欧盟商品市场一体化的实证研究
|
摘要
区域一体化是二战以后伴随经济全球化出现的,它体现了区域经济发展和区域空间结构演变的发展趋势。在各种区域一体化组织中,欧盟无疑是全球最为成熟、发展水平最高的区域一体化组织,成为推动区域经济协调发展和区域空间整合的范例。经过几十年的发展,欧洲共同市场从最初的六国集团演变成了一个拥有27个成员国的欧洲联盟。现在,欧盟的疆域已从欧洲西部的西班牙一直延伸到东部的波罗的海国家和保加利亚,人口多达4亿9千万,是全球第二大超级经济体和全球最大的统一市场。
欧盟一直致力于实现内部商品、资本、服务和人员的自由流动,并且在一体化建设方面取得了区大成功,但是欧盟离一个真正意义上的单一市场还相距甚远。作为世界上最成功的区域一体化组织,欧盟内部仍然存在诸多的发展障碍,这阻碍了商品、资本、服务和人员的自由流动。边界效应是指边界对跨边界经济行为的影响,对于区域一体化组织来说,可以分为外部边界效应和内部边界效应。在深入借鉴前人研究成果的基础上,本文基于边界效应的视角,在引力模型的框架下测度了欧盟商品市场一体化的发展水平,定量考察了影响欧盟商品市场一体化的相关因素,探讨了欧盟为推进一体化所采取的各项政策措施,并总结了这些政策措施对我国发展的相关启示。
全文包括七个部分:
第一部分是导论。主要阐述了本文的选题意义、研究内容和研究方法,同时也指出了本文的创新点和不足之处。
第二部分是评述相关文献,指出本文的研究切入点。一体化理论着重分析了一体化给成员国带来的资源配置效应,但理论色彩过重,实证研究略显不足。与之相比,引力模型的实证优势十分明显,是定量分析贸易流量,乃至区域经济一体化发展的坚实基础。边界效应则是通过对引力模型的引申和拓展发展而来的,成为定量研究区域一体化影响因素的比较好的方法。因此,本文确定以边界效应为视角,以引力模型为框架,构建计量分析的基础,测度欧盟商品市场一体化的发展水平和影响欧盟商品市场一体化水平的相关因素。
第三部分是主要从统计学角度分析欧盟一体化的发展历程和发展障碍。首先,回顾和分析了欧盟一体化的建立和发展历程,重点针对商品市场一体化进程展开论述。其次,以统计数据定量分析了欧盟经济一体化的发展现状,特别是商品市场一体化的发展水平。最后,探讨了欧盟一体化发展的障碍。
第四部分基于边界效应的基本视角,对欧盟一体化影响因素进行了实证分析。通过分析,我们得出以下几点结论:第一,欧盟25国的内部边界效应数值很大,反映了欧盟25国内部仍然存在诸多的发展障碍;第二,欧盟25国的内部边界效应小于国际边界效应,表明欧盟25个成员国之间的一体化水平高于其与外部国家的一体化水平;第三,欧盟15国的边界效应值远小于欧盟25国的边界效应值,特别是欧盟15国的国际边界效应值也远远小于欧盟25国的内部边界效应值,折射出东扩后的欧盟在融合和协调中所遇到的尴尬和困窘。
第五部分基于边界效应的拓展视角,对欧盟一体化影响因素进行了实证分析。本章通过定量分析影响欧盟商品市场一体化水平的其他影响因素,得出结论如下:第一,国家间距离的扩大,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国的一体化水平有着显著的负面影响;第二,税收的引入,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度略微增大;第三,相同的语言文化环境,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度进一步提高;第四,人口变量的引入,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度显著提高;第五,语言文化对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的影响程度不同。
第六部分回顾和梳理了欧盟为推动一体化所采取的流通障碍的消除策略、区域融合政策的实施和欧盟东扩负面效应的治理等各项政策措施。特别针对边界效应的分析结果分析了欧盟东扩之后欧盟在税收制度、福利制度以及科技研发等方面进行的协调整合政策。
第七部分是结论和启示。首先,归纳和总结了全文实证研究的相关结论;其次,梳理了欧盟为推动区域一体化发展所采取的相关措施,在此基础上探讨这些政策措施对我国经济发展和区域融合的借鉴意义。
Regional integration has been going hand in hand with globalization since World War II. It acts as a mirror to the trend in regional economic development and regional spatial structure evolution. The European Union(EU) is no doubt the best example of a well-developed regional integration organizations. After decades of development, the European common market evolved from the initial six-country group to a Union with 27 member states. It is the second biggest global economic super power and the biggest unified market. The EU commits itself to the free flow of goods, capital, service and personnel, and has achieved great success in integration. Nonetheless, the EU is far from a unified market in a real sense. As the most successful regional integration organization, EU still has many barriers hindering the free movements of goods, capital, service and personnel from within. Based on a review of previous research, this paper estimates EU's level of integration in the commodity market from the border effect perspective, which refers to the effects on the cross-border economic activities and can be divided into external and internal border effects. It also quantitatively investigates the relevant factors affecting EU's commodity market integration within the frame of gravitation model, discusses the various policies and measures adopted for European integration, and summarizes the implications of these policies and measures for China's development.
The paper consists of seven parts.The first part is the introduction part, mainly introducing the significance of the study, the research questions and methods, and points out the innovations and the limitations.
The second part narrates and comments the connected references, and indicates the research perpective. The integration theory emphatically analyzes the resources relocation effect brought to the member states, but too much on the theory part and wanting empirical study. In contrast, gravitation model is a superior and solid foundation of quantitative analysis of trade and regional economic integration. The border effect is developed from gravitation model, and has turned out to be a better way to quantitatively investigate the influencing factors of regional integration. Therefore, this paper chooses to study the integration of goods market from the perspective of border effect.
The third part statistically analyzes the development and the obstacles of European integration. It first reviews the establishment of the community and the development of the European integration, with its emphases on the analysis of goods market integration. Then, it analyzes the current economic situation of European integration, especially its level of integration by means of statistical study. Finally, the author discusses the obstacles hindering European integration.
The fourth part carries on the empirical study of the factors influencing the European integration based on the theory of border effects. We find out that: 1) the values of internal border effects between EU's 25 member states are quite big, indicating that obstacles exist among the Union preventing its further integration; 2) the values of the EU's 25 internal border effects are smaller than that of international border effects between EU and other countries, indicating that the integration level among the Union's 25 member states is higher than that with countries outside of the Union; 3) the values of EU 15 are far smaller than those of EU 25, the values of international border effects between the EU and other countries are also far smaller than those between EU 25's internal border effects, reflecting the difficulty of further integration and coordination after EU's eastward expansion.
The fifth part is the empirical study of the factors influencing European integration. This chapter quantitatively analyzes other factors affecting EU's level of integration in commodity market, and concludes: 1), the increase of distance between two member states has significantly negative influence on the integration levels of EU 25 and EU 15; 2), the introduction of tax can better explain the integration levels of EU 25 and EU 15; 3), the same language and culture environment further improves the explanation; 4), the introduction of the variable of population remarkably increases the power of explanation; 5), the degree of influence of linguistic culture has different influence on the integration level of EU 25 and EU 15.
The sixth part reviews various strategies taken to get rid of the obstacles preventing free movements to promote integration, the implementation of regional cohesion policy and of policies to handle the negative effect of eastward expansion. With the research result of border effects in mind, the author pays special attention to the analysis of the coordination policies in the field of revenue system, welfare system and research and development.
The last part is the conclusion and implications of the research. It summarizes the results of the study and the policies taken by the EU in promoting its regional integration, and discusses the implications of the EU's policies to the China's domestic regional integration and cohesion.
欧盟一直致力于实现内部商品、资本、服务和人员的自由流动,并且在一体化建设方面取得了区大成功,但是欧盟离一个真正意义上的单一市场还相距甚远。作为世界上最成功的区域一体化组织,欧盟内部仍然存在诸多的发展障碍,这阻碍了商品、资本、服务和人员的自由流动。边界效应是指边界对跨边界经济行为的影响,对于区域一体化组织来说,可以分为外部边界效应和内部边界效应。在深入借鉴前人研究成果的基础上,本文基于边界效应的视角,在引力模型的框架下测度了欧盟商品市场一体化的发展水平,定量考察了影响欧盟商品市场一体化的相关因素,探讨了欧盟为推进一体化所采取的各项政策措施,并总结了这些政策措施对我国发展的相关启示。
全文包括七个部分:
第一部分是导论。主要阐述了本文的选题意义、研究内容和研究方法,同时也指出了本文的创新点和不足之处。
第二部分是评述相关文献,指出本文的研究切入点。一体化理论着重分析了一体化给成员国带来的资源配置效应,但理论色彩过重,实证研究略显不足。与之相比,引力模型的实证优势十分明显,是定量分析贸易流量,乃至区域经济一体化发展的坚实基础。边界效应则是通过对引力模型的引申和拓展发展而来的,成为定量研究区域一体化影响因素的比较好的方法。因此,本文确定以边界效应为视角,以引力模型为框架,构建计量分析的基础,测度欧盟商品市场一体化的发展水平和影响欧盟商品市场一体化水平的相关因素。
第三部分是主要从统计学角度分析欧盟一体化的发展历程和发展障碍。首先,回顾和分析了欧盟一体化的建立和发展历程,重点针对商品市场一体化进程展开论述。其次,以统计数据定量分析了欧盟经济一体化的发展现状,特别是商品市场一体化的发展水平。最后,探讨了欧盟一体化发展的障碍。
第四部分基于边界效应的基本视角,对欧盟一体化影响因素进行了实证分析。通过分析,我们得出以下几点结论:第一,欧盟25国的内部边界效应数值很大,反映了欧盟25国内部仍然存在诸多的发展障碍;第二,欧盟25国的内部边界效应小于国际边界效应,表明欧盟25个成员国之间的一体化水平高于其与外部国家的一体化水平;第三,欧盟15国的边界效应值远小于欧盟25国的边界效应值,特别是欧盟15国的国际边界效应值也远远小于欧盟25国的内部边界效应值,折射出东扩后的欧盟在融合和协调中所遇到的尴尬和困窘。
第五部分基于边界效应的拓展视角,对欧盟一体化影响因素进行了实证分析。本章通过定量分析影响欧盟商品市场一体化水平的其他影响因素,得出结论如下:第一,国家间距离的扩大,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国的一体化水平有着显著的负面影响;第二,税收的引入,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度略微增大;第三,相同的语言文化环境,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度进一步提高;第四,人口变量的引入,对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的解释力度显著提高;第五,语言文化对欧盟25国和欧盟15国一体化水平的影响程度不同。
第六部分回顾和梳理了欧盟为推动一体化所采取的流通障碍的消除策略、区域融合政策的实施和欧盟东扩负面效应的治理等各项政策措施。特别针对边界效应的分析结果分析了欧盟东扩之后欧盟在税收制度、福利制度以及科技研发等方面进行的协调整合政策。
第七部分是结论和启示。首先,归纳和总结了全文实证研究的相关结论;其次,梳理了欧盟为推动区域一体化发展所采取的相关措施,在此基础上探讨这些政策措施对我国经济发展和区域融合的借鉴意义。
Regional integration has been going hand in hand with globalization since World War II. It acts as a mirror to the trend in regional economic development and regional spatial structure evolution. The European Union(EU) is no doubt the best example of a well-developed regional integration organizations. After decades of development, the European common market evolved from the initial six-country group to a Union with 27 member states. It is the second biggest global economic super power and the biggest unified market. The EU commits itself to the free flow of goods, capital, service and personnel, and has achieved great success in integration. Nonetheless, the EU is far from a unified market in a real sense. As the most successful regional integration organization, EU still has many barriers hindering the free movements of goods, capital, service and personnel from within. Based on a review of previous research, this paper estimates EU's level of integration in the commodity market from the border effect perspective, which refers to the effects on the cross-border economic activities and can be divided into external and internal border effects. It also quantitatively investigates the relevant factors affecting EU's commodity market integration within the frame of gravitation model, discusses the various policies and measures adopted for European integration, and summarizes the implications of these policies and measures for China's development.
The paper consists of seven parts.The first part is the introduction part, mainly introducing the significance of the study, the research questions and methods, and points out the innovations and the limitations.
The second part narrates and comments the connected references, and indicates the research perpective. The integration theory emphatically analyzes the resources relocation effect brought to the member states, but too much on the theory part and wanting empirical study. In contrast, gravitation model is a superior and solid foundation of quantitative analysis of trade and regional economic integration. The border effect is developed from gravitation model, and has turned out to be a better way to quantitatively investigate the influencing factors of regional integration. Therefore, this paper chooses to study the integration of goods market from the perspective of border effect.
The third part statistically analyzes the development and the obstacles of European integration. It first reviews the establishment of the community and the development of the European integration, with its emphases on the analysis of goods market integration. Then, it analyzes the current economic situation of European integration, especially its level of integration by means of statistical study. Finally, the author discusses the obstacles hindering European integration.
The fourth part carries on the empirical study of the factors influencing the European integration based on the theory of border effects. We find out that: 1) the values of internal border effects between EU's 25 member states are quite big, indicating that obstacles exist among the Union preventing its further integration; 2) the values of the EU's 25 internal border effects are smaller than that of international border effects between EU and other countries, indicating that the integration level among the Union's 25 member states is higher than that with countries outside of the Union; 3) the values of EU 15 are far smaller than those of EU 25, the values of international border effects between the EU and other countries are also far smaller than those between EU 25's internal border effects, reflecting the difficulty of further integration and coordination after EU's eastward expansion.
The fifth part is the empirical study of the factors influencing European integration. This chapter quantitatively analyzes other factors affecting EU's level of integration in commodity market, and concludes: 1), the increase of distance between two member states has significantly negative influence on the integration levels of EU 25 and EU 15; 2), the introduction of tax can better explain the integration levels of EU 25 and EU 15; 3), the same language and culture environment further improves the explanation; 4), the introduction of the variable of population remarkably increases the power of explanation; 5), the degree of influence of linguistic culture has different influence on the integration level of EU 25 and EU 15.
The sixth part reviews various strategies taken to get rid of the obstacles preventing free movements to promote integration, the implementation of regional cohesion policy and of policies to handle the negative effect of eastward expansion. With the research result of border effects in mind, the author pays special attention to the analysis of the coordination policies in the field of revenue system, welfare system and research and development.
The last part is the conclusion and implications of the research. It summarizes the results of the study and the policies taken by the EU in promoting its regional integration, and discusses the implications of the EU's policies to the China's domestic regional integration and cohesion.
引文
[1] Aitken, N. & Obutelewicz, R. A Cross-Sectional Study of EEC Trade with the Association of African Counties [J] . Review of Economics and Statistics, 1976, 32(1): 51-53.
[2] Anderson J E. & E. Wincoop. Borders, Trade and Welfare National Bureau of Economic Research [M]. Working Paper Cambridge, MA No. 8515, October 2001.
[3] Anderson J. E. & E. Wincoop. Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle [J]. American Economic Review, 2003, 93: 170-192.
[4] Anderson M. & S. Smith. Do National Borders Really Matter? Canada-US Regional Trade Reconsidered [J]. Review of International Economics, 1999, 7:219—227.
[5] Anderson, J. E., A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation [J]. American Economic Review, 1979,69(1): 106-116.
[6] Anderson, T.& L. O. Dowd. Borders: border regions and territorially contradictory meanings, changing significance [M]. Regional Studies, 1999, (7): 593-604.
[7] Balistreri, E. Trade Frictions and Welfare in the Gravity Model: How Much of the Iceberg Melts [M]. Working Paper US International Trade Commission, 2003.
[8] Bergstrand, J. The Generalized Gravity Equation: Monopolistic Competition and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1989, 71: 143—153.
[9] Bergstrand, J. The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1985, 67: 474—481.
[10] Brocker, J. How do International Trade Barriers affect interregional trade? [M]. Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984: 219—239.
[11] Cheng, L. & J. Howard. Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade. [R].FRBSL working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, 1999.
[12] Caves. R. E. Inra-industry trade and market structure in the industrial countries[M]. Oxford Economic Papers, 1981, 33(2) : 203-223.
[13] CEPII .The Development of Intra-versus Inter-industry Trade Flows Inside the EU Due to the Internal Market Programme[R]. Interim report, Paris, 1995.
[14] Celi. G. Vertical and horizontal intra-industry trade:what is the empirical evidence for the UK? [R]. discussion paper 49, CENTRO DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO E DL POLITICA ECONOMICA, 1999,.
[15] Chan-HyunSohn,Zhaoyong Zhang. Income distribution, intra-industry trade and foreign direct investment in East Asia[R]. working paper 04-14, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy,2004.
[16] Dixit A. K., Stiglitz J. E. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity[J]. American Economic Review, 1977, Vol. 67:97-308.
[17] Deardorff, V. A., Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? [M].The Regionalization of Economy, Chicano: University of Chicago Press, 1998:7-22.
[18] Eaton, J. & S. Kortum, Technology, Geography and Trade [J]. Econometrica, 2002, 70(5) : 1741—1779.
[19] Evans, C. The Economic Significance of National Border Effects [J]. American Economic Review, 2003,93:1291—1312.
[20] Evenett S. J. & Wolfgang Keller, On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110(2):281-316.
[22] Fidrmue, Jan & J. Fidrmue. Disintegration and Trade [R]. CEPS Discussion Paper2641, 2000.
[23] Frankel, J. Trading Blocs: The Natural, the Unnatural, and the Super-natural[M]. Mimeo, University of California—Berkeley, 1993.
[24] Goodman. Statistical Methods for the Preliminary Analysis of Transaction Flows[J]. Econometric, 1973,110(2):281-316.
[25] Harrigan, J. Specialization and the Volume of Trade: Do the Data Obey the Law? [M]. The Handbook of International Trade. London: Basil Blackwell, 2002.
[26] Head, K. & J. Ries. Increasing Returns Versus National Product Differentiation as an Explanation for the Pattern of U. S.-Canada Trade [J]. American Economic Review, 2001,91:858—876.
[27] Head, K. Gravity for Beginners[R]. UBC Econ Press, 2003.
[28] Helliwell, J. F. & J. McCallum. National Borders Still Matter for Trade [J]. Policy Options, 1995, 16:44—48.
[29] Helliwell. National Borders, Trade, and Migration[R]. NBER Working Paper6027, 1997.
[30] Helliwell, J. F. National Borders Trade and Migration, National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) [R]. Working Paper 6207, 1999.
[31] Helliwell, J. F. National Borders Matter for Quebec's Trade[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1996,26(3):507—522.
[32] Helpamn, E. & P. Krugman, Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.
[33] Hummels, D. Toward a Geography of Trade Costs, manuscript[M]. Purdue University, 1999.
[34] Linnemann, H. An Econometric Study in International Trade Flows [M]. Amsterdam: North—Holland Publishing Co., 1966.
[35]Matyas, L. Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model [J]. The World Economy, 1997, 20(3):123-143.
[36] McCallum, J. National Borders Matter Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns [J]. American Economic Review, 1995, 85:615—623.
[37] Nitsch, V. National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union [J]. Canadian Journal of Economic, 2000(22): 1091 — 1105.
[38] Poncet . Measuring Chinese domestic and international integration[J]. China Economic Review, 2003, 14:1—21.
[39] Poyhonen. A Tentative Model for the Flows of Trade between Countries [J]. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1963, 90(1):507-522.
[40] Ratti. Spatial and Economic Effects of Frontiers Overview of Traditional and New Approaches and Theories of Border Area Development in Ratti and Beichman[M]. Theory and Practice of Transborder Cooperation. Verlag Hebing & Lichtenhahn, Basel and Frankurt Main, 1993:23—54.
[41] Ramkishen. S. Rajan. Foreign direct investment and the internationalization of production in the Asian-Pacific region:issues and policy conundrums[J]. Asia-Pacific trade and investment review, 2005, Vol. 1, No. 1:3-26.
[42] Shaked. A. Sutton. J. Natural Oligopolies and International Trade, in Monopolistic Competition and International Trade (ed. H. Kierzkowski) [M], Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.
[43] Sungil Bae, Tae Hwan Yoo. Complementarity of horizontal and vertical multinational activities[R]. working paper 04-03, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, 2004.
[44] Tharakan. P.K.M. Kerstens.B.Does North-South Horizontal Intra-Industry Trade Really Exist? An Analysis of the Toy Industry[J]. Welwirtschaftliches, 1995, 3:87-105.
[45] TANG, Kam-Ki. Economic integration of the Chinese provinces: a business cycle approach [J]. Journal of Economic Integration. 1998. 13: 549-570.
[46] Tinbergen, J. Shaping the World Economy: Suggestion for an International Economic Policy [M]. New York The Twentieth Century Fund, 1962.
[47] Todd, S. & Jon Cauley. The Design of Supernational Structures: An Economic Perspective, in Todd Sandier (ed.), The Theory and Structures of International Political Economy[M]. Boulder: Westview, 1980:42.
[48] Torstensson J. Quality Differentiation and Factor Proportions in International Trade an Empirical Test of the Swedish Case[J]. Welwirtschaftliches, 1991, 127:83-94.
[49] Verdoon. P. J. The intra-block trade of Benelux, in edited by Robinson, E.A.G., Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations[M]. London:Macmillan, 1960.
[50] Wood. A. North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality:Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World[M]. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[51] Wei, Shang-Jin. Intra-national versus International Trade: How Stubborn are Nations in Global Integration?[R].NBER Working Paper5531,1996.
[52]Verdoon.P.J.The intra-block trade of Benelux,in edited by Robinson,E.A.G.,Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations[M].London:Macmillan,1960.
[53]Wood.A.North-South Trade,Employment and Inequality:Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World[M].Oxford University Press,1994.
[1]奥古斯托·托利等.区域贸易协定[M].北京:中国金融出版社,1993.
[2]彼得·林德特等.国际经济学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1985.
[3]陈朝高.欧洲一体化与世界[M].北京:时事出版社,1999.
[4]陈岩.国际一体化经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[5]程极明、朱乃新.欧洲共同体区域政策[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1991.
[6]储玉坤、周建平.20世界末期世界经济发展趋势[M].北京:经济科学出
[7]戴炳然.欧洲共同体条约集[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1993.
[8]戴炳然.欧洲共同体内部市场的现状与前景,收录于伍贻康、戴炳然编,理想、现实与前景:欧洲经济共同体三十年[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1988.
[9]房乐宪.欧洲—体化理论中的功能主义[J].教学与研究,2000,10:11-15.
[10]宫占奎,陈建国,佟家栋.区域经济组织研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[11]亨利.欧洲一体化综述[J].世界经济展望,1994,10:23-29.
[12]胡荣花.欧洲经济一体化与外国的直接投资[J].欧洲一体化研究,1997,2:11-17.
[13]杰格迪什·巴格瓦蒂.风险中的世界贸易体系[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[14]科斯.企业、市场与法律[M].上海:上海三联书店,1990.
[15]刘星红.欧共体对外贸易法律制度[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1996.
[16]刘力,宋少华.发展中国家经济一体化新论[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002.
[17]刘光溪.互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制[M].北京:经济日报 出版社,1996.
[18]马歇尔.货币、信用与商业[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[19]裘元伦、沈雁南.欧洲与世界[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.版社,1991.
[20]吴弦.统一大市场实施与发展中国家的商品出口[J].欧洲一体化研究,1996.2:12-16.
[21]王鹤.经济全球化和地区一体化[J].世界经济,1999,3:21-24.
[22]王鹤.欧洲一体化对外部世界的影响[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,1999.
[23]王学玉.欧洲一体化:一个进程,多种理沦[J].欧洲,2001,2:23-29.
[24]王千华.欧共体缔结世贸组织协议及其附件的权力问题[J].欧洲,1998,1:41-52.
[25]王宪磊.当代世界经济与欧元[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
[26]巫宁耕、邱巍.APEC出现的历史必然性及其前景[J].北京大学学报,1998,1:20-29.
[27]伍贻康、周建平主编.区域性国际经济一体化的比较[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1999.
[28]伍贻康、张幼文.全球村落——体化进程中的世纪经济[M].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1999.
[29]宋玉华等.开放的区域主义与亚太经济合作组织[M].北京:商务印书馆2001.
[30]沈骥如.欧洲共同体与世界[M].北京:人民出版社,1994.
[31]高永富,欧盟竞争法理论与实践及其对贸易的影响[J].国际商务研究.1998,5:38-42.
[32]盛斌,区域贸易协定与多边贸易体制[J].世界经济,1998,9:41-44.
[33]宿景祥.关于经济全球化的几个基本理论问题[J].北京师范大学学报,1998,5:20-28.
[34]隋明、杨伟光.欧洲联盟法律制度简论[M].天津:南开大学出版社.1998.
[35]唐海燕.现代国际贸易的理论与政策[M].汕头:汕头大学出版社,1994.
[36]杨逢氓、张永安.欧盟贸易政策及中欧经贸关系[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社,1996.
[37]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,1972.
[38]余开祥、洪文达、伍贻康.欧洲共同体——体制、政策、趋势[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1989.
[39]尹翔硕.国际贸易教程[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1996.
[40]张幼文.20世纪世界经济一体化的历程[J].学术月刊,1996,4:31-43.
[41]张幼文.世界经济学[M].上海:立信会计出版社,1999.
[42]张蕴岭主编.欧洲剧变与世界恪局[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1994.
[43]张蕴岭主编.世纪的挑战—建设中的欧洲共同体统一大市场[M].北京:中国对外经济贸易出版社,1994.
[44]张蕴岭译.1992年欧洲的挑战——统一市场带来的利益[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1989.
[45]张煌.共生现象—新地区主义与世界多边贸易体制[J].国际贸易,1999.6:11-15.
[46]张二震、马野青.国际贸易学[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1998.
[47]张纪康.试论区域一体化形成和发展的实质基础[J].欧洲,1997,4:61-70.
[48]周八骏.迈向新世纪的国际经济一体化—理论·实践·背景[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[49]周新民.欧洲统一大市场的建设及其影响[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1992.
[50]周建平、戴炳然、胡荣花.欧洲联盟经济与政治一体化及其对世界经济与政治的影响[J].欧洲一体化研究,1996,3:1-12.
[51]朱金生,凌丹.对外直接投资与经济增长的关联及启示[J].国际经贸探索,2000,2.
[52]朱成虎、唐永胜、蒲宁.走向21世纪的大国关系[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,1999.
[53]薛荣久.经济全球化的影响与挑战[J].世界经济,1998,4:6-10.
[2] Anderson J E. & E. Wincoop. Borders, Trade and Welfare National Bureau of Economic Research [M]. Working Paper Cambridge, MA No. 8515, October 2001.
[3] Anderson J. E. & E. Wincoop. Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle [J]. American Economic Review, 2003, 93: 170-192.
[4] Anderson M. & S. Smith. Do National Borders Really Matter? Canada-US Regional Trade Reconsidered [J]. Review of International Economics, 1999, 7:219—227.
[5] Anderson, J. E., A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation [J]. American Economic Review, 1979,69(1): 106-116.
[6] Anderson, T.& L. O. Dowd. Borders: border regions and territorially contradictory meanings, changing significance [M]. Regional Studies, 1999, (7): 593-604.
[7] Balistreri, E. Trade Frictions and Welfare in the Gravity Model: How Much of the Iceberg Melts [M]. Working Paper US International Trade Commission, 2003.
[8] Bergstrand, J. The Generalized Gravity Equation: Monopolistic Competition and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1989, 71: 143—153.
[9] Bergstrand, J. The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1985, 67: 474—481.
[10] Brocker, J. How do International Trade Barriers affect interregional trade? [M]. Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984: 219—239.
[11] Cheng, L. & J. Howard. Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade. [R].FRBSL working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, 1999.
[12] Caves. R. E. Inra-industry trade and market structure in the industrial countries[M]. Oxford Economic Papers, 1981, 33(2) : 203-223.
[13] CEPII .The Development of Intra-versus Inter-industry Trade Flows Inside the EU Due to the Internal Market Programme[R]. Interim report, Paris, 1995.
[14] Celi. G. Vertical and horizontal intra-industry trade:what is the empirical evidence for the UK? [R]. discussion paper 49, CENTRO DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO E DL POLITICA ECONOMICA, 1999,.
[15] Chan-HyunSohn,Zhaoyong Zhang. Income distribution, intra-industry trade and foreign direct investment in East Asia[R]. working paper 04-14, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy,2004.
[16] Dixit A. K., Stiglitz J. E. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity[J]. American Economic Review, 1977, Vol. 67:97-308.
[17] Deardorff, V. A., Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? [M].The Regionalization of Economy, Chicano: University of Chicago Press, 1998:7-22.
[18] Eaton, J. & S. Kortum, Technology, Geography and Trade [J]. Econometrica, 2002, 70(5) : 1741—1779.
[19] Evans, C. The Economic Significance of National Border Effects [J]. American Economic Review, 2003,93:1291—1312.
[20] Evenett S. J. & Wolfgang Keller, On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110(2):281-316.
[22] Fidrmue, Jan & J. Fidrmue. Disintegration and Trade [R]. CEPS Discussion Paper2641, 2000.
[23] Frankel, J. Trading Blocs: The Natural, the Unnatural, and the Super-natural[M]. Mimeo, University of California—Berkeley, 1993.
[24] Goodman. Statistical Methods for the Preliminary Analysis of Transaction Flows[J]. Econometric, 1973,110(2):281-316.
[25] Harrigan, J. Specialization and the Volume of Trade: Do the Data Obey the Law? [M]. The Handbook of International Trade. London: Basil Blackwell, 2002.
[26] Head, K. & J. Ries. Increasing Returns Versus National Product Differentiation as an Explanation for the Pattern of U. S.-Canada Trade [J]. American Economic Review, 2001,91:858—876.
[27] Head, K. Gravity for Beginners[R]. UBC Econ Press, 2003.
[28] Helliwell, J. F. & J. McCallum. National Borders Still Matter for Trade [J]. Policy Options, 1995, 16:44—48.
[29] Helliwell. National Borders, Trade, and Migration[R]. NBER Working Paper6027, 1997.
[30] Helliwell, J. F. National Borders Trade and Migration, National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) [R]. Working Paper 6207, 1999.
[31] Helliwell, J. F. National Borders Matter for Quebec's Trade[J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1996,26(3):507—522.
[32] Helpamn, E. & P. Krugman, Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.
[33] Hummels, D. Toward a Geography of Trade Costs, manuscript[M]. Purdue University, 1999.
[34] Linnemann, H. An Econometric Study in International Trade Flows [M]. Amsterdam: North—Holland Publishing Co., 1966.
[35]Matyas, L. Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model [J]. The World Economy, 1997, 20(3):123-143.
[36] McCallum, J. National Borders Matter Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns [J]. American Economic Review, 1995, 85:615—623.
[37] Nitsch, V. National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union [J]. Canadian Journal of Economic, 2000(22): 1091 — 1105.
[38] Poncet . Measuring Chinese domestic and international integration[J]. China Economic Review, 2003, 14:1—21.
[39] Poyhonen. A Tentative Model for the Flows of Trade between Countries [J]. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1963, 90(1):507-522.
[40] Ratti. Spatial and Economic Effects of Frontiers Overview of Traditional and New Approaches and Theories of Border Area Development in Ratti and Beichman[M]. Theory and Practice of Transborder Cooperation. Verlag Hebing & Lichtenhahn, Basel and Frankurt Main, 1993:23—54.
[41] Ramkishen. S. Rajan. Foreign direct investment and the internationalization of production in the Asian-Pacific region:issues and policy conundrums[J]. Asia-Pacific trade and investment review, 2005, Vol. 1, No. 1:3-26.
[42] Shaked. A. Sutton. J. Natural Oligopolies and International Trade, in Monopolistic Competition and International Trade (ed. H. Kierzkowski) [M], Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.
[43] Sungil Bae, Tae Hwan Yoo. Complementarity of horizontal and vertical multinational activities[R]. working paper 04-03, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, 2004.
[44] Tharakan. P.K.M. Kerstens.B.Does North-South Horizontal Intra-Industry Trade Really Exist? An Analysis of the Toy Industry[J]. Welwirtschaftliches, 1995, 3:87-105.
[45] TANG, Kam-Ki. Economic integration of the Chinese provinces: a business cycle approach [J]. Journal of Economic Integration. 1998. 13: 549-570.
[46] Tinbergen, J. Shaping the World Economy: Suggestion for an International Economic Policy [M]. New York The Twentieth Century Fund, 1962.
[47] Todd, S. & Jon Cauley. The Design of Supernational Structures: An Economic Perspective, in Todd Sandier (ed.), The Theory and Structures of International Political Economy[M]. Boulder: Westview, 1980:42.
[48] Torstensson J. Quality Differentiation and Factor Proportions in International Trade an Empirical Test of the Swedish Case[J]. Welwirtschaftliches, 1991, 127:83-94.
[49] Verdoon. P. J. The intra-block trade of Benelux, in edited by Robinson, E.A.G., Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations[M]. London:Macmillan, 1960.
[50] Wood. A. North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality:Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World[M]. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[51] Wei, Shang-Jin. Intra-national versus International Trade: How Stubborn are Nations in Global Integration?[R].NBER Working Paper5531,1996.
[52]Verdoon.P.J.The intra-block trade of Benelux,in edited by Robinson,E.A.G.,Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations[M].London:Macmillan,1960.
[53]Wood.A.North-South Trade,Employment and Inequality:Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World[M].Oxford University Press,1994.
[1]奥古斯托·托利等.区域贸易协定[M].北京:中国金融出版社,1993.
[2]彼得·林德特等.国际经济学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1985.
[3]陈朝高.欧洲一体化与世界[M].北京:时事出版社,1999.
[4]陈岩.国际一体化经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[5]程极明、朱乃新.欧洲共同体区域政策[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1991.
[6]储玉坤、周建平.20世界末期世界经济发展趋势[M].北京:经济科学出
[7]戴炳然.欧洲共同体条约集[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1993.
[8]戴炳然.欧洲共同体内部市场的现状与前景,收录于伍贻康、戴炳然编,理想、现实与前景:欧洲经济共同体三十年[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1988.
[9]房乐宪.欧洲—体化理论中的功能主义[J].教学与研究,2000,10:11-15.
[10]宫占奎,陈建国,佟家栋.区域经济组织研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[11]亨利.欧洲一体化综述[J].世界经济展望,1994,10:23-29.
[12]胡荣花.欧洲经济一体化与外国的直接投资[J].欧洲一体化研究,1997,2:11-17.
[13]杰格迪什·巴格瓦蒂.风险中的世界贸易体系[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[14]科斯.企业、市场与法律[M].上海:上海三联书店,1990.
[15]刘星红.欧共体对外贸易法律制度[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1996.
[16]刘力,宋少华.发展中国家经济一体化新论[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2002.
[17]刘光溪.互补性竞争论——区域集团与多边贸易体制[M].北京:经济日报 出版社,1996.
[18]马歇尔.货币、信用与商业[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[19]裘元伦、沈雁南.欧洲与世界[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.版社,1991.
[20]吴弦.统一大市场实施与发展中国家的商品出口[J].欧洲一体化研究,1996.2:12-16.
[21]王鹤.经济全球化和地区一体化[J].世界经济,1999,3:21-24.
[22]王鹤.欧洲一体化对外部世界的影响[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,1999.
[23]王学玉.欧洲一体化:一个进程,多种理沦[J].欧洲,2001,2:23-29.
[24]王千华.欧共体缔结世贸组织协议及其附件的权力问题[J].欧洲,1998,1:41-52.
[25]王宪磊.当代世界经济与欧元[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
[26]巫宁耕、邱巍.APEC出现的历史必然性及其前景[J].北京大学学报,1998,1:20-29.
[27]伍贻康、周建平主编.区域性国际经济一体化的比较[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1999.
[28]伍贻康、张幼文.全球村落——体化进程中的世纪经济[M].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1999.
[29]宋玉华等.开放的区域主义与亚太经济合作组织[M].北京:商务印书馆2001.
[30]沈骥如.欧洲共同体与世界[M].北京:人民出版社,1994.
[31]高永富,欧盟竞争法理论与实践及其对贸易的影响[J].国际商务研究.1998,5:38-42.
[32]盛斌,区域贸易协定与多边贸易体制[J].世界经济,1998,9:41-44.
[33]宿景祥.关于经济全球化的几个基本理论问题[J].北京师范大学学报,1998,5:20-28.
[34]隋明、杨伟光.欧洲联盟法律制度简论[M].天津:南开大学出版社.1998.
[35]唐海燕.现代国际贸易的理论与政策[M].汕头:汕头大学出版社,1994.
[36]杨逢氓、张永安.欧盟贸易政策及中欧经贸关系[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社,1996.
[37]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,1972.
[38]余开祥、洪文达、伍贻康.欧洲共同体——体制、政策、趋势[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1989.
[39]尹翔硕.国际贸易教程[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1996.
[40]张幼文.20世纪世界经济一体化的历程[J].学术月刊,1996,4:31-43.
[41]张幼文.世界经济学[M].上海:立信会计出版社,1999.
[42]张蕴岭主编.欧洲剧变与世界恪局[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1994.
[43]张蕴岭主编.世纪的挑战—建设中的欧洲共同体统一大市场[M].北京:中国对外经济贸易出版社,1994.
[44]张蕴岭译.1992年欧洲的挑战——统一市场带来的利益[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1989.
[45]张煌.共生现象—新地区主义与世界多边贸易体制[J].国际贸易,1999.6:11-15.
[46]张二震、马野青.国际贸易学[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1998.
[47]张纪康.试论区域一体化形成和发展的实质基础[J].欧洲,1997,4:61-70.
[48]周八骏.迈向新世纪的国际经济一体化—理论·实践·背景[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[49]周新民.欧洲统一大市场的建设及其影响[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1992.
[50]周建平、戴炳然、胡荣花.欧洲联盟经济与政治一体化及其对世界经济与政治的影响[J].欧洲一体化研究,1996,3:1-12.
[51]朱金生,凌丹.对外直接投资与经济增长的关联及启示[J].国际经贸探索,2000,2.
[52]朱成虎、唐永胜、蒲宁.走向21世纪的大国关系[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,1999.
[53]薛荣久.经济全球化的影响与挑战[J].世界经济,1998,4:6-10.