Measuring Productivity Performance by Industry in China, 1980-2005
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the author’s recently constructed data set, this article measures the productivity performance of China’s 19 manufacturing industries, four mining industries, plus utilities, over the reform period 1980-2005. The approach is based on neoclassical assumptions on institutional settings and behavior of agents. Some of these assumptions are questionable in the case of China, but the results can be used as a starting point for further investigation. We find that the post-reform industrial growth in China had been largely investment-driven and inefficient until the 2000-05 period. Following China’s accession to WTO in 2001, Chinese industry experienced the best performance in TFP, accounting for 50 per cent of the growth of industrial value added. However, the mining sector had been most inefficient and had not yet shown a clear sign of improvement by 2005. Traditional labour intensive manufacturing did not appear to be efficient as suggested by the theory of comparative advantage, but there was a sign of significant improvement in 2000-05. By contrast, the capital and technology-intensive industries engaged in consumer goods manufacturing were most efficient throughout the entire period, apparently due to continuous foreign direct investment, high exposure to international competition and less state intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it