要素禀赋、专业化分工、贸易的理论与实证——与杨小凯、张永生商榷

杨小凯和张永生在《经济学(季刊)》第一卷第一期上发表的“新贸易理论、比较利益理论及其经验研究的新成果：文献综述”中声称比较优势说等国际贸易理论的四大命题已经被否定，断言分工才更本质地确定了贸易结构。本文的文献综述发现并非如此，而且，在其他著作中，杨小凯(2001)也认为贸易结构和分工是由各国的技术和要素禀赋的比较利益决定。本文证明分工可能会提高生产效率，但并不改变要素禀赋与技术比较优势决定贸易结构的结论。摘要杨小凯和张永生在《经济学(季刊)》第一卷第一期上发表的“新贸易理论、比较利益理论及其经验研究的新成果：文献综述”中声称比较优势说等国际贸易理论的四大命题已经被否定，断言分工才更本质地确定了贸易结构。本文的文献综述发现并非如此，而且，在其他著作中，杨小凯(2001)也认为贸易结构和分工是由各国的技术和要素禀赋的比较利益决定。本文证明分工可能会提高生产效率，但并不改变要素禀赋与技术比较优势决定贸易结构的结论。     

要素禀赋、专业化分工、贸易的理论与实证-与杨小凯、张永生商榷

杨小凯和张永生在《经济学(季刊)》第一卷第一期上发表的"新贸易理论、比较利益理论及其经验研究的新成果:文献综述"中声称比较优势说等国际贸易理论的四大命题已经被否定,断言分工才更本质地确定了贸易结构。本文的文献综述发现并非如此,而且,在其他著作中,杨小凯(2001)也认为贸易结构和分工是由各国的技术和要素禀赋的比较利益决定。本文证明分工可能会提高生产效率,但并不改变要素禀赋与技术比较优势决定贸易结构的结论。     

比较优势理论的内涵与局限

半个多世纪的贸易理论探讨与实证研究表明：比较优势是贸易的基本动力，而要素禀赋与技术差异是决定国际分工的主要因素。但是随着国际经济关系日益复杂化，比较利益理论作为国际贸易产生的基本原动力的解释受到了严峻的挑战。     

比较优势、产业变迁与跨越式发展

比较优势战略理论实现了将国际分工和贸易的比较优势理论与一国经济发展战略的成功结合,揭示了一国的要素禀赋结构、比较优势、产业变迁与经济增长之间的逻辑关系。发展中国家为实现经济赶超,必须走跨越式发展道路,在产业结构变迁中遵循比较优势原则,以人力资本存量的快速提升为先导,实现要素禀赋结构和比较优势的突变以及产业结构的高级化发展。发展中国家人力资本的赶超是经济赶超的关键。     

国际分工的基础:要素禀赋

以追求最原始的约束因素为目的对一系列国际分工理论进行分析,结论表明,在国界的约束下,无论是古典国际分工理论还是新贸易理论和新兴古典经济学的国际分理论,其理论基础都是假设各国间存在要素禀赋状况差异,要么由要素禀赋结构差异决定,要么由素禀赋总量差异决定。结论:国际分工的基础是要素禀赋状况。     

比较优势、竞争优势与中国贸易战略

长期以来,比较优势理论是解释国际贸易利益和国际分工的基本理论。国际交换之所以必要,是因为存在国际分工,国际分工使得各个国家专业化生产最适合本国生产的产品,通过国际贸易可使贸易双方获得更大的福利。从亚当．斯密的绝对成本论、李嘉图的比较成本论到俄林的要素禀赋论,比较优势理论形成了完整的体系。     

要素禀赋是否影响了贸易结构?——基于经验研究文献的述评

本文梳理了20世纪80年代以来国际上研究要素禀赋是否影响贸易结构的经验文献。首先介绍在标准的HOV理论框架内研究要素禀赋与贸易结构的文献;然后,通过不断放松假设,分别介绍考虑国家间技术差异、中间品贸易、需求差异、贸易成本等因素的文献;最后介绍在其他要素禀赋理论框架内研究要素禀赋与贸易结构的经验文献。通过评述已有文献,本文发现要素禀赋仅是贸易结构的重要决定因素之一,未来的经验研究方向应该关注要素禀赋对贸易结构的贡献度。     

新贸易理论及内生与外生比较利益理论的新发展:回应

我们在"新贸易理论、比较利益理论及其经验研究的新成果:文献综述"(见《经济学季刊》第1期)中,评述了否定赫克歇尔-俄林禀赋比较利益说(简称 H-O 定理)的文献,并用3个反例证明流行的比较利益说并不具有一般性。梁琦和张二震两位教授在"比较利益再探讨"(以下简称"比文")一文中对我们的文章提出批评。我们感谢他们认真地读我们的文章,并检验我们文中的计算。但是,对于他们提出的批评,我们却不能同意。第一,关于能否事先假定要素密集度逆转不出现的问题。对于一个代表     

全球生产网络中的收益分配及中国的分配地位——由iPhone手机引发的思考

该文以iPhone手机利润结构为例,对全球生产网络中利益分配机制的建模分析表明:在全球生产网络中,产品的生产过程被拆分到具有不同要素禀赋的国家进行国际化生产,参入分工要素的相对稀缺度决定了相对利益的分配。由于发达国家的比较优势——核心技术、品牌设计、销售网络等属于世界稀缺要素,而发展中国家的比较优势——一般技术、劳动力等属于世界充裕要素,所以发达国家可以通过提高中间产品的贸易价格来压缩发展中国家的利润空间,进而获取更多的垄断收益。由于要素质量的限制,中国主要负责全球生产网络中加工组装等低附加值环节的生产,进而获取较低的利益分成。     

比较利益理论再探讨-与杨小凯、张永生先生商榷

李嘉图比较优势理论只是以两种产品两国贸易为实例,给多种产品或多个国家贸易的比较禀赋优势说留下思索空间.反对比较优势学说的人们试图给出反例,并认为比较禀赋优势说已被推翻.该文指出一些所谓的反例并不能称其为反例,新贸易理论也并不与比较禀赋优势说相悖,比较优势说仍然有其生命力.     

产业规模与比较优势发展战略:一个理论框架

本文根据经典的国际贸易理论发现,对于发展中国家,实行自由贸易的结果是两大产业的技术水平都上升,但劳动密集产业的规模扩张,而资本密集产业的规模收缩.因此,主要从产业规模角度、同时结合技术角度的分析,在理论上更为全面,政策上也更具可行性.据此,文章着重在比较优势的框架内探讨了产业规模、就业与技术三者间的相互影响机制,提出了在战略选择上的两个"两难选择",并认为比较优势发展战略能够较好地解决这两个"两难选择".     

A Neo-Heckscher–Ohlin Model of Trade with Endogenous Production Patterns*

We propose a Neo-Heckscher–Ohlin (HO) model of trade that combines comparative endowment advantage, comparative technological advantage, international capital mobility and trade costs. Using an inframarginal approach, we produce a partition of the exogenous parameter space in a host of parameter value subsets that demarcate the various equilibrium patterns of production and trade. The results are startling! They suggest that production within the diversification cone – a key assumption of the Heckscher–Ohlin theory that is required for its core propositions (such as factor price equalisation) to hold – may only prevail on the razor's edge, or under exceptional circumstances. In addition, our findings nominate a mechanism by which improvements in transaction efficiency facilitate international trade thereby stimulating cross-country division of labour. Contrary to other generalisations of the Heckscher–Ohlin (such as the various derivatives of the Kemp–Jones model of trade), our model does not assume a purely Ricardian character: comparative endowment advantage may determine the pattern of trade even in the presence of opposing technological differences, as long as total factor productivity coefficients adjusted for transaction efficiency and factor intensity do not confer unambiguous comparative (technological) advantage. Still, ‘intensity-efficiency’-adjusted comparative technological advantage supersedes factor endowments in determining the flow of trade.     

Competitive and Comparative Advantage: Towards a Unified Theory of International Trade

The field of international business/economics is largely dualistic in nature. On one hand is the economics literature which has, for two centuries, focused on the notion of comparative advantage (technology, factor proportions) while on the other is the business literature which has recently developed the concept of competitive advantage. This paper presents a reconciliation of the two based on global value chain/supply chain analysis and the concept of vertical comparative advantage. It is shown that the theory of competitive advantage's epistemological comparative advantage lies with its ‘how to’ approach to developing an advantage, while the theory of comparative advantage's epistemological comparative advantage lies with its account of ‘what is’ and that both are complementary. However, it is also argued that the failure to recognize this complementarity as well as the shortcomings of each have prevented and continue to prevent the emergence of an integrated, empirically-consistent theory of international trade – in short, prevented us from taking advantage of the gains from epistemological trade.     

The Empirics of Comparative Advantage: Overcoming the Tyranny of Nonrefutability

I assess the empirical evidence on comparative advantage. I argue that the Heckscher–Ohlin–Vanek (HOV) relationship is not a refutable general‐equilibrium proposition. Consequently, the empirical Heckscher–Ohlin literature has been suffering from the tyranny of nonrefutability. The trade‐governing principle of comparative advantage, the Ricardo–Haberler–Deardorff (RHD) theorem, yields a refutable general‐equilibrium prediction about the pattern of international trade and allows for a theory‐based assessment of the magnitude of the gains from trade. The recent experimental evidence on Japan's nineteenth‐century opening‐up to world trade provides a strong case for the hypothesis that comparative advantage governed Japan's international trade in its early trading years. The aggregate gains from that trade are estimated to be no larger than 9% of Japan's GDP.     

比较优势、国际分工与发展战略

比较优势理论是国际分工与贸易理论的重要组成部分,但是对于一国发展是否适宜以比较优势理论为指导却存在极大争议。以比较优势、国际分工与发展战略三者之间的关系为逻辑起点,从辨析比较优势的概念内涵、梳理比较优势的发展脉络、分析比较优势作为发展战略的适宜性和阐述动态比较优势的形成机制等方面对比较优势理论的发展进行梳理,指出培育动态比较优势应该是发展中国家经济发展的主要战略之一。     

Linking Absolute and Comparative Advantage to Intra-Industry Trade Theory*

Two countries, which differ with respect to domestic demand for two groups of differentiated products, are considered in a setting of monopolistic competition where international trade is subject to transaction costs. It is shown that relative differences in demand determine the trade pattern. Each country is a net exporter of that group for which domestic demand is relatively larger-where the country has a comparative home-market advantage. Absolute differences in demand determine relative wages. Thus, the paper argues that the notions of absolute and comparative advantage as found in traditional trade theory also have meaning in new trade theory.     

比较优势战略理论新证

竞争优势理论的追随者往往将比较优势与竞争优势两个范畴对立起来,或者干脆使用竞争优势理论来否定比较优势理论.林毅夫先生在指出对这两种理论相互关系的上述理解是错误的、主张竞争优势的建立离不开比较优势发挥的基础上,提出了经济发展的比较优势战略理论,引起了广泛的讨论.本文尝试通过新兴古典的超边际分析,论证了促进国际贸易的良性发展离不开比较优势的充分发挥,同时也为林毅夫先生的观点提供了佐证.     

动态比较优势理论在实践中的发展

第二次世界大战以后,日本及东亚新兴工业化国家经济的迅速崛起以及当代国际贸易格局的变化,向传统的比较优势理论提出了挑战.越来越多的经济学家开始将技术进步和技术扩散的因素纳入研究范畴,他们从动态角度或采用动态分析方法解释国际贸易的发展变化,使动态比较优势理论不断发展和完善.虽然这一理论不像传统的比较优势理论那样具有公认的统一权威性,而是体现在不同经济学家的若干论述中,但其理论观点、分析方法以及对现实的解释,已经引起人们的关注.     

TRADE AND DIVERGENCE IN EDUCATION SYSTEMS

This article presents a theory on the endogenous choice of education policy and the two‐way causal relationship between trade and education systems. A country's education system determines its talent distribution and comparative advantage; the possibility of trade by raising the returns to the sector of comparative advantage in turn induces countries to further differentiate their education systems and reinforces the initial pattern of comparative advantage. Specifically, the Nash equilibrium choice of education systems by two countries interacting strategically are necessarily more divergent than their autarky choices, and yet less than what is socially optimal for the world.     

Competition or Comparative Advantage: What Drives Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions?

The theory of comparative advantage explains the upsurge of cross border mergers and acquisitions (CBMAs) in the era of reform led trade liberalization. This paper tests the theory of comparative advantage for CBMAs by firms belonging to a developing country, viz. India. Using count data the paper also shows that CBMAs have occurred in country and sector specific waves. This implies in developing countries, it is competition rather than comparative advantage which drives CBMAs. However, the paper finds that occurrence of the country specific wave and sector specific wave are negatively affected by favourable outward FDI policy.