2005 6 :1979 2004 3 ( 100872) :, 1979 2004, : (1) 1993,,1993,, 2000, ; (2) 1979 2004,, ; (3) :,,,, ( ),,,,,, ( ),, (Solow,1957),,, (1999),, (1993) 1952 1990,, 0102 %, 013 % (2000) 1953 1999,,1953 1978-0117 %,1979 1999 1146 %, 1419 %, (1999), (2003), 3 (04AJ Y006), (1999) (Hulten,2000) 51
: :1979 2004,,, 1979 2004, :,,,,, ;,, ( ) (growth accounting approach),,,, ( ) 1. (AIN) (arithmetic index number approach,ain) (Abramvitz,1956), P t, Q t, P t Q t K t, L t, r t, w t, r t K t + w t L t, : P t Q t = r t K t + w t L t (1), (1), (1) : P 0 Q t = TFP t [ r 0 K t + w 0 L t ] (2), r 0 w 0 P 0 TFP t, (2) : TFP t = P 0 Q t r 0 K t + w 0 L t (3) (3),,,,,,,,, (Caves,Christensen and Diewart,1982) 2. (SR) (Solow,1957),,,, : Y t = ( t) F( X t ) (4), Y t, X t = ( x 1 t,, x Nt ), x nt n ( t),, F ( ) 52
2005 6 (4) t, (4) :, n = 5 Y t x n, t 5 x n, t Y t gy t = g Y t N + n n = 1 gx n, t (5) : g = gy t N - Y t n n = 1 x n, t (5) gx n, t x n, t (6) (6), n, ( ) C - D : Y t = A K t L t, Y t,l t, K t, : L n ( Y t ) = L n ( A) + L n ( K t ) + L n ( L t ) + t (7) t, + = 1,, : L n ( Y t ΠL t ) = L n ( A) + L n ( K t ΠL t ) + t (8), OLS, : K t = I t ΠP t + (1 - t ) K t - 1 (9) K t t, K t - 1 t - 1, P t, I t t, t t, (7), (8),, (6), (Lucas, 1988) :,, ;,,,,, ( ),,, 1. (LV) (latent variable approach,lv),, (state space model),,, ADF (the Augmented Dickey2Fuller) JJ (Johanson and Juselius,1990), C - D,, : L n ( Y t ) = L n ( TFP t ) + L n ( K t ) + (1 - ) L n ( L t ) + t (10) (2003) (2001) 53
: :1979 2004, Ln ( TFP t ),, AR (1), : L n ( TFP t ) = L n ( TFP t - 1 ) + t (11),, < 1, t,, (10) (11),,,,,,, 2. (PO),,,,, (improvement in capacity realization) (potential output approach,po) (frontier production function), (Farrell,1957), ( ), ;, R y, t, R TP, t, CR t, R yx, t, R TFP, t, : R y, t = R TP, t + CR t + R yx, t (12), : R TFP, t = R TP, t + CR t (13) CR t,,, HP ( Hodrick2Prescott, 1990), (T ) : T T- 1 ( L ny t - L ny 3 t ) 2 + t = 1 t = 2 [ (Ln ( Y 3 t +1 - L ny 3 t ) - (LnY 3 t - L ny 3 t - 1) ] 2 (14) LnY t ( LnY 3 t ) ( LnY t - LnY 3 t ),,, R TP, (13), : (stochastic frontier analysis,sfa), Hildreth and Houck (1968) (random coefficient panel model),,,, ( Gong and Sickles,1992) (data envelopment analysis,dea),,,,, (2004a) 54
2005 6,,,,, 1979 2004, (2004) 2004 (2005) ( ), (9) 1978 2004 ( 1978 ), 1 (8), Wald + = 1 Wald Ln ( Y t ) = Ln ( A) + Ln ( K t ) + Ln ( L t ) + t OLS, Ln ( K t ) Ln (L t ), : P > 0105 5 %,, 1978 2004, (6) OLS, : F P + = 1 4116 01053 L n ( Y t ΠL t ) = - 018816 + 0. 6921 (49. 8,0. 000) L n ( K tπl t ) (15) Adj R2squared = 019796 DW = 1184,, = 016921, = 013079, (6), 1979 2004, 1 ( ), 1979 2004,,, ADF JJ, 1978 2004 LnY,ADF : ADF (99 %) (95 %) MacKinnon P Z ( t) - 21904-4138 - 316 011609 ADF = - 21904,, MacKinnon P ( ), : ADF (99 %) (95 %) MacKinnon P Z ( t) - 31066-3175 - 310 010052 ADF = - 31066, 95 %, 5 % I (1),ADF 1978 2004 LnK LnL I (1) (2004a), 55
: :1979 2004 1 (TFP) GDP ( ) ( ) ( ) ( %) TFP TFP TFP ( %) (SR, %) (LV, %) (PO, %) 1978 362411 40152 3837 21498 1979 38991531 41024 449311 11343-11155 - 4198 11309 01154 1980 42031956 42361 515217 01281-11063 - 31417 11007-01056 1981 44251026 43725 583515-31428 - 31708-41957 0189-21818 1982 48231677 45295 670014-41053 - 01625-21414 01988 01363 1983 53491172 46436 779411-3141 01643-1125 11213 11856 1984 6160197 48197 912319 0171 4112 2113 11155 51275 1985 69901889 49873 1089314 31296 21587-11106 11373 3196 1986 7610161 51282 1287719 1194-11356 - 41693 11339-01017 1987 84911267 52783 1488915 31352 11412-01207 11116 21528 1988 94481029 54334 1695715 41836 11484 01693 0197 21454 1989 98321183 55329 1843113-01128 - 41964-21549 01626-41338 1990 10209109 63909 1978316-51367 - 51239-51994 - 01704-51943 1991 11147173 64799 2142816-51912 - 01545 21975 01634 01089 1992 12735109 65554 2381318-21356 31556 61126 01902 41458 1993 14452191 66373 2706415 01287 21643 31593 11109 31752 1994 16283108 67199 3077019 21202 11915 21738 11113 31028 1995 17993166 67947 3471215 2143 01228 11237 11051 11279 1996 19718173 68850 3896618 21227-01204 0164 01983 01779 1997 21461192 69600 4354716 118-01426 01314 01963 01537 1998 23139188 69957 4891617 01863-01937 - 01932 11067 0113 1999 24792147 70586 5451812-01374 - 11237-11114 01955-01282 2000 26763198 71150 6040018-01663 - 0129 01187 01907 01617 2001 28717137 73025 6704419-11488 - 01825-1117 01752-01073 2002 31073103 73740 7496419-11497 - 01009-01329 01978 01969 2003 34070116 74432 8490211-0124 11257 0112 11105 21362 2004 37306183 75412 9558413 01851 11091 01329 11012 21103 LnY LnK LnL ( 95 % ) : R ( ) = 0 2 01581 21174 36134 2210 34191,,, 5 % LnY LnK LnL, LnY LnK LnL LnY LnK LnL, (10) 56
2005 6, ( Kalman Filter), (10) (11), : Wald ( P ) 01784 01075 41179 33912 (0100) 01216 01945 0135 Wald P = 01945, (10) (11), 1979 2004, 1 ( ) HP,, OECD, = 25 (14) 1978 2004, 1, (13), 1979 2004, 1, 1979 2004 ( ), 1, 1979 2004 1 1,,,, 1979 2004 (10),,, 57
: :1979 2004 :, ( :1984 51275 %,1987 21528 %,1992 41458 %) ;, ( :1981-21818 %, 1990-51943 %,1999-01282 %), (,2004b) 1, (1) 1993,,,1993, (1979 1984 ),,,, (2) 1993,, 2000,,1993, 1998,,,, 2000,,,,, 1979 2004-0154 %, 01954 % 01891 %,,, 1979 2004 01891 % ( ), 1979 2004 (10) : 9142 % 01954 %(10113 %) - 01063 %( - 0167 %) 81529 %(90154 %) :, 1979 2004 9146 %, 90154 %,, ;,, 01954 %, 10113 % ; - 01063 %,, - 0167 %,,,,, (2004) 20 90 58
2005 6 2 20 50 90 2 1951 1960 1961 1970 1971 1980 1981 1990 1991 1995 2161 % 2113 % 2162 %(3415 %) 2105 %(2516 %) 3188 % 2174 %(3111 %) 3135 %(4816 %) 4181 %(5612 %) 3122 % 2146 %(2612 %) 5101 %(5212 %) 3118 %(4214 %) 2180 %(2718 %) 2164 % 0158 %(1419 %) 0163 %(1716 %) - 0113 %( - 1012 %) 4143 %(64 %) 1153 % 0182 %(2916 %) 0171 %(3116 %) - 2105 %( - 114 %) 1152 %(42 %) 1178 % 0126 %(910 %) 0151 %(1618 %) 0153 %(2618 %) : Mercer2Melbourne Institute,1997 2, 1961 1995 ; 20 70,,, ;,, ;,,, 1979 2004,,,, 1. 1979 1993,, ;1993,, 2000,, 2. 1979 2004 01891 %, 9146 %, ( 10113 %),, ( - 0167 %), 90154 %,, 3.,,,,,,,, ;,,,, 59
: :1979 2004,1999 :,,,2004a :, 5,2004b : :, 7,1999 :,,2003 :,,2004 :, (3 26 ),1993 :,,2000 :, 7,2003 :, 8,1999 :, 5,2001 : :,, Abramvitz,M.,1956, Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870, American Economic Review 46 Caves,D. W.,Christensen,L. R.,and W. E. Diewart,1982, The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and Measurement of Input,Output and Productivity, Econometrica 50. Everaert,L.,and F. N. D. Simone,2003, Capital Operating Time and Total Factor Productivity Growth in France,IMF Working Paper 128. Farrell,M.J.,1957, Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,Part3,Serial A. Gong,B. H.,and R. C. Sickles,1992, Finite Sample Evidence on the Performance of Stochastic Frontiers and Data Envelopment Analysis Using Panel Data, Journal of Econometrics 51. Hildreth,C.,and J. P. Houck,1968, Some Estimators for a Model with Random Coefficients, Journal of American Statistical Association 63. Hulten,C. R.,2000, Total Factor Productivity : A Short Biography,NBER Working Paper 7471. Johansen,S. and K. Juselius,1990, Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration With Applications to the Demand for Money,Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52. Lucas,R. E.,1988, On the Mechanics of Development Planning, Journal of Monetary Economics 22. Salim,R. A.,1999, Capacity Realization and Productivity Growth in a Developing Country : Has Economic Reform Had Impact? Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Solow,R. M.,1957, Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function, Review of Economics and Statistics 39. Estimating Total Factor Productivity in China Guo Qingwang &Jia J unxue (China Financial Policy Research Center ;Renmin University of China) Abstract :After comparing four methods of estimating total factor productivity,this paper estimates total factor productivity growth rate and analyses total factor productivity growth and sources of economic growth for the period from 1979 to 2004 in China. The main conclusions are as follows : (1) total factor productivity growth rate presented fluctuant character and fluctuated markedly and frequently before 1993,but declined steadily after 1993 and presented some appearances of turnover in 2000. (2) Total factor productivity growth rate and itπs contribution of economic growth was lower which suggested that economic growth was input2driven growth for the period from 1979 to 2004 in China. (3) The reason why total factor productivity growth rate was lower lied on lower technological progress rate,technical inefficiency and unreasonable resource allocation. Key Words :Total Factor Productivity ; Solowπs Residual Method ; Latent Variable Method ; Potential Output Method JEL Classification :C490,O470 ( : ) ( : ) 60