R&D、创新与中国TFP的研究
|
摘要
理论研究和大量国际经验表明，R&D对创新以及创新对全要素生产率具有显著贡献。本文旨在研究我国R&D活动对创新产出的影响、以及创新产出对我国全要素生产率(Total Factor Productivity，以下简称TFP)的影响。
第1章阐明本文的选题意义、研究内容、研究方法和组织框架，对数据来源、本文的创新之处和论文不足的地方做了说明。另外，在本章还阐述了美日等发达国家的政府和企业都非常重视R&D和创新对TFP的促进作用。鉴于我国中央政府已提出把我国建设成为创新型国家战略目标，因此本文研究这一主题就更具有理论意义和实际意义。
第2章对有关R&D内生增长理论的文献进行了综述。一方面，本文发现创新是企业有意识进行R&D投资的结果，来自创新的垄断利润则为企业从事R&D活动提供了市场激励，分权经济增长率一般不等于社会最优水平，政府政策具有增长效应等等。另一方面，本文认为该理论成功地揭示了经济增长规模递增效应的原因，发现知识积累和R&D研发对经济增长的起着显著促进作用。
第3章使用不同类型的时间序列数据和面板数据，研究在封闭经济条件下，我国R&D、创新和TFP关系进行实证分析，我们得出以下结论：
使用全国宏观层面的时间序列数据我们发现，我国R&D资金投入和R&D人员投入直接促进了我国创新的发展，产业结构调整、创新和进出口贸易对我国的TFP均有显著积极的影响，创新对TFP的作用位居第二。但随着把我国建设创新型国家这一战略的出台，创新对我国TFP的作用必将居首位。
使用我国大中型企业层面的时间序列数据我们发现，企业自身R&D活动对创新的作用最大。我国企业TFP提高的三个主要因素——企业自身的创新、政府公共R&D创新和FDI对我国大中型企业的TFP均有显著积极的影响。
使用我国东中西三大区域面板数据证实，R&D活动对三大区域的创新均产生了积极显著的影响。东部的产出弹性大于中西部，而西部的产出弹性大于中部。创新对于全国和中、西部TFP的影响甚微且统计上不显著，但是对于我国东部的TFP的提高却是正向且显著的。
使用行业层面的面板数据证实，R&D活动对我国高科技制造业领域中的创新产出是正向且显著的；对于一般制造业创新的影响是正向的、但统计上不显著，检验结果缺乏稳健性；对于我国整个制造业TFP的影响是正向的、但统计上不显著，检验结果缺乏稳健性。
第4章，使用不同类型的时间序列数据和面板数据，研究在开放经济条件下，我国R&D、创新和TFP关系，我们有以下发现：
我国进出口贸易和FDI对我国的创新均有着积极显著的影响。我国进口和外商直接投资引致的“二次创新”均对我国TFP有积极且显著的影响，但我国出口引致的“二次创新”对我国TFP的影响是负面的。另外，进出口和FDI引致的创新必须具备人力资本和R&D配套资金这两个条件。
第5章，本文对中、美、日和韩等国等四国的R&活动、创新产出和TFP变化进行了比较研究后发现：
从R&D活动投入的资金和R&D创新产出来看，我国已经是一个R&D投入和创新大国，2003年以来，这两项指标均排名世界前5名。但从创新的质量和影响力来看，我国但还远不是一个创新强国，我们的世界排名位居10名左右。我国TFP相比美日韩等国来说，不仅增长缓慢，而且对我国经济增长的作用非常有限。
第6章是本文的结论和政策建议。本文提出应该进一步加大R&D的投入，R&D项目应该面向市场，提高创新产出成果的转换为实际生产力的比列，重视基础R&D的研究，提高我国R&D的研究质量等。
The dissertation studies China R&D activity's effect on innovation output, and innovation output's effect on China's total factor productivity. The reasons of selecting the topic are:
Endogenous economic growth theory based-on R&D explains successfully a couple of economic phenomena and issues, and has become the major one of many economic growth theories. 2) China has set a goal to establish innovative country, so scientific development thought has become working principles of all level government. Therefore, introducing endogenous growth theory based-on R&D and applying the theory to explain our economic issues, as well as directing our economic development, is of great meaning.
At the beginning of Chapter I, we articulate the thesis's research contents, research framework, methods and the major discoveries.
In Chapter II, we review history, model and major assumptions, of endogenous economic growth theory based-on R&D. We summarize the relations between R&D and innovation, innovation and total factor productivity (TFP), and most of studying documents found the two relations are positive and significant. Of course, because selecting different country, applying different research methods and different period, the result is a little different.
Chapter III studies the R&D activity's effect on innovation and innovation's effect on TFP using time series data of the whole nation and large & medium-sized state owned enterprises, panel data of three regions-east,middle and east, and industries panel data.
When we use the time series data, we find: 1) as a whole nation, R&D activity has a positive and significant influence on innovation which has a positive and significant influence on our TFP. 2) In the light of the data of large & medium-sized state owned enterprises, R&D activity of these enterprises has a positive and significant influence on innovation which results in increase to TFP of these enterprises.
When we use the panel data of three regions, we find: 1) R&D activity in every region has a positive and significant influence on innovation. And the output elasticity in eastern region is higher than that of middle & western regions, and western region's elasticity higher than middle region's. 2) On innovation's effect on three region's TFP, we think the innovation in eastern region has a significant and positive on TFP, but a insignificant and positive on middle & western.
When we use the panel data of industries we find: 1) R&D activity in high-tech manufacturing has a positive and significant influence on innovation, positive but insignificant effect in either general manufacturing or in whole manufacturing. 2) Innovation has positive but insignificant influence on TFP in whole manufacturing.
In Chapter IV, we analysize R&D's effect on innovation and innovation's effect on TFP using import & export and FDI in open economic case. We find: 1) both import & export and FDI have positive and significant influence on innovation. 2) "Secondary innovation" induced by import and FDI result in an obvious increase to our TFP, but secondary innovation induced by export has no effect on our TFP.
In Chapter V, we compare China's R&D & R&D's innovation output with that of USA's.we find that China's is a large but not a power innovation country. In the last Chapter, we sum up the major conclusions of the dissertation, and give some suggestions.
第1章阐明本文的选题意义、研究内容、研究方法和组织框架，对数据来源、本文的创新之处和论文不足的地方做了说明。另外，在本章还阐述了美日等发达国家的政府和企业都非常重视R&D和创新对TFP的促进作用。鉴于我国中央政府已提出把我国建设成为创新型国家战略目标，因此本文研究这一主题就更具有理论意义和实际意义。
第2章对有关R&D内生增长理论的文献进行了综述。一方面，本文发现创新是企业有意识进行R&D投资的结果，来自创新的垄断利润则为企业从事R&D活动提供了市场激励，分权经济增长率一般不等于社会最优水平，政府政策具有增长效应等等。另一方面，本文认为该理论成功地揭示了经济增长规模递增效应的原因，发现知识积累和R&D研发对经济增长的起着显著促进作用。
第3章使用不同类型的时间序列数据和面板数据，研究在封闭经济条件下，我国R&D、创新和TFP关系进行实证分析，我们得出以下结论：
使用全国宏观层面的时间序列数据我们发现，我国R&D资金投入和R&D人员投入直接促进了我国创新的发展，产业结构调整、创新和进出口贸易对我国的TFP均有显著积极的影响，创新对TFP的作用位居第二。但随着把我国建设创新型国家这一战略的出台，创新对我国TFP的作用必将居首位。
使用我国大中型企业层面的时间序列数据我们发现，企业自身R&D活动对创新的作用最大。我国企业TFP提高的三个主要因素——企业自身的创新、政府公共R&D创新和FDI对我国大中型企业的TFP均有显著积极的影响。
使用我国东中西三大区域面板数据证实，R&D活动对三大区域的创新均产生了积极显著的影响。东部的产出弹性大于中西部，而西部的产出弹性大于中部。创新对于全国和中、西部TFP的影响甚微且统计上不显著，但是对于我国东部的TFP的提高却是正向且显著的。
使用行业层面的面板数据证实，R&D活动对我国高科技制造业领域中的创新产出是正向且显著的；对于一般制造业创新的影响是正向的、但统计上不显著，检验结果缺乏稳健性；对于我国整个制造业TFP的影响是正向的、但统计上不显著，检验结果缺乏稳健性。
第4章，使用不同类型的时间序列数据和面板数据，研究在开放经济条件下，我国R&D、创新和TFP关系，我们有以下发现：
我国进出口贸易和FDI对我国的创新均有着积极显著的影响。我国进口和外商直接投资引致的“二次创新”均对我国TFP有积极且显著的影响，但我国出口引致的“二次创新”对我国TFP的影响是负面的。另外，进出口和FDI引致的创新必须具备人力资本和R&D配套资金这两个条件。
第5章，本文对中、美、日和韩等国等四国的R&活动、创新产出和TFP变化进行了比较研究后发现：
从R&D活动投入的资金和R&D创新产出来看，我国已经是一个R&D投入和创新大国，2003年以来，这两项指标均排名世界前5名。但从创新的质量和影响力来看，我国但还远不是一个创新强国，我们的世界排名位居10名左右。我国TFP相比美日韩等国来说，不仅增长缓慢，而且对我国经济增长的作用非常有限。
第6章是本文的结论和政策建议。本文提出应该进一步加大R&D的投入，R&D项目应该面向市场，提高创新产出成果的转换为实际生产力的比列，重视基础R&D的研究，提高我国R&D的研究质量等。
The dissertation studies China R&D activity's effect on innovation output, and innovation output's effect on China's total factor productivity. The reasons of selecting the topic are:
Endogenous economic growth theory based-on R&D explains successfully a couple of economic phenomena and issues, and has become the major one of many economic growth theories. 2) China has set a goal to establish innovative country, so scientific development thought has become working principles of all level government. Therefore, introducing endogenous growth theory based-on R&D and applying the theory to explain our economic issues, as well as directing our economic development, is of great meaning.
At the beginning of Chapter I, we articulate the thesis's research contents, research framework, methods and the major discoveries.
In Chapter II, we review history, model and major assumptions, of endogenous economic growth theory based-on R&D. We summarize the relations between R&D and innovation, innovation and total factor productivity (TFP), and most of studying documents found the two relations are positive and significant. Of course, because selecting different country, applying different research methods and different period, the result is a little different.
Chapter III studies the R&D activity's effect on innovation and innovation's effect on TFP using time series data of the whole nation and large & medium-sized state owned enterprises, panel data of three regions-east,middle and east, and industries panel data.
When we use the time series data, we find: 1) as a whole nation, R&D activity has a positive and significant influence on innovation which has a positive and significant influence on our TFP. 2) In the light of the data of large & medium-sized state owned enterprises, R&D activity of these enterprises has a positive and significant influence on innovation which results in increase to TFP of these enterprises.
When we use the panel data of three regions, we find: 1) R&D activity in every region has a positive and significant influence on innovation. And the output elasticity in eastern region is higher than that of middle & western regions, and western region's elasticity higher than middle region's. 2) On innovation's effect on three region's TFP, we think the innovation in eastern region has a significant and positive on TFP, but a insignificant and positive on middle & western.
When we use the panel data of industries we find: 1) R&D activity in high-tech manufacturing has a positive and significant influence on innovation, positive but insignificant effect in either general manufacturing or in whole manufacturing. 2) Innovation has positive but insignificant influence on TFP in whole manufacturing.
In Chapter IV, we analysize R&D's effect on innovation and innovation's effect on TFP using import & export and FDI in open economic case. We find: 1) both import & export and FDI have positive and significant influence on innovation. 2) "Secondary innovation" induced by import and FDI result in an obvious increase to our TFP, but secondary innovation induced by export has no effect on our TFP.
In Chapter V, we compare China's R&D & R&D's innovation output with that of USA's.we find that China's is a large but not a power innovation country. In the last Chapter, we sum up the major conclusions of the dissertation, and give some suggestions.
引文
[1] Abraham. P., Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Tech-novation,2001(21): 245-252.
[2] Acs. Z J., Anselin. Luc, Varga. Attila. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge[J]. Research Policy, 2002(31): 1069-1085.
[3] Adam. B, The U. S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 2000(29): 531-557.
[4] Adams. James D. Science, R&D, and invention potential recharge: U. S. evidence.The American Economic Review, 1993(83): 458-462.
[5] Aghion. P, C. Harris, and J. Vickers, Competition and growth with step-by step innovation: an Ⅸample. European Economic Review, 1997(41): 771-782.
[6] Aghion. P., and P., A Howitt model of growth through creative destruction.Econometrica, 1992(3): 323-351.
[7] AghionP., and P., A, Howitt, Research and development in the growth process.Journal of Economic Growth, 1996(1): 49-73.
[8] Anton. J, and D. Yao, Littlepatents and big secrets: managing intellectual property.Rand Journal of Eonomics, 2004(1): 1-22.
[9] Arora A., R&D and the paptent premium. 2003, NBER. Working Paper, no. 9431.
[10] Arundel. A., What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy, 1998(27): 127-141.
[11] Barrow. R, Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarter Journal of Economics, 1991 (3): 407-443.
[12] Barrow. R., Covengence. Journal of Political Economics, 1992(4): 223-251.
[13] Barrow. R., Martin. V., Covengence across states and regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Actitvity, 1991 (2): 107-158.
[14] Bar-shalom. A., Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lesson from cellpro.The Milbank Quarterly, 2002(4): 56-68..
[15] Bebczuk. R., Ⅸpenditures and the Role of Government around the World, 2002.
[16] Boldri M. The case against intellectual property[J]. Amercian Economic Reviews,2002(3):
[17] Borensztein, E, De Gregorio, J-W Lee,. How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? [J]. Journal of International Economics, 1998(45): 115-135.
[18] Cameron. G, The five drivers: a empirical review2005, 11, 10-12, discussion paper series, ISSN 1471-0498, deparment of economics, Oxford university.
[19] Caselli, F. and W. John Coleman. Cross-Country Technology Diffusion: the Case of Computer. American economic Review, 2001(2): 328-335.
[20] Coe, D. E. and E Helpman. International R&D Spillovers. European Economic Review, 1995(5): 859-887.
[21] Coriat B. , Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: origin, content and problems. Research policy, 2002, 1.
[22] Cuddington. John T, and Moss. L. Technological change, depletion, and the U. S. petroleum industry. American Economic Review, 2001(11): 351 - 148.
[23] Daniel. L, and William, F, R&D and Development. Maloney, 2003: 145-148.
[24] Dernis. D., and B. Pottelsberghe, Using patent counts for cross-country comparison of technology output, 2001, STI Review, no. 27, OECD, Paris, www. oecd. org /data oecd/26 /11/21682.
[25] Dixit, Avinash K., and Joseph E. Stiligtz. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. American Economic Review, 1977, (3): 297-308.
[26] Eaton, J. , Trade in ideas: Patenting and productivity in the OECD. Journal of international Economic, 1996(3): 251-278.
[27] Encaoua. D, and AHollande. , Competition policy and innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2002(1): 63-79.
[28] Evenson. R. E. Patents, R&D, and invention potential: International evidence[J]. The American Economic Review, 1993(83): 463-468.
[29] Freeman. C. , Continental national and sub-national innovation systems-complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 2002(31): 191-211.
[30] Furman. Jeffrey L. , Porter. Michael , and E. , Stern. S. , The determinants of national innovative capacity . Research Policy, 2002(31): 899-933.
[31] Gallini N. , The economics of patents: lesson fromrecent U. S patent reform. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 2002(16): 131-154.
[32] Gans. J. , When doesstart-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? . The Rand Journal of Economics, 2002(4): 118-136..
[33] Gans. J. and Stem S., Assessing Australia's innovative capacity in the 21st century, 2003: www. mbs. edu/jgans.
[34] Griffth, R, S., Redding and J. Van., Reenen R&D and Absorptive Capacity: From Theory to Data, Mimeo. London School of Economics, 2000(11): 187-201.
[35] Griliches. Zvi, Issuesin assessing the contribution of R&D in productivity growth,Bell Journal of Economics, 1979(10): 92-116.
[36] Griliches. Zvi, Patents: recent trends and puzzles. Brookings papers on economic activity, Microeonmics, 1989:191-330.
[37] Griliches. Zvi, Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint. American Economic Review, 1994(94): 1-23.
[38] Griliches. Zvi, R&D and productivity: the econometric evidence, Chicago University Press. 1988: 233-249.
[39] Griliches. Zvi. Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 1990(28): 1661-1707.
[40] Groshby. M, Patents, innovation and growth. Economic Record, 2000 (76):255-262.
[41] Grossman, G, and E. Helpman. Innovation and Growth on the World Economy.Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press, 1991:289-301.
[42] Grossman, G.,. and E. Helpman, Quality ladders and product cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991 (106): 557-586.
[43] Grossman, G., and E. Helpman. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 1991 (1): 43-61.
[44] Guellec. Dominique, Bruno van Pottelsberghe Potterie. The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 2001 (30): 1253-1266.
[45] Hadri, K., Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 2000(3): 148-161.
[46] Hall B., Patents and R&D, Is there a lag? International EconomicReview, 1986(9):321-354.
[47] Hall B., The patent paradox revisited: an empiricalstudy of patenting in the US semiconductor in dustry, 1970-1995. Rand Journal Eonomics, 2001 (1): 101-128.
[48] Hall. B., Business methold patents, innovation and policy, NBER working paper,2003, 9717.
[49] Hellwig. M., and A. Irmen., Endogenuous technological change in a competitive economy. Journal of Economic Theory, 2000(101): 1-39.
[50] Hunt. R., Patentablity, industry structure, and innovation. Federal reserve bank of Philadelphia, 2003, Working pape, r 01-13/R.
[51] Hyeog Ug Kwon and Tomohikon Inui, R&D and productivity growth in Japanese manufacturing firms, 2003(6): 51-55.
[52] Im, K. S, Pesaran, M. H. , Shin, Y. , Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 2003(115): 53-74.
[53] Jaffe. Adam B. , Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 1989(79): 957-970.
[54] Jaffe. Adam B. , The U. S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process . Research Policy, 2000(29): 531-557.
[55] Jaffe. Adam B. Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 1989, (79): 957-970.
[56] Johnes. C, R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1995(8): 759-784.
[57] Jones. C, Times series tests of endogenous growth models. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995(2): 495-525.
[58] Jones. Charles I. R&D based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1995(103): 759-784.
[59] Kao, C. , Chiang, M. H. , On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated Regression in Panel Data. 1998. Working Paper, Center for Policy Reserarch , Syrscuse University.
[60] Kao, C. , Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics , 1999(190): 1-40.
[61] Kortum. S, Equilibrium R&D and the patent-R&D ratio: U. S. evidence. American Economic Review, 1993(83): 450-457.
[62] Kremer, M, . Population growth and technological change: one million B. C. to 1990. Quarter Journal of Economics. 1993(8): 618-716.
[63] Levin, A., Lin, C. -F., Chu, C. -S. J., Unit root test in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics , 2002(108): 1-24.
[64] Levin, A., Lin, C. -F., Chu, C. -S. J., Unit root test in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 2002(108): 1-24。
[65] Lichtenberg. R. , The Private R&D Investment To Federal Design And Technical. American Economic Review, 1988 (78): 550-559.
[66] Lucas. R. , On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1988(22): 3-42.
[67] Mahmood. Ishtiaq P. , Singh. Jasjit. Technological dynamism in Asia. Research Policy, 2003(32): 1031-1054.
[68] Mankiw. N, Romer, D., and Weil, D,. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992(5): 407-437.
[69] Marios Zachariandis. R&D, innovation, technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. 2002(9):
[70] MaurerM. and Scotchmer. S., The independent invention defense in intellectual property. Econometrica, 2002(69): 535-547.
[71] Mazzoleni. Roberto, Nelson. Richard R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 1998(27):273-284.
[72] McCoskey, S., Kao, C., A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 1998(17): 57-84.
[73] Nadiri. M, Innovation and technological spillovers. Working paper no. 4423.Cambridge, Mass. : NBER, 1993(8)
[74] P. Howitt and P. Aghion. Capital Accumulation and Innovation as Complementary Factors in Long-Run Growth, " Journal of Economic Growth, 1998, (2): 111-130
[75] P. Howitt. Endogenous Growth and Cross-Country Income Differences. American Economic Review, 2000, (4): 829-846
[76] Pavitt. K., Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 1985(7)69-77.
[77] Pedroni, P., 1995. Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Manuscript, Department of Economics, Indiana University. 1995:138-157.
[78] Pedroni, P., Fully modified OLS for the heterogeneous cointegrated panel.Advances in Economerics, 2000(5): 93-130.
[79] Romer P., Increasing returns and long-run growth[J]. Journal of Political Economics, 1986(10): 1002-1037.
[80] Romer. P., Endogenous technological change[J]. Journal of Political Economics, 1990(10): 71-102.
[81] Romer. P., Grazy, Ⅸplantions for the productivity slowdown, 1987, NBER Macroeconomics, Annual 1987.
[82] Romer. P., The origins of endogenous growth[J]. Journal of Economics Perspetitives,1994(8): 3-22.
[83] Savvides. B., Intrrnation technology diffusion and TFP growth, 2003.
[84] Schere. M., Inter-industry technology flows and productivity growth. The Review of Economis and Statistic, 1982(64): 627-634.
[85] Schmookler. J., Determinaants of incentive activity. American Economic Review,1962(52): 108-119.
[86] Shapiro. C.. Competition policy and innovation, OECD STI, Working Paper 2002/11.
[87] Stokey, N., R&D and economic growth. Manusript, Chicago: Univ, Chicago, 1992,July.
[88] Verspagen. B., R&D and productivity: a broad cross-section look. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 1995(6): 117-135.
[89] [美]Cheng Hsiao．面板数据分析．北京大学出版社，2005：125-131．
[90] [美]F．M．谢勒．创新-经济增长的原动力．新华出版社，2001：36-42
[91] [美]G．格罗斯曼，E．赫尔普曼．全球经济增长中的创新与增长．中国人民大学出版社，2003：19-35．
[92] [美]J．约翰斯顿，J．迪纳尔多．计量经济学方法．中国经济出版社，2002：102-109．
[93] [美]P．阿据翁，P．豪依特．内生增长理论．北京大学出版社，2004：20-36．
[94] [美]R．巴罗，X．萨拉伊马丁．经济增长．中国社会科学出版社，2000：15-28．
[95] [美]查尔斯．琼斯．经济增长导论．北京大学出版社，2002：17-22．．
[96] [美]古扎拉蒂．计量经济学．中国人民大学出版社，2003：189-216．
[97] 安同良，施浩，Alcorta．中国制造业企业R&D行为模式的观测与实证-基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．经济研究，2006(2)：17-24
[98] 陈漫．中国引进外商直接投资的实效分析．战略与管理，2001(3)：31-35．
[99] 邓翔．人力资本、R&D与中国内生经济增长．中国科技论，2005(6)：120-124．
[100] 董雪兵，史晋川．累积创新框架下的知识产权保护研究．经济研究，2006(5)：35-46．
[101] 方希桦，包群，赖明勇．国际技术溢出：基于进口传导机制的实证研究．中国软科学，2004，(7)：58-64．
[102] 方新．创业与创新，中国人民大学出版社，1998：25-32．
[103] 何洁．外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000(12)：45-53．
[104] 黄先海，石东楠．对外贸易对我国TFP影响的测度与分析．世界经济研究，2005 (1)：22-26．
[105] 惠宁，白晔．内生增长理论与我国西部地区的经济发展技术进步．延安大学学报-社会科学版，2002，(2)：78-83．
[106] 蒋殿春，夏良科，外商直接投资对中国高技术产业技术创新作用的经验分析．世界经济，2005(8)：35-42．
[107] 赖明勇，袁媛．R&D、国际技术外溢及人力资本：一个经验研究．科研管理，2005(7)：62-67．
[108] 赖明勇，张新，彭水军，包群．经济增长的源泉：人力资本+研究开放与技术外溢．中国社会科学，2005(2)：32-46．
[109] 李强．基于内生增长理论的我国科技投入产出绩效评价模型研究．科学管理研究，2006，(4)：93-99．
[110] 李小平，朱钟棣．国际贸易、R&D溢出和生产率增长．经济研究，2006(2)：31-43．
[111] 李小平，朱钟棣．国际贸易的技术溢出门槛效应-基于中国各地区面板数据的分析．统计研究，2004(10)：27-32．
[112] 李雪峰．人力资本、R&D与中国内生经济增长．中国科技论坛，2005，(6)：120-125．
[113] 李志宏．R&D、R&D溢出、内生增长和内生收敛．当代经济科学，2006，(1)：1-11．
[114] 鲁文龙，陈宏民．R&D合作与政府最优政策博弈分析．中国管理科学，2003，(1)：60-62．
[115] 马利民，王海建．耗竭性资源约束之下的R&D内生经济增长模型．预测，2001，(4)：62-65．
[116] 美国专利与商标局．http:www.uspto.gov.
[117] 欧洲专利组织．http://www.european-patent-office.org.
[118] 潘士远，史晋川．内生经济增长理论．经济学季刊，2002(4)：753-786．
[119] 潘士远，史晋川．内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述．经济学(季刊)，2002，(7)：753-786．
[120] 潘文卿．外商投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应：基本面板数据的分析．世界经济，2003(6)：32-39．
[121] 沈坤荣，耿强．外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长．中国社会科学，2001(5)：82-93．
[122] 世界知识产权组织工业产权统计．http://www.wipo.int.
[123] 陶冶，许龙．我国R&D投入与专利产出的关系研究．科技进步与对策，2007，(3)：7-11
[124] 涂正革，肖耿．中国的工业生产力．经济研究2005(3)：4-15．
[125] 王飞．外商直接投资促进了国内工业企业技术进步吗7．世界经济研究，2003(4)：42-49．
[126] 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．经济研究，2006(2)：34-41．
[127] 王志刚．面板数据模型及其在经济分析中的应用．经济科学出版社，2008：123-136．
[128] 王志鹏，李子奈．外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长．世界经济文汇，2004(4)：21-27．
[129] 吴延兵．R&D、创新与生产率--中国工业产业的经验证据．中国社会科学院研究生院，2006(5)．
[130] 吴易风，朱勇．内生增长理论的新发展．中国人民大学学报，2000，(5)：25-33．
[131] 冼国明，严兵．FDI对中国创新能力的溢出效应．世界经济，2005(10)：46-51．
[132] 杨剑波，郭小群．R&D内生经济增长理论综述与引申．改革，2008，(1)：154-157．
[133] 杨剑波．进口贸易、人力资本与中国技术创新：基于面板数据的一个经验分析．经济经纬，2009，(1)：42-46．
[134] 杨剑波．外国直接投资与我国技术创新研究．国际商务．2007，(2)：79-83．
[135] 殷德生，唐海燕．技能型技术进步、南北贸易与工资不平衡．经济研究，2006(5)：67-74．
[136] 余长林．人力资本投资结构及其经济增长效应--基于扩展MRW模型的内生增长理论与实证研究．数量经济技术经济研究，2006，(12)：117-126．
[137] 张海洋．R&D两面性、外资活动与中国工业生产率增长．经济研究，2005(5)：34-42．
[138] 张亚斌，曾铮．有关经济增长理论中技术进步及研发投资理论中的述评．经济评论，2005(6)：63-67．
[139] 赵喜仓，陈海波．我国R&D状况的区域比较分析．统计研究，2003，(3)：38-42．
[140] 赵喜仓，海波．我国R&D状况的区域比较分析．统计研究，2003，(3)：38-42．
[141] 郑京海，刘小玄．1980-1984期间中国国有企业的效率、技术进步和最佳实践． 经济学(季刊)，2002(3)：521-540．
[142] 中国科技发展战略研究小组．2003中国区域创新能力报告．经济管理出版社，2004：19-38．
[143] 中国科技统信息．http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn
[144] 中国知识产权网．http://www.cnipr.com.
[145] 周黎安，罗凯．企业规模与创新：来自中国省级水平的经验证据．经济学(季刊)，2005(3)．
[146] 朱春奎．上海R&D投入与经济增长关系的协整分析．中国科技论坛，2004(6)：46-51．
[147] 朱春奎．上海R&D投入与经济增长关系的协整分析．中国科技论坛，2004，(6)：79-83．
[148] 左大培，杨春学．经济增长理论模型的内生化历程．中国经济出版社，2007：357-360．
[149] 左大培．内生稳态增长模型的生产结构．中国社会科学出版社，2004：221-230．
[2] Acs. Z J., Anselin. Luc, Varga. Attila. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge[J]. Research Policy, 2002(31): 1069-1085.
[3] Adam. B, The U. S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 2000(29): 531-557.
[4] Adams. James D. Science, R&D, and invention potential recharge: U. S. evidence.The American Economic Review, 1993(83): 458-462.
[5] Aghion. P, C. Harris, and J. Vickers, Competition and growth with step-by step innovation: an Ⅸample. European Economic Review, 1997(41): 771-782.
[6] Aghion. P., and P., A Howitt model of growth through creative destruction.Econometrica, 1992(3): 323-351.
[7] AghionP., and P., A, Howitt, Research and development in the growth process.Journal of Economic Growth, 1996(1): 49-73.
[8] Anton. J, and D. Yao, Littlepatents and big secrets: managing intellectual property.Rand Journal of Eonomics, 2004(1): 1-22.
[9] Arora A., R&D and the paptent premium. 2003, NBER. Working Paper, no. 9431.
[10] Arundel. A., What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy, 1998(27): 127-141.
[11] Barrow. R, Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarter Journal of Economics, 1991 (3): 407-443.
[12] Barrow. R., Covengence. Journal of Political Economics, 1992(4): 223-251.
[13] Barrow. R., Martin. V., Covengence across states and regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Actitvity, 1991 (2): 107-158.
[14] Bar-shalom. A., Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lesson from cellpro.The Milbank Quarterly, 2002(4): 56-68..
[15] Bebczuk. R., Ⅸpenditures and the Role of Government around the World, 2002.
[16] Boldri M. The case against intellectual property[J]. Amercian Economic Reviews,2002(3):
[17] Borensztein, E, De Gregorio, J-W Lee,. How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? [J]. Journal of International Economics, 1998(45): 115-135.
[18] Cameron. G, The five drivers: a empirical review2005, 11, 10-12, discussion paper series, ISSN 1471-0498, deparment of economics, Oxford university.
[19] Caselli, F. and W. John Coleman. Cross-Country Technology Diffusion: the Case of Computer. American economic Review, 2001(2): 328-335.
[20] Coe, D. E. and E Helpman. International R&D Spillovers. European Economic Review, 1995(5): 859-887.
[21] Coriat B. , Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: origin, content and problems. Research policy, 2002, 1.
[22] Cuddington. John T, and Moss. L. Technological change, depletion, and the U. S. petroleum industry. American Economic Review, 2001(11): 351 - 148.
[23] Daniel. L, and William, F, R&D and Development. Maloney, 2003: 145-148.
[24] Dernis. D., and B. Pottelsberghe, Using patent counts for cross-country comparison of technology output, 2001, STI Review, no. 27, OECD, Paris, www. oecd. org /data oecd/26 /11/21682.
[25] Dixit, Avinash K., and Joseph E. Stiligtz. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. American Economic Review, 1977, (3): 297-308.
[26] Eaton, J. , Trade in ideas: Patenting and productivity in the OECD. Journal of international Economic, 1996(3): 251-278.
[27] Encaoua. D, and AHollande. , Competition policy and innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2002(1): 63-79.
[28] Evenson. R. E. Patents, R&D, and invention potential: International evidence[J]. The American Economic Review, 1993(83): 463-468.
[29] Freeman. C. , Continental national and sub-national innovation systems-complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 2002(31): 191-211.
[30] Furman. Jeffrey L. , Porter. Michael , and E. , Stern. S. , The determinants of national innovative capacity . Research Policy, 2002(31): 899-933.
[31] Gallini N. , The economics of patents: lesson fromrecent U. S patent reform. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 2002(16): 131-154.
[32] Gans. J. , When doesstart-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? . The Rand Journal of Economics, 2002(4): 118-136..
[33] Gans. J. and Stem S., Assessing Australia's innovative capacity in the 21st century, 2003: www. mbs. edu/jgans.
[34] Griffth, R, S., Redding and J. Van., Reenen R&D and Absorptive Capacity: From Theory to Data, Mimeo. London School of Economics, 2000(11): 187-201.
[35] Griliches. Zvi, Issuesin assessing the contribution of R&D in productivity growth,Bell Journal of Economics, 1979(10): 92-116.
[36] Griliches. Zvi, Patents: recent trends and puzzles. Brookings papers on economic activity, Microeonmics, 1989:191-330.
[37] Griliches. Zvi, Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint. American Economic Review, 1994(94): 1-23.
[38] Griliches. Zvi, R&D and productivity: the econometric evidence, Chicago University Press. 1988: 233-249.
[39] Griliches. Zvi. Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 1990(28): 1661-1707.
[40] Groshby. M, Patents, innovation and growth. Economic Record, 2000 (76):255-262.
[41] Grossman, G, and E. Helpman. Innovation and Growth on the World Economy.Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press, 1991:289-301.
[42] Grossman, G.,. and E. Helpman, Quality ladders and product cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991 (106): 557-586.
[43] Grossman, G., and E. Helpman. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 1991 (1): 43-61.
[44] Guellec. Dominique, Bruno van Pottelsberghe Potterie. The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 2001 (30): 1253-1266.
[45] Hadri, K., Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 2000(3): 148-161.
[46] Hall B., Patents and R&D, Is there a lag? International EconomicReview, 1986(9):321-354.
[47] Hall B., The patent paradox revisited: an empiricalstudy of patenting in the US semiconductor in dustry, 1970-1995. Rand Journal Eonomics, 2001 (1): 101-128.
[48] Hall. B., Business methold patents, innovation and policy, NBER working paper,2003, 9717.
[49] Hellwig. M., and A. Irmen., Endogenuous technological change in a competitive economy. Journal of Economic Theory, 2000(101): 1-39.
[50] Hunt. R., Patentablity, industry structure, and innovation. Federal reserve bank of Philadelphia, 2003, Working pape, r 01-13/R.
[51] Hyeog Ug Kwon and Tomohikon Inui, R&D and productivity growth in Japanese manufacturing firms, 2003(6): 51-55.
[52] Im, K. S, Pesaran, M. H. , Shin, Y. , Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 2003(115): 53-74.
[53] Jaffe. Adam B. , Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 1989(79): 957-970.
[54] Jaffe. Adam B. , The U. S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process . Research Policy, 2000(29): 531-557.
[55] Jaffe. Adam B. Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 1989, (79): 957-970.
[56] Johnes. C, R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1995(8): 759-784.
[57] Jones. C, Times series tests of endogenous growth models. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995(2): 495-525.
[58] Jones. Charles I. R&D based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1995(103): 759-784.
[59] Kao, C. , Chiang, M. H. , On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated Regression in Panel Data. 1998. Working Paper, Center for Policy Reserarch , Syrscuse University.
[60] Kao, C. , Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics , 1999(190): 1-40.
[61] Kortum. S, Equilibrium R&D and the patent-R&D ratio: U. S. evidence. American Economic Review, 1993(83): 450-457.
[62] Kremer, M, . Population growth and technological change: one million B. C. to 1990. Quarter Journal of Economics. 1993(8): 618-716.
[63] Levin, A., Lin, C. -F., Chu, C. -S. J., Unit root test in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics , 2002(108): 1-24.
[64] Levin, A., Lin, C. -F., Chu, C. -S. J., Unit root test in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 2002(108): 1-24。
[65] Lichtenberg. R. , The Private R&D Investment To Federal Design And Technical. American Economic Review, 1988 (78): 550-559.
[66] Lucas. R. , On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1988(22): 3-42.
[67] Mahmood. Ishtiaq P. , Singh. Jasjit. Technological dynamism in Asia. Research Policy, 2003(32): 1031-1054.
[68] Mankiw. N, Romer, D., and Weil, D,. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992(5): 407-437.
[69] Marios Zachariandis. R&D, innovation, technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. 2002(9):
[70] MaurerM. and Scotchmer. S., The independent invention defense in intellectual property. Econometrica, 2002(69): 535-547.
[71] Mazzoleni. Roberto, Nelson. Richard R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 1998(27):273-284.
[72] McCoskey, S., Kao, C., A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 1998(17): 57-84.
[73] Nadiri. M, Innovation and technological spillovers. Working paper no. 4423.Cambridge, Mass. : NBER, 1993(8)
[74] P. Howitt and P. Aghion. Capital Accumulation and Innovation as Complementary Factors in Long-Run Growth, " Journal of Economic Growth, 1998, (2): 111-130
[75] P. Howitt. Endogenous Growth and Cross-Country Income Differences. American Economic Review, 2000, (4): 829-846
[76] Pavitt. K., Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 1985(7)69-77.
[77] Pedroni, P., 1995. Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Manuscript, Department of Economics, Indiana University. 1995:138-157.
[78] Pedroni, P., Fully modified OLS for the heterogeneous cointegrated panel.Advances in Economerics, 2000(5): 93-130.
[79] Romer P., Increasing returns and long-run growth[J]. Journal of Political Economics, 1986(10): 1002-1037.
[80] Romer. P., Endogenous technological change[J]. Journal of Political Economics, 1990(10): 71-102.
[81] Romer. P., Grazy, Ⅸplantions for the productivity slowdown, 1987, NBER Macroeconomics, Annual 1987.
[82] Romer. P., The origins of endogenous growth[J]. Journal of Economics Perspetitives,1994(8): 3-22.
[83] Savvides. B., Intrrnation technology diffusion and TFP growth, 2003.
[84] Schere. M., Inter-industry technology flows and productivity growth. The Review of Economis and Statistic, 1982(64): 627-634.
[85] Schmookler. J., Determinaants of incentive activity. American Economic Review,1962(52): 108-119.
[86] Shapiro. C.. Competition policy and innovation, OECD STI, Working Paper 2002/11.
[87] Stokey, N., R&D and economic growth. Manusript, Chicago: Univ, Chicago, 1992,July.
[88] Verspagen. B., R&D and productivity: a broad cross-section look. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 1995(6): 117-135.
[89] [美]Cheng Hsiao．面板数据分析．北京大学出版社，2005：125-131．
[90] [美]F．M．谢勒．创新-经济增长的原动力．新华出版社，2001：36-42
[91] [美]G．格罗斯曼，E．赫尔普曼．全球经济增长中的创新与增长．中国人民大学出版社，2003：19-35．
[92] [美]J．约翰斯顿，J．迪纳尔多．计量经济学方法．中国经济出版社，2002：102-109．
[93] [美]P．阿据翁，P．豪依特．内生增长理论．北京大学出版社，2004：20-36．
[94] [美]R．巴罗，X．萨拉伊马丁．经济增长．中国社会科学出版社，2000：15-28．
[95] [美]查尔斯．琼斯．经济增长导论．北京大学出版社，2002：17-22．．
[96] [美]古扎拉蒂．计量经济学．中国人民大学出版社，2003：189-216．
[97] 安同良，施浩，Alcorta．中国制造业企业R&D行为模式的观测与实证-基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．经济研究，2006(2)：17-24
[98] 陈漫．中国引进外商直接投资的实效分析．战略与管理，2001(3)：31-35．
[99] 邓翔．人力资本、R&D与中国内生经济增长．中国科技论，2005(6)：120-124．
[100] 董雪兵，史晋川．累积创新框架下的知识产权保护研究．经济研究，2006(5)：35-46．
[101] 方希桦，包群，赖明勇．国际技术溢出：基于进口传导机制的实证研究．中国软科学，2004，(7)：58-64．
[102] 方新．创业与创新，中国人民大学出版社，1998：25-32．
[103] 何洁．外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000(12)：45-53．
[104] 黄先海，石东楠．对外贸易对我国TFP影响的测度与分析．世界经济研究，2005 (1)：22-26．
[105] 惠宁，白晔．内生增长理论与我国西部地区的经济发展技术进步．延安大学学报-社会科学版，2002，(2)：78-83．
[106] 蒋殿春，夏良科，外商直接投资对中国高技术产业技术创新作用的经验分析．世界经济，2005(8)：35-42．
[107] 赖明勇，袁媛．R&D、国际技术外溢及人力资本：一个经验研究．科研管理，2005(7)：62-67．
[108] 赖明勇，张新，彭水军，包群．经济增长的源泉：人力资本+研究开放与技术外溢．中国社会科学，2005(2)：32-46．
[109] 李强．基于内生增长理论的我国科技投入产出绩效评价模型研究．科学管理研究，2006，(4)：93-99．
[110] 李小平，朱钟棣．国际贸易、R&D溢出和生产率增长．经济研究，2006(2)：31-43．
[111] 李小平，朱钟棣．国际贸易的技术溢出门槛效应-基于中国各地区面板数据的分析．统计研究，2004(10)：27-32．
[112] 李雪峰．人力资本、R&D与中国内生经济增长．中国科技论坛，2005，(6)：120-125．
[113] 李志宏．R&D、R&D溢出、内生增长和内生收敛．当代经济科学，2006，(1)：1-11．
[114] 鲁文龙，陈宏民．R&D合作与政府最优政策博弈分析．中国管理科学，2003，(1)：60-62．
[115] 马利民，王海建．耗竭性资源约束之下的R&D内生经济增长模型．预测，2001，(4)：62-65．
[116] 美国专利与商标局．http:www.uspto.gov.
[117] 欧洲专利组织．http://www.european-patent-office.org.
[118] 潘士远，史晋川．内生经济增长理论．经济学季刊，2002(4)：753-786．
[119] 潘士远，史晋川．内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述．经济学(季刊)，2002，(7)：753-786．
[120] 潘文卿．外商投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应：基本面板数据的分析．世界经济，2003(6)：32-39．
[121] 沈坤荣，耿强．外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长．中国社会科学，2001(5)：82-93．
[122] 世界知识产权组织工业产权统计．http://www.wipo.int.
[123] 陶冶，许龙．我国R&D投入与专利产出的关系研究．科技进步与对策，2007，(3)：7-11
[124] 涂正革，肖耿．中国的工业生产力．经济研究2005(3)：4-15．
[125] 王飞．外商直接投资促进了国内工业企业技术进步吗7．世界经济研究，2003(4)：42-49．
[126] 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．经济研究，2006(2)：34-41．
[127] 王志刚．面板数据模型及其在经济分析中的应用．经济科学出版社，2008：123-136．
[128] 王志鹏，李子奈．外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长．世界经济文汇，2004(4)：21-27．
[129] 吴延兵．R&D、创新与生产率--中国工业产业的经验证据．中国社会科学院研究生院，2006(5)．
[130] 吴易风，朱勇．内生增长理论的新发展．中国人民大学学报，2000，(5)：25-33．
[131] 冼国明，严兵．FDI对中国创新能力的溢出效应．世界经济，2005(10)：46-51．
[132] 杨剑波，郭小群．R&D内生经济增长理论综述与引申．改革，2008，(1)：154-157．
[133] 杨剑波．进口贸易、人力资本与中国技术创新：基于面板数据的一个经验分析．经济经纬，2009，(1)：42-46．
[134] 杨剑波．外国直接投资与我国技术创新研究．国际商务．2007，(2)：79-83．
[135] 殷德生，唐海燕．技能型技术进步、南北贸易与工资不平衡．经济研究，2006(5)：67-74．
[136] 余长林．人力资本投资结构及其经济增长效应--基于扩展MRW模型的内生增长理论与实证研究．数量经济技术经济研究，2006，(12)：117-126．
[137] 张海洋．R&D两面性、外资活动与中国工业生产率增长．经济研究，2005(5)：34-42．
[138] 张亚斌，曾铮．有关经济增长理论中技术进步及研发投资理论中的述评．经济评论，2005(6)：63-67．
[139] 赵喜仓，陈海波．我国R&D状况的区域比较分析．统计研究，2003，(3)：38-42．
[140] 赵喜仓，海波．我国R&D状况的区域比较分析．统计研究，2003，(3)：38-42．
[141] 郑京海，刘小玄．1980-1984期间中国国有企业的效率、技术进步和最佳实践． 经济学(季刊)，2002(3)：521-540．
[142] 中国科技发展战略研究小组．2003中国区域创新能力报告．经济管理出版社，2004：19-38．
[143] 中国科技统信息．http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn
[144] 中国知识产权网．http://www.cnipr.com.
[145] 周黎安，罗凯．企业规模与创新：来自中国省级水平的经验证据．经济学(季刊)，2005(3)．
[146] 朱春奎．上海R&D投入与经济增长关系的协整分析．中国科技论坛，2004(6)：46-51．
[147] 朱春奎．上海R&D投入与经济增长关系的协整分析．中国科技论坛，2004，(6)：79-83．
[148] 左大培，杨春学．经济增长理论模型的内生化历程．中国经济出版社，2007：357-360．
[149] 左大培．内生稳态增长模型的生产结构．中国社会科学出版社，2004：221-230．