城市化進程和經(jīng)濟增長外文文獻翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2300單詞，12500英文字符，4000漢字</p><p>　　文獻出處：Henderson V. The urbanization process and economic growth: The so-what question [J]. Journal of Economic Growth, 2003, 8(1): 47-71.</p><p>　　http

2、://www.wenku1.com/news/E65442489AD69D1B.html</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　The Urbanization Process and Economic Growth:The So-What Question</p><p>　　VERNON HENDERSON</

3、p><p>　　There is an extensive literature on the urbanization process looking at both urbanization and urban concentration, asking whether and when there is under or over-urbanization or under or over urban conc

4、entration. Writers argue that national government policies and non-democratic institutions promote excessive concentration-the extent to which the urban population of a country is concentrated in one or two major metropo

5、litan areas-except in former planned economies where migration restrictions ar</p><p>　　Keywords: growth, primacy, urbanization</p><p>　　There is an enormous literature on the urbanization proce

6、ss that occurs with development (see Davis and Henderson, 2003 for a review). There are two key aspects to the process. One is urbanization itself and the other is urban concentration, or the degree to which urban resour

7、ces are concentrated in one or two large cities, as opposed to spread over many cities. Part of the interest in the urbanization process arises because urbanization and growth seem so interconnected. In any year, the sim

8、ple</p><p>　　Economists have tended to focus on the issue of urban concentration, rather than urbanization per se. The literature that does exist on urbanization examines rural versus urban bias in the trans

9、formation process. Governments may favor the urban-industrial sector with trade protection policies, infrastructure investments, or capital market subsidies or they may discriminate against the rural sector with agricult

10、ural price controls (Renaud, 1981; O, 1993), both leading workers to migrate to cities</p><p>　　The more extensive literature on the degree of urban concentration and changes in that degree which occurs as u

11、rbanization and growth proceed has a variety of strands. Countries and international policy officials worry about whether key cities are too big or too small (Renaud, 1981; UN, 1993; WDR, 2000) and over the years various

12、 countries such as Egypt, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and China have pursued medium size city programs designed to forestall the growth of larger cities (Henderson, 1988; Ade</p><p>　　The Effects of Urban Concent

13、ration on Growth Development</p><p>　　In this section, I examine the effect of urban concentration on productivity growth. I start with urban concentration, or primacy, because that examination yields the ke

14、y results. The examination also develops the methodology that is then applied to the examination of the effect of urbanization on growth. The first issue is how to measure urban concentration. There are three measures th

15、at people use. First, Wheaton and Shishido (1981) and Henderson (1988) use the standard Hirschman-Herfindahl in</p><p>　　The key question is why urban concentration affects productivity growth. Losses from e

16、xcessive or deficient primacy in static urban models come from GDP losses from resource misallocation, where, for example, under excessive primacy where urban development is concentrated in just one or two primate cities

17、, these cities are subject to exhausted scale economies, excessive congestion, and excessive per capita infrastructure costs, while smaller cities have unexploited scale economies and often defi</p><p>　　Fro

18、m the urban literature, there are promising micro-foundations for these ideas in Duranton and Puga (2001). In that paper, primate cities are urban areas of experimentation, in deriving appropriate product designs. Relati

19、vely under-sized primate cities result in environments that have too little experimentation, affecting productivity nationally. Relatively over-sized primate cities have people devoting excessive amounts of time to commu

20、ting and other "wasteful" activities, drawing resources a</p><p>　　Basic Primacy Results</p><p>　　With these results in mind, I now turn to the primacy variable. The raw data do not te

21、ll us much. There is a modest negative correlation between either d ln（Y=N） and primacy or dd ln （Y=N）and dprimacy. Controls and a non-linear specification to the effect of primacy are needed to sort out what is going on

22、.</p><p>　　The basic econometric results are in Table 2, columns (1)-(4) where there is a quadratic form to primacy and it is interacted with output per worker to allow best primacy to vary with output per w

23、orker. Before analyzing those results, I note that a simple linear primacy term has a negative coefficient. Second, in columns (5) and (6) of Table 2, I report on a simple quadratic, to make the point that there is a bes

24、t degree of primacy. In columns (5) and (6) and in all other reported results in the</p><p>　　The Effect of Urbanization on Growth</p><p>　　Examining the effect of urbanization on productivity i

25、s difficult, in the sense of the ability to isolate meaningful results. I start by discussing three reasons for this difficulty. First, rapid urbanization in African countries in particular over the last 30 years has occ

26、urred in the face of negative and low-income growth. This in itself suggests urbanization is a result of a variety of factors related to changes in national output composition and social conditions, not a force promoting

27、 growt</p><p>　　Focusing on the definition of urbanization for a moment, fully urbanized for Switzerland, Austria and Finland means 60-65 percent urbanized; for the USA it is just over 70 percent (with minus

28、cule full-time employment in agriculture); and for countries like Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, fully urbanized is 80-85 percent urbanized.</p><p>　　A lot of these differences depend on how low density non-a

29、gricultural populations are treated in defining urban, especially around the fringes, or ex/peri-urban areas of metropolitan areas. For example, while China is officially 30 percent urbanized, about 70 percent of its pop

30、ulation live within "municipal" boundaries (jurisdiction of the city).</p><p>　　With these problems in mind, I econometrically explore the relationship between growth and urbanization. As with prim

31、acy, we hypothesize that for any income level, there is a best degree of urbanization. Even if "urbanization promotes growth", presumably no one would argue that low-income countries, with high degrees of semi-

32、subsistence farming and high illiteracy rates, should switch to being fully urbanized over night.</p><p>　　To examine the urbanization-growth, I use an function of the form</p><p>　　correspondin

33、g to equation (4) and columns (2) of Table 3, although the national scale variable is unimportant. In this formulation, or any other, there are no significant results to the f（.） function for the whole sample. To get any

34、 results with an optimal degree of urbanization, it is necessary to restrict the sample to potentially urbanizing countries. Here I define that as the set of countries period by period that are less than 70 percent urban

35、ized; an alternative restriction is to eliminate</p><p>　　Moreover, results deteriorate when I put urbanization and primacy in the same estimating equation. For that estimation, I interact national scale wit

36、h primacy but not urbanization given results in column (2) of Table 6 and column (2) of Table 3. Results are in column (3) of Table 6. While the basic best primacy patterns persist, the notion that there is a best degree

37、 of urbanization evaporates, albeit in a much more limited sample size in estimation (requiring for any period-country urbanization</p><p>　　Conclusion</p><p>　　This paper argues that urbanizati

38、on represents sectoral shifts within an economy as development proceeds, but is not a growth stimulus per se. However, the form that urbanization takes, or the degree of urban concentration, strongly affects productivity

39、 growth. Urban concentration is affected by national policies and institutions, reflecting the extent to which a particular city (e.g., a national capital such as Bangkok or Mexico City) is favored. For any country size

40、and level of development, t</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　城市化進程和經(jīng)濟增長：二者之間的關(guān)系問題</p><p><b>　　亨德森</b></p><p>　　在城市化進程的大量文獻中，主要關(guān)注的是城市化和城市集中的問題,試問，是否存在

41、滯后或過度城市化的現(xiàn)象，又是否存在城市滯后或過度集中的現(xiàn)象。作者認為,國家政府政策和非民主制度會促進城市過度集中,除了前計劃經(jīng)濟時期對移民的限制以外，一個國家的城市人口很大程度上都集中在一個或兩個主要城市中。之前這些文獻的共同特點在于假設(shè)存在一個最優(yōu)水平的城市化或最優(yōu)水平的城市集中化,但對于這種假設(shè)，迄今為止還沒有進行過定量研究，試問這樣一個基本問題，任何最佳程度的城市集中或城市化率的經(jīng)濟損失程度有多大?本文表明,(1)城市集中化程度高

42、,生產(chǎn)率增長的速度就快(2)隨著城市發(fā)展水平和規(guī)模的提高，城市集中化程度就越高(3)滯后或過度集中都會導(dǎo)致生產(chǎn)率成本的提高。本文還表明,生產(chǎn)率的提高受城市化本身的影響并不大。快速城市化的現(xiàn)象也經(jīng)常發(fā)生在低或負的經(jīng)濟增長中。此外,城市化是一個短暫的現(xiàn)象，許多國家現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)完全城市化。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞:經(jīng)濟發(fā)展，領(lǐng)先性，城市化</p><p><b>　　引言</b&

43、gt;</p><p>　　大量的文獻對城市化進程的發(fā)生與發(fā)展作出了研究(戴維斯和亨德森,2003年)。城市化的這一過程包含兩個主要方面。一是城市化本身,另一個是城市集中,或者叫做城市資源在一個或兩個大城市的集中程度,而不是分布在許多城市。因為城市化和經(jīng)濟增長之間聯(lián)系緊密，人們對城市化過程研究的興趣就愈發(fā)濃厚。在任何一年,各國城市化比率與人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值約為0.85。其原因是顯而易見的。通常情況下，經(jīng)濟發(fā)展涉及一

44、個國家從以農(nóng)村農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟為基礎(chǔ)向工業(yè)服務(wù)經(jīng)濟為主的轉(zhuǎn)變(以及從農(nóng)業(yè)中釋放勞動力,引進節(jié)省勞力的技術(shù))。這一轉(zhuǎn)換涉及城市化，在城市的公司與工人集群能充分利用馬歇爾(1890)關(guān)于制造業(yè)與服務(wù)業(yè)的外部規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(亨德森,1974;藤田昌久和小川,1982;赫舍利和斯特蘭奇,1990;丹頓與普加,2001)。</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟學(xué)家傾向于關(guān)注城市集中的問題,而不是城市化本身。有關(guān)城市化的文獻考察了農(nóng)村對抗城市的轉(zhuǎn)換過

45、程。政府可能更傾向于城市工業(yè)部門與貿(mào)易保護政策,基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資,或資本市場補貼，相反，他們會利用價格管制農(nóng)村與農(nóng)業(yè)(雷諾,1981;吉奧,1993),從而引導(dǎo)員工遷移到城市。但這種做法可能會抑制城市化的發(fā)展。例如,前計劃經(jīng)濟往往表現(xiàn)出一種對農(nóng)村農(nóng)業(yè)的偏見,從這個意義上講即為令人沮喪的鄉(xiāng)-城遷移,但不一定會阻礙工業(yè)發(fā)展(奧弗,1977;Fallenbuchl,1977)。</p><p>　　關(guān)于城市化的文獻更廣泛地

46、集中在研究城市集中的程度和發(fā)生變化的程度上。國家和國際政策官員擔(dān)心重點城市規(guī)模是否太大或太小(雷諾,1981;聯(lián)合國,1981;《世界發(fā)展報告》,2000年)多年來，不同國家如埃及、巴西、韓國、墨西哥和中國一直致力于建設(shè)中等城市項目旨在防止大城市的發(fā)展(亨德森,1988;阿德斯和格萊澤,1995)。國際機構(gòu)認為,世界上的許多大城市人口過剩,這些經(jīng)濟體的發(fā)展需要耗費相當(dāng)大的成本。聯(lián)合國(1993)“特大城市相關(guān)的負面因素”怎樣惡劣，需要“

47、對自身利益的控制并鼓勵發(fā)展替代中心?！蓖瑯佑袌蟾姘l(fā)出警告”不平衡城市層次結(jié)構(gòu)”以及大城市的犯罪,擁擠和社會不平等?！妒澜绨l(fā)展報告》(2000)的第七章描述了發(fā)展中國家大城市人們生活的殘酷景象?！督?jīng)濟學(xué)家》在一個特殊的調(diào)查中提出了直接的問題(1995年7月29日):大城市的美好真的大于其陰暗面嗎?</p><p>　　城市集中對生產(chǎn)發(fā)展的影響</p><p>　　在這一部分,我們主要探討城市

48、集中對生產(chǎn)率增長的影響。從城市集中程度或其主導(dǎo)地位入手進行調(diào)查,才能獲得收益率的關(guān)鍵結(jié)果。這種調(diào)查方法同樣能應(yīng)用于考察城市化對經(jīng)濟增長的影響。第一個問題是如何衡量城市集中。人們通常采用三種方法來衡量。首先,威頓、宍鷹(1981)與亨德森(1988)使用赫希曼-赫芬達爾集中度指數(shù)，計算一個城市的面積與城市在這個國家的人口總和。第二,羅森和雷斯尼克(1981)使用帕累托參數(shù)確定一個國家城市大小的分布,并衡量從上到下大小規(guī)模下降的速度,或大小

49、分布的總體差異程度。在這些文獻中,這兩項指標的構(gòu)建僅僅只用了一年的時間,卻不可以在時間跨度較大的國家集團中應(yīng)用（1960-1995）。</p><p>　　一個關(guān)鍵的問題是為什么城市集中會影響生產(chǎn)率增長。靜態(tài)城市模型中的損失主要是由過度或不足造成的，國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的損失則是資源配置不當(dāng)?shù)暮蠊^度主導(dǎo)表現(xiàn)為,城市發(fā)展都集中在一個或兩個首要城市,這些城市都受到疲憊的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟,過度擁擠,人均基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施成本過多的限制,而小

50、城市有著尚未開發(fā)的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟,卻常常缺乏資本投資(如，托利etal.,1979;藤田昌久,1989;亨德森和貝克爾,2000;奧和亨德森,2002)。布萊克和亨德森(1999)在盧卡斯(1988)的基礎(chǔ)上,建立了一個內(nèi)生增長模型,城市規(guī)模與本地信息溢出效應(yīng)的程度呈正相關(guān),并交互式的影響當(dāng)?shù)氐闹R積累,促進生產(chǎn)率增長。然而,城市規(guī)模過大，在生產(chǎn)活動中便要吸引大量資源進行投資和創(chuàng)新,并試圖在一個擁擠的環(huán)境中維持生活質(zhì)量。</p>

51、<p>　　丹頓與普加(2001)對城市相關(guān)文獻作出了貢獻。在他們的研究中，首要城市的發(fā)展能獲得適當(dāng)?shù)漠a(chǎn)品設(shè)計。相對規(guī)模較小的首要城市由于城市環(huán)境的限制,最終會限制國家生產(chǎn)力的發(fā)展。規(guī)模相對較大的首要城市，人們則要投入過多的時間來乘公車上下班與其他“浪費”活動。原則上，人們能夠適應(yīng)丹頓和普加經(jīng)濟增長背景下的動態(tài)模型,在這里，由于缺乏資源從事開發(fā)活動，滯后的城市集中會導(dǎo)致較低的知識積累，這同樣會抑制生產(chǎn)力的發(fā)展。進而連續(xù)影響非

52、線性的發(fā)展方式。但在這種情況下,考慮到威廉姆森(1965)的假說,我們希望城市集中的程度取決于一個國家的發(fā)展水平,代表國家稀缺的知識積累和經(jīng)濟基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。所有這些表述都迫切需要一個全面的增長模式來分析其特定的因素,但這已經(jīng)超出了本文的研究范圍。無論多么精確的模型,超越國家數(shù)據(jù)的經(jīng)驗研究歸根到底是要明確這樣一個問題——這會在多大程度上主導(dǎo)生產(chǎn)率的增長?</p><p>　　基本的占主導(dǎo)地位的結(jié)果</p>

53、<p>　　為了獲得這一研究結(jié)果,需要從一個主導(dǎo)變量著手。原始數(shù)據(jù)沒有為我們提高太多有效信息。dln(Y=N)與主導(dǎo)變量以及ddln(Y=N)與主導(dǎo)變量之間都為負相關(guān)的關(guān)系。需要我們弄清楚的問題是，控制和非線性規(guī)范對主導(dǎo)變量的影響。</p><p>　　基本的計量經(jīng)濟學(xué)結(jié)果在表2中得到了體現(xiàn),第(1)-(4)列展現(xiàn)給我們的是一個二次型主導(dǎo)變量,它與人均產(chǎn)出相互作用，允許主導(dǎo)變量隨人均產(chǎn)出而變化。在分析

54、這些結(jié)果之前,我注意到，一個簡單的線性主導(dǎo)術(shù)語有一個負系數(shù)。其次,在表2中的第(5)和(6)列,展示了一個簡單的二次方程式，為了證明這一論點，我們引出了一個最佳的主導(dǎo)變量。在第(5)和(6)列和文中其他所有報告結(jié)果中,普通最小二乘法(OLS)和主導(dǎo)工具變量結(jié)果是不同的。OLS傾向?qū)⒅鲗?dǎo)價值加于少曲率值f()函數(shù)之上。在第(5)列中，OLS之下的主導(dǎo)價值是0.20，在輔助變量估計(GMM)之下，其主導(dǎo)價值為0.46，并有著穩(wěn)固與重要的系數(shù)

55、。從最佳水平的主導(dǎo)地位來講,一個標準偏差(0.13)的增加會帶來生產(chǎn)力的增長,盡管對于主導(dǎo)地位的變化會產(chǎn)生巨大影響。然而,根據(jù)威廉姆森的假設(shè)，主導(dǎo)地位的最佳程度會隨發(fā)展水平而有所改變。</p><p>　　城市化對經(jīng)濟增長的影響</p><p>　　研究城市化對生產(chǎn)力的影響是困難的,特別是分離出有意義的結(jié)果。首先分析這個困難的三個原因。首先,在過去30年里，快速城市化特別是在非洲國家已經(jīng)引

56、發(fā)了低收入與經(jīng)濟負增長問題。這本身說明，城市化是多種因素的結(jié)果，它與國民產(chǎn)出構(gòu)成和社會條件的變化相關(guān),并不能促進本身經(jīng)濟的增長。第二,城市化是一個短暫的過程,隨著經(jīng)濟發(fā)展，所有的國家最終都將“完全城市化”。在一些中等收入水平、城市化到一定程度已終止的國家，其城市化類別中的65–85%;或者幾乎50%的國家已經(jīng)落入完全城市化這一類別。最后,各國對于城市化的定義千差萬別,這就使得我們很難量化城市化的最優(yōu)程度,因為這取決于每個國家如何統(tǒng)計其城

57、市的數(shù)量。</p><p>　　關(guān)注城市化的定義,完全城市化的城市如瑞士、奧地利和芬蘭的城市化率已達到60–65%;對美國來說需城市化率達70%以上;而對阿根廷、智利和巴西這樣的國家來講,完全城市化率為80–85%。這些差異取決于這個城市低密度非農(nóng)業(yè)人口的數(shù)量,特別是在大城市邊緣地區(qū)的城市。例如,盡管中國官方表明城市化率為30%,還有大約70%的人口生活在“市政”邊界(市管轄)。</p><p

58、>　　在考慮這些問題的基礎(chǔ)上,探討經(jīng)濟增長和城市化之間的關(guān)系。首先,我們假設(shè)，對于任何收益水平的國家都有一個最優(yōu)程度城市化。即使“城市化促進經(jīng)濟增長”,大概沒有人會認為，擁有半自給農(nóng)業(yè)和高文盲率的低收入國家能很快實現(xiàn)城市化。</p><p>　　為了研究城市化的發(fā)展情況，我使用了一個函數(shù)公式，</p><p>　　它與方程式(4)和圖表3中的函數(shù)保持一致，盡管說國家規(guī)模這一變量是不重

59、要的。在這個公式中，對整個樣本來說，f(·)的值都沒有顯著意義的結(jié)果。為了得到城市化發(fā)展程度的一個最優(yōu)結(jié)果，有必要對潛在的城市化國家的樣本選擇進行一定的限制。在這里，我選擇了一組樣本，這些國家的城鎮(zhèn)化程度都低于70%;另一個限制是去除那些高收入的國家，不然會影響到最后的計算結(jié)果。對于選擇的這些樣本，使用最小二乘法和工具變量(GMM)來計算，結(jié)果見表6中,第一列和第二列的值。GMM工具變量的計算結(jié)果顯示，在決定城市化的最佳程度以

60、及潛在的最優(yōu)程度的城市化時，一個國家的大小并不是一個決定性因素。但除此之外，其他結(jié)果值則不是很恰當(dāng)，在某種意義上說，人均生產(chǎn)值的增長的影響，就是會減少城市化的“最佳程度”。隨著人均生產(chǎn)值的上升，城市化程度卻下降了，這真是一個完全令人難以置信的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　另外，當(dāng)我把城市化放到方程式中計算后，結(jié)果令人堪憂。對于計算過的結(jié)果值，我把國家規(guī)模列為重要考慮參數(shù)，不過城市化的計算并不是表6中顯示的結(jié)果值。當(dāng)

61、城市化的最優(yōu)模式能夠一直持續(xù)下去，會有達到一個最好的城市化程度，盡管要很多樣本選擇上的限制。表6第三列中的這些工具變量的結(jié)果，事實上，城市化似乎對經(jīng)濟增長產(chǎn)生了負面影響?？傊?這些結(jié)果表明，城市化本身,至少根據(jù)對這些樣本國家的研究，并不會直接影響到經(jīng)濟水平的增長。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　本文認為,城市化代表的是經(jīng)濟發(fā)展中產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)

62、的不斷轉(zhuǎn)變,這是一個發(fā)展過程，而不是一個自身的刺激發(fā)展現(xiàn)象。然而,城市化進程采用的形式,或城市集中的程度,會對生產(chǎn)率的提高產(chǎn)生非常強烈的影響。城市集中程度受國家政策和機構(gòu)的影響,并反映一個特定的城市(如國家資本,如曼谷或墨西哥城)被國家重視的程度。對于國家規(guī)模和發(fā)展水平來講,最優(yōu)程度的城市集中,能平衡收益，增強當(dāng)?shù)刂R積累對抗損失的能力，如資源轉(zhuǎn)移到擁擠的大城市以提高生活質(zhì)量。因此，城市集中程度的轉(zhuǎn)變與國家規(guī)模和發(fā)展水平相關(guān)。</