贸易开放度与经济增长：是出口导向型的增长还是进口导向型的增长【外文翻译】

贸易开放度与经济增长：是出口导向型的增长还是进口导向型的增长【外文翻译】 本科毕业论文外文翻译原文 外文题目:Trade openness and economic growth: is growth export-led or import-led? 出 处:Applied Economics(2008, 40, 161–173) 作 者:Titus O. Awokuse 原 文: Trade openness and economic growth: is growth export-led or import-led? Most previous investigations have only focused on the effect of export expansion on economic growth while ignoring the potential growth-enhancing contribution of imports. This article re-examines the relationship between trade and economic growth in Argentina, Colombia, and Peru with emphasis on both the role of exports and imports. Granger causality tests and impulse response functions were used to examine whether growth in trade stimulate economic growth (or vice versa). The results suggest that the singular focus of past studies on exports as the engine of growth may be misleading. Although there is some empirical evidence supporting export-led growth, the empirical support for import-led growth hypothesis is relatively stronger. In some cases, there is also evidence for reverse causality from gross domestic product growth to exports and imports. I. Introduction The potential benefit of outward-oriented trade policy for economic growth has been the subject of many empirical investigations. Although several studies have demonstrated the theoretical economic relationship between trade and economic growth, disagreements still persists regarding the causal direction and magnitude of the effects (Bhagwati, 1978; Edwards, 1998). The vast majority of this literature focuses on the causal effect of export on economic growth. The main question in the exportled- growth debate is whether an export-driven outward orienting trade policy is preferable to an inward orienting trade policy in stimulating economic growth. Some researchers argue that causality flows from exports to economic growth and denotes this as the export-led growth (ELG) hypothesis. The reverse causal flow from economic growth to exports is termed growth-led exports (GLE). The third alternative is that of import-led growth (ILG) which suggests that economic growth could be driven primarily by growth in imports. Despite the potentially important role of imports and import competition, relatively little attention has been devoted to the causal relationship between imports and economic growth. Most studies on the effect of trade openness on growth have primarily focused on the role of exports and have mostly ignored the contribution of imports. However, some recent studies have shown that without controlling for imports, any observed causal link between exports and economic growth may be spurious and thus misleading (Esfahani, 1991; Riezman et al., 1996; Thangavelu and Rajaguru, 2004). Imports may be very important to economic growth since significant export growth is usually associated with rapid import growth. Furthermore, the export-growth analyses that exclude imports may be subject to the classic omitted variable problem. The fundamental causal relationship may actually be between imports and economic growth. Although numerous empirical studies have investigated the role of exports in economic growth, they largely focused on Asian economies, with few studies including Latin America countries. Earlier in their economic development paths, many Latin American economies mostly followed protectionist trade policies emphasizing the importsubstitution industrialization strategy. The current prevailing view among most development economists is that the import-substitution approach is detrimental to economic growth as it inherently fosters production inefficiencies and encourages rent-seeking behaviour. In recent years, many Latin American countries have experienced major macroeconomic and trade policy reforms with emphasis on market liberalization and trade openness. The few existing empirical investigations of the effect of openness on growth in this region have produced mixed and inconclusive results (Riezman et al., 1996; Xu, 1996; Bahmani-Oskooee and Niroomand, 1999; Richards, 2001). This study investigates the causal relationship between trade and economic growth for three Latin American economies (Argentina, Colombia and Peru) within an integrated framework that explores the role of both exports and imports. This study makes contributions to the literature in several ways. First, in contrast to most previous studies of the ELG hypothesis, this study extends the traditional neoclassical growth model by estimating an augmented production function that explicitly tests for the effect of both exports and imports on economic growth. Real exports and imports are included as two of the endogenous variables in the cointegrated vector autoregression (VAR) model. This modelling framework also makes it possible to test for both the ELG and ILG hypotheses for these Latin American economies. Second, the article also adopts recent advances in time series modelling by specifying causal models based on vector error correction models (Toda and Phillips, 1993). Thus, in addition to testing for Granger causality between exports, imports and growth, long-run behaviour could also be investigated via cointegration and impulse response function (IRF) analyses. The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II provides a brief theoretical and empirical overview of the trade and growth relationship. Section III discusses the analytical framework and some methodological issues. Section IV presents empirical findings and Section V contains the concluding remarks. II. Exports, Imports and Economic Growth Theoretical framework The relationship between exports and economic growth has been attributed to the potential positive externalities derived from exposure to foreign markets. More specifically, exports can be viewed as an engine of growth in three ways. First, export expansion can be a catalyst for output growth directly as a component of aggregate output. An increase in foreign demand for domestic exportable products can cause an overall growth in output via an increase in employment and income in the exportable sector. Second, export growth can also affect growth indirectly through various routes such as: efficient resource allocation, greater capacity utilization, exploitation of economies of scale and stimulation of technological improvement due to foreign market competition (Helpman and Krugman, 1985). Export growth allows firms to take advantage of economies of scale that are external to firms in the nonexport sector but internal to the overall economy. Third, expanded exports can provide foreign exchange that allows for increasing levels of imports of intermediate goods that in turn raises capital formation and thus stimulate output growth (Balassa, 1978; Esfahani, 1991). Relative to the case for ELG, expanded imports have the potential to play a complementary role in stimulating overall economic performance. It is plausible to assume that the effect of imports on economic growth may be different from that of exports. For instance, in many small open developing economies, imports provide much needed factors of production employed in the export sector. Also, the transfer of technology from developed to developing countries via imports could serve as an important source of economic growth. Endogenous growth models show that imports can be a channel for long-run economic growth because it provides domestic firms access to foreign technology and knowledge (Grossman and Helpman, 1991; Coe and Helpman, 1995). Foreign R&D knowledge could be an important source of productivity growth as cutting-edge technologies are usually bundled with imported intermediate goods such as computers, precision machines and equipments. Thus, foreign imports are sources of technology-intensive intermediate factors of production (Lawrence and Weinstein, 1999; Mazumdar, 2001). In a sense, imports as a medium of technology transfer may play a more significant role on economic growth than exports. Trade openness and economic growth In addition, beyond serving as a vehicle for technology transfer, imports can also affect productivity growth through its effect on domestic innovation via import competition. An increase in import penetration exposes the domestic firms to foreign competition. Although the impact of import penetration may differ across domestic industries, imports are important to productivity growth because increased imports of competing products spur innovation as domestic producers respond to the technological competitive pressure from foreign competition (Lawrence and Weinstein, 1999). Review of the empirical literature Since trade theory does not provide a definitive guidance on the causal relationship between trade and output growth, the debate is usually informed by inferences based on anecdotal intuition and empirical analyses. There is extensive literature focusing on the relationship between trade and growth with many espousing the advantages of outward-oriented trade policies. These studies emphasize the benefits of export promotion over the disadvantages of inward-oriented trade policies of import substitution industrialization adopted by several developing countries post-World War II (Balassa, 1978). They cite as evidence the success of the outward-oriented Asian economies (e.g. Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan) in contrast to the economic failures of inward-oriented developing countries (e.g. India and Latin America). Most Latin American countries maintained their inward-oriented trade policies until the 1980s when they were forced by international lending agencies (e.g. International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) to adopt comprehensive structural adjustment programs that emphasized economic reforms and market liberalization policies. The volumes of empirical evidence on the ELG hypothesis have shown that there is a notable link between gross domestic product (GDP) growth and export growth. But controversies still surround the direction of causality. Although most studies focus on developing countries (Balassa, 1978; Sheehey, 1992), several researchers have also examined the ELG hypothesis for industrialized countries (Sharma et al., 1991; Ghartey, 1993; Awokuse, 2003, 2006; Dar and Amirkhalkhali, 2003). While some researchers found evidence in support of the ELG hypothesis, others either found evidence in support of the alternative GLE hypothesis or in several cases the empirical evidence indicated a bi-directional causal relationship (Van den Berg and Schmidt, 1994; Xu, 1996; Riezman et al., 1996; Giles and Williams, 2000). Earlier studies that analysed the link between trade and economic growth primarily focused on the role of exports and most adopted a bivariate correlation modelling framework. Later, several cross-county studies examined the export-growth nexus within a neoclassical growth modelling framework (Balassa, 1978; Ram, 1987). Most of these cross-sectional studies found a significant and positive relationship between export performance and national output growth. For instance, Jung and Marshall (1985) applied Granger causality tests to data from 37 developing countries and found weak support for the ELG hypothesis. In a similar causality study by Chow (1987), he found strong bi-directional causal relationship between export growth and industrial growth in eight newly industrializing countries. However, results from earlier studies using ordinary least squares regression and simple correlation coefficient tests have significant limitations as the correlations may be spurious because they failed to account for the data’s dynamic time series properties (e.g. unit roots and cointegration). Also, the results are limited to showing only that exports growth and GDP growth are correlated, but could not provide information on the direction of causality. The issue of causality is dynamic in nature and is best examined using a dynamic time series modelling framework. Furthermore, the implicit assumption of same production function across different types of economies may be unrealistic as the level of technology may vary across countries. Aided by recent advancements in time series modelling techniques (cointegration and error correction models), there has been an increase in country-specific studies focusing on the relationship between export performance and economic growth (Biswal and Dhawan, 1998; Richards, 2001; Awokuse, 2003, 2006). These more recent studies address the methodological issues of nonstationarity of variables and explicitly accounts for the existence of long-run cointegrating relationships by correctly applying error correction modelling (ECM) techniques. In general, empirical evidence from these studies of the ELG hypothesis has been mixed. While several of these studies have documented empirical evidence supporting the existence of a long-run relationship between exports and economic growth some others have rejected the ELG hypothesis. In the context of Latin American economies, several earlier cross-sectional studies included these countries (Jung and Marshall, 1985; Ram, 1987). However, few recent country-specific studies have examined the relationship between exports and economic growth in Latin America using an augmented neoclassical production function and modern time series econometric techniques (Van den Berg and Schmidt, 1994; Richards, 2001). For example, Bahmani-Oskooee et al. (1991) applies bivariate Granger causality tests to examine the ELG hypothesis for 20 developing countries 1987 (annual data) and found that Peru’s data supports the ELG hypothesis over 1951– while a bi-directional causal relationship was found for the Dominican Republic and Paraguay. Van den Berg and Schmidt (1994) also investigated the ELG hypothesis for 16 Latin American countries and found cointegration in 11 of the 16 countries examined. Specifically, they found a positive and significant effect of exports on economic growth in Colombia and Peru, but no significant effect was found for Argentina. In another study involving 32 developing countries (including some from Latin America), Xu (1996) used bivariate Granger causality tests and error correction models to examine export and economic growth relationships. He found support for the ELG hypothesis in Colombia, but not for Argentina. Riezman et al. (1996) investigated the ELG hypothesis for 126 countries. Using annual data over 1950–1990, they found ‘that standard methods of detecting ELG using Granger causality tests may give misleading results if imports are not included in the system being analysed’. In bivariate causality analysis, the ELG hypothesis was confirmed for only 16 of the 126 countries and the number of cases increased to just 30 after controlling for imports. In the case of Latin American countries, they found support for the ELG hypothesis for only four countries (Costa Rica, Honduras, Suriname and Uruguay). No significant ELG evidence was found for the three countries in this current study (Argentina, Colombia and Peru). It would be interesting to examine if these results still hold for post-1990 Latin American data. 译 文: 贸易开放度与经济增长:是出口导向型的增长还是进 口导向型的增长 过去的研究很多仅仅集中在扩大出口对经济增长的影响，而忽略了进口对促进增长的潜在贡献。本文重新审视了阿根廷、哥伦比亚、秘鲁贸易与经济增长之间的关系，同时又注重进口与出口产生的作用。格兰杰因果关系检验法和脉冲响应函数用来研究贸易增长是否刺激经济增长(或相反)。该结果表明，过去的研究聚焦在出口作为经济增长的单一发动机可能是种误导。虽然有一些实证支持出口导向型经济增长，实证支持进口导向型的经济增长的假设也相对增多。在某些情况下，也有进出口对国内生产总值增长存在反向因果关系的实证。 一、 前言 外向型贸易政策对经济增长的潜在利益一直以来都是许多实证调查的主题。虽然有几个研究证明贸易与经济增长的理论经济关系，就因果关系研究方向和影响程度方面，分歧仍然存在的(Bhagwati，1978年;爱德华兹，1998年)。绝大多数文献集中在出口对经济增长的因果效应上面。出口导向型增长争论的主要问题是，在推动经济增长方面，出口导向型对外定向的贸易政策是否比进口导向型对外定向的贸易政策更可取呢,一些研究人员在争论出口与经济增长的因果关系流向，并表示把出口拉动经济增长作为出口导向经济增长(ELG)假说。反向因果流向即经济增长促进出口增长，被称为经济增长导向的出口(ELG)假说。第三种选择是进口带动经济增长(ILG),这表明经济增长可能主要受到进口增长影响。 尽管进口贸易和进口竞争潜在的重要作用，相关地不太注重一直致力于进口贸易和经济增长之间的因果关系。在大多数贸易开放对经济增长的影响研究主要把重点放在出口的作用上，大多忽视了进口的贡献。然而，一些最近的研究表明，如果不控制进口，出口和经济增长之间的因果关系的一些观察模式可能是虚假的，因此误导(Esfahani, 1991年;Riezman etal., 1996;Thangavelu 和Rajaguru，2004)。因为重大的出口增长与进口增长分析可能受到遗漏经典变量的问题。最根本的因果关系实际上可能是进口与经济增长的关系。 虽然有大量的实证研究调查出口对经济增长的作用，他们主要集中在亚洲经 济体，包括少量的拉美国家的一些研究。此前，在他们经济发展道路上，许多拉美经济体大多遵循贸易保护主义政策，强调进口替代的工业化战略。当前在众多发展经济学家中最普遍的观点是，进口替代的方法对经济增长有害，因为它本质上助长生产效率低下的生产方式和鼓励寻租的行为。近年来，许多拉美国家经历了在强调市场自由化和贸易开放的基础上重大的宏观经济和贸易政策的改革。少量存在的几个关于开放对经济增长的影响的实证调查在该范围产生了混合和不确定结果(Riezman etal.,1996;Xu，1996;Bahamani-Oskooee 和Niroomand，1999;Richards，2001)。 本研究调查拉丁美洲三个经济体(阿根廷，哥伦比亚和美国的经济秘鲁)在一个综合框架内探究进口和出口作用的贸易和经济增长之间的因果关系。本研究对文献在几个方面做出了贡献。首先，相对于大部分以前关于ELG假说的研究，本研究通过出口和进口对经济增长的影响的明确测试估计一个扩展的生产函数扩展了传统的新古典增长模型。真正的出口和进口被列为协整自回归模型(VAR)的两个内生变量。这个模型框架还使拉美经济体的ELG假说和ILG假说的检验成为可能。第二，这个课题在向量误差修正模型基础上通过指定的因果模型也采用了时间系列模型的最新进展(Toda and Phillips, 1993)。因此，除了格兰杰在出口，进口和经济增长之间的因果关系检验，长期的行为也可以通过协整研究和脉冲响应函数(IRF)分析。 本文的其余部分安排如下。第二部分提供一个简短的关于贸易和经济增长之间关系的理论和实证概述。第三部分讨论分析框架和问题的解决方法。第四部分提出实验结果，第五部概括总结。 二、 出口、进口和经济增长 (一)理论框架 出口和之间的关系是归因于暴露在国外市场的经济增长的潜在的正外部性。更具体地说，出口可被视为经济增长的动力，体现在三个方面。首先，出口扩展可以当做是产出增长的催化剂直接作为总产出的一个组成部分。增加对国内出口产品的国外需求可以引起在就业量增加出口部门收入的全面增长。其次，出口增长也可能间接地影响经济增长，比如:资源有效配置，更大的产能利用率，利用规模经济，由于国外市场竞争刺激技术改进(Helpman and Krugman，1985)。出口增长允许企业利用规模经济在企业除了内部整体经济的外部出口部门。第三，扩大出口可以提供外汇，它可以提高对中间产品的进口水平，从而提高了资本形 成，刺激产出增长(Balassa, 1978;Esfahani,1991)。 相对于ELG假说，扩大进口在刺激整体经济表现方面有肯能发挥辅助作用。它似是而非地假设进口对经济增长的影响可能会与出口不同。例如，在许多小规模开放经济体，进口提供出口部门急需的就业生产要素。另外，发达国家向发展中国家的技术转让可作为重要的经济增长来源。内生经济增长模型显示，进口可能是一个长期经济增长的渠道，因为它提供国内企业访问外国技术和知识(Grossman and Helpman, 1991;Coe and Helpman，1995)。外商研发的知识可以成为尖端技术成产力增长的重要来源，通常与进口中间产品如计算机，精密机器和设备。因此，外国进口的技术密集型资源，中间生产要素(Lawrence and Weinstein，1999;Mazumdar, 2001)。在某种意义上，进口作为技术转移的媒介可能对经济增长发挥比出口更大的作用。 (二)贸易开放度和经济增长 此外，除了一种作为汽车服务技术转让，进口通过进口竞争对国内创新的影响也会影响生产率增长。进口渗透率的增加暴露了国内企业与外国的竞争。虽然进口渗透的影响可能会与国内产业有所不同，进口对生产率增长是很重要的，因为产品进口竞争力增长刺激创新是国内生产者对技术竞争对外国竞争压力的反应(Lawrence and Weinstein，1999)。 (三)文献回顾 由于贸易理论并没有提供一个明确的关于贸易和产出增长的因果关系的指导，争论通常根据轶事直觉和实证分析为基础的推理分析。有大量文献的重点集中在贸易和经济增长之间的关系，与许多信奉外向型贸易政策的优势。这些研究强调出口促进作用超过内向型贸易政策的弊端被第二次世界大战后的一些发展中国家采用的进口替代型工业(Balassa，1978)。他们列举的证据是成功的外向型亚洲经济(如香港，韩国，新加坡和台湾)相对于外来发展中国家的经济失败(如印度和拉丁美洲)。大多数拉美国家维持其内向型的贸易政策指导20世纪80年代当他们被迫由国际贷款机构(如国际货币基金和世界银行)采取强调经济改革和市场自由化政策全面的结构调整。 大量ELG假说的经验证据表明国内生产总值增长(GDP)和出口增长两者之间存在的联系。但争议仍然环绕因果关系的方向。虽然大多数研究集中在发展中国家(Balassa，1978;Sheehey,1992),一些研究人员还研究了工业化国家的ELG假说(Sharma etal.,1991;Ghartey,1993;Awokuse,2003,2006;Dar and Amirkhalkhali,2003)。同时许多研究人员也找到了支持ELG假说的证据，其他人或发现支持ELG假说的证据，或几个表明双向的因果关系案件的检验证据(Vanden Berg and Schmidt,1994;Xu,1996;Riezman etal., 1996;Giles and Williams,2000)。 早先的分析贸易和经济增长的研究主要集中在出口的作用和多数通过了一项二元相关模型框架。后来，一些跨县研究调查在新古典增长模型框架中的出口增长关系(Balassa，1978;Ram,1987)。大多数的跨截面研究发现，出口业绩和国民产出增长之间的重要和积极的关系。例如，Jung and 马歇尔(1985)应用格兰杰因果关系检验来自37个发展中国家的数据，发现支持ELG的证据很薄弱。在一个由Chow(1987年)做的类似的因果关系研究，他发现在8个新兴工业化国家的出口增长和工业增长之间有强大的双向因果关系。 然而，早期使用普通二小乘回归和简单相关系数检验的结果，相关性有很大的局限性可能是假的，因为他们没有核算数据的动态时间序列特性(例如简单根和协整)。此外，结果被限制只显示出口增长和GDP增长的相关性，但无法提供因果关系方向的有关资料。因果关系的问题本质上是动态的，而且用动态时间序列模型框架检验是非常好的。此外，隐含的假设具有相同的生产功能类型不同的经济体可能是不切实际的，由于技术水平在不同国家可能会有所不同。 时间序列模型技术最近进展的辅助(协整与误差建模技术矫正模型)，国家具体重点在出口业绩和经济增长之间关系的研究一直在增加(Biswal and Dhawan,1998;Richards，2001;Awokuse,2003,2006)。这些更多的最近的研究瞄准方法问题，变量的不平衡和明确通过正确运用误差修正模型(ECM)的技术长期协整关系的存在。一般而言，这些研究的ELG假说的经验证据已经混合。虽然这些研究有几个记载的经验证据支持出口和经济增长之间的关系的长期存在，也有其他人反对ELG假说。 在拉丁美洲的经济背景下，前面的一些横断面研究包括这些国家。然而，一些最近的特定的国别的研究，曾研究拉丁美洲出口和经济增长之间关系的使用扩充的新古典生产函数和现代时间序列计量经济学方法。例如，Bahamani-Oskooee etal.(1991)为20个发展中国家1951年至1987年(年度数据)应用二元格兰杰因果关系检验法研究ELG假说，并发现秘鲁的数据支持ELG假说，而多米尼加共和国和巴拉圭发现双向的因果关系。(Vanden Berg and Schmidt,1994)在16个拉美国家还研究了ELG假说，发现在审查的16个国家中有11个存在协整关系， 具体说来，他们在哥伦比亚和秘鲁找到了出口对经济的积极和重要影响，但在阿根廷没有发现重大影响。在另一个涉及32个发展中国家(包括来自拉丁美洲的一些)的研究中，Xu(1996)采用双变量格兰杰因果关系检验和误差修正模型审查出口和经济增长的关系。他在哥伦比亚发现支持ELG假说，但在阿根廷没有。 Riezman etal.(1996年)在126个国家研究ELG假说。使用1950-1990年的年度数据，他们发现如果进口没有考虑在体系中，用格兰杰因果关系检验法标准方法检测ELG假说可能产生错误的结果。在二元因果关系分析中，ELG假说只被126个国家中的16个国家认可，而且在控制进口后，数量将近30。在拉丁美洲国家，他们发现支持ELG假说的只有4个国家(哥斯达黎加、洪都拉斯、苏里南和乌拉圭)。目前的研究中没有意义的ELG证据在三个国家被发现(阿根廷、哥伦比和秘鲁)。如果这些1990年后拉丁美洲的数据仍然持有，这将是有趣的研究。