中国全要素生产率估算与分析Measurement and Analysis of TFP in China

郑京海哥德堡大学经济系（瑞典）

Jinghai Zheng Department of Economics

Gothenburg UniversitySweden

内容提要

1. 生产率概念的由来2. 全要素生产率的估算与拆分3. 全要素生产率与企业改革4. 全要素生产率与可持续经济增长5. 中国省际全要素生产率增长变化的实证分析6. 前苏联和亚洲四小龙的案例7. 影响全要素生产率增长的因素8. 中国经济增长模式的转变

一、生产率概念的由来 : (1) 投入产出率

Total factor productivity is the average product of all inputs, it is the ratio of the output to an index of inputs. Let the index of inputs be denoted as X. Then total factor productivity (TFP) is

TFP=y/X

Differentiating both sides logarithmically with respect to time gives

Xydt

Xd

dt

yd lnlnTFP

以成本份额加权平均If define

Notice

CRSunder ),(TTFP

)/(ln

TFP

tx

xcxwdt

yd

jjjj

以成本在产值中的比重加权： Divisia index

(2) 生产函数与技术进步A stable relationship between output, inputs, and time exists:

Rate of technical change is defined as:

different. bemay and

input theof components theand forms functional

same thebenot need ),( and ),( where

t

T

TTtt

X

X

TXftXf

Divisia indexes and rate of technical change

Total differentiation of

with respect to time yields

Dividing through by y gives

Under profit maximization, output elassticity equals inputShares in total revenue:

or

Divisia input index

应用实例：技术进步与总量生产函数 (Solow, 1957)

增长核算公式

Technical change is a shift in the production function

(3) 管理（技术）效率与全要素生产率

Farrell (1957) 技术效率度量一般化的 Farrell 技术效率度量 (Førsund & Hjalmarsson, 1979)数据包络分析 (DEA) 模型 CCR 模型 （ Charnes, Cooper, &

Rhodes, 1978 ） BCC 模型（ Banker, Charnes, &

Cooper, 1984 ） ADD 模型 （ Charnes, et al, 1985 ）

DEA 模型与回归模型的比较

The CCR ratio model (input oriented, 1978)

The linear transformation of the CCR ratio

for a representativesolution

The dual to the linear transformation

Envelopment surface for the input-oriented CCR model

The Output-Oriented CCR model

Suporting hyperplane for the output-oriented CCR model

Restrictions on parameters in DEA

CRS: no restrictionsVRS:

Nonincreasing returns to scale (NIRS):

CRS, NIRS, and VRS

General statistics about the DEA bibliography database (Tavaresa, 2002).

DEA publications number by type.

DEA publications number by year

Author statistics

二、全要素生产率的估算与拆分

增长核算法 (Devisia Index)生产函数估算法 平均生产函数法（技术进步） 前沿生产函数法（技术效率）Malmquist 指数法拆分 (panel data) 技术进步 技术效率改善 规模效率变化

技术效率、距离函数、 DEA 、和Malmquist 生产率指数之间的关系Technical efficiency (Farrell, 1957)Technical progress (Sollow, 1957)Distance function (Shephard, 1970)DEA (Charnes, Cooper, & Rhodes, 1978).TFP decomposition (Nishimizu & Page, 1982)Malmquist index (Caves, et. al, 1982)Malmquist TFP index decomposition (Färe et al, 1994)

Technical Efficiency

(1957)

Technical Progress(1957)

Distance Function(1970)

DEA(1978)

TörnqvistIndex(1976)

Geometric Mean of Malmquist

Indexes (1982)

MalmquistIndex(1982)

TFP Decomposition

(1982)

Malmquist TFPIndex decomposition

(1992,1994)

Devisia indexFarrell measure

Shephard

CCR

Diewert

CCD

Nishimizu & Page

Färe et al(FGNZ)

CCDPanel data

Stochastic frontier

Deterministicparametric frontier

Timetrend

a road map

Malmquist 生产率指数的定义

Malmquist 生产率指数的拆分

The Malmquist output-based index of total factor productivity and output distance functions

生产率拆分的几何意义

经验估算的实施（线性规划）模型 1

经验估算的实施（线性规划）模型 2

三、全要素生产率与企业改革（ Zheng, Liu, & Bigsten, 2003)

六百多家国有企业（ 1980-1994 ）采用 Malmquist 指数法拆分生产率样本企业的技术效率普遍较低（ 50-70% ）尽管生产率增长显著，但以技术进步为主大型国企技术进步率明显高于其他企业最佳实践企业多位于沿海地区工资激励和职工学历对生产率有促进作用

Model Selection Process

A vera ge fu n ction

P a ra m e tric

C R S V R S

N o n -p ara m e tric

D e te rm in is tic S to cha s tic

F ro n tie r fun c tion

P ro du c tio n fu nc tion C o s t/p ro fit fu nc tion

A p p lied P rod u c tio n A na lys is

Determinants of technical efficiency and best practice (Zheng, Liu, & Bigsten, 2003)

Determinants of productivity growth, efficiency change, and technical progress

Probability of productivity growth, efficiency change, and technical progress

四、全要素生产率与可持续经济增长Solow 增长模型显示在推动人均 GDP 增长的两个要素，资本和生产率之间，资本驱动型的增长是不可持续的。也就是说，在资本劳动比达到一定水平后，人均 GDP 的增长会出现停滞。尽管进一步增加储蓄率可以打破这一停滞，但经过一个时期后仍会在另一个人均 GDP 水平上出现新的停滞。这是由于在此类模型中人们通常假定资本的边际产出率递减。更为主要的是储蓄率不可能无限地增加。而由不断地提高生产率来带动的增长则是可持续性的。这是因为从理论上讲生产率的提高可以是无限的。

The Solow-Swan 经济增长模型 （ with technical change ）

L

KtA

L

KFs

dt

dK

L

)(,

1

xtetA )(

人均资本装备率的动态方程

kntAksFk

ktAksFnkkdt

dK

L

nL

K

dt

dK

Ldt

dL

L

K

dt

dK

Ldt

LKdk

)())(,(

))(,(1

11)/(2

稳态人均收入取决于技术进步率(TFP)

集约型与粗放式增长模式的区别

A few clarifications on the concept of TFP(G)

TFP growth occurs when technology progresses and efficiency improves. The former is usually a long-run concept in the context of growth theory, and the latter can be a short-run phenomenon.A high TFP growth is not necessarily profitable.TFP growth should not be used as a target in economic planning, but might be estimated for forecasting purpose.A high TFP growth may not be always desirable, but one should be definately worried with a sustained period of low or negative growth in TFP.

五、中国省际全要素生产率的实证分析

改革时期的省际数据（ 1979-2001 ）Malmquist 指数法1978 － 95 年间为省际 TFP 高增长期（ 4.6% ） 技术进步为主

1996 － 01 年期出现省际 TFP 低增长期（ 0.6% ） 技术进步速度减慢、技术效率有所下降

总体经济效率：工业中存在的问题

Policy burdensSub-optimal scale in productionLimited capacity to innovateWeak financial disciplineSheltered firms vs. Less favored firms

总体经济效率：金融系统存在的问题

Credit is insufficiently allocatedLack of external disciplineIt is still mostly state ownedLarge proportion of Non-performing loansA vicious circle:

SOEfinancial sectorSOEfinancial sector

总体经济效率：省际生产的政治经济因素

Twenty years of economic reform in the PRC have resulted in a fragmented internal market with fiefdoms controlled by local officials whose economic and political ties to protected industry resemble those of the Latin American economies of past decades.

(Young, 2000)

The “Discovery” of Recent Productivity Slow Down(Source ： Hu & Zheng ， State of the Nation Reprot, 2004) Unit ： %

  1952-78 1978-95 1995-2001 2003

Population 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.6GDP 4.7 9.8 8.2 9.1

GDP per capita 2.7 8.4 7.3 8.5

Employment 2.6 2.6 1.2 0.9Labor

Productivity2.1 7.2 7.0 8.2

Capital Stock 11.5 9.3 11.8 15.8Human Capital 4.1 2.2 2.8 2.8

Capital Productivity -6.8 0.5 -3.6 -6.7

Capital per capita 8.9 6.7 10.6 14.9

TFPa -1.9 4.64(47.3) 2.28(27.8) 1.11(12.2)

TFPb   3.95(40.3) 1.30(15.9) 0.27(3.0)

TFPc   3.26(33.3) 0.32(3.9) -1.12

TFP Growth and its Components during Different Periods

Periods TFP Growth Technical Efficiency Change

Technical Progress

Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std

1979-1990 1.0494 0.0139 0.9902 0.0112 1.0605 0.0065

1991-2001 1.0185 0.0215 0.9969 0.0131 1.0216 0.0159

1979-1995 1.0463 0.0128 0.9932 0.0113 1.0542 0.0059

1996-2001 1.0060 0.0256 0.9936 0.0138 1.0124 0.0172

1979-1984 1.0765 0.0191 0.9847 0.0139 1.0938 0.0100

1985-1990 1.0222 0.0172 0.9958 0.0162 1.0272 0.0084

1991-1995 1.0372 0.0234 1.0020 0.0225 1.0354 0.0166

1996*-2001 1.0060 0.0256 0.9936 0.0138 1.0124 0.0172

Best Practice Provinces over Time (1979-2001)

Year Best Practice Provinces Year Best Practice Provinces

1979 SH 1991 SH, ZJ, GD

1980 SH, ZJ 1992 SH, ZJ, GD

1981 SH, ZJ 1993 SH, ZJ, GD

1982 SH, ZJ 1994 SH, ZJ, FJ, GD

1983 SH, ZJ 1995 SH, ZJ, FJ, GD

1984 SH, ZJ 1996 SH, JS, FJ

1985 SH, ZJ 1997 SH, JS, FJ

1986 SH, ZJ 1998 SH, JS, FJ

1987 SH, ZJ 1999 SH, JS, AH, FJ

1988 SH, ZJ 2000 SH, JS, AH, FJ

1989 SH, GD 2001 SH, JS, AH, FJ

1990 SH, ZJ, GD    

Shifts of frontiers and changes in the distribution of capital-labor ratios

Regional Efficiency distribution in China (1979)

Regional Efficiency distribution in China(1990)

Regional Efficiency distribution in China(2001)

六、前苏联和亚洲四小龙的案例：粗放型增长方式与衰退性经济危机

粗放经营的最严重后果是社会生产效率低并不断下降，使整个国民经济变成一种“耗费型”经济。戈尔巴乔夫承认，“就工业生产效率来说，苏联比美国落后 3/5 ，就农业生产效率来说，苏联比美国落后 4/5 。” 这就是说，苏联的工业生产效率只及美国的40% ，农业生产效率只及美国的 20% 。苏联解体前的 30 年，社会生产效率的重要指标──基金产值率明显下降， 1960 年每卢布固定生产基金生产的国民收入为 72 戈比，1988 年降为 36 戈比，下降 50% 。投资效率也呈现同样的趋势，每卢布基本建设投资的工业产值增长额， 1961 － 1965 年为 1.04 卢布， 1971 － 1975 年降为 83 戈比， 1981 － 1985 年又降为44 戈比。这些数字表明，在苏联要获得同样的产出， 80 年代比 60 年代需要加倍的投入才能达到，社会生产的单位增长须靠投资的加倍增长来维持。这种不断扩大的倍增的耗费是任何经济都承受不起的，总有一天当投资不能相应加倍增长时，或投资减少时，生产就会减速、停滞以至负增长。摘自《超级大国的崩溃──苏联解体原因探析》作者：许新等

1. Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985 (Ofer, 1987)

Growth records compared (annual growth rates)

Explaining growth in Soviet Union (1928-85)Soviet growth is generated by high rises in inputs and declining growth of overall input productivity.During the entire period inputs grew at 3.2% and contributed 76% of total GNP growth.Factor productivity grew 1.1% a year, acccounting for only 24% of total growth.The relative contribution of inputs to growth grew to 80 percent in the postwar period and became its sole component from 1970 on, when productivity completely stagnated or even retreated.

Extensive growth and productivity

The pattern of Soviet growth is called extensive growth in the Soviet and Western literature. Its main characteristic is in generating growth mostly through the expansion of inputs and only marginally through rises in productivity.Emphasis on input growth has been a stratgic decision of Soviet policy makers from the beginning.the relatively small contribution of productivity growth, is clearly an undesirable and unintended outcoome.

2. The East Asian productivity debate(Krugman, 1994)

The newly industrializing countries of Asia, like the Soviet Union of the 1950s, have achieved rapid growth in large part through an astonishing mobilization of resources. Once one accounts for the role of rapidly growing inputs in thse countries’ growth, one finds little left to explain. Asian growth, like that of the Soviet Union in its high-growth era, seems to be driven by extraordinary growth in inputs like labor and capital rather than by gains in efficiency.

The East Asian cases (Young, 1995)Hong Kong (1961-1991)

Singapore (1966-1990)

TFP growth: South Korea (1960-1990)

TFP growth: Taiwan (1966-1990)

Young’s conclusion

Once one accounts for the dramatic rise in factor inputs, one arrives at estimated total factor productivity growth rates that are closely approximated by the historical performance of many of the OECD and Latin American economies. While the growth of output and manufacturing exports in the newly industrializing countries of East Asia is virtually unprecedented, the growth of total factor productivity in these economies is not.

3. China (World Bank, 1997)

Three features of China’s rapid growth The first is its regional dimentionThe second is the sharp cyclical pattern of economic growth.The third noteworth feature of China’s growth since 1978 is its reliance on productivity growth.

China 2020 (World Bank, 1997)

Relative to other rapidly growing Asian economies, China’s growth has been less dependent on volume increases in inputs of capital and labor. Consider, for example,, growth in the stock of pysical capital. In most countries growth in capital inputs exceeds GDP growth, often by a substantial margin. In China the reverse occurred, suggesting that factors other than capital accumulation have been important determinants of GDP growth.

Accounting for China’s growth

Young (2003) Accepting all the numbers the statisticians of the PRC produce, but making systematic adjustments using their own data, I show that one can a)Reduce the growth rate during the reform period to levels previously experienced by other rapidly growing economies, so that b)Once one takes into account rising labor force participation, the transfer of labor out of agriculture, and improvements in educational attainment, TFP growth in the non-agricultural economy is found to be 1.4% per year; a respectable performance, but by no means extraordinary. (Young, 2003)

Chinese growth rates, 1978-1998

Source: Young (2003)

Total factor productivity change in China’s farming sector: 1952-1989 (Wen, 1993)

Five studies were involved Tang (1982) Lin (1990) Hayami & Ruttan (1985) Wiens (1982) Wong (1986)

Factor shares & TFP estimates were compared.

China’s agriculture (Wen 1993)

Productivity in Chinese industry (1980-1996)(Jeffeson, et al, 2000)

Long-term productivity increase, with growth rates declining during the 1990’s.Productivity outcomes outside the state and collective sectors are modest, with sharholding enterprises suffering productivity declines.

Average annual growth of TFP (1980-1996)

胡鞍钢：近年来“资本深化”加速在 1995-2001 年间，中国 GDP 年增长率为 8.2% ，低于 1978-1995 年的增长率（ 9.8% ）；人均 GDP 增长率为 7.3% ，也低于 1978-1995 年期间的水平（ 8.4% ）；劳动生产率年增长率为 7.0% ，略低于前一时期（ 7.2% ）；资本存量增长率为 11.8% ，明显高于前一时期（ 9.3% ）；就业增长为 1.2% ，更是低于前一时期（ 2.4% ）；人力资本（指 15 岁以上人口受教育年限）为 2.8% ，略高于前一时期（为 2.2% ）；资本生产率为负增长（ -3.6% ），而前一时期为 0.5% ；人均劳动力占资本存量年增长率为 10.6% ，为建国以来最高、最快，说明“资本深化”过程加速。

张军：过度投资和过度竞争导致低效率

中国经济在经历了 20世纪 80 年代的增长和 1992-1994 年的超常规增长之后，资本形成中所累积的一系列低效率问题就开始显露端倪。导致这个结果出现的主要原因是那个众所周知的过度投资和过度竞争的混合型转轨体制。由于过度的投资和过度的竞争，企业的技术选择显示出资本替代劳动的偏差，使技术路径逐步偏离了要素的自然结构，资本 - 劳动比率持续上升，加快了资本的深化过程，导致了投资收益率的持续而显著的恶化。认为中国改革期间导致了国内市场分割，地区经济生产已经背离了自身的比较优势（ Yang2000) 。

China’s productivity slowdown

Evidence from provincial data (1979-2001): TFP growth and its components

Source: Zheng & Hu (2004), Means are weighted averages

七、影响全要素生产率增长的因素

Physical capitalHuman capitalLabor force reallocationEconomic reformOpennessSocial capitalInfrastructureFinance

Research and DevelopmentFDIPublic healthIndustrial structureOwnership structureEnvironmental policyGovernment efficiency

八、中国经济增长模式的转变

今后中国要加快经济增长模式的转变，关键问题不在于是否实现高增长，而在于实现什么样的高增长？即高质量高增长模式，这包括：由低效率、高增长转向高效率、高增长；由不公平高增长转向公平高增长；由低就业高增长转向高就业高增长；由不可持续高增长转向可持续高增长（胡鞍钢， 2002 ）。

吴敬琏：中国经济片面重型化有危险

以“重化工”为主导的经济增长在现阶段的中国出现得不合时宜。面对石油与电力的极度缺乏，以“重化工”为主导的粗放型增长不会长期有效地解决就业问题，相反，只会引起全国性的能源损耗。霍夫曼理论，这个主张发展重化工业的１９世纪时期的粗放增长型理论并不适合中国。中国的二度重化工业走向不是市场调节的结果，而是各地政府调节的结果。（国务院发展研究中心 2004 年 11月）

林毅夫：目前的重工业热不符合中国国情中国经济近两年来加速重工业化并不像许多人以为的那样，是中国经济发展到了某个阶段，产业升级自然带来的结果。产业结构当然会不断升级，但这一轮重工业化应该讲还是有点走进了岔路。目前这一轮重工业热不符合中国经济与社会发展的需要。中国劳动力过剩，应当更关注劳动密集型而不是资本密集型产业的发展。现在的情况却是，没有比较优势的重化工业得到政府银行支持，许多有竞争力的劳动密集型中小企业却无法取得银行贷款。据统计，重工业每 1 亿人民币的投资可创造 5000 个就业机会，轻工业同样的投入却能创造出三倍的就业岗位。而且重工业需要的是专业技术产业工人，无法吸纳中国数以亿计教育水平较低的农村劳动力。中国的现实是劳动力便宜，资本昂贵，现阶段大力发展没有优势的资本密集型产业，结果很可能是银行坏账大量增加。而资本密集型大企业容易取得贷款也说明，目前以四大国有银行为主的银行体系不利于鼓励劳动密集型企业发展，中国更多地需要中小型银行给这些中小企业服务。

（经济参考报 2004 年 12月 22日）

马凯：转变经济增长方式

从这次宏观调控的实践来看，经济结构不合理、增长方式粗放，是造成投资盲目扩张、煤电油运紧张等问题的深层次重要原因，加快经济结构调整、转变经济增长方式已刻不容缓。明年国家发展和改革委员会将按照走新型工业化道路的要求，大力推进经济结构的战略性调整和经济增长方式的根本性转变，实现又快又好的发展。

四项具体措施（马凯）积极推进工业结构调整。将抓紧发布和实施钢铁、电解铝、水泥、化肥等行业产业政策和规划。支持大型钢铁企业联合重组和建立精品钢材生产基地。大力发展高技术产业。发展改革委将把提高自主创新能力作为推进结构调整的中心环节。加快发展服务业。将抓紧制定并组织实施加快我国服务业发展与改革实施意见，深化服务业各领域的产业分工，引导服务业向专业化方向发展。大力推进资源节约。明年的当务之急是要落实好《节能中长期专项规划》和全国循环经济工作会议提出的各项措施。

（中华工商时报 2004 年 12月 10日）