Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
ProcediaComputer
Procedia ComputerScience
Science00139 (2018)
(2018) 299–305
000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, the

The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, the
Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska
Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska
Has “Intelligent Manufacturing” Promoted the Productivity of
Has “Intelligent Sector?--Evidence
Manufacturing Manufacturing” Promoted the Productivity
from China’s Listed Firms of
Manufacturinga,b,c
Sector?--Evidence
a,b,c,d
from China’s Listed
a,b,c b,c,e
Firms
Yi Qua,b,c, Yong Shia,b,c,d, Kun Guoa,b,c*, Yuanchun Zhengb,c,e
Yi Qu , Yong Shi , Kun Guo *, Yuanchun Zheng
a
School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China
b
Key Laboratory
a of Big Dataand
School of Economics Mining and Knowledge
Management, Management,
University Chinese
of Chinese AcademyAcademy of Sciences,
of Sciences, Beijing,
Beijing, 100190,
100190, ChinaChina
b Research Center
Key cLaboratory of Bigon Fictitious
Data MiningEconomy & DataManagement,
and Knowledge Science, Chinese Academy
Chinese of Sciences,
Academy Beijing,
of Sciences, 100190,
Beijing, China
100190, China
c d
College
Research of Information
Center on FictitiousScience and&Technology,
Economy University
Data Science, Chinese of Nebraska
Academy at Omaha,Beijing,
of Sciences, NE 68182, USAChina
100190,
e
School dof Computing
College and Control
of Information Engineering,
Science University
and Technology, of Chinese
University of Academy
NebraskaofatSciences,
Omaha, NEBeijing,
68182,100190,
USA China
e
School of Computing and Control Engineering, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China
Abstract
Abstract
Intelligent Manufacturing has attracted global and continuous attention recent years, with more and more intelligent devices
Intelligent
and systemsManufacturing In this
has attracted
applied in production. paper,
global andwe take China’s
continuous manufacturing
attention listed
recent years, firms
with moretoand
investigate the productivity
more intelligent devices
and systemsbetween
difference applied intelligent and In
in production. this paper,
general we take China’s
manufacturing firms. manufacturing listed firms
By the Cobb-Douglas to investigate
production the productivity
function, we built a
difference between intelligent
Coefficient-varying Model andand usedgeneral manufacturing
Seemingly Unrelatedfirms. By the Cobb-Douglas
Regression (SUR) to estimateproduction function, wetrend
the time-varying built ofa
Coefficient-varying
productivity from 2011Model and The
to 2017. usedempirical
Seemingly results show that
Unrelated “Intelligent
Regression Manufacturing”
(SUR) to estimate hasthe obviously promoted
time-varying trend the
of
productivity
Labor from 2011efficiency
factor utilization to 2017. The empirical
and the resultsProductivity
Total Factor show that “Intelligent
(TFP) throughManufacturing”
the advances has obviously But
in technology. promoted the
it doesn’t
Laboruniversally
have factor utilization efficiency
enhancing effect and theindustries.
of all Total FactorThe impact of “Intelligent
Productivity (TFP) through the advances in
Manufacturing” technology.
still remains toBut
be itobserved
doesn’t
have universally enhancing effect of all industries. The impact of “Intelligent Manufacturing” still remains to be observed
overtime.
overtime.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2018
© 2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published byby Elsevier B.V.
This is an open accessPublished
article under Elsevier B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This
Peer is an open
review access
under article under
responsibility of the
the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific license
committee (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of The International Academy of Information Technology and
Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology
Peer review under
Quantitative responsibility
Management,
and Quantitative Management, ofPeter
the Peter
the the scientific
Kiewit committee
Institute,
Kiewit of The
University
Institute, International
of Nebraska. Academy of Information Technology and
of Nebraska.
University
Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska.
Keywords: Intelligent Manufacturing, Cobb-Douglas Production Function, Total Factor Productivity (TFP), Coefficient-varying Model,
Seemingly Unrelated
Keywords: IntelligentRegression (SUR)Cobb-Douglas Production Function, Total Factor Productivity (TFP), Coefficient-varying Model,
Manufacturing,
Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR)

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Recent years, Intelligent Manufacturing has become a well-known topic around the world, with the rise of Big
Recent
Data, years,Intelligence
Artificial Intelligent Manufacturing
and High-end has become a well-known
Manufacturing Techniques. topic
Manyaround the world,
developed with the
countries risealready
have of Big
Data, Artificial Intelligence and High-end Manufacturing Techniques. Many developed countries have
introduced plans and policies in order to develop, expand and strengthen their manufacturing industry especially already
introduced
the plans
Intelligent and policies in
Manufacturing orderThere
sector. to develop, expand
are plenty and strengthen
of plans which havetheir manufacturing
been unveiled, suchindustry especially
as “Industry 4.0”
the Intelligent Manufacturing sector. There are plenty of plans which have been unveiled,
from Germany, “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership” of United States, European Union’s “2020 Growthsuch as “Industry 4.0”
from Germany, “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership” of United States, European Union’s “2020
Strategy” and Japan’s “Revival Strategy”. China also has paid a lot of attention to it and successively launched Growth
Strategy”
two majorand Japan’s “Made
programs, “Revival
in Strategy”.
China 2025” China
andalso has paidManufacturing
“Intelligent a lot of attention to it and successively
Development launched
Plan (2016-2020)”.
two major programs, “Made in China 2025” and “Intelligent Manufacturing Development Plan (2016-2020)”.

1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative
Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska.
10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.272
300 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305
Y. Qu et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

All of these programs show the desires of nations to expand and strengthen their manufacturing sector especially
to obviously promote its productivity. However, years after the implementation of the ambitious programs, has
the productivity of manufacturing really been improved? Is there any obvious difference in productivity between
Intelligent Manufacturing sector and general manufacturing sector? In this paper, we will take China as an
example to explore.

2. Concepts and Literature

A lot of research has been done on the concept of intelligent manufacturing especially its characteristics and
significance. According to Li (2017), Intelligent Manufacturing means that devices or systems should have the
capabilities of flexibility, adaptability and intelligence. Zhou (2018) et al. hold that Intelligent Manufacturing
runs through every link in the full life-cycle of design, production, product and service of manufacturing firms.
They also believe that New-generation Intelligent Manufacturing will be the core driving force of industrial
revolution. Zhong (2017) et al. proposed that Intelligent Manufacturing means increased flexibility in
manufacturing along with more customization, better quality and improved productivity. Dumitrache and
Caramihai (2010), Hu (2015) et al. also made similar points of view. Generally speaking, researchers hold the
view that the application of Intelligent Manufacturing devices and systems will increase the productivity.
Numerous research achievements have been made in the field of productivity evaluation. However, there are
three widely-used methods to evaluate the efficiency of firms, industries and regions. When it comes to
conventional production function, there are mainly two kinds of production function commonly used in empirical
research, Cobb-Douglas production function and Trans-log production function. Stochastic frontier analysis
(SFA) is usually combined with production function to estimate the efficiency. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
is a kind of optimization method which transforms the original problem into its dual problem then solves the
optimal solution. Also, there are scholars who choose index method, mainly the Malmquist-Luenberger (M-L)
index, to measure the productivity performance. Three major methods and some latest representative cases have
been listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Widely-used methods and representative cases in productivity evaluation.

Methods Categories Representative Cases

Ehrl (2013), Şeker and Saliola (2018),
Production Function Econometric estimation
Rada et al. (2018)
Brümmer (2006), Liu and Li (2012),
SFA Econometric estimation
Gong (2018)
Mao and Koo (1997),
DEA Optimization method
Liu et al. (2015)
Autant-Bernard et al. (2011), Liu et al.
Index method Index construction
(2016), Shen et al. (2017), Du et al. (2018)
However, there’s very little research on the relationship between intelligent manufacturing and productivity
change, due to the novelty of “Intelligent Manufacturing”. But similar study paradigm has existed for quite a
long time, such as: research on the relationship between spillover effect of FDI and productivity (Sari et al., 2016),
environmental regulation on TFP (Zhao et al., 2018) and financial crisis impact on productivity dynamics (Rhee
and Pyo, 2010), etc. These research findings have confirmed that it’s feasible and significative to investigate the
productivity difference between Intelligent Manufacturing sector and general manufacturing sector, which is also
the motivation of this paper.
 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305 301
Qu Yi et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

3. Methodology

The purpose of this research is to explore the productivity difference between intelligent manufacturing sector
and general manufacturing sector. For this purpose, we decide to use Cobb-Douglas production function and
establish a Coefficient-varying Model to estimate the productivity by Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR).
The reason we choose Cobb-Douglas production function is that the formula is pure and simple. More
importantly, it allows us to explore the efficiency of factors’ usage. According to the formula of Cobb-Douglas
production function,
Y =A  K   L
Y represents the output of production. There are three essential factors used in production in the equation above,
which are Labor (L), Capital (K) and Total Factor Productivity (A). When it comes to Labor and Capital, there
are two factor elasticity, Capital factor output elasticity (α) and Labor factor output elasticity (β), which are the
efficiency of using Capital and Labor in production. Since the crucial work of Solow (1957), Total Factor
Productivity (TFP) has been regarded as a vital role to represent the productivity of firms, industries or regions.
Based on his remarkable work, TFP has been defined as the portion of output which can’t be explained by the
factor input (including Labor factor and Capital factor) in production. Normally, TFP is regarded as the part of
output brought by technological progress and institutional change, which means TFP represents the advanced
degree of technics and institutions.
In order to investigate the productivity change over time, we establish a Coefficient-varying Model. It is a
technique used for panel data econometric analysis, which was firstly introduced by Hastie and Tibshirani (1993).
It allows the coefficients to vary across sections or time periods, so it is useful to estimate the time-varying trend
of coefficients. According the formula of Cobb-Douglas production function, we have the econometric model:
Yit =A  K it   Lit    it
after the logarithmic transformation and turning it into a Coefficient time-varying Model, we have the following
equation:
ln Yit= ln At +  t  ln Kit + t  ln Lit +  it
while Yit , K it , Lit separately represent the Output of production, Capital factor input, Labor factor input of firm
i at time t; ln At ,  t ,  t are Total Factor Productivity, Capital factor output elasticity and Labor factor output
elasticity at time t;  it is the stochastic disturbance term. Before we do the estimation using Coefficient-varying
Model, we need to test the constancy of parameters. The null hypothesis is:
H 0：1 = 2 = = n =
which means the coefficients are constant over time or across section. The test statistic obeys  distribution. If
2

the result rejects the null hypothesis, then it’s correct and suitable to use Coefficient-varying Model. There’s
another issue to consider, it’s the correlation between the stochastic disturbances. The disturbances in different
time t may be correlated, which will affect the efficiency of OLS estimation. There’s a test for the correlation
between disturbances, which is Breusch-Pagan LM Test (Breusch and Pagan, 1980). The null hypothesis is:
H 0：cov( it   jt )=0, i  j
the test statistic also obeys the  distribution. If the test result rejects the null hypothesis, it’s more efficiently
2

to use GLS to estimate (Zellner, 1962). That is the Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR). It overcomes the
synchronous correlation of disturbance terms.
The whole methodology can be extended and applied to many occasions as long as the data required is
available. Simple to use, concepts are obvious and clear, wide range of applications are its advantages. The next
empirical research will be based on this methodology.
302 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305
Y. Qu et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

4. Empirical Research

After many years of development, China’s manufacturing has made great progress. Especially after years’
implementation of “Made in China 2025” and “Intelligent Manufacturing Development Plan (2016-2020)”,
remarkable achievements have been made in manufacturing sector. In this part, we will take China’s
manufacturing industry as an example to see the productivity difference and its time-varying change.

4.1. Sample, Data and Indicators

There is an important program called “Experiment and Demonstration Pilot Project of Intelligent
Manufacturing (EDPPIM)” issued by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). This
program started in 2015 with the aim to adjust, support and strengthen the advanced domestic intelligent
manufacturing enterprises or projects and it gets updated annually. Up to now, there have been three programs
(2015-2017) with more than 200 important firms and projects of intelligent manufacturing. Due to the
availability of data, we decide to use listed firms as the sample. So, we select listed firms from these programs.
And, in order to avoid the “Sample selection bias” and to make sure the sample we selected will
comprehensively represent the intelligent manufacturing sector, we divide the sample into 2 parts, one is the
listed firms selected from EDPPIM programs, the other one is stocks related to intelligent manufacturing. All
the sample firms are Chinese A-share listed companies. There we have the primary sample pool.
Then, according to the requirements of research, we exclude the “ST” stocks which are financially abnormal,
exclude some firms obviously unrelated to intelligent manufacturing, such as retailing firms, real estate firms,
construction companies. What’s more, companies which went public later than year 2011 are also deleted from
the sample because that the research period is from year 2011 to year 2017. Now we have the final sample
pool. The final sample is classified into several categories based on the firms’ main business and products.
Before the estimation, some data from sample firms are needed. According to the “Accounting Standards for
Chinese Listed Companies” and the formula of Cobb-Douglas production function, we build a set of composite
indicators for estimation. The detailed composite indicators are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Indicators and its Components

Variables Definition Indicators

Compensation of Labor + Depreciation of Fixed Assets + Net
Y Industrial added value
Production Tax + Operating Surplus
Original Value of Fixed Assets + Project under Construction +
K Capital factor input
Engineering Material - Disposal of Fixed Assets
L Labor factor input Number of Employees
These indicators are designed based on the Financial Statement Indicators and they are commonly used in
Chinese academic society. All of the data required for estimation are from Choice, which is a widely-used and
well-known financial data provider in China. The time period is from year 2011 to year 2017 and the data are
annual data. Firstly, we calculate the Y, K, L according to the Indicators instruction in Table 2. Then we
separately use “Producer Price Index for Industrial Goods” and “Fixed Asset Price Index” to deflate the Y and
K, in order to eliminate the effects of product prices change and asset prices change over time. The index data
are from National Bureau of Statistics of China. Finally, we get the data set which is available and can be
directly used in the empirical research.
 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305 303
Qu Yi et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

4.2. Estimation

According to the research purpose “investigate the productivity difference between intelligent and general
manufacturing sector”, we have to find the general manufacturing firms which is the control group. In this
process, the control group is selected on the basis of the corresponding relation between the sample and
ShenWan Industrial Classification Standard, which refers to a famous and widely-accepted Industrial
Classification Standard, developed by Shenyin & Wanguo Securities Co.,Ltd (a giant security company in
China). For avoiding the large quantity gap between the sample and control group, we choose four major
sectors with balanced quantity difference to compare and these four sectors are highly-related with classical
manufacturing. We also did the similar filtering process (illustrated in 4.1 above) on the control group, like
excluding the financially abnormal firms, etc. The four major sectors and its industry distribution is shown in
Figure 1 below.

Information Technology 109 241

High-end Machinery Equipment 44 136
Aerospace & Advanced Transportation Equipment 18 33
Electrical Equipment & Power Grid Automation 46 105
0 50 100 150 200 250

General (Control Group) Intelligent

Fig.1. Quantity and Industrial Distribution of Sample Firms

Based on the instructions of “3 Methodology” above, we build the econometric model and conduct necessary
tests. All tests for the constancy of parameters reject the null hypothesis, which prove that the Coefficient-
varying Model is suitable and necessary. Another test for the correlation between disturbances, Breusch-Pagan
LM Test, also deny all the null hypothesis. So, it’s more efficiently to use Seemingly Unrelated Regression
(SUR) to overcomes the synchronous correlation of disturbance terms. The estimation results are not listed here
and most of the coefficients estimated by SUR are significant under the significance level of 5%.

4.3. Analysis of Comparison

▪ Electrical Equipment & Power Grid Automation

The Labor factor output elasticity of both intelligent manufacturing firms and general manufacturing
enterprises have been declining in the last five years, while the Capital factor output elasticity have been rising
steadily. Intelligent manufacturing firms have higher Labor factor output elasticity and TFP, showing that
technology and Labor are the primary driving factors of its growth and the importance of capital in production
is continuously increasing.
▪ Information Technology
The Labor factor output elasticity of both have little fluctuation while the Capital factor output elasticity of
both have been rising steadily. And TFPs have fallen slightly in the last three years. Intelligent manufacturing
firms have higher Labor factor output elasticity and TFP, which is consistent with the fact that Information
Technology is a talent-intensive industry and it’s mainly dependent on the Labor force with higher education.
▪ Aerospace & Advanced Transportation Equipment
The Capital factor output elasticity of both intelligent manufacturing firms and general manufacturing
enterprises have had a sharp decrease in recent five years. But the Labor factor output elasticity and TFP of
both have made great progress. It implies that Aerospace & Advanced Transportation Equipment
manufacturing industries are increasingly dependent on the input of Labor factor input especially the highly-
304 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305
Y. Qu et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

educated talents and technology. Compared with general manufacturing firms, the rise of the Labor factor
output elasticity is early and fast in intelligent manufacturing firms, meaning that recent years, there has been
significant growth in the efficiency of using Labor factor of intelligent manufacturing firms.
▪ High-end Machinery Equipment
The volatility of TFP is really little and the TFP of general manufacturing enterprises is consistently higher
than the TFP of intelligent manufacturing firms. For intelligent manufacturing firms, there is as sharp fall on
the Labor factor output elasticity and an obvious promotion of Capital factor output elasticity, which reflects
the progress of capital utilization efficiency of intelligent manufacturing firms and that intelligent machinery
equipment manufacturing firms are changing from originally Labor-intensive to capital-intensive (shown in
Figure 2).
Electrical Equipment & Power Grid Information Technology
Automation
1.000
1.000 10.000
8.000 0.800
0.800 8.000
6.000 0.600
0.600 6.000
4.000 0.400 4.000
0.400
0.200 2.000 0.200 2.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

L K L-intel L K L-intel
K-intel lnA lnA-intel K-intel lnA lnA-intel

Aerospace & Advanced Transportation High-end Machinery Equipment

Equipment
1.000 6.000
1.000 9.000
0.800 5.000
0.800 7.000 4.000
0.600
0.600 5.000 3.000
0.400
0.400 3.000 2.000
0.200 1.000 0.200 1.000
0.000 -1.000 0.000 0.000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

L K L-intel L K L-intel
K-intel lnA lnA-intel K-intel lnA lnA-intel

Fig.2. Productivity Comparison

5. Conclusions

Based on the empirical research and comparison above, we explored the productivity differences. Among
different industries, compared with the general manufacturing sector, the productivity of using Labor factor is
much better in intelligent manufacturing sector, suggesting that it is going to be transformed into a talent-
intensive industry and will be mainly dependent on the Labor with higher education. Intelligent manufacturing
 Yi Qu et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 299–305 305
Qu Yi et al./ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

firms has much higher TFP in two industries, they are Information Technology and Electrical Equipment &
Power Grid Automation. “Intelligent manufacturing” has obviously enhancing effect on the promotion of TFP
in two industries while it has no significant effect on the other two industries. So, the enhancing effect of
intelligent manufacturing does exist and it mainly improved the productivity of using Labor factor and the TFP,
but it doesn’t have universally effect around all the industries. The effect still remains to be observed over time.

References

[1] Arnold Zellner. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Publications
of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348-368.
[2] Autant-Bernard, C., Guironnet, J. P., & Massard, N. (2011). Agglomeration and social return to R&D: Evidence from French plant
productivity changes. International Journal of Production Economics, 132(1), 34–42.
[3] Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The LM test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic
Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
[4] Brümmer, B., Glauben, T., & Lu, W. (2006). Policy reform and productivity change in Chinese agriculture: A distance function
approach. Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), 61–79.
[5] Du, J., Chen, Y., & Huang, Y. (2016). A Modified Malmquist-Luenberger Productivity Index: Assessing Environmental Productivity
Performance in China. European Journal of Operational Research, 269(1), 171–187.
[6] Dumitrache, I., & Caramihai, S. (2010). Intelligent Manufacturing: a New Paradigm. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43(22), 1–7.
[7] Ehrl, P. (2013). Agglomeration economies with consistent productivity estimates. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(5), 751–
763.
[8] Gong, B. (2018). Agricultural reforms and production in China: Changes in provincial production function and productivity in 1978–
2015. Journal of Development Economics, 132(October 2017), 18–31.
[9] Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). Varying-coefficient models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, 757–796.
[10] Hu, H., Wang, L., & Luh, P. (2015). Intelligent manufacturing: New advances and challenges. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
26(5), 841–843.
[11] Ji, Z., Peigen, L., Yanhong, Z., Baicun, W., Jiyuan, Z., & Liu, M. (2018). Toward New-Generation Intelligent Manufacturing.
Engineering, 4(1), 11–20.
[12] Li, P. (2017). Special Issue: Intelligent Manufacturing. Engineering, 3(5), 575.
[13] Liu, G., Wang, B., & Zhang, N. (2016). A coin has two sides: Which one is driving China’s green TFP growth? Economic Systems,
40(3), 481–498.
[14] Liu, S.W., Zhang, P.Y., He, X.L., Jing, L. (2015). Efficiency change in North-East China agricultural sector: a DEA approach. Agric.
Econ. 61, 522–532.
[15] Liu, T., & Li, K. W. (2012). Analyzing China’s productivity growth: Evidence from manufacturing industries. Economic Systems,
36(4), 531–551.
[16] Mao, W., & Koo, W. W. (1997). Productivity growth, technological progress, and efficiency change in Chinese agriculture after rural
economic reforms: A DEA approach. China Economic Review, 8(2), 157–174.
[17] Rada, N., Food Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.014.
[18] Rhee, K. H., & Pyo, H. K. (2010). Financial crisis and relative productivity dynamics in Korea: Evidence from firm-level data (1992-
2003). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34(2), 111–131.
[19] Sari, D. W., Khalifah, N. A., & Suyanto, S. (2016). The spillover effects of foreign direct investment on the firms’ productivity
performances. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 46(2–3), 199–233.
[20] Şeker, M., & Saliola, F. (2018). A cross-country analysis of total factor productivity using micro-level data. Central Bank Review, 18,
13-27.
[21] Shen, Z., Boussemart, J. P., & Leleu, H. (2017). Aggregate green productivity growth in OECD’s countries. International Journal of
Production Economics, 189(April), 30–39.
[22] Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-
320.
[23] Zhao, X., Liu, C., & Yang, M. (2018). The effects of environmental regulation on China’s total factor productivity: An empirical study
of carbon-intensive industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 325–334.
[24] Zhong, R. Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E., & Newman, S. T. (2017). Intelligent Manufacturing in the Context of Industry 4.0: A Review.
Engineering, 3(5), 616–630.