中国旅游业发展导致了资源诅咒效应吗?

Does the Development of Chinas Tourism Have Caused the Resource Curse Effect?

以往文献往往忽视旅游产业发展的阶段性而单独探讨旅游发展对经济增长的影响。该文将"资源诅咒"和"资源福祉"纳入统一的研究框架,利用2003—2013年188个优秀旅游城市的面板数据动态地考察了旅游发展对我国经济增长的影响及其影响机制,最后将这些城市分为旅游起飞城市、旅游福祉城市、旅游诅咒城市3类。结果发现:(1)旅游发展与经济增长呈"倒N"形关系;(2)旅游发展通过抑制技术进步、市场化水平对经济增长带来负向中介效应,而通过提高物质资本、人力资本以及对外开放水平来对经济增长产生正向中介效应;(3)科技投入、政府干预负向调节着旅游发展与经济增长的关系;(4)"旅游地荷兰病"现象在中国并不存在;(5)旅游资源福祉效应占据主导地位,但也有少数城市存在旅游资源诅咒现象。

The Chinese tourism industry is regarded as a strategic pillar industry and expected to optimize industrial structure and promote economic growth; simultaneously, the relationship between tourism development and the mechanisms of economic growth has attracted much attention and been discussed widely. Though the impact of tourism development on economic growth has been studied for a long time, this issue remains a topic of debate to this day. While some scholars hold the opinion that tourism development has promoted economic growth, others contend that the opposite is true. The former opinion is often referred to as the theory of ＂tourism resources welfare＂, while the latter is known as that of the ＂tourism resources curse＂. In our opinion, these studies are merely concerned about the impact of tourism development on economic growth from a static perspective. In other words, they ignore the different stages and cycles of this development. Indeed, the impact of tourism development on economic growth will vary at different stages and cycles. First, this paper builds a theoretical model to integrate the theories of ＂tourism resources curse＂ and ＂tourism resources welfare＂ into a unified framework, on the basis of the tourism life cycle model, and proposes an inverted ＂N＂ relationship between tourism development and economic growth. Second, we conduct an empirical study of the relationship between tourism development and economic growth based on the short panel data collected from 2003 to 2013 among 188 excellent touristic cities in China. To be specific, we build a series of dynamic panel models and use the System Gaussian Mixture Model （GMM） to do that. Third, we analyze the transmission mechanism of tourism development on economic growth by means of the mediating and the moderating effects. Fourth, these cities are classified into three types according to their tourism industry accounts and the tuming point of the inverted ＂N＂ curve. Finally, we also use different indicators to test the robustness of our conclusions. The findings are as follows： Firstly, the relationship between tourism development and economic growth is an inverted ＂N＂ type inflected by a plural transmission mechanism, and not a simple linear relationship; secondly, tourism development can inhibit technological advances and marketization level to produce a negative mediating effect on economic growth, but also promote a higher level of fixed capital, human capital and openness to create a positive mediating effect on economic growth; thirdly, government intervention and investment in science and technology cause a negative moderating effect between tourism development and economic growth; fourthly, the Dutch disease doesn＇t exist in China＇s tourism industry; fifthly, tourism resources welfare plays a leading role, although a tourism resources curse also occurs in a few cities. In addition, the conclusion remains robust when we use different indicators of tourism development in our empirical analysis.