:,, ;,, : F742 :A : (2009)

Transcription

1 Finance & Trade Economics, No111, : , 300, 20, : ;, 2,,,,, : 2 :,, ;,, : F742 :A : (2009) ,,,,,, ;,, 2, Melitz (2003), Antras (2003), : (1) ( International Entry Decision), ( FDI) :??? FDI? (2), ( Integration) (Out sourcing), :? 2,,,,, 2 : ( EYH ) ; 985

2 ;,,,, ;,,, 985 ( ),,10 300, 30 (X2type) (D2type),,, 20,,, X ( ) D () 20 1, ,0,,,,,,, ;,, (DEA),,,,,,, Head Ries (2003), (Approximate TFP,A TFP),, Griliches Mairesse (1990),, : A T F P = lnq/ L - sln K/ L (1) Q,L, K,s, 0 1, 0, 1, (Q/ K) Hall Jones (1999) s = 1/ 3, :,,, ;,, ;,, (1) 85

3 Finance & Trade Economics, No111, 2009,,,Q, 1991 ; K, 1991 ;L, , : X X D X D X D D X D X D TFP TFP TFP TFP TFP TFP :, 2,2005, ,2006, ,:,, ; ;,,, - 3,,, ,,, 2 86

4 , 17 33, X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP : ,, 3,,,,, 2,?, 22 34,, :221 ( ),222 ( ),223 ( ),341 ( ),342 ( ),343 ( ) X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP X TFP D TFP ,,, , ,,, 2007,,,, ;,,, ,,, 87

5 Finance & Trade Economics, No111, 2009 :,,?,?,???,,,,, ( ),,,,, ;,2007, ( EX) (A TFP) 2007 ( Y) ( PRO),, : ln EX it = C + 1 ln A T F P it + 2 ln Y it + 3 ln PRO it + it (2) (2), 1 2 3,i,t, it,, 6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,, ;,,,,,, ;,,,,, 88

6 C DW F : 3 15 %, %, %, 2,,,,,, (3), 7 ln A T F P it = C + 1 ln EX it + 2 ln Y it + 3 ln PROit + it (3),, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 89

7 Finance & Trade Economics, No111, C DW F : 3 15 %, %, % ,,,, 2,,,, 2,,,,,, : (1), (2),,,, (3),,,,,, (4), 2,,, 90 ( 111 )

8 : 1. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffit h, R., and Howitt, P., Empirical Estimates of t he Relationship Between Product Market Competition and Innovation. Working Paper, University College London, Arndt, S. W. and H. Kierzkowski, Fragmentation : N ew Production Patterns in the Worl d Economy. Oxford : Oxford U2 niversity Press, Chernick, M. R., B ootstrap Methods : A Gui de f or Practitioners and Researchers. 2th edition, John Wilery & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, Feenstra, Robert C., Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy. J ournal of Economic Pers pectives, Vol14, 1998, pp Gereffi, G., International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chains. J ournal of International E2 conomics, Vol148, 1999, pp Javorcik, B. S. and M. Spatareanu, Share or not to share : Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direc2 tion investment? J ournal of Development Economics, Vol1 85, 2008, pp Johansson, H. and L. Nilsson, Export Processing Zones as Catalyst s. Worl d Development, Vol125, 1997, pp Parrino, R., CEO Turnover and Outside Succession : a Cross2Sectional Analysis. J ournal of Financial Economics, Vol1 2, 1997, pp Schmidt, K., Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition. Review of Economic S tudies, Vol164, 1997, pp :, :, :, ,,, :, :, : :, ( 90 ) :,,,,, (5),,, (6),,, ;,,,, ;, : 1. Antras, P., Firms, Contracts, and Trade Structure. The Quarterly J ournal of Economics, 11, 2003, pp Baldwin, R. E., Heterogeneous Firms and Trade : Testable and Untestable Properties of the Melitz Model. Working Pa2 per, 2005/ Bernard, A. B., Redding, S.J. and Schott, P. K., Multi2Product Firms and Trade Liberalization. Working Paper, 2006/ Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J. and Yeaple, S. R.,Export Versus FDI wit h Heterogeneous Firms. The A merican Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2004, pp Melitz, M. J., The Impact of Trade on Intra2Industry Reallocations and Aggegate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, Vol. 71, No16, 2003, pp Namini, J. E. and Lopez, R. A., Random Versus Conscious Selection into Export Market s Theory and Empirical Evi2 dence. Working Paper, 2006/ 10/ 11. : 111

9 Finance & Trade Economics No. 11, 2009 Based on GP s and HL s approaches, we propose t he modified approach to measure nominal level and act ual protection strengt h (A PS) of China s intellectual property f rom 1995 to The findings are that : (1) nominal level of China s IPP measured by GP approach had heightened no2 tably f rom 1995 to It shows t hat China has continually imp roved IPP legislation under the TRIPS constraint, and has achieved high nominal level. (2) China s IPP level by HL approach is evidently lower than that of GP app roach. It reveals t hat China s rule of law level and law system mat urity is developed rat her laggardly. (3) Economic develop ment level, rule of law level, and implementing law level are important factors of affecting t he act ual protection strengt h of China s intellectual property. Our modified approach proves t hat China s A PS appears an increase wit h a p hase. By comparison, China s IPP level by GP approach is on the high side, whereas China s IPP level by HL approach is on t he low side. Nominal level of China s IPP is largely influenced by t he legislation level, whereas China s A PS mostly embodies the effect of implementing law level. Our proposals are t hat China improve social consciousness of China s IPP by education and training of rule of law, enhance t he self2discipline mechanism of civil guild, specify t he right s and respo nsibilities of different enforcement instit utio ns, st rengt hen t he judicial review, so t hat strengt hens t he implementing law level of China s intellect ual property. Keywords :TRIPS Agreement, Intellect ual Property Protection, Act ual Protection Strengt h Chinese Export Firms Productivity Paradox and its Explanations L I Chunding ( Institute of World Economics & Politics, CASS, ) YIN Xiangshuo ( Institute of World Economics, Fudan University, ) This paper uses Chinese industry firm data f rom 1998 to 2007, select s nearly 3 billion firms, di2 vides t hem into 20 industries and test s the relationship between export and productivity. The re2 sult s reveal t hat firms that only supply domestic market have a higher productivity t han firms who choose export. In the meanwhile, t he export firms regression result s show that t here exist s negative relationship between export and firm productivity. These result s are opposite wit h new2 new trade t heory, we call t hem productivity paradox. The paper also get s t he conclusion t hat firm scale is a main factor of affecting export s, and the export has an illegality influence to firms productivity t hat is fit for t he t heory. The paper thinks t hat the reason to p roductivity paradox perhap s is for our country s process trade takes up t he majority of our export s. Keywords : New2New Trade Theory, Firm Heterogeneit y, Productivit y, Export Technology Capacity, Location in Value Chain and Firm s Competitiveness : An Empirical Analysis Based on the Micro2data from Suzhou s Manufacturing Firms GAO Yanyan, L IU Zhibiao & ZH EN G Jianghuai (School of Economics, Nanjing U niversity, ) This paper utilizes micro2data from manufact uring firms in Suzhou, China, as well as boot strap approach to investigate t he determinant s of firm s product competitiveness. It comes to find t hat firm s competitiveness is jointly determined by firm s technology capacity and it s location on the value chain, which along wit h firm s relative size to the peers hold some kind of systematic posi2 tive relationship s. This st udy conforms to t he views t hat firms in transition economies upgrade t heir co mpetitiveness by means of technological spillover s of FD I activities and al so directly show s t hose argument s f rom GVC theory t hat firm s locatio n o n value chain is po sitively related to firm s co mpetitiveness. Keywords : Technology Capacity, OBM, Competitiveness, Value Chain, Boot strap Approach