AI 中文总结
本研究将中等收入陷阱视为构型问题，基于三维指数分析34个OECD成员国，识别出两种陷阱与两种转型策略，并指出中东欧国家多采用外资策略，仅爱沙尼亚完成教育导向转型。
AI 中文摘要
中等收入陷阱通常通过将一国收入与某一阈值进行比较来识别。这揭示了趋同已经停滞，但未指明阻塞点所在，也无法解释为何在已超过阈值的国家中，该陷阱仍存有争议。本研究将陷阱视为一个构型问题，沿三个维度——未来潜力、外部潜力和内部潜力——衡量发展，并使用基于标准化指标构建的指数。这些指数针对2000年、2010年和2020年的34个OECD成员国计算，从而使构型变化变得可见，并通过因子分析对所得国家聚类进行解读。研究揭示了两种陷阱和两种转型策略。第一种策略吸引外国投资和技术，但其本身可能成为陷阱：国内附加值仍然有限，且工资上涨侵蚀出口竞争力。第二种策略增加了注重教育质量的发展型国家，构建提高生产率和创新的人力资本。截至2010年，OECD的所有六个中东欧成员国均已采用第一种策略；到2020年，仅爱沙尼亚完成了第二种策略。构型水平及其变化与相对收入趋同相对应。
英文摘要
The middle-income trap is usually identified by comparing a country's income to a threshold. This reveals that convergence has stalled but not where the blockage lies, and it leaves unexplained why the trap is still debated in countries that have already passed the threshold. This study treats the trap as a configuration problem, measuring development along three dimensions - future, outside, and inside potential - with indices built from standardised indicators. The indices are calculated for 34 OECD members in 2000, 2010, and 2020, so that changes in configuration become visible, and the resulting country clusters are interpreted through factor analysis. Two traps and two transition strategies emerge. The first strategy attracts foreign investment and technology, but can itself become a trap: domestic value added stays limited and rising wages erode export competitiveness. The second adds a developmental state focused on the quality of education, building the human capital that raises productivity and innovation. All six CEE members of the OECD had adopted the first strategy by 2010; by 2020 only Estonia had completed the second. Configuration levels and changes track relative income convergence.
Journal refEuropean Journal of Development Research 2026
DOI：10.1057/s41287-026-00769-1
