服务贸易的边境内措施影响了双边服务出口吗——基于跨国行业的面板数据检验
|
摘要
服务贸易的边境内措施作为反映服务业开放的直接指标,其对服务贸易的影响不容忽视。本文依据OECD-STRI数据库分析服务贸易的边境内措施对服务出口的影响,并构建垄断竞争模型证明贸易伙伴国边境内措施的差异性与双边服务出口的关系。选取OECD统计的STRI和STRIH指标,利用2014—2016年33个国家10个主要服务行业的数据实证检验贸易伙伴国边境内措施及其差异性对双边服务出口的影响。实证结果与理论分析基本一致:首先,贸易伙伴国的边境内措施及其差异性均显著阻碍了双边服务出口;其次,在考虑两国市场结构差异后,国家间边境内措施的差异性对服务出口的阻碍程度有所缓解;另外,不同服务行业的边境内措施对服务出口的影响存在差异;稳健性检验进一步证实了上述结果。
As a direct index reflecting the opening up of the service industry,the behind-border measures of trade in services cannot be ignored. Based on the data from OECD-STRI database,this paper analyzed the impact of behind-border measures of service trade in five policy areas. By constructing a monopolistic competition model,this paper demonstrated the relationship between the difference of measures behind-border of trading partners and the bilateral service exports. Among them, STRI and STRIH indicators were selected respectively,and the panel data of 10 major service industries in33 countries from 2014 to 2016 were used to examine the impact of behind-border measures of trading partners. The results are substantially consistent with the theory: Firstly,the behind-border measures of trading partners and their differences have significantly hindered the export of bilateral services; Secondly,considering the differences in market structure between the two countries,the degree of hindrance to service export caused by the differences in behind-border measures between countries is alleviated. In addition,the measures in different service industries have different impact on services export. The robustness test further confirmed the above results.
As a direct index reflecting the opening up of the service industry,the behind-border measures of trade in services cannot be ignored. Based on the data from OECD-STRI database,this paper analyzed the impact of behind-border measures of service trade in five policy areas. By constructing a monopolistic competition model,this paper demonstrated the relationship between the difference of measures behind-border of trading partners and the bilateral service exports. Among them, STRI and STRIH indicators were selected respectively,and the panel data of 10 major service industries in33 countries from 2014 to 2016 were used to examine the impact of behind-border measures of trading partners. The results are substantially consistent with the theory: Firstly,the behind-border measures of trading partners and their differences have significantly hindered the export of bilateral services; Secondly,considering the differences in market structure between the two countries,the degree of hindrance to service export caused by the differences in behind-border measures between countries is alleviated. In addition,the measures in different service industries have different impact on services export. The robustness test further confirmed the above results.
引文
[1]NORDS H. Services Trade Restrictiveness Index(STRI):The Trade Effect of Regulatory Differences[R]. OECD Trade Policy Papers,2016(189).
[2]代中强,梁俊伟,孙琪.知识产权保护、经济发展与服务贸易出口技术复杂度[J].财贸经济,2015(7):109-122.
[3]张雨,戴翔. FDI、制度质量与服务出口复杂度[J].财贸研究,2017(7):59-76.
[4]刘洪铎,陈和.全球供应链分工地位如何影响一国服务贸易部门的出口技术复杂度[J].国际贸易问题,2016(9):27-37.
[5]邓富华,霍伟东.自由贸易协定、制度环境与跨境贸易人民币结算[J].中国工业经济,2017(5):75-93.
[6]刘洪愧.区域贸易协定对增加值贸易关联的影响———基于服务贸易的实证研究[J].财贸经济,2016(8):127-143.
[7]林僖,鲍晓华.区域服务贸易协定如何影响服务贸易流量———基于增加值贸易的研究视角[J].经济研究,2018(1):169-182.
[8]孙浦阳,侯欣裕,盛斌.服务业开放、管理效率与企业出口[J].经济研究,2018(7):136-150.
[9]KOX H,H NORDS. Services Trade and Domestic Regulation[R].OECD Trade Policy Papers,2007,(49):1-53.
[10]MARTI L,R PUERTAS,L GARCIA. The Importance of the Logistics Performance Index in International Trade[J]. Applied Economics,2014,46(24):2982-2992.
[11]NORDS H,DOROTHEE R. The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Trade Flows:First Estimates[R].Working Party of the Trade Committee,2015,(8):1-40.
[12]齐俊妍,高明.服务贸易限制的政策评估框架及中美比较:基于OECD-STRI数据库的分析[J].国际经贸探索,2018(1):4-17.
[13]KOX H,ARJAN LEJOUR. Regulatory Heterogeneity as Obstacle for International Services Trade[R]. CPB Discussion Paper,2005,(49):3-46.
[14]FRANCOIS JF,WOOTON I. Trade in International Transport Services:The Role of Competition[J]. Review of International Economics,2001,(2):249-261.
[15]KALBASIl H. The Gravity Model and Global Trade Flows. Paper presented at the 75th International Conference on Policy Modeling for European and Global Issues,Brussels,July-7. 2001.
[16]WALSH. Trade in Services:Does Gravity Hold? A Gravity Model Approach to Estimating Barriers to Services Trade[R].IIIS Discussion Paper,2006(183).
[17]周念利.基于引力模型的中国双边服务贸易流量与出口潜力研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2010(12):67-79.
[18]BARIER S,BERGSTRAND J,FENG M. Economic Integration Agreements and the Margins of International Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics,2014,93(2):339—350.
[19]夏天然,陈宪.基于双向固定效应引力模型的服务贸易壁垒度量[J].世界经济研究,2014(10):34-39.
(1)视听服务(广播、视频、音频)、建筑、快递、工程、计算机、分销、金融服务(银行、保险)、专业服务(会计、法律、设计)、通信、运输服务(空运、海运、铁运、路运)。
(1)一般情况下,遵循二进制赋分原则,若对某一具体措施存在限制,则赋1分,反之,赋0分。
(1)分配的原则是考虑各政策领域对该服务行业贸易限制程度,限于篇幅原因,未列出具体的权重值,有需要的读者可向作者索取。
(1)https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?Dataset Code=TISP。
(2)https://stats.oecd.org/。
(3)OECD成员国包括美国、加拿大、英国、德国、意大利、法国、西班牙、日本、爱尔兰、荷兰、比利时、瑞典、卢森堡、丹麦、瑞士、奥地利、希腊、挪威、澳大利亚、芬兰、葡萄牙、墨西哥、智利、捷克、匈牙利、波兰、土耳其、韩国,非OECD成员国包括巴西、中国、印度、印度尼西亚、俄罗斯。
(4)会计、法律、设计、工程、计算机、电信、保险、金融、快递、建筑行业。
(5)http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx。
(1)对于外国和国内的贸易限制政策条款占总条款的比重是作者根据表“政策条款”清单所涵盖的政策条款适用对象进行的区分统计。
(1)分服务行业实证检验时,均考虑了传统引力模式的解释变量,包括贸易伙伴国国内生产总值、地理距离、共同语言变量,限于篇幅原因,文章并未列出其他变量的回归结果。
[2]代中强,梁俊伟,孙琪.知识产权保护、经济发展与服务贸易出口技术复杂度[J].财贸经济,2015(7):109-122.
[3]张雨,戴翔. FDI、制度质量与服务出口复杂度[J].财贸研究,2017(7):59-76.
[4]刘洪铎,陈和.全球供应链分工地位如何影响一国服务贸易部门的出口技术复杂度[J].国际贸易问题,2016(9):27-37.
[5]邓富华,霍伟东.自由贸易协定、制度环境与跨境贸易人民币结算[J].中国工业经济,2017(5):75-93.
[6]刘洪愧.区域贸易协定对增加值贸易关联的影响———基于服务贸易的实证研究[J].财贸经济,2016(8):127-143.
[7]林僖,鲍晓华.区域服务贸易协定如何影响服务贸易流量———基于增加值贸易的研究视角[J].经济研究,2018(1):169-182.
[8]孙浦阳,侯欣裕,盛斌.服务业开放、管理效率与企业出口[J].经济研究,2018(7):136-150.
[9]KOX H,H NORDS. Services Trade and Domestic Regulation[R].OECD Trade Policy Papers,2007,(49):1-53.
[10]MARTI L,R PUERTAS,L GARCIA. The Importance of the Logistics Performance Index in International Trade[J]. Applied Economics,2014,46(24):2982-2992.
[11]NORDS H,DOROTHEE R. The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Trade Flows:First Estimates[R].Working Party of the Trade Committee,2015,(8):1-40.
[12]齐俊妍,高明.服务贸易限制的政策评估框架及中美比较:基于OECD-STRI数据库的分析[J].国际经贸探索,2018(1):4-17.
[13]KOX H,ARJAN LEJOUR. Regulatory Heterogeneity as Obstacle for International Services Trade[R]. CPB Discussion Paper,2005,(49):3-46.
[14]FRANCOIS JF,WOOTON I. Trade in International Transport Services:The Role of Competition[J]. Review of International Economics,2001,(2):249-261.
[15]KALBASIl H. The Gravity Model and Global Trade Flows. Paper presented at the 75th International Conference on Policy Modeling for European and Global Issues,Brussels,July-7. 2001.
[16]WALSH. Trade in Services:Does Gravity Hold? A Gravity Model Approach to Estimating Barriers to Services Trade[R].IIIS Discussion Paper,2006(183).
[17]周念利.基于引力模型的中国双边服务贸易流量与出口潜力研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2010(12):67-79.
[18]BARIER S,BERGSTRAND J,FENG M. Economic Integration Agreements and the Margins of International Trade[J]. Journal of International Economics,2014,93(2):339—350.
[19]夏天然,陈宪.基于双向固定效应引力模型的服务贸易壁垒度量[J].世界经济研究,2014(10):34-39.
(1)视听服务(广播、视频、音频)、建筑、快递、工程、计算机、分销、金融服务(银行、保险)、专业服务(会计、法律、设计)、通信、运输服务(空运、海运、铁运、路运)。
(1)一般情况下,遵循二进制赋分原则,若对某一具体措施存在限制,则赋1分,反之,赋0分。
(1)分配的原则是考虑各政策领域对该服务行业贸易限制程度,限于篇幅原因,未列出具体的权重值,有需要的读者可向作者索取。
(1)https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?Dataset Code=TISP。
(2)https://stats.oecd.org/。
(3)OECD成员国包括美国、加拿大、英国、德国、意大利、法国、西班牙、日本、爱尔兰、荷兰、比利时、瑞典、卢森堡、丹麦、瑞士、奥地利、希腊、挪威、澳大利亚、芬兰、葡萄牙、墨西哥、智利、捷克、匈牙利、波兰、土耳其、韩国,非OECD成员国包括巴西、中国、印度、印度尼西亚、俄罗斯。
(4)会计、法律、设计、工程、计算机、电信、保险、金融、快递、建筑行业。
(5)http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx。
(1)对于外国和国内的贸易限制政策条款占总条款的比重是作者根据表“政策条款”清单所涵盖的政策条款适用对象进行的区分统计。
(1)分服务行业实证检验时,均考虑了传统引力模式的解释变量,包括贸易伙伴国国内生产总值、地理距离、共同语言变量,限于篇幅原因,文章并未列出其他变量的回归结果。