产业政策能提高贸易竞争力吗？（英）

IMF Working PaperResearchDepartmentDo Industrial Policies Increase Trade Competitiveness?Prepared byYueling Huang,Sandra Baquie,Florence Jaumotte,Jaden KimYucheng Lu,Rafael Machado Parente and Samuel PienknaguraAuthorized for distribution by Florence JaumotteMay2025IMF Working Papersdescribe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicitcomments and to encourage debate.The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.ABSTRACT:Industrial policies (IPs) are on the rise. The most common motive for pursuing IPs is to booststrategic competitiveness of the targeted products. Leveraging a novel database of industrial policies and usingthe local projection difference-in-differences approach, this paper examines the dynamic relationship betweenIPs and trade competitiveness. Our results point to a nuanced picture. On average, products targeted by IPsexperience a larger increase in competitiveness than non-targeted ones. However, there is substantialheterogeneity across different types of products and policy instruments. The average effect is driven by initiallycompetitive products. Turning to policy instruments, domestic subsidies are associated with a temporaryimprovement in trade competitiveness in the short term, whereas export incentives are linked to medium-termimprovements in competitiveness. Finally, we focus on three widely discussed value chains–solar photo-voltaic,wind turbines, and electric vehicles–and present suggestive evidence that IPs can have spillover effects onnon-targeted products through value chain linkages. Our findings for these three value chains suggest that IPstargeting upstream products are associated with larger improvements in the RCA of products using theseupstream products relative to IPs targeting products at the same value chain stage.RECOMMENDED CITATION:Huang, Yueling, Sandra Baquie, Florence Jaumotte, Jaden Kim, Yucheng Lu,Rafael Machado Parente and Samuel Pienknagura. 2025.“Do Industrial Policies Increase TradeCompetitiveness?”, IMF Working Paper No. 2025/98.L52, F12, F13, O25, Q48Industrial policies;trade;revealed comparative advantage;domesticsubsidies; export incentives;local projection difference-in-differencesyhuang5@imf.org,sbaquie@imf.org,fjaumotte@imf.org,jkim6@imf.org,yuchenglu@nyu.edu,rmachadoparente@imf.org,spienknagura@imf.org INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUNDJEL Classification Numbers:Author’s E-Mail Address: Keywords: 2 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUNDDo Industrial Policies IncreaseTrade Competitiveness?Prepared byYueling Huang,Sandra Baquie, Florence Jaumotte,JadenKim,Yucheng Lu,Rafael Machado ParenteandSamuel Pienknagura1We thank Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Adam Jakubik, Lorenzo Rotunno, Michele Ruta, and Antonio Spilimbergo for valuablecomments. We alsothank Réka Juhász and Nathan Lane for sharing the data. The views expressed in this paper are those of theauthors and should not be attributed to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management. All errors are our own. 1 Contents1Introduction2Data and Facts2.1Data Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.1Data on Industrial Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.2Data on Trade Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.3IP motives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.4Classification of Green vs. Non-Green Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.1Evolution of IP Announcements over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.2Breakdown by Policy Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2.3Breakdown by GTA Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Empirical Strategy4Results4.1All Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1.1Average Effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1.2Decomposition: Extensive Margin vs. Intensive Margin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1.3Heterogeneity by Product Characteristic: The Role of Initial Competitiveness . . .4.1.4Heterogeneity by Policy Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2Green vs. Non-Green Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3Additional Results and Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3.1Cross-Product Spillover along The Green Value Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3.2Robustness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5ConclusionAClassifying IP Motives: An LLM Ensemble ApproachA.1Algorithm in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.2Valid