外商直接投资对中国居民收入影响实证研究
|
摘要
在中国过去的二十多年的改革开放过程中,外商直接投资作为推动中国经济增长和发展的一个宏观经济变量发挥了重要作用。但在外商直接投资大量进入中国期间,中国居民的收入增长水平呈现出与外商直接投资反向变动、收入差距与外商直接投资同向变动的关系。依据传统的国际经济理论和分配理论这是一种悖论。新古典经济学认为:在开放经济条件下,发展中国家内部密集使用高技术工人的产品的价格将会相对下降,密集使用非技术工人的产品价格将会相对上升。依据完全竞争市场上要素按其边际收益获取边际报酬的假定,技术工人的收入将会下降,非技术工人收入将会上升,收入差距将会缩小。同时外商直接投资作为一种隐含有技术进步因素的资本,它的进入必然改变发展中国家要素禀赋状况、生产技术水平和劳动的有效性,从而提高东道国居民收入水平。如何看待和解释这种悖论呢?为此本文借助内生增长理论的基本思路和工具对劳动供给既定条件下的技术工人供给的内生性进行了推导,构建了技术工人内生供给的劳动供给模型,并以此模型为基础对外商直接投资影响中国居民收入水平、收入结构的强度进行了验证,并检验了外商直接投资与影响中国居民收入关键变量之间的关系,解释了传统的国际经济理论与中国经济现实相背离产生的原因,并在此基础上提出了对策建议。
本文首先对外商直接投资与中国居民收入状况的经验数据进行了分析,发现中国居民收入增长水平与外商直接投资的流入反向变动。外商直接投资流入降低了中国居民收入增长速度;外商直接投资大量进入的行业工资水平和增长率低于外商直接投资进入较少或没有进入的行业。在传统的经典理论范畴内,我们不能对此作出令人满意的解释。同时外商直接投资的进入加大了中国地区收入差距、行业收入差距和行业内收入差距。
其次,为了对此种悖论做出合理解释,本文对中国居民收入的变动与外商直接投资之间的关系进行了实证检验。由于外商直接投资隐含的技术进步性质,使外商直接投资对东道国的异质性劳动体现出不同的偏好。在充分就业和劳动供给以不变的外生增长率供给的假定下,对劳动需求的增加将会导致工资水平的上涨。但现实的中国,一方面存在着大量知识失业,一方面存在着技术工人收入随着外商直接投资的持续进入而不断上涨现象。与此同时,整个社会居民消费水平和工资水平在GDP中所占比重呈下降态势。这种理论与现实的背离对传统的贸易理论、增长理论和分配理论提出了挑战。在异质性劳动由于居民跨期选择偏好而能在技术工人和非技术工人之间进行流动和转换时,技术工人的供给就演变成由企业支付的报酬、政府的鼓励补贴政策和居民的跨期选择偏好共同决定的内生变量。劳动节约型外商直接投资为了满足对密集使用技术工人需求的长期偏好,愿意在技术工人供给增加的条件下,以较高的报酬雇用技术工人。政府为了缩小与发达国家间的技术差距,能更好的吸收外商直接投资带来的技术溢出效应,愿意对技术工人进行转移支付,增加对技术工人的教育补贴。这导致了外商直接投资大量流入过程中中国技术工人收入水平远高于非技术工人,从而出现了居民收入水平的变化与传统经济理论的悖离。为了对该假说进行检验,本文以外商直接投资劳动节约型技术进步为基础构建了计量模型对外商直接投资影响中国居民收入水平的效果进行了验证。实证检验支持了假说。
再次,为了衡量外商直接投资对中国居民收入差距的影响程度,本文通过在一系列假定的基础上对Cobb-Douglas生产函数进行了拓展,推导出封闭经济的变异系数和导入外商直接投资的开放经济的变异系数,通过变异系数的比较来衡量外商直接投资对中国居民收入差距的短期变动和长期影响。并以此分析为基础建立了固定效应计量模型(FEM)来衡量外商直接投资对中国吉尼系数的变动、区域收入差距的影响。发现外商直接投资的进入恶化了中国吉尼系数的水平,加大了地区间收入的不均衡。
通过外商直接投资对中国居民收入水平和收入差距影响的检验,我们证明了在技术工人供给内生的条件下,由于外商直接投资劳动节约型特征导致的技术工人收入增长快于非技术工人收入增长引起的中国居民收入和收入差距变动。但这种变动是由那些中间变量传导的呢?从要素分配理论的角度来看,外商直接投资对居民收入的影响是通过改变资本禀赋状况、资本—产出比率和劳动生产率的水平来实现的。为了分析外商直接投资是如何影响这些变量以及影响程度的大小。本文在理论分析基础之上建立了相关计量模型,对外商直接投资影响中国就业水平、全社会劳动生产率水平和劳动有效性的程度进行了度量。发现1995年是外商直接投资影响中国就业的一个突变点。在1995之前,具有明显的就业效应;在1995之后就业效应明显弱化,外商直接投资体现出较强的劳动节约型技术进步特征,外商直接投资对中国的技术溢出正从水平效应向结构效应转变。同时,作为单纯的资本要素,外商直接投资对中国全社会劳动生产率的提高具有消极作用;而作为技术进步载体的外商直接投资对中国全社会劳动生产率的提高具有积极作用,对全社会劳动生产率影响的大小取决于外商直接投资技术水平的高低和中国对外商直接投资技术溢出的吸收能力。在这一过程中,劳动的有效性已成为中国承接外商直接投资技术溢出的重要载体,非技术工人收入状况在长期内将持续恶化。
由于外商直接投资对中国居民收入影响在长期内结构效应要远大于增长效应,因而如何兴利除弊就成为有效利用外商直接投资的关键。为此,我们可以从外商直接投资政策、收入分配政策和公共教育政策方面来着手解决。
In the last two decades’reform and opening up of China, Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) as a macroeconomic variable played a great role in pushing China’s economy growth and development. In the same time, the income growth level of the chinese residents reverses the inflow of FDI, while the income gap has the same tendency with FDI. It is a paradox according to the traditional international economic theories and the income distribution theory. New classical economics reckon that in the open economy of the developing countries, the price of the product centralizing technical workers will decrease comparatively,while the price of the product centralizing non-technical workers will increase comparatively. Accoding to the postulate that factors gain the marginal returns against the marginal revenue in the perfect competitive market, the technical workers’income will decrease while the non-technical workers’income will increase and the income gap of both will be narrowed. The inflow of FDI which occulting technical progress will necessarily change the factor endowment statement、the production technology level and the labor effectiveness of the developing country,then bring into increasing the income level of the host counry residents. How to explain the paradox? Depending on the basic thought and tool of endogenous growth theory,this article deduces the endogenesis of technical workers’supply on the premise of the given labor supply, constructs the endogenous labor supply model of the technical workers,verifies the intencity of FDI impacting to the income level and income structure of the chinese residents,tests the interrelation between FDI and the pivotal variables impacting to the residents’income,and explains why China’s economic reality deviates from the traditional international economic theories,so that presents the policy suggestions.
Firstly, this article concludes that the chinese residents’income growth level has changed in the reverse tendency with the inflow of FDI by analyzing FDI and the empirical data of the chinese residents’income statement. The inflow of FDI slows down the residents’income growth pace. The salary level and the growth rate in the industries FDI swarming into are lower than those industries with less or even absent FDI . We can not give a satisfying explanation depending on the traditional classical theories. In the same time the inflow of FDI enlarges the income gap in different areas、different industries and even in the intra industry of China.
Secondly,this article carries an empirical test on the relationship between the residents’income change and FDI to give a rational explanation against the paradox. FDI will show different preferences to the heterogenous labors of the host country because of the occulting technical progress in it. On the premises of full employment and labor supply by a fix exogenous growth rate, the increase of labor demand will lead to the rise of salary. Realistically there is large educated unemployment in China one hand, on the other hand,the incomes of technical workers increase continually with the sustaining inflow of FDI. In the same time,the proportions of the residents’income level and salary level in GDP have degressive tendencies. The deviation of theoretics and reality poses challenges to the traditional trade theory、growth theory and distribution theory. Because the heterogenous labor basing on the resident inter-temporal choice preferences can flow and switch between the technical workers and non-technical workers,the supply of technical workers will turn to a endogenous variable decided by the rewards paid by enterprises、the subsidy policies aroused by government and the inter-temporal preferences chosen by the residents. With the long term’s preferences of dense technical employee,the enterprises with labor-saving FDI would rather disburse more to the technical workers though the supply of them was increasing. To narrow the technical gap with the developed countries and make good use of the technology spillover effect of FDI,our govertment would rather implement transfer payments to technical workers and enhance their education subsidies. All these resulted in the incomes of the technical workers outclass those of non-technical workers,and this is why occuring that the residents incomes’changes deviate from the traditional economic theories. This article set up a econometric model to verify the effect of FDI to the resident income basing on the labor-saving FDI with technical progress. The empirical test supports the above hypothesis.
Thirdly, to measure the influence of FDI on income gap in China,this article developed the Cobb-Douglas function depending on a series of premises,deducted the variation coeffecients in a closed economy and in an open economy with FDI. Comparing the variation coeffecients,we can learn the short-term and long-term effect of FDI on the resident’s income gap. We even set up FEM to explain how FDI affect the Gini Coefficient and the resident’s income gap in China . We found that the inflow of FDI worsens the Gini Coefficient’s level and increases the income imbalance of different areas.
By verifying influence of FDI on the chinese residents’income level and income gap,we prove that in endogenous supply of technical workers,it will bring the changes of the resident income and income gap because the technical workers’income growth with labor-saving FDI character outclass the non-technical workers’. But which intermediate variables are these changes conducted by? According to the factor distribution theory,the influence of FDI on the resident income comes true by changing the capital factor endowment statement、the ratio of capitlal -output and the labor productivity. In the study about influence of FDI on these variables, we establishs the related econometric models to analyse the effect of FDI on employment statement、the whole society’s labor productivity and the labor effectiveness. We found that the 1995 year is a breakpoint in the study of FDI and employment. The employment effect is obvious before 1995,but be weaken after the year. The labor-saving technology progress is obvious too. The effect of FDI on technology spillover changes from the level effect to structure effect. In the same time,as a simplex capital factor,FDI affects the whole society’s labor productivity negatively while as a vector of technology progess, FDI improve it positively. The degree of influence on the whole society’s labor productivity depends on the different technology level of FDI and China’s ability to absorb the spillover technology. In this process, the labor effectiveness becomes an important vector. The income of non-technological workers would be severe chronically.
The structure effect of FDI on China’s resident income is more significant than the growth effect, so it is important to make good use of FDI. In this article,we present some suggestions based on the FDI policy、income distribution policy and public education policy.
本文首先对外商直接投资与中国居民收入状况的经验数据进行了分析,发现中国居民收入增长水平与外商直接投资的流入反向变动。外商直接投资流入降低了中国居民收入增长速度;外商直接投资大量进入的行业工资水平和增长率低于外商直接投资进入较少或没有进入的行业。在传统的经典理论范畴内,我们不能对此作出令人满意的解释。同时外商直接投资的进入加大了中国地区收入差距、行业收入差距和行业内收入差距。
其次,为了对此种悖论做出合理解释,本文对中国居民收入的变动与外商直接投资之间的关系进行了实证检验。由于外商直接投资隐含的技术进步性质,使外商直接投资对东道国的异质性劳动体现出不同的偏好。在充分就业和劳动供给以不变的外生增长率供给的假定下,对劳动需求的增加将会导致工资水平的上涨。但现实的中国,一方面存在着大量知识失业,一方面存在着技术工人收入随着外商直接投资的持续进入而不断上涨现象。与此同时,整个社会居民消费水平和工资水平在GDP中所占比重呈下降态势。这种理论与现实的背离对传统的贸易理论、增长理论和分配理论提出了挑战。在异质性劳动由于居民跨期选择偏好而能在技术工人和非技术工人之间进行流动和转换时,技术工人的供给就演变成由企业支付的报酬、政府的鼓励补贴政策和居民的跨期选择偏好共同决定的内生变量。劳动节约型外商直接投资为了满足对密集使用技术工人需求的长期偏好,愿意在技术工人供给增加的条件下,以较高的报酬雇用技术工人。政府为了缩小与发达国家间的技术差距,能更好的吸收外商直接投资带来的技术溢出效应,愿意对技术工人进行转移支付,增加对技术工人的教育补贴。这导致了外商直接投资大量流入过程中中国技术工人收入水平远高于非技术工人,从而出现了居民收入水平的变化与传统经济理论的悖离。为了对该假说进行检验,本文以外商直接投资劳动节约型技术进步为基础构建了计量模型对外商直接投资影响中国居民收入水平的效果进行了验证。实证检验支持了假说。
再次,为了衡量外商直接投资对中国居民收入差距的影响程度,本文通过在一系列假定的基础上对Cobb-Douglas生产函数进行了拓展,推导出封闭经济的变异系数和导入外商直接投资的开放经济的变异系数,通过变异系数的比较来衡量外商直接投资对中国居民收入差距的短期变动和长期影响。并以此分析为基础建立了固定效应计量模型(FEM)来衡量外商直接投资对中国吉尼系数的变动、区域收入差距的影响。发现外商直接投资的进入恶化了中国吉尼系数的水平,加大了地区间收入的不均衡。
通过外商直接投资对中国居民收入水平和收入差距影响的检验,我们证明了在技术工人供给内生的条件下,由于外商直接投资劳动节约型特征导致的技术工人收入增长快于非技术工人收入增长引起的中国居民收入和收入差距变动。但这种变动是由那些中间变量传导的呢?从要素分配理论的角度来看,外商直接投资对居民收入的影响是通过改变资本禀赋状况、资本—产出比率和劳动生产率的水平来实现的。为了分析外商直接投资是如何影响这些变量以及影响程度的大小。本文在理论分析基础之上建立了相关计量模型,对外商直接投资影响中国就业水平、全社会劳动生产率水平和劳动有效性的程度进行了度量。发现1995年是外商直接投资影响中国就业的一个突变点。在1995之前,具有明显的就业效应;在1995之后就业效应明显弱化,外商直接投资体现出较强的劳动节约型技术进步特征,外商直接投资对中国的技术溢出正从水平效应向结构效应转变。同时,作为单纯的资本要素,外商直接投资对中国全社会劳动生产率的提高具有消极作用;而作为技术进步载体的外商直接投资对中国全社会劳动生产率的提高具有积极作用,对全社会劳动生产率影响的大小取决于外商直接投资技术水平的高低和中国对外商直接投资技术溢出的吸收能力。在这一过程中,劳动的有效性已成为中国承接外商直接投资技术溢出的重要载体,非技术工人收入状况在长期内将持续恶化。
由于外商直接投资对中国居民收入影响在长期内结构效应要远大于增长效应,因而如何兴利除弊就成为有效利用外商直接投资的关键。为此,我们可以从外商直接投资政策、收入分配政策和公共教育政策方面来着手解决。
In the last two decades’reform and opening up of China, Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) as a macroeconomic variable played a great role in pushing China’s economy growth and development. In the same time, the income growth level of the chinese residents reverses the inflow of FDI, while the income gap has the same tendency with FDI. It is a paradox according to the traditional international economic theories and the income distribution theory. New classical economics reckon that in the open economy of the developing countries, the price of the product centralizing technical workers will decrease comparatively,while the price of the product centralizing non-technical workers will increase comparatively. Accoding to the postulate that factors gain the marginal returns against the marginal revenue in the perfect competitive market, the technical workers’income will decrease while the non-technical workers’income will increase and the income gap of both will be narrowed. The inflow of FDI which occulting technical progress will necessarily change the factor endowment statement、the production technology level and the labor effectiveness of the developing country,then bring into increasing the income level of the host counry residents. How to explain the paradox? Depending on the basic thought and tool of endogenous growth theory,this article deduces the endogenesis of technical workers’supply on the premise of the given labor supply, constructs the endogenous labor supply model of the technical workers,verifies the intencity of FDI impacting to the income level and income structure of the chinese residents,tests the interrelation between FDI and the pivotal variables impacting to the residents’income,and explains why China’s economic reality deviates from the traditional international economic theories,so that presents the policy suggestions.
Firstly, this article concludes that the chinese residents’income growth level has changed in the reverse tendency with the inflow of FDI by analyzing FDI and the empirical data of the chinese residents’income statement. The inflow of FDI slows down the residents’income growth pace. The salary level and the growth rate in the industries FDI swarming into are lower than those industries with less or even absent FDI . We can not give a satisfying explanation depending on the traditional classical theories. In the same time the inflow of FDI enlarges the income gap in different areas、different industries and even in the intra industry of China.
Secondly,this article carries an empirical test on the relationship between the residents’income change and FDI to give a rational explanation against the paradox. FDI will show different preferences to the heterogenous labors of the host country because of the occulting technical progress in it. On the premises of full employment and labor supply by a fix exogenous growth rate, the increase of labor demand will lead to the rise of salary. Realistically there is large educated unemployment in China one hand, on the other hand,the incomes of technical workers increase continually with the sustaining inflow of FDI. In the same time,the proportions of the residents’income level and salary level in GDP have degressive tendencies. The deviation of theoretics and reality poses challenges to the traditional trade theory、growth theory and distribution theory. Because the heterogenous labor basing on the resident inter-temporal choice preferences can flow and switch between the technical workers and non-technical workers,the supply of technical workers will turn to a endogenous variable decided by the rewards paid by enterprises、the subsidy policies aroused by government and the inter-temporal preferences chosen by the residents. With the long term’s preferences of dense technical employee,the enterprises with labor-saving FDI would rather disburse more to the technical workers though the supply of them was increasing. To narrow the technical gap with the developed countries and make good use of the technology spillover effect of FDI,our govertment would rather implement transfer payments to technical workers and enhance their education subsidies. All these resulted in the incomes of the technical workers outclass those of non-technical workers,and this is why occuring that the residents incomes’changes deviate from the traditional economic theories. This article set up a econometric model to verify the effect of FDI to the resident income basing on the labor-saving FDI with technical progress. The empirical test supports the above hypothesis.
Thirdly, to measure the influence of FDI on income gap in China,this article developed the Cobb-Douglas function depending on a series of premises,deducted the variation coeffecients in a closed economy and in an open economy with FDI. Comparing the variation coeffecients,we can learn the short-term and long-term effect of FDI on the resident’s income gap. We even set up FEM to explain how FDI affect the Gini Coefficient and the resident’s income gap in China . We found that the inflow of FDI worsens the Gini Coefficient’s level and increases the income imbalance of different areas.
By verifying influence of FDI on the chinese residents’income level and income gap,we prove that in endogenous supply of technical workers,it will bring the changes of the resident income and income gap because the technical workers’income growth with labor-saving FDI character outclass the non-technical workers’. But which intermediate variables are these changes conducted by? According to the factor distribution theory,the influence of FDI on the resident income comes true by changing the capital factor endowment statement、the ratio of capitlal -output and the labor productivity. In the study about influence of FDI on these variables, we establishs the related econometric models to analyse the effect of FDI on employment statement、the whole society’s labor productivity and the labor effectiveness. We found that the 1995 year is a breakpoint in the study of FDI and employment. The employment effect is obvious before 1995,but be weaken after the year. The labor-saving technology progress is obvious too. The effect of FDI on technology spillover changes from the level effect to structure effect. In the same time,as a simplex capital factor,FDI affects the whole society’s labor productivity negatively while as a vector of technology progess, FDI improve it positively. The degree of influence on the whole society’s labor productivity depends on the different technology level of FDI and China’s ability to absorb the spillover technology. In this process, the labor effectiveness becomes an important vector. The income of non-technological workers would be severe chronically.
The structure effect of FDI on China’s resident income is more significant than the growth effect, so it is important to make good use of FDI. In this article,we present some suggestions based on the FDI policy、income distribution policy and public education policy.
引文
[1] A. B?rsch-Supan, Alexander L. and Joachim W. Aging and International Capital Flows. Working Paper, 2002
[2] Aitken, B., Hanson, G.H., Harrison, A.E., Spillovers. Foreign Investment and Export Behaviour. Journal of International Economics, 43: 103—132
[3] Backus,D.,P.Kuheo and F.Kydland. International Real Business Cycles. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, 100: 745—775
[4] Axarloglou, Kostas, W illiam Casey and Hsiang-LingHan. Inward Foreign Direct Investments in the S: An EmpiricalAnalysis of their Impact on State Economies. Paper Presented at European International Business Academy, December8-10, 2002
[5] Balasubramanyam,V. N., Salisu , M. and Sapsford , D.. Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries. The Economic Journal, 1996, 106: 92—105
[6] Bhandar,i B.. Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect US Income Inequality? http: //darkwing. uoregon.edu/~bbhandar/FDIINEQ. pdf, 2005
[7] Barro, Robert J.. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106, 5: 407—443
[8] Barro, Robert J. and Sala-I-Martin, Xavier. Convergence Across States and Regions. Brookings Papers on Economics Activity, 1991: 107—182
[9] Barro,Robert J. and Sala-I-Martin,Xavier. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, 100 ,4: 223—251
[10] Barro,R.and X.Sala-i-Martin. Economic Growth. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1995
[11] Berthelemy, J., and Demurger, S.. Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Application to China. Review of Development Economics, 2000, 4: 140—55
[12] Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., Lee, JW.. How does Foreign Direct InvestmentAffect Economic Growth. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45: 115—135
[13] Bhagwati, Jagdish N. and T.N. Srinivasan. Trade and Poverty in Poor Countries. American Economic Review, 2002, 92: 15—25
[14] Blomstrom M., Kokko A.. The Impact of Foreign Investment on Host Countries : A Review of the Empirical Evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1996
[15] Borensztein, E., D. Gregorior and Lee J-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45: 115—135
[16] Brunner, Allan D.. The Long- Run Effects of Trade on Income and Income Growth. IMF Working Paper, 2003
[17] Burnside, Craig and David Dollar. Aid Policies and Growth. American Economic Review, 2000, 9: 847—868
[18] Chen, Baizhu, and Yi Feng. Determinants of Economic Growth in China: Private Enterprise, Education and Openness]. China Eco-nomic Review, 2000, 11: 1—15
[19] Chenery.H, Strout.A.M. Foreign Assistant and Economic Development. American Economic Review, 1966, 2: 22—35
[20] Cook, L. Patterns of China’s Regional Development Strategy].The China Quarterly, 1990, 122: 230—257
[21] Démurger,S, Jeffrey D.Sachs, Wing T.Woo, Shuming Bao,Gene Chang and Andrew Mellinger. Geography, Economic Policy and Re-gional Development in China]. CID Working Paper, 2001
[22] Dooley M., Frankel J. and D. Mathieson. International Capital Mobility: What Do Saving-Investment Correlations Tell US. IMF Papers, 1987, 3: 503—530
[23] Dayal-Gulati, Anuradha and Aasim M Husain. Centripetal Forces in China’s Economic Take-off]. IMF Working Paper, 2000
[24] Eduard Borensztein, Jose De Gregorio, Jong-Wha Lee, How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth. Journal of International Economics, 1999, 45:547—582
[25] Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson. Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 1996, 86: 240—245.
[26] Feldstein, M.. Domestic saving and international capital movements in the long run and in the short run. European Economic Review, 1983, 21: 139—151
[27] F.L.Rivera-Batiz and L.A. Rivera-Batiz. The Effects of Direct Foreign Investment in the Presence of Increasing Returns Due to Specialization. Journal of Development Economics, 1991, 34: 287—307
[28] Forbes, L.. Decomposition of China’s Regional Inequalities]. Journal of Comparative Economics. 1993, 17: 600—627
[29] Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson. Foreign Direct Investment and Relative Wages: Evidence from Mexico′s maquiladoras. Journal of InternationalEconomics, 1997, 42: 371—393
[30] Feliciano, Zadia and Robert E. Lipsey. Foreign Ownership and Wages in the United States: 1987—1992. Cambridge, MA, NBER Working Paper No.6923, 1999
[31] Figlio, David N. and Bruce Blonigen. The Effects of Foreign Direct Investmenton Local Communities. Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, 48: 338—363
[32] Hemmer, H. R.. Wirtschaftsprobleme der Entwicklungs?. Eubearbeitete und Erweiterte Au-flage, München, 2002
[33] G. Feder. On Export and Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 1982, 12: 59—73
[34] Hiemenz, U.. Foreign Direct Investment and CapitalFormation in China Since 1979: Implications for Economic Development. In China′s Contemporary Economic Reforms as a Development Strategy: Pro-ceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of Duisburg, FRG, June 14—16, 1999, Baden-Baden, 1995, 85—104
[35] Hsiao.C. Analysis of Panel Data]. Cambridge: Cambridge university, 2003
[36] Jian, Tianlun, Jeffery D Sacks, Andrew M.Warner. Trends in Regional Inequality in China]. NBER working paper, 1996
[37] J.Y. Wang. Technology Transfer and Long-run Theory of International Capital Movements. Journal of International Economics, 1990, 29: 255—271
[38] Jakob Svensson. Why Conditional Aid Doesnot Work and What Can Be Done About It?. Journal of Devolopment Economics. 2003, 70: 381—402
[39] Jakob Svensson. Foreign Aid and Rent-Seeking. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 51: 437—461
[40] Jun. K. W, Singh, H.. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries. Transnational Corporations, 1996, 2: 67—105
[41] Lee, Jongchul. Regional Differences in the Impact of the Open Door Policy on Income Growth in China]. Journal of Economic Development, 1994, 19: 215—234
[42] Leonard k. Cheng, Yum K. Kwan. What are the Determinants of the Location of Foreign Direct Investment? The Chinese Experience. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 12: 379—400
[43] Manuel R. Agosin and Ricardo Mayer. Foreign Investment in Developing Countries: Does it Crowd in Domestic Investment. Journal of Economic Development, 1999, 19: 215—230
[44] Mankiw, N.G, Romer, D., and Weil, D.N.A. Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, 107: 407—437
[45] Matsuoka, A. Wage Differentials among Local Plants and Foreign Multinationals by Foreign Owner-ship Share andNationality in Thai Manufacturing. Working Paper. The InternationalCentre for the Study ofEastAsian Development (ICSEAD), Kitakyushu, 2002
[46] Miguel D. Ramírez. Foreign Direct Investment in Mexico: A Cointegration Analysis. The Journal of Development Studies, 2000, 37: 138—162
[47] McNab, Moore. Trade Policy, Export Expansion, Human Capital and Growth.Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 1998, 8: 32—39
[48] Peter Bone. Politics and the Effectiveness of Foreign Aid. European Economic Review, 1996, 40:189—329
[49] Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiele, Rainer. Strategien zur Bekampfung derweltweiten Armut: Irrwege, Umwege und Auswege. KielDiscussion Paper407, Kiel Institute forWorld Economics, Kie, 2004
[50] R.Findlay. Relative Backwardness. Direct Foreign Investment and the Trasfer of Technology: A Simple Dynamic Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1978, 2:1—16
[51] Rama, M.. Globalization, Inequality and Labor Market Policies. Paper for Annual Bank Conference in Development Economics (ABCDE-Europe), Washington, 2001
[52] Rama, M.. Globalization and Workers in Developing Countries. Policy Research Working Paper2958, The World Bank, Washington, D.C, 2003
[53] Rodrik, Dani. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, D. C, Institute of InternationalEco-nomics, 1997
[54] Sun, K.. Chinese Rural Industrialization in the Context of the East Asian Miracle”. Joseph E.Stigilitz ;and Shahid Yusuf eds Rethinking the East Asian Miracle. Oxford and New York: the Oxford University, 2001
[55] Taylor, A. Argentina. The World Capital Market: Saving, Investment, and International Capital Mobility in the Twentieth Century. Journal of Development Economics, 1998, 57: 147—184
[56] Tsa,i P.L.. Foreign Direct Investmentand Income Inequality: FurtherEvidence. World Development, 1995, 23: 469—483
[57] Tsui, Kai Yuen. China’s Regional Inequality:1952-1995]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 1991, 15: 1—21
[58] V.N. Balasubramanyam, M. Salisu and D. Sapsford. Foreign Direct Investment and Growth: New Hypotheses and Evidence. Discussion Paper EC7/96, Department ofEconomics, Lancaster University, 1996
[59] Willian H Green. Econometric Analysis]. Prentice—Hall International Inc, 1997
[60] Wooldridge. J, M. Econometric Analysis of cross section and Panel Data]. Cambridge: MIT press, 1999
[61] Wilbur Chung. Mode Size and Location of Foreign Direct Investment and Industry Markups. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization, 2002, 45: 185—211
[62] William Easterly, Ross Levine, and David Roodman. New Data, New Doubts: A Comment on Burnside and Dollar’s Aid, Policies and Growth. American Economic Review, 1993, 15: 6—21
[63] Wu, Ximing & Jeffrey Perloff AmosGolan. Effects of Government Policies on Income Distribution and Welfare. Institute of IndustrialRelations, Working PaperSeries 1023, Institute of IndustrialRe-lations, UC Berkeley, 2002
[64] Xing, Yuqing and Kevin H. Zhang. FDI and Regional Income Disparity in HostContries Evidence from China. Economica Internationale, 2004, 57: 363—379
[65] Yih-chyi Chuang and Chi-mei Lin. Foreign Direct Investment R&D and Spillover Efficiency: Evidence from Taiwan’s Manufacturing Firms. The Journal of Development Studies, 1999, 35: 117—137
[66] Young, Alwyn. The Razor’s Edge: Distortions and Incremental Reform in the People Republic of China]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 35: 12—19
[67] Zhang, Zongyi, Shujie Yao. Convergence of China’s Regional Incomes, 1952-1997]. China Economic Review, 2001, 12: 243—58
[68]戴金平,冯蕾.外商直接投资与中国的出口竞争力-地区差异的实证研究.南开经济研究, 2003(5):25—30
[69]江小娟.吸引外资对中国产业技术进步和研发能力提升的影响.国际经济评论, 2004 (3):17—23
[70]杨丹辉.外商投资对中国出口竞争力的影响:实证分析.改革, 2004(3):39—42
[71]杨迤.外国直接投资对中国进出口影响的相关分析.世界经济, 2002(2):52—63
[72]俞毅,杜元庆.外商直接投资的比较研究.投资研究, 2003(9):10—15
[73]余永定. FDI对中国经济的影响.国际经贸评论, 2004(3):29—33
[74]史小龙,张峰.外商直接投资对我国进出口贸易影响的协整分析.世界经济研究, 2004(4):36—46
[75]李敏,郭曼.贸易增长的“贫困化陷阱”和比较优势的悖论.经济体制改革, 2003(1):12—15
[76]沈坤荣,李剑.中国贸易发展与经济增长影响机制的经验研究.经济研究, 2003(5):33—42
[77]王春法. FDI与内生技术能力培养.国际经济评论, 2004(4):63—69
[78]陆宾.国际贸易牵引增长理论对中国的适应性及运用.财经研究, 2000(6):20—25
[79]陈浪南,陈景煌.外商直接投资对中国经济增长影响的经验分析.世界经济, 2002(6):39—44
[80]杨全发,舒元.中国出口贸易对经济增长的影响.世界经济与政治, 1998(8):31—36
[81]林毅夫,李永军.必要的修正——对外贸易与经济增长关系的再考察.国际贸易, 2001 (9):22—30
[82]刘晓鹏,我国进出口与经济增长的实证分析——从增长率看外贸对经济增长的促进作用.中国经济问题, 2001 (4):51—57
[83]赵陵,宋少华,宋泓明.中国出口导向型经济增长的经验分析.世界经济, 2001 (8):13—19
[84]金祥荣,李有. FDI与我国技术进步关系的实证分析.技术经济, 2005(5):33—38
[85]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长—中国数据的计量检验与实验分析.中国社会科学, 2001(5):23—32
[86]陈家勤.我国外贸对经济增长的贡献与外贸扶持政策调整的基本取向.外贸经济, 1999(6):58—63
[87]胡祖六.关于中国引进外资的三大问题.国际经济评论, 2004(4):23—30
[88]王洛林、江小涓、卢圣亮.大型跨国公司投资对中国产业结构、技术进步和经济国际化的影响.中国工业经济,2000(5):55—62
[89]盛誉.发展中国家的开放、贸易政策与经济增长——一个跨国的实证分析.南开经济研究, 2004 (3):26—30
[90]梁华.外商在华直接投资问题研究综述.当代经济科学, 2004 ( 5):2—5
[91]江小涓.跨国投资、市场结构与外商投资企业的竞争行为.经济研究, 2002 ( 9):13—19
[92]郭克莎.外国直接投资对我国产业结构的影响.管理世界, 2000(2):7—15
[93]江小涓.中国外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献.中国社会科学, 2002(6):36—49
[94]李雪.外商直接投资的产业结构效应.经济与管理研究, 2005(1):11—15
[95]卢荻.外商投资与中国经济发展.经济研究, 2003(9):29—37
[96]郭克莎.外商直接投资对我国产业结构的影响研究.管理世界, 2002(2):30—40
[97]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长.中国社会科学, 2001(5):36—44
[98]刘似臣.中国对外贸易政策的演变与走向.中国国情国力, 2004( 8):40—42
[99]毛定祥.外国直接投资与国内资本形成的协整分析.金融管理, 2006(7):22—26
[100]杨新房,任丽君,李红芹.外商直接对我国资本形成影响的实证研究.开放导报, 2006(8)
[101]陈迅,高远东.中国产业结构变动和FDI间的动态关系研究.科研管理, 2005(9):30—34
[102]刘鹏飞.外商直接投资对我国产业结构影响分析.兰州学报, 2006(9):41—45
[103]赵红,张茜.外商直接投资对中国产业结构影响的实证研究.国际贸易问题, 2006(8):22—28
[104]胡蝶,刘垒珂. FDI对我国对外贸易的影响分析.当代经理人, 2006(9):17—19
[105]尹希果,陈刚,付翔.出口导向、市场寻求与FDI增长的实证分析.世界经济研究, 2005(9):40—44
[106]沈伯明,何元贵等著.入世与中国国际直接投资战略.广州:中山大学出版社, 2004
[107]刘跃生.国际直接投资与中国利用外资.北京:中国发展出版社,1999
[108]朱文晖.中国出口增长奇迹.北京:经济科学出版社, 1998
[109]张汉林,卢进勇.经济增长新引擎.北京:中国经济出版社1998
[110]张二震,马野青.国际贸易学.南京:南京大学出版社, 2003
[111]张曙宵.中国对外贸易结构论.北京:中国经济出版社, 2003
[112]易丹辉.数据分析与Eviews应用.北京:中国统计出版社, 2002
[113] (美)约翰斯顿·迪拉尔多.计量经济学方法(第四版).北京:中国经济出版社, 2002
[114]方齐云.国际经济学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社, 2002
[115]尹翔硕.中国外贸结构调整的实证分析.太原:山西经济出版社, 2003
[2] Aitken, B., Hanson, G.H., Harrison, A.E., Spillovers. Foreign Investment and Export Behaviour. Journal of International Economics, 43: 103—132
[3] Backus,D.,P.Kuheo and F.Kydland. International Real Business Cycles. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, 100: 745—775
[4] Axarloglou, Kostas, W illiam Casey and Hsiang-LingHan. Inward Foreign Direct Investments in the S: An EmpiricalAnalysis of their Impact on State Economies. Paper Presented at European International Business Academy, December8-10, 2002
[5] Balasubramanyam,V. N., Salisu , M. and Sapsford , D.. Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries. The Economic Journal, 1996, 106: 92—105
[6] Bhandar,i B.. Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect US Income Inequality? http: //darkwing. uoregon.edu/~bbhandar/FDIINEQ. pdf, 2005
[7] Barro, Robert J.. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106, 5: 407—443
[8] Barro, Robert J. and Sala-I-Martin, Xavier. Convergence Across States and Regions. Brookings Papers on Economics Activity, 1991: 107—182
[9] Barro,Robert J. and Sala-I-Martin,Xavier. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, 100 ,4: 223—251
[10] Barro,R.and X.Sala-i-Martin. Economic Growth. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1995
[11] Berthelemy, J., and Demurger, S.. Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Application to China. Review of Development Economics, 2000, 4: 140—55
[12] Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., Lee, JW.. How does Foreign Direct InvestmentAffect Economic Growth. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45: 115—135
[13] Bhagwati, Jagdish N. and T.N. Srinivasan. Trade and Poverty in Poor Countries. American Economic Review, 2002, 92: 15—25
[14] Blomstrom M., Kokko A.. The Impact of Foreign Investment on Host Countries : A Review of the Empirical Evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1996
[15] Borensztein, E., D. Gregorior and Lee J-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45: 115—135
[16] Brunner, Allan D.. The Long- Run Effects of Trade on Income and Income Growth. IMF Working Paper, 2003
[17] Burnside, Craig and David Dollar. Aid Policies and Growth. American Economic Review, 2000, 9: 847—868
[18] Chen, Baizhu, and Yi Feng. Determinants of Economic Growth in China: Private Enterprise, Education and Openness]. China Eco-nomic Review, 2000, 11: 1—15
[19] Chenery.H, Strout.A.M. Foreign Assistant and Economic Development. American Economic Review, 1966, 2: 22—35
[20] Cook, L. Patterns of China’s Regional Development Strategy].The China Quarterly, 1990, 122: 230—257
[21] Démurger,S, Jeffrey D.Sachs, Wing T.Woo, Shuming Bao,Gene Chang and Andrew Mellinger. Geography, Economic Policy and Re-gional Development in China]. CID Working Paper, 2001
[22] Dooley M., Frankel J. and D. Mathieson. International Capital Mobility: What Do Saving-Investment Correlations Tell US. IMF Papers, 1987, 3: 503—530
[23] Dayal-Gulati, Anuradha and Aasim M Husain. Centripetal Forces in China’s Economic Take-off]. IMF Working Paper, 2000
[24] Eduard Borensztein, Jose De Gregorio, Jong-Wha Lee, How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth. Journal of International Economics, 1999, 45:547—582
[25] Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson. Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 1996, 86: 240—245.
[26] Feldstein, M.. Domestic saving and international capital movements in the long run and in the short run. European Economic Review, 1983, 21: 139—151
[27] F.L.Rivera-Batiz and L.A. Rivera-Batiz. The Effects of Direct Foreign Investment in the Presence of Increasing Returns Due to Specialization. Journal of Development Economics, 1991, 34: 287—307
[28] Forbes, L.. Decomposition of China’s Regional Inequalities]. Journal of Comparative Economics. 1993, 17: 600—627
[29] Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson. Foreign Direct Investment and Relative Wages: Evidence from Mexico′s maquiladoras. Journal of InternationalEconomics, 1997, 42: 371—393
[30] Feliciano, Zadia and Robert E. Lipsey. Foreign Ownership and Wages in the United States: 1987—1992. Cambridge, MA, NBER Working Paper No.6923, 1999
[31] Figlio, David N. and Bruce Blonigen. The Effects of Foreign Direct Investmenton Local Communities. Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, 48: 338—363
[32] Hemmer, H. R.. Wirtschaftsprobleme der Entwicklungs?. Eubearbeitete und Erweiterte Au-flage, München, 2002
[33] G. Feder. On Export and Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 1982, 12: 59—73
[34] Hiemenz, U.. Foreign Direct Investment and CapitalFormation in China Since 1979: Implications for Economic Development. In China′s Contemporary Economic Reforms as a Development Strategy: Pro-ceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of Duisburg, FRG, June 14—16, 1999, Baden-Baden, 1995, 85—104
[35] Hsiao.C. Analysis of Panel Data]. Cambridge: Cambridge university, 2003
[36] Jian, Tianlun, Jeffery D Sacks, Andrew M.Warner. Trends in Regional Inequality in China]. NBER working paper, 1996
[37] J.Y. Wang. Technology Transfer and Long-run Theory of International Capital Movements. Journal of International Economics, 1990, 29: 255—271
[38] Jakob Svensson. Why Conditional Aid Doesnot Work and What Can Be Done About It?. Journal of Devolopment Economics. 2003, 70: 381—402
[39] Jakob Svensson. Foreign Aid and Rent-Seeking. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 51: 437—461
[40] Jun. K. W, Singh, H.. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries. Transnational Corporations, 1996, 2: 67—105
[41] Lee, Jongchul. Regional Differences in the Impact of the Open Door Policy on Income Growth in China]. Journal of Economic Development, 1994, 19: 215—234
[42] Leonard k. Cheng, Yum K. Kwan. What are the Determinants of the Location of Foreign Direct Investment? The Chinese Experience. Journal of International Economics, 2000, 12: 379—400
[43] Manuel R. Agosin and Ricardo Mayer. Foreign Investment in Developing Countries: Does it Crowd in Domestic Investment. Journal of Economic Development, 1999, 19: 215—230
[44] Mankiw, N.G, Romer, D., and Weil, D.N.A. Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, 107: 407—437
[45] Matsuoka, A. Wage Differentials among Local Plants and Foreign Multinationals by Foreign Owner-ship Share andNationality in Thai Manufacturing. Working Paper. The InternationalCentre for the Study ofEastAsian Development (ICSEAD), Kitakyushu, 2002
[46] Miguel D. Ramírez. Foreign Direct Investment in Mexico: A Cointegration Analysis. The Journal of Development Studies, 2000, 37: 138—162
[47] McNab, Moore. Trade Policy, Export Expansion, Human Capital and Growth.Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 1998, 8: 32—39
[48] Peter Bone. Politics and the Effectiveness of Foreign Aid. European Economic Review, 1996, 40:189—329
[49] Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiele, Rainer. Strategien zur Bekampfung derweltweiten Armut: Irrwege, Umwege und Auswege. KielDiscussion Paper407, Kiel Institute forWorld Economics, Kie, 2004
[50] R.Findlay. Relative Backwardness. Direct Foreign Investment and the Trasfer of Technology: A Simple Dynamic Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1978, 2:1—16
[51] Rama, M.. Globalization, Inequality and Labor Market Policies. Paper for Annual Bank Conference in Development Economics (ABCDE-Europe), Washington, 2001
[52] Rama, M.. Globalization and Workers in Developing Countries. Policy Research Working Paper2958, The World Bank, Washington, D.C, 2003
[53] Rodrik, Dani. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, D. C, Institute of InternationalEco-nomics, 1997
[54] Sun, K.. Chinese Rural Industrialization in the Context of the East Asian Miracle”. Joseph E.Stigilitz ;and Shahid Yusuf eds Rethinking the East Asian Miracle. Oxford and New York: the Oxford University, 2001
[55] Taylor, A. Argentina. The World Capital Market: Saving, Investment, and International Capital Mobility in the Twentieth Century. Journal of Development Economics, 1998, 57: 147—184
[56] Tsa,i P.L.. Foreign Direct Investmentand Income Inequality: FurtherEvidence. World Development, 1995, 23: 469—483
[57] Tsui, Kai Yuen. China’s Regional Inequality:1952-1995]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 1991, 15: 1—21
[58] V.N. Balasubramanyam, M. Salisu and D. Sapsford. Foreign Direct Investment and Growth: New Hypotheses and Evidence. Discussion Paper EC7/96, Department ofEconomics, Lancaster University, 1996
[59] Willian H Green. Econometric Analysis]. Prentice—Hall International Inc, 1997
[60] Wooldridge. J, M. Econometric Analysis of cross section and Panel Data]. Cambridge: MIT press, 1999
[61] Wilbur Chung. Mode Size and Location of Foreign Direct Investment and Industry Markups. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization, 2002, 45: 185—211
[62] William Easterly, Ross Levine, and David Roodman. New Data, New Doubts: A Comment on Burnside and Dollar’s Aid, Policies and Growth. American Economic Review, 1993, 15: 6—21
[63] Wu, Ximing & Jeffrey Perloff AmosGolan. Effects of Government Policies on Income Distribution and Welfare. Institute of IndustrialRelations, Working PaperSeries 1023, Institute of IndustrialRe-lations, UC Berkeley, 2002
[64] Xing, Yuqing and Kevin H. Zhang. FDI and Regional Income Disparity in HostContries Evidence from China. Economica Internationale, 2004, 57: 363—379
[65] Yih-chyi Chuang and Chi-mei Lin. Foreign Direct Investment R&D and Spillover Efficiency: Evidence from Taiwan’s Manufacturing Firms. The Journal of Development Studies, 1999, 35: 117—137
[66] Young, Alwyn. The Razor’s Edge: Distortions and Incremental Reform in the People Republic of China]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 35: 12—19
[67] Zhang, Zongyi, Shujie Yao. Convergence of China’s Regional Incomes, 1952-1997]. China Economic Review, 2001, 12: 243—58
[68]戴金平,冯蕾.外商直接投资与中国的出口竞争力-地区差异的实证研究.南开经济研究, 2003(5):25—30
[69]江小娟.吸引外资对中国产业技术进步和研发能力提升的影响.国际经济评论, 2004 (3):17—23
[70]杨丹辉.外商投资对中国出口竞争力的影响:实证分析.改革, 2004(3):39—42
[71]杨迤.外国直接投资对中国进出口影响的相关分析.世界经济, 2002(2):52—63
[72]俞毅,杜元庆.外商直接投资的比较研究.投资研究, 2003(9):10—15
[73]余永定. FDI对中国经济的影响.国际经贸评论, 2004(3):29—33
[74]史小龙,张峰.外商直接投资对我国进出口贸易影响的协整分析.世界经济研究, 2004(4):36—46
[75]李敏,郭曼.贸易增长的“贫困化陷阱”和比较优势的悖论.经济体制改革, 2003(1):12—15
[76]沈坤荣,李剑.中国贸易发展与经济增长影响机制的经验研究.经济研究, 2003(5):33—42
[77]王春法. FDI与内生技术能力培养.国际经济评论, 2004(4):63—69
[78]陆宾.国际贸易牵引增长理论对中国的适应性及运用.财经研究, 2000(6):20—25
[79]陈浪南,陈景煌.外商直接投资对中国经济增长影响的经验分析.世界经济, 2002(6):39—44
[80]杨全发,舒元.中国出口贸易对经济增长的影响.世界经济与政治, 1998(8):31—36
[81]林毅夫,李永军.必要的修正——对外贸易与经济增长关系的再考察.国际贸易, 2001 (9):22—30
[82]刘晓鹏,我国进出口与经济增长的实证分析——从增长率看外贸对经济增长的促进作用.中国经济问题, 2001 (4):51—57
[83]赵陵,宋少华,宋泓明.中国出口导向型经济增长的经验分析.世界经济, 2001 (8):13—19
[84]金祥荣,李有. FDI与我国技术进步关系的实证分析.技术经济, 2005(5):33—38
[85]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长—中国数据的计量检验与实验分析.中国社会科学, 2001(5):23—32
[86]陈家勤.我国外贸对经济增长的贡献与外贸扶持政策调整的基本取向.外贸经济, 1999(6):58—63
[87]胡祖六.关于中国引进外资的三大问题.国际经济评论, 2004(4):23—30
[88]王洛林、江小涓、卢圣亮.大型跨国公司投资对中国产业结构、技术进步和经济国际化的影响.中国工业经济,2000(5):55—62
[89]盛誉.发展中国家的开放、贸易政策与经济增长——一个跨国的实证分析.南开经济研究, 2004 (3):26—30
[90]梁华.外商在华直接投资问题研究综述.当代经济科学, 2004 ( 5):2—5
[91]江小涓.跨国投资、市场结构与外商投资企业的竞争行为.经济研究, 2002 ( 9):13—19
[92]郭克莎.外国直接投资对我国产业结构的影响.管理世界, 2000(2):7—15
[93]江小涓.中国外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献.中国社会科学, 2002(6):36—49
[94]李雪.外商直接投资的产业结构效应.经济与管理研究, 2005(1):11—15
[95]卢荻.外商投资与中国经济发展.经济研究, 2003(9):29—37
[96]郭克莎.外商直接投资对我国产业结构的影响研究.管理世界, 2002(2):30—40
[97]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长.中国社会科学, 2001(5):36—44
[98]刘似臣.中国对外贸易政策的演变与走向.中国国情国力, 2004( 8):40—42
[99]毛定祥.外国直接投资与国内资本形成的协整分析.金融管理, 2006(7):22—26
[100]杨新房,任丽君,李红芹.外商直接对我国资本形成影响的实证研究.开放导报, 2006(8)
[101]陈迅,高远东.中国产业结构变动和FDI间的动态关系研究.科研管理, 2005(9):30—34
[102]刘鹏飞.外商直接投资对我国产业结构影响分析.兰州学报, 2006(9):41—45
[103]赵红,张茜.外商直接投资对中国产业结构影响的实证研究.国际贸易问题, 2006(8):22—28
[104]胡蝶,刘垒珂. FDI对我国对外贸易的影响分析.当代经理人, 2006(9):17—19
[105]尹希果,陈刚,付翔.出口导向、市场寻求与FDI增长的实证分析.世界经济研究, 2005(9):40—44
[106]沈伯明,何元贵等著.入世与中国国际直接投资战略.广州:中山大学出版社, 2004
[107]刘跃生.国际直接投资与中国利用外资.北京:中国发展出版社,1999
[108]朱文晖.中国出口增长奇迹.北京:经济科学出版社, 1998
[109]张汉林,卢进勇.经济增长新引擎.北京:中国经济出版社1998
[110]张二震,马野青.国际贸易学.南京:南京大学出版社, 2003
[111]张曙宵.中国对外贸易结构论.北京:中国经济出版社, 2003
[112]易丹辉.数据分析与Eviews应用.北京:中国统计出版社, 2002
[113] (美)约翰斯顿·迪拉尔多.计量经济学方法(第四版).北京:中国经济出版社, 2002
[114]方齐云.国际经济学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社, 2002
[115]尹翔硕.中国外贸结构调整的实证分析.太原:山西经济出版社, 2003