摘要：
The often overlooked Keynes-Hirschman theory of export instability is contrasted with the two prevailing ones. Myrdal et al. stress only the negative effects of export instability on economic development, whereas Knudsen et al. emphasize only the positive ones. Keynes and Hirschman argue instead that the impact of export instability depends on its severity and on the country's level of development. Hence, the least developed countries may be the only ones adversely affected by export fluctuations due to the nature and concentration of their export mix and their notorious institutional rigidities. The testing of the Keynes-Hirschman hypothesis requires a refinement of the traditional distinction between DCs and LDCs. I grouped countries into three categories: High-Income Countries (HICs), Middle-Income Countries (MICs) and Low-Income Countries (LICs) according to their level of economic development. I have also corrected three shortcomings of existing empirical studies. First, I focus on the effects of export instability on economic development, as suggested by the theoretical literature, not just on its impact on economic growth. Second, I use a simultaneous-equation model to overcome the problems of a simultaneity bias, omission of relevant variables, and instability of coefficients undermining the robustness of the estimates of existing studies which use single-equation models. Finally, I broke the export instability hypothesis into its three distinct but related components that I tested sequentially: (1) export instability is greater in less developed countries than in more developed ones, (2) it translates into overall economic instability through the export multiplier, and (3) it is deleterious for economic development. My empirical results support the Keynes-Hirschman hypothesis that the least developed are the ones most likely to be hurt by export instability. They reject the Myrdal-Nurkse approach since the economic development of HICs had not been impeded a
欢迎来到三峡大学图书馆！
