东亚产业关联研究
|
摘要
国际投入产出方法作为一般均衡模型的一个重要应用,对于分析东亚产业关联和经济相互依赖性具有重要的应用价值。本文对于东亚产业关联的理论渊源、模型基础以及《亚洲国际投入产出表》的演变和编制技术等进行了系统的介绍。在此基础上,分别改进并应用国际产业关联的两国模型、多国模型和地区模型,借以分析东亚产业关联的现状、特征以及各经济体在区域产业关联体系中的地位与作用,并结合东亚经贸合作、货币金融合作的具体进程给出了相关对策性建议,这对于指导东亚经济金融新秩序的建立和中国经济转型、参与区域合作具有重要的借鉴意义。
1. Background
With the continuous deepening of economic globalization, as well as the inspiration of the North American Free Trade Area and the EU, the practice of regional economic integration in East Asia has been tremendously accelerated. Since the 1990s, first Japan has stepped into the long-term stagnation which achieved total industrialization in the region, second the Asian NIEs continued to be mature of industrialization, and third the ASEAN and China's began to rise rapidly and made steady progress in the heavy and chemical industries. The international industrial division in East Asia has kept increasingly updating, which makes the traditional catch-up development model and the flying geese theory be powerless and limited in the analysis of industrial integration of East Asia. During the trend of rapid dynamic change of industrial linkages in East Asia associated with the manner and extent, the full-blown global financial crisis in 2008 imposed the terrible impact on the traditional mode of economic growth in East Asia. Furthermore, with the re-emergence of trade protectionism in some areas of the world and inter-district transfers of dynamic comparative advantage, the industrial structure and trade patterns within the region are faced with enormous pressure to make adjustments.
Mechanism of the international industrial linkages could penetrate to a good many aspects of regional economic and trade ties and the regional industrial division nets and industrial structure changes, and it is the important prerequisites for the international industrial cooperation, monetary and financial cooperation and economic interdependence, as well as the driven power for the international industrial transfer. Unfortunately, the literature from the perspective of the international industrial linkages (non-total) at home and abroad is rarely popular, which inevitably ignored the substance of supply and demand of industrial linkages. As the most direct and most effective tool for the analysis of regional industrial division, input and output linkages, and international industrial transfers, international industrial linkage theories and models would be very helpful for deepening the aggregate analysis, revealing the internal structure of the regional economy.
To analyze the characteristics and the mechanisms of industrial linkages in East Asia with Asian International Input-Output Table (AIIOT) could provide an important reference and guidance, not only for economies'industrial restructuring, conversion of the mode of growth and trade patterns, but also for the regional industrial policy co-ordination and monetary and financial cooperation, and the solid theoretical basis for the earlier realization of the East Asian regional trade and investment liberalization and facilitation.
2. Theory and Methodology
As the middle-level of economic development and operation, industrial economy could connect the micro-field of enterprise price behavior with the macro field of government revenue decision-making, and further affect the development and evolution of financial markets through multiple channels. Industrial linkages technique, also often referred to as input-output analysis, was created in the 1930s, and gained further development since 1950s, when the various spatial levels of input-output models. At present, the input-output models can also be grouped into two categories:First are the ones which reveal 10 structure at a single country or single region level, including national input-output model and regional input-output model; second are ones consisting of different countries or different regions, including the intra-national input-output model, multi-regional input-output model (MRIO model), interregional input-output model (IRIO model)and the international/inter-country input-output model. IRIO model and MRIO model are respectively the foundations of international and inter-country input-output model.
In the 1960s, the Japanese Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) began to authorize and popularize Asian input-output model, and in 1983 produced the first AIIOT, "1975 Asian International Input-Output Table" (including 8 economies). Since the 1980s, IDE published AIIOT every five years, which furnish the powerful analytical tools for the research on inter-industry input-output linkages and the evolution of industry structures in Asia and Pacific region. The "2000 Asian International Input-Output Table" (AIIOT 2000) was jointly authorized and launched in March 2006 by the IDE and the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) based on IRIO model, including 10 economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the United States, and set up respectively 7 sectors model and 24 sectors models, and associated with Hong Kong, the EU and the rest of the world through import and export data.
3. Empirical Analysis
3.1 Bilateral International Model
Taking China and Korea for example, based on systemic data from AIIOT 2000 and bilateral international models including the interactive demand pull coefficient and interactive supply push coefficient within the intermediate demand dimension, as well as the geometric method in the manufacturing sector, the paper combined with 7 departments and 24 sectors input-output data system, focusing on the analysis of spillover and feedback associated with internal trade in the region. The conclusions as follows:
First, the difference of industrial development levels between China and South Korea was revealed to some extent. On the one hand, South Korea's development of the domestic industrial structure is significantly higher than China', especially maintain a greater competitive advantage in its manufacturing sectors, such as the machinery manufacturing industry, chemical industry and other heavy industries; on the other hand, China's comparative advantage could be still gained in the primary sector and secondary industries with low value-added and resource-based industries.
Second, China's industrial demand capability for South Korean is much greater, with the whole effect (PDCK) 7.83 times over the reverse role of South Korea's; South Korea's supply role in promoting China's industrial development is 0.83 of PSKC, less than that of China's supply role in promoting the development of South Korea.
Third, from the point of view of the intermediate demand dimension in AIIOT, China industrial structure has a greater influence on South Korea', and South Korea industrial development has depended more on China'; and a certain degree of asymmetric competition exist between the two economies.
Fourth, China and South Korea' shares of the manufacturing sectors accounted for respectively the proportion of 69.67% and 95.18% of their intermediate demand, and the bilateral international industrial linkages are mainly reflected in the manufacturing sub-sectors between the two economies.
Fifth, non-equilibrium characteristics has been revealed among entire manufacturing sectors between China and South Korea, the industrial linkages are closer in the machinery manufacturing, textile, leather and products industry, chemical industry, in which large-scale intra-industry trade have occurred in the past and became a main driving force associated with bilateral trade industry; while other manufacturing industries with the level lower than the average.
3.2 Multilateral International Model
Based on AIIOT 2000's IRIO model, the application of the three basic multilateral international models, the industrial linkage backward effect, the output effects of final demand and value-added effect of final demand, were helpful to empirically analyze the industrial linkages and economic interdependence of industries 10 economies in East Asia (including the U.S.), and their respective market position in the middle or final product fields. The study found:
First, from the point of view of the backward effects of industrial linkage in East Asia:(1) China and Singapore are on the top ranking, followed by the United States and Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines on the low list. China has been furnishing the most important driving force through its huge demand increments of intermediate products for regional industrial development; (2) the backward linkages in East Asian economies are mainly embodied on the manufacturing and construction industries, much larger than the average for all industries, and integration and penetration in manufacturing sectors could be pointed as the most important features of multilateral industrial linkages; (3) the backward linkage effect in manufacturing sectors in Northeast Asia is much higher than that in Southeast Asia, which is especially reflected in the high processing degree and higher value-added heavy chemical industries.
Secondly, from the point of view of output effects of final demand:(1) the top five were the United States, European Union, Japan, China and South Korea, while the output effects induced by Southeast Asian countries are relatively low; (2) The final product markets are still dominated by the United States and Japan, much higher than the level of China, and the former two could also be much capable to furnish high-value-added advanced manufacturing and service industries; (3) in the manufacturing field, the United States and the Northeast Asian three economies in East Asia to increase output of the main driving force of its final demand for manufactured products to undertake the supply capacity is also outstanding. Finally, the amount of output induced by other economies is positively relevant to their self-sufficiency proportion of the total effect.
Thirdly, from the point of view of the value-added effects of final demand; (1) the emergency of value-added effects in East Asia were mainly induced by the United States, Japan, the European Union and China through the provision of the final demand; (2) the economies with higher economic capacity and final demand tended to more sustain their own value-added and less depend on external final demand; (3) the proportion of self-sufficiency of Northeast Asian economies were higher than the Southeast Asian economies.
3.3 Local International Model
At present, the current input-output models are unable to support the data for the study on the international industrial linkages between one part of one country and another whole country. There is great need to fulfill the study about external industrial linkages of one country with the research on some local areas'. The paper has taken Northeast China for example, and proposed separately two area models of international linkages, the "area VS nation" model and "area VS region" model, as well as the analytical framework, which is hopeful to not only be a useful supplement to the international industrial linkage theory, but also provide some for reference for the study on the external industrial linkage between other parts of China and East Asian economies.
4. Conclusions
The 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 world financial crisis has demonstrated its the tremendous destructive powers against economic growth and industrial development in East Asia, especially because of the increasing economic and industrial connections among the regional economies. In addition, multilateral trading system mainly represented by WTO has made unusually slow progress in recent years, as well as a resurgence of trade protectionism, East Asia have been facing with the great pressures for structural adjustment and trade in transition.
Relative to the regions with the more advanced economic integration, such as the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union, regional economic integration process and the international industry linkages in East Asian are still at their initial stages, and so far there are still not any regional industrial policies or official monetary and financial coordination mechanism. The overall level of regional cooperation mechanisms are mainly the "10+3" meeting and East Asia Summit, however, from the nature of regional cooperation in East Asia, the former is the main cooperation channel, and the latter is the main forum for senior level.
As international input-output linkages in East Asia continued to deepen, the FTA strategies and other industrial coordination policies, and bilateral or multilateral currency swaps or other regional monetary and financial cooperation methods are also keep stepping towards a new height, and produce plenty of incentives for the evolution of regional industrial linkages.
Facing increasingly complex political and economic situation at home and abroad, China has to recognize its current industry status and development trend in the Asian International Input-Output linkages system. From now on, China need to actively convert domestic economic growth mode and effectively upgrade the industrial structure, and take part into the coordination at the regional FTA and monetary and financial cooperation and take the initiative to play its due role with the East Asian regional and even world-wide Perspective.
1. Background
With the continuous deepening of economic globalization, as well as the inspiration of the North American Free Trade Area and the EU, the practice of regional economic integration in East Asia has been tremendously accelerated. Since the 1990s, first Japan has stepped into the long-term stagnation which achieved total industrialization in the region, second the Asian NIEs continued to be mature of industrialization, and third the ASEAN and China's began to rise rapidly and made steady progress in the heavy and chemical industries. The international industrial division in East Asia has kept increasingly updating, which makes the traditional catch-up development model and the flying geese theory be powerless and limited in the analysis of industrial integration of East Asia. During the trend of rapid dynamic change of industrial linkages in East Asia associated with the manner and extent, the full-blown global financial crisis in 2008 imposed the terrible impact on the traditional mode of economic growth in East Asia. Furthermore, with the re-emergence of trade protectionism in some areas of the world and inter-district transfers of dynamic comparative advantage, the industrial structure and trade patterns within the region are faced with enormous pressure to make adjustments.
Mechanism of the international industrial linkages could penetrate to a good many aspects of regional economic and trade ties and the regional industrial division nets and industrial structure changes, and it is the important prerequisites for the international industrial cooperation, monetary and financial cooperation and economic interdependence, as well as the driven power for the international industrial transfer. Unfortunately, the literature from the perspective of the international industrial linkages (non-total) at home and abroad is rarely popular, which inevitably ignored the substance of supply and demand of industrial linkages. As the most direct and most effective tool for the analysis of regional industrial division, input and output linkages, and international industrial transfers, international industrial linkage theories and models would be very helpful for deepening the aggregate analysis, revealing the internal structure of the regional economy.
To analyze the characteristics and the mechanisms of industrial linkages in East Asia with Asian International Input-Output Table (AIIOT) could provide an important reference and guidance, not only for economies'industrial restructuring, conversion of the mode of growth and trade patterns, but also for the regional industrial policy co-ordination and monetary and financial cooperation, and the solid theoretical basis for the earlier realization of the East Asian regional trade and investment liberalization and facilitation.
2. Theory and Methodology
As the middle-level of economic development and operation, industrial economy could connect the micro-field of enterprise price behavior with the macro field of government revenue decision-making, and further affect the development and evolution of financial markets through multiple channels. Industrial linkages technique, also often referred to as input-output analysis, was created in the 1930s, and gained further development since 1950s, when the various spatial levels of input-output models. At present, the input-output models can also be grouped into two categories:First are the ones which reveal 10 structure at a single country or single region level, including national input-output model and regional input-output model; second are ones consisting of different countries or different regions, including the intra-national input-output model, multi-regional input-output model (MRIO model), interregional input-output model (IRIO model)and the international/inter-country input-output model. IRIO model and MRIO model are respectively the foundations of international and inter-country input-output model.
In the 1960s, the Japanese Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) began to authorize and popularize Asian input-output model, and in 1983 produced the first AIIOT, "1975 Asian International Input-Output Table" (including 8 economies). Since the 1980s, IDE published AIIOT every five years, which furnish the powerful analytical tools for the research on inter-industry input-output linkages and the evolution of industry structures in Asia and Pacific region. The "2000 Asian International Input-Output Table" (AIIOT 2000) was jointly authorized and launched in March 2006 by the IDE and the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) based on IRIO model, including 10 economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the United States, and set up respectively 7 sectors model and 24 sectors models, and associated with Hong Kong, the EU and the rest of the world through import and export data.
3. Empirical Analysis
3.1 Bilateral International Model
Taking China and Korea for example, based on systemic data from AIIOT 2000 and bilateral international models including the interactive demand pull coefficient and interactive supply push coefficient within the intermediate demand dimension, as well as the geometric method in the manufacturing sector, the paper combined with 7 departments and 24 sectors input-output data system, focusing on the analysis of spillover and feedback associated with internal trade in the region. The conclusions as follows:
First, the difference of industrial development levels between China and South Korea was revealed to some extent. On the one hand, South Korea's development of the domestic industrial structure is significantly higher than China', especially maintain a greater competitive advantage in its manufacturing sectors, such as the machinery manufacturing industry, chemical industry and other heavy industries; on the other hand, China's comparative advantage could be still gained in the primary sector and secondary industries with low value-added and resource-based industries.
Second, China's industrial demand capability for South Korean is much greater, with the whole effect (PDCK) 7.83 times over the reverse role of South Korea's; South Korea's supply role in promoting China's industrial development is 0.83 of PSKC, less than that of China's supply role in promoting the development of South Korea.
Third, from the point of view of the intermediate demand dimension in AIIOT, China industrial structure has a greater influence on South Korea', and South Korea industrial development has depended more on China'; and a certain degree of asymmetric competition exist between the two economies.
Fourth, China and South Korea' shares of the manufacturing sectors accounted for respectively the proportion of 69.67% and 95.18% of their intermediate demand, and the bilateral international industrial linkages are mainly reflected in the manufacturing sub-sectors between the two economies.
Fifth, non-equilibrium characteristics has been revealed among entire manufacturing sectors between China and South Korea, the industrial linkages are closer in the machinery manufacturing, textile, leather and products industry, chemical industry, in which large-scale intra-industry trade have occurred in the past and became a main driving force associated with bilateral trade industry; while other manufacturing industries with the level lower than the average.
3.2 Multilateral International Model
Based on AIIOT 2000's IRIO model, the application of the three basic multilateral international models, the industrial linkage backward effect, the output effects of final demand and value-added effect of final demand, were helpful to empirically analyze the industrial linkages and economic interdependence of industries 10 economies in East Asia (including the U.S.), and their respective market position in the middle or final product fields. The study found:
First, from the point of view of the backward effects of industrial linkage in East Asia:(1) China and Singapore are on the top ranking, followed by the United States and Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines on the low list. China has been furnishing the most important driving force through its huge demand increments of intermediate products for regional industrial development; (2) the backward linkages in East Asian economies are mainly embodied on the manufacturing and construction industries, much larger than the average for all industries, and integration and penetration in manufacturing sectors could be pointed as the most important features of multilateral industrial linkages; (3) the backward linkage effect in manufacturing sectors in Northeast Asia is much higher than that in Southeast Asia, which is especially reflected in the high processing degree and higher value-added heavy chemical industries.
Secondly, from the point of view of output effects of final demand:(1) the top five were the United States, European Union, Japan, China and South Korea, while the output effects induced by Southeast Asian countries are relatively low; (2) The final product markets are still dominated by the United States and Japan, much higher than the level of China, and the former two could also be much capable to furnish high-value-added advanced manufacturing and service industries; (3) in the manufacturing field, the United States and the Northeast Asian three economies in East Asia to increase output of the main driving force of its final demand for manufactured products to undertake the supply capacity is also outstanding. Finally, the amount of output induced by other economies is positively relevant to their self-sufficiency proportion of the total effect.
Thirdly, from the point of view of the value-added effects of final demand; (1) the emergency of value-added effects in East Asia were mainly induced by the United States, Japan, the European Union and China through the provision of the final demand; (2) the economies with higher economic capacity and final demand tended to more sustain their own value-added and less depend on external final demand; (3) the proportion of self-sufficiency of Northeast Asian economies were higher than the Southeast Asian economies.
3.3 Local International Model
At present, the current input-output models are unable to support the data for the study on the international industrial linkages between one part of one country and another whole country. There is great need to fulfill the study about external industrial linkages of one country with the research on some local areas'. The paper has taken Northeast China for example, and proposed separately two area models of international linkages, the "area VS nation" model and "area VS region" model, as well as the analytical framework, which is hopeful to not only be a useful supplement to the international industrial linkage theory, but also provide some for reference for the study on the external industrial linkage between other parts of China and East Asian economies.
4. Conclusions
The 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 world financial crisis has demonstrated its the tremendous destructive powers against economic growth and industrial development in East Asia, especially because of the increasing economic and industrial connections among the regional economies. In addition, multilateral trading system mainly represented by WTO has made unusually slow progress in recent years, as well as a resurgence of trade protectionism, East Asia have been facing with the great pressures for structural adjustment and trade in transition.
Relative to the regions with the more advanced economic integration, such as the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union, regional economic integration process and the international industry linkages in East Asian are still at their initial stages, and so far there are still not any regional industrial policies or official monetary and financial coordination mechanism. The overall level of regional cooperation mechanisms are mainly the "10+3" meeting and East Asia Summit, however, from the nature of regional cooperation in East Asia, the former is the main cooperation channel, and the latter is the main forum for senior level.
As international input-output linkages in East Asia continued to deepen, the FTA strategies and other industrial coordination policies, and bilateral or multilateral currency swaps or other regional monetary and financial cooperation methods are also keep stepping towards a new height, and produce plenty of incentives for the evolution of regional industrial linkages.
Facing increasingly complex political and economic situation at home and abroad, China has to recognize its current industry status and development trend in the Asian International Input-Output linkages system. From now on, China need to actively convert domestic economic growth mode and effectively upgrade the industrial structure, and take part into the coordination at the regional FTA and monetary and financial cooperation and take the initiative to play its due role with the East Asian regional and even world-wide Perspective.
引文
[1]呼子彻：《采用投入产出模型对韩国经济的分析》,载[日]中村哲主编：《东亚近代经济的形成与发展——东亚近代经济行成史(一)》,北京：人民出版社,2005年。
[2]李晓：《东亚区域产业循环与中国工业振兴》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2000年。
[3]李晓、丁一兵：《亚洲的超越——构建东亚区域货币体系与“人民币亚洲化”》,北京：当代中国出版社,2006年。
[4]刘昌黎：《东亚双边自由贸易研究》,大连：东北财经大学出版社,2007年。
[5]刘志庚：《亚洲“四小龙”经济的腾飞》,广州：中山大学出版社,1993年。
[6]汪斌：《东亚工业化浪潮中的产业结构研究——兼论中国参与东亚国际分工和产业结构调整》,杭州：杭州大学出版社,2000年。
[7]汪斌：《全球化浪潮中当代产业结构的国际化研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004年。
[8]王国瑞等：《第四个中心——科学技术与亚洲新兴工业国》,西安：陕西人民出版社,1997年。
[9]杨公仆、夏大慰：《产业经济学教程》,上海：上海财经大学出版社,2002年。
[10]姚枝仲：《不对称竞争压力与人民币的亚洲战略》,载李晓、戴金平主编：《21世纪初期东亚货币合作与人民币国际化》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2006年。
[11]郑玉歆：《应用产业经济学》,北京：经济管理出版社,2004年。
[12]张建平、苗子瑜：《中韩双边自由贸易协定——必要性、可行性与战略步骤》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2009年。
[13]张亚雄、赵坤：《区域间投入产出分析》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年。
[14][英]苏珊·斯特兰奇：《国家与市场》,杨宇光等译,上海：上海世纪出版集
团,2006年。
[15][日]佐野敬夫等编：《不断加深的东亚国际产业关联验证》,日本亚洲经济研究所,1998年。
[16][日]山泽逸平：《亚洲太平洋经济论——21世纪APEC行动计划建议》,范建亭等译,上海：世纪出版集团、上海人民出版社,2001年。
[17][日]关志雄：《亚洲货币一体化研究》,北京：中国财经经济出版社,2003年。
[1]宾建成、陈柳钦：《世界双边FTA的发展趋势与我国的对策探析》,《南京社会科学》2005年第11期。
[2]胡晖：《细数中国签定的FTA》,《进出口经理人》2006年第9期。
[3]黄梅波：《东亚金融危机之后东亚新兴债券市场的发展》,《世界经济》2007年第4期。
[4]焦方义：《论东北老工业基地的比较优势和结构优化战略》,《税务与经济》2004年第3期。
[5]李晓：《论东亚区域产业循环机制》,《世界经济》1998年第3期。
[6]李晓：《“日元国际化”的困境及其战略调整》,《世界经济》2005年第6期。
[7]李晓：《全球金融危机下东亚货币金融合作的路径选择》,《东北亚论坛》2009年第9期。
[8]李晓、张建平：《货币升值与股市价格变动——1985年后的日本与当今中国之比较》,《新金融》2007年第7期。
[9]李晓、张建平：《产业结构转换能力的比较分析——以吉林省为例》,《东北亚论坛》2008年第5期。
[10]李晓、张建平：《中韩产业关联的现状及其启示——基于<2000年亚洲国际投入产出表>的分析》,《世界经济》2009年第12期。
[11]李晓、张建平：《东亚产业关联与经济相互依赖性》,《世界经济研究》2010年第4期。
[12]李晓、[日]平山健二郎：《东亚区域货币体系的构筑与“日元国际化”(4)》,[日]《世界经济评论》2002年4月号。
[13]李玉潭、陈志恒：《东北老工业基地振兴和中日韩区域经济合作》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2005年第1期。
[14]刘起运：《关于投入产出模型结构分析的规范化问题》,《数量经济技术经济研究》1992年第4期。
[15]刘洋、刘毅：《东北地区主导产业培育与产业体系重构研究》,《经济地理》2006年第1期。
[16]刘秀莲：《韩国2015产业创新战略评价》,《亚非纵横》2006年第5期。
[17]苗子瑜、张建平：《东亚区域合作,赢取“弯道超车”》,《新财经》2009年第4期。
[18]沈伯明：《区域贸易协议与建立中韩自由贸易区刍议》,《对外经贸实务》2005年第10期。
[19]徐奇渊、刘力臻：《香港人民币存量估计：M1口径的考察》,《世界经济》2006年第9期。
[20]姚之仲：《不对称竞争压力与人民币的亚洲战略》,《世界经济与政治》2004年第7期。
[21]张建平：《人民币汇率制度进一步改革的动因与基础》,《社会科学战线》2008年第2期。
[22]张建平、边祺：《中国东北地区与韩国产业关联现状及发展》,《社会科学战线》2009年第2期。
[23]张建平、李晓：《东北经济发展与日中经济合作的可能性》,《现代管理科学》2008年第2期。
[24][日]石天護：《为什么日中需要货币合作——经济上的要求和地缘政治含义》,《国际经济评论》2007年第1期。
[25][韩]李准哗、金洪起：《中韩贸易结构分析》,《中国工业经济》2002年第2期。
[26][韩]李准晔：《中国各区域对外贸易的决定因素分析——中国八大区域与东亚三经济体间的贸易》,《经济研究》2005年第8期。
[27][澳]加文·麦考马克：《附庸国——美国怀抱中的日本》,于占杰、许春山译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2008年。
[1]Bon, Ranko, "Qualitative Input-Output Analysis," in Ronald, E. Miller, K. R. Polenske and A. Z. Rose, eds., The Frontiers of Input-Output Analysis, New York:Oxford University Press,1989, pp.222-231.
[2]Chenery, Hollis B., "Regional Analysis," in H. B. Chenery, P. G Clark and V. C. Pinna, eds., The Structure and Growth of Italian Economy, Rome:United States Mutual Security Agency,1953, pp.91-129.
[3]Dietzenbacher Erik, "An Intercountry Decomposition of Output Growth in EC Countries," in Lahr, M. L. and Dietzenbacher E., eds., Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions, New York:Palgrave Press,2001.
[4]Emerson, Michael; Gros, Daniel; Italianer,Alexander; Pisani-Ferry, Jean and Horst Reichenbach, One Market, One Money:An Evaluation of the Potential Benefits and Costs of Forming an Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford University Press,1992.
[5]Hirschman, A. O., The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[6]IDE-JETRO, Multi-regional Input-Output Model for China 2000, Japan: IDE-JETRO,2003.
[7]IDE-JETRO, Asian International Input-Output Table 2000, Japan:IDE-JETRO, 2006.
[8]Kojima, Kiyoshi, "Towards a Theory Specialization:The Economics of Integration," in Induction, Growth, and Trade, Essays in Honor of Sir Roy Harrod, eds. W. A. Eltis, M. FG. Scott, and J. N. Wolfe, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1970,pp.305-324.
[9]Leontief, Wassily W., "Interregional Theory", in Wassily W. Leontief et al., eds., Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, New York:Oxford University Press,1953,pp.93-115.
[10]_____and Alan Strout, "Multiregional Input-Output Analysis", in Tibor Barna, ed., Structural Interdependence and Economic Development, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1963.
[11]Miller, Ronald E. and Blair, Peter D., Input-Output Analysis:Foundations and Extensions, Cambridge University Press,1985.
[12]Miller, Ronald E. and Lahr, M. L., "A Taxonomy of Extractions" in Lahr M. L. and Miller, R. E. eds., Regional Science Perspectives in Economic Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam,2001, pp.407-441.
[13]Rasmussen, P. N., Studies in Inter-Sectoral Relations, North-Holland, Amsterdam,1957.
[14]Riley, Vera and Allen, Robert L., Interindustry Economic Sty dies:A Comprehensive Bibliography on Interindustry Rearch, Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins Press,1955.
[15]Swan, T., "Long Run Problems of the Balance of Payments", in Arndt, H. W. and W. M. Corden, eds., The Australian Economy, Cheshire:Melbourne,1963.
[16]Williamson, J., "A Currency Basket for East Asia, not just China", In:Policy Briefs in International Economics, Institute for International Economics,2005, No. PB05-1.
[17]Wonnacott, R. J., Canadian-American Dependence:An Interindustry Analysis of Production and Prices, Amst., North-Hollannd Pub.,1961.
[18]World Bank, The East Asian Miracle:Economic Growth and Public Policy, New York:Oxford University Press,1993.
[19]Yamazawa, Ippei, Economic Development and International Trade:A Japanese Model, Honolulu, Hawaii:University of Hawaii Press,1990.
[1]Akamatu, Kaname, "Industrial Development in Newly Industrializing Countries," in Essays in Honor to Dr. Teiiiro Ueda, Kagakushugi Kogyosha, Tokyo,1943, Vol.4.
[2]Goodwin, R. M., "The World Matrix Multiplier," in Essays in Linear Economic Structure, London:Macmillan,1983, pp.30-56.
[3]Meng, Bo and Qu, Chao, "Application of the Input-Output Decomposition
Changing Fortune between Japan and China", Nomura Research Institute, Oct., 1998.
[10]______and Yoonbai Kim, "A common currency peg in East Asia Perspectives from Western Europe", Journal of Macroeconomics,25(2003), pp.331-350.
[11]Frankel, Jeffrey, "On the Yuan:The Choice between Adjustment under a Fixed Exchange Rate and Adjustment under a Flexible Rate", CESifo Economics Studies, Vol.52,2/2006, pp.246-275.
[12]Goodwin, R. M. and Los, Bart, "Structural Decomposition Analyses with Dependent Determinants," Economic Systems Research,2000, Vol.12, No.4, pp.497-514.
[13]Hartwick, John M., "Notes on the Isard and Chenery-Moses Interregional Input-Output Models," Journal of Regional Science,1971, Vol.11, No.1, pp.73-86.
[14]Hiratsuka, Daisuke, "The Catching up Process of Manufacturing in East Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2005, No.22.
[15]Isard Walter, "Interregional and Regional Input-Output Analysis:A Model of a Space Economy", Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.33,1951, pp.318-328.
[16]Ito, Takatoshi; Ogawa, Eiji; Yuri Nagataki Sasaki, "How Did the Dollar Peg Fail in Asia", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Vol.12, Issue 4, Dec.,1998,pp.256-304.
[17]_____, "Reorganization of North-South Trade:A Japanese Model of Multinational Business Operation", Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics,1973, Vol.13, No.2,pp.1-28.
[18]Krugman, Paul and Anthony Venables, "Globalization and the Inequity of Nations", The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995, Vol.110, No.4, pp.857-880.
[19]Kuchiki, Akifumi, "Industrial Policy in Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2007, No.128:
[20]Kumagai, Satoru, "A Journey Through the Secret History of the Flying Geese Model", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2008, No.158.
[21]Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Okamoto, Nobuhiro, "Industrial Networks between China and the Countries of the Asia-Pacific Region", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2007, No.110.
[22]Kuroiwa, Ikuo, "Rules of Origin and Local Content in East Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2006, No.78.
[23]Leontief, Wassily W., "Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic System of the United States", The Review of Economics and Statistics,1936, Vol.18, pp.105-125.
[24]_____, "Output, Employment, Consumption and Investment", Quarterly Journal of Economics,1944, Vol.58, pp.294-297.
[25]Liu, Hong, "The Sino-South Korean Normalization:A Triangular Explanation", Asian Survey, Nov.,1993.
[26]Lloyd, P. J., "The Role of Foreign Investment in the Success of Asian Industrialization", Journal of Asian Economics,1996, Vol.7, No.3, pp.407-433.
[27]McKinnon, Ronald I., "The East Asian Dollar Standard", China Economic Review, Volume 15, Issue 3,2004, pp.325-330.
[28]Meng, Bo and Ando, Asao, "An Economic Derivation of Trade Coefficients under the Framework of Multi-regional I-O Analysis", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2005, No.29.
[29]Meng, Bo and Inomata, Satoshi, "Production Networks and Spatial Economic Interdependence:An International Input-Output Analysis of the Asia-Pacific Region", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2009, No.185.
[30]Meng, Bo; Sato, Hajime; Nakamura, Jun; Okamoto, Nobuhiro; Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Inomata, Satoshi, "Interindustrial Structure in the Asia-Pacific Region Growth and Integration, by Using 2000 AIO Table", IDE-JETRO, Japan: IDE Discussion Paper,2006, No.50.
[31]Moses, Leon N., "The Stability of Interregional Trading Patterns and
Input-Output Analysis", American Economic Review,1955, Vol.45, pp.803-826.
[32]Ogawa, Eiji and Shimizu, Junko, "Stabilization of Effective Exchange Rates under Common Currency Basket System",20(2006), pp.590-611.
[33]Okamoto, Nobuhiro; Sano, Takao and Inomata, Satoshi, "Estimation Technique of International Input-Output Model by Non-survey Method," IDE-JETRO, Japan: IDE Discussion Paper,2005, No.28.
[34]Oosterhaven, Jan and Hoen, Alex R., "Preferences, Technology, Trade and Real Income Changes in the European Union:An Intercountry Decomposition Analysis for 1975-1985", The Annals of Regional Science,1998, Vol.32, No.4, pp.505-524.
[35]Oosterhaven, Jan; Stelder, Dirk and Inomata, Satoshi, "Evaluation of Non-Survey International IO Construction Methods with the Asian-Pacific Input-Output Table", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2007, No.114.
[36]Polenske, Karen R., "Leontief's Spatial Economic Analyses", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1995, Vol.6, pp.309-318.
[37]Rajan, R., "Exchange Rate Policy Options for Post-Crisis Southeast Asia:Is There a Case for Currency Baskets?", The World Economy,2002, No.25, pp.137-163.
[38]Redding, Stephen, "Dynamic Comparative Advantage and the Welfare Effects of Trade", Oxford Economic Papers,1999, No.51, pp.15-39.
[39]Round, Jeffery I., "Decomposing Multipliers for Economic Systems Involving Regional and World Trade", The Economic Journal,1985, Vol.95, No.378, pp.383-399.
[40]Rostow, W. W., "The Take-off Into Self-Sustained Growth", The Economic Journal, Mar.,1956, Vol.66, No.261.
[41]______, "The Stage of Economic Growth", The Economic History Review,1959, New Series, Vol.12, No.1.
[42]Schultz, S., "Intersectoral Comparisons as an Approach to the Identification of
Key Sectors", in Polenske, K. and Skolva, J. V., eds., Advances in Input-Output Analysis, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger Publishing Company,1976, pp.137-159.
[43]______and Vepiek, Jaromir, "The Application of the Input-Output Method in Economic Planning at Factory or Industry Level", Eastern European Economics, Vol.4, No.1, The Czechoslovak Economy (Autumn,1965), pp.60-68.
[44]Soofi, Abdol, "Structure of Production, Economic Policy and Performance:the case of Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USA", International Review of Applied Economics,1996, Vol.10, Issue 3, pp.345-371.
[45]_____and Moussavi, Saadat, "Transmissions of Real Economic Shocks across the Pacific Rim Economics", Journal of Policy Modeling,2004, Vol.24, pp.959-972.
[46]Takagawa, I. and Okada, T., "Input-Output Study in the Asia-Pacific Region:An Analysis Based on a New Method for Updating Input Coefficients", Bank of Japan Working Paper Series,2004, No.04-J-6.
[47]Page,John,"The East Asian Miracle: Four Lessons for Development Policy", NBER Macroeconomics Annual,1994, Vol.9, pp.219-269.
[48]Vernon, R., "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle", Quarterly Journal of Economics,1966, Vol.80, No.2, pp.190-207.
[49]Williamson, J., "Exchange Rate Regime for Emerging Market:Reviving the Intermediate Option", HE Working Paper,2000, No.2938.
[50]Yamazawa, Ippei, "On Pacific Economic Integration", The Economic Journal, 1992, Vol.102, No.415, pp.1519-1529.
[51]Zhan, Xiao-hong, "Analysis of South Korea's Direct Investment in China", China &WorId Economy, No.1,2005.
[1]Oosterhaven, Jan and Stelder, Dirk, "Regional and Interregional IO Analysis", Syllabus of International Input-Output Association,2008, sited on http://www.iioa.org/teaching.htm.
[2]李晓：《东亚区域产业循环与中国工业振兴》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2000年。
[3]李晓、丁一兵：《亚洲的超越——构建东亚区域货币体系与“人民币亚洲化”》,北京：当代中国出版社,2006年。
[4]刘昌黎：《东亚双边自由贸易研究》,大连：东北财经大学出版社,2007年。
[5]刘志庚：《亚洲“四小龙”经济的腾飞》,广州：中山大学出版社,1993年。
[6]汪斌：《东亚工业化浪潮中的产业结构研究——兼论中国参与东亚国际分工和产业结构调整》,杭州：杭州大学出版社,2000年。
[7]汪斌：《全球化浪潮中当代产业结构的国际化研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004年。
[8]王国瑞等：《第四个中心——科学技术与亚洲新兴工业国》,西安：陕西人民出版社,1997年。
[9]杨公仆、夏大慰：《产业经济学教程》,上海：上海财经大学出版社,2002年。
[10]姚枝仲：《不对称竞争压力与人民币的亚洲战略》,载李晓、戴金平主编：《21世纪初期东亚货币合作与人民币国际化》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2006年。
[11]郑玉歆：《应用产业经济学》,北京：经济管理出版社,2004年。
[12]张建平、苗子瑜：《中韩双边自由贸易协定——必要性、可行性与战略步骤》,长春：吉林大学出版社,2009年。
[13]张亚雄、赵坤：《区域间投入产出分析》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年。
[14][英]苏珊·斯特兰奇：《国家与市场》,杨宇光等译,上海：上海世纪出版集
团,2006年。
[15][日]佐野敬夫等编：《不断加深的东亚国际产业关联验证》,日本亚洲经济研究所,1998年。
[16][日]山泽逸平：《亚洲太平洋经济论——21世纪APEC行动计划建议》,范建亭等译,上海：世纪出版集团、上海人民出版社,2001年。
[17][日]关志雄：《亚洲货币一体化研究》,北京：中国财经经济出版社,2003年。
[1]宾建成、陈柳钦：《世界双边FTA的发展趋势与我国的对策探析》,《南京社会科学》2005年第11期。
[2]胡晖：《细数中国签定的FTA》,《进出口经理人》2006年第9期。
[3]黄梅波：《东亚金融危机之后东亚新兴债券市场的发展》,《世界经济》2007年第4期。
[4]焦方义：《论东北老工业基地的比较优势和结构优化战略》,《税务与经济》2004年第3期。
[5]李晓：《论东亚区域产业循环机制》,《世界经济》1998年第3期。
[6]李晓：《“日元国际化”的困境及其战略调整》,《世界经济》2005年第6期。
[7]李晓：《全球金融危机下东亚货币金融合作的路径选择》,《东北亚论坛》2009年第9期。
[8]李晓、张建平：《货币升值与股市价格变动——1985年后的日本与当今中国之比较》,《新金融》2007年第7期。
[9]李晓、张建平：《产业结构转换能力的比较分析——以吉林省为例》,《东北亚论坛》2008年第5期。
[10]李晓、张建平：《中韩产业关联的现状及其启示——基于<2000年亚洲国际投入产出表>的分析》,《世界经济》2009年第12期。
[11]李晓、张建平：《东亚产业关联与经济相互依赖性》,《世界经济研究》2010年第4期。
[12]李晓、[日]平山健二郎：《东亚区域货币体系的构筑与“日元国际化”(4)》,[日]《世界经济评论》2002年4月号。
[13]李玉潭、陈志恒：《东北老工业基地振兴和中日韩区域经济合作》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》2005年第1期。
[14]刘起运：《关于投入产出模型结构分析的规范化问题》,《数量经济技术经济研究》1992年第4期。
[15]刘洋、刘毅：《东北地区主导产业培育与产业体系重构研究》,《经济地理》2006年第1期。
[16]刘秀莲：《韩国2015产业创新战略评价》,《亚非纵横》2006年第5期。
[17]苗子瑜、张建平：《东亚区域合作,赢取“弯道超车”》,《新财经》2009年第4期。
[18]沈伯明：《区域贸易协议与建立中韩自由贸易区刍议》,《对外经贸实务》2005年第10期。
[19]徐奇渊、刘力臻：《香港人民币存量估计：M1口径的考察》,《世界经济》2006年第9期。
[20]姚之仲：《不对称竞争压力与人民币的亚洲战略》,《世界经济与政治》2004年第7期。
[21]张建平：《人民币汇率制度进一步改革的动因与基础》,《社会科学战线》2008年第2期。
[22]张建平、边祺：《中国东北地区与韩国产业关联现状及发展》,《社会科学战线》2009年第2期。
[23]张建平、李晓：《东北经济发展与日中经济合作的可能性》,《现代管理科学》2008年第2期。
[24][日]石天護：《为什么日中需要货币合作——经济上的要求和地缘政治含义》,《国际经济评论》2007年第1期。
[25][韩]李准哗、金洪起：《中韩贸易结构分析》,《中国工业经济》2002年第2期。
[26][韩]李准晔：《中国各区域对外贸易的决定因素分析——中国八大区域与东亚三经济体间的贸易》,《经济研究》2005年第8期。
[27][澳]加文·麦考马克：《附庸国——美国怀抱中的日本》,于占杰、许春山译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2008年。
[1]Bon, Ranko, "Qualitative Input-Output Analysis," in Ronald, E. Miller, K. R. Polenske and A. Z. Rose, eds., The Frontiers of Input-Output Analysis, New York:Oxford University Press,1989, pp.222-231.
[2]Chenery, Hollis B., "Regional Analysis," in H. B. Chenery, P. G Clark and V. C. Pinna, eds., The Structure and Growth of Italian Economy, Rome:United States Mutual Security Agency,1953, pp.91-129.
[3]Dietzenbacher Erik, "An Intercountry Decomposition of Output Growth in EC Countries," in Lahr, M. L. and Dietzenbacher E., eds., Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions, New York:Palgrave Press,2001.
[4]Emerson, Michael; Gros, Daniel; Italianer,Alexander; Pisani-Ferry, Jean and Horst Reichenbach, One Market, One Money:An Evaluation of the Potential Benefits and Costs of Forming an Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford University Press,1992.
[5]Hirschman, A. O., The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[6]IDE-JETRO, Multi-regional Input-Output Model for China 2000, Japan: IDE-JETRO,2003.
[7]IDE-JETRO, Asian International Input-Output Table 2000, Japan:IDE-JETRO, 2006.
[8]Kojima, Kiyoshi, "Towards a Theory Specialization:The Economics of Integration," in Induction, Growth, and Trade, Essays in Honor of Sir Roy Harrod, eds. W. A. Eltis, M. FG. Scott, and J. N. Wolfe, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1970,pp.305-324.
[9]Leontief, Wassily W., "Interregional Theory", in Wassily W. Leontief et al., eds., Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, New York:Oxford University Press,1953,pp.93-115.
[10]_____and Alan Strout, "Multiregional Input-Output Analysis", in Tibor Barna, ed., Structural Interdependence and Economic Development, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1963.
[11]Miller, Ronald E. and Blair, Peter D., Input-Output Analysis:Foundations and Extensions, Cambridge University Press,1985.
[12]Miller, Ronald E. and Lahr, M. L., "A Taxonomy of Extractions" in Lahr M. L. and Miller, R. E. eds., Regional Science Perspectives in Economic Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam,2001, pp.407-441.
[13]Rasmussen, P. N., Studies in Inter-Sectoral Relations, North-Holland, Amsterdam,1957.
[14]Riley, Vera and Allen, Robert L., Interindustry Economic Sty dies:A Comprehensive Bibliography on Interindustry Rearch, Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins Press,1955.
[15]Swan, T., "Long Run Problems of the Balance of Payments", in Arndt, H. W. and W. M. Corden, eds., The Australian Economy, Cheshire:Melbourne,1963.
[16]Williamson, J., "A Currency Basket for East Asia, not just China", In:Policy Briefs in International Economics, Institute for International Economics,2005, No. PB05-1.
[17]Wonnacott, R. J., Canadian-American Dependence:An Interindustry Analysis of Production and Prices, Amst., North-Hollannd Pub.,1961.
[18]World Bank, The East Asian Miracle:Economic Growth and Public Policy, New York:Oxford University Press,1993.
[19]Yamazawa, Ippei, Economic Development and International Trade:A Japanese Model, Honolulu, Hawaii:University of Hawaii Press,1990.
[1]Akamatu, Kaname, "Industrial Development in Newly Industrializing Countries," in Essays in Honor to Dr. Teiiiro Ueda, Kagakushugi Kogyosha, Tokyo,1943, Vol.4.
[2]Goodwin, R. M., "The World Matrix Multiplier," in Essays in Linear Economic Structure, London:Macmillan,1983, pp.30-56.
[3]Meng, Bo and Qu, Chao, "Application of the Input-Output Decomposition
Changing Fortune between Japan and China", Nomura Research Institute, Oct., 1998.
[10]______and Yoonbai Kim, "A common currency peg in East Asia Perspectives from Western Europe", Journal of Macroeconomics,25(2003), pp.331-350.
[11]Frankel, Jeffrey, "On the Yuan:The Choice between Adjustment under a Fixed Exchange Rate and Adjustment under a Flexible Rate", CESifo Economics Studies, Vol.52,2/2006, pp.246-275.
[12]Goodwin, R. M. and Los, Bart, "Structural Decomposition Analyses with Dependent Determinants," Economic Systems Research,2000, Vol.12, No.4, pp.497-514.
[13]Hartwick, John M., "Notes on the Isard and Chenery-Moses Interregional Input-Output Models," Journal of Regional Science,1971, Vol.11, No.1, pp.73-86.
[14]Hiratsuka, Daisuke, "The Catching up Process of Manufacturing in East Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2005, No.22.
[15]Isard Walter, "Interregional and Regional Input-Output Analysis:A Model of a Space Economy", Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.33,1951, pp.318-328.
[16]Ito, Takatoshi; Ogawa, Eiji; Yuri Nagataki Sasaki, "How Did the Dollar Peg Fail in Asia", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Vol.12, Issue 4, Dec.,1998,pp.256-304.
[17]_____, "Reorganization of North-South Trade:A Japanese Model of Multinational Business Operation", Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics,1973, Vol.13, No.2,pp.1-28.
[18]Krugman, Paul and Anthony Venables, "Globalization and the Inequity of Nations", The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995, Vol.110, No.4, pp.857-880.
[19]Kuchiki, Akifumi, "Industrial Policy in Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2007, No.128:
[20]Kumagai, Satoru, "A Journey Through the Secret History of the Flying Geese Model", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2008, No.158.
[21]Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Okamoto, Nobuhiro, "Industrial Networks between China and the Countries of the Asia-Pacific Region", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2007, No.110.
[22]Kuroiwa, Ikuo, "Rules of Origin and Local Content in East Asia", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2006, No.78.
[23]Leontief, Wassily W., "Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic System of the United States", The Review of Economics and Statistics,1936, Vol.18, pp.105-125.
[24]_____, "Output, Employment, Consumption and Investment", Quarterly Journal of Economics,1944, Vol.58, pp.294-297.
[25]Liu, Hong, "The Sino-South Korean Normalization:A Triangular Explanation", Asian Survey, Nov.,1993.
[26]Lloyd, P. J., "The Role of Foreign Investment in the Success of Asian Industrialization", Journal of Asian Economics,1996, Vol.7, No.3, pp.407-433.
[27]McKinnon, Ronald I., "The East Asian Dollar Standard", China Economic Review, Volume 15, Issue 3,2004, pp.325-330.
[28]Meng, Bo and Ando, Asao, "An Economic Derivation of Trade Coefficients under the Framework of Multi-regional I-O Analysis", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2005, No.29.
[29]Meng, Bo and Inomata, Satoshi, "Production Networks and Spatial Economic Interdependence:An International Input-Output Analysis of the Asia-Pacific Region", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Paper,2009, No.185.
[30]Meng, Bo; Sato, Hajime; Nakamura, Jun; Okamoto, Nobuhiro; Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Inomata, Satoshi, "Interindustrial Structure in the Asia-Pacific Region Growth and Integration, by Using 2000 AIO Table", IDE-JETRO, Japan: IDE Discussion Paper,2006, No.50.
[31]Moses, Leon N., "The Stability of Interregional Trading Patterns and
Input-Output Analysis", American Economic Review,1955, Vol.45, pp.803-826.
[32]Ogawa, Eiji and Shimizu, Junko, "Stabilization of Effective Exchange Rates under Common Currency Basket System",20(2006), pp.590-611.
[33]Okamoto, Nobuhiro; Sano, Takao and Inomata, Satoshi, "Estimation Technique of International Input-Output Model by Non-survey Method," IDE-JETRO, Japan: IDE Discussion Paper,2005, No.28.
[34]Oosterhaven, Jan and Hoen, Alex R., "Preferences, Technology, Trade and Real Income Changes in the European Union:An Intercountry Decomposition Analysis for 1975-1985", The Annals of Regional Science,1998, Vol.32, No.4, pp.505-524.
[35]Oosterhaven, Jan; Stelder, Dirk and Inomata, Satoshi, "Evaluation of Non-Survey International IO Construction Methods with the Asian-Pacific Input-Output Table", IDE-JETRO, Japan:IDE Discussion Papers,2007, No.114.
[36]Polenske, Karen R., "Leontief's Spatial Economic Analyses", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1995, Vol.6, pp.309-318.
[37]Rajan, R., "Exchange Rate Policy Options for Post-Crisis Southeast Asia:Is There a Case for Currency Baskets?", The World Economy,2002, No.25, pp.137-163.
[38]Redding, Stephen, "Dynamic Comparative Advantage and the Welfare Effects of Trade", Oxford Economic Papers,1999, No.51, pp.15-39.
[39]Round, Jeffery I., "Decomposing Multipliers for Economic Systems Involving Regional and World Trade", The Economic Journal,1985, Vol.95, No.378, pp.383-399.
[40]Rostow, W. W., "The Take-off Into Self-Sustained Growth", The Economic Journal, Mar.,1956, Vol.66, No.261.
[41]______, "The Stage of Economic Growth", The Economic History Review,1959, New Series, Vol.12, No.1.
[42]Schultz, S., "Intersectoral Comparisons as an Approach to the Identification of
Key Sectors", in Polenske, K. and Skolva, J. V., eds., Advances in Input-Output Analysis, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger Publishing Company,1976, pp.137-159.
[43]______and Vepiek, Jaromir, "The Application of the Input-Output Method in Economic Planning at Factory or Industry Level", Eastern European Economics, Vol.4, No.1, The Czechoslovak Economy (Autumn,1965), pp.60-68.
[44]Soofi, Abdol, "Structure of Production, Economic Policy and Performance:the case of Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USA", International Review of Applied Economics,1996, Vol.10, Issue 3, pp.345-371.
[45]_____and Moussavi, Saadat, "Transmissions of Real Economic Shocks across the Pacific Rim Economics", Journal of Policy Modeling,2004, Vol.24, pp.959-972.
[46]Takagawa, I. and Okada, T., "Input-Output Study in the Asia-Pacific Region:An Analysis Based on a New Method for Updating Input Coefficients", Bank of Japan Working Paper Series,2004, No.04-J-6.
[47]Page,John,"The East Asian Miracle: Four Lessons for Development Policy", NBER Macroeconomics Annual,1994, Vol.9, pp.219-269.
[48]Vernon, R., "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle", Quarterly Journal of Economics,1966, Vol.80, No.2, pp.190-207.
[49]Williamson, J., "Exchange Rate Regime for Emerging Market:Reviving the Intermediate Option", HE Working Paper,2000, No.2938.
[50]Yamazawa, Ippei, "On Pacific Economic Integration", The Economic Journal, 1992, Vol.102, No.415, pp.1519-1529.
[51]Zhan, Xiao-hong, "Analysis of South Korea's Direct Investment in China", China &WorId Economy, No.1,2005.
[1]Oosterhaven, Jan and Stelder, Dirk, "Regional and Interregional IO Analysis", Syllabus of International Input-Output Association,2008, sited on http://www.iioa.org/teaching.htm.