制造业增长中的结构变迁与效率演变——对“去工业化”问题的再探讨

Structural Change and Efficiency Evolution in the Growth of China’s Manufacturing Industry——Further Research on China’s Deindustrialization

已有文献较少从结构变迁与效率演进的视角探讨现阶段中国“去工业化”问题的特征及其背后的根本原因,本文力图弥补这一研究中的不足。基于改进的总生产可能性边界(APPF)核算框架,放松了行业间产出价格变动同质性假定,同时充分考虑行业间的Verdoorn效应,本文深入研究了1985—2015年中国制造业增长中的结构变迁和效率演进。研究表明,2008—2015年,制造业TFP年均增长率大幅降至0.21%,其中,高技术制造业TFP年均增长率大幅下降,中、低技术产业TFP则呈现负增长态势,高技术制造业名义增加值占比提升有限且资本投入占比呈现明显下降趋势,制造业内部结构变动拉低了TFP增长率。这意味着,制造业内部行业内升级、行业间升级的缓慢与行业间资源再配置效率的恶化,带来了制造业内生增长动力的迅速减弱。进一步研究表明,2007年以来的“去工业化”过程是制造业效率与内生增长动力恶化的结果,更接近于“过早去工业化”特征。2008—2015年,服务业TFP呈现显著恶化态势,TFP显著提升的少数行业占比提升不明显,甚至反而有所下降,因此,中国的“去工业化”过程不太可能是服务业效率提升的结果,这也在一定程度上佐证了中国的“去工业化”过程更接近于“过早去工业化”。为防止进一步“过早”或者“过快”去工业化,应将重点放在促进制造业全要素生产率持续性改进方面,片面强调制造业或者服务业重要性的政策并不可取。

The proportion of employment and the proportion of current value added in China’s manufacturing industry both reached a high point in 2006,and then continuously declined,which prompted extensive academic debate about whether China has“premature deindustrialization.”However,existing literature seldom discusses the characteristics and underlying causes of China’s deindustrialization in the current stage from the perspectives of structural change and efficiency evolution.This paper tries to fill the gap in this research.Based on the improved aggregate production possibility frontier(APPF)accounting framework,which relaxed the assumption of homogeneity of output price changes between industries and fully considered the Verdoorn effect between industries.This paper conducts an in-depth study on the structural change and efficiency evolution of China’s manufacturing industry from 1985 to 2015.Results of this paper show the average annual growth rate of the total factor productivity(TFP)of China’s manufacturing industry dropped drastically to 0.21%from 2008 to 2015.The TFP of high-tech manufacturing industries dropped significantly,while the TFP of medium and low-tech industries showed negative growth.The proportion of nominal value-added of high-tech industries took limited growth while the proportion of capital input took a significant downturn.The structural changes in the manufacturing industry have lowered the TFP growth rate.This means that the slow progress of intra-and inter-industry upgrading and the deterioration of inter-industry resource reallocation efficiency have rapidly weakened the internal driving force of the manufacturing industry.Thus,the“deindustrialization process”in China since 2007 is the result of the deterioration of manufacturing efficiency and internal driving force,which is closer to the characteristics of“premature deindustrialization.”Meanwhile,the TFP growth in the service sector deteriorated significantly from 2008 to 2015.In addition,the proportion of some industries with significant TFP growth increased insignificantly or even decreased instead.Therefore,China’s deindustrialization is unlikely to be the result of efficiency improvement of the service sector and closer to“premature deindustrialization”to a certain extent.To prevent further“premature”or“rapid”deindustrialization,the focus should be on promoting continuous improvement in the TFP of the manufacturing industry.It is not advisable to unilaterally emphasize the importance of manufacturing or service industries.The contribution of this paper is mainly reflected in the following three aspects.Firstly,based on the in-depth and systematic analysis of structure change and efficiency evolution measurement of the manufacturing industry,this paper compares the difference between the structural change mode and productivity performance of the manufacturing industry before and after deindustrialization,which provides solid evidence for answering the two important questions of whether China has“premature deindustrialization”and what is the main reason for China’s“premature deindustrialization.”Secondly,this paper also examines the issue of deindustrialization from the perspective of the efficiency and structural evolution of the service industry,and scientifically answers whether the process of China’s deindustrialization is the result of the rapid increase in productivity and rapid expansion of scale in some service industries,which is a useful supplement to existing literature.Thirdly,this paper adopts the improved APPF framework,relaxes the assumption of homogeneity of output price changes between industries,and fully considers the Verdoorn effect between industries,which makes the research method of this paper more consistent with economic reality,and is conducive to a clearer understanding of the driving force of growth and efficiency improvement of China’s manufacturing industry.This is an optimization of the research method in this paper.