摘要
在当今全球经济低迷的市场环境下,国家应该如何调整和优化产业结构,消化过剩产能,刺激经济新的增长成为学者们热烈讨论的话题。特别是在美国"制造业回归"的浪潮声中,中国作为"制造大国"提出了"中国制造2025"的国家战略,制造业作为产业结构中重要的组成部分更是受到了格外的关注。本文的主要目的在于从产品空间理论的角度对比分析中美产业政策的路径选择。据此,本文以全球产品贸易数据库数据为基础,借助产品空间理论指标实证分析中美两国产业政策,是遵循比较优势还是偏离比较优势的路径,并在构建两国产品空间的基础上进一步对比分析两国制造业竞争力的大小。最后,为我国产业升级发展路径的选择提供相对应的建议,并为我国实现从"制造大国"向"制造强国"的转变提供建议。研究结果表明,中国的产业升级更多地是依赖现有要素禀赋的积累,遵循比较优势,实现"渐进式发展"路径,而美国是偏离现有比较优势,利用现有的要素禀赋塑造新的比较优势的"跨越式发展"路径;中国作为"制造大国"与"制造强国"美国的制造业竞争力存在一定的差异,但是,存在发展的"机会窗口"。
Research on product space points out that the heterogeneity of the product space determines the evolution path of the economies＇ comparative advantages, and then leads to different economic performance in different countries, which challenges the traditional theory on explaining the mechanism of competition. The existing research on product space focus on the different structural characteristics in different countries from a static perspec- tive. What＇s more, based on the Product Theory, proximity determines the technological similarities of different prod- ucts and density measures the average proximity of a new potential product to a country＇s current productive struc- ture. However, Space Product Theory did not provide systematic empirical exploration to the appropriate jumping distance of different products, which means industrial policy should in full conform to comparative advantage or defy it. Nowadays,facing up with the downturn in the global market, how to adjust the industrial structure and digest the overcapacity has become a heated discussion topic for scholars. Amid a lackluster economic rebound, American Manufacturing is back and China put forward ＂Made in China 2025＂ strategy. Manufacturing industry, as an impor- tant part of the industrial structure, has aroused the extra attention. The main purpose of this paper is to analysis the different paths of industrial policies between China and USA based on Space Product Theory. Based on the global product trade database data, we test the relationship between industrial upgrading path from the perspective of prod- uct space to explore whether the industrial upgrading conform to comparative advantages or defy to comparative ad- vantages between China and USA. The empirical research shows that the industrial upgrading path in China con- forms to comparative advantage to get a progressive development, even though there has character of deviation from comparative advantage on the industry upgrade, while America with the fast speed of economic growth ha s the tend- ency to deviate from comparative advantage to get a leaping development. What＇s more, we have visualized the product space of China and the product space of America. By comparing the characteristics of product space between them, we find that the product spaces of America is more competitive by occupying the dense area of product space, which means China, as one of the developing countries have to develop more products that have revealed comparative advantage to increase the density of product space to be more compet- itive and get the upgrading abilities in the future. So we can safely draw the conclusion that China is a manufactur- ing giant but a manufacturing powerhouse. Facing with industry 4. 0 in Germany and industrial internet in America, China China have put forth the strategy of made in China 2025. Even though there are different competitive advanta- ges in different countries, the efficient development path of manufacture in t he future is to change our thinking a- bout manufacture, change the mode of manufacture, and change innovation models. In conclusion, the different char- acteristics of the product spaces between China and America determine the different paths of industrial policies be- tween them based on the Product Space Theory. China should develop more powerful industries to increase the density of the product space to gain more upgrading abilities in the future.
出处
《经济管理》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第8期18-28,共11页
Business and Management Journal ( BMJ )
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目"全球生产网络
知识权保护与中国外贸竞争力提升研究"(15ZDB155)
关键词
产业政策
产品空间
比较优势
制造业竞争力
industrial policy
space product
comparative advantage
manufacturing power
