本文關(guān)鍵詞： 區(qū)域一體化 競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力水平 產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易 貿(mào)易限制性指數(shù) 貿(mào)易成本　出處：《對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)》2015年博士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著服務(wù)貿(mào)易成為新的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)點(diǎn),無(wú)論是發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家還是發(fā)展中國(guó)家,無(wú)不把促進(jìn)服務(wù)貿(mào)易發(fā)展作為重中之重。二十世紀(jì)九十年代后因?yàn)槭澜缃?jīng)濟(jì)一體化推進(jìn)受阻,區(qū)域一體化浪潮后來(lái)居上,在服務(wù)貿(mào)易領(lǐng)域這一趨勢(shì)也是亦然。因此諸多國(guó)家服務(wù)貿(mào)易發(fā)展也越來(lái)越在一體化背景下展開(kāi)。本文選取在亞太合作中具有舉足輕重地位的中日韓三國(guó)作為切入點(diǎn),重點(diǎn)探討各方在參與服務(wù)貿(mào)易區(qū)域一體化時(shí)的自由化水平,即如何對(duì)服務(wù)貿(mào)易壁壘進(jìn)行正確測(cè)度?一方面有助于厘清中國(guó)在WTO框架下的服務(wù)貿(mào)易各部門(mén)的自由化水平,這將是中國(guó)參與區(qū)域一體化談判的基礎(chǔ);另一方面有助于從宏觀上比較中國(guó)與主要貿(mào)易伙伴包括日韓的貿(mào)易成本。摸清中國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化的“家底”,并采取有針對(duì)性的措施降低服務(wù)貿(mào)易的成本,助力中國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化是本文研究的出發(fā)點(diǎn)和目的。本文在簡(jiǎn)要回顧了中日韓區(qū)域一體化發(fā)展進(jìn)程后,分別從中日韓服務(wù)貿(mào)易競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力水平、貿(mào)易相關(guān)性及貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)演變?nèi)齻�(gè)角度對(duì)區(qū)域一體化的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)做出分析;接著構(gòu)建了一個(gè)綜合性的分析框架,即將貿(mào)易限制性指數(shù)法(微觀角度)和貿(mào)易成本測(cè)度(宏觀角度)加以結(jié)合,用于分析區(qū)域服務(wù)貿(mào)易合作自由化水平;具體分為兩個(gè)步驟:微觀上運(yùn)用改進(jìn)的Hoekman貿(mào)易限制性指數(shù)對(duì)服務(wù)貿(mào)易的四種形式(主要是商業(yè)存在)及十一個(gè)部門(mén)及子部門(mén)的自由化水平進(jìn)行測(cè)度,即依據(jù)中日韓三方在《服務(wù)貿(mào)易總協(xié)定》中的市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入承諾對(duì)各方的服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化水平做基礎(chǔ)的評(píng)估。宏觀上應(yīng)用具有微觀理論基礎(chǔ)的改進(jìn)后的引力模型對(duì)包括日韓在內(nèi)的中國(guó)的主要貿(mào)易伙伴進(jìn)行貿(mào)易成本的測(cè)度,并將貿(mào)易成本分解成固定成本與可變成本,在此基礎(chǔ)上運(yùn)用面板模型分別對(duì)貿(mào)易成本、固定成本及可變成本的影響因素進(jìn)行實(shí)證分析,并進(jìn)行貿(mào)易潛力的預(yù)測(cè)。最后依據(jù)改進(jìn)的測(cè)度方法得出結(jié)論,在區(qū)域一體化背景下中國(guó)發(fā)展服務(wù)貿(mào)易應(yīng)從以下幾方面入手:加快現(xiàn)代服務(wù)貿(mào)易部門(mén)的發(fā)展;以開(kāi)放推動(dòng)落后服務(wù)貿(mào)易部門(mén)的改革;推動(dòng)同貿(mào)易伙伴間自貿(mào)協(xié)議的談判與簽訂,尤其積極推進(jìn)中日韓自貿(mào)區(qū)的建立;加強(qiáng)文化的交流與溝通;增強(qiáng)政治互信,推進(jìn)爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的建立。在開(kāi)展本項(xiàng)研究過(guò)程中,本文在原有的服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化研究方法的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了改進(jìn),改進(jìn)主要體現(xiàn)在:一是對(duì)服務(wù)貿(mào)易限制性指數(shù)測(cè)度方法的改進(jìn)。本文直接采用了世界銀行(2012)公布的主要限制性條款賦值規(guī)則、模式3(商業(yè)存在)下所有部門(mén)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)賦值及特定部門(mén)的特定措施的賦值標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并借鑒了劉慶林、白潔(2014)對(duì)Hoekman方法中二級(jí)行業(yè)傳統(tǒng)賦權(quán)方法的改進(jìn)。二是在貿(mào)易成本的測(cè)度上采用Novy(2011)中貿(mào)易成本的測(cè)度方法。目前國(guó)內(nèi)關(guān)于服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本測(cè)算大多是采用Novy(2006)或Novy(2008)中的引力模型,該模型雖然能夠解決Anderson and van Wincoop(2003)模型中用不可直接觀測(cè)的價(jià)格指數(shù)作為多邊阻力項(xiàng)所產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題,但其假設(shè)仍然是基于雙邊貿(mào)易成本具有“對(duì)稱(chēng)”性。Novy(2011)不僅克服了雙邊貿(mào)易成本的對(duì)稱(chēng)性,而且具備微觀理論基礎(chǔ),其測(cè)算結(jié)果取決于恒等關(guān)系而不是計(jì)量估計(jì),能夠應(yīng)用于各種貿(mào)易理論模型,且對(duì)測(cè)量誤差也高度穩(wěn)健。三是本文所建立的分析框架完善了現(xiàn)有的服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化水平的測(cè)度體系。對(duì)服務(wù)貿(mào)易壁壘的測(cè)度方法,盡管分類(lèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同,但學(xué)者們一般均采用直接法或間接法,鮮有研究考慮到將其結(jié)合起來(lái),分別從微觀上測(cè)度服務(wù)貿(mào)易具體部門(mén)的自由化水平,再?gòu)暮暧^上測(cè)度國(guó)家整體的自由化水平。盡管從世界范圍來(lái)看,中日韓三國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易均不具備明顯的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),但日本與韓國(guó)的服務(wù)貿(mào)易競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力水平呈現(xiàn)出逐年增強(qiáng)的趨勢(shì)而中國(guó)卻呈現(xiàn)出逐年下降的趨勢(shì),中日韓三國(guó)的優(yōu)勢(shì)部門(mén)均為服務(wù)貿(mào)易的傳統(tǒng)部門(mén):運(yùn)輸、旅游及商業(yè)服務(wù),其中日本在現(xiàn)代服務(wù)貿(mào)易部門(mén)如專(zhuān)利信息服務(wù)、金融服務(wù)部門(mén)具有明顯優(yōu)勢(shì);從雙邊貿(mào)易的相關(guān)度來(lái)看,中韓、韓日兩國(guó)不論從出口還是進(jìn)口角度,均存在較高的結(jié)合度,但中日之間則相關(guān)度較低。而從貿(mào)易互補(bǔ)性來(lái)看,則日韓大于中韓,中韓大于中日;從貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)上看,中韓兩國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易水平相對(duì)較高并且呈現(xiàn)出逐年上升的趨勢(shì)。日本與中國(guó)、韓國(guó)間的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易水平均相對(duì)較低,且中日之間的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易以垂直型為主。通過(guò)改進(jìn)的Hoekman指數(shù)法測(cè)算的中日韓三國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化水平由高到低依次為日本、韓國(guó)、中國(guó)。從具體的服務(wù)部門(mén)來(lái)看,傳統(tǒng)的服務(wù)貿(mào)易部門(mén):運(yùn)輸、旅游及商業(yè)服務(wù)均是中日韓三國(guó)自由化水平最高的部門(mén);而對(duì)現(xiàn)代的服務(wù)貿(mào)易部門(mén)來(lái)說(shuō)則只有日本一枝獨(dú)秀,其中,日本在金融、教育、健康及分銷(xiāo)服務(wù)部門(mén)的自由化水平遠(yuǎn)高于中韓兩國(guó)。另外通訊服務(wù)也是三國(guó)除傳統(tǒng)部門(mén)外均為自由化水平最高的部門(mén),這一結(jié)論與世界銀行(2012)及OECD(2014)發(fā)布的結(jié)果吻合。采用Novy(2011)引力模型測(cè)算的中國(guó)與包括日韓在內(nèi)的八個(gè)主要貿(mào)易伙伴的貿(mào)易成本表明,中韓之間貿(mào)易成本的下降幅度大于中日之間;對(duì)貿(mào)易增長(zhǎng)的分解表明,中日韓三方的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)均是雙邊貿(mào)易增長(zhǎng)的最主要原因,但綜合考慮貿(mào)易成本與多邊阻力的影響表明,中韓之間服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本的下降對(duì)雙邊貿(mào)易增長(zhǎng)具有顯著的作用;對(duì)貿(mào)易成本影響因素進(jìn)行的實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)表明,雙邊物理距離對(duì)服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本具有較大的正相關(guān)影響,服務(wù)貿(mào)易伙伴的市場(chǎng)潛力、雙邊的文化習(xí)俗距離和是否簽訂自貿(mào)協(xié)議則對(duì)雙邊服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本具有較大的負(fù)相關(guān)影響。而在對(duì)分解后的固定成本和可變成本的影響因素進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)后發(fā)現(xiàn),相同的解釋變量對(duì)雙邊可變服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本的影響要強(qiáng)于雙邊服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本;對(duì)雙邊服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本具有顯著影響的部分解釋變量對(duì)雙邊固定服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本卻不存在類(lèi)似的影響。最后在對(duì)中國(guó)與其他貿(mào)易伙伴國(guó)(地區(qū))的出口潛力進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)后發(fā)現(xiàn),雙邊服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本對(duì)中國(guó)的服務(wù)貿(mào)易出口量有著十分顯著且深刻的影響。并且,中國(guó)與韓國(guó)、日本間的服務(wù)貿(mào)易出口均屬于潛力開(kāi)拓型即貿(mào)易不足型。當(dāng)然,在整個(gè)論文的寫(xiě)作過(guò)程中,也存在一些不足,這些不足也是作者今后要繼續(xù)努力的方向。一是應(yīng)擴(kuò)大樣本數(shù)據(jù)以增強(qiáng)服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本測(cè)度模型的說(shuō)服力。服務(wù)貿(mào)易數(shù)據(jù)缺乏是學(xué)術(shù)界公認(rèn)的難題,本文只測(cè)算了中國(guó)與包括日韓在內(nèi)的八個(gè)貿(mào)易伙伴的服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本,未能將亞太地區(qū)更多國(guó)家包括進(jìn)來(lái),尤其是與中國(guó)已經(jīng)簽訂或擬簽訂自貿(mào)協(xié)定的國(guó)家和地區(qū),這對(duì)本文研究區(qū)域一體化背景下的服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化是一個(gè)遺憾,也是未來(lái)努力的方向。二是本文未能對(duì)中國(guó)內(nèi)部服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本進(jìn)行測(cè)算。有學(xué)者曾利用中國(guó)2002年的投入產(chǎn)出表測(cè)算了中國(guó)內(nèi)部服務(wù)貿(mào)易成本,但利用中國(guó)2007年及2010年的投入產(chǎn)出表卻未能實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)。對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)貿(mào)易成本的研究還需進(jìn)一步深化,這也是作者未來(lái)努力的方向。
[Abstract]:Along with the development of service trade has become a new economic growth point, whether developed or developing countries, all to promote the development of trade in services as a priority among priorities. After 1990s because of the world economic integration is blocked, the tide of regional integration in the field of service trade catch up from behind, this trend is vice versa. So many countries in the development of service trade is more and more in under the background of integration. This paper selected in the Asia Pacific cooperation plays an important role in Japan and South Korea as a starting point, focusing on the liberalization of trade in services in all levels of regional integration, namely how to correctly measure the barriers to trade in services? Will help to clarify the level of liberalization China under the framework of WTO service trade departments of a and this will be the basis for China participation in regional integration negotiations; the help from the macro on the other hand Comparison of Chinese with major trading partners, including Japan and South Korea trade. To find out the cost of free trade in services Chinese of "resources", and to take targeted measures to reduce the cost of service trade, help China service trade liberalization is the starting point and purpose of this study. This paper briefly reviews the development process of regional integration in Japan and South Korea. From Korea in the service trade competitiveness, make analysis of the evolution of three aspects of trade relationship and trade structure based on the reality of regional integration; then constructs the analysis framework of a comprehensive, upcoming trade restrictive index method (microcosmic) and measurement of trade costs (macro) to be combined, for the analysis of regional cooperation in trade in services the level of liberalization; the concrete is divided into two steps: micro with improved Hoekman index of the four forms of trade restrictions on trade in services (mainly Is there commercial) measure the level of liberalization and eleven departments and sub departments, which is based on the evaluation of market access in the general agreement on trade in services and the three party < > in the commitment to service trade liberalization level to the parties based on macroscopic. Application of gravity model has improved micro theoretical basis after the main trade partner including South Korea, Chinese to measure the cost of trade, and the trade cost is divided into fixed cost and variable cost, based on the panel data model of factors affecting the trade cost, fixed cost and variable cost of empirical analysis, forecast and trade potential. Based on the improved method to measure the final conclusion, under the background of regional integration of China service trade development from the following aspects: to accelerate the development of modern service trade sector; to promote backward open service The reform of trade sector; promote trade partners with the free trade agreement negotiations and signing, especially to actively promote the establishment of a free trade area; to strengthen cultural exchange and communication; enhance political trust, promote the establishment of dispute settlement mechanism. In this research process, this paper based on the liberalization of trade in services of existing research methods on improving, improvement is mainly reflected in: the improvement of the service trade restriction method index. This paper directly uses the World Bank (2012) announced the main restriction clause assignment rules, model 3 (commercial presence) specific measures of standard assignment all departments and sector specific assignment criteria. And from the Liu Qinglin, white (2014) improvement of the two industries in the traditional Hoekman method. Two weighting method is the use of Novy in the measure of trade costs (2011) on the trade cost measure method. Currently on the service trade cost is mostly by Novy (2006) or Novy (2008) in the gravity model, although the model can solve the Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) model with price index can not be directly observed as multilateral resistance problems, but it is still based on the assumption of bilateral trade cost with the "symmetry" of.Novy (2011) not only overcomes the symmetry of bilateral trade cost, but also have a micro theoretical basis, its calculation results depends on the identity relation instead of measurement estimation, which can be used in various trade theory model, and the measurement error is also highly robust. Three analytical framework is established in this paper to improve the measure system of service trade liberalization. The level of the existing measurement methods of service trade barriers, despite the different classification criteria, but the scholars generally adopt direct method or indirect method, little research Consider to be combined, respectively from the micro sector specific measure of service trade liberalization from the macro level to measure the country's overall level of liberalization. Although from the view of the world, Japan and South Korea trade in services do not have a clear competitive advantage, but the level of service trade competitiveness in Japan and South Korea showed increased year by year the trend of Chinese has shown a declining trend, Japan and South Korea are the advantages of Department of trade in services of traditional sectors: transport, tourism and commercial services, including Japan in modern service sectors such as patent information services, financial services sector has obvious advantages; and from the correlation of bilateral trade between Korea and Japan,. No matter from the angle of import or export, are combined with a high degree of correlation between China and Japan, but is in a low degree. From the view of trade complementarity, while Japan and South Korea than China and South korea, China and South Korea than in Japan; from the trade structure, trade in services between China and South Korea intra industry trade level is relatively high and showing a rising trend year by year. Japan and South Korea China, intra industry trade level is relatively low, and between China and Japan on a vertical intra industry trade. Through the trilateral trade in services the level of liberalization measure Hoekman index improved from high to low in Japan, South Korea, China. From the service sector, the traditional service trade sector: transportation, tourism and business services are from Japan and South Korea by the highest level of the modern service sector; the trade sector is only in Japan a thriving, among them, Japan in the financial liberalization, education, health and the level distribution service sector is much higher than that of China and South Korea. In addition to the traditional communication service is also three departments are free of water The highest level departments, this conclusion with the World Bank (2012) and OECD (2014) released results. Using Novy (2011) and the gravity model to estimate Chinese including South Korea, eight major trading partners of trade cost between China and South Korea showed that between trade costs declined more than in Japan; decomposition of trade the growth of the three party and show that economic growth is the main reason for the growth of bilateral trade, but considering the impact of trade costs and multilateral resistance indicated that the decline in the cost of service trade between China and South Korea on the growth of bilateral trade has a significant effect; empirical test on the influence factors of trade costs show that bilateral physical distance is positive the related impact on the cost of service trade, service trade partners market potential, bilateral culture distance and whether signed a free trade agreement on bilateral trade in services cost A negative impact is greater. While testing influence factors on the decomposition of the fixed cost and variable cost and found that the same variables impact on bilateral trade costs than the variable cost of bilateral trade in services; has a significant impact on bilateral trade in services cost of some of the explanatory variables on the bilateral trade cost is the fixed service there is no similar effect. Finally on Chinese and other trading partners (regions) of export potential after inspection found that the service trade exports to China bilateral service trade costs has a very significant impact and profound. And Chinese between Japan and South Korea, trade in services exports are exploiting potential the lack of trade. Of course, in the writing process, there are also some shortcomings, these deficiencies is the author in the future to continue efforts direction. One should expand The sample data in order to enhance the service trade cost measure model of persuasion. Service trade is the lack of data problem recognized by the academic community, this article only calculates the China and including South Korea, the eight trading partners of the service trade cost, failed to more countries in the Asia Pacific region included, especially signed or intends to sign a free trade agreement and countries this area has been China, on the background of this research on regional integration under the liberalization of trade in services is a pity, but also the direction of future efforts. This is the two not to calculate the cost of service trade. Chinese internal scholars have used China 2002 input-output table calculates the Chinese internal cost of service trade, but by 2007 China and the input-output table of 2010 failed to achieve the goal of the research. The domestic trade costs need to be further deepened, the future direction of this is also the author.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：F746
，

本文編號(hào)：1494285