服务贸易开放、研发投入结构错配与工业绿色全要素生产率

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文研究了服务贸易开放影响工业绿色全要素生产率的阻滞和疏通机制。结果显示：在工业全行业层面，研发投入的技术促进传导机制存在阻滞，提升研发人员和研发经费投入的匹配度可以疏通这种阻滞的机制。分行业层面，在清洁行业和低技术密集型行业，研发投入的技术促进传导机制存在阻滞，可以通过提升研发投入匹配度来疏通阻滞的机制。但是在高技术密集型行业，通过提升研发投入匹配度带来的疏通作用不大。在高度污染行业，这种传导机制并没有受阻，相对比较通畅。

关键词: 服务贸易开放, 索洛悖论, 研发投入匹配, 绿色全要素生产率

Abstract: How to realize industrial transformation and improve total factor productivity is one of the major problems of high-quality economic development. Given that most manufacturing industries rely on service inputs, many scholars have begun to focus on how to improve the industrial productivity by promoting the service trade opening-up. Some researchers believe that service liberalization can improve enterprise productivity, but others believe that service liberalization can inhibit enterprise productivity. The main reasons for such beliefs are as follows: the first one is the lack of close links between the service and the industry, so is within the service; the second one is China′s technology-intensive service sector lags behind labor-intensive service sector; and the third one is the different service trade models have different effects on the efficiency of different types of industrial production. The existence of industrial heterogeneity means that the influence of the service trade opening-up to promote the improvement of industrial productivity also has different mechanisms. Once some channels are blocked, it may affect the technology promotion effect of the service. The crux of the problem is to find the channels which unblock the blocking mechanism. Some studies have found that there is a "Solow paradox" in R&D investment. The "Solow paradox" means that with the increase in R&D investment, the enterprise productivity will not rise, but continue to fall. The explanation for the "Solow paradox" of R&D investment mainly includes the moderation theory of R&D investment, the lag effect of R&D investment and the mismatch of R&D investment structure. The "Solow paradox" of R&D investment has become an entry point to study the influence of the service trade opening-up on the industrial productivity.
Based on the panel data of twenty-three industries in China from the year of 2003 to 2014, this paper theoretically builds transmission and unblocking mechanism models of the service trade opening-up affecting the industrial green total factor productivity (GTFP), and uses both the mediating effect model and the moderating effect model for empirical analysis. Mediating effect model are often used to analyze the influence channels and action mechanisms of one variable on another variable. This is not possible with regression analysis, so more in-depth mechanism analysis can be performed. This article assumes that service trade opening affects industrial GTFP by affecting technological progress, and uses a mediating effect model to test the transmission mechanism of service industry opening through technology promotion effects to affect industrial GTFP. In addition, using the matching degree of R&D personnel and R&D expenditure as a variable to test whether the blocking conduction mechanism can be corrected by improving the matching degree of R&D investment.
From the perspective of matching R&D investment, the paper tests the unblocking paths of service trade opening-up affecting the improvement of industrial GTFP, and compares the difference of unblocking effect in different industries. Specifically, on the one hand, the industrial GTFP is measured and compared with traditional total factor productivity. The result shows the industrial GTFP is lower than TFP, which means that there is still much room for industrial green transformation in China. On the other hand, from the three levels of all-industry, technology-intensive differences and differences in pollution levels, the mediating effects of the service trade opening-up through technology promotion effect on industrial GTFP are tested and compared. Then, by introducing the interaction term of service trade opening-up and R&D investment matching, the moderation effect model is used to test how to unblock the blocked technology promotion transmission mechanism, and compare the differences of the unblocking effects of different industrial types.
The main conclusions obtained in this paper are as follows: firstly, based on the all-industry level, the impact of service trade opening-up on industrial GTFP is not obvious, mainly because R&D investment has a "hiding effect", and the indirect path of service trade opening-up affecting industrial GTFP through technology promotion effect weakens the direct effect of the service trade opening-up on the industrial GTFP, resulting in the transmission mechanism of the technology promotion effect of the service trade opening-up on industrial GTFP is blocked. Secondly, in low-tech-intensive and high-tech-intensive industries, the mediating effect of service trade opening-up that improves industrial GTFP through technology promotion effect is not obvious, indicating that the mechanism of service trade opening-up improving industrial GTFP through technology effect is blocked. In low-tech-intensive industries, the blocked technology promotion transmission mechanism can be corrected by increasing the adaptation degree of R&D funding and R&D personnel investment; in high-tech-intensive industries, the effect of correcting the blocked technology promotion transmission mechanism by increasing the adaptation degree of R&D funding and R&D personnel investment is limited. Thirdly, in the clean industries, the mediating effect of the service trade opening-up promoting industrial GTFP is negative and significant, not significant in moderately polluting industries, and positively significant in highly polluting industries. This shows that in the two industries, the environmental regulations are relatively loose, the "innovation compensation effect" is not easy to play, and it is difficult to guide the R&D investment towards clean or green technology development. The transmission mechanism of the service trade opening-up promoting the industrial GTFP through technology effect is blocked and can be corrected by increasing the adaptation degree between R&D funding and R&D personnel. In highly polluting industries, due to strong environmental regulations, the mechanism of the service trade opening-up affecting industrial GTFP through technology promotion effect is relatively smooth.
Based on the above conclusions, the policy recommendations of this article are as follows: Firstly, we must incorporate environmentally friendly features into the connotation of industrial transformation and upgrading, taking GTFP as the main goal of high-quality economic development, and pay special attention to green technological progress for the development. Secondly, the appropriate matching of R&D funding and R&D personnel can correct the blocked conduction mechanism to a certain extent, but in different industries, the effect of correction is also different. Therefore, it must be treated differently according to different industries.

Key words: service trade opening-up, Solow paradox, R&D input match, green total factor productivity (GTFP)

梁会君. 服务贸易开放、研发投入结构错配与工业绿色全要素生产率[J]. 科研管理, 2022, 43(8): 48-54.

Liang Huijun. Service trade opening-up, R&D input structure mismatch and industrial green total factor productivity[J]. Science Research Management, 2022, 43(8): 48-54.

参考文献

[1] Grossman G M,Helpman E.Innovation and growth in the global economy[M]. Cambridge,MA: The MIT press,1991.
[2] Hummels,D.,Ishii, J.,&Yi,K.M.The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in Word Trade[J].Journal of International Economics,2001,54(1):75-96
[3] Pavcnik N.Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: evidence from Chilean plants[J].The Ｒeview of Economic Studies, 2002,69(1) : 245- 276．
[4] Fernandes A M. Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries[J].Journal of InternationalEconomics,2007,71(1): 52-71.
[5] Amiti M,Konings J. Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs,and productivity:evidence from Indonesia[J]. The American Economic Review,2007, 97(5): 1611-1638．
[6]Fernandes A M, Paunov C. Foreign direct investment in services and manufacturing productivity:Evidence for Chile[J].Journal of Development Economics, 2008,97(4730):305-321.
[7] Francois J, J Woerz. Producer Services, Manufacturing linkages, and Trade[J].J Ind Compet Trade,2008(8):199-229.
[8] Melitz M J, Ottaviano G. Market size, trade, and productivity[J].The Review of Economic Studies,2008,75(1):295-316．
[9]Arnold J M, Mattoo A, Narciso G. Services Inputs and Firm Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa;Evidence from Firm-Level Data[J].Journal of African Econimics,2008,17(4):578-599.
[10] Amiti M, Wei S. Service offshoring, Productivity, and Employment: Evidence from the United States[J].The world Economy,2009,32(2):203-220.
[11] Godberg P K, Khandelwal A K, Pavcnik N,et al. Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth:evidence from India[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,2010, 125(4):1727-1767．
[12] Arnold J M, Javorcik B S, Mattoo A. The productivity Effects of Services Liberalization; Evidence from the Czech Republic[J].Journal of International Economics,2011,85(1):136-146.
[13] Yu M, Li J. Imported intermediate inputs, firm productivity and product complexity[J].The Japanese Economic Review,2014,65(2):178-192．
[14] Arnold J M, Javorcik B, Lipscomb M, et al. Services reform and manufacturing performance: evidence from India[J].The Economic Journal,2015,126(590):1-39．
[15] Halpern L, Koren M, Szeidl A. Imported Inputs and Productivity[J].American Economic Review,2015,105(12):3660-3703.
[16] Shepotyloo, Vakhitov V. Services liberalization and productivity of manufacturing firms
[J].Economics of Transition,2015,23(1):1-44．
[17] 刘志彪.发展现代生产者服务业与调整优化制造业结构[J].南京大学学报(哲学?人文科学?社会科学版),2006(5):36-44.
[18] 冯泰文.生产性服务业的发展对制造业效率的影响交易成本和制造成本为中介[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2009(3):56-65.
[19] 余淼杰.中国的贸易自由化与制造业企业生产率[J].经济研究,2010,45(12):97-110.
[20] 张艳,唐宜红,周默涵.服务贸易自由化是否提高了制造业企业生产效率[J].世界经济, 2013(11):51-71．
[21] 陈启斐,刘志彪.生产性服务进口对我国制造业技术进步的实证分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2014(3):74-88．
[22] 毛其淋,许家云.中间品贸易自由化的生产率效应——以中国加入WTO为背景的经验研究[J].财经研究,2015(4):42-53.
[23] 沈鸿,顾乃华.服务贸易开放能否提高制造业生产率[J].经济与管理研究,2017,38(3): 72-81.
[24] 魏作磊,刘海红.服务业FDI提升了我国制造业的生产效率吗[J].财经理论研究,2017(3): 62-71.
[25] Cantwell J,Bellak C. How important is foreign direct investment?[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics,1998,60(1):99-106．
[26] Abraham F,Konings J,Slootmaekers V. FDI spillovers in the Chinese manufacturing sector[J]. Economics of Transition,2010,18(1):143-182.
[27] 涂正革.环境、资源与工业增长的协调性[J].经济研究,2008(2):93-105.
[28] 牛卫平.国际外包陷阱产生机理及其跨越研究[J].中国工业经济,2012(5):109-121.
[29] 宋丽丽等.多边服务贸易自由化促进了生产率提升吗?——基于中国工业行业数据的检验[J].世界经济研究,2014(9):49-56.
[30] 王恕立,王许亮.服务业FDI提高了绿色全要素生产率吗——基于中国省际面板数据的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题,2017(12):83-93.
[31] 赵玉娟,王光伟.服务业FDI、制造业FDI的技术进步效应比较研究[J].统计与决策,2012
(4):143-146.
[32]Fernandes A.Firm Productivity in Bangladesh Manufacturing Industries[J].World Development,
2008,36,(10):1725-1744.
[33] 冯根福,刘军虎,徐志霖.中国工业部门研发效率及其影响因素实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2006,(11)：46-51.
[34] 李小平.自主R&D、技术引进和生产率增长——对中国分行业大中型工业企业的实证研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2007, (7):15-24.
[35] 张同斌.研发投入的非对称效应、技术收敛与生产率增长悖论——以中国高技术创业为例[J].经济管理,2014,(6):131-141.
[36] 宗庆庆,周亚虹.内生情形下企业研发对生产率作用评估[J].世界经济文汇,2013,(12):38-54.
[37] 张同斌,李金凯，高铁梅.技术差距变动、研发资源驱动与技术进步效应[J].中国人口资源与环境,2016,(1):131-139.
[38] 李静,楠玉,刘霞辉.中国研发投入的“索洛悖论”——解释及人力资本匹配含义[J].经济学家,2017,(1):31-38.