@article{oai:shudo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000384,
 author = {上領 , 英之 and カミリョウ, ヒデユキ and Kamiryo, Hideyuki},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {修道商学},
 month = {Sep},
 note = {P(論文), 1.研究目的と帰結:地域別にみた中国経済の内生的成長率(理論値)は,the Kamiryo model[2002]を適用した場合,どのように測定されるのか。また,計画成長率を設定した場合,どの程度達成できるのか。その方法論とそれから得られる帰結を提供することを,本ノートの目的とする。内性的成長率は,recursive programming based on the Cobb-Douglas production function (逐次的な解法)に従うため,実績成長率と関連してはいるが,むしろ計画成長率値のあるべき姿を強く示唆できる。内生的成長率は,政策パラメータ(本ノートでは,構造改革および規制緩和の部門別加重平均としてcalibrateされるbeta植に限定)に対応して異なる値を示す。そのような成長率の有効範囲は,計画値におけるbeta借が実際のbeta値から大きく遊離しない範囲内に止められるべきであろう。たとえば,1999-2002の平均値を対象として,中国合計でみると,実際のbeta値が0.9前後にあり(Table 11参照),計画成長率をかりに7%とすると,その場合に要求されるbeta値は,0.8である(Figure 3参照)。また,上海市でみると,実際のbeta値が0.98の高いレベルにあるにもかかわらず,内生的成長率は,理論値の場合(under optimum CRC),15%であり,その場合に要求されるbeta値は,0.6である。上海市の場合,計画成長率をかりに7%とすると,その場合に要求されるbeta値は,0.88である。いかなる成長率に対しても,計画値におけるbeta値と実際のbeta値とを比較することによって,達成の難易・安定度をmanifestできる。さらに,経済システムが有効に働いているか否かを識別可能である。ちなみに,日本の現状分析の結果[Kamiryo, 2002/7]は,構造改革をリードしない,先送りの経済システムが今日までの十数年にわたって内生的成長率をマイナスに釘付けし,プラスに転化できないことを論証している。, Asian countries have a significantly high rate of saving compared with other countries. The Japanese economy with a high rate of saving has failed to recover in the 1990s and after due to the delay in structural reform. This suggests that it is more difficult for a high rate of saving economy to maintain a stable growth continuously. Even a high level of technology cannot convert a negative growth to a positive growth unless structural reform-oriented policies are steadily taken. My report at Guilin intends to (1) prepare for/arrange data that are used for my endogenous growth model using China national accounts, (2) briefly explain the characteristics of my model, (3) calibrate a policy-oriented parameter, beta, and endogenously measure "growth variables" over time in recursive programming that includes the root mean square error (OLS) method, where growth variables are composed of the rate of technological progress, the growth rate of per capita output, the capital-output ratio, and the rate of profit, and (4) present/interpret the values of growth variables and clarify the character of China growth, suggesting a stable direction and its methodology. For data arrangement, I use the data of China national accounts by year and region. As similarly shown in the OECD statistics, China national accounts do not show profit, the retention ratio, and capital (stock). I need these three values, and to get these values I must set up two equations together with assumptions. I prepared for several sets of these values and tested each result in recursive programming. I stress here that the rate of profit is, to some extent, related to the market interest rates and this rate will present a benchmark for estimation. Of course, a high rate of profit is useful to strengthen the foundation of continuous growth. For the characteristics of my model, I divide (1) saving into retained earnings and household saving and (2) net investment into both corporate and government net investments, and (3) net investment into qualitative and quantitative net investments, and then I calibrate four policy-oriented parameters that show the improvement in resource redistribution, structural reform, and deregulation by sector. This paper, for simplicity, concentrates on one of four parameters, beta, that is a weighted average of those in corporate and government investments. For endogenous growth variables, I raise questions: (1) How much differences of growth variables are observed by the value of beta under CRC (including optimum CRC)? (2) How can I interpret the difference between the actual growth rates (under increasing/diminishing returns to capital; IRC/DRC) and growth variables (under CRC)? (3) How can China continuously maintain a stable growth? And, what conditions and factors are necessary for China to realize this stable growth? (4) Finally, what version is suggested for China to maintain a stable growth? I observe significant differences of growth variables between Shanghai, 4 Direct Cities (including Shanghai), and other regions. E. g., under DRC 2001, the growth rate of per capita output for Shanghai is 18.19% with the current beta=0.9882 and that for Region West-South is 6.74% with the current beta=0.9147. However, under CRC 2001, the growth rate of per capita output for Shanghai is 10.0% with beta=0.85 and that for West-South is 5.0% with beta=0.85. Each actual growth rate of per capita output also shows a different value, yet in the long-term these rates are closely interrelated. And, the beta determines the level of a continuous growth. For example, if the beta under DRC is 0.75 and the beta under CRC is 0.8, the level of growth is fully competitive in international competition. On the contrary, if the beta under DRC is 0.9 and the beta under CRC is 0.7, the level of growth is weak due to the delay in structural reform. And, if the beta under DRC is 1.2 (as seen in Japan for 1998), the foundation of growth is destroyed: there is no possibility/hope to recover positive growth unless the beta under DRC improve/decrease tremendously. For the character of China growth, I indicate that although China enjoys a significantly high growth rate, its level is generally a result at the expense of a high beta under DRC. To maintain a certain level of growth continuously requires a corresponding improvement in beta. I can observe only twice good examples for 31 regions from 1999 to 2001: Regions Shanghai and 4 Direct Cities both for 2000, where the current beta under DRC is lower than the beta under CRC. I still wonder why Shanghai indicates an extremely high level of beta (0.988) in 2001, which, I understand, partly comes from a high relative share of profit. For a version of growth in China, I indicate that it is natural for China to fall into DRC situation in the real world since the rate of saving is too high compared with western countries. The worst example is Japan in the 1990s and after, where the Japanese economy has already been out of control, decreasing the rate of saving and yet aggravating the beta with huge budget deficits. This is partly because the capital-output ratio is beyond a limit for a continuous positive growth due to too much public investment. Before going into a mature economy, it is essential for China to decide a certain level of the capital-output ratio as a goal to guarantee its continuous growth. A best example is the UK, whose initial beta and capital-output ratio are lowest among western countries: four policy-oriented parameters are most competitive among countries. As a summary of this report, I raise five hypotheses so as to match the stage of economic development. It is difficult for any economy to improve the beta unless people really decide to accept this improvement as their own and get out of such excessive profit as does not exist in the UK. Strong leadership can do, and then, a new history and unique experiment will bear fruit.},
 pages = {201--287},
 title = {Endogenous growth in China national accounts : for lasting stable growth by region},
 volume = {44},
 year = {2003},
 yomi = {カミリョウ, ヒデユキ}
}