سرمایه گذاری ثابت دولتی و رشد بخش غیردولتی در چین

This paper is an empirical attempt to (i) identify whether state fixed capital is a complement or a substitute to non-state sector inputs, and to (ii) quantify the marginal contribution of state fixed capital to non-state sector industrial output at both the national and provincial level in China during the 1978–2000 period. The main result, based on impulse responses derived from vector auto-regression models, indicates that state fixed capital formation complements non-state sector inputs and positively affects industrial output at both the national and provincial level. The results support the central and provincial governments’ policy of sustained state fixed capital formation.

Since 1978, China has undergone a decisive shift to a market-oriented economy with both rapid and sustained market-driven growth. Real GDP per capita grew at an average rate of 8.1% in the 1978–2001 period (Lin & Liu, 2002). But, China's transition has had its problems, notably with several provinces lagging far behind in terms of per capita income and overall development. Provinces located in Eastern China have succeeded in making their economies more like those of the newly industrialized countries in South-East Asia. In the western and central regions, however, despite considerable progress, economic development has been constrained by an old industrial structure and insufficient provision for physical and social infrastructure. In these circumstances, the central government's effort to enhance the growth potential of interior provinces through state directed investment can be perceived as a means to promote a more balanced growth.1 However, fuelled by increasing fiscal imbalances and the already huge financial undertakings for improving the physical and social infrastructure, a debate has started on the state's role and capability in promoting economic growth across the board. But, regardless of which course of action one supports, the critical question remains whether state fixed investment in China exerts a positive or negative impact on the development of China's non-state sector, and hence, on overall economic growth. Despite much disagreement in the literature over the relationship between public expenditure and private economic activities, there appears to be agreement around the idea that public expenditure on infrastructure-related projects does indeed affect private economic activity. Several studies (see Aschauer, 1989a, Aschauer, 1989b, Munnell, 1990a, Munnell, 1990b and Easterly and Rebelo, 1993; Erenburg & Wohart, 1995, among others) argue that public expenditure complements private capital and that public capital is a significant input in the private production process. Other studies (see Ford & Poret, 1991; Holtz-Eakin, 1994 and Monadjemi, 1993; among others) obtain different results and essentially argue that public expenditure is a substitute for private inputs. From a more analytical perspective, studies by Pereira and Roca-Sagales, 1999 and Pereira and Roca-Sagales, 2001, and Ligthart (2000), among others, suggest that the single equation model for empirical estimation, often used to analyze the substitutability/complementarity of public expenditure, disregards the possibility of two-way causality, or dynamic feedback, of the variables in the regression. Their studies employ vector auto-regression (VAR) models, which effectively treat all variables as endogenous, hence incorporating possible feedback mechanisms. It is noteworthy that these studies generally suggest that public capital exerts a positive effect on private sector inputs and production. The objective of this paper is two-fold: (i) to identify whether state fixed capital is a complement to or a substitute for non-state sector inputs, i.e., non-state capital and labor, and (ii) to quantify the marginal contribution of state fixed capital to non-state sector production at both the national and provincial level over the 1978–2000 period. Based on the theoretical concept developed by Aschauer, 1989a and Aschauer, 1989b, these tasks will be accomplished by first performing a co-integration analysis of a multivariate system of equations, and subsequently by using impulse responses associated with the estimated VAR models to identify and quantify the role of state fixed investment. China is characterized by a regional dual development pattern with provinces differing widely in terms of size and population, industrial structure, and policy orientation. Hence, it is imperative to analyze each province separately in order to draw sensible conclusions. The main results indicate that state fixed capital formation complements non-state sector inputs and positively affects output at both the national and provincial level. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the data; Section 3 presents the methodology and empirical results. Finally, a summary with emphasis on the policy implications is provided in Section 4.

4.1. Objective and main results This paper is an empirical attempt to (i) identify whether state fixed capital is a complement or a substitute to non-state sector inputs and to (ii) quantify the marginal contribution of state fixed capital to non-state sector industrial output at both the national and provincial level in China during the 1978–2000 period. A strong sustained economic development combined with a rapidly growing non-state sector and considerable interference by government policies and state funded investment, make China an interesting economy to study the effect of state fixed investments. To accomplish this task, impulse responses associated with estimated VAR models are used to identify and quantify the role of state fixed investment. At the national level, the results suggest that state fixed capital complements, or crowds-in, non-state sector inputs and positively affects non-state industrial output in the long run. Similarly, at the provincial level, the results suggest complementarity, regardless of geographic location and level of development. It should be noted, however, that the provincial results are somewhat ambiguous. State fixed capital complements non-state investment in all but one province and positively affects non-state industrial output in all provinces. However, it has a negative effect on non-state labor in 6 of the 25 provinces in the sample. The range of results from [−0.105 to 0.963] for non-state investment [0.015 to 5.081] for non-state industrial output, and [−0.528 to 0.558] for non-state labor highlights important differences between regions and individual provinces. The average positive effect on non-state investment is significantly larger in the eastern region than in the central and western regions. The largest positive effect, on average, on non-state industrial output, however, is generated in the central region, closely followed by the eastern region. The western region is far behind in terms of effect on non-state industrial output, but generates, the highest positive effect on employment. 4.2. Policy implications The results have important implications for state investment targeting policies, at both the national and provincial level, and for central government redistribution policies. First, the results suggest that China's economy should not be regarded as a simple homogenous nation from a development, or policy, point of view. Rather, China should be evaluated at a provincial, or even more detailed level. Second, the results suggest that state fixed capital formation has a positive impact on the performance of China's non-state industrial sector across the board, hence, state fixed capital formation is likely to have an overall positive effect on economic growth. On the one hand, these results support the efforts of the central and provincial governments to pursue a policy of sustained levels of state fixed capital formation thus implying a form of state investment-led growth. On the other hand, state-funded investment in different types of public goods and services or through the investment plan of state-owned enterprises may at some critical point obstruct growth in the non-state sector. Hence, it is appropriate to raise the question whether firms would respond equally well or perhaps more rapidly, if more resources were made directly available to the non-state sector, for example through venture capital funds or other incentive based development programs. Third, although the results support the efforts of the central government to direct resources directly and via provincial governments to development projects in the western provinces, a project popularly called ‘go west’, a controversy exists. To begin with, targeting specific geographic and sectoral areas within the interior regions may prove successful as state fixed capital formation seems to generate higher positive effects the more developed an area is. If the central government desires to decrease variations in economic development between the eastern and interior regions then, for redistribution purposes, more resources need to be channelled to the less developed interior provinces. Expanding and upgrading transportation and telecommunication services, improving education capabilities and health care and developing the institutional framework to support a market are a few examples of what state funded investment can be used for. But, if high economic growth of the aggregate economy is more important than immediate support to the interior then more state funded investment should be channelled to those provinces where the effect is highest, and those provinces are not found in the western part of the country.