巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应

巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应的相关文献在2001年到2021年内共计90篇,主要集中在财政、金融、贸易经济、经济计划与管理 等领域,其中期刊论文87篇、会议论文3篇、专利文献38943篇;相关期刊61种,包括南方经济、世界经济、商业研究等; 相关会议2种,包括第二届亚太经济与金融论坛、第五届中国金融学年会等;巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应的相关文献由120位作者贡献,包括傅章彦、姚洋、谢朝阳等。

巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应—发文量

期刊论文>

论文:87 占比:0.22%

会议论文>

论文:3 占比:0.01%

专利文献>

论文:38943 占比:99.77%

总计:39033篇

巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应—发文趋势图

巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应

-研究学者

  • 傅章彦
  • 姚洋
  • 谢朝阳
  • 万润坤
  • 卢锋
  • 周亚军
  • 孟杨
  • 庞震
  • 是凯
  • 武玉军

巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应

-相关会议

  • 期刊论文
  • 会议论文
  • 专利文献

搜索

排序:

年份

    • 刘晓辉; 吴建利
    • 摘要: 在传统巴拉萨—萨缪尔森模型框架下,考察了可贸易品部门与不可贸易品部门间的劳动力市场分割对巴拉萨—萨缪尔森效应(巴萨效应)的抑制作用.利用中国29个省、市和自治区的面板数据(1995-2015年)展开的经验研究发现:巴萨效应在中国是存在的,但是,可贸易品与不可贸易品部门间劳动力市场分割的存在削弱了两部门相对生产率变动对内部实际汇率的影响,抑制了巴萨效应的发挥;劳动力市场分割程度越高,对巴萨效应的抑制作用就越强.
    • 余丹
    • 摘要: 本文通过对巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应理论的假设前提在中国的现实可行性分析,以及巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应在中国的经验分析,从理论和实证两方面证明了巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应影响着人民币实际有效汇率的走势,即1999年以来由于中国全要素生产率增长率远远高于其他主要贸易国家,超出其他主要贸易国家的全要素生产率增长率,直接导致了人民币实际有效汇率的升值.研究结果还表明,如果当前正在推行的供给侧结构性改革能成功实现中国在技术水平上对发达国家的赶超,则中国全要素生产率的进一步提高,将带动未来人民币实际有效汇率的持续升值.
    • 陈华; 郑晓亚
    • 摘要: 笔者基于对房地产市场影响因素及汇率对房价传导渠道的一般性经验分析,构建符合我国宏观经济框架的金融动态CGE模型.实证研究结果显示,汇率波动对房地产市场价格存在显性影响,房价对人民币升值带来的输入型通缩效应及贬值带来的巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应存在阶段性响应;此外,汇率变化带来的信贷效应、流动性效应、预期效应、财富效应与溢出效应均对房价存在影响,其中影响最强烈的是溢出效应.宏观调控政策制定者应以避免跨境套利资本冲击境内资产价格为目标,深化汇率形成机制改革、强化跨境资本流动监管,助力房地产市场乃至实体经济的长期稳定健康发展.
    • 莫万贵; 袁佳; 魏磊; 高海燕
    • 摘要: 2012-2016年间,我国CPI和PPI走势呈现长期背离分化走势,整体表现出明显的结构性通缩特征.本文将外部冲击、产能过剩及巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应相结合,构建符合中国国情的结构性通缩分析框架.通过深入分析和实证检验发现,在此期间中国的结构性通缩是由于大宗商品价格波动、国内外经济形势等周期性因素,以及产能过剩、巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应等结构性因素综合作用的结果,其中周期性因素是诱因,结构性因素是主因.未来需在保持稳健货币政策的同时,更加注重供给侧结构性改革,在优化结构方面进行政策布局,改善供给侧环境与机制,激发微观主体活力,全面提高全要素生产率,实现产能过剩部门的市场出清和经济结构的优化调整.%From 2012 to 2016,China's CPI and PPI presented a long-term trend of deviation,clearly characterizing overall structural deflation.The long-term divergence distorted the price signal,and thus made it difficult to accurately judge the price levels and economic situation.In addition to presenting a new research problem,the divergence caused confusion in macroeconomic policy making.The traditional theories propose that there are three representative causes of deflation:a shortage of aggregate demand(Keynes,1936),"debt-deflation"(Fisher,1933),and monetary tightening(Friedman,1971).However,few studies have examined the cyclical and structural factors underlying the deviation in the CPI and PPI between 2012 and 2016.In this paper,we use a combination of theoretical and empirical approaches to identify the cyclical and structural factors underlying the long-term divergence of the CPI and PPI since 2012,and analyze the causes of structural deflation in China.Based on our findings,we also provide a number of recommendations for researchers and policymakers.Following Wu and Cao(2014),we introduce the Balassa-Samuelson effect into the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model(AD-AS model),and considering the actual situation of China,further introduce external shocks,overcapacity,and other factors to better explain the mechanism of structural deflation in China.In the modeling process,we use the"general to specific method"(Hendry,2001;Ericsson,2007;Wu,2014)and conduct diagnostic tests on various combinations of factors.The CPI/PPI,as an indicator of structural inflation,is used as a substitute variable for the relative price of non-tradable goods to tradable goods.Variables such as the commodity prices,economic growth,imports and exports,fixed asset investment,household income,and money supply are included as cyclical factors.Variables such as overcapacity,industrial structure,the relative labor productivity of tradable goods against non-tradable goods,corporate debt-to-asset ratio,and terms of trade are included as structural factors.All of the data are from the WIND database and the study period is from the first quarter of 2002 to the fourth quarter of 2016.The findings show that the structural deflation reflects the Chinese government's attempts to simultaneously deal with the slowdown in economic growth,make difficult structural adjustments,and absorb the effects of previous economic stimulus policies,and the risks and challenges that the economy may face.First,cyclical factors are an important cause of structural deflation in China.The weak internal and external demand and the downturn in international commodity prices had a negative shock on the CPI and PPI,although the impact was relatively short.As the domestic and foreign economies recovered and commodity prices began to rise,this negative impact was reduced or disappeared,and even had a positive impact on the CPI and PPI.Second,various structural and institutional factors are the underlying causes of structural deflation.In recent years,multiple factors,including supply-side shocks,such as the slowdown of China's labor productivity growth,overcapacity caused by the large-scale stimulus plans,insufficient domestic demand resulting from insufficient institutional reform of the housing,pension,education,and medical sectors,and the existence of the Barcelona effect,have led to an inadequate supply of high-end products and services,and a serious excess of medium and low-end industrial capacity,which have had structural and long-term impacts on deflation.To effectively resolve structural deflation,China should introduce different policy tools and accelerate the pace of the supply-side structural reforms.International experience suggests that the central bank's ability to implement expansionary and tightening monetary policies is asymmetric.In the case of structural deflation,the efficiency of monetary policy is often greatly reduced due to the risk control of commercial banks and the changing expectations of the currency holders.Under these circumstances,an excessively loose monetary policy will not benefit capacity clearing,and may lead to a new round of asset price bubbles.In the new normal of the economy,the regulatory effects of aggregate demand and supply appear to be asymmetric.In the future,while maintaining a prudent and neutral aggregate policy stance and managing aggregate demand,China should pay more attention to supply-side reforms by introducing policies to optimize the market structure,improve the supply side environment and mechanism,stimulate the vitality of micro subjects,comprehensively improve the total factor productivity,and realize the market clearing of overcapacity and the optimal adjustment of the economy.It is also necessary to continuously track the factors related to structural deflation and the evolution trends at home and abroad.This will require new innovative research methods and further theoretical and policy related research.
    • 赵松梅
    • 摘要: 自我国向市场经济过渡以来,特别是1994年以后,劳动生产率增长迅速.这种加速伴随着我国汇率政策的转变.1994年以前,我国货币大幅贬值,随后要么升值,要么稳定.本文梳理了实际汇率对劳动生产率影响的理论观点,并结合我国实际情况,分析我国是否存在实际汇率升值推动劳动生产率增加的机制.
    • 张木泽
    • 摘要: 本文首先通过引入反映可贸易品部门与非贸易品部门发展情况的采购经理指数(PMI),构造出中美''相对相对''PMI的走势图。随后本文利用中美2007至2018年的PMI月度数据,发现中美''相对相对''PMI与人民币实际汇率增长率间在整体上存在正相关关系。最后利用ARDL模型,分区段地验证了在长期内中美''相对相对''PMI的升高会使美元兑人民币实际汇率增长率升高的观点,即中国可贸易品行业的''相对相对''繁荣扩张,在长期中会导致人民币相对美元贬值程度的不断加深或者升值幅度的不断减缓。本文的结论有助于从产业扩张收缩角度出发,对未来实际汇率的变化做出预测,为汇率的研究提供了新的视角。
    • 黄奕
    • 摘要: 在人民币国际化的关键时期,当务之急是对人民币汇价的形成机制进行市场化改革,构建人民币汇率目标区。构建汇率目标区的核心问题是中心汇率如何确定,而通过对名义汇率与劳动力生产率进行Johanson协整性检验,可以证明巴拉萨—萨缪尔森效应能够作为估计人民币中心汇率模型的理论基础。进而,考虑政策目标等其他因素,通过建立估计人民币中心汇率的VEC模型,并根据中心汇率测算结果与平均汇率之间的误差,确定人民币对美元隐形汇率目标区的波动幅度为±[3%—5%]较为恰当,即当人民币对美元汇率的波动偏离中心汇率在±3%以内时货币当局无需进行干预,触及±3%时视为预警信号,超过±3%时是否干预视具体情况而定,而超过±5%时则必须进行干预。为此,中国人民银行应当进一步放松对银行结售汇综合头寸的管制,避免被动式的干预;将超额外汇储备中的一小部分用于成立干预外汇市场、管理汇率水平的外汇平准基金,将剩余的超额外汇储备转换成黄金储备。
    • 张博
    • 摘要: 鉴于人民币汇率问题成为国内外关注的焦点问题,人民币汇率的决定问题无疑是人民币汇率问题中很重要的一个方面.我国现在正处于经济结构转型的关键时期,而人民币汇率作为重要的经济杠杆变量是经济改革的重要一环.文章以人民币实际有效汇率为研究对象,从理论角度探讨研究人民币实际有效汇率的决定因素.
  • 查看更多

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号