|
|
|
| A Comparative Research on the Effect of Product Features on the Industrial Upgrade between USA and China |
| Zhang Ting1,Liu Linqing2 |
| (1.Management School of Xi'an Jiaotong University,Xi'an 710049,China; 2.Institute for Strategic Business Management,Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract with the economic development of China, how to adjust the industrial structure and digest the overcapacity has become a heated topic for scholars.As the supply side structural reforms have been put forward, more and more attention has been taken on them.Based on the product space theory, we focus on the dual effect of product features on the industrial upgrade between China and America and test the relationship between RCA and density, as well as the relationship between RCA and product complexity index(PCI) by using the global product trade database to explore the dual effect of product features on the industrial upgrade.The empirical research shows that China have more revealed competitive products with low PCI, which inhibits the development of industrial upgrade.Conversely, the industrial structure of America is of more competitive products with high PCI, which promotes the industrial upgrade in a comparativeadvantagedefying way.What's more, the dual effect of product feature varies in different industries in different countries, including the direction and the power of the effect.Further, we analyze the difference of the dual effect of product features in two stages: before the opening and reform and after the opening and reform.There is no doubt that China have more paths to get industrial upgrade with the increasing of production factor endowments and the PCI is bigger.While it’s not enough at all.Because the path of upgrading is comparativeadvantagefollowing strategies, and the low CPI also inhibits the upgrading of the industrial structure.Therefore, China should develop more powerful industries to increase the production factor endowments and the PCI to gain more upgrading abilities in the future.
|
|
Received: 22 November 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]吴敬链，等.供给侧改革—经济转型重塑中国布局[M].北京：中国文史出版社,2016.
[2] AGHION P,HOWITT P.A model of growth through creative destruction[J].Econometrica,1992,60(2):323-351.
[3] GROSSMAN G M, HELPMAN E. Quality ladders and product cycles[M].National Bureau of Economic Research,Inc,1991.
[4] 易信,刘凤良.金融发展、技术创新与产业结构转型——多部门内生增长理论分析框架[J].管理世界,2015(10):24-39.
[5] HAUSMANN R,HWANG J,RODRIK D.What you export matters[J].Journal of economic growth,2007,12(1):1-25.
[6] HIDALGO C A,KLINGER B,BARABSI A L,et al.The product space conditions the development of nations[J].Science,2007,317(5837):482-487.
[7] 邓向荣,曹红.产业升级路径选择:遵循抑或偏离比较优势 ——基于产品空间结构的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2016(2):52-67.
[8] 张亭,刘林青.产品复杂性水平对中日产业升级影响的比较研究——基于产品空间理论的实证分析[J].经济管理,2017(5):115-129.
[9] 张耀辉.产业创新:新经济下的产业升级模式[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2002,19(1):14-17.
[10]李伟庆,聂献忠.产业升级与自主创新:机理分析与实证研究[J].科学学研究,2015,33(7):1008-1016.
[11] 路风.产业升级与中国经济发展的政策选择[J].文化纵横,2016(4):60-68.
[12] 林毅夫.新结构经济学——重构发展经济学的框架[J].经济学：季刊,2011,10(1):1-32.
[13] 林毅夫.新结构经济学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2014.
[14] HIDALGO C A,HAUSMANN R.The building blocks of economic complexity[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2009,106(26):10570-10575.
[15] HAUSMANN R, HIDALGO C. Country diversification, product ubiquity,and economic divergence[J].Ssrn Electronic Journal,2011,69(35):78-81.
[16] HAUSMANN,HIDALGO， et al.The atlas of economic complexity:mapping paths to prosperity[M].MIT Press (MA),2011
[17] 张亭,刘林青.中美产业升级路径选择比较研究—基于产品空间理论的分析[J].经济管理,2016(8):18-28.
[18] 张亭,刘林青.中美知识密集型产业发展形态与路径选择的比较研究——基于产品空间理论的实证分析[J].宏观质量研究,2018(1):95-108.
[19] KETELS C.Michael Porter's competitive framework:recent learnings and new research priorities[J].Journal of industrial trade and competitive,2006(6):63-66.
[20] KETELS C.Export competitiveness:reversing the logic [J].Harvard Business Review,2010（6）.
[21] PETERSEN M A.Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets[J].Review of Financial Studies,2009,22(1):435-480.
|
|
|
|
