市场结构及其影响因素对中国企业技术创新的作用研究
|
摘要
当前，由于美国金融危机的影响，我国以劳动密集型为主的外向型发展模式受到严重冲击。虽然积极的财政政策和适度宽松的货币政策能起到暂时的缓解作用，但从长远看，只有通过企业技术创新推动企业和产业的技术进步，进而提升产品的技术和知识含量及附加值，才是破解中国企业进一步发展困局的唯一出路。因此，激发企业技术创新的动力、考察企业或产业技术创新的影响因素就具有特别重要的理论和现实意义。一国企业技术创新水平的高低受多种因素的影响，如有无高素质的企业家群体或阶层、有无行之有效的知识产权保护制度、有无健全和有效的的企业产权关系和治理结构、有无充足的R&D投入、有无完善的技术创新激励机制等，此外，市场结构也对企业的技术创新有着重要影响。鉴于现有研究大多集中于创新投入、创新激励等方面，本文拟打算从一个较为客观的层面——即市场结构与企业创新的关系的角度，研究企业技术创新问题。本研究拟从以下几个方面展开分析：
首先，通过总量和比重这两个不同的角度，对我国企业技术创新的基本状况进行分析。指出随着我国经济总量规模的迅速扩大，企业技术创新总量也在明显增长，但从企业层面看，技术创新的比重却没有得到相应的提升，甚至呈现下降趋势。
其次，论文从影响和决定市场结构的两个基本要素——即竞争程度和企业规模出发，分别对过程创新和产品创新对我国企业技术创新的影响进行分析。对市场竞争程度及其对创新影响的分析发现，竞争不足不利于我国企业的过程创新和产品创新；过度竞争会使企业对产品创新有所侧重，但并不能有效提高企业产品创新的能力，反而成为妨碍我国企业技术创新的重要因素。从企业规模及其对创新的影响的分析发现，无论是过程创新还是产品创新，大型企业都占据绝对优势，但中国的国有大型企业的创新效率和水平不高，技术创新尚未成为推动我国各类规模企业发展的重要决定因素。
再次，从我国大规模引进外资的实际情况出发，考察了外资企业的进入对我国市场结构的影响，认为外资企业的进入对我国市场结构无疑具有重要影响，但同时也发现，外资企业只是依靠其庞大的规模提高自身在我国经济以及技术创新中的地位和比重，外资企业对技术创新的诉求和积极性并不明显高于内资企业，并未像人们期盼的那样——充分发挥技术创新“龙头”作用，以带动内资企业技术创新水平的提升，相反，外资企业的进入明显刺激了我国高技术设备的引入和进口，然而，这至多是经由“拿来主义”的方式带来的某种“过程创新”，而在更有意义和更为重要的“产品创新”方面，外资企业却表现出明显的消极和抑制作用。
此外，本研究还发现，中国转型经济条件下的所特有的行政垄断是影响我国市场结构的重要甚至决定性的因素，在行政垄断保护下国有企业获得大量垄断利润，但却妨碍了我国企业技术创新水平的提升。
最后，论文分析了市场结构对不同技术创新模式的影响，指出在外资企业竞争和国有企业垄断双重挤压下，笼统提倡高端意义上的自主创新，既不现实，也不可行，模仿创新和合作创新模式可能是中小企业技术创新的主要路径和明智选择。
The labor-intensive and export-oriented development mode in China has been greatly challenged due to the financial crisis in U.S.A. recently. Although the active fiscal policy and appropriate loose monetary policy can ease it temporarily, however, in the long run, the only way of breaking the predicament for the development of enterprises in China is to innovate. Technological innovation of enterprises can promote the progress of enterprises and industries, and then improve the technology and enhance the knowledge intensivity and added value of the products. Therefore, it's both theoretically and practically significant to stimulate the technological innovation and to study the factors that impact the technological innovation of China's enterprises. There are many factors that are beneficial to a nation's innovation ability, such as the availability of high-quality entrepreneurs, the effective protection system of the intellectual property, the sound corporate ownership and governance structure, the availability of adequate R&D investment, and the perfect incentive mechanism for technological innovation. Besides, the market structure has an important impact on the technological innovation of the enterprises. Since most of the existing literatures focus on the input and incentive of innovation, this dissertation will study the relationship between the market structure and the innovation of the enterprises, in a more objective perspective.
First of all, an analysis of the basic situation of the technological innovation of the enterprises in China was provided in the pespective of both total quantity and the propotion. It shows that the total quantity of technological innovations have increased significantly with the development of national economy. However, the propotion of the technological innovations have not increased accordingly, and even have decreased when examined in the perspective of the enterprises.
Secondly, an analysis of the impact imposed by both the process innovation and product innovation on the technological innovation was provided, based on the degree of competition and the scale of the enterprises, which are the two basic factors that affect the market structure. When analyse the degree of the competition and its impact on the innovation, we found that the excessive competition is not beneficial to the technological innovation of our national enterprises. It can also be found that the excessive competition may encourage the enterprises to pay more attention to the product innovation, but it can not promote their ability to innovate, and it even can be an important factor that impedes the technological innovation. When analyze the scale of the enterprises and its impact on the technological innovation, we found that the large enterprises had absolute advantage both in the process innovation and the product innovation. But the innovation efficiency of the large state-owned enterprises in China is not high, and the technological innovation has not been the determinant of the development of enterprises with various scales.
Thirdly, since a great deal of foreign capital has been introduced in the past years, the impact of the entrance of the foreign-funded enterprises on the market structure of China was examined. It shows that the foreign-funded enterprises have an undoubtedly impact on the market structure of China, but they enhance their status and propotion in the technological innovation and even the whole economy in China only by their large scale, instead of their demand and enthusiasm for the technological innovation. In fact, theirs is no more than that of the domestic enterprises. The foreign-funded enterprises have been expected to raise the level of the technological innovation of the domestic enterprises, however, it failed. On the contrary, it have stimulated the import of the high-tech equipment, which may increase some kind of process innovation. But when it comes to the more significant and important product innovation, the foreign-funded enterprises have obviously negative effect.
It can be concluded from this study that the administrative monopoly is the most important factor and even the determinant factor, that affect the market structure in the transitional China. The state-owned enterprises have gained a great deal of monopoly profit under the protection of the administrative monopolies, but it has impeded the promotion of the technological innovation as well.
Finally, an analysis of the impact of the market strucuture on different technological innovation models was provided, the result shows that in the fierce competition from the foreign-funded enterprises and the state-owned monopoly enterprises, it is neither realistic nor feasible to advocate a high level independent innovation model. The imitative innovation model and cooperative innovation model may be more suitable for the small and medium-sized enterprises.
首先，通过总量和比重这两个不同的角度，对我国企业技术创新的基本状况进行分析。指出随着我国经济总量规模的迅速扩大，企业技术创新总量也在明显增长，但从企业层面看，技术创新的比重却没有得到相应的提升，甚至呈现下降趋势。
其次，论文从影响和决定市场结构的两个基本要素——即竞争程度和企业规模出发，分别对过程创新和产品创新对我国企业技术创新的影响进行分析。对市场竞争程度及其对创新影响的分析发现，竞争不足不利于我国企业的过程创新和产品创新；过度竞争会使企业对产品创新有所侧重，但并不能有效提高企业产品创新的能力，反而成为妨碍我国企业技术创新的重要因素。从企业规模及其对创新的影响的分析发现，无论是过程创新还是产品创新，大型企业都占据绝对优势，但中国的国有大型企业的创新效率和水平不高，技术创新尚未成为推动我国各类规模企业发展的重要决定因素。
再次，从我国大规模引进外资的实际情况出发，考察了外资企业的进入对我国市场结构的影响，认为外资企业的进入对我国市场结构无疑具有重要影响，但同时也发现，外资企业只是依靠其庞大的规模提高自身在我国经济以及技术创新中的地位和比重，外资企业对技术创新的诉求和积极性并不明显高于内资企业，并未像人们期盼的那样——充分发挥技术创新“龙头”作用，以带动内资企业技术创新水平的提升，相反，外资企业的进入明显刺激了我国高技术设备的引入和进口，然而，这至多是经由“拿来主义”的方式带来的某种“过程创新”，而在更有意义和更为重要的“产品创新”方面，外资企业却表现出明显的消极和抑制作用。
此外，本研究还发现，中国转型经济条件下的所特有的行政垄断是影响我国市场结构的重要甚至决定性的因素，在行政垄断保护下国有企业获得大量垄断利润，但却妨碍了我国企业技术创新水平的提升。
最后，论文分析了市场结构对不同技术创新模式的影响，指出在外资企业竞争和国有企业垄断双重挤压下，笼统提倡高端意义上的自主创新，既不现实，也不可行，模仿创新和合作创新模式可能是中小企业技术创新的主要路径和明智选择。
The labor-intensive and export-oriented development mode in China has been greatly challenged due to the financial crisis in U.S.A. recently. Although the active fiscal policy and appropriate loose monetary policy can ease it temporarily, however, in the long run, the only way of breaking the predicament for the development of enterprises in China is to innovate. Technological innovation of enterprises can promote the progress of enterprises and industries, and then improve the technology and enhance the knowledge intensivity and added value of the products. Therefore, it's both theoretically and practically significant to stimulate the technological innovation and to study the factors that impact the technological innovation of China's enterprises. There are many factors that are beneficial to a nation's innovation ability, such as the availability of high-quality entrepreneurs, the effective protection system of the intellectual property, the sound corporate ownership and governance structure, the availability of adequate R&D investment, and the perfect incentive mechanism for technological innovation. Besides, the market structure has an important impact on the technological innovation of the enterprises. Since most of the existing literatures focus on the input and incentive of innovation, this dissertation will study the relationship between the market structure and the innovation of the enterprises, in a more objective perspective.
First of all, an analysis of the basic situation of the technological innovation of the enterprises in China was provided in the pespective of both total quantity and the propotion. It shows that the total quantity of technological innovations have increased significantly with the development of national economy. However, the propotion of the technological innovations have not increased accordingly, and even have decreased when examined in the perspective of the enterprises.
Secondly, an analysis of the impact imposed by both the process innovation and product innovation on the technological innovation was provided, based on the degree of competition and the scale of the enterprises, which are the two basic factors that affect the market structure. When analyse the degree of the competition and its impact on the innovation, we found that the excessive competition is not beneficial to the technological innovation of our national enterprises. It can also be found that the excessive competition may encourage the enterprises to pay more attention to the product innovation, but it can not promote their ability to innovate, and it even can be an important factor that impedes the technological innovation. When analyze the scale of the enterprises and its impact on the technological innovation, we found that the large enterprises had absolute advantage both in the process innovation and the product innovation. But the innovation efficiency of the large state-owned enterprises in China is not high, and the technological innovation has not been the determinant of the development of enterprises with various scales.
Thirdly, since a great deal of foreign capital has been introduced in the past years, the impact of the entrance of the foreign-funded enterprises on the market structure of China was examined. It shows that the foreign-funded enterprises have an undoubtedly impact on the market structure of China, but they enhance their status and propotion in the technological innovation and even the whole economy in China only by their large scale, instead of their demand and enthusiasm for the technological innovation. In fact, theirs is no more than that of the domestic enterprises. The foreign-funded enterprises have been expected to raise the level of the technological innovation of the domestic enterprises, however, it failed. On the contrary, it have stimulated the import of the high-tech equipment, which may increase some kind of process innovation. But when it comes to the more significant and important product innovation, the foreign-funded enterprises have obviously negative effect.
It can be concluded from this study that the administrative monopoly is the most important factor and even the determinant factor, that affect the market structure in the transitional China. The state-owned enterprises have gained a great deal of monopoly profit under the protection of the administrative monopolies, but it has impeded the promotion of the technological innovation as well.
Finally, an analysis of the impact of the market strucuture on different technological innovation models was provided, the result shows that in the fierce competition from the foreign-funded enterprises and the state-owned monopoly enterprises, it is neither realistic nor feasible to advocate a high level independent innovation model. The imitative innovation model and cooperative innovation model may be more suitable for the small and medium-sized enterprises.
引文
[1] Aghion, P., C. Harris and J. Vickers.Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example. European Economic Review, 1997, 41: 771-782.
[2] Aghion, P., N. Bloom and R. Blundell et al. Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, 120: 701-728.
[3] Aitken, B. and Harrison, A. Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 1999, 89: 605-618.
[4] Blundell, R., R. Griffith and J. V. Reenen.Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms.The Review of Economic Studies,1999, 66: 529-554.
[5] Boone, J. Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innovation.The RAND Journal of Economics, 2000, 31: 549-569.
[6] Boone, J. Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate.International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001, 19: 705-726.
[7] Buttner, B. Entry barriers and growth. Economics Letters, 2006, 93:150-155.
[8] Changa, S. -C. and H. -M. Wub. Production experiences and market structure in R&D competition.Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control,2006,30: 163-183.
[9] Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper. Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D.Review of Economics & Statistics,1996, 78: 232-243.
[10] Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper. The Anatomy of Industry R&D Intensity Distributions. American Economic Review, 1992,82: 773-799.
[11] Cohen, W. M. and Richard C. Levin. Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure. R.Schmalensee, R.D.Willig. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterd: North-Holland, 1989.
[12] Cowling,K. and Mueller D.C. The social cost of monopoly power.Economic Journal,1978,88: 724-748.
[13] Czarnitzki, D. and K. Kraft. An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2004,54: 153-173.
[14] Das, N. Technology, efficiency and sustainability of competition in the Indian telecommunications sector.Information Economics and Policy,2000,12: 133-154.
[15] Doukas, J. and L. Switzer.The stock market's valuation of R&D spending and market concentration. Journal of Economics and Business, 1992,44: 95-114.
[16] Fisher,F.M. and Temin,P. Return to Scale in Research and Development: What Does The Schumpeterian Hypothesis Imply.Journal of Political Economy,1973, 81:56-70.
[17] Greenhalgh, C. and M. Rogers. The value of innovation: The interaction of competition, R&D and IP.Research Policy,2006,35: 562-580.
[18] Greenstein S. and G Ramey.Market structure, innovation and vertical product differentiation.International Journal of Industrial Organization,1998,16: 285-311.
[19] Haddad, M and Harrison, A. Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Investment?Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco.Journal of Development Economics, 1993,42: 51-74.
[20] Harberger,Amold C. Monopoly and Resource Allocation. American Economic Review, 1954,44: 77-87.
[21] Hausman, J. Specification Tests in Econometrics.Econometrica,1978,46: 1251-1271.
[22] Hejazi Walid and A.E. Safarian. Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and R&D Spillovers.Journal of International Business Studies, 1999,30:491-511.
[23] Kato, A.Market structure and the allocation of R&D expenditures.Economics Letters, 2005,87: 55-59.
[24] Levin,R.C.,Cohen,W.M. and Mowery,D.C. R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New EvidenceoSome Schumpeterian Hypotheses.American Economic Review Proceedings, 1985,75:20-24.
[25] Lin, P. and K. Saggi.Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition.European Economic Review,2002,46: 201-211.
[26] Lloyd P. J. The Role of Foreign Investment in the Success of Asian Industrialization.Journal of Asian Economics, 1996, 7(3): 407-433.
[27] Madden, G and S. J. Savage.Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation.Telecommunications Policy, 1999,23: 65-81.
[28] Marimon, R. and V. Quadrini.Competition, Innovation and Growth with Limited Commitment.NBER Working Paper,2006,No.12474.
[29] Martinez-Ros,E. Explaining the decisions to carry out product and process innovation: the Spanish case. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1999,10:223-242.
[30] Mu, Q. and K. Lee. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy,2005,34: 759-783.
[31] Okada, Y. Competition and productivity in Japanese manufacturing industries.Journal of The Japanese and International Economies,2005,19: 586-616.
[32] Petit, M.-L. and F. Sanna-Randaccio. Endogenous R&D and foreign direct investment in international oligopolies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2000,18:339-367.
[33] Rajneesh Narula and John Hagedoorn. Innovating Through Strategic Alliances:Moving Towards International 、 Partnerships and Contractual Agreements.Technovation,1999,19(5):283-294.
[34] Rogers, M. The Influence of Diversification and Market Structure on the R&D Intensity of Large Australian Firms. The Australian Economic Review,2000,35:155-172.
[35] Romer, P.M. Endogenous technological change.Journal of Political, 1990,98:1- 101.
[36] Roper and N. Hewitt-Dundas. Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence.Research Policy, 2008,37(1): 149-162.
[37] Rosenkranz, S. Simultaneous choice of process and product innovation when consumers have a preference for product variet. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003, 50: 183-201.
[38] Scherer, F. M. Market Structure and the Employment of Scientists and Engineers. American Economic Review, 1967, 57: 524-531.
[39] Solow, R. M. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economia, 1956, 70: 65-94.
[40] Tang, J. Competition and innovation behaviour. Research Policy,2006, 35: 68-82.
[41] Timothy, K. C. Technological opportunity and the relationship between innovation output and market structure. Managerial & Decision Economics,2005, 26: 209-222.
[42] Todo, Y. Knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment in R&D: Evidence from Japanese firm-level data. Journal of Asian Economics, 2006, 17: 996-1013.
[43] Tullock, G. The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, 1967, 5: 224-232.
[44] Weiss, P. Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Differentiated Markets: The Impact of Competition. Review of Industrial Organization, 2003, 23: 301-314.
[45] Yi, S. -S. Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly. Economics Letters, 1999, 65: 379-388.
[46] Yin, X. and E. Zuscovitch. Is firm size conducive to R&D choice? A strategic analysis of product and process innovations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1998, 35: 243-262.
[47] 安同良．中国企业的技术选择．经济研究，2003，(7)：76-84．
[48] 安同良，施浩，Alcorta．中国制造业企业R&D行为模式的观测与实证--基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．经济研究，2006，(2)：21-30．
[49] 安同良，王文翌，魏巍．中国制造业企业的技术创新：模式、动力与障碍--基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．当代财经，2005，(12)：69-73．
[50] 白明，雷箐青．垄断型国有企业绩效分析．开发研究，2006，(5)：87-90．
[51] 曹建海．中国产业过度竞争的制度分析．上海社会科学院学术季刊，2001，(1)：58-66．
[52] 陈傲．市场力量、企业规模与自主创新--基于中国37个工业行业数据的实证分析．经济问题探索，2007，(12)：22-26．
[53] 陈锦华．关于企业成为创新主体的若干问题．人民日报，2006-2-14．
[54] 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)：33-44．
[55] 陈小红．我国企业的技术创新：现状、机制和政策．中国软科学，2007，(5)：22-33．
[56] 陈泽聪，徐钟秀．我国制造业技术创新效率的实证分析．厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2006，(6)：122-128．
[57] 陈志广．是垄断还是效率：基于中国制造业的实证研究．管理世界，2004，(12)：60-67．
[58] 池仁勇．企业技术创新效率及其影响因素研究．数量经济技术经济研究，2003，(6)：105-108．
[59] 邓保同．论行政垄断．法学评论，1998，(4)：62-65．
[60] 傅家骥．技术创新学．北京：清华大学出版社，1998．
[61] 郭励泓．为企业自主创新清除体制障碍．中国改革，2006，(9)：31-32．
[62] 过勇，胡鞍钢．行政垄断、寻租与腐败：转型经济的腐败机理分析．经济社会体制比较，2003，(2)：61-69．
[63] 何洁．外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000，(12)：29-36．
[64] 胡鞍钢．腐败：中国最大的社会污染．中国改革，2001，(4)：20-21．
[65] 胡鞍钢，过勇．从垄断市场到竞争市场：深刻的社会变革．改革与理论，2002，(5)：10-13．
[66] 蒋殿春．跨国公司对我国企业研发能力的影响：一个模型分析．南开经济研究，2004，(4)：62-66．
[67] 蒋殿春，夏良科．外商直接投资对中国高技术产业技术创新作用的经验分析．世界经济，2005，(8)：3-10．
[68] 李国璋，白明．市场可竞争性与绩效：对我国工业行业的实证分析．统计研究，2006，(6)：43-46．
[69] 李晓钟，张小蒂．外商直接投资对我国区域技术创新能力提升影响的分析．国际贸易问题，2007，(12)：106-111．
[70] 李永波，朱方明．企业技术创新理论研究的回顾与展望．西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2002，(3)：188-191．
[71] 李志军．我国自主创新的现状、问题及成因．中国科技投资，2007，(5)：47-49．
[72] 林毅夫，张鹏飞．后发优势、技术引进和落后国家的经济增长．经济学季刊，2005，(1)：53-74．
[73] 林毅夫．发展战略、自生能力和经济收敛．经济学季刊,2002,(2)：269-300．
[74] 林毅夫，张鹏飞．适宜技术、技术选择和发展中国家的经济增长．经济学季刊，2006，(7)：985-1006．
[75] 刘宏，杨克华．市场结构与合作技术创新行为关系研究，科学学与科学技术管理，2003，(6)：56-59．
[76] 刘小玄．中国转轨经济中的产权结构和市场结构--产业绩效水平的决定因素．经济研究，2003，(1)：21-29．
[77] 刘新同．合作创新：企业自主创新的有效形式．科技管理研究，2007，(1)：13-14．
[78] 刘志彪，姜付秀．我国产业行政垄断的制度成本估计．江海学刊，2003，(1)：71-77．
[79] 柳卸林．打破跨国公司垄断就是自主创新吗．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(11)：82-86．
[80] 路江涌．外商直接投资对内资企业效率的影响和渠道．经济研究，2008，(6)：95-106．
[81] 牛树海．我国不同类型工业企业生产效率的区域差异研究．经济经纬，2006，(6)： 47-49．
[82] 彭纪生，刘春林．自主创新与模仿创新的博弈分析．科学管理研究，2003，(12)：18-22．
[83] 彭征波．企业规模、市场结构与创新--来自不同行业的经验证据．中南财经政法大学学报，2007，(2)：106-111．
[84] 戚聿东．中国产业集中度与经济绩效关系的实证分析．管理世界，1998，(4)：99-106．
[85] 秦宪文．国有企业技术创新能力低下的成因探析．理论学刊，2002，(7)：73-74．
[86] 任重．合作创新：理论和经验研究述评．人文杂志，2007，(1)：67-71．
[87] 尚前名．用发展的眼光看待经济安全．瞭望新闻周刊，2008-02-19．
[88] 宋则．中国垄断现象的特殊性及特殊对策．财贸经济，1999，(2)：47-50．
[89] 宋则．反垄断理论研究．经济学家．2001，(1)：29-33．
[90] 唐晓华，王伟光，马晓平．经济转型期的企业技术创新障碍分析．中国工业经济，2001，(8)：76-80．
[91] 唐晓华，苏梅梅．产业过度竞争测度基准及聚类分析．中国工业经济，2003，(6)：29-35．
[92] 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)：44-55．
[93] 王静文．美、日技术创新的差异及对我国的启示．经济纵横，2003，(6)：36-36．
[94] 王子君．市场结构与技术创新．经济研究，2002，(12)：70-92．
[95] 吴福象，周绍东．企业创新行为与产业集中度的相关性．财经问题研究，2006，(12)：29-33．
[96] 吴延兵．创新的决定因素--基于中国制造业的实证研究．世界经济文汇，2008，(2)：46-58．
[97] 夏兴园，田东山．论中国企业的技术创新．经济评论，2003，(6)：67-69．
[98] 冼国民，严兵．FDI对中国创新能力的溢出效应．世界经济，2005，(10)：18-25．
[99] 肖峰．当前中国技术发展的若干制约．软科学，2002，(2)：6-10．
[100] 谢建国．市场竞争、东道国引资政策与跨国公司的技术转移，经济研究，2007，(6)：87-97．
[101] 杨兰品．中国转型时期垄断问题研究．经济评论，1999(4)：45-51．
[102] 杨忠泰．企业自主创新的四个误区．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(10)：52-55．
[103] 姚洋．非国有经济成分对我国工业企业技术效率的影响，经济研究．1998，(12)：29-35．
[104] 于君博，舒志彪．企业规模与创新产出关系的实证研究．科学学研究，2007，(4)：373-380．
[105] 于立，吴绪亮．关于“过度竞争”的误区与解疑--兼论中国反垄断立法的“渐进式”思路．中国工业经济，2007，(1)：5-13．
[106] 余碧岩．国有企业技术创新不足的主要原因和对策．西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2002，(12)：192-194．
[107] 余博．企业自主创新存在五大陷阱．经济纵横，2006，(5)：59-62．
[108] 余道先，刘海云．中国高新技术产品出口贸易结构及其竞争力．改革，2007，(1)：72-78．
[109] 余东华．中国垄断性行业的市场化改革研究．经济研究参考，2006，(16)：17-30．
[110] 袁兢业．我国产业技术创新的现状及发展对策．经济问题，2006，(9)：19-21．
[111] 约瑟夫·熊彼特．经济发展理论．北京：商务印书馆，1990．
[112] 张东风，韩天放．模仿还是创新．企业管理，2004，(8)：6-15．
[113] 张海洋．外国直接投资对我国工业自主创新能力的影响--兼论自主创新的决定因素．国际贸易问题，2008，(1)：72-81．
[114] 张小强，许明月．行政垄断的经济分析及其对策．重庆大学学报(自然科学版)，2005，(3)：141-144．
[115] 张宗庆．我国企业技术创新不足的路径依赖．中国工业经济，2000，(12)：74-76．
[116] 周黎安，罗凯．企业规模与创新：来自中国省级水平的经验证据．经济学季刊，2005，(4)：623-638．
[2] Aghion, P., N. Bloom and R. Blundell et al. Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, 120: 701-728.
[3] Aitken, B. and Harrison, A. Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 1999, 89: 605-618.
[4] Blundell, R., R. Griffith and J. V. Reenen.Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms.The Review of Economic Studies,1999, 66: 529-554.
[5] Boone, J. Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innovation.The RAND Journal of Economics, 2000, 31: 549-569.
[6] Boone, J. Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate.International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001, 19: 705-726.
[7] Buttner, B. Entry barriers and growth. Economics Letters, 2006, 93:150-155.
[8] Changa, S. -C. and H. -M. Wub. Production experiences and market structure in R&D competition.Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control,2006,30: 163-183.
[9] Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper. Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D.Review of Economics & Statistics,1996, 78: 232-243.
[10] Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper. The Anatomy of Industry R&D Intensity Distributions. American Economic Review, 1992,82: 773-799.
[11] Cohen, W. M. and Richard C. Levin. Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure. R.Schmalensee, R.D.Willig. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterd: North-Holland, 1989.
[12] Cowling,K. and Mueller D.C. The social cost of monopoly power.Economic Journal,1978,88: 724-748.
[13] Czarnitzki, D. and K. Kraft. An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2004,54: 153-173.
[14] Das, N. Technology, efficiency and sustainability of competition in the Indian telecommunications sector.Information Economics and Policy,2000,12: 133-154.
[15] Doukas, J. and L. Switzer.The stock market's valuation of R&D spending and market concentration. Journal of Economics and Business, 1992,44: 95-114.
[16] Fisher,F.M. and Temin,P. Return to Scale in Research and Development: What Does The Schumpeterian Hypothesis Imply.Journal of Political Economy,1973, 81:56-70.
[17] Greenhalgh, C. and M. Rogers. The value of innovation: The interaction of competition, R&D and IP.Research Policy,2006,35: 562-580.
[18] Greenstein S. and G Ramey.Market structure, innovation and vertical product differentiation.International Journal of Industrial Organization,1998,16: 285-311.
[19] Haddad, M and Harrison, A. Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Investment?Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco.Journal of Development Economics, 1993,42: 51-74.
[20] Harberger,Amold C. Monopoly and Resource Allocation. American Economic Review, 1954,44: 77-87.
[21] Hausman, J. Specification Tests in Econometrics.Econometrica,1978,46: 1251-1271.
[22] Hejazi Walid and A.E. Safarian. Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and R&D Spillovers.Journal of International Business Studies, 1999,30:491-511.
[23] Kato, A.Market structure and the allocation of R&D expenditures.Economics Letters, 2005,87: 55-59.
[24] Levin,R.C.,Cohen,W.M. and Mowery,D.C. R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New EvidenceoSome Schumpeterian Hypotheses.American Economic Review Proceedings, 1985,75:20-24.
[25] Lin, P. and K. Saggi.Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition.European Economic Review,2002,46: 201-211.
[26] Lloyd P. J. The Role of Foreign Investment in the Success of Asian Industrialization.Journal of Asian Economics, 1996, 7(3): 407-433.
[27] Madden, G and S. J. Savage.Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation.Telecommunications Policy, 1999,23: 65-81.
[28] Marimon, R. and V. Quadrini.Competition, Innovation and Growth with Limited Commitment.NBER Working Paper,2006,No.12474.
[29] Martinez-Ros,E. Explaining the decisions to carry out product and process innovation: the Spanish case. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1999,10:223-242.
[30] Mu, Q. and K. Lee. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy,2005,34: 759-783.
[31] Okada, Y. Competition and productivity in Japanese manufacturing industries.Journal of The Japanese and International Economies,2005,19: 586-616.
[32] Petit, M.-L. and F. Sanna-Randaccio. Endogenous R&D and foreign direct investment in international oligopolies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2000,18:339-367.
[33] Rajneesh Narula and John Hagedoorn. Innovating Through Strategic Alliances:Moving Towards International 、 Partnerships and Contractual Agreements.Technovation,1999,19(5):283-294.
[34] Rogers, M. The Influence of Diversification and Market Structure on the R&D Intensity of Large Australian Firms. The Australian Economic Review,2000,35:155-172.
[35] Romer, P.M. Endogenous technological change.Journal of Political, 1990,98:1- 101.
[36] Roper and N. Hewitt-Dundas. Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence.Research Policy, 2008,37(1): 149-162.
[37] Rosenkranz, S. Simultaneous choice of process and product innovation when consumers have a preference for product variet. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003, 50: 183-201.
[38] Scherer, F. M. Market Structure and the Employment of Scientists and Engineers. American Economic Review, 1967, 57: 524-531.
[39] Solow, R. M. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economia, 1956, 70: 65-94.
[40] Tang, J. Competition and innovation behaviour. Research Policy,2006, 35: 68-82.
[41] Timothy, K. C. Technological opportunity and the relationship between innovation output and market structure. Managerial & Decision Economics,2005, 26: 209-222.
[42] Todo, Y. Knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment in R&D: Evidence from Japanese firm-level data. Journal of Asian Economics, 2006, 17: 996-1013.
[43] Tullock, G. The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, 1967, 5: 224-232.
[44] Weiss, P. Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Differentiated Markets: The Impact of Competition. Review of Industrial Organization, 2003, 23: 301-314.
[45] Yi, S. -S. Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly. Economics Letters, 1999, 65: 379-388.
[46] Yin, X. and E. Zuscovitch. Is firm size conducive to R&D choice? A strategic analysis of product and process innovations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1998, 35: 243-262.
[47] 安同良．中国企业的技术选择．经济研究，2003，(7)：76-84．
[48] 安同良，施浩，Alcorta．中国制造业企业R&D行为模式的观测与实证--基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．经济研究，2006，(2)：21-30．
[49] 安同良，王文翌，魏巍．中国制造业企业的技术创新：模式、动力与障碍--基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析．当代财经，2005，(12)：69-73．
[50] 白明，雷箐青．垄断型国有企业绩效分析．开发研究，2006，(5)：87-90．
[51] 曹建海．中国产业过度竞争的制度分析．上海社会科学院学术季刊，2001，(1)：58-66．
[52] 陈傲．市场力量、企业规模与自主创新--基于中国37个工业行业数据的实证分析．经济问题探索，2007，(12)：22-26．
[53] 陈锦华．关于企业成为创新主体的若干问题．人民日报，2006-2-14．
[54] 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)：33-44．
[55] 陈小红．我国企业的技术创新：现状、机制和政策．中国软科学，2007，(5)：22-33．
[56] 陈泽聪，徐钟秀．我国制造业技术创新效率的实证分析．厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2006，(6)：122-128．
[57] 陈志广．是垄断还是效率：基于中国制造业的实证研究．管理世界，2004，(12)：60-67．
[58] 池仁勇．企业技术创新效率及其影响因素研究．数量经济技术经济研究，2003，(6)：105-108．
[59] 邓保同．论行政垄断．法学评论，1998，(4)：62-65．
[60] 傅家骥．技术创新学．北京：清华大学出版社，1998．
[61] 郭励泓．为企业自主创新清除体制障碍．中国改革，2006，(9)：31-32．
[62] 过勇，胡鞍钢．行政垄断、寻租与腐败：转型经济的腐败机理分析．经济社会体制比较，2003，(2)：61-69．
[63] 何洁．外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化．世界经济，2000，(12)：29-36．
[64] 胡鞍钢．腐败：中国最大的社会污染．中国改革，2001，(4)：20-21．
[65] 胡鞍钢，过勇．从垄断市场到竞争市场：深刻的社会变革．改革与理论，2002，(5)：10-13．
[66] 蒋殿春．跨国公司对我国企业研发能力的影响：一个模型分析．南开经济研究，2004，(4)：62-66．
[67] 蒋殿春，夏良科．外商直接投资对中国高技术产业技术创新作用的经验分析．世界经济，2005，(8)：3-10．
[68] 李国璋，白明．市场可竞争性与绩效：对我国工业行业的实证分析．统计研究，2006，(6)：43-46．
[69] 李晓钟，张小蒂．外商直接投资对我国区域技术创新能力提升影响的分析．国际贸易问题，2007，(12)：106-111．
[70] 李永波，朱方明．企业技术创新理论研究的回顾与展望．西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2002，(3)：188-191．
[71] 李志军．我国自主创新的现状、问题及成因．中国科技投资，2007，(5)：47-49．
[72] 林毅夫，张鹏飞．后发优势、技术引进和落后国家的经济增长．经济学季刊，2005，(1)：53-74．
[73] 林毅夫．发展战略、自生能力和经济收敛．经济学季刊,2002,(2)：269-300．
[74] 林毅夫，张鹏飞．适宜技术、技术选择和发展中国家的经济增长．经济学季刊，2006，(7)：985-1006．
[75] 刘宏，杨克华．市场结构与合作技术创新行为关系研究，科学学与科学技术管理，2003，(6)：56-59．
[76] 刘小玄．中国转轨经济中的产权结构和市场结构--产业绩效水平的决定因素．经济研究，2003，(1)：21-29．
[77] 刘新同．合作创新：企业自主创新的有效形式．科技管理研究，2007，(1)：13-14．
[78] 刘志彪，姜付秀．我国产业行政垄断的制度成本估计．江海学刊，2003，(1)：71-77．
[79] 柳卸林．打破跨国公司垄断就是自主创新吗．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(11)：82-86．
[80] 路江涌．外商直接投资对内资企业效率的影响和渠道．经济研究，2008，(6)：95-106．
[81] 牛树海．我国不同类型工业企业生产效率的区域差异研究．经济经纬，2006，(6)： 47-49．
[82] 彭纪生，刘春林．自主创新与模仿创新的博弈分析．科学管理研究，2003，(12)：18-22．
[83] 彭征波．企业规模、市场结构与创新--来自不同行业的经验证据．中南财经政法大学学报，2007，(2)：106-111．
[84] 戚聿东．中国产业集中度与经济绩效关系的实证分析．管理世界，1998，(4)：99-106．
[85] 秦宪文．国有企业技术创新能力低下的成因探析．理论学刊，2002，(7)：73-74．
[86] 任重．合作创新：理论和经验研究述评．人文杂志，2007，(1)：67-71．
[87] 尚前名．用发展的眼光看待经济安全．瞭望新闻周刊，2008-02-19．
[88] 宋则．中国垄断现象的特殊性及特殊对策．财贸经济，1999，(2)：47-50．
[89] 宋则．反垄断理论研究．经济学家．2001，(1)：29-33．
[90] 唐晓华，王伟光，马晓平．经济转型期的企业技术创新障碍分析．中国工业经济，2001，(8)：76-80．
[91] 唐晓华，苏梅梅．产业过度竞争测度基准及聚类分析．中国工业经济，2003，(6)：29-35．
[92] 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)：44-55．
[93] 王静文．美、日技术创新的差异及对我国的启示．经济纵横，2003，(6)：36-36．
[94] 王子君．市场结构与技术创新．经济研究，2002，(12)：70-92．
[95] 吴福象，周绍东．企业创新行为与产业集中度的相关性．财经问题研究，2006，(12)：29-33．
[96] 吴延兵．创新的决定因素--基于中国制造业的实证研究．世界经济文汇，2008，(2)：46-58．
[97] 夏兴园，田东山．论中国企业的技术创新．经济评论，2003，(6)：67-69．
[98] 冼国民，严兵．FDI对中国创新能力的溢出效应．世界经济，2005，(10)：18-25．
[99] 肖峰．当前中国技术发展的若干制约．软科学，2002，(2)：6-10．
[100] 谢建国．市场竞争、东道国引资政策与跨国公司的技术转移，经济研究，2007，(6)：87-97．
[101] 杨兰品．中国转型时期垄断问题研究．经济评论，1999(4)：45-51．
[102] 杨忠泰．企业自主创新的四个误区．科学学与科学技术管理，2006，(10)：52-55．
[103] 姚洋．非国有经济成分对我国工业企业技术效率的影响，经济研究．1998，(12)：29-35．
[104] 于君博，舒志彪．企业规模与创新产出关系的实证研究．科学学研究，2007，(4)：373-380．
[105] 于立，吴绪亮．关于“过度竞争”的误区与解疑--兼论中国反垄断立法的“渐进式”思路．中国工业经济，2007，(1)：5-13．
[106] 余碧岩．国有企业技术创新不足的主要原因和对策．西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)，2002，(12)：192-194．
[107] 余博．企业自主创新存在五大陷阱．经济纵横，2006，(5)：59-62．
[108] 余道先，刘海云．中国高新技术产品出口贸易结构及其竞争力．改革，2007，(1)：72-78．
[109] 余东华．中国垄断性行业的市场化改革研究．经济研究参考，2006，(16)：17-30．
[110] 袁兢业．我国产业技术创新的现状及发展对策．经济问题，2006，(9)：19-21．
[111] 约瑟夫·熊彼特．经济发展理论．北京：商务印书馆，1990．
[112] 张东风，韩天放．模仿还是创新．企业管理，2004，(8)：6-15．
[113] 张海洋．外国直接投资对我国工业自主创新能力的影响--兼论自主创新的决定因素．国际贸易问题，2008，(1)：72-81．
[114] 张小强，许明月．行政垄断的经济分析及其对策．重庆大学学报(自然科学版)，2005，(3)：141-144．
[115] 张宗庆．我国企业技术创新不足的路径依赖．中国工业经济，2000，(12)：74-76．
[116] 周黎安，罗凯．企业规模与创新：来自中国省级水平的经验证据．经济学季刊，2005，(4)：623-638．