外商直接投资与我国工业结构升级研究
|
摘要
本文旨在研究FDI对我国工业结构升级的影响。如果将工业生产视作投入和产出组成的过程,则工业结构包括了工业的技术、资本、就业、产出及外贸结构。因此,本文的研究从上述五个方面展开,以期比较全面地考量FDI对我国工业结构升级造成的影响。在研究方法上,主要基于FDI的相关理论,利用我国工业生产部门1997到2007年的面板数据进行了实证研究。
研究结果表明,FDI在促进我国工业技术进步、资本形成、就业增加、产值增长、效益提高和出口增加的同时促进了结构升级,但是与结构升级的理想状态存在较大的差距,其中FDI对一般技术行业的经济影响要大于高技术行业,而一般技术行业中的资本密集型行业可能从中受益最多。
除了对一般技术行业的技术进步产生抑制,FDI对一般技术行业的资本形成、劳动力增加的影响程度均大于高技术行业。工业技术结构的升级较依赖于内资工业与外资工业较小技术差距,因此,FDI对高技术行业的自主创新投入有积极的促进作用,但对一般技术行业的自主创新投入产生抑制。FDI对一般技术行业国内投资产生的挤入效应比高技术行业的国内投资的挤入效应的程度要大得多。对重度污染行业的国内投资产生挤入效应,对轻度污染行业无挤入挤出效应。FDI主要通过促进一般技术行业的就业增长带动了制造业的就业增加,行业间劳动力结构呈低端化,高技术行业行业内劳动力结构得到优化的效果比一般技术行业要明显。一般技术行业劳动力从内资流向外资的情况也较严重。
产出和外贸结构方面,FDI对产出和外贸出口结构升级的作用也有限。虽然FDI对技术、资本和劳动密集型行业产值增长均有促进作用,且影响程度依次变小,但是用效益衡量的产出结构却表现出FDI对资本、技术、密集型行业的效益提高的影响依次变小。FDI引致全部国有及规模以上工业企业制造业出口结构低度化,当样本为制造业所有企业时,FDI对资本、技术、劳动密集型行业,中、高、低技术产品出口量的影响依次变小。从产品内分工角度分析,FDI主要通过加工贸易的方式深化劳动密集型行业的产品内分工,并不利于传统行业的更新改造和技术、资本密集型行业在产品价值链分工地位的提高,对于外贸依存度较高的我国而言非常不利。
由于数据的限制,在分析FDI对技术结构、资本结构和劳动力结构时将制造业分为高技术行业和一般技术行业。FDI对一般技术行业的投资挤入和就业增长及行业内劳动力结构优化均起到积极作用,而一般技术行业包括资本密集型行业和劳动密集型行业,且FDI较多促进资本密集型行业的产出和出口,因此,可以推断FDI促进我国工业结构升级过程中,资本密集型行业受益最多。本文对工业结构升级的定义是FDI对技术、资本和劳动密集型行业的积极影响依次变小,这也是一种比较理想的升级状态。但是目前FDI在促进我国工业结构升级时,距离这一理想状态还有较大的距离,内资是促进工业结构升级的主导因素。FDI对高技术行业自主创新投入的积极促进作用,很有可能来自于内资高技术行业与外资高技术行业较小的技术差距。增加就业和提升就业结构的因素也在于内资投资的增加。
本文的创新之处在于：第一,对外商直接投资与工业结构的升级进行多维分析。与以往的分析大都集中于一个方面(产值)不同的是,本文从多个维度比较系统地分析FDI对工业结构升级的影响。这些维度包括：技术进步、资本形成、就业变化、产出变化、对外贸易结构的变化等。多维分析可以更加清楚地认识FDI对我国工业结构升级产生的作用。第二,将FDI理论与工业结构升级理论相结合。以往的研究往往没有将FDI理论与工业结构升级理论联系起来,这与现实情况不相符合。从FDI在我国的产业流向来看,FDI主要集中于工业部门,必然会对工业结构的升级与优化产生重大影响。本文将二者相结合,考察FDI对我国工业结构升级的影响途径和机制。第三,从产值与效益两个方面分析产出结构。已有文献在研究结构升级问题时,将焦点集中于产值结构的升级,但是产值结构很大程度上是产出在“量”上的反映,对于产出在“质”上的提升关注较少,因而,本文以效益反映产出在“质”上的提升,结合产值与效益两个方面分析产出结构的升级。第四,从行业、产品和产品内三个角度深入分析FDI对出口结构的影响。国际分工已经深入到产品内的分工,FDI是推动推动国际分工的重要因素,因而分析FDI对我国产品内分工程度的提高具有积极的意义。
This dissertation aims to study how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure. We consider the industrial production as a process of input and output, so the term "industrial structure" would contain five factors, including industrial technology, capital, employment, output and foreign trade structure. This thesis makes a research to all five factors above, so as to reach a comprehensive understanding of how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure. We carried out an empirical research, mainly based on relevant theories of FDI, using the panel data (1997-2007) from China's industrial production sector.
The result shows that FDI haven't promote the upgrading of China's industrial structure significantly, while promoting its technological progress, capital formation, job growth, output growth, efficiency improvement and export increasing. FDI has a greater economic influence on general-technology industry than technology-intensive industry, and the capital-intensive industry from general technology industry may benefits the most.
Except inhibiting technical progress of general-technology industry, FDI has greater influence on capital formation, labor supply increasing to general technology industry than technology-intensive industry. The upgrading of industrial structure depends on a smaller technology gap between domestic industry and foreign industry, therefore, FDI plays a positive role in promoting the independent innovation of technology-intensive industry, while inhibiting the independent innovation general-technology industry. The crowding out effect of FDI on domestic investment of general technology industry is much greater than that of technology-intensive industry. And there is a crowding in effect on the domestic investment of heavy polluting industries, while no crowding in or out effect to light polluting industries. Mainly through promoting employment growth in general technology industry, FDI led the employment of manufacturing increased, since the labor force structure between industries is low-end, the effect of optimization to technology-intensive industry would be more obvious than the general technology industry. And the situation of brain draining from domestic companies to foreign companies in general technology industry is also serious.
Meanwhile, FDI has limited effect on output and export structure. Although FDI has promoted the output growth of all kinds of industries, including technology, capital and labor-intensive industries, the structure of output, measured by efficiency, has reflected that the impact of FDI on each industry, capital, technology and labor-intensive, were decreasing orderly. FDI leads both state owned and large-scale industrial enterprises' export structure to a low degree, when the samples comes from the manufacturing sector, FDI reduces the export scale of high, medium, low-tech products of each industry were also decreasing in order. View from the division of labor inside the industry, FDI deepens the division of labor-intensive industries mainly by means of processing trade, which is not conducive to upgrading traditional industries and to advancing the position of technology, capital-intensive industry in the product value chain. That is negative for a highly foreign trade dependence country as China.
Because of data limitation, when analyzing the effect of FDI on the technological structure, capital structure and labor structure, we divided manufacturing into technology-intensive industry and general technology industry. FDI has positive effect on general technology industry in investment crowding-in and employment growth in the technology industry and in workforce optimization within the industry, while general technology industry includes both capital-intensive industry and labor-intensive industry. FDI promotes more to capital-intensive industry's output and export, therefore, it can be inferred that when FDI promotes the upgrading of China's industrial structure, capital-intensive industry benefits the most. Upgrading the industrial structure of this paper is defined as the positive impact of FDI on technology, capital and labor-intensive industry decreasing in order, which is an ideal upgrading status. But reality is different from the ideal status, domestic capital is the dominant factor to promote the upgrading of China's industrial structure. Increase employment and improve the employment structure is also caused by increasing domestic investment.
The innovation of this paper includes:first, we make a multidimensional analysis on foreign direct investment and the upgrading of industrial structure. Different from most of the previous analysis focused on one aspect (output value), this paper systematically analyzes the multiple dimensions of FDI on industrial structure upgrade. These dimensions were technological progress, capital formation, employment change, output changes, and changes in structure of foreign trade etc.. This kind of analysis method can help us understand how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure better. Second, combine both FDI theory and of industrial structure upgrading theory. Previous studies have failed to connect FDI theory to industrial structure upgrading theory, which does not conform with reality. View from the majority of FDI in China, which was mainly concentrated in the industrial sector, will inevitably have a significant impact on optimization and upgrading of the industrial structure. This article will combine these two theories as to study the means and mechanisms that FDI affects China's industrial structure upgrading. Third, we analyze the structure of output from two aspects, output value and benefit. When researching the upgrading of the industrial structure, previous studies focused on upgrading of the output value structure, but output value structure is largely a reflection of "quantity", not "quality". Therefore, this paper uses benefit as a reflection of the output "quality" upgrading, combining both output value and benefit to analyze the upgrading of output structure. Fourth, make an intensive analysis to the effect of FDI on the export structure, from three angles as industry, product and within-product. Nowadays, international labor division has gone deep to within-product, and FDI is an important factor in promoting the international division of labor, thus, analysis of how FDI affects the labor division improvement level of within-product has a positive meaning.
研究结果表明,FDI在促进我国工业技术进步、资本形成、就业增加、产值增长、效益提高和出口增加的同时促进了结构升级,但是与结构升级的理想状态存在较大的差距,其中FDI对一般技术行业的经济影响要大于高技术行业,而一般技术行业中的资本密集型行业可能从中受益最多。
除了对一般技术行业的技术进步产生抑制,FDI对一般技术行业的资本形成、劳动力增加的影响程度均大于高技术行业。工业技术结构的升级较依赖于内资工业与外资工业较小技术差距,因此,FDI对高技术行业的自主创新投入有积极的促进作用,但对一般技术行业的自主创新投入产生抑制。FDI对一般技术行业国内投资产生的挤入效应比高技术行业的国内投资的挤入效应的程度要大得多。对重度污染行业的国内投资产生挤入效应,对轻度污染行业无挤入挤出效应。FDI主要通过促进一般技术行业的就业增长带动了制造业的就业增加,行业间劳动力结构呈低端化,高技术行业行业内劳动力结构得到优化的效果比一般技术行业要明显。一般技术行业劳动力从内资流向外资的情况也较严重。
产出和外贸结构方面,FDI对产出和外贸出口结构升级的作用也有限。虽然FDI对技术、资本和劳动密集型行业产值增长均有促进作用,且影响程度依次变小,但是用效益衡量的产出结构却表现出FDI对资本、技术、密集型行业的效益提高的影响依次变小。FDI引致全部国有及规模以上工业企业制造业出口结构低度化,当样本为制造业所有企业时,FDI对资本、技术、劳动密集型行业,中、高、低技术产品出口量的影响依次变小。从产品内分工角度分析,FDI主要通过加工贸易的方式深化劳动密集型行业的产品内分工,并不利于传统行业的更新改造和技术、资本密集型行业在产品价值链分工地位的提高,对于外贸依存度较高的我国而言非常不利。
由于数据的限制,在分析FDI对技术结构、资本结构和劳动力结构时将制造业分为高技术行业和一般技术行业。FDI对一般技术行业的投资挤入和就业增长及行业内劳动力结构优化均起到积极作用,而一般技术行业包括资本密集型行业和劳动密集型行业,且FDI较多促进资本密集型行业的产出和出口,因此,可以推断FDI促进我国工业结构升级过程中,资本密集型行业受益最多。本文对工业结构升级的定义是FDI对技术、资本和劳动密集型行业的积极影响依次变小,这也是一种比较理想的升级状态。但是目前FDI在促进我国工业结构升级时,距离这一理想状态还有较大的距离,内资是促进工业结构升级的主导因素。FDI对高技术行业自主创新投入的积极促进作用,很有可能来自于内资高技术行业与外资高技术行业较小的技术差距。增加就业和提升就业结构的因素也在于内资投资的增加。
本文的创新之处在于：第一,对外商直接投资与工业结构的升级进行多维分析。与以往的分析大都集中于一个方面(产值)不同的是,本文从多个维度比较系统地分析FDI对工业结构升级的影响。这些维度包括：技术进步、资本形成、就业变化、产出变化、对外贸易结构的变化等。多维分析可以更加清楚地认识FDI对我国工业结构升级产生的作用。第二,将FDI理论与工业结构升级理论相结合。以往的研究往往没有将FDI理论与工业结构升级理论联系起来,这与现实情况不相符合。从FDI在我国的产业流向来看,FDI主要集中于工业部门,必然会对工业结构的升级与优化产生重大影响。本文将二者相结合,考察FDI对我国工业结构升级的影响途径和机制。第三,从产值与效益两个方面分析产出结构。已有文献在研究结构升级问题时,将焦点集中于产值结构的升级,但是产值结构很大程度上是产出在“量”上的反映,对于产出在“质”上的提升关注较少,因而,本文以效益反映产出在“质”上的提升,结合产值与效益两个方面分析产出结构的升级。第四,从行业、产品和产品内三个角度深入分析FDI对出口结构的影响。国际分工已经深入到产品内的分工,FDI是推动推动国际分工的重要因素,因而分析FDI对我国产品内分工程度的提高具有积极的意义。
This dissertation aims to study how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure. We consider the industrial production as a process of input and output, so the term "industrial structure" would contain five factors, including industrial technology, capital, employment, output and foreign trade structure. This thesis makes a research to all five factors above, so as to reach a comprehensive understanding of how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure. We carried out an empirical research, mainly based on relevant theories of FDI, using the panel data (1997-2007) from China's industrial production sector.
The result shows that FDI haven't promote the upgrading of China's industrial structure significantly, while promoting its technological progress, capital formation, job growth, output growth, efficiency improvement and export increasing. FDI has a greater economic influence on general-technology industry than technology-intensive industry, and the capital-intensive industry from general technology industry may benefits the most.
Except inhibiting technical progress of general-technology industry, FDI has greater influence on capital formation, labor supply increasing to general technology industry than technology-intensive industry. The upgrading of industrial structure depends on a smaller technology gap between domestic industry and foreign industry, therefore, FDI plays a positive role in promoting the independent innovation of technology-intensive industry, while inhibiting the independent innovation general-technology industry. The crowding out effect of FDI on domestic investment of general technology industry is much greater than that of technology-intensive industry. And there is a crowding in effect on the domestic investment of heavy polluting industries, while no crowding in or out effect to light polluting industries. Mainly through promoting employment growth in general technology industry, FDI led the employment of manufacturing increased, since the labor force structure between industries is low-end, the effect of optimization to technology-intensive industry would be more obvious than the general technology industry. And the situation of brain draining from domestic companies to foreign companies in general technology industry is also serious.
Meanwhile, FDI has limited effect on output and export structure. Although FDI has promoted the output growth of all kinds of industries, including technology, capital and labor-intensive industries, the structure of output, measured by efficiency, has reflected that the impact of FDI on each industry, capital, technology and labor-intensive, were decreasing orderly. FDI leads both state owned and large-scale industrial enterprises' export structure to a low degree, when the samples comes from the manufacturing sector, FDI reduces the export scale of high, medium, low-tech products of each industry were also decreasing in order. View from the division of labor inside the industry, FDI deepens the division of labor-intensive industries mainly by means of processing trade, which is not conducive to upgrading traditional industries and to advancing the position of technology, capital-intensive industry in the product value chain. That is negative for a highly foreign trade dependence country as China.
Because of data limitation, when analyzing the effect of FDI on the technological structure, capital structure and labor structure, we divided manufacturing into technology-intensive industry and general technology industry. FDI has positive effect on general technology industry in investment crowding-in and employment growth in the technology industry and in workforce optimization within the industry, while general technology industry includes both capital-intensive industry and labor-intensive industry. FDI promotes more to capital-intensive industry's output and export, therefore, it can be inferred that when FDI promotes the upgrading of China's industrial structure, capital-intensive industry benefits the most. Upgrading the industrial structure of this paper is defined as the positive impact of FDI on technology, capital and labor-intensive industry decreasing in order, which is an ideal upgrading status. But reality is different from the ideal status, domestic capital is the dominant factor to promote the upgrading of China's industrial structure. Increase employment and improve the employment structure is also caused by increasing domestic investment.
The innovation of this paper includes:first, we make a multidimensional analysis on foreign direct investment and the upgrading of industrial structure. Different from most of the previous analysis focused on one aspect (output value), this paper systematically analyzes the multiple dimensions of FDI on industrial structure upgrade. These dimensions were technological progress, capital formation, employment change, output changes, and changes in structure of foreign trade etc.. This kind of analysis method can help us understand how FDI affects the upgrading of China's industrial structure better. Second, combine both FDI theory and of industrial structure upgrading theory. Previous studies have failed to connect FDI theory to industrial structure upgrading theory, which does not conform with reality. View from the majority of FDI in China, which was mainly concentrated in the industrial sector, will inevitably have a significant impact on optimization and upgrading of the industrial structure. This article will combine these two theories as to study the means and mechanisms that FDI affects China's industrial structure upgrading. Third, we analyze the structure of output from two aspects, output value and benefit. When researching the upgrading of the industrial structure, previous studies focused on upgrading of the output value structure, but output value structure is largely a reflection of "quantity", not "quality". Therefore, this paper uses benefit as a reflection of the output "quality" upgrading, combining both output value and benefit to analyze the upgrading of output structure. Fourth, make an intensive analysis to the effect of FDI on the export structure, from three angles as industry, product and within-product. Nowadays, international labor division has gone deep to within-product, and FDI is an important factor in promoting the international division of labor, thus, analysis of how FDI affects the labor division improvement level of within-product has a positive meaning.
引文
①转引自杨治,产业经济学导论,第61-63页。
[1]Agosin, M. R. and Ricardo, M. Foreign Investment in Developing Countries:Does it Crowd in Domestic Investment? UNCTAD Discussion Papers, No.146. http://r0. unctad. Org/en/docs/dp-146.en.pdf.2000-02.
[2]Aitken, B. and Harrison, A. Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review,1999,89(3): 605-618.
[3]Albrecht, J. Environment Policy and Investment Position of US Dirty Industries. Intereconomics:Review of European Economic Policy 1998,33(4):186-194.
[4]Balasubramanyam, V. N. The Treuhandanstalt, FDI and Employment in Germany. International Journal of Manpower,1994,15(6):72-84.
[5]Barry, F., Gorg H. and Strobl E et al. Foreign Direct Investment and Wages in Domestic Firms:Productivity Spillovers vs Labour Market Crowding Out. http: //cepr. org/meets/wkcn/2/2314/papers/barry-gorg. pdf,2001.
[6]Bhagwati, JN., Brecher RA., Dinopoulos, E et al. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Welfare:A Political Economy Theoretical Model. Journal of Development Economics,1987(10):127-138.
[7]Bhagwati, J. N., Dinopoulos, E and yiuWong, K. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment. American Economic Review,1992(5):186-190.
[8]Bishop, P. and Wiseman, N. External ownership and innovation in the United Kingdom. Applied Economics 1999,31 (4):443-450.
[9]Blomstrom, M. and Persson H. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency in an Underdeveloped Economy:Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry. World Development,1983,11(6):493-501.
[10]Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. De. and Lee, J. W. How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth?. Journal of International Economics,1998, 45(1):115-135.
[11]Bosworth, Barry and Collins S. M. Capital Flows to Development Economies: Implications for Saving and Investment. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1999,1:143-169.
[12]Castellani, D. and Zanfei, A. Innovation, foreign ownership and multinationality: An empirical analysis on Italian manufacturing firms.http://www.econ.uniurb. it/siepi/dec03/papers/castellani.pdf,2003-04.
[13]Caves, R. E. Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host-country Markets. Economica,1974,41(5):176-193.
[14]Dinopoulos, E. and Bhagwati, J. N. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Market Structure[R]Unpublished Manuscript Presented at the 61st Annual Western Economic Association Conference, San Francisco,1986.
[15]Dinopoulos, E. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment. Economics and Politics,1989(2): 145-160.
[16]Dinopoulos, E. and yiuWong, K. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Political Intervention[A]. Koekkoek K. A. and Mennes C. B. M. eds. International Trade and Global Development:Essays in Honour of Jagdish Bhagwati. London:Routledge, 1991.162-190.
[17]Driffield N. The Impact on Domestic Productivity of Inward Investment in the UK. The Manchester School,2001,69(1):103-119.
[18]Erdilek, A. R&D Activities of Foreign and National Establishments in Turkish Manufacturing [A]. Blomstrom, M. Graham, E. and Moran, T. eds. The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Development:New Measures, New Outcomes, New Policy Approaches. Washington, DC:Institute for International Economics,2005.
[19]Eskeland G. A. and Harrison A. E. Moving to Greener Pastures:Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank, No.1774,1997.
[20]Eskeland G. A. and Harrison A. E. Moving to Greener Pastures:Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics.2003,70(1): 1-23.
[21]Liang, F. H. Does Foreign Direct Investment Harm Host Country Environment? Evidence from Coastal and Interior China. Berkeley:Institute of Business & Economic Research,2006-03.
[22]Girma S, Gorg H, Pisu M et al. Exporting, Linkages and Productivity Spillovers fromForeign Direct Investment. Canadian Journal of Economics,2008,41(1): 320-340.
[23]Greene and William, H. Econometric Analysis. New Jersey:Prentice Hall,2000.
[24]Grossman G. M. and Krueger, A. B. Environment Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. The U. S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1993:13-56.
[25]Griffith, R., Redding, S. and Simpson, H. Foreign ownership and productivity:New Evidence from the service sector and the R&D lab. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,2004,20 (3):440-456.
[26]Griliches and Zvi. R&D and Productivity Slowdown. American Economic Review, 1980a,70(1):343-348.
[27]Griliches and Zvi. Returns to Research and Development Expenditures in the Private Sector[A] Kendrick, John, W. and Beatrice, N. et al. New Developments in Productivity Measurement and Analysis. Chicago:Chicago University Press,1980b: 419-454.
[28]Griliches and Zvi. Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in t he 1970s'. American Economic Review,1986,76 (6):141-154.
[29]Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. Technology and Trade[A] Grossman, G. M. and Rogoff eds. Handbook of International Economics, Vol.3. Amsterdam:North Holland.1995.
[30]Haddad, M. and Harrison, A. Are there Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993, 42:51-74.
[31]Harris, R. I. D. Technology and Regional Policy:A Case Study of Northern Ireland. Applied Economics,1991(23):685-696.
[32]Helpman, E. The Structure of Foreign Trade. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1999,13(2):121-144.
[33]Jefferson, G. H., Huamao, B. and Xiaojing G et al. R&D Performance in Chinese Industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2006,15 (4-5):345-366.
[34]Jie H. Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Environmental Impacts of Foreign Direct Investment:The Case of Industrial Emission of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) in Chinese Provinces. Ecological Economics,2006,60:228-245.
[35]Stanck, J. Horizontal and Vertical FDI Spillovers:Recent Evidence from the Czech Republic. CERGE-EI Working Paper series, No.340,2007.
[36]Keller, W. International Technology Diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming,2004.
[37]Keller, W. and Yeaple S. R. Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and Productivity Growth:Firm-Level Evidence from the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics,2009,91(4):821-831.
[38]Kokko, A., Zejan, M. and Tansini, R. et al. Trade Regimes and Spillover Effects of FDI:Evidence from Uruguay. Review of World Economics,2001,137, (1): 124-149.
[39]Backer, K. De. and Sleuwaegen, L. Does Foreign Direct Investment Crowd Out Domestic Entrepreneurship?. Review of Industrial Organization 2003(22):67-84.
[40]Lipsey, R. E. Home and Host Country Effects of FDI. NBER Working Paper, No. 9293,2002.
[41]Lofts, C. and Loundes, J. Foreign Ownership, Foreign Competition and Innovation in Australian Enterprises. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper No.20/00, University of Melbourne,2000.
[42]Raymond, L. The United States Direct Investment in Canada and Canadian Capital Formation,1950-1962. Harvard University:Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,1966.
[43]Luiz, R. and Mello, D. Foreign Direct Investnent-Led Growth:Evidence form Time Series and Panel Data. Oxford Economic Papers 51:133-151,1999.
[44]Loof, H., Ebersberger, B. and Jahansson, B. Does Ownership Matter? The Impact of Foreign Takeovers on Innovation and Productivity Performance. CESIS Working Paper 69,2006.
[45]Love, J. H., Ashcroft, B. and Dunlop, S. Corporate structure, ownership and the likelihood of innovation. Applied Economics 1996,28:737-746.
[46]Liu, X. Comparative Productivity of Foreign and Local Firms in Chinese Industry. 27th UK Chapter AIB Conference Proceedings,2000,2:115-136.
[47]Liu, X., Song, H., Y. Wei, and P. Romilly. Country Characteristics and Foreign Direct Investment in China:A Panel Data Analysis. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1997,133(2):311-329.
[48]Mani, M. and Wheeler, D. In Search of Pollution Havens? Dirty Industry in the World Economy,1960-1995. Washington, DC:Discussion paper, No.402, World Bank,1999:115-128.
[49]Marin, A. and Bell, M. Technology Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):an Exploration of the Active role of MNC Subsidiaries in the Case of Argentina in the 1990s. Journal of Development Studies,2006,42(4):678-697.
[50]Markusen, J. R. Factor Movements and Commodity Trade as Complements. Journal of International Economics,1983(13):341-356.
[51]Markuson, J. R. and Svensson, L. E. O. Trade in Goods and Factors with International Differences in Technology. International Economic Review,1985, (26):175-192.
[52]Merlevede, B and Schoors, K. FDI and the Consequences Towards more Complete Capture of Spillover Effects. Belgium:Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University,2006.
[53]Noovzoy, M. S. Flows of Direct Investment and their Effects on U. S Domestic Investment. Economics Letters 1980(5):311-317.
[54]Mundell, R. International Trade and Factor Mobility. American Economic Review, 1957(47):321-335.
[55]Neary, J. P. Factor Mobility and International Trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, Special Issue,1995, (28):4-23.
[56]Driffield, N and Taylor, K. FDI and the Labor Market:a Review of the Evidence and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economics Policy,2000,16(3):90-103.
[57]Graham, E. M. and Wada, E. Foreign Direct Investment in China:Effect on Growth and Economic Performance, Experience of Transitional Economies in East Asia. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[58]Nunnenkamp, P. and Bremont, J. E. A. FDI in Mexico:An Empirical Assessment of Employment Effects. Kiel Working Paper No.1328,2003.
[59]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984.13:343-373.
[60]Patrie, A. The Regional Clustering of Foreign Direct Investment and Trade. Transnational Corporation,1996,3(3):1-24.
[61]Repetto, R. Jobs, Competitiveness and Environmental Regulation:What are the Real Issues?. Washington D. C.:World Resources Institute,1995.
[62]Kosova, R. Do Foreign Firms Crowd Out Domestic Firms Evidence from the Crech Republic. UNCTAD Discuss Paper,2005.
[63]Walter, I. and Ugelow, J. Environmental Polices in Developing Countries. Ambio, 1979:102-109.
[64]Xing, Y. and C. Kolstad. Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?. Mimeograph, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.,1998.
[65]Robert, C. Feenstra and Hanson, G. H. Foreign Investment and Relative Wages: Evidence from Mexico's Maquiladoras. Journal of International Economics,1997, 42:371-393.
[66]Robert, C. Feenstra and Hanson, G. H. The Impact of Outsourcing and High-Technology Capital on Wages:Estimates for the United States,1979-1990. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(3):907-940.
[67]Sjoholm, F. Technology Gap, Competition and Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment:Evidence from Establishment Data. Journal of Development Studies, 1999a,36(1):53-73.
[68]Sjoholm, F. Productivity Growth in Indonesia:The Role of Regional Characteristics and Direct Foreign Investment. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1999b,47(4):559-584.
[69]TainJy, Chen. and YinHua, Ku. The Effect of Overseas Investment on Domestic Employment. NBER working paper, No.10156,2003.
[70]Trefler and Daniel. The Case of Missing Trade and Other Mysteries. American Economic Review,1995,85:1029-1046.
[71]Mickiewicz, T., Radosevicv, S. and Varblane, U. The Value Of Diversity:Foreign Direct Investment and Employment in Central Europe During Economic Recovery. University of Tartu Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Discussion Paper, No.561,2000.
[72]Xiaodong Wu. Foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights, and wage inequality in China. China Economies Review.2000(11),4:361-384.
[73]薄文广.FDI挤入或挤出了中国的国内投资么.财经论坛,2006(1)：64-72.
[74]陈红蕾,陈秋锋.“污染避难所”假说及其在中国的检验.暨南学报,2006(4)：51-55,150.
[75]陈家涛.挤出还是挤入：外商直接投资对国内投资的效应.财经科学,2009(4)：110-116.
[76]陈凌佳.FDI环境效应的新检验——基于中国112座重点城市的面板数据研究.世界经济研究,2008(9)：54-59.
[77]陈涛涛.影响中国外商直接投资溢出效应的行业特征.中国社会科学,2003(4)：33-43.
[78]陈有川,孙博,尹宏玲.产业结构高度化对城市生产性空间的影响研究.地域研究与开发,2009(4)：1-5.
[79]蔡昉,王德文.外商直接投资与就业——个人力资本分析框架.财经论丛,2004(1)：1-14.
[80]戴育琴,欧阳小迅.“污染天堂假说”在中国的检验.企业技术开发,2006,25(12)：91-93.
[81]党玉婷等.贸易对环境影响的实证分析——以中国制造业为例.世界经济研究,2007(4)：52-57.
[82]丁明智.外商直接投资的就业效应剖析.软科学,2005(3)：27-29.
[83]杜修立,王维国.中国出口贸易的技术结构及其变迁：1980-2003.经济研究,2007(7)：137-151.
[84]樊纲,关志雄,姚枝仲.国际贸易结构分析：贸易品的技术分布.经济研究,2006(8)：70-80.
[85]范承泽,胡一帆,郑红亮.FDI对国内企业技术创新影响的理论与实证研究.经济研究,2008,(1)：89-102.
[86]关志雄.从美国市场看“中国制造”的实力.国际经济评论.2002(7)：5-12.
[87]国家计划规划司课题组,城市化、国际化和产业结构的高度化——未来20年中 国经济发展基调的判断.管理世界,1994(5)：34-40.
[88]韩燕,钱春海.FDI对我国工业部门经济增长影响的差异性——基于要素密集度的行业分类研究.南开经济研究2008(6)：143-152.
[89]胡小娟,赵寒.我国工业行业外商直接投资结构的环境效应分析——基于工业行业面板数据的实证检验.世界经济研究,2010(7)：55-61.
[90]黄华民.外商直接投资对我国宏观经济影响的实证分析.经济评论,2000(6)：29-32.
[91]黄乾.国际贸易,外国直接投资与制造业高技能劳动力需求.世界经济研究,2009(1)：40-46.
[92]姜瑾,朱桂龙.外商直接投资行业间技术溢出效应实证分析.财经研究,2007(1)：112-121.
[93]李雪辉,许罗丹.FDI对外资集中区域工资水平影响的实证研究.南开经济研究,2002(2)：35-39.
[94]刘辉群,卢进勇.国际直接投资的就业结构效应研究——基于东道国视角,国际贸易问题.2009(9)：74-79.
[95]梁琦,施晓苏.中国对外贸易和FDI相互关系的研究.经济学季刊,2004(4)：839-858.
[96]伦蕊.工业产业结构高度化水平的基本测评.江苏社会科学,2005(2)：69-74.
[97]吕铁,周淑莲.中国的产业结构升级与经济增长方式转变.管理世界,1999(1)：113-125,138.
[98]毛日昇,魏浩.所有权特征、技术密集度与FDI技术外溢效率.管理世界,2007(10)：31-42.
[99]毛新雅,张得志.长江三角洲地区外商直接投资的就业效应——基于16城市面板数据的研究.改革与战略,2007(10)：80-83.
[100]潘文卿,陈水源.产业结构高度化与合理化水平的定量测算.开发研究,1994(1)：42-44.
[101]齐俊妍.中国是否出口了更多高技术产品——基于技术含量和附加值的考察.世界经济研究,2008(9)：40-47.
[102]邱斌,唐保庆,孙少勤.对中国国际贸易与FDI相互关系的重新检验.南开经济研究,2006(4)：32-46,70.
[103]邱晓明.外商直接投资的就业效应变迁分析.中国软科学,2004(3)：55-58.
[104]沙文兵等.外商直接投资的环境效应——基于中国省际面板数据的实证分析.世界经济研究,2006(6)：76-81.
[105]沙文兵,陶爱萍.外商直接投资的就业效应分析——基于协整理论的实证分析.财经科学,2007(4)：112-117.
[106]邵学言、余敏.广东FDI对国内投资挤入挤出效应的实证研究——提高利用外资质量的宏观分析.南方金融,2006(6)：5-8.
[107]盛斌.中国对外贸易政策的政治经济分析.上海：上海人民出版社,2002.
[108]涂涛涛.外商直接投资对中国企业创新的外溢效应研究：基于垂直联系的视角.南方经济,2009(7)：16-25,71.
[109]王蕙.FDI对中国工业制成品内部结构的影响.经济问题探索,2010(5)：95-100.
[110]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)：44-56.
[111]王剑.外国直接投资对中国就业效应的测算.统计研究,2005(3)：29-32.
[112]王劲松,史晋川,李应春.中国民营经济的产业结构演进——兼论民营经济与国有经济、外资经济的竞争关系.管理世界,2006(10)：82-93.
[113]吴延兵.R&D存量、知识函数与生产效率.经济学(季刊),2006(4)：1129-1156.
[114]王燕飞,曾国平.FDI、就业结构及产业结构变迁.世界经济研究,2006(7)：51-57.
[115]吴玉呜.外商直接投资与环境规制关联机制的面板数据分析.经济地理,2007(1)：11-14.
[116]吴玉鸣.外商直接投资对环境规制的影响.国际贸易问题,2006(4)：111-116.
[117]王文声,易丹辉.关于工业生产要素密集度研究的统计方法.统计研究,1998(1)：49-54.
[118]王云平.工业结构升级的制度分析.北京：中国社科院研究生院博士学位论文, 2002.
[119]王岳平,开放条件下的工业结构升级.北京：中国社科院研究生院博士学位论文,2002.
[120]王岳平.开放条件下的工业结构升级[.北京：经济管理出版社,137-138.
[121]王子军,冯蕾.外商直接投资与中国出口竞争力——对我国按不同技术类别细分的制成品出口的实证分析.南开经济研究,2004(4)：52-57.
[122]王志鹏,李子奈.外商直接投资对国内投资挤入挤出效应的重新检验.统计研究,2004(7)：37-43.
[123]魏浩,毛日昇,张二震.中国制成品出口比较优势及贸易结构分析.世界经济,2005(2)：21-34.
[124]夏友富.外商投资中国污染密集型产业现状、后果及其对策研究.管理世界,1999(3)：109-123.
[125]冼国明,薄文广.外国直接投资对中国企业技术创新作用的影响.南开经济研究,2005(6):16-23.
[126]小岛清.对外贸易论.天津：南开大学出版社,1987.
[127]辛力,邓珊珊.外商直接投资对民营投资的挤入挤出效应.现代财经,2007(3)：9-14.
[128]徐侠,陈圻,郑兵云.高技术产业R&D支出的影响因素研究.科学学研究,2008(4)：304-310.
[129]薛漫天,赵曙东.外国直接投资的行业内与行业间溢出效应：哪些行业受益?南开经济研究,2008(1)：57-74.
[130]姚先国,周礼,来君.技术进步、技能需求与就业结构——基于制造业微观数据的技能偏态假说检验.中国人口科学,2005(5)：47-53.
[131]姚树杰,韦开蕾.中国经济增长、外商直接投资和出口贸易的互动实证研究.2007(10)：152-170.
[132]姚战琪,夏杰长.资本深化、技术进步对中国就业效应的经验分析.世界经济,2005(1)：58-67.
[133]杨柳勇,沈国良.外商直接投资对国内投资的挤入挤出效应分析.统计研究. 2002(3)：6-8.
[134]杨宏进,薛澜译.经济合作与发展组织编,以知识为基础的经济.北京：机械工业出版社,1997.
[135]杨亚平.外商直接投资对广东省制造业技术溢出的实证研究——基于分位数回归方法.经济经纬,2009(5)：48-51.
[136]应瑞瑶,周力.外商直接投资、工业污染与环境规制——基于中国数据的计量经济学分析.财贸经济,2006(1)：76-81.
[137]张亚斌,肖竞成,艾洪山.外商直接投资于我国技术进步——基于关联渠道分析的实证检验.南开经济研究,2007(5)：67-76.
[138]赵果庆.跨国公司对我国工业结构升级的影响——基于要素密集型产业划分.国际贸易问题,2006(8)：99-104.
[139]张二震,任志成.FDI与中国就业结构的演进.经济理沦与经济管理,2005(5)：5-10.
[140]张建勤.外商直接投资对我国就业的影响——一个综合分析框架.经济与管理研究,2005(5)：46-50.
[141]郑秀君.我国外商直接投资(FDI)技术溢出效应实证研究述评：1994-2005.数量经济技术经济研究,2006(9)：58-68.
[142]郑月明,董登新.外商直接投资对我国就业的区域差异与动态效应——基于动态面板数据的模型分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2008(5)：104-113.
[143]周力,应瑞瑶.外商直接投资与工业污染.中国人口·资源与环境,2009(2)：42-50.
[144]朱劲松.外商直接投资在中国资本形成的效应.亚太经济.2001(3)：45-48.
[145]朱平芳,徐伟民.政府的科技激励政策对大中型工业企业R&D投入及其专利产出的影响——上海市的实证研究.经济研究,2003(6)：45-53.
[1]Agosin, M. R. and Ricardo, M. Foreign Investment in Developing Countries:Does it Crowd in Domestic Investment? UNCTAD Discussion Papers, No.146. http://r0. unctad. Org/en/docs/dp-146.en.pdf.2000-02.
[2]Aitken, B. and Harrison, A. Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review,1999,89(3): 605-618.
[3]Albrecht, J. Environment Policy and Investment Position of US Dirty Industries. Intereconomics:Review of European Economic Policy 1998,33(4):186-194.
[4]Balasubramanyam, V. N. The Treuhandanstalt, FDI and Employment in Germany. International Journal of Manpower,1994,15(6):72-84.
[5]Barry, F., Gorg H. and Strobl E et al. Foreign Direct Investment and Wages in Domestic Firms:Productivity Spillovers vs Labour Market Crowding Out. http: //cepr. org/meets/wkcn/2/2314/papers/barry-gorg. pdf,2001.
[6]Bhagwati, JN., Brecher RA., Dinopoulos, E et al. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Welfare:A Political Economy Theoretical Model. Journal of Development Economics,1987(10):127-138.
[7]Bhagwati, J. N., Dinopoulos, E and yiuWong, K. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment. American Economic Review,1992(5):186-190.
[8]Bishop, P. and Wiseman, N. External ownership and innovation in the United Kingdom. Applied Economics 1999,31 (4):443-450.
[9]Blomstrom, M. and Persson H. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency in an Underdeveloped Economy:Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry. World Development,1983,11(6):493-501.
[10]Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. De. and Lee, J. W. How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth?. Journal of International Economics,1998, 45(1):115-135.
[11]Bosworth, Barry and Collins S. M. Capital Flows to Development Economies: Implications for Saving and Investment. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1999,1:143-169.
[12]Castellani, D. and Zanfei, A. Innovation, foreign ownership and multinationality: An empirical analysis on Italian manufacturing firms.http://www.econ.uniurb. it/siepi/dec03/papers/castellani.pdf,2003-04.
[13]Caves, R. E. Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host-country Markets. Economica,1974,41(5):176-193.
[14]Dinopoulos, E. and Bhagwati, J. N. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Market Structure[R]Unpublished Manuscript Presented at the 61st Annual Western Economic Association Conference, San Francisco,1986.
[15]Dinopoulos, E. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment. Economics and Politics,1989(2): 145-160.
[16]Dinopoulos, E. and yiuWong, K. Quid Pro Quo Foreign Investment and Political Intervention[A]. Koekkoek K. A. and Mennes C. B. M. eds. International Trade and Global Development:Essays in Honour of Jagdish Bhagwati. London:Routledge, 1991.162-190.
[17]Driffield N. The Impact on Domestic Productivity of Inward Investment in the UK. The Manchester School,2001,69(1):103-119.
[18]Erdilek, A. R&D Activities of Foreign and National Establishments in Turkish Manufacturing [A]. Blomstrom, M. Graham, E. and Moran, T. eds. The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Development:New Measures, New Outcomes, New Policy Approaches. Washington, DC:Institute for International Economics,2005.
[19]Eskeland G. A. and Harrison A. E. Moving to Greener Pastures:Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank, No.1774,1997.
[20]Eskeland G. A. and Harrison A. E. Moving to Greener Pastures:Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics.2003,70(1): 1-23.
[21]Liang, F. H. Does Foreign Direct Investment Harm Host Country Environment? Evidence from Coastal and Interior China. Berkeley:Institute of Business & Economic Research,2006-03.
[22]Girma S, Gorg H, Pisu M et al. Exporting, Linkages and Productivity Spillovers fromForeign Direct Investment. Canadian Journal of Economics,2008,41(1): 320-340.
[23]Greene and William, H. Econometric Analysis. New Jersey:Prentice Hall,2000.
[24]Grossman G. M. and Krueger, A. B. Environment Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. The U. S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1993:13-56.
[25]Griffith, R., Redding, S. and Simpson, H. Foreign ownership and productivity:New Evidence from the service sector and the R&D lab. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,2004,20 (3):440-456.
[26]Griliches and Zvi. R&D and Productivity Slowdown. American Economic Review, 1980a,70(1):343-348.
[27]Griliches and Zvi. Returns to Research and Development Expenditures in the Private Sector[A] Kendrick, John, W. and Beatrice, N. et al. New Developments in Productivity Measurement and Analysis. Chicago:Chicago University Press,1980b: 419-454.
[28]Griliches and Zvi. Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in t he 1970s'. American Economic Review,1986,76 (6):141-154.
[29]Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. Technology and Trade[A] Grossman, G. M. and Rogoff eds. Handbook of International Economics, Vol.3. Amsterdam:North Holland.1995.
[30]Haddad, M. and Harrison, A. Are there Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993, 42:51-74.
[31]Harris, R. I. D. Technology and Regional Policy:A Case Study of Northern Ireland. Applied Economics,1991(23):685-696.
[32]Helpman, E. The Structure of Foreign Trade. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1999,13(2):121-144.
[33]Jefferson, G. H., Huamao, B. and Xiaojing G et al. R&D Performance in Chinese Industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2006,15 (4-5):345-366.
[34]Jie H. Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Environmental Impacts of Foreign Direct Investment:The Case of Industrial Emission of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) in Chinese Provinces. Ecological Economics,2006,60:228-245.
[35]Stanck, J. Horizontal and Vertical FDI Spillovers:Recent Evidence from the Czech Republic. CERGE-EI Working Paper series, No.340,2007.
[36]Keller, W. International Technology Diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming,2004.
[37]Keller, W. and Yeaple S. R. Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and Productivity Growth:Firm-Level Evidence from the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics,2009,91(4):821-831.
[38]Kokko, A., Zejan, M. and Tansini, R. et al. Trade Regimes and Spillover Effects of FDI:Evidence from Uruguay. Review of World Economics,2001,137, (1): 124-149.
[39]Backer, K. De. and Sleuwaegen, L. Does Foreign Direct Investment Crowd Out Domestic Entrepreneurship?. Review of Industrial Organization 2003(22):67-84.
[40]Lipsey, R. E. Home and Host Country Effects of FDI. NBER Working Paper, No. 9293,2002.
[41]Lofts, C. and Loundes, J. Foreign Ownership, Foreign Competition and Innovation in Australian Enterprises. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper No.20/00, University of Melbourne,2000.
[42]Raymond, L. The United States Direct Investment in Canada and Canadian Capital Formation,1950-1962. Harvard University:Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,1966.
[43]Luiz, R. and Mello, D. Foreign Direct Investnent-Led Growth:Evidence form Time Series and Panel Data. Oxford Economic Papers 51:133-151,1999.
[44]Loof, H., Ebersberger, B. and Jahansson, B. Does Ownership Matter? The Impact of Foreign Takeovers on Innovation and Productivity Performance. CESIS Working Paper 69,2006.
[45]Love, J. H., Ashcroft, B. and Dunlop, S. Corporate structure, ownership and the likelihood of innovation. Applied Economics 1996,28:737-746.
[46]Liu, X. Comparative Productivity of Foreign and Local Firms in Chinese Industry. 27th UK Chapter AIB Conference Proceedings,2000,2:115-136.
[47]Liu, X., Song, H., Y. Wei, and P. Romilly. Country Characteristics and Foreign Direct Investment in China:A Panel Data Analysis. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1997,133(2):311-329.
[48]Mani, M. and Wheeler, D. In Search of Pollution Havens? Dirty Industry in the World Economy,1960-1995. Washington, DC:Discussion paper, No.402, World Bank,1999:115-128.
[49]Marin, A. and Bell, M. Technology Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):an Exploration of the Active role of MNC Subsidiaries in the Case of Argentina in the 1990s. Journal of Development Studies,2006,42(4):678-697.
[50]Markusen, J. R. Factor Movements and Commodity Trade as Complements. Journal of International Economics,1983(13):341-356.
[51]Markuson, J. R. and Svensson, L. E. O. Trade in Goods and Factors with International Differences in Technology. International Economic Review,1985, (26):175-192.
[52]Merlevede, B and Schoors, K. FDI and the Consequences Towards more Complete Capture of Spillover Effects. Belgium:Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University,2006.
[53]Noovzoy, M. S. Flows of Direct Investment and their Effects on U. S Domestic Investment. Economics Letters 1980(5):311-317.
[54]Mundell, R. International Trade and Factor Mobility. American Economic Review, 1957(47):321-335.
[55]Neary, J. P. Factor Mobility and International Trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, Special Issue,1995, (28):4-23.
[56]Driffield, N and Taylor, K. FDI and the Labor Market:a Review of the Evidence and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economics Policy,2000,16(3):90-103.
[57]Graham, E. M. and Wada, E. Foreign Direct Investment in China:Effect on Growth and Economic Performance, Experience of Transitional Economies in East Asia. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
[58]Nunnenkamp, P. and Bremont, J. E. A. FDI in Mexico:An Empirical Assessment of Employment Effects. Kiel Working Paper No.1328,2003.
[59]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984.13:343-373.
[60]Patrie, A. The Regional Clustering of Foreign Direct Investment and Trade. Transnational Corporation,1996,3(3):1-24.
[61]Repetto, R. Jobs, Competitiveness and Environmental Regulation:What are the Real Issues?. Washington D. C.:World Resources Institute,1995.
[62]Kosova, R. Do Foreign Firms Crowd Out Domestic Firms Evidence from the Crech Republic. UNCTAD Discuss Paper,2005.
[63]Walter, I. and Ugelow, J. Environmental Polices in Developing Countries. Ambio, 1979:102-109.
[64]Xing, Y. and C. Kolstad. Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?. Mimeograph, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.,1998.
[65]Robert, C. Feenstra and Hanson, G. H. Foreign Investment and Relative Wages: Evidence from Mexico's Maquiladoras. Journal of International Economics,1997, 42:371-393.
[66]Robert, C. Feenstra and Hanson, G. H. The Impact of Outsourcing and High-Technology Capital on Wages:Estimates for the United States,1979-1990. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(3):907-940.
[67]Sjoholm, F. Technology Gap, Competition and Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment:Evidence from Establishment Data. Journal of Development Studies, 1999a,36(1):53-73.
[68]Sjoholm, F. Productivity Growth in Indonesia:The Role of Regional Characteristics and Direct Foreign Investment. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1999b,47(4):559-584.
[69]TainJy, Chen. and YinHua, Ku. The Effect of Overseas Investment on Domestic Employment. NBER working paper, No.10156,2003.
[70]Trefler and Daniel. The Case of Missing Trade and Other Mysteries. American Economic Review,1995,85:1029-1046.
[71]Mickiewicz, T., Radosevicv, S. and Varblane, U. The Value Of Diversity:Foreign Direct Investment and Employment in Central Europe During Economic Recovery. University of Tartu Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Discussion Paper, No.561,2000.
[72]Xiaodong Wu. Foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights, and wage inequality in China. China Economies Review.2000(11),4:361-384.
[73]薄文广.FDI挤入或挤出了中国的国内投资么.财经论坛,2006(1)：64-72.
[74]陈红蕾,陈秋锋.“污染避难所”假说及其在中国的检验.暨南学报,2006(4)：51-55,150.
[75]陈家涛.挤出还是挤入：外商直接投资对国内投资的效应.财经科学,2009(4)：110-116.
[76]陈凌佳.FDI环境效应的新检验——基于中国112座重点城市的面板数据研究.世界经济研究,2008(9)：54-59.
[77]陈涛涛.影响中国外商直接投资溢出效应的行业特征.中国社会科学,2003(4)：33-43.
[78]陈有川,孙博,尹宏玲.产业结构高度化对城市生产性空间的影响研究.地域研究与开发,2009(4)：1-5.
[79]蔡昉,王德文.外商直接投资与就业——个人力资本分析框架.财经论丛,2004(1)：1-14.
[80]戴育琴,欧阳小迅.“污染天堂假说”在中国的检验.企业技术开发,2006,25(12)：91-93.
[81]党玉婷等.贸易对环境影响的实证分析——以中国制造业为例.世界经济研究,2007(4)：52-57.
[82]丁明智.外商直接投资的就业效应剖析.软科学,2005(3)：27-29.
[83]杜修立,王维国.中国出口贸易的技术结构及其变迁：1980-2003.经济研究,2007(7)：137-151.
[84]樊纲,关志雄,姚枝仲.国际贸易结构分析：贸易品的技术分布.经济研究,2006(8)：70-80.
[85]范承泽,胡一帆,郑红亮.FDI对国内企业技术创新影响的理论与实证研究.经济研究,2008,(1)：89-102.
[86]关志雄.从美国市场看“中国制造”的实力.国际经济评论.2002(7)：5-12.
[87]国家计划规划司课题组,城市化、国际化和产业结构的高度化——未来20年中 国经济发展基调的判断.管理世界,1994(5)：34-40.
[88]韩燕,钱春海.FDI对我国工业部门经济增长影响的差异性——基于要素密集度的行业分类研究.南开经济研究2008(6)：143-152.
[89]胡小娟,赵寒.我国工业行业外商直接投资结构的环境效应分析——基于工业行业面板数据的实证检验.世界经济研究,2010(7)：55-61.
[90]黄华民.外商直接投资对我国宏观经济影响的实证分析.经济评论,2000(6)：29-32.
[91]黄乾.国际贸易,外国直接投资与制造业高技能劳动力需求.世界经济研究,2009(1)：40-46.
[92]姜瑾,朱桂龙.外商直接投资行业间技术溢出效应实证分析.财经研究,2007(1)：112-121.
[93]李雪辉,许罗丹.FDI对外资集中区域工资水平影响的实证研究.南开经济研究,2002(2)：35-39.
[94]刘辉群,卢进勇.国际直接投资的就业结构效应研究——基于东道国视角,国际贸易问题.2009(9)：74-79.
[95]梁琦,施晓苏.中国对外贸易和FDI相互关系的研究.经济学季刊,2004(4)：839-858.
[96]伦蕊.工业产业结构高度化水平的基本测评.江苏社会科学,2005(2)：69-74.
[97]吕铁,周淑莲.中国的产业结构升级与经济增长方式转变.管理世界,1999(1)：113-125,138.
[98]毛日昇,魏浩.所有权特征、技术密集度与FDI技术外溢效率.管理世界,2007(10)：31-42.
[99]毛新雅,张得志.长江三角洲地区外商直接投资的就业效应——基于16城市面板数据的研究.改革与战略,2007(10)：80-83.
[100]潘文卿,陈水源.产业结构高度化与合理化水平的定量测算.开发研究,1994(1)：42-44.
[101]齐俊妍.中国是否出口了更多高技术产品——基于技术含量和附加值的考察.世界经济研究,2008(9)：40-47.
[102]邱斌,唐保庆,孙少勤.对中国国际贸易与FDI相互关系的重新检验.南开经济研究,2006(4)：32-46,70.
[103]邱晓明.外商直接投资的就业效应变迁分析.中国软科学,2004(3)：55-58.
[104]沙文兵等.外商直接投资的环境效应——基于中国省际面板数据的实证分析.世界经济研究,2006(6)：76-81.
[105]沙文兵,陶爱萍.外商直接投资的就业效应分析——基于协整理论的实证分析.财经科学,2007(4)：112-117.
[106]邵学言、余敏.广东FDI对国内投资挤入挤出效应的实证研究——提高利用外资质量的宏观分析.南方金融,2006(6)：5-8.
[107]盛斌.中国对外贸易政策的政治经济分析.上海：上海人民出版社,2002.
[108]涂涛涛.外商直接投资对中国企业创新的外溢效应研究：基于垂直联系的视角.南方经济,2009(7)：16-25,71.
[109]王蕙.FDI对中国工业制成品内部结构的影响.经济问题探索,2010(5)：95-100.
[110]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)：44-56.
[111]王剑.外国直接投资对中国就业效应的测算.统计研究,2005(3)：29-32.
[112]王劲松,史晋川,李应春.中国民营经济的产业结构演进——兼论民营经济与国有经济、外资经济的竞争关系.管理世界,2006(10)：82-93.
[113]吴延兵.R&D存量、知识函数与生产效率.经济学(季刊),2006(4)：1129-1156.
[114]王燕飞,曾国平.FDI、就业结构及产业结构变迁.世界经济研究,2006(7)：51-57.
[115]吴玉呜.外商直接投资与环境规制关联机制的面板数据分析.经济地理,2007(1)：11-14.
[116]吴玉鸣.外商直接投资对环境规制的影响.国际贸易问题,2006(4)：111-116.
[117]王文声,易丹辉.关于工业生产要素密集度研究的统计方法.统计研究,1998(1)：49-54.
[118]王云平.工业结构升级的制度分析.北京：中国社科院研究生院博士学位论文, 2002.
[119]王岳平,开放条件下的工业结构升级.北京：中国社科院研究生院博士学位论文,2002.
[120]王岳平.开放条件下的工业结构升级[.北京：经济管理出版社,137-138.
[121]王子军,冯蕾.外商直接投资与中国出口竞争力——对我国按不同技术类别细分的制成品出口的实证分析.南开经济研究,2004(4)：52-57.
[122]王志鹏,李子奈.外商直接投资对国内投资挤入挤出效应的重新检验.统计研究,2004(7)：37-43.
[123]魏浩,毛日昇,张二震.中国制成品出口比较优势及贸易结构分析.世界经济,2005(2)：21-34.
[124]夏友富.外商投资中国污染密集型产业现状、后果及其对策研究.管理世界,1999(3)：109-123.
[125]冼国明,薄文广.外国直接投资对中国企业技术创新作用的影响.南开经济研究,2005(6):16-23.
[126]小岛清.对外贸易论.天津：南开大学出版社,1987.
[127]辛力,邓珊珊.外商直接投资对民营投资的挤入挤出效应.现代财经,2007(3)：9-14.
[128]徐侠,陈圻,郑兵云.高技术产业R&D支出的影响因素研究.科学学研究,2008(4)：304-310.
[129]薛漫天,赵曙东.外国直接投资的行业内与行业间溢出效应：哪些行业受益?南开经济研究,2008(1)：57-74.
[130]姚先国,周礼,来君.技术进步、技能需求与就业结构——基于制造业微观数据的技能偏态假说检验.中国人口科学,2005(5)：47-53.
[131]姚树杰,韦开蕾.中国经济增长、外商直接投资和出口贸易的互动实证研究.2007(10)：152-170.
[132]姚战琪,夏杰长.资本深化、技术进步对中国就业效应的经验分析.世界经济,2005(1)：58-67.
[133]杨柳勇,沈国良.外商直接投资对国内投资的挤入挤出效应分析.统计研究. 2002(3)：6-8.
[134]杨宏进,薛澜译.经济合作与发展组织编,以知识为基础的经济.北京：机械工业出版社,1997.
[135]杨亚平.外商直接投资对广东省制造业技术溢出的实证研究——基于分位数回归方法.经济经纬,2009(5)：48-51.
[136]应瑞瑶,周力.外商直接投资、工业污染与环境规制——基于中国数据的计量经济学分析.财贸经济,2006(1)：76-81.
[137]张亚斌,肖竞成,艾洪山.外商直接投资于我国技术进步——基于关联渠道分析的实证检验.南开经济研究,2007(5)：67-76.
[138]赵果庆.跨国公司对我国工业结构升级的影响——基于要素密集型产业划分.国际贸易问题,2006(8)：99-104.
[139]张二震,任志成.FDI与中国就业结构的演进.经济理沦与经济管理,2005(5)：5-10.
[140]张建勤.外商直接投资对我国就业的影响——一个综合分析框架.经济与管理研究,2005(5)：46-50.
[141]郑秀君.我国外商直接投资(FDI)技术溢出效应实证研究述评：1994-2005.数量经济技术经济研究,2006(9)：58-68.
[142]郑月明,董登新.外商直接投资对我国就业的区域差异与动态效应——基于动态面板数据的模型分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2008(5)：104-113.
[143]周力,应瑞瑶.外商直接投资与工业污染.中国人口·资源与环境,2009(2)：42-50.
[144]朱劲松.外商直接投资在中国资本形成的效应.亚太经济.2001(3)：45-48.
[145]朱平芳,徐伟民.政府的科技激励政策对大中型工业企业R&D投入及其专利产出的影响——上海市的实证研究.经济研究,2003(6)：45-53.