制造业部门资本深化及其就业效应研究
|
摘要
20世纪90年代以来,中国制造业部门出现了异常高涨的投资热情和产业结构的重型化运动,使得经济增长进入了依靠投资驱动的发展模式。然而,当投资的增长无法驱动更多的劳动投入到生产过程中时,将会导致资本-劳动比上升,从而出现资本深化现象。中国工业行业的资本深化趋势已经得到众多学者的证实。对于中国这样一个拥有大量剩余劳动力又尚未完成工业化的发展中国家来说,这一经济增长路线有悖中国的资源禀赋。技术选择不断向资本替代劳动路径的偏差,会增加解决就业的难度。特别是在当前经济增速放缓的背景下,就业压力进一步凸显,就业问题非常敏感。
中国的工业化道路该何去何从?巨额资本和资源的投入所带来的资本密集度显著提高的“重化工业潮流”是否合理?可以说,对这一问题的回答事关工业化道路的和经济发展模式选择,事关人口大国劳动就业问题的解决和和谐社会构想的实现。事实上,工业化进程中,资本深化、劳动力就业、技术进步可以说是彼此紧密关联的,那么,如何理解当前中国工业化进程中的资本深化现象?技术进步和资本深化是否相关联?制造业部门的资本积累是否导致了劳动力就业的困难?是何种原因造成了当前经济的困局?本文希望能够通过详实的理论和经验分析,对以上问题进行尝试性的探索。
基于以上研究背景,将本文所研究的主要内容梳理如下：第1章为导言。这一部分旨在提出问题,阐明研究的意义,从而确定本文的研究内容、研究思路、研究方法,寻找研究问题的突破口。第2章为文献回顾与述评。对于资本深化现象的认识,最早可以追溯到马克思的资本有机构成理论,以此为基础,本章将在明确资本深化概念的起源和内涵的基础上,梳理资本深化的形成原因、经济效应,并进一步厘清制造业部门资本深化和技术进步之间的关系。在对现有文献做出简要评价的基础上,阐明了本文研究的切入点和出发点。第3章是本文的理论基础,系统梳理了资本深化的原因、资本深化与就业的关系以及资本深化、劳动力就业与技术进步之间的关系。第4章是本文研究的基础,明确了制造业部门的资本存量和资本深化水平。本章运用永续盘存法对制造业部门的资本存量进行了估算,并测算了省际间不同资本深化水平,明确了其区域特征,以此为基础,进一步探讨了区域间资本深化产生差异的体制内原因。第5章主要剖析了制造业部门资本深化就业效应及其在地区间的差异。在分析了制造业产值和就业在国民经济中的地位的基础上,梳理了资本深化对于劳动力就业的影响方式。借鉴Costas&Christopher(2007)的理论模型并进行拓展,将制造业技术进步作为资本存量的函数,探求了资本深化对于劳动力就业影响的内在机制,并由此构建理论模型,对制造业部门区域间不同的资本深化就业效应进行了经验性检验。第6章从技术进步的偏向性水平出发,探析了制造业部门资本深化就业效应在地区间产生差异的原因。基于新古典经济学理论框架,以CES生产函数为基础,从Hicks(1932)的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,运用联立方程组,度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度,从而为资本深化就业效应的地区间差异寻求原因。第7章为全文的总结,概括了本文的研究结论并据此提出了相应的对策建议,并对未来具有价值的研究方向做了进一步的展望和规划。
本文在研究方法上采取理论分析与实证分析、定量分析与定性分析相结合,运用文献分析法、比较分析法、统计分析法以及计量分析的方法综合分析了制造业部门工业化过程中的资本深化现象及其就业效应在地区间的差异,并为这种差异寻找到了体制内的原因。总体来看,本文得到的研究结论主要有：
第一,通过永续盘存法估算了28省市制造业部门1993年至2011年期间历年的资本存量,并以此为基础,计算各地区制造业部门的资本深化水平。结果发现,东北地区作为传统的重工业化基地,无论从资本深化程度还是从资本深化发展速度,其指数都是最高的；与经济发展水平“东高西低”的特征相反,经济发展相对落后的中西部地区尽管资本-劳动比率不及东部地区,但是却具有更快的资本深化发展态势。究其原因,本文认为,在“中国式分权”的背景下,地方政府在“政治锦标赛”中面临着“非进即退”的零和博弈,通过投资带来GDP和税收的增加从而显示地方政府政绩,成为地方政府干预经济、干预投资的重要动因。中西部地区经济相对落后,其经济发展和追赶意愿较为强烈,因此政府的干预动机较强,其较低的市场化程度和较大的国有经济比重恰恰为政府干预提供了必要条件,因此可以在一定程度上解释经济发展水平相对落后的中西部地区反而具有更加显著的资本深化趋势。
第二,本文考察了制造业部门的就业吸纳能力并建立了资本深化就业效应的理论模型,进而对于不同地区制造业部门资本深化的就业效应进行了经验性检验。当前的中国仍处于工业化进程中,第二产业仍然占据国民经济的半壁江山,其经济增长的贡献率远远超过第一产业和第三产业,因此拉动中国经济高速增长的引擎,最重要的产业部门依然是第二产业,而其中最为重要的又是制造业部门。然而,三大部门产业结构和其吸纳就业的能力之间并非具有同步性,即使考虑到冗员的调整和非正规就业的存在,2002年以来的10年间,就业弹性依然在下降,城镇登记失业率在4%以上的高位运行,因此,可以断定,中国的高速经济增长并未带来显性的就业增加。借鉴Costas&Christopher(2007)的理论模型并进行拓展,对制造业部门区域间不同的资本深化就业效应进行了经验性检验。结果显示,在全国总量层面上,制造业资本深化对劳动力就业产生了显著的“挤出效应”；在区域层面上,却显现出资本对于劳动不同的“挤出”程度。其中,虽然东北地区的资本深化程度和发展趋势最为明显,但其制造业部门资本对于劳动力的替代作用却是最小的；与制造业更为发达的东部地区相比,中西部地区有着更为显著的资本深化态势,中西部地区制造业部门资本对于劳动的替代效应也远高于东部地区。
第三,针对资本深化就业效应的差异,本文从技术进步偏向性的视角探讨了其产生的原因。以CES生产函数为基础,从Hicks(1932)关于技术进步偏向性的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,并据此度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度。结果显示,在国家总量层面上,技术进步总体是偏向使用资本和节约劳动的。在地区层面上进行考察,本文发现,不同地区技术进步对于资本的偏向性程度是截然不同的。中西部地区资本偏向性水平最高,其次是东部地区,而东北地区虽然是全国的重工业基地,其技术进步对于资本的偏向性水平反而比较低。
与已有的文献相比较,本文在以下几个方面进行了尝试性和探索性的研究：
第一,本文运用永续盘存法,估算了制造业部门分地区的资本存量序列,为今后的经济研究提供了基础性的数据。在此基础上,计算了各地区制造业部门的资本深化水平和发展趋势,发现了资本深化水平的区域特征：东北地区作为重化工业基地,其资本深化水平最高；与经济发展水平“东高西低”的特点相反,经济发展相对落后的中西部地区具有更快的资本深化发展态势。
第二,为地区层面不同的资本深化程度及其就业效应的差异找到了体制内的原因。“中国式分权”的特征是否导致了资本深化现象的产生并进而决定了地区间不同的资本深化程度及不同的资本深化就业效应的产生,本文对这一问题进行了经验性的检验。结果显示,地方政府通过对金融贷款行为和企业投资行为的干预从而促进GDP和税收增长为地方政府赢得政绩,成为地方政府对投资具有异常高涨的热情的主要原因,而西部地区相对落后的经济发展水平使其追赶意愿强烈,较低的市场化程度和比重较大的国有经济成分使得地方政府干预有了更为便利的条件,因此其资本深化的发展趋势最为显著,且资本对就业的“挤出效应”也最为明显。同时,本文的研究发现,在一定程度上制造业部门所发生的资本深化现象并不是内生于经济发展和技术进步的必然结果,因此可以推测,资本深化现象一定有非内生于经济体系内的其他推力,这在一定程度上印证了本文对于体制内原因的解读。
第三,基于CES生产函数,从Hicks关于技术进步偏向性的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,并据此度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度。结果显示,在国家层面上,技术进步总体是偏向使用资本和节约劳动的；在地区层面上,中西部地区资本偏向性水平是最高的,其次是东部地区,而东北地区作为全国的重化工业基地,其技术进步对于资本的偏向性水平反而比较低。中国作为经济发展并“不均质”的大国,不同地区间呈现不同的工业化特征,本文剖析了制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步偏向性水平,并且这一结论在一定程度上解释了本文前述的资本深化就业效应在区域间所产生的差异。
本文研究的难点和不足主要体现在由于统计年鉴的数据并不系统和完善,因此必然要求对文中所用数据进行估算,难免影响到数据的精确性,同时本文的研究期限为20年,相对于工业史来说,这一期限具有一定的局限性。在今后的研究中,本文将会进一步拓展研究的时间序列、完善就业效应的理论模型、借鉴国外工业化发展经验,以期进一步夯实研究基础。
Since the1990s', China's manufacturing sector appeared an abnormally high investment enthusiasm and heavy-industrial structure movement, making the economy entering a development model which relies on investment-driven. However, when the growth of investment can not drive more labor input into the production process, it will result in capital-labor ratio increased, which appeared the phenomenon of capital deepening. It is confirmed by many scholars which Chinese industrial has been experiencing a capital deepening trend. As for a country that has such a large number of surplus labor and in the process of industrialization, this routine of economic growth is contrary to China's factor endowment. Technical options to keep the substitution of capital for labor path deviation will increase the difficulty of solving the employment. Especially in the current context of economic slowdown, employment problems are more important and more sensitive.
Where to go of China's industrialization? Is it reasonable for the'Heavy Industrialized Trend'which is bought by the huge amount of capital and resources input? It can be said that this question is related to the road of industrialization and economic development mode, and also related to the employment problem solving and the harmonious society achieving. In fact, it is closely related of the process of industrialization, capital deepening, labor force and technological progress, so how to understand the process of industrialization of China's current capital deepening phenomenon? Are they related of technological progress and capital deepening? Is manufacturing sector's capital accumulation causing the difficulties in the labor employment? What cause the current economic predicament? This article will make a tentative exploration of the above questions by detailed theoretical and empirical analysis.
Based on the above background, the main contents of this paper are as follows: Chapter1is the introduction. This section is intended to bring forward the questions, clarify the significance of research, and determine the content of this study in order to define the research ideas, research methods, research questions. Chapter2is the literature review and comments. As for the understanding of the capital deepening, it is can be dated back to the Marx's theory of organic composition of capital. Based on this, this chapter will clarify the origin and meaning of the capital deepening, summarize the reason and the economic effects of it, and analyze the relationship between capital deepening and technological progress. In making a brief review of the existing literature, it clarifies the starting point of this article. Chapter3is the theoretical analysis of this paper. In this section, it analyzes the reason of the capital deepening and the relationship between capital deepening, employment and technical progress. Chapter4is the research basis of this article, which estimates the manufacturing sector's capital stock and capital deepening levels. This chapter uses the perpetual inventory method to estimate the capital stock of the manufacturing sector, and calculates the capital deepening level of different regions, therefore it is clarifies the regional characteristics of capital deepening. Based on this, this chapter furthers to analyze the institutional reason of these differences. Chapter5analyzes the employment effect of the manufacturing sector's capital deepening and the differences between regions. Based on the analysis of the output and employment of the manufacturing sector, this chapter summarizes the influence of capital deepening to the labor employment. Learned from the theoretical model of Costas&Christopher (2007), making the manufacturing technology progress as a function of the capital stock, this chapter builds a theoretical model for exploring the mechanism of the impact of capital deepening to labor force and makes an empirical test. From the aspect of biased technical progress, Chapter6analyzes the reason why there are differences between regions of the capital deepening's employment effect of the manufacturing sector. Based on the theoretical framework of neoclassical economics and the CES production function, this chapter deduces the method to estimate the direction of technological progress. Using simultaneous equations, this chapter measures the Chinese manufacturing sector's different orientation and degree of the bias between regions during the period1993-2011. Chapter7is the conclusion of the full article. This chapter summarizes the conclusions of this study and puts forward the corresponding countermeasures, meanwhile, makes a further prospects and planning of the future research directions.
This article uses the combined research methodology of theoretical analysis and empirical, quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. More specifically, the article adopts the literature analysis, comparative analysis, statistical analysis and quantitative analysis method to analyze the phenomenon of manufacturing sector's capital deepening and its employment effects during the industrialization. The main conclusions obtained in this study are as follows:
Firstly, this article estimates the capital stock and capital deepening level of manufacturing sector of the28provinces from1993to2011using the perpetual inventory method. The result shows that The Northeast has the highest index no matter from capital deepening or from deepening growth rate as a traditional heavy industrialization base. The Middle and West has a faster capital deepening development even though the capital-labor ratio is less than the eastern region. The reason is that in the context of the "Chinese-style separation of powers", local governments face the "zero-sum game", which is a "non-progress, or retreat" political tournament. Therefore, it is an important intervention in investment motivation to bring up the GDP and the tax in order to display local government performance. Because of the relative backward, the catch-up desire of middle region and west region are more strongly, therefore, there are strong motivations for local government to make intervention. These regions have lower level of development of market-economy and larger proportion of state-owned economy, which provide the necessary condition for government intervention. It can be explained the higher level of capital deepening trend of the middle region and the west region to some extent.
Secondly, this paper examines the manufacturing sector employment absorptive capacity and establishes the theoretical model of employment effects of capital deepening, furthermore, makes the empirical test of the manufacturing sector's employment effects of capital deepening in different regions. The rapid economic growth of China has not brought the increased in employment dominantly. Learned from the theoretical model and expanded, this paper makes an empirical test of the different employment effect of capital deepening between regions. The results show that capital deepening has made a crowding-out effect of labor at the national level. At the regional level, the crowding-out effect of the northeast region is minimal; while the middle region and west region are much higher than the east region.
Thirdly, as for the different employment effects for capital deepening, this article discusses the reasons from the aspect of biased technical progress. Based on CES production function from the definition of biased technical progress, this paper deduces the method of calculating the technical progress direction, and accordingly measures the Chinese manufacturing sector's technical progress during the period1993to2011. The result shows on the national level, the technical progress is biased to use capital and save labor. On the regional level, this article finds that different regions have different biased directions. The middle and west region has the most degree of biased to capital, then is the eastern region, though the northeast region is the heavy industry base, its degree that is biased to capital is relative lower.
Compared with the existing literature, this article makes a tentative and exploratory research in the following aspects:
Firstly, this paper estimates the capital stock of the manufacturing sector of different provinces using the perpetual inventory method, which supplies the research data basis for the future economic studies. Also, this paper calculates the levels of capital deepening trend and its regional characteristics:the northeast region has the highest capital deepening level, while the middle region and west region have more rapid development trend.
Secondly, this paper finds the systematic cause to the different capital deepening levels of different regions, and makes and tentative empirical test. The results show that local governments have the unusual enthusiasm to make large amount of investment in order to promote the GDP and tax revenues through making intervention of financial behavior and enterprises'investment. While the western region's economic development level is relatively backward, so its desire to catch up is relative strong. The lower degree of market-economy and a large proportion of state-owned economic sector make local governments'intervention become more convenient, so its capital deepening trend is most significant, and the capital on employment "crowding out" is also the most obvious. Meanwhile, the research finds that the capital deepening in the manufacturing sector is not the inevitable result of technological progress which is endogenous economic development, therefore, we can speculate that to some extent, the manufacturing sector's capital deepening must have some push power that is not endogenous, which confirms the interpretation for the reasons.
Thirdly, based on CES production function, this paper deduces the calculation method of technological progress. Accordingly, we measure the Chinese manufacturing sector's biased technological progress level during1993to2011. The result shows that different regions have different biased directions. The middle and west region has the most degree of biased to capital, then is the eastern region, though the northeast region is the heavy industry base, its degree that is biased to capital is relative lower. As a heterogeneous big country, different regions show different characteristics of industrialization. This paper investigates the different biased technological progress level, and to some extent explains the differences in employment effect of capital deepening between regions. Difficulties and shortcoming of this study is mainly reflected in the statistical data, which is not systematic and perfect. Meanwhile, this study period is20years, compared to industrial history, it has some limitations. In future studies, this paper will further expand the study time series, improve the theoretical models, and learn from the experiences of industrialization abroad, in order to consolidate the basis of this study.
中国的工业化道路该何去何从?巨额资本和资源的投入所带来的资本密集度显著提高的“重化工业潮流”是否合理?可以说,对这一问题的回答事关工业化道路的和经济发展模式选择,事关人口大国劳动就业问题的解决和和谐社会构想的实现。事实上,工业化进程中,资本深化、劳动力就业、技术进步可以说是彼此紧密关联的,那么,如何理解当前中国工业化进程中的资本深化现象?技术进步和资本深化是否相关联?制造业部门的资本积累是否导致了劳动力就业的困难?是何种原因造成了当前经济的困局?本文希望能够通过详实的理论和经验分析,对以上问题进行尝试性的探索。
基于以上研究背景,将本文所研究的主要内容梳理如下：第1章为导言。这一部分旨在提出问题,阐明研究的意义,从而确定本文的研究内容、研究思路、研究方法,寻找研究问题的突破口。第2章为文献回顾与述评。对于资本深化现象的认识,最早可以追溯到马克思的资本有机构成理论,以此为基础,本章将在明确资本深化概念的起源和内涵的基础上,梳理资本深化的形成原因、经济效应,并进一步厘清制造业部门资本深化和技术进步之间的关系。在对现有文献做出简要评价的基础上,阐明了本文研究的切入点和出发点。第3章是本文的理论基础,系统梳理了资本深化的原因、资本深化与就业的关系以及资本深化、劳动力就业与技术进步之间的关系。第4章是本文研究的基础,明确了制造业部门的资本存量和资本深化水平。本章运用永续盘存法对制造业部门的资本存量进行了估算,并测算了省际间不同资本深化水平,明确了其区域特征,以此为基础,进一步探讨了区域间资本深化产生差异的体制内原因。第5章主要剖析了制造业部门资本深化就业效应及其在地区间的差异。在分析了制造业产值和就业在国民经济中的地位的基础上,梳理了资本深化对于劳动力就业的影响方式。借鉴Costas&Christopher(2007)的理论模型并进行拓展,将制造业技术进步作为资本存量的函数,探求了资本深化对于劳动力就业影响的内在机制,并由此构建理论模型,对制造业部门区域间不同的资本深化就业效应进行了经验性检验。第6章从技术进步的偏向性水平出发,探析了制造业部门资本深化就业效应在地区间产生差异的原因。基于新古典经济学理论框架,以CES生产函数为基础,从Hicks(1932)的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,运用联立方程组,度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度,从而为资本深化就业效应的地区间差异寻求原因。第7章为全文的总结,概括了本文的研究结论并据此提出了相应的对策建议,并对未来具有价值的研究方向做了进一步的展望和规划。
本文在研究方法上采取理论分析与实证分析、定量分析与定性分析相结合,运用文献分析法、比较分析法、统计分析法以及计量分析的方法综合分析了制造业部门工业化过程中的资本深化现象及其就业效应在地区间的差异,并为这种差异寻找到了体制内的原因。总体来看,本文得到的研究结论主要有：
第一,通过永续盘存法估算了28省市制造业部门1993年至2011年期间历年的资本存量,并以此为基础,计算各地区制造业部门的资本深化水平。结果发现,东北地区作为传统的重工业化基地,无论从资本深化程度还是从资本深化发展速度,其指数都是最高的；与经济发展水平“东高西低”的特征相反,经济发展相对落后的中西部地区尽管资本-劳动比率不及东部地区,但是却具有更快的资本深化发展态势。究其原因,本文认为,在“中国式分权”的背景下,地方政府在“政治锦标赛”中面临着“非进即退”的零和博弈,通过投资带来GDP和税收的增加从而显示地方政府政绩,成为地方政府干预经济、干预投资的重要动因。中西部地区经济相对落后,其经济发展和追赶意愿较为强烈,因此政府的干预动机较强,其较低的市场化程度和较大的国有经济比重恰恰为政府干预提供了必要条件,因此可以在一定程度上解释经济发展水平相对落后的中西部地区反而具有更加显著的资本深化趋势。
第二,本文考察了制造业部门的就业吸纳能力并建立了资本深化就业效应的理论模型,进而对于不同地区制造业部门资本深化的就业效应进行了经验性检验。当前的中国仍处于工业化进程中,第二产业仍然占据国民经济的半壁江山,其经济增长的贡献率远远超过第一产业和第三产业,因此拉动中国经济高速增长的引擎,最重要的产业部门依然是第二产业,而其中最为重要的又是制造业部门。然而,三大部门产业结构和其吸纳就业的能力之间并非具有同步性,即使考虑到冗员的调整和非正规就业的存在,2002年以来的10年间,就业弹性依然在下降,城镇登记失业率在4%以上的高位运行,因此,可以断定,中国的高速经济增长并未带来显性的就业增加。借鉴Costas&Christopher(2007)的理论模型并进行拓展,对制造业部门区域间不同的资本深化就业效应进行了经验性检验。结果显示,在全国总量层面上,制造业资本深化对劳动力就业产生了显著的“挤出效应”；在区域层面上,却显现出资本对于劳动不同的“挤出”程度。其中,虽然东北地区的资本深化程度和发展趋势最为明显,但其制造业部门资本对于劳动力的替代作用却是最小的；与制造业更为发达的东部地区相比,中西部地区有着更为显著的资本深化态势,中西部地区制造业部门资本对于劳动的替代效应也远高于东部地区。
第三,针对资本深化就业效应的差异,本文从技术进步偏向性的视角探讨了其产生的原因。以CES生产函数为基础,从Hicks(1932)关于技术进步偏向性的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,并据此度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度。结果显示,在国家总量层面上,技术进步总体是偏向使用资本和节约劳动的。在地区层面上进行考察,本文发现,不同地区技术进步对于资本的偏向性程度是截然不同的。中西部地区资本偏向性水平最高,其次是东部地区,而东北地区虽然是全国的重工业基地,其技术进步对于资本的偏向性水平反而比较低。
与已有的文献相比较,本文在以下几个方面进行了尝试性和探索性的研究：
第一,本文运用永续盘存法,估算了制造业部门分地区的资本存量序列,为今后的经济研究提供了基础性的数据。在此基础上,计算了各地区制造业部门的资本深化水平和发展趋势,发现了资本深化水平的区域特征：东北地区作为重化工业基地,其资本深化水平最高；与经济发展水平“东高西低”的特点相反,经济发展相对落后的中西部地区具有更快的资本深化发展态势。
第二,为地区层面不同的资本深化程度及其就业效应的差异找到了体制内的原因。“中国式分权”的特征是否导致了资本深化现象的产生并进而决定了地区间不同的资本深化程度及不同的资本深化就业效应的产生,本文对这一问题进行了经验性的检验。结果显示,地方政府通过对金融贷款行为和企业投资行为的干预从而促进GDP和税收增长为地方政府赢得政绩,成为地方政府对投资具有异常高涨的热情的主要原因,而西部地区相对落后的经济发展水平使其追赶意愿强烈,较低的市场化程度和比重较大的国有经济成分使得地方政府干预有了更为便利的条件,因此其资本深化的发展趋势最为显著,且资本对就业的“挤出效应”也最为明显。同时,本文的研究发现,在一定程度上制造业部门所发生的资本深化现象并不是内生于经济发展和技术进步的必然结果,因此可以推测,资本深化现象一定有非内生于经济体系内的其他推力,这在一定程度上印证了本文对于体制内原因的解读。
第三,基于CES生产函数,从Hicks关于技术进步偏向性的定义出发,推导出技术进步方向的测算方法,并据此度量了1993-2011年期间中国制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步方向和偏向性程度。结果显示,在国家层面上,技术进步总体是偏向使用资本和节约劳动的；在地区层面上,中西部地区资本偏向性水平是最高的,其次是东部地区,而东北地区作为全国的重化工业基地,其技术进步对于资本的偏向性水平反而比较低。中国作为经济发展并“不均质”的大国,不同地区间呈现不同的工业化特征,本文剖析了制造业部门地区间不同的技术进步偏向性水平,并且这一结论在一定程度上解释了本文前述的资本深化就业效应在区域间所产生的差异。
本文研究的难点和不足主要体现在由于统计年鉴的数据并不系统和完善,因此必然要求对文中所用数据进行估算,难免影响到数据的精确性,同时本文的研究期限为20年,相对于工业史来说,这一期限具有一定的局限性。在今后的研究中,本文将会进一步拓展研究的时间序列、完善就业效应的理论模型、借鉴国外工业化发展经验,以期进一步夯实研究基础。
Since the1990s', China's manufacturing sector appeared an abnormally high investment enthusiasm and heavy-industrial structure movement, making the economy entering a development model which relies on investment-driven. However, when the growth of investment can not drive more labor input into the production process, it will result in capital-labor ratio increased, which appeared the phenomenon of capital deepening. It is confirmed by many scholars which Chinese industrial has been experiencing a capital deepening trend. As for a country that has such a large number of surplus labor and in the process of industrialization, this routine of economic growth is contrary to China's factor endowment. Technical options to keep the substitution of capital for labor path deviation will increase the difficulty of solving the employment. Especially in the current context of economic slowdown, employment problems are more important and more sensitive.
Where to go of China's industrialization? Is it reasonable for the'Heavy Industrialized Trend'which is bought by the huge amount of capital and resources input? It can be said that this question is related to the road of industrialization and economic development mode, and also related to the employment problem solving and the harmonious society achieving. In fact, it is closely related of the process of industrialization, capital deepening, labor force and technological progress, so how to understand the process of industrialization of China's current capital deepening phenomenon? Are they related of technological progress and capital deepening? Is manufacturing sector's capital accumulation causing the difficulties in the labor employment? What cause the current economic predicament? This article will make a tentative exploration of the above questions by detailed theoretical and empirical analysis.
Based on the above background, the main contents of this paper are as follows: Chapter1is the introduction. This section is intended to bring forward the questions, clarify the significance of research, and determine the content of this study in order to define the research ideas, research methods, research questions. Chapter2is the literature review and comments. As for the understanding of the capital deepening, it is can be dated back to the Marx's theory of organic composition of capital. Based on this, this chapter will clarify the origin and meaning of the capital deepening, summarize the reason and the economic effects of it, and analyze the relationship between capital deepening and technological progress. In making a brief review of the existing literature, it clarifies the starting point of this article. Chapter3is the theoretical analysis of this paper. In this section, it analyzes the reason of the capital deepening and the relationship between capital deepening, employment and technical progress. Chapter4is the research basis of this article, which estimates the manufacturing sector's capital stock and capital deepening levels. This chapter uses the perpetual inventory method to estimate the capital stock of the manufacturing sector, and calculates the capital deepening level of different regions, therefore it is clarifies the regional characteristics of capital deepening. Based on this, this chapter furthers to analyze the institutional reason of these differences. Chapter5analyzes the employment effect of the manufacturing sector's capital deepening and the differences between regions. Based on the analysis of the output and employment of the manufacturing sector, this chapter summarizes the influence of capital deepening to the labor employment. Learned from the theoretical model of Costas&Christopher (2007), making the manufacturing technology progress as a function of the capital stock, this chapter builds a theoretical model for exploring the mechanism of the impact of capital deepening to labor force and makes an empirical test. From the aspect of biased technical progress, Chapter6analyzes the reason why there are differences between regions of the capital deepening's employment effect of the manufacturing sector. Based on the theoretical framework of neoclassical economics and the CES production function, this chapter deduces the method to estimate the direction of technological progress. Using simultaneous equations, this chapter measures the Chinese manufacturing sector's different orientation and degree of the bias between regions during the period1993-2011. Chapter7is the conclusion of the full article. This chapter summarizes the conclusions of this study and puts forward the corresponding countermeasures, meanwhile, makes a further prospects and planning of the future research directions.
This article uses the combined research methodology of theoretical analysis and empirical, quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. More specifically, the article adopts the literature analysis, comparative analysis, statistical analysis and quantitative analysis method to analyze the phenomenon of manufacturing sector's capital deepening and its employment effects during the industrialization. The main conclusions obtained in this study are as follows:
Firstly, this article estimates the capital stock and capital deepening level of manufacturing sector of the28provinces from1993to2011using the perpetual inventory method. The result shows that The Northeast has the highest index no matter from capital deepening or from deepening growth rate as a traditional heavy industrialization base. The Middle and West has a faster capital deepening development even though the capital-labor ratio is less than the eastern region. The reason is that in the context of the "Chinese-style separation of powers", local governments face the "zero-sum game", which is a "non-progress, or retreat" political tournament. Therefore, it is an important intervention in investment motivation to bring up the GDP and the tax in order to display local government performance. Because of the relative backward, the catch-up desire of middle region and west region are more strongly, therefore, there are strong motivations for local government to make intervention. These regions have lower level of development of market-economy and larger proportion of state-owned economy, which provide the necessary condition for government intervention. It can be explained the higher level of capital deepening trend of the middle region and the west region to some extent.
Secondly, this paper examines the manufacturing sector employment absorptive capacity and establishes the theoretical model of employment effects of capital deepening, furthermore, makes the empirical test of the manufacturing sector's employment effects of capital deepening in different regions. The rapid economic growth of China has not brought the increased in employment dominantly. Learned from the theoretical model and expanded, this paper makes an empirical test of the different employment effect of capital deepening between regions. The results show that capital deepening has made a crowding-out effect of labor at the national level. At the regional level, the crowding-out effect of the northeast region is minimal; while the middle region and west region are much higher than the east region.
Thirdly, as for the different employment effects for capital deepening, this article discusses the reasons from the aspect of biased technical progress. Based on CES production function from the definition of biased technical progress, this paper deduces the method of calculating the technical progress direction, and accordingly measures the Chinese manufacturing sector's technical progress during the period1993to2011. The result shows on the national level, the technical progress is biased to use capital and save labor. On the regional level, this article finds that different regions have different biased directions. The middle and west region has the most degree of biased to capital, then is the eastern region, though the northeast region is the heavy industry base, its degree that is biased to capital is relative lower.
Compared with the existing literature, this article makes a tentative and exploratory research in the following aspects:
Firstly, this paper estimates the capital stock of the manufacturing sector of different provinces using the perpetual inventory method, which supplies the research data basis for the future economic studies. Also, this paper calculates the levels of capital deepening trend and its regional characteristics:the northeast region has the highest capital deepening level, while the middle region and west region have more rapid development trend.
Secondly, this paper finds the systematic cause to the different capital deepening levels of different regions, and makes and tentative empirical test. The results show that local governments have the unusual enthusiasm to make large amount of investment in order to promote the GDP and tax revenues through making intervention of financial behavior and enterprises'investment. While the western region's economic development level is relatively backward, so its desire to catch up is relative strong. The lower degree of market-economy and a large proportion of state-owned economic sector make local governments'intervention become more convenient, so its capital deepening trend is most significant, and the capital on employment "crowding out" is also the most obvious. Meanwhile, the research finds that the capital deepening in the manufacturing sector is not the inevitable result of technological progress which is endogenous economic development, therefore, we can speculate that to some extent, the manufacturing sector's capital deepening must have some push power that is not endogenous, which confirms the interpretation for the reasons.
Thirdly, based on CES production function, this paper deduces the calculation method of technological progress. Accordingly, we measure the Chinese manufacturing sector's biased technological progress level during1993to2011. The result shows that different regions have different biased directions. The middle and west region has the most degree of biased to capital, then is the eastern region, though the northeast region is the heavy industry base, its degree that is biased to capital is relative lower. As a heterogeneous big country, different regions show different characteristics of industrialization. This paper investigates the different biased technological progress level, and to some extent explains the differences in employment effect of capital deepening between regions. Difficulties and shortcoming of this study is mainly reflected in the statistical data, which is not systematic and perfect. Meanwhile, this study period is20years, compared to industrial history, it has some limitations. In future studies, this paper will further expand the study time series, improve the theoretical models, and learn from the experiences of industrialization abroad, in order to consolidate the basis of this study.
引文
1 参见吴敬琏《全面提升整体竞争力是浙江经济发展的毕竟之路——浙江经济发展考察报告》,《国务院发展研究
中心调查报告》2004年第93号(总第2152号),2004年7月21日。
2 国务院发展研究中心“新型工业化道路研究”课题组《我国工业化进入新阶段》,《经济日报》2003年12月1
日。
3 同上。
4 关于马克思对于资本有机构成的解读,可参见《资本论》中的相关章节。其中,不变资本(C)是指以生产资料
形式存在的资本,如原材料、辅助材料等；可变资本(V)是指以劳动力形式存在的资本,其在生产过程中能够
产生价值增值,因此称之为可变资本。资本的有机构成实质是指资本总量中不变资本对可变资本的比率,在生产
要素意义上就是资本和劳动之比(K/L)。
5 多数经济史学家认为英国第一次产业革命的起讫年份大约为1770年至1879年间。
6 引自吴敬琏《中国增长模式抉择》,上海远东出版社,2006。
7 参见马克思《资本论》中文版第一卷p.480,人民出版社,1975。
8 引自马列和石红梅《促进“农民工”群体就业的税收政策》,税务研究,2008(3)：47-49.
9 参见《国务院发展研究中心调查研究报告》,2004年第93号(总第2152号)《全面提升整体竞争力是浙江经济发展的必经之路——浙江经济发展考察报告》。
10 例如,黄勇峰等(2002)对中国制造业资本存量的估计中,设备的折旧率选取17%,建筑的折旧率选取为8%，张军(2004)计算得到各省固定资本形成总额的经济折旧率为9.6%，Perkins(1998)、Wang & Yao(2003)均假定折旧率为5%等。
11 年鉴给出的解释是：“从业人员从事一定社会劳动并取得劳动报酬或经营收入的人员。……反映了一定时期内全部劳动力资源的实际利用情况。各单位的从业人员包括职工、再就业的离退休人员、民办教师以及在各单位中工作的外方人员和港澳台方人员,反映了各单位实际参加生产或工作的全部劳动力”。职工是指
“在国有经济、城镇集体经济、联营经济、股份制经济、外商和港澳台投资经济及其他经济单位及其附属机构工作,并由其支付工资的各类人员”。
12 由于海南和西藏数据有限,无法很好的估计其资本存量,故剔除：为了统一口径,重庆并入四川进行统计。
13 参见张天龙根据张曙光在“第六届中国改革与新制度经济学讲研班”发言整理而成的文章,云南大学学报,2003(5)。
14 如聘请政府官员到企业任职或企业领导通过人大或政协代表身份参政议政等。许多研究表明(Claessens et a1., 2008；Faccio,2006;罗党论,2009等),私有部门的这种政治联系能够为企业带来融资的便利、税收的优惠、政府的补贴、管制行业的优先进入等企业发展的便利环境。
16 2004年数据采用《中国经济普查年鉴2004》,1995、1996、1998、1999相关年份未出版《中国工业经济统计年鉴》,相关数据采用平滑处理。
17 根据国际统计局统计设计管理司颁布的《三次产业划分规定》,第二产业包括建筑业和工业,工业部门主要包括采矿业、制造业和电力、热力、燃气及水生产和供应业。
18 1966-1998年,经济腾飞时期的香港、台湾和新加坡,其固定资产投资率分别为25.4%、23.7和35.4%。
19 1952-2002年,美国的投资率水平为20%,2002年德国和日本的投资率水平分别为18%和26%,而2002年,中国的投资率水平为37.8%。
20 资本和劳动替代弹性的大小,直接反映了资本和劳动之间的关系。一般而言,σ≥1时,资本和劳动之间是替代的关系；σ<1时,资本和劳动之间是互补的关系。许多学者(Antras,2004；Klump,2007)就利用这一关系,判定美国技术进步的方向。
22 据人力资源和社会保障部的估计,“十二五”期间城镇需就业的劳动力年均2500万人,还有相当数量的农业富余劳动力需要转移就业。然而,据估计(方明月等,2010),即便GDP按8%的速度持续增长,也仅能解决900万人的就业。
23 参见《国务院发展研究中心调查研究报告》,2004年第93号(总第2152号)《全面提升整体竞争力是浙江经济发展的必经之路——浙江经济发展考察报告》。
[1]Acemolgu D. Why do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1998, 113(4):1055-1090.
[2]Acemoglu D.& Fabrizio Zilibotti. Productivity differences[R].NBER Working Paper, No.6879,1999.
[3]Acemolgu D. Directed Technical Change[J].The Review of Economic Studies,2002, 69(4):781-809.
[4]Acemolgu D. Equilibrium Bias of Technology [J].Econometrica,2007,75(5): 1371-1409.
[5]Aghion P., Howitt P. Growth and Unemployment[J].Review of Economic Studies,1994, 61(3):477-494.
[6]Ahmad S.On the Theory of Induced Invention[J].Economic Journal,1966, 76(1):344-357.
[7]Arrow K., Chenery B.Minhas and Solow R. Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency[J].Review of Economic and Statistics,1961,43(8):225-250.
[8]Arrow K. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing[J].Review of Economic Studies,1962,29(3):155-73.
[9]Castello-Climenta A.,Hidalgo-Cabrillanab A. The Role of Educational Quality and Quantity in the Process of Economic Development[J].Economics of Education Review, 2012,31(4):391-409.
[10]Ceccobelli M.,Gitto S.,Mancuso P. ICT Capital and Labor Productivity Growth:A Non-parametric Analysis of 14 OECD Countries[J].Telecommunications Policy,2012, 36(4):282-292.
[11]Claessens S.,E. Feijen & L. Laeven. Political Connections and Preferential Access to Finance:the Role of Campaign Contributions[J].Journal of Financial Economics, 2008(6):554-580.
[12]Del Rio F. Embodied Technical Progress and Unemployment[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2001(12):1-29.
[13]David P. A., Theo Van de Klundert. Biased Efficiency and Capital-Labor Substitution in the U.S.,1899-1960[J].The American Economic Review,1965,55(3):357-394.
[14]Edward N.Wolff. Capital Formation and Productivity Convergence over the Long Term [J]. The American Economic Review,1991,81(3):565-579.
[15]Edward N.Wolff & M. Ishaq Nadiri.Spillover Effect, Linkage Structure, and Research and Development [J].Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1993,4(2):315-331
[16]FaccioM. R. Masulis & Mcconnell J.Political connections and corporate Bailouts[J]. Journal of Finance,2006(12):2597-2635.
[17]Foley Duncan K.,Machl Thomas R.. Growth and Distribution[M].Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1999.
[18]Foley Duncan K.,Machl Thomas R. The Production Function and Productivity [J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,2001,15(3):257-260.
[19]Gary H.Jefferson, Thomas G. Rawski and Xuxin Zheng. Chinese Industrial Productivity:Trends, Measurement Issues and Recent Developments [J].Journal of Comparative Economics,1996,23(2):146-180.
[20]Gallenson W.& Leibenstein H.Investment criteria, productivity, and growth [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1955,69(3):343-370.
[21]Gary H. Jefferson,Thomas G. Rawski,Wang Li and Zheng Yuxin. Ownership, Productivity Change and Financial Performance in Chinese industrial [J].Journal of Comparative Economics,2000(28):786-813.
[22]Goldsmith R. A Perpetual Inventory of National Wealth[J].NBER Studies in Income and Wealth,1951(14):5-61.
[23]Habakkuk H. J.American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century:Search for Labor Saving Inventions[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1962.
[24]Hall R.& Jones C.Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(2):83-116.
[25]Hicks J.R. The Theory of Wages [M].London:Macmillan,1932.
[26]Hoffmann W. G. The growth of industrial economics,1931 (Translated from the German by W. O.Henderson & W. O.Chaloner in 1958)[M].Manchester:Manchester University Press.
[27]Howard Pack. Appropriate industrial technology:Benefits and Obstacles [J].Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,1981,458(11):27-40.
[28]Kalt J. P. Technological Change and Factor Substitution in the United States: 1929-1967[J].International Economic Review,1978,19(3):761-775.
[29]Katz L.F.,Murphy K.M. Changes in Relative Wages,1936-1987:Supply and Demand Factor [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(1):35-78.
[30]Khanna M.& Palepu K. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging Markets[J].Harvard Business Review,1997(7-8):125.
[31]Klump R., McAam P. and Willman A.Factor Substitution and Factor Augmenting Technical Progress in the US:A Normalized Supply-Side System Approach [J].Review of Economic and Statistic,2007,89(1):183-192.
[32]]Klump R., McAam P. and Willman A. Unwrapping Some Euro Area Growth Puzzles: Factor Substitution, Productivity and Unemployment [J].Journal of Macroeconomics, 2008,30(2):645-666.
[33]Krugman P. The myth of Asia's miracle [J].foreign Affairs,1994,73(13):62-78.
[34]Machl Thomas R. Biased Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function [J]. International Review of Applied Economics,1999,13(2):193-206.
[35]Naughton B.The Chinese Economy:Transitions and Growth [M].Massachusetts:MIT Press,2007.
[36]Panik M. Factor Learning and Biased factor efficiency growth in the United States, 1929-1966[J].International Economic Review,1976,17(3):733-739.
[37]Perkins D. Reforming China's economy system[J].Journal of Economic Literature, 1998,26(2):601-645.
[38]Petit P. Technology and Employment:Key Questions in a Context of High Unemployment [R].Working Paper,1995.
[39]Pierre-Richard Agenor, Joshua Aizenman. Capital Market Imperfections and the Theory of Optimum Currency Areas [R].Working Paper,2008.
[40]Pissarides C.A. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory [M].London:Basil Blackwell, 1990.
[41]Pol Antras. Is the U.S.Aggregate Production Function Cobb-Douglas? New Estimation of the Elasticity of Substitution [J].Contributions to Macroeconomics,2004,4(1), article 4.
[42]Rains Gustav. Factor Proportions in Japanese Economic Development [J].The American Economic Review,1957,47(9):594-607.
[43]Robert J. Gordon. Response to the Comments of "the Production Function and Productivity" [J]Journal of Economic Perspectives,2001,15(3):257-260.
[44]Salter W. E. G Productivity and Technical Change[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1966.
[45]Samuelson. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure [J].Review of Economics and Statistics,1962,36(4):387-389.
[46]Samuelson. P. A Theory of Induced Innovations Along Kennedy-Weizsacker Lines[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,1965,47(4):347-356.
[47]Sato R. The Estimation of Biased Technical Progress and the Production Function [J]. International Economic Review,1970,11(2):179-208.
[48]Solow R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2):65-94.
[49]Song H., Liu Z. and Jiang P. Analysis the Determinants of China's Aggregate Investment in the Reform Period [J]. China Economic Review,2001(12):227-242.
[50]Sun X. Estimating Investment Function Based on Co integration:the Case of China [J]. Journal of Comparative Economics,1998,26(2):175-191.
[51]Vivarelli G.L. The Economics of Technical and Employment:Theory and Empirical Evidence [M].Aldershot:Elgar,1995.
[52]Wang & Fan. Sustainability of China's Economic Growth. Economic Science Press, 2000.
[53]Wang Y.& Yao Y. Sources of China's economic growth:incorporating human capital accumulation[J].China Economic Review,2001,14(7):32-52.
[54]Young A. The tyranny of numbers:confronting the statistical realities of the east asian growth experience [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,110(3):641-680.
[55]Young A. Gold into Base Metals:Productivity Growth in the People’S Republic of China during the Reform Period[R].NBER Working Paper,2000.
[56]Young A. Lessons from the East Asian NICs:A Cintrarian View[R].NBER Working Paper,1993.
[57]Zeng, J., Xu, B.,Watada, J. Identification and Realization of Changing Technical Efficiency Based on Path-Converged Design [J].International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control,2010,6 (4):1643-1654.
[58]蔡昉、都阳、高书文.实现经济与就业同步增长的政策建议[J].中国党政干部论坛,2005(1)：32-33.
[59]蔡昉、都阳、高书文.就业弹性、自然失业和宏观经济政策——为什么经济增长没有带来显性就业?[J].经济研究,2004(9)：18-25.
[60]蔡防、王美艳、曲玥.中国工业重新配置与劳动力流动趋势[J].中国工业经济,2009(8)：5-16.
[61]陈勇,唐朱昌.中国工业的技术选择与技术进步：1985：2003[J].经济研究,2006(9)： 50-61.
[62]程仲鸣、夏新平和余明桂.政府干预、金字塔结构与地方国有企业上市公司投资[J].管理世界,2008(9)：37-47.
[63][美]大卫·李嘉图.郭大力、王亚南译.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,1962.
[64][日]大塚启二郎、刘德强和[日]村上直树.中国的工业改革——过去的成绩和未来的前景[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2000.
[65]戴天仕,徐现祥.中国的技术进步方向[J].世界经济,2010(1)：54-70.
[66]邓志旺,蔡晓帆和郑棣华.就业弹性系数急剧下降：事实还是假象[J].人口与经济,2001(5)：37-41.
[67]丁骋骋、傅勇.地方政府行为、财政-金融关联与中国宏观经济波动——基于中国式分权背景的分析[J].经济社会体制比较,2012(11)：87-97.
[68]丁从明、陈仲常.金融深化、资本深化及其互补性研究[J].财经研究,2006(1)：84-93.
[69]丁守海,刘听和蒋家亮.中国就业弹性的在估算[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(2)：81-88.
[79]傅勇、张晏.中国式分权与财政支出结构偏向：为增长而竞争的代价[J].管理世界,2007(3)：4-12.
[71]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.地方政府行为、投资冲动与宏观经济稳定[J].管理世界,2006(5)：19-25.
[72]樊纲、王小鲁、马光荣.中国市场化进程对经济增长的贡献[J].经济研究,2011(9)：4-16.
[73]贺菊煌.我国资产的估算[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1992(8)：24-27.
[74]黄先海和徐圣.中国劳动收入比重下降成因分析：基于劳动节约型技术进步的视角[J].经济研究,2009(7)：34-44.
[75]黄勇峰,任若恩和刘晓生.中国制造业资本存量永续盘存法估计[J].经济学(季刊),2002(2)：377-396.
[76]简新华、余江.基于冗员的中国就业弹性估计[J].经济研究,2007(6)：131-141.
[77][德]卡尔·马克思.资本论(第一卷至第四卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975.
[78]雷钦礼.偏向性技术进步的测算与分析[J].统计研究,2013(4)：83-91.
[79]李敏波、王一鸣.双轨制、价格市场化与总量投资分析[J].经济学(季刊),2007(10)： 93-110.
[80]李治国、唐国兴.资本形成路径与资本存量调整模型——基于中国转型时期的分析[J].经济研究,2003(2)：34-42.
[81]连军、刘星、连翠珍.民营企业政治联系的背后：扶持之手和掠夺之手——基于资本投资视角的经验研究[J].财经研究,2011(6)：133-144.
[82]梁莱歆、冯延超.民营企业的政治关联、雇员规模与薪酬成本[J].中国工业经济,2010(10)：127-137.
[83]陆铭、欧海军.高增长与低就业：政府干预与就业弹性的经验研究[J].世界经济,2011(12)：3-31.
[84]罗党论、唐清泉.政治关系、社会资本与政策资源获取：来自民营上市公司的经验证据[J].世界经济,2009(7)：84-96.
[85][英]马尔萨斯.人口原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[86]马克思.资本论[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,1983.
[87]唐雪松、周晓苏、马如静.政府干预、GDP增长与地方国企过度投资[J].金融研究,2010(8)：33-47.
[88]蒲艳萍、黄怡.我国经济发展中的资本深化过程及其就业效应[J].经济问题探索,2008(3)：1-5.
[89][法]萨伊.政治经济概论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[90]单豪杰.中国资本存量K的在估算[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2008(10)：17-31.
[91]沈立人、戴园晨.我国“诸侯经济”的形成及其弊端和根源[J].经济研究,1990(3)：12-19.
[92]宋丽敏.就业与经济增长的一致性问题研究——“奥肯定率”在东北地区的适用性检验[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(9)：86-93.
[93]孙辉、支大林、李宏瑾.对中国各省资本存量的估计及典型事实：1978-2008[J].广东金融学院学报2010(3)：103-117.
[94]王文剑、仉建涛、覃成林.财政分权、地方政府竞争与FDI的增长效应[J].管理世界,2007(3)：13-22.
[95]王曦、陆荣.体制演进、政府介入与投资膨胀：不确定性条件下的转型期投资模型[J].世界经济,2010(11)：3-22.
[96]王曦.经济转型中的投资行为与投资总量[J].经济学(季刊),2005(10)：129-146.
[97]王孝成、于津平.中国制造业行业就业影响因素分析[J].经济评论,2010(3)：30-39.
[98]王燕武、王俊海.地方政府行为与地区产业结构趋同的理论及实证分析[J].南开经济研究,2009(4)：33-69.
[99]吴敬琏.中国增长模式抉择[M].上海：上海世纪出版股份有限公司远东出版社,2006.
[100][英]西尼尔.政治经济学大纲[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[101]夏晖.双重市场分割、资本深化与劳动深化——对中国经济高增长伴随高失业现象的解释[J].财经论丛,2008(5)：8-13.
[102]徐涛.信息不对称、关系型融资与新型的银企关系[J].产业经济评论,2003(1)：68-79.
[103]徐现祥、周吉梅、舒元.中国省区三次产业资本存量估计[J].统计研究,2007(5)：6-13.
[104]许小年.有效资本市场和中国经济改革[J].经济社会体制比较,2000(5)：14-19.
[105][英]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[106]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[J].世界经济,2005(1)：59-67.
[107]袁富华、李义学.中国制造业资本深化和就业调整——基于利润最大化假设的分析[J].经济学(季刊),2008(1)：197-210.
[108][美]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第二卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[109][美]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[110][英]詹姆斯·穆勒.政治经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[111]张车伟,蔡防.就业弹性的变化趋势[J].中国工业经济,2002(5)：22-30.
[112]张璟、沈坤荣.地方政府干预、区域金融发展与中国经济增长方式转型——基于财政分权背景下的实证研究[J].南开经济研究,2008(6)：122-140.
[113]张军.增长、资本形成与技术选择：解释中国经济增长下降的长期因素[J].经济学(季刊),2002(1)：301-337.
[114]张军.中国的工业改革与经济增长：问题与解释[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003.
[115]张军,章元.对中国资本存量K的再估计[J].经济研究,2003(7)：35-43.
[116]张军、吴桂英和张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算：1952-2000[J].经济研究,2004(10)：35-44.
[117]张军.资本形成、投资效率与中国的经济增长[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2005.
[118]张军、陈诗一、G H. Jefferson.结构改革和中国工业增长[J].经济研究2009(7)：4-20.
[119]张培刚.农业与工业化[M].武汉：华中工学院出版社,1984.
[120]张曙光,施贤文.市场分割、资本深化和教育深化——关于就业问题的进一步思考[J].云南大学学报,2003(5)：70-76.
[121]张晓晖.我国制造业资本深化和就业关系的实证分析[J].企业导报,2009(5)：98-99.
[122]张晏、龚六堂.分税制改革、财政分权与中国经济增长[J].经济学(季刊),2005(10)：75-107.
[123]曾铮.“不均质”大国的理论框架及其经济学界定——基本逻辑、测算模型和对中国的分析[J].中国工业经济,2008(6)：25-34.
[124]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004(6)：33-40.
[125]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究,2007(7)：36-50.
[126]朱轶、涂斌.财政分权、投资失衡与工业资本深化——基于中国区域特征的经验研究[J].宏观经济研究,2011(11)：28-36.
中心调查报告》2004年第93号(总第2152号),2004年7月21日。
2 国务院发展研究中心“新型工业化道路研究”课题组《我国工业化进入新阶段》,《经济日报》2003年12月1
日。
3 同上。
4 关于马克思对于资本有机构成的解读,可参见《资本论》中的相关章节。其中,不变资本(C)是指以生产资料
形式存在的资本,如原材料、辅助材料等；可变资本(V)是指以劳动力形式存在的资本,其在生产过程中能够
产生价值增值,因此称之为可变资本。资本的有机构成实质是指资本总量中不变资本对可变资本的比率,在生产
要素意义上就是资本和劳动之比(K/L)。
5 多数经济史学家认为英国第一次产业革命的起讫年份大约为1770年至1879年间。
6 引自吴敬琏《中国增长模式抉择》,上海远东出版社,2006。
7 参见马克思《资本论》中文版第一卷p.480,人民出版社,1975。
8 引自马列和石红梅《促进“农民工”群体就业的税收政策》,税务研究,2008(3)：47-49.
9 参见《国务院发展研究中心调查研究报告》,2004年第93号(总第2152号)《全面提升整体竞争力是浙江经济发展的必经之路——浙江经济发展考察报告》。
10 例如,黄勇峰等(2002)对中国制造业资本存量的估计中,设备的折旧率选取17%,建筑的折旧率选取为8%，张军(2004)计算得到各省固定资本形成总额的经济折旧率为9.6%，Perkins(1998)、Wang & Yao(2003)均假定折旧率为5%等。
11 年鉴给出的解释是：“从业人员从事一定社会劳动并取得劳动报酬或经营收入的人员。……反映了一定时期内全部劳动力资源的实际利用情况。各单位的从业人员包括职工、再就业的离退休人员、民办教师以及在各单位中工作的外方人员和港澳台方人员,反映了各单位实际参加生产或工作的全部劳动力”。职工是指
“在国有经济、城镇集体经济、联营经济、股份制经济、外商和港澳台投资经济及其他经济单位及其附属机构工作,并由其支付工资的各类人员”。
12 由于海南和西藏数据有限,无法很好的估计其资本存量,故剔除：为了统一口径,重庆并入四川进行统计。
13 参见张天龙根据张曙光在“第六届中国改革与新制度经济学讲研班”发言整理而成的文章,云南大学学报,2003(5)。
14 如聘请政府官员到企业任职或企业领导通过人大或政协代表身份参政议政等。许多研究表明(Claessens et a1., 2008；Faccio,2006;罗党论,2009等),私有部门的这种政治联系能够为企业带来融资的便利、税收的优惠、政府的补贴、管制行业的优先进入等企业发展的便利环境。
16 2004年数据采用《中国经济普查年鉴2004》,1995、1996、1998、1999相关年份未出版《中国工业经济统计年鉴》,相关数据采用平滑处理。
17 根据国际统计局统计设计管理司颁布的《三次产业划分规定》,第二产业包括建筑业和工业,工业部门主要包括采矿业、制造业和电力、热力、燃气及水生产和供应业。
18 1966-1998年,经济腾飞时期的香港、台湾和新加坡,其固定资产投资率分别为25.4%、23.7和35.4%。
19 1952-2002年,美国的投资率水平为20%,2002年德国和日本的投资率水平分别为18%和26%,而2002年,中国的投资率水平为37.8%。
20 资本和劳动替代弹性的大小,直接反映了资本和劳动之间的关系。一般而言,σ≥1时,资本和劳动之间是替代的关系；σ<1时,资本和劳动之间是互补的关系。许多学者(Antras,2004；Klump,2007)就利用这一关系,判定美国技术进步的方向。
22 据人力资源和社会保障部的估计,“十二五”期间城镇需就业的劳动力年均2500万人,还有相当数量的农业富余劳动力需要转移就业。然而,据估计(方明月等,2010),即便GDP按8%的速度持续增长,也仅能解决900万人的就业。
23 参见《国务院发展研究中心调查研究报告》,2004年第93号(总第2152号)《全面提升整体竞争力是浙江经济发展的必经之路——浙江经济发展考察报告》。
[1]Acemolgu D. Why do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1998, 113(4):1055-1090.
[2]Acemoglu D.& Fabrizio Zilibotti. Productivity differences[R].NBER Working Paper, No.6879,1999.
[3]Acemolgu D. Directed Technical Change[J].The Review of Economic Studies,2002, 69(4):781-809.
[4]Acemolgu D. Equilibrium Bias of Technology [J].Econometrica,2007,75(5): 1371-1409.
[5]Aghion P., Howitt P. Growth and Unemployment[J].Review of Economic Studies,1994, 61(3):477-494.
[6]Ahmad S.On the Theory of Induced Invention[J].Economic Journal,1966, 76(1):344-357.
[7]Arrow K., Chenery B.Minhas and Solow R. Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency[J].Review of Economic and Statistics,1961,43(8):225-250.
[8]Arrow K. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing[J].Review of Economic Studies,1962,29(3):155-73.
[9]Castello-Climenta A.,Hidalgo-Cabrillanab A. The Role of Educational Quality and Quantity in the Process of Economic Development[J].Economics of Education Review, 2012,31(4):391-409.
[10]Ceccobelli M.,Gitto S.,Mancuso P. ICT Capital and Labor Productivity Growth:A Non-parametric Analysis of 14 OECD Countries[J].Telecommunications Policy,2012, 36(4):282-292.
[11]Claessens S.,E. Feijen & L. Laeven. Political Connections and Preferential Access to Finance:the Role of Campaign Contributions[J].Journal of Financial Economics, 2008(6):554-580.
[12]Del Rio F. Embodied Technical Progress and Unemployment[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2001(12):1-29.
[13]David P. A., Theo Van de Klundert. Biased Efficiency and Capital-Labor Substitution in the U.S.,1899-1960[J].The American Economic Review,1965,55(3):357-394.
[14]Edward N.Wolff. Capital Formation and Productivity Convergence over the Long Term [J]. The American Economic Review,1991,81(3):565-579.
[15]Edward N.Wolff & M. Ishaq Nadiri.Spillover Effect, Linkage Structure, and Research and Development [J].Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1993,4(2):315-331
[16]FaccioM. R. Masulis & Mcconnell J.Political connections and corporate Bailouts[J]. Journal of Finance,2006(12):2597-2635.
[17]Foley Duncan K.,Machl Thomas R.. Growth and Distribution[M].Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1999.
[18]Foley Duncan K.,Machl Thomas R. The Production Function and Productivity [J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,2001,15(3):257-260.
[19]Gary H.Jefferson, Thomas G. Rawski and Xuxin Zheng. Chinese Industrial Productivity:Trends, Measurement Issues and Recent Developments [J].Journal of Comparative Economics,1996,23(2):146-180.
[20]Gallenson W.& Leibenstein H.Investment criteria, productivity, and growth [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1955,69(3):343-370.
[21]Gary H. Jefferson,Thomas G. Rawski,Wang Li and Zheng Yuxin. Ownership, Productivity Change and Financial Performance in Chinese industrial [J].Journal of Comparative Economics,2000(28):786-813.
[22]Goldsmith R. A Perpetual Inventory of National Wealth[J].NBER Studies in Income and Wealth,1951(14):5-61.
[23]Habakkuk H. J.American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century:Search for Labor Saving Inventions[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1962.
[24]Hall R.& Jones C.Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(2):83-116.
[25]Hicks J.R. The Theory of Wages [M].London:Macmillan,1932.
[26]Hoffmann W. G. The growth of industrial economics,1931 (Translated from the German by W. O.Henderson & W. O.Chaloner in 1958)[M].Manchester:Manchester University Press.
[27]Howard Pack. Appropriate industrial technology:Benefits and Obstacles [J].Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,1981,458(11):27-40.
[28]Kalt J. P. Technological Change and Factor Substitution in the United States: 1929-1967[J].International Economic Review,1978,19(3):761-775.
[29]Katz L.F.,Murphy K.M. Changes in Relative Wages,1936-1987:Supply and Demand Factor [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(1):35-78.
[30]Khanna M.& Palepu K. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging Markets[J].Harvard Business Review,1997(7-8):125.
[31]Klump R., McAam P. and Willman A.Factor Substitution and Factor Augmenting Technical Progress in the US:A Normalized Supply-Side System Approach [J].Review of Economic and Statistic,2007,89(1):183-192.
[32]]Klump R., McAam P. and Willman A. Unwrapping Some Euro Area Growth Puzzles: Factor Substitution, Productivity and Unemployment [J].Journal of Macroeconomics, 2008,30(2):645-666.
[33]Krugman P. The myth of Asia's miracle [J].foreign Affairs,1994,73(13):62-78.
[34]Machl Thomas R. Biased Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function [J]. International Review of Applied Economics,1999,13(2):193-206.
[35]Naughton B.The Chinese Economy:Transitions and Growth [M].Massachusetts:MIT Press,2007.
[36]Panik M. Factor Learning and Biased factor efficiency growth in the United States, 1929-1966[J].International Economic Review,1976,17(3):733-739.
[37]Perkins D. Reforming China's economy system[J].Journal of Economic Literature, 1998,26(2):601-645.
[38]Petit P. Technology and Employment:Key Questions in a Context of High Unemployment [R].Working Paper,1995.
[39]Pierre-Richard Agenor, Joshua Aizenman. Capital Market Imperfections and the Theory of Optimum Currency Areas [R].Working Paper,2008.
[40]Pissarides C.A. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory [M].London:Basil Blackwell, 1990.
[41]Pol Antras. Is the U.S.Aggregate Production Function Cobb-Douglas? New Estimation of the Elasticity of Substitution [J].Contributions to Macroeconomics,2004,4(1), article 4.
[42]Rains Gustav. Factor Proportions in Japanese Economic Development [J].The American Economic Review,1957,47(9):594-607.
[43]Robert J. Gordon. Response to the Comments of "the Production Function and Productivity" [J]Journal of Economic Perspectives,2001,15(3):257-260.
[44]Salter W. E. G Productivity and Technical Change[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1966.
[45]Samuelson. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure [J].Review of Economics and Statistics,1962,36(4):387-389.
[46]Samuelson. P. A Theory of Induced Innovations Along Kennedy-Weizsacker Lines[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics,1965,47(4):347-356.
[47]Sato R. The Estimation of Biased Technical Progress and the Production Function [J]. International Economic Review,1970,11(2):179-208.
[48]Solow R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2):65-94.
[49]Song H., Liu Z. and Jiang P. Analysis the Determinants of China's Aggregate Investment in the Reform Period [J]. China Economic Review,2001(12):227-242.
[50]Sun X. Estimating Investment Function Based on Co integration:the Case of China [J]. Journal of Comparative Economics,1998,26(2):175-191.
[51]Vivarelli G.L. The Economics of Technical and Employment:Theory and Empirical Evidence [M].Aldershot:Elgar,1995.
[52]Wang & Fan. Sustainability of China's Economic Growth. Economic Science Press, 2000.
[53]Wang Y.& Yao Y. Sources of China's economic growth:incorporating human capital accumulation[J].China Economic Review,2001,14(7):32-52.
[54]Young A. The tyranny of numbers:confronting the statistical realities of the east asian growth experience [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,110(3):641-680.
[55]Young A. Gold into Base Metals:Productivity Growth in the People’S Republic of China during the Reform Period[R].NBER Working Paper,2000.
[56]Young A. Lessons from the East Asian NICs:A Cintrarian View[R].NBER Working Paper,1993.
[57]Zeng, J., Xu, B.,Watada, J. Identification and Realization of Changing Technical Efficiency Based on Path-Converged Design [J].International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control,2010,6 (4):1643-1654.
[58]蔡昉、都阳、高书文.实现经济与就业同步增长的政策建议[J].中国党政干部论坛,2005(1)：32-33.
[59]蔡昉、都阳、高书文.就业弹性、自然失业和宏观经济政策——为什么经济增长没有带来显性就业?[J].经济研究,2004(9)：18-25.
[60]蔡防、王美艳、曲玥.中国工业重新配置与劳动力流动趋势[J].中国工业经济,2009(8)：5-16.
[61]陈勇,唐朱昌.中国工业的技术选择与技术进步：1985：2003[J].经济研究,2006(9)： 50-61.
[62]程仲鸣、夏新平和余明桂.政府干预、金字塔结构与地方国有企业上市公司投资[J].管理世界,2008(9)：37-47.
[63][美]大卫·李嘉图.郭大力、王亚南译.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,1962.
[64][日]大塚启二郎、刘德强和[日]村上直树.中国的工业改革——过去的成绩和未来的前景[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2000.
[65]戴天仕,徐现祥.中国的技术进步方向[J].世界经济,2010(1)：54-70.
[66]邓志旺,蔡晓帆和郑棣华.就业弹性系数急剧下降：事实还是假象[J].人口与经济,2001(5)：37-41.
[67]丁骋骋、傅勇.地方政府行为、财政-金融关联与中国宏观经济波动——基于中国式分权背景的分析[J].经济社会体制比较,2012(11)：87-97.
[68]丁从明、陈仲常.金融深化、资本深化及其互补性研究[J].财经研究,2006(1)：84-93.
[69]丁守海,刘听和蒋家亮.中国就业弹性的在估算[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009(2)：81-88.
[79]傅勇、张晏.中国式分权与财政支出结构偏向：为增长而竞争的代价[J].管理世界,2007(3)：4-12.
[71]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.地方政府行为、投资冲动与宏观经济稳定[J].管理世界,2006(5)：19-25.
[72]樊纲、王小鲁、马光荣.中国市场化进程对经济增长的贡献[J].经济研究,2011(9)：4-16.
[73]贺菊煌.我国资产的估算[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1992(8)：24-27.
[74]黄先海和徐圣.中国劳动收入比重下降成因分析：基于劳动节约型技术进步的视角[J].经济研究,2009(7)：34-44.
[75]黄勇峰,任若恩和刘晓生.中国制造业资本存量永续盘存法估计[J].经济学(季刊),2002(2)：377-396.
[76]简新华、余江.基于冗员的中国就业弹性估计[J].经济研究,2007(6)：131-141.
[77][德]卡尔·马克思.资本论(第一卷至第四卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975.
[78]雷钦礼.偏向性技术进步的测算与分析[J].统计研究,2013(4)：83-91.
[79]李敏波、王一鸣.双轨制、价格市场化与总量投资分析[J].经济学(季刊),2007(10)： 93-110.
[80]李治国、唐国兴.资本形成路径与资本存量调整模型——基于中国转型时期的分析[J].经济研究,2003(2)：34-42.
[81]连军、刘星、连翠珍.民营企业政治联系的背后：扶持之手和掠夺之手——基于资本投资视角的经验研究[J].财经研究,2011(6)：133-144.
[82]梁莱歆、冯延超.民营企业的政治关联、雇员规模与薪酬成本[J].中国工业经济,2010(10)：127-137.
[83]陆铭、欧海军.高增长与低就业：政府干预与就业弹性的经验研究[J].世界经济,2011(12)：3-31.
[84]罗党论、唐清泉.政治关系、社会资本与政策资源获取：来自民营上市公司的经验证据[J].世界经济,2009(7)：84-96.
[85][英]马尔萨斯.人口原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[86]马克思.资本论[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,1983.
[87]唐雪松、周晓苏、马如静.政府干预、GDP增长与地方国企过度投资[J].金融研究,2010(8)：33-47.
[88]蒲艳萍、黄怡.我国经济发展中的资本深化过程及其就业效应[J].经济问题探索,2008(3)：1-5.
[89][法]萨伊.政治经济概论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[90]单豪杰.中国资本存量K的在估算[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2008(10)：17-31.
[91]沈立人、戴园晨.我国“诸侯经济”的形成及其弊端和根源[J].经济研究,1990(3)：12-19.
[92]宋丽敏.就业与经济增长的一致性问题研究——“奥肯定率”在东北地区的适用性检验[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(9)：86-93.
[93]孙辉、支大林、李宏瑾.对中国各省资本存量的估计及典型事实：1978-2008[J].广东金融学院学报2010(3)：103-117.
[94]王文剑、仉建涛、覃成林.财政分权、地方政府竞争与FDI的增长效应[J].管理世界,2007(3)：13-22.
[95]王曦、陆荣.体制演进、政府介入与投资膨胀：不确定性条件下的转型期投资模型[J].世界经济,2010(11)：3-22.
[96]王曦.经济转型中的投资行为与投资总量[J].经济学(季刊),2005(10)：129-146.
[97]王孝成、于津平.中国制造业行业就业影响因素分析[J].经济评论,2010(3)：30-39.
[98]王燕武、王俊海.地方政府行为与地区产业结构趋同的理论及实证分析[J].南开经济研究,2009(4)：33-69.
[99]吴敬琏.中国增长模式抉择[M].上海：上海世纪出版股份有限公司远东出版社,2006.
[100][英]西尼尔.政治经济学大纲[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[101]夏晖.双重市场分割、资本深化与劳动深化——对中国经济高增长伴随高失业现象的解释[J].财经论丛,2008(5)：8-13.
[102]徐涛.信息不对称、关系型融资与新型的银企关系[J].产业经济评论,2003(1)：68-79.
[103]徐现祥、周吉梅、舒元.中国省区三次产业资本存量估计[J].统计研究,2007(5)：6-13.
[104]许小年.有效资本市场和中国经济改革[J].经济社会体制比较,2000(5)：14-19.
[105][英]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[106]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[J].世界经济,2005(1)：59-67.
[107]袁富华、李义学.中国制造业资本深化和就业调整——基于利润最大化假设的分析[J].经济学(季刊),2008(1)：197-210.
[108][美]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第二卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[109][美]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[110][英]詹姆斯·穆勒.政治经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2010.
[111]张车伟,蔡防.就业弹性的变化趋势[J].中国工业经济,2002(5)：22-30.
[112]张璟、沈坤荣.地方政府干预、区域金融发展与中国经济增长方式转型——基于财政分权背景下的实证研究[J].南开经济研究,2008(6)：122-140.
[113]张军.增长、资本形成与技术选择：解释中国经济增长下降的长期因素[J].经济学(季刊),2002(1)：301-337.
[114]张军.中国的工业改革与经济增长：问题与解释[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003.
[115]张军,章元.对中国资本存量K的再估计[J].经济研究,2003(7)：35-43.
[116]张军、吴桂英和张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算：1952-2000[J].经济研究,2004(10)：35-44.
[117]张军.资本形成、投资效率与中国的经济增长[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2005.
[118]张军、陈诗一、G H. Jefferson.结构改革和中国工业增长[J].经济研究2009(7)：4-20.
[119]张培刚.农业与工业化[M].武汉：华中工学院出版社,1984.
[120]张曙光,施贤文.市场分割、资本深化和教育深化——关于就业问题的进一步思考[J].云南大学学报,2003(5)：70-76.
[121]张晓晖.我国制造业资本深化和就业关系的实证分析[J].企业导报,2009(5)：98-99.
[122]张晏、龚六堂.分税制改革、财政分权与中国经济增长[J].经济学(季刊),2005(10)：75-107.
[123]曾铮.“不均质”大国的理论框架及其经济学界定——基本逻辑、测算模型和对中国的分析[J].中国工业经济,2008(6)：25-34.
[124]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作——兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设问题长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004(6)：33-40.
[125]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究,2007(7)：36-50.
[126]朱轶、涂斌.财政分权、投资失衡与工业资本深化——基于中国区域特征的经验研究[J].宏观经济研究,2011(11)：28-36.