外文翻譯---中國(guó)對(duì)外貿(mào)易與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)系對(duì)反?，F(xiàn)象的理解（節(jié)選）

1、<p><b>　　中文3853字</b></p><p><b>　　畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　外文題目： China’s Nexus of Foreign Trade and Economic Growth: Making Sense of</p><p>　　the Anomaly

2、 </p><p>　　出 處： Department of Economics Working Papers No.143 .August 2004 </p><p>　　作 者： Dic Lo

3、 </p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　中國(guó)對(duì)外貿(mào)易與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)系：對(duì)反?，F(xiàn)象的理解</p><p><b>　　Dic Lo</b></p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　通過(guò)使用在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

4、范圍內(nèi)的相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)，本文認(rèn)為中國(guó)在改革時(shí)期的快速和持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)與出口增長(zhǎng)往往呈負(fù)相關(guān)，而與進(jìn)口增長(zhǎng)是正相關(guān)的。這一發(fā)現(xiàn)違背了對(duì)中國(guó)持有的關(guān)于對(duì)外貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)關(guān)系的廣泛看法，從而提出了一個(gè)對(duì)于解釋的嚴(yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)?；谝恍┻M(jìn)一步的回歸分析，并借鑒一些題材的應(yīng)用研究，本文認(rèn)為，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)是可信的。因此，本文的結(jié)論是中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)趨向于把戰(zhàn)略一體化融入世界市場(chǎng)的情況，而不是符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典貿(mào)易體制中立性的觀點(diǎn)。</p><p>

5、　　關(guān)鍵詞：中國(guó)，對(duì)外貿(mào)易，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)</p><p><b>　　簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　擴(kuò)大對(duì)外貿(mào)易是中國(guó)改革開放經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展中面向世界市場(chǎng)最驚人的發(fā)展之一，它開始于1978年。從1978年貿(mào)易對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比率10％，到2000年，這一比例上升到44％，這是在實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的快速增長(zhǎng)的背景下，在此期間，平均每年上升了9.5％（見(jiàn)圖1）。增長(zhǎng)的比率同時(shí)大大

6、夸大了實(shí)際情況，因?yàn)樵谡鎸?shí)貿(mào)易中匯率的變動(dòng)和在材料加工活動(dòng)中份額的擴(kuò)大，說(shuō)明對(duì)外貿(mào)易的增加對(duì)中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的影響是顯而易見(jiàn)的。</p><p>　　圖1.中國(guó)貿(mào)易占GDP的比率(1953年—2000年)</p><p>　　注：Y =名義上的國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值，X=名義上的出口值，M=名義上的進(jìn)口值，都是以人民幣1億元為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。X和M是在當(dāng)前轉(zhuǎn)變成美元的匯率數(shù)據(jù)。</p><p&

7、gt;　　資料來(lái)源：同數(shù)據(jù)附錄1相同。</p><p>　　對(duì)于中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)加強(qiáng)一體化融入世界市場(chǎng)是無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯的，但是，目前還不清楚這種一體化對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的確切影響。從理論上講，在發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)方面，關(guān)于貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間的關(guān)系的確是有選擇性的，有對(duì)立意見(jiàn)的。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典理論強(qiáng)調(diào)貿(mào)易對(duì)增長(zhǎng)的貢獻(xiàn)是通過(guò)資源配置效率的提高（Krueger [1984]）。一種改進(jìn)的版本也更加強(qiáng)調(diào)擴(kuò)大貿(mào)易的益處在于能產(chǎn)生更大的產(chǎn)能利用率和規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)(

8、Balassa [1978], [1985])。最近“新”的貿(mào)易和增長(zhǎng)理論強(qiáng)調(diào)貿(mào)易通過(guò)其動(dòng)態(tài)效率的影響—提供進(jìn)入了廣闊的市場(chǎng)，它提高了對(duì)R＆D投資及/或促進(jìn)邊學(xué)習(xí)邊實(shí)踐的活動(dòng)，以及進(jìn)口投入體現(xiàn)在新技術(shù)上或是比國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)提供的更加便宜（Lee [1995]; Romer [1994])。這一理論發(fā)展的最后一階段，在一定程度上，形式化的分析方法通過(guò)各種“持不同政見(jiàn)者”的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家在東亞工業(yè)化研究中通過(guò)（如Amsden [1989]; Wade

9、[1990])。</p><p>　　與此相反，新自由主義傾向的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家傾向于狹隘，往往只集中在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典觀點(diǎn)。這源于資源配置效率和自由貿(mào)易之間明確的邏輯關(guān)系，這在比較優(yōu)勢(shì)原則（稟賦決定的）之上。貿(mào)易制度中立性的論文是說(shuō)明世界銀行（1987）有力外向型政策的核心是排除了任何后期發(fā)展中經(jīng)濟(jì)體的戰(zhàn)略一體化融入世界市場(chǎng)，這恰恰也是持不同政見(jiàn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家考慮東亞經(jīng)驗(yàn)的一個(gè)突出特點(diǎn)。</p><p>

10、;　　這些不同的觀點(diǎn)已被應(yīng)用到了中國(guó)。Larty（1992，p.691），例如，他的問(wèn)題框架是：“擴(kuò)大對(duì)外貿(mào)易是否已經(jīng)大大實(shí)現(xiàn)了通過(guò)一個(gè)國(guó)家主導(dǎo)的出口戰(zhàn)略，其中在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)上銷售是否被看作是一種簡(jiǎn)單的急需進(jìn)口的融資手段？這意味著，在改革前的時(shí)代，被選定的出口沒(méi)有過(guò)多考慮中國(guó)的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)，作為一個(gè)結(jié)果，擴(kuò)大出口對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)很少或沒(méi)有貢獻(xiàn)。”與此相反，Lo和Chan（ 1998年）的另一種解釋是基于中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)的關(guān)于擴(kuò)大貿(mào)易產(chǎn)生的一個(gè)重要不利影響是

11、符合其比較優(yōu)勢(shì)的。具體來(lái)說(shuō)，他們認(rèn)為，這種擴(kuò)張導(dǎo)致了不利的國(guó)際分工格局，雖然，就像改革前的時(shí)代，它通過(guò)技術(shù)進(jìn)口促進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)。這成為了關(guān)于擴(kuò)大出口的有利影響的主流意見(jiàn)。</p><p>　　中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)從而為測(cè)試發(fā)展中國(guó)家融入世界市場(chǎng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)觀點(diǎn)的功效提供一個(gè)例子。尤其是，鑒于中國(guó)在發(fā)展中世界的地位，經(jīng)驗(yàn)很可能具有普遍的意義。本文進(jìn)行了回歸分析包括各種變量要求，一方面是出口與增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)系，另一方面進(jìn)口與增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)系。對(duì)于一些基

12、礎(chǔ)性的條件，將在以后的章節(jié)中討論，前者是采取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新自由主義貿(mào)易體制的中立性論點(diǎn)，而后者代表進(jìn)入世界市場(chǎng)的戰(zhàn)略整合論點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　本文的結(jié)構(gòu)如下:第二部分回顧了關(guān)于貿(mào)易和增長(zhǎng)的相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)和各種變量的估算。第三部分介紹了回歸結(jié)果，從結(jié)果得出一些推論。第四部分討論了現(xiàn)有研究中關(guān)于中國(guó)對(duì)外貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展推論的合理性。第五部分提供了一些結(jié)論。</p><p>　　討論結(jié)果：合理性和啟示&

13、lt;/p><p>　　回歸結(jié)果在上一節(jié)報(bào)告中是否是模棱兩可的？相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)中的觀點(diǎn)，似乎可以說(shuō)沒(méi)有多少是滿意的或不滿意的對(duì)于研究的調(diào)查結(jié)果。對(duì)現(xiàn)有的研究課題大多是經(jīng)濟(jì)分析，這本身背棄了少量形式上的但更多微妙變化上的—也可以說(shuō)更確定——敘述或描述性的分析。不過(guò)，可以肯定的是本文是不獨(dú)立的，它可以找到其研究結(jié)果一致的相當(dāng)可觀的文獻(xiàn)。特別是，對(duì)中國(guó)的對(duì)外貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間關(guān)系的詳細(xì)分析，以及對(duì)現(xiàn)有的研究審查，Lo 和 Cha

14、n（1998年）為本文提供直接支持。因此，下面主要討論得出的早期研究。</p><p>　　考慮到本文的最重要發(fā)現(xiàn)：即中國(guó)的出口和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)在1979-2000年市場(chǎng)化改革時(shí)期的相關(guān)性沒(méi)有意義，甚至出現(xiàn)負(fù)的情況。不出所料，這違背了廣泛持有的看法。在1996年世界發(fā)展報(bào)告中，例如，世界銀行強(qiáng)烈建議中國(guó)出口導(dǎo)向型的增長(zhǎng)戰(zhàn)略被其他“過(guò)渡經(jīng)濟(jì)體”所采用。但是，這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)實(shí)際上與多數(shù)的實(shí)證研究相一致，包括Hsueh 和 Woo

15、（1996年），以及Lo 和Chan（1998）的研究。這兩項(xiàng)研究都指出了在改革開放時(shí)期中國(guó)貿(mào)易條件惡化作為對(duì)外貿(mào)易對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)不利影響的證據(jù)。Hsueh 和 Woo（1996年）認(rèn)為，這種不利的趨勢(shì)已經(jīng)引起了商品出口的要素生產(chǎn)率（以實(shí)質(zhì)計(jì)算）穩(wěn)步下降。與此同時(shí)，Lo 和Chan（1998）的報(bào)告上指出，主要是在前半段的改革時(shí)期，出現(xiàn)了出口商品結(jié)構(gòu)和工業(yè)生產(chǎn)結(jié)構(gòu)之間的非對(duì)稱發(fā)展的現(xiàn)象-快速擴(kuò)大出口（大多數(shù)勞動(dòng)密集型產(chǎn)業(yè)似乎符合中國(guó)的“特定

16、”比較優(yōu)勢(shì)）傾向于占工業(yè)總產(chǎn)出的下跌股份。與此相反的是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典理論中的貿(mào)易效率的提高，假定資源將流向更有效率的出口部門從而產(chǎn)生經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。</p><p>　　至于進(jìn)口和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間的相關(guān)性，在文獻(xiàn)中幾乎一致認(rèn)為技術(shù)的進(jìn)口不管在改革前還是改革中都發(fā)揮了突出的作用—雖然計(jì)量工作由Yu (1998)利用格蘭杰—因果關(guān)系檢驗(yàn)，并沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何進(jìn)口和增長(zhǎng)之間的因果關(guān)系。Zhao (1995) 直接分析通過(guò)準(zhǔn)確的渠道，技術(shù)

17、進(jìn)口將促進(jìn)中國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)，這是少數(shù)的研究之一。他的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)是，在1960—1991年期間，技術(shù)進(jìn)口（由重工業(yè)產(chǎn)品的進(jìn)口貨值為代表）是顯著的且正相關(guān)，第一，國(guó)內(nèi)研究和開發(fā)支出，第二，投資技術(shù)改造和升級(jí)，第三，中國(guó)的重工業(yè)產(chǎn)值，以及第四，重工業(yè)產(chǎn)品的出口。因此得出的結(jié)論是，技術(shù)進(jìn)口影響經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)通過(guò)加強(qiáng)國(guó)內(nèi)技術(shù)能力。更廣泛地說(shuō)，Lo and Chan (1998)假定，技術(shù)的進(jìn)口與大眾消費(fèi)相結(jié)合由中國(guó)平均主義的收入分配格局來(lái)支撐，導(dǎo)致了非常廣

18、泛的大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)和生產(chǎn)率快速增長(zhǎng)的行業(yè)的激烈性擴(kuò)張。由此產(chǎn)生的中國(guó)產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)性變化中的特點(diǎn)是大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)行業(yè)的大量擴(kuò)股似乎不符合中國(guó)的國(guó)際比較優(yōu)勢(shì)，這是假定背后的整體經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的動(dòng)力。</p><p>　　如果在前面的段落中提出的判斷是正確的，中國(guó)的一體化經(jīng)驗(yàn)融入世界市場(chǎng)將產(chǎn)生長(zhǎng)期發(fā)展的政策討論是有著重要意義的。這里明確無(wú)誤的是，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展一體化的影響力在改革時(shí)期已經(jīng)大大增加。但是，擴(kuò)大出口一直不明顯，甚至呈負(fù)相關(guān)，與

19、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)正統(tǒng)的外向型政策的有效性存在問(wèn)題。更廣泛地說(shuō)，它支持一個(gè)正常發(fā)展道路，這被認(rèn)為是對(duì)所有發(fā)展中國(guó)家開放他們應(yīng)該遵循中立原則的貿(mào)易制度的主張持懷疑態(tài)度—也就是說(shuō)，他們專注于“特定”的國(guó)際比較優(yōu)勢(shì)。同時(shí)，打開了在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典理論中的出口導(dǎo)向型增長(zhǎng)的局面，本文的研究結(jié)果表明它是在進(jìn)口方面，在技術(shù)引進(jìn)的形式上，對(duì)中國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)已經(jīng)作出了積極貢獻(xiàn)。正是這種特征與擴(kuò)大出口成為進(jìn)口需求的主要?jiǎng)恿?，這標(biāo)志著在改革前和改革中中國(guó)的對(duì)外貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)

20、的關(guān)系是具有持續(xù)性的。以中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)看，就整體而言，似乎支持對(duì)方的戰(zhàn)略一體化進(jìn)入世界市場(chǎng)的論點(diǎn)—即，不是把留在國(guó)際分工中的地位由世界市場(chǎng)決定，而是中國(guó)一直試圖塑造把重點(diǎn)放在科技發(fā)展的位置。</p><p>　　在討論結(jié)束前，也許有必要指出上述結(jié)論，它涉及了關(guān)于貿(mào)易和發(fā)展的兩個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)論點(diǎn)的有效性，并不一定構(gòu)成對(duì)中國(guó)對(duì)外貿(mào)易與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)關(guān)系的完整評(píng)估?；叵胍幌?，如第二部分所示，存在著對(duì)出口導(dǎo)向型增長(zhǎng)主張的不同理論，對(duì)強(qiáng)調(diào)

21、貿(mào)易制度的中立性和資源配置效率的新古典主義是其中之一。在本文分析中除了簡(jiǎn)化式回歸包括方程（1）和（5），重點(diǎn)出口和進(jìn)口對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)供給方面的影響。但是，對(duì)中國(guó)的對(duì)外貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間關(guān)系的徹底評(píng)估，必須也要考慮到需求方面的影響。換句話說(shuō)，也有必要探討其他組成部分對(duì)總需求的影響。這種影響可能是積極的顯著的在改革的下半段時(shí)期，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)從資源約束逐步過(guò)渡到需求約束。最后，可觀察事實(shí)得出，也是在改革年代后半期，中國(guó)產(chǎn)業(yè)的輸出股份作為一個(gè)整體迅速擴(kuò)

22、大，迅速擴(kuò)大出口的部門（大多是如上所述的生產(chǎn)行業(yè)）應(yīng)加強(qiáng)上述要求。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　使用了大量的符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)，本文認(rèn)為中國(guó)在改革開放時(shí)期快速持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)與出口增長(zhǎng)呈現(xiàn)負(fù)相關(guān)，與進(jìn)口增長(zhǎng)呈現(xiàn)正相關(guān)?；谝恍┻M(jìn)一步的回歸分析，并借鑒一些題材的應(yīng)用研究，本文認(rèn)為，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)是可信的。據(jù)進(jìn)一步指出，中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)傾向于把戰(zhàn)略一體

23、化融入世界市場(chǎng)的情況，而不是順應(yīng)貿(mào)易體制的中立正統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)。這就是說(shuō)，不是把留在國(guó)際分工中的地位由世界市場(chǎng)決定，而是中國(guó)一直試圖塑造把重點(diǎn)放在科技發(fā)展的位置—從進(jìn)口和出口的快速擴(kuò)張作為手段來(lái)達(dá)到這個(gè)目的。</p><p>　　CHINA’S NEXUS OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: MAKING SENSE OF THE ANOMALY</p><p&

24、gt;<b>　　Dic Lo</b></p><p><b>　　ABSTRACT</b></p><p>　　Using a range of specifications that are standard in the relevant literature, this paper finds that China’s rapid and

25、 sustained economic growth in the reform era has tended to be negatively correlated with its export growth and positively correlated with its import growth. This finding runs counter to widely-held perceptions on China’s

26、 nexus of foreign trade and economic growth, and thus presents a serious challenge for interpretation. On the basis of some further regression analyses, and drawi</p><p>　　Key words: China, foreign trade, e

27、conomic growth</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Foreign trade expansion has been one of the most phenomenal developments of China’s economy in the era of systemic reform and opening up to the worl

28、d market which began in 1978. Starting from a trade-to-GDP ratio of 10% in 1978, by 2000, the ratio rose to 44%; and this was achieved against the background of the rapid growth of GDP, on average 9.5% per annum over thi

29、s period (see Figure 1). The increased ratio, while significantly overstating the true situation because of exchange rate movements </p><p>　　Figure 1. China’s Trade-GDP Ratios, 1953-2000</p><p>

30、;　　Notes: Y = nominal GDP, X = nominal export value, M = nominal import value, all in RMB 100 million yuan. X and M figures are converted from US dollar data at current exchange rates.</p><p>　　Sources: Same

31、 as Data Appendix 1.</p><p>　　But whereas the increased integration of China’s economy into the world market is indisputable, it is unclear as to the precise impact of such integration on economic growth. Th

32、eoretically, in development economics, there are indeed alternative, contrasting views on the relationship between trade and economic growth. Standard neoclassical theory highlights the contribution of trade to growth vi

33、a improvement in allocative efficiency (Krueger [1984]). A refined version also highlights the benefits</p><p>　　In contrast, economists of neo-liberal orientation tend to narrowly, often exclusively, focus

34、on the standard neoclassical view. This arises from the clear logical relationship between allocative efficiency and free trade, which rests upon the principle of (endowment- determined) comparative advantage. The thesis

35、 of trade regime neutrality which lies at the heart of the World Bank’s (1987) forceful outward-looking policy explicitly rules out any form of strategic integration of late developing e</p><p>　　These alter

36、native views have been applied to the Chinese case. Lardy (1992, p.691),</p><p>　　for instance, frames his question thus: ‘has the expansion of foreign trade been achieved largely through a state-driven expo

37、rt strategy in which sales on the international market are viewed simply as a means of financing much needed imports? This would imply, as in the pre-reform era, that exports were selected without much consideration of C

38、hina’s comparative advantage and that, as a result, expanding exports might contribute little or nothing to economic growth.’2 In contrast, Lo and Chan (19</p><p>　　The Chinese experience thus provides a cas

39、e for testing the efficacy of the competing perspectives on the integration of developing countries into the world market. In particular, given China’s position in the developing world, the experience is likely to be of

40、widespread significance. This paper performs a range of regression analyses that involve various specifications concerning the relationship between exports and growth on the one hand, and between imports and growth on th

41、e other hand. On t</p><p>　　thesis of trade regime neutrality, while the latter to represent the thesis of strategic integration into the world market.</p><p>　　The paper is organised in the fol

42、lowing way. Section two reviews the literature on the relationship between trade and growth and develops various specifications for estimation. Section three presents the regression results, and makes some inferences fro

43、m the results. Section four discusses the plausibility of the inferences in the context of the available studies on China’s foreign trade and economic development. Section five offers some conclusions.</p><p&g

44、t;　　Discussing the Results: Plausibility and Implications</p><p>　　Are the regression results reported in the preceding section plausible? In view of the relevant literature, it seems fair to say that not mu

45、ch can be drawn upon for approving or disapproving the findings of this paper. Existing studies on the topic are mostly econometric analyses, which themselves await backing from less formal yet more subtle – and arguably

46、 more ascertaining – narrative or descriptive analyses. Nevertheless, it is certain that this paper does not stand alone; it rather can find</p><p>　　Consider the central finding of this paper: that the

47、correlation between China’s exports and economic growth in the market reform era of 1979-2000 is insignificant or even negative. Unsurprisingly, this runs counter to widely-held perceptions. In its 1996 World Developmen

48、t Report, the World Bank, for instance, strongly recommends that China’s export- led growth strategy be adopted by other ‘transitional economies’. But, the finding actually is consistent with a number of empirical studie

49、s i</p><p>　　Turning to the correlations between imports and economic growth, there is almost a</p><p>　　consensus in the literature that technology imports have played a prominent role both pre

50、- reform and in the reform era – although econometric work by Yu (1998) and the like, using Granger-causality tests, has failed to detect any causal relation between imports and growth. Zhao (1995) is one of the few stud

51、ies that analyse directly the precise channels through which technology imports contribute to China’s economic growth. His main finding is that, throughout the period 1960-91, technology impo</p><p>　　If the

52、 judgements made in the preceding paragraphs are valid, China’s experience of integration into the world market would give rise to important implications for the long-lasting development policy debate. It is unmistakable

53、 that the influence of the integration on China’s economic development has increased massively in the reform era. But, the finding that export expansion has been in fact insignificantly or even negatively correlated with

54、 economic growth puts the validity of the orthodox out</p><p>　　position in the international division of labour to be dictated by the world market, China has attempted to shape the position by focusing on t

55、echnological development.</p><p>　　Before coming to a close of the discussion, it might be necessary to point out that the conclusion above, which concerns the validity of the two rival theses about trade an

56、d development, does not necessarily amount to a complete assessment of China’s nexus of foreign trade and economic growth. Recall that, as indicated in Section 2, there exist different theories about the notion of export

57、-led growth of which the neoclassical emphasis on trade regime neutrality and allocative efficiency is just </p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p>　　Using a range of specifications that are standard in th

58、e relevant literature, this paper finds that China’s rapid and sustained economic growth in the reform era has tended to be negatively correlated with its export growth and positively correlated with its import growth.On

59、 the basis of some further regression analyses, and drawing on a number of applied studies on the subject matter, the paper argues that the finding is plausible. It is further argued that the Chinese experience has tende