技术进步、技术性贸易壁垒与国际贸易定义系统研究
|
摘要
20世纪80年代以来,以信息技术、生物技术为代表的科学技术进步带动了高新技术产业的发展,高新技术产业已经成为推动国际贸易高速发展的主导力量,高新技术产品出口已经成为国际贸易新的增长点。目前新技术革命已经改变了国际分工的格局,赋予了国际贸易不同的内涵,由技术水平决定的国际分工和贸易比较优势的重要性日益增长。
传统的国际贸易理论更多的是关注劳动要素和资本要素在国家间的比较优势,其中以李嘉图为代表的古典贸易理论认为劳动是唯一的生产要素,而赫克希尔—俄林为代表的古典贸易理论假定国家间技术水平是相同的,并在此基础上分析资本和劳动要素禀赋对国际贸易的影响。以克鲁格曼为代表的新贸易理论开始分析技术与贸易的相互动态关系,但是多数研究都集中在贸易对技术的影响,比如国际贸易过程中的技术外溢、技术扩散和干中学等。本文重点研究技术进步对国际贸易的影响,研究主要分为三个部分,第一部分研究出口国技术进步对国际贸易的影响;第二部分研究进口国技术进步演进为技术性贸易壁垒对国际贸易的影响;第三部分讨论技术进步促进贸易发展的战略性贸易政策,并对中国的科技兴贸战略进行实证研究。
本文首先从经济学理论角度分析出口国技术进步促进国际贸易增长的原因,然后建立包含资本、劳动和技术的三要素出口增长模型,通过建立出口增长率与技术进步率之间的函数,从理论上证明技术进步对出口增长具有直接的促进作用。其次,对中国技术进步与出口增长之间的关系用实证的方法进行研究,结果证明中国的技术进步与出口增长之间具有长期的均衡关系(协整关系),而且技术进步是出口增长的格兰杰成因。再次,文章用面板数据的方法将中国与美国、德国、法国、英国、日本、加拿大这六个贸易大国进行了比较分析,发现中国的技术进步虽然对出口增长有一定的促进作用,但是与发达国家相比作用明显较小。中国的对外贸易以加工贸易为主,自主创新能力不足,科技成果转化率较低等因素,是中国技术进步对出口增长的影响力相对较弱的原因。实证结果表明,各个省市技术进步对出口增长的促进作用也存在较大差异,在人力资源相对丰富,工业基础相对雄厚,经济外向性相对更强的地区,技术进步对出口增长的促进作用相对更为明显,而在经济不发达和出口能力较弱的省份,通过技术进步促进出口增长的作用相对较弱。
文章结合WTO的相关规定对技术性贸易壁垒的成因和特征进行了分析,指出进口国技术进步和政府干预是技术性贸易壁垒形成的主要因素。虽然技术性贸易壁垒对于保护人类身体健康、保护环境和公共安全、提高国际贸易的整体水平等方面有一定的积极作用,但是其客观上提高了国际贸易的成本,对出口国产生了类似于关税效应的抑制作用,因此,进口国技术进步演进为技术性贸易壁垒会成为国际贸易增长的不利因素。文章用博弈论的方法对国家间技术性贸易壁垒的形成进行了分析,指出具备技术和贸易优势的发达国家,更倾向于主动采取设置技术性贸易壁垒的战略并从中获得利益,而发展中国家却只能被迫采取亦步亦趋的跟从策略。文章进一步对美国、欧盟等国家和地区技术性贸易壁垒的特点及趋势进行分析,总结了技术性贸易壁垒对国际贸易的不利影响,并重点分析了发达国家技术性贸易壁垒对中国出口的不利影响,最后提出中国依托技术进步跨越国外技术性贸易壁垒的政策建议。
文章对发达国家通过技术进步促进贸易发展的战略性贸易政策进行了回顾,并结合经济学理论进行了分析,总结了发达国家在实施过程中的经验和教训。本文指出战略性贸易政策可以促进高新技术产业的发展,但是也容易导致寻租行为的发生以及资源配置的扭曲。中国作为一个发展中国家,国内市场的资源配置存在一定程度的市场失灵,因此应适当进行政府干预,审慎使用战略性贸易政策,通过研发补贴和有效保护的方式,积极通过技术进步促进国际贸易的发展。另外,本文对中国的战略性贸易政策——科技兴贸战略进行了实证分析,结果证明科技兴贸战略促进了我国高新技术产品出口,带动了我国出口商品结构调整以及出口增长速度大幅提高,为国民经济和对外贸易的发展做出了积极贡献。但是我国科技兴贸战略依然存在一些问题,如出口产品的技术含量不高、出口高速增长与低效益并存等等问题。最后,文章指出实施科技兴贸战略是中国由贸易大国向贸易强国跨越的必由之路,并提出了相应的政策建议。
In recent years, the hi-tech industry has become the pioneer of the international trade because of the tremendous development of technology in every aspect of human life, such as communication and biology. As a result, hi-tech production export has increased very quickly all over the world, which has changed pattern of international trade and comparative advantages among the countries.
The traditional trade theories usually focused on the comparative advantage in the production. For example, the Comparative Advantage Theory of David Ricardo considered the labor as the only factor in the international trade. So each country specializes in the production of the goods and the export of them in which it has comparative advantages. Also, the H-O theory considered that there are two factors of production, labor and capital between the two nations. Meanwhile, it assumes that all nations use the same technology in production and the relatively labor-rich nation exports the relatively labor-intensive commodity and imports the relatively capital-intensive commodity. But the previous trade-theory literature gave no explicit reasons for the difference in comparative costs. New theories of international trade pioneered by Krugman and other economists focus on the nature of technological differences among countries, in order to make the model consistent with observed patterns of trade. But many of researches focused on technology diffusion, spillovers and learning-by-doing in the trade. The author will study how technology affects the international trade. The paper is divided into three parts, the first part deals with the impact on trade brought about by the technological development of the export country, and the second part focuses on the impact on trade brought about by the technological development of the import country, and the last part of the article discusses strategic trade policies home and abroad.
At first the article analyses the cause of technology promoting trade from the angle of economics and establishes a function of increasing rate of export and improving rate of technology through constructing the export model, through which the author draws a conclusion that technology progress can promote the exports. And then, an empirical study of technology and trade proves that there is a cointegration between China’s technology progress and export, and technology progress is also the reason of the increase of export. Moreover, the empirical study of panel data concludes that the impact of Chinese technological progress on exports is still limited compared with those developed countries, such as America, Japan, France, Germany, and so on. This limited impact is mainly due to the high proportion of the processing trade and relatively low capacity to turn the technological innovation into the production. Also, there are substantial differences among the provinces in China. In fact, the provinces with better tradition of the export and innovation are more capable to increase the export by technology, and vice versa.
The article analyses the reason and character of technical barriers to trade through the research on WTO regulations, and concludes that technological difference and progress is an important factor that causes technical barriers to trade (TBT). The TBT can actually protect people’health, environment and public safety, but they becomes the barriers in its real sense because it increases the cost of trade like the tariff. Also, the article analyses the TBT in game theory, and concludes that the developed countries with technological advantage incline to set up TBT initiatively for their own interests, and the developing countries have to adapt to TBT. In addition, the article analyses the character and trend of TBT in America and European Union. TBT’s negative impact on the international trade, especially on China’s export is also studied in the article. So the suggestion to increasing China’s exports is given that China should make tremendous technology progress to overcome TBT.
The last but not the least, the article analyses strategic trade policies in the developed countries and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the strategic trade policies which promote exports by means of technology. The conclusion can be drawn that the strategic trade policies can increase the export, especially the export of hi-tech products, but they may decrease the market efficiency, such as the distortion of the allocation of the resources. China, a developing country with a huge amount of international trade, should have some strategic trade policies to increase the export by technology; for example, R&D subsidy and effective protection. At last, the article empirically studies the Chinese strategic trade policy, Stratagem of Trade Promoted by Science & Technology, and draws the conclusion that it increases the export especially of hi-tech products and promotes the development of economy and trade. But there are some problems still exist; for example, the technical content of exports is not high comparatively. Thus, the experience and lessons can be acquired, and the suggestion to policies of China’s international trade is put forward in the article. So we can conclude that China’s strategic policy which promotes trade by technology is the essential way to make China a powerful country in trade.
传统的国际贸易理论更多的是关注劳动要素和资本要素在国家间的比较优势,其中以李嘉图为代表的古典贸易理论认为劳动是唯一的生产要素,而赫克希尔—俄林为代表的古典贸易理论假定国家间技术水平是相同的,并在此基础上分析资本和劳动要素禀赋对国际贸易的影响。以克鲁格曼为代表的新贸易理论开始分析技术与贸易的相互动态关系,但是多数研究都集中在贸易对技术的影响,比如国际贸易过程中的技术外溢、技术扩散和干中学等。本文重点研究技术进步对国际贸易的影响,研究主要分为三个部分,第一部分研究出口国技术进步对国际贸易的影响;第二部分研究进口国技术进步演进为技术性贸易壁垒对国际贸易的影响;第三部分讨论技术进步促进贸易发展的战略性贸易政策,并对中国的科技兴贸战略进行实证研究。
本文首先从经济学理论角度分析出口国技术进步促进国际贸易增长的原因,然后建立包含资本、劳动和技术的三要素出口增长模型,通过建立出口增长率与技术进步率之间的函数,从理论上证明技术进步对出口增长具有直接的促进作用。其次,对中国技术进步与出口增长之间的关系用实证的方法进行研究,结果证明中国的技术进步与出口增长之间具有长期的均衡关系(协整关系),而且技术进步是出口增长的格兰杰成因。再次,文章用面板数据的方法将中国与美国、德国、法国、英国、日本、加拿大这六个贸易大国进行了比较分析,发现中国的技术进步虽然对出口增长有一定的促进作用,但是与发达国家相比作用明显较小。中国的对外贸易以加工贸易为主,自主创新能力不足,科技成果转化率较低等因素,是中国技术进步对出口增长的影响力相对较弱的原因。实证结果表明,各个省市技术进步对出口增长的促进作用也存在较大差异,在人力资源相对丰富,工业基础相对雄厚,经济外向性相对更强的地区,技术进步对出口增长的促进作用相对更为明显,而在经济不发达和出口能力较弱的省份,通过技术进步促进出口增长的作用相对较弱。
文章结合WTO的相关规定对技术性贸易壁垒的成因和特征进行了分析,指出进口国技术进步和政府干预是技术性贸易壁垒形成的主要因素。虽然技术性贸易壁垒对于保护人类身体健康、保护环境和公共安全、提高国际贸易的整体水平等方面有一定的积极作用,但是其客观上提高了国际贸易的成本,对出口国产生了类似于关税效应的抑制作用,因此,进口国技术进步演进为技术性贸易壁垒会成为国际贸易增长的不利因素。文章用博弈论的方法对国家间技术性贸易壁垒的形成进行了分析,指出具备技术和贸易优势的发达国家,更倾向于主动采取设置技术性贸易壁垒的战略并从中获得利益,而发展中国家却只能被迫采取亦步亦趋的跟从策略。文章进一步对美国、欧盟等国家和地区技术性贸易壁垒的特点及趋势进行分析,总结了技术性贸易壁垒对国际贸易的不利影响,并重点分析了发达国家技术性贸易壁垒对中国出口的不利影响,最后提出中国依托技术进步跨越国外技术性贸易壁垒的政策建议。
文章对发达国家通过技术进步促进贸易发展的战略性贸易政策进行了回顾,并结合经济学理论进行了分析,总结了发达国家在实施过程中的经验和教训。本文指出战略性贸易政策可以促进高新技术产业的发展,但是也容易导致寻租行为的发生以及资源配置的扭曲。中国作为一个发展中国家,国内市场的资源配置存在一定程度的市场失灵,因此应适当进行政府干预,审慎使用战略性贸易政策,通过研发补贴和有效保护的方式,积极通过技术进步促进国际贸易的发展。另外,本文对中国的战略性贸易政策——科技兴贸战略进行了实证分析,结果证明科技兴贸战略促进了我国高新技术产品出口,带动了我国出口商品结构调整以及出口增长速度大幅提高,为国民经济和对外贸易的发展做出了积极贡献。但是我国科技兴贸战略依然存在一些问题,如出口产品的技术含量不高、出口高速增长与低效益并存等等问题。最后,文章指出实施科技兴贸战略是中国由贸易大国向贸易强国跨越的必由之路,并提出了相应的政策建议。
In recent years, the hi-tech industry has become the pioneer of the international trade because of the tremendous development of technology in every aspect of human life, such as communication and biology. As a result, hi-tech production export has increased very quickly all over the world, which has changed pattern of international trade and comparative advantages among the countries.
The traditional trade theories usually focused on the comparative advantage in the production. For example, the Comparative Advantage Theory of David Ricardo considered the labor as the only factor in the international trade. So each country specializes in the production of the goods and the export of them in which it has comparative advantages. Also, the H-O theory considered that there are two factors of production, labor and capital between the two nations. Meanwhile, it assumes that all nations use the same technology in production and the relatively labor-rich nation exports the relatively labor-intensive commodity and imports the relatively capital-intensive commodity. But the previous trade-theory literature gave no explicit reasons for the difference in comparative costs. New theories of international trade pioneered by Krugman and other economists focus on the nature of technological differences among countries, in order to make the model consistent with observed patterns of trade. But many of researches focused on technology diffusion, spillovers and learning-by-doing in the trade. The author will study how technology affects the international trade. The paper is divided into three parts, the first part deals with the impact on trade brought about by the technological development of the export country, and the second part focuses on the impact on trade brought about by the technological development of the import country, and the last part of the article discusses strategic trade policies home and abroad.
At first the article analyses the cause of technology promoting trade from the angle of economics and establishes a function of increasing rate of export and improving rate of technology through constructing the export model, through which the author draws a conclusion that technology progress can promote the exports. And then, an empirical study of technology and trade proves that there is a cointegration between China’s technology progress and export, and technology progress is also the reason of the increase of export. Moreover, the empirical study of panel data concludes that the impact of Chinese technological progress on exports is still limited compared with those developed countries, such as America, Japan, France, Germany, and so on. This limited impact is mainly due to the high proportion of the processing trade and relatively low capacity to turn the technological innovation into the production. Also, there are substantial differences among the provinces in China. In fact, the provinces with better tradition of the export and innovation are more capable to increase the export by technology, and vice versa.
The article analyses the reason and character of technical barriers to trade through the research on WTO regulations, and concludes that technological difference and progress is an important factor that causes technical barriers to trade (TBT). The TBT can actually protect people’health, environment and public safety, but they becomes the barriers in its real sense because it increases the cost of trade like the tariff. Also, the article analyses the TBT in game theory, and concludes that the developed countries with technological advantage incline to set up TBT initiatively for their own interests, and the developing countries have to adapt to TBT. In addition, the article analyses the character and trend of TBT in America and European Union. TBT’s negative impact on the international trade, especially on China’s export is also studied in the article. So the suggestion to increasing China’s exports is given that China should make tremendous technology progress to overcome TBT.
The last but not the least, the article analyses strategic trade policies in the developed countries and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the strategic trade policies which promote exports by means of technology. The conclusion can be drawn that the strategic trade policies can increase the export, especially the export of hi-tech products, but they may decrease the market efficiency, such as the distortion of the allocation of the resources. China, a developing country with a huge amount of international trade, should have some strategic trade policies to increase the export by technology; for example, R&D subsidy and effective protection. At last, the article empirically studies the Chinese strategic trade policy, Stratagem of Trade Promoted by Science & Technology, and draws the conclusion that it increases the export especially of hi-tech products and promotes the development of economy and trade. But there are some problems still exist; for example, the technical content of exports is not high comparatively. Thus, the experience and lessons can be acquired, and the suggestion to policies of China’s international trade is put forward in the article. So we can conclude that China’s strategic policy which promotes trade by technology is the essential way to make China a powerful country in trade.
引文
[1] Alan O.Skyes. The Economics of Injury in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Cases. International Review of Law and Economics, 1996(16): 5-26
[2] Anderson, J, G.Bannister, and P.Neary. Domestic Distortions and International Trade. International Economic Review, 1995, 36: 139-157
[3] Arrow K.J. The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies. 1962, 29: 155–173
[4] Akerlof, George. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, 84(8): 490-503
[5] Bagwell, K.and R.Staiger. Multilateral Tariff Cooperation during the Formation of Free Trade Areas. International Economic Review, 1997, 38(2): 291-319
[6] Baldwin R, Robert N. Free trade agreement without delocation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2000, 33(3): 766-786
[7] Benarroch, M., Gaisford, J. Export promoting production subsidies and the dynamic gains. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 2001, 10 (3), 291–320
[8] Bhagwati, Brecher. National Welfare in An Open Economy in The Presence of Foreign-Owned Factors of Production. Journal of International Economics, 1980 (10): 103-115
[9] Bond, E. The Optimal Tariff Structure in Higher Dimensions. International Economic Review, 1990, 31(1): 103-116
[10] Brander, J., B.Spencer. Tariffs and The Extraction of Foreign Monopoly Rents under Potential Entry. the Canadian Journal of Economics, 1981, 14: 371-389
[11] Brander J., B. Spencer. Tariff Protection and Imperfect Competition. in H, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984a:194-205
[12] Brander, J.A. and B.J.Spencer. Trade warfare: tariffs and cartels. Journal of International Economics, 1984b(16): 227-242
[13] Brander, J.A. and B. J. Spencer. Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. Journal of International Economics, 1985(18): 83-100
[14] Brecher, R.and J.Bhagwati. Foreign Ownership and Theory of Trade and Welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 1981, 89: 497-511
[15] Coe DT, Helpman E, Hoffmaister AW. North-South R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 1997, 107: 134-149
[16] Coe, D.T., Helpman, E. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 1995, 39: 859–887
[17] Cooper, R., Kempf, H. Establishing a monetary union. International Economic Review, 2003, 44: 119–142
[18] Dollar, D. Learning by doing, the technology gap, and growth. American Economic Review, 1986, 76 (1): 177-190
[19] Deardorff, A., Staiger, R., An interpretation of the factor content of trade. Journal of International Economics, 1988, 24: 93–107
[20] Devereux, M. Growth, Specialization and Trade Liberalization. International Economic Review, 1997, 38(3): 565-585
[21] Dick, A. Does Import Protection Act As Export Promotion? Evidence From The United States. Oxford Economic Papers, 1994, 46: 83-101
[22] Douglas A.Irwin. Interpreting the Tariff-growth Correlation of the Late 19th Century. America Economic Review, 2002(5): 165-169
[23] Dixit A. International Trade Policy for Oligopolistic Industries .Economic Journal, 1984, 94: 1-16
[24] Dixit A. and G. Grossman. Targeted Export Promotion with Several Oligopolistic Industrial. Journal of International Economics, 1986, 21: 233-250
[25] Eaton J. and G. Grossman. Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1986, 101: 383-406
[26] Epple, D., Argote, L., Devadas, R... Organizational learning curves: a method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Organization Science 1991(2): 58– 70
[27] Edwards S. Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics. 1992, 39: 31-57
[28] Edwards S. Openness, productivity, growth: what do we really know. Economic Journal 1998, 108: 383-398
[29] Eaton J., Kortum S. Technology, trade, and growth: A unified framework, European Economic Review. 2001, 45: 742-755
[30] F. Vijselaar, R. Albers. New technologies and productivity growth in the euro area. Empirical Economics, 2004, 29: 621–646
[31] Galina. An, M.F. Iyigun. The export technology content, learning by doing and specialization in foreign trade, Journal of International Economics. 2004, 64: 465–483
[32] Goh, A., Olivier, J. Learning by doing, trade in capital goods and growth. Journal of International Economics 2002, 56 (2), 411 – 444
[33] Gaworale, K. Trade Barriers As Outcomes from Two-Stage Games: Evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1999, 32(4): 1028-1056
[34] Goulder, L., B.Eichengreen. Trade Liberalization in General Equilibrium: Intertemporal and Inter-Industry Effect. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1992, 25(2): 253-280
[35] Goldberg Pinelopi, Maggi Giovanni. Protection for Sale: an Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(5): 1135-1155
[36] Grossman, G., Helpman,E. Product Development and International Trade. Journal of Political Economy 1989, 97: 1261-1283
[37] Grossman. G.M., E.Helpman. Trade, innovation and growth. American Economic Review, 1990, 80: 86-91
[38] Grossman, G.M., E.Helpman. Trade, Knowledge Spillovers and Growth. European Economic Review, 1991, 35: 517-526
[39] Grossman G., E. Helpman. Protection for Sale. American Economics Review, 1994, 85(4): 667-690
[40] Grossman G.M., E.Helpman, Technology and Trade, Handbook of international Econnomics, vol.Ⅲ, Edited by G.Grossman and K.Rogoff ? Elsevier Science B.V. 1995: 1297-1337
[41] Hammermesh, D. The art of labormetrics. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 2000, 53(3): 363–380
[42] Hammond, P.and J.Sempere. Limits to the Potential Gains from Integration and Other Supply Side Policies. the Economic Journal, 1995(105): 1180-1204
[43] Harrison, G., et al. An Alternative Welfare Decomposition for Customs Union. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1993, 26(4): 961-968
[44] Hatzipaniyotac, P., M.Michael. Import Restrictions, Capital Taxes, and Welfare. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1993, 26(3): 727-738
[45] Hatzipanoyotou, P., M.Michael. Real Exchange Rate Effects of Fiscal Expansion Under Trade Restrictions. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1997, 30(1): 42-56
[46] Hill, J. Union wage Distortions and the Size and Efficiency of the Optimal Tariff. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1984(17): 146-155
[47] Helpman, E. Innovation, imitation and intellectual property rights. Econometrica, 1993, 61: 1247-1280
[48] Holod, R.R. Reed III. Regional spillovers, economic growth, and the effects of economic integration. Economics Letters 2004, 85: 35–42
[49] Kraws, I.. The Growth Criterion As A Guide for Reciprocal Trade Policy. the Quarterly Journal Economics, 1952, 66(2): 273-285
[50] Kreinin, M., E.Dinopoulos. Alternative Quota and VER Allocation Schemes: A Welfare Comparison. Economica, New series, 1992, 59: 337-349
[51] Krugman, P. A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 1979, 87(2): 253– 266
[52] Krugman, P. A Technology gap Model of International Trade, in: K.Jungenfelt and D.Hague, ed al. Structureal Adjustment in Developed Open Economics. London: macmillan Press, 1986, 35-49
[53] Krugman, P. Strategic sectors and international competition, in R.M. Sterned. U.S. Trade policies in a changing world economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 1987
[54] Krugman, P. Rethinking International Trade. The MIT Press. 1990
[55] Krugman, P. History vs. Expectations. Quarterly, Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 651-667
[56] Krugman, P. Growing world trade: causes and consequences. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1995(1): 327–362. 141–202
[57] Krugman, P. Does The new trade theory require a new trade policy?. The world economy, 1992(15): 423-441
[58] Krugman, P. Technology, trade and factor prices. Journal of International Economics 2000, 50: 51– 71
[59] Kierzkowsk. Monopolistic Competition and International Trade. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989: 180-193
[60] Kubo, Y. Scale economies, regional externalities, and the possibility of uneven regional development. Journal of Regional Science 1995, 35: 29–42
[61] Lall, S. The technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985–98. Oxford Development Studies, 2000, 28 (3): 337–369
[62] Lausse D. Strategic Commercial Policy Revisited: A Supply-Function Equilibrium Model. American Economics Review, 1992, 82(1): 84-99
[63] Lawrence, R., Slaughter, M. International trade and American wages in the 1980s: giant sucking sound or small hiccup? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1993(2): 161–226
[64] Lester Thorow. Head to head: the coming economic battle among Japan, Europe, and American. NewYork: Morrow, 1992: 1-22
[65] Leamer, E., What’s the use of factor contents? Journal of International Economics 2000, 50(1): 42-55
[66] Lemoine, Deniz. Assembly trade and technology transfer: the case of China. World Development. 2004, 32(5): 829-850
[67] Ludema, R., I.Wooton. Cross-Border Externalities and Trade Liberalization. the Canadian Journal of Economics, 1994, 27(4): 950-966
[68] Liu, X. Technology trade, endogenous growth and welfare, mimeo: University of Pittsburgh. 1992. 26-34
[69] Lichtenberg F.R, B. van P. Potterie. International R&D spillovers: A comment, European Economic Review 1998, 42: 1483-1491
[70] Lovell CAK. Applying efficiency measurement techniques to the measurement of productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis 1996(7): 329-340
[71] Lucas Jr., R. E. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 1988, 22: 3–42
[72] Maggi G. Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition. American Economics Review, 1996, 86(1): 237-258
[73] Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D., Weil, D.N. A contribution to the empirics of growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1992, 107: 407–437
[74] Markusen, J.R., L.E.O.Svenson. Trade in foods and Factors with International Differences in Technology. International Economic Review, 1985, 26: 175-192
[75] Narayan, S., Wah, L.Y. Technological maturity and development without research. Development and Change, 2000, 31: 435–457
[76] Posner M.V. International Trade and Technical Change. Oxford Economic Papers, 1961(10): 323-341
[77] Rivera-Batiz, L.A., Romer, P. Economic integration and endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 107: 531-556
[78] R. Nahuis. The magnification effect of trade on wages with endogenous technology. Economics Letters, 2004, 85: 111–116
[79] Sato, R. International competition and asymmetric technology game. Japan and the World Economy, 2001(13): 217-233
[80] Stadler, M. R&D dynamics in the product life cycle. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1991(1): 293–305
[81] Stokey, N., Human capital, product quality, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 587– 616
[82] Summers, R., Heston, A. The Penn world table: an expanded set of international comparisons, 1950– 1988. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 327–443
[83] Solow R M.A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1956, 70: 65-94
[84] Solow RM. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39(3): 312–320
[85] Suzawa G. S. Note on asymmetric technology game. Japan and the World Economy, 2002, 14, 117-119
[86] Vernon, R. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1966, 80(2): 190–207
[87] Yanagawa N. Economic Development in a World with Many Countries. Mimeo: Keio University. 1993
[88] Young, A. Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106(2): 369– 405
[89] Young, A. Invention and bounded learning by doing. Journal of Political Economy,1993, 101(3): 443– 472
[90] Yanrui Wu. Openness, productivity and growth in the APEC economies. Empirical Economics, 2004, 29: 593–604
[91] 阿荣, 章浩. 实施科技兴贸战略, 提高出口企业核心竞争力. 中国科技产业, 2003(7): 19-23
[92] 巴格瓦蒂, 潘那加里亚, 施瑞尼瓦桑著, 王根蓓译. 高级国际贸易学. 上海: 上海财经大学出版社, 2004. 429-437
[93] 陈文敬, 张威. 从外部依赖走向自主成长——我国高新技术产品基础口发展战略研究. 国际贸易, 2005(2): 4-11
[94] 方齐云. 国际经济学. 武汉: 华中科技大学出版社, 2002. 18-34, 93-148
[95] 高谦, 何蓉. 现代国际贸易理论综述. 经济学动态, 1997(7): 65-68
[96] 顾江. SPS 措施对出口产品成本因素影响的经济分析. 农业经济问题, 2003(12): 35-37
[97] 郭庆旺, 贾俊雪. 中国全要素生产率的估算: 1979-2004. 经济研究, 2005(6): 51-60
[98] 国家统计局, 国家科技部. 中国科技统计年鉴. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 1992-2004.
[99] 海闻. 国际贸易理论的新发展. 经济研究, 1995(9): 67-73
[100] 黄岳衡, 冯宗宪. 试探设置内生性技术性贸易壁垒的原则. 国际经贸探索, 2004(9): 31-34
[101] 何剑. WTO 框架下中国的战略性贸易政策选择. 北方论丛, 2003(6): 98-104
[102] 胡涵钧, 王作维. R&D 投入——中国战略性贸易政策的选择. 世界经济研究, 2005(1): 11-16
[103] 吉本斯著, 高峰译. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 1999. 2-52
[104] 吉缅周, 陈红蕾. 战略性贸易政策理论的新发展. 财贸研究, 2004(4): 31-35
[105] 蒋殿春. 跨国公司与发展中东道国企业的技术创新博弈. 世界经济, 2001(9): 31-40
[106] 克鲁格曼, 奥伯斯法尔德, 海闻等译. 国际经济学. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2000. 261-281
[107] 克鲁格曼著, 黄胜强译. 克鲁格曼国际贸易新理论. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2001. 131-145
[108] 李树. 技术性贸易壁垒的设置与我国的策略选择. 改革, 2003(6): 94-100
[109] 李荣林. 动态国际贸易理论研究. 北京: 中国经济出版社, 2000. 94-104
[110] 林秀玉. 英国对外贸易现代化进程之探析. 历史教学, 2003(9): 40-44
[111] 刘海云, 吴韧强, 张格. 湖北省科技发展战略的 DEA 分析. 工业工程与管理, 2005(2): 22-25
[112] 刘海云. 资源论与跨国公司研究与开发(R&D)的全球化与合作化. 科研管理, 2000, 21(6): 8-16
[113] 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
[114] 施蒂格勒. 产业组织和政府管制. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1996. 210-230
[115] 邵来安. 绿色贸易壁垒对我国的影响及其应对措施. 经济研究参考, 2004, 45: 29-33
[116] 盛斌. WTO 体制□规则与谈判: 一个博弈论的经济分析. 世界经济, 2001(12): 3-12
[117] 潘志伟. 全球贸易视角中的技术性贸易壁垒. 商业研究, 2004(3): 51-56
[118] 吴汉洪. 新增长理论与国际贸易理论的发展. 中国人民大学学报, 1999(4): 1-6
[119] 吴国新. 国际贸易理论与实务. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2004. 30-33
[120] 夏友富, 俞雄飞, 李丽. 技术性贸易壁垒的特点及其发展趋势. 技术性贸易壁垒动态, 2003(1): 1-10
[121] 许统生. 布兰德-克鲁格曼产业内贸易模型德扩展. 世界经济, 2000(7): 27-32
[122] 易晓娟. 欧盟技术性贸易壁垒的状况及我国的对策. 国际贸易问题, 2001(6): 33-37
[123] 易纲, 樊纲, 李岩. 关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的理论思考. 经济研究,2003(8): 13-20
[124] 易丹辉. 数据分析与 Eviews 应用. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2003. 143-155
[125] 颜鹏飞, 王兵. 技术效率□技术进步与生产率增长: 基于 DEA 的实证分析. 经济研究, 2004(12): 55-65
[126] 杨波. 我国科技兴贸战略实施效果的评价. 中国对外贸易, 2005(11): 84-86
[127] 杨波, 刘海云. 关于贸易大国向贸易强国转型的思考——基于中国科技兴贸战略的实证研究. 商业经济与管理, 2006(1): 59-64
[128] 杨波, 于晓晨. 从世界工厂的历史变迁看中国的差距. 南方经济, 2004(11): 53-56
[129] 张海东. 技术性贸易壁垒形成机制的经济学分析. 财贸经济, 2004(3): 61-65
[130] 张建新. 美国的战略性贸易政策. 美国研究, 2003(1): 64-80
[131] 张宗斌. 自由贸易理论与中国贸易自由化. 世界经济与政治, 1997(7): 27-30
[132] 周茂荣, 杜莉. 贸易自由化与贸易保护主义的博弈分析. 国际贸易问题, 2004(6): 17-23
[2] Anderson, J, G.Bannister, and P.Neary. Domestic Distortions and International Trade. International Economic Review, 1995, 36: 139-157
[3] Arrow K.J. The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies. 1962, 29: 155–173
[4] Akerlof, George. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, 84(8): 490-503
[5] Bagwell, K.and R.Staiger. Multilateral Tariff Cooperation during the Formation of Free Trade Areas. International Economic Review, 1997, 38(2): 291-319
[6] Baldwin R, Robert N. Free trade agreement without delocation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2000, 33(3): 766-786
[7] Benarroch, M., Gaisford, J. Export promoting production subsidies and the dynamic gains. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 2001, 10 (3), 291–320
[8] Bhagwati, Brecher. National Welfare in An Open Economy in The Presence of Foreign-Owned Factors of Production. Journal of International Economics, 1980 (10): 103-115
[9] Bond, E. The Optimal Tariff Structure in Higher Dimensions. International Economic Review, 1990, 31(1): 103-116
[10] Brander, J., B.Spencer. Tariffs and The Extraction of Foreign Monopoly Rents under Potential Entry. the Canadian Journal of Economics, 1981, 14: 371-389
[11] Brander J., B. Spencer. Tariff Protection and Imperfect Competition. in H, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984a:194-205
[12] Brander, J.A. and B.J.Spencer. Trade warfare: tariffs and cartels. Journal of International Economics, 1984b(16): 227-242
[13] Brander, J.A. and B. J. Spencer. Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. Journal of International Economics, 1985(18): 83-100
[14] Brecher, R.and J.Bhagwati. Foreign Ownership and Theory of Trade and Welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 1981, 89: 497-511
[15] Coe DT, Helpman E, Hoffmaister AW. North-South R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 1997, 107: 134-149
[16] Coe, D.T., Helpman, E. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 1995, 39: 859–887
[17] Cooper, R., Kempf, H. Establishing a monetary union. International Economic Review, 2003, 44: 119–142
[18] Dollar, D. Learning by doing, the technology gap, and growth. American Economic Review, 1986, 76 (1): 177-190
[19] Deardorff, A., Staiger, R., An interpretation of the factor content of trade. Journal of International Economics, 1988, 24: 93–107
[20] Devereux, M. Growth, Specialization and Trade Liberalization. International Economic Review, 1997, 38(3): 565-585
[21] Dick, A. Does Import Protection Act As Export Promotion? Evidence From The United States. Oxford Economic Papers, 1994, 46: 83-101
[22] Douglas A.Irwin. Interpreting the Tariff-growth Correlation of the Late 19th Century. America Economic Review, 2002(5): 165-169
[23] Dixit A. International Trade Policy for Oligopolistic Industries .Economic Journal, 1984, 94: 1-16
[24] Dixit A. and G. Grossman. Targeted Export Promotion with Several Oligopolistic Industrial. Journal of International Economics, 1986, 21: 233-250
[25] Eaton J. and G. Grossman. Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1986, 101: 383-406
[26] Epple, D., Argote, L., Devadas, R... Organizational learning curves: a method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Organization Science 1991(2): 58– 70
[27] Edwards S. Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics. 1992, 39: 31-57
[28] Edwards S. Openness, productivity, growth: what do we really know. Economic Journal 1998, 108: 383-398
[29] Eaton J., Kortum S. Technology, trade, and growth: A unified framework, European Economic Review. 2001, 45: 742-755
[30] F. Vijselaar, R. Albers. New technologies and productivity growth in the euro area. Empirical Economics, 2004, 29: 621–646
[31] Galina. An, M.F. Iyigun. The export technology content, learning by doing and specialization in foreign trade, Journal of International Economics. 2004, 64: 465–483
[32] Goh, A., Olivier, J. Learning by doing, trade in capital goods and growth. Journal of International Economics 2002, 56 (2), 411 – 444
[33] Gaworale, K. Trade Barriers As Outcomes from Two-Stage Games: Evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1999, 32(4): 1028-1056
[34] Goulder, L., B.Eichengreen. Trade Liberalization in General Equilibrium: Intertemporal and Inter-Industry Effect. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1992, 25(2): 253-280
[35] Goldberg Pinelopi, Maggi Giovanni. Protection for Sale: an Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(5): 1135-1155
[36] Grossman, G., Helpman,E. Product Development and International Trade. Journal of Political Economy 1989, 97: 1261-1283
[37] Grossman. G.M., E.Helpman. Trade, innovation and growth. American Economic Review, 1990, 80: 86-91
[38] Grossman, G.M., E.Helpman. Trade, Knowledge Spillovers and Growth. European Economic Review, 1991, 35: 517-526
[39] Grossman G., E. Helpman. Protection for Sale. American Economics Review, 1994, 85(4): 667-690
[40] Grossman G.M., E.Helpman, Technology and Trade, Handbook of international Econnomics, vol.Ⅲ, Edited by G.Grossman and K.Rogoff ? Elsevier Science B.V. 1995: 1297-1337
[41] Hammermesh, D. The art of labormetrics. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 2000, 53(3): 363–380
[42] Hammond, P.and J.Sempere. Limits to the Potential Gains from Integration and Other Supply Side Policies. the Economic Journal, 1995(105): 1180-1204
[43] Harrison, G., et al. An Alternative Welfare Decomposition for Customs Union. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1993, 26(4): 961-968
[44] Hatzipaniyotac, P., M.Michael. Import Restrictions, Capital Taxes, and Welfare. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1993, 26(3): 727-738
[45] Hatzipanoyotou, P., M.Michael. Real Exchange Rate Effects of Fiscal Expansion Under Trade Restrictions. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1997, 30(1): 42-56
[46] Hill, J. Union wage Distortions and the Size and Efficiency of the Optimal Tariff. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1984(17): 146-155
[47] Helpman, E. Innovation, imitation and intellectual property rights. Econometrica, 1993, 61: 1247-1280
[48] Holod, R.R. Reed III. Regional spillovers, economic growth, and the effects of economic integration. Economics Letters 2004, 85: 35–42
[49] Kraws, I.. The Growth Criterion As A Guide for Reciprocal Trade Policy. the Quarterly Journal Economics, 1952, 66(2): 273-285
[50] Kreinin, M., E.Dinopoulos. Alternative Quota and VER Allocation Schemes: A Welfare Comparison. Economica, New series, 1992, 59: 337-349
[51] Krugman, P. A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 1979, 87(2): 253– 266
[52] Krugman, P. A Technology gap Model of International Trade, in: K.Jungenfelt and D.Hague, ed al. Structureal Adjustment in Developed Open Economics. London: macmillan Press, 1986, 35-49
[53] Krugman, P. Strategic sectors and international competition, in R.M. Sterned. U.S. Trade policies in a changing world economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 1987
[54] Krugman, P. Rethinking International Trade. The MIT Press. 1990
[55] Krugman, P. History vs. Expectations. Quarterly, Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 651-667
[56] Krugman, P. Growing world trade: causes and consequences. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1995(1): 327–362. 141–202
[57] Krugman, P. Does The new trade theory require a new trade policy?. The world economy, 1992(15): 423-441
[58] Krugman, P. Technology, trade and factor prices. Journal of International Economics 2000, 50: 51– 71
[59] Kierzkowsk. Monopolistic Competition and International Trade. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989: 180-193
[60] Kubo, Y. Scale economies, regional externalities, and the possibility of uneven regional development. Journal of Regional Science 1995, 35: 29–42
[61] Lall, S. The technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985–98. Oxford Development Studies, 2000, 28 (3): 337–369
[62] Lausse D. Strategic Commercial Policy Revisited: A Supply-Function Equilibrium Model. American Economics Review, 1992, 82(1): 84-99
[63] Lawrence, R., Slaughter, M. International trade and American wages in the 1980s: giant sucking sound or small hiccup? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1993(2): 161–226
[64] Lester Thorow. Head to head: the coming economic battle among Japan, Europe, and American. NewYork: Morrow, 1992: 1-22
[65] Leamer, E., What’s the use of factor contents? Journal of International Economics 2000, 50(1): 42-55
[66] Lemoine, Deniz. Assembly trade and technology transfer: the case of China. World Development. 2004, 32(5): 829-850
[67] Ludema, R., I.Wooton. Cross-Border Externalities and Trade Liberalization. the Canadian Journal of Economics, 1994, 27(4): 950-966
[68] Liu, X. Technology trade, endogenous growth and welfare, mimeo: University of Pittsburgh. 1992. 26-34
[69] Lichtenberg F.R, B. van P. Potterie. International R&D spillovers: A comment, European Economic Review 1998, 42: 1483-1491
[70] Lovell CAK. Applying efficiency measurement techniques to the measurement of productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis 1996(7): 329-340
[71] Lucas Jr., R. E. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 1988, 22: 3–42
[72] Maggi G. Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition. American Economics Review, 1996, 86(1): 237-258
[73] Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D., Weil, D.N. A contribution to the empirics of growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1992, 107: 407–437
[74] Markusen, J.R., L.E.O.Svenson. Trade in foods and Factors with International Differences in Technology. International Economic Review, 1985, 26: 175-192
[75] Narayan, S., Wah, L.Y. Technological maturity and development without research. Development and Change, 2000, 31: 435–457
[76] Posner M.V. International Trade and Technical Change. Oxford Economic Papers, 1961(10): 323-341
[77] Rivera-Batiz, L.A., Romer, P. Economic integration and endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 107: 531-556
[78] R. Nahuis. The magnification effect of trade on wages with endogenous technology. Economics Letters, 2004, 85: 111–116
[79] Sato, R. International competition and asymmetric technology game. Japan and the World Economy, 2001(13): 217-233
[80] Stadler, M. R&D dynamics in the product life cycle. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1991(1): 293–305
[81] Stokey, N., Human capital, product quality, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 587– 616
[82] Summers, R., Heston, A. The Penn world table: an expanded set of international comparisons, 1950– 1988. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106: 327–443
[83] Solow R M.A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1956, 70: 65-94
[84] Solow RM. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39(3): 312–320
[85] Suzawa G. S. Note on asymmetric technology game. Japan and the World Economy, 2002, 14, 117-119
[86] Vernon, R. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1966, 80(2): 190–207
[87] Yanagawa N. Economic Development in a World with Many Countries. Mimeo: Keio University. 1993
[88] Young, A. Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106(2): 369– 405
[89] Young, A. Invention and bounded learning by doing. Journal of Political Economy,1993, 101(3): 443– 472
[90] Yanrui Wu. Openness, productivity and growth in the APEC economies. Empirical Economics, 2004, 29: 593–604
[91] 阿荣, 章浩. 实施科技兴贸战略, 提高出口企业核心竞争力. 中国科技产业, 2003(7): 19-23
[92] 巴格瓦蒂, 潘那加里亚, 施瑞尼瓦桑著, 王根蓓译. 高级国际贸易学. 上海: 上海财经大学出版社, 2004. 429-437
[93] 陈文敬, 张威. 从外部依赖走向自主成长——我国高新技术产品基础口发展战略研究. 国际贸易, 2005(2): 4-11
[94] 方齐云. 国际经济学. 武汉: 华中科技大学出版社, 2002. 18-34, 93-148
[95] 高谦, 何蓉. 现代国际贸易理论综述. 经济学动态, 1997(7): 65-68
[96] 顾江. SPS 措施对出口产品成本因素影响的经济分析. 农业经济问题, 2003(12): 35-37
[97] 郭庆旺, 贾俊雪. 中国全要素生产率的估算: 1979-2004. 经济研究, 2005(6): 51-60
[98] 国家统计局, 国家科技部. 中国科技统计年鉴. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 1992-2004.
[99] 海闻. 国际贸易理论的新发展. 经济研究, 1995(9): 67-73
[100] 黄岳衡, 冯宗宪. 试探设置内生性技术性贸易壁垒的原则. 国际经贸探索, 2004(9): 31-34
[101] 何剑. WTO 框架下中国的战略性贸易政策选择. 北方论丛, 2003(6): 98-104
[102] 胡涵钧, 王作维. R&D 投入——中国战略性贸易政策的选择. 世界经济研究, 2005(1): 11-16
[103] 吉本斯著, 高峰译. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 1999. 2-52
[104] 吉缅周, 陈红蕾. 战略性贸易政策理论的新发展. 财贸研究, 2004(4): 31-35
[105] 蒋殿春. 跨国公司与发展中东道国企业的技术创新博弈. 世界经济, 2001(9): 31-40
[106] 克鲁格曼, 奥伯斯法尔德, 海闻等译. 国际经济学. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2000. 261-281
[107] 克鲁格曼著, 黄胜强译. 克鲁格曼国际贸易新理论. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2001. 131-145
[108] 李树. 技术性贸易壁垒的设置与我国的策略选择. 改革, 2003(6): 94-100
[109] 李荣林. 动态国际贸易理论研究. 北京: 中国经济出版社, 2000. 94-104
[110] 林秀玉. 英国对外贸易现代化进程之探析. 历史教学, 2003(9): 40-44
[111] 刘海云, 吴韧强, 张格. 湖北省科技发展战略的 DEA 分析. 工业工程与管理, 2005(2): 22-25
[112] 刘海云. 资源论与跨国公司研究与开发(R&D)的全球化与合作化. 科研管理, 2000, 21(6): 8-16
[113] 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
[114] 施蒂格勒. 产业组织和政府管制. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1996. 210-230
[115] 邵来安. 绿色贸易壁垒对我国的影响及其应对措施. 经济研究参考, 2004, 45: 29-33
[116] 盛斌. WTO 体制□规则与谈判: 一个博弈论的经济分析. 世界经济, 2001(12): 3-12
[117] 潘志伟. 全球贸易视角中的技术性贸易壁垒. 商业研究, 2004(3): 51-56
[118] 吴汉洪. 新增长理论与国际贸易理论的发展. 中国人民大学学报, 1999(4): 1-6
[119] 吴国新. 国际贸易理论与实务. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2004. 30-33
[120] 夏友富, 俞雄飞, 李丽. 技术性贸易壁垒的特点及其发展趋势. 技术性贸易壁垒动态, 2003(1): 1-10
[121] 许统生. 布兰德-克鲁格曼产业内贸易模型德扩展. 世界经济, 2000(7): 27-32
[122] 易晓娟. 欧盟技术性贸易壁垒的状况及我国的对策. 国际贸易问题, 2001(6): 33-37
[123] 易纲, 樊纲, 李岩. 关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的理论思考. 经济研究,2003(8): 13-20
[124] 易丹辉. 数据分析与 Eviews 应用. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2003. 143-155
[125] 颜鹏飞, 王兵. 技术效率□技术进步与生产率增长: 基于 DEA 的实证分析. 经济研究, 2004(12): 55-65
[126] 杨波. 我国科技兴贸战略实施效果的评价. 中国对外贸易, 2005(11): 84-86
[127] 杨波, 刘海云. 关于贸易大国向贸易强国转型的思考——基于中国科技兴贸战略的实证研究. 商业经济与管理, 2006(1): 59-64
[128] 杨波, 于晓晨. 从世界工厂的历史变迁看中国的差距. 南方经济, 2004(11): 53-56
[129] 张海东. 技术性贸易壁垒形成机制的经济学分析. 财贸经济, 2004(3): 61-65
[130] 张建新. 美国的战略性贸易政策. 美国研究, 2003(1): 64-80
[131] 张宗斌. 自由贸易理论与中国贸易自由化. 世界经济与政治, 1997(7): 27-30
[132] 周茂荣, 杜莉. 贸易自由化与贸易保护主义的博弈分析. 国际贸易问题, 2004(6): 17-23