资源环境双重规制下中国地区全要素生产率研究——基于1996-2009年的实证分析

Total Factor Productivity in China under the Dual Regulation of the Resources and the Environment——Empirical Analysis Based on the Data of 1996-2009

基于已有文献在研究全要素生产率时不考虑环境因素,或者仅考虑环境因素而忽视能源投入的现实,文章将资源和环境因素同时纳入生产率研究框架,对1996-2009年中国省级经济单元的全要素生产率(TFP)进行了测算,并将全要素生产率变动分解为技术效率变化和技术进步变化;对技术效率变化进一步分解为纯技术效率变化和规模效率变化,实现了TFP增长的动态分解,并研究了TFP变动的影响因素。研究结果表明,考虑资源环境约束,我国整体TFP较低,还存在较大的改进空间;TFP增长的主要源泉在于技术利用效率的提高,而技术进步和规模效率的作用并不明显。工业产值所占比重、资本/劳动比率上升不利于TFP的提高,外资引入对TFP改进具有拟制作用,降低国有经济比重和政府对市场经济的过度干预、增加环境污染治理投资有助于全要素生产率的提高。在生产效率(或经济增长效率)的核算中,忽略资源环境因素的冲击,有可能导致经济增长效率被高估,由此得出的政策建议会带有一定的误导性。

As there is the lack of research into environmental factors and the ignorance of the energy input in the literature of total factor productivity, this article estimates the total factor productivity （TFP） of China＇s provincial-level economic units in 1996 -2009, with both the resources and environmental factors being taken into the productivity framework, for obtaining dynamic decomposed of TFP growth, by decomposing the total factor productivity into technical efficiency and technological progress. It further decomposes technical efficiency into pure technical efficiency change and scale efficiency change, in order to obtain the influencing factors for TFP changes. We reach the conclusion that, China＇s TFP is in the lower level and there is still large room for improvement; the main source of TFP growth is technical efficiency, while the impact of technological progress and scale efficiency is not obvious. The proportion of industrial output value and the capital / labor ratio increase, and the introduction of foreign capital is negative for TFP improvement. Reducing the proportion of state-owned economy and the government excessive interference with the market economy and increasing the environmental pollution control investment will contribute to the improvement of total factor productivity. In productivity （ or efficiency of economic growth） accounting, ignoring the impact of resources and environment factors may lead to the over-estimation of the efficiency of economic growth, and the resulting policy recommendations are likely to be misleading.