以KLEMS法比較台灣與南韓經濟成長來源及生產力之變動

Economic Growth and Productivity Performance: A Comparison of Taiwan and South Korea based on KLEMS Approach

陳柏鈞(Po-Chun Chen)

指導教授 ： 傅祖壇 ； 吳榮杰

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/農業經濟學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01713

摘要

台、韓兩國經歷漫長的努力，從落後的農業國家邁向了新興的科技工業化國家，也被國際譽為「台灣奇蹟」與「漢江奇蹟」。在這數十年的發展歷程中，台韓兩國交流密切也競爭激烈，經濟發展狀況相似，但也不盡相同。而近十年來，在南韓成功的電子業品牌化之帶動下，於2005年南韓的人均GDP首次超過台灣。
　　本文除了使用亞洲KLEMS資料庫中的南韓資料外，並以Jorgenson、Gollop與Fraumeni於1987年提出之成長會計法，將產出成長拆解為來自資本、勞動、能源、原料、服務投入及生產力的貢獻，建立台灣KLEMS資料以比較台韓兩國1981年至2010年30個產業的成長來源與生產力，並觀察兩國各級產業與各重點產業對國家總體經濟貢獻的變化，以探討政策對其產業結構變動與經濟表現之影響。
　　研究結果發現，台灣的製造業表現不如服務業優異，且受大量台商自1987年赴中國投資的影響，製造業附加價值比重逐年的下降，服務業比重則相對增加；反觀南韓，在製造業亦有良好的發展下，製造業與服務業之比重皆有上升的趨勢，但兩國農、林、漁業的比重都面臨大幅的衰退。而兩國製造業之結構也有所變化，自80年代後，兩國傳統產業皆面臨了衰退，技術密集型產業則蓬勃發展，兩國之主力製造業也從紡織、成衣、皮革及其製品業逐漸轉型為電子及光學製品業。
　　在產業別成長來源方面，結果指出，不僅僅是主力的電子業，南韓大部份製造業的各項投入實質成長率都高於台灣，使得南韓製造業的產出成長率普遍較台灣高，但兩國製造業的生產力並沒有太大的差異；而本研究也發現，兩國製造業主要的成長來源都為原物料投入成長的貢獻，因此在重點製造業的培養上，穩定的原物料供應為重要的關鍵。在服務業方面，兩國服務業的產出成長率雖差異不大，但南韓有近一半的服務產業生產力為負成長，反觀台灣大部分服務業的生產力皆為正成長，且對產出有重要的貢獻，特別是在批發零售業方面，台灣各時期之生產力皆優於南韓，是未來台灣政府可鼓勵發展之產業。

關鍵字

KLEMS ； 產業結構 ； 經濟成長來源 ； 生產力 ； 總要素生產力

並列摘要

With long-term endeavors, Taiwan and South Korea have transformed from outmoded agricultural countries into emerging technology industrialized countries. Their development experience was hailed as “Taiwan Miracle” and “Miracle on the Han River”. Over the course of the past several decades, these two countries have similar conditions on economic development, which are not totally the same in some ways. Their exchanges have increased in frequency, but the competition is also fierce. In the past decade, South Korea has succeeded in branding consumer electronics; therefore, the GDP per capita in South Korea overtook Taiwan for the first time in 2005.
　　To compare the sources of output and productivity growth of Taiwan and South Korea at industry level from 1981 to 2010, we not only use the South Korea KLEMS data from Asia database but also construct the Taiwan KLEMS data. Following the growth accounting methodology developed by Jorgenson, Gollop and Fraumeni (1987), we decompose the output growth into contributions of capital, labor, energy, material and service inputs as well as total factor productivity. We can use KLEMS data of 30 industries to conduct cross-period, cross-industry and cross-country comparisons on the structures of industry output growth and of the factor contribution. We further discuss the impact of policy changes on its industrial structure and economic performance.
　　The empirical results show that in Taiwan, the performance of manufacturing industries is inferior to service industries. Because a large number of businessmen in Taiwan have been investing in China since 1987, the share of value added in Taiwanese manufacturing industries is decreasing. And Taiwanese service industries share is relatively increasing. In contrast, manufacturing industries and service industries share show an upward trend in South Korea because of the high rates of growth in Korean manufacturing industries. But both Taiwanese and Korean primary industries experience a recession. In addition, structural changes have been taking place in the manufacturing industries of Taiwan and Korea since the 1980s. The traditional manufacturing industries are in the midst of downturn, while technology-intensive industries are booming. The main manufacturing industry of the two countries has gradually transformed from the textiles, textile products, leather products and footwear industry into the electrical and optical equipment industry.
　　With respect to the sources of output growth at industry level, we find that most of the Korean manufacturing industries have higher real growth rate of factor inputs than that in Taiwan; therefore, the output growth rate of Korean manufacturing industries is generally higher than that of Taiwan’s manufacturing industries. But there is not much difference in the productivity of the manufacturing industries between the two countries. We also find that the contribution share from materials input outweighs those from other inputs for most industries in manufacturing sector. In other words, the stable supply of raw materials is the key point to the development of manufacturing industries. In regard to service industries, there is not much difference in the output growth of the service industries between the two countries. However, regarding productivity in service industries in Korea, the growth is negative; on the other hand, Taiwanese service industries have high productivity growth, and the productivity plays important role in the output growth for most industries in service sector. Especially in the wholesale and retail trade industry, the productivity of each period in Taiwan is better than that in South Korea. Therefore, Taiwanese government may encourage the future development of the industry.

並列關鍵字

KLEMS ； industrial structure ； the sources of output growth ； productivity ； TFP

參考文獻

姚希聖、姜渝生與王小娥（2001），「總要素生產力變動與生產環境條件貢獻之估計－台灣縣市產業的實證」，『規劃學報』。28期，1-23。

黃台心、陳盈秀與王美惠（2009），「我國與東亞諸國總體生產效率與生產力之研究」，『經濟論文叢刊』。37卷，4期，頁379 -414。

陳谷劦與楊浩彥（2008），「共同邊界Malmquist生產力指數的延伸：跨國總體資料的實證分析」，『經濟論文叢刊』。36卷，4期，551-588。

Aigner, D., Lovell, C. A. A., & Schmidt, P. (1977), “Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,” Journal of Econometrics. 6(1), 21-37.

Bosworth, B., & Collins, S. M. (2003), “The empirics of growth: An update,” Brookings papers on economic activity. 2003(2), 113-206.