资本配置效率研究
摘要
经济发展时刻面临着资源约束,如何妥善利用资源是经济学研究的核心问题。一般情况下,可以用社会总福利状态来考察资源的利用效率。社会总资源可以分成资本以及非资本社会资源。其中,资本是为了增值而存在的社会资源。如果所有社会资源都是资本,社会总福利不会达到最优状态。这是因为,社会总福利状态依赖于社会中每个人的福利状态,而社会中个人的福利又依赖于社会消费品总量、社会财富分配、法制环境、自然环境、科学技术条件、国家安全、教育水平、社会风尚等等。以上这些问题,有些可以通过资源的资本形式得以解决,有些必须通过资源的非资本形式来解决。在不发生冲突的情况下,提高资本使用效率,以及提高非资本社会资源使用效率,都会提高社会总福利状态。当两者发生冲突时,资源如何分配,依赖于何者的边际社会福利产出较高。
本文集中研究资本使用效率中的资本配置效率。资本配置指的是,资本在各种使用方式之间的分配。将资本从边际收益低的使用方式配置到边际收益高的方式,会提高单位资本的产出,这就是资本的优化配置,或者说是资本配置效率的提高。可见提高资本配置效率可以提高资本利用效率。
资本配置效率损失,是指某种资本配置状态与最优资本配置状态之间的差异。考察资本配置效率,首先要确定什么状态是资本配置的最优状态。为了回答这个问题,笔者提出最适帕累托最优概念。通过其定义,将不难看出,资本配置的最适帕累托最优状态就是资本配置的最优状态。
配置成本是本文提出的一个概念,这个概念对于本文的论述至关重要。配置成本可以分成静态配置成本、动态配置成本两大类。配置成本又可以分成预期外信息成本、配置风险成本、以及常规配置成本。预期外信息成本来自于预期之外的投资收益率波动;配置风险成本来自于投资者风险非中性;常规配置成本来源于具体配置过程中发生的状态改变。常规配置成本可以分成常规静态配置成本以及常规动态配置成本。动态配置成本全部都是常规动态配置成本。它来源于配置过程中与配置速度相关的状态改变。常规配置成本还可以分解成进入成本、过渡成本、以及退出成本。
笔者证明了,当外部性为零,并且配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量可以引导资本配置从当前状态进入最优状态。借助科斯定理,进一步证明了,当产权清晰,并且配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量可以引导资本配置从当前状态进入最优状态。因此,为了提高资本配置效率,我们需要清晰界定产权,以及降低配置成本。
笔者还证明了,不管产权是否清晰,当配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量会使各种投资方式的收益率趋于相等。研究资本配置效率损失时,笔者把总体效率损失进行了分解,这样有利于把握各种损失的来源。以下是本文的主要研究结论。
假定产权清晰,并且配置成本为零时的资本配置效率为U1;假定配置成本为零时的资本配置状态为U2;假定现实资本配置状态为U3。U1与U2之间的配置效率损失来源于产权不清晰。可以证明,U2代表的资本配置状态是均衡态。这个均衡态的特征是,此时各种投资方式在每个时点上的投资收益率都相等。U2与U3之间的配置效率损失来自于配置成本。假定预期外信息成本为零、配置风险成本为零时,资本配置状态为U21;假定预期外信息成本为零时,资本配置效率为U22;假定常规动态配置成本为零时,资本配置效率为U23。U21是资本配置的一种均衡态,其特征是各投资方式的周期利润率相等。U2与U21之间的效率损失来源于常规配置成本。U22也是均衡态,特征是各投资方式的风险折减周期利润率相等。U21与U22之间的效率损失来源于配置风险成本。U23同样是均衡态,在U23状态下,各领域的风险折减周期利润率差异小于常规静态配置成本。U22与U23之间的效率损失来自于常规静态配置成本。如果不把瞬时均衡看作一种均衡状态,那么U3不一定处于均衡态。U3具有向U23收敛的趋势,收敛过程中导致的配置效率损失来自于动态配置成本。
最后,笔者对我国工业领域进行实证研究,考察工业领域的配置效率以及配置成本。文章采用权益净利率作为投资收益率指标,用变异系数方法测度各领域的投资收益率差异,并且通过考察新增投资与权益净利率之间的关系,解释配置效率变化的原因。
在研究过程中,笔者定义了一些概念,希望这些定义能成为此类研究的基础。这些概念包括:配置、配置成本、最适帕累托最优、潜在配置剩余。笔者引入了一些新的分析方法:财富增长曲线法、关联性检验方法。并从一些新角度去思考问题:比如从状态改变的角度去思考成本。研究中,笔者还将弗里德曼的永久收入假说扩展到永久效用假说,并且放松了科斯定理成立的条件。
Economic development is always constrained by limited resources. How to use resources efficiently is the core issue of economic study. Generally, we can evaluate the efficiency by the state of social welfare. All the resources in a society can be regarded as being of two types: capital and non-capital resources. Capital is that part of resources which are devoted to acquiring more resources. If all of our resources are employed in the form of capital, the optimum state of social welfare can’t be achieved. Agreed by many, the state of social welfare is depending on the welfare state of every person involved, and the state of an individual is depending on numerous parameters such as aggregate consumption, distribution, law, natural environment, science and technology, state security, education, ethnics. Some of them can be improved by using resources as capital, and some can’t. If there is no trade-off, improving the efficiency of capital and noncapital both can enhance the state of social welfare. However, if there is a trade-off, how to use resources is determined by their marginal products of social welfare.
This thesis is intended to explore an important aspect of the efficiency of capital: allocation efficiency of capital. Capital allocation is the distribution of capital among different channels. If we relocate capital from channels of low marginal product to high marginal one, the average return of a certain amount of capital will be increased. This is so called optimization of the usage of capital or the improvement of allocation efficiency of capital. It is easy to see the improvement of allocation efficiency is conducive to the improvement of efficiency of capital.
The loss of capital allocation efficiency is referring to the difference between the state of current state and the optimal state of capital allocation. To continue the study of allocation efficiency, the first task is to determine the optimal state of capital allocation. Responding to this question, the author proposes a concept: the best Pareto optimum. From its definition, it is easy to see that the best Pareto state of capital allocation is the optimal state of capital allocation.
Allocation cost is an essential concept of this dissertation, which is proposed by the author. This concept is crucial to the discussion of this work. Allocation costs can be divided into static and dynamic allocation costs. Allocation costs also can be divided into unexpected fluctuation costs, allocation risk costs, and regular allocation costs. Regular allocation costs are composed of static and dynamic regular allocation costs. Dynamic allocation costs are all of dynamic regular allocation costs. Regular allocation costs have three continuants: entry costs, transition costs, and exit costs.
The author verified that when a society is free of externality and allocation cost, the forces of market will drive capital allocation to the optimal state. By applying Coase theorem, the author further proved that if property rights are unambiguously defined, and allocation cost equals zero, the forces of market will drive capital allocation to the optimal state. Hence, for the purpose of augmenting the efficiency of capital allocation, we ought to clearly define property right and reduce allocation cost.
The author also proved that as long as allocation cost is zero, the market forces tend to equate the return rates of every investment. When studying the efficiency loss of allocation, the author breaks the aggregate loss into several parts. By this means, we can understand the causes of these losses. First, if all the return rates are the same, the loss surely comes from the ambiguity of property right. Other losses that come from allocation costs can be further broken down. The main research results are as following:
Suppose that when property right is fully clear and allocation cost is null, the allocation efficiency is U1; suppose that when allocation is null, the allocation efficiency is U2; suppose that the current allocation efficiency is U3. The loss between U1 and U2 stems from the unclearness of property right. It can be proved that U2 is an equilibrium state of capital allocation. The feature of this state is that the return rates of any investment are equal in every minute. The loss between U2 and U3 evolves from the existence of allocation costs.
Suppose that when unexpected fluctuation cost is null, allocation risk cost is null, the capital allocation state is U21; suppose that when unexpected fluctuation cost is null, the state is U22; suppose that when regular dynamic allocation cost is null, the state is U23. U21 represents an equilibrium state, in which the periodical return rates of any investment are the same. The difference between U2 and U21 comes from the existence of regular allocation costs. U22 also stands for an equilibrium state, in which the risk debated periodical return rate of a certain investment equals any other investment. The difference between U21 and U22 is dictated by allocation risk costs. U23 is still an equilibrium state, in which the discrepancy of risk debated periodical return rates between any investments must be less than regular static allocation cost. The difference between U22 and U23 is determined by regular static allocation cost. If temporary equilibrium is not counted as an equilibrium state, U3 is not necessarily in an equilibrium state. U3 tends to converge to U23. The efficiency loss during this process is traceable to dynamic allocation costs.
Finally, the author carries out an empirical study on industry to examine the allocation efficiency and allocation costs. This work uses rate of return on equity (ROE) as an indicator of return rate of an investment, and uses coefficient of variation to measure the differences among investments. The variation of allocation efficiency is explained through the relationship between new investment and ROE.
In this dissertation, the author defines several concepts, which is hoped to be the foundations for further research. These concepts are: allocation, allocation cost, best Pareto optimum, potential allocation surplus. He introduces a few analyzing methods such as connection examination method and wealth accrue curve method. The author analyzes certain issues using new perspectives, for example he analyzes costs from the angle of state transformations. In this study, the author extends the permanent income hypothesis and Coase theorem.
本文集中研究资本使用效率中的资本配置效率。资本配置指的是,资本在各种使用方式之间的分配。将资本从边际收益低的使用方式配置到边际收益高的方式,会提高单位资本的产出,这就是资本的优化配置,或者说是资本配置效率的提高。可见提高资本配置效率可以提高资本利用效率。
资本配置效率损失,是指某种资本配置状态与最优资本配置状态之间的差异。考察资本配置效率,首先要确定什么状态是资本配置的最优状态。为了回答这个问题,笔者提出最适帕累托最优概念。通过其定义,将不难看出,资本配置的最适帕累托最优状态就是资本配置的最优状态。
配置成本是本文提出的一个概念,这个概念对于本文的论述至关重要。配置成本可以分成静态配置成本、动态配置成本两大类。配置成本又可以分成预期外信息成本、配置风险成本、以及常规配置成本。预期外信息成本来自于预期之外的投资收益率波动;配置风险成本来自于投资者风险非中性;常规配置成本来源于具体配置过程中发生的状态改变。常规配置成本可以分成常规静态配置成本以及常规动态配置成本。动态配置成本全部都是常规动态配置成本。它来源于配置过程中与配置速度相关的状态改变。常规配置成本还可以分解成进入成本、过渡成本、以及退出成本。
笔者证明了,当外部性为零,并且配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量可以引导资本配置从当前状态进入最优状态。借助科斯定理,进一步证明了,当产权清晰,并且配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量可以引导资本配置从当前状态进入最优状态。因此,为了提高资本配置效率,我们需要清晰界定产权,以及降低配置成本。
笔者还证明了,不管产权是否清晰,当配置成本为零时,市场自发的力量会使各种投资方式的收益率趋于相等。研究资本配置效率损失时,笔者把总体效率损失进行了分解,这样有利于把握各种损失的来源。以下是本文的主要研究结论。
假定产权清晰,并且配置成本为零时的资本配置效率为U1;假定配置成本为零时的资本配置状态为U2;假定现实资本配置状态为U3。U1与U2之间的配置效率损失来源于产权不清晰。可以证明,U2代表的资本配置状态是均衡态。这个均衡态的特征是,此时各种投资方式在每个时点上的投资收益率都相等。U2与U3之间的配置效率损失来自于配置成本。假定预期外信息成本为零、配置风险成本为零时,资本配置状态为U21;假定预期外信息成本为零时,资本配置效率为U22;假定常规动态配置成本为零时,资本配置效率为U23。U21是资本配置的一种均衡态,其特征是各投资方式的周期利润率相等。U2与U21之间的效率损失来源于常规配置成本。U22也是均衡态,特征是各投资方式的风险折减周期利润率相等。U21与U22之间的效率损失来源于配置风险成本。U23同样是均衡态,在U23状态下,各领域的风险折减周期利润率差异小于常规静态配置成本。U22与U23之间的效率损失来自于常规静态配置成本。如果不把瞬时均衡看作一种均衡状态,那么U3不一定处于均衡态。U3具有向U23收敛的趋势,收敛过程中导致的配置效率损失来自于动态配置成本。
最后,笔者对我国工业领域进行实证研究,考察工业领域的配置效率以及配置成本。文章采用权益净利率作为投资收益率指标,用变异系数方法测度各领域的投资收益率差异,并且通过考察新增投资与权益净利率之间的关系,解释配置效率变化的原因。
在研究过程中,笔者定义了一些概念,希望这些定义能成为此类研究的基础。这些概念包括:配置、配置成本、最适帕累托最优、潜在配置剩余。笔者引入了一些新的分析方法:财富增长曲线法、关联性检验方法。并从一些新角度去思考问题:比如从状态改变的角度去思考成本。研究中,笔者还将弗里德曼的永久收入假说扩展到永久效用假说,并且放松了科斯定理成立的条件。
Economic development is always constrained by limited resources. How to use resources efficiently is the core issue of economic study. Generally, we can evaluate the efficiency by the state of social welfare. All the resources in a society can be regarded as being of two types: capital and non-capital resources. Capital is that part of resources which are devoted to acquiring more resources. If all of our resources are employed in the form of capital, the optimum state of social welfare can’t be achieved. Agreed by many, the state of social welfare is depending on the welfare state of every person involved, and the state of an individual is depending on numerous parameters such as aggregate consumption, distribution, law, natural environment, science and technology, state security, education, ethnics. Some of them can be improved by using resources as capital, and some can’t. If there is no trade-off, improving the efficiency of capital and noncapital both can enhance the state of social welfare. However, if there is a trade-off, how to use resources is determined by their marginal products of social welfare.
This thesis is intended to explore an important aspect of the efficiency of capital: allocation efficiency of capital. Capital allocation is the distribution of capital among different channels. If we relocate capital from channels of low marginal product to high marginal one, the average return of a certain amount of capital will be increased. This is so called optimization of the usage of capital or the improvement of allocation efficiency of capital. It is easy to see the improvement of allocation efficiency is conducive to the improvement of efficiency of capital.
The loss of capital allocation efficiency is referring to the difference between the state of current state and the optimal state of capital allocation. To continue the study of allocation efficiency, the first task is to determine the optimal state of capital allocation. Responding to this question, the author proposes a concept: the best Pareto optimum. From its definition, it is easy to see that the best Pareto state of capital allocation is the optimal state of capital allocation.
Allocation cost is an essential concept of this dissertation, which is proposed by the author. This concept is crucial to the discussion of this work. Allocation costs can be divided into static and dynamic allocation costs. Allocation costs also can be divided into unexpected fluctuation costs, allocation risk costs, and regular allocation costs. Regular allocation costs are composed of static and dynamic regular allocation costs. Dynamic allocation costs are all of dynamic regular allocation costs. Regular allocation costs have three continuants: entry costs, transition costs, and exit costs.
The author verified that when a society is free of externality and allocation cost, the forces of market will drive capital allocation to the optimal state. By applying Coase theorem, the author further proved that if property rights are unambiguously defined, and allocation cost equals zero, the forces of market will drive capital allocation to the optimal state. Hence, for the purpose of augmenting the efficiency of capital allocation, we ought to clearly define property right and reduce allocation cost.
The author also proved that as long as allocation cost is zero, the market forces tend to equate the return rates of every investment. When studying the efficiency loss of allocation, the author breaks the aggregate loss into several parts. By this means, we can understand the causes of these losses. First, if all the return rates are the same, the loss surely comes from the ambiguity of property right. Other losses that come from allocation costs can be further broken down. The main research results are as following:
Suppose that when property right is fully clear and allocation cost is null, the allocation efficiency is U1; suppose that when allocation is null, the allocation efficiency is U2; suppose that the current allocation efficiency is U3. The loss between U1 and U2 stems from the unclearness of property right. It can be proved that U2 is an equilibrium state of capital allocation. The feature of this state is that the return rates of any investment are equal in every minute. The loss between U2 and U3 evolves from the existence of allocation costs.
Suppose that when unexpected fluctuation cost is null, allocation risk cost is null, the capital allocation state is U21; suppose that when unexpected fluctuation cost is null, the state is U22; suppose that when regular dynamic allocation cost is null, the state is U23. U21 represents an equilibrium state, in which the periodical return rates of any investment are the same. The difference between U2 and U21 comes from the existence of regular allocation costs. U22 also stands for an equilibrium state, in which the risk debated periodical return rate of a certain investment equals any other investment. The difference between U21 and U22 is dictated by allocation risk costs. U23 is still an equilibrium state, in which the discrepancy of risk debated periodical return rates between any investments must be less than regular static allocation cost. The difference between U22 and U23 is determined by regular static allocation cost. If temporary equilibrium is not counted as an equilibrium state, U3 is not necessarily in an equilibrium state. U3 tends to converge to U23. The efficiency loss during this process is traceable to dynamic allocation costs.
Finally, the author carries out an empirical study on industry to examine the allocation efficiency and allocation costs. This work uses rate of return on equity (ROE) as an indicator of return rate of an investment, and uses coefficient of variation to measure the differences among investments. The variation of allocation efficiency is explained through the relationship between new investment and ROE.
In this dissertation, the author defines several concepts, which is hoped to be the foundations for further research. These concepts are: allocation, allocation cost, best Pareto optimum, potential allocation surplus. He introduces a few analyzing methods such as connection examination method and wealth accrue curve method. The author analyzes certain issues using new perspectives, for example he analyzes costs from the angle of state transformations. In this study, the author extends the permanent income hypothesis and Coase theorem.
引文
[1]蒙德尔、胡代光.经济学解说[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[2]斯蒂格利茨.经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1996.
[3]约翰?伊特韦尔,默里?米尔盖特,彼得?纽曼.《新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典》[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1996.
[4]阿尔弗里德·马歇尔.经济学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1972.
[5]张凤林.西方资本理论研究[M].辽宁:辽宁大学出版社1995.
[6]沈天鹰.资本形成的货币金融维度[M].北京:人民出版社2001.
[7] Nicola Acocella ,郭庆旺,刘茜译. The Foundations of Economic Policy:Values and Techniques[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[8]富兰克·H·奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社2005.
[9]湛垦华,沈水峰等编.普利高津与耗散结构理论[M].西安:陕西科学技术出版社1982.
[10]加里·贝克尔.口味的经济学分析[M].北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社2000.
[11]刘伟.工业化进程中的产业结构研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社1999.
[12]约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯.就业、利息和货币通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[13]米尔顿?弗里德曼.资本主义与自由[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[14]约瑟夫?熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[15]阿瑟?刘易斯.经济增长理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.
[16]西奥多?舒尔茨.人力资本投资[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[17]亚当?斯密.国民财富[M].北京:中国社会出版社,1986.
[18]曼昆.宏观经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[19]袁志刚,宋铮.高级宏观经济学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2002.
[20]杨小凯.新兴古典经济学与超边际分析[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[21]熊彼特.经济分析史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996年.
[22]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论:现代观点[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[23]钱纳里,鲁滨逊,赛尔圭因.工业化和经济增长的比较研究[M].上海:上海三联书店出版社,1995.
[24]乔根森.生产率第2卷:经济增长的国际比较[M].北京:中国发展出版社,2001.
[25]胡乃武,杨瑞龙.中国经济非均衡发展问题研究[M].山西:山西高校出版社,1994.
[26]张宗新.中国融资制度创新研究[M].北京:中国金融出版社,2003.
[27]弗里德里希哈耶克.通往奴役之路[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[28]樊纲,王小鲁.中国市场化指数各地区市场化相对进程报告[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2004.
[29]李建伟.:资本配置与经济增长[D],博士学位论文,1999.
[30]陈清华,樊瑛,方福康. Denison因素分析法和中国经济增长[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2002,38(4).
[31]蔡昉,都阳.中国地区经济增长的趋同与差异[J].经济研究, 2000(10).
[32]邓翔,李建平.中国地区经济增长的动力分析[J].管理世界,2004(11).
[33]王德文,王美艳,陈兰.中国工业的结构调整、效率与劳动配置[J].经济研究,2004(4).
[34]樊潇彦.中国工业资本收益率的测算与地区行业结构分析[J].世界经济,2004(5)
[35]龚六堂,谢丹阳.我国省份之间的要素流动和边际生产率的差异分析[J].经济研究,2004(1).
[36]沈能,赵建强.我国资本配置效率的区域差异分析及其成因分解[J].当代经济科学,2005,27(6)
[37]王少国.金融发展对资本配置效率的影响分析[J].商业研究,2006(10).
[38]王争,史晋川.中国私营企业的生产率表现和投资效率[J].经济研究,2008(1).
[39]才国伟,钱金保,舒元.我国资本配置中的趋同与效率: 1952-2007[J].统计研究,2009,26(6).
[40]韩立岩,蔡红艳.我国资本配置效率及其与金融市场关系评价研究[J].管理世界,2002(1).
[41]韩立岩,王哲兵.我国实体经济资本配置效率与行业差异[J].经济研究,2005(1).
[42]潘文卿,张伟.中国资本配置效率与金融发展相差性研究[J].管理世界,2003(1).
[43]方军雄.市场化进程与资本配置效率的改善[J].经济研究,2006(5).
[44]成力为,孙玮.我国制造业内外资资本与劳动配置效率差异的实证研究[J].中国软科学,2007(12).
[45]蒲艳萍,王维群.我国工业行业资本配置效率差异解析[J].财经科学,2008 (7).
[46]俞颖.我国区域资本配置效率的实证研究[J].山西财经大学学报,2008 30(8).
[47]刘赣州.中国资本配置制度变迁的绩效分析[J].甘肃社会科学,2003(4).
[48]樊潇彦,袁志刚.我国宏观投资效率的定义与衡量:一个文献综述[J].南开经济研究,2006(1).
[49]郭金兴.剑桥资本争论的终结:“悖论”以及一个方法论的解释[J].江淮论坛,2007(5).
[50]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.中国全要素生产率的估算:1979-2004[J].经济研究,2005(6).
[51]林毅夫,刘明兴.中国的经济增长收敛与收入分配[J].世界经济,2003(8).
[52]吕铁.80年代以来我国加工工业增长效率的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,1997(9).
[53]谢千里,罗斯基,郑玉歆.论国营工业生产率[J].经济研究,1994(10).
[54]张军,吴桂英,张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算:1952—2000[J].经济研究,2004(10).
[55]许宪春.中国国内生产总值核算中存在的若干问题研究[J].经济研究,2000(2).
[56]易纲,樊纲,李岩.关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的理论思考[J].经济研究,2003(8)
[57]袁志刚,范剑勇. 1978年以来中国的工业化进程及其地区差异分析[J].管理世界,2003(7)
[58]金芳.国际分工的深化趋势及其对中国国际分工地位的影响[J].世界经济研究,2003(3).
[59]江小涓.产业结构优化升级:新阶段和新任务[J].财贸经济,2005(4).
[60]秦永良等.发展知识经济:我国产业结构调整和升级的最佳战略选择[J].经济学动态,2000(1).
[61]徐广军等.美国产业演进模式与我国产业结构升级[J].经济与管理研究, 2006(8).
[62]陈继勇等.美国知识经济的发展与启示[J].经济评论,2000(6).
[63]魏后凯.中国地区经济增长及其收敛[J].中国工业经济,1997(3).
[64]沈坤荣,马俊.中国经济增长的“俱乐部收敛”特征及成因研究[J].经济研究,2002(1).
[65]邱华炳,刘晔.投资结构变迁的体制背景分析[J].财经问题研究, 2001(8).
[66]邓荣霖,邹亚生.企业并购——资源有效配置的途径[J].经济界, 1997(6).
[67]张军扩.‘七五’期间经济效益的综合分析[J].经济研究,1991(4).
[68]颜鹏飞,邵秋芬.经济增长极研究[J].财经理论与实践,2001(3).
[69]夏英哲.产业政策与产业结构调整[J].财经问题研究,2003(4).
[70]张军.解释中国经济增长下降的长期因素[J].经济学(季刊), 2002,1(2).
[71] Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics. Prometheus Books 1997.
[72] Chow G., Capital Formation and Economic Growth in China[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993, 3(3).
[73] Alwyn Young, The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian Growth Experience[C]. NBE WorkingPaper, 1994(4680).
[74] Alwyn Young, Gold into base metals: Productivity growth in the People’s Republic of China during the reform period[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2003,111.
[75] Krugman Paul., The myth of Asia's miracle[M]. New York: Foreign Affairs, 1994.
[76] Atsku Ueda, Measuring Distortion in Capital Allocation-The Case of Heavy and Chemical Industries in Korea [J]. Journal of Policy Modeling, 1999 (4).
[77] Caselli, Francesco, Feyrer, James, The Marginal Product of Capital[C]. NBER Working Paper 2006(11551).
[78] Jeffrey Wurgler, Financial Markets and the Allocation of Capital[C]. Yale ICF Working Paper, 1999(8).
[79] Basudeb Guha-Khasnobis, Saumitra N.Bhaduri, A Hallmark of India’s New Economic Policy: Deregulation and Liberalization of the Financial Sector[J]. Journal of Asian Economics, 2000(11).
[80] Goldsmith, Financial Structure and Development[M]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969.
[81] McKinnon R., Money and Capital in Economic Development[M]. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1973.
[82] Shaw E., Tinancial Deepening in Economic Development[M]. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1973.
[83] Robinson J., The Production Function and the Theory of Capital [J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1953,21(1).
[84] Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Janson, B.,Levin, S., Maler, K., Perrings, C., Pimental, D., Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment[J]. Science, 1995(15).
[85] Barrio, Salvador, Holger Gorg, Eric Strobl, Foreign Direct Investment, Competition and Industrial Development in the Host Country[J]. European Economic Review, 2005(49).
[86] Chen Baizhu, Yi Feng, Determinants of Economic Growth in China: Private Enterprise, Education and Openness[J].China EconomicReview 2000, 11(1).
[87] Willian, J.Baumol, Entrepreneurship in economic theory[J]. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceeding 1968,(58).
[88] Romer, Pual, Endogneous Technological Change[J]. Journal of Political Economy 1990(98).
[89] Arrow, Kenneth, The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing[J]. Review of Economic Studies 1962,29(June).
[90] Lucas, Robert E.Jr., On The Mechanic of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics 1988(22).
[91] Romer, Pual, Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 1986,94(October).
[92] Bernard A., Durlarf S., Convergence in international output[J]. Journal of Econometircs, 1996(71).
[93] Soren J., Statisticcal analysis of co2integration vectors[J]. Journal of Economic Dynalics and Control, 1988(12).
[94] Dichey D.A., Fuller WA., Like hood ratio statistics for autoregressives time series with aunitroot[J]. Econometica, 1981(49).
[95] Varian H.R. , Microeconomic Analysis[M]. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992.
[96] Yao, Y., In Search of a Balance: Technological Development in China[C]. China Center for Economic Research Working Papers, Peking University, 2001(E003).
[2]斯蒂格利茨.经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1996.
[3]约翰?伊特韦尔,默里?米尔盖特,彼得?纽曼.《新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典》[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1996.
[4]阿尔弗里德·马歇尔.经济学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1972.
[5]张凤林.西方资本理论研究[M].辽宁:辽宁大学出版社1995.
[6]沈天鹰.资本形成的货币金融维度[M].北京:人民出版社2001.
[7] Nicola Acocella ,郭庆旺,刘茜译. The Foundations of Economic Policy:Values and Techniques[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[8]富兰克·H·奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社2005.
[9]湛垦华,沈水峰等编.普利高津与耗散结构理论[M].西安:陕西科学技术出版社1982.
[10]加里·贝克尔.口味的经济学分析[M].北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社2000.
[11]刘伟.工业化进程中的产业结构研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社1999.
[12]约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯.就业、利息和货币通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[13]米尔顿?弗里德曼.资本主义与自由[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[14]约瑟夫?熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[15]阿瑟?刘易斯.经济增长理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.
[16]西奥多?舒尔茨.人力资本投资[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[17]亚当?斯密.国民财富[M].北京:中国社会出版社,1986.
[18]曼昆.宏观经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[19]袁志刚,宋铮.高级宏观经济学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2002.
[20]杨小凯.新兴古典经济学与超边际分析[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[21]熊彼特.经济分析史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996年.
[22]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论:现代观点[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[23]钱纳里,鲁滨逊,赛尔圭因.工业化和经济增长的比较研究[M].上海:上海三联书店出版社,1995.
[24]乔根森.生产率第2卷:经济增长的国际比较[M].北京:中国发展出版社,2001.
[25]胡乃武,杨瑞龙.中国经济非均衡发展问题研究[M].山西:山西高校出版社,1994.
[26]张宗新.中国融资制度创新研究[M].北京:中国金融出版社,2003.
[27]弗里德里希哈耶克.通往奴役之路[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[28]樊纲,王小鲁.中国市场化指数各地区市场化相对进程报告[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2004.
[29]李建伟.:资本配置与经济增长[D],博士学位论文,1999.
[30]陈清华,樊瑛,方福康. Denison因素分析法和中国经济增长[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2002,38(4).
[31]蔡昉,都阳.中国地区经济增长的趋同与差异[J].经济研究, 2000(10).
[32]邓翔,李建平.中国地区经济增长的动力分析[J].管理世界,2004(11).
[33]王德文,王美艳,陈兰.中国工业的结构调整、效率与劳动配置[J].经济研究,2004(4).
[34]樊潇彦.中国工业资本收益率的测算与地区行业结构分析[J].世界经济,2004(5)
[35]龚六堂,谢丹阳.我国省份之间的要素流动和边际生产率的差异分析[J].经济研究,2004(1).
[36]沈能,赵建强.我国资本配置效率的区域差异分析及其成因分解[J].当代经济科学,2005,27(6)
[37]王少国.金融发展对资本配置效率的影响分析[J].商业研究,2006(10).
[38]王争,史晋川.中国私营企业的生产率表现和投资效率[J].经济研究,2008(1).
[39]才国伟,钱金保,舒元.我国资本配置中的趋同与效率: 1952-2007[J].统计研究,2009,26(6).
[40]韩立岩,蔡红艳.我国资本配置效率及其与金融市场关系评价研究[J].管理世界,2002(1).
[41]韩立岩,王哲兵.我国实体经济资本配置效率与行业差异[J].经济研究,2005(1).
[42]潘文卿,张伟.中国资本配置效率与金融发展相差性研究[J].管理世界,2003(1).
[43]方军雄.市场化进程与资本配置效率的改善[J].经济研究,2006(5).
[44]成力为,孙玮.我国制造业内外资资本与劳动配置效率差异的实证研究[J].中国软科学,2007(12).
[45]蒲艳萍,王维群.我国工业行业资本配置效率差异解析[J].财经科学,2008 (7).
[46]俞颖.我国区域资本配置效率的实证研究[J].山西财经大学学报,2008 30(8).
[47]刘赣州.中国资本配置制度变迁的绩效分析[J].甘肃社会科学,2003(4).
[48]樊潇彦,袁志刚.我国宏观投资效率的定义与衡量:一个文献综述[J].南开经济研究,2006(1).
[49]郭金兴.剑桥资本争论的终结:“悖论”以及一个方法论的解释[J].江淮论坛,2007(5).
[50]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.中国全要素生产率的估算:1979-2004[J].经济研究,2005(6).
[51]林毅夫,刘明兴.中国的经济增长收敛与收入分配[J].世界经济,2003(8).
[52]吕铁.80年代以来我国加工工业增长效率的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,1997(9).
[53]谢千里,罗斯基,郑玉歆.论国营工业生产率[J].经济研究,1994(10).
[54]张军,吴桂英,张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算:1952—2000[J].经济研究,2004(10).
[55]许宪春.中国国内生产总值核算中存在的若干问题研究[J].经济研究,2000(2).
[56]易纲,樊纲,李岩.关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的理论思考[J].经济研究,2003(8)
[57]袁志刚,范剑勇. 1978年以来中国的工业化进程及其地区差异分析[J].管理世界,2003(7)
[58]金芳.国际分工的深化趋势及其对中国国际分工地位的影响[J].世界经济研究,2003(3).
[59]江小涓.产业结构优化升级:新阶段和新任务[J].财贸经济,2005(4).
[60]秦永良等.发展知识经济:我国产业结构调整和升级的最佳战略选择[J].经济学动态,2000(1).
[61]徐广军等.美国产业演进模式与我国产业结构升级[J].经济与管理研究, 2006(8).
[62]陈继勇等.美国知识经济的发展与启示[J].经济评论,2000(6).
[63]魏后凯.中国地区经济增长及其收敛[J].中国工业经济,1997(3).
[64]沈坤荣,马俊.中国经济增长的“俱乐部收敛”特征及成因研究[J].经济研究,2002(1).
[65]邱华炳,刘晔.投资结构变迁的体制背景分析[J].财经问题研究, 2001(8).
[66]邓荣霖,邹亚生.企业并购——资源有效配置的途径[J].经济界, 1997(6).
[67]张军扩.‘七五’期间经济效益的综合分析[J].经济研究,1991(4).
[68]颜鹏飞,邵秋芬.经济增长极研究[J].财经理论与实践,2001(3).
[69]夏英哲.产业政策与产业结构调整[J].财经问题研究,2003(4).
[70]张军.解释中国经济增长下降的长期因素[J].经济学(季刊), 2002,1(2).
[71] Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics. Prometheus Books 1997.
[72] Chow G., Capital Formation and Economic Growth in China[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993, 3(3).
[73] Alwyn Young, The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian Growth Experience[C]. NBE WorkingPaper, 1994(4680).
[74] Alwyn Young, Gold into base metals: Productivity growth in the People’s Republic of China during the reform period[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2003,111.
[75] Krugman Paul., The myth of Asia's miracle[M]. New York: Foreign Affairs, 1994.
[76] Atsku Ueda, Measuring Distortion in Capital Allocation-The Case of Heavy and Chemical Industries in Korea [J]. Journal of Policy Modeling, 1999 (4).
[77] Caselli, Francesco, Feyrer, James, The Marginal Product of Capital[C]. NBER Working Paper 2006(11551).
[78] Jeffrey Wurgler, Financial Markets and the Allocation of Capital[C]. Yale ICF Working Paper, 1999(8).
[79] Basudeb Guha-Khasnobis, Saumitra N.Bhaduri, A Hallmark of India’s New Economic Policy: Deregulation and Liberalization of the Financial Sector[J]. Journal of Asian Economics, 2000(11).
[80] Goldsmith, Financial Structure and Development[M]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969.
[81] McKinnon R., Money and Capital in Economic Development[M]. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1973.
[82] Shaw E., Tinancial Deepening in Economic Development[M]. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1973.
[83] Robinson J., The Production Function and the Theory of Capital [J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1953,21(1).
[84] Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Janson, B.,Levin, S., Maler, K., Perrings, C., Pimental, D., Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment[J]. Science, 1995(15).
[85] Barrio, Salvador, Holger Gorg, Eric Strobl, Foreign Direct Investment, Competition and Industrial Development in the Host Country[J]. European Economic Review, 2005(49).
[86] Chen Baizhu, Yi Feng, Determinants of Economic Growth in China: Private Enterprise, Education and Openness[J].China EconomicReview 2000, 11(1).
[87] Willian, J.Baumol, Entrepreneurship in economic theory[J]. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceeding 1968,(58).
[88] Romer, Pual, Endogneous Technological Change[J]. Journal of Political Economy 1990(98).
[89] Arrow, Kenneth, The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing[J]. Review of Economic Studies 1962,29(June).
[90] Lucas, Robert E.Jr., On The Mechanic of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics 1988(22).
[91] Romer, Pual, Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 1986,94(October).
[92] Bernard A., Durlarf S., Convergence in international output[J]. Journal of Econometircs, 1996(71).
[93] Soren J., Statisticcal analysis of co2integration vectors[J]. Journal of Economic Dynalics and Control, 1988(12).
[94] Dichey D.A., Fuller WA., Like hood ratio statistics for autoregressives time series with aunitroot[J]. Econometica, 1981(49).
[95] Varian H.R. , Microeconomic Analysis[M]. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992.
[96] Yao, Y., In Search of a Balance: Technological Development in China[C]. China Center for Economic Research Working Papers, Peking University, 2001(E003).