英语论文网

s that of domestic technological change, more so in high technology industries. Moreover, technology transfer is found to be strongly changing across country pairs and tends to decline in geographic distance, pointing to goods trade as the transfer channel. We directly appraise this hypothesis, and the UK, while for the US, Japan, and Canada non-trade channels are more important.

(Xiaoying Li, 2003) In this paper, we analyze empirically the relationship between imports and economic growth for services and for manufacturing. Using a country level panel of 82 countries, we analyze whether imports of services have a positive impact on economic growth. This paper is organized as follows, section 2 reviews the literature regarding trade and growth and trade in services and growth. Sections 3 sets out the methodology employed and give a description of the data. Section 4 presents the results of our regression analysis, and section 5 concludes. We also tested a dynamic model of growth in the perspective of different of country groups and more importantly, different industries. There have been many studies on the impact of trade on growth of real GDP per capita; however, few of them look at the impact of trade in different industries. We also examine the impacts of trade in services and trade in manufacturing on growth separately. We apply a dynamic panel approach and use arrelano-Bond estimation method to correct for correlation. Our main findings are that imports in services have significant positive effects in developed countries while their effect does not appear to be significant in developing countries. It is imports of other services including business services that are responsible for this outcome. Imports of manufacturing have been recognized as an important channel for the international diffusion of technology, this study suggest that for developed countries, imports of business nay also serve to diffuse economically important knowledge and know-how and hence to promote economic growth.

We have obtained some interesting results here; there is still much space to improve the work. For example, we may examine the R&D spillover through trade in services if we can have bilateral data of trade in services available, which is in line with the work of Keller etc. and is widely used in literature on international technology diffusion.

(Lipsey, 2006) In this paper, I find that the main objective is to know the reasons that cause the transfer of the intangible Corporate assets from U.S.A to foreign affiliates of US firms. some of which use nearly no foreign factors of production. These transfers, mainly for tax saving purposes, give rise to phantom flows of services from the foreign affiliates to the US and to other countries and remove the exports from the U.S. balance of payments. They make the meaning of measures of the current balances and GDP confusing. One possible solution to the measurement problems would be to use measures assigning at least intangible assets to countries of ownership, rather than nominal residence.

The result is that the output and exports stemming from these assets can also be attributed to geographical locations almost at will, subject to some limited regulation by tax authorities, without any relation to the actual location of any physical aspect of the production. A large part of service production export and imports can being to consist of phantom product