CAFTA对中国外贸的影响研究
|
摘要
2002年中国与东盟国家签署了《中国东盟全面经济合作框架》,开始组建中国—东盟自由贸易区(以下简称为CAFTA)。CAFTA对中国外贸所产生的影响也成为当前中国经济发展的研究热点问题。本文在对中国外贸流量从商品结构和国别结构两方面进行对比分析对CAFTA对中国外贸的影响进行现实的考量,结合国际贸易各类指数的比较分析对CAFTA对中国外贸的存在的潜在影响,并运用引力模型对CAFTA对中国外贸的影响进行计量上的论证。
本文将CAFTA对中国外贸的影响从中国与东盟双边贸易和中国与区外国家贸易两个方面进行分析研究。从CAFTA对中国与东盟双边贸易现实影响来看,CAFTA对中国对新加坡、泰国、印尼、越南的出口促进作用较明显,以泰国最为明显,对中国对马来西亚、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱的出口促进作用较小,以马来西亚最不明显。自由贸易区组建对中国从菲律宾、泰国进口促进作用较明显,以菲律宾最为明显,对中国对马来西亚、印尼、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱的进口促进作用较小。CAFTA关税的降低促进了中国与东盟贸易商品的多样化,而这种贸易商品的多样化也促进了中国与东盟贸易的互补性,中国与东盟就进一步降低非关税壁垒将更有利于贸易发展。从CAFTA潜在影响来看,第十六类在中国与东盟贸易中占有很大比重,且中国与东盟中新加坡、泰国、马来西亚、印尼四个主要贸易伙伴第十六类商品贸易属于产业内分工模式,由于自由贸易区关税减让对成员国间产业内贸易商品促进作用较强,第十六类商品将会成为拉动中国与东盟双边贸易的主要动力。从国别角度来看,CAFTA对中国与新加坡、泰国、马来西亚、印尼四国双边贸易的促进作用会较为明显,而CAFTA安排下,中国与东盟菲律宾、越南、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱六国贸易增长潜力有限,其中中国对越南、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨存在较强的贸易顺差,不利于CAFTA稳定发展,中国应当积极促进中国对东盟的这些不发达国家的直接投资,一方面有助于增长这些国家对中国的出口,增强自由贸易区的稳定性,另一方面,中国将一些失去比较优势产业转移到这些国家,有利于合理的利用资源,提高生产要素的利用率。
从CAFTA对中国与区外国家贸易影响来看,由于中国与区外美国、德国等多数商品贸易分工水平与中国与东盟贸易分工水平不在同一层次上,CAFTA对这些国家产生的贸易转移作用较小,相反,由于日本、韩国、东盟、中国同属于雁形模式之中,一些商品分工层次较为接近,因而,CAFTA对日本、韩国产生贸易转移作用较强。东盟与日本、韩国也开始组建自由贸易区,而中国与日本与韩国的自由贸易区的合作还没有开展,CAFTA对日本、韩国的贸易转移只存在于中国从东盟的进口对中国从日本、韩国的进口替代。日本受替代效应影响的商品种类较多,而且受影响的商品在中国从日本进口的份额较大,因此,CAFTA对日本影响较强。而虽然韩国受替代效应影响的商品种类也比较多,而且受影响的商品在中国从韩国进口的份额较小,CAFTA对韩国影响相对较弱。同时因为贸易转移作用,日本与韩国在近年内对中国直接投资也快速的增长,通过对中国的投资减小其受东盟进口替代的影响。
从CAFTA投资效应来看,CAFTA组建促进了中国吸引区外直接投资的增长,而区外国家对中国的直接投资的增长不仅促进中国进口贸易的增长,也推动了中国出口贸易的增长。而中国与东盟的双边投资并没有显著性增长,说明自由贸易区组建以来对中国与东盟的投资促进作用并不强,但中国与东盟双边的投资有助于中国与东盟的贸易的增长,有助于增强中国与东盟的互补性。从贸易和投资两方面分析结论可以得出,中国与东盟进一步减少中国与东盟间的贸易、投资的壁垒将有助于促进中国外贸的增长。
Since Chinese and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders decided in 2002 to establish the China- ASEAN free trade area (CAFTA) after signing "the Agreement of Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Frame of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ", the impact of CAFTA on China’s foreign trade has been a hot subject for research of China’s economy development. The paper examines CAFTA’s real impact on China’s foreign trade by analyzing China’s foreign trade volume respectively from the commodity structure and the nationality structure, analyzes CAFTA’s potential impact on China’s foreign trade by comparing various foreign trade indexes, and econometrically proves CAFTA’s impact on China’s foreign trade by using the gravity model.
The paper discusses CAFTA’s impact on China’s foreign trade with ASEAN and non-ASEAN countries respectively. In respect of CAFTA’s real impact on the trade between China and ASEAN, the CAFTA relatively strongly promotes China’s export to Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, among which Thailand is the most. But it does not much promote the export to Malaysia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei, among which Malaysia is the least. The CAFTA relatively strongly promotes China’s import from Philippine and Thailand, among which Philippine is more. Meanwhile it does not much promote the import from Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei. CAFTA’s tariff reduction increases the diversity of trade commodity between China and ASEAN, and in turn promotes the complementary trade of the two sides. Therefore further tariff reduction will contribute to promote bilateral trade of them. If examined by the potential impact of CAFTA, because the 16th kind commodity makes up a large proportion of the trade between China and ASEAN countries, and also the 16th kind commodity trade between China and Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, the country’s four main trade partner, is in intra-industry specialization (tariff reduction promotes trade strongly in this pattern), the 16th kind commodity will play a main role in promoting the bilateral trade of the two sides. In respect of nationality structure, CAFTA relatively strongly promotes the trade between China and Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, whereas potential trade promotion, under the management of CAFTA, is limited between China and Philippine, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia and Brunei, among which Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia run relatively large trade deficit with China, and that does harm to the stability and development of the CAFTA. Thus China should raise direct investment to those less developed countries. On the one hand, not only will this contribute to increase their export to China, but will also contribute to improve the stability of the trade area. On the other hand, China can remove domestic industries that have lost their comparative advantage into those countries, increasing the efficient use of resources and production factors.
In respect of CAFTA’s impact on China’s trade with non-ASEAN countries, CAFTA on the one hand has only slight trade diversion effect on countries like the United States and Germany, because the trade specialization of most commodities between China and those countries is at different level with the trade specialization between China with ASEAN and China with those countries. On the other hand, the CAFTA has relatively strong trade diversion effect on Japan and South Korea, because ASEAN, China and those two countries are somewhat similar in commodity specialization level for they all belongs to the goose pattern. Since ASEAN has started to establish the free trade area with Japan and South Korea respectively while China did not, CAFTA’s trade diversion effect on Japan and South Korea lie only in China’s substituting the import from ASEAN for the import form Japan and South Korea. The CAFTA’s substituted effect has a relatively heavy impact on Japan, because the variety of affected commodities Japan exports to China is relatively great, and those commodities constitute relatively large proportion of China’s import from Japan. Yet, although the variety of affected commodities South Korea exports to China is also relatively great, those commodities account for only relatively small proportion of China’s import from Korea. Thus CAFTA’s impact on South Korea is relatively weak. Under the trade diversion effect, Japan and South Korea has increasingly invested in China recent years, in order to weaken CAFTA’s substituted affect on them.
In respect of CAFTA’s investment effect, the establishment of CAFTA increases China’s foreign direct investment from non-ASEAN countries, and in turn promotes China’s both import and export trade growth. The bilateral investment between China and ASEAN, which however has not notably increased, shows the establishment of the free trade area does not have much promotion on it. However, the increase of bilateral investment between China and ASEAN contributes to their trade growth, and the supplementary between the two sides. To conclude, from the analysis of trade and investment, to further reduce the trade and investment barrier between China and ASEAN will contribute to increase China’s foreign trade.
本文将CAFTA对中国外贸的影响从中国与东盟双边贸易和中国与区外国家贸易两个方面进行分析研究。从CAFTA对中国与东盟双边贸易现实影响来看,CAFTA对中国对新加坡、泰国、印尼、越南的出口促进作用较明显,以泰国最为明显,对中国对马来西亚、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱的出口促进作用较小,以马来西亚最不明显。自由贸易区组建对中国从菲律宾、泰国进口促进作用较明显,以菲律宾最为明显,对中国对马来西亚、印尼、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱的进口促进作用较小。CAFTA关税的降低促进了中国与东盟贸易商品的多样化,而这种贸易商品的多样化也促进了中国与东盟贸易的互补性,中国与东盟就进一步降低非关税壁垒将更有利于贸易发展。从CAFTA潜在影响来看,第十六类在中国与东盟贸易中占有很大比重,且中国与东盟中新加坡、泰国、马来西亚、印尼四个主要贸易伙伴第十六类商品贸易属于产业内分工模式,由于自由贸易区关税减让对成员国间产业内贸易商品促进作用较强,第十六类商品将会成为拉动中国与东盟双边贸易的主要动力。从国别角度来看,CAFTA对中国与新加坡、泰国、马来西亚、印尼四国双边贸易的促进作用会较为明显,而CAFTA安排下,中国与东盟菲律宾、越南、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨、文莱六国贸易增长潜力有限,其中中国对越南、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨存在较强的贸易顺差,不利于CAFTA稳定发展,中国应当积极促进中国对东盟的这些不发达国家的直接投资,一方面有助于增长这些国家对中国的出口,增强自由贸易区的稳定性,另一方面,中国将一些失去比较优势产业转移到这些国家,有利于合理的利用资源,提高生产要素的利用率。
从CAFTA对中国与区外国家贸易影响来看,由于中国与区外美国、德国等多数商品贸易分工水平与中国与东盟贸易分工水平不在同一层次上,CAFTA对这些国家产生的贸易转移作用较小,相反,由于日本、韩国、东盟、中国同属于雁形模式之中,一些商品分工层次较为接近,因而,CAFTA对日本、韩国产生贸易转移作用较强。东盟与日本、韩国也开始组建自由贸易区,而中国与日本与韩国的自由贸易区的合作还没有开展,CAFTA对日本、韩国的贸易转移只存在于中国从东盟的进口对中国从日本、韩国的进口替代。日本受替代效应影响的商品种类较多,而且受影响的商品在中国从日本进口的份额较大,因此,CAFTA对日本影响较强。而虽然韩国受替代效应影响的商品种类也比较多,而且受影响的商品在中国从韩国进口的份额较小,CAFTA对韩国影响相对较弱。同时因为贸易转移作用,日本与韩国在近年内对中国直接投资也快速的增长,通过对中国的投资减小其受东盟进口替代的影响。
从CAFTA投资效应来看,CAFTA组建促进了中国吸引区外直接投资的增长,而区外国家对中国的直接投资的增长不仅促进中国进口贸易的增长,也推动了中国出口贸易的增长。而中国与东盟的双边投资并没有显著性增长,说明自由贸易区组建以来对中国与东盟的投资促进作用并不强,但中国与东盟双边的投资有助于中国与东盟的贸易的增长,有助于增强中国与东盟的互补性。从贸易和投资两方面分析结论可以得出,中国与东盟进一步减少中国与东盟间的贸易、投资的壁垒将有助于促进中国外贸的增长。
Since Chinese and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders decided in 2002 to establish the China- ASEAN free trade area (CAFTA) after signing "the Agreement of Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Frame of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ", the impact of CAFTA on China’s foreign trade has been a hot subject for research of China’s economy development. The paper examines CAFTA’s real impact on China’s foreign trade by analyzing China’s foreign trade volume respectively from the commodity structure and the nationality structure, analyzes CAFTA’s potential impact on China’s foreign trade by comparing various foreign trade indexes, and econometrically proves CAFTA’s impact on China’s foreign trade by using the gravity model.
The paper discusses CAFTA’s impact on China’s foreign trade with ASEAN and non-ASEAN countries respectively. In respect of CAFTA’s real impact on the trade between China and ASEAN, the CAFTA relatively strongly promotes China’s export to Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, among which Thailand is the most. But it does not much promote the export to Malaysia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei, among which Malaysia is the least. The CAFTA relatively strongly promotes China’s import from Philippine and Thailand, among which Philippine is more. Meanwhile it does not much promote the import from Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei. CAFTA’s tariff reduction increases the diversity of trade commodity between China and ASEAN, and in turn promotes the complementary trade of the two sides. Therefore further tariff reduction will contribute to promote bilateral trade of them. If examined by the potential impact of CAFTA, because the 16th kind commodity makes up a large proportion of the trade between China and ASEAN countries, and also the 16th kind commodity trade between China and Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, the country’s four main trade partner, is in intra-industry specialization (tariff reduction promotes trade strongly in this pattern), the 16th kind commodity will play a main role in promoting the bilateral trade of the two sides. In respect of nationality structure, CAFTA relatively strongly promotes the trade between China and Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, whereas potential trade promotion, under the management of CAFTA, is limited between China and Philippine, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia and Brunei, among which Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia run relatively large trade deficit with China, and that does harm to the stability and development of the CAFTA. Thus China should raise direct investment to those less developed countries. On the one hand, not only will this contribute to increase their export to China, but will also contribute to improve the stability of the trade area. On the other hand, China can remove domestic industries that have lost their comparative advantage into those countries, increasing the efficient use of resources and production factors.
In respect of CAFTA’s impact on China’s trade with non-ASEAN countries, CAFTA on the one hand has only slight trade diversion effect on countries like the United States and Germany, because the trade specialization of most commodities between China and those countries is at different level with the trade specialization between China with ASEAN and China with those countries. On the other hand, the CAFTA has relatively strong trade diversion effect on Japan and South Korea, because ASEAN, China and those two countries are somewhat similar in commodity specialization level for they all belongs to the goose pattern. Since ASEAN has started to establish the free trade area with Japan and South Korea respectively while China did not, CAFTA’s trade diversion effect on Japan and South Korea lie only in China’s substituting the import from ASEAN for the import form Japan and South Korea. The CAFTA’s substituted effect has a relatively heavy impact on Japan, because the variety of affected commodities Japan exports to China is relatively great, and those commodities constitute relatively large proportion of China’s import from Japan. Yet, although the variety of affected commodities South Korea exports to China is also relatively great, those commodities account for only relatively small proportion of China’s import from Korea. Thus CAFTA’s impact on South Korea is relatively weak. Under the trade diversion effect, Japan and South Korea has increasingly invested in China recent years, in order to weaken CAFTA’s substituted affect on them.
In respect of CAFTA’s investment effect, the establishment of CAFTA increases China’s foreign direct investment from non-ASEAN countries, and in turn promotes China’s both import and export trade growth. The bilateral investment between China and ASEAN, which however has not notably increased, shows the establishment of the free trade area does not have much promotion on it. However, the increase of bilateral investment between China and ASEAN contributes to their trade growth, and the supplementary between the two sides. To conclude, from the analysis of trade and investment, to further reduce the trade and investment barrier between China and ASEAN will contribute to increase China’s foreign trade.
引文
[1] Anthony Bende Nabende, Jim Ford, Jim Slater. FDI, Regional Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth: Some Evidence from Southeast Asia,Pacific Economic Review, 2001(3):383-399
[2] Arvind Panagariya and Pravin Krishna. On necessarily welfare-enhancing free trade areas. Journal of International Economics,2002(2):353-367
[3] Arvind Panagariya and Rupa Duttagupta. Politics of free trade areas: tariffs versus quotas. China Economic Review,2002(2):413-427
[4] Benjamin A. Roberts. A Gravity Study of the Proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area.The International Trade Journal, 2004(4):335-353
[5] Carlo Filippini,Vasco Molini. The determinants of East Asian trade flows: a gravity equation approach. Journal of Asian Economics,2003,14:695-711
[6] Charles L. BallardInkyo Cheong. The effects of economic integration in the Pacific Rim: A computational general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Asian Economics,1997(4):505-524
[7] David Roland Holst, John Weiss. ASEAN and China: Export Rivals or Partners in Regional Growth?, The World Economy,2004(8):1255-1274
[8] David Roland Holst, Jean-Pierre Verbiest, Fan Zhai. Growth and Trade Horizons for Asia: Long-term Forecasts for Regional Integration.Asian Development Review, 2005(2): 76-108
[9] Diego Puga and Anthony J. Venables. Preferential trading arrangements and industrial location. Journal of International Economics,1997(3):347-368
[10] Drusilla K. Brown, Kozo Kiyota and Robert M. Stern. Computational analysis of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,2005(2):153-185
[11] Emanuel Ornelas. Trade creating free trade areas and the undermining of multilateralism. European Economic Review,2005(7):1717-1735
[12] Emanuel Ornelas. Endogenous free trade agreements and the multilateral trading system. Journal of International Economics,2005(2)
[13] Emanuel Ornelas. The Trade Liberalization Evaluation (TLE) Methodology. Journal of Policy Modeling,2004(8):1015-1029
[14] Emiko Fukase, L. Alan Winters. Possible Dynamic Effects of AFTA for the New Member Countries, The World Economy,2003(6):853-871
[15] Eric W. Bond, Raymond G. Riezman and Constantinos Syropoulos. A strategic and welfare theoretic analysis of free trade areas. Journal of International Economics,2004(10):1-27
[16] F. Gerard Adams. Measuring the impact of AFTA: An application of a linked CGE system. Journal of Policy Modeling,1995(4):325-365
[17] Harvey Cutler, David J. Berri and Terutomo Ozawa. Market recycling in labor-intensive goods, flying-geese style: an empirical analysis of East Asian exports to the U.S. Journal of Asian Economics,2003(2):35-50
[18] Hiro Lee, David Roland-Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe. China’s emergence in East Asia under alternative trading arrangements. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(4):697-712
[19] Hiroshi Mukunoki. On the optimal external tariff of a free trade area with internal market integration. Japan and the World Economy,2004(12):431-448
[20] James Angresano. European Union integration lessons for ASEAN + 3: the importance of contextual specificity. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(1):909-926
[21] James Laurenceson. Economic integration between China and the Asean-5.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2003(2):103-112
[22] Jeffrey D. Lewis, Sherman Robinson and Zhi Wang. Beyond the Uruguay Round: The implications of an Asian free trade area. China Economic Review,1995(1):35-90
[23] Jong Eun Lee. The sequential issue in free trade areas: Policy implication for Korea.International Journal of Finance & Economics, Chichester, 2004(2):165-175
[24] Jose L. Tongzon. ASEAN-China Free Trade Area: A Bane or Boon for ASEAN Countries?, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 2005(2):191-210
[25] John M. Letiche. Lessons from the euro zone for the East Asian economies. Journal of Asian Economics,2000(3):275-300
[26] Jong-Wha Lee, Innwon Park, John Weiss. Free Trade Areas in East Asia: Discriminatory or Non-discriminatory?, The World Economy, 2005(1):21-48
[27] John Gilbert, Thomas Wahl. Applied General Equilibrium Assessments of Trade Libereralisation in China, The World Economy, 2002(5):697-731
[28] Kanta Marwah and Akbar Tavakoli. Is China's accession to WTO threatening exports of developing countries?. China Economic Review,2004(2):109-144
[29] Kevin G Cai. The ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement and East Asian Regional Grouping.Contemporary Southeast Asia,Singapore, 2003(3): 387-396
[30] Khairy Tourk. The political economy of east Asian economic integration. Journal of Asian Economics, 2003(5):843-888
[31] Mary Farrell. Regional integration and cohesion—lessons from Spain and Ireland in the EU. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(1):927-946
[32] Masahiro Endoh. The transition of postwar Asia-Pacific trade relations,2000(10):571-588
[33] Martin Richardson. Tariff revenue competition in a free trade area . European Economic Review,1995(7):1429-1437
[34] Nicolas Péridy. The trade effects of the Euro–Mediterranean partnership: what are the lessons for ASEAN countries?. Journal of Asian Economics,2005(2):125-139
[35] Paul Wonnacott and Ronald J. Wonnacott. Liberalization in the western hemisphere:New challenges in the design of a free trade agreement. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,1995(2):107-119
[36] Peter J Buckley, Jeremy Clegg, Adam R Cross, Hui Tan.China's Inward Foreign Direct Investment Success: Southeast Asia in the Shadow of the Dragon. Multinational Business Review, 2005(1):3-31
[37] Richard Pomfret. Sequencing trade and monetary integration: issues and application to Asia. Journal of Asian Economics,2005(1):105-124
[38] Ross Guest and Ian McDonald. An evaluation of the saving, investment, and current account balances of five ASEAN economies. Journal of Asian Economics,1999(3):445-464
[39] Saleem M. Khan. South Asia: Free trade area and trade liberalization. Journal of Asian Economics,1997(1):165-177
[40] Seiji F Naya, Michael G Plummer. A Quantitative Survey of the Economics of ASEAN-U.S. Free Trade Agreements.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2006(2): 230-247
[41] Stefano Inama.The Association of South East Asian Nations-People's Republic of China Free Trade Area: Negotiating Beyond Eternity With Little Trade Liberalization?. Journal of World Trade, 2005(6):559-570
[42] Suthiphand Chirathivat, Sothitorn Mallikamas. Thailand's FTA Strategy: Current Development and Future Challenges.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2004(1): 37-54
[43] Suthiphand Chirathivat. ASEAN–China Free Trade Area: background, implications and future development. Journal of Asian Economics,2002(5):671-686
[44] Taegi Kim, Jun-Heng Zhan. Industrial Structure, Regional Trade Bias, and China's FTA with Korea and Japan.Seoul Journal of Economics, 2006(4):381-405
[45] Tamim Bayoumi, Barry Eichengreen and Paolo Mauro. On Regional Monetary Arrangements for ASEAN. Journal of the Japan and International Economies,2000(2):121-148
[46] Thitapha Wattanapruttipaisan. Quota-free Trade in Textiles and Clothing: PolicyIssues and Options for ASEAN. Asian Development Review, 2005(1):71-97
[47] Thitapha Wattanapruttipaisan. ASEAN-China Free Trade Area: Advantages, challenges, and implications for the newer ASEAN member countries.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2003(1):31-49
[48] Toh Mun Heng, Vasudevan Gayathri. Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Emerging Economies: The Case of Vietnam.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2004(2):167-183
[49] Yongzheng Yang. The Uruguay round trade liberalization and structural adjustment in developing Asia,1995(4):493-510
[50] Zhaoyong Zhang and Ow Chin Hock. Trade interdependence and direct foreign investment between ASEAN and China. World Development,1996(1):155-170
[51] Zhi WANG. WTO accession, the "Greater China" free-trade area, and economic integration across the Taiwan Strait. China Economic Review,2003(3):316-349
[52]彼得·罗布森.国际一体化经济学.上海译文出版社, 2001
[53]陈岩.国际经济一体化经济学.商务印书馆, 2001
[54]陈建军,肖晨明.中国与东盟主要国家贸易互补性比较研究.世界经济研究, 2004(8): 22-29
[55]陈雯.东盟自由贸易区区内贸易的产业内贸易研究.世界经济研究, 2003(1): 37-41
[56]樊辉.我国与其他东亚国家产业内贸易影响因素的实证研究.南京财经大学学报, 2005(2): 32-35
[57]公峰涛.中国—东盟贸易结构研究.南开经济研究, 2003(3): 51-54
[58]侯铁珊,宋岩.中国与东盟的贸易相关指数分析.国际贸易问题, 2005(7): 41-46
[59]姜书竹,张旭昆.中国与东盟贸易关系及贸易竞争力的实证研究.浙江学刊, 2004(2): 176-179
[60]江虹.建立中国—东盟自由贸易区的经济效益分析.世界经济研究, 2005(4): 50-53
[61]邝小燕,尹翔硕.论中国一东盟自由贸易区成功的条件.对外经济贸易大学学报, 2004(1): 12-20
[62]李雪松.加人WTO对中国经济影响CGE模型比较分析.数量经济技术经济研究, 2000(10): 21-24
[63]李善同,翟凡,徐林.中国加入世界贸易组织对中国经济的影——动态一般均衡分析.数量经济技术经济研究, 2000(2): 3-14
[64]李宝民,包秀娟.中国—东盟自由贸易区增值税协调问题研究.东南亚纵横2007(1):36-38
[65]潘青友.中国与东盟贸易互补和贸易竞争分析.国际贸易问题, 2004(7): 73-75
[66]荣静.中国与东盟农产品贸易竞争和贸易互补实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2006(8): 45-49
[67]单文婷.引力模型在中国与东盟贸易中的实证分析.亚太经济, 2006(6): 16-19
[68]史朝兴,顾海英,秦向东.引力模型在国际贸易中应用的理论基础研究综述.南开经济研究, 2005(2): 39-44
[69]史朝兴,顾海.贸易引力模型研究新进展及其在中国的应用.财贸研究, 2005(3): 27-32
[70]史智宇.中国东盟自由贸易区效应的实证研究:[博士学位论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2004
[71]杨红强.基于贸易引力模型的SCFTA实证研究.世界经济研究, 2005(6): 42-47
[72]韦倩青,李立民.中国和东盟产业内贸易状况分析.东南亚纵横, 2005(2): 52-56
[73]徐圆.中国与东盟贸易关系及结构分析.世界经济研究, 2005(5): 78-84
[74]薛敬孝,张伯伟.东亚经贸合作安排:基于可计算一般均衡模型的比较研究.世界经济, 2004(6): 51-59
[75]王道俊.建立CAFTA对于中国-东盟贸易产生的效应.世界经济研究, 2006(6): 16-21
[76]王剑,徐康宁.中国与东盟在日本市场的出口竞争力比较.世界经济研究, 2005(3): 28-33
[77]王娟.中国—东盟产业内贸易发展趋势的实证分析.东南亚纵横, 2004(6): 33-37
[78]任珊.中国—东盟自由贸易区贸易效应研究:[硕士论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2006
[79]王勤.中国与东盟经济的互补和竞争及其发展趋势.东南亚研究, 2005(2): 4-10
[80]闫森.贸易自由化下东盟国家关税政策的新进展.国际贸易问题, 2005(7): 47-51
[81]张帆.建立中国一东盟自由贸易区贸易与投资效应分析.国际经贸探索, 2002(5)
[82]张昊光,姜秀兰.中国与东盟贸易关系的结构性思考.现代管理科学, 2004(4): 50-51
[83]张宏.中国—东盟自由贸易区的投资效应分析.当代亚太, 2007(2): 52-57
[84]周曙东.中国—东盟自由贸易区的建立对区域农产品贸易的动态影响分析.管理世界, 2006(1): 14-21
[85]张文霞.中国与东盟区域经济一体化的税收协调研究:[博士学位论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2006
[2] Arvind Panagariya and Pravin Krishna. On necessarily welfare-enhancing free trade areas. Journal of International Economics,2002(2):353-367
[3] Arvind Panagariya and Rupa Duttagupta. Politics of free trade areas: tariffs versus quotas. China Economic Review,2002(2):413-427
[4] Benjamin A. Roberts. A Gravity Study of the Proposed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area.The International Trade Journal, 2004(4):335-353
[5] Carlo Filippini,Vasco Molini. The determinants of East Asian trade flows: a gravity equation approach. Journal of Asian Economics,2003,14:695-711
[6] Charles L. BallardInkyo Cheong. The effects of economic integration in the Pacific Rim: A computational general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Asian Economics,1997(4):505-524
[7] David Roland Holst, John Weiss. ASEAN and China: Export Rivals or Partners in Regional Growth?, The World Economy,2004(8):1255-1274
[8] David Roland Holst, Jean-Pierre Verbiest, Fan Zhai. Growth and Trade Horizons for Asia: Long-term Forecasts for Regional Integration.Asian Development Review, 2005(2): 76-108
[9] Diego Puga and Anthony J. Venables. Preferential trading arrangements and industrial location. Journal of International Economics,1997(3):347-368
[10] Drusilla K. Brown, Kozo Kiyota and Robert M. Stern. Computational analysis of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,2005(2):153-185
[11] Emanuel Ornelas. Trade creating free trade areas and the undermining of multilateralism. European Economic Review,2005(7):1717-1735
[12] Emanuel Ornelas. Endogenous free trade agreements and the multilateral trading system. Journal of International Economics,2005(2)
[13] Emanuel Ornelas. The Trade Liberalization Evaluation (TLE) Methodology. Journal of Policy Modeling,2004(8):1015-1029
[14] Emiko Fukase, L. Alan Winters. Possible Dynamic Effects of AFTA for the New Member Countries, The World Economy,2003(6):853-871
[15] Eric W. Bond, Raymond G. Riezman and Constantinos Syropoulos. A strategic and welfare theoretic analysis of free trade areas. Journal of International Economics,2004(10):1-27
[16] F. Gerard Adams. Measuring the impact of AFTA: An application of a linked CGE system. Journal of Policy Modeling,1995(4):325-365
[17] Harvey Cutler, David J. Berri and Terutomo Ozawa. Market recycling in labor-intensive goods, flying-geese style: an empirical analysis of East Asian exports to the U.S. Journal of Asian Economics,2003(2):35-50
[18] Hiro Lee, David Roland-Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe. China’s emergence in East Asia under alternative trading arrangements. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(4):697-712
[19] Hiroshi Mukunoki. On the optimal external tariff of a free trade area with internal market integration. Japan and the World Economy,2004(12):431-448
[20] James Angresano. European Union integration lessons for ASEAN + 3: the importance of contextual specificity. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(1):909-926
[21] James Laurenceson. Economic integration between China and the Asean-5.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2003(2):103-112
[22] Jeffrey D. Lewis, Sherman Robinson and Zhi Wang. Beyond the Uruguay Round: The implications of an Asian free trade area. China Economic Review,1995(1):35-90
[23] Jong Eun Lee. The sequential issue in free trade areas: Policy implication for Korea.International Journal of Finance & Economics, Chichester, 2004(2):165-175
[24] Jose L. Tongzon. ASEAN-China Free Trade Area: A Bane or Boon for ASEAN Countries?, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 2005(2):191-210
[25] John M. Letiche. Lessons from the euro zone for the East Asian economies. Journal of Asian Economics,2000(3):275-300
[26] Jong-Wha Lee, Innwon Park, John Weiss. Free Trade Areas in East Asia: Discriminatory or Non-discriminatory?, The World Economy, 2005(1):21-48
[27] John Gilbert, Thomas Wahl. Applied General Equilibrium Assessments of Trade Libereralisation in China, The World Economy, 2002(5):697-731
[28] Kanta Marwah and Akbar Tavakoli. Is China's accession to WTO threatening exports of developing countries?. China Economic Review,2004(2):109-144
[29] Kevin G Cai. The ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement and East Asian Regional Grouping.Contemporary Southeast Asia,Singapore, 2003(3): 387-396
[30] Khairy Tourk. The political economy of east Asian economic integration. Journal of Asian Economics, 2003(5):843-888
[31] Mary Farrell. Regional integration and cohesion—lessons from Spain and Ireland in the EU. Journal of Asian Economics,2004(1):927-946
[32] Masahiro Endoh. The transition of postwar Asia-Pacific trade relations,2000(10):571-588
[33] Martin Richardson. Tariff revenue competition in a free trade area . European Economic Review,1995(7):1429-1437
[34] Nicolas Péridy. The trade effects of the Euro–Mediterranean partnership: what are the lessons for ASEAN countries?. Journal of Asian Economics,2005(2):125-139
[35] Paul Wonnacott and Ronald J. Wonnacott. Liberalization in the western hemisphere:New challenges in the design of a free trade agreement. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,1995(2):107-119
[36] Peter J Buckley, Jeremy Clegg, Adam R Cross, Hui Tan.China's Inward Foreign Direct Investment Success: Southeast Asia in the Shadow of the Dragon. Multinational Business Review, 2005(1):3-31
[37] Richard Pomfret. Sequencing trade and monetary integration: issues and application to Asia. Journal of Asian Economics,2005(1):105-124
[38] Ross Guest and Ian McDonald. An evaluation of the saving, investment, and current account balances of five ASEAN economies. Journal of Asian Economics,1999(3):445-464
[39] Saleem M. Khan. South Asia: Free trade area and trade liberalization. Journal of Asian Economics,1997(1):165-177
[40] Seiji F Naya, Michael G Plummer. A Quantitative Survey of the Economics of ASEAN-U.S. Free Trade Agreements.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2006(2): 230-247
[41] Stefano Inama.The Association of South East Asian Nations-People's Republic of China Free Trade Area: Negotiating Beyond Eternity With Little Trade Liberalization?. Journal of World Trade, 2005(6):559-570
[42] Suthiphand Chirathivat, Sothitorn Mallikamas. Thailand's FTA Strategy: Current Development and Future Challenges.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2004(1): 37-54
[43] Suthiphand Chirathivat. ASEAN–China Free Trade Area: background, implications and future development. Journal of Asian Economics,2002(5):671-686
[44] Taegi Kim, Jun-Heng Zhan. Industrial Structure, Regional Trade Bias, and China's FTA with Korea and Japan.Seoul Journal of Economics, 2006(4):381-405
[45] Tamim Bayoumi, Barry Eichengreen and Paolo Mauro. On Regional Monetary Arrangements for ASEAN. Journal of the Japan and International Economies,2000(2):121-148
[46] Thitapha Wattanapruttipaisan. Quota-free Trade in Textiles and Clothing: PolicyIssues and Options for ASEAN. Asian Development Review, 2005(1):71-97
[47] Thitapha Wattanapruttipaisan. ASEAN-China Free Trade Area: Advantages, challenges, and implications for the newer ASEAN member countries.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2003(1):31-49
[48] Toh Mun Heng, Vasudevan Gayathri. Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Emerging Economies: The Case of Vietnam.ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 2004(2):167-183
[49] Yongzheng Yang. The Uruguay round trade liberalization and structural adjustment in developing Asia,1995(4):493-510
[50] Zhaoyong Zhang and Ow Chin Hock. Trade interdependence and direct foreign investment between ASEAN and China. World Development,1996(1):155-170
[51] Zhi WANG. WTO accession, the "Greater China" free-trade area, and economic integration across the Taiwan Strait. China Economic Review,2003(3):316-349
[52]彼得·罗布森.国际一体化经济学.上海译文出版社, 2001
[53]陈岩.国际经济一体化经济学.商务印书馆, 2001
[54]陈建军,肖晨明.中国与东盟主要国家贸易互补性比较研究.世界经济研究, 2004(8): 22-29
[55]陈雯.东盟自由贸易区区内贸易的产业内贸易研究.世界经济研究, 2003(1): 37-41
[56]樊辉.我国与其他东亚国家产业内贸易影响因素的实证研究.南京财经大学学报, 2005(2): 32-35
[57]公峰涛.中国—东盟贸易结构研究.南开经济研究, 2003(3): 51-54
[58]侯铁珊,宋岩.中国与东盟的贸易相关指数分析.国际贸易问题, 2005(7): 41-46
[59]姜书竹,张旭昆.中国与东盟贸易关系及贸易竞争力的实证研究.浙江学刊, 2004(2): 176-179
[60]江虹.建立中国—东盟自由贸易区的经济效益分析.世界经济研究, 2005(4): 50-53
[61]邝小燕,尹翔硕.论中国一东盟自由贸易区成功的条件.对外经济贸易大学学报, 2004(1): 12-20
[62]李雪松.加人WTO对中国经济影响CGE模型比较分析.数量经济技术经济研究, 2000(10): 21-24
[63]李善同,翟凡,徐林.中国加入世界贸易组织对中国经济的影——动态一般均衡分析.数量经济技术经济研究, 2000(2): 3-14
[64]李宝民,包秀娟.中国—东盟自由贸易区增值税协调问题研究.东南亚纵横2007(1):36-38
[65]潘青友.中国与东盟贸易互补和贸易竞争分析.国际贸易问题, 2004(7): 73-75
[66]荣静.中国与东盟农产品贸易竞争和贸易互补实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2006(8): 45-49
[67]单文婷.引力模型在中国与东盟贸易中的实证分析.亚太经济, 2006(6): 16-19
[68]史朝兴,顾海英,秦向东.引力模型在国际贸易中应用的理论基础研究综述.南开经济研究, 2005(2): 39-44
[69]史朝兴,顾海.贸易引力模型研究新进展及其在中国的应用.财贸研究, 2005(3): 27-32
[70]史智宇.中国东盟自由贸易区效应的实证研究:[博士学位论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2004
[71]杨红强.基于贸易引力模型的SCFTA实证研究.世界经济研究, 2005(6): 42-47
[72]韦倩青,李立民.中国和东盟产业内贸易状况分析.东南亚纵横, 2005(2): 52-56
[73]徐圆.中国与东盟贸易关系及结构分析.世界经济研究, 2005(5): 78-84
[74]薛敬孝,张伯伟.东亚经贸合作安排:基于可计算一般均衡模型的比较研究.世界经济, 2004(6): 51-59
[75]王道俊.建立CAFTA对于中国-东盟贸易产生的效应.世界经济研究, 2006(6): 16-21
[76]王剑,徐康宁.中国与东盟在日本市场的出口竞争力比较.世界经济研究, 2005(3): 28-33
[77]王娟.中国—东盟产业内贸易发展趋势的实证分析.东南亚纵横, 2004(6): 33-37
[78]任珊.中国—东盟自由贸易区贸易效应研究:[硕士论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2006
[79]王勤.中国与东盟经济的互补和竞争及其发展趋势.东南亚研究, 2005(2): 4-10
[80]闫森.贸易自由化下东盟国家关税政策的新进展.国际贸易问题, 2005(7): 47-51
[81]张帆.建立中国一东盟自由贸易区贸易与投资效应分析.国际经贸探索, 2002(5)
[82]张昊光,姜秀兰.中国与东盟贸易关系的结构性思考.现代管理科学, 2004(4): 50-51
[83]张宏.中国—东盟自由贸易区的投资效应分析.当代亚太, 2007(2): 52-57
[84]周曙东.中国—东盟自由贸易区的建立对区域农产品贸易的动态影响分析.管理世界, 2006(1): 14-21
[85]张文霞.中国与东盟区域经济一体化的税收协调研究:[博士学位论文].中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2006