人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应研究
|
摘要
随着经济活动全球化进程的加快,国际间的资本流量也在加速增长。外商直接投资流量的大幅度增长对世界社会经济发展产生了巨大影响,引起了世界各国经济学者的普遍关注。
各国经济学者对FDI的技术外溢效应进行了大量研究。FDI技术外溢效应的客观存在性,在理论上得到世界各国经济学者的一致肯定,但是有关各国的实证研究结论却大相径庭。实证结论都大体有两种:一是流入发达国家的FDI普遍能通过技术外溢效应存在性检验;二是流入发展中国家的FDI是否存在技术外溢效应并不能得到一致性的结论。理论与实证结果存在着矛盾。
各国有关FDI技术外溢效应实证结果的不同,关键原因有两个:一方面,FDI技术外溢并不是自动产生的,其产生技术外溢需要东道国具备一定的条件。FDI是国外投资者目的性产物,投资者是为了获得利润,并不是为了促进东道国技术进步;因此,只有当东道国具备相应的条件时FDI才会产生技术外溢效应。另一方面,FDI对东道国经济增长作用的不同归根到底是由于各国吸收能力存在的差异所导致,即东道国究竟能在多大程度上学习、模仿、消化、吸收外资的先进技术对FDI在各东道国技术外溢的效果起着决定性作用。
人力资本是知识和技能的最主要承载体,新增长理论将人力资本作为技术进步的代理指标之一。世界各国经济学者借鉴新增长理论的思想,从人力资本的角度研究东道国对FDI所带来的先进技术的吸收能力。在实证研究中各国经济学者将人力资本作为东道国吸收能力的代理变量,并且普遍认为人力资本是东道国吸收能力的核心要素。FDI的流入为东道国提供了接触先进技术的契机,但是,东道国能否充分利用流入的FDI提高自身的技术水平促进本国经济发展,取决于东道国的人力资本对于先进技术的学习、吸收能力。
外商直接投资作为外资进入中国的主要方式,在中国的经济发展过程中起着举足轻重的作用,充分认识外商直接投资产生技术外溢的约束条件,提高外商直接投资的技术外溢效应,将为中国经济增长增添更有效的动力。然而,人力资本在技术外溢过程中的重要作用尚未引起学术界足够的关注和重视,对于人力资本在决定东道国吸收FDI技术外溢能力的专门进行的理论研究较少。从现存国内外文献看,国内的学者一般是将其作为附带的研究内容,而国外只有美国的经济学者伯伦斯坦和在美国攻读博士学位的韩国学者KyoohongCho在他的博士论文中对这个问题进行了理论阐述,可以说,关于人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应的研究仍存在许多空白和探索空间。因此,在FDI与经济增长理论基础上,运用国外的现有文献和理论模型阐明人力资本在FDI产生技术外溢效应过程中的作用,进而研究中国的FDI对国内经济增长的影响等问题,对于中国充分利用FDI促进经济发展有着长期的实践价值。
鉴于人力资本在FDI技术外溢中的重要作用,论文将从人力资本的角度出发,对人力资本在FDI技术外溢效应中的作用做出理论分析和实证检验。论文首先对FDI的技术外溢的约束条件做出理论分析,指出人力资本制约着FDI技术外溢效应的形成,是FDI技术外溢的主要渠道。借鉴Borensztein、Gregorio和Lee(1998)和KyoohongCho(2005)提出的关于人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应关系的模型,从理论上阐明人力资本在外商直接投资产生技术外溢效应过程中的所起的作用。
论文在理论上阐明人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应决定性因素,指出FDI和东道国人力资本相结合有利于促进其产生技术外溢效应,人力资本在FDI产生技术外溢效应过程中起着核心作用,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济发展的关键。东道国的人力资本存量和分布结构决定着FDI技术外溢效应的大小,人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,越有利于FDI产生技术外溢效应。东道国人力资本积累与FDI技术外溢效应的产生是相辅相成的,辅之于东道国人力资本积累的FDI才能实现FDI技术外溢与东道国技术进步经济增长的良性循环。如果东道国人力资本匮乏,FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
论文在理论分析的基础上,运用中国省际层面的数据,对提出的理论论断进行了实证检验。首先,将中国分为东、中、西部三个区域,从人力资本存量、人力资本结构、人力资本投资三个方面角度进行比较,分析东、中、西部地区人力资本存在的差异,实证研究发现在三个区域中,东部人力资本状况最优,中部地区次之,西部最差,从而为验证三大区域在不同人力资本水平下的技术外溢是否存在差异打下铺垫;其次,在伯伦斯坦提出的人力资本与FDI技术外溢关系的拓展模型的基础上构建计量模型进行实证分析(运用全国层面各省、直辖市的面板数据验证人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定因素;运用东、中、西部区域层面包含的各省、直辖市的面板数据验证人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理的区域技术外溢效应越显著的理论论断)。具体来说,选取全国层面的数据对FDI独立项和FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应进行计量分析,此后,将中国分为东部、中部、西部三个经济区域分别利用东、中、西部所包含的各省份数据对人力资本与FDI相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应进行计量分析。比较分析实证结果:从全国层面数据计量结果看FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应显著高于FDI为单独项的技术外溢效应,从而说明人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定性因素,FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)有利于其产生技术外溢效应。从区域层面回归结果看,东、中、西部地区技术外溢效应的确存在差异,而且东部地区技术外溢效应最为显著,中、西部地区依次递减,从而说明区域人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,外商直接投资的技术外溢效应越显著。
论文的创新点有三:
(1)已有的相关文献绝大多数仅对外商直接投资技外溢做实证研究,没有讨论人力资本在FDI技术外溢过程中的制约作用。论文通过理论分析指出人力资本在FDI技术外溢过程中的核心作用:人力资本通过影响跨国公司的投资决策和东道国的吸收能力而制约着FDI技术外溢效应的形成;人力资本是FDI技术外溢的重要渠道,外资企业通过提高东道国的劳动者的质量和数量而直接产生技术外溢,还通过培训东道国当地的供应商和经销商而产生间接技术外溢。此外论文借鉴Borensztein、Gregorio和Lee(1998)和KyoohongCho(2005)有关人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应的理论模型进行理论分析。在理论上阐明人力资本是外商直接投资技术外溢效应决定性因素,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济增长的关键,指出外商直接投资和东道国人力资本相结合有利于其产生技术外溢效应,人力资本在外商直接投资的技术外溢效应产生过程中起着核心作用。东道国的人力资本积累与FDI技术外溢效应的产生是相辅相成的,东道国人力资本存量越丰富、人力资本结构分布越合理FDI的技术外溢效应越显著,辅之于东道国人力资本积累的FDI才能实现FDI技术外溢与东道国技术进步经济增长的良性循环。如果东道国人力资本匮乏、分布结构不合理,那么FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
(2)实证分析比较中国东、中、西部人力资本状况,主要从人力资本存量(平均受教育程度)、人力资本结构(人力资本基尼系数)、人力资本投资(教育投资、健康医疗投资)三个角度,对东、中、西部地区人力资本状况进行系统的比较。阐明东部地区在人力资本存量、人力资本结构、人力资本投资这三个方面均是最优的,其次是中部地区,西部地区最差,并明确反映出三大经济区域的人力资本水平究竟在多大程度上存在差距。
(3)在KyoohongCho(2005)的模型(伯伦斯坦等人有关人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应关系模型的拓展)的基础上构建计量模型,对人力资本在技术外溢效应过程中的决定作用进行实证分析。运用全国层面的数据对FDI独立项和FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)项的技术外溢效应进行计量分析,此后,将中国分为东部、中部、西部三个经济区域,分别利用东、中、西部的区域层面的数据对FDI的技术外溢效应进行计量分析。全国层面数据计量结果看FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)项的技术外溢效应显著高于FDI为单独项的技术外溢效应,从而有力的证明了人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定性因素,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济增长的关键,FDI与人力资本相结合有利于其产生技术外溢效应,离开了东道国人力资本的配合FDI对东道国技术进步经济增长的促进作用是非常微弱的。从区域层面数据看,东、中、西部地区技术外溢效应的确存在差异,而且东部地区技术外溢效应最为显著,中、西部地区依次递减,从而说明人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,外商直接投资的技术外溢效应越显著。如果东道国人力资本匮乏,FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
此外,论文考察了人力资本分布结构状况对FDI技术外溢效应的影响,指出人力资本分布结构越合理,越有利于FDI技术外溢效应的产生。并且还利用全国层面的数据,进一步分析了外商直接投资与哪一层次的人力资本相结合技术外溢效应更明显。发现外商直接投资更多的是和具有高等教育程度的人力资本相结合产生较为明显的外溢效应。
以上方面,对中国转变利用外商直接投资的思想,积极有效的利用外商直接投资,对如何使外资能更有效的促进中国技术进步,推动经济增长,具有重要的借鉴意义。
As economic activity acceleration of the globalization process, international capital flows are accelerating growth. Foreign direct investment substantial growth in the world socio-economic development has a great effect on the economy. Scholars from around the world have paid a great attention to it.
National economic scholars have done a great deal of study on FDI technology spillover effect. The objective existence in theory of the FDI technology spillover effects has been unanimously affirmed by the world economy scholars, but the empirical research findings of the countries differ widely. There are two generally positive conclusions: First, FDI flows to developed countries through the universal existence of the test technology spillover effects; second, the FDI flowing to developing countries is hardly to obtain consistency of the conclusions on the existence of the technology spillover effects. Theoretical and empirical results exists the "Law of the anti" phenomenon.
FDI technology spillover effect is different for two reasons: On the one hand, technology spillover is not automatically generated, a technology spillover need FDI host country with certain conditions. The purpose of foreign investors is profit, not in order to promote the technological progress of the host country, therefore, only when the host country have corresponding conditions FDI will produce technology spillover effects. On the other hand, the role of FDI in economic growth of the host country is in the final analysis different countries because of the differences in absorption capacity of the host country, the extent to which the host country can digest, the absorption of foreign capital technology spillover played a decisive role in FDI technology spillover effects.
Human capital is the core of absorptive capacity of the host country, so a lot of empirical research refers human capital to the absorption capacity, FDI inflows to bring the potential of the technology spillover. At the same time, the local human capital level is decisive to absorb the number of FDI and local enterprises can absorb the technology spillover from the multinational corporations. Human capital is an important channel for technology spillovers, the several ways of the technology spillovers: the effect of competition demonstration, the effect of the before and after links、the effect of the movement of persons, they are achieved through the absorption of human capital. Therefore we can say that human capital is the core elements of the host country absorption capacity.
Foreign direct investment as a major ways of the foreign investment into China, has played a pivotal role in the process of China's economic development. To fully understand the conditions of foreign direct investment technology spillover, and to improve the technology spillover effect of the foreign direct investment will add more effective force for China economic growth. However, the important role of the human capital in the process of the technology spillover has not caused enough concern and attention. The research on the human capital in determining of the absorption capacity of the technology spillovers is still in the initial stage, the existing research is generally as incidental research, there are still a lot of gaps and exploration space in the theoretical and empirical. Therefore, using FDI and economic growth theories on the basis of human capital in FDI technology spillover illustrates the role of human capital of the host country and FDI impact on economic growth and other issues, these will have long-term practical value for China fully utilizing FDI active role in promoting economic development
In the light of the important role of human capital in the course of FDI technology spillovers, the article do theoretical and empirical analysis on the technology spillover effect of FDI from the perspective of the human capital. The first is the theoretical analysis to illustrate the decisive factors of the human capital as FDI technology spillover effect. On the basis of theoretical analysis, the article do the empirical study on the difference of human capital (from the perspectives of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital) and FDI technology spillover effect in the eastern, central and western regions. Study found that in three regions the human capital is best in the east, followed by the central region, the West is worst. Then on the eastern, central and western regions of technology spillover effect size, empirical results show that the spillover effects of the three regional technical differences: the eastern region technology spillover effects are significant and the highest, then the value of the west is higher; Western technology spillover effects is negative. Human capital is the decisive factor in FDI spillover effects, the final conclusions are that eastern, central and western regions technology spillover effects are different, mainly due to differences in human capital.
In this paper, along such a major theme: the effect of human capital on FDI technology spillover - Comparing the eastern, central and western regions of human capital situation - Empirical analysis of China's eastern, central and western regions FDI technology spillover effect and comparison of the empirical results, pointing out the difference of human capital is the main reason of the difference of the technology spillover effects. The dissertation has three innovations:
Firstly, the existing FDI technology spillover literature only do empirical research, there is no detailed discussion of technical spillover theoretical framework. This article fromBorensztein、Gregorio&Lee (1998) and KyoohongCho (2005) model expounded that human capital is foreign direct investment technology spillover effect decisive factor in the theory, pointing out that only foreign direct investment combined with the human capital of the host country will have a technology spillover effect, the human capital in the process of the foreign direct investment technology spillover have played a central role, it is a decisive factor of foreign direct investment technology spillover effect.
Secondly, the empirical analysis of China's eastern, central and western compare the situation of human capital, mainly from the three perspectives of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital comparison. Set out in the eastern of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital in these three areas are the best, followed by the central region, the western region is worst.
Finally, in view of the adjacent space has a critical impact on technology spillovers of the FDI (Jaffe, 1986,1989), geographically adjacent do good to the flow of technology, the possibility of the foreign enterprises technical spillover with the distance reducing increase (Kui-yin Cheung, Ping Lin, 2004). In order to reflect the objective of foreign direct investment technology spillovers, in the text on the basis of theoretical analysis, using inter-provincial data, the provinces and municipalities of China will be divided into eastern, central and western regions, in the use of panel data, do empirical analysis foreign direct investment technology spillover effect to China. On the basement of the theoretical model that the human capital is the decisive factor in FDI technology spillover effects, test the technology spillover effect size of the integration of the human capital and FDI, human capital and domestic investment. Then, compare on the technical spillover effect differences of the eastern, central and western regions.
In addition, the paper uses of national-level data, further analysis of foreign direct investment technology spillover effects more obvious combine with which level of human capital. Found that foreign direct investment with a higher education degree generated more obvious spillover effects.
Above, there were not examined by our predecessors. It will help change the ideas of China's use of foreign direct investment, positive and effective. It has an important reference significance on how to make foreign investment more effectively promote China's technological progress, promote economic growth.
各国经济学者对FDI的技术外溢效应进行了大量研究。FDI技术外溢效应的客观存在性,在理论上得到世界各国经济学者的一致肯定,但是有关各国的实证研究结论却大相径庭。实证结论都大体有两种:一是流入发达国家的FDI普遍能通过技术外溢效应存在性检验;二是流入发展中国家的FDI是否存在技术外溢效应并不能得到一致性的结论。理论与实证结果存在着矛盾。
各国有关FDI技术外溢效应实证结果的不同,关键原因有两个:一方面,FDI技术外溢并不是自动产生的,其产生技术外溢需要东道国具备一定的条件。FDI是国外投资者目的性产物,投资者是为了获得利润,并不是为了促进东道国技术进步;因此,只有当东道国具备相应的条件时FDI才会产生技术外溢效应。另一方面,FDI对东道国经济增长作用的不同归根到底是由于各国吸收能力存在的差异所导致,即东道国究竟能在多大程度上学习、模仿、消化、吸收外资的先进技术对FDI在各东道国技术外溢的效果起着决定性作用。
人力资本是知识和技能的最主要承载体,新增长理论将人力资本作为技术进步的代理指标之一。世界各国经济学者借鉴新增长理论的思想,从人力资本的角度研究东道国对FDI所带来的先进技术的吸收能力。在实证研究中各国经济学者将人力资本作为东道国吸收能力的代理变量,并且普遍认为人力资本是东道国吸收能力的核心要素。FDI的流入为东道国提供了接触先进技术的契机,但是,东道国能否充分利用流入的FDI提高自身的技术水平促进本国经济发展,取决于东道国的人力资本对于先进技术的学习、吸收能力。
外商直接投资作为外资进入中国的主要方式,在中国的经济发展过程中起着举足轻重的作用,充分认识外商直接投资产生技术外溢的约束条件,提高外商直接投资的技术外溢效应,将为中国经济增长增添更有效的动力。然而,人力资本在技术外溢过程中的重要作用尚未引起学术界足够的关注和重视,对于人力资本在决定东道国吸收FDI技术外溢能力的专门进行的理论研究较少。从现存国内外文献看,国内的学者一般是将其作为附带的研究内容,而国外只有美国的经济学者伯伦斯坦和在美国攻读博士学位的韩国学者KyoohongCho在他的博士论文中对这个问题进行了理论阐述,可以说,关于人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应的研究仍存在许多空白和探索空间。因此,在FDI与经济增长理论基础上,运用国外的现有文献和理论模型阐明人力资本在FDI产生技术外溢效应过程中的作用,进而研究中国的FDI对国内经济增长的影响等问题,对于中国充分利用FDI促进经济发展有着长期的实践价值。
鉴于人力资本在FDI技术外溢中的重要作用,论文将从人力资本的角度出发,对人力资本在FDI技术外溢效应中的作用做出理论分析和实证检验。论文首先对FDI的技术外溢的约束条件做出理论分析,指出人力资本制约着FDI技术外溢效应的形成,是FDI技术外溢的主要渠道。借鉴Borensztein、Gregorio和Lee(1998)和KyoohongCho(2005)提出的关于人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应关系的模型,从理论上阐明人力资本在外商直接投资产生技术外溢效应过程中的所起的作用。
论文在理论上阐明人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应决定性因素,指出FDI和东道国人力资本相结合有利于促进其产生技术外溢效应,人力资本在FDI产生技术外溢效应过程中起着核心作用,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济发展的关键。东道国的人力资本存量和分布结构决定着FDI技术外溢效应的大小,人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,越有利于FDI产生技术外溢效应。东道国人力资本积累与FDI技术外溢效应的产生是相辅相成的,辅之于东道国人力资本积累的FDI才能实现FDI技术外溢与东道国技术进步经济增长的良性循环。如果东道国人力资本匮乏,FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
论文在理论分析的基础上,运用中国省际层面的数据,对提出的理论论断进行了实证检验。首先,将中国分为东、中、西部三个区域,从人力资本存量、人力资本结构、人力资本投资三个方面角度进行比较,分析东、中、西部地区人力资本存在的差异,实证研究发现在三个区域中,东部人力资本状况最优,中部地区次之,西部最差,从而为验证三大区域在不同人力资本水平下的技术外溢是否存在差异打下铺垫;其次,在伯伦斯坦提出的人力资本与FDI技术外溢关系的拓展模型的基础上构建计量模型进行实证分析(运用全国层面各省、直辖市的面板数据验证人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定因素;运用东、中、西部区域层面包含的各省、直辖市的面板数据验证人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理的区域技术外溢效应越显著的理论论断)。具体来说,选取全国层面的数据对FDI独立项和FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应进行计量分析,此后,将中国分为东部、中部、西部三个经济区域分别利用东、中、西部所包含的各省份数据对人力资本与FDI相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应进行计量分析。比较分析实证结果:从全国层面数据计量结果看FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)条件下的技术外溢效应显著高于FDI为单独项的技术外溢效应,从而说明人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定性因素,FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)有利于其产生技术外溢效应。从区域层面回归结果看,东、中、西部地区技术外溢效应的确存在差异,而且东部地区技术外溢效应最为显著,中、西部地区依次递减,从而说明区域人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,外商直接投资的技术外溢效应越显著。
论文的创新点有三:
(1)已有的相关文献绝大多数仅对外商直接投资技外溢做实证研究,没有讨论人力资本在FDI技术外溢过程中的制约作用。论文通过理论分析指出人力资本在FDI技术外溢过程中的核心作用:人力资本通过影响跨国公司的投资决策和东道国的吸收能力而制约着FDI技术外溢效应的形成;人力资本是FDI技术外溢的重要渠道,外资企业通过提高东道国的劳动者的质量和数量而直接产生技术外溢,还通过培训东道国当地的供应商和经销商而产生间接技术外溢。此外论文借鉴Borensztein、Gregorio和Lee(1998)和KyoohongCho(2005)有关人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应的理论模型进行理论分析。在理论上阐明人力资本是外商直接投资技术外溢效应决定性因素,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济增长的关键,指出外商直接投资和东道国人力资本相结合有利于其产生技术外溢效应,人力资本在外商直接投资的技术外溢效应产生过程中起着核心作用。东道国的人力资本积累与FDI技术外溢效应的产生是相辅相成的,东道国人力资本存量越丰富、人力资本结构分布越合理FDI的技术外溢效应越显著,辅之于东道国人力资本积累的FDI才能实现FDI技术外溢与东道国技术进步经济增长的良性循环。如果东道国人力资本匮乏、分布结构不合理,那么FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
(2)实证分析比较中国东、中、西部人力资本状况,主要从人力资本存量(平均受教育程度)、人力资本结构(人力资本基尼系数)、人力资本投资(教育投资、健康医疗投资)三个角度,对东、中、西部地区人力资本状况进行系统的比较。阐明东部地区在人力资本存量、人力资本结构、人力资本投资这三个方面均是最优的,其次是中部地区,西部地区最差,并明确反映出三大经济区域的人力资本水平究竟在多大程度上存在差距。
(3)在KyoohongCho(2005)的模型(伯伦斯坦等人有关人力资本与FDI技术外溢效应关系模型的拓展)的基础上构建计量模型,对人力资本在技术外溢效应过程中的决定作用进行实证分析。运用全国层面的数据对FDI独立项和FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)项的技术外溢效应进行计量分析,此后,将中国分为东部、中部、西部三个经济区域,分别利用东、中、西部的区域层面的数据对FDI的技术外溢效应进行计量分析。全国层面数据计量结果看FDI与人力资本相结合(H*FDI)项的技术外溢效应显著高于FDI为单独项的技术外溢效应,从而有力的证明了人力资本是FDI技术外溢效应的决定性因素,是东道国能否利用FDI促进本国技术进步和经济增长的关键,FDI与人力资本相结合有利于其产生技术外溢效应,离开了东道国人力资本的配合FDI对东道国技术进步经济增长的促进作用是非常微弱的。从区域层面数据看,东、中、西部地区技术外溢效应的确存在差异,而且东部地区技术外溢效应最为显著,中、西部地区依次递减,从而说明人力资本存量越丰富、分布结构越合理,外商直接投资的技术外溢效应越显著。如果东道国人力资本匮乏,FDI将不能为其经济发展带来什么实质性的好处。
此外,论文考察了人力资本分布结构状况对FDI技术外溢效应的影响,指出人力资本分布结构越合理,越有利于FDI技术外溢效应的产生。并且还利用全国层面的数据,进一步分析了外商直接投资与哪一层次的人力资本相结合技术外溢效应更明显。发现外商直接投资更多的是和具有高等教育程度的人力资本相结合产生较为明显的外溢效应。
以上方面,对中国转变利用外商直接投资的思想,积极有效的利用外商直接投资,对如何使外资能更有效的促进中国技术进步,推动经济增长,具有重要的借鉴意义。
As economic activity acceleration of the globalization process, international capital flows are accelerating growth. Foreign direct investment substantial growth in the world socio-economic development has a great effect on the economy. Scholars from around the world have paid a great attention to it.
National economic scholars have done a great deal of study on FDI technology spillover effect. The objective existence in theory of the FDI technology spillover effects has been unanimously affirmed by the world economy scholars, but the empirical research findings of the countries differ widely. There are two generally positive conclusions: First, FDI flows to developed countries through the universal existence of the test technology spillover effects; second, the FDI flowing to developing countries is hardly to obtain consistency of the conclusions on the existence of the technology spillover effects. Theoretical and empirical results exists the "Law of the anti" phenomenon.
FDI technology spillover effect is different for two reasons: On the one hand, technology spillover is not automatically generated, a technology spillover need FDI host country with certain conditions. The purpose of foreign investors is profit, not in order to promote the technological progress of the host country, therefore, only when the host country have corresponding conditions FDI will produce technology spillover effects. On the other hand, the role of FDI in economic growth of the host country is in the final analysis different countries because of the differences in absorption capacity of the host country, the extent to which the host country can digest, the absorption of foreign capital technology spillover played a decisive role in FDI technology spillover effects.
Human capital is the core of absorptive capacity of the host country, so a lot of empirical research refers human capital to the absorption capacity, FDI inflows to bring the potential of the technology spillover. At the same time, the local human capital level is decisive to absorb the number of FDI and local enterprises can absorb the technology spillover from the multinational corporations. Human capital is an important channel for technology spillovers, the several ways of the technology spillovers: the effect of competition demonstration, the effect of the before and after links、the effect of the movement of persons, they are achieved through the absorption of human capital. Therefore we can say that human capital is the core elements of the host country absorption capacity.
Foreign direct investment as a major ways of the foreign investment into China, has played a pivotal role in the process of China's economic development. To fully understand the conditions of foreign direct investment technology spillover, and to improve the technology spillover effect of the foreign direct investment will add more effective force for China economic growth. However, the important role of the human capital in the process of the technology spillover has not caused enough concern and attention. The research on the human capital in determining of the absorption capacity of the technology spillovers is still in the initial stage, the existing research is generally as incidental research, there are still a lot of gaps and exploration space in the theoretical and empirical. Therefore, using FDI and economic growth theories on the basis of human capital in FDI technology spillover illustrates the role of human capital of the host country and FDI impact on economic growth and other issues, these will have long-term practical value for China fully utilizing FDI active role in promoting economic development
In the light of the important role of human capital in the course of FDI technology spillovers, the article do theoretical and empirical analysis on the technology spillover effect of FDI from the perspective of the human capital. The first is the theoretical analysis to illustrate the decisive factors of the human capital as FDI technology spillover effect. On the basis of theoretical analysis, the article do the empirical study on the difference of human capital (from the perspectives of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital) and FDI technology spillover effect in the eastern, central and western regions. Study found that in three regions the human capital is best in the east, followed by the central region, the West is worst. Then on the eastern, central and western regions of technology spillover effect size, empirical results show that the spillover effects of the three regional technical differences: the eastern region technology spillover effects are significant and the highest, then the value of the west is higher; Western technology spillover effects is negative. Human capital is the decisive factor in FDI spillover effects, the final conclusions are that eastern, central and western regions technology spillover effects are different, mainly due to differences in human capital.
In this paper, along such a major theme: the effect of human capital on FDI technology spillover - Comparing the eastern, central and western regions of human capital situation - Empirical analysis of China's eastern, central and western regions FDI technology spillover effect and comparison of the empirical results, pointing out the difference of human capital is the main reason of the difference of the technology spillover effects. The dissertation has three innovations:
Firstly, the existing FDI technology spillover literature only do empirical research, there is no detailed discussion of technical spillover theoretical framework. This article fromBorensztein、Gregorio&Lee (1998) and KyoohongCho (2005) model expounded that human capital is foreign direct investment technology spillover effect decisive factor in the theory, pointing out that only foreign direct investment combined with the human capital of the host country will have a technology spillover effect, the human capital in the process of the foreign direct investment technology spillover have played a central role, it is a decisive factor of foreign direct investment technology spillover effect.
Secondly, the empirical analysis of China's eastern, central and western compare the situation of human capital, mainly from the three perspectives of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital comparison. Set out in the eastern of the stock of human capital, the structure of human capital, and the investment of human capital in these three areas are the best, followed by the central region, the western region is worst.
Finally, in view of the adjacent space has a critical impact on technology spillovers of the FDI (Jaffe, 1986,1989), geographically adjacent do good to the flow of technology, the possibility of the foreign enterprises technical spillover with the distance reducing increase (Kui-yin Cheung, Ping Lin, 2004). In order to reflect the objective of foreign direct investment technology spillovers, in the text on the basis of theoretical analysis, using inter-provincial data, the provinces and municipalities of China will be divided into eastern, central and western regions, in the use of panel data, do empirical analysis foreign direct investment technology spillover effect to China. On the basement of the theoretical model that the human capital is the decisive factor in FDI technology spillover effects, test the technology spillover effect size of the integration of the human capital and FDI, human capital and domestic investment. Then, compare on the technical spillover effect differences of the eastern, central and western regions.
In addition, the paper uses of national-level data, further analysis of foreign direct investment technology spillover effects more obvious combine with which level of human capital. Found that foreign direct investment with a higher education degree generated more obvious spillover effects.
Above, there were not examined by our predecessors. It will help change the ideas of China's use of foreign direct investment, positive and effective. It has an important reference significance on how to make foreign investment more effectively promote China's technological progress, promote economic growth.
引文
1 参见国家统计局2007年统计公报。肖光恩、张正义,关系资产:FDI区位竞争新优势及其政策内含.经济学消息报,2008年1月4日第782期。
1 孙雅娜,外商直接投资、技术外溢与中国经济增长.辽宁大学博士论文,2005年,21-22页。
1 注:在文中,将重庆并入四川省,西藏由于外商直接投资数额非常小,在进行实证分析时将其排除在外。
2 OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Investment,Paris,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,1996,3~(rd) Edition:7-8.
1 IME Foreign Private in Developing Countries.Occasionapaper,1985,No.33 Washington.
2 《中国统计年鉴》2005年第18章,在主要统计指标的解释中给出了外商直接投资的定义。
3 Blomstrom and Kokko,Multinational Corporations and Spillovers[J].Journal of Economic Surveys,1998,8:247-277.
1 注:20世纪70年代以来诺贝尔经济学奖获得者:舒尔茨(Schultz)、贝克尔(Becker)库兹涅茨(Kuznets)、弗里德曼(Friedman)、索洛(Solow)、卢卡斯(Lucas)海克曼(Heckman)等就人力资本进行深入研究, 对于人力资本理论发展做出了巨大贡献,使其成为20世纪经济理论的重要组成部分。
1 美J西奥多·W·舒尔茨,《论人力资本投资》[M],北京:北京经济学院出版社,1990年,第3页。
2 西奥多·舒尔茨,《人力资本投资》,商务印书馆1990版。
3[美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨《人力资本投资:教育和研究的作用》,北京商务印书馆,1990年,第52-53页。
4[美]加里·贝克尔,《人力资本》,北京大学出版社1987年出版。
1 Lucas,On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J].Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,22:3-22.Grossman and Helpman,Comparative advantage and long-run growth[J].The American Economics Review,1990,VOL.80:796-815.
Romer,Endogenous technological change[J].Journal of Political Economy,1990,VOL.98:S71-S101.
1 Romer,Endogenous Technological Change[J].Journal of Political Economy,1990,98:S71-S107.
2 孙雅娜.外商直接投资、技术外溢与中国经济增长.辽宁大学博士学位论文,2005年第21-22页。
1 周剑.我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应研究.复旦大学博士论文,2005年,第33页。
2 Kokko.Technology,Market Characteristic,and Spillovers[J].Journal of Development Economics,1994,Vol.43:279-293.
Barro.and Salari-Martin.Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill,Cambridge.1995,MA.
3 Romer.Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,1986,VOL.94:1002-1037.
1 Cohen and Levinthal.Innovation and Learning:The two faces of R&D.Econ.J.,1989.99:569-596.
2 赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展.经济学动态.2003年第8期,75-79.
1 Cohen and Levinthai.Innovation and Learning:The two faces of R&D.Econ.J.,1989,99:569-596.
2 Dahlman and Nelson.Social absorption capability,national innovation systems and economic development.Social capability and long-term growth,Basingstoke,Macmillan Press,1995.
3 赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展[J].经济学动态,2003(8),75-79.
1 Romer,Endogenous Technological Change[J].Joumal of Political Economy,1990,98:S71-S107.Grossman and Elhanan Helpman.Innovation and Growth in the Global Economcy,1991,MIT Press,Cabridge.Barro andSalari-Martin.Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill.Cambridge.1995.MA.
2 模型的详细推导过程参见:Bonmsztein Gregorio and Lee,How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth[J]? Journal of International Economics,1998,45:115-135.
1 模型详细推导过程参见KYOOHONG CHO.Studies on Knowledge Spillovers,Trade,and Foreign Direct Investment—Theory and Empirics.Ph.D.Dissertation.University of Colorado,U.S.A,2005,9-55.
1 钱雪亚、章丽君、林浣.度量人力资本水平的三类方法[J].统计与决策,2003(10),9-10.
2 钱雪亚、章丽君、林浣.度量人力资本水平的三类方法[J].统计与决策,2003(10),9-10.
1 蔡昉、王德文、都阳.劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期,4-14页.
1 严善平.中国省际人口流动的机制研究[J].中国人口学,2007年第1期,71-78.
2 蔡昉、王德文、都阳.劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期,4-14页.
1 李秀梅,人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J].华中师范大学学报,2007年5月,第47-56页。本章所涉及到的人力资本受教育程度的分类和平均受教育年限计量方法均参考该文献。
1 李秀梅,人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J].华中师范大学学报,2007年5月,第47-56页。本章所涉及到的人力资本受教育程度的分类和平均受教育年限计量方法均参考该文献。
1 李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界.2006年第12期,第43页.
1 余长林.人力资本投资结构与经济增长——基于包含教育资本、健康资本的内生增长模型理论研究[J].财经研究[J],2006.第2卷第10期.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译.经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
2 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译.经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界.2006年第12期,第43页。
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中固社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 赵祥宇,人力资本区域非均衡运动与集聚机制研究.北京交通大学博士学位论文,2004,第46页.
1 政府教育支出的经费使用结构:教育财政支出中的教育事业费、各教育部门事业费中用于教育的支出、教 育基础设施建设投资三项之间的比例关系。政府教育支出的层次结构:教育财政支出中的各个级次教育(学前教育、初等教育、中等教育及高等教育)支出的比例关系。政府教育区域结构:相同级别的行政区域如各省区、地区及县区教育财政支出的比例关系。
1 蔡红英.农村义务教育经费政府分担机制研究[J].财政研究.2005,(3).15-17.
1 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
2 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
1 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
2 2002年10月5《中共中央、国务院关于进一步加强农村卫生工作的决定》.
[1] Adb.Key Indicators.Asian Development Bank[P]. Manila,2004.
[2] Aitken, and Harrison, Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence from Venezuela[J]. American Economic Review, 1999, 89: 605-618.
[3] Ameriya, and Takeshi, Introduction to Statistics and Econometrics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
[4] Baldwin, Toward,and Integrated Europe, Center for Economic Policy Research [P], London, 1993.
[5] Bajo-Rubio, Oscar and Maria Montero-Munoz. Foreign Direct Investment and Trade: A Causality Analysis[J]. Open Economic Review,2001,12:305-323.
[6] Barro, and Sala-i-Martin, Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, Cambridge,MA,1995.
[7] Becker, Murphy, and Tamura, Human capital, fertility, and economic growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, Vol.98(5): S12-S37.
[8] Benhabib, and Spiegel, The roles of human capital in economic development: evidence from aggregate cross-country data[J]. Journal of Mnonetary Economics 34,1994:143-173.
[9] Blomsterom, and Persson, Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency in an Undeveloped Economy: Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry[J]. World Development, 1983,Vol. 11:493-501.
[10] Blomstrom, and Kokko, Multinational Corporation and Spillover[J]. Journal of Economics Surveys,1998,8.247-277.
[11] Blomstrom, Magus, and Persson, Foreign Investment and Spillovers Efficiency in an Undeveloped Economy: Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry[J].World Development, 1983, Vol.11,493-501.
[12] Blomstrom, Magus, and Fredrik Sjoholm, Technology Transfer and Spillover: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter?[J].European Economic Review, 1999,43:915-923.
[13] Blomstrom, Lipsey, and Zejan, What Explains Developing Country Growth, NBER Working Paper, 1992, No.4132.
[14] Borensztein, Gregorio, and Lee, How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1998,45:115-135.
[15] Barro, and Salari-Martin, Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill,Cambridge.1995,MA.
[16] Baumol, Productibity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: What the Long Run Data Show[J]. American Economic Review, Dec. 1986, 1072-1085.
[17] Benhabib, and Spiegel, The roles of human capital in economic development:evidence from aggregate cross -country data. Journal of Monetary Economics[J], 1994,34:143-173.
[18]Bernstein, and Jeffery, and Theofanis,Mamuneas, R&D Depreciation, Stocks, User Costs and Productivity Growth for US Knowledge Intensive Industries. Paper presented at SSHRC International Conference on Index Number Theory and the Measurement of Prices and Productivity, 2004, July.
[19]Blomstrom, and Kokko, Ari, Human and Inward FDI.EIJS Working Paper Series with number 167 of The European Institute of Japanese Studies, 2003.
[20] Bin Xu, Multinational enterprise, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth [J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2000, Vol.60:477-493.
[21]Blomstrom, Akokko, and Zejan, Host Country Competition and Technology Transfer by Multinationals. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv,1994, Band 130:521-533.
[22]Branstetter, and Lee, Are Knowledge Spillovers Inernational or Intra-national in Scope? Microeconometric Evidence from the U.S. and Japan[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2001,53,53-79.
[23]Caves, SMultinational firms, competition and productivity in host-country markets[J]. Economic, 1974,41.176-193
[24]Cohen, and Levinthal, Innovation and Learning: The two faces of R&D[J]. Econ.J., 1989, 99: 569-596.
[25] Cohen, Foreign Finance and Economic Growth -An Empirical Analysis. Unpulished manuscript CEPREMAP, 1993.
[26] Chuang, and Yih-Chyi, Learning by Doing, Technology Gap, and Growth. International[J] Economic Review, 1995, 39:859-887.
[27]Chen, Multinational Corporations. Technology and Employment[J], Macmillan, London, 2005.
[28]Dahlman, and Nelson, Social absorption capability, national innovation systems and economic development. Social capability and long-term growth, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press, 1995.
[29]Mello, and Luiz, Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries and Growth: A Selective Survey. The Journal of Development Studies[J], 1997,34:1-34.
[30]Gregorio, Economic growth in Latin America[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 1992,Vol39:58-84.
[31]Dunning, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Workingham: AddisonWesley, 1993.
[32]Dunning, Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment[J], Transnational Corporations, 1994,3: 23-51.
[33]Eaton, and Kortum, International Patenting and Technology Diffusion. NBER Working Paper, Nov.1994,No.4931.
[34]Easterlhy, How much do distortions affect growth. Journal of Monetary Economics[J], 1993,Vol: 187-212 Abtract.
[35] Edwards, Capital Flows, Foreign Direct Investment, and Debt-Equity Swaps in Developing Countries NBER, Working Paper, 1990: No.3497.
[36] Engelbrecht, and Hans-Jurgen, International R&D Spillovers amongst OECD Economies. Applied Economics Letters, 1997,4:315-319.
[37] Ethier, National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, Jun. 1982,389-405.
[38] Fan, Rolf, Grosskopf, Marry Norris, and Zhongyang Zhang, Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Industrialized Countries[J]. American Economic Review, 1994,84: 66-83.
[39]Findlay, Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: A simple dynamic model [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1978,92:1-16.
[40] Gastil, Freedom in the World, Greenwood Press. Westport. CT,1987.
[41] Globerman, Foreign Direct Investment and 'Spillover' Efficiency Benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, V61.12:42-56.
[42] Grossman, and Helpman, Comparative advantage and long-run growth[J]. The American Economics Review, 1990, VOL. 80: 796-815.
[43] Grossman, and Helpman, Innovation and Growth in the Global Economcy, 1991, MIT Press, Cabridge.
[44] Graham, and Krugman, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States[J]. Institute for International Economics. Washington DC, 1991.
[45]Gershemberg, The Training and Spread of Managerial Know-how, a Comparative Analysis of Multinational and Other Finns in Kenya[J]. World Development, 1987,Vol. 12:42-56.
[46]Haddad, and Harrison, Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from panel data for Morocco[J]. Journal of Development Economics. 1993,42 .57-74.
[47] Haskel, Pereira, and Matthew, Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms?. National Bureau of Economic Research , Working Paper, 2004, No.8724.
[48] Hattori, and Sato, A Comparative Study of Development Meachanism in Korea and Taiwan: Inductory Analysis[J]. Developing Economies, 1997, 341-357.
[49]Henley, and Wilde, Foreign direct investment in China: recent trends and current policy issues [J]. The World Economy,1999,22(2):233-243
[50]Hsiao, Frank, and Hsiao, The Chaotic Attractor of Foreign Direct Investment—Why China? A Panel Analysis[J]. Journal of Asian Economics,2004,15:641-670.
[51]Hymer, The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment, MIT Press,1960.
[52]Juan, Location Choices Across the Value Chain: How Activity and Capability Influence Collocation. Management Science[J],2006,VOL 52: 1457-1471.
[53] Jovanovic, and Rob, Growth and diffusion of technology[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1989, Vol56:569-582 Full Text via CrossRef.
[54]Keller, Absorptive Capacity: on the Creation and Acquisition of Technology in Development[J]. Journal of Development, 1996,49:199-227.
[55] King, and Rob, Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993, Vol:108,717-738, Full Text Via CrossRef.
[56]KyoohongCho, Studies on Knowledge Spillovers, Trade, and Foreign Direct Investment —Theory and Empirics.Ph.D., Dissertation, 2005, 9-55.
[57]Koizumiand, Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Transfer and Domestic Employment Effects [J]. Journal of Development Economics. 1980,10,1-20.
[58]Kokko, Technology, Market Characteristic, and Spillovers[J].Journal of Development Economics, 1994,Vol. 43: 279-293.
[59]Kugler, The Sectoral Diffusion of Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment[P]. Mimgo, University of Southampton, 2001,8.
[60]Knack, and Keefer, Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures[J]. Economics and Politics, 1995,Vol.7:717-738.
[61] Levine, and Renelt, A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions[J]. The American Economic Review,1992, Vol.82, No.4:942-963.
[62] Liu Xiaohui, Peter, Sinclair. Relationship between Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment and Trade: Evidence from China[J].Applied Economics, 2002, 34:1433-1440.
[63]Lucas, Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries[J]. American Economic Review, 1990,80: 92-96.
[64]Lucas, On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1988 ,22:3-22.
[65] Blomstrom, and Kokko, Human and Inward FDI. EIJS Working Paper Series with number 167 of The European Institute of Japanese Studies,2003.
[66]Narula, and Matin, FDI spillovers, absorptive capacities and human capital development: evidence from Argentina[P].MERIT Research Memorandum series, 2003.
[67]Nelson, and Phelps, Investment in humans, technology diffusion, and economic growth[J]. American Economic Review,1966,Vol.56:69-75.
[68]Nelson, and Renelt, A sensitivity analysis of cross -country growth regressions[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:942-963.
[69]Narula, and Marin, Foreign direct investment spillovers, absorptive capacities and human capital development: Evidence from Argentina. Working Paper No.96,2004.
[70] Ramsey, A Mathematical Theory of Saving[J]. Economic Journal, Dec. 1928,543-559.
[71]Romer, Endogenous Technological Change[J] Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 98, S71-S107.
[72]Romer, Endogenous technological change[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 1990, VOL. 98, S71-S101
[73]Romer, Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, VOL.94:1002-1037.
[74] Segerstrom, Innovation, imitation, and economic growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1991, VOL.32: 807-827.
[75]SHymer, The International Operations of National Firms[P]. A Study of Direct Investment. Cambridge(1976),Mass:MIT Press.
[76]Solow,A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70:86-94.
[77]Solow,Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function[J].Review of Economics and Statistics,Aug.1957,312-320.
[78]Sjoholm,Technology Gap,Competition and Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment:Evidence from Establishment Data[J].Journal of Development Studies,1999a,Vol.36(1):53-73.
[79]Sjoholm,Productivity Growth in Indonesia:The Role of Regional Characteristics and Direct Foreign Investment[J].Economic Development and Cultural Change,1999b,Vol.47(3):559-584.
[80]Spence,Product Selection,Fixde Costs,and Monopolistic Competition[J].Review of Economic Studies,Jun.1976,217-235.
[81]Vandenberg,Economic Growth and Development,McGraw-Hill,Singapore,2001.
[82]Verspagen,Endogenous Innovation in Neo-Classical Growth Models:A Survey[J].Journal of Macroeconomics,1992,vol.14,no.4(Fall):631-662.
[83]Wang,and Blomstrom,Technology Transfer,and The long-run Theory of International Capital Movement[J].Journal of International Economies,1990,29:255-271.
[84]Young,The Razor's Edge:Distortions and Incremental Reform in the People's Republic of China[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,2000,(115):1091-1135.
[85]陈飞翔,王溪若,郭英.经济增长、外商直接投资与政府选择[J].财贸经济,2004(9).
[86]陈飞翔,郭英.关于人力资本和FDI技术外溢关系的文献综述[J].财贸研究,2005年01期.
[87]蔡昉、王德文、都阳,劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期.
[88]蔡红英.农村义务教育经费政府分担机制研究[J].财政研究.2005,(3).
[89]陈敏敏.跨国公司对东道国技术进步的反思[J].国际贸易问题,2000年第5期.陈炳才.外商直接投资与中国技术进步的关系[J].国际贸易问题,1998年第1期.
[90]陈柳,刘志彪.本土创新能力、FDI技术外溢与经济增长[J].南开经济研究,2006年第3期.
[91]陈涛涛.中国FDI行业内溢出效应的内在机制研究[J].世界经济,2001年第9期.
[92]杜兰英,周静.论跨国公司在发展中东道国的技术溢出效应[J].国际贸易问题,2002(7).
[93]代谦,别朝霞.FDI、人力资本积累与经济增长[J].经济研究,2006年第4期.
[94]韩福荣.三缺口模型:对双缺口模型的修正[J].当代经济科学,2005第5期.
[95]何洁.外商直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化[J].世界经济,2000,8,29-36.
[96]黄静.影响FDI技术外溢效果的因素分析——基于吸收能力的研究[J].世界经济研究,2006年第8期.
[97]贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议[J].清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6.
[98]胡立法.索洛剩余与外资对我国经济增长的技术贡献率[J].世界经济研究,2003(10).
[99]韩延春.金融发展与经济增长的内在机制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(1).
[100]韩燕.FDI对东道国外溢效应以及影响因素研究综述[J].产业经济研究,2004年第5期.
[101]蒋殿春.跨国公司与发展中东道国企业的技术创新博弈[J].世界经济.2001年第9期.
[102]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[J].南开经济研究.2004年第4期.
[103]江小涓.中国的外资经济—对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[104]廖楚晖.中国人力资本和物质资本的结构及政府教育投入[J].中国社会科学,2006年第1期.
[105]李福柱,人力资本结构与区域经济发展研究.东北师范大学博士论文,2006.
[106]隆国强.以竞争求技术—开放经济下技术进步的新战略[J].国际贸易,2000年第7期.
[107]李杰.中国人力资本投资的内生增长研究[J].世界经济,2001年第4期.
[108]赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展[J].经济学动态,2003年第8期.
[109]赖明勇、包群、杨小晓.我国外商直接投资吸收能力研究[J].南开经济研究,2002年第3期.
[110]赖明勇、张信、彭水军、包群.经济增长的源泉:人力资本、研究开发与技术外溢[J].中国社会科学,2005年第2期.
[111]李秀梅.人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J],华中师范大学学报,2007年5月.
[112]刘一鸣.外商直接投资的溢出效应研究[J].财经问题研究,2005(5).
[113]李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界,2006年第12期.
[114]林毅夫.经济学研究方法与中国经济科学发展[J].经济研究,2001.4.
[115][美]加里·贝克尔.人力资本[M].北京大学出版社1987年出版。
[116][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.论人力资本投资[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1990年,第3页。
[117][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.人力资本投资:教育和研究的作用[M].北京商务印书馆,1990年,第52-53页。
[118][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.人力资本投资[M].商务印书馆1990版。[116]
[119]潘文卿.外商直接投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应:基于面板数据的分析[J].世界经济,2003(6).
[120]秦小红.完善我国农村社会保障制度的思考.当代财经,2005年第9期.
[121]钱雪亚等.度量人力资本水平的三类统计方法[J].统计与决策,2003年第10期.
[122]秦孝忠.浅析外商对华直接投资技术外溢效应的特征[J].投资研究,1998(4).
[123]王飞.外商直接投资促进国内工业企业技术进步吗?[J].世界经济研究,2003年第4期.
[124]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影响[J].经济研究,2002年第2期.
[125]汪旭晖.外商对华直接投资的区位变迁及影响因素分析[J].国际贸易问题,2006年第4期.
[126]魏众、B.古斯塔夫森.中国居民医疗支出不公平性分析[J].经济研究,2005年第12期.
[127]王志乐.跨国公司投资对中国经济的正反两方面影响[J].管理世界,1997年第3期.
[128]王志鹏、李子奈.外商直接投资、外溢效应与内生经济增长[J].世界经济文汇,2004年第3期.
[129]徐杰.外商直接投资的区位分析[J].经济评论,2003年第4期.
[130]余长林.人力资本投资结构与经济增长——基于包含教育资本、健康资本的内生增长模型理论研究[J].财经研究,2006,第2卷第10期。
[131]杨蓉,赵曙东,刘正良.人力资本分布结构与FDI效应差异[J].经济学研究,2006年第1期.
[132]姚洋.非国有经济成分对我国工业企业技术效率的影响[J].经济研究,1998,12.
[133]杨晓东.外商直接投资的区位因素分析[J].财贸研究,2004.4.
[134]姚先国、赖普清.中国劳资关系的城乡户籍差异[J].经济研究,2004年第4期.
[135]张诚等.跨国公司的技术溢出效应及其制约因素[J].南开经济研究,2001年第3期.
[136]张帆,郑京平.跨国公司对中国经济结构和效率的影响[J].经济研究,1999年第1期.
[137]中国经济增长与宏观稳定课题组.增长失衡与政府责任[J].经济研究,2006年第10期.
[138]中共中央、国务院关于进一步加强农村卫生工作的决定,2002年10月5。
[139]赵江林.外资与人力资源开发:对中国经验的总结[J].经济研究,2004年第2期.
[140]赵晋平.中国的国际资本流入分析与展望[J].管理世界,1997年第3期.
[141]周剑.我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应研究.复旦大学博士论文,2005年.
[142]沈坤荣、耿强.外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长[J].中国社会科学,2001(5).
[143]沈坤荣、田源.人力资本与外商直接投资的区位选择[J].管理世界,2002年第11期.
[144]赵秋成.我国中西部地区人口素质与人力资本投资[J].管理世界,2000年第1期.
[145]张维迎.地区间竞争力与中国国有企业的民营化[J].经济研究,1998.12.
[146]邹薇、代谦.技术模仿、人力资本积累与经济赶超[J].中国社会科学,2003年第5期.
[147]赵祥宇.人力资本区域非均衡运动与集聚机制研究.北京交通大学博士论文,2004.
1 孙雅娜,外商直接投资、技术外溢与中国经济增长.辽宁大学博士论文,2005年,21-22页。
1 注:在文中,将重庆并入四川省,西藏由于外商直接投资数额非常小,在进行实证分析时将其排除在外。
2 OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Investment,Paris,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,1996,3~(rd) Edition:7-8.
1 IME Foreign Private in Developing Countries.Occasionapaper,1985,No.33 Washington.
2 《中国统计年鉴》2005年第18章,在主要统计指标的解释中给出了外商直接投资的定义。
3 Blomstrom and Kokko,Multinational Corporations and Spillovers[J].Journal of Economic Surveys,1998,8:247-277.
1 注:20世纪70年代以来诺贝尔经济学奖获得者:舒尔茨(Schultz)、贝克尔(Becker)库兹涅茨(Kuznets)、弗里德曼(Friedman)、索洛(Solow)、卢卡斯(Lucas)海克曼(Heckman)等就人力资本进行深入研究, 对于人力资本理论发展做出了巨大贡献,使其成为20世纪经济理论的重要组成部分。
1 美J西奥多·W·舒尔茨,《论人力资本投资》[M],北京:北京经济学院出版社,1990年,第3页。
2 西奥多·舒尔茨,《人力资本投资》,商务印书馆1990版。
3[美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨《人力资本投资:教育和研究的作用》,北京商务印书馆,1990年,第52-53页。
4[美]加里·贝克尔,《人力资本》,北京大学出版社1987年出版。
1 Lucas,On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J].Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,22:3-22.Grossman and Helpman,Comparative advantage and long-run growth[J].The American Economics Review,1990,VOL.80:796-815.
Romer,Endogenous technological change[J].Journal of Political Economy,1990,VOL.98:S71-S101.
1 Romer,Endogenous Technological Change[J].Journal of Political Economy,1990,98:S71-S107.
2 孙雅娜.外商直接投资、技术外溢与中国经济增长.辽宁大学博士学位论文,2005年第21-22页。
1 周剑.我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应研究.复旦大学博士论文,2005年,第33页。
2 Kokko.Technology,Market Characteristic,and Spillovers[J].Journal of Development Economics,1994,Vol.43:279-293.
Barro.and Salari-Martin.Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill,Cambridge.1995,MA.
3 Romer.Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,1986,VOL.94:1002-1037.
1 Cohen and Levinthal.Innovation and Learning:The two faces of R&D.Econ.J.,1989.99:569-596.
2 赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展.经济学动态.2003年第8期,75-79.
1 Cohen and Levinthai.Innovation and Learning:The two faces of R&D.Econ.J.,1989,99:569-596.
2 Dahlman and Nelson.Social absorption capability,national innovation systems and economic development.Social capability and long-term growth,Basingstoke,Macmillan Press,1995.
3 赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展[J].经济学动态,2003(8),75-79.
1 Romer,Endogenous Technological Change[J].Joumal of Political Economy,1990,98:S71-S107.Grossman and Elhanan Helpman.Innovation and Growth in the Global Economcy,1991,MIT Press,Cabridge.Barro andSalari-Martin.Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill.Cambridge.1995.MA.
2 模型的详细推导过程参见:Bonmsztein Gregorio and Lee,How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth[J]? Journal of International Economics,1998,45:115-135.
1 模型详细推导过程参见KYOOHONG CHO.Studies on Knowledge Spillovers,Trade,and Foreign Direct Investment—Theory and Empirics.Ph.D.Dissertation.University of Colorado,U.S.A,2005,9-55.
1 钱雪亚、章丽君、林浣.度量人力资本水平的三类方法[J].统计与决策,2003(10),9-10.
2 钱雪亚、章丽君、林浣.度量人力资本水平的三类方法[J].统计与决策,2003(10),9-10.
1 蔡昉、王德文、都阳.劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期,4-14页.
1 严善平.中国省际人口流动的机制研究[J].中国人口学,2007年第1期,71-78.
2 蔡昉、王德文、都阳.劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期,4-14页.
1 李秀梅,人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J].华中师范大学学报,2007年5月,第47-56页。本章所涉及到的人力资本受教育程度的分类和平均受教育年限计量方法均参考该文献。
1 李秀梅,人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J].华中师范大学学报,2007年5月,第47-56页。本章所涉及到的人力资本受教育程度的分类和平均受教育年限计量方法均参考该文献。
1 李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界.2006年第12期,第43页.
1 余长林.人力资本投资结构与经济增长——基于包含教育资本、健康资本的内生增长模型理论研究[J].财经研究[J],2006.第2卷第10期.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译.经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
2 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译.经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界.2006年第12期,第43页。
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 威廉H.格林(美)著,王明舰、王永宏等译,经济计量分析[M].中固社会科学出版社1998年版,第484页.
1 赵祥宇,人力资本区域非均衡运动与集聚机制研究.北京交通大学博士学位论文,2004,第46页.
1 政府教育支出的经费使用结构:教育财政支出中的教育事业费、各教育部门事业费中用于教育的支出、教 育基础设施建设投资三项之间的比例关系。政府教育支出的层次结构:教育财政支出中的各个级次教育(学前教育、初等教育、中等教育及高等教育)支出的比例关系。政府教育区域结构:相同级别的行政区域如各省区、地区及县区教育财政支出的比例关系。
1 蔡红英.农村义务教育经费政府分担机制研究[J].财政研究.2005,(3).15-17.
1 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
2 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
1 贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议.清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6:92-98.
2 2002年10月5《中共中央、国务院关于进一步加强农村卫生工作的决定》.
[1] Adb.Key Indicators.Asian Development Bank[P]. Manila,2004.
[2] Aitken, and Harrison, Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence from Venezuela[J]. American Economic Review, 1999, 89: 605-618.
[3] Ameriya, and Takeshi, Introduction to Statistics and Econometrics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
[4] Baldwin, Toward,and Integrated Europe, Center for Economic Policy Research [P], London, 1993.
[5] Bajo-Rubio, Oscar and Maria Montero-Munoz. Foreign Direct Investment and Trade: A Causality Analysis[J]. Open Economic Review,2001,12:305-323.
[6] Barro, and Sala-i-Martin, Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, Cambridge,MA,1995.
[7] Becker, Murphy, and Tamura, Human capital, fertility, and economic growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, Vol.98(5): S12-S37.
[8] Benhabib, and Spiegel, The roles of human capital in economic development: evidence from aggregate cross-country data[J]. Journal of Mnonetary Economics 34,1994:143-173.
[9] Blomsterom, and Persson, Foreign Direct Investment and Spillover Efficiency in an Undeveloped Economy: Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry[J]. World Development, 1983,Vol. 11:493-501.
[10] Blomstrom, and Kokko, Multinational Corporation and Spillover[J]. Journal of Economics Surveys,1998,8.247-277.
[11] Blomstrom, Magus, and Persson, Foreign Investment and Spillovers Efficiency in an Undeveloped Economy: Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry[J].World Development, 1983, Vol.11,493-501.
[12] Blomstrom, Magus, and Fredrik Sjoholm, Technology Transfer and Spillover: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter?[J].European Economic Review, 1999,43:915-923.
[13] Blomstrom, Lipsey, and Zejan, What Explains Developing Country Growth, NBER Working Paper, 1992, No.4132.
[14] Borensztein, Gregorio, and Lee, How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1998,45:115-135.
[15] Barro, and Salari-Martin, Economic Growth.MC Graw-Hill,Cambridge.1995,MA.
[16] Baumol, Productibity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: What the Long Run Data Show[J]. American Economic Review, Dec. 1986, 1072-1085.
[17] Benhabib, and Spiegel, The roles of human capital in economic development:evidence from aggregate cross -country data. Journal of Monetary Economics[J], 1994,34:143-173.
[18]Bernstein, and Jeffery, and Theofanis,Mamuneas, R&D Depreciation, Stocks, User Costs and Productivity Growth for US Knowledge Intensive Industries. Paper presented at SSHRC International Conference on Index Number Theory and the Measurement of Prices and Productivity, 2004, July.
[19]Blomstrom, and Kokko, Ari, Human and Inward FDI.EIJS Working Paper Series with number 167 of The European Institute of Japanese Studies, 2003.
[20] Bin Xu, Multinational enterprise, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth [J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2000, Vol.60:477-493.
[21]Blomstrom, Akokko, and Zejan, Host Country Competition and Technology Transfer by Multinationals. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv,1994, Band 130:521-533.
[22]Branstetter, and Lee, Are Knowledge Spillovers Inernational or Intra-national in Scope? Microeconometric Evidence from the U.S. and Japan[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2001,53,53-79.
[23]Caves, SMultinational firms, competition and productivity in host-country markets[J]. Economic, 1974,41.176-193
[24]Cohen, and Levinthal, Innovation and Learning: The two faces of R&D[J]. Econ.J., 1989, 99: 569-596.
[25] Cohen, Foreign Finance and Economic Growth -An Empirical Analysis. Unpulished manuscript CEPREMAP, 1993.
[26] Chuang, and Yih-Chyi, Learning by Doing, Technology Gap, and Growth. International[J] Economic Review, 1995, 39:859-887.
[27]Chen, Multinational Corporations. Technology and Employment[J], Macmillan, London, 2005.
[28]Dahlman, and Nelson, Social absorption capability, national innovation systems and economic development. Social capability and long-term growth, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press, 1995.
[29]Mello, and Luiz, Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries and Growth: A Selective Survey. The Journal of Development Studies[J], 1997,34:1-34.
[30]Gregorio, Economic growth in Latin America[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 1992,Vol39:58-84.
[31]Dunning, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Workingham: AddisonWesley, 1993.
[32]Dunning, Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment[J], Transnational Corporations, 1994,3: 23-51.
[33]Eaton, and Kortum, International Patenting and Technology Diffusion. NBER Working Paper, Nov.1994,No.4931.
[34]Easterlhy, How much do distortions affect growth. Journal of Monetary Economics[J], 1993,Vol: 187-212 Abtract.
[35] Edwards, Capital Flows, Foreign Direct Investment, and Debt-Equity Swaps in Developing Countries NBER, Working Paper, 1990: No.3497.
[36] Engelbrecht, and Hans-Jurgen, International R&D Spillovers amongst OECD Economies. Applied Economics Letters, 1997,4:315-319.
[37] Ethier, National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade[J]. American Economic Review, Jun. 1982,389-405.
[38] Fan, Rolf, Grosskopf, Marry Norris, and Zhongyang Zhang, Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Industrialized Countries[J]. American Economic Review, 1994,84: 66-83.
[39]Findlay, Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: A simple dynamic model [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1978,92:1-16.
[40] Gastil, Freedom in the World, Greenwood Press. Westport. CT,1987.
[41] Globerman, Foreign Direct Investment and 'Spillover' Efficiency Benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, V61.12:42-56.
[42] Grossman, and Helpman, Comparative advantage and long-run growth[J]. The American Economics Review, 1990, VOL. 80: 796-815.
[43] Grossman, and Helpman, Innovation and Growth in the Global Economcy, 1991, MIT Press, Cabridge.
[44] Graham, and Krugman, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States[J]. Institute for International Economics. Washington DC, 1991.
[45]Gershemberg, The Training and Spread of Managerial Know-how, a Comparative Analysis of Multinational and Other Finns in Kenya[J]. World Development, 1987,Vol. 12:42-56.
[46]Haddad, and Harrison, Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from panel data for Morocco[J]. Journal of Development Economics. 1993,42 .57-74.
[47] Haskel, Pereira, and Matthew, Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms?. National Bureau of Economic Research , Working Paper, 2004, No.8724.
[48] Hattori, and Sato, A Comparative Study of Development Meachanism in Korea and Taiwan: Inductory Analysis[J]. Developing Economies, 1997, 341-357.
[49]Henley, and Wilde, Foreign direct investment in China: recent trends and current policy issues [J]. The World Economy,1999,22(2):233-243
[50]Hsiao, Frank, and Hsiao, The Chaotic Attractor of Foreign Direct Investment—Why China? A Panel Analysis[J]. Journal of Asian Economics,2004,15:641-670.
[51]Hymer, The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment, MIT Press,1960.
[52]Juan, Location Choices Across the Value Chain: How Activity and Capability Influence Collocation. Management Science[J],2006,VOL 52: 1457-1471.
[53] Jovanovic, and Rob, Growth and diffusion of technology[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1989, Vol56:569-582 Full Text via CrossRef.
[54]Keller, Absorptive Capacity: on the Creation and Acquisition of Technology in Development[J]. Journal of Development, 1996,49:199-227.
[55] King, and Rob, Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993, Vol:108,717-738, Full Text Via CrossRef.
[56]KyoohongCho, Studies on Knowledge Spillovers, Trade, and Foreign Direct Investment —Theory and Empirics.Ph.D., Dissertation, 2005, 9-55.
[57]Koizumiand, Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Transfer and Domestic Employment Effects [J]. Journal of Development Economics. 1980,10,1-20.
[58]Kokko, Technology, Market Characteristic, and Spillovers[J].Journal of Development Economics, 1994,Vol. 43: 279-293.
[59]Kugler, The Sectoral Diffusion of Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment[P]. Mimgo, University of Southampton, 2001,8.
[60]Knack, and Keefer, Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures[J]. Economics and Politics, 1995,Vol.7:717-738.
[61] Levine, and Renelt, A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions[J]. The American Economic Review,1992, Vol.82, No.4:942-963.
[62] Liu Xiaohui, Peter, Sinclair. Relationship between Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment and Trade: Evidence from China[J].Applied Economics, 2002, 34:1433-1440.
[63]Lucas, Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries[J]. American Economic Review, 1990,80: 92-96.
[64]Lucas, On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1988 ,22:3-22.
[65] Blomstrom, and Kokko, Human and Inward FDI. EIJS Working Paper Series with number 167 of The European Institute of Japanese Studies,2003.
[66]Narula, and Matin, FDI spillovers, absorptive capacities and human capital development: evidence from Argentina[P].MERIT Research Memorandum series, 2003.
[67]Nelson, and Phelps, Investment in humans, technology diffusion, and economic growth[J]. American Economic Review,1966,Vol.56:69-75.
[68]Nelson, and Renelt, A sensitivity analysis of cross -country growth regressions[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:942-963.
[69]Narula, and Marin, Foreign direct investment spillovers, absorptive capacities and human capital development: Evidence from Argentina. Working Paper No.96,2004.
[70] Ramsey, A Mathematical Theory of Saving[J]. Economic Journal, Dec. 1928,543-559.
[71]Romer, Endogenous Technological Change[J] Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 98, S71-S107.
[72]Romer, Endogenous technological change[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 1990, VOL. 98, S71-S101
[73]Romer, Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, VOL.94:1002-1037.
[74] Segerstrom, Innovation, imitation, and economic growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1991, VOL.32: 807-827.
[75]SHymer, The International Operations of National Firms[P]. A Study of Direct Investment. Cambridge(1976),Mass:MIT Press.
[76]Solow,A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70:86-94.
[77]Solow,Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function[J].Review of Economics and Statistics,Aug.1957,312-320.
[78]Sjoholm,Technology Gap,Competition and Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment:Evidence from Establishment Data[J].Journal of Development Studies,1999a,Vol.36(1):53-73.
[79]Sjoholm,Productivity Growth in Indonesia:The Role of Regional Characteristics and Direct Foreign Investment[J].Economic Development and Cultural Change,1999b,Vol.47(3):559-584.
[80]Spence,Product Selection,Fixde Costs,and Monopolistic Competition[J].Review of Economic Studies,Jun.1976,217-235.
[81]Vandenberg,Economic Growth and Development,McGraw-Hill,Singapore,2001.
[82]Verspagen,Endogenous Innovation in Neo-Classical Growth Models:A Survey[J].Journal of Macroeconomics,1992,vol.14,no.4(Fall):631-662.
[83]Wang,and Blomstrom,Technology Transfer,and The long-run Theory of International Capital Movement[J].Journal of International Economies,1990,29:255-271.
[84]Young,The Razor's Edge:Distortions and Incremental Reform in the People's Republic of China[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,2000,(115):1091-1135.
[85]陈飞翔,王溪若,郭英.经济增长、外商直接投资与政府选择[J].财贸经济,2004(9).
[86]陈飞翔,郭英.关于人力资本和FDI技术外溢关系的文献综述[J].财贸研究,2005年01期.
[87]蔡昉、王德文、都阳,劳动力市场扭曲对区域差距的影响[J].中国社会科学,2001年第2期.
[88]蔡红英.农村义务教育经费政府分担机制研究[J].财政研究.2005,(3).
[89]陈敏敏.跨国公司对东道国技术进步的反思[J].国际贸易问题,2000年第5期.陈炳才.外商直接投资与中国技术进步的关系[J].国际贸易问题,1998年第1期.
[90]陈柳,刘志彪.本土创新能力、FDI技术外溢与经济增长[J].南开经济研究,2006年第3期.
[91]陈涛涛.中国FDI行业内溢出效应的内在机制研究[J].世界经济,2001年第9期.
[92]杜兰英,周静.论跨国公司在发展中东道国的技术溢出效应[J].国际贸易问题,2002(7).
[93]代谦,别朝霞.FDI、人力资本积累与经济增长[J].经济研究,2006年第4期.
[94]韩福荣.三缺口模型:对双缺口模型的修正[J].当代经济科学,2005第5期.
[95]何洁.外商直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化[J].世界经济,2000,8,29-36.
[96]黄静.影响FDI技术外溢效果的因素分析——基于吸收能力的研究[J].世界经济研究,2006年第8期.
[97]贺小飞,李守富.高等教育区域服务职能刍议[J].清华大学教育研究,2004年12月,Vol.25 No.6.
[98]胡立法.索洛剩余与外资对我国经济增长的技术贡献率[J].世界经济研究,2003(10).
[99]韩延春.金融发展与经济增长的内在机制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(1).
[100]韩燕.FDI对东道国外溢效应以及影响因素研究综述[J].产业经济研究,2004年第5期.
[101]蒋殿春.跨国公司与发展中东道国企业的技术创新博弈[J].世界经济.2001年第9期.
[102]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[J].南开经济研究.2004年第4期.
[103]江小涓.中国的外资经济—对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[104]廖楚晖.中国人力资本和物质资本的结构及政府教育投入[J].中国社会科学,2006年第1期.
[105]李福柱,人力资本结构与区域经济发展研究.东北师范大学博士论文,2006.
[106]隆国强.以竞争求技术—开放经济下技术进步的新战略[J].国际贸易,2000年第7期.
[107]李杰.中国人力资本投资的内生增长研究[J].世界经济,2001年第4期.
[108]赖明勇,包群.关于技术外溢与吸收能力的综述—外商直接投资研究新进展[J].经济学动态,2003年第8期.
[109]赖明勇、包群、杨小晓.我国外商直接投资吸收能力研究[J].南开经济研究,2002年第3期.
[110]赖明勇、张信、彭水军、包群.经济增长的源泉:人力资本、研究开发与技术外溢[J].中国社会科学,2005年第2期.
[111]李秀梅.人力资本、人力资本结构与区域协调发展[J],华中师范大学学报,2007年5月.
[112]刘一鸣.外商直接投资的溢出效应研究[J].财经问题研究,2005(5).
[113]李亚玲,汪戎.人力资本分布结构与区域经济差距[J].管理世界,2006年第12期.
[114]林毅夫.经济学研究方法与中国经济科学发展[J].经济研究,2001.4.
[115][美]加里·贝克尔.人力资本[M].北京大学出版社1987年出版。
[116][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.论人力资本投资[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1990年,第3页。
[117][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.人力资本投资:教育和研究的作用[M].北京商务印书馆,1990年,第52-53页。
[118][美]西奥多·W·舒尔茨.人力资本投资[M].商务印书馆1990版。[116]
[119]潘文卿.外商直接投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应:基于面板数据的分析[J].世界经济,2003(6).
[120]秦小红.完善我国农村社会保障制度的思考.当代财经,2005年第9期.
[121]钱雪亚等.度量人力资本水平的三类统计方法[J].统计与决策,2003年第10期.
[122]秦孝忠.浅析外商对华直接投资技术外溢效应的特征[J].投资研究,1998(4).
[123]王飞.外商直接投资促进国内工业企业技术进步吗?[J].世界经济研究,2003年第4期.
[124]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影响[J].经济研究,2002年第2期.
[125]汪旭晖.外商对华直接投资的区位变迁及影响因素分析[J].国际贸易问题,2006年第4期.
[126]魏众、B.古斯塔夫森.中国居民医疗支出不公平性分析[J].经济研究,2005年第12期.
[127]王志乐.跨国公司投资对中国经济的正反两方面影响[J].管理世界,1997年第3期.
[128]王志鹏、李子奈.外商直接投资、外溢效应与内生经济增长[J].世界经济文汇,2004年第3期.
[129]徐杰.外商直接投资的区位分析[J].经济评论,2003年第4期.
[130]余长林.人力资本投资结构与经济增长——基于包含教育资本、健康资本的内生增长模型理论研究[J].财经研究,2006,第2卷第10期。
[131]杨蓉,赵曙东,刘正良.人力资本分布结构与FDI效应差异[J].经济学研究,2006年第1期.
[132]姚洋.非国有经济成分对我国工业企业技术效率的影响[J].经济研究,1998,12.
[133]杨晓东.外商直接投资的区位因素分析[J].财贸研究,2004.4.
[134]姚先国、赖普清.中国劳资关系的城乡户籍差异[J].经济研究,2004年第4期.
[135]张诚等.跨国公司的技术溢出效应及其制约因素[J].南开经济研究,2001年第3期.
[136]张帆,郑京平.跨国公司对中国经济结构和效率的影响[J].经济研究,1999年第1期.
[137]中国经济增长与宏观稳定课题组.增长失衡与政府责任[J].经济研究,2006年第10期.
[138]中共中央、国务院关于进一步加强农村卫生工作的决定,2002年10月5。
[139]赵江林.外资与人力资源开发:对中国经验的总结[J].经济研究,2004年第2期.
[140]赵晋平.中国的国际资本流入分析与展望[J].管理世界,1997年第3期.
[141]周剑.我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应研究.复旦大学博士论文,2005年.
[142]沈坤荣、耿强.外商直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长[J].中国社会科学,2001(5).
[143]沈坤荣、田源.人力资本与外商直接投资的区位选择[J].管理世界,2002年第11期.
[144]赵秋成.我国中西部地区人口素质与人力资本投资[J].管理世界,2000年第1期.
[145]张维迎.地区间竞争力与中国国有企业的民营化[J].经济研究,1998.12.
[146]邹薇、代谦.技术模仿、人力资本积累与经济赶超[J].中国社会科学,2003年第5期.
[147]赵祥宇.人力资本区域非均衡运动与集聚机制研究.北京交通大学博士论文,2004.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |