摘 要
近年的跨國成長研究中，許多實證分析皆指出實體資本與人力資本存量僅能做為解釋部份所得不同的來源。於是，經濟學家即嘗試加入更多解釋變數，試圖弭平實體與人力兩資本不能解釋經濟成長的原因。一般而言，成長理論普遍應用在比較跨國成長差異分析，然於單一國家實證研究卻甚少探討。由於成長不均現象在國家經濟面向中為重要問題，且不論開發中或已開發國家都存在此課題，如城鄉差距日益擴大所引發的財政分配，以及勞動市場失衡造成的高失業率問題，因此，對於如何拉近單一國家內行政區產出即成了令人關注的議題。而這樣的問題對一些世界上具有高度影響力的大型單一經濟體-特別是美國-當是更令人關切，由於美國國內有形與無形資本自由流動度高，衡量產出時將需考慮更周延的因素。
根據國政報告的研究指出造成過去美國景氣能持續擴張將近10年，很重要的因素之一是資訊科技(information technology, IT)與網際網路(internet)的發展所致，而這些大量的外來移民將可滿足IT產業的人力需求並消費廠商所生產的產品，促使美國經濟呈現長期成長。因此，我們認為衡量美國產出除了探討實體資本與人力資本的影響力，對於外來移民(或稱移動式人力資本)在美國經濟成長的貢獻更是有必要加以研究。
分析三個模型背後的經濟意涵，我們可總結出以下四點結論：
第一、有效勞動力的實體資本 與人力資本 對美國各州在1991年至1999年的經濟成長都具有正面助益效果，但對產出卻呈現不同的影響力。在有效勞動力的實體資本部份出現對各州經濟成長影響力愈來愈小，其估計係數由0.0783、0.0638降為0.0169，說明了有效勞動力的實體資本在各州經濟成長上是扮演一個必要，但非主要的投入要素；反觀有效勞動力的人力資本對產出的影響力由0.4568快速攀升至1.1052，顯示人力資本累積是美國各州在1990年代，經濟能夠持續且快速成長的主要投入要素之一。此外，我們也發現到 速度愈來愈快(由0.0165增為0.0183)的現象，隱含了 值的下降(由0.0853降為0.0447)。換言之，經濟體要達到穩定狀況不能僅靠實體資本存量的增加，而是人力素質與科技水準均需同時提升。
第二、愈多的外來移民 將可提高各州經濟成長。由於外來移民本身擁有相當高的知識與技能，他們一方面可藉由外溢效果澤被當地居民，使得當地人力資本存量增加；另方面，他們投入勞動市場後，因其本身具較佳的人力素質，所以能夠增加當地生產力，進而推升經濟的成長。
第三、模型中的 項雖是各州隨機係數，但它代表的意義卻是每一州不同的地理位置、資源稟賦、制度等特有條件，因此，當我們能考慮更多 的組成份(如文中加入外來移民)並予以改善、發展，則對於長期經濟成長應會有明顯且正面的助益。
第四、文中 偏低的情形可能是我們在模型中並沒有考慮景氣循環的問題，因此，在進行單國時間序列分析(Panel Data模型為時間序列加上橫剖面兩種型態的資料)並直接做生產函數估計時，可能會碰到Romer (1987)所提到的估計困難，即當經濟變數的景氣循環效果支配某些變數變動對產出成長貢獻，將使得估計變成沒有效率。
綜合上述結論我們發現1990年代的美國之所以能建立強大經濟地位，除了實體資本與人力資本的累積外，對於外來移民所帶來的影響力亦應予以高度重視，從近年來新加坡制定吸引優秀外來人口的國家政策可見，更可瞭解高技術性移民的重要性已逐漸超越資本性移民。因此，我們認為國家對於外來移民愈重視，將會使該國能夠擁有愈高的經濟成長率與國際競爭力，而〝人〞力資本的累積，將成為決定國家是否能在國際舞台上佔有一席之地的關鍵。

Abstract
In recent years, many empirical analyses of cross countries point out physical capital stock and human capital stock that can only explain partial cause of income inequality. Therefore, economists attempt to add multiple interpreted variables, trying to illustrate economic growth which physical capital and human capital can’t expound. Generally speaking, growth theory common was applied different growth assay of cross countries, but lacking empirical researches of single country. Income inequality is the important issue of national economy, including difference between town and country bring about problems of financial distribution, and unbalance of labor market cause mishap of high unemployment rates, consequently, it becomes interesting subject that how to blend state output in single country. The issue is more cared for United State that possessing enormous economic influence. Due to corporeal and incorporeal capital can free mobile, one must ponder on more detailed elements to measure national proceeds.
According to reports of national policy indicate that development of information technology (IT) and internet were one of important factors to form the longest expansion in the postwar period that lasted 111 months from March 1991 to June 2000, large number of immigrants that could satisfy labor demand of IT property, and consumed productions of market supply. For this reason, one consider to measure U.S. output not only confer the effects of accumulation of physical capital and human capital, but also contain contributions of immigrants.
To analyze economic implications in three models, one can summarize four conclusions:
First point: physical capital and human capital of effective labor provide with significantly positive effect for economic growth rates of U.S. states in 1991 to 1999. Physical capital of effective labor shows that decreasing influence on economic growth of cross states, the magnitude of estimate coefficient are reducing from 0.0783, 0.0638, to 0.0169, demonstrating that play a role of necessary yet a main input factor. Opposite to physical capital, human capital of effective labor present increasing condition which from 0.4568 to 1.1052, displaying it’s outstanding for economic growth of U.S. Furthermore, we also find a phenomenon that speed of convergence ( ) enlarge huger (from 0.0165 to 0.0183), it imply that value of is diminishing (from 0.0853 to 0.0447). In other words, economies that want to approach state-steady can’t only depend on increasing of accumulation of physical capital, but quality of human and level of technology also simultaneously promote.
Second point: More immigrants will move up to economic growth of cross states. Because immigrants have lofty knowledge and skill, an aspect they can through spillover effect to local, increasing accumulation of human capital, another aspect that can raise local productivity to advance economic growth.
Third point: Although term of is random coefficient of cross states in models, it’s purport that comprise different geographical location, endowment of resource and institution etc. in every states, hence, when we can think about more component of (for instant, adding immigrants) to improve and develop it, than economic growth will reveal significant and positive beneficial result.
Fourth point: Lower adjusted may be that one don’t look upon puzzle of business cycle, therefore, one proceed time serious analysis of single country and directly estimate production function that could meet up perplexity of calculation (Romer, 1987), in other words, when effects of business cycle of economic variables dominate change of some variables for contributing economic growth that will make estimation to convert into inefficient.
Synthesizing the above-mentioned consequences, one find that U.S. can establish forceful economic status except for accumulation of physical capital and human capital, it’s more important that immigrants guide robust effect on economic dimension of host country. Such example that can be gather from national policy of Singapore. Consequently, one suggest that nation pay much attention to immigrants will intensify economic growth rates and international competition of nation, and accumulation of “human” capital will be a key-point that determinate force of national competition.

目 錄
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………1
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………4
第一節 經濟成長理論回顧……………………………………………………4
第二節 經濟成長實證回顧……………………………………………………6
第三章 模型推導與方法說明………………………………………11
第一節 經濟成長模型……………………………………………………11
第二節 研究方法說明……………………………………………………22
第四章 Panel Data實證分析結果…………………………………31
第一節 資料和研究期間……………………………………………………31
第二節 實證結果……………………………………………………………32
第五章 結論…………………………………………………………41
參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………43

參考文獻
中文部分
杜巧霞，美國經濟成長趨緩對全球及台灣經濟之影響，財團法人國家政策研究基金會，2001。
蔡建樹譯，初級計量經濟學，台北：台灣西書出版社，2002。
黃仁德、趙振瑛(1997)，「人力資本對台灣經濟成長貢獻的評估」，勞資關係論叢，(6)，pp.119-40。
莊希豐(1998)，「臺灣人力資本與經濟成長之分析」，臺灣銀行季刊，49(3)，pp.243-63。
莊希豐、蔡宗豪(1998)，「政府支出與經濟成長應用於亞太地區」，台灣企銀季刊，21(4)，pp.93-106。
李秀雲、何嫈嫈(1999)，「人力資本與內生成長-亞洲四小龍和日本的時間序列分析」，經濟論文叢刊，27(3)，pp.311-35。
莊希豐(1999)，「國內外人力資本與經濟成長—臺灣實證分析」，淡江人文社會學刊，(4)，pp.65-90。
黃仁德、羅時萬(1999)，「內生經濟成長理論的綜合評論」，國立政治大學學報，(78)，pp.221-60。
李春長(1993)，政府支出規模與經濟成長 – 臺灣之實證分析，國立政治大學三民主義研究所碩士論文。
周麗娟(1993)，人力資源與經濟成長 – 臺灣之實證分析，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
黃文志(1994)，要素累積與技術進步之內生成長研究，國立政治大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
蔡曜州(1995)，人口在經濟發展中扮演的角色，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
鄭雅綺(1996)，經濟成長與各縣市之成長差異，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
陳智偉(1998)，人力資本與經濟成長之動態分析，逢甲大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
李唐芝(1999)，研究發展、專業技術訓練與經濟成長，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
許碧峰(1999)，研究發展、技術引進與經濟成長，國立政治大學經濟學研究所博士論文。
張綱紘(1999)，技術發展型態與經濟成長關係之研究，國立政治大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
張靜云(2000)，內生經濟成長理論相關論文集，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所博士論文。
王華謙(2001)，台灣經濟成長實證：以Johansen共積法分析，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
余建源(2001)，台灣戰後的經濟成長與技術進步初探，國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
吳東明(2002)，中國大陸技術進步與經濟增長關係之研究，淡江大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
李青蓉(2002)，最適政府支出規模與經濟成長之研究，中華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
英文部分
Aghion, Philippe and Howitt Peter. “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction.” Ecomometrica, March 1992, 60(2), pp.323-51.
Arrow, J. Kenneth. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing.” Review of Economic Studies, June 1962, 29, pp.155-73.
Barro, J. Robert. “Government Spending in a simple model of Endogenous Growth.” Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 98, pp. 103-25.
. “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1991, 106(2), pp. 407-43.
. “Human Capital and Growth.” American Economic Review, May 2001 (Papers and Proceedings), 91(2), pp. 12-17.
Barro, J. Robert. and Jong-Wha, Lee. “International Comparisons of Educational Attainment.” Journal of Monetary Economics, December 1993, 32(3), pp. 363-94.
. “International Measures of Schooling Years and Schooling Quality.” American Economic Review, May 1996 (Papers and Proceedings), 86(2), pp. 218-23.
. “International Data on Educational Attainment Updates and Implications.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No. 7911, September 2000.
Barro, J. Robert and Sala-i-Martin, Xavier. “Regional Growth and Migration: A Japan-U.S. Comparison.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No.4038, March 1992.
. “Capital Mobility In Neoclassical Model of Growth.” American Economic Review, March 1995a, 85(1), pp. 103-15.
. Economic Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995b.
. “Technological Diffusion, Convergence, and Growth.” Journal of Economic Growth, 1997, 2, pp. 1-26.
Benhabib, Jess and Spiegel, M. Mark. “The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development: Evidence from Aggregate Cross-Country Data.” Journal of Monetary Economics, October 1994, 34(2), pp. 143-74.
Bernanke, S. Ben and Gürkaynak, S. Refet. “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer and Weil Seriously.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No. 8365, July 2001.
Bils, Mark and Klenow, J. Peter. “Does Schooling Cause Growth？” American Economic Review, December 2000, 90(5), pp. 1160-83.
Bloom E. David, Canning, David and Sevilla, Jaypee. “The Effect of Health On Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No. 8587, November 2001.
Borjas, J. George. “The Economics of Immigration.” Journal of Economic Literature, December 1994, XXXII, pp. 1667-1717.
Cass, David. “Optimum Growth in an Aggregative Model of Capital Accumulation.” Review of Economic Studies, July 1965, 32, pp.233-40.
Domar, D. Evsey. “Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment.” Econometrica, April 1946, pp.137-47.
Duleep, Harriet Orcutt and Regets, C. Mark. “Immigrants and Human-Capital Investment.” American Economic Review Paper and Proceedings, May 1999, 89(2), pp. 186-91.
Etsuro Shioji. “Public Capital and Economic Growth: A Convergence Approach.” Journal of Economic Growth, 2001, 6, pp. 205-27.
Funke, Michael and Strulik, Holger. “On Endogenous Growth With Physical Capital, Human Capital and Product Variety.” European Economic Review, 2000, 44, pp. 491-515.
Greene, H. William. Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Pretice –Hall, Inc. 2000.
Hall, E. Robert and Jones, I. Charles. “Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1999, pp. 83-116.
Hanushek, A. Eric and Kimko, D. Dennis. “Schooling, Labor-Force Quality, and the Growth of Nations.” American Economic Review, December 2000, 90(5), pp. 1184-1208.
Harrod, E. Roy. “An Essay in Dynamic Theory.” Economic Journal, June 1939, 49, pp. 14-33.
Islam, Nazrul. “Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1995, pp. 1127-70.
Johnston, Jack and Dinardo, John. Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Koopmans, C. Tjalling. “On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth.” The Economic Approach to Development Planning, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1965.
Krugman, Paul. “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs. 1994, 73(6), pp. 62-78.
Lerman I. Robert. “U.S. Wage-Inequality Trends and Recent Immigration.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May 1999, 89(2), pp. 23-28.
Levine, Ross and Renelt, David. “A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions.” American Economic Review, September 1992, 82(4), pp. 942-63.
Lucas, E. Robert, Jr. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics, July 1988, 22(1), pp. 3-42.
Mankiw, N. Gregory, Romer, David and Weil, N. David. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economics Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1992, 107(2), pp. 402-37.
Mulligan, B. Casey and Sala-i-Martin, Xavier. “Measuring Aggregate Human Capital.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No.5016, February 1995.
. “A Labor-Income-Based Measure of the Value of Human Capital: An Application To The States of the United States.” Japan and the World Economy, 1997, 9(2), pp.159-91.
Ramsey, Frank. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving.” Economic Journal, December 1928, 38, pp.543-59.
Romer, David. Advanced macroeconomics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Romer, Paul. “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy, October 1986, 94(5), pp. 1002-37.
Romer, Paul. “Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization.” American Economic Review, May 1987, 77(2), pp. 56-62.
Romer, Paul. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy, October 1990, Pt2, 99(5), pp. S71-S102.
Solow, M. Robert. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1956, 70, pp.65-94.
Summers, Robert and Heston, Alan. “A New Set of International Comparisons of Real Product and Price Levels Estimates for 130 Countries, 1950-1985.” Review of Income and Wealth, 1988, XXXIV, pp.1-26.
Summers, Robert and Alan Heston. “The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1988.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1991, pp.327-68.
Swan, W. Trevor. “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation.” Economic Record, November 1956, 32, pp.334-61.
Temple, Jonathan. “The New Growth Evidence.” Journal of Economic Literature, March 1999, XXXVII, pp.112-56.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1991-2001.