| 中文摘要 |
本文利用臺灣與韓國KLEMS資料庫及產出成長會計帳法，推估臺灣及韓國1981至2010期間之產業別總要素生產力（TFP），並推估各產業別成長來源。本文先簡要介紹KLEMS模型，其次再利用臺灣與韓國KLEMS資料庫進行實證分析，實證結果發現：臺灣與韓國的經濟成長，均以1981－1990經濟成長之表現為最佳，之後則逐漸下滑；經濟成長來源亦主要以中間投入要素的增加為主，其中製造業中間投入之貢獻又比服務業高；製造業中間投入以原物料的貢獻為主，而服務業中間投入則以企業服務的貢獻最高；勞動投入成長的貢獻在臺灣及韓國均非常低。再就總要素生產力而言，臺灣服務業之TFP要遠高於製造業之TFP；相反地，韓國之製造業TFP則優於服務業之TFP。比較臺灣與韓國的產業別TFP表現，實證結果發現：韓國之製造業TFP優於臺灣，而臺灣的服務業的TFP表現則遠優於韓國的服務業。這似乎意味著，在未來之產業發展上，臺灣的優勢產業為服務業，故應更重視服務業之投資，相反地，韓國則應以製造業之投資為優先。
The purpose of this paper is to compare the growth dynamics at the industry level between Taiwan and Korea during 1981-2010 and to identify key drivers which resulted in industrial growth. First, we concisely introduce the KLEMS approach to the growth accounting method. We estimate the industrial-level TFP using Taiwanese and Korean KLEMS databases. The empirical results show that, Taiwan's and Korea's output growth rates during 1981-1990 were higher than those of other periods. After 1990, the output growth rates slowed down for both economies. The contribution of intermediate inputs (II) accounts for majority of the gross output growth rate. The contributions of II of tertiary industries are much less than those of secondary industries. Among the intermediate inputs, material contribution is the highest in secondary industries, whereas service contribution is the highest in tertiary industries. The contribution of labor input is slight in Taiwan and Korea. Furthermore, in Taiwan, the performance of the TFP growth rate in service is better than that of manufacturing industries, whereas the performance of the TFP growth rate in manufacturing industries is better than that of service industries in Korea. Taiwan has greatly outperformed Korea in TFP of service industries in past decades. This implies a good potential to expand service industries in Taiwan. Korea's TFP for the service industries as a whole were found to be negative in all three past decades. This shows the comparative disadvantage of Korea in service industrial development. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
