This paper has identified two models of intra-product international division of labor:the model of passive inclusion and the model of proactive participation.Their difference is essentially whether participation in in...This paper has identified two models of intra-product international division of labor:the model of passive inclusion and the model of proactive participation.Their difference is essentially whether participation in international division of labor is dominated by multinational firms or by local firms.At the level of representative sectors,some characteristic variables of participation in international division of labor demonstrate significant industry differences.Models of division of labor affect technology progress.According to the empirical analysis result at the micro-level of four sectors,no matter for export or the contribution of learning by doing to corporate technology progress,the model of proactive participation is superior to the model of passive inclusion;under the model of passive inclusion,the technology spillover effect of import is smaller than "learning by doing " effect;under the model of proactive participation,technology spillover effect is over two times the "learning by doing" effect.展开更多
A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing...A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing and rise in services in the U.S. since the late 1970s （Buera and Kaboski, 2009）. In order to solve this puzzle, this paper develops a three-sector model to evaluate various factors that could have contributed to the structural transformation process from 1950 to 2005. The results show that, in addition to traditional explanations, such as non-homothetic preference and sector-biased productivity progress, international trade is another major source of structural change and is able to explain about 35.5% of the overall employment share decrease in American manufacturing. The quantitative calibration estimates that the inter-sector trade makes a moderate contribution, while trade imbalances dominate the recent contraction of manufacturing employment share. Our results suggest that calibrated models based on U.S. data have to be adjusted by trade factors.展开更多
文摘This paper has identified two models of intra-product international division of labor:the model of passive inclusion and the model of proactive participation.Their difference is essentially whether participation in international division of labor is dominated by multinational firms or by local firms.At the level of representative sectors,some characteristic variables of participation in international division of labor demonstrate significant industry differences.Models of division of labor affect technology progress.According to the empirical analysis result at the micro-level of four sectors,no matter for export or the contribution of learning by doing to corporate technology progress,the model of proactive participation is superior to the model of passive inclusion;under the model of passive inclusion,the technology spillover effect of import is smaller than "learning by doing " effect;under the model of proactive participation,technology spillover effect is over two times the "learning by doing" effect.
文摘A striking feature of the structural change literature is that, even though the U.S. economy is often used as a benchmark for calibration, the traditional mo- dels cannot account for the steep decline in manufacturing and rise in services in the U.S. since the late 1970s （Buera and Kaboski, 2009）. In order to solve this puzzle, this paper develops a three-sector model to evaluate various factors that could have contributed to the structural transformation process from 1950 to 2005. The results show that, in addition to traditional explanations, such as non-homothetic preference and sector-biased productivity progress, international trade is another major source of structural change and is able to explain about 35.5% of the overall employment share decrease in American manufacturing. The quantitative calibration estimates that the inter-sector trade makes a moderate contribution, while trade imbalances dominate the recent contraction of manufacturing employment share. Our results suggest that calibrated models based on U.S. data have to be adjusted by trade factors.
