R&D knowledge spillovers of agricultural products trade: an empirical analysis based on spatially extended Coe–Helpman model

LIU Shunjia1 SHENG Yanchao2

(1.Business School of Hunan Agricultural University)
(2.Department of Tourism Management, Hunan Business School)

【Abstract】Agricultural products trade not only brings the importers physical explicit knowledge such as germ plasm resources, but also brings tacit knowledge such as agricultural managerial experiences which can contribute to subsequent spatial spillovers to the adjacent areas of the agricultural importing regions. Recognizing tacit knowledge as a spatial omitted variable from the tacit knowledge linear model, the paper develops the linear Coe-Helpman paradigm in international R&D spillovers into a non-linear spatial model. Using panel data of 31 provinces from 1999 to 2011, the tests show that not only the agricultural products trade knowledge produce significant first spillover effects on the agricultural total factor productivity in the importing region but the tacit knowledge has significant secondary spillover effects on other regions adjacent to importing regions. Furthermore, the secondary spillover effect is greater than the first spillover effect.

【Keywords】 agricultural products trade; tacit knowledge; physical knowledge; spatial spillover;

【DOI】

【Funds】 National Social Science Research Project (13CJL066) Key Discipline of International Economics and Trade in Hunan Agricultural University Leading Project of Hunan Agricultural University Business School “Research of family farms’ building path and growth performance” funded by Agricultural Research Center of Business School, Hunan Agricultural University

Download this article

(Translated by DAI Wenru)

    Footnote

    [1]. 1 The detailed calculation of the agricultural fixed capital stock data and agricultural labor force stock are in later sections of the paper. [^Back]

    [2]. 2 Subject to space constraints, specific measurement data is not given here. [^Back]

    [3]. 3 The agricultural imports of some separate administrative units are not included, so proportion of the imports of the three main regions do not add up to 100%. [^Back]

    [4]. 4 The 26 member countries of OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The 26 countries include the R&D expenditures of the traditional G7 countries which account for more than half of the global R&D expenditures. [^Back]

    [5]. 5 Customs Code is HS code, and the full name is “International Convention for Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.” [^Back]

    [6]. 6 China Rural Statistical Yearbook 1999 contains only five categories of imported agricultural products, which are rice, wheat, corn, soybeans and cooking oil. Related data of 26 OECD member countries were taken from the database of OECD statistics website. [^Back]

    References

    Bao, X. & Yan, X. Journal of International Trade (国际贸易问题), (6) (2014).

    Cheng, G. & Zhu, M. Reform (改革), (1) (2014).

    Chen, J. & Sheng, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (12) (2008).

    Fang, Y. & Zhao, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (5) (2011).

    Li, S. Issues in Agricultural Economy (农业经济问题), (4) (2014).

    Liang, Q. Studies in Science of Science (科学学研究), (2) (2004).

    Lin, Y. & Ren, R. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (8) (2007).

    Liu, S. & Wang, Y. Journal of International Trade (国际贸易问题), (11) (2014).

    Lv, L. & Huang, Z. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (5) (2006).

    Wei, K., Yang, L. & Zhang, Z. Issues in Agricultural Economy (农业经济问题), (4) (2013).

    Xu, T., Li, Z., Tu, Y. et al. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (3) (2012).

    Yu, Z. & Wang, J. Journal of International Trade (国际贸易问题), (11) (2014).

    Yuan, R. & Tian, Z. Issues in Agricultural Economy (农业经济问题), (4) (2014).

    Yue, S. & Liu, C. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (4) (2006).

    Zheng, Y. Reform (改革), (3) (2006).

    Zou, W., Xu, H. & Lai, M. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics (数量经济技术经济研究), (7) (2007).

    Augier, P., Cadot, O. and Dovis, M., (2013)“Imports and TFP at the Firm Level: the Role of Absorptive Capacity,”Canadian Journal of Economics 46 (3) , 956-981.

    Battese G. E. and Coelli T. J., (1992) “Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency and Panel Data: With Application to Paddy Farmers in India,” Journal of Productivity Analysis 3 (1-2), 153-169.

    Coe D.T and Helpman E., (1995) “International R&D Spillovers,” European Economic Review 39 (5), 859-887.

    Elhorst J. P., (2012)“ Matlab Software for Spatial Panels,” International Regional Science Review 8 (1), 56-72.

    Grant, J. H. and Boys, K. A., (2012) “Agricultural Trade and the GATT/WTO: Does Membership Make a Difference?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94 (1), 1-24.

    Kitwiwattanachai A, Nelson D and Reed G., (2010) “Quantitative Impacts of Alternative East Asia Free Trade: A Computable Equilibrium Assessment,” Journal of Policy Modeling 32 (2), 286-301.

    Langlois Richard, N. and Robertson Paul, L., (1996)“Stop Crying over Spilt Knowledge: a Critical Look at the Theory of Spillovers and Technical Change,” University of Connecticut, Economics Working Papers No. 06.

    Le Sage James and Pace R. Kelley., (2009) Introduction to Spatial Econometrics, New York CRC Press.3334, 27-29, 40-41.

    Lichtenberg, F. and Pottelsberghe, (1998)“De la Potterie. International R&D Spillovers: a Comment,” European Economic Review 42 (8), 1483-1491.

    Ray, T., (2009)“Rethingking Polanyi’s Concept of Tacit Knowledge: from Personal Knowing to Imagined Institutions,” Minverva 47 (1), 75-92.

    Singh R. B., (2000) “Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Development: a Case Study from the Green Revolution State of Haryana, India,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82 (1-3) , 97-103.

    Wilson L. W. and Anton J., (2006)“Combining Risk Assessment and Economics in Managing a SanitaryPhytosanitary Risk,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (1), 194-202.

This Article

ISSN:1002-4670

CN: 11-1692/F

Vol , No. 09, Pages 29-42

September 2015

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Agricultural products trade knowledge spatial spillovers model
  • 3 Empirical test of agricultural products trade knowledge spillovers model
  • 4 Conclusion and policy recommendations
  • Footnote

    References