott, Multi-Product Firms and TradeLiberalization. Working Paper, 2006a.
[28] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1999, 47: 1-25.
[29] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in US Manufacturing: 1976-87. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 1995: 67-112.
[30] Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, J. B. Why Some Firms Export[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2004, 86: 561-569.
[31] Bernard, A. B. , Eaton, J. and Kortum, S. S. Plants and Productivity in International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, 2003, 93: 1268-1290.
[32] Bernard, A. B. , Jensen, J. B. . and Schott, P. K. Survival of the Best Fit: Exposure to Low Wage Countries and the(Uneven)Growth of U. S. Manufacturing Plants[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2006, 68: 219-237.
[33] Bernard, A. B. , Redding, S. J. and Schott, P. K. Comparative Advantage and Heterogeneous Firms[J]. Review of Economic Studies , 2007, 74: 31–66.
[34] Bombardini M. , Firm Heterogeneity and Lobby Participation. Manuscript, 2004.
[35] Bowen, H. P. , Leamer, E. E. and Sveikauskas, L. Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory[J]. American Economic Review, 1987, 77: 791-809.
[36] Brouthers Keith D, Brouthers Lance Eliot, and Werner Steve. Transaction Cost - Enhanced Entry Mode Choice and Firm Performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003(24).
[37] Bustos P. . Rising Wage Inequality in the Argentinean Manufacturing Sector: The Impact of Trade and Foreign Investment on Technology and Skill Upgrading. Working Paper, 2005.
[38] Casares. ER . Productivity, Structural Change in Employment and Economic Growth[J]. Estudios Economicos 2007, 22(2): 335–355.
[39] Chaney T. Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, 2008, 98(4): 1707-1721.
[40] Chang, Y. , & Hong, J. H. Do Technological Improvements in the Manufacturing Sector Raise or Lower Employment?[J]. American Economic Review, 2006(1), 352–368.
[41] Chen, N. , Imbs J. and Scott A. The Dynamics of Trade and Competition[J]. Journalof International Economics, 2009, 77: 50–62
[42] Clerides, S. , Lach, S. and Tybout, J. Is Learning by Exporting Important? Micro-dynamic Evidence from Columbia, Mexico and Morocco[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1998, 113: 903-947.
[43] Coelli. TJ. A Guide to DEAP Version2. 1: A Data Envelopmeni Analysis (Computer)Program[Z]. CPEA Working Paper, 1996.
[44] Davis, D. and Weinstein, D. Do Factor Endowments Matter for North-North Trade[M]. Columbia University, mimeograph, 2004.
[45] DIXIT, A. and NORMAN, V. . The Theory of International Trade[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
[46] DUNNE, T. , ROBERTS, M. J. and SAMUELSON, L. . The Growth and Failure of U. S. Manufacturing Plants[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1989, 104: 671-698.
[47] Eaton J. , S. Kortum and F. Kramarz. An Anatomy of International Trade: Evidence from French Firms[Z]. Working Paper, 2008.
[48] Eaton J. , Samuel Kortum, Francis Kramarz. Firms, Industries and Export Destinations[J]. American Economic Review, 2004, 94: 150-154.
[49] Ederington, J. and McCalman P. Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 422–440.
[50] Emerson, J, Kao, C. Testing for Structural Change in Panel Data: GDP Growth, Consumption Growth, and Productivity Growth[J]. Economics Bulletin, 2006, 3(14): 1-12.
[51] Fagerberg, J, Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth: A Comparative Study[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2000, 11: 393-411.
[52] Fan, S G, Zhang, X B, Robinson, S. Structural Change and Economic Growth in China[J]. Review of Development Economics, 2003, 7(3): 360-377.
[53] Feenstra R. C. Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy[J]. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1998, 12(4), 31-50.
[54] Garrick Blalock and Paul J. Gertler. Welfare Gains from Foreign Direct Investment through technology transfer to local suppliers[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 402-421.
[55] Gereffi, G. , and Memedovic, O. The Global Apparel Value Chain: What Prospects for Upgrading by Developing Countries ?http: //www. unido. org/, 2003.
[56] Ghironi, F. and Melitz, M. J. Trade Flow Dynamics with Heterogeneous Firm[J]. American Economic Review, 2007, 97: 356~361.
[57] Ghironi, F. and Melitz, M. J. International Trade and Macroeconomic Dynamics with Heterogeneous Firm s[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, 120: 865-915.
[58] Goldberg, P. and Pavcnik, N. Trade, Inequality and Poverty: What Do We Know? Evidence from Recent Trade Liberalization Episodes in Developing Countries. Brookings Trade Forum, 2004: 223-269.
[59] Grossman G. M. , E. Helpman and A. Szeidl, 2006, Optimal Integration Strategies for the Multinational Firm[J]. Journal of International Economics, 70, 216-238.
[60] Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 2005, Outsourcing in a Global Economy[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 135-160.
[61] Hall, R. , & Jones, C. Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999, 114(1), 83–116.
[62] Hansen J. D. and U. M. Nielsen, Economies of Scale and Scope, Firm Heterogeneity and Exports[Z]. Working Paper, 2007a.
[63] Hansen J. D. and U. M. Nielsen, Choice of Technology, Firm Heterogeneity, and Exports[Z]. Working Paper, 2007b.
[64] Harrigan, J. Technology, Factor Supplies, and International Specialization: Estimating the Neoclassical Model[J]. American Economic Review, 1997, 87: 475-494.
[65] Head K. and J. Ries, Heterogeneity and the FDI versus Export Decision of Japanese Manufacturers[J]. Japanese International Economies, 2003, 17, 448-467.
[66] Head K. , J. Ries and B. J. Spencer. Vertical Networks and U. S. Auto Parts Exports: Is Japan Different[J]. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2004, 13, 37-67.
[67] Helpman E. , O. Itskhoki and S. Redding, Wages, Unemployment and Inequality with Heterogeneous Firms and Workers[Z]. Working Paper, 2008.
[68] Helpman, E. and Krugman, P. R. Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy[M]. Cambridge MA:MIT Press, 1985.
[69] Helpman, E. , Melitz, M. J. and S. R. Yeaple. Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms[J]. American Economic Review, 2004, 94: 300-316.
[70] Helpman, E. , Trade, FDI and the Organization of Firms[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2006, 9: 589-630.
[71] Helpman, E. . Increasing Returns, Imperfect Markets, and Trade Theory, in R. W. Jones and P. B. Kenen(eds. ). Handbook of International Economics. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1984.
[72] Hnatkovska, V. , and N. Loayza. Volatility and Growth, in Joshua Aizenmann and Brian Printo, eds. Managing Volatility[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2005: 65-100.
[73] Hopenhayn, H. . Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium[J]. Econometrica, 1992, 60: 1127-1150.
[74] Hummels D. , J. Ishii and K. M. Yi, The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2001, 54, 75-96.
[75] Im, K. S. , Pesaram, M. H. , & Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogenous panels[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2003, 115(1), 53–74.
[76] Jay B. Barney, and Shujun Zhang. Collective Goods, Free Riding and Country Brands: The Chinese Experience[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[77] John Humphrey, and Hubert Schmitz. Governance in Global Value Chains. IDS Bulletin, 2001, 32(3).
[78] Josh Ederington and Phillip McCalman. Endogenous Firm Heterogeneity and the Dynamics of Trade Liberlization[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2008, 74: 422-440.
[79] Katalin Balla, and Janos Kollo, Transition with heterogeneous labor[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 19(2008)203–220.
[80] Kruger, J J. Using the Manufacturing Productivity Distribution to Evaluate Growth Theories[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2006, 17: 248-258.
[81] Krugman, P. R. Intra-industry Specialization and the Gains from Trade. Journal ofPolitical Economy[J]. 1981, 89: 959-973.
[82] Krugman, Paul, . Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade[J]. American Economic Review, 1980, 70: 950–959.
[83] Labini, P S. Why the Interpretation of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function Must Be Radically Changed?[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamic, 1995, 6: 485-504.
[84] LEAMER, E. E. Sources of Comparative Advantage: Theories and Evidence[M]. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1984.
[85] Levin, A. , Lin, C. F. , and Chu, J. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data. Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2002, 108(1): 1-24. .
[86] Lu , J . W. and Beamish , P. W. The internationalization and performance of SMEs[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22.
[87] Malhotra Naresh K. Agarwal James, and Ulgado Francis M. Internationalization and Entry Modes: a Multi-theoretical Framework and Research Propositions[J]. Journal of International Marketing, 2003, 11(4).
[88] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power inside the Firm and the Market: A General Equilibrium Approach[M]. CEPR Discussion Paper, 2002, No. 4358.
[89] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Globalization and the Employment of Talent[M]. CEPR Discussion Paper, 2003, No. 4129.
[90] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Corporate Hierarchies and International Trade: Theory and Evidence, University of Munich, Mimeo, 2005.
[91] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power inside the Firm and the Market: A General Equilibrium Approach, Discussion Paper 2006, No. 109.
[92] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Competing in Organizations: Firm Heterogeneity and International Trade, Discussion Paper 2007a, No. 207.
[93] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Power in the Multinational Corporation in Industry Equilibrium, Discussion Paper 2007b, No. 209.
[94] Marin D. and T. Verdier, Corporate Hierarchies and the Size of Nations: Theory and Evidence, Discussion Paper 2008, No. 227.
[95] Marjorie A. Lyles, Barbara B. Flynn, and Mark T. Frohlich. All Supply Chains Don’t Flow Through: Understanding Supply Chain Issues in Product Recalls[J].Management and Organization Review, 2008, 4.
[96] MARKUSEN, J. R. and VENABLES, A. J. The Theory of Endowment, Intra-industry and Multi-national Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 52: 209-234.
[97] Martin P. and C. A. Rogers, Industrial Location and Public Infrastructure[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1995, 39, 335-351.
[98] Melitz, M. J. and Ottaviano, G. I. P. . Market Size, Trade, and Productivity. NBER Working Paper, 2005, #11393.
[99] Melitz, M. J. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity[J]. Econometrica, 2003, 71: 1695-1725.
[100] Melitz, Marc J. and Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P. , . Market size, trade, and productivity[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2008, 75(1): 295–316.
[101] Namini J. E. and R. A. Lopez, Random versus Conscious Selection into Export Markets - Theory and Empirical Evidence, Working Paper, 2006.
[102] Nocke V. and S. Yeaple, Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions versus Greenfield Foreign Direct Investment: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity, Working Paper, 2006.
[103] Oviatt, BM, and McDougall, PP. Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2005, 29(5).
[104] Paul W. Beamish, and Hari Bapuji. Toy Recalls and China: Emotion vs. Evidence[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[105] Samuelson, P. A. International Factor Price Equalization Once Again[J]. Economic Journal, 1949, 59: 181-97.
[106] Shaver J . Myles. Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect FDI Survival?[J]. Management Science, 1998, 44(4).
[107] Shrader Rodney C. Collaboration and Performance in Foreign markets: the Case of Young High - technology Manufacturing Firms[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(1).
[108] Spencer B. J. , International Outsourcing and Incomplete Contracts[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2005, 38(4), 1107-1135.
[109] Syrquin, Chenery H B. Three Decades of Industrialization[J]. The World Bank Economic Reviews, 1989(3): 152-153.
[110] Yadong Luo. A Strategic Analysis of Product Recalls: The Role of Moral Degradation and Organizational Control[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2008(4).
[111] Yeaple, S. R. . A Simple Model of Firm Heterogeneity, International Trade, and Wages. Journal of International Economics[J]. 2005, 65: 1-20.
[112] Yeats A. J. , Just how Big is Global Production Sharing? World Bank Working Paper, 2001, No. 1871.
[113] Young A. Gold into Base Metals: Productivity Growth in the People’s Republic of China during the Reform Period[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, 2000(111): 1220-1261.
[114] Zahra Shaker A. , R. Duane Ireland, and Michael A. Hitt. International Expansion by New Venture Firms: International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning and Performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(5).
[115] Zhang, W. B. Preference, Structure and Economic Growth[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 1996, 7: 207-221.
[116]白重恩,钱震杰.国民收入的要素分配:统计数据背后的故事[J].经济研究, 2009(3): 27-41.
[117]蔡昉,王德文.中国经济增长可持续性与劳动贡献[J].经济研究, 1999(10): 62-68.
[118]蔡昉.中国又到了重工业化阶段了吗[J].经济学动态, 2005(9).
[119]陈丽丽.国际贸易理论研究的新动向——基于异质企业的研究[J].国际贸易问题,2008,03: 119-123.
[120]陈林,朱卫平.出口退税和创新补贴政策效应研究[J].经济研究, 2008, 11: 74-87.
[121]陈勇,唐朱昌.中国工业的技术选择与技术进步: 1985-2003[J].经济研究, 2006(9): 50-61.
[122]陈文芝,贸易自由化与行业生产率——企业异质性视野的机理分析与实证研究,浙江大学博士论文,2009
[123]陈小红,李明阳.国际贸易理论综述[J].知识经济, 2010, 05.
[124]樊瑛.新新贸易理论及其进展[J].国际经贸探索, 2007, 12: 4-8.
[125]樊瑛.国际贸易中的异质企业:一个文献综述[J].财贸经济, 2008a, 2: 120-128.
[126]樊瑛.异质企业贸易模型的理论进展[J].国际贸易问题, 2008b, 3: 124-128.
[127]干春晖,郑若谷.改革开放以来产业结构演进与生产率增长研究——对中国1978-2007年“结构红利假说”的检验[J].中国工业经济, 2009(2): 55-64.
[128]郭克莎.三次产业增长因素及其变动特点分析[J].经济研究, 1992(2): 51-61.
[129]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.地方政府行为、投资冲动与宏观经济稳定[J].管理世界, 2006, 5: 19-25.
[130]海韦尔·琼斯.现代经济增长理论导引(中文版)[M].商务印书馆, 1999.
[131]何德旭,姚战琪.中国产业结构调整的效应、优化升级目标和政策措施[J].中国工业经济, 2008(5): 46-56.
[132]洪联英,罗能生.出口、投资与企业生产率:西方贸易理论的微观新进展[J].国际贸易问题, 2008, 7: 22-26.
[133]胡军,陶锋,陈建林.珠三角OEM企业持续成长的路径选择——基于全球价值链外包体系的视角[J].中国工业经济, 2005, 8: 42-49.
[134]胡军,向吉英.转型中的劳动密集型产业:工业化、结构调整与加入WTO[J].中国工业经济, 2000(6): 20-24.
[135]胡秋阳.中国的经济发展和产业结构——投入产出分析的视角[M].经济科学出版社, 2007.
[136]胡永泰.中国全要素生产率:来自农业部门劳动力再配置的首要作用[J].经济研究, 1998(3): 31-39.
[137]黄静波.技术创新、企业生产率与外贸发展方式转变[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2008, 3: 168-176.
[138]季剑军.论企业的异质性[J].江汉论坛, 2010, 04.
[139]江小涓,李蕊. FDI对中国工业增长和技术进步的贡献[J].中国工业经济, 2002,7: 5-16.
[140]江小涓.中国的外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献[J].中国社会科学, 2002, 6: 4-14.
[141]李宾,曾志雄.中国全要素生产率变动的再测算: 1978—2007年[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2009(3): 3-15.
[142]李春顶,石晓军,邢春冰.“出口—生产率悖论”:对中国经验的进一步考察[J].经济学动态, 2010, 8: 90-95.
[143]李春顶,唐丁祥.出口与企业生产率:新-新贸易理论下的我国数据检验(1997-2006年)[J].国际贸易问题, 2010, 9: 13-21、32.
[144]李春顶,赵美英.出口贸易是否提高了我国企业的生产率?——基于中国2007年制造业企业数据的检验[J].财经研究, 2010, 4: 14-24.
[145]李春顶,尹翔硕.我国出口企业的“生产率悖论”及其解释[J].财贸经济, 2009, 11: 84-90, 111
[146]李春顶.“后危机时代”我国技术进口战略分析[J].经济理论与经济管理, 2010, 7: 11-16.
[147]李春顶.出口与增长:中国三十年经验实证(1978- 2008)[J].财经科学, 2009, 5: 117-124.
[148]李春顶.新-新贸易理论文献综述[J].世界经济文汇, 2010, 1: 102-117.
[149]李春顶.中国出口企业是否存在“生产率悖论”:基于中国制造业企业数据的检验[J].世界经济, 2010, 7: 64-81.
[150]李军.基于全球价值链的产业国际竞争力研究.华中科技大学硕士论文, 2006-04-01
[151]李军,杨学儒.全球价值链形态与国际竞争力[J].经济研究导刊, 2008, 4: 31-33.
[152]李军,杨学儒,潮涌式产业升级与多元化寻路:粤省例证[J].改革, 2011, 3: 38-46.
[153]李昭华,蒋冰冰.欧盟玩具业环境规制对我国玩具出口的绿色壁垒效应——基于我国四类玩具出口欧盟十国的面板数据分析: 1990-2006[J].经济学季刊, 2009, 3: 813-828.
[154]林季红.跨国公司理论发展趋势探析——新新贸易理论与企业资源基础理论相互融合问题研究[J].中国经济问题,2008,06.
[155]林毅夫,蔡防,李周.比较优势与发展战略—对“东亚奇迹”的再解释[J].中国社会科学, 1999(5): 4-20.
[156]林毅夫,巫和懋,邢亦青.“潮涌现象”与产能过剩的形成机制[J].经济研究, 2010, 10: 4-19.
[157]林毅夫(2007a).潮涌现象与发展中国家宏观经济理论的重新构建[J].经济研究, 2007a, 1: 126-131.
[158]林毅夫(2007b).提高宏观调控的科学性和有效性[N].人民日报, 2007-06-11.
[159]林毅夫(2007c).当前宏观经济条件下的改革和调控思路[N].人民日报, 2007-8-22(9).
[160]刘海云,唐玲.国际外包的生产率效应及行业差异[J].中国工业经济, 2009, 8: 78-87
[161]刘伟,张辉.中国经济增长中的产业结构变迁和技术进步[J].经济研究, 2008(11): 4-15.
[162]刘志彪,张杰.全球代工体系下发展中国家俘获型网络的形成、突破与对策—基于GVC与NVC的比较视角[J].中国工业经济, 2007, 5: 39-47.
[163]刘志彪,张杰.我国本土制造业企业出口决定因素的实证分析[J].经济研究, 2009, 8: 99-112.
[164]卢旺财,胡平波.全球价值网络下中国企业低端锁定的博弈分析[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 10: 23-32.
[165]吕铁,周叔莲.中国的产业结构升级与经济增长方式转变[J].管理世界, 1999(1): 113-125.
[166]吕政.中国工业结构的调整与产业升级[J].开发研究, 2007(1): 1-5.
[167]毛蕴诗,汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究[J].管理世界, 2006, 5: 114-120 .
[168]钱学锋,熊平.中国出口增长的二元边际及其因素决定[J].经济研究, 2010, 1: 65-79.
[169]钱学锋.企业异质性、贸易成本与中国出口增长的二元边际[J].管理世界, 2008, 9: 48-66.
[170]尚启君.我国能否跨越以劳动密集型工业为主导的工业化阶段[J].管理世界, 1998(3): 69-73.
[171]谭力文,马海燕,刘林青.服装产业国际竞争力——基于全球价值链的深层透视[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 10: 64-74.
[172]王红领,李稻葵,冯俊新. FDI与自主研发:基于行业数据的经验研究[J].经济研究, 2006, 2: 44-56.
[173]王岳平,葛岳静.我国产业结构的投入产出关联特征分析[J].管理世界, 2007(2): 61-68.
[174]巫强,刘志彪.进口国质量管制条件下的出口国企业创新与产业升级[J].管理世界, 2007, 2: 53-60.
[175]吴敬琏.中国应当走一条什么样的工业化道路?[J].管理世界, 2006(8): 1-7.
[176]武力,温锐. 1949年以来中国工业化的“轻重”之辩[J].经济研究, 2006(9): 39-49.
[177]西蒙·库兹涅兹.现代经济增长[M].北京:经济科学出版社, 1982.
[178]徐长生,王晶晶.宏观经济内外失衡的矫正与政策工具选择[J].改革, 2008, 7: 34-41.
[179]徐朝阳,林毅夫.发展战略与经济发展[J].中国社会科学, 2010, 3: 94-108.
[180]杨帆,徐长生.中国工业行业市场扭曲程度的测定[J].中国工业经济, 2009, 9: 56-66.
[181]杨学儒,檀宏斌,费菲.家族企业的国际化创业[J].现代管理科学, 2008,9:60-62.
[182]杨学儒,李新春.家族涉入指数的构建与测量研究[J].中国工业经济,2009,5 :97-107.
[183]杨学儒,陈文婷,李新春.家族性、创业导向与家族创业绩效[J].经济管理,2009,3:53-59.
[184]易靖韬.企业异质性、市场进入成本、技术溢出效应与出口参与决定[J].经济研究, 2009, 9: 106-115
[185]余道先,刘海云.技术创新的贸易效应研究:一个文献综述[J].财贸经济, 2007,5: 65-72.
[186]余淼杰.中国的贸易自由化与制造业企业生产率[J].经济研究, 2010, 12: 97-110.
[187]詹晓宁,葛顺奇.出口竞争力与跨国公司FDI的作用[J].世界经济, 2002, 11: 19-25.
[188]张公嵬,梁琦.出口与企业绩效:主要论题与最新进展[J].国际商务(对外经济贸易大学学报) 2010, 01.
[189]张杰,李勇,刘志彪.出口促进中国企业生产率提高吗?——来自中国本土制造业企业的经验证据: 1999-2003[J].管理世界, 2009, 12: 11-26.
[190]张军,威廉·哈勒根.转轨经济中的“过度进入”问题——对“重复建设”的经济学分析[J].复旦学报(社会科学版), 1998, 1: 21-26.
[191]张培刚,张建华.发展经济学教程[M].北京:经济科学出版社, 2001.
[192]张培刚,张建华等.新型工业化道路的工业结构优化升级研究[J].华中科技大学学报(社科版). 2007(2): 82-88.
[193]张其仔.比较优势的演化与中国产业升级路径的选择[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 9: 58-68.
[194]章样荪,贵斌威.中国全要素生产率分析: Malmquist指数法评述与应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2008(10): 111-122.
[195]赵君丽,?吴建环.?新新贸易理论评述[J].经济学动态, 2008,06.
[196]赵美英,李春顶.我国对外直接投资发展状况及影响因素实证分析[J].亚太经济, 2009, 4: 81-85.
[197]郑京海,胡鞍钢.中国的经济增长能否持续——一个生产率视角[J].经济学(季刊), 2008(4): 777-808.
[198]中华人民共和国国家统计局.中华人民共和国2010年国民经济与社会发展公告[EB].中华人民共和国国家统计局官方网站. http: //www. stats. gov. cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20110228_402705692. htm.
[199]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究, 2004, 6: 33-40.
[200]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究, 2007, 7: 36-50.
[201]周其仁.“产能过剩”的原因[N].经济观察报, 2005-12-12.
[202]朱廷珺,李宏兵.异质企业假定下的新新贸易理论:研究进展与评论[J].国际经济合作, 2010, 04: 81-86.
[203]卓越,张珉.全球价值链中的收益分配与“悲惨增长”——基于中国纺织服装业的分析[J].中国工业经济, 2008, 7: 131-140.