中国经济增长(1978—2015):灵感还是汗水?
|
摘要
本文采用中国31个省区市1978—2015年面板数据,基于空间计量模型和增长核算法,测算了市场潜能、资本、劳动力和全要素生产率对经济增长的贡献率。结果表明:1978—2015年间,资本对经济增长的贡献率最高(34.86%),市场潜能次之(34.55%),再次是TFP(22.03%),最低是劳动力(8.56%)。根据"克鲁格曼质疑"的界定,对中国"增长奇迹"贡献率最大的是"灵感"因素,贡献率为61.93%,"汗水"因素的贡献率为38.07%。改革开放之初的1978—1989年,中国经济增长确实主要依赖于"汗水",其贡献率达62.03%。但"汗水"的贡献率随着时间推移不断下降,1990—2000年为52.41%,2001—2015年快速下降到21.93%,而"灵感"的贡献率开始占主导地位,达78.07%。就区域差异看,经济发达地区的经济增长更依赖于"灵感",欠发达地区更依赖于"汗水"。本文的核心结论是:1978年以来中国创造"增长奇迹"是高投入增长和高效率增长共同作用的结果,依赖于"汗水"与"灵感"的双轮驱动,且越来越依赖于"灵感"。该结论并不支持"克鲁格曼质疑",且认为由于技术进步、人力资本提升、制度改革和市场化推进导致的资源和商品在区域间的优化配置等"灵感"因素的增强,中国经济增长是可持续的。
As early as 1994, Paul Krugman questioned the economic boom of China and other East Asian countries. He argued that the economic growth of East Asian countries mainly depends on large-scale capital accumulation and intensive labor input("perspiration") rather than on technological progress and improved efficiency("inspiration"). In the long run, the economic growth of East Asian economies will have difficulty sustaining itself and eventually collapse. How this might be averted is known as the Krugman Question.There are two main ways for scholars to answer the Krugman Question. One is to measure total factor productivity(TFP).The other is to measure the contribution rate of various factors to China's economic growth. The literature based on traditional economic growth theory regards the research object as homogeneous and independent under the assumptions of complete competition and constant returns of scale, ignoring the influence of spatial factors on economic growth. In contrast, this paper considers the conditions of unbalanced development in a regional economy; thus, it considers the spatial correlation among regions for an empirical analysis of the driving force of China's economic growth.The results show that in the period 1978—2015, the contribution rate of capital to economic growth was the highest(34.86%), market potential was second(34.55%), followed by TFP(22.03%), and the lowest was labor(8.56%). According to the Krugman Question, the largest contribution to China's growth miracle was "inspiration," at 61.93%, while the contribution of "perspiration" was 38.07%. At the beginning of the reform and opening up(1978 to 1989), China's economic growth mainly depended on perspiration(with a share of 62.03%). However, the contribution of perspiration has declined over time: from 1990 to 2000,it dropped to 52.41%, and from 2001 to 2015,it dropped to 21.93%. Inspiration thus began to dominate, eventually reaching 78.07%. In terms of regional differences, the economic growth of developed areas depends more on inspiration, while less developed areas rely more on perspiration. The core conclusion of this paper is that the "growth miracle" of China is the result of high input growth and high efficiency growth. It has relied on both perspiration and inspiration, and increasingly on the latter. This conclusion does not support the Krugman Question, and indicates that China's economic growth is sustainable due to increasing "inspiration" factors such as technological progress, human capital upgrading, institutional reform, and market-oriented advancement.The main contributions and innovations of this study are as follows. First, by analyzing the source of China's economic growth since reform and opening up, we can answer the Krugman Question. Doing so not only helps us to further understand the basis of China's economic growth but also helps us understand whether China's economy can continue to grow rapidly, and whether its future is optimistic or pessimistic. Second, based on the new economic geography, we take full account of the impact of spatial correlation on economic growth, and introduce market potential into the spatial econometric model to account for the spillover effect of inter-regional economic growth. We can thus estimate the size of the spatial spillover effect in China's regional economic growth, and its contribution to China's overall economic growth. This approach is more suitable for analyzing the unbalanced growth of China's economy and regional development, and for giving a more comprehensive analysis of China's different regional economic growth characteristics. Third, the essence of spatial correlation is the optimal allocation and flow of resources and commodities in different regions, based on the invisible hand. Therefore, spatial correlation demonstrates the importance of institutional reform and marketization since the reform and opening up, as they promote the elimination of interregional barriers and the establishment of a unified market. Altogether, our findings provide important empirical evidence for understanding the role of market-oriented reform in China's economic growth.
As early as 1994, Paul Krugman questioned the economic boom of China and other East Asian countries. He argued that the economic growth of East Asian countries mainly depends on large-scale capital accumulation and intensive labor input("perspiration") rather than on technological progress and improved efficiency("inspiration"). In the long run, the economic growth of East Asian economies will have difficulty sustaining itself and eventually collapse. How this might be averted is known as the Krugman Question.There are two main ways for scholars to answer the Krugman Question. One is to measure total factor productivity(TFP).The other is to measure the contribution rate of various factors to China's economic growth. The literature based on traditional economic growth theory regards the research object as homogeneous and independent under the assumptions of complete competition and constant returns of scale, ignoring the influence of spatial factors on economic growth. In contrast, this paper considers the conditions of unbalanced development in a regional economy; thus, it considers the spatial correlation among regions for an empirical analysis of the driving force of China's economic growth.The results show that in the period 1978—2015, the contribution rate of capital to economic growth was the highest(34.86%), market potential was second(34.55%), followed by TFP(22.03%), and the lowest was labor(8.56%). According to the Krugman Question, the largest contribution to China's growth miracle was "inspiration," at 61.93%, while the contribution of "perspiration" was 38.07%. At the beginning of the reform and opening up(1978 to 1989), China's economic growth mainly depended on perspiration(with a share of 62.03%). However, the contribution of perspiration has declined over time: from 1990 to 2000,it dropped to 52.41%, and from 2001 to 2015,it dropped to 21.93%. Inspiration thus began to dominate, eventually reaching 78.07%. In terms of regional differences, the economic growth of developed areas depends more on inspiration, while less developed areas rely more on perspiration. The core conclusion of this paper is that the "growth miracle" of China is the result of high input growth and high efficiency growth. It has relied on both perspiration and inspiration, and increasingly on the latter. This conclusion does not support the Krugman Question, and indicates that China's economic growth is sustainable due to increasing "inspiration" factors such as technological progress, human capital upgrading, institutional reform, and market-oriented advancement.The main contributions and innovations of this study are as follows. First, by analyzing the source of China's economic growth since reform and opening up, we can answer the Krugman Question. Doing so not only helps us to further understand the basis of China's economic growth but also helps us understand whether China's economy can continue to grow rapidly, and whether its future is optimistic or pessimistic. Second, based on the new economic geography, we take full account of the impact of spatial correlation on economic growth, and introduce market potential into the spatial econometric model to account for the spillover effect of inter-regional economic growth. We can thus estimate the size of the spatial spillover effect in China's regional economic growth, and its contribution to China's overall economic growth. This approach is more suitable for analyzing the unbalanced growth of China's economy and regional development, and for giving a more comprehensive analysis of China's different regional economic growth characteristics. Third, the essence of spatial correlation is the optimal allocation and flow of resources and commodities in different regions, based on the invisible hand. Therefore, spatial correlation demonstrates the importance of institutional reform and marketization since the reform and opening up, as they promote the elimination of interregional barriers and the establishment of a unified market. Altogether, our findings provide important empirical evidence for understanding the role of market-oriented reform in China's economic growth.
引文
蔡昉,2013:《中国经济增长如何转向全要素生产率驱动型》,《中国社会科学》第1期。
蔡跃洲、付一夫,2017:《全要素生产率增长中的技术效应与结构效应——基于中国宏观和产业数据的测算及分解》,《经济研究》第1期。
陈涛涛、陈娇,2006:《行业增长因素与我国FDI行业内溢出效应》,《经济研究》第6期。
董敏杰、梁泳梅,2013:《1978—2010年的中国经济增长来源:一个非参数分解框架》,《经济研究》第5期.
樊纲、王小鲁、马光荣,2011:《中国市场化进程对经济增长的贡献》,《经济研究》第9期。
范剑勇、张雁,2009:《经济地理与地区间工资差异》,《经济研究》第6期。
傅元海、唐未兵、王展祥,2010:《FDI溢出机制、技术进步路径与经济增长绩效》,《经济研究》第6期。
郭庆旺、贾俊雪,2005:《中国TFP的估算:1978—2003》,《经济研究》第8期。
何洁,2000:《外国直接投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应的进一步精确量化》,《世界经济》第12期。
李宾、曾志雄,2009:《中国TFP变动的再测算:1978—2007年》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第3期。
李小平、李小克,2018:《偏向性技术进步与中国工业全要素生产率增长》,《经济研究》第10期。
李言、高波、雷红,2018:《中国地区要素生产率的变迁:1978—2016》,《经济研究》第10期。
林光平、龙志和、吴梅,2005:《我国地区经济收敛的空间计量实证分析:1978—2002年》,《经济学(季刊)》第8期。
刘修岩、贺小海、殷醒民,2007:《市场潜能与地区工资差距——基于中国地级面板数据的实证研究》,《管理世界》第9期。
刘已洋、路江涌、陶志刚,2008:《外商直接投资对内资制造业企业的溢出效应:基于地理距离的研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期。
潘文卿,2012:《中国的区域关联与经济增长的空间溢出效应》,《经济研究》第1期。
邱晓华、郑京平、万广华、冯春平、巴威、严于龙,2006:《中国经济增长动力及前景分析》,《经济研究》第5期。
单豪杰,2008:《中国资本存量K的再估算:1952—2006年》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第10期。
孙琳琳、任若恩,2005:《中国资本投入和TFP的估算》,《世界经济》第12期。
王小鲁,2000:《中国经济增长的可持续性与制度变革》,《经济研究》第7期。
吴延瑞,2008:《生产率对中国经济增长的贡献:新的估计》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期。
徐瑛、陈秀山、刘凤良,2006:《中国技术进步贡献率的度量与分解》,《经济研究》第8期。
姚战琪,2009:《生产率增长与在配置效应:中国的经验研究》,《经济研究》第11期。
易纲、樊纲、李岩,2003:《关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的思考》,《经济研究》第8期。
余丹林、吕冰洋,2009:《质疑区域生产率测算:空间视角下的分析》,《中国软科学》第11期。
张军、吴桂英、张吉鹏,2004:《中国省际物质资本存量估算:1952—2000》,《经济研究》第10期。
张军,2002:《资本形成、工业化与经济增长:中国的转轨特征》,《经济研究》第6期。
张军、施少华,2003:《中国经济全要素生产率变动:1952—1998》,《世界经济文汇》第2期。
张晓旭、冯宗宪,2008:《中国人均GDP的空间相关与地区收敛:1978—2003》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期。
Baltagi,B.H.,S.H.Song,and W.Koh,2003,“Test Panel Data Regression Models with Spatial Error Correlation”,Journal of Econometrics,117(1),123—150.
Becker,G.S.,1966,“Education and the Distribution of Earnings”,American Economic Review,56(1),369—380.
Brandt,L.,T.Tombe,and X.D.Zhu,2013,“Factor Market Distortions across Time,Space and Sectors in China”,Review of Economic Dynamics,16 (1),39—58.
Bosworth,B.,and S.M.Collins,2008,“Accounting for Growth:Comparing China and India”,Journal of Economic Perspectives,22(1),45—66.
Brun,J.F.,J.L.Combes,and M.F.Renard,2002,“Are There Spillover Effects between the Coastal and Noncoastal Regions in China?”,China Economic Review,13(2),161—169.
Chow,G.C.,1993,“Capital Formation and Economic Growth in China”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,108 (3),809—842.
Chow,G.,and A.Lin,2002,“Accounting for Economic Growth in Taiwan and Mainland China:A Comparative Analysis”,Journal of Comparative Economics,30(3),507—530.
Denison,E.F.,1967,Why Growth Rates Differ,Washington DC:Brooking.
Fujita,Masahisa,and Jacques-Fran?ois Thisse,2002,Economics of Agglomeration:Cities,Industrial Location,and Regional Growth.Cambridge,England:Cambridge University Press.
Groenewold,N.,G.Lee,and A.Chen,2008,“Inter-regional Spillovers in China:The Importance of Common Shocks and the Definition of the Regions”,China Economic Review,19(1),32—52.
Hall,R.E.,and C.I.Joens,1999,“Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,114(2),83—116.
Hanson,G.,2005,“Market Potential,Increasing Returns,and Geographic Concentration”,Journal of International Economics,67 (1),1—24.
Harris,C.D.,1954,“The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Production”,Annuals of the American Geographies,44(8),35—48.
Head,K.,and T.Mayer,2011,“Gravity,Market Potential and Economic Development”,Journal of Economic Geography,11(2),281—294.
Head,K.,and T.Mayer,2006,“Regional Wage and Employment Responses to Market Potential in the EU”,Regional Science and Urban Economics,36(5),573—594.
Jorgenson,D.W.,and Z.Griliches,1967,“The Explanation of Productivity Change”,Review of Economic Studies,34 (3),249—283.
Krugman,P.,1991,“Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”,Journal of Political Economy,99(3),483—499.
Krugman,P.,1994,“The Myth of Asia’s Miracle”,Foreign Affairs,73(6),62—78.
Lucas,R.E.,1988,“On the Mechanics of Economic Development”,Journal of Monetary Economy,22(1),3—42.
Mion,G.,2004,“Spatial Externalities and Empirical Analysis:The Case of Italy”,Journal of Urban Economics,56(1),97—118.
Ozyurt,S.,2009,“Total Factor Productivity Growth in Chinese Industry:1952—2005”,Oxford Development Studies,37(1),1—17.
Redding,S.,and A.J.Venables,2004,“Economic Geography and International Inequality”,International Economics,62(1),53—82.
Romer,P.M.,1986,“Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,94(5),1002—1037.
Solow,R.M.,1957,“Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”,Review of Economics and Statistics,39(3),312—320.
Tobler,W.R.,1970,“A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region”,Economic Geography,46(1),234—240.
Wu,Y.R.,2003,“Has Productivity Contributed to China’s Growth?”,China Economic Review,8(1),15—30.
Wu,Y.R.,2011,“Innovation and Economic Growth in China:Evidence at the Provincial Level”,Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy,16(2),129—142.
Ying,L.,2003,“Understanding China’s Recent Growth Experience:A Spatial Econometric Perspective”,Annals of Regional Science,37(4),613—628.
Young,A.,2003,“Gold into Base Metals:Productivity Growth in the People’s Republic of China during the Reform Period”,Journal of Political Economy,111(6),1220—1261.
① 数据来源于2016年《中国统计年鉴》,以1978年为基期的不变价格计算,下同。
② 二战后东亚国家经历了长达三十多年的高速经济增长,世界银行于1993年出版了《东亚的奇迹:经济增长与公共政策》,旨在总结该地区经济增长的经验。克鲁格曼却对此提出“质疑”,他于1994年在《外交事务》杂志发表的《东亚奇迹的神话》(The Myth of Asia’s Miracle)中提出,东亚的经济增长主要是依靠大规模的资本积累和密集的劳动力投入,没有真正的知识进步和技术创新,缺乏有效的制度支持。这种增长模式和苏联相似,不能带来经济的持续增长。国内外学术界将其称为“克鲁格曼质疑”。
(1)本文不详细回顾新经济地理学的经典理论或模型,具体可参见 Harris(1954)、 Krugman(1991)、Redding & Venables(2004)、 Head & Mayer(2006)等。
(2)Tobler (1970)提出地理学第一定律:“所有事物都与其他事物相关联,较近事物比较远事物关联度更强”。
(3)全域关联及局域关联的计算方法和结果可向作者索取。
(4)也有学者(Redding & Venables,2004;范剑勇和张雁,2009)用市场准入(market access),但所阐释的含义是相同的,都是用来衡量一个地区接近市场的程度。
(5)冰山运输成本首先由萨缪尔森提出,指的是产品从产地运到消费地,其中有一部分在途中“融化”掉了。Krugman(1980)采用这一概念,进一步引入运输成本因素进行扩展分析,提出了空间经济学中重要的“本地市场效应 ”(home market effect)理论,揭示了空间集聚的动力来源问题。
(6)限于篇幅,检验结果不做汇报,读者可通过邮件索要原始检验结果。
(7)GMM是弱化内生性较好的估计方法,考虑到本模型可能存在的内生性问题,采用该方法进行拟合。
(8)感兴趣的读者可向作者索要具体推导过程与所用数据。
(9)Hausman检验、工具变量检验及有无工具变量回归结果,及下文的稳健性检验结果可向作者索取。
蔡跃洲、付一夫,2017:《全要素生产率增长中的技术效应与结构效应——基于中国宏观和产业数据的测算及分解》,《经济研究》第1期。
陈涛涛、陈娇,2006:《行业增长因素与我国FDI行业内溢出效应》,《经济研究》第6期。
董敏杰、梁泳梅,2013:《1978—2010年的中国经济增长来源:一个非参数分解框架》,《经济研究》第5期.
樊纲、王小鲁、马光荣,2011:《中国市场化进程对经济增长的贡献》,《经济研究》第9期。
范剑勇、张雁,2009:《经济地理与地区间工资差异》,《经济研究》第6期。
傅元海、唐未兵、王展祥,2010:《FDI溢出机制、技术进步路径与经济增长绩效》,《经济研究》第6期。
郭庆旺、贾俊雪,2005:《中国TFP的估算:1978—2003》,《经济研究》第8期。
何洁,2000:《外国直接投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应的进一步精确量化》,《世界经济》第12期。
李宾、曾志雄,2009:《中国TFP变动的再测算:1978—2007年》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第3期。
李小平、李小克,2018:《偏向性技术进步与中国工业全要素生产率增长》,《经济研究》第10期。
李言、高波、雷红,2018:《中国地区要素生产率的变迁:1978—2016》,《经济研究》第10期。
林光平、龙志和、吴梅,2005:《我国地区经济收敛的空间计量实证分析:1978—2002年》,《经济学(季刊)》第8期。
刘修岩、贺小海、殷醒民,2007:《市场潜能与地区工资差距——基于中国地级面板数据的实证研究》,《管理世界》第9期。
刘已洋、路江涌、陶志刚,2008:《外商直接投资对内资制造业企业的溢出效应:基于地理距离的研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期。
潘文卿,2012:《中国的区域关联与经济增长的空间溢出效应》,《经济研究》第1期。
邱晓华、郑京平、万广华、冯春平、巴威、严于龙,2006:《中国经济增长动力及前景分析》,《经济研究》第5期。
单豪杰,2008:《中国资本存量K的再估算:1952—2006年》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第10期。
孙琳琳、任若恩,2005:《中国资本投入和TFP的估算》,《世界经济》第12期。
王小鲁,2000:《中国经济增长的可持续性与制度变革》,《经济研究》第7期。
吴延瑞,2008:《生产率对中国经济增长的贡献:新的估计》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期。
徐瑛、陈秀山、刘凤良,2006:《中国技术进步贡献率的度量与分解》,《经济研究》第8期。
姚战琪,2009:《生产率增长与在配置效应:中国的经验研究》,《经济研究》第11期。
易纲、樊纲、李岩,2003:《关于中国经济增长与全要素生产率的思考》,《经济研究》第8期。
余丹林、吕冰洋,2009:《质疑区域生产率测算:空间视角下的分析》,《中国软科学》第11期。
张军、吴桂英、张吉鹏,2004:《中国省际物质资本存量估算:1952—2000》,《经济研究》第10期。
张军,2002:《资本形成、工业化与经济增长:中国的转轨特征》,《经济研究》第6期。
张军、施少华,2003:《中国经济全要素生产率变动:1952—1998》,《世界经济文汇》第2期。
张晓旭、冯宗宪,2008:《中国人均GDP的空间相关与地区收敛:1978—2003》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期。
Baltagi,B.H.,S.H.Song,and W.Koh,2003,“Test Panel Data Regression Models with Spatial Error Correlation”,Journal of Econometrics,117(1),123—150.
Becker,G.S.,1966,“Education and the Distribution of Earnings”,American Economic Review,56(1),369—380.
Brandt,L.,T.Tombe,and X.D.Zhu,2013,“Factor Market Distortions across Time,Space and Sectors in China”,Review of Economic Dynamics,16 (1),39—58.
Bosworth,B.,and S.M.Collins,2008,“Accounting for Growth:Comparing China and India”,Journal of Economic Perspectives,22(1),45—66.
Brun,J.F.,J.L.Combes,and M.F.Renard,2002,“Are There Spillover Effects between the Coastal and Noncoastal Regions in China?”,China Economic Review,13(2),161—169.
Chow,G.C.,1993,“Capital Formation and Economic Growth in China”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,108 (3),809—842.
Chow,G.,and A.Lin,2002,“Accounting for Economic Growth in Taiwan and Mainland China:A Comparative Analysis”,Journal of Comparative Economics,30(3),507—530.
Denison,E.F.,1967,Why Growth Rates Differ,Washington DC:Brooking.
Fujita,Masahisa,and Jacques-Fran?ois Thisse,2002,Economics of Agglomeration:Cities,Industrial Location,and Regional Growth.Cambridge,England:Cambridge University Press.
Groenewold,N.,G.Lee,and A.Chen,2008,“Inter-regional Spillovers in China:The Importance of Common Shocks and the Definition of the Regions”,China Economic Review,19(1),32—52.
Hall,R.E.,and C.I.Joens,1999,“Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,114(2),83—116.
Hanson,G.,2005,“Market Potential,Increasing Returns,and Geographic Concentration”,Journal of International Economics,67 (1),1—24.
Harris,C.D.,1954,“The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Production”,Annuals of the American Geographies,44(8),35—48.
Head,K.,and T.Mayer,2011,“Gravity,Market Potential and Economic Development”,Journal of Economic Geography,11(2),281—294.
Head,K.,and T.Mayer,2006,“Regional Wage and Employment Responses to Market Potential in the EU”,Regional Science and Urban Economics,36(5),573—594.
Jorgenson,D.W.,and Z.Griliches,1967,“The Explanation of Productivity Change”,Review of Economic Studies,34 (3),249—283.
Krugman,P.,1991,“Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”,Journal of Political Economy,99(3),483—499.
Krugman,P.,1994,“The Myth of Asia’s Miracle”,Foreign Affairs,73(6),62—78.
Lucas,R.E.,1988,“On the Mechanics of Economic Development”,Journal of Monetary Economy,22(1),3—42.
Mion,G.,2004,“Spatial Externalities and Empirical Analysis:The Case of Italy”,Journal of Urban Economics,56(1),97—118.
Ozyurt,S.,2009,“Total Factor Productivity Growth in Chinese Industry:1952—2005”,Oxford Development Studies,37(1),1—17.
Redding,S.,and A.J.Venables,2004,“Economic Geography and International Inequality”,International Economics,62(1),53—82.
Romer,P.M.,1986,“Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,94(5),1002—1037.
Solow,R.M.,1957,“Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”,Review of Economics and Statistics,39(3),312—320.
Tobler,W.R.,1970,“A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region”,Economic Geography,46(1),234—240.
Wu,Y.R.,2003,“Has Productivity Contributed to China’s Growth?”,China Economic Review,8(1),15—30.
Wu,Y.R.,2011,“Innovation and Economic Growth in China:Evidence at the Provincial Level”,Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy,16(2),129—142.
Ying,L.,2003,“Understanding China’s Recent Growth Experience:A Spatial Econometric Perspective”,Annals of Regional Science,37(4),613—628.
Young,A.,2003,“Gold into Base Metals:Productivity Growth in the People’s Republic of China during the Reform Period”,Journal of Political Economy,111(6),1220—1261.
① 数据来源于2016年《中国统计年鉴》,以1978年为基期的不变价格计算,下同。
② 二战后东亚国家经历了长达三十多年的高速经济增长,世界银行于1993年出版了《东亚的奇迹:经济增长与公共政策》,旨在总结该地区经济增长的经验。克鲁格曼却对此提出“质疑”,他于1994年在《外交事务》杂志发表的《东亚奇迹的神话》(The Myth of Asia’s Miracle)中提出,东亚的经济增长主要是依靠大规模的资本积累和密集的劳动力投入,没有真正的知识进步和技术创新,缺乏有效的制度支持。这种增长模式和苏联相似,不能带来经济的持续增长。国内外学术界将其称为“克鲁格曼质疑”。
(1)本文不详细回顾新经济地理学的经典理论或模型,具体可参见 Harris(1954)、 Krugman(1991)、Redding & Venables(2004)、 Head & Mayer(2006)等。
(2)Tobler (1970)提出地理学第一定律:“所有事物都与其他事物相关联,较近事物比较远事物关联度更强”。
(3)全域关联及局域关联的计算方法和结果可向作者索取。
(4)也有学者(Redding & Venables,2004;范剑勇和张雁,2009)用市场准入(market access),但所阐释的含义是相同的,都是用来衡量一个地区接近市场的程度。
(5)冰山运输成本首先由萨缪尔森提出,指的是产品从产地运到消费地,其中有一部分在途中“融化”掉了。Krugman(1980)采用这一概念,进一步引入运输成本因素进行扩展分析,提出了空间经济学中重要的“本地市场效应 ”(home market effect)理论,揭示了空间集聚的动力来源问题。
(6)限于篇幅,检验结果不做汇报,读者可通过邮件索要原始检验结果。
(7)GMM是弱化内生性较好的估计方法,考虑到本模型可能存在的内生性问题,采用该方法进行拟合。
(8)感兴趣的读者可向作者索要具体推导过程与所用数据。
(9)Hausman检验、工具变量检验及有无工具变量回归结果,及下文的稳健性检验结果可向作者索取。