劳动技能分布对国家比较优势的影响
|
摘要
传统要素禀赋理论强调国家间的贸易模式取决于要素禀赋的差异,比较优势来源于特定生产要素数量的相对充裕度,是国际分工和开展贸易的基础。随着社会经济的发展以及人口和教育等政策的变化,国家间原有的要素禀赋趋向一致。发达国家间在资本、技术等方面的差异在逐渐缩小,如美国和日本；发展中国家间劳动技能的总体水平或总体劳动资源的平均技能水平的差异也在逐渐缩小,如中国和印度。但是,双边贸易额并没有因为国家间原有的要素禀赋的这种变动而减少。
通过考察劳动力的受教育情况我们发现,总体上看,中印两国劳动力的平均受教育年限差别不大,美日两国劳动力的平均受教育年限也基本相当。但是在基于受教育年限测度的劳动技能结构方面彼此却存在很大差异。其中,中国和日本劳动力技能水平差异相对来说都比较小,中国没有太多文盲和高等技能人才,日本则拥有大批受过高等教育和具备较高业务水平的高端技能劳动力,中高端技能劳动力占了很大比重。而印度和美国劳动力技能水平差异相对来说都比较大,印度的文盲率和高等技能人才占比都比中国高,美国则拥有大批的精英人才,同时也拥有大批低文化程度的低端技能劳动力,劳动技能分布基本呈两极分化的趋势。这种劳动技能结构的差异很有可能导致国家在细分要素基础上的比较优势有所差异,例如,在制造业领域,中国和日本的比较优势体现得更明显,其中日本的比较优势突出表现在高端制造业；而在软件技术业、金融保险等现代服务业领域,印度和美国的比较优势体现得更明显。
结合该领域的一些相关研究,首先,本文论证了劳动技能分布对国家比较优势的影响。我们总结归纳出劳动技能分布可能会影响一国比较优势的机制,并假定劳动技能分布是外生的,进一步建立劳动技能分布影响国家比较优势的理论模型。运用中印两国1995-2010年的细分行业双边贸易数据,我们对理论上推导出来的结论进行了实证检验,实证结果基本符合理论预期,即基于受教育程度的劳动技能分布差异确实会对两国的比较优势产生影响。
其次,本文对劳动技能分布的决定因素进行了探讨。在初步论证了劳动技能分布会对一国比较优势产生影响的基础上,为了进一步提出优化贸易结构和改善国际分工地位的具体政策建议,我们结合教育体制的特征,分别从供给和需求的角度探讨劳动技能分布的决定因素,并进一步总结出其具体的影响机制。在供给层面,国家、企业和个人提供和参与教育培训的激励会对一国的劳动技能分布产生影响；在需求层面,劳动力市场的就业和定价机制以及厂商对技能的需求也会对一国的劳动技能分布产生影响。结合美国和日本的教育培训体制,我们就这些决定因素进行案例分析,比较不同的教育体制下,厂商和个人的选择对一国劳动力的整体技能水平和劳动技能分布产生的不同影响。
再次,论证教育体制通过作用于劳动技能分布进而对国家比较优势的影响。由于教育培训在人力资本形成的过程中发挥着非常重要的作用,作为后续的拓展研究,我们放松劳动技能分布外生的假定,总结归纳出教育体制通过作用于劳动技能分布进而影响比较优势的机制,并参考Chang和Huang(2010)进一步梳理出具体的理论模型。根据经济发展水平差异我们选取几对代表性的国家,分别就分散的教育体制和集中的教育体制通过影响劳动技能分布进而影响一国的比较优势进行案例分析,以此来验证教育体制、劳动技能分布与国家比较优势的关系。此外,我们从大国经济多样性的发展需要、国内区域分工的特征以及未来产业结构的动态演进等角度对我国在教育体制的集中和分散程度以及劳动技能分布的集中和分散程度找到一个怎样的平衡进行了相关分析和探讨。
最后,我们对全文的分析和论述做了一个系统总结。我们认为劳动技能分布确实会对一国的比较优势产生影响。教育培训在人力资本形成的过程中发挥着非常重要的作用,在不同的教育体制下,厂商和个人的选择会对一国劳动力的整体技能水平和劳动技能分布产生不同的影响,劳动力市场的就业和定价机制以及厂商对技能的需求也会影响一国的劳动技能分布。客观上我们认为,无论是集中或分散的教育体制还是集中或分散的劳动技能分布本身都没有好与坏之分,重要的二者与国家的经济贸易发展战略相适应。
中国作为一个发展中的大国,我们需要在封闭和开放度上有一个权衡,与未来的经济发展战略相适应,我们也需要在教育体制的集中或者分散度上以及劳动技能分布的集中或者分散度上有一个权衡,这些是根据我国现在和未来的发展需要而来的。针对我国发展高端制造业和高新技术产业的需要以及提高自身的创新和研发能力的需要,我们认为单纯集中或分散的教育体制以及单纯集中或分散的劳动技能分布都不能适应我国目前的经济发展目标。同时,考虑到我国国内区域分工的特征以及未来产业结构的动态演进,我们认为可以适当在劳动技能分布的特征上体现出一定的地区差异,教育体制要与劳动技能分布相适应,在高等教育和高端人才培养方面,适当提高育人机制的弹性。
Traditional factor endowments theory emphasizes that trade patterns between two countries depends on the factor endowment differences. Comparative advantage comes from the relative abundant quantity of specific factors, which is the basis of international division of labor and international trade. With the development of society and economy and the changes of population and education policy, the original factor endowments between countries consistent with each other develop to the similar trend. Among developed countries, the differences in capital, technology and others are narrowing, take US and Japan for example. Among developing countries, differences in the overall level of labor skills or the average skill level of labor resources are gradually narrowing, take China and India for example. However, bilateral trade does not decrease because of these changes in the original factor endowments between countries.
By examining the situation of labor education, we find that the difference of labor force average years of education between China and India is not very large. Similarly, labor force average years of education between US and Japan are almost the same. But there is a great difference between their labor skill structures calculated by years of education. In China and Japan, the difference between labor skills is relatively small. In China, illiterate labor and talented labor account for a small proportion. Japan has a large number of highly educated and a higher level of high-end skilled labor. In Japan, the mid-skilled labor force and skilled labor force account for a large proportion. In India and US, the difference between labor skills is relatively large. India's illiteracy rate and the proportion of higher skilled personnel are higher than that of China. The difference between labor skills of the US is relatively large. US has a large number of talents, but also has a large number of low education level or low-end unskilled labor. Labor skill distribution is likely to the trend of polarization in US. The differences in the structure of the labor skills are likely to lead to the differences of countries' comparative advantage on the basis of breakdown elements. For example, in the manufacturing sector, China and Japan show more obvious comparative advantages. Especially in the field of high-end manufacturing, Japan's comparative advantage is more obvious. While in the software technology industry, financial modern service industries such as insurance, India and US show more obvious comparative advantages.
Combined with relevant research in this field, first of all, this paper analyzes how labor skill distribution affects national comparative advantage. We summarize the influence mechanism of labor skill distribution on national comparative advantage. Assume that labor skill distribution is exogenous, and then we establish a theoretical model of labor skill distribution affecting national comparative advantages. We use bilateral trade data of the sub-industry of China and India from1995to2010to examine our theoretical conclusion with an empirical estimation. The estimate results are consistent with theoretical expectations that labor skill distribution which is based on the education level dose affect national comparative advantage.
Secondly, this paper explores the determinants of labor skill distribution. Based on our preliminary demonstration that labor skill distribution does affect national comparative advantage, in order to give specific policy recommendations that can optimize the trade structure and improve the status of the international division of labor, we explore the determinants of labor skill distribution and summarize the influence mechanism from the aspects of demand side and supply side separately, which are based on the characteristics of the education system. At the supply side, the govenment, enterprises and individuals all have incentive to to provide and participate in education and training, which will affect national labor skill distribution. At the demand side, the employment and pricing mechanisms of the labor market and manufacturers demand for skills will affect national labor skill distribution too. We select typical countries-the United States and Japan combined with its education system to do case study based on these determinants. We compare different impact of manufacturers and personal choice on the overall skill level of national labor force and labor skill distribution under different education systems.
Thirdly, we discuss about how education system affects labor skill distribution thereby national comparative advantage. Education and training plays very important roles in the process of human capital formation. As a further study, we relax the given assumption that labor skill distribution is exogenous and summarize the influence mechanisms of how education system affects labor skill distribution thereby national comparative advantage.With reference to Chang and Huang (2010), we summarize specific theoretical model. We select a few representative countries according to their economic development level, which is mainly based on real GDP per capita to do case study. We compare the degree of decentralization and centralization of education system, labor skill distribution and national comparative advantages of the above countries by doing case study to examine our expectation of relationship between education system, labor skill distribution and national comparative advantage. In addition, from the perspective of economic diversity development need, the characteristics of domestic regional division of labor and industry structure dynamic evolution in the future, China needs to find a balance between dispersed and centralized education system and a balance between dispersed and centralized labor skill distribution.
Finally, we made a systematic summary. We believe that the distribution of labor skills does affect national comparative advantage. Education and training play very important roles in the process of human capital formation. Under different education systems, enterprises and individuals'choice affects overall labor force skill level and labor skill distribution of a country. Employment and pricing mechanism of labor market, as well as manufacturers demand for skills will also affect a country's labor skill distribution. Objectively speaking, there is no exact good or bad judgement for centralized or decentralized education system or centralized or decentralized labor skill distribution. The most important thing is that both education system and labor skill distribution are suitable to our country's economic and trade development strategy.
China, as a developing country, we need to find a balance between autarky and openness. According to our future economic development strategy, we also need to find a balance between concentrated or dispersed education system and a balance between concentrated or dispersed labor skill distribution, which is based on our current and future development. In order to develop high-end manufacturing and high-tech industries and improve our innovation and R&D capabilities, we believe that neither the simple centralized or decentralized education system, nor the simple centralized or decentralized labor skill distribution are able to meet our current economic development goals. At the same time, taking into account China's domestic regional division of labor and the dynamic evolution of industrial structure in the future, we believe that may be it's appropriate to reflect regional differences in labor skill distribution. Education system should suitable to labor skill distribution. In the field of higher education and high-end training, an appropriate increase in the elastic of education mechanism is necessary.
通过考察劳动力的受教育情况我们发现,总体上看,中印两国劳动力的平均受教育年限差别不大,美日两国劳动力的平均受教育年限也基本相当。但是在基于受教育年限测度的劳动技能结构方面彼此却存在很大差异。其中,中国和日本劳动力技能水平差异相对来说都比较小,中国没有太多文盲和高等技能人才,日本则拥有大批受过高等教育和具备较高业务水平的高端技能劳动力,中高端技能劳动力占了很大比重。而印度和美国劳动力技能水平差异相对来说都比较大,印度的文盲率和高等技能人才占比都比中国高,美国则拥有大批的精英人才,同时也拥有大批低文化程度的低端技能劳动力,劳动技能分布基本呈两极分化的趋势。这种劳动技能结构的差异很有可能导致国家在细分要素基础上的比较优势有所差异,例如,在制造业领域,中国和日本的比较优势体现得更明显,其中日本的比较优势突出表现在高端制造业；而在软件技术业、金融保险等现代服务业领域,印度和美国的比较优势体现得更明显。
结合该领域的一些相关研究,首先,本文论证了劳动技能分布对国家比较优势的影响。我们总结归纳出劳动技能分布可能会影响一国比较优势的机制,并假定劳动技能分布是外生的,进一步建立劳动技能分布影响国家比较优势的理论模型。运用中印两国1995-2010年的细分行业双边贸易数据,我们对理论上推导出来的结论进行了实证检验,实证结果基本符合理论预期,即基于受教育程度的劳动技能分布差异确实会对两国的比较优势产生影响。
其次,本文对劳动技能分布的决定因素进行了探讨。在初步论证了劳动技能分布会对一国比较优势产生影响的基础上,为了进一步提出优化贸易结构和改善国际分工地位的具体政策建议,我们结合教育体制的特征,分别从供给和需求的角度探讨劳动技能分布的决定因素,并进一步总结出其具体的影响机制。在供给层面,国家、企业和个人提供和参与教育培训的激励会对一国的劳动技能分布产生影响；在需求层面,劳动力市场的就业和定价机制以及厂商对技能的需求也会对一国的劳动技能分布产生影响。结合美国和日本的教育培训体制,我们就这些决定因素进行案例分析,比较不同的教育体制下,厂商和个人的选择对一国劳动力的整体技能水平和劳动技能分布产生的不同影响。
再次,论证教育体制通过作用于劳动技能分布进而对国家比较优势的影响。由于教育培训在人力资本形成的过程中发挥着非常重要的作用,作为后续的拓展研究,我们放松劳动技能分布外生的假定,总结归纳出教育体制通过作用于劳动技能分布进而影响比较优势的机制,并参考Chang和Huang(2010)进一步梳理出具体的理论模型。根据经济发展水平差异我们选取几对代表性的国家,分别就分散的教育体制和集中的教育体制通过影响劳动技能分布进而影响一国的比较优势进行案例分析,以此来验证教育体制、劳动技能分布与国家比较优势的关系。此外,我们从大国经济多样性的发展需要、国内区域分工的特征以及未来产业结构的动态演进等角度对我国在教育体制的集中和分散程度以及劳动技能分布的集中和分散程度找到一个怎样的平衡进行了相关分析和探讨。
最后,我们对全文的分析和论述做了一个系统总结。我们认为劳动技能分布确实会对一国的比较优势产生影响。教育培训在人力资本形成的过程中发挥着非常重要的作用,在不同的教育体制下,厂商和个人的选择会对一国劳动力的整体技能水平和劳动技能分布产生不同的影响,劳动力市场的就业和定价机制以及厂商对技能的需求也会影响一国的劳动技能分布。客观上我们认为,无论是集中或分散的教育体制还是集中或分散的劳动技能分布本身都没有好与坏之分,重要的二者与国家的经济贸易发展战略相适应。
中国作为一个发展中的大国,我们需要在封闭和开放度上有一个权衡,与未来的经济发展战略相适应,我们也需要在教育体制的集中或者分散度上以及劳动技能分布的集中或者分散度上有一个权衡,这些是根据我国现在和未来的发展需要而来的。针对我国发展高端制造业和高新技术产业的需要以及提高自身的创新和研发能力的需要,我们认为单纯集中或分散的教育体制以及单纯集中或分散的劳动技能分布都不能适应我国目前的经济发展目标。同时,考虑到我国国内区域分工的特征以及未来产业结构的动态演进,我们认为可以适当在劳动技能分布的特征上体现出一定的地区差异,教育体制要与劳动技能分布相适应,在高等教育和高端人才培养方面,适当提高育人机制的弹性。
Traditional factor endowments theory emphasizes that trade patterns between two countries depends on the factor endowment differences. Comparative advantage comes from the relative abundant quantity of specific factors, which is the basis of international division of labor and international trade. With the development of society and economy and the changes of population and education policy, the original factor endowments between countries consistent with each other develop to the similar trend. Among developed countries, the differences in capital, technology and others are narrowing, take US and Japan for example. Among developing countries, differences in the overall level of labor skills or the average skill level of labor resources are gradually narrowing, take China and India for example. However, bilateral trade does not decrease because of these changes in the original factor endowments between countries.
By examining the situation of labor education, we find that the difference of labor force average years of education between China and India is not very large. Similarly, labor force average years of education between US and Japan are almost the same. But there is a great difference between their labor skill structures calculated by years of education. In China and Japan, the difference between labor skills is relatively small. In China, illiterate labor and talented labor account for a small proportion. Japan has a large number of highly educated and a higher level of high-end skilled labor. In Japan, the mid-skilled labor force and skilled labor force account for a large proportion. In India and US, the difference between labor skills is relatively large. India's illiteracy rate and the proportion of higher skilled personnel are higher than that of China. The difference between labor skills of the US is relatively large. US has a large number of talents, but also has a large number of low education level or low-end unskilled labor. Labor skill distribution is likely to the trend of polarization in US. The differences in the structure of the labor skills are likely to lead to the differences of countries' comparative advantage on the basis of breakdown elements. For example, in the manufacturing sector, China and Japan show more obvious comparative advantages. Especially in the field of high-end manufacturing, Japan's comparative advantage is more obvious. While in the software technology industry, financial modern service industries such as insurance, India and US show more obvious comparative advantages.
Combined with relevant research in this field, first of all, this paper analyzes how labor skill distribution affects national comparative advantage. We summarize the influence mechanism of labor skill distribution on national comparative advantage. Assume that labor skill distribution is exogenous, and then we establish a theoretical model of labor skill distribution affecting national comparative advantages. We use bilateral trade data of the sub-industry of China and India from1995to2010to examine our theoretical conclusion with an empirical estimation. The estimate results are consistent with theoretical expectations that labor skill distribution which is based on the education level dose affect national comparative advantage.
Secondly, this paper explores the determinants of labor skill distribution. Based on our preliminary demonstration that labor skill distribution does affect national comparative advantage, in order to give specific policy recommendations that can optimize the trade structure and improve the status of the international division of labor, we explore the determinants of labor skill distribution and summarize the influence mechanism from the aspects of demand side and supply side separately, which are based on the characteristics of the education system. At the supply side, the govenment, enterprises and individuals all have incentive to to provide and participate in education and training, which will affect national labor skill distribution. At the demand side, the employment and pricing mechanisms of the labor market and manufacturers demand for skills will affect national labor skill distribution too. We select typical countries-the United States and Japan combined with its education system to do case study based on these determinants. We compare different impact of manufacturers and personal choice on the overall skill level of national labor force and labor skill distribution under different education systems.
Thirdly, we discuss about how education system affects labor skill distribution thereby national comparative advantage. Education and training plays very important roles in the process of human capital formation. As a further study, we relax the given assumption that labor skill distribution is exogenous and summarize the influence mechanisms of how education system affects labor skill distribution thereby national comparative advantage.With reference to Chang and Huang (2010), we summarize specific theoretical model. We select a few representative countries according to their economic development level, which is mainly based on real GDP per capita to do case study. We compare the degree of decentralization and centralization of education system, labor skill distribution and national comparative advantages of the above countries by doing case study to examine our expectation of relationship between education system, labor skill distribution and national comparative advantage. In addition, from the perspective of economic diversity development need, the characteristics of domestic regional division of labor and industry structure dynamic evolution in the future, China needs to find a balance between dispersed and centralized education system and a balance between dispersed and centralized labor skill distribution.
Finally, we made a systematic summary. We believe that the distribution of labor skills does affect national comparative advantage. Education and training play very important roles in the process of human capital formation. Under different education systems, enterprises and individuals'choice affects overall labor force skill level and labor skill distribution of a country. Employment and pricing mechanism of labor market, as well as manufacturers demand for skills will also affect a country's labor skill distribution. Objectively speaking, there is no exact good or bad judgement for centralized or decentralized education system or centralized or decentralized labor skill distribution. The most important thing is that both education system and labor skill distribution are suitable to our country's economic and trade development strategy.
China, as a developing country, we need to find a balance between autarky and openness. According to our future economic development strategy, we also need to find a balance between concentrated or dispersed education system and a balance between concentrated or dispersed labor skill distribution, which is based on our current and future development. In order to develop high-end manufacturing and high-tech industries and improve our innovation and R&D capabilities, we believe that neither the simple centralized or decentralized education system, nor the simple centralized or decentralized labor skill distribution are able to meet our current economic development goals. At the same time, taking into account China's domestic regional division of labor and the dynamic evolution of industrial structure in the future, we believe that may be it's appropriate to reflect regional differences in labor skill distribution. Education system should suitable to labor skill distribution. In the field of higher education and high-end training, an appropriate increase in the elastic of education mechanism is necessary.
引文
1 图1.1和图1.2来源寸Grossmann, G. M.,& Maggi, G.. Diversity and Trade. American Economy Review,2000. Vol.90 (5):1255-1275
1 图1.3和图1.4来源于Grossmann, G. M.,& Maggi, G.. Diversity and Trade. American Economy Review,2000. Vol.90(5):1255-1275
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
2 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
3 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新淦释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
2 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
3 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
4 http://baike.baidu.com/vicw/118993.htm
5 李江源教育制度：概念的厘定.河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003.Vol.5(1)：20-31
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
1、Adam S. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London:Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell,1776
2、Anderson J E, Wincoop E V. Gravity with gravities:A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review,2003, vol.93(1):170-192
3、Antras P. Firms, contracts, and trade structure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press,2003, vol.118(4):1375-1418
4、Astiz M F, Alexander W, David P B. Slouching towards decentralization:Consequences of globalization for curicular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review,2002(46):66-88
5、Asuyama Y. Skill distribution and comparative advantage:A comparison of China and India. World Development,2011, Vol.40(5):956-969
6、Asuyama Y. Skill formation systems of China and India. Comparative Study on Industrial Development Process in China and India. Interim Report. China:Institute of Developing Economies.2009
7、Baldwin R. Heterogeneous firms and trade:Testable and untestable properties of the Melitz Model. NBER Working Papers:11471.2005
8、Barro R J, Lee J W. International data on educational attainment:Updates and implications. CID Working Paper:42.2000
9、Beauchamp E R. The development of Japanese educational policy,1945-85. History of Education Quarterly,1987(27):299-324
10、Benabou R. Heterrogeneity, stratification, and growth:Macroeconomic implications of community structure and school finance. American Economic Review,1996(86):584-609
11、Bergstrand J H. The gravity equation in International trade:Some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1985(20):474
12、Barro R J, McCleary R M. Which countries have state religions? Quarterly Journal of Economics,2005, Vol.120(4):1331-1370
13. Bombardini M, Gallipoli G, Pupato G. Skill dispersion and trade flows. NBER Working Paper,15097.2009
14、Bond E W, Kathleen T, Ping W. Factor accumulation and trade:Dynamic comparative advantage with endogenous phsical and human aapital. International Economic Review, 2003(44):1041-1060
15、Riezman R. Optimal education policies and comparative advantage. Research Paper.2009
16、Bougheas S, Riezman R. Trade and the Distribution of Human Capital. Journal of International Economics,2007(73):1041-1060
17、Bracey G W. International comparison and the condition of American education. Educational Researcher,1996(25):5-11
18、Castello A, Domenech R. Human capital inequality an economic growth:Some new evidence. The Economic Journal,2002. Vol.112(2):187-200
19、Chor D. Unpacking sources of comparative advantage:A quantitative approach. Journal of International Economics,2010. Vol.82(2):152-167
20、Cummings W K. The institutions of education:Compare, compare, compare! Com parative Education Review,1999(43):413-437
21、David R. On the principles of plitical economy and taxation. Third edition. London:John Murray,1821
22、Findly R, Henryk K. International trade and human capital:A simple general equilibrum model, Journal of Political Economy,1983(91):957-978
23、Green A. Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia:Convergent and divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy,1999(14):55-71
24、Gregory N, Nollen S, Tenev S. New industries from new place:The emergency of the software and hardware industries in China and India. Stanford, California/Washington, DC: Stanford University Press/World Bank.2009
25、Grossman G. M. The distribution of talent and the pattern and consequences of international trade. Journal of Political Economy,2004. Vol.112(1):209-239
26、Grossman G M, Maggi G. Diversity and trade. American Economy Review,2000. Vol.90 (5):1255-1275
27、Hanushek E A. The long run importance of school quality. NBER Working Paper, No.9071.2002
28、Hanushek E A, Dennis D K. Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review,2000(90):1184-1208
29、Heckscher E. The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Ekonomisk Tidskrift,1919(21):497-512
30、Helpman E. International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale, and monopolistic competition:A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin approach, Journal of International Economics,1981(11):305-340
31、Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y. Estimating trade flows:Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics,2008. Vol.123(2):441-487
32、Holz C A. New capital estimates for China. China Economic Review,2006. Vol.17(2): 142-185
33、http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
34、James B, Krugman P.'Reciprocal Dumping' model of international trade. NBER Working Paper, No.1194.1983
35、Koopman R, Wang Z, Wei S J. How much of Chinese exports is really made in China? Assessing domestic value-added when processing trade is pervasive. NBER Working Paper, 14109.2008
36、Kremer M. The O-ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993. Vol.108(3):551-575
37、Krugman P. Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade. Journal of International Economics,1979(9):469-479
38、Krugman P, Helpman E. Market structure and foreign trade:Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. The MIT Press.1985
39、Lancaster K. Intra-Industry trade under perfect imperfect competition. Journal ofInternational Economics,1980(10):151-175
40、Larry D A. General equilibrium analysis of software development:Implications of copyright protection and contract enforcement. European Economic Review, Elsevier, 2006. Vol.50(7):1661-1682
41、Linder S. An essay on trade and transformation, Stockholm:Almqvist & Wicksell.1961
42、Lo C P, Liu B J. Why India is mainly engaged in offshore service activities, while China is disproportionately engaged in manufacturing? China Economic Review,2009. Vol.20(2): 236-245
43、Mayer R E, Tajika H, Stanley C. Mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States:A controlled comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology,1991(83):69-72
44、Melitz M. The impact of trade on Intra-Industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, Econometric Society,2003. Vol.71(6):1695-1725
45、Ohara M, Lin H. Competition and management in the manufacturing sector in China and India:A statistical overview. In M. Ohara M. Vijayabaskar,& H. Lin (Eds.) Industrial dynamics in China and India:Firms, clusters and different growth paths (pp.19-39). Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.2011
46、Ohlin B. Interregional and international trade, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.1933
47、Ohnsorge F, Trefler D. Sorting it out:International trade with heterogeneous workers. Journal of Political Economy,2007. Vol.115(5):868-892
48、Pao-li C, Fali H. Trade and divergence in education systems. Working Papers 33-2010, Singapore Management University, School of Economics
49、Ramirez F O, Xiaowei Luo, Evan S, et al. Meyer. Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education,2006(113):1-30
50、Robert A. Mundell. International trade and factor mobility. American Economic Review, 1957(47):321-335
51、Robinson J. The economics of imperfect competition. London:Macmillan.2d ed.1969
52、Schaub M. and Baker D P. Solving the math problem:Exploring mathematics achievement in Japanese and American middle grades. American Journal of Education,1991 (99):623-642
53、Takii K, Ryuichi T. Does the diversity of human capital increase GDP? A comparison of education systems. Journal of Public Economics,2009(93):998-1007
54、Tang H. Labor Market institutions, firm-specific skills, and trade patterns. Centro Studi Luca D'Agliano Development Studies Working Paper, No.301,2010
55、Vernon R. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1966(80):190-207
56、Westbury I. Comparing American and Japanese achievement:Is the United States really a low achiever? Educational Researcher,1992(21):18-24
57、蔡晓月.人力资本结构与经济增长关系研究综述.经济学动态,2004(6)：89-91
58、陈艾华,周燕球.知识经济背景下的日本高等教育特点.成都教育学院学报,2006(7)：53-55
59、陈春杰.中、美、日基础教育体制探析.文教资料,2012年2月号上旬刊：109-110
60、陈昀.中国与印度教育之比较：以比较历史法的视角.煤炭高等教育,2005.Vol.23(1)：94-96
61、程爱洁.韩国高等教育的发展历程及特点.上海理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005.9.Vol.27(3)：72-75
62、丛李方.韩国八十年代以来课程改革的主要特征分析.教育与考试,2009(4)：93-96
63、邓志博.德国的教育体制及特点研究.价值工程,2011(8)：165-166
64、丁兆云,惠巍.印度基础教育的课程设置.教育资料,1995(11)：60-61
65、冯梅,马宁莉.基于成本——收益数学模型的个人教育投资问题的思考.江苏经贸职业技术学院学报,2004(1)：61-63
66、谷贤林.美国高等教育体系与特点总论.高等理科教育,2003(4)：40-45
67、郭健,张建党.美国职业教育发展的特点和启示.中国职业技术教育,2004(29)：55-57
68、郝南明.新西兰教育特点及其启示.文山学院学报,2011.Vol.24(1)：84-87
69、何俐芳.德国教育体制探析.昆明大学学报(综合版),2003(2)：69-70
70、占光瑜.战后日本的职业教育及其特点.日本研究,2002(1)：86-93。
71、焦燕星.日本中等职业教育的研究：[硕十学位论文].长春：辽宁师范大学,2010
72、李江源.教育制度：概念的厘定.河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003.Vol.5(1)：20-31
73、李明华.从国外私立教育的模式刊我国民办教育体制的确立.教育革新,1997(1)：28-29
74、李溦.教育信念与教育体制——国际启示.中国经贸导刊,2012(6)：27-30
75、李雪静.德国教育给我们的启示.新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999.Vol.20(3)：125-126
76、廖英丽.赢在起点,输在终点?——中美基础教育比较述评.教育探究,2007.Vol.2(4)：12-15
77、刘桂林,刘安波,洪灵敏.美日韩课程实施条比较及其启示.内蒙占师范大学学报,2008.Vol.21(6)：13-16
78、刘珅,彭淑媛.印度高等教育的现状、问题及启示.淮阴师范学院学报,2010.Vol.9(1)：71-74
79、刘文君.职业教育与经济发展.教育与经济,2007(2)：64-68
80、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(上).江苏教育研究,2009(10)：60-64
81、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(下).江苏教育研究,2009(12)：60-64
82、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(中).江苏教育研究,2009(11)：60-64
83、刘宇南.西方国家公共教育体制的改革实践及启示.宏观经济管理,2012(2)：84-88
84、刘尧.美国职业教育特点述评.教育研究,2007(9)：13-15
85、刘振汉,祝雯静.德国的教育体制及职业教育.中国职业技术教育,2004(23)：56-57
86、陆庭瑶.中国与德国教育制度上的差异及其历史因素研究.商业经济,2012(5)：89-90
87、马德垺.赴澳大利亚、新西兰教育考察报告.上海工程技术大学教育研究,2002(2)：1-4
88、马凌娟.美国高等教育的特点及启示.长沙民政职业技术学院学报,2011.Vol.18(2)：97-99
89、马明阳.日本高等教育改革的特点及启示.日本研究,2002(1)：94-97
90、马振华.我国技能型人力资本的形成与积累研究：[博士学位论文].天津：天津大学,2007
91、毛祖桓.中国高等教育史研究五十年述评.高等教育研究,1999(4)：39-44
92、欧阳珺茜,杨广晖.国际化多元化社会化——日本高等职业教育人才培养模式的特色及启示.职业技术教育,2009(19)：79-82
93、朴钟鹤.20世纪90年代韩国初等教育改革探析.当代韩国,2004年冬季号：52-55
94、舒尔茨.论人力资本投资.北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990
95、孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
96、唐心强,左风华,大年邦雄,藤原拓.日本的教育体制与现状.World Education Information,2005(11):20-23
97、陶晓辉.印度教育的成就、问题及对中国的启示.世界教育信息,2003(12)：35-38
98、佟家栋.国际贸易理论的发展及其阶段划分.世界经济文汇,2000(6)：39-44
99、王璇.我国职业教育问题的解决.学术研究,2011(2)：6
100、汪征嬗.美国基础教育给我们的启示.哈尔滨职业技术学院学报,2010(1)：68-69
101、王志敏.美国高等教育特点析——以美国圣地亚哥州立大学为例.浙江传媒学院学报,2011.Vo1.18(5)：111-113
102、魏春燕,李林.日本高等教育改革：现状与展望.外国教育研究,2000.Vol.27(3)：41-45
103、邬剑军,潘春燕.个人教育投资回报率于企业工资体制.经济研究,1998(1)：52-58
104、许建美.论影响印度基础教育政策的因素.比较教育研究,2005(10)：39-43
105、徐永祥,初礼清.日本基础教育改革的现状及特征分析.现代教育科学,2007(4)：34-35
106、杨松梅,王新刚.美国高等教育结构及其对我国的启示.河北科技师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008.Vol.7(4)：72-75
107、岳国宝.市场规模与我国的资本密集度：[硕十学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学,2010
108、王广龙,何平,马弘,李求实.中国大陆进出口行业汇率弹性及其受资本密集度的影响.清华大学学报(自然科学版)2012.Vol.52(6)：864-868
109、余懿.中国与新西兰小学科学课程标准的比较研究：[硕十学位论文].北京：首都师范大学,2007
110、曾宪月,姬长全,郑燕林.中日基础教育信息化比较研究.中国教育技术装备,2009(24)：143-144
111、曾杨.新西兰高等职业教育特色研究：[硕十学位论文].重庆：西南大学,2008
112、张伯伟.制造业出口竞争优势与资本密集度之间关系的实证分析.世界经济,2000(7)：38-43
113、张英杰.新西兰高等教育的特点、趋势和启示.云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010.Vol.27(5)：12-17
114、张玉荣,刘光华.韩国高等教育的主要特征及其对我国的启示.现代远距离教育,2006(3)：66-79
1 图1.3和图1.4来源于Grossmann, G. M.,& Maggi, G.. Diversity and Trade. American Economy Review,2000. Vol.90(5):1255-1275
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
2 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
3 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新淦释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
2 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
3 http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
4 http://baike.baidu.com/vicw/118993.htm
5 李江源教育制度：概念的厘定.河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003.Vol.5(1)：20-31
1 孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
1、Adam S. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London:Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell,1776
2、Anderson J E, Wincoop E V. Gravity with gravities:A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review,2003, vol.93(1):170-192
3、Antras P. Firms, contracts, and trade structure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press,2003, vol.118(4):1375-1418
4、Astiz M F, Alexander W, David P B. Slouching towards decentralization:Consequences of globalization for curicular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review,2002(46):66-88
5、Asuyama Y. Skill distribution and comparative advantage:A comparison of China and India. World Development,2011, Vol.40(5):956-969
6、Asuyama Y. Skill formation systems of China and India. Comparative Study on Industrial Development Process in China and India. Interim Report. China:Institute of Developing Economies.2009
7、Baldwin R. Heterogeneous firms and trade:Testable and untestable properties of the Melitz Model. NBER Working Papers:11471.2005
8、Barro R J, Lee J W. International data on educational attainment:Updates and implications. CID Working Paper:42.2000
9、Beauchamp E R. The development of Japanese educational policy,1945-85. History of Education Quarterly,1987(27):299-324
10、Benabou R. Heterrogeneity, stratification, and growth:Macroeconomic implications of community structure and school finance. American Economic Review,1996(86):584-609
11、Bergstrand J H. The gravity equation in International trade:Some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1985(20):474
12、Barro R J, McCleary R M. Which countries have state religions? Quarterly Journal of Economics,2005, Vol.120(4):1331-1370
13. Bombardini M, Gallipoli G, Pupato G. Skill dispersion and trade flows. NBER Working Paper,15097.2009
14、Bond E W, Kathleen T, Ping W. Factor accumulation and trade:Dynamic comparative advantage with endogenous phsical and human aapital. International Economic Review, 2003(44):1041-1060
15、Riezman R. Optimal education policies and comparative advantage. Research Paper.2009
16、Bougheas S, Riezman R. Trade and the Distribution of Human Capital. Journal of International Economics,2007(73):1041-1060
17、Bracey G W. International comparison and the condition of American education. Educational Researcher,1996(25):5-11
18、Castello A, Domenech R. Human capital inequality an economic growth:Some new evidence. The Economic Journal,2002. Vol.112(2):187-200
19、Chor D. Unpacking sources of comparative advantage:A quantitative approach. Journal of International Economics,2010. Vol.82(2):152-167
20、Cummings W K. The institutions of education:Compare, compare, compare! Com parative Education Review,1999(43):413-437
21、David R. On the principles of plitical economy and taxation. Third edition. London:John Murray,1821
22、Findly R, Henryk K. International trade and human capital:A simple general equilibrum model, Journal of Political Economy,1983(91):957-978
23、Green A. Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia:Convergent and divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy,1999(14):55-71
24、Gregory N, Nollen S, Tenev S. New industries from new place:The emergency of the software and hardware industries in China and India. Stanford, California/Washington, DC: Stanford University Press/World Bank.2009
25、Grossman G. M. The distribution of talent and the pattern and consequences of international trade. Journal of Political Economy,2004. Vol.112(1):209-239
26、Grossman G M, Maggi G. Diversity and trade. American Economy Review,2000. Vol.90 (5):1255-1275
27、Hanushek E A. The long run importance of school quality. NBER Working Paper, No.9071.2002
28、Hanushek E A, Dennis D K. Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review,2000(90):1184-1208
29、Heckscher E. The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Ekonomisk Tidskrift,1919(21):497-512
30、Helpman E. International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale, and monopolistic competition:A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin approach, Journal of International Economics,1981(11):305-340
31、Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y. Estimating trade flows:Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics,2008. Vol.123(2):441-487
32、Holz C A. New capital estimates for China. China Economic Review,2006. Vol.17(2): 142-185
33、http://baike.baidu.com/view/118993.htm
34、James B, Krugman P.'Reciprocal Dumping' model of international trade. NBER Working Paper, No.1194.1983
35、Koopman R, Wang Z, Wei S J. How much of Chinese exports is really made in China? Assessing domestic value-added when processing trade is pervasive. NBER Working Paper, 14109.2008
36、Kremer M. The O-ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993. Vol.108(3):551-575
37、Krugman P. Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade. Journal of International Economics,1979(9):469-479
38、Krugman P, Helpman E. Market structure and foreign trade:Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. The MIT Press.1985
39、Lancaster K. Intra-Industry trade under perfect imperfect competition. Journal ofInternational Economics,1980(10):151-175
40、Larry D A. General equilibrium analysis of software development:Implications of copyright protection and contract enforcement. European Economic Review, Elsevier, 2006. Vol.50(7):1661-1682
41、Linder S. An essay on trade and transformation, Stockholm:Almqvist & Wicksell.1961
42、Lo C P, Liu B J. Why India is mainly engaged in offshore service activities, while China is disproportionately engaged in manufacturing? China Economic Review,2009. Vol.20(2): 236-245
43、Mayer R E, Tajika H, Stanley C. Mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States:A controlled comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology,1991(83):69-72
44、Melitz M. The impact of trade on Intra-Industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, Econometric Society,2003. Vol.71(6):1695-1725
45、Ohara M, Lin H. Competition and management in the manufacturing sector in China and India:A statistical overview. In M. Ohara M. Vijayabaskar,& H. Lin (Eds.) Industrial dynamics in China and India:Firms, clusters and different growth paths (pp.19-39). Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.2011
46、Ohlin B. Interregional and international trade, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.1933
47、Ohnsorge F, Trefler D. Sorting it out:International trade with heterogeneous workers. Journal of Political Economy,2007. Vol.115(5):868-892
48、Pao-li C, Fali H. Trade and divergence in education systems. Working Papers 33-2010, Singapore Management University, School of Economics
49、Ramirez F O, Xiaowei Luo, Evan S, et al. Meyer. Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education,2006(113):1-30
50、Robert A. Mundell. International trade and factor mobility. American Economic Review, 1957(47):321-335
51、Robinson J. The economics of imperfect competition. London:Macmillan.2d ed.1969
52、Schaub M. and Baker D P. Solving the math problem:Exploring mathematics achievement in Japanese and American middle grades. American Journal of Education,1991 (99):623-642
53、Takii K, Ryuichi T. Does the diversity of human capital increase GDP? A comparison of education systems. Journal of Public Economics,2009(93):998-1007
54、Tang H. Labor Market institutions, firm-specific skills, and trade patterns. Centro Studi Luca D'Agliano Development Studies Working Paper, No.301,2010
55、Vernon R. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1966(80):190-207
56、Westbury I. Comparing American and Japanese achievement:Is the United States really a low achiever? Educational Researcher,1992(21):18-24
57、蔡晓月.人力资本结构与经济增长关系研究综述.经济学动态,2004(6)：89-91
58、陈艾华,周燕球.知识经济背景下的日本高等教育特点.成都教育学院学报,2006(7)：53-55
59、陈春杰.中、美、日基础教育体制探析.文教资料,2012年2月号上旬刊：109-110
60、陈昀.中国与印度教育之比较：以比较历史法的视角.煤炭高等教育,2005.Vol.23(1)：94-96
61、程爱洁.韩国高等教育的发展历程及特点.上海理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005.9.Vol.27(3)：72-75
62、丛李方.韩国八十年代以来课程改革的主要特征分析.教育与考试,2009(4)：93-96
63、邓志博.德国的教育体制及特点研究.价值工程,2011(8)：165-166
64、丁兆云,惠巍.印度基础教育的课程设置.教育资料,1995(11)：60-61
65、冯梅,马宁莉.基于成本——收益数学模型的个人教育投资问题的思考.江苏经贸职业技术学院学报,2004(1)：61-63
66、谷贤林.美国高等教育体系与特点总论.高等理科教育,2003(4)：40-45
67、郭健,张建党.美国职业教育发展的特点和启示.中国职业技术教育,2004(29)：55-57
68、郝南明.新西兰教育特点及其启示.文山学院学报,2011.Vol.24(1)：84-87
69、何俐芳.德国教育体制探析.昆明大学学报(综合版),2003(2)：69-70
70、占光瑜.战后日本的职业教育及其特点.日本研究,2002(1)：86-93。
71、焦燕星.日本中等职业教育的研究：[硕十学位论文].长春：辽宁师范大学,2010
72、李江源.教育制度：概念的厘定.河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2003.Vol.5(1)：20-31
73、李明华.从国外私立教育的模式刊我国民办教育体制的确立.教育革新,1997(1)：28-29
74、李溦.教育信念与教育体制——国际启示.中国经贸导刊,2012(6)：27-30
75、李雪静.德国教育给我们的启示.新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999.Vol.20(3)：125-126
76、廖英丽.赢在起点,输在终点?——中美基础教育比较述评.教育探究,2007.Vol.2(4)：12-15
77、刘桂林,刘安波,洪灵敏.美日韩课程实施条比较及其启示.内蒙占师范大学学报,2008.Vol.21(6)：13-16
78、刘珅,彭淑媛.印度高等教育的现状、问题及启示.淮阴师范学院学报,2010.Vol.9(1)：71-74
79、刘文君.职业教育与经济发展.教育与经济,2007(2)：64-68
80、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(上).江苏教育研究,2009(10)：60-64
81、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(下).江苏教育研究,2009(12)：60-64
82、柳夕浪.我看加拿大的教育——一个集成教育管理者的视角(中).江苏教育研究,2009(11)：60-64
83、刘宇南.西方国家公共教育体制的改革实践及启示.宏观经济管理,2012(2)：84-88
84、刘尧.美国职业教育特点述评.教育研究,2007(9)：13-15
85、刘振汉,祝雯静.德国的教育体制及职业教育.中国职业技术教育,2004(23)：56-57
86、陆庭瑶.中国与德国教育制度上的差异及其历史因素研究.商业经济,2012(5)：89-90
87、马德垺.赴澳大利亚、新西兰教育考察报告.上海工程技术大学教育研究,2002(2)：1-4
88、马凌娟.美国高等教育的特点及启示.长沙民政职业技术学院学报,2011.Vol.18(2)：97-99
89、马明阳.日本高等教育改革的特点及启示.日本研究,2002(1)：94-97
90、马振华.我国技能型人力资本的形成与积累研究：[博士学位论文].天津：天津大学,2007
91、毛祖桓.中国高等教育史研究五十年述评.高等教育研究,1999(4)：39-44
92、欧阳珺茜,杨广晖.国际化多元化社会化——日本高等职业教育人才培养模式的特色及启示.职业技术教育,2009(19)：79-82
93、朴钟鹤.20世纪90年代韩国初等教育改革探析.当代韩国,2004年冬季号：52-55
94、舒尔茨.论人力资本投资.北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990
95、孙绵涛.教育体制理论的新诠释.教育研究,2004(12)：17-22
96、唐心强,左风华,大年邦雄,藤原拓.日本的教育体制与现状.World Education Information,2005(11):20-23
97、陶晓辉.印度教育的成就、问题及对中国的启示.世界教育信息,2003(12)：35-38
98、佟家栋.国际贸易理论的发展及其阶段划分.世界经济文汇,2000(6)：39-44
99、王璇.我国职业教育问题的解决.学术研究,2011(2)：6
100、汪征嬗.美国基础教育给我们的启示.哈尔滨职业技术学院学报,2010(1)：68-69
101、王志敏.美国高等教育特点析——以美国圣地亚哥州立大学为例.浙江传媒学院学报,2011.Vo1.18(5)：111-113
102、魏春燕,李林.日本高等教育改革：现状与展望.外国教育研究,2000.Vol.27(3)：41-45
103、邬剑军,潘春燕.个人教育投资回报率于企业工资体制.经济研究,1998(1)：52-58
104、许建美.论影响印度基础教育政策的因素.比较教育研究,2005(10)：39-43
105、徐永祥,初礼清.日本基础教育改革的现状及特征分析.现代教育科学,2007(4)：34-35
106、杨松梅,王新刚.美国高等教育结构及其对我国的启示.河北科技师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008.Vol.7(4)：72-75
107、岳国宝.市场规模与我国的资本密集度：[硕十学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学,2010
108、王广龙,何平,马弘,李求实.中国大陆进出口行业汇率弹性及其受资本密集度的影响.清华大学学报(自然科学版)2012.Vol.52(6)：864-868
109、余懿.中国与新西兰小学科学课程标准的比较研究：[硕十学位论文].北京：首都师范大学,2007
110、曾宪月,姬长全,郑燕林.中日基础教育信息化比较研究.中国教育技术装备,2009(24)：143-144
111、曾杨.新西兰高等职业教育特色研究：[硕十学位论文].重庆：西南大学,2008
112、张伯伟.制造业出口竞争优势与资本密集度之间关系的实证分析.世界经济,2000(7)：38-43
113、张英杰.新西兰高等教育的特点、趋势和启示.云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010.Vol.27(5)：12-17
114、张玉荣,刘光华.韩国高等教育的主要特征及其对我国的启示.现代远距离教育,2006(3)：66-79