权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Regional Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Indonesia and China

印度尼西亚和中国的区域经济增长和收入不平等

基本信息

批准号：
15530195
负责人：
AKITA Takahiro
金额：
$ 2.05万
依托单位：
International University of Japan
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2003
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2003 至 2005
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

(1)We estimated regional income inequality in China over the 1995-1998 period using a Theil index based upon district-level GDP and population data, and conducted a two-stage nested inequality decomposition analysis to explore factors determining regional income inequality. We also performed a regression analysis to explore the possible determinants of within-province income inequality. The decomposition analysis showed that the within-province inequality component accounted for 62 percent of overall regional income inequality in 1998, while the between-region component contributed 27 percent. According to the regression analysis, cumulative per capita FDI and a dummy variable designating inland border provinces are found to be significant in explaining within-province inequality. We also found that economic dualism, as denoted by a low ratio of agricultural labor productivity to labor productivity in non-agricultural sectors, was another significant factor contributing to within-provi … More nce inequality.(2)We employed provincial data to measure regional inequalities in per capita GDP and labor productivity in Indonesia from 1993 to 1999 by the weighted coefficient of variation and the Theil T index, and investigated factors determining regional income inequalities by using several inequality decomposition techniques. We also compared Indonesia's pattern of regional inequalities in 1993-1999 with Japan's pattern in the postwar period and predicted the future pattern of regional inequalities in Indonesia.(3)We investigated the changing geographical pattern of manufacturing industries in Japan between 1985 and 1995 and explored factors of their geographic concentration. A regression analysis was conducted to test some hypotheses that were derived directly from early models of the New Economic Geography (NEG). Regression results indicated that the geographic concentration of Japanese manufacturing industries seems to be determined by some combination of internal economies of scale, transportation costs, and factor intensity. However, inter-industry linkages were found to be an insignificant factor of geographic concentration. As posited by the NEG theories, Japanese manufacturing industries with larger internal economies of scale and smaller unit transportation costs tended to have a higher level of geographic concentration. Japanese manufacturing data also supported the Heckscher-Ohlin theory : labor- or capital-intensive industries tend to have a higher level of geographic concentration.(4)We measured regional income inequalities in Japan in the postwar period by using the weighted coefficient of variation and the Theil T index and explored factors determining regional income inequalities by using several inequality decomposition techniques. Regional inequality in per capita GDP, as measured by the weighted coefficient of variation, first increased and reached a peak in 1958 at 0.38. It then declined steadily and hit the bottom at 0.25 in 1979. After 1979, it rose again and reached a peak in 1990 at 0.37. There is a declining trend after 1990. To a considerable extent, regional inequality in per capita GDP was determined by regional inequality in labor productivity. Regional inequality in labor participation rate was not significant. A rapid rise in primary sector's inequality in per capita GDP was attributable to a rise in its inequality in employment share. On the other hand, a decrease in secondary sector's inequality in per capita GDP until the middle of the 1970s was due mainly to a fall in its inequality in employment share, while a decrease in tertiary sector's inequality in per capita GDP until the middle of 1960s was attributable to a fall in its inequality in both labor productivity and employment share. Less

(1)We本文利用基于地区GDP和人口数据的Theil指数估计了中国1995-1998年的地区收入差距，并进行了两阶段嵌套的收入差距分解分析，探讨了地区收入差距的决定因素。我们还进行了回归分析，以探讨可能的决定因素，省内收入不平等。分解分析表明，1998年，省内收入不平等占总地区收入不平等的62%，而地区间收入不平等占27%。通过回归分析发现，人均累计FDI和指定内陆边境省份的虚拟变量在解释省际不平等方面具有显著性。我们还发现，以农业劳动生产率与非农业部门劳动生产率之比较低为标志的经济二元性是导致省内劳动生产率下降的另一个重要因素。 ...更多信息不平等。(2)We本文利用1993 ~ 1999年印尼各省的数据，通过加权变异系数和Theil T指数测算了印尼人均GDP和劳动生产率的地区差异，并利用几种不平等分解技术考察了地区收入不平等的决定因素。我们还比较了印度尼西亚的区域不平等的模式在1993-1999年与日本的模式在战后时期，并预测了未来的区域不平等在印度尼西亚的模式。(3)We研究了1985 - 1995年间日本制造业地理格局的变化，并探讨了其地理集中的因素。回归分析进行了测试，直接从新经济地理（NEG）的早期模型的一些假设。回归结果表明，日本制造业的地理集中度似乎是由内部规模经济、运输成本和要素密集度的某种组合决定的。然而，产业间联系被认为是地理集中的一个微不足道的因素。正如NEG理论所假设的那样，内部规模经济较大、单位运输成本较小的日本制造业往往具有较高的地理集中度。日本的制造业数据也支持赫克歇尔-奥林理论：劳动密集型或资本密集型产业往往具有较高的地理集中度。(4)We本文利用加权变异系数和Theil T指数测算了战后日本的地区收入不平等，并利用几种不平等分解技术探讨了地区收入不平等的决定因素。按加权变异系数衡量，人均国内生产总值的区域不平等首先加剧，并于1958年达到顶峰，为0.38。然后，它稳步下降，并在1979年达到0.25的底部。1979年后，再次上升，1990年达到峰值0.37。1990年以后有下降趋势。在很大程度上，人均GDP的地区差距是由劳动生产率的地区差距决定的。劳动参与率的地区差异不显著。第一产业在人均国内生产总值中的不平等迅速加剧，是因为其在就业份额中的不平等加剧。另一方面，到70年代中期为止，第二产业的人均GDP不平等的缩小主要是由于就业份额的不平等缩小，而到60年代中期为止，第三产业的人均GDP不平等的缩小主要是由于劳动生产率和就业份额的不平等缩小。少