論文發(fā)表

近日，復(fù)旦發(fā)展研究院副教授、金融研究中心主任助理楊秋怡老師與復(fù)旦發(fā)展研究院訪問學(xué)者何塞·愛德華多·羅薩林（José Eduardo de Salles Roselino Junior）、安東尼奧·卡洛斯·迪耶格斯（Ant?nio Carlos Diegues）等學(xué)者的合作研究成果《制造業(yè)還重要嗎？再議工業(yè)政策和制造業(yè)對高收入和中等收入國家發(fā)展的貢獻》（Does manufacturing still matter? The revival of industrial policy and manufacturing’s contribution to development in high- and middle-income countries），在線發(fā)表于SSCI期刊《工業(yè)與企業(yè)變革》（Industrial and Corporate Change）。

制造業(yè)還重要嗎？本研究旨在對“去工業(yè)化”進行一次再檢視。在“去工業(yè)化是否不可避免”的討論中，制造業(yè)常被視為隨經(jīng)濟發(fā)展而自然衰落的部門。本文基于 2000–2019 年全球中高收入國家的數(shù)據(jù)，從制造業(yè)內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)出發(fā)，對這一傳統(tǒng)觀點進行了系統(tǒng)檢驗。

不同于以往只關(guān)注制造業(yè)在 GDP 中的比重，本文創(chuàng)新性地從生產(chǎn)率增長和工資增長的結(jié)構(gòu)性分解角度，衡量制造業(yè)對經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的真實貢獻。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：第一，無論是中等收入國家還是高收入國家，制造業(yè)對發(fā)展的貢獻并未隨著人均收入提高而系統(tǒng)性下降，傳統(tǒng)的所謂“倒 U 型關(guān)系”并不存在；第二，在中等收入國家，制造業(yè)對生產(chǎn)率和工資增長的貢獻隨著收入水平上升反而持續(xù)增強；第三，在高收入國家，制造業(yè)生產(chǎn)率貢獻并未出現(xiàn)“正常去工業(yè)化”所暗示的下降趨勢，但工資貢獻整體走弱，僅在高技術(shù)制造業(yè)的結(jié)構(gòu)升級環(huán)節(jié)中仍保持韌性，這可能與全球價值鏈競爭加劇、成本壓力上升有關(guān)。

總體來看，研究對“自然去工業(yè)化”的經(jīng)典敘事提出不同看法，表明制造業(yè)——尤其是技術(shù)密集型制造業(yè)——在當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟發(fā)展中依然具有關(guān)鍵意義。這也提示，各國在數(shù)字化和綠色轉(zhuǎn)型背景下，需要更加注重因部門、因國情而異的產(chǎn)業(yè)與創(chuàng)新政策設(shè)計。

作者/Authors

Ant?nio Carlos Diegues（通訊作者）

巴西坎皮納斯大學(xué)經(jīng)濟研究所工業(yè)經(jīng)濟與技術(shù)中心

Center for Industrial Economics and Technology Institute of Economics, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil;

楊秋怡

復(fù)旦發(fā)展研究院

Qiuyi Yang

Fudan Development Institute (FDDI), Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Jose Eduardo Roselino

巴西圣卡洛斯聯(lián)邦大學(xué)

Federal University of Sao Carlos-UFSCar, Sao Carlos, Brazil.

Marcos Jose Barbieri Ferreira

巴西坎皮納斯大學(xué)應(yīng)用科學(xué)學(xué)院

School of Applied Sciences-UNICAMP, Limeira, Brazil.

Renato Garcia

巴西坎皮納斯大學(xué)經(jīng)濟研究所

Institute of Economics-UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.

注：所有作者均為共同第一作者

摘要/Abstract

本研究旨在分析 2000 年至 2019 年間制造業(yè)對高收入 (HIC) 和中等收入國家 (MIC) 發(fā)展的貢獻，通過檢驗倒 U 曲線假說重新審視制造業(yè)與經(jīng)濟發(fā)展之間的聯(lián)系（Rowthorn (1994)；Palma (2005，超越改革：結(jié)構(gòu)動態(tài)和宏觀經(jīng)濟脆弱性)；Rodrik (2016，經(jīng)濟增長雜志，21, 1–33)從制造內(nèi)部的角度來看增長。本研究的初步貢獻在于通過檢驗制造業(yè)在 GDP 中所占的份額（以增加值衡量），而是通過生產(chǎn)率和工資增長的結(jié)構(gòu)分解來衡量制造業(yè)對發(fā)展的貢獻，來檢驗中等收入國家和高收入國家這種關(guān)系的有效性。該研究的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)是：(i) 結(jié)果并未表明，隨著中等收入和高收入國家（中等收入國家和高收入國家）人均收入水平的提高，制造業(yè)對發(fā)展的貢獻有所下降。事實上，在幾乎所有計量經(jīng)濟指標(biāo)中，沒有觀察到制造業(yè)對發(fā)展的貢獻與人均收入水平之間存在倒U形曲線的證據(jù)； (ii) 在中等收入國家，經(jīng)驗證據(jù)揭示了一種大致一致的模式，即人均收入的增長與制造業(yè)對發(fā)展的貢獻不斷增加有關(guān)，無論是從生產(chǎn)率增長還是工資增長的角度來衡量；(iii) 對于高收入國家，與從正常或積極去工業(yè)化的解釋中可以推斷出的相反，在生產(chǎn)率行為方面沒有觀察到倒 U 型曲線。關(guān)于工資變量，除了高科技部門的結(jié)構(gòu)變革部分之外，隨著人均收入的上升，其對發(fā)展的貢獻幾乎普遍呈下降趨勢。雖然有悖常理，但這種模式可能反映出國際競爭的加?。ㄖ饕ㄟ^全球價值鏈），從而壓低了高收入經(jīng)濟體的制造成本。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)挑戰(zhàn)了“自然”去工業(yè)化的概念，并強調(diào)了制造業(yè)的持續(xù)相關(guān)性，特別是在技術(shù)密集型行業(yè)。他們強調(diào)需要針對部門異質(zhì)性和國情制定產(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)新政策，特別是考慮到正在重塑全球生產(chǎn)體系的數(shù)字和綠色轉(zhuǎn)型。

This paper aims to analyze manufacturing’s contribution to development in high-income (HIC) and middle-income countries (MIC) from 2000 to 2019, revisiting the link between manufacturing and economic development by testing the inverted-U curve hypothesis (Rowthorn (1994); Palma (2005, Beyond Reforms: Structural Dynamics and Macroeconomic Vulnerability); Rodrik (2016, Journal of Economic Growth, 21, 1–33)) from an intra-manufacturing perspective. The original contribution of the analysis presented in this paper is to test the validity of this relationship for MIC and HIC by examining not the share of manufacturing in GDP (measured by value added), but the contribution of the manufacturing sector to development measured by the structural decomposition of productivity and wage growth. The paper’s main findings are: (i) the results do not indicate a decline in the contribution of manufacturing to development among middle- and high-income countries (MICs and HICs) as they attain higher levels of per capita income. In fact, across nearly all econometric specifications, no evidence of an inverted-U-shaped curve was observed between the manufacturing’s contribution to development and per capita income levels; (ii) in MIC, the empirical evidence reveals a broadly consistent pattern whereby rising per capita income is associated with an increasing contribution of manufacturing to development, whether measured in terms of productivity growth or wage growth, and (iii) For HIC, contrary to what can be inferred from the interpretations of normal or positive deindustrialization, no inverted-U curve is observed regarding the behavior of productivity. Regarding the wage variable, there is an almost generalized tendency for its contribution to development to decline as per capita income rises, except within the structural change component for high-technology sectors. Although counterintuitive, this pattern may reflect intensified international competition—mainly via global value chains—pushing down manufacturing costs in high-income economies. These findings challenge the notion of “natural” deindustrialization and highlight the persistent relevance of manufacturing, especially in technologically intensive sectors. They underscore the need for industrial and innovation policies tailored to sectoral heterogeneity and national contexts, particularly in light of digital and green transitions that are reshaping global production systems.

全文鏈接/Link

https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtaf065

來源｜Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 00, Number 00, pp. 1-31

排版 | 趙浩博