贸易自由化对中国各地区食糖生产及消费的影响研究
摘要
自由贸易对食糖的影响十分重大,研究自由贸易区以及WTO新一轮农业谈判对食糖生产、消费的影响具有十分重要的现实意义。同时在研究贸易自由化问题时,对不同贸易规则造成的整体影响进行比较,并在研究单个产品时,进一步考虑地区间存在的差异性,针对单个产品的地区特征进行分析,也具有较强的理论和现实意义。
根据这一思路,本文的研究框架包括:首先运用GTAP对WTO多边谈判进行分析,分析其对中国总体经济、福利、农产品价格以及食糖贸易带来的影响。随后遵循同一原则,对中国参与自由贸易区的合作方案进行比较分析。在此基础上循序渐进,进一步考虑地区间存在的差异性,针对食糖产品的地区生产、消费特征进行分析,将GTAP的模拟结果作为外生变量,引入到各地区的生产与消费模型中,研究贸易对中国各地区食糖生产与消费的影响。
全文得到的主要结论如下:
1.WTO多边贸易体系对中国总体经济及食糖贸易的影响。
第一,从总体福利上看,WTO多哈回合的受益范围非常有限,中国由于在入世时所承诺的约束关税水平较低,与多边贸易自由化相关的福利改进在入世之后均已释放完毕,所以总体上说,多哈回合对中国的意义非常有限。
第二,WTO新一轮农业谈判对农产品贸易的影响较大,出口的增长速度要大于进口的增长速度。粮食和油料作物都出现较大幅度的增长,这是目前世界市场上保护程度最高的两个产品;对植物油的进口减少,而出口将出现80%～145%的增长。从农产品价格的变动来看,粮食、纤维和果蔬的价格上涨,油料、植物油、糖、肉类及其它农产品的价格出现下滑。
第三,从WTO多边贸易谈判的进展来看,多哈回合进展甚微的原因是作为WTO核心议题的市场准入的进展不大,造成市场准入谈判进展缓慢的原因是因为欧盟与其他成员国之间存在较大的利益分歧。
第四,价格是影响中国食糖贸易的最重要因素。对中国食糖贸易影响最大的因素不是WTO贸易政策的改变,但是它对他国食糖生产、消费的影响,会通过国际贸易传递到国际市场上,表现为国际糖价的下滑;随后国际糖价的变动再通过贸易传递到中国国内。在这种背景下,上述主要食糖出口国的出口价格进一步下滑,中国食糖的进口量和出口量都会有所增加,但是总体上中国还是食糖的净进口国,食糖的大量进口同时带来国内糖价的缓慢下跌。所以我们把各国国内食糖价格的变动视为是对WTO食糖贸易政策的不同回应。
2.FTA双边贸易协定的进展对中国总体经济及食糖贸易的影响。
第一,中国参与自贸区合作十分有利,而且合作范围越广泛,中国就越获益。从影响程度来看,农业大国(中国、印度、东盟、韩国、巴西、智利、澳大利亚和新西兰)受到的影响远远大于工业大国(欧盟、美国、日本和俄罗斯)。
第二,签订FTA协定对中国农产品的影响主要集中在粮食、油料作物、肉类及其它农产品四个领域。粮食的出口有所改善,油料和肉类的出口受到冲击,充分体现了各国不同产业间的比较优势。从农产品的价格变化来看,净进口量大幅增加的油料作物、植物油、肉类及其它农产品的价格出现下滑,大部分自给自足的农产品(如粮食、食糖等)价格随着FTA合作范围的扩大由跌转升,价格变化幅度集中在-9.0% ~ +9.0%之间。
第三,中国食糖产业的发展前景,与中国参与FTA的合作路径有十分密切的关系。从长期看,如果中国与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国开展区域贸易合作,大规模的开放,对主要的国外食糖出口国采取无限制和零配额的情况下,中国糖料生产者将受到最大的冲击和负作用。当贸易环境变得越来越开放,中国消费者的福利是不断增加的。有竞争力的地区(广西和云南等)的食糖产量增加,而缺乏竞争力的地区产量(其它甜菜区)减少。如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,却会发生意料之外的贸易创造与贸易转移,将刺激中国国内糖料作物生产,使得出口量急剧增加,中国有望成为食糖净出口国。
3.贸易自由化对中国国内食糖生产的影响。
第一,WTO多哈谈判对食糖生产都是负面影响,国内部分糖料生产将转为谷物或纤维作物生产,全国食糖生产量约减少129.2万吨。
第二,FTA双边贸易谈判对食糖生产可能起负作用,也可能起正作用,作用方向与中国参与FTA的合作路径有关。如果中国参与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国的区域贸易合作的话,国内食糖会减产87万吨;但是如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,却能给中国国内食糖生产带来一线生机,增产350万吨。
第三,贸易自由化对糖料品种和区域分布的影响。从糖料品种来看,甘蔗还是最主要的品种,甜菜的种植范围可能还会进一步萎缩。从生产区域分布来看,除其它蔗区均表现为减产外,其它五个产区的产量变动都是不确定的。区间范围跨度最大的是广西(-147.9, 125.1)和云南(-21.5, 65.3),广东、新疆、其它蔗区及其它甜菜区的浮动范围都不大,约16.6万吨。贸易自由化对生产的作用方向也是不确定的,不同的合作路径会给不同地区带来不同的影响。
WTO多边谈判下受影响最大的省份是广西省,平均减产73.3万吨。其次是其它蔗区和其它甜菜区,分别减产25.3和12.5万吨。在FTA双边贸易谈判下,对广西和云南产生的影响最大,与贸易协定合作路径息息相关。如果中国参与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国的区域贸易合作的话,广西、云南的食糖产量分别减产74.6和12.5万吨;但是如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,两省的食糖产量将分别增加200.4和74.5万吨。
4.贸易自由化对国内食糖消费的影响。
食糖作为工业消费和民用消费的必需品,在国民经济中具有不可替代性。工业消费的稳定增长一直是我国食糖消费增长的主要动力;而民用消费由于人口增长以及膳食结构调整也在稳步增加。
第一,在经济发展和糖价下跌的两方面作用下,贸易自由化(WTO和FTA)将促使国内消费增加203.5~228.9万吨。中国的经济发展对食糖消费,尤其是对工业消费有刺激作用;另一方面国内食糖价格随着贸易自由化的深入也出现了缓慢下跌。WTO多哈谈判对食糖消费的影响比较稳定,全国新增消费量约112.8万吨;FTA双边协定对消费的影响有波动,介于90.3~122万吨之间。总的来说,由于食糖消费具有刚性,价格弹性较小,所以两种贸易协定对消费造成的影响差异较小,国内消费者将是贸易自由化的最大福利受益者。
第二,不同贸易政策对食糖消费的影响有所不同。食糖消费对WTO多哈谈判各种自由化方案组合(关税配额、国内支持、出口补贴)的反应并不显著,但是自由贸易区FTA谈判进展却对国内消费有着明显的影响,自由贸易区不同的合作路径对应着不同的重点影响区域,并有着明显的层次划分。
第三,贸易自由化对食糖消费的区域影响。从分地区的情况来看,贸易自由化对食糖消费的作用方向是确定的,将刺激国内各省食糖消费量的增长。从受影响的省份来看,波动幅度较大的包括:辽宁、河北、湖南、湖北、上海和江西。区间范围跨度最大的是广东和江苏,各省之间的波动差异并不大。从地域分布来看,处于中等经济发展水平的工业省份(中南、华东、东北)受到的影响比发达省份(东南)受到的影响要大得多。此三个地区的食糖消费变化量占全国总变化量的50%以上。
本研究可能的创新之处有:
第一,针对备受关注的食糖产品,运用GTAP模型分别对WTO多边贸易以及FTA双边贸易进行分析,分析其对中国总体经济、福利、农产品价格以及食糖贸易带来的不同影响。在分析WTO多边谈判时,针对最受关注的市场准入提案进行了分析,并加入了对多哈回合实际进展的评估,讨论了国内支持、市场准入以及出口补贴三领域的实际进展对各国/地区的总体经济影响。
第二,在关注WTO多边谈判的同时,还兼顾分析自由贸易区双边贸易模式的影响。对自由贸易区协定的分析部分仍遵循WTO多边谈判的分析方法、结构,根据世界主要食糖贸易国/地区的贸易流向设置了三种方案,同时也增加了对中国参与自由贸易区协定实际进展的评估。对两种贸易协定的比较定量分析在以往的文献中不多见,尤其是在国内的研究中较少,本文在一定程度上弥补了此研究空白。
第三,对全国30个食糖定点观察市场进行整合分析,并建立分地区的食糖生产、消费模型(CSMSM)。
第四,提出了一种衔接GTAP模型与国内分省生产、消费的研究方法。在运用GTAP模型初步分析出两种贸易模式对中国总体经济、贸易的影响之后,根据各地区均衡发展的原则,在分地区的生产-消费方程组的分析基础上,进一步将GTAP模型对中国总体经济的影响因素分解到各地区,延长GTAP的分析结论,得出WTO多边谈判以及FTA进展对我国各地区食糖生产与消费的影响。
Trade liberalization will affect sugar industry firmly. It’s important to analyze the impact of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and WTO Doha round negotiation on sugar production, consumption in China. In the same time, the impact simulated at provincial level is ever valuable for sugar industry, because the sugar production located mainly in the poor south-west China.
In this thesis, we analyzed the impact of WTO Doha round on China’s macroeconomics, welfare level, agricultural product price, and sugar trade through GTAP model. Then, we simulated the possible impact of different FTA. We finally simulated the impact on China’s sugar production, consumption at the provincial level, using the results above as shocks.
The main findings include:
1. The possible impact of WTO Doha round negotiation on sugar trade
Firstly, the impact of Doha round on China’s economy is very limited. Because the tariff rate China promised is very low, and China can’t get better-off any more.
Secondly, the impact on agricultural trade is apparent. The change rate of export will still overtake that of import. Grain and oilseed have increased sharply, which are most protective agricultural products. Oil's import decrease, but its export will increase from 80% to 145%. And the price of grain, cotton and fruit & vegetable will increase, that of oilseed, oil, sugar and meat will decrease.
Thirdly, according to the progress of WTO Doha round negotiation, the main reason of being left behind is because disagreement in Market Access (the scenario FD in the thesis). Impact of this scenario is ten to hundred times more than other scenario.
Forthly, price is the most important factor to affect Chinese sugar trade. As for China, WTO trade policy is not the most important one, but it's effect on production and consumption will appeared on the international sugar market. And China can get well-off from buy cheaper sugar from overseas. So we regard sugar price change as respond to WTO trade policy.
2. The impact of FTA on China’s sugar trade
Firstly, China’s GDP and welfare level will be better off under each FTA scenarios. The more FTA China signed, the more benefits will bring to China.
Secondly, under FTA agreement, the most vulnerable industries include oilseed, vegetable oil, and meat, while the grain sector will be benefited. According to the impact on domestic price, the price in self-sufficient industries tends to increase, while those in less self-sufficient industries will decrease.
Thirdly, the different FTAs affect China’s sugar industry differently. The FTA with Australia will cause China to import much more, with domestic price decreasing. In the same time, the FTA with European Union or Brazil will cause less increase in import, though domestic price will decrease also. However, FTA with those net-importers of sugar like U.S., Russian, or Japan will stimulate domestic production and cause dramatic increase in export. In the last case, China is hope to become net-exporter in sugar product, and domestic price will increase because of tighter demand-supply relationship caused by more export. In the case China signed FTA with all countries mentioned above, the impact will be similar to the last case, that is, FTA with net-importers in sugar.
3. The impact of trade liberalization on China’s sugar production at provincial level
Firstly, the impact of WTO Doha negotiation on sugar production is mainly negative. Domestic sugar price will decrease, while the substitution increases, the change rate of the later will be 1.7 times of the former. In the same time, price of inputs like fertilizer will increase simultaneously. Under the pressure of sugar price decrease and inputs price increase, more and more sugar producer will transform to produce other agricultural product.
Secondly, the impact of FTA negotiation on sugar production is unclear,it depends on the cooperation framework. The FTA with ASEAN, Australia, Brazil and EU will cause China to decrease 87 million tons. However, FTA with those net-importers of sugar like U.S., Russian, or Japan will cause China to increase 350 million tons.
Thirdly, the impacts of trade liberalization on sugar plants and area distribution are differnet. Sugarcane will still be the bigger sugarplants than sugarbeet. Impact of Five important production area's is unclear. The biggest coverage of province is Guangxi and Yunnan, and other areas are less-affected, ranging about 16.6 million tons.
Under WTO Doha round, the most-affected province is Guangxi province, will decrease 73.3 million tons. Under FTA cooperation, the most-affected province is not Guangxi, but also Yunnan province. FTA with U.S., Japan will encourage domestic sugar production to add 200.4 and 74.5 million tons separately, though those with ASEAN, Australia, Brazil, and European Union will bring Guangxi and Yunnan decrease 74.6 and 12.5 million tons separately.
4. Impact of trade liberalization on China’s sugar consumption
Firstly, under the two effects of the economic development and low sugar price, trade liberalization will add sugar consumption from 203.5 to 228.9 million tons. Under WTO Doha negotiation, consumption will add about 112.8 million tons. Under FTA cooperation, consumption has some changes from 90.3 to 122 million tons. In one word, sugar consumption has little elasticity, two trade agreements' effects are little same, domestic consumer will be the biggest welfare receiver.
Secondly, different trade policy has different effect on consumption. There are little difference between WTO negotiation's scenarioes, but there are significant difference between FTA's scenarioes.
Thirdly, the impact of trade liberalization on area consumption is different. The simulation result is compliable with the classical theory. Trade liberalization in sugar industry will increase domestic consumption. The most-affected provinces include Liaoning, Hebei, Hu'nan, Hubei, Shanghai, and Jiangxi. In summary, the possible innovations in this thesis include:
Firstly, the analysis in this thesis focuses on sugar product. We analyzed the possible impact of WTO Doha round and FTA on China’s economy, welfare level, agricultural price, and sugar trade through GTAP model.
Secondly, we analyzed the impact of trade liberalization integrating those from multi-lateral and bi-lateral agreement. The scenarios in this thesis consider both multi-lateral based WTO Doha round and bi-lateral based FTA.
Thirdly, we established the CSMSM model to simulate the impact at provincial level. As before, the analysis at provincial level is rarely observed. The analysis in this thesis extended the basic framework of GTAP to provincial level, to get the possible impact on sugar production and consumption in different provinces. This is the new methodology correlate GTAP model with domestic production and consumption at provincial level.
根据这一思路,本文的研究框架包括:首先运用GTAP对WTO多边谈判进行分析,分析其对中国总体经济、福利、农产品价格以及食糖贸易带来的影响。随后遵循同一原则,对中国参与自由贸易区的合作方案进行比较分析。在此基础上循序渐进,进一步考虑地区间存在的差异性,针对食糖产品的地区生产、消费特征进行分析,将GTAP的模拟结果作为外生变量,引入到各地区的生产与消费模型中,研究贸易对中国各地区食糖生产与消费的影响。
全文得到的主要结论如下:
1.WTO多边贸易体系对中国总体经济及食糖贸易的影响。
第一,从总体福利上看,WTO多哈回合的受益范围非常有限,中国由于在入世时所承诺的约束关税水平较低,与多边贸易自由化相关的福利改进在入世之后均已释放完毕,所以总体上说,多哈回合对中国的意义非常有限。
第二,WTO新一轮农业谈判对农产品贸易的影响较大,出口的增长速度要大于进口的增长速度。粮食和油料作物都出现较大幅度的增长,这是目前世界市场上保护程度最高的两个产品;对植物油的进口减少,而出口将出现80%～145%的增长。从农产品价格的变动来看,粮食、纤维和果蔬的价格上涨,油料、植物油、糖、肉类及其它农产品的价格出现下滑。
第三,从WTO多边贸易谈判的进展来看,多哈回合进展甚微的原因是作为WTO核心议题的市场准入的进展不大,造成市场准入谈判进展缓慢的原因是因为欧盟与其他成员国之间存在较大的利益分歧。
第四,价格是影响中国食糖贸易的最重要因素。对中国食糖贸易影响最大的因素不是WTO贸易政策的改变,但是它对他国食糖生产、消费的影响,会通过国际贸易传递到国际市场上,表现为国际糖价的下滑;随后国际糖价的变动再通过贸易传递到中国国内。在这种背景下,上述主要食糖出口国的出口价格进一步下滑,中国食糖的进口量和出口量都会有所增加,但是总体上中国还是食糖的净进口国,食糖的大量进口同时带来国内糖价的缓慢下跌。所以我们把各国国内食糖价格的变动视为是对WTO食糖贸易政策的不同回应。
2.FTA双边贸易协定的进展对中国总体经济及食糖贸易的影响。
第一,中国参与自贸区合作十分有利,而且合作范围越广泛,中国就越获益。从影响程度来看,农业大国(中国、印度、东盟、韩国、巴西、智利、澳大利亚和新西兰)受到的影响远远大于工业大国(欧盟、美国、日本和俄罗斯)。
第二,签订FTA协定对中国农产品的影响主要集中在粮食、油料作物、肉类及其它农产品四个领域。粮食的出口有所改善,油料和肉类的出口受到冲击,充分体现了各国不同产业间的比较优势。从农产品的价格变化来看,净进口量大幅增加的油料作物、植物油、肉类及其它农产品的价格出现下滑,大部分自给自足的农产品(如粮食、食糖等)价格随着FTA合作范围的扩大由跌转升,价格变化幅度集中在-9.0% ~ +9.0%之间。
第三,中国食糖产业的发展前景,与中国参与FTA的合作路径有十分密切的关系。从长期看,如果中国与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国开展区域贸易合作,大规模的开放,对主要的国外食糖出口国采取无限制和零配额的情况下,中国糖料生产者将受到最大的冲击和负作用。当贸易环境变得越来越开放,中国消费者的福利是不断增加的。有竞争力的地区(广西和云南等)的食糖产量增加,而缺乏竞争力的地区产量(其它甜菜区)减少。如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,却会发生意料之外的贸易创造与贸易转移,将刺激中国国内糖料作物生产,使得出口量急剧增加,中国有望成为食糖净出口国。
3.贸易自由化对中国国内食糖生产的影响。
第一,WTO多哈谈判对食糖生产都是负面影响,国内部分糖料生产将转为谷物或纤维作物生产,全国食糖生产量约减少129.2万吨。
第二,FTA双边贸易谈判对食糖生产可能起负作用,也可能起正作用,作用方向与中国参与FTA的合作路径有关。如果中国参与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国的区域贸易合作的话,国内食糖会减产87万吨;但是如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,却能给中国国内食糖生产带来一线生机,增产350万吨。
第三,贸易自由化对糖料品种和区域分布的影响。从糖料品种来看,甘蔗还是最主要的品种,甜菜的种植范围可能还会进一步萎缩。从生产区域分布来看,除其它蔗区均表现为减产外,其它五个产区的产量变动都是不确定的。区间范围跨度最大的是广西(-147.9, 125.1)和云南(-21.5, 65.3),广东、新疆、其它蔗区及其它甜菜区的浮动范围都不大,约16.6万吨。贸易自由化对生产的作用方向也是不确定的,不同的合作路径会给不同地区带来不同的影响。
WTO多边谈判下受影响最大的省份是广西省,平均减产73.3万吨。其次是其它蔗区和其它甜菜区,分别减产25.3和12.5万吨。在FTA双边贸易谈判下,对广西和云南产生的影响最大,与贸易协定合作路径息息相关。如果中国参与东盟、澳大利亚、巴西以及欧盟四国的区域贸易合作的话,广西、云南的食糖产量分别减产74.6和12.5万吨;但是如果中国分别与美国、日本等缔结贸易合作协议,两省的食糖产量将分别增加200.4和74.5万吨。
4.贸易自由化对国内食糖消费的影响。
食糖作为工业消费和民用消费的必需品,在国民经济中具有不可替代性。工业消费的稳定增长一直是我国食糖消费增长的主要动力;而民用消费由于人口增长以及膳食结构调整也在稳步增加。
第一,在经济发展和糖价下跌的两方面作用下,贸易自由化(WTO和FTA)将促使国内消费增加203.5~228.9万吨。中国的经济发展对食糖消费,尤其是对工业消费有刺激作用;另一方面国内食糖价格随着贸易自由化的深入也出现了缓慢下跌。WTO多哈谈判对食糖消费的影响比较稳定,全国新增消费量约112.8万吨;FTA双边协定对消费的影响有波动,介于90.3~122万吨之间。总的来说,由于食糖消费具有刚性,价格弹性较小,所以两种贸易协定对消费造成的影响差异较小,国内消费者将是贸易自由化的最大福利受益者。
第二,不同贸易政策对食糖消费的影响有所不同。食糖消费对WTO多哈谈判各种自由化方案组合(关税配额、国内支持、出口补贴)的反应并不显著,但是自由贸易区FTA谈判进展却对国内消费有着明显的影响,自由贸易区不同的合作路径对应着不同的重点影响区域,并有着明显的层次划分。
第三,贸易自由化对食糖消费的区域影响。从分地区的情况来看,贸易自由化对食糖消费的作用方向是确定的,将刺激国内各省食糖消费量的增长。从受影响的省份来看,波动幅度较大的包括:辽宁、河北、湖南、湖北、上海和江西。区间范围跨度最大的是广东和江苏,各省之间的波动差异并不大。从地域分布来看,处于中等经济发展水平的工业省份(中南、华东、东北)受到的影响比发达省份(东南)受到的影响要大得多。此三个地区的食糖消费变化量占全国总变化量的50%以上。
本研究可能的创新之处有:
第一,针对备受关注的食糖产品,运用GTAP模型分别对WTO多边贸易以及FTA双边贸易进行分析,分析其对中国总体经济、福利、农产品价格以及食糖贸易带来的不同影响。在分析WTO多边谈判时,针对最受关注的市场准入提案进行了分析,并加入了对多哈回合实际进展的评估,讨论了国内支持、市场准入以及出口补贴三领域的实际进展对各国/地区的总体经济影响。
第二,在关注WTO多边谈判的同时,还兼顾分析自由贸易区双边贸易模式的影响。对自由贸易区协定的分析部分仍遵循WTO多边谈判的分析方法、结构,根据世界主要食糖贸易国/地区的贸易流向设置了三种方案,同时也增加了对中国参与自由贸易区协定实际进展的评估。对两种贸易协定的比较定量分析在以往的文献中不多见,尤其是在国内的研究中较少,本文在一定程度上弥补了此研究空白。
第三,对全国30个食糖定点观察市场进行整合分析,并建立分地区的食糖生产、消费模型(CSMSM)。
第四,提出了一种衔接GTAP模型与国内分省生产、消费的研究方法。在运用GTAP模型初步分析出两种贸易模式对中国总体经济、贸易的影响之后,根据各地区均衡发展的原则,在分地区的生产-消费方程组的分析基础上,进一步将GTAP模型对中国总体经济的影响因素分解到各地区,延长GTAP的分析结论,得出WTO多边谈判以及FTA进展对我国各地区食糖生产与消费的影响。
Trade liberalization will affect sugar industry firmly. It’s important to analyze the impact of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and WTO Doha round negotiation on sugar production, consumption in China. In the same time, the impact simulated at provincial level is ever valuable for sugar industry, because the sugar production located mainly in the poor south-west China.
In this thesis, we analyzed the impact of WTO Doha round on China’s macroeconomics, welfare level, agricultural product price, and sugar trade through GTAP model. Then, we simulated the possible impact of different FTA. We finally simulated the impact on China’s sugar production, consumption at the provincial level, using the results above as shocks.
The main findings include:
1. The possible impact of WTO Doha round negotiation on sugar trade
Firstly, the impact of Doha round on China’s economy is very limited. Because the tariff rate China promised is very low, and China can’t get better-off any more.
Secondly, the impact on agricultural trade is apparent. The change rate of export will still overtake that of import. Grain and oilseed have increased sharply, which are most protective agricultural products. Oil's import decrease, but its export will increase from 80% to 145%. And the price of grain, cotton and fruit & vegetable will increase, that of oilseed, oil, sugar and meat will decrease.
Thirdly, according to the progress of WTO Doha round negotiation, the main reason of being left behind is because disagreement in Market Access (the scenario FD in the thesis). Impact of this scenario is ten to hundred times more than other scenario.
Forthly, price is the most important factor to affect Chinese sugar trade. As for China, WTO trade policy is not the most important one, but it's effect on production and consumption will appeared on the international sugar market. And China can get well-off from buy cheaper sugar from overseas. So we regard sugar price change as respond to WTO trade policy.
2. The impact of FTA on China’s sugar trade
Firstly, China’s GDP and welfare level will be better off under each FTA scenarios. The more FTA China signed, the more benefits will bring to China.
Secondly, under FTA agreement, the most vulnerable industries include oilseed, vegetable oil, and meat, while the grain sector will be benefited. According to the impact on domestic price, the price in self-sufficient industries tends to increase, while those in less self-sufficient industries will decrease.
Thirdly, the different FTAs affect China’s sugar industry differently. The FTA with Australia will cause China to import much more, with domestic price decreasing. In the same time, the FTA with European Union or Brazil will cause less increase in import, though domestic price will decrease also. However, FTA with those net-importers of sugar like U.S., Russian, or Japan will stimulate domestic production and cause dramatic increase in export. In the last case, China is hope to become net-exporter in sugar product, and domestic price will increase because of tighter demand-supply relationship caused by more export. In the case China signed FTA with all countries mentioned above, the impact will be similar to the last case, that is, FTA with net-importers in sugar.
3. The impact of trade liberalization on China’s sugar production at provincial level
Firstly, the impact of WTO Doha negotiation on sugar production is mainly negative. Domestic sugar price will decrease, while the substitution increases, the change rate of the later will be 1.7 times of the former. In the same time, price of inputs like fertilizer will increase simultaneously. Under the pressure of sugar price decrease and inputs price increase, more and more sugar producer will transform to produce other agricultural product.
Secondly, the impact of FTA negotiation on sugar production is unclear,it depends on the cooperation framework. The FTA with ASEAN, Australia, Brazil and EU will cause China to decrease 87 million tons. However, FTA with those net-importers of sugar like U.S., Russian, or Japan will cause China to increase 350 million tons.
Thirdly, the impacts of trade liberalization on sugar plants and area distribution are differnet. Sugarcane will still be the bigger sugarplants than sugarbeet. Impact of Five important production area's is unclear. The biggest coverage of province is Guangxi and Yunnan, and other areas are less-affected, ranging about 16.6 million tons.
Under WTO Doha round, the most-affected province is Guangxi province, will decrease 73.3 million tons. Under FTA cooperation, the most-affected province is not Guangxi, but also Yunnan province. FTA with U.S., Japan will encourage domestic sugar production to add 200.4 and 74.5 million tons separately, though those with ASEAN, Australia, Brazil, and European Union will bring Guangxi and Yunnan decrease 74.6 and 12.5 million tons separately.
4. Impact of trade liberalization on China’s sugar consumption
Firstly, under the two effects of the economic development and low sugar price, trade liberalization will add sugar consumption from 203.5 to 228.9 million tons. Under WTO Doha negotiation, consumption will add about 112.8 million tons. Under FTA cooperation, consumption has some changes from 90.3 to 122 million tons. In one word, sugar consumption has little elasticity, two trade agreements' effects are little same, domestic consumer will be the biggest welfare receiver.
Secondly, different trade policy has different effect on consumption. There are little difference between WTO negotiation's scenarioes, but there are significant difference between FTA's scenarioes.
Thirdly, the impact of trade liberalization on area consumption is different. The simulation result is compliable with the classical theory. Trade liberalization in sugar industry will increase domestic consumption. The most-affected provinces include Liaoning, Hebei, Hu'nan, Hubei, Shanghai, and Jiangxi. In summary, the possible innovations in this thesis include:
Firstly, the analysis in this thesis focuses on sugar product. We analyzed the possible impact of WTO Doha round and FTA on China’s economy, welfare level, agricultural price, and sugar trade through GTAP model.
Secondly, we analyzed the impact of trade liberalization integrating those from multi-lateral and bi-lateral agreement. The scenarios in this thesis consider both multi-lateral based WTO Doha round and bi-lateral based FTA.
Thirdly, we established the CSMSM model to simulate the impact at provincial level. As before, the analysis at provincial level is rarely observed. The analysis in this thesis extended the basic framework of GTAP to provincial level, to get the possible impact on sugar production and consumption in different provinces. This is the new methodology correlate GTAP model with domestic production and consumption at provincial level.
引文
1. 财政部,财政部国内贸易部关于下发《国家储备食糖财务管理办法》的通知,1995年10月27日
2. 陈永福、魏荣,世界蔬菜贸易竞争力与产业内贸易分析,中国农村经济,2005.4
3. 程国强,僵局未终结——WTO 新一轮农业谈判进展与问题,国际贸易,2003.4
4. 刁新申、樊胜根、张晓波,WTO 对中国农业部门的区域影响,WTO 和中国农村公共投资,樊胜根、张林秀主编,北京:中国农业出版社,2003
5. 杜芳秋、吴佳勋、杨子江、张国益、徐世勋,新回合农业谈判对台湾农业影响之研究,《农业经济丛刊》,2003 第八卷第二期
6. 国务院办公厅,关于印发中国食物与营养发展纲要(2001-2010 年)的通知(2001),(国办发[2001]86 号),2001 年 11 月 3 日
7. 国家经济贸易委员会,关于严格控制糖精生产能力限制糖精产量和内销量的通知(国经贸产业[1998]547 号),1998 年 8 月 31 日
8. 国务院,关于调整食糖经营管理有关政策的通知(国发[1991]61 号),1991 年 11 月 7 日
9. 韩剑,基于引力模型的中国双边产业内贸易的实证研究,2005 年中国经济学年会国际经济学论文,http://www.cenet.org.cn/cn/CEAC/2005in/gjjjx018.doc
10. 黄季焜、徐志刚、李宁辉、ScottRozelle,贸易自由化与中国的农业、贫困和公平,农业经济问题,2005.7
11. 黄季焜、李宁辉,中国农业政策分析与预测模型——CAPSiM,南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2003(2):30~41
12. 黄季焜等,全球贸易自由化对中国和世界经济的影响,地理科学进展,2005.1
13. 黄益平、宋立刚,应用数量经济学,上海:上海人民出版社,2001
14. 孔媛,世界水果贸易比较优势与产业内贸易研究,国际贸易问题,2006.1
15. 李银雁,中糖协呼吁:糖业不应列入中澳自贸谈判,中国经济时报,2006 年 10 月 19 日
16. 李石新、邹新月、郭新华,贸易自由化与中国农村贫困的减少,中国软科学,2005.10
17. 李众敏,WTO 新一轮农业谈判的初步分析,农业经济导刊,2002.1
18. 李众敏(2006a),中国-东盟自由贸易协定对我国各地区蔬菜出口及生产的影响,中国人民大学博士论文,2006 年。
19. 李众敏、唐忠(2006b),东亚区域合作对我国农产品贸易的影响研究,中国农村观察,2006.3,第 10-15 页。
20. 卢锋、梅孝峰,“入世”农业影响的省区分布研究,北京大学中国经济研究中心,2000
21. 林伯强,中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择,经济研究,2003.12
22. 刘汉德、陆艳玲、谭中文、梁计难,我国糖业国际竞争力分析,甘蔗糖业,2004.1
23. 刘合光,多哈回合改革对发展中国家农产品贸易的影响,北京农业职业学院学报,2006.5
24. 刘合光,国际农业政策改革与中国农业发展:多哈回合的经济影响,中国人民大学博士毕业论文,2006
25. 马有祥,新一轮 WTO 农业谈判的进展与中国采取的基本策略,农业经济问题,2005.11
26. 覃泽林,国际市场对国内食糖价格影响的定量分析,广西农业科学,2004.6
27. 上海 WTO 事务咨询中心,拉米解释多哈回合难以推展的原因,WTO 快讯,第 115 期(2006年 6 月 1 日-6 月 20 日)
28. 司伟,全球化背景下的中国糖业:价格、成本与技术效率,中国农业大学博士论文,2005
29. 辛贤(2003a)、尹坚,不同政策模拟方案下的中国肉产品市场格局,动物科学与动物医学,2003.10
30. 辛贤(2003b)、尹坚,不同政策模拟方案下饲料价格对肉产品市场的影响,动物科学与动物医学,2003.11
31. 辛贤、万广华、刘晓昀,中国饲料粮区域间流通及对价格的反应,中国农村观察,2002.1
32. 辛贤、尹坚,贸易自由化背景下中国肉产品区域生产、消费和流通,中国农村经济,2004.4
33. 小岛清(日),对外贸易论,天津:南开大学出版社,1987 年
34. 魏众、B·古斯塔夫森,中国转型时期的贫困变动分析,经济研究,1998.11
35. 吴凌燕、李众敏,美国参与东亚区域合作对中国的影响研究,财贸研究,2007.6
36. 徐雪,中国与巴西食糖产业竞争力比较,农业经济问题,2004.11
37. 杨军、黄季焜、仇焕广,建立中国和澳大利亚自由贸易区的经济影响分析及政策建议,国际贸易问题,2005.11,第 65-70 页
38. 姚新超,困境与期待——WTO 多哈回合谈判中发展中国家面临的农业挑战,国际贸易,2005.8
39. 张乃丽、张雄辉,中日韩建立自由贸易区的可行性与障碍分析,亚太经济,2006.1,第21-24页
40. 中国农业大学经济管理学院课题组(1999a),加入世界贸易组织对我国农产品贸易的影响,世界经济,1999.9
41. 中国农业大学经济管理学院课题组(1999b),中国农产品贸易政策的选择,中国农村观察,1999.4
42. 朱颖,试论中国-澳大利亚自由贸易区的经济效应,《国际论坛》,2005.11,第 45-49 页。
43. Adelman, I. and Robinson, S. 1978. Income Distribution Policy in Developing Countries, London: Oxford University Press.
44. Aderson, K, etc. 2004. Will China's WTO accession worsen farm household income?. China Economic Review, Vol.15:443-456.
45. Ahuja, V. and Filmer, D. “Educational Attainment in Developing Countries: New Estimates and Projections Disaggregated by Gender.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1489, Washingtom DC, July 1995.
46. Albert Park, Hehui Jin, Scott Rozelle, and Jikun Huang, 2002. “Market Emergence and Transition: Arbitrage, Transaction Costs, and Autarky in China’s Grain Markets.” Journal of American Agricultural Economics, 84(1): 67-82
47. Anderson, K., B. Hoekman and A. Strutt, 2001. “Agriculture and the WTO: Next Steps,” Review of International Economics. 9(2): 192-214.
48. Aziz Elbehri and K.R. Pearson. 2000. Implementing Bilateral Tariff Rate Quotas in GTAP using GEMPACK, GTAP Technical Paper No.18.
49. Bach, C.F., W. Martin and J.A. Stevens. 1996. China and the WTO: Tariff Offers, Exemptions, and Welfare Implications. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 132:409-31.
50. Bai, Chong-En, Yingjuan Duan, Zhigang Tao, and Sarah T. Tong. 2004. "Local Protectionism and Regional Specialization: Evidence from China's Industries." Journal of International Economics 63(2): 397-417.
51. Balassa, B. 1965. Trade liberalization and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, No.33.
52. Balassa, B. 1966. “The determinants of intra-industry specialization in United States trade.” Oxford Economic Review, Vol.38.
53. Ballard, C. L., Fullerton, D., Shoven, J. B. and Whalley, J. 1985. A General Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Evaluation, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
54. Beghin, John C., A Primer on US Sugar in the 2007 US Farm Bill, working paper 01-WP442, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, www.card.iastate.edu
55. Benirschka, Martin, Won Koo, and J. Lou. 1996. “World Sugar Policy Simulation Model: Description and Computer Program Documentation.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 356. Department of Agricultural Economics. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
56. Berg, Andrew and Anne Krueger. 2003. Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey. International Monetary Fund (IMF) Working Paper, WP/03/30.
57. Beyer, Harald, Patricio Rohas, and Rodrigo Vergara. 1999. Trade Liberalization and Wage Inequality. Journal of Development Economics, 59(6):102-123.
58. Brown, A.J. 1947. Applied Economics, Aspects of the World Economy in War and Peace. London, PP.212-226.
59. Centre for International Economics, Vietnam Sugar Program: Where next?, December 2001
60. Centre for International Economics. 2004. Economic Analysis of AUSFTA--Impact of the bilateral free trade agreement with the United States. prepared for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Canberra & Sydney. August 2004.
61. China State Council, Development Research Center. 2003. "Research on Measures, Objectives and Degrees of Local Protection in Chinese Market: An Analysis Based on Sample Survey." Paper presented at the workshop on National Market Integration organized by the World Bank Beijing Office, 6 Sep., Beijing.
62. Conybeare, J.A.C., “the Community, and the world: Free trade or Fortress Europe?”, 1992. In the 1992 Project and the Future of Integration in Europe, edited by Dale L.S. and James L.R., 143-163, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1993.
63. CPB. “World Scan: the Core Version.” CPB Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis, December 1999.
64. Devadoss, Stephen, and Jurgen Kropf. 1996. “Impacts of Trade Liberalizations Under the Uruguay Round on the World Sugar Market.” Agricultural Economics 15:83-96.
65. Devadoss, Stephen, Jurgen Kropf, and Thomas Wahl. 1995. “Trade Creation and Diversion Effects
of NAFTA on U.S. Sugar Imports from Mexico.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(2): 214-230.
66. Dimaranan, B.V. and McDougall, Robert A. “Data Base Summary: Protection and Support,” in B.V. Dimaranan and Robert A. McDougall, eds., Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, 2002.
67. Dixon, P. B., Parmenter, B. R., Sutton, J. and Vincent, D. P. 1982. ORANI: A Multisectoral Model of the Australian Economy, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
68. Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. Sep. 2001. Trade, Growth, and Poverty, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2615, the World Bank.
69. Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, John C. Beghin, and Don Mitchell. 2003. Modeling Tariff Rate Quotas in a Global Context: The Case of Sugar Markets in OECD Countries. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development of Lowa State University. Working Paper 03-WP 343.
70. Elobeid, Amani and John Beghin. 2005(Revised). Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development of Lowa State University. Working Paper 04-WP 356.
71. Fan, Shenggen, Linxiu Zhang, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2002. Growth, Inequality, and Poverty in Rural China: The Role of Public Investment. Research Report 125. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.
72. Findlay, Ronald, and Henryk Kierzkowski. 1983. International Trade and Human Captial: A Simple General Equilibrium Model. Journal of Political Economy. 91(6): 957-978.
73. Finger, J.M. and M.E. Kreinin. 1979. “A measure of ‘export similarity’ and its possible uses”. The Economic Journal, 89(356), pp.905-912.
74. Fontagne, L., J. L. Guerin, and J. Sebastien, 2002. “Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Scenarios for the New Round and Assessment,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 5th Conference on Global Economic Analysis. Taipei, June 5-7.
75. Garen Keith Evans. Three Essays in Regional Economic Impact Analysis. A Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, 2002
76. Gilbert, John and Thomas Wahl. May 2002. Applied General Equilibrium Assessments of Trade Liberalization in China. World Economy 25, 5: 697-731
77. Gilpin, R., the challenge of global capitalism: the world economy in the 21st century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
78. Gohin, Alexandre and Jean-Christophe Bureau. Modelling the EU sugar supply to assess sectoral policy reforms, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol 33(2) (2006) pp. 223-247
79. Goldberg, Pinelopi Youjianou and Nian Pavcnik. 2004. The Effects of the Colombian Trade Liberalization on Urban Poverty. NBER Globalization and Poverty Conference.
80. Gordon Gemmill. Nov. 1997. An Equlibrium Analysis of US Sugar Policy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.59, No.4., pp.609-618
81. Grubel, H.G. and Lloyd P.J. 1975. Intra-industry Trade: The theory and Measurement ofInternational Trade in Differentiated Products. Macmillan, PP.112-189.
82. Haley. January 2002. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Consequences for U.S. Sugar”. USDA-ERS, Market and Trade Economics Division, Washington, DC.
83. Harley, Stephen. September 1999. “U.S.-Mexico Sweetener Trade Mired in Dispute.” Agricultural Outlook Report. USDA-ERS, Washington, DC.
84. Harris, R. G. and D. Cox. 1983. Trade, Industrial Policy, and Canadian Manufacturing. Ontario Economic Council Research Study, Toronto.
85. Hertel, T. W. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. 1997, Cambridge University Press.
86. Hertel, Thomas W. 1997 (edited). Global Trade Analysis—Modeling and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
87. Heyboyan, Vahe, Glenn Ames, Lewell Gunter, and Jack Houston. May 2001. “U.S.-Mexico Sugar Dispute: Impact of NAFTA on the Sugar Market.” Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://www.nuca.ie.ufrg.br/infoscucro, accessed June 13, 2002.
88. Horridge, J. M., Parmenter, B. R. and Pearson, K. R. 1993. ORANI-F: A General Equilibrium Model of the Australian Economy. Economic and Financial Computing, Vol. 3.
89. Hoy F. Carman and James A. Maetzold. Feb. 1971. The Regional Impacts on Equilibrium Returns to Domestic Producer, 1967. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.53, No.1, pp.92-100
90. Huang, Jikun, Scott Rozelle, and Ming Chang. 2004. "Tracking Distortions in Agriculture: China and Its Accession to the World Trade Organization." World Bank Economic Review 18(1): 59-84.
91. Hudson, E. A. and Jorgenson, D. W. 1974, U.S. Energy Policy and Economic Growth, 1975~2000. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. August, pp.461~514.
92. Irwin, Douglas A., and Marko Terviorwin. October 2002. Does Trade Raise Income? Evidence from the Twentieth Century. Journal of International Economics, 58:1-18.
93. Johansen, L. 1960. A Multisectoral Study of Economic Growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
94. Josling, Tim and Tangermann, Stefan. “Implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Developments for the Next Round of Negotiations.” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1999, 26(3), pp. 371-388.
95. Keller, W. J. 1980. Tax Incidence: A General Equilibrium Approach, Amsterdam: North-Holland (2nd Edition, 1974).
96. Klenow, Peter J. and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. May 1997. Quantifying Variety Gains. from Trade Liberalization, unpublished, Graduate School of Business, University. of Chicago.
97. Koo, Won, and Richard Taylor. July 1995. “Competitiveness of Regional Sugar Production Under Alternative Production Conditions and Policies.” Department of Agricultural Economics. Report Number 331. North Dakota State University, Fargo, UD.
98. Koo, Won, and Richard Taylor. September 2001. “2001 Outlook of the U.S. and World Sugar Markets.” Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics. Report Number 462. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
99. Koo, Won. January 2000. “The U.S. Cane and Beet Sugar Industry Under Alternative Trade Liberation Policy Options.” Department of Agricultural Economics. Report Number 434. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
100. Lejour, Arjan. 2002. China and the WTO: The Impact on China and the World Economy. Paper presented for the Third GTAP Annual Conference, Australia.
101. MacAulay, T. G., 2001, Spatial Equilibrium Modeling, Materials Prepared at the workshop on Spatial Equilibrium Model, Asian Agribusiness Research Center, the University of Sydney, August 4-5, 2001.
102. MacLaren, D., 1997. “An Evaluation of the Cairns Group Strategies for Agriculture in the Uruguay Round, ” In Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Edited by Thomas W. Hertel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
103. Matsuyama, Kiminori. Dec. 1992. Agricultural Productivity, Comparative Advantage, and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 58:317-334.
104. Melissa Joy Carlson-Goodman. 2002. Free Trade Area of the Americas: Effects on the U.S. Sugar Industry. A thesis for the Degree of Master of Science, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
105. Mickibbin, W. J. and Sachs, J. D. 1991. Global Linkages: Macroeconomic Interdependence and Cooperation in the World Economy, Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.
106. Mickibbin, W.J. and Wilcoxen, P.J. 1999. “The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model”. Economic Modelling, Volume 16, No.1.
107. P. Agenor and J. Aizenman. 1996. Trade liberalization and unemployment, The Journal of. International Trade and Economic Development, 5:3, pp. 265-286.
108. Park, Albert, Sangui Wang, and Guobao Wu. 1998. Regional Poverty Targeting in China. Working Paper, Department of Economics University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
109. Pearson, Scott R. 1976. “Net Social Profitability, Domestic Resource Costs, and Effective Rate of Protection”. Journal of Development Studies 12: 320-333.
110. Peters, Ralf H. and Vanzetti, David. “Searching for a Compromise: A Game-Theoretic Approach to the WTO Negotiations on Agriculture.” ESTG Conference papers, Madrid, 15-17th September, 2003.
111. Pierre-Richard Agénor, 2004. Does Globalization hurt the poor?. International Economics and Economic Policy, 2004, 1: 21-51
112. Poonyth, Daneswar, Patrick Westhoff, Abner Womack, and Gary Adams. 2000. “Impacts of WTO Restrictions on Subsidized EU Sugar Exports.” Agricultural Economics 22: 233-245.
113. Rae, A. N. and A. Strutt, 2002. “The Current Round Of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 5th Conference on Global Economic Analysis. Taipei, June 5-7.
114. Ralf Peters and David Vanzetti. 2004. Handbook on Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM Version 3), August 2004.
115. Rebertson, Robert, Richard Cheston, Jay Cherlow, and Barbara El-Ost. June 2000. Sugar Program: Supporting Sugar Prices Has Increased Users’ Costs While Benefiting Producers. GAO, Washington,DC.
116. Rebertson, Robert, Richard Cheston, Patricia Yorkman, Nancy Bowser, Jay Cherlow, Daniel Coates, Barbara El-Ost, Leanna Flama, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. July 1999. Changing the Method for Setting Import Quotas Could Reduce Cost to Users. GAO, Washington, DC. http://www.sugaralliance.org/archives/papers_testimony/1999/wto5_99.htm, assessed Nov. 19, 2001.
117. Scott., Linda and Thomas Vollrath. 1992. Global Competitive Advantages and Overall Bilateral Complementarity in Agriculture: a Statistical review. Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, USDA.
118. Tongzon, JL. 2001. China's membership in the world Trade Organization (WTO) and the exports of the developing economies of East Asia: a computable general equilibrium approach. Vol.33:1943-1959.
119. Tyers, R. and K. Anderson. 1992. Disarray in World Food Markets: A Quantitative Assessment. Cambridge: New York.
120. Wacziarg, Romain. Nov. 1998. Measuring the Dynamic Gains from Trade. Working Paper No. 2001, the World Bank.
121. Walmsley, Terrie L. etc. “A Base Case Scenario for the Dynamic GTAP Model.” 2000, Global Trade Analysis Center, Purdue University.
122. Wei, Xiangdong, and C. Simon Fan. 2004. "Converge to the law of One Price in China." Paper presented at the Allied Social Sciences Annual Meeting, 3-5 January, San Diego, Calif.
123. Will, Martin etc. “Trade Policy, Structural Change and China's Trade Growth.” Working paper No.64, Center for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform, Stanford University, 2000.
124. Worldbank, Global Economic Prospects-Trade, Regionalism and Development, 2005a. pp.xxi
125. WTO. Doha Work Programme. 22 December, 2005, WT/MIN(05)/DEC.
126. Yavuz, Fahri, An analysis of the impacts of production quotas and URA provisions on Turkey's Sugar Sector, Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry, Vol 28(2004) pp.125-130
127. Zhang, Xiaobo and Kong-Yam Tan, 2006. "Incremental Reform and Distortions in China's Product and Factor Markets." World Bank Economic Review, 2007
2. 陈永福、魏荣,世界蔬菜贸易竞争力与产业内贸易分析,中国农村经济,2005.4
3. 程国强,僵局未终结——WTO 新一轮农业谈判进展与问题,国际贸易,2003.4
4. 刁新申、樊胜根、张晓波,WTO 对中国农业部门的区域影响,WTO 和中国农村公共投资,樊胜根、张林秀主编,北京:中国农业出版社,2003
5. 杜芳秋、吴佳勋、杨子江、张国益、徐世勋,新回合农业谈判对台湾农业影响之研究,《农业经济丛刊》,2003 第八卷第二期
6. 国务院办公厅,关于印发中国食物与营养发展纲要(2001-2010 年)的通知(2001),(国办发[2001]86 号),2001 年 11 月 3 日
7. 国家经济贸易委员会,关于严格控制糖精生产能力限制糖精产量和内销量的通知(国经贸产业[1998]547 号),1998 年 8 月 31 日
8. 国务院,关于调整食糖经营管理有关政策的通知(国发[1991]61 号),1991 年 11 月 7 日
9. 韩剑,基于引力模型的中国双边产业内贸易的实证研究,2005 年中国经济学年会国际经济学论文,http://www.cenet.org.cn/cn/CEAC/2005in/gjjjx018.doc
10. 黄季焜、徐志刚、李宁辉、ScottRozelle,贸易自由化与中国的农业、贫困和公平,农业经济问题,2005.7
11. 黄季焜、李宁辉,中国农业政策分析与预测模型——CAPSiM,南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2003(2):30~41
12. 黄季焜等,全球贸易自由化对中国和世界经济的影响,地理科学进展,2005.1
13. 黄益平、宋立刚,应用数量经济学,上海:上海人民出版社,2001
14. 孔媛,世界水果贸易比较优势与产业内贸易研究,国际贸易问题,2006.1
15. 李银雁,中糖协呼吁:糖业不应列入中澳自贸谈判,中国经济时报,2006 年 10 月 19 日
16. 李石新、邹新月、郭新华,贸易自由化与中国农村贫困的减少,中国软科学,2005.10
17. 李众敏,WTO 新一轮农业谈判的初步分析,农业经济导刊,2002.1
18. 李众敏(2006a),中国-东盟自由贸易协定对我国各地区蔬菜出口及生产的影响,中国人民大学博士论文,2006 年。
19. 李众敏、唐忠(2006b),东亚区域合作对我国农产品贸易的影响研究,中国农村观察,2006.3,第 10-15 页。
20. 卢锋、梅孝峰,“入世”农业影响的省区分布研究,北京大学中国经济研究中心,2000
21. 林伯强,中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择,经济研究,2003.12
22. 刘汉德、陆艳玲、谭中文、梁计难,我国糖业国际竞争力分析,甘蔗糖业,2004.1
23. 刘合光,多哈回合改革对发展中国家农产品贸易的影响,北京农业职业学院学报,2006.5
24. 刘合光,国际农业政策改革与中国农业发展:多哈回合的经济影响,中国人民大学博士毕业论文,2006
25. 马有祥,新一轮 WTO 农业谈判的进展与中国采取的基本策略,农业经济问题,2005.11
26. 覃泽林,国际市场对国内食糖价格影响的定量分析,广西农业科学,2004.6
27. 上海 WTO 事务咨询中心,拉米解释多哈回合难以推展的原因,WTO 快讯,第 115 期(2006年 6 月 1 日-6 月 20 日)
28. 司伟,全球化背景下的中国糖业:价格、成本与技术效率,中国农业大学博士论文,2005
29. 辛贤(2003a)、尹坚,不同政策模拟方案下的中国肉产品市场格局,动物科学与动物医学,2003.10
30. 辛贤(2003b)、尹坚,不同政策模拟方案下饲料价格对肉产品市场的影响,动物科学与动物医学,2003.11
31. 辛贤、万广华、刘晓昀,中国饲料粮区域间流通及对价格的反应,中国农村观察,2002.1
32. 辛贤、尹坚,贸易自由化背景下中国肉产品区域生产、消费和流通,中国农村经济,2004.4
33. 小岛清(日),对外贸易论,天津:南开大学出版社,1987 年
34. 魏众、B·古斯塔夫森,中国转型时期的贫困变动分析,经济研究,1998.11
35. 吴凌燕、李众敏,美国参与东亚区域合作对中国的影响研究,财贸研究,2007.6
36. 徐雪,中国与巴西食糖产业竞争力比较,农业经济问题,2004.11
37. 杨军、黄季焜、仇焕广,建立中国和澳大利亚自由贸易区的经济影响分析及政策建议,国际贸易问题,2005.11,第 65-70 页
38. 姚新超,困境与期待——WTO 多哈回合谈判中发展中国家面临的农业挑战,国际贸易,2005.8
39. 张乃丽、张雄辉,中日韩建立自由贸易区的可行性与障碍分析,亚太经济,2006.1,第21-24页
40. 中国农业大学经济管理学院课题组(1999a),加入世界贸易组织对我国农产品贸易的影响,世界经济,1999.9
41. 中国农业大学经济管理学院课题组(1999b),中国农产品贸易政策的选择,中国农村观察,1999.4
42. 朱颖,试论中国-澳大利亚自由贸易区的经济效应,《国际论坛》,2005.11,第 45-49 页。
43. Adelman, I. and Robinson, S. 1978. Income Distribution Policy in Developing Countries, London: Oxford University Press.
44. Aderson, K, etc. 2004. Will China's WTO accession worsen farm household income?. China Economic Review, Vol.15:443-456.
45. Ahuja, V. and Filmer, D. “Educational Attainment in Developing Countries: New Estimates and Projections Disaggregated by Gender.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1489, Washingtom DC, July 1995.
46. Albert Park, Hehui Jin, Scott Rozelle, and Jikun Huang, 2002. “Market Emergence and Transition: Arbitrage, Transaction Costs, and Autarky in China’s Grain Markets.” Journal of American Agricultural Economics, 84(1): 67-82
47. Anderson, K., B. Hoekman and A. Strutt, 2001. “Agriculture and the WTO: Next Steps,” Review of International Economics. 9(2): 192-214.
48. Aziz Elbehri and K.R. Pearson. 2000. Implementing Bilateral Tariff Rate Quotas in GTAP using GEMPACK, GTAP Technical Paper No.18.
49. Bach, C.F., W. Martin and J.A. Stevens. 1996. China and the WTO: Tariff Offers, Exemptions, and Welfare Implications. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 132:409-31.
50. Bai, Chong-En, Yingjuan Duan, Zhigang Tao, and Sarah T. Tong. 2004. "Local Protectionism and Regional Specialization: Evidence from China's Industries." Journal of International Economics 63(2): 397-417.
51. Balassa, B. 1965. Trade liberalization and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, No.33.
52. Balassa, B. 1966. “The determinants of intra-industry specialization in United States trade.” Oxford Economic Review, Vol.38.
53. Ballard, C. L., Fullerton, D., Shoven, J. B. and Whalley, J. 1985. A General Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Evaluation, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
54. Beghin, John C., A Primer on US Sugar in the 2007 US Farm Bill, working paper 01-WP442, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, www.card.iastate.edu
55. Benirschka, Martin, Won Koo, and J. Lou. 1996. “World Sugar Policy Simulation Model: Description and Computer Program Documentation.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 356. Department of Agricultural Economics. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
56. Berg, Andrew and Anne Krueger. 2003. Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey. International Monetary Fund (IMF) Working Paper, WP/03/30.
57. Beyer, Harald, Patricio Rohas, and Rodrigo Vergara. 1999. Trade Liberalization and Wage Inequality. Journal of Development Economics, 59(6):102-123.
58. Brown, A.J. 1947. Applied Economics, Aspects of the World Economy in War and Peace. London, PP.212-226.
59. Centre for International Economics, Vietnam Sugar Program: Where next?, December 2001
60. Centre for International Economics. 2004. Economic Analysis of AUSFTA--Impact of the bilateral free trade agreement with the United States. prepared for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Canberra & Sydney. August 2004.
61. China State Council, Development Research Center. 2003. "Research on Measures, Objectives and Degrees of Local Protection in Chinese Market: An Analysis Based on Sample Survey." Paper presented at the workshop on National Market Integration organized by the World Bank Beijing Office, 6 Sep., Beijing.
62. Conybeare, J.A.C., “the Community, and the world: Free trade or Fortress Europe?”, 1992. In the 1992 Project and the Future of Integration in Europe, edited by Dale L.S. and James L.R., 143-163, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1993.
63. CPB. “World Scan: the Core Version.” CPB Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis, December 1999.
64. Devadoss, Stephen, and Jurgen Kropf. 1996. “Impacts of Trade Liberalizations Under the Uruguay Round on the World Sugar Market.” Agricultural Economics 15:83-96.
65. Devadoss, Stephen, Jurgen Kropf, and Thomas Wahl. 1995. “Trade Creation and Diversion Effects
of NAFTA on U.S. Sugar Imports from Mexico.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(2): 214-230.
66. Dimaranan, B.V. and McDougall, Robert A. “Data Base Summary: Protection and Support,” in B.V. Dimaranan and Robert A. McDougall, eds., Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, 2002.
67. Dixon, P. B., Parmenter, B. R., Sutton, J. and Vincent, D. P. 1982. ORANI: A Multisectoral Model of the Australian Economy, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
68. Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. Sep. 2001. Trade, Growth, and Poverty, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2615, the World Bank.
69. Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, John C. Beghin, and Don Mitchell. 2003. Modeling Tariff Rate Quotas in a Global Context: The Case of Sugar Markets in OECD Countries. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development of Lowa State University. Working Paper 03-WP 343.
70. Elobeid, Amani and John Beghin. 2005(Revised). Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development of Lowa State University. Working Paper 04-WP 356.
71. Fan, Shenggen, Linxiu Zhang, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2002. Growth, Inequality, and Poverty in Rural China: The Role of Public Investment. Research Report 125. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.
72. Findlay, Ronald, and Henryk Kierzkowski. 1983. International Trade and Human Captial: A Simple General Equilibrium Model. Journal of Political Economy. 91(6): 957-978.
73. Finger, J.M. and M.E. Kreinin. 1979. “A measure of ‘export similarity’ and its possible uses”. The Economic Journal, 89(356), pp.905-912.
74. Fontagne, L., J. L. Guerin, and J. Sebastien, 2002. “Multilateral Trade Liberalization: Scenarios for the New Round and Assessment,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 5th Conference on Global Economic Analysis. Taipei, June 5-7.
75. Garen Keith Evans. Three Essays in Regional Economic Impact Analysis. A Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, 2002
76. Gilbert, John and Thomas Wahl. May 2002. Applied General Equilibrium Assessments of Trade Liberalization in China. World Economy 25, 5: 697-731
77. Gilpin, R., the challenge of global capitalism: the world economy in the 21st century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
78. Gohin, Alexandre and Jean-Christophe Bureau. Modelling the EU sugar supply to assess sectoral policy reforms, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol 33(2) (2006) pp. 223-247
79. Goldberg, Pinelopi Youjianou and Nian Pavcnik. 2004. The Effects of the Colombian Trade Liberalization on Urban Poverty. NBER Globalization and Poverty Conference.
80. Gordon Gemmill. Nov. 1997. An Equlibrium Analysis of US Sugar Policy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.59, No.4., pp.609-618
81. Grubel, H.G. and Lloyd P.J. 1975. Intra-industry Trade: The theory and Measurement ofInternational Trade in Differentiated Products. Macmillan, PP.112-189.
82. Haley. January 2002. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Consequences for U.S. Sugar”. USDA-ERS, Market and Trade Economics Division, Washington, DC.
83. Harley, Stephen. September 1999. “U.S.-Mexico Sweetener Trade Mired in Dispute.” Agricultural Outlook Report. USDA-ERS, Washington, DC.
84. Harris, R. G. and D. Cox. 1983. Trade, Industrial Policy, and Canadian Manufacturing. Ontario Economic Council Research Study, Toronto.
85. Hertel, T. W. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. 1997, Cambridge University Press.
86. Hertel, Thomas W. 1997 (edited). Global Trade Analysis—Modeling and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
87. Heyboyan, Vahe, Glenn Ames, Lewell Gunter, and Jack Houston. May 2001. “U.S.-Mexico Sugar Dispute: Impact of NAFTA on the Sugar Market.” Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://www.nuca.ie.ufrg.br/infoscucro, accessed June 13, 2002.
88. Horridge, J. M., Parmenter, B. R. and Pearson, K. R. 1993. ORANI-F: A General Equilibrium Model of the Australian Economy. Economic and Financial Computing, Vol. 3.
89. Hoy F. Carman and James A. Maetzold. Feb. 1971. The Regional Impacts on Equilibrium Returns to Domestic Producer, 1967. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.53, No.1, pp.92-100
90. Huang, Jikun, Scott Rozelle, and Ming Chang. 2004. "Tracking Distortions in Agriculture: China and Its Accession to the World Trade Organization." World Bank Economic Review 18(1): 59-84.
91. Hudson, E. A. and Jorgenson, D. W. 1974, U.S. Energy Policy and Economic Growth, 1975~2000. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. August, pp.461~514.
92. Irwin, Douglas A., and Marko Terviorwin. October 2002. Does Trade Raise Income? Evidence from the Twentieth Century. Journal of International Economics, 58:1-18.
93. Johansen, L. 1960. A Multisectoral Study of Economic Growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
94. Josling, Tim and Tangermann, Stefan. “Implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Developments for the Next Round of Negotiations.” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1999, 26(3), pp. 371-388.
95. Keller, W. J. 1980. Tax Incidence: A General Equilibrium Approach, Amsterdam: North-Holland (2nd Edition, 1974).
96. Klenow, Peter J. and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. May 1997. Quantifying Variety Gains. from Trade Liberalization, unpublished, Graduate School of Business, University. of Chicago.
97. Koo, Won, and Richard Taylor. July 1995. “Competitiveness of Regional Sugar Production Under Alternative Production Conditions and Policies.” Department of Agricultural Economics. Report Number 331. North Dakota State University, Fargo, UD.
98. Koo, Won, and Richard Taylor. September 2001. “2001 Outlook of the U.S. and World Sugar Markets.” Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics. Report Number 462. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
99. Koo, Won. January 2000. “The U.S. Cane and Beet Sugar Industry Under Alternative Trade Liberation Policy Options.” Department of Agricultural Economics. Report Number 434. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
100. Lejour, Arjan. 2002. China and the WTO: The Impact on China and the World Economy. Paper presented for the Third GTAP Annual Conference, Australia.
101. MacAulay, T. G., 2001, Spatial Equilibrium Modeling, Materials Prepared at the workshop on Spatial Equilibrium Model, Asian Agribusiness Research Center, the University of Sydney, August 4-5, 2001.
102. MacLaren, D., 1997. “An Evaluation of the Cairns Group Strategies for Agriculture in the Uruguay Round, ” In Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Edited by Thomas W. Hertel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
103. Matsuyama, Kiminori. Dec. 1992. Agricultural Productivity, Comparative Advantage, and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 58:317-334.
104. Melissa Joy Carlson-Goodman. 2002. Free Trade Area of the Americas: Effects on the U.S. Sugar Industry. A thesis for the Degree of Master of Science, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
105. Mickibbin, W. J. and Sachs, J. D. 1991. Global Linkages: Macroeconomic Interdependence and Cooperation in the World Economy, Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.
106. Mickibbin, W.J. and Wilcoxen, P.J. 1999. “The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model”. Economic Modelling, Volume 16, No.1.
107. P. Agenor and J. Aizenman. 1996. Trade liberalization and unemployment, The Journal of. International Trade and Economic Development, 5:3, pp. 265-286.
108. Park, Albert, Sangui Wang, and Guobao Wu. 1998. Regional Poverty Targeting in China. Working Paper, Department of Economics University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
109. Pearson, Scott R. 1976. “Net Social Profitability, Domestic Resource Costs, and Effective Rate of Protection”. Journal of Development Studies 12: 320-333.
110. Peters, Ralf H. and Vanzetti, David. “Searching for a Compromise: A Game-Theoretic Approach to the WTO Negotiations on Agriculture.” ESTG Conference papers, Madrid, 15-17th September, 2003.
111. Pierre-Richard Agénor, 2004. Does Globalization hurt the poor?. International Economics and Economic Policy, 2004, 1: 21-51
112. Poonyth, Daneswar, Patrick Westhoff, Abner Womack, and Gary Adams. 2000. “Impacts of WTO Restrictions on Subsidized EU Sugar Exports.” Agricultural Economics 22: 233-245.
113. Rae, A. N. and A. Strutt, 2002. “The Current Round Of Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Should We Bother About Domestic Support?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 5th Conference on Global Economic Analysis. Taipei, June 5-7.
114. Ralf Peters and David Vanzetti. 2004. Handbook on Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM Version 3), August 2004.
115. Rebertson, Robert, Richard Cheston, Jay Cherlow, and Barbara El-Ost. June 2000. Sugar Program: Supporting Sugar Prices Has Increased Users’ Costs While Benefiting Producers. GAO, Washington,DC.
116. Rebertson, Robert, Richard Cheston, Patricia Yorkman, Nancy Bowser, Jay Cherlow, Daniel Coates, Barbara El-Ost, Leanna Flama, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. July 1999. Changing the Method for Setting Import Quotas Could Reduce Cost to Users. GAO, Washington, DC. http://www.sugaralliance.org/archives/papers_testimony/1999/wto5_99.htm, assessed Nov. 19, 2001.
117. Scott., Linda and Thomas Vollrath. 1992. Global Competitive Advantages and Overall Bilateral Complementarity in Agriculture: a Statistical review. Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, USDA.
118. Tongzon, JL. 2001. China's membership in the world Trade Organization (WTO) and the exports of the developing economies of East Asia: a computable general equilibrium approach. Vol.33:1943-1959.
119. Tyers, R. and K. Anderson. 1992. Disarray in World Food Markets: A Quantitative Assessment. Cambridge: New York.
120. Wacziarg, Romain. Nov. 1998. Measuring the Dynamic Gains from Trade. Working Paper No. 2001, the World Bank.
121. Walmsley, Terrie L. etc. “A Base Case Scenario for the Dynamic GTAP Model.” 2000, Global Trade Analysis Center, Purdue University.
122. Wei, Xiangdong, and C. Simon Fan. 2004. "Converge to the law of One Price in China." Paper presented at the Allied Social Sciences Annual Meeting, 3-5 January, San Diego, Calif.
123. Will, Martin etc. “Trade Policy, Structural Change and China's Trade Growth.” Working paper No.64, Center for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform, Stanford University, 2000.
124. Worldbank, Global Economic Prospects-Trade, Regionalism and Development, 2005a. pp.xxi
125. WTO. Doha Work Programme. 22 December, 2005, WT/MIN(05)/DEC.
126. Yavuz, Fahri, An analysis of the impacts of production quotas and URA provisions on Turkey's Sugar Sector, Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry, Vol 28(2004) pp.125-130
127. Zhang, Xiaobo and Kong-Yam Tan, 2006. "Incremental Reform and Distortions in China's Product and Factor Markets." World Bank Economic Review, 2007