教育对全要素生产率影响的实证分析: 以刚果共和国为例

BATANTOU-ALLAN Jody Excellent; WANG Qiang; MOULÉMVO André; PASSI BATANTOU Christian Gatien

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.202092115

教育对全要素生产率影响的实证分析: 以刚果共和国为例

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5641.202092115

1.
中国石油大学(华东) 管理科学与工程系, 山东青岛　266580, 中国
2.
Marien Ngouabi大学经济学院分析经济学系, 布拉柴维尔, 刚果共和国

详细信息

中图分类号: F202
计量
- 文章访问数: 63
- HTML全文浏览量: 32
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-04-21
- 网络出版日期: 2021-01-27
- 刊出日期: 2021-01-27

Empirical analysis of the impact of education on total factor productivity: Case of the Republic of Congo

1.
Management Science and Engineering, China University of Petroleum, QingdaoShandong　266580, China
2.
Fundamental Economic Analysis, Faculty of Economics, Marien Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo

More Information

Corresponding author: amoule@yahoo.com

摘要

摘要: 主要目的是分析变量教育对刚果共和国1970年至2013年全要素生产率的影响. 结果表明, 教育在短期内对全要素生产率没有显著影响, 但从长远来看意义重大. 此外, 外国直接投资在短期内并不重要, 但从长期来看, 其对全要素生产率产生了积极影响. 结果将有助于政策制定者和外国经济伙伴确定公共金融投资以及外国直接投资的方向.
- 分析 /
- 影响 /
- 教育 /
- 全要素生产率
- analysis /
- impact /
- education /
- total factor productivity

HTML全文

Tab. 1 Stationarity test of the variables

Variables	Level statistics	Critical value (5%)	Statistics in first difference	critical value	Decision
OPEN	–1.95	–2.931	–6.613	–2.933	I(1)
TFP	–2.72	–2.933	–4.270	–2.933	I(1)
FDI	–3.29	–2.931			I(0)
SCHO	–2.91	–2.938	–3.510	–2.935	I(1)

下载: 导出CSV

Tab. 2 Co-integration test

ARDL Bounds Test
Date: 09/20/19 Time: 14:54
Sample: 1974, 2013
Included observations: 40
Null Hypothesis: No. Long-run relationships exist
Test Statistic		Value	k
F-statistic		3.654903	3
Critical Value Bounds
Significance	10%	5%	2.5%	1%
I0 Bound	2.37	2.79	3.15	3.65
I1 Bound	3.20	3.67	4.08	4.66

下载: 导出CSV

Tab. 3 Long-term test

Long Run Coefficients
Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	t-Statistic	Prob.
OPEN	–0.000026	0.000204	–0.126334	0.9006
FDI	–0.000397	0.000682	–0.582468	0.5659
SCHO	0.001107	0.000420	2.633546	0.0148
C	–0.231260	0.029049	7.961094	0.0000

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(11)

[1]	KI-ZERBO J. The quarterly review of comparative education[C]// UNESCO: International Bureau of Education. Paris, 1999, 29(4): 615–627.
[2]	MARSHALL A. Victorian relevance for modern economics[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1976, 90(3): 425-443.
[3]	MBAYE A A. Capital humain, competence et productivite du travail au Senegal: Une analyse empirique [J].Economies et Societes, 2002, 36: 567-588.
[4]	BECKER G S. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis[J]. Special Reference to Education, 1964(2): 7-36.
[5]	BARTEL A P. Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training programs[J]. Industrial Relations, 1994, 33(4): 411-425.
[6]	BLACK S E, LYNCH L M. Human-capital investments and productivity[J]. American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 1996, 86(2): 263-267.
[7]	DEARDEN L, REED H, VAN REENEN J. The Impact of Training on Productivity and Wages: Evidence from British Panel Data[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2006, 68(4): 397-421.
[8]	BOCCANFUSO D, SAVARD L. Human capital and growth: Data evidence from African countries[J]. University of Sherbrooke, International Economic Journal, 2009.
[9]	BOUOIYOUR J. Productivity and openness in North Africa: An empirical study[D]. Germany: University Library of Munich, 2001.
[10]	SHAHZAD A. Analyzing the impact of health and education on total factor productivity: A panel data approach[J]. Asian-African Journal of Economics and Econometrics, 2013, 13(2): 277-292.
[11]	BENNAGHMOUCH S. Human capital and foreign direct investment: Application to North Africa[D]. France: University of Pau, 1997.